The National Transportation Safety Board today made a far-reaching recommendation to ban all non-driving-related use of personal electronic devices while in the driver's seat, including hands-free use. The recommendation was made to all US states, some of which already have laws on the books regarding cellphone use while driving. So what's a "driving-related" use? The NTSB's director was specific about wanting to ban making phone calls, sending texts, and making Facebook updates, but gave a vague answer regarding possible provisions that would allow for driving-related uses like GPS navigation; additionally, no specific devices or technologies were listed as offenders. Passengers can breathe easy, as the recommendation only applies to those operating vehicles.
The NTSB cited studies regarding electronic device use behind the wheel in justifying its recommendation — it argues that distractions are not just tangible in nature, and that even hands-free use creates a cognitive distraction that has deadly results. While the agency does not have the power to create or enforce restrictions, it can influence federal regulators and state and local governments.
There are 148 Comments. Add yours.
From the same government that gave you nanny-statism such as the TSA…
Hey I have an idea, since so many people die from skin cancer every year,, why don’t we just ban the sun?
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:12 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Weather or not you go out in the sun doesn’t affect anyone else. When you drive a car you owe it to your fellow motorists, and pedestrians, to stay off the phone and pay attention. Just my humble opinion.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:36 PM EST reply Recommend (27) Flag actions
Don’t drive while intexticated, and click it or ticket.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:12 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Can we ban smoking altogether too then.
Paying attention while using hands free isn’t difficult. I do agree texting and anything else requiring you to actually look at your phone and not at the road should be banned (including making phone calls). If you do have hands free that doesn’t require your attention to be diverted to make the call I see no issues with it.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:12 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
What evidence are you basing this on? Because based on the studies cited by the NTSB, you are wrong.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:42 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
he’s basing it on his own L33t sk1llz
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 5:17 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Considering there are about 10 times more people who die from lung cancer vs those who die in car accidents every year I’d say that’s a great suggestion. If only the tobacco industry didn’t have such effective lobbyists.
Posted on Dec 14, 2011 | 7:50 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
that might be so.. but then you have to ban talking while driving as well.. because hands free phone use is just the same.. there is no more distraction than having a conversation with the other passengers..
hey, i have an idea.. ban music as well.. it is proven that music is distracting as well.. oh, i know.. make a sound proof box, just for the driver, so at least the passengers can breathe, so they don’t distract them with accidental coughs or sneezes..
this is a bad recommendation in my opinion! of course texting and stuff should be banned, but just talking shouldn’t be, if you don’t need to take your eyes off the road to answer the phone..
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 6:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Ban the passengers. Sometimes passengers are the biggest distraction. Since we are in that process let’s ban kids in the backseat too. They make so much noise. NO CHILDREN IN ANY CAR EVER IN AMERICA 2012.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 6:18 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
I’m not denying that speaking on the phone while driving is a distraction – anyone here could probably recall a moment where he or she “snapped out of it” when focusing on a phone call (hands free or not) – but the truth is our attention spans in general are insufficient to safely operate a moving vehicle. We are easily distracted by almost anything while driving because it is boring.
Anecdotal evidence: while riding my bicycle down a well-lit street at night – in the bike lane, obeying traffic laws, and utilizing my own blinking lights – I was run over by a motorist coming the other way as he made a left turn. The excuse he gave me? He simply did not see me. He even admitted he wasn’t on the phone.
tl;dr Los Angeles has “Watch the Road” billboards and bumper stickers.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 7:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Don’t you think that if our attention spans were THAT insufficient then motor vehicle accidents would be happening much more frequently? Is that really a serious idea? What a wild and bizarre over-generalization about people and their cognition while driving. At the very least, talking on the phone while driving makes it much more difficult to “snap out of it” as opposed to just driving. Even if our attention spans are as bad as you say they are while driving, it would still be arguably easier for us to “snap out of it” if we weren’t “snapped in to” something else, e.g. texting, talking, etc.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 7:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The thing about debating (or arguing, if you prefer) motor vehicle accident statistics and their causes, is that the data sets are wildly unreliable. There’s simply no way to reach an acceptable sigma tolerance that a physicist wouldn’t double over laughing at. Having said that, with the data we do have, there is a fairly significant number of motor vehicle accidents every day: US Census Bureau. Granted, there is no mention of phone-related to non phone-related accidents, but I think it’s fair to agree that only a portion of these incidences are phone-related.
As for your comment about my conclusion being “a wild and bizarre over-generalization,” I did say my evidence was anecdotal. I’m not a NHTSA engineer. My conclusion was simply conjecture based on a few simple facts: I have yet to be involved in any sort of car accident – or any moving violation of any kind, for that matter – in my 12 years of driving, although quite deserving of both; I have witnessed first hand how simply spacing out/day dreaming/etc can commandeer all of one’s attention, resulting in (thankfully mild) accidents; and I cannot count the times I’ve driven from point A to point B simply by rote and familiarity, only to wonder how the hell I made it there without recollecting the trip itself.
And that last point is the meat of my assertion: they say most accidents occur within 10 miles of home/place of business, or “in the kitchen.” Routine begets familiarity begets complacency (boredom) begets dulled wits and slowed reactions. (My fault there is not specifying commuting to work, but the vast majority of miles driven anywhere is due to commuting.)
Just to be clear: I agree with the NTSB’s recommendation. However, I’m also a prolific Devil’s Advocate, so I apologize for the entirety of my exposition. FWIW
Posted on Dec 14, 2011 | 2:43 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You really don’t understand what nanny state means, do you?
The TSA is security theater. Nanny state would include things like social security, national healthcare, that sort of thing.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:41 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If the TSA’s workers would just stay awake and recognize guns and bombs, they might be worth it.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:18 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No, what would be worth it is an armed guard on every plane to deal with whatever may happen.
Go back to the original X-ray and metal detector stuff. Get rid of all this full-body xray crap. It doesn’t help at all.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The pilots won’t allow armed guards (certainly the British ones flying in your air space) they don’t trust that one of them doesn’t flip out. Better to be as sure as you can be that there are no guns on a plane than definitely have one in the “right” hands.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Air marshals, reinforced cockpits, and knowledgeable/reactive passengers/flight attendants are the biggest help in defense against terrorists.
Not forcing everyone to submit to a strip search.
Want to know how idiotic this has gotten? The TSA is now taking away nail clippers from pilots. Heaven forbid they try nail clip their way into taking over the plane……oh wait.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 5:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You ever wondered why they ban nail clippers which everybody freaks out about as being ridiculous?
Because they show up on the x-ray machine has being metal but you cant tell if its a nail clipper or a knife. So you have to stop the line to search that person’s bag to check and it wastes the time of the guy doing the searches and everybody in that line.
So what’s so stupid about telling people to but the damn things in their hold baggage?
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 6:25 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s even dumber to tell the pilots not to bring anything dangerous. They’re already pilots. They have complete control over the aircraft.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 8:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Defenestratus, I can only presume that you are a Libertarian who avidly supports individual liberties and responsibility. As a Libertarian, I’m sure you agree that everyone should be free to live out their lives in the ways that they want unless it encroaches on the life or liberty of at least one other person. If we apply this logic to the issue of phone use while driving, you should notice that, for example, people who text and drive encroach on the lives of others when (notice I say “when” and not “if”) their distracted driving results in them crashing into another car which can lead to injury or death. I’m sure you won’t even bother arguing that texting/talking while driving is distracting since it’s fully backed by science as well as logic; however, I bet you’ll disagree with me that proactively cracking down on distracted driving on a national scale is a bad idea and we should only punish people if their distracted driving results in an accident. This reactive policy that Libertarians implicitly tout does virtually nothing to prevent accidents from occurring. Strict Libertarianism is just as idealistic as strict Socialism, strict Capitalism, etc. because your assumptions are unrealistic similar to how a Communist’s assumptions are unrealistic about Communism.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 7:40 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
TSA has nothing to do with being a welfare state and is much more the result of right-wing paranoia about “terrorism” spread by the GOP and all the proud “patriots” who are opposed to social welfare spending but all for military spending.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 10:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Dumb people will still be dumb.
Better driver education, qualification courses, and possibly licences and plates that indicate driving skill levels. Going after low hanging fruit benefits no one and continues to put lives in danger.
Proper driver education would save FAR more lives.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:13 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
The problem is that proper driving etiquette must be followed by everyone. I could be the safest driver in the world with hours or proper driving education. However, it takes just one other bad driver texting while driving to crash into my car. The best way to improve “education” is to enforce a law. The same line of thought was applied to driving while intoxicated over 20 years ago. I am glad that law was enforced.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:17 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
Most drivers don’t know to yield the passing lane to faster traffic for example. People can’t be better drivers if they aren’t educated in the rules and actions of driving.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:25 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Almost as bad as the people who insist on coming to a stop to make a right turn.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well I hope you do stop if it’s a red light or there are pedestrians crossing. You are supposed to treat a right turn as a stop sign if there’s a red light.
Posted on Dec 14, 2011 | 7:06 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You know that is not what I was referring to.
Posted on Dec 14, 2011 | 9:10 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If that’s true, then we have to ban radios as well. And heads up displays. And interactive GPS systems. And interactive car control consoles.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:44 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yeah, but even with laws you’re never going to get everyone to follow them. And piles of rules are no good if people don’t know about them or can’t understand why.
And yes, you enforce the law, but when the law becomes something so extreme, then you can’t really enforce it.
Let’s face it: It’s not good for you to do ANYTHING while distracted. And there’s no single source of distraction in life. You shouldn’t drive while super tired, but we don’t have a law the regulates how “awake” you need to be. Honestly, your own thoughts could be just as much of a distraction, and you can’t really tell people how to think…
Posted on Dec 14, 2011 | 12:46 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Education has nothing to do with a human’s difficulty in processing multiple cognitive tasks in parallel (multitasking for real, not the stuff you do at work). No matter how smart you are or how good a driver you are, trying to have a conversation on the phone while driving makes you less aware as a driver. That’s a problem.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Really? I was a former pilot in the military and this included test pilot hours. This included probably thousands of conversations at the controls. I don’t need someone determining my abilities for me.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:12 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
How many planes were in your traffic jam?
There is something about being on the ground that lets people relax enough to divert their attention to something other than driving.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Wait a minute. I don’t want to misunderstand you…
Do you really think that driving in a traffic jam is more difficult than flying military aircraft?
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:25 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Driving in a traffic jam, or in Manhattan, or in 90mph traffic on the LIE is no walk in the park. Even if you’re the most experienced driver, taking your concentration away has serious consequences.
Obviously not everyone’s created equally, but studies show that the vast majority of americans SUCK at driving while talking on the phone, EVEN WITH a hands-free kit. Do you really want to share the road with these people?
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 5:21 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
You are obviously a highly trained pilot with hours of practice and practical experience for al, types of situations. I doubt that when you are in the cockpit that you are discussing the last Adam Sandler movie that you watched last weekend. At least not when you are performing a critical maneuver. Compare this to the average teenager that barely passed his practical and written driver’s exam and has had maybe 20 hours of instruction behind the wheel. Now give this kid a cellphone, stereo and friends in the car. I’m sure you wouldn’t want to be on the same stretch of road with him.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 5:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Exactly. YOU are only the problem if you’re the idiot trying to text while driving.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 5:38 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s great that you’re able to fly a plane free of the concern of multiple planes flying right next to you, wing to wing, nose to tail, coming at you from different directions with multiple visual cues conveying all sorts of information, such as when you can go, in which direction you can go, where you are going, and how you should go about proceeding. Because if flying in the air were anything like the mess of driving on the ground, you probably wouldn’t be alive to argue about this stuff on The Verge.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:27 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Let me see you fly a coordinated maneuver at low altitude while talking on a radio. Then tell me it’s easier than driving in rush hour traffic. I’ve done both. You haven’t.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:35 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
……and can the AVERAGE person (ya know, like the ones who drive most of the cars on the road) fly a coordinated maneuver at low altitude while NOT talking on a radio?
Study after study shows that “multitasking” while driving makes you a worse driver. Do you dispute this? Or do you just not recognize that no matter how good of a driver you are, that you’re still just as likely as anyone else to be broadsided by a broad updating her FB status?
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 5:24 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It doesn’t matter how good YOU are. Some idiot teenager texting on the phone will still wipe you off the face of the earth. These laws are written for the average consumer.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 5:44 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
And the same teenager could instead be:
Dropping a lit cigarette on his lap, spilling hot coffee, changing the radio station, putting on makeup, kicking off shoes, securing groceries that just spilled out of the bag, reaching behind the seat for a CD, etc.
It doesn’t make a difference what you outlaw a dumb driver will always exceed their abilities. We’d be better off with better education.
You’re punishing everyone as if all drivers are equal… they’re NOT.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 6:42 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Worst. Humblebrag. Ever.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 7:24 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Next they will ban fast food in cars
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:13 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Using a cell phone is not synonymous with eating in a car, or doing makeup in a car, or listening to music in a car, or pretty much any other average activities done in a car. The issue with phone use is not the physical impediment that it causes while your talking, dialing, and texting. The problem with phone use is that it generally requires a high level of cognitive thinking, which most other mundane tasks do not require, and that is what is a danger when driving.
When your mental and emotional state is being completely dictated by a phone conversation, it takes a large awareness away from your surroundings, even if you have 2 hands on the wheel and looking straight forward.
Having lived in LA for 3 years, I literally run into at least 3-5 “incidents” a DAY by my Maryland standards. Basically, situations where I would get hit if I did not move out of the way of a horrible driver. I kid you not, the VAST majority of those times, the person is clearly using a phone and/or babbling in their car on bluetooth.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:24 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
How is talking to someone over a hands-free bluetooth adapter any different from having a conversation with a passenger? Why don’t we ban passengers?
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:46 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
Your passenger can see what’s happening in and around your car.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:51 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
What? How does that help the driver maintain a “better” cognitive state?
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The passenger is less likely to distract you when it’s chucking it down with rain and the traffic is bumper to bumper.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:48 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
There’s actually been research done that compares driving hands free, with a cell phone in hand, and with a person in the car, so you can probably Google that if you really want to know the answer. Needless to say, going hands-free still found those drivers dangerously distracted by their conversation. I think one of the hypotheses was that not having the person there might cause the person to focus harder on the conversation for emotional cues and the like. These studies have been going on for years, so I don’t really remember as clearly as I’d like to, but you’re free to look them up.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:14 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
There was a show in the Science channel that ran a multitasking test on a volunteer who prided himself on being able drive and conduct business on his phone at the same time. Needless to say he did not perform either task well while doing both. I have a friend with the worst driving ability. The speed of his car depends on how deep in thought or conversation he is. Very scary. I am also guilty of poor driving while talking so I try not to do so. Don’t kid yourself, you brain is not wired to handle all these inputs.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 5:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Actually, no one (here) is really debating that phones can be a distraction. Rather whose responsibility it is to govern such things. Driving comes with a load of personal responsibility; determining whether you can hold a phone conversation is just another.
Consider the following. I can do the following effectively while driving:
a) Turn on the radio, plug in the cords, and queue up the Vergecast on my phone.
b) Scrounge around the floor for a box of tissues
c) Hold a spoken conversation through various medium
By contrast, I drive poorly when I:
a) Follow another vehicle, especially in dense, unfamilar urban zones
b) Eat food
c) Have my cat crawling around the dashboard
Your lists will vary. A blanket ban on conversational technology is not the answer. Be safe.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 7:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
All of which ignored the fact you said “he prided himself on being able to drive and conduct business…at this same time”. Oops. Still…
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 7:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m pretty sure Mythbusters tested something like this. I recall that they found that the distraction of the conversation was the same as being intoxicated.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 9:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m more worried about the lady doing her makeup in the mirror than the one talking with a hands free.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:17 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
True story:
Asked why Rolls Royce’s don’t have vanity mirrors behind the sun visors, the RR salesman said “Well brought up young ladies make up in the rear of the car”
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 5:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They’ll ban using a radio too.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:18 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Or make on-steering-wheel controls that you can use without having to look mandatory instead of a luxury item.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Radios don’t actively distract you by talking at you, you can passively listen.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:49 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yeah, I’ve had more close calls trying to eat a Egg McMuffin than I have talking on my bluetooth system.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:18 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Egg McMuffins should be banned!
(and I don’t mean just while driving)
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Everything should be banned! We should just use trains instead!
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 5:41 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I was kidding – I can’t eat eggs so have never had one:)
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 6:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
BTW who’s in the photo? HOT
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:19 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Debbie Hersman the chair of the NTSB. Some photos don’t do her justice. She’s a cutie in person.
[/my inappropriate & off topic observation]
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:27 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Nice that you can be objective on that subject. Unfortunately many people would call her ugly (and other obscenities) just because they don’t agree with her or because of the department she is part of.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 7:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The only four stats you need are:
(1) accidents per mile driven in 1995.
(2) deaths per mile driven in 1995.
(3) accidents per mile driven in 2011.
(4) deaths per mile driven in 2011.
You’ll find that (3) and (4) are down significantly, coincident with wide scale adoption and use of these technologies that Ray LaHood and his band of nannies are so concerned about.
BTW, one way that the nannies try to pad the data is to note in accident reports whether the accident was coincident with sending or receiving a text within a time window, or placing or receiving a call within a time window. The data miners then assume some causation, while the rates of these incidents are mostly consistent with mobile usage that does not result in accidents. I.e. the data here is just noise. Remember that the next time some politician claims to be making decisions “based on the science”.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:23 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
To many variables to account for. That’s a 16 year difference, so to derive metrics in defense of either point is moot. So what if death rates went down? Do you know how much automobile safety and standards have progressed in 16 years? Theoretically speaking, you could potentially have 5 times more accidents, and half as many deaths purely for this reason.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:27 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
Except, in reality, you have fewer accidents per mile driven in 2011 than in 1995. The point is that their micro stories are not backed up by macro data. This would be harmless if they weren’t trying to infringe on all of our freedom, convenience, and enjoyment. But they are trying to do that, and the macro data just does not support their efforts.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The relevance of your first two stats seem pretty dubious. Cell phone adoption rate in 1995 is not equivalent to the 2011 rate. How many drivers were using touch-screen phones in 1995? Come on, buddy.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think you really missed the point, because you just spit it back to me. In 1995, there were very few drivers dealing with the distraction of phone calls and texts. In 2011, there are perhaps 20% of drivers doing the latter on at least a monthly basis. If this caused accidents, you would expect to see an increase in accidents per mile driven. Similarly with phone calls.
I’ll tell you what I find… I don’t type texts while driving, nor do I manually dial or otherwise fiddle with my phone. But I do talk on the phone while driving and send/receive texts via voice. It keeps me alert, especially at night. I’ve certainly seen people who let it get to the point of distraction, but it’s certainly not 20% of the driving public at any particular time. I think that drivers who are bothered by seeing others distracted are overestimating the percent who are materially distracted and under-appreciating most other drivers’ abilities to prudently manage these things while driving safely. The macro accidents per mile and deaths per mile stats bear that out.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:34 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Your points are all very valid, but why not try to reduce the accident rate even further by eliminating those accidents that are actually caused by texting/calling at the wheel? A life is a life regardless of “improving” statistics…
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:41 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The point is that you can’t conclusively say that cell phones cause more car accidents because there are fewer accidents today than in the past in general – so it would actually be easier to stretch the numbers to say that cell phones actually reduce accidents (both are examples of correlation without causation).
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Except that there are studies (cited by the NTSB) that show cell phones do increase car accidents. Studies that are far more comprehensive and more conclusive than “lets compare some numbers from today and 16 years ago with no control of any other factors”.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:52 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Dig into how the raw data is gathered. There are two variations. One is the micro “one driver” study that purports to show that individual drivers are always distracted in non-real-world conditions, and don’t account for drivers quickly learning how to safely incorporate technology into their driving. The other variation confounds coincidence with causality using police reports that note coincidence of talking on phone or even a device receiving a text message, when there is no evidence that it was actually read or caused a distraction!
This is exactly why you need to look at the big picture data and ask why it’s not consistent with the stuff they are touting to reduce your freedom, convenience, and enjoyment.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 5:22 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The latest study from Wayne State shows that the NTSB’s studies overestimate the risk of accident by a factor of four. NTSB has refused to discuss its methodology, and the head of NTSB who has made repeated statements about proper study methodology has no professional experience nor educational background in research and statistics.
Posted on Dec 14, 2011 | 12:05 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Exactly. Just like there’s a correlation between ice cream sales and shark attacks. Doesn’t mean one causes the other.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 5:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Here’s why. I’ll bet that 99% of us are generally safe in how we use our various devices while behind the wheel. I’ll define safe as if the windows were tinted, and you had to observe whether someone’s driving was consistent with being safe and attentive, you’d say safe and attentive. Unsafe an unattentive driving is out of the norm. Yeah, on your 40 mile commute, you see a few idiots every day. That’s out of the hundreds of cars you don’t take much notice of.
Simply put, the problem of distracted drivers can be dealt with simply by having cops notice them and pull them over for driving erratically. Most of us are conscientious enough to know when we need to focus on driving more. The worst thing you can hope for as someone who seems to think laws can solve social ills is a bullshit regulation based on bullshit data and bullshit reasoning, that everyone will ignore because it’s bullshit.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 5:30 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
So yes, perhaps the key is not banning the use of cellphones altogether, but focusing on education and promoting safe use of these technologies. If only there was a way to test someone’s ability to mentally multitask at the wheel.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Also better brakes and general car safety…
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:50 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
My thought as well. How do improvements in accident avoidance and accident survival technology in autos affect the numbers stated in those statistics?
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 9:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If you want to use your phone in a car, get bluetooth. I’d prefer you pull over to write an e-mail or send a text as opposed to killing my wife and son.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:24 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
There is some debate as to whether or not speaking on bluetooth or other hands free phone systems is safe while driving a car.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
CNN says: “It would not apply to hand-free devices or to passengers”
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:24 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I see CNN corrected themselves…quote: It would apply to hands-free as well as hand-held devices, but devices installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer would be allowed, the NTSB said.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Utterly absurd, and underscoring the NTSB’s incompetence. There’s no difference between having a call using GM OnStar with the onboard device and having a call using your cell phone on a car Bluetooth system other than where the radio is. If conversations are dangerous in the latter, they’re equally dangerous in the former.
It’s pretty clear to me that NTSB doesn’t have the first clue about technology, the latest innovations in Bluetooth hands-free voice-to-text (and vice versa), nor much of an interest in partnering with technology companies to get a real understanding of the opportunities that innovation presents. They just want to impose a ban, kill off the Bluetooth industry, and be done with it. A few hundred thousand jobs lost is no skin off their nose, I guess.
Posted on Dec 14, 2011 | 12:08 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think this legislation is horrible but I welcome its consequences: improved voice control and more of a push towards autonomous cars.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:25 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
So if this law were to pass, I wouldn’t even be able to use the GPS navigation functions of my phone? That would be pretty f’n stupid. There doesn’t need to be a new law, just enforce the current law better.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Now read the post.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:29 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
From what I have read on other cites when they refer to GPS they are speaking of stand alone devices not the feature on your phone.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Unless your phone lets you get directions by speaking to it, no you shouldn’t. Trying to enter an address for GPS is just as bad as text messaging while driving.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:50 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
We’ve had a ban on mobile phones while driving in the UK for a few years now. Every time I see someone breaking the law by using their phone while driving, they do something stupid like pulling out at a roundabout without looking.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:33 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I had someone almost merge into the side of me last week, I was nowhere near their blindspot either. They would have to had I not used my horn. What did I see when I looked over at the driver? A hand and a cell phone between their face and the side window.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:48 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yep. There has been a ban in place for 10 years and unfortunately not heavily enforced.
A good friend of mine was killed in exactly the circumstances you describe (car pulled out at a roundabout, driver using phone, knocked him off his bike and killed him)
I have zero sympathy for people using phones in cars and will photograph and report them.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:12 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
so you photograph them while driving!!?? :)
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No. I ensure I am stationary.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:57 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Did they also reference the two flawed studies that show a 4 times increase in accident risk while using a cellphone while driving? We live in upside-down world.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I know this was in a different part of the world but did you happen to see the decrease in vehicle accidents in the Arab Eremites the one day that Blackberry service was down. Studies may be flawed but real world stats are not.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:45 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
You need to study the relationship between “cause and effect.” Correlation is not cause.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 11:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m not one for extraneous government regulations but I really believe there should be a nationwide ban. The lack of common sense I see daily from drivers on cells phones that puts my life at risk is actually scary. I moved to NC (talking on cell phones allowed) from NY (no cell phones allowed) 6 months ago and the amount of accidents and near collisions I’ve seen here is more than I saw in 12 years of driving up north, including in snow.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:43 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I kind of support this. And I know it will not happen.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m fine with it as long as they ban children under 4 as well. A crying baby is far more distracting than any phone call I can remember.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:45 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
I think hands-free use should be acceptable. Texting definitely shouldn’t and I think holding your phone shouldn’t. But hands-free is no more distracting than having a conversation with a person next to you in the car. Also there is no way this law could be enforced fairly with hands-free. How can you tell if somebody is talking on their phone if their car has a Bluetooth enabled stereo? Keep in mind the police couldn’t just check your phone to see your call log.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
and everything else on your phone
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 3:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Actually, there are several studies that say talking to someone on the phone, with or without your hands, is more impairing for a driver than talking to someone in the car.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They should just mart it under a DUI.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:12 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I find it difficult to believe that a government agency came to a logical conclusion. Apparently, there is some intelligence in government.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:22 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
While I’m sure everyone here has the reflexes of a fighter pilot and could successfully maneuver their vehicle through a hurricane while playing with the radio, changing destinations on their GPS, talking to their spouse on their iPhone, reading work emails on their Blackberry, and making themselves a health shake, all after a five-martini lunch, most drivers cannot.
Unfortunately, many of those drivers also lack the judgment to refrain from engaging in activities that physically or mentally impact their driving, and since you now have car manufacturers that are trying to make sales by touting the ability to use Facebook from your car, it’s obvious that the marketplace isn’t going to encourage responsible driving either.
Hence, government regulations.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:28 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Is hands free really anymore safe then just using your phone normally since most people only use one hand to drive with anyway. Their is, of course, a difference between the people who know how their phone works inside and out and those that “aren’t good with electronics” in any case the decision should be up the individual. What we should ask is: Can the NTSB do anything to ensure people with drivers licenses are discerning enough to evaluate weather using a cell while driving is reasonable for them?
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What’s next? are they going to ban me from falling asleep at the wheel?
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:41 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
These studies totally ignore the fact that some of these technologies have a benefit that offsets the costs to some degree. For example if I get a call telling me that I do not need to pick up the kids from school – that’s less driving for me and commensurately less risk for other drivers. The NTSB only looks at the added risks, not the benefits on the other side of the equation. More efficient use of technology translates into fewer miles driven.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:42 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Well said.
How about a person who is lost and disregarding traffic laws to make last minute lane changes, etc. This could be avoided if someone was able to help them navigate over hands free. Just an example. It’s better if they pull over and figure it out, but that won’t necessarily happen (you have to look at what people will ACTUALLY do.)
Also, they don’t necessarily consider what people will do instead of talking on the phone that could be equally as distracting. I believe that people who want to be distracted will find something to distract themselves.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 9:10 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
How does a hands-free conversation on the phone differ from talking to any of your passengers, in terms of cognitive distraction?
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 4:45 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
A passenger is an extra set of eyes that can help watch for dangerous situations and when a situation does occur, they cease being a distraction. Neither of those two apply when talking on the phone.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 7:21 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That’s not what the research shows. The latest research from WSU shows that there’s little difference in distraction between a hands-free conversation on a mobile device and one with a passenger.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 11:52 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The distraction is same/similar but the DANGER is not, because of the reasons I stated.
Posted on Dec 14, 2011 | 1:23 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
There’s no empirical evidence for your assertion, which is purely opinion.
It also assumes that every passenger — including young children, the blind, those without driver’s licenses and the elderly — have a strong grasp of driving dynamics and contextual situations. That’s an overly generous assumption — at best.
Posted on Dec 14, 2011 | 2:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It just does. Drive around and watch people talk on hands free. They obviously drive differently (and usually slower) than people talking to passengers. At least usually.
Just watch people. You don’t need to be the NTSB to see how people behave.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 9:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m really surprised how much this community is in favor of a ban. I was expecting the exact opposite.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 5:02 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think the older people who grew up without cell phone see no reason we should have to use them behind the wheel. They lived without them for a long time.
The only reason I’m in favor of certain restrictions is because I’ve been rear ended twice by phone using people (looking down.)
I’m not in favor of hands-free completely. I am in favor of some limits and practices.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 9:05 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Every car should be a one-seater since passengers are a distraction. Also, only one car should be allowed on any road at any time.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 5:02 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
um speakerphone!
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 5:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
NTSB says those should be banned too.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 9:02 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
YES YES YES YES!!!!!! Perhaps some you kids posting here don’t know how dangerous it is to use a cell phone while driving. You are not only endangering yourself but other drivers.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 5:08 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
There are many ways to use a cell phone. Not all of them are totally dangerous.
I’m sure you’re guilty of being distracted by something while driving on occasion. Same difference.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 9:02 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The thing that kinda sucks about this is the individual jitter – there are plenty of people out there that are such bad drivers that just driving normally they’re worse than a typical person talking handsfree. All these laws seem to do is blame technology for people’s inabilty to drive properly.
And requiring it to be built into the car is even worse – most car’s nav systems are ten times more complicated than just long pressing search and asking google maps to navigate somewhere.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 5:33 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Doesn’t matter what the law states, this will be unenforceable. If someone is talking on a hands-free, who’s to say they are not madly talking to themselves, or singing along with a song? Here in California there is already a ban on making a call without handsfree which is relatively easy to enforce, but I see people talking without handsfree almost every day.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 5:35 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Hey America, we got this a loooooooong time ago!
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 5:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yes, but this is America. You’re supposed to be able to do what you want in this country. That’s what is supposed to make it different.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 8:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
lot of people are upset over this. Its quite simple.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 5:56 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Hmmm, hands free ban is gonna be a tough sell. I’ve seen the tests and it does make since from an academic standpoint, but still, its going to be a tough sell. Anything to do with hands-on though needs to be a nation-wide ban, period. However, I don’t go a single day in LA Traffic without seeing several cases of people texting, talking, or doing whatever in their car. Oh yea, and ban applying makeup as well.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 6:32 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And even though it’s illegal here in California, how many people do you see per 5 minute period holding a phone to their ear (or holding a phone up while on speakerphone…same difference.) The answer is a lot.
The only way this works is if it’s a BIG FAT ticket. Somehow that doesn’t completely stop drunk driving, though.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 8:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I support this ban. The average person is not well versed in the art of multitasking and the worst offenders tend to be (from my own anecdotal observations) people who oppose these kinds of bans.
ut ultimately, we need Google to push forward with their driverless cars. That is the solution. Remove the human element and you will see rapid and substantial improvement in vehicle operation safety,
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 7:00 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Wouldn’t it be just better to make driving the privilege of those who can do it properly? Like in Germany – where most people can’t get a license because they’re not up to the task. Then, the roads are left to be used by those competent enough to drive.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 7:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So your solution is prevent the average citizen of the United States from being mobile? The mass transit infrastructure here is abysmal (and that is putting it kindly, and yes I’ve used it for years). So unless we are willing to completely overhaul of cities and develop them around mass transit, simply implementing the Germany system is not going to cut it.
And given that the conservatives of this country are fighting tooth and nail to prevent any sort of advances in mass transit… the only solution is the driverless car.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 7:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
2 hands on steering wheel except when doing car stuff like changing gears, activating switches
Solved.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 7:03 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
handsfree things makes sense thou
proven by Mythbusters
Waits for Google driverless vehicles
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 7:07 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Don’t forget rolling down the window. :)
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 7:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If you look at the NTSB recommendation, even 2 hands on the wheel isn’t enough. That’s the point of this hubub, that hands free doesn’t work. (Yet somehow if it’s built in to your car it’s OK.)
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 8:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Fsckin George Bush. Leave me alone – stop trampling on my freedom.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 7:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Someone once suggested that instead of making cars safer, put a big sharp metal spike coming out of the steering wheel, pointing at the drivers face.
He will then drive very very carefully.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 7:40 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is bullshit. How do you even get pulled over for hands free use of a phone? How would the coppers know? Does playing music from your phone count as handsfree use?
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 7:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s quite obvious whens someone is talking hands free with a headset. Just look for the person driving 10MPH slower than everyone else and yelling at their windshield.
I am of course joking a bit.
What kind of gets me about this far-reaching recommendation is that all hands free devices should be banned except ones built in to the cars by the manufacturer. This completely confuses the message. What is the dangerous activity here, talking on the phone, or the device you’re using. If talking, then why is an in-car system OK? They didn’t even address that data.
What if my in-car system is inferior to the visor clip speakerphones on the market today that are safer to use? I just don’t get it.
How about some thoughtful recommendations about features, devices, and ways of using them that would make the practice SAFER yet allow people some limited use? The total ban won’t work (ie prohibition) so how about a reasonable recommendation?
What is sure to come out of this (if anything) is a compromise. Hopefully a reasonable one.
If it’s a total ban, so be it. If that’s the case, then NO one should be able to do it, no exceptions. If there is an exception, it has to be something that everyone can obtain.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 8:53 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I’d say it’s pretty ridiculous… I’m all for a safer road….
but if they are going to go THAT far… they might as well ban TALKING to you’re fellow
passenger too… as that would be a “cognitive distraction”.
So if the cops see you moving your mouth… WUP THERE YOU GO! BIG HEFTY TICKET FOR YOU!
And come on… GPS can totally help you keep focused on driving… rather than trying to figure out where to go in the first place…..
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 10:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Umm the “man”, aka the government officials are startin to look kind of cute. :-)
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 10:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is a really, really stupid proposal for a whole variety of reasons.
1) The latest research by Wayne State University showed that the risk of accident caused by cell phone use — the “bad, old fashioned way,” is 1/4 what NTSB’s studies show.
2) The latest smartphones and Bluetooth systems use voice recognition, standard. You can send a text using your voice, receive a text being read to you, and do it all while keeping your eyes on the road and your hands on the wheel. Mandating use of these systems would eliminate the conditions leading to the accident NTSB cites as justification for its position. It’s easy and fast, and supported by every smartphone platform being used, including iOS, Windows Phone, Android and BlackBerry.
3) Missouri law already bans texting while driving. Changing the law to a broader ban on mobile devices wouldn’t have avoided that situation.
4) NTSB’s standards are arbitrary. For instance, it claims that talking while driving is dangerous and would ban in-car Bluetooth systems connected to mobile phones — but it would permit OnStar and other systems embedded in the car to be used for unlimited talking and other services. There is no difference between using OnStar to dial a phone number and using a voice-activated Bluetooth headset or in-car system.
5) NTSB’s ban would extend to using Personal Electronic Devices (PEDs) for other uses in car, including streaming radio, MP3 playing, and other uses — even if the system is directly integrated into the radio controls.
6) NTSB’s ban would demolish numerous companies in mobile media, Bluetooth headsets, Bluetooth car systems development, and cost jobs in the mobile sector.
Posted on Dec 13, 2011 | 11:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m having trouble reading these comments with all these damn potholes bouncing my car around while I’m holding my iPhone. Great I just ashed my cigarette all over my seat.. Downshift.. Oops. Mom, I gotta call you back I’m trying to type my X-Mas list right now and I’m dri.. Upshift… Damnit lady can you drive any slower? Why Does Chris Brown keep popping up on my Lil Wayne Pandora station? I just gave this a thumbs down.. Mmm.. This coffee is delicious..
Posted on Dec 14, 2011 | 12:46 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Posted on Dec 14, 2011 | 5:37 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Hey, those stating cell phones are bad while driving and that blah, blah … HAM radios have been around and operated for a very, VERY long time, more complex than cell phones … um 1) you will not find a study saying they are dangerous and should be ban, 2) Removing HAM radios from cars will mean removing CBs from semis, QUALCOMs from semis, radios from trucks, cabs, buses … and the list goes on. 3) TRY to insert a law to stop me from operating my HAM radio in a car … HAMs will not tolerate it just because there are stupid drivers who can’t drive and talk or ignore the phone in an emergency. As for the ‘your passenger can stop talking’ argument as to why cell phones are more dangerous has NEVER driven unlicensed drivers or kids. Try telling a five year old and a three year old who are tired and fighting in the back of a car they need to be quiet … hey School Bus drivers how does that work for you?
The nation shouldn’t bow down to the lowest common factor just because people can’t talk and drive. Suspend the license of those who can’t and leave everyone else alone.
Posted on Dec 14, 2011 | 9:07 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.