Yesterday the NTSB released a recomendation and I heard the story on a number of dif news programs. In every case, an accident caused by some clown who texted 11 times in 11 minutes was referenced.
How does that particular incident get linked to the story? Texting is alot dif than talking … whoever linked it wants to sensationalize the issue. Hopefully it wasn’t the agency itself.
One of the programs (my local news so I doubt they came up with it themselves) referenced an old train collision caused by a conductor who was also texting. Again…not phoning and furthermore, if the gov’t hasn’t done something about that situation already then somebody should be shot.
Generally, why stop at phone related distractions? My satellite radio has a display that distracts me all the time. I imagine that GPS map displays can cause problems too.
It’s pretty well known that using a telephone (with or without hands) increases stopping times. I suppose you could ban GPS/satnav systems too, but they’re a lot less distracting than peering a crumpled map.
We’ve had a ban on using cell phones while driving (unless hands free) for several years in CA. It has to be the most flouted law in the state, except maybe the speed limit. From my own personal observation (and experience), I would say texting while driving is much, much more dangerous than hands-on talking.
That’s actually the theory that some insurance companies have developed to explain why the advent of cell phones has not produced an increase in the overall number of accidents – that drivers compensate for the distraction caused by the phone by reducing other distractions, like radio, GPS, or food.
Like you say, though, texting may be so distracting that it can’t effectively be compensated for.
Nearly all of it, as far as I know. It’s certainly still legal in Florida. Texting bans seem to have gone down better; that’s illegal in all but 15 states.
Wow, I’m really surprised, the article lets me assume that a ban on using phones while driving is a recent discussion:
I’m surprised because here in Germany, there has been a ban since 2001, after having been discussed for years before. To my knowledge, there are similar laws in other European countries.
So the safety dangers of cell phone use in cars are kind of old news, and that’s why I’m a bit stumped that this hasn’t become an important issue in the US until now.
The US is big on personal freedoms and less government intervention. Plus, aren’t people required to vote on such legislation in the US? As opposed to laws simply passing as an act of parliament, for example?
It’s still not an important issue. Road safety is basically an afterthought for Americans; we have three times the number of road deaths per capita you- Germans- do (about 12 per 100,000 to 4).
ETA: Leaffan, what? The US national and state legislatures pass laws exactly the same way other representative democracies do. State constitutions can generally also be changed by referendum, but it doesn’t have to be done that way. Well, unless the state constitution specifically preserves a right to jabber while driving, in which case the constitution would have to be changed.
So, what’s with all the commercials on TV saying things like “Vote No on proposal B” and stuff like that. It was my impression that some laws required a referendum. How does that work? And pardon my ignorance please.
Yeah, I see that this is a fundamental difference which explains the different legal situations.
Another point is the fact that German traffic regulations are determined by the StVO (Straßenverkehrs-Ordnung = road traffic regulations), which applies to the whole country, whereas I get from the links above that in the US such regulations are determined at state level.
Those are proposed amendments to state constitutions, which are approved by plebiscite. They are generally efforts to overturn legislation passed by the legislature (since constitutions trump statutes) or judicial interpretations of existing law.
Traffic laws, yes. Vehicle safety standards and emissions requirements and the like are mostly determined at the national level, except California which imposes tighter standards.
The ban isn’t on phones specifically. Its on all non-emergency portable electronic devices. Presumably the articles bring up texting because texting would be banned.
That’s not quite correct - the old law forbids “using a cell phone while driving unless a hands-free device is used”. The ADAC Motorwelt had several articles where they used drive simulators to test the distraction of using the phone vs. normal conversation with a passenger, and called for a proper ban that forbids all telephoning regardless of hands-on or hands-free, because everything else is inconsequent and doesn’t make sense. (Quarks tested this too, in cooperation with a university doing EEG scans.*)
Of course, all other distractions - eating, putting on make-up, reading, … are absolutly forbidden anyway. Driving a car is a complex task that requires full attention. You’re not allowed to drive if meds slow you down, if you have a fever from a cold, or if you’re tired, so why should anything else be allowed?
*The neurological difference is that when talking to a passenger, the driver subconsciously puts driving first, answering second because he knows the passenger is there with him and understands if there are pauses because he has to concentrate for a moment.
On the phone, OTOH, the driver subconciously puts the conversation first, driving second, and because the other person can’t see when the situation gets dangerous, the driver gets neglectful.
They got the same effect by asking quiz questions or otherwise making the conversation with a passenger difficult instead of easy.
In general, human brains are not set up for proper multi-tasking: we easily slip into it, because we want to, but we tend to mess up when juggling more than two tasks. And driving is in itself already multi-tasking: there’s the mechanical aspect of the vehicle, the traffic, and anticipating the actions of other people, and finding your way to where you want to go.
US has direct democracy now? That’s news to me. I thought you, too, elect representatives who pass laws after discussion? (What do you mean with "simply passing as an act of parliament? Parliament is not one person. It’s filled with elected representatives from different parties arguing with each other before a proposal gets voted on, and it passes only if there is a majority in votes. The difference to the US Senate/ House system is that we didn’t put in all those weird blocks like filibusters, or earmarks or paperclip-laws.)
We’ve only had a phone specific ban relatively recently in the UK - 2003. Even before that, you could be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention ( a friend was fined for eating a burger at the wheel). I’m amazed there isn’t more regulation on this in the US - it’s a pretty simple safety issue.
It’s usually the other way round: a group wants to pass a law, and instead of petitioning their representatives (maybe because they get ignored or want a specific version) they go door to door to collect signatures for a proposal. If a basic quota is met - to show that enough people care about it - then the state is required* to put up the proposal for general referendum, that is, all eligible voters say “Yes” to the proposal, “yes” to the different one by the state** or “no”.
If enough voters vote yes, the referendum passed and is then made into law. If more people voted no, or for the alternative, or not enough people bothered to show up*** to vote anything, it’s fallen through.
Generally, however, this is intended as additional aid to adress those small and local issues that trouble some citizens or advocacy groups, but aren’t adressed by the normal parties in parliament. It’s a patch to make sure that no issue is left unadressed. But the major, normal route is through parliament/ legal assembly.
Not all states allow a referendum, and different states have different rules.
** The state can simply have Yes /No or can put up their own suggestion. Maybe the full proposal to give everybody a pony is too expensive, so the state suggests giving ponies only to children under age 16, and gives the reasoning.
*** How many % of the total eligible voters need to vote and how many % need to vote “Yes” differs wildly from state to state and is often hotly contested. Since mostly the voter participation for referendums as single-issues is less than normal elections, setting a too -high requirement, coupled with too-high Yes votes can make it practically impossible to pass referendums, while looking okay on paper.
There is a strong correlation between cell phone use and car accidents. You are four times as likely to be in a car accident if you are on your cell phone immediately preceding your accident. MY obeservation has been that people on cell phones run stop signs and generally ignore traffic laws (at least on local roads) at a far higher rate than those who do not. They seem to rely on the attentiveness of others to copensate for their lack of attentiveness. Its one thing if I miss a light because someone in the left turn lane is distrated in a phone conversation or texting at a red light. Its another thing if they merge into my lane without looking because they are busy talking on the cell phone.