Distracted Governing
The people at the NTSB apparently haven't noticed that the people behind the wheel on our roads are not 5, save for the few who sneak into Mommy's minivan try to take a test drive. Walter Olson writes at Cato that the fine nanny-folk at the NTSB now want to ban phone use -- even hands-free phone use -- while people are driving:
The only exceptions the agency would permit would be "emergency" phone use and "devices designed to assist the driving task," such as GPS devices. NTSB chairman Deborah Hersman said the problem is "cognitive" distractions as well as the "visual" and "manual" kind. The agency cannot adopt such a ban directly, but it's calling on the states to fall into line and to enlist in a campaign of "high-visibility enforcement."And there's more. NTSB is also, to quote PC World, "encouraging electronics manufacturers -- via recommendations to the CTIA-The Wireless Association and the Consumer Electronics Association -- to develop features that 'disable the functions of portable electronic devices within reach of the driver when a vehicle is in motion.'" In the perfect Nannyland of the future, your phone will turn itself off when the government wants it to -- even if you were in the middle of placing one of those emergency calls ("Honey, get out of the house, the flood waters are rising") that will supposedly still be permitted.
Tech commentators are blasting the agency for jumping the gun on the evidence, to say nothing of ignoring values of personal liberty. A PC Magazine writer points out that while there is a safety case to be made against texting behind the wheel -- a practice that encourages the driver to look away from the road for extended periods -- the NTSB is short of statistics (as opposed to scary anecdotes) to show that phone conversation itself is a dire problem. Ars Technica notes that even the board's own (disputable) statistics link the hazards of "conversation with passengers" to more than twice as many fatal accidents as the hazards of device use -- and no one has yet proposed banning passenger conversations with the driver. (Don't give Washington ideas, though.)
I'm very much against distracted driving, but you can't ban our way to safety. In fact, welcome to the overlegislation of unintended consequences...when your nannystate-equipped car is unable to discern whether you're having an emergency while your car is overturned just off the side of the road or whether you just though it would be a kick to check the basketball scores while hanging upside-down.
> I'm very much against distracted driving, but
> you can't ban our way to safety.
You may well be right, but how do we know? These people are dangerous. Thousands and thousands of people are alive today who might not have been because society stepped up the harsh on drunk drivers during our childhoods.
Cars already have 30-second data recorders, and pen register cell data is ever-more promiscuously assembled and distributed by phone companies.
Sincerely undecided on this one.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 15, 2011 1:29 AM
"The people at the NTSB apparently haven't noticed that the people behind the wheel on our roads are not 5, save for the few who sneak into Mommy's minivan try to take a test drive."
Consistency alert!
Rude people are routinely hammered here and elsewhere for paying no attention to others as they yammer.
I am held up daily by some idiot who thinks that something on the phone, somewhere else, is more important than driving.
As I ask in safety meetings - "Do you hate your friends and loved ones so much that you want them to hear you die because you were on the phone?"
NTSB is an investigative arm, and a very good one, not the nanny. And it is completely possible to program phone OSes to hang up after one mimute when moving when calling other than 911.
You know that the vast majority of calls are complete nonsense. As Ford Prefect noted, humans talk so their brain doesn't start working.
People are in denial about this, like the guy on here some time ago who would not wear a seat belt, insisting that he would hold onto the steering wheel in a crash.
Radwaste at December 15, 2011 2:35 AM
Crid, I've also seen studies that blame the 'vast majority of crashes' on tired drivers. So this is the statistics game, flavor of the month, let's bend the numbers to reflect the current evil trend.
Radwaste, I am held up daily by some idiot who thinks that because the state was stupid enough to give tham a license, that they can drive. There are people with no awareness of their surroundings (other cars around you), what mirrors are for, and think it's their duty to keep others from speeding in the left lane. These folks don't know what a turn signal is, and can't seem to turn it off once it's on. Whether or not they're on the phone, eating breakfast, reading their email, fixing their face, gazing at the scenery - these folks should be using public transportation.
But we're talking about cell phones. Okay, first let's not overlook the distinction between hands-free and hand-held calling. Also, talking to someone or texting them. You might as well stretch your 'drinking and driving' to include all beverages.
You want laws, fine. Start pulling people over for 'distracted' driving like we already have laws for. And leave me and my hands-free alone. Get the wingnut next to me who's texting and swerving in morning traffic, but we should all look out for them or we're the assholes.
DrCos at December 15, 2011 2:56 AM
NTSB chairman Deborah Hersman said the problem is "cognitive" distractions as well as the "visual" and "manual" kind.
The MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over) effect when you're talking on the phone, even on hands free, is quite real. You're missing the subtle visual cues you get in a normal conversation, even with a passenger, so your mind constructs a virtual reality that can be very distracting. Call someone on the phone at home and try to read something at the same time. You'll find you can't easily concentrate on both.
I don't really agree with a law against it, mostly because it's unenforceable - "I was just singing along with the music officer, not on the phone at all" (hang up). Although I suppose depending on probable cause restrictions, perhaps they could subpoena your phone records.
Ltw at December 15, 2011 3:37 AM
Admittedly, texting is much, much worse. I've done almost everything stupid there is to do in a car and that scared me.
Ltw at December 15, 2011 3:39 AM
We are so quick to criminalize what might be best left to the civil courts.
Let the civil courts handle the few cases that involve actual injury to the public. Don't criminalize the RISK to the public.
Plus, I wonder how close this is to the fear of flying. People say it is not rational to fear flying because the odds of dying in a plane crash are so small. Likewise, the number of people who die or are injured in car crashes is probably a very small percentage compared to the number of cell-phone-in-car conversations that take place (without injury).
Or maybe I am just lucky; I have never died in a plane crash and I have never been in an accident while talking on the cell phone. Yeah, I live on the edge.
-Jut
JutGory at December 15, 2011 5:29 AM
It's the usual question: Is it the job of the government to legislate against being stupid?
For example: the other day I moved my car from the driveway to the street, and did not wear a seatbelt. I made a personal decision to accept a microscopic risk in return for a very small savings in time and hassle. This is illegal. The government knows better than I do.
With electronic devices, it is even more problematic than with seatbelts. Without technical measures, this is simply unenforceable. If someone isn't physically holding a phone to their ear, how can you tell?
With technical measures - imagine! Imagine cars that disable electronic devices. This would mean your passengers would be unable to make phone calls. Worse, this field will not magically stop at the car window. Traffic becomes a rolling mass of cell-phone jammers.
I don't want the government legislating stuff like this. If you cause an accident by being distracted (or drunk, or overly tired, or whatever), you have a civil liability. That is sufficient. We do not need legislation criminalizing vast swaths of normal behavior, in hopes of providing some marginal increment in security. As Ben Franklin said: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
a_random_guy at December 15, 2011 5:37 AM
Then also take the stereo systems out of the vehicle. What about the baby in the car seat in the back seat?
They both can be a distraction.
DrCos has it right -- if the cops see someone weaving stop them and cite them.
Jim P. at December 15, 2011 6:02 AM
Problem is, we already basically have these laws. Many states banned non-hands-free cell phone calls a while back, and yet, suprise, suprise, I still regularly see folks driving while holding a cell phone. I also regularly see people breaking innumerable other laws while driving. And very few of them get pulled over.
As with so many attempts like this, the only people it's going to matter to are the people who care enough about other people to not drive like idiots in the first place. Everyone else is just keep on doing their thing.
JDThompson at December 15, 2011 6:07 AM
Jim P, for whatever reason, music doesn't cause the same cognitive dissonance, presumably because it's not two-way so you don't have to concentrate on it, not in the sense of being able to respond intelligently. If need be, you can shut it out. Ever run a song back because you missed the best line? So stereo systems are not an issue. Babies...hmmmm, might grant you that one.
And yeah, JDThompson, I still drive with my cell on loudspeaker sitting on my knee and out of sight. I never promised I was virtuous. But hands free really isn't much safer.
Ltw at December 15, 2011 6:16 AM
It's already, except for the hands-free part, illegal in NY. That said, it still happens. A lot. It costs $100 when you are caught.
This won't be a problem when the phone companies are directed to simply not allow anything but an outgoing 911 call from a moving cell phone. The world won't end.
You have no right to injure me. I know you are a really great driver and blessed with ability far beyond the norm. Well, so am I, but these laws apply to everyone, including the distracted idiots who shouldn't have licenses in the first place.
No sale.
MarkD at December 15, 2011 6:17 AM
MarkD writes: "This won't be a problem when the phone companies are directed to simply not allow anything but an outgoing 911 call from a moving cell phone. The world won't end."
No one in a car can use a telephone? Not even the passengers? What about people in a bus? In a train? In a taxi?
"You have no right to injure me." You have no right to prevent me from making phone calls when I am in a moving vehicle.
If I injure you through my negligence, you have recourse in the courts. If you disable my use of electronic devices anytime I am moving above a certain speed - can I bill you for my lost productivity?
We don't need more nanny laws - we need fewer of them.
a_random_guy at December 15, 2011 6:53 AM
And yeah, JDThompson, I still drive with my cell on loudspeaker sitting on my knee and out of sight. I never promised I was virtuous. But hands free really isn't much safer.
My problem isn't with what's safe vs. what's not safe. There are tons of things that make driving less safe. My problem is a lack of enforcement of existing laws that always seems to lead to more laws. Maybe it's solely a product of living in NYC, but people break traffic laws on a block-by-block basis, driving recklessly, endangering others, with cops looking on doing nothing. The answer isn't more laws, at least in NYC. I won't get started on how often I see cops themselves driving around on their phones.
JDThompson at December 15, 2011 6:56 AM
Next up for banning?
The GPS - you shouldn't be looking at it; you should be looking at the road. Same for paper maps.
Then the radio. Ever watch someone head-banging along with the radio? Think they're paying attention to the road?
And kids. Drivers shouldn't be allowed to have kids in the car - they're incredibly distracting.
Marshall at December 15, 2011 7:02 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/15/distracted_gove.html#comment-2855615">comment from a_random_guyWhat if somebody in the passenger seat is calling for directions?
Amy Alkon at December 15, 2011 7:08 AM
Well, I agree, and that's why I said I don't think new laws are the answer. Just don't imagine that using a hands-free makes much difference. The statement from the NTSB is factually correct. What to do about it is another question.
Re: cops on phones, when speed cameras were introduced where I live, a lot of cops got very embarrassed. They used to flash their badges when pulled over, but automated fines they couldn't fix so easily. My favourite though was a CEO of a company that supplied speed cameras to a tunnel I was working on. He knew we had legal problems with the size of the limit signs (not enforceable, needed a legislative change, talking fractions of an inch here) so no fines were being issued for a bit. But he got the go-live date wrong - and was one of the first to get nailed by his own cameras!
Ltw at December 15, 2011 7:15 AM
If I injure you through my negligence, you have recourse in the courts.
Oh please, the ultimate libertarian get out of jail free card. It's only slightly more stable than anarchy. Some things are better regulated. I apply a pretty stern test to them, and I think it's a waste of time in this case, but still.
Ltw at December 15, 2011 7:24 AM
Let's just cut out the middleman, shall we?
Ban cars.
QEfn'D
Tens of thousands of lives saved. Millions of gallons of petroleum products saved. Instantly green.
Too bad about all the manufacturing jobs in the auto industry. A small price to pay given the savings. How much is a life worth, you greedy capitalist pigs?
What's next? stripping the radios and CD players out of cars? enclosing the passengers in a sound proof area of the car, away from the driver? crazy, you say? but why not? what is your argument against these things being done to isolate the driver?
I R A Darth Aggie at December 15, 2011 7:27 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/15/distracted_gove.html#comment-2855631">comment from I R A Darth AggiePerfect retort, I R A Darth Aggie.
Amy Alkon at December 15, 2011 7:31 AM
You have no right to injure me.
Your rights end where my fist begins.
So, in addition to banning cars, we should ban:
Weapons
Speech
Knowledge
All those things can be misused, and cause me to injure you.
Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world.
— Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden.
Source: http://www.skygod.com/quotes/ballstoliveintherealworld.html
Read the link, as it has this money quote:
But, no matter what you do, it will never be perfectly, 100% risk-free to fly. Or to drive, or to walk, or to do anything.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 15, 2011 7:36 AM
what is your argument against these things being done to isolate the driver?
Sigh, did you read my comments? In car distractions are not the same. Do a simple test for me. Put some music on and call someone on something important. You won't even notice the song ending till you hang up and ask yourself "why is it so quiet?"
Jim P, for whatever reason, music doesn't cause the same cognitive dissonance, presumably because it's not two-way so you don't have to concentrate on it, not in the sense of being able to respond intelligently. If need be, you can shut it out. Ever run a song back because you missed the best line?
Where are all these strawmen about banning radios and passengers coming from? Just face facts. Phone calls distract you far more than that. Whether it's worth banning I don't know. It's still true.
Ltw at December 15, 2011 7:39 AM
Ltw: "Where are all these strawmen about banning radios and passengers coming from?"
I agree about the music, but we need to ban talk radio!
I cannot tell you how many times I have gotten into arguments with Rush, Stephanie, Ed, and Hannity. It made me angry enough to run my car right into a school bus.
-Jut
JutGory at December 15, 2011 7:53 AM
Music focuses some people, especially those of us with busy brains. Same principle as having the tv on when you are doing homework. Science has actually vindicated teenagers on that front.
Any distraction can cause serious injury or death, however. I heard recently from a former co-worker that an employee at my old job ran over a bicyclist in a company car. The driver was on a deserted country road and reached for a clipboard that had fallen off the seat. The guy that got hit was a well respected Dr. and is now a quadraplegic.
deathbysnoosnoo at December 15, 2011 8:39 AM
Actually, a varient of "and no one has yet proposed banning passenger conversations with the driver. " does exist. I believe MD has passenger restrictions on it's teen drivers/learners permit.
Hmmm, a device to kill cell phones and other electronic devices. I'd like one of those, and take it with me on dates, or to parties, to movies etc.
That being said, getting and maintaining a drivers liscense is way too easy. Without glasses or contacts, I pass my states eye test. In my mind no way I should be allowed to drive without glasses.
Joe J at December 15, 2011 9:19 AM
"Tech commentators are blasting the agency for jumping the gun on the evidence..."
Laws have never been evidence based, despite any rumor you may have heard.
nuzltr2 at December 15, 2011 10:30 AM
I wonder if the NTSB has deliberately overreached in these policies, hoping to take credit for acting but not expecting to accomplish much. Because their proposals are asinine. Both the expectation that the driver should not speak to anyone and that CE manufacturers will implement an automated kill switch on their devices that prevents the owner from using the device in a car. The latter is actually dangerous and would prohibit anyone else in the car from using a phone as well.
morgan goody at December 15, 2011 11:05 AM
Any law that authorizes police to look into my car to see what I am doing absent any probable cause is facially invalid regardless of the torturing of the 4th Amendment by the SCOTUS.
Yet that is what all these laws are - we now have police searching every car as it drives by looking for evidence of a crime, rather than looking for evidence of potential harm.
If I'm on the phone, staying in my lane, and not posing a hazard to anyone, I should have nothing to fear from cops.
However, I have to hope that every cop I pass is otherwise occupied since there are now so many things that are illegal that I can't be sure if he's going to come after me.
brian at December 15, 2011 11:25 AM
This is just silly. Too many damn laws now that are NOT enforced. Really people we don't need laws. We need people to wake the hell up and take responsibility for their lives. I say HELL NO to the nanny state as it is and as they are trying to make it.
Melody at December 15, 2011 11:27 AM
Drivers are more distracted than ever before.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 15, 2011 11:45 AM
c'mon Crid, that's not the worst possible distraction... saw a few of those when I was driving over the road trucks "she doing WHAT TO HIM? GEEZ GET A ROOM!"
anyhow here is the actual report... and injuries and fatalities have been falling for many years.
IFF cellphones were such a bad distraction that people say, we would expect the injury/fatalities to be on a steady increase, based on the advent of cellphones and their ubiquity, but that doesn't seem to be borne out. Perhaps the injury/fatality rate would be falling even faster or something if not for cells... dunno that I believe it.
MANY, MANY fatal crashes are survivable crashes where the person isn't belted in. and most places that IS law, so... not excited about the potential of this one.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811552.pdf
SwissArmyD at December 15, 2011 12:38 PM
So what they want is a technology that disables devices when the driver is in reach and the car is moving. Well that's basically any device in the cabin of the vehicle. So passengers' devices will need to be deactivated as well, and any in-car systems. This includes any internet connected devices, because you can make calls over the internet nowadays you know. And cars start and stop all the time in traffic, often for a few minutes at a time. So this technology will need to impose a bit of a lapse before allowing you to use your device again - you might just be at a stop light or something. Now we've got a technology that won't let you use any phone or internet connected device while in the car and for several minutes after leaving the car. Oh and it may or may not work after you've had an accident. God knows what state the in-car components will be in.
jj at December 15, 2011 12:50 PM
There's a very simple solution to raising the level of safety and driver ability on the road today:
Stop issuing licenses to anyone who can walk, stumble, or crawl into a DMV. Make the requirements to get a driver's license just a bit more stringent than "able to fog a mirror."
Conan the Grammarian at December 15, 2011 1:17 PM
We don't trust you to set higher standards, Coney. You'll take the blacks off the roads, or the gays, or the Republicans, or someone like that.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 15, 2011 1:46 PM
Let's not forget the vast amount of business that is done by cell phone, in vehicles. Every salesman, real estate agent, HVAC contractor, etc., etc is producing and calling in orders, making contacts between appointments, looking for parts, and taking care of all manner of important tasks in between jobs. This is how Americans do business. If this ability is taken away, you decrease production and possibly even further depress the economy.
People are already held responsible for causing accidents. Few will stop doing what they do just because a law is passed.
April at December 15, 2011 1:50 PM
I see your point April, but...
> People are already held responsible for
> causing accidents.
We'll always have doubts. Maybe people COULD be, but I guess that's our topic today.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 15, 2011 1:58 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/15/distracted_gove.html#comment-2855945">comment from AprilYou're right, April, about business being done.
Furthermore, if they do this, a business will rise up to illegally disable these devices.
Amy Alkon at December 15, 2011 2:00 PM
People don't like others to use cell phones because they recognize the risk (cost) imposed on them. But, they use their own cell phones because they receive the benefit, and correctly see the added risk as much less than the benefit to themselves.
Should You Be Allowed To Use Your Cellular Phone While Driving?
Regulation (2000) PDF By Hahn, Tetlock, and Burnett
An economic analysis of cellphone benefits vs ban. $5 billion cost of use vs $20 Billion benefit. They estimated cellphone use in vehicles causes 300 fatalities per year (range 10 to 1,000). Assuming the same percentage of accidents as fatalities yields a best estimate of 38,000 accidents causing injuries (range 1,300 to 130,000). Cellular phone use contributes to an estimated 0.74% of total accidents.
( cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4414 )
Ban Cell Phones In Cars?
12/2000 - Cato Institute by Jason Burnett, Robert Hahn and Paul Tetlock
=== ===
[edited] A prudent regard for safety doesn't imply cell phones should be banned. Americans are willing to tolerate some 41,000 deaths yearly from car accidents. If we wish to decisively curtail automobile deaths, the national speed limit should be set at 10 miles per hour and vigorously enforced--yet we're not willing to do that, because that inconvenience outweighs the pleasure and efficiency of being able to get places quickly.
=== ===
Andrew_M_Garland at December 15, 2011 2:29 PM
"With technical measures - imagine! Imagine cars that disable electronic devices. This would mean your passengers would be unable to make phone calls. Worse, this field will not magically stop at the car window. Traffic becomes a rolling mass of cell-phone jammers."
I thought you guys were tech-savvy, but apparently not. The individual device can be ordered off-line by the company server. It's not a cup and wire you're talking into.
People traveled the roads without yammering on the phone for a long time. This is a demonstrated risk, one that is also easy to see, to the point that I can say you know you're being an idiot - and still you defend it?
How many crashed truckers will you defend? Railroad engineers? What good are you where you are, talking on the phone, even with good reason?
That's a question, but it's designed to show you that you have more important things to do than talk on the phone no matter what you're talking about.
Hang up and drive NOW.
Radwaste at December 15, 2011 2:45 PM
Damn, he's onto me.
Conan the Grammarian at December 15, 2011 2:56 PM
Somehow I'm just not afraid of these kids and their damn cell phones. Probably because having done it a few times, I know that driving is REALLY FUCKING EASY. If you want people to pay more attention to this task, or any task, make it require more attention. Our brains are self leveling like that, they adapt.
Remember the old fast forward>Rewind>Fast forward>Rewind? Or even farther back, fiddling with the tuning knob? We we're always distracted. We're safer now. But we've got a lot more anxiety about it. And that's the real success of these campaigns.
smurfy at December 15, 2011 4:16 PM
"That being said, getting and maintaining a drivers liscense is way too easy."
No, it's not. Driving is really easy Joe. And it will be easier with every new car you get. Cars are going FADEC.
smurfy at December 15, 2011 4:20 PM
> he's onto me
And we'll have no more of your fascist, disenfranchising shenanigans, Mister Authoritarian. Meanwhile—
> If we wish to decisively curtail automobile
> deaths, the national speed limit should be
> set at 10 miles per hour
[1.] NEVER start a sentence with "But" and a comma. It's rude as Hell.
[2.] Who says people are "correctly" measuring this risk? Isn't that the question on the table? People misjudge risks all the time. Careers are built on this observation.
[3.] Even if the Cato numbers are correct, and I have thundering doubts, a behavior that makes people feel unsafe might well deserve to be extinguished. See James Q. Wilson, Broken Windows, et al.
[3a.] (I don't trust you to "edit" the source you cite, nor do I care enough to go check whether you've done it honestly. See how that works? Straightforward quotations or go home.)
[4.] It's silly to say that "Americans are willing to tolerate some 41,000 deaths" from auto accidents. An essentially identical number of women are dying from breast cancer every year: Do you think those deaths are being "tolerated" as well? Or are their merely "suffered"?
[5.] Anyone, any fucker, who uses the word "wish" in contemporary rhetoric but who was not born to a family of effete Boston Brahmins in the last decade of the 19th Century is a bullshit artist.
[6.] No one is arguing that "decisive curtail[ment]" of automobile deaths is the standard being pursued here, nor that it ought to be. The polity is entirely justified to argue that it doesn't want these oblivious assholes flying across the countryside, piloting multi-ton steel missiles, while having squabbles with their mistresses on the motherfucking cell phone.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 15, 2011 4:21 PM
BTW, #5 applies especially to computer programmers:
No, you idiot sumbitch, I want software that does what it's supposed to do...
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 15, 2011 4:37 PM
I just can't wait to see who pulls a McDonald's and comes up with a ten cent workaround. Given bluetooth, my phone doesn't even need to actually be in my car for me to send texts while driving.
Solve this problem and those of us who find driving easy will move on to finding a way to project Angry Birds onto the windshield or something.
smurfy at December 15, 2011 4:43 PM
The surrounding community is supposed to be comforted by hearing that you "find driving easy"?
I mean, if we don't trust you to find 'boarding an airplane without a glock strapped between your buns' easy, why should we trust you to browse the web while navigating a school zone?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 15, 2011 4:49 PM
"If I injure you through my negligence, you have recourse in the courts."
And that makes injury magically vanish!
Sure it does.
Radwaste at December 15, 2011 4:55 PM
Crid,
It seems that you can't argue the facts, so you spout your personal emotions and spout the Crid Rules of Grammer. Get a grip.
You are full of questions, but this does not substitute for facts and reason. Try adding something factual to the discussion. Do you think your bad language and an aggressive tone convince anyone?
Andrew_M_Garland at December 15, 2011 5:30 PM
the thing is Raddy, what is it that you WANT?
I drove 80K# of truck that 75 feet long an 13 ft high for over a year during college. Logged something like 120000 miles in that year without incident. While shifting 12 manual speeds, and talking on a cb radio to other trucks, without incident.
Until the final couple of weeks before I went back to college, and a very pretty girl in a very small toyota decided she needed to be in my lane on the highway more than me. She was lucky, VERY lucky.
She told the patrolman clasically "I didn't see him"
lady, it's 75 feet long and blots out the sun, bright blue with yellow stripes... how could you FRELLING MISS IT?
It wasn't a cell phone, because they were uncommon then... she didn't see me because she didn't look.
What IS to be done. If she hadn't been luck, she would be dead, and it would STILL be her fault.
I understand the impulse. When the drunk driver that has had his license revoked and still gets behind the wheel drunk, you want to do something about it... but we established a limit, to be reasonable. Some people a bad drivers even when sober.
You gonna revoke their license for having an accident? It depends on the TYPE of accident, doesn't it?
Ask yourself what this will change. Responsible people already do the right thing. Non responsible people already DON'T. There are laws on the books already.
Who are you punishing exactly?
SwissArmyD at December 15, 2011 5:34 PM
> Do you think your bad language and an aggressive
> tone convince anyone?
Yes. In the face of weak and deceptive argument, they're devastating.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 15, 2011 5:50 PM
SwissArmyD, do you know what a fallacy is? Your example does not have anything to do with whether widespread cell-phone use is deadly. While the plural of "anecdote" is not "data", NTSB has that data.
And, here we go again.
How many of these do you want me to post? You can do it, too. Just look in your local paper.
Radwaste at December 15, 2011 7:39 PM
Late to the party, etc, and all that, but ...
One thing in nearly 50 comments that has been, at best, alluded to, but not clearly stated (that's presuming I didn't miss something in my scan).
Why the fuck do we need *another* law?
Really?
I am as utterly opposed to people driving with phones, food, makeup, or whatever activity has them focused on something other than driving as anyone.
So, how will a specific law like the one proposed actually do anything that isn't already covered by existing laws?
Will it magically cause people to put their phone down? Maybe they'll even put the food and makeup down, just because they've suddenly become enlightened, and all we needed was that one extra law to bring them to their senses.
Right.
there are some who call me 'Tim?' at December 15, 2011 11:30 PM
> and all we needed was that one extra law
That's kind of a lowball argument. It wasn't "one extra law" that mopped up all those drunks off the road, it was a whole array of social forces. Changing law would be one indication people aren't going to be allowed to pretend they're completely alone, minding their own personal communications, no matter what the context.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 15, 2011 11:48 PM
Nope, it's not lowball, no matter how much it improves your mood to think so.
It is a simple statement of facts.
Fact one: We already have numerous laws regarding dangerous, reckless, and distracted driving.
Fact two: Passing another law won't change that, and won't materially affect what the adherents claim it will.
You don't need the specific law to make the difference you argue for. All that is necessary is to actually enforce the existing ones, and that 'social' improvement you so desire will come about.
Because all we need is another set of preferentially enforced laws to improve the well being of everyone in society.
And I would argue, at least to a degree, that it was those social forces you champion that had more of an effect on drunk driving than the laws themselves did.
there are some who call me 'Tim?' at December 15, 2011 11:57 PM
> It is a simple statement of facts.
If it's simple, why did you have to offer them again in numbered order? Besides, new laws for drunk driving were indisputably one source of the improvement, the teeth of a new bite.
> And I would argue, at least to a degree, that it
> was those social forces you champion that had
> more of an effect on drunk driving than the laws
> themselves did.
Then why didn't you argue that, instead leaving it for me to argue?... You alone suggested a law was being offered as panacea.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 16, 2011 12:25 AM
This is what Andrew did, too, mischaracterizing the arguments being presented. "Decisively curtail automobile deaths" becomes "magically cause people to put their phone down"... Who's offering the arguments you guys are answering?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 16, 2011 12:30 AM
So, seat-belt laws are stupid, too; I find the ads offensive: "Click it or ticket". But that is apparently the only way to get people to do this. First, the law made manufacturers put seat belts in cars, because it was OBVIOUS to emergency responders what happens to somebody who doesn't wear hers. Then you had people ignore them, and EMTs were still fishing people out of trees, dead, after having been flung from the car.
I suggest that the majority of people have no idea whatsoever what happens in crashes, and that they then insist it cannot happen to them. I see denial in the eyes of motorcyclists constantly. Untrained, wearing little or no protective gear because it's not stylish enough... There's freedom for you. Like it? You'd better. Bikers are the most vulnerable people in car crashes. No car, you see.
Some rules and laws for handling firearms are there specifically because a person taking things for granted can seriously hurt or kill someone else. A safety mechanism is specifically required on firearms to prevent some types of accidental discharge. In fact, some people ARE too stupid to handle guns properly - and I say that as a fan of the 2nd Amendment: NO person should be denied arms in defense of his or her person or family, or in the case of public disorder. That doesn't mean Chuckie the college student should wave his Glock around everywhere.
Now, the NTSB is SHOWING YOU what happens when the ordinary cell phone is allowed to interfere with you.
You cannot carry on two conversations at once. You CANNOT devote your full attention to driving when you are talking on the cell phone.
Say this out loud: "I am such a good driver, I do not have to pay attention."
You sounded pretty stupid if you did that. Now what?
Radwaste at December 16, 2011 6:07 AM
Two women almost hit me yesterday, one while I while also driving and the other when my husband and I were walking to dinner. Holiday stress is VERY distracting.
Astra at December 16, 2011 8:11 AM
I agree with most of the comments: yes, distracted driving (in all its forms) increases danger, but yes, people are going to do it anyway.
My solution would be a financial one: let's change the law so that if your car is moving and gets in a crash of any kind while someone in your car is on the phone or texting, you're automatically at fault (and must reimburse your insurance company if they paid out to someone else). The insurance company gets to subpoena the records of all nearby cell phone towers after the crash to find out. (I wrote it this way so that having an anonymous/prepaid cell phone or borrowing someone else's phone won't get you off.)
Advantages:
* If you really can phone and drive safely, you get to do it. If you can't, but think you can, you pay the price.
* If you park before phoning (or even if you were stopped at a light), no liability. We should be encouraging people to do this. Present law lumps this behavior in with phoning while driving. (Similarly, drunk driving laws need changing so that pushing your car home, or sleeping it off in the back seat, cannot count as violations.)
Disadvantages:
* Phoning by passengers isn't exempt (because it isn't technically possible to tell them apart; if it were, I'd exempt them.)
* Lots of other stupid behaviors, by passengers as well as drivers, can cause accidents. There's no way to cover most of them without having the law prying way too much into your private space.
John David Galt at December 16, 2011 1:44 PM
Galt, there's things to admire there, but people who terrorize with near-misses but no actual hits aren't punished. The point is, behind the wheel isn't a private space, though people are inclined to presume it is. (I think that presumption, while heartfelt, may be as young as inexpensive cell phone service.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 16, 2011 2:15 PM
Banning cellphones in cars is a freedom-eliminating non-solution to driving risk.
The Nanny State Wants Your Cell Phones
--> The recommended federal ban on phones while driving is a solution in search of a problem.
12/14/11 - PJ Media by Horace Cooper
=== ===
[edited] Make no mistake; this isn’t a one-off by the NTSB. The Feds are coming: the Department of Transportation and members of Congress are aggressively pushing this measure.
The Distracted Driving Prevention Act of 2009, sponsored by Rockefeller, provides grants to states that enact a distracted driving law. To qualify for the grant, the state law must include that distracted driving be a primary offense. The ban would need to include not only texting, but also holding a cell phone or other personal wireless communication device. The law would also have to include a complete ban of any mobile device, including hands free, for drivers under the age of 18.
Let’s be clear. Distracted driving can be unsafe, but a nanny state on steroids kills liberty. Instead of solutions that are voluntary and rely on education and technology, Washington has responded with a knee-jerk ban on all cell phone use in the automobile. This is not the right answer — a ban is a solution whose time hasn’t come. Adults can and should decide what circumstances warrant the prudent use of a cell phone while driving.
This approach is particularly inappropriate in light of the reality that the typical driver faces any number of distractions when they get behind the wheel. Pretending it will be safer merely because we can’t use our phones anymore is absurd.
=== ===
Andrew_M_Garland at December 16, 2011 3:00 PM
"NTSB is an investigative arm, and a very good one,..."
Partial correction: The branch that does aviation investigations is very good. The automotive people are a bunch of idiots.
Cousin Dave at December 16, 2011 3:30 PM
Question: What about your car is a "private space"?
Radwaste at December 16, 2011 3:53 PM
Rad, my understanding of the law is: Any part of the car that is locked and can't be observed through the glass.
Cousin Dave at December 16, 2011 6:52 PM
And so your phone use isn't "private".
Radwaste at December 18, 2011 12:40 PM
Leave a comment