Why the NTSB Is Wrong About Cellphones 1003
YIAAL writes "After a multi-car pileup involving two school buses, the NTSB is urging states to ban all cellphones and personal electronic devices in cars, even hands-free phones. But on looking at the NTSB report, it appears that the big problem was a school bus driver who was following too closely, and another school bus driver who wasn't watching the road. Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?"
multitasking (Score:5, Insightful)
About 1% of the population is capable of multitasking. Only they can focus on their gadget and the road. The rest should stay as far away from that as possible.
Dunning-Kruger effect (Score:5, Informative)
About 1% of the population is capable of multitasking. Only they can focus on their gadget and the road. The rest should stay as far away from that as possible.
According to published studies [bbc.co.uk], those who are actually good at multitasking generally consider themselves bad at it, and tend to avoid it. On the other hand, those who consider themselves good at multitasking are rather bad at it. Yet another manifestation of the Dunning-Kruger effect [wikipedia.org].
Re:Dunning-Kruger effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
So what you're saying is that you pulled some random stuff about Einstein out of your ass and are trying to use it as justification for your argument?
Re:Obligatory conclusion (Score:4, Insightful)
Supposedly he liked working at the patent office, because it allowed him peace and quiet to think.
Re:Dunning-Kruger effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes sense. The only people who should be allowed access to "root" are those who won't use it unless it is unavoidable.
- doug
Might as well ban drivers if people are stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
The kid DID cause the initial crash, not the bus drivers. The fact is this accident wouldn't have happened without the kid.
Roads should NOT be used by anybody but professional drivers.
For everyone else, they should take public transportation or use commercial car services/delivery services. 95% of the people on the road should never be allowed to drive.
A drivers license should cost at least $10,000.
This would be the start of a proper transportation infrastructure. Leave driving to professionals, so the general public doesn't waste 2 hours a day on useless labor like driving, when they should be doing something more economically productive like reading or sleeping or programming on a computer.
Really, it's the 21st century, and we force the population to do hours of manual labor per day to even get to work? Make them sit in a car and force them to drive to get to work? They can't read a book or work on their computer while going to work? Really?
Re:Might as well ban drivers if people are stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
The bus drivers still should have avoided the accident - that's the whole point of paying attention and having safe following distance. With the buses not crashing the entire accident wouldn't have been nearly as bad.
So the "professional" drivers did far worse than the kid, and without even having the excuse of a cell phone distraction.
Re:Might as well ban drivers if people are stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Move everyone to a city? (Score:5, Insightful)
the correct answer is to move to the city.
You're somewhat out of touch with reality. Half the world's population lives in rural areas[1]. Moving 3.5 trillion people to cities is not a realistic solution.
Cites also have the problem that, if infrastructure fails, everybody dies. They're not "survivable", in military terms.
And some of us just like the country.
[1] http://esa.un.org/unup/p2k0data.asp [un.org]
Re:Dunning-Kruger effect (Score:5, Interesting)
How about a cert on you liscense if you can pass the drivers test while texting? Or drinking for that matter. If I can pass the test with a 1.2 BAC I should get a stamp allowing me to do so. Not all people are equally impaired by the same thing.
Re:multitasking (Score:5, Insightful)
Anonymous Coward is correct. Regardless of this particular incident, there at least two good reasons why it is bad for people to use their phones while driving: Phone use while driving slows down traffic [utah.edu], and drivers using their phones are more likely to be in an accident.
My read is that the drama of this incident gave the NTSB the opportunity to make a recommendation that would otherwise risk political repercussions from the 10,000-text-message-per-month set.
Re:multitasking (Score:5, Insightful)
Texting while driving is something which shouldn't be legal. It's not a matter of morality, it's dangerous enough that it should be banned. Same goes for talking on the cellphone without a handset. Eating lunch and really anything else that's distracting and requires one to take a hand off the wheel.
Now, when it comes to talking with a handset, listening to the radio etc., there's room for debate. Personally I don't do any of those things because the last I heard they were significant risk factors for having an accident. Should those be banned, I really don't know.
The problem ultimately is that the laws regarding motor vehicles are lax and ultimately it's not just the driver that can get killed, it's the other drivers, passengers and pedestrians that are also at risk.
Re:multitasking (Score:5, Insightful)
Texting while driving is something which shouldn't be legal. It's not a matter of morality, it's dangerous enough that it should be banned. Same goes for talking on the cellphone without a handset. Eating lunch and really anything else that's distracting and requires one to take a hand off the wheel.
So we're banning smoking in cars, manual transmissions, and the handicapped now?
Is it worth the risk? (Score:5, Insightful)
So we're banning smoking in cars, manual transmissions, and the handicapped now?
I think that's the mentality that's missing from this whole argument. A risk / benefit analysis. I think LaHood said that 3000 people a year die due to distracted driving. Out of 300 million. Or around 1 in 100,000 . Everybody would be safer if they stayed in their basement, rather than getting out. But there's a whole world out there that's worth exploring, and it's worth the risk to leave your basement. Being able to communicate with other people while traveling makes your life better. That's worth something. Listening to the car radio is worth something. Reading the newspaper while driving makes the ride more fun, and is worth something. Each of these items has risk. Some risks are worth the benefit. Others aren't.
In the end, we're all going to die of something. The challenge is not to make every moment its best, nor to live the longest possible. It's somewhere in the product of these two.
Re:Is it worth the risk? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is it worth the risk? (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly: the fundamental problem is that humans shouldn't be driving themselves in most cases. We have the technology to do better, and we've had this technology for decades. We just need to design and build a Personal Rapid Transit system like SkyTran that takes you where you want to go, using far less energy than a 6000-pound car and far more safely. Obviously, this system wouldn't replace cars and trucks for every conceivable use, but installed in metro areas, it would vastly cut down on the number of miles driven by regular vehicles just by taking care of commuters. The only problem with this system is all the idiots who complain that it won't work for people living in the middle of nowhere.
Re:Is it worth the risk? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is it worth the risk? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or when the train doesn't go anywhere near your work. We have light rail in Dallas. It worked great for me - when I worked downtown. But now they charge you to park your car in the lot at the train station (in addition to the train fare). If I were still working downtown, I'd have to do a cost analysis between gas and the fare+parking fees. Might as well drive, it costs less!
Re:Is it worth the risk? (Score:5, Insightful)
So we're banning smoking in cars, manual transmissions, and the handicapped now?
I think that's the mentality that's missing from this whole argument. A risk / benefit analysis. I think LaHood said that 3000 people a year die due to distracted driving. Out of 300 million. Or around 1 in 100,000 . Everybody would be safer if they stayed in their basement, rather than getting out. But there's a whole world out there that's worth exploring, and it's worth the risk to leave your basement. Being able to communicate with other people while traveling makes your life better. That's worth something. Listening to the car radio is worth something. Reading the newspaper while driving makes the ride more fun, and is worth something. Each of these items has risk. Some risks are worth the benefit. Others aren't. In the end, we're all going to die of something. The challenge is not to make every moment its best, nor to live the longest possible. It's somewhere in the product of these two.
Cost-benefit, shmost-benefit. This is 'Merca! If we can justify invading two countries resulting in tens of thousands of deaths, shredding the constitution, bankrupting the nation and squandering our reputation in the world community for 3000 people who died 10 years ago, we can certainly justify nuking France -- at the least -- to solve the problem of 3000 people who die every year from distracted driving.
Re:Is it worth the risk? (Score:5, Informative)
So we're banning smoking in cars, manual transmissions, and the handicapped now?
I think that's the mentality that's missing from this whole argument. A risk / benefit analysis. I think LaHood said that 3000 people a year die due to distracted driving. Out of 300 million. Or around 1 in 100,000 .
Not quite, 300 million people aren't distracted driving, 300 million people aren't even driving.
Lemme take some real ballpark guesstimates here. Maybe 200 million driving on a regular basis, and if 20% of those drive distracted on a regular basis (total guess) about 40 million
Now from here [census.gov] every year there's about 11 million accidents (~5%), ~35000 fatalities (~3.5% of accidents).
So if about 10% of accidents are from distracted driving (actually sounds pretty low). Being in that 40 million group means you have about a 1/40 chance of an accident per year, and a 1/10000 chance of a fatality.
Sure it's not horrible odds, but my cost/benefit still suggests I'd want to minimize distractions.
Re:Is it worth the risk? (Score:5, Insightful)
This makes perfect sense to me. The same argument applies to the .08% BAC "drunk" definition. I heard a sheriff on the radio say that 25% of the people driving on a holiday are drunk. My first thought was "that's not true" and my second thought was "maybe it is, but only if we've defined 'drunk' incorrectly". Because clearly 25% of these drunks aren't so impaired to the point where they are driving dangerously. Not trying to be flamebait and I've never been popped for DWI, just don't like stupid laws created by lobbyists.
Re:Is it worth the risk? (Score:5, Informative)
I'd also argue that maybe we need to level out our system of drivers, there's a reason a regular driver can't get in a semi and drive it legally. The same can be said here, "are you a good enough driver to talk on the phone while driving?" in a test form. I trust myself to do it and actually pay more attention cause I know the risk when driving, but after having been almost taken out by a couple of soccer mom vans over the years cause that fine dog wasn't paying attention while chatting to whoever on the phone and merging almost right into me. Still I'm not too comfortable w texts, red lights are ok for those at best, but driving is definitely a nono even if you type super fast, it requires too much motor skill focus. But just like making a DUI a felony didn't end drunk driving, not even close, banning or not banning texting won't keep people from doing it.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is not really about the fatal accidents, which are sad, but do not cost anything to society.
What is expensive is the fact that people are injured, or worse handicapped and still alive !
For example, land mines are designed to injure people so that they lose one foot or one leg, because it's much more expensive to keep injured soldiers alive.
Re:Is it worth the risk? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you just seriously say that talking on the phone is better than risking dying?
I'm seriously saying that 'X'-ing is better than the risk 'Y' of dying, for cases where the benefit of X is sufficiently large, and the risk Y is sufficiently small. Average samples for percieved and measured values of X and Y across the population, and set a threshold. Everything above the threshold is legal, and everything below it isn't. For example, shooting guns on your property in most rural areas of the US is legal. Shooting guns on your property in most urban areas of the US is not.
There's always going to be assholes no sense of self preservation (or care about others). We can't let them do whatever they want. And there's always going to be cowards who are afraid of everything and would outlaw every risk in order to improve their own safety. We can't let them restrict our freedoms. Somewhere between the "Protecting my rights" crowd, and the "What about the children" crowd, lies the balance.
Re:multitasking (Score:5, Insightful)
Shifting a manual transmission is not a distraction from driving, it is part of driving. Also, you can always abandon a shift at any point and disengage the clutch if you need to put your shifting hand on the wheel to steer. If that is not an automatic reaction, you need to more driving time.
Re: (Score:3)
No, we're banning the equivalent of holding a loaded gun pointed at people.
Driving is a privilege, not a right, in this country.
Re:multitasking (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget eating, conversing with passengers, putting on makeup, looking at the baby (who's in the back seat), reading a billboard... etc...
It all boils down to: personal responsibility. Nothing new here, just a new gadget to blame.
For the record: I caused a car accident in 1996. I was very tired after working a double shift and I was fiddling with the radio, looking for interesting music. Better ban that too.
Re:multitasking (Score:4, Funny)
...like throwing used smoking materials out the window onto my lawn so as not to dirty up their ashtrays.
Dude I can't put nasty ashes and butts in my car ashtray - I keep my cigarette lighter in there!!
Re: (Score:3)
Anecdote, yes, but a fair amount of people I know fiddle with the radio a lot. I know I used to do it all the time in order to find something that didn't make me want to cut my ears off. Then I realized 95% of music on public radio was god-awful, so I stopped listening altogether.
Re:multitasking (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't say it was due to listening. It's due to fiddling with the radio. And my citation is the AAA [aaafoundation.org]
Distracted Driver Crashes
Outside object, person, event 29.4% (602 cases)
Adjusting radio, cassette, CD 11.4
Those are the top two issues. Cellphones are 8th at 1.5%. Now where are your stats?
Re: (Score:3)
Regardless, cell phone use was technically illegal before there were any specific laws about it; it's called distracted driving, and
Re:multitasking (Score:5, Insightful)
You made me think. Why isn't eating-while-driving a bigger issue, is it significantly safer? I did a quick search, and got the startling answer that it is much more dangerous to eat-while-driving than text-while-driving.
You want the answer? Policy makers are not texting, but they are drinking coffee. I'm not just talking about while driving, I'm talking about generally. Ban what those reckless youth are doing, fine, but you'll get my coffee cup when you pry it out of my cold dead hands (and you'll probably need the jaws of life to get to them.) Voters will approve something to punish those youths making the roads unsafe, but you'll never get them to approve legislating cheeseburger access.
http://www.drive-safely.net/eating-while-driving.html
Re:multitasking (Score:4, Interesting)
it is much more dangerous to eat-while-driving than text-while-driving
Now, at first I would say that I don't believe that for a second. However I suppose it depends on what you are eating/drinking. I often eat a granola bar on my way to work. The picture at your link is certainly foolish and stupid since the guy looks like he needs more than 2 hands just to eat that thing, much less hold food and drink at the same time. But eating a candy bar or drinking from a properly contained drinking vessel is perfectly fine, as long as it is done when it is safe to do so and not trying to make some sort of menuver.
However I was standing at a corner waiting to cross the street when I saw a guy driving a car and eating breakfast. Cereal, from a bowl, with a spoon. Perhaps they are on to something here with calling for a general ban.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now, I didn't go to college, or take any math past Algebra in high school, but I'm pretty sure 23 > 1.8.
Re:multitasking (Score:5, Informative)
Parent apparently did not read the linked page.
1) "talking... on a hand-held device...30% increase in the odds of being involved in a crash or near-crash" http://www.drive-safely.net/cell-phone-driving.html [drive-safely.net]
2) "those who eat and drive increase the odds of an accident by 80%" http://www.drive-safely.net/eating-while-driving.html [drive-safely.net]
3) "You are 23 times more likely to have an accident while texting and driving." http://www.drive-safely.net/texting-while-driving.html [drive-safely.net] Note: this is 2300%!
So eating is more dangerous than talking on the phone, but texting is far far more dangerous.
Re:multitasking (Score:5, Interesting)
Like the low IQ moron this morning texting that kissed the guard rail and then bounced across 4 lanes of traffic. and ended up against the other guard rail. The loser never put his stupid phone down as I could see the glow of the freaking screen the entire time 4 cars back.
Re:multitasking (Score:5, Insightful)
And less than 50% of the drivers can actually DRIVE SAFELY. A majority of the drivers on the road are idiots and morons that think tailgaiting is safe, speeding is safe in heavily congested areas, and they all believe they are freaking experts at driving. Most are incapable of driving and less than 30% know how to control a car in a spin or slide.
Let's start there, make it more difficult to get your license and keep it.
Re:multitasking (Score:5, Funny)
I would absolutely guarantee you that 50% of all drivers are above the median in terms of safe driving skills.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is, if you do that, you'll utterly destroy the economy. You can't tell 70% of your workforce that they're not allowed to travel to work cheaply, and expect your economy to survive. Mass transit systems like lightrail are horrendously expensive and don't work in American metro areas because they're too spread out. Taxis are too expensive; how many people making $20k/year can afford $60 in transportation costs every day?
There's precisely two solutions:
1) The status quo: everyone gets their own
Re: (Score:3)
According to the US National Transit Database (record of every public transit system in the US), the average light rail system costs $5.66 per passenger mile. This compares with $1.41 per mile for driving a car. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTran#Cost_comparison_with_other_public_transit_systems [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:multitasking (Score:5, Funny)
That's harder than you'd think. Sure, you can get their attention, but you'll never occupy their whole attention...
Another security theater excess... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly what I thought when I saw pictures. The buses ran over the kid who was texting. Not one but two of them.
How did he cause that?
Now had the kid been on the phone (hand held or hands free) instead of texting even his accident would not have happened,
because he would have had his eyes on the road.
Its my contention that forcing cell phone out of the hands (some states even forbid hands free phoning) represents a cure
worse than the disease. Too many people fear a ticket for talking, and they compensate by texting from their lap (or below
the level of window). Texting out of sight takes your eyes off the road. Talking on the phone, while still a distraction, allows
your eyes to be on the road.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Another security theater excess... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm, no. China and India have some of the highest PER CAPITA traffic fatalities in the world for non-African countries. I also suspect these both countries are rather underreporting (particularly China) and with deaths per capita likely to grow as infrastructure improves.
These are bicycle cultures where people follow bicycle rules, because in their minds they still only perceive the likelihood of bicycle damage.
There aren't even seatbelts in many cars. Physics still applies, even in China.
Re:Another security theater excess... (Score:5, Informative)
This is exactly what I thought when I saw pictures. The buses ran over the kid who was texting. Not one but two of them. How did he cause that?
Well from the article:
A 19-year-old pickup driver rear-ended a truck, and then was rear-ended by two school buses. Two people, including the pickup driver, were killed, and 38 were injured. Although there’s no evidence as to whether the pickup driver was texting at the moment of the crash, he had sent or received 11 texts in the previous 11 minutes.
You conveniently neglected to mention that the 19-year old 'kid' (he should be treated as an adult in my book) was irresponsible and caused the initial accident which then caused the pile up. Was it the bus drivers' fault for following too closely? You bet. But if that initial accident from the cell phone hadn't happened, that whole pile up probably wouldn't have happened either. People follow closely in rush hour traffic and it's bad driving. But maybe if that 'kid' had even put his break lights on, the buses would have also and the collision would have been just a rear ending. You concentrate on the car in front of you and if you are too close, you depend on them to give you some warning. If there's no warning, you both fail.
Re:Another security theater excess... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, start over. How the fuck does a rear-end collision in front of you cause a rear-end collision behind you? Either the buses could have stopped, regardless of the collision, or they could not have stopped, regardless of the collision.
Re: (Score:3)
And if the driver is only looking at the car in front of them, they're going to have a lot of accidents.
I typically look through the car in front of me to see how the next car is driving, and how the driver in front of me will react to that.
Re:Another security theater excess... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll admit to not reading the article, but from that description I can think of at least one situation, however unlikely, that would invalidate the phone. If he sent 11 texts, hopped in his truck and sped off in fury. You could have have a good 5-8 minutes to get into a wreck.
Maybe it's just the programmer in me that sees "11 texts in 11 minutes" and wonders what the distribution of those texts are in that 11 minutes.
Re:Another security theater excess... (Score:5, Funny)
What are "break lights"?
What your brake lights become after you get rear-ended.
Re: (Score:3)
Not so easy. While many/most will just pay the ticket, others will tie up the courts challenging these tickets, and some may sue, saying there's no law against using a cellphone and that just saying "reckless driving" is vague and unenforceable. The success they may have in court is debatable, but court cases cost a lot of money, especially if the municipality has to bring in any lawyers, and having judges waste their time on them is already expensive. Passing a specific law eliminates the vagueness and
Because it's easy (Score:5, Interesting)
It's easier to say "ZOUNDS, we must BAN this THING" than it is to say "Our driver training is not up to scratch, we don't review our training at regular intervals and we don't have mandatory retests for the people we entrust our children to" because that would sound like they've not done their job.
Sadly this isn't restricted to driving buses either.
Re: (Score:3)
Why? The bad drivers didn't learn anything the first time and the good drivers don't need it.
After accidents and tickets, sure.
I think all drivers should be required to paint their bumpers yellow until they have driven for at least a full year without a ticket or accident. Also yellow bumpers should be a regular punishment for bad drivers (DUI; life, Street racing; life, Speeding less then 15 over; 1 year, more then 15; 3 years, etc).
Re: (Score:3)
I'm with Xyverz on this one: All drivers in general should have to retest and retrain periodically (although I might make it 5 years rather than 2-4).
Among other things, this would result in a dramatic reduction in the number of "half-blind elderly driver drives through a mall without realizing it" cases.
Think of the Children! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to take sides (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?
Because using cellphones statistically seems to downgrade everyone a bit, so an excellent driver becomes a good driver, a good driver an ok driver, an ok driver a bad driver, and... a bad "barely got my license" driver a motor powered angry bird
Re:Not to take sides (Score:4, Insightful)
While this is true, it misses the larger issue. There are a number of factors that change driving performance. Eating while driving has a similar effect to talking on a cell phone, much like applying makeup, shaving, etc. In contrast, having a second person (or more) seems to improve driving performance. A young child who is sleeping in the back seat can greatly improve performance, while a small child who is screaming and crying has a negative effect.
If we want to use the logic "it hurts performance", we should ban all electronic devices, and have the radios in cars have 1 big button that can turn on or off road information messages. We should ban all eating while driving. We should require any children that are in cars to be drugged and remain unconscious, and it should be illegal to drive without a second person in the car. That would, statistically, increase driving performance across the board.
Banning cell phones simply because they can be shown to have a negative performance is singling out a single cause because we don't like it. Instead, as usual, the problem is larger and more problematic to fix. Personally, it comes down to how much risk we, as a society, are willing to accept. The current rates of traffic accidents and fatalities are lower than they have been in previous years[* [bts.gov]]. Personally, I am comfortable with the current level of risk when I step into a vehicle, either to drive or to ride as a passenger. If society, in general, would like to make changes to improve those numbers, we should have a realistic discussion about what would changes would help, how much each change would help, and what cost would be associated with each change. Simply pointing out one cause, and removing it, without addressing any other issues, is simply punishing a behavior based on personal bias.
Re:Not to take sides (Score:5, Informative)
FWIW, Mythbusters tested it.
Episode 33: Killer Brace Position and Cellphones vs Drunk Driving
The brace position on airlines increases chance of death: mythbusted
Talking on a cellphone while driving is as dangerous as drunk driving: confirmed
http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/06/mythbusters_killer_brace_posit.html [kwc.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Talking on a cellphone while driving is as dangerous as drunk driving: confirmed
I have a major beef with that episode though: it assumed that you would give priority to the conversation over traffic. When I'm talking to someone, whether in the car or on the phone, if I encounter a problem, my mind shifts entirely to the problem... once resolved I then ask the person to repeat, or otherwise restart the topic.
Re:Not to take sides (Score:5, Informative)
Talking on a cellphone while driving is as dangerous as drunk driving: confirmed
And yet, a study done by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety indicates that states with cellphone bans have seen no real decrease in accident rates. [iihs.org]
Hmm, who to believe, a well vetted institute dedicated to real driving safety statistics, or a television program dedicated to sensational entertainment... ?
Re:Not to take sides (Score:5, Insightful)
All that proves is that laws aren't very effective without enforcement.
Probably not what it seems (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
As someone who sometimes drives a van, please be aware of vehicle blind spots. Do not cruise in them. It astounds me how many times a motorcycle will pull up on my right hand side, just behind the rear, or even just *ahead* of my rear bumper, and cruise there. The best rule for vans and motorcycles: stay behind on the left, or get the hell past quickly on the left. Anything else is a death wish.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a motorcyclist since the 80s, let me assure you there was no shortage of people trying to kill us motorcyclists before the advent of cell phones.
Look, this is pretty straight forward. Show me a graph of car accidents as a function of year, then superimpose the percent population with cell phones as a function of year over it. If you see the number of accidents increase at the same rate as the percent population with cell phones, I'll buy that cell phones are the hazard people claim. But even thoug
Re:Probably not what it seems (Score:5, Interesting)
MY solution to that has been two 140db airhorns on my bike. Twice I have scared the crap out of a lady texting so badly that her phone went out the window.
It has nothing to do with "bad drivers" (Score:5, Informative)
When you are distracted while driving you are not using your full attention to focus on the task at hand [fnal.gov], which is guiding about a ton or so at high speed where merely the errant twitch can kill or permanently injure someone.
There are many, many studies in cognitive science [apa.org] that have shown that any distraction while driving reduces your ability to react, your reaction time, and the quality of your judgement. Your brain has a finite amount of resources and you are expending them on paying attention to the phone. In any case, cell phones are currently one of the most avoidable distractions out there. It stands to reason they'd be the first targeted for "banning."
Turn your phone off while driving. It could save a life.
this accident is not the reason (Score:5, Insightful)
After a multi-car pileup involving two school buses, the NTSB is urging states to ban all cellphones and personal electronic devices in cars, even hands-free phones.
This particular accident is not the reason why the NTSB is proposing this. The NTSB is proposing this because there is a huge amount of incontrovertible evidence that when people talk on their cell phones while driving (regardless of whether the phone is hands-free), the become distracted and drive badly.
Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?
The NTSB isn't targeting gadges. The NTSB is targeting bad drivers. You can put your cell phone in your car while driving, and nobody will target it. But if you talk on your cell phone while driving, you are a bad driver, and you should be targeted.
Re: (Score:3)
You can put your cell phone in your car while driving, and nobody will target it. But if you talk on your cell phone while driving, you are a bad driver,
*drives for 12 years without an accident*
*drives on flat straight country road in the middle of nowhere*
*picks up cellphone while driving, presses talk button twice*
"Hi honey. Yeah, I'm on my way, I've got an ETA of about 6 pm. Love you too. Bye."
*hangs up*
*has magically transformed into a bad driver that put innocent schoolchildren at risk*
Re: (Score:3)
The OP said that talking on a cell phone while you drive necessarily makes you a bad driver. This is ridiculous hyperbole. I just showed one example, which suffices to make that point.
And yes, I do, on rare occasion, talk on my cell phone while driving. However, I only do it in those cases (such as in my example) where conditions do not warrant extraordinary attention. So I've been able to do it safely, and likewise have a pristine record -- insurance companies make a *bundle* on safe drivers like me.
Ye
Busy work (Score:5, Insightful)
It's easy. Politicians love to look busy by passing new laws rather than prodding the executive branch into enforcing laws already on the books. If any of the following were to be enforced regularly, the problem would solve itself by either teaching inattentive drivers to change their ways, or remove them from the roads:
* reckless driving
* Driving below minimum legal speed (usually 10mph below speed limit)
* hindering the flow of traffic
* improper lane changes
* failure to use indicators when required
* failure to yield the right of way
* failure to maintain control of the vehicle
* following too closely
* driving left of center
* traveling in the passing lane
* failure to obey traffic signals
. . . and so on
Re: (Score:3)
the report tells us why (Score:5, Informative)
4. The absence of a timely brake application, the cellular provider records indicating frequent texting while driving, the temporal proximity of the last incoming text message to the collision, and the witness statement regarding the driver's actions indicate that the GMC pickup driver was most likely distracted from the driving task by a text messaging conversation at or near the time of the accident.
9 The GMC pickup driver was fatigued at the time of the accident due to cumulative sleep debt and acute sleep loss, which could have resulted in impaired cognitive processing or other performance decrements.
And that's why texting while driving is bad, boys and girls. And not getting enough sleep will, apparently, make you stupid enough to do it.
"But I'm a BETTER driver than most!" (Score:5, Insightful)
Listen, most of the people who you talk to think they're one of the "good drivers," who can talk on a cell phone and drive at the same time. It's not like this argument hasn't been used before. I'm sure most of the people you would ask would also respond that they're "smarter than the average person" or "better at X than the average person." NO ONE wants to think of themselves as deficient or average in any manner.
I work at a driving simulator. We've done quite a few studies on distracted driving (including two studies specifically targeting cell phones). These studies have sampled a few hundred different drivers, from all age ranges, technical abilities, genders, etc. ALL of them show (VERY clearly) that EVERYONE is bad at driving while being congnitively distracted. Hands-on, hands-free, whatever--the facts show that if you're concentrating on something other than the task at hand, EVERYONE has problems.
Am I concerned about not legally being able to talk while I drive? Hell no. It's about time.
Why did this story get promoted for all to see? (Score:3)
Do people honestly have doubt that distracted driving such as operating cell phones is not a risk to traffic safety? Seriously? Sure, every accident has a multitude of factors involved and how they count the number of accidents where something is 'a factor' is shameful (if you get in an accident and a bottle of wine in your trunk breaks, suddenly your accident was 'alcohol related'), but come on people, having a conversation with someone not in the vehicle is not something a significant proportion of the population should be attempting to do. Trying to type and read off of a screen is a liability to yourself and others in your vicinity. I know we are all above average drivers, but they aren't and we sure as hell don't trust them.
Because Gadgets Make Them Worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, those examples cite bad driving while on a cellphone, not just driving while on a cellphone, as the cause of the collisions. But driving while talking on a cellphone doesn't reduce the rate at which people do the bad driving. In fact it seems obvious that distraction by the phone makes it more likely to do more bad driving.
Just talking on the phone isn't colliding with someone. But talking on the phone doesn't make anyone a better driver. It's obvious to everyone on the road how very often it makes many people worse drivers.
Handsfree phones should be required; anything else should be prohibited. And any collision or moving violation should cause subpoena of the phone records (phone#s redacted) to see whether the driver was on the phone at the time. If so, they should be found guilty of distracted driving (and perhaps negligent homicide, if they killed someone). And their insurance policy shouldn't cover the event.
There are already laws against bad driving (Score:5, Insightful)
Following too closely will result in a ticket.
Also cell phones are linked to more than one accident. There is plenty of evidence that cell phones are a major cause of driver inattentiveness and accidents.
The proposal against banning all cell phones could be excessive, but there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about the issue.
theater (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?
Because it is always easier to come up with a technological solution (even if it doesn't work) than it is to address the real (usually human) problem.
even hands-free phones
This really illustrates the absurdity of the claim that phones are to blame for the problem.
If you're using a hands-free device, you're just basically having a conversation with someone who isn't actually in the car. It's not going to be any more inherently distracting than having a conversation with somebody who is in the car. So if hands-free phones are a problem... So is talking to a passenger.
Re:theater (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're using a hands-free device, you're just basically having a conversation with someone who isn't actually in the car. It's not going to be any more inherently distracting than having a conversation with somebody who is in the car. So if hands-free phones are a problem... So is talking to a passenger.
I think that the consensus is that a conversation with a passenger is different from that with some one on the phone - as the passenger is aware of the same environment and you both automatically adjust the tone/pace of the conversation depending on the current conditions. I.E. the passenger will generally keep quiet when you are performing a complex maneuver. That is not to say that passengers can not be a distraction, just that in general a phone conversation is a worse distraction that most passengers.
Re:theater (Score:5, Informative)
If you're using a hands-free device, you're just basically having a conversation with someone who isn't actually in the car. It's not going to be any more inherently distracting than having a conversation with somebody who is in the car. So if hands-free phones are a problem... So is talking to a passenger.
It most definitely is more distracting than having a conversation with someone in the car: 2008 study [utah.edu].
All electronics? (Score:3)
Too many times have I almost been in an accident due to a person talking on their phone not paying full attention to the road. On the highway it's not a big issue, driving through town while going through stop signs, lights, watching for pedestrians, making turns.. it's just too much to do with one hand occupied by a phone.
I'm only 32 but I can remember a time before everyone had cell phones when a person could drive 10 minutes without having to make/receive a call.
Take bad driver's licences away (Score:3)
Ignorant Horrible Story Summary (Score:3)
Texting while driving is obviously a serious killer.
Legislation might not be the answer: I favor a technical solution. Say, devices automatically disconnect at a certain speed from IM/ voice, except for 911, something like that.
But to suggest that texting while driving is not a problem, even if this SPECIFIC story might have unclear details, is ignorant and dangerous FUD. Yes, this specific story's details might not directly support the idea that texting kills, but texting obviously kills, and to suggest that, since this ONE story doesn't support the specifics, then therefore, let's not worry about texting... that is irresponsible and ignorant.
Horrible story summary.
The NTSB is 100% **RIGHT** (Score:3)
Gadgets (especially cellphones) are a menace. Plenty of studies show that drivers who drive while using cellphones are impaired to a similar extent as legally-intoxicated drunk drivers.
See this [utah.edu] and this [cmu.edu] and this [utah.edu].
It's an issue, regardless of this incident (Score:4, Informative)
Can't comment on this particular accident.
However, we do have data in Canadian provinces regarding hand-held devices (cellphones, texting behaviour, etc) and driving.
In Saskatchewan (pop 1 million) fatal accidents known to have contributing factors of the driver either taking on a cellphone or texting while driving were 60 in 2010 (the last year data was available), with 8500 non-fatal accidents.
This compares to 69 fatalities attributed to impaired driving, with 760 injuries and only 1400 collisions.
Since impaired driving as a cause can be made with much more certainty (blood alcohol readings are taken from drivers either by breath analysis or blood tests at the hospital or by the coroner when road accidents are involved) it remains a possibility that talking/texting while driving has surpassed impaired driving (about 20%) as the major cause of road fatalities in that jurisdiction.
People love science until... (Score:3)
Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?
Let's ask a similarly stupid question: "Why are we targeting drunk drivers instead of bad drivers?" When you can answer that question, you should be able to form a pretty good answer to the question above.
Re: (Score:3)
Great idea. What if someone in the car next to you has a real need to be on the phone?
The FCC has made these illegal for a REASON.
Re:Cell jammer (Score:4, Insightful)
Then they can pull over. There's rarely a case where the person in the car has to be moving while talking. That's what we have emergency responders for - who can be called into action.
Note that I'm not (necessarily) advocating mobile jammers. Someone in a nearby car might not need to be on the phone, but they might just want to be, and are not driving. It's their privilege to be on the phone, that is not overwhelmed by someone else's interest in jamming everyone.
I'm just pointing out that these "need to talk and drive" excuses are BS.
Re:Cell jammer (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they can pull over. There's rarely a case where the person in the car has to be moving while talking. That's what we have emergency responders for - who can be called into action.
I'm sitting alongside the road, calling 911 because my passenger is having a heart attack and you drive buy cutting me off.
Now, depending on the power of this jammer, I may not be able to call anyone for a few minutes... life and death minutes.
That line of thought is the same reason people ride in the left lane at the speed limit because "other people shouldn't be driving faster!" You have absolutely no idea why the person in the other car is doing what they are doing. If you don't like what they are doing, you always have a choice of giving them plenty of room to get away from you. Taking the law into your own hands is never the appropriate action unless you are defending your life from an IMMEDIATE risk.
That's cool. My request. (Score:4, Insightful)
If cell phones are allowed on the road, I'd like it to be legal to allow a 1000ft cell jammer in my car.
That's fine. Since we are granting requests then, I would like to be able to house a jammer-seeking missile in my car. This would have two benefits:
1) Would allow my cell phone based GPS to continue working.
2) Removes an asshole from the planetary gene pool. Now THAT's green!
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention that they're the only way to get rid of that fucking helicopter...
Re: (Score:3)
I can't help with the fog lights ... but my standard procedure for high beams behind me is to simply "adjust" my center rear-view mirror.
After you shine the light back at them a few times, they tend to drop their brights.
Now, if only I could do something about those people who insist on driving with their hazard lights on when it's pouring down raining at night, not realizing that it (1) means that either their turn signals or brake lights are effectively disabled and (2) screws up your night vision even wo
Re:Cell jammer (Score:5, Insightful)
Because cars can only contain one person?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
You mean by making it illegal? It already is dumbass.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This one doesn't. It's still a distraction, hands free or otherwise, and it has been proven.
Re: (Score:3)
Damn good idea; currently the standard driving test does not include three lane highways, which apart from directly outside schools is the site of the most terrible incidents involving cars and fatalities, and it's mainly down to people who don't know what the fuck they're doing on fast roads.
Actually, that's almost exactly the opposite of what the statistics say. There are comparatively very few fatalities on motorways compared to almost every other road type, with A roads and unclassified country roads being by far the worst (A roads 9 times worse than motorway, for example) - both of these road types are covered on the practical driving test.
Motorways are some of the safest roads in the whole of the UK, despite the high speeds involved. There should definitely be a compulsory section of the d
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but the stats show the opposite result - far more people die on urban streets (like those neighbourhood residential 30mph zones) and country roads than on motorways, despite the seriousness of high speed impacts on motorways.
Motorways are the safest road you can drive on, but like flying, if it goes wrong the implications can be severe.