NTSB Recommends Banning Cell Phone Usage In Cars

[quote name='UncleBob']There's a little Libertarian in all of us. :D :D :D[/QUOTE]

I know folks that work harder on policy creation then you could even imagine. That's why it pisses me off when I see lazy bureaucrats making slapdash policy recommendations. Sensible regulation is under siege from corruption and corporate influence - this is not the time to be making dumb mistakes.
 
[quote name='camoor']I know folks that work harder on policy creation then you could even imagine. That's why it pisses me off when I see lazy bureaucrats making slapdash policy recommendations. Sensible regulation is under siege from corruption and corporate influence - this is not the time to be making dumb mistakes.[/QUOTE]

What corruption or corporate influence are you suggesting is being laid upon the NTSB?

I'd like to see some data comparing the number of accidents (injuries/fatalities) in which a cell phone is involved to the # of accidents (etc.) w/o a cell phone. That, as opposed to just mass number of accidents, would shed more light on if such a "ban" would even be useful (as more than a revenue stream).

BTW: Someone ranted about needing a hands-free GPS device. I can speak a destination to my Android-based S.E.X. Play and it gives me turn-by-turn text-to-speech directions. I dont know what more you'd want.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']What corruption or corporate influence are you suggesting is being laid upon the NTSB?

I'd like to see some data comparing the number of accidents (injuries/fatalities) in which a cell phone is involved to the # of accidents (etc.) w/o a cell phone. That, as opposed to just mass number of accidents, would shed more light on if such a "ban" would even be useful (as more than a revenue stream).

BTW: Someone ranted about needing a hands-free GPS device. I can speak a destination to my Android-based S.E.X. Play and it gives me turn-by-turn text-to-speech directions. I dont know what more you'd want.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't - I was asserting that they are making a particularly stupid suggestion. Which can then be criticized by anti-regulation lobbyists and talk show hosts ad infinitum.

I'd like to see the data too. NTSB didn't provide any.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']I'd like to see some data comparing the number of accidents (injuries/fatalities) in which a cell phone is involved to the # of accidents (etc.) w/o a cell phone. That, as opposed to just mass number of accidents, would shed more light on if such a "ban" would even be useful (as more than a revenue stream).[/QUOTE]

This wouldn't account for the people who have no business behind the wheel and would get in an accident regardless of what shiny object was distracting them.

Are there any countries who have banned cell phone usage while driving? Some before-and-after stats could be useful in determining the overall effect of a cell phone ban.
 
[quote name='camoor']Come one man, you lost. Admit it and move on, don't act like UB.[/QUOTE]
Um, I'm not? Don't know why you sometimes have such a hard on for me. Like I said, accident rates could remain the same while deaths decease due to safer automobiles. But whatever, man.
 
[quote name='camoor']Metaphorically implying that you are Randy Quaid's alcoholic, insane, likely delusional hillbilly character from ID4?

Considering all of the movies and all of the characters you could have picked, I say bravo to your subconscious.[/QUOTE]

Or I could have just been saying "Uppppppp Yourrrrrrrrs"

However let's apply your logic to your response. Out of a response to someone posting a survey as their point, you focus in on the end of it in which someone says "Upppppp Yourrrrrs"

This could mean either
A) You have a fixation on something up yours.
B) You know nothing about the argument and decide to contribute to character assassination.

Bravo man, Bravo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-KKYfQ8n8Q
 
[quote name='hostyl1']What corruption or corporate influence are you suggesting is being laid upon the NTSB?
[/QUOTE]

There were studies done about the conversation being the main distractor rather than holding the phone, a LONGGGGGGG time ago. Instead of doing what they knew they should if they believed what they believe, they told everyone to go pay the phone companies for headsets.

Fast forward 10ish years and "Oh now you probably shouldn't use the phone at all" BS.

Not that I think there should be a cell phone ban at all anyway. The idiots that think they can drive with it will most likely talk on it anyway. Arrogance reigns supreme in an arrogant mind.
 
[quote name='Knoell']The idiots that think they can drive with it will most likely talk on it anyway. Arrogance reigns supreme in an arrogant mind.[/QUOTE]

Yep.

"I'm fine, I only had two beers."
 
[quote name='Knoell']Or I could have just been saying "Uppppppp Yourrrrrrrrs"

However let's apply your logic to your response. Out of a response to someone posting a survey as their point, you focus in on the end of it in which someone says "Upppppp Yourrrrrs"

This could mean either
A) You have a fixation on something up yours.
B) You know nothing about the argument and decide to contribute to character assassination.

Bravo man, Bravo.[/QUOTE]

lol you're really going to over-analyze a dumb joke I made? Guess I hit you a little too close to the mark :D
 
[quote name='camoor']lol you're really going to over-analyze a dumb joke I made? Guess I hit you a little too close to the mark :D[/QUOTE]

Nope, not even close to a rural area. New York actually, and I work at a bank....alcohalic? depends on your definition...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Yep.

"I'm fine, I only had two beers."[/QUOTE]

"I'm soooo sorry the baby was crying in the backseat...."

"I'm soooo sorry, I looked down for a second to grab my fries...."

"I'm soooo sorry, I spilled my coffee on myself...."

"I'm soooo sorry, the GPS was not working right....."

"I'm soooo sorry, my girlfriend was giving me head....."

"I'm soooo sorry, I was putting my makeup on....."

"I'm soooo sorry, I was just reading this article....."

"I'm soooo sorry, I was running late for work....."

So should we ban passengers, eating, drinking, electronics, makeup, reading, and being late as well?

There is a place for a ban on drinking and driving, because there has been solid research done that drinking reduces most peoples ability to drive consistantly and dramatically.

Similiar studies have been done to prove texting is similiar to driving drunk.

However simply talking on cell phones do not distract you more consistantly and dramatically than doing any of those other things besides drinking and texting.

Until now notice how cell phone laws have faded in the past years? And how texting while driving has become the newest ill of society? and if we only ban this one more thing, everything will be right in the world? Because if only we banned that earlier, that 16 year old girl who respects the law and would have said "NO! to talking and driving" would still be alive!

Yeah I did too, keep subscribing to that BS way of thinking though, it suits you.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Until now notice how cell phone laws have faded in the past years?[/QUOTE]

Nope, can't say I have. Got any verifiable sources?
 
Is there a difference between alcohol impairing your driving ability and baby/fries/girlfriend/makeup/gps/coffee distracting you?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Similiar studies have been done to prove texting is similiar to driving drunk.

However simply talking on cell phones do not distract you more consistantly and dramatically than doing any of those other things besides drinking and texting.[/QUOTE]

Just for shits and grins
http://www.distraction.gov/research/PDF-Files/Comparison-of-CellPhone-Driver-Drunk-Driver.pdf

Cliffnotes: There was no discernible difference between the results for people holding cell phones versus people talking on hands free devices. Also, talking on cell phones delays reaction time and resulted in rear-end collision situations.

Small sample, but holds true to what I've observed in my non-scientific daily life... which is you're a POS if you consider your conversation more important than the safety of those around you.
 
[quote name='QiG']Just for shits and grins
http://www.distraction.gov/research/PDF-Files/Comparison-of-CellPhone-Driver-Drunk-Driver.pdf

Cliffnotes: There was no discernible difference between the results for people holding cell phones versus people talking on hands free devices. Also, talking on cell phones delays reaction time and resulted in rear-end collision situations.

Small sample, but holds true to what I've observed in my non-scientific daily life... which is you're a POS if you consider your conversation more important than the safety of those around you.[/QUOTE]

List of distractions they want to ban include:
- Talking to passengers
- Using a navigation system
- Adjusting a radio

Lahood needs to get a fucking life (so do you)
 
Well Knoell is saying that "I'm fine I only had two beers' is similar to 'damn my kids were distracting me' or 'damn i spilled coffee on myself' as excuses for causing accidents.

But yeah, like you said driving drunk isn't the same thing as driving with kids or while putting on makeup.
 
He's not comparing the two, but simply pointing out that people always try and act more capable than they really are, out of selfishness. The big difference is the obvious deaths involved with drinking and driving. I've yet to see any studies on deaths related to *just* talking on the phone.

Personally, I only use my phone when driving if I'm going on a straight road with no traffic. I also use speakerphone and will put the phone down when taking a turn. I freely admit to texting in traffic though. If my car is moving only a feet every minute, there's no much damage I can do and as long as I look up every few seconds I'm fine.
 
The NTSB is simply pointing at a tree in the forest of a simple truth: there is no such thing as multitasking in "doing two things at once", merely the ability to juggle concentration quickly between the tasks. At times, people simply can't make the juggles quick enough between carrying a conversation, being aware of their surroundings and navigating a car. However, that third activity to fail at could be anything really. Cooking an egg, typing an essay, walking. Seriously, walking; there was that woman walked directly into a goddamn fountain because she couldn't talk on a cell, walk and realize she was walking directly at a fountain and at the same time.

At the end of the day I think the NTSB should not villanize the cell phone as this evil source of destruction and bluntly say, "Our studies find people are fucking stupid. Our recommendation is that they should just fucking drive the car."
 
[quote name='ced']The NTSB is simply pointing at a tree in the forest of a simple truth: there is no such thing as multitasking in "doing two things at once", merely the ability to juggle concentration quickly between the tasks. At times, people simply can't make the juggles quick enough between carrying a conversation, being aware of their surroundings and navigating a car. However, that third activity to fail at could be anything really. Cooking an egg, typing an essay, walking. Seriously, walking; there was that woman walked directly into a goddamn fountain because she couldn't talk on a cell, walk and realize she was walking directly at a fountain and at the same time.

At the end of the day I think the NTSB should not villanize the cell phone as this evil source of destruction and bluntly say, "Our studies find people are fucking stupid. Our recommendation is that they should just fucking drive the car."[/QUOTE]

Singletasking is for pussies.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Well Knoell is saying that "I'm fine I only had two beers' is similar to 'damn my kids were distracting me' or 'damn i spilled coffee on myself' as excuses for causing accidents.

But yeah, like you said driving drunk isn't the same thing as driving with kids or while putting on makeup.[/QUOTE]

Are you f'ing kidding me? that is the EXACT opposite of what I was arguing. I may have even had it in my post. Oh yeah! Right HERE>

[quote name='Knoell']However simply talking on cell phones do not distract you more consistantly and dramatically than doing any of those other things besides drinking and texting.[/QUOTE]

Something you guys do very often is take people out of context. If you look at what my entire point was that mykevermin responded to, you would realize that you are in agreement with me.

Cell phones are not nearly as detrimental to your ability to drive as texting or drinking. Talking on a cell phone is more in league with those other things I listed.

But this is the way with this forum, I shouldn't complain.
 
I'm all for it. People need to stfu and drive. Or if you simply can't STFU, then pull over.

By the way, how exactly do they enforce the no texting law? They observe you texting as you're driving 50 mph? I saw some stupid bitch run 2 red lights and a right turn from the center lane today (Must have been late for being a bitch lessons) and nary a cop in sight.
 
[quote name='confoosious']I'm all for it. People need to stfu and drive. Or if you simply can't STFU, then pull over.

By the way, how exactly do they enforce the no texting law? They observe you texting as you're driving 50 mph? I saw some stupid bitch run 2 red lights and a right turn from the center lane today (Must have been late for being a bitch lessons) and nary a cop in sight.[/QUOTE]

And how exactly do they enforce drunk driving, I have seen someone run 6 red lights in a row one night. Nary a cop in sight. The guy must have been oblivious to the shiny red lights. Does this mean that drunk driving is unenforcable?

It isn't about catching every person that does these things but it is about making the consequences of getting caught unbearable so that you will not do it often.

Speeding is another great example of this.

Merry Christmas to everyone by the way. Time to go to the family's house.
 
Basically, what needs to be done, is to increase the scope of "Driving while impaired" laws. but write them in such a way that they only apply once you've broken some other rule of the road.

For example, putting on makeup while you drive? Who cares.
Putting on makeup while you drive and side-swipe another driver? Double-fine and lose your license for six months. (just made that penalty up on the spot... would need more thought put into it - although I feel anything involving an accident, even non-fatal, the possibility of the suspension of one's license should be in play.).

Replace "makeup" with anything that could reasonably be considered to impair a normal person's driving ability.

This way, if you're awesome enough to drive while talking on the phone, texting, shaving, masturbating, whatever... and not cause issues, you're in the clear. But if you do cause an issue... bam.
 
[quote name='Knoell']And how exactly do they enforce drunk driving, I have seen someone run 6 red lights in a row one night. Nary a cop in sight. The guy must have been oblivious to the shiny red lights. Does this mean that drunk driving is unenforcable?

It isn't about catching every person that does these things but it is about making the consequences of getting caught unbearable so that you will not do it often.

Speeding is another great example of this.

Merry Christmas to everyone by the way. Time to go to the family's house.[/QUOTE]

That's fine except I'm not sure you can sell jail time for texting.

Also, a person who gets stopped for driving erratically can be asked to take a breathalyzer. You can't check someones phone to see if they were texting. Unless someone is going relatively slowly and holding up their phones like a moron, how can a cop say they were texting? "Officer, I was looking at the navigation system app."
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Basically, what needs to be done, is to increase the scope of "Driving while impaired" laws. but write them in such a way that they only apply once you've broken some other rule of the road.

For example, putting on makeup while you drive? Who cares.
Putting on makeup while you drive and side-swipe another driver? Double-fine and lose your license for six months. (just made that penalty up on the spot... would need more thought put into it - although I feel anything involving an accident, even non-fatal, the possibility of the suspension of one's license should be in play.).

Replace "makeup" with anything that could reasonably be considered to impair a normal person's driving ability.

This way, if you're awesome enough to drive while talking on the phone, texting, shaving, masturbating, whatever... and not cause issues, you're in the clear. But if you do cause an issue... bam.[/QUOTE]

Funny, I was just reading a thread in another forum where some guy was defending his decision to drink and drive because "the law says it's okay if I blow under a .08."
 
Do I think someone is an idiot for drinking and driving? Yup.

Do I care if they drink and drive, so long as they don't get into an accident? Not so much.

Someone could have a .04 BAC and be more impaired than someone with a .10 BAC. Unless the law is going to be written such that anything more than 0 is illegal, I really don't feel that Drinking and Driving laws do much except give someone an "okay" to go out, have a beer or two, then drive around, regardless of how impaired they are.

PS: I don't drink. At all. I'm a boring stick-in-the-mud.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Someone could have a .04 BAC and be more impaired than someone with a .10 BAC. Unless the law is going to be written such that anything more than 0 is illegal, I really don't feel that Drinking and Driving laws do much except give someone an "okay" to go out, have a beer or two, then drive around, regardless of how impaired they are.[/QUOTE]

Then why do you want distracted driver laws that would do the same thing? Or am I misunderstanding you?

And in point of fact, many DUI statutes are written that way.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']Then why do you want distracted driver laws that would do the same thing? Or am I misunderstanding you?

And in point of fact, many DUI statutes are written that way.[/QUOTE]

Basically, I'm suggesting something along the lines of "If you're doing something stupid while driving and cause an accident, you get a harsher penalty." (Not necessarily just causing an accident - if you're driving in the wrong lane, or whatnot as well...)
 
[quote name='ced']The NTSB is simply pointing at a tree in the forest of a simple truth: there is no such thing as multitasking in "doing two things at once", merely the ability to juggle concentration quickly between the tasks. At times, people simply can't make the juggles quick enough between carrying a conversation, being aware of their surroundings and navigating a car. However, that third activity to fail at could be anything really. Cooking an egg, typing an essay, walking. Seriously, walking; there was that woman walked directly into a goddamn fountain because she couldn't talk on a cell, walk and realize she was walking directly at a fountain and at the same time.

At the end of the day I think the NTSB should not villanize the cell phone as this evil source of destruction and bluntly say, "Our studies find people are fucking stupid. Our recommendation is that they should just fucking drive the car."[/QUOTE]

Very true... research has shown that our ape brains are not very adept at multitasking in general. John Medina has written an easy to understand book on this topic entitled: Brain Rules.

P.S., anecdotally, I have found myself able to passively listen to audiobooks in a car without issues.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Basically, I'm suggesting something along the lines of "If you're doing something stupid while driving and cause an accident, you get a harsher penalty." (Not necessarily just causing an accident - if you're driving in the wrong lane, or whatnot as well...)[/QUOTE]

I think that something is lost in this line of thinking, and I'm open to discussion on what I am about to say, but isn't the core principal of a law to prevent a certain action or consequence? You're suggesting a punishment after the fact, but the logical point of a punishment isn't to fix what was already wronged (because you simply can't in most cases), but the point of a punishment is to make the person re-consider their actions in the future should a similar scenario arise, i.e. Prevention in the future. There's a reason why jails are called correctional facilities.

What I'm getting at is why wait for something bad to happen to take action? We can argue over the validity of closed and controlled studies (or lack thereof) but I can speak from personal experience from 13+ years of driving that the general population (yes I know that some of you are demigods and should be the exception) struggles with any amount of cell phone use and while there are times where the environment allows more room for error in driving ability (light/no traffic), there are enough incidents where people fail to make that distinction and use bad judgement for the issue as a whole to get the attention it has.
 
[quote name='QiG']I think that something is lost in this line of thinking, and I'm open to discussion on what I am about to say, but isn't the core principal of a law to prevent a certain action or consequence? You're suggesting a punishment after the fact, but the logical point of a punishment isn't to fix what was already wronged (because you simply can't in most cases), but the point of a punishment is to make the person re-consider their actions in the future should a similar scenario arise, i.e. Prevention in the future. There's a reason why jails are called correctional facilities.

What I'm getting at is why wait for something bad to happen to take action? We can argue over the validity of closed and controlled studies (or lack thereof) but I can speak from personal experience from 13+ years of driving that the general population (yes I know that some of you are demigods and should be the exception) struggles with any amount of cell phone use and while there are times where the environment allows more room for error in driving ability (light/no traffic), there are enough incidents where people fail to make that distinction and use bad judgement for the issue as a whole to get the attention it has.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it is kind of like saying you won't be prosecuted for firing guns into buildings randomly until you actually kill somone.
 
[quote name='QiG']I think that something is lost in this line of thinking, and I'm open to discussion on what I am about to say, but isn't the core principal of a law to prevent a certain action or consequence? You're suggesting a punishment after the fact, but the logical point of a punishment isn't to fix what was already wronged (because you simply can't in most cases), but the point of a punishment is to make the person re-consider their actions in the future should a similar scenario arise, i.e. Prevention in the future. There's a reason why jails are called correctional facilities.

What I'm getting at is why wait for something bad to happen to take action? We can argue over the validity of closed and controlled studies (or lack thereof) but I can speak from personal experience from 13+ years of driving that the general population (yes I know that some of you are demigods and should be the exception) struggles with any amount of cell phone use and while there are times where the environment allows more room for error in driving ability (light/no traffic), there are enough incidents where people fail to make that distinction and use bad judgement for the issue as a whole to get the attention it has.[/QUOTE]


Not many people are aware of the consequences of actions until they themselves are punished for it. How many teenagers do you know will not talk on their phone while driving because

1) they know it is against the law

2) they had their licenses suspended, or have had tickets and their parents retribution.

I am going to go with #2 easy.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Not many people are aware of the consequences of actions until they themselves are punished for it. How many teenagers do you know will not talk on their phone while driving because

1) they know it is against the law

2) they had their licenses suspended, or have had tickets and their parents retribution.

I am going to go with #2 easy.[/QUOTE]

Oh come on now, we both know that teenagers aren't the only ones using cell phones in their car. Furthermore, ignorance of the law is not a valid reason to ignore it. The fact that I don't know the exact penalty for murdering people isn't the only thing stopping me from doing so when I'm pissed off ;)
 
[quote name='QiG']I think that something is lost in this line of thinking, and I'm open to discussion on what I am about to say, but isn't the core principal of a law to prevent a certain action or consequence? You're suggesting a punishment after the fact, but the logical point of a punishment isn't to fix what was already wronged (because you simply can't in most cases), but the point of a punishment is to make the person re-consider their actions in the future should a similar scenario arise, i.e. Prevention in the future.[/QUOTE]

It's a fine line... While there are some exceptions, in general, the idea of making laws simply to prevent the possibility of something bad happening isn't something I'm a huge fan of. Now, there are some folks out there that will come up with bull-**** examples - and we could take that in the opposite direction and suggest that the government should make a law restricting all people to their homes (with newly installed padded walls) to prevent all crime and harm to everyone... Ultimately, it's a matter of finding a happy medium...
 
[quote name='QiG']Oh come on now, we both know that teenagers aren't the only ones using cell phones in their car. Furthermore, ignorance of the law is not a valid reason to ignore it. The fact that I don't know the exact penalty for murdering people isn't the only thing stopping me from doing so when I'm pissed off ;)[/QUOTE]

Research shows that is the age group (and early twenties) that most uses the phone while driving.

Murder is a bit excessive, you won't murder someone because several reasons such as morality.

Let's try speeding. EVERYONE does it. I wonder how many people do it LESS after getting a ticket?

So if it is going fairly well that Cops only catch speeders in the act, then why is it not ok to catch people driving recklessly in the act? This way you can ticket for anything ranging from a baby screaming in the backseat making you step on the gas, or reprogramming your GPS makes you swerve into oncoming traffic. Banning cell phones is only serving to demonize one distraction because it is the hot topic of the decade. Well that and to fatten the governments wallet.
 
[quote name='Knoell']So if it is going fairly well that Cops only catch speeders in the act, then why is it not ok to catch people driving recklessly in the act? This way you can ticket for anything ranging from a baby screaming in the backseat making you step on the gas, or reprogramming your GPS makes you swerve into oncoming traffic. Banning cell phones is only serving to demonize one distraction because it is the hot topic of the decade. Well that and to fatten the governments wallet.[/QUOTE]

Godammit - even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in a while!
 
Just enforce the reckless driving laws so we can account for all forms of distracted driving including driving under the influence, cell phones, putting on makeup and yelling at your stupid kids.

Distracted driving is reckless driving. I would say police are already authorized to go after all of these things.
 
Yeah, better enforcement of reckless driving across the board is the way to go.

If someone is driving too fast, swerving, not looking at the road when moving etc., pull them over and cite them. No need for laws specific to using phones etc.
 
[quote name='spokker']just enforce the reckless driving laws so we can account for all forms of distracted driving including driving under the influence, cell phones, putting on makeup and yelling at your stupid kids.

Distracted driving is reckless driving. I would say police are already authorized to go after all of these things.[/quote]

[quote name='dmaul1114']yeah, better enforcement of reckless driving across the board is the way to go.

If someone is driving too fast, swerving, not looking at the road when moving etc., pull them over and cite them. No need for laws specific to using phones etc.[/quote]

iawtc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top