NTSB Recommends Banning Cell Phone Usage In Cars

Trancendental

Trancendental

CAGiversary!
Feedback
4 (100%)
An investigation into the crash led the National Transportation Safety Board this week to issue a call for all states to ban all cell phone use by drivers, except in emergencies. Currently, 35 states and the District of Columbia ban texting while driving, and 30 states ban all cell phone use for new drivers. Only nine states and DC have overall bans on hand-held cell phone use.
Click to expand...

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/12/15/ntsb-states-should-ban-hands-free-calls-while-driving/

Why don't they focus more on making intersections safer, commutes shorter and bridges sturdier?

Oh right - that would require real work. What a useless bunch of tools.
 
Yeah, just a total waste of time as it's so hard to enforce this law that I can't see it having any real deterrent impact anyway.

I don't see the big deal in general, beyond the clearly stupid stuff like texting or dialing while in motion etc. Otherwise I don't see talking on a cell phone as any more distracting than talking to a passenger in the car with you. Especially if using a headset.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, just a total waste of time as it's so hard to enforce this law that I can't see it having any real deterrent impact anyway.

I don't see the big deal in general, beyond the clearly stupid stuff like texting or dialing while in motion etc. Otherwise I don't see talking on a cell phone as any more distracting than talking to a passenger in the car with you. Especially if using a headset.[/QUOTE]
I was listening to a show on NPR that addressed the idea of talking on the phone being no different than talking to someone in the car with you. they said, and I think it makes sense, that the other person in the car with you is another set of eyes. If you're distracted talking to them, they might be watching the road. On a phone in a car by yourself you don't have that, it's totally up to you to be watching the road.
 
[quote name='Clak']I was listening to a show on NPR that addressed the idea of talking on the phone being no different than talking to someone in the car with you. they said, and I think it makes sense, that the other person in the car with you is another set of eyes. If you're distracted talking to them, they might be watching the road. On a phone in a car by yourself you don't have that, it's totally up to you to be watching the road.[/QUOTE]

That's a reasonable point.

I think it's all just common sense. I'll answer my phone if I'm driving and not in heavy traffic or going high speed (rare since I'm seldom on the inner state since I live and work in a city) in good weather etc.

If I'm in heavy traffic or other hectic driving situations, I don't answer.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Otherwise I don't see talking on a cell phone as any more distracting than talking to a passenger in the car with you. Especially if using a headset.[/QUOTE]

Don't tell the NTSB - next they'll want a device that causes your vocal cords to malfunction in a car.

Come to think of it - I want that for the next time I got to the movies. :D
 
I support this. Life before being able to drive while distracting yourself with your phone thereby potentially endangering everyone else around you(i.e. the 90s) wasn't all that terrible IIRC.
 
actually, highway deaths are at the lowest in actual #'s since 1950 and as a % of the driving population are nearly that of the early 20's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

Accidents are relatively stable in number (between 10 and 11 million per year) since 2004 (and have decreased overall) which means that they are down considerably based on % of drivers.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/sta...n/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html

So essentially, this is pissing and moaning over a non-issue. Solutions looking for a problem.
 
[quote name='nasum']actually, highway deaths are at the lowest in actual #'s since 1950 and as a % of the driving population are nearly that of the early 20's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

Accidents are relatively stable in number (between 10 and 11 million per year) since 2004 (and have decreased overall) which means that they are down considerably based on % of drivers.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/sta...n/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html

So essentially, this is pissing and moaning over a non-issue. Solutions looking for a problem.[/QUOTE]

To further that, NTSB is part of a beaucracy that has failed America, the roads are a shambles, the bridges are in terrible shape, there have been way too many car recalls recently.

I can't help but beleive that this is at least in part meant to distract us from that fact.
 
nah. It's the same as DUI laws. The driver is impaired.

1.) YOU might be the one person to NEVER answers the phone in the car but we don't base our laws on one person.

2.) Accident fatalities are lower because cars are safer.
 
[quote name='usickenme']2.) Accident fatalities are lower because cars are safer.[/QUOTE]

2a.) Accidents are fewer in number because cars aren't hitting each other quite as often.

[quote name='camoor']To further that, NTSB is part of a beaucracy that has failed America, the roads are a shambles, the bridges are in terrible shape, there have been way too many car recalls recently.[/quote]

Not really. Unless you're suggesting that they're part of the behemoth bureaucracy government thingy. Roads themselves would be more the Department of Transportation.
 
I dunno, I have a hard time hating on this agency because they're the ones that make sure our cars don't kill us if we hit a sidewalk at 5 mph or completely poison the air with shitty CAFE standards.

There's only so much you can do about making cars safe to be on the roads and the amount of damage it would do to a person when struck. I guess that's why they focus on driver education instead.

That said,texting and driving don't mix that well. The same could be said about other distractions in general like music, talking on phone, talking to a passenger, following the gps, etc, but it's pretty tough to text on a touchscreen without looking.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I don't think anyone disputes that. But the new push is to ban all cell phone use while driving, not just texting.[/QUOTE]
I never said anyone was. Just adding some redundant 2 cents. :lol:
 
Not that I agree with the cell phone law, but if they were going to make a law against cell phones, it should have been this way from the start. Instead they knelt to phone lobbyists who cashed in on the millions upon millions of hands free headsets they sold. It was already known a looooooong time ago that talking was the distractor not holding the phone.

Here's an idea, when a cop sees you driving recklessly pull them over. We all know there are enough of them. Noone listens to the cell phone law as it is now, and absolutely noone will listen to a hands free set ban after everyone told them it was safer.

Laws like this are pointless besides the revenue the state will gain from ticketing them. Hint: This is why they exist.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Not that I agree with the cell phone law, but if they were going to make a law against cell phones, it should have been this way from the start. Instead they knelt to phone lobbyists who cashed in on the millions upon millions of hands free headsets they sold. It was already known a looooooong time ago that talking was the distractor not holding the phone.

Here's an idea, when a cop sees you driving recklessly pull them over. We all know there are enough of them. Noone listens to the cell phone law as it is now, and absolutely noone will listen to a hands free set ban after everyone told them it was safer.

Laws like this are pointless besides the revenue the state will gain from ticketing them. Hint: This is why they exist.[/QUOTE]

Take this approach to foreign policy and national defense in general and you will be my new best friend.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's a reasonable point.

I think it's all just common sense. I'll answer my phone if I'm driving and not in heavy traffic or going high speed (rare since I'm seldom on the inner state since I live and work in a city) in good weather etc.

If I'm in heavy traffic or other hectic driving situations, I don't answer.[/QUOTE]

I seem to recall reading/hearing about a study that one done at one point that looked into how one's brain worked/processed a conversation on the phone vs. in person.

In person, you can see facial expressions, body language, eye movement, etc. You even get a better sense of the tone of voice, etc.

You, of course, miss out on this kind of stuff on the phone.

According to this study, your brain works harder at focusing on the phone conversation than anything else going on around you simply because you just *have* to focus on the voice.

I could be remembering this completely wrong - it's been several years since I remember hearing about this...
 
If they do somehow manage to get this passed nationwide, then they had better also crack down on people reading the paper, chicks putting on makeup, people eating food and any other distracting actions while driving.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Note that there is no actual "cell phone law". Its a recommendation for the states to pass one. Odds are none of them are going to.[/QUOTE]

Wouldn't be difficult for Congress to force them if the issue builds up even a little political traction.
 
[quote name='IRHari']It probably won't given the opposition to 'nanny state' regulations in this political climate.[/QUOTE]

It might. I work in a state where they were going to outlaw children's bike trailers for being unsafe. (The enclosed, with seat belts, jogging stroller type that kids ride in behind their parents bike for those who dont know)

Unfortunately, there is just no way that texting while driving is safe. (Hands free talking, sure.) Most people do not seem to have the common sense to realize this though.

Look around you the next time you're stuck in rush-hour traffic. You'll see someone texting.
 
[quote name='Clak']Nobody should have to tell you what that can probably be contributed to. Hint: Cars are a lot safer than they were 60 years ago.[/QUOTE]

Note that his second link pointed to a study that found the overall number of accidents is down as well.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Note that his second link pointed to a study that found the overall number of accidents is down as well.[/QUOTE]
But even if accidents hadn't decreased, deaths probably would have.
 
[quote name='nasum']Not really. Unless you're suggesting that they're part of the behemoth bureaucracy government thingy. Roads themselves would be more the Department of Transportation.[/QUOTE]

I know that. But when a bridge collapses NTSB are the folks who can make the sweeping recommendations, they have the political fulcrum (and the duty) to make things happen.

I don't want the government getting in my business and wasting my time. Focus on the good fight (like safe infrastructure, well-maintained mass transit vehicles, drug-free truck drivers). Leave the driving to me. It's hard enough commuting to work and doing business without having some incompetent bureaucrat schmo trying to make my job and life more difficult.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Note that there is no actual "cell phone law". Its a recommendation for the states to pass one. Odds are none of them are going to.[/QUOTE]

Actually a few already have including DC. fucking DC.
 
[quote name='Clak']But even if accidents hadn't decreased, deaths probably would have.[/QUOTE]

Come one man, you lost. Admit it and move on, don't act like UB.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']It might. I work in a state where they were going to outlaw children's bike trailers for being unsafe. (The enclosed, with seat belts, jogging stroller type that kids ride in behind their parents bike for those who dont know)

Unfortunately, there is just no way that texting while driving is safe. (Hands free talking, sure.) Most people do not seem to have the common sense to realize this though.

Look around you the next time you're stuck in rush-hour traffic. You'll see someone texting.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this - texting while driving is insane. Even in bumper-to-bumper traffic it is a bad fucking idea. However is this still legal anywhere?

And getting directions is still way too much of a pain in the ass. The devices really need to come into the 21st century proper - we need affordable, fully hands-free direction advice that doesnt drive you off a cliff - unfortunately that's a rarity in this day and age.

I also agree that it might come to pass. I've found that a group of "will some people think of the children" mothers with the right level amount of commitment can get almost any safety measure approved.
 
[quote name='camoor']
I can't help but beleive that this is at least in part meant to distract us from that fact.[/QUOTE]There isn't a day that goes by that I don't hear about the nation's crumbling infrastructure. NTSB conspiracy to hide that? I think it's a conspiracy to keep people's eyes on the road.
 
[quote name='Spokker']There isn't a day that goes by that I don't hear about the nation's crumbling infrastructure. NTSB conspiracy to hide that? I think it's a conspiracy to keep people's eyes on the road.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say conspiracy.

A conspiracy would require work which is something that these particular bureaucrats abhor. They'll throw the golden apple out and let pundits argue about it, rather then focus on the real issues of the day.

This suggestion was in reaction to a case where a 15 year old driver was texting.

If they want to say 15 year olds should be supervised, fine.
If they want to say texting while driving should be outlawed, fine.
If they want to jump to wild, unscientific, knee-jerk reactions then fuck them and fuck anyone too stupid to see what they are doing.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Take this approach to foreign policy and national defense in general and you will be my new best friend.[/QUOTE]

I will if you will take it to every other domestic policy in which the government attempts to "save" us from ourselves.
 
I support this 110%. EVERY time I have a close call with how another car is driving, when I look over to glare at the other driver they are using their cell phone. People forget that driving is a privilege and a huge responsibility and it is hard enough to stay alert to what is happening all 360 degrees around your car as it is.

Your fucking conversation about how your day went can wait til you get home. It is NOT more important than my safety. If there is an emergency situation you can pull the fuck over and figure it out. There is no NEED for anyone to use their phone while driving. Ever. Period. And I know you think you are the exception that can handle that type of multi-tasking but you are not.

The numbers are down because cars are safer and people are minimizing how much they drive due to gas prices, don't be naive and think you can justify reckless behavior from a vague statistic.
 
I got a citation a year or so ago for using my cell phone while driving.

I think there is some merit to cell phones' danger - fatalities aren't the only things that stem from risky behavior in autos. Do we have data on accident rates? Have they increased or decreased?

Anyway, I'll go into it more later, but the combination of strong opinions and uncuriousness here is quite fascinating. The extent to which most of are both very certain that cell phone usage is safe and fine, and you have no interest in information potentially to the contrary, is a bit disturbing. That is the same as the anti-science attitude of people that we see in those who don't believe in global warming. No amount of science will change their mind. Are we the same as they are?

I, for one, am very curious what led the NTSB to make these recommendations. I would like to read the studies they (presumably) performed before making a conclusion.
 
To the first, nasum posted a link to a study showing that accidents were down, as well as fatalities.

In terms of studies, from what I read it doesn't sound like the NTSB had any scientific data on this and it was more a knee jerk reaction.

I'd be interested in the data if someone did a quality study and compared people talking on a phone in their hand, talking on a hands free headset and talking to a passenger in the car with them and seeing if there are any differences in attention span, reaction time etc.

That's the key question to me. There's no doubt there's some level of distraction in all those activities, but it would be hard to justify banning talking on a cell phone (at least with a headset) if studies show it's no more distracting than talking to a passenger. But that's an empirical question and the little time I spent searching didn't turn up any studies that looked at that.

I could see a passenger potentially being more distracting as you have the temptation to look over at the person you're talking too, thus taking your eyes of the road--something you don't have to do with a handsfree headset since you don't need to look at your phone.
 
My time is valuable. I get stuck in traffic. It's just the facts. Sometimes I need to make a call on my hands-free to rearrange my life.

It's just fucked up that I need to give that up because some punk 15 year-old was texting (fucking texting) and of course got in an accident. I see idiots all the time - I saw some lady texting while driving down a busy street on a steep hill at night with her lights off - those are the idiots that cops should protect society from, not a responsible citizen calling his family on a hands-free device to tell them he is stuck in a traffic jam that is not moving an inch.

The fact that people can't see the grey areas is the really dissappointing thing for me. Only a few people seem to understand the terms phone calls, texting, hands-free, and instead just lump it all together. That's just wrong.

Cars are dangerous. Life is dangerous. We can take reasonable steps to minimize the danger but we can't just wrap everyone in bubblepaper and never leave the house.
 
There is one school - Virginia Tech somethig or other (trucking studies? it truly is something like that. EDIT: VT Transportation Institute) has done some research on cell phones as distractions. The one study of theirs I recall reading (another one that people responded to with strong opinions and no interest in the details) found that texting while driving leads to worse delayed response times as driving at .10 BAC.

I think holding a cell phone while driving is dangerous as well. Think about the arc you make with your arm, and how that serves as a blinder for your ability to see on that side of you for the duration of the call. Additionally, think about how it inhibits your ability to maneuver at your neck (to see your blind spots, or simply see left/right).

I agree that a unilateral ban is unrefined, only because it fails to distinguish variance in distraction based on *how* we use our cell phones. But I think that we're going to be headed to a point where certain types of driver-cell-phone activity will be banned. And all this uproar will go away, and this will be just like speeding: a law virtually nobody follows, a law only the significant outliers are pulled over for, and something we'll pay for in fines.

Probably only end up being applied as a secondary offense as well.

Heck, this could the the NTSB looking to get what it wants by asking for far more than it wants (i.e., making its actual stance seem moderate).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']There is one school - Virginia Tech somethig or other (trucking studies? it truly is something like that. EDIT: VT Transportation Institute) has done some research on cell phones as distractions. The one study of theirs I recall reading (another one that people responded to with strong opinions and no interest in the details) found that texting while driving leads to worse delayed response times as driving at .10 BAC.

I think holding a cell phone while driving is dangerous as well. Think about the arc you make with your arm, and how that serves as a blinder for your ability to see on that side of you for the duration of the call. Additionally, think about how it inhibits your ability to maneuver at your neck (to see your blind spots, or simply see left/right).

I agree that a unilateral ban is unrefined, only because it fails to distinguish variance in distraction based on *how* we use our cell phones. But I think that we're going to be headed to a point where certain types of driver-cell-phone activity will be banned. And all this uproar will go away, and this will be just like speeding: a law virtually nobody follows, a law only the significant outliers are pulled over for, and something we'll pay for in fines.

Probably only end up being applied as a secondary offense as well.

Heck, this could the the NTSB looking to get what it wants by asking for far more than it wants (i.e., making its actual stance seem moderate).[/QUOTE]

All excellent points.

Though I'd say that judging from the reaction they overreached.
 
More rigorous driving education would solve all these problems. I turned left at a light, pulled in and out of a driveway, parked back at the DMV, and was handed a license.
 
[quote name='camoor']My time is valuable. I get stuck in traffic. It's just the facts. Sometimes I need to make a call on my hands-free to rearrange my life.

It's just fucked up that I need to give that up because some punk 15 year-old was texting (fucking texting) and of course got in an accident. I see idiots all the time - I saw some lady texting while driving down a busy street on a steep hill at night with her lights off - those are the idiots that cops should protect society from, not a responsible citizen calling his family on a hands-free device to tell them he is stuck in a traffic jam that is not moving an inch.

The fact that people can't see the grey areas is the really dissappointing thing for me. Only a few people seem to understand the terms phone calls, texting, hands-free, and instead just lump it all together. That's just wrong.

Cars are dangerous. Life is dangerous. We can take reasonable steps to minimize the danger but we can't just wrap everyone in bubblepaper and never leave the house.[/QUOTE]

There's a little Libertarian in all of us. :D :D :D
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I got a citation a year or so ago for using my cell phone while driving.

I think there is some merit to cell phones' danger - fatalities aren't the only things that stem from risky behavior in autos. Do we have data on accident rates? Have they increased or decreased?

Anyway, I'll go into it more later, but the combination of strong opinions and uncuriousness here is quite fascinating. The extent to which most of are both very certain that cell phone usage is safe and fine, and you have no interest in information potentially to the contrary, is a bit disturbing. That is the same as the anti-science attitude of people that we see in those who don't believe in global warming. No amount of science will change their mind. Are we the same as they are?

I, for one, am very curious what led the NTSB to make these recommendations. I would like to read the studies they (presumably) performed before making a conclusion.[/QUOTE]

Ugh, you misintepret peoples opinions on cell phones while driving the same way you misinterpret the people bashing global warming.

I am not sure anyone is saying talking on a phone is not a distraction, all they are saying is that it is one of many distractions. Simliar to the fact that most people DO believe the climate is changing however their argument is with the cause of it.

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html and Cell phone laws by state for everyones enjoyment.

I would be curious to see the data on accidents by state to see if these laws actually accomplish anything.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.people-press.org/2010/10/27/little-change-in-opinions-about-global-warming/

From 2006-2010, the % of survey respondents who said there is "no solid evidence the earth is warming" nearly doubled from 17% to 32%. The % who said "yes" declined from 79% to 59%. In that subgroup, the % who say it's not manmade, but due to "natural patterns" declined from 23% to 18%.

[/QUOTE]

And twice as many of the people who didn't know 5 years ago, somehow don't know today. Amnesia? What an intriguing SURVEY.

Even more intriguing is that while only 59% believe it exists, the second question down has 79% of people believing it is somewhat of a problem. I guess 20% of the people in the survey must believe that although there isn't conclusive scientific evidence, they still believe it could be a problem, and vice versa.

Huh, I wonder how many other twists and variables of peoples opinions we can find in that survey.

I won't even mention the part in which global warming is a minor event in global climate change, and is scientifically not as important as other aspects of climate changes which may play a part in the opinions of the participants of this survey.

In short:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-KKYfQ8n8Q
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top