NTSB Cell Phone Ban Advocacy

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

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.

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

Dave

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.

[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.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

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

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.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by DarkDefender

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...

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.

[Bigerik]

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.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Bigerik

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"............................

Dave

[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

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Bigerik

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.

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.

[whoaru99]

Originally Posted by hillbilly

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.

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?

[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?