Proposed cellphone ban splits police, lawmakers

John Walls, vice president of the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, discusses the NTSB proposal.

The government's proposal to ban drivers from using cellphones in any way — even with hands-free help — is dividing police and lawmakers alike, who agree on one thing: Any such ban would likely be hard to enforce.

The National Transportation Safety Board urged all 50 states Tuesday to ban drivers from using portable electronic devices, with only two exceptions: You could still use GPS navigation devices, and you could use your cellphone in an emergency.

US calls for ban on in-car phone use ... even with Bluetooth

The effectiveness of any such ban would come down to enforcement by local authorities, something that not all of them agree on.


Michigan State Police are already having a tough time enforcing the state's ban on texting while driving, and expecting troopers to be able to tell whether someone is talking through a tiny earpiece is "an unrealistic expectation for law enforcement," State Trooper Jamie Voss told NBC station WPBN of Traverse City. 

Todd Nehls, sheriff of  Dodge County, Wis., said he also wouldn't support a ban, telling NBC station WTMJ of Milwaukee that "millions of people talk on the cellphone and drive safely every day" — echoing the contention of the Consumer Electronics Association one of two industry trade groups the NTSB singled out to lead development of safer technology.

More on this story:

"Rather than prohibit using cellphones, we should continue to educate the public about the dangers of using cellphones while driving," Nehls said.

But Tennessee Highway Patrol Sgt. Randall Martin contended that a complete ban would actually be easier to enforce than the state's current ban on texting while driving is illegal. 

Under current law, Martin told NBC station WBIR of Knoxville, it's difficult to tell whether a person is texting or dialing. A total ban would eliminate the guesswork because drivers wouldn't be allowed to touch their phones at all.

"Anything that's going to take a distraction out of a driver's hand or field of view is a bonus," Martin said.

The NTSB's recommendation isn't binding, which means enactment "will probably be a patchwork implementation as it goes and most likely driven by reformers at the state level," said Michael Wolf, a political science professor at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne.

The federal government could bring extra pressure to bear, Wolf told NBC station WISE of Fort Wayne, by enacting measures "to coerce states through withholding federal highway funds or save other grants to move them in that direction."

Lawmakers agreed that putting together a nationwide ban would be difficult.

Delegate Cheryl Glenn, a Democrat from Baltimore who's a member of the Maryland House transportation subcommittee, said a total ban probably isn't realistic in any state, because most offenses wouldn't be considered major driving offenses.

"You can be right next to the police and talking away, and they can't do a thing to you unless you run a red light," Glenn told NBC station WBAL of Baltimore. 

Lawmakers in several other states said essentially the same thing: A ban on phone conversations probably wouldn't fly. 

"I don't think you'll get that passed," Republican Utah state Sen. Lyle Hillyard told NBC station KSL of Salt Lake City.

And Rep. Joe Palmer, chairman of the Idaho House Transportation Committee, said a blanket approach would be especially unworkable in a rural state like his, where long, open stretches of highway pass through multiple unincorporated areas without police agencies.

"I recommend more education," Palmer told NBC station KTVB of Boise. "It's not safe for people to be driving and texting, but it's a bigger issue than that."

An Ohio businessman, meanwhile, raised a separate objection.

"That would have a negative impact on our business," said Derek Temke of A-Abel Heating and Air Conditioning in Dayton. 

Like many other businesses that make house calls — think UPS, FedEx and just about every pizza chain in the country — "I drive around all day, and I am making calls to customers," Temke told NBC station WDTN of Dayton. "It could cost us a lot of money and a lot of time, because we would have to pull over to talk on the phone." 

Even so, Temke said he understands why some people want a total ban.

"Cellphones can be dangerous," he said.

More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

Discuss this post

Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 4 5

All for it as long as they strictly enforce it for the two worst offenders of cell phone use while driving, police and truck drivers. I can't remember the last time I saw either one speeding past me without a cell phone glued to their ear.

    Reply#28 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:30 AM EST

    If I am not mistaken, it is already illegal for truckers to use hand held cell phones while driving.

      #28.1 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:36 AM EST
      Reply

      I'm still a bit puzzled about the proposed hands-free ban portion. My husband's Land Rover is equipped with a voice-command system; he never touches the phone but instead directs the car to dial, then he speaks normally (speaker in steering wheel) and the car's speakers project the other person's voice. It's like talking to a passenger - so is that the next thing on the ban list?

      • 1 vote
      Reply#29 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:38 AM EST

      You make a good point. As more and more vehicle manufacturers are incorporating this kind of technology built right into their cars, talking while driving will become much safer. What is next, ban talking to passengers while driving?

      • 2 votes
      #29.1 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:05 AM EST

      It's not the same as talking to a passenger. For one thing, the passenger can also see what's going on and alert the driver to potential hazards, or at least shut up when the driver's attention needs to be on the road.

      • 1 vote
      #29.2 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:13 AM EST

      BikerChick is right, also, the passenger is 'part of the environment'. Someone on the other end of a phone isn't, and part of the brain is involved in picturing that person. Haven't you ever watched someone talk on the phone that is so engrossed in the conversation that they actually don't see anything around them? Their eyes are open but they are not focused.

        #29.3 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:48 PM EST
        Reply

        Facts:

        1) Talking on a phone (including hands free) is the same as driving drunk. This has been reproduced in simulators in several studies.

        2) Cell phone talkers slow down traffic and average of 4 miles per hour. This has been measured on the highway.

        • 1 vote
        Reply#30 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:42 AM EST

        Your second point is more an argument FOR than against.

        • 1 vote
        #30.1 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:14 AM EST
        Reply

        It's only a matter of time before the Auto Insurance Industry puts this issue to bed. Once drivers start getting hit with three-year high-risk-driver 50% premium hikes for getting caught using their cellphones behind the wheel the silence will be deafening. All it takes is one little notation in their personal driving record.

        • 1 vote
        Reply#31 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:16 AM EST

        "Rather than prohibit using cellphones, we should continue to educate the public about the dangers of using cellphones while driving,"

        This is totally naive. People who are texting while driving know it's dangerous, but they think they are exempt. 'It's other people that are the problem.'

        The police can't enforce this except in the case of an accident when serious penalties could be applied to cell phone users. Standard accident investigation procedure should include access to cell phone records.

        The real solution is for the Federal government to require tamper proof jammers to be installed in new cars. In 7 or 8 years, the problem would essentially be gone.

        • 1 vote
        Reply#32 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:29 AM EST

        I suspect that we will eventually have cars, or gadgets that can be installed in cars, which will block driver use of cell phones and other devices while the vehicle is moving. It might also be possible to have a system that WILL enable drivers in moving vehicles to use cell phones when "911" is dialed in an emergency. As a person who has had several close calls with distracted drivers, I'd be all for it.

        • 2 votes
        Reply#33 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:33 AM EST

        If this was passed then it would give some legal rights to those folks who have lost family members becasue of someone who was texting or driving while talking on their cell phone. Here in South Carolina, since it is not illegal to text or to talk on a cell phone, if an individual kills someone ... like recently happened ... all they get is a fine of $125.00 and 2 points.

        This needs to be passed ... even if it will be impossible to enforce, just so that families will have legal rights for compensation.

        Or you can just do what I do, when I see someone on their phone, I just continue to honk my horn. I want to make sure that they know that I'm around.

          Reply#35 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:54 AM EST

          CAN WE PLEASE OUTLAW SMOKING IN CARS??? Why are people allowed to smoke in cars? Does any agency even bother to find out how many accidents are caused by people lighting, holding, smoking, dropping and burning themselves and the car seats and then throwing out the window their cigarettes?

          • 2 votes
          Reply#36 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:57 AM EST

          I remember when texting while driving was banned in my state. The local TV station did some interviews with people and asked them what they thought. One young woman said she would not stop. She said she would simply save up her money to pay the fine if caught. It's $100 I think.

          It has also been shown that having children in the car is far more distracting than anything else. If you have kids you know this. Actually TALKiNG on the phone is not the problem. It's the dialing and taking your eyes and thoughts off driving. I dislike talking on my phone while driving and just don't do it most of the time. I never dial a number but I do occasionally answer a call. I use a Bluetooth headset.

          We don't need another law that people will ignore anyway. We need to educate drivers. I'm 60 years old and have been driving legally since I was 14. I have never had a moving accident. Not my fault nor anyone else's. I have driven many, many miles over the years. But when I took drivers Ed we were taught that a car was a death weapon. That it was our responsibility to drive not only for ourselves but for everyone else on the road too. To pay attention all the time to everything around us. I had a friend one time tell me I was a "very focused" driver. Well, DUH.

          People have very busy lives now but we need EDUCATION, EDUCATION EDUCATION. People need it slammed in their faces the ramifications of driving while distracted. Just like it has been done with DUIs. It won't stop everyone but then nothing will, especially a new law.

          • 1 vote
          Reply#37 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:59 AM EST

          I'm totally opposed to cellphone use while driving. As a motorist for half a century and as a former crime reporter who's seen hundreds of accident scenes and read thousands of accident reports, I think most such calls are totally unnecessary. Having said that, I also realize the bigger picture. Congress is seeking to divert attention from its total lack of constructive ability to run the country by making this a major issue as Americans head into the election cycle.

          Just a few weeks ago, the government said the number of deaths – and deaths relative to the total population – has declined over the last two decades. From 1979 to 2005, the number of deaths per year decreased 14.97% while the number of deaths per capita decreased by 35.46%. Traffic fatalities in 2010 were the lowest in 62 years. Thus, while the accident that killed two motorists and injured some 35 others is regretable, it's far from being even a true knee-jerk reaction to a problem. The two biggest causes of vehicular death are cars and poor driving decisions by people. Neither of which can be removed from the driving equation. Congress members should stop pretending to do meaningful work and instead either handle the major issues or find other work.

          • 2 votes
          Reply#38 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:01 AM EST

          Want to solve the problem? It's easy. 5 yrs for a finder bender. 15 yrs for each injured person. 25 yrs for each dead person. Then people would think before talking.

            Reply#39 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:02 AM EST

            Will this law make Automakers Recall every vehicle sold with a built in handsfree device???

            Just imagine that.....

            • 2 votes
            Reply#40 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:03 AM EST

            make the fine 5000.00$ see how fast people stop talking!

              Reply#41 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:09 AM EST

              It is sad when there has to be legislation against stupidity. Every one know's "you can't fix stupid!"

              Make the fines for causing a crash while on the phone VERY HIGH. At least, the very stupid will pay for it.

                Reply#42 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:31 AM EST

                Jim-937260.....Great minds think alike

                  #42.1 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:34 AM EST
                  Reply

                  When police pull someone over for an offense or they investigate an accident, they routinelydo a sobriety test. Why not also do a "distraction" test if they are suspicious that the person was using a communication device while driving. Make it easy for police to request cell phone use records and require that cell carriers cooperate. If someone was using their device during the time of the accident or traffic offense, triple the fine ,points, etc on their license. Make the penalty onerous and it will reduce ( not eliminate ) distracted driving.

                    Reply#43 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:32 AM EST

                    Dodge County Sheriff's office is small....real small. Sheriff Nehls obviously hasn't checked an accident in a number of years and his views do not reflect the rest of Law Enforcement in the USA. A county with 9 fatality accidents in one year is peanuts compared to Milwaukee County and other areas. Why WTMJ contacted him is another mystery other than he likes seeing his name in print. He is after all another politician.

                      Reply#44 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:46 AM EST
                      ZangKoo2Deleted

                      Simply create a legal presumption of reckless driving by the cell phone user if an accident occurred. Damage suits soon would eliminae the practice for all but the most unintelligent drivers.

                        Reply#46 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:01 AM EST

                        So are they also going to ban all other distractions for drivers: eating, drinking, changing the radio, finding a different CD, talking kids in the back seat, smoking, putting on make up, reading, shaving, etc ... these can all be just as distracting if not more so. Providing better education for drivers would be a better use of funds. Or is this just a way for municipalities to have another reason to ticket folks and generate revenue?

                          Reply#47 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:03 AM EST

                          You know how many times I am on the freeway or road and people are talking on their cellphones and don't even see me. Completely oblivious! If I had a dime for every time this has happened I'd be rich.

                            Reply#48 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:05 AM EST

                            oh please, this wouldn't make their jobs any harder. Heck the local police in my area recently paid money to get camera's mounted on squad cars that can scan and record every single license plate that goes by the patrol car and alert the officer if the owner is wanted, if the vehicle has unpaid parking tickets, or any other offense all based off the plate, so those camera's could also be used to scan the people they pass if they are driving and alert the officers that a law is being broken(and the company making those camera's state that it is easily possible to do just that as well, all it would take is an update to the software). The police have an easier time doing their job now, thanks to those camera's. Plus all they have to do is use those camera's, take a picture of it, and send the ticket through the mail like they do now with traffic camera's. Making it harder my behind, there is technology already available that they use already to enforce this. I swear the police have it made these days when it comes to enforcing piddly little stupid laws.

                              Reply#49 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:09 AM EST

                              If cell phones are banned, so too must be car radios, truckers on the CB, eating and drinking. And yes, I'll sheepishly admit that I occasionally take my eyes off the road to look at the rear view mirror, speedometer and odometer. The horror.

                                Reply#50 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:11 AM EST

                                This is a complete waste of time. How are the police going to be able to tell if I am talking on the phone through the blue tooth in my rear view mirror or just singing to the radio? What is next, banning talking to the other people in the car, changing the radio station? Get real. I heard 3,000 people died in the US in 2010 due to distracted driving. That is 3,000 drivers out of what, 100 million drivers? Like the Milwaukee sheriff said, millions of people use their cell phones every day without a problem. You can't take stupidity of ouf society throught legislation.

                                  Reply#51 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:11 AM EST

                                  first...i don't even own a cell phone....with all the phone apps we here about how about a mandatory app loaded into a cell phone that senes when the car your in is running??? should be workable...

                                    Reply#52 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:12 AM EST

                                    I think the law would be impossible to enforce but there is another avenue that could be instituted. Make the penalties for causing an accident while texting or talking the same as they are for a dui. The calls and texts are time stamped so it would be resonably easy to determine what actually happened. All the blather from the personal responsability crowd would be tamped down and maybe it would drive home to all the texting nitwits that there are real consequences to their actions

                                      Reply#53 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:15 AM EST

                                      Phones don't kill people. Dumba$$ drivers kill people.

                                        Reply#54 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:18 AM EST
                                        Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 4 5
                                        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.