Ban on Cell Phones While Driving
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-12-15/ban-cell-phones-while-driving
The National Transportation Safety Board has recommended that texting, talking or emailing on a cellphone should be banned by all states, except in emergencies. The recommendation includes hands-free devices as well. The only exception is G.P.S. navigation systems. The board made the recommendation after an investigation into a deadly road accident in Missouri involving a 19-year old driver who sent and received 11 text messages in 11 minutes just before the fatal crash. Join us to discuss the implications of this latest effort to curb dangerous driving.
Guests
Russ Rader
vice president of communications, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
David Teater
senior director, Transportation Initiatives, the National Safety Council.
Deborah Hersman
chairman, National Transport Safety Board.
Steven Yantis
chair of psychological and brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University
Horace Cooper
adjunct fellow for the National Center for Public Policy Research
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I can understand banning texting and other activities thar cause a person to take their eyes off the road. However, I find no merit in the idea of preventing conversation by cellphone. Millions of people have been using CB radios while driving, why has there never been an attempt to ban CB radios?
This is a no-brainer and your guest's argument using people with visual disabilities as an excuse for cell phone use while driving is outrageous.
I used to walk home from work and had to cross an employee parking garage exit. Car after car was exiting at this hour. No driver paid the slightest attention to pedestrians. The majority were on the phone. It seemed as if an addictive behavior bottled up all day at the workplace was eventually uncorked.
Here we are informed that accident statistics and behavioral research unequivocally tell us that cell-phone use is distracting our attention from driving in life-threatening fashion, while this proponent of cell phone use wants to make us believe that it constitutes acceptable risk.
So much for facts and science.
The experts are making the comparison of talking on cell phones to drunk driving. However, law enforcement would be immune to all of these laws. They are essentially saying that it is acceptable for law enforcement to drive while drunk. This argument is ridiculous! I have a sheriff friend, and he said that they absolutely did not receive special training in order to operate their dash laptops & cell phone use while driving. This entire conversation is infuriating!
Responsible people and drivers get off the cell phone or stop being being interrupted when a situation or the driving environment dictates.
Arlington, Texas, recently banned cell phone use in the city and have now statistically avoided 1-2% of the total number of accidents that occur each year (about 2-3 per year). Banning cell phone use in school zones, a previous enacted law, has reduced mishaps by around 35%, a much better law.
NTSB should explain the statistics behind the proposed ban on cell phones while driving. Most examples of texting and accidents that I've heard and also quoted at the beginning of today's show involve young drivers. When it comes to texting, most young people text, and young people / drivers are known to have generally have more accidents than older, more experienced drivers. The insurance industry has know this fact for years and increase the insurance rates accordingly. Perhaps the heavy texting/accident group should not have driver's licenses. Why punish everyone?
I second what those say about other distracted driving. I do not own a cell phone, but I make it a point not to eat while driving, which is also distracted driving.
I am more concerned with the reckless trucks, suburbans and other gravity off center-vehicle drivers. They have no comprehension of the design of their vehicle and will drive either rashly or higher speeds, putting not just their lives but other lives in danger. Where are the statistics on that? I'd like to see those and make stricter recommendations on these vehicles accordingly. They are not environment friendly, there is no reason for anybody to own it as a personal vehicle and is just a way bigger hazard on the streets than cell phone usage. Please just observer your commute closely today and you will notice this, you don't need any statistics or elaborate studies to justify this. The cell phone users are way passive comparatively. If we're reducing risk factors in driving, we need to start with these vehicles first!
This issue has been LONG over due to come to fruition in banning cell phone. It's frustrating whenever I see someone on their cell phone when driving. I try my best to steer clear from those drivers. On the other hand, I do not agree with banning the “hands free” usage of the cell phones. The argument makes no sense. How is that any different from having kids in the car and the incredible distraction they create or having anyone in the car for that matter? You talk with the people in your car. It may not always be a “pleasant” conversation, so how is this any different from talking on your cell phone via “hands free?”
Seriously, out of all the crash fatalities, how many involved trucks, suburbans, etc.?Can the author or anybody else point me to a resource to get this information? Even better, how many of the cell phone usage crash fatalities involved these vehicles?
Common sense says that with one hand against your head and one hand on the wheel reduces the ability to control the vehicle in challenging driving condition. Especially with a manual transmission. The studies being quoted cannot be adequately addressing this disconnect of common sense!
The commercial truck 18 wheeler drivers have a different class driver's license and understand the design of their vehicle and drive accordingly. Here we are handing basically what is in design a commercial vehicles as a personal vehicles with no training and same driver's license???
This issue really divides the public good from those interested only in maximum profit. It divides the interests of the real, living, breathing citizens from those of the imaginary, "corporate citizens".
At highway speeds, I nearly plowed my heavy V8 X-cab pickup into a young cell driver in a much smaller vehicle, who pulled out in front of me. My truck spun in gravel, and the front end dipped down so low I thought it might dig up asphalt, but miraculously I did not hit the cell driver or roll the truck. I saw his blank face. He was looking right at me. He just kept driving and talking, oblivious to all but his conversation.
When mobile phones first got popular, a close neighbor lost her 20-something daughter at a railroad crossing she'd grown up beside and crossed hundreds of times. The mom heard the whole horrific thing on the other end of the phone.
So what if a few businesses lose a few bucks? I worry about my 2 children being killed by a selfish cell driver. A ban can't happen soon enough for me.
Bring it on!
PULL OVER DRAMA QUEENS!...DWT; DWC
When I am approaching a metro.
I turn everything off including music.
The only strategy that has kept me alive and safe.
This way I will be super alert.
This way I catch out of the corner of my eye...
the peripheral movements
of the car next to me
veering right into me at 75 mph
while they talk on their cell.
80-85% of the reasonable drivers have to pay
for the 15-20%
that are self absorbed in their 'dramas'.
Everytime I have an encounter
with a totally dysfunctional driver:
They are gesturing wildly;
waving their arms;
looking back yelling at their kids;
and ALWAYS talking on their cells;
while their kids hang out the windows.
Public Safety doesn't apply to them
because their 'personal dramas'
are more important than Public Safety.
I say.
If you have a flat you have to pull over.
Likewise, if you have to talk...pull over.
PULL OVER DRAMA QUEENS!
Pareto's Principle. 80-20.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
DWT; DWC
I agree the login is a pain. But it gives you a chance to calm down.
Fortunately the show is delayed here; if I could get on air my rant would be bleeped.
The show is only starting so I'll only say I tried to come through the radio when the one panelist attempted to defend cellphone use on the basis they have become so important to our daily life. So what? That argument is nothing more than a long-winded way of claiming it's all right to do something simply because you can.
Horace is full of it. Cellphones are not being assaulted here. It's the use of them while driving. Distracted driving IS a problem, whether it's texting, using a cellphone, yelling at something someone said on the radio, putting on makeup or whatever. The only exception for using cellphones while driving I can see to this is if there is an emergency-which I think they said the bill includes an exception for. Calling a talk show or bsing with a friend or getting in touch with family are not emergencies. And I would like to know about what the percentage of calls while driving are emergencies. I'd suspect very few.
The ban will work, if small behavior incentives are provided. If the highway infrastructure included regularly spaced "Cell phone and Texting areas" where safe pull-off and parking were provided, pulling off the road for communication breaks could become a habit among the driving population.
Seriously, is there any real argument? We all know that using a cell phone while driving is distracting. Everyone I know has almost been hit (or actually been hit) by someone who was using a cell phone while driving. It happens all the time! Shouldn't we be doing everything we can to prevent motor vehicle accidents?
Use your cell phone every minute of the day, but for pete sake, please put it down when you're driving--or pull over. What if you killed someone because you couldn't wait to call your boss back? We are not that important and there is no one who would be fired or otherwised penalized if they said "I'm sorry I couldn't answer my phone, I was driving".
While listening to Mr. Cooper of the National Center for Public Policy Research I noticed that his arguments against a ban on cellphone use while driving rely on name calling ("alarmists, prohibitionists") and accusing others of making up facts. In my mind he proved himself the most alarmist one of the whole panel, with arguments devoid of facts.
Mr. Teater, Mr. Yantis and Ms. Hersman on the other hand all laid out sensible and balanced arguments.
erh7771 wrote:
Eating while driving causes 80% of all car accidents, study shows!!!!!
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-07-19/local/17928504_1_drink-and-dr...
That's crazy, the evidence doesn't support the danger of driving while talking on the cell phone relative to the biggest dangers of eating while driving
Shows the poverty of some journalism. According to the study itself, "The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study - Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment," NHTSA 2006: "80 percent of all crashes and 65 percent of all near-crashes involved the driver looking away from the forward roadway just prior to the onset of the conflict"
Not just eating, but all forms of distraction. It is important to note that this study involved active recording of study vehicles so this study also included crashes that wouldn't show up as police crash reports: tire bumping, fender contact with no damage, etc., and of course near misses where no contact happened. (btw, another report on commercial vehicle crashes showed dispatcher interaction and cell phone usage well ahead of eating as a risk factor...athough eating and driving is also a bad idea)
The site distraction.gov has a lot of the pertinent publications from the NHTSA
As a bicycle commuter, I see day-in and day-out people not paying attention to the road due to being on their cell phone either talking or texting. I can't even count how many times I have been hit or nearly hit due to people not paying attention to the road and just about 100% of the time when I can look into the car either before or after the incident, I can see the person on the phone. I understand that there are MANY distractions on the road and managing those has always been a task of driving, but when something so obviously distracting puts people at risk I think that something should be done to ensure the safety of all. As I am aware, having a drivers' license is a priviledge as the government understands that and therefore people do not have the right to do whatever they'd like while behind the wheel.
I have a rather unique perspective on this. What I have found is just knowing something is dangerous or passing a law just does not stop people from doing it. We have laws against drunk driving and people still do it. My approach has been to develop technology to solve the problem and then for companies and individuals that want to "enforce" the rule, they have the control.
I own a company, MobileLutions, that makes smartphone apps for companies to restrict cell phone use while the phone is at speed, based on company policies. Once the phone stops moving, everything is normal. We feel that companies should act responsibly and we simply enforce the company rules. We have a free consumer app called MobiLoc.
The problem is fixable, but it takes people wanting to fix it.
"billtmore wrote:
I learned this lesson years ago. Driving while talking on a very intense subject...when i hung up i realized I could not remember anything about the last couple miles, stop lights other traffic NOTHING. I was a total blank. Then and there I realized I could not divide my attention. We should make the penalties for accidents involving personal injury or death. mandatory jail time and immense financial penalties. Conversations can wait you are driving a lethal weapon. have concern for the innocents around you!!!
December 15, 2011 - 10:15 am"
You are absolutely right and all manner of realistic tests prove it.
The Airlines and FAA are real strict about that stuff.
There was a recent scandal because 2 Pilots got so involved in talking that they overshot their destination.
The next time these Gasbags fly someplace, they shouldn't mind the Pilots and Crew Shuckin' and Jivin' and High Times in the Cabin.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
I see an astounding number of people with phones stuck in their ears and it is almost always Women and the same Women who-
1) make broad sweeping one-hand turns across 2 or more lanes of oncoming traffic, because if they slow down to wait for a safer opening, they will have to put the GD phone down so they can use both hands on the wheel.
2) Tailgate breathtakingly close to my pickup, fail to get my hints to back off and make it impossible for me to make a Panic Stop if I need to to avoid a wreck or running over someone or something.
3) The same ones, the Busy Career Women, who fly through Shopping Center Parking lots in their rush to get to their next stop, threatening Children and everyone else trying to get in and out of the Stores.
It's hard to believe that Women who used to be famous for their cautious driving are now worse Drivers than Teen Age Boys.
Self-centered Beeches who are so protective of their own kids, yet don't give a cr_p about mine or anybody else's.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
When CB radios 1st came out, did the # of accidents increased among truck drivers and cops? My guess would be no since these are professional drivers and they became experienced in talking on the CB while driving over time. The NTB is another reason why the public is more skeptical of our government (big brother).
The guests who argued against the ban committed several errors or fallacies. Let me address each of them:
1. "The ban infringes on personal liberties." The distracted driver is a risk to others besides himself. There is no recognized code or principle of liberty that includes the absolute right to endanger or hurt others.
2. "I don't accept the science." The debater offered no evidence that the science was flawed. He merely committed the fallacy of Argumentum ad consequentiam. "I don't like the consequence of a proposition being true, therefore it must be false."
3. "There are other distractions and risks besides cell phones." Of course there are, but we fix what we can. Just because medicine can't cure all diseases doesn't exempt us from treating the ones we can cure.
4. "This will lead to all kinds of police abuse, including those involving prejudice." The cops already have (and have used) a hundred ways to bully people. Why is the cell phone ban special?
5. "How would we be able to detect violators?" It's easy. Cell phones transmit on well defined UHF channels. A relatively simple radio receiver can pick up the emissions, while the short wavelength makes it practical to localize the source (offender) with a compact directional antenna.
There may be valid arguments against the ban and I would have liked to hear them rather then the defective, illogical, and fallacious ones presented.
This topic is not rocket science. Here's why:
First, szdellinger I think said it best, although I didn't read every comment in detail: "one can not regulate common sense"
Second, the most interesting comment has to go to kim campbell "The overwhelming evidence (much less common sense) indicates driving while texting and talking contributes significantly to accidents."
Does that mean I can't talk to my wife in the passenger seat? HONEY, I'M KIDDING!!!
The only way to eliminate distraction accidents in motor vehicles is to go back to the horse and buggy - and even THEN there were accidents! I would be in favor of banning texting because it requires the participation of eyes, ears, and hands. But how are you going to enforce it? It's going to be difficult to prove. Cell-signal blocking mandatory in cars might be one way to stop phone use, but then you have safety/emergency issues.
The best solution to this problem is education. It sounds like some people on this board have gotten their's the hard way. We should keep spreading the word to keep others from having to learn the same way.
"T.B.Root wrote:
...
But what is the increased danger of distracting the driver by having children so far away from their caregiver?
December 15, 2011 - 10:49 am.
The Airbags can maim or kill Infants and little kids in the Front seats. In the back seats, the kids are more likely to be forgotten and left in the car. A dilemma!!
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
The program was excellent, except I felt that Horace's attitude and tone were a prime example of why we all too often cannot have reasonable and respectful conversations about important issues in our country. He repeatedly characterized people who are concerned about distracted drivers as "prohibitionist" and "alarmist". None of the other guests used such incendiary labels. Horace's tone of voice was blatantly disrespectful to the moderator and the other guests--and to listeners as well. None of the other guests stooped to his level. He should apologize!
Horace Cooper sounds like a shill for the telecommunications industry.
The two valid ones have emerge at the other forum: calling 911 when it is unsafe to stop; and, usage by passengers, eg riders in limos, vans, taxis.
The rest have been hysterics, largely centered on making what you do inside car amongst the public on a taxpayer-funded conveyance a matter of personal liberty.
Very thoughtful response. Thank you.
I appreciated your comment on the enforced "cool down" by having to log on. That made me smile.
The one man on this program who was opposed to banning cell phone use struck me as such an ?@?#?$. Don't bother him with the facts and statistics! He just says whatever he wants and the truth be damned!