Audacity of Truth
Rahmbo:
"Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil's spawn. He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."
-Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) on Obama's COS, 3/7/10
Velvet Lair- Legends March 18, 2010
- Some things are just not cute March 18, 2010
- The adventures of the lady spider killer continue March 11, 2010
- Intermission February 19, 2010
- People who allow their dogs to poop in other people’s yards February 16, 2010
National Safety Council: Ban all cell phone use in cars
Via AP:
WASHINGTON — A national safety group is advocating a total ban on cell phone use while driving, saying the practice is clearly dangerous and leads to fatalities.
States should ban drivers from using hand-held and hands-free cell phones, and businesses should prohibit employees from using cell phones while driving on the job, the congressionally chartered National Safety Council says, taking those positions for the first time.
The group’s president and chief executive, Janet Froetscher, likened talking on cell phones to drunken driving, saying cell phone use increases the risk of a crash fourfold.
“When our friends have been drinking, we take the car keys away. It’s time to take the cell phone away,” Froetscher said in interview.
[...]
“Public awareness and the laws haven’t caught up with what the scientists are telling us,” Froetscher said. “There is no dispute that driving while talking on your cell phone, or texting while driving, is dangerous.”
Froetscher said the council examined more than 50 scientific studies before reaching its decision. One was a study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis that estimates 6 percent of vehicle crashes, causing about 2,600 deaths and 12,000 serious injuries a year, are attributable to cell phone use. Hands-free cell phones are just as risky as hand held phones, she added.
“It’s not just what you’re doing with your hands — it’s that your head is in the conversation and so your eyes are not on the road,” Froetscher said.
I understand the concern about the distractions cell phones potentially cause, but just how far are the do-gooders at the NSC going to take trying to get “distractions” banned? Will they try to ban radios next? How about passengers? Both are distracting as well. How many times have we all been driving and talking to the person sitting next to us and realized that we’ve coasted through a red light? Or listening to the radio and realized that we’ve made a right turn before making a complete stop at the stop sign? How long before they try to get razors banned so men can’t shave their beards while looking in their rear view mirror on the way to work? How about banning make-up in a car, so women can’t apply it in the rear view mirror on the way to work or to someone’s house? There are so many distractions drivers face every day – heck, the other cars are distractions. People walking down the street are distractions.
This is the problem when so-called “safety groups” take things too far in an effort to save people from themselves. They step over a line from a reasonable request to an invasion of someone else’s privacy. It’s one thing to ban drinking while driving – alcohol is not merely a “distraction”; it impairs your ability to think clearly and make good decisions, so the NSC comparing that to talking on a cell phone while driving is like comparing apples to steak. It’s not an invasion of privacy to outlaw drunk driving, but – in my view – it’s not reasonable to expect people not to talk on their cell phones while they’re driving anymore than it is to expect them to stop talking to the passengers in their cars, or to expect them to stop listening to the radio.
What do you think?
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
28 Responses to “National Safety Council: Ban all cell phone use in cars”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
I think speaking on a phone takes things to a different level than talking to somebody in the car or listening to something on the radio.
Talking on the phone is more difficult, because the talkers have no visual clues to what the other is thinking, and therefore more concentration is required.
That said, I have many times been in a cab while the cabbie is chatting away on his phone (in Punjabi I suppose) while taking me from here to there, and there have never been problems getting me from here to there.
I certainly hope this pattern continues.
Anyway, traffic laws are the domain of the Several States, and no doubt different stage legislatures will have different ideas.
Thought I would link to the research that’s behind these changes, and why cell phones are being targeted. Here’s there latest paper:
Cell Phone-Induced Failures of Visual Attention During Simulated Driving
As always, I would read introduction and discussion (and skim the tabled results). This paper also refers back to other papers that cover the same subject:
Our earlier research found that participants engaged in cellphone conversations were more likely to miss traffic signals and reacted to the signals that they did detect more slowly than when they were not engaged in cell phone conversations (Strayer & Johnston, 2001). Moreover, equivalent deficits in driving performance were obtained for both users of handheld and hands-free cell phones. By contrast, listening to radio broadcasts or books on tape did not impair driving performance…. These findings are important because they demonstrate that listening to verbal material, by itself, is not sufficient to produce the dual-task interference associated with using a cell phone while driving.
Here is the summary of a study comparing passengers to cell phone use. (Cell phones are more dangerous)
And here’s a study comparing drivers on cell phones to driving drunk. Cell phone users had more accidents. (3 vs. 0)
Sample sizes are small, but still interesting reading.
alchemist, did you read anything I wrote? Would you find it acceptable to completely ban cell phone use while driving?
Well good luck banning cell phones. With blue tooth headsets being as small as they are, unless the officer is in the car with you, there is no way he will be able to tell if you are talking on the phone or singing along to the music or just talking to yourself, and good luck banning that one.
Honestly tho, the drivers I have the largest trouble with are those who have the phone stuck up to their ear and they are gabbing away as if they have nothing better to do. I was behind one guy on the interstate who had his phone stuck up to his ear and was talking and laughing so much he was weaving between the two lanes. When he finally got off the interstate I was a pretty happy camper.
I myself talk on the phone almost everyday and do consider myself a very safe driver. I also use a hands free, and refuse to talk on the phone, while driving, without it. I don’t really care what any study says, as I think most studies and polls are bent to the desired results, but I know within myself I am a safer driver with my hands free than without it. – Lorica
How about banning children in cars? My kids are a constant distraction, but they were WAY worse when they were little, because they demanded so much of my attention.
I agree the whole cell phone thing has gone off the deep end. Picture an entire freeway full of rush-hour commuters pulling off the road to take a call from one of their kids at home. Which brings up an interesting point – there are times when we are sitting at lights or sitting in rush hour traffic that talking on the phone should be okay.
I’m quite fed up with other people regulating my life, thank you. And the article you quote is clearly propagand-ist in its methods. If you look at drunk driving vs. cell phone driving, what do you suppose the likelihood of a drunk driver getting in a serious accident is vs. a cell phone user? Probably 95% vs. 5%. Funny, but I’m accident-free thus far and have been using my cell phone while driving for at least 3 years now.
I just glanced at the drunk driving vs. cell phone driving study that alchemist posted and have decided that based on the results, all drunk driving laws should be revoked. It makes it look like drunk driving doesn’t cause accidents. What a scoop!
I find myself agreeing with Leslie and (God help me) even alchemist on this one. Cell phone users are probably the most dangerous menace on the road; even more than drunks, since there are so many more cell users than drunks. I drive more than most people – about 30,000 miles per year – and I’d rather have a moron flying by me at 95 mph than an idiot on the cell phone in front of me jamming on the brakes at unpredictable times while he/she needs to concentrate on dialing. It comes as no surprise to me that cell phone drivers cause more accidents. This doesn’t mean everyone who uses a cell phone is a bad driver, but let’s be honest – there’s a degree of impairment.
Part of the problem is that cell phones are no longer just phones. They have browsers, cameras, and (worst of all) text message capability. I challenge anyone to explain to me why it is safe to drive while carrying on a text message conversation. I doubt it will pass the laugh test.
And that’s part of the problem. If you’re going to permit unrestricted cell phone use while driving, you have to allow the imbeciles who are busy texting their friend Suzie important things like “u r so COOL!!!!!!” to run loose too. It’s impossible for a state trooper to tell who’s making a call and who’s texting or looking at a photo they just got on the phone from their buddy.
New Jersey has what seems to me a reasonable compromise. Cell phone use is permitted, but only with hands-free sets like the BlueTooth Lorica references. That mitigates the opportunity for the most dangerous cell phone activities. Initially, cell phone use was a secondary offense, but a few years ago the legislature amended the law, making it a primary offense. I just wish it were enforced better. I understand the Pennsylvania legislature is taking up a similar proposal this session.
Seriously, Lorica, do you believe that a decision as important as whether you are a safe driver should be left in your hands? What are you, some sort of anti-government militia member or something?
Next you’ll be claiming you have some mythical “right” to eat whatever you want, or to spend your money as you see fit.
Lorica – I’m perfectly fine with requiring that cell phone usage in the car be “hands free,” meaning a Blue Tooth or wire headset (I use the latter) but asking for outright banning is unreasonable, for the reasons I mentioned in my post. Slippery slope, anyone?
You know what I find to be one of the biggest dangers on the road, at least for my commutes? Mini-vans full of kids being driven to their next soccer game or pizza party. I mean no disrespect to the people who drive mini-vans/SUVs in general because I’m sure most of them are safe drivers, but I swear just about everytime I get near a mini-van or SUV full of kids with the driver having to watch over them in addition to the road, I’m having to stay back in order to try and stay out of the way of the weaving and swerving – not to mention the occasional speed demon. Talk about distractions!
Actually, I think the comparison is apt. No study I know of shows a driver to be dangerously impaired by changing a radio station or talking to a passenger, but study after study shows that cell-phone use while driving impairs a driver as much as or even worse than alcohol.
Now, I’m as annoyed by nanny-statism as almost anyone: I even have a blog post going up soon about an egregious example from Britain. But life in America is a constant negotiation over the boundary between personal liberty and our responsibility toward others. We do it all the time and in all aspects of our lives; one way we do that is by banning drinking and driving. We infringe on the individual’s liberty to drink not so much for what he may do to himself, but because of the grave risk to the property and lives of others. If the same can be empirically shown about driving and cell-phone use (and I think it has been), then I have no problem restricting it.
On a personal level, I can’t count the number of times when I, as a pedestrian, have nearly been hit by a driver talking on his or her cell-phone, or had my safety endangered while driving by another driver yakking away.
Perhaps an outright ban isn’t the best way, however. Maybe it should be treated like drunk driving for purposes of determining liability in accidents. But that’s a matter of policy for legislators to decide, or the public in a referendum. Regardless, I think it’s a reasonable area for government action, based on the evidence.
Look, I’m not saying that I LIKE the idea of a cell phone ban, I’m explaining that there’s legitimate reason for a ban to exist. Not necessarily the same thing. I don’t really like speed limits either, but I understand why we have them. I’m also explaining why we are likely to ban cell phones, but unlikely to ban radios. Note that hands-free sets didn’t mitigate the problem.
I’m just saying that there is some common sense in a ban, even if it sucks.
Well said, Anthony. I concur.
Another thought – there are laws that allow police to make a traffic stop if the driver is driving in such a way that the officer has good reason to suspect intoxication (I’m sure NC Cop can clarify or correct me if I’m wrong). Given that cell phone use also is a serious impairment, would it make sense to provide a similar avenue for law enforcement to pull over motorists who drive erratically because of cell phone use?
Which is why mentioned banning drunk driving in my post: it’s a reasonable infringement because of what alchohol does to your ability to think clearly and make good decisons.
Restricting it is one thing. Banning it is something else altogether.
If a study showed that having a radio in your car led to fatal accidents, would you be in favor of banning radios? Same same for passsengers? TVs? We can find studies that support of a whole host of well-meaning but flawed policy proposals – and the left does this far more so than the right – but in the end, would it make the infringment right? How far are we willing to go before we realize we’ve gone too far and have given the state too much control over what we do? How much is too much? I’m a responsible driver with my phone and encourage family and friends to be so as well – why should I be punished for the failure of others to be responsible with theirs?
GWR, I seem to recall (and NCCop, where are you?) that law enforcement is well within its rights to pull someone over for erratic driving, whatever the suspicion. This includes, but is not limited to:
* the guy who’s driving 25 in a 55, whether or not he’s too sure of where the road is
* the guy who slams on the brakes every 500 ft without apparent reason
* tire squealers
* people weaving in and out of traffic, speeding or not
* people not too sure which lane they’re in so they take up both — not necessarily at the same time
Not all the time are these folks drunk. Not all the time are these folks on cell phones. Not all the time are they grannies staring through the steering wheel while clutching tightly to what remains of their driving records, or the hyperagressive types who, heaven forfend, are so much more important than the rest of us that we should part traffic like the Red Sea in order to allow them passage. But a significant portion?? Oh yeah.
Speaking with tarnished halo,
– kd
Cell phones are a symptom, the deeper problem is that we have a society filled with people who are unwilling or unable to pay attention to the task at hand and constantly need to be entertained and distracted, they are so extroverted they feel they have to be talking with someone 24/7. You see them behind the wheel, in supermarkets, on the street, in theaters, in coffee shops, everywhere. People who are incapable of just being by themselves, alone, quietly, and paying attention to the world around them. This goes for cell phones, iPods (this all started during the Walkman craze), PSP/Nintendos, whatever, people can’t just live in the world, they have to be constantly entertained, the world has developed the attention span of a gnat.
People get run over by cars and trains while texting, listening to iPods, whatever, no idea of what the term situational awareness means. Until we generate a way to make the upcoming generations satisfied with reality alone, you’ll never get rid of this issue.
I just HATE it when I agree with the government but I think cell phones should be banned while driving.
Most mature drivers can deal with the radio without taking their eyes off the road or being too distracted.
I can almost always spot someone who is talking on the phone by the erratic way they are driving. In particular I am amazed at the number of people who will make a left hand turn with the phone blocking their vision since most people hold a phone on the left side.
Indeed, you are right Karma. Police only need resonable suspicion to make a stop, not an arrest. Probable cause that a crime has occurred is what is needed to make an ARREST. So there is much more latitude on when an officer can make a stop. Weaving, in and of itself, is not a violation of the law (unless it is endangering other motorists), however, we can stop to see if the driver is in duress or drunk, etc.
I can understand why people feel that there is a need for such a law, but I, too, am weary of banning phone use altogether.
Excellent points, Sev.
ST:
And the studies I cited are only a few among a large and growing body that show that using a cell phone while driving impairs the driver as much or more than alcohol — one study even showed that the driving skills of a 20-year old declined to the level of a 70-year old when on a mobile. (Hands-free sets aren’t much better, either, I’m afraid.) Whether the impairment comes from too many martinis or calling ahead for Chinese take-out, the effect is the same. That’s what we should keep in mind.
I’m suspicious of bans, since they only encourage people to get around them. Like I wrote before, I lean toward making people on a cell when an accident happens automatically liable, as we treat rear-enders and, I think, drunks.
If, and let me emphasize the “if,” you could provide multiple, well-designed studies that showed these activities impaired a driver’s ability as much as alcohol, then, yes, I would give serious consideration to arguments for restricting or even banning them. To do otherwise would be irrational.
(Digression: I was once driving on the 405 in heavy, slow traffic, when I passed a guy in a van who, while driving, was also playing Windows Solitaire on a laptop!
)
Back to topic: Trouble is, ST, I think you’re setting up several straw-men with your arguments in the last quote. The studies I cited are only a few that have shown the dangers posed by cell-phone use while driving. I haven’t seen any that show the opposite. (Doesn’t mean there aren’t any. I just haven’t found them) And I honestly doubt you could find a single, recent, well-constructed study showing similar problems with car radios, for example, let alone several of them.
Trust me, I’m very suspicious of new regulations and laws. Lord knows, we get plenty every day out here. (Did you know the California legislature passes an average of three new laws per day? Argh!) And I well know that the natural urge of bureaucrats and legislators is to slide down that slippery slope to expand their reach and justify their paychecks. That’s why we need to be suspicious of all new laws that infringe on individual liberty. But, when a reasonable argument –backed by evidence– can be made of the dangers posed by an activity, then it would be foolish to take a doctrinaire stand against any attempt to regulate it, including banning. That’s not skepticism, that’s just stubbornness.
Good discussion! I’ve enjoyed reading all the different views in this thread. Who’d have thought a question about motor-vehicle regulations could arouse such passion?
I just wish we could ban idiot drivers. This would include those for whom the conversation takes precedence over driving. Most times I prefer not to talk on the phone while driving anyhow, but for those times I do, it’s far more likely that the driving will distract from the talking rather than the other way around. Cell phone use is just one way idiot drivers put others at risk. If it wasn’t the phone, the idiot would hack you off in other ways. I wonder if there’s a study or two that compares the abilities of idiot drivers without cell phones by using good drivers with cell phones as a control group. I wonder if the studies above allowed for idiots with cell phones.
And to think there was a time with out cell phones.. without shoulder harness seatbelts. I remember when I was a little girl I was in the backseat standing up behind my daddy driving with my arms around his neck. Looking right over his shoulder. Heck I remember riding on my mama’s lap in the front seat without Airbags! The kids going to college this year were born in 1990. Interesting…
I think the increase in autism can be directly linked to the mandate to keep kids strapped down in car seats like baby astronauts or NASCAR drivers. This deprives kids of the social contact and interaction with their parents they so desperately need. If you look at it, the rise in car seat laws correlates with the increase in autism, kids aren’t allowed to move around and explore their boundaries and interact and touch their parents and such when strapped to car seats, and rear facing ones are particularly bad, as they disturb the normal locomotion sense, going backwards is bad for kids. And we all know correlation means causation!
So there, I’ve proven that car seat and seat belt laws cause autism! Hey, the correlation is stronger than that for mercury preservatives in vaccines…
Wow! Some fantastic comments here. Take a bow, people.
To me, all the comments in some way or another are contrasting the good of society with the good of the individual. The clash comes when, say, careful driver Lorica must obey rules designed to prevent uncareful drivers (Anthony’s solitare player, say) from harming the rest of us.
Sometimes you’re judged as an individual; sometimes as member of a group. And that’s not always fair. But that’s the way it is.
Another thing that I was thinking about on blaming cell phones for these accidents. How many accidents are caused by other things while people are talking and driving??? Recently, the state of Illinois has stated that they are going to start cracking down on tailgaters on the interstate. Soon after I heard that I was driving to this little town about 25 miles from home, saw a state trooper trying to catch speeders and marked the spot in my mind, as I was going to drive back the way I came. Well on the way back I picked up a tailgater, who for some reason refused to pass me. So as we were driving past the state trooper, I slowed down so that he could see this guy 5 ft off my bumper. I could not believe that this trooper couldn’t get off his ass to do the right thing and write this guy a ticket. Man was I po’d. So about a mile down the road we hit a passing zone and I slowed down to 25 mph and waved the guy around me. I was hot to say the least. How much of this is just bad driving habits, and non-enforcement of the laws?? – Lorica
Heard a good one on a radio talk show tonight: We can trust our young adults to fly multi-million dollar fighter planes or helicopters in war-time situations, handling navigation and weapons systems simultaneously, with many lives at stake, and yet we can’t allow our own citizens to drive while talking on a cell phone?
Well, Lori, fighter pilots are the upper echelon of skilled and trained people, 3 sigma individuals, as opposed to the mass of marching morons that comprise the average citizenry. What could possibly go wrong with letting them drive and text at the same time?