Does the NTSB really feel that their recommendation to completely ban cell phones and the like is enforceable should it become law? Why are devices installed at the factory outside the ban? Will the ban extend to GPS devices, and what about radios music and CB? Should we separate the driver from the passengers in a soundproof cubical so they are not distracted by conversation? I know the last ? may seem kind of ridiculous, as does the recommended ban. Perhaps there should be more stringent testing before one is granted a drivers license, maybe an I.Q. test.
It is hard to believe that this is an enforceable law since most drivers will ,more than likely use hands free devices. The way I see it a ban of this type will only succeed in turning more criminals loose on the street.
If there is to be a ban, it should obviously be a *state *issue, not a federal issue.
That was my understanding when reading the article, that this was a recommendation and the instituting of any laws banning the devices would be on a State by State basis.
Still to me, not withstanding the slippery slope of banning communication, the enforcement of such a law would waste a lot of resources that could better be used to deal with real criminals.
It’s a consciousness-raising exercise.
The idea of banning drinking while driving (actually drinking, not just being drunk) was considered an insane imposition on peoples’ rights when it was first suggested back in the 1960s. Nowadays the idea of imbibing while driving is viewed as insane. It took 50 years, but there’s been a total reversal of what constituted “common sense” on the topic.
In another 30 years, after umpteen thousand people have been killed by distracted drivers, phones and other distractions will *perhaps *come to be seen as a problem worth solving. The way we get there *then *is to start *now *with things like the NTSB finding.
Shouldn’t all distractions be banned , such as outdoor advertising on billboards, and transit. Perhaps the full length murals advertisements on semi trailers? These are quite distracting diversions when driving on the high way. I also take exception with the fact that the NTSB excludes manufactures installed devices from this ban, why?A device installed as OEM is just as distracting as an aftermarket device. We are born, we live, and we die, that is the natural order death can not be legislated out of existence. As stated in the OP, more thought should be given to who can obtain a driver license, it is a privilege not a right the majority of the drivers are responsible people and should not be punished because of the actions of a minority of immature and irresponsible individuals.
The NTSB has no power to implement any laws or bans; they can only make recommendations based upon their interpretation of the data and safety risks associated with cell phone use (or other issues that they comment on).
As their name implies, the National Transportation Safety Board has a mandate to identify safety-related issues related to Transportation and to make recommendations to address them. They often recommend things that the public or industries feel aren’t practical - or will cost too much money - but there is still value in making the recommendations because it gets people thinking and talking and might lead to a cultural change which will improve safety.
If the NTSB had it’s way, cell phones and electronic devices would be banned while driving, airlines would not allow lap-children (you’re buying a seat for your child, not an extra seat because it’s an infant!), buses would have passenger seat belts and a wealth of other recommendations that the Department of Transportation, the FAA or other agencies have no intent of ever implementing.
On the other hand, when the NTSB investigates a plane crash or an automobile collision with a train or whatever and their findings show that one of the causes was exactly what they made recommendations for, they get to say “I told you so!” and properly chastise the government/agency for having failed to prevent the accident in question by not addressing the recommendation in the first place. Then they recommend it again.
It’s all about safety, independent of costs.
I call Bullshit. Someone in the NTSB wanted to get noticed, and they took a safe, uncontroversial stance in order to appear to be “doing something”.
Here are the traffic fatalities in the US, by year [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration]. Since the bugaboo du jour seems to be texting, here are some statistics regarding the year over year increase* in texting.
I challenge you to find the deadly spike in highway death rates due to cellphone use. I realize this isn’t a formal analysis, but the graphs don’t show any trend. If the year labels were removed from the first graph, no one could tell you when cellphone use became ubiquitous.
This has all the hallmarks of a new senior manager trying to make a name for himself with a BNI (Bold New Initiative). They need to find something safe, non-controversial, and with enough “feel good” aura that no one can oppose it. My guess is that “going green” and “diversity” were already taken, so “evils of cellphone use” was the best remaining choice.
Call me a cynic if you like, but I don’t believe they’re really that dangerous.
*I know the graphs don’t line up well by year, but I’m not doing a formal analysis.
I predict we will set an increase in the BNIs in the coming year as various departments of governments at all levels attempt to stake their claim on their piece of the skrinking budget pie. You can expect a TV and radio ad blitz on the looming danger of being overrun by West Nile virus bearing clouds of mosquitos following around the unspayed and unneutered pets that are being neglected by pedophiles that are lurking in the cracked sidewalks of an unmaintained elementary school in your neighborhood. 
No, what’s BS are the hands-free laws. My car has BT, but whether I’m on the phone or not, I rarely have two hands on the wheel. In all but the worst weather/traffic, one is on the armrest/in my lap/changing the radio station (despite having those controls on the wheel). Because I’m a fairly normal human being, with forward facing eyes, holding my hand up to my cheek does not obstruct my field of vision at all. This is just feel-good legislation to help the criminals, er, ah “politicians” say they were doing something so they can be reelected.
However, unlike changing the radio station, which takes a mere fraction of a second, the longer you’re in a conversation, the more of your brain it takes up. Not the, “Honey, what time do I need to get the kids” 10-second call, but the sales call, the getting into it with the SO, the waiting on hold & bitching out some customer service dept for lousy service/wrong item shipped/incorrect amount charged/etc.
Because of BT, it will be impossible to enforce any no call laws unless they pull records, like after an accident.
There is a technical solution that will never happen. All smartphones, which is the majority of what’s sold anymore have GPS in them, if you’re going over, say, 10 mph, turn off the ability to call/text/access webpages, the exception is 911 can be dialed & GPS/maps can still be used. The other way this can be done is on the carrier side of it; if you’re being handed off tower-to-tower, you’re obviously moving & therefore, the above will be terminated. Yes, it’ll inconvenience passengers & commuters but for the majority of us, if you *need *to make a call, you just pull over for a few seconds.
Why won’t it happen? Because they don’t do anything with DUI, which pretty much everyone agrees is wrong. If you get caught DUI (twice?), many jurisdictions require an ignition interlock device so the car won’t start unless you blow below the limit. Require this on all cars & <snap> 10,000+ people a year are still alive.
Not the same thing. Not all distractions are equal; talking on a phone (or to a person in the car for that matter) is much more likely than a billboard to achieve “cognitive capture”, where the person is thinking primarily about the distraction and not about the road.
As others have pointed out, the NTSB can only advise, it can’t legislate.
Yes, the roads WOULD be safer if fewer drivers were distracted. Cellphones can be a distraction, as can many other things. Given the NTSB mission, it would be remiss of them not to mention possible ways to improve safety, even if they are extremely unlikely to be implemented.
Presumably to “grandfather” in vehicles already built, and to spare consumers the cost of having them removed.
GPS devices can also be distracting while driving, as the driver may focus so much on the GPS they neglect to pay attention to what is in front of him or her. On the other had, people do not usually get into highly emotional arguments with their GPS as we see happen with cellphone users, and the GPS display at least in theory has to do with navigating, which is at least somewhat related to driving, whereas phone conversations can be about anything and everything.
It’s not just holding the device that’s the distraction, it’s the topic of discussion. If I call in to 911 to report an accident I’m likely still focused on the road and what’s happening. If I’m telling my SO how to diaper the baby and what 14 items are needed from the grocery store, well, none of that is related to driving.
From the standpoint of maximizing safety without regard to other costs, yes, that would slightly increase safety. But we both know that will never happen.
I don’t think IQ has much, if any, relationship to being a safe driver (well, a certain minimum, but that would be lower than most people would expect). I’d prefer someone with an IQ of 80 who pays attention to WTF is going on around them and minimizes their distractions to some Mensa-member genius trying to do 4 things with 2 hands AND attempting to drive at the same time.
I am DEFINITELY in favor of MUCH stricter driver standards and testing, however.
And that’s a shame, because it’s not the device that’s the distraction, it’s having a side conversation unrelated to driving.
Of course, there’s a difference between a phone conversation and talking to a passenger next to you - the passenger next to you isn’t going to get pissy if you stop talking to deal with a road situation because they can see the necessity of suspending the conversation. They might even help you spot other traffic, look for turn-offs, and so forth. Which is not to say a side conversation with a passenger can’t be distracting, just that it’s less likely to be a hazard.
My phone’s voice mail very clearly states I do not answer the phone while driving. It’s both sad and appalling how many people don’t think I’m serious about that. Leave a freakin’ message, I will get back to you when it’s safe to do so.
There’s an article in today’s New York Times on NTSB’s motivation & tactics.
I think it’s free to read, but might require a no-cost registration:
I read a very annoying article on this topic in the New York Times today.
The first thing that annoyed me was the suggestion by the chairman of the NTSB that people lock their cell phones in their trunk while driving. In the last thread on cell phone driving, I suggested that a ban on cell phone usage while driving would cause some people to leave their phones at home and actually cause more deaths because of the delay in contacting emergency services. Most people disparaged my suggestion. Now this woman actually recommends putting cell phones where they will be inaccessible in the case of an accident.
The second thing was the comparison with cell phone driving with smoking. The proper analogy would be smoking and wearing a seat belt. Trying to prevent injuries to others is a different issue from people who do things that are dangerous to themselves.
Frankly I think the issue is moot, because I think manually operated motor vehicles will disappear over the next few decades. The trouble is that organizations like the NTSB don’t have any mechanisms for saying that things are safe enough and disbanding. They have to find problems to justify their existence.
The NTSB specifically excluded GPS devices from the proposed ban. They concluded that they seem to enhance safety rather than detract from it. I think the point is that they’re better than having the driver look at a folding paper map, or stopping every block to check out the street signs.
No, that is NOT what she said. What she said was (emphasis added):
I am capable of ignoring a ringing phone while driving down the road, that is, I can control my impulse to answer the phone. People who can’t do that are the ones who should lock the phone in the trunk.
The reason her suggestion is asinine is because she should have told people to turn the ringer off if they can’t ignore their cell phone. Her suggestion could get people killed if they are injured in an accident. They could even turn their phones off when they are driving and extend the battery life, but I don’t suggest it since it would involve more steps to call 911. That such a suggestion originates from the chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board is quite irresponsible.
I’m suspicious that laws like this will be applied without judgement and people will get tickets when they call while stopped at a traffic light.
You’ve obviously never seen me drive!
I worked with a professor who was at the U. Illinois Urbana/Champaign on an encyclopedia article about the psychology of driving. Very early in the article, he points out that the NHTSB’s lexicon is not to discuss “accidents” as the term absolves everyone from responsibility. Their preferred term is collision, as automotive **collisions **are avoidable given proper attention to mechanical factors (the car’s fitness-to-drive), environmental conditions (road, weather, visibility, etc.), and personal circumstances (side conversations, numb fingers, sleepiness, etc.). It’s really a much more fitting term and, ultimately, it influences the Bureau’s job and scope: When it’s possible, and to as great an extent as possible, it behooves us to avoid the unnecessary and avoidable waste of automotive collisions. It’s a waste of money, it’s a waste of metal and plastic and automotive product, it’s a waste of everyone’s time as they’re stuck in traffic…
Think of it not so much as ‘saving lives’ as ‘minimizing the useless waste of lives’ so that those lives can be directed to more important tasks like winning at Guild Wars or drug wars or real wars or whatever.
And it’s not part of the NHTSB’s job to do anything more than interpret the numbers and make recommendations based on that analysis. It’s the insurance companies who spend billions on lobbyists to influence politicians and try to get laws passed. But don’t think they’re spending all that money and trying to pass laws to promote your safety. They’re doing it so they can spend less on claims payments by hiding behind the general “your policy is void when you’re breaking the law” clause.
I really believe this is the better solution. As with seat belts and motorcycle helmets in particular and probably with dozens of other traffic & vehicle related laws, I really think they should not exist and should never have been created. I don’t believe those matters should have been left to Federal, State, or even municipal governments. I think they should have remained the responsibility of the insurance companies.
Each and every insurance company can just as easily include in their policies a clause that says roughly “We will pull cell phone records as part of our collision investigation. If we discover a cell-phone within the car was in use within [insert time here] of the accident occurrence, as determined by [insert method here] we will reduce the claim pay-out by [insert percentage here].” Then different insurance companies can compete, as is proper in a free market, to adjust premiums and coverage and the numbers that should be inserted above. If your 16-year-old new driver is going to drop out of school and be using your van to run his grunge band around Queens, you can insure him with a 5-second window, determined by the black box you install in the engine compartment, and a drop of only 25% in the pay-out. You can also expect to pay a high premium every month. If you, the 45-year-old veteran driver are just going to use your van to commute 10 minutes to and from the office on Main street in Bodfish for work at the Central Grocery, then you can insure yourself with a 30-second window determined by the local Sheriff’s Deputy/Detective/Traffic Investigator/Mechanic and a drop of 100% (because, after all, you don’t even own a cell phone anyway) and you’ll probably pay an amazingly low premium.
And insurance companies will be competing against each other with different constellations of plans and allowances and rates and discounts while customers will be able to shop around and find the company that offers the most suitable plan and rates for their needs. That’s the revered Free Market system working as it should.
Instead, the insurance companies will decide not to compete and they’ll instead spend millions to try to push legislators to do the dirty work for them – make a law. Hmm…seems to me that an industry-wide agreement not to compete is something like a Trust, Monopoly, Cartel or one of those other evil incarnations of non-capitalism.
—G!
They’re ready to defend
The indefensible
High times for lawyer schemers
. —Dennis DeYoung (Styx)
. High Crimes and Misdemeanors
. Brave New World
This is your idea of an uncontroversial stance? The safe stance would have been to recommend a ban on texting while driving, and stop at that.
Banning all cell phone use of any kind while driving is pretty darn controversial.
Uncontroversial as a “if only one life is saved…, won’t someone please think of the children” stance. They’re just going to the next level (to show how much they care:rolleyes:).
Controversial would’ve been declaring that, according to the statistics the highway death rate curve (when inverted) looks almost exactly like the increase in texting curve, and therefore cellphone/texting bans are probably meaningless.