Total Cell Phone Ban While Driving?

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Does anyone think this ban will actually work? When we lived in Washington State, there was a law against driving and texting/holding your phone and talking on it. From my observations as I drove around town, many people continued to do those things. I don't know how many people it stopped, but I sure saw plenty of people still doing it.

-Mike

Making the practice illegal is the first step to raising awareness and making it punishable. Laws don't stop crime, but they make it a bigger risk. In this case, I think the desired outcome of safer roads is worth it. Not sure about the hands free part, but in general, I'm all for it.

 

[Turock]

Augusta Chronicle news today:

Car pileup stalls I-20 traffic in Columbia County

A four-vehicle pileup on westbound Interstate 20 near the Belair Road exit stalled traffic for about an hour Thursday evening. Three people were taken to area hospitals with injuries, said Cpl. Christopher Wright of the Georgia State Patrol.

The accident occurred about 5:44 p.m. when the driver of a Chevrolet Silverado, Adam Morris, reportedly reached for his cellphone, Wright said.
...............................................

Form reading some posts here, I'm guessing that accident would have happened anyway because he would have still been distracted by his CD player.

 

[MJ5150]

Making the practice illegal is the first step to raising awareness and making it punishable. Laws don't stop crime, but they make it a bigger risk. In this case, I think the desired outcome of safer roads is worth it. Not sure about the hands free part, but in general, I'm all for it.

Good points.

Let me ask this...how many of us have been hit, or nearly hit, by someone distracted with a mobile device? I have nearly been hit a couple times by texters.

-Mike

 

[BurningSkies]

Good points.

Let me ask this...how many of us have been hit, or nearly hit, by someone distracted with a mobile device? I have nearly been hit a couple times by texters.

-Mike

It only happened once to me this morning on the way to work. Luckily, I saw him before he saw me, so I was expecting erratic behavior when it happened.

 

[Skitch it!]

Watching someone try to take a 90 degree turn with one hand on the wheel whilst probably discussing last nights episode of Eastenders or something equally as important, I see that pretty much everyday.

The reason most hand held users don't end up in a situation, is because of the attentiveness of other drivers recognizing that behavior as a liability ime.

 

[GregC]

So if it's been long enough for studies to compile enough data to determine that usage has gone down, how has it not been long enough to determine that traffic incidents have not gone down? If the ban worked, and cell-phone use while driving has indeed measurably gone down, traffic accidents should have gone down as well. But the data does not show that to be the case.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that talking or testing on a phone while driving is perfectly safe. I think people are saying that cell-phones in this case are simply acting as just another distraction from driving, and in the absence of a phone, people are still distracted by other things (talking with passengers, music, changing radio stations, etc.).

It's a fair question. But determining usage rates is presumably a lot easier than determining the causes of accidents, and there are a lot more observations of the former to look at.

The other distractions keep being brought up throughout this thread as being equivalent. But I haven't seen one shred of data to support these claims--even though people have been listening to music in cars for more than 50 years, and talking to passengers since, well, forever.

 

[aborgman]

Good points.

Let me ask this...how many of us have been hit, or nearly hit, by someone distracted with a mobile device? I have nearly been hit a couple times by texters.

I've been rear ended by folks talking on the phone, folks eating fast food, folks picking stuff up off the floor, and an old man who pulled out of a parking lot and accelerated directly into the back of my stopped car never even touching his breaks in the process...

 

[aborgman]

The other distractions keep being brought up throughout this thread as being equivalent. But I haven't seen one shred of data to support these claims--even though people have been listening to music in cars for more than 50 years, and talking to passengers since, well, forever.

Invalid Link Removed

To study the role of in-vehicle sources in distracted driving, 14 elements listed in Table 1 were considered. Figure 1 presents the weighted percentages of crashes with these elements among theestimated 2,188,970 crashes. The most frequently recorded factor was “conversing with a passenger” (about 16%), while none of the other factors was assessed as present in more than 4 percent of the crashes.

The phone use (conversing on phone, dialing or hanging up phone, and text messaging) is the second most recorded associated factor accounting for about 3.4 percent of the crashes. The statistics for other elements demonstrate some subtle differences between almost similarly performed activities. For example, retrieving objects from floor or seat (2%) was a more frequently recorded factor as compared to retrieving objects from other locations that accounted for a mere 0.7 percent. In addition, eating and drinking was more frequent (1.7%) than smoking (0.5%); and in more crashes (1.2%), adjusting the radio or CD was assessed as an associated factor as compared to adjusting other vehicle controls (0.3%.)

 

[Joe Louvar]

I'm for banning texting and emailing while driving - but not a total communication ban - NO WAY!!! If lawmakers get away with this baloney - next there will be no more music allowed in vehicles while driving because it’s a distraction or no talking, no children, no picking your nose and etc!!! Lets be honest, this suggested law isn’t as much about safety as it is about making more MONEY in citations.

 

[Febs]

Lets be honest, this suggested law isn’t as much about safety as it is about making more MONEY in citations.

This is really an absurd statement. This isn't an example of a municipality setting an unreasonably low speed limit to line its coffers with the proceeds of tickets from unwary drivers. It's a recommendation from the NTSB, which is an agency that is set up to be indepedent of any other government agency specifically so that it can make objective recommendations regarding transportation safety. Moreover, this recommendation is one that is undoubtedly going to be wildly unpopular. What pecuniary motive does the NTSB have for making this recommendation?

 

[Joe Louvar]

I disagree. Have a good day.

 

[jady]

Lets assume this ban passes, lets also assume that the studies i have linked are correct and there will be no reduction in accidents. Then what?

What will we ban next?

We have a tendency to blame the focus of the action rather than the person responsible. It can't be because these people are prone to be distracted, or unobservant in general, or just bad drivers, it must be because of an easily ban-able "thing". Just like parents are not to blame for obese children, it must be McDonalds so lets regulate them more.

Why don't more people take accountability for their actions as opposed to blaming it on something outside of themselves?

It is not this particular subject I am so concerned about, I am concerned about the general mentality of having the government be responsible for our own decision making. This IMHO is the reason kids are more screwed up nowadays, they are not being held responsible for their actions any longer.

 

[kserg]

Why don't more people take accountability for their actions as opposed to blaming it on something outside of themselves?

People are sheep... If it was in fashion to take accountability for your own action, everyone would be doing it. It is not, there for we need laws to guide the sheep.

 

[Selta]

Lets assume this ban passes, lets also assume that the studies i have linked are correct and there will be no reduction in accidents. Then what?

What will we ban next?

We have a tendency to blame the focus of the action rather than the person responsible. It can't be because these people are prone to be distracted, or unobservant in general, or just bad drivers, it must be because of an easily ban-able "thing". Just like parents are not to blame for obese children, it must be McDonalds so lets regulate them more.

Why don't more people take accountability for their actions as opposed to blaming it on something outside of themselves?

It is not this particular subject I am so concerned about, I am concerned about the general mentality of having the government be responsible for our own decision making. This IMHO is the reason kids are more screwed up nowadays, they are not being held responsible for their actions any longer.

IMO, banning non-hands-free cell use while driving actually does enforce accountability and responsibility. Instead of being able to say "we didn't know, so-and-so was just on their phone and crashed", they'd now be able to be held accountable and responsible for their wrong action under law. A good thing, IMO.
Sure, it can be viewed as the government "taking away people's decisions", but when the general populace proves they can't make decisions, well, can ya really blame them for trying?
For what it's worth, I don't like the government making my decisions for me any more than the next person. I, like you, take a displeasure when I hear about something being banned, regulated, controlled or whatever by the government.

 

[Febs]

Lets assume this ban passes, lets also assume that the studies i have linked are correct and there will be no reduction in accidents.

Do you have a link to the actual study that you're referring to? Your initial post linked only to a Fox News article discussing the study, rather than the study itself. (My apologies if you've posted it the link elsewhere in the thread and I missed it.)

Also, the NTSB recommendation calls for the states to "use the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration model of high visibility enforcement to support these bans." Have any of the states whose bans were the subject of the studies you refer to implemented the NHTSA model of high visibility enforcement or anything similar?

 

[MatticusMania]

the NTSB, which is an agency that is set up to be indepedent of any other government agency specifically so that it can make objective recommendations

HA! The reality is that our government agencies are never independent from other government agencies.

We have a tendency to blame the focus of the action rather than the person responsible.

Why don't more people take accountability for their actions as opposed to blaming it on something outside of themselves?

It is not this particular subject I am so concerned about, I am concerned about the general mentality of having the government be responsible for our own decision making.

Right. Ive not been in an accident while using my phone because I wont do so in a situation I find unsafe. I hardly talk on the phone while driving, but if the need arises I will do so, regardless of the ban.

IMO, banning non-hands-free cell use while driving actually does enforce accountability and responsibility. Instead of being able to say "we didn't know, so-and-so was just on their phone and crashed", they'd now be able to be held accountable and responsible for their wrong action under law.

I dont think thats likely to happen unless every accident is investigated by an officer, which they are not.

 

[jady]

People are sheep... If it was in fashion to take accountability for your own action, everyone would be doing it. It is not, there for we need laws to guide the sheep.

See, I believe that people are sheep because of bans like this.............

 

[Selta]

I dont think thats likely to happen unless every accident is investigated by an officer, which they are not.

I'm pretty much just playing devil's advocate here... trying to put myself in both side's shows, so to speak. I keep flip flopping on how I feel about this ban. Lots of good points brought up in this thread too.

 

[Febs]

HA! The reality is that our government agencies are never independent from other government agencies.

Even if we assume for the sake of discussion that NTSB is not completely independent of other agencies, what exactly is the logic behind the theory that the NTSB's recommendation is just a way to make money? What benefit is there to the NTSB in making this particular proposal? After all, it's not the federal government that would be enacting these proposed bans; the proposal is expressly directed to the individual states and the District of Columbia. Are we to assume that the various states looked at the various ways that they could generate additional revenue including, for example, increasing enforcement of existing traffic laws, and decided instead that a difficult-to-enforce ban would be a good revenue generator? Are we then further to assume that rather than simply enacting such a ban under their own authority, the states showhow surreptitiously prevailed upon the NTSB to make a proposal (a proposal that, mind you, would only be effective if the states then choose to act on it). This just doesn't make sense.

Moreover, if you read the actual NTSB recommendation, it calls not only for a ban on the use of portable electronic devices, but also for the implementation of "targeted communication campaigns to inform motorists of the new law and enforcement, and to warn them of the dangers associated with the nonemergency use of portable electronic devices while driving." Those types of communication campaigns do not generate reveneue. To the contrary, they cost a significant amount of money. How exactly does this part of the proposal stand to make money for the NTSB, or anyone else for that matter?

 

[MatticusMania]

Even if we assume for the sake of discussion that NTSB is not completely independent of other agencies, what exactly is the logic behind the theory that the NTSB's recommendation is just a way to make money?

I wouldnt know, as I stated no such thing. I was only pointing out the error in stating that the NTSB is independent from any other .gov agency.
In fact, in a previous post I directly refuted that the ban was a means of generating revenue.