E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSMedical scientists strongly endorsed the National Transportation Safety Board's recommendation Tuesday to ban nearly all use of cellphones and other portable electronics by drivers, saying the gizmos are just too distracting for the limited multitasking power of the human brain.
"I wholeheartedly support a ban on personal electronic devices, which provide an unprecedented degree of distraction that's very dangerous," said Dr. Lisandro Irizarry, chairman of the emergency department at the Brooklyn Hospital Center in New York.
The National Transportation Safety Board wants all 50 states to ban personal electronic devices for drivers. NBC's Tom Costello reports.
"Everyone from teenagers to senior citizens is texting," he said in an email to msnbc.com. "It's very easy to get distracted, especially when driving, and end up in the ER."
The NTSB's recommendation specifically said so-called hands-free devices, like Bluetooth headsets, don't solve the problem and should be part of the ban.
US calls for ban on in-car phone use ... even with Bluetooth
That sounds great to Dr. Marcel Just, director of the Center for Cognitive Brain Imaging at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, a neuroscientist who has studied how using cellphones impairs driving ability.
"Use of cellphones while driving — handheld or not — is really a hazard, a threat to public safety," Just told msnbc.com. "It costs lives."
The problem is that people think they're better drivers than they really are, and so they believe they can multi-task behind the wheel.
"When you're driving, it feels kind of automatic, so it feels like you're not doing anything, but it's not true," Just said. "Various parts of your brain are working on scanning the road ahead, maintaining your speed, maintaining your lane — all of those things are being done even when it feels like it's not.
Obviously, we can do two things at the same time," he said. "But the critical point is we can't do them as well at the same time."
Processing a conversation with another person consumes 37 percent of the energy that's normally allocated to driving, Just's research indicates. That's "a very, very large percentage that has serious consequences for safety," he said.
While carrying on a conversation in person with a passenger is distracting, "typically there isn't quite as much a social onus on continuing the conversation," he said.
In other words, a passenger who's in the car with you knows enough to shut up if you encounter a hazard on the road. But "with a person on the other end of a cellphone, they don't know to stop talking if something happens," he said.
While he hasn't quantified the difference, Just said, he's convinced "it's worse with a cellphone."
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
Before cell phones, everyone waited to get their calls when they got to work or when they returned home.
While I understand multi-tasking, its up to each person to know their limitations.
As for me, I tell everyone that I don't answer my phone in the car, and won't call while I'm in the car (unless of course I'm not driving).
Blue tooth helps some, still there are those that can't do more than one thing at a time.
What is it about multasking that you understand?
Myth Busters on the Discovery Channel did an episode where they drove a road course outlined with traffic cones with no distractions and counted the number knocked over going 35 miles an hour. They then drove the course while talking on a cell phone and counted the traffic cones knocked over. They then drove the course while texting and counted the cones knocked over. Last but not least they drove the course after blowing a .08 (legally intoxicated) and counted the cones knocked over. Reviewing the results they had knocked over as many cones talking on a cell phone as they did when legally intoxicated, and the number knocked over while texting was double the number knocked over while intoxicated. They made me a firm believer that drivers should be banned from using cell phones while driving. I don't want my loved ones killed by a distracted driver, nor do I want to pay higher insurance rates / medical care costs because of foolishdrivers. Driving is not a constitutional right, it's a privilege!
From Motorcyclists everywhere I can hear a big "Amen ! "
I watched the episode, they did the test with a hand-held clamshell held to the ear the entire time, and the majority of the problem was having only one hand.
Actually, despite the propaganda you've received in school, it is a right...unless your particular state constitution says different. This is difficult for some folks to understand...but unless a particular activity is addressed in the US or State constitution, then an individual is PRESUMED to have the right to take part in that activity...in other words...such activity is a right.
Another way to put this, is that essentially, individuals have the right to do pretty much anything not precluded in the constitution or violating someone else's rights.
FWIW, licensing of drivers has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with revenue and government control.
Regards,
Mike
This test left a lot to be desired in its set up. I don't mind some good tests but with stacking the deck, you do not get any credibility from me. As usual, these tests are performed by those that want to make a point into a specific direction, thereby not being accurate or impartial. Sorry, scrap this one.
So is the Federal Government gonna ban me from talking to my wife that's sitting next to me in the car? How is hands free conversation via Blue tooth any different that talking to my friends and family in the same car? I agree that texting should be banned while driving. I also agree that hand held phone conversations should be banned - because it usually leads to texting, checking caller I.D., checking e-mail or fumbling for your phone. Hands free conversation is no more different or dangerous than talking to someone else in the car or multiple persons in a car. Unfortunately - this is now a way of life.....
@Mike- Much as I'd like to agree with you, you're wrong. Otherwise, the government (state or otherwise) could not revoke your license for things like: multiple moving violations, DUI/DWI, failure to pay child support, various medical conditions to include blindness. . . Rights cannot be revoked.
While I do agree that state DMV drivers license procedures seem to have little to no interest in actually determining that someone is actually competent to drive, driving is NOT a right.
Double Jeopardy
Let me get this straight. You choose not to believe the scientists who have proven in multiple studies under all reasonable driving conditions that using a cell phone, even a hands-free devise, is dangerous because your idea seems more reasonable to you.
You are wrong.
The scientists who, by the way, stake their reputations on their data, know far more than you do about distracted driving and they proved you wrong, yet you continue to believe what is convenient for you to believe. Do you understand that your "common sense" on this issue is worthless?
Talking to your wife is not distracted driving as measured by science. Talking on a cell phone is distracted driving and has been compared to driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08%. Perhaps talking to your wife in the car is like driving drunk, but I haven't met your wife and scientists disagree with you. I'll go with science on this one, Jeopardy.
I see plenty of people yaking on cell phones while driving. Most of them seem barely aware they are in a car much less driving one. Some of them don't even have their hands on the wheel. One is holding the phone and the other one is gesturing to the person on the phone.
I don't need Mythbusters to find out why that's wrong!
"It's up to each person to know their limitations."
So regardless of danger or threats to public safety, we should just leave it up to people to decide when they are capable of driving while talking on a phone. Good thing we practice this with these same people who swear they haven't had too much to drink and can drive fine...but as long as they know their limitations, right?
jdesigns
That is the same unconvincing, irrational argument that people like to use to justify drunk driving. It doesn't work for driving under the influence and it doesn't work for driving while phoning.
The arguments attempting to distinguish conversations in the car from conversations on the phone are weak and unconvincing. Conversations are conversations and create distraction. All the car occupants don't necessarily see driving hazards as the story suggests. If you're sitting in the back , with people in front of you , you won't see hazards up ahead of the car. And, even if you're sitting in the front, if you're not watching the road you won't observe hazards. No, the law will also have to ban conversations between occupants to completely eliminate the distraction element. Cops could hide behind billboards or trees and watch for conversations in passing cars or observe cars they pass or see waiting at lights and then issue tickets if lips are seen moving.
Miker, you are wrong. Rights can be revoked. Try getting a felony, then buying a gun, voting. You cant do it. You CAN loose your rights.
My position:
I never gave any of you permission to put my life into jeopardy! Put the device down and Drive!
If it means a ban on cellphone use in a vehicle, so be it.
I have been involved in so many near collisions and 1 rear end collision because of these people looking at their damn phones and texting instead of the traffic.
If it weren't for the fact 'I' was paying attention to them in most cases, it would have resulted in a collision. ( I am not going to use the word 'accident' because in these cases, it isn't!)
JUST F'n DRIVE ! ! !
I've started taking the bus. Most people are morons. Just look at these comments supporting distracted driving.
I think a more practical ban would be to ban anything that forces you to have two hand of the wheel.
Why? Well if it's talking on the cellphone that a distraction, how would normal talking not be? Singing? Eating? while not much a fan of the slippery slope argument you really have to wonder that if talking is a distraction, how can we allow any conversation since all of it would distracting.
With forcing two hands on the wheel, you elimate the much of the distraction without creating the problem of how do you enforce a talking ban? not to mention if cell phone use should be banned, why shouldn't eating, writing, adjusting your older style radios. And with more and more of this being inserted into the steering wheel, it will be less and less of an actual burden.
Everyone keeps noting Mythbusters TV Show. That is just a damn TV show and that is all the hell it is. They come up with a set of results they want and they design a test to get those results. Hogwash! Nothing scientific there, just entertainment. These same people accidently shot a canon ball through a house in the east bay area outside San Francisco just last week.
Two points:
1. Eating, adjusting the radio, SHIFTing....while still not ideal, are all momentary in nature. Yesterday, a woman sped up and tailgated me...then fell behind....waaay behind....then sped up again - over and over - all the while yakking on her phone. Cell talking is NOT momentary.
2. Unfortunately, I would rather advocate for specially designed and "certified" in some way hands-free cell use that prevents even looking down at the phone to see who is calling and disables texting, and the like.....than to see this whole idea go down the tubes from the inevitable lobbying by the cell phone giants to torpedo this HUGE change to safeguard our loved ones. We know from recent history how important the common man is when big corporate money starts talking!!!
Sorry, Terry! Your abject lack of rational logic is indicative of the "stinkin' thinkin" I see from many here. Myth Busters having one of their experiments go awry proves what? Exactly? Engaging in ad hominem is the classic tool of those who have nothing substantive to add to the debate.
steven-2959680
Having two hands on the wheel at all times is a good idea however it wont work. I drive a stick shift so that would be impossible. If it starts to rain I need to remove a hand to turn on wipers, run into fog I have to change to low beam. I'm not trying to nitpick I'm sure get my point, for me it's mostly the stick shift.
This article gets me SO angry! "Everyone from teenagers to senior citizens is texting" NO, EVERYONE is NOT doing that. I am an excellent driver and it is very beneficial for me to be able to talk on the phone while driving. My focus is ALWAYS on driving. The phone call takes a lower priority. Sometimes I may have to tell the person I'm talking to "hold on" or ask if they can repeat what they just said because my focus was on the road. In order to get a license, people need to understand that driving is the ultimate priority. And hold people responsible for their driving and any accidents. People can do things like listen to the radio, talk to someone next to them, glance at their children to see what they have in their mouth, look at Christmas lights, and yes, even talk on the phone. Concentration is the key here, NOT banning cell phones!
Also, I never text because I need my eyes to maintain control.
This proposal by the NTSB is just goofy. I agree that texting in a car is wrong and distracting, but talking on a hands free device is much less so. With voice dialing and Bluetooth, a person never has to take their eyes off the road and can keep both hands on the wheel. I see drivers every day that drive with one hand on the wheel while talking to their passenger and kids in the car. Are we going to next rule that talking to passengers have caused 36 deaths last year and ban them? New studies that show an incredible statistical bias in the cell phone while driving controversy are just now coming in so all the science is not complete enough to start banning cell phone use yet. The number of other causes of traffic accidents are much higher than the number attributed to cell phone use. Traffic deaths of teenagers is very high, but there is virtually no driver education programs left in the country to teach them how to drive safely. Teach people to drive safely, don't limit the ability of safe drivers to take advantage of the time spent in their car to maximise their time and resources. Last year over 10,000 people died in this country from drowning. Is it better to teach swimming or ban going into the water?
Have you looked into a police car or fire engine lately? There are computers, multiple radios, many switches, cameras, cell phones, etc. Airline pilots have to fly the airplane and talk on the radio. Do you see a lot of crashed police cars and airplanes from "distracted drivers and pilots"? I raced sports cars for years and had constant hands free radio communication with my pit crew while driving at 140 MPH, checking my instruments, and racing with cars all around me going the same speed so don't tell me that humans are incapable of multitasking in a vehicle. Just be aware of your surroundings.
RMcD
Thanks Jim for reassuring me that mindless idiots are prevailing.
Jim
It has never been proven that listening to the radio is hazardous
It has never been shown that talking to someone next to them is hazardous
It has never been shown that glancing at children is hazardous
It has never been shown that looking at Christmas lights is hazardous
It has, however, been proven that talking on a cell phone, even a hands-free phone, IS HAZARDOUS.
Don, trying to use facts & reason with people like Jim is like wrestling with pigs. It just gets you dirty & annoys the pig.
Talking on a cell phone is not much different from talking to someone in the car with you. Ban that too? Airlines have a "sterile" cockpit during takeoffs and landings, where nothing is discussed but flying the plane. Guess we could have a sterile automobile cabin, everyone assists in the giving the driver directions from the right side and the back seat. That would be dumb as hell!! Texting is a different story, you have to take your eyes off the road to do that. Maybe ban texting, but not talking on the phone.
Takeoffs and landings are quite different from driving a car. Landing, in particular, requires full attention of the pilot. Still, driving requires focus - any distraction, whether it is talking to a passenger, changing radio stations, you name it, takes away from your driving effectiveness. Just today, I saw a article about a police car driven up the supporting wire of a telephone pole because the officer was "distracted".
The notion of multitasking is a myth - our brains are not wired to do it and anyone who claims they are good multitaskers are kidding themselves.
Terry--
You might want to watch the episode of "Mythbusters" where they test the theory that talking on the phone is MORE dangerous than drunk driving. Turns out, it's true... merely having a conversation (on the phone, or with someone next to you in the car) pulls your attention away from driving, causing a distraction far worse than that caused by intoxication.
Gumps, I am retired from the FAA with 33 years service. I know take offs and landings are different from driving a car. I was just making a point, that you can regulate anything. I just don't agree with regulating the use of a cell phone for talking. Texting is much, much more dangerous.
Chip, I saw the mythbusters with the cell phones, texting, talking, messing with the CD etc. Also saw the one with sleep deprivation too. All distractions increase the risk and severity of accidents. Maybe should all have dedicated chauffeurs.
Terry, as you said, having an involved conversation with someone is just as distracting as talking on a cell phone. However, just because it isn't feasible to eliminate all distractions doesn't mean that we should just give up on preventing any distractions. Responsible policy entails laws that make us safer, even if driving becomes a bit more boring for some. Texting, as you said, is certainly much more dangerous, but talking on the cell phone is also an unnecessary and non-negligible risk. If such risks could only affect the driver I would be OK with a laissez faire attitude, but that was never the case on the road.
NASCAR drivers have headsets while they're driving but I don't think any of the rest of us should be doing anything but driving while driving. That said I use my Bluetooth but would I really miss having a phone while I'm driving, or be so stressed have to pull over to make a call? I don't think my convenience is worth someones' life.
Other studies have shown that talking on a cell phone is much more distracting than talking with someone in the car.
Actually it is different. First of all, granted that people have gotten in accidents getting too mcuh into a conversation or argument while driving. Anything that takes your attention away from driving is bad. However, a person sitting next to you in a car is also aware of your environment. Ever notice how your passenger may stop or adjust their talking as things happen around you? A person cuts you off and they'll just immediately stop talking. Someone talking to you on the phone has NO idea what is going on in and around the car you're in and just keeps on yacking no matter what is going on.
lngsd
Good Point
Actually, a multitude of studies show that talking on a phone IS quite a bit different than talking to a live passenger.
For one thing, a live passenger is concerned about their welfare. If you're not paying attention and you start to veer into oncoming traffic or run a red light, chances are the passenger might redirect your attention back to the road where it belongs. The person on the other end of your phone call has no ability to make that determination (and much less incentive). In other words, when it comes to passengers, as distracting as they may be on occasion, they bring an extra set of eyes to the party.
skrekk,
Other studies have shown passenger conversations to be just as distracting as hands-free phone conversations.
Ingsd,
It is the responsibility of the driver to maintain awareness and respond appropriately while driving. Whether that driver is talking to the passenger next to them or on the cellphone, he/she is the one to stop the conversation and focus on immediate concerns when necessary. Its nice to speculate that some passengers might also be watching the environment as well and therefore be considerate of the driver, but the reality is , if the passenger is noticing impending danger sooner than the driver is, and trying to stop the conversation themselves, then the driver is already failing at driving.
Noah R. makes an interesting case. That we should ban hands-free cellphone conversations because we can. Why is it more feasible to ban hands-free conversations than regular conversations? They could certainly pass laws banning both if they wanted. Neither one is necessary, except in emergency situations.
It's unfortunate cellphone industry stooges like Terry-75 will only change their mind when he or his loved one falls victim to an accident caused by the a driver who could not multitask driving and talking on a cellphone. By then it will be too late.
Terry
Talking on a cell phone is a lot different from talking to someone else in the car. Scientists proved it. You choose not to believe scientists. What does that say about you?
You give no reasons for disputing this scientific study. You just choose to believe what you want to believe because you want to use a cell while you drive. Good reasoning, Terry.
shoot the only time i talk at all while I'm driving is when I'm receiving commands so i don't get lost etc. or trying to keep alert on a very long drive, not only that but i use hands free because its better and it doesn't distract me. what bothers me is when i see someone in a semi truck on the phone or texting because they are distracted to start with, even worse is all the kids driving with cell phones who are barely used to the idea of driving and don't even know what they are really doing, especially since they like to speed which at a minimum doubles the risk of a fatal crash. if they want a good law make it illegal for personnel to text or use a phone non hands free when using an industrial vehicle and for anyone under 21 to operate a phone at all while driving, the teens have enuf trouble focusing with the focusing issues they have. i know ive seen plenty of them driving to know to avoid them on the road.
Scarlet
Hands free is not better. Hands free is distracted driving and that fact has been proven repeatedly. A good law would be to ban all cell phone use while driving.
Scientists didn't prove that talking to a passenger is significantly different from talking on the phone. The article gives reasons why they claim it is different but these reasons don't hold water. What if the front seat passenger is looking out the side window? Then they won't see hazards ahead. And what if the passenger talking to the driver is in the back seat and can't see ahead or is not looking there? What if there are multiple parties in the car talking and not looking ahead at the road and the driver is listening to the conversation? Don't surrender your common sense and life experiences to anyone just because they are a scientist. Driving would be safer if no conversations were occuring in the car to distract the driver, either on the phone or otherwise.
gary
Scientists NEVER make a major recommendation based on a single study. There are dozens of studies that show that cell phone use while driving is hazardous, even hands-free units, and driving while using a phone is approximately equivalent to driving with a 0.08% blood alcohol level.
There has NEVER been a study that shows that a normal conversation with a passenger is at all hazardous.
I don't believe the article did a very good job of explaining the issue, but the science is solid.
don --- What studies have been made of the effect of conversations between passengers and the driver on the rate of accidents? I don't know of any , do you? Tell me where I can find these studies. It controverts common sense to suggest no effect. I think the science is shaky. No such study was done by the mythbusters.
gary
The recommendation was made based on studies that have been made. You are speculating about studies that have not been made, or that may have been made but are not the subject of this article or the recommendation. You are off on a tangent and nothing you said indicates that the science is in any way "shaky." I think you choose not to believe the science because you want to have some excuse to continue your dangerous habit of talking on the cell phone while driving. Your logic is severely lacking on this issue and if you continue to use the cell phone while driving, your driving will also be severely lacking.
don -- You still have not provided the citation to any studies you claim support your position regarding the effect of conversations between passengers and the driver. Why not? If you don't know of any just say so rather than just avoid answering the question.
hands free is better for me i like having both hands on the steering wheel with an iron grip, cant help it, than again if you saw the nuts driving down here you would drive the same and never drop your guard.
While were at it we should ban transporting children in the back seat. Darn kids are much more distracting than a cell phone. GPS devices are also a huge pain as I've followed many a person fiddling with their GPS trying to find other routes during in rush hour, so get rid of those as well.
Perhaps we could put up cameras on highways that record people as they pass by and send out fines like they do with traffic cams! Ohhh or even better use the predator drones to fly around the interstate system and watch for cell violators, as well as catch all of the terrorists driving on our highways! We wouldn't need to tax the rich and the government would have plenty of money!
I enjoy driving my MINI Cooper S with John Cooper Works tuner engine and would not dare contaminate my fun with a cell phone call or texting. It can wait till I get home.
That reminds me... where are all the little triangular vent windows in new cars? I miss those.
Wow! I was just wondering about those vent windows the other day ; )
Off topic but oh well,
My friend has a 64 beetle and I always open that little triangle window and he tells me to shut it.
I like opening it though because my car doesn't have one..
.. people we have lost our way... doesn't seem to matter what we do as long as it's entertaining.
It is already illegal to use a handheld device while driving in California, yet every day there are tons of idiots on the road still doing it. They are so busy yakking on the phone that they drift into other lanes, or suddenly realize they're about to miss an exit and cut across three lanes of traffic to get off the freeway. My cellphone is off and in my bag while I am driving. Adding yet another law to the books is useless unless it is enforced, and obviously the current laws are NOT being enforced. The only thing that might drive home the point is if you get into an accident with me and you are blabbing away on your phone while driving, be prepared for the mega-lawsuit you will be hit with.
This brings up the difficulty of enforcing a law banning talking on the phone. Many have Bluetooths and many cars have built in phones. How would the authorities know whether they were talking on the phone or singing or talking to themselves or talking to other drivers that annoy them? Don't make a law that can't be enforced.
gary
How about if cell records prove that the driver was on the phone at the time that the fool was involved in a collision in which people were killed? How about a charge of manslaughter? How about passengers willing to testify against the fool? How about witnesses in other cars?
What would work to stop self absorbed morons that can't go for more than a few minutes with chattering to someone would be to have a few mult-million dollar judgements against the cell phone manufacturer and cell phone company. The technology exists to disable phones if the device is travelling at more than a few miles per hour. However, until there is a profit/loss motive for the phone companies, this won't be implemented.
don ------------- How about the vast majority of occasions where there is no accident, where just a ticket is given for a claimed violation. How does the cop know this has occurred and how is it proved in court?
gary
You argue like a junior high school student. The purpose of the law is to change behavior, not necessarily to catch people. Most speeding violations, most stop sign violations, most reckless driving is not caught. Does that mean we should change the law to allow bad driving?
don ----------- The point is it makes no sense to pass a law that can't be enforced. The violations you list are easy to spot but talking on a phone would not be. If people know they won't be caught their behavior won't change. By the way, ad hominem attacks don't strengthen your arguments.
gary ........ see my #6.2. When people hear the news that a driver talking on a cell phone caused a fatal accident and went to prison perhaps some behavior will change.
Another thing to think about ..... when the laws requiring seat belts were first enacted compliance was very low. Now compliance is very high. Sometimes it takes awhile. I suspect you will be one of the laggards.
don97524
"Another thing to think about ..... when the laws requiring seat belts were first enacted compliance was very low. Now compliance is very high. Sometimes it takes awhile. I suspect you will be one of the laggards."
I never was a big fan of the seat belt law.I figure it defeats natural selection, now most stupid people wear seat belts too.
Well at least some states don't have helmet laws.
If you read the link to the original article they are actually talking about banning all electronic devices except for navigation which would mean those IPods etc... would no longer be legal for use in vehicles as well
What if I use my cell phone FOR navigation, since it has a nice data connection which can give me current drive time routes based on current traffic? Can stand-alone navigation devices do that? If they can, does that make them cell phones in spirit?
Don't know it is illegal to use phones without hands free devices where I live but I never see it enforced I know I use voice commands to find locations and make calls on my phone with my headset while driving I wonder what this would do to systems like Fords Sync and other such systems that integrate via bluetooth to your phone. I have no problems with it being a primary offense and illegal to use a phone with out hands free setups which you can also text with now via voice commands
I live in Cali 8( and we already have this ban and guess what I see cops and just about everyone violating this law 8) on a daily basis.
Using a complete hands free phone in the car (which I do) amounts to the same level of distraction as conversation within the car. If you allow them to ban hands-free phone use, then you should be ok with making it a punishable offence for the driver to be engaged in conversation with passengers while driving (except in life-threatening emergencies). Literally. That's how nuts that is. Yes, conversations with family or friends who are in the car is distracting and can be dangerous. Life can be dangerous. Welcome to the Nanny state. On the other hand I have used my hands-free phone to call my dad for directions help when I got lost in a dangerous area; to keep a friend talking and calm while on the way to the emergency room where his young son was taken (before, ultimately, the funeral); to help keep me from getting drowsy during a long drive (yes, i know that if you actually DO get drowsy, to pull over) - being able to talk when ALONE on a long drive happens every day as some parents drive 2 hours home every day after work, or on a long trip they didn't plan on to help a family member out of a scrape .... etc, etc.; to calm the kids down when mom is hours late with no word and you're still on the way back from a business trip with hours to go before getting home ...... MILLIONS OF REASONS EVERY DAY with the SAME LEVEL OF DISTRACTION as conversations with a passenger (LESS, actually, as you never look at the passenger next to you or behind you or in the mirror when you're TALKING TO THEM ON THE HANDS FREE PHONE). America deserves the quality of life it gets when it puts up with this ban (which it will). And, if you don't think they could actually try to ticket you if they find you were conversing with passengers while driving (if they get away with this), then you don't understand how much money insurance companies could save if they didn't have to pay out because you were 'conversing'.
It comes down to personal responsibility. I use bluetooth exclusively, and will end a conversation in heavy traffic. If my phone is not readily available and I don't already have my headset on and paired it goes to voicemail. If there is snow or ice or any hazardous weather, the phone is silent.
I would much rather them double the fine/prison time for causing an accident while using a portable device that requires interaction. The cop isn't going to know if I have my phone plugged in and I'm listening to an Audible book, or if I'm talking to my girlfriend on bluetooth. It's not enforcible, and using technology means when I take the train to and from work, or if I'm a passenger, I'm penalized as well.
TuraNarEl
You are wrong. Using a hands-free unit is much more distracting than talking to a vehicle passenger and it has been proven to be about the same level of hazard as a driver with a 0.08% blood alcohol level. You make a long, tedious argument based on your own false premise which refutes the scientific study behind the recommendation to refrain from cell phone use while driving. You have no basis for your statement, which reduces your argument to the level of useless rant.
i would like to see that proof for myself to see if they got sloppy.
I commute forty miles each way every day. Each time there's a car coming at me with two wheels on/over a double yellow line there's a driver with a phone in his ear. Every time. It's a matter of fluid priorities and many people can't do it.
EXCELLENT!!! Turn the damn phone off until you get where you're going!
I use my phone for music and gps, and that's about it. As long as they don't ban me from those (the gps gives voice directions so, no, I don't have to look at it) I have no problem with this. Maybe allow some exceptions for emergencies or first responders but that's it.
The question is, how do you enforce it? If people aren't holding cellphones up in front of the steering wheel, I don't know how cops can tell if they're texting or not (aside from the bad driving, which we already have laws for).
While these recommendations sound sensational, with today's split Congress it will be years before any action is taken on them.
Educating people about a new law takes years, and it is nearly impossible to enforce a law regarding hands-free devices because the officer can't see anything from his patrol car. Huge money would be spent on enforcement for very little gain.
If the goal is to save lives, then the money that would otherwise be spent on enforcing this law should instead be spent on the improvement of image processing algorithms. Advancing the availability of self-driving cars by even one month will save more lives than ten years of arrests and tickets under this recommendation.
That is the same simplistic reasoning that slowed mandatory seat belt use. Improvements have to start somewhere, or would you rather the status quo be maintained, and witness hundreds more vehicular homicides?
Come on. If we were that interested in saving lives on the roads, we'd be a LOT more selective about who gets drivers licenses. And, we'd be issuing citations for using cell phones and not using turn signals rather than promoting the farce that "speed kills." (Speed doesn't kill. It just makes the consequences of bad driving more severe.)
It will likely take as long to get the public to realize the dangers of cell phone use in cars and accept it as a heavy penalty crime as it did to get them to accept the message about driving drunk. The problem is as much about people being self-centered and shallow as anything else. Let's face it, idiots abound.
I am no longer a driver because of a disability left me partially impared but I am a walker. Almost every time I walk wether it is to the grocery store, the drug store, any store, etc. I see somebody talking or texting on their cellphone saying they never get distracted, but almost all the time coming close to getting in an accident or worse hitting someone with their car even though the person is in the crosswalk and walk light is with them. Twice I've pulled people out the way of an incoming car whose driver was distracted by cell phone use. According to the cell phones own inquirey cell phone use is more dagerous than a drunk driver. I think all cell phone signals should be blocked when the car is in use just like they have in some movie theatres. Doctors have to leave their cell phones in the office and they will be notified and gotten if their cell phones ring. It can be easily done but the cell phone industry has been fighting this tooth and nail.
Just wait they will try banning them while walking next, I can't count how many times I have seen teenagers walk right in the intersection without even looking because they are too intent on texting.
@John: That's fine with me. I've never heard of anyone being killed by a pedestrian walking into their car. When it comes to idiots walking into traffic because they can't pull their heads out of their iPods or their a55es, I say thin the herd.
It's people driving 3000 - 20,000 lbs of steel down the road at 15-70 mph that worry me. And, those are the people this proposed ban is aimed at stopping.
I'm all for a ban.. what is so frickin important that these people have to have those phones glued to their ears 24/7.. or trying to text while driving.. lovely. They should also be banned in checkout lines. People who break the ban, should be forced to bend over and insert (set to vibrate first of course)
This whole thing is nonsense. Some have had a phone in their cars since as early as 1982. Yes, there are more people, and more people driving, now than back then. But, there are more idiot drivers today (maybe not as a percent to total) than ever before.
Electronic devices (phones, iPods, etc) aren't the problem. Anything that distracts is the problem including people reading, tending to personal grooming, drinking a beverage, etc. We can't legislate it away. CA is proof of that. Hands free is required yet it's simple to see how many people just ignore the law. But, local law enforcement can, and should, do a better job of targeting those drivers who appear to be less than 100% in control of their vehicle - for whatever reason. Make phone use illegal while driving and, unless the device(s) are somehow disabled, there is no doubt people will flaunt the law.
Teen drivers - to generalize - tend to be lousy drivers at least in part because they lack experience. Their music systems represent distractions as do their friends along for the ride. Heck, music systems for the last decade - or more - are capable of being so loud such that a siren from a nearby emergency vehicle can't be heard. That's an incredible distraction; worse than any cell phone. In addition to the good idea of requiring hands-free devices, perhaps there should be a restriction on phone use up to a certain age just like at least some states have for teens concerning driving at night and/or with passengers.
Now, when it comes to texting while driving, since that involves distracting the eyes as well as one or both hands, that is a completely different matter. I'm no techno genius but I bet there's a way to disable texting functions when motion over a certain speed is detected by the device.
I was surprised, from the original source article, that the number of deaths attributable to distracted drivers (and I believe phone use to be only a part of that number, though can't remember) was as low as it was. I'd have expected that number to need to be much higher in order for so much attention to be thrown at the evils of cell phone use while driving.
Science has hit this over the air ways cognitive thought inebriater right on the nail head. Yes I am comparing it to being drunk while driving. Those that are doing it feel they are being infringed upon because they believe they are not impaired while they are doing it. Yet every time they maim and kill they want to excuse their callous actions by expressing their sorrow and regret about the harm they have caused; Or they will try to hide their guilt by trying to destroy any evidence of their transgressions.
This sounds really good to me. My state South Dakota has no restrictions on cell phone use or text messaging while driving. The Repubs won't hear of it. It is something that is much needed.
There are so few people in South Dakota, who would you hit? I was in the state last summer and it was flat and you could see for miles with very few cars. I think your risk is fairly low.
I'm quite sure insurance companies will second this motion as well. No doubt AAA will. It is certainly a good move on the NTSB's part, just 20 years too late. Past vehicular deaths caused by cell phone users should be tried as homicides.
Homicide means that you intentionally killed someone.
Get a clue.
What a bunch of BS. Get out of my life. The Feds have no business in this and neither do the states. When we pass laws such as this, two things happen...1) People ignore that law and 2) People end up having contempt for The Law.
Regards,
Mike
i endorse limiting cell phone use in cars, talking too loud or loud music so it dont hurt my ears, eating at mcdonalds so fat people dont hurt themselves and others in case they fall over, drinking anything but water as the last time I checked some juices have arsenic in them, ...I am sure I can think up hundreds more lame arguments like this that hurt people. Last time I checked animals can run into cars...LEts shoot them to protect ourself..... I feel good though..... the government has a plan to protect me and create some beurocracy to use more of my taxes to take my freedom in the name of the public good.
That's interesting. So you are saying you have proof that celfons have caused an inordinate number of deaths in your state?
Regards,
Mike
Mike ---- Wouldn't it make sense that the more heavily populated states with more cars in close proximity would have more such accidents? I don't have any proof just my common sense observation. What do you think? Think there would be more accidents in Wyoming or in New Jersey?
They just had an article this week saying automobile deaths are lowest since 1949. I do not advocate use of cell phones without a bluetooth, but it hardly seems with a historical low death-rate, that we need a full ban. Please stop being my mommy. You are my government not my caretaker. Do your job and I'll do mine thanks.
Gee don't ya think it's on the person driving to tell the person their talking to that they have to drive?!?!?! The more social democratic we become the more it means statism. Statism is predicated upon people being too stupid to live thier lives successfully. Yes, how many scientists espouse this? Like they do globakl warming thathas oh about only 50 % of scientists who haven't the cajuns to stand up and say how they really feel for fear of being shunned.
Scientists don't have "cajuns?" What do they eat? Mexicans? Chinese? I love cajuns. Especially blackened red snapper. And, I have the cajones to stand up and say it.
So, if scientists endorse this ban and scientists tell us that global warming is real, can you believe in global warming while saying that this proposed ban is a bad idea? Just wondering.
For myself, I don't think the ban is really necessary. Now that scientists and federal transportation officials have proposed it, the insurance companies will make it financially unrealistic for people to continue using cell phones while driving.
Also, the fact that this ban has been proposed almost provides automatic grounds to prevail in any civil suit where a cell phone yakker injures or kills someone (or even damages property). This recommendation and endorsement practically makes cell phone use while driving negligent by definition. After a few people get sued for millions for causing an accident while yakking on their phones, most of the ones who actually have half a brain will quit. The rest will be dropped by their insurers and no longer be able to legally drive at all. And, the cell phone companies will step all over themselves figuring out how to make devices that won't work while driving - sort of like when the ATV makers killed the three-wheeler and paid buyers $100 to attend rider safety classes.
Anyone know the name of the 19-year old idiot who brought this about? (The dumbass who caused the massive pile-up in Missouri - was texting and rear-ended a truck.) Not sure if he died or not - but several people did thanks to his lack of consideration and lack of common sense. If this ban does go into effect, you sort of have him to thank for it.