NTSB Cell Phone Ban Advocacy

[bhunter]

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.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by bhunter

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

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

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

Regards,

D-Ray

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.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by bhunter

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.

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

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

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

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?

[whoaru99]

Originally Posted by bhunter

LEOs will not be able to distinguish who is and who is not using a cell phone while driving.

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.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by bhunter

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?

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

[merrylander]

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.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by merrylander

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.

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.

[Eliterg]

I think this is a good law.