NTSB Cell Phone Ban Advocacy
 

The NTSB would like to ban cell phone use while driving. Considering the number of calls made via cell phones while driving, I'd suspect that the percent that cause accidents is minuscule. Once again a federal agency wanting to use its power. What's next? Eating, drinking, make up application, dealing with children? These all also cause a number of accidents. Better yet, why not just ban driving except when you have a "hall pass" from the government.

Do you think people should be allowed to text while driving?

Regards,

D-Ray

Miniscule, I don't think so, in our small neighborhood of 21 homes, one woman had her car totalled and was severly injured. A lad down the street who is a volunteer fireman was pinned between a car and a truck while directing traffic around an accident and lost a leg. The cause of both accidents was the driver at fault using his cell phone. Two out of twenty-One you do the math.

Maryland already has such a law, but it's a secondary offense (i.e., they need to be pulling you over for something else in order to cite you for cell phone use). I disregard the rule. I'll make or take short cell calls whenever I wish, but I don't text while driving.

The NTSB proposal goes too far in proposing to also prohibit the use of hands-free devices. I have a feeling that this may be a negotiating tactic to allow them to settle somewhere in the middle. Even if it becomes a Federal rule, Maryland state police won't enforce it any more than they already enforce the existing MD law, which is seldom. I don't know a person who has gotten a ticket for using a cellphone.

I can see it being a distraction, and agree it should be common sense not to use them when driving. Sure do miss the convenience of a phone handy when driving but adapted to it after awhile just fine.
But also seem to remember a time when I'd have to find a phone booth to make a call. Now can't even seem to find a phone booth any more.

The news also stated that some insurance companies were thinking of make it a way out of paying a claim for them. Having you sign a waiver as part of your coverage! That if a mobile device was in use at the time of accident they are then absolved of all liability.



Barney

Ah, a market solution. That way those injured by a cell phone user/driver get a double whammy. They get hurt, but they get no relief from the driver's insurance. :(

Regards,

D-Ray

Funny thing is;
Our rightwing friends will probably have no problem with an insurance company taking such punitive action. But, if a cop issues a ticket they'll dress up like George Washington, glue teabags to their foreheads, strap on their Glocks and breakout the ObamaNazi pickets.:p

Can you explain to me why these things are okay for a privately owned corporation, but not the government?:confused:

Dave

Virginia too. I had a cop pull me over once, just because he saw me flip my phone open. No ticket, it was a catch and release, but he did comment about the link between cell phone use and accidents.

Ya know, police and other first responders are the ones who see it everyday in the course of doing their jobs. If they report cell phone use as a rising cause of accidents, I tend to believe them. I see no reason why they would lie. I do know they get tired of cleaning up the bloody mess.

Dave

If they talk on their phone after signing up for insurance that clearly states they're not covered in that situation, then they can be charged with driving without insurance. Now you've got your government based solution, which doesn't work either.

I have no issue with talking on the phone via a hands-free device. I live in Germany and driving at high speed on the autobahn is taxing enough. When you start adding phones, one further compounds the stress on one's focus.
Eating, drinking, make up! Driving requires a tremendous amount of attention to detail. Trying to do any of these takes away from your focus and endangers you and others.

Sorry for the rant...

Hey everyone knows the government can solve all problems fairly and equitably.

I see no reason to ban hands free. You can talk to the person next to you but not through a speaker? Change your cds while knee driving at 75 mph? Better not scratch your nose. Might lose your driving priviledges.

State issue anyway my opinion.

Pete

Rant on, when I was still commuting to work there was a small town en route with speed bumps. One morning an oncoming car went over the bump and headed straight for me, I simply got off the road. The driver was doing her eye makeup, stupid woman.

Dave, in Tennessee I see city cops, county deputies, and state troopers talking on cellphones while driving. See it everyday. If they see bad things happen do to talking on a cell, why do they continue to contribute to the problem? Are they better than us pee-ons?

I think many of them do believe they are better. My cousin is married to a state trooper who is dead set against concealed carry, and he says most of his co-workers agree with him.

I can see why they would be. Makes sense doesn't it? Less chance of getting shot at. But if I was a police officer you bet everyone would be considered armed!




Barney

I agree with hands free being no more risk than talking to a passenger. People take their eyes off the road all the time lookin' at those navigation devices.. that are legal. Sometimes the law simply don't make sense.

I don't really think concealed carry laws make it more likely that a cop will get shot. Anyone with a concealed carry license knows to hand their permit over on initial contact, along with their ID.
The type of people who shoot at cops are not the same type that jump through all the hoops to get a permit.

Maybe in your state people have sense once they start carrying a hand gun. But I have had a CC license for twenty plus years, currently a lifetime one now. I can tell you around here an IQ test is not required to have a permit. Just a clean record and around $125.00.

I have run across some real dip $hits with guns. Wish they would have a little more restrictions on who can get permits. But know it will never happen until something bad occurs.

What I was trying to say is a Police Officer should expect everyone they encounter to be armed. If not they are being sloppy, but without a CC permit system their chances of running across an armed assailant would be lessened. So of course they would want that situation.



Barney

I agree.

Do I think it rises to a level that it needs a federal law? No, however, texting, or any distraction, may contribute to the possibility of an accident. I see a sliding slope that can be continually expanded. Mobile phone use is just an easy target. Are more or less people getting in accidents today because of phone use? Anecdotal evidence is notoriously unreliable.

Here are the actual numbers from 1990-2009:

Motor vehicle accidents by year in millions:
1990 11.5
1995 10.7
2000 13.4
2004 10.9
2005 10.7
2006 10.4
2007 10.6
2008 10.2
2009 10.8

Cell phone market penetration has increased considerably over that time period; thus we'd expect a correlation between that increased use and an increase in accidents. That hasn't occurred. Accidents have remained stable despite both an overall population increase and increased cell phone use. Obviously, there could be a better correlation across specific age groups, but nevertheless, the issue isn't as large as politicians. LEO, the press, and regulatory agencies assert.

BTW, even deaths have decreased over the same time span.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...atalities.html


Here's one study dated but interesting:

"The effect of cellular phone use upon response to highway-traffic situations was the most deleterious for the older age group (i.e., 50-80). Overall, the increase in likelihood that some highway-traffic situation will go unnoticed while calling or conversing on a cellular phone was (for the older group) about twice that of their younger counterparts. Older subjects were no more distracted by radio tuning than the middle-age group (26-49 years) and considerably less than the youngest group (17-25 years). As far as time to respond is concerned, age only effected the placing of cellular phone calls."

Perhaps, those over fifty ought not use cell phones while driving.

http://www.aaafoundation.org/resourc...n=cellphone#a1


Imagine all the revenue that could be generated by ticketing drivers using cell phones. BTW, here in The People's California it is illegal to use a cell phone without using a hands free device. IIRC it is a $256.00 fine.

Private firms do not have the compelling power of a government. That is, one is free to sign or not sign a contract, but one doesn't have that choice with a government. You can usually get insurance for even risky behavior, but that comes at a monetary cost. Consider non-smoking discounts and such in the insurance industry.

Minuscule seems to have two common spellings. I changed mine from miniscule to minuscule because my OED said my original spelling was incorrect.

You have an unlucky neighborhood wrt to auto accidents.

LEO anecdotal evidence is no better than that of someone outside of law enforcement. Even traffic officers have a difficult time correctly judging speed without instruments. They see more cell phone use and likely see cell phones at accident scenes and make the assumption that the cell phone contributed to the accident. The numbers I posted above do not support that conclusion.

You are correct. Driving is one of the most complex activities that the average U.S. citizen does. I'll assert than European's take driving as a more serious and fun endeavor than we do in the U.S. We see it just for its utilitarian aspect, rather than for its inherent enjoyment.

I have never gotten the gun the view of gun lovers that every other gun owner is the solid citizen, wouldn't cause problems, etc. Add a little alcohol or drugs to any situation, make it emotionally charged. That is not a good situation to add a gun to.

The thread is about cellphones. So, unless they are coming out with cellphones that have a "firearm app"............................:eek:

Dave

If I'm reading the data correctly, approximately one third of traffic fatalities are related to speeding. There is no question that it is legitimate to regulate driving speed, is there?

It looks like 16% of the fatalities are related to distraction, and 20% of all accidents. While not a third, those are nevertheless significant numbers.

I'm not sure that the AAA study has any relevance to current conditions. As I recall, texting was not an option in 1991.

It sounds like you even oppose California's requirement that all cell phone usage be hands free. That is, however, a state regulation is it not?

By the way, the NTSB standards were recommended standards for states, not a federally imposed standard. In other words, an agency whose mission in to promote transportation safety has done its research and as a result has recommended to states standards that would reduce a major contribution to accidents.

Finally, albeit anecdotal, my driving experience involves a fair sized sample, as I commute around a 30 mile round trip daily. Without fail, every time I see erratic driving - particularly a vehicle slowing down to well below the speed of other traffic - I will see a driver engaged in a cell phone conversation. More than once, I have had to take evasive action to avoid a collision with a cell-phone-engaged driver.

Regards,

D-Ray

QFT. I had an drunk off-duty cop in New Orleans pull his service revolver on me on New Years Eve to force me out of the last available parking spot in a lot. He and I had both seen the spot (unbeknownst to each other) and I got to it before he pulled around the corner to find it occupied by me. Needless to say, I didn't argue.

So the contention is the dangerous part of cell phone use in the car is holding a small box to the side of your head, not actually use thereof - i.e. talking and thinking about what you're going to say as the distraction?

I'm not for texting and driving or any other distraction including eating. I do assert that the potential danger of cell phone use is less than what the NTSB and LEOs claim. The problem with the NTSB position is that it argues that even talking on a cell phone is dangerous and thus poses a substantial risk to the public. How many accidents has coffee drinking caused? I have no problem with using hands free devices. Newer higher end vehicles are coming with such devices pre-installed and they have a very low profile. LEOs will not be able to distinguish who is and who is not using a cell phone while driving. Surely, you don't feel that only the wealthy ought be able to make phone calls while driving?

It appears that behind the NTSB position is someone from the MADD group. The data appears to be difficult to collect and I suspect that a lot of accidents get unfairly blamed on cell phones, rather than drivers that are idiots regardless of if or if not they happen to have a cell phone on board.

Given the number of miles traveled and the number of people on SoCal roads, I'm surprised there are not more accidents. When it rains here in San Diego, like it did two days ago, we had around 300-400 accidents. I wonder how many cell phone calls were made and what percentage of those calls caused accidents?

What a great idea. A cell phone that doubles as a protection device. I see all kinds of possibilities: a firearm model, a pepper spray model, and for the San Francisco crowd a stun device. Of course, for quick access it would need actual physical buttons, thus substantially increasing its price.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. There are radar detector detectors so I have absolutely no doubt there is a way to detect cell phones as well, and whether they are or are not currently in active use.

I think we have some common ground here. I agree that a total ban is unreasonable. I do believe that there should be a requirement for hands free use. All phones come with some sort of hands free device, and most can be programmed to make calls based on name recognition. (In other words, you don't have to be rich, but you do need some tech savvy) It is the fiddling with the phone that is the most dangerous behavior.

The hands-free requirement would essentially take care of the texting issue. As far as I know, there is no way to do hands free texting. Even if a phone came equipped with voice recognition software sophisticated enough to write text (as opposed to dialing a pre-saved number), it would also have to translate text into audio to satisfy the hands-free requirement.

Regards,

D-Ray

Some state passed a "hands free" law. It also unintentionally banned 2-way radio use because of the handheld microphones.

Are people still using Criminal Band radios?

Yes, I do believe we've found common ground. FWIW, I'm finding my new Android phone more difficult to use in a vehicle than the Palm Treo I carried for the last five years. The new phone is surprisingly good at voice recognition; however, the lack of physical buttons is certainly a handicap for in vehicle use. I'm not a big SMS user, but do use email and the web from the phone on occasion. I think that voice dictation and text conversion is almost to the state where it will be usable even in a fairly noisy environment. My favorite apps are a decibel meter I downloaded and an HP48 calculator emulator. I looked at the iPhone, but ultimately liked the Samsung for its larger screen.

I think there is some sort of hands free voice rec. texting out there already, probably primative but just the beginning.

Pete

I think a more likely scenario is for auto manufacturers to be pressured to install a proximity device in their new vehicles. Politically I don't see much support, but then, the 55mph speed limit survived for a number of years without much support from the populace. IIRC the BART system in the SF Bay Area blocked cell phone use on some of their train routes.

A cellphone ban? I wonder how the founding fathers would have responded to the government trying to ban THEM from talking on the cell, while driving down the highway? Is there anything in the constitution about a God given right to text while driving?

(Oh, that's right. They were the government............:rolleyes:)

Dave

Milbank said this in WaPo:
I concur with his position. The absurdity of the NTSB proposal ought get all involved fired. It is almost like they couldn't decide what to do, thus they went for "Big Gulp" nanny approach, rather than a more nuanced proposal. The only thing that Hersman and the board did was show their idiocy. Come to think of it, is the NTSB, formed in 1967, even needed or could other agencies fulfill their role?