Cell phone bans in cars

[Michael]

Ontario has just moved to make the use of all "hand-held" electronic devices by the driver of an automobile illegal.

Now I applaud this long-overdue move, I must point out that this is outrageously bad piece of public policy since it permits the continued usage of non-hand-held cell phone devices.

The Canadian Medical Association, the Ontario Medical Association and the Canadian Automobile Association (CAA) have all been 'demanding' government action on this issue for many years now and the issue consistently receives high levels of public support (measured in opinion polls). All three groups (highly respected and none of them have any 'ulterior' motives here) have been consistent from day one in asserting that "hand-held" is irrelevant. All the data on the topic shows 'hand-held' or 'not-hand-held' makes no difference to the cognitive impairment that usage of such devices bring to the driver of an automobile.

On this basis, I can only conclude that the government policy here has been successfully lobbied by corporate interests since there is no data available to support making such a distinction.

The Ontario Provincial Police have 'guestimated' that between one half and two-thirds of all fatal accidents on Ontario's roadways involve a driver using an electronic communications device at the time of the accident.

I completely support the banning of ALL electronic communications devices by drivers of automobiles as there is clear evidence that usage of these devices by drivers causes the needless death of innocent people. That is always unacceptable in my book.

So, have cell phone usage by drivers been banned in your area? Do you support the banning of cell phone use by drivers?

[partofme]

Normally I take a pretty libertarian stance on these issues. I'm against seat belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws. However, this is a danger to others as well as the person talking and studies are showing it can be as bad as drunk driving. I'm in favor of these bans including hands free devices. Slate did a good article a while back on this and for some reason even hands free devices lead to more accidents than conversation with somebody else in the car probably because the person is concentrating on something outside of his/her environment and another person in the car may also be paying attention to the environment around them.

[SMadsen]

There's a ban on handheld cell phones here.

Gotta say that, by principle, I'm in favor of all measures taken in order to save lives on the road. That's not because the lives of people are more dear when they happen to be inside or in close vicinity of moving vehicles. It's because the ease with which justification can be made of the use of a utility that factually kills is proportional with 1., its utility value, and, 2., the measures taken to limit the number of deaths due to its use.

If no measures can be taken and the utility value is deemed low, it can normally not be justified at all (e.g. guns in most countries). If measures are taken to the best of abilities and the utility use is high, justification becomes painless (such as cars). In between, it becomes arbitrary (such as the gun issue in USA).

[dilettante]

The distinction between hand-held and hands-free devices may derive, at least in part, from issues of enforcement. A police offer may well notice someone talking into a cell phone as they drive, but I can't imagine how they would deduce, with anything like reasonable certainty, that someone was talking to a hands-free device that was out of sight.

[partofme]

The distinction between hand-held and hands-free devices may derive, at least in part, from issues of enforcement. A police offer may well notice someone talking into a cell phone as they drive, but I can't imagine how they would deduce, with anything like reasonable certainty, that someone was talking to a hands-free device that was out of sight.

It would be hard to enforce.

[wphelan]

I'm curious. Has anyone read any of the medical reports about cell phone use in cars? I haven't. Do any of them compare talking on a cell phone to talking to a passenger? I'm not disputing the findings that cell phone use while driving is dangerous, but is there something different physiologically about talking on a cell phone (whether or not it's hands free) than singing along with the radio or talking to a passenger? Or are these other activities similarly dangerous?

[Michael]

I'm curious. Has anyone read any of the medical reports about cell phone use in cars? I haven't. Do any of them compare talking on a cell phone to talking to a passenger? I'm not disputing the findings that cell phone use while driving is dangerous, but is there something different physiologically about talking on a cell phone (whether or not it's hands free) than singing along with the radio or talking to a passenger? Or are these other activities similarly dangerous?
Yes, I think there is a qualitative difference. I don't have any handy links on the topic right now, but I do know that communications is one of the most 'brain-intensive' activities we do as human beings. And in person, we use 'less' concentration than when talking on telephones. Talking on a telephone apparently requires a (comparatively) higher level of concentration that is different than the other 'common' distractions people engage in while driving cars.

Certainly reading a newspaper ought to be illegal while driving a car - it is even more intensive than talking on the telephone. Indeed, Marshall McLuhan characterized both 'reading' and 'telephones' as hot media due to the required level of engagement on the part of the subject.

And I do expect that the 'catch-all' impaired driving rule would apply to reading a newspaper while driving. Using cell phones ought to fall into the same category for the same reason. It is just too dangerous for other people to permit it. Making it a law lets everyone know this (since using cell phones while driving is way more common problem than newspaper reading).

[Michael]

The distinction between hand-held and hands-free devices may derive, at least in part, from issues of enforcement. A police offer may well notice someone talking into a cell phone as they drive, but I can't imagine how they would deduce, with anything like reasonable certainty, that someone was talking to a hands-free device that was out of sight.
Yes, that's a good point, but the difficulty of active enforcement must not stand as a critical failure of an otherwise reasonable policy initiative.

Time records from the cell-phone company referenced to the time of the accident (if it is known) could provide an authorative reference in the case of accidents - which could invalidate insurance coverage for the cell phone using driver. This could also be established by civil action even without active police action.

Thus, the law has value even if it is difficult to actively enforce. Plus there is also the general message of illegality that is usually enough to get the majority of people to stop doing it - just because it is illegal.

[partofme]

I'm curious. Has anyone read any of the medical reports about cell phone use in cars? I haven't. Do any of them compare talking on a cell phone to talking to a passenger? I'm not disputing the findings that cell phone use while driving is dangerous, but is there something different physiologically about talking on a cell phone (whether or not it's hands free) than singing along with the radio or talking to a passenger? Or are these other activities similarly dangerous?

This article suggests so and links to some sources.

http://www.slate.com/id/2202978/

[Greendruid]

It would be hard to enforce.

Theft is notoriously hard to enforce for similar reasons but it's still against the law in most cultures I'm aware of.

Cell phone use has been banned while driving in Nova Scotia since April 1, 2008 - a rare act of progressive foresight over Ontario. However, like Ontario it has been restricted to hand-held cellphones. I'm going to guess that Ontario's legislation is using precedence and language that's already in place here from Québec and NS rather than re-inventing the wheel.

Nonetheless, I think Michael's observation of the distinction between hand-held and hands-free communications devices is ridiculous. I can speak somewhat to the question of the difference between in-person communications versus phone communications. In my linguistics classes we learned that some languages are actually impossible to speak over phone lines owing to a large number of barely distinguishable consonant sounds and a relatively small pool of vowels. The Circasian language comes to mind having a total of three vowel sounds and 80+ consonant sounds. Our very best telephone technology still comes up short in relaying the human voice with accuracy and we as humans use a lot of speech context to "listen" rather than pure auditory qualities. What this boils down to is that the human brain has to compensate massively for a technological failing - you could liken it to squinting and tilting your head a lot when viewing a blurry picture or something like that. Doing that while driving uses up a lot of concentration that should be dedicated to ... driving. As someone who has a slight hearing impairment at a young age I know that even if someone is talking to me from the back seat of a car or van I might as well be listening to them on a phone for the above reasons of not being able to hear them completely and having to rely on context and concentration instead.

[SMadsen]

Greendruid, I understand what you say but the question that inevitable is raised by your post is of course if it should be against the law to drive with back seat passengers? Or at least against the law to communicate with back seat passengers?

[Helene]

In the Netherlands it's been illegal to drive with a hand held device for several years now. I support it.

To me the distinction is pretty clear: when not holding the phone you (can) have your hands on the wheel. This means that you don't lose time having to drop the phone and moving your hand towards the wheel. Talking on the phone already slows your reaction time, but when after you've reacted mentally you can't actually act physically, because your hands aren't where they should be, this leads to more and/or worse accidents.

Personally, I love talking on the phone while driving, non-hand held. I'd hate for it to be banned, because I really prefer talking with people over listening to the radio/cd. I've never experienced this as particularly distracting. Of course, I might just not notice, or I might be an exception.

[Helene]

Greendruid, I understand what you say but the question that inevitable is raised by your post is of course if it should be against the law to drive with back seat passengers? Or at least against the law to communicate with back seat passengers?

I thought he meant that in his case it's as bad, due to a hearing impairment?

[Michael]

Personally, I love talking on the phone while driving, non-hand held. I'd hate for it to be banned, because I really prefer talking with people over listening to the radio/cd. I've never experienced this as particularly distracting. Of course, I might just not notice, or I might be an exception.
Studies I've seen consistently assert that using a telephone while driving immediately drops one's reaction times down to that of a 75 year old (which in many jurisdictions aren't allowed to drive at all for this reason). That one or two second delay in reaction time can be a killer.

And I don't know how many times I've seen cars on the highway drifting over lanes (and sharply swerving back when the driver realizes the drift) while the driver is on a telephone.

I'd support banning the use of "handsfree" communications devices in cars.

Btw, the worst offender for being the most dangerous is 'text-messaging' while driving.

[Americano]

Studies I've seen consistently assert that using a telephone while driving immediately drops one's reaction times down to that of a 75 year old (which in many jurisdictions aren't allowed to drive at all for this reason). That one or two second delay in reaction time can be a killer.

And I don't know how many times I've seen cars on the highway drifting over lanes (and sharply swerving back when the driver realizes the drift) while the driver is on a telephone.

I'd support banning the use of "handsfree" communications devices in cars.

Btw, the worst offender for being the most dangerous is 'text-messaging' while driving.

Reminds of my business commuter days when I'd see women applying make-up in heavy traffic at 70mph.

I'd also support banning hands-free communication devices in vehicles.

[SMadsen]

I thought he meant that in his case it's as bad, due to a hearing impairment?
Ok. So should it be against the law for a driver with a hearing impairment to drive with and/or communicate with back seat passengers?

[Michael]

Ok. So should it be against the law for a driver with a hearing impairment to drive with and/or communicate with back seat passengers?
Well yes it probably ought to be illegal, but given that we don't have many facts or studies on the issue, nor are we aware of any record of substantial killings resulting from this, I can only conclude that it would not be prudent to create a law for this at this time - pending further study of course.

This is categorically different than the 'cell phone usage' while driving issue where we do have many facts and studies on the issue and we do have a record of substantial numbers of innocent deaths (potentially/presumably/partially) caused by this. Thus, creating a law against this is therefore justified.

[Helene]

Studies I've seen consistently assert that using a telephone while driving immediately drops one's reaction times down to that of a 75 year old (which in many jurisdictions aren't allowed to drive at all for this reason). That one or two second delay in reaction time can be a killer.

Do you not agree that holding a phone in your hand will delay the physical aspect of the reaction even more? You can't steer sharply with one hand.

And I don't know how many times I've seen cars on the highway drifting over lanes (and sharply swerving back when the driver realizes the drift) while the driver is on a telephone.

Is the driver then on a hand held? Or how else did you notice the driver was on the phone?

[Helene]

Ah, I found a study that supports my idea that a hand held device can be worse, but, it's limited only to adverse conditions:

In May 2008 the Public Policy Institute of California released a study, “What to Expect from California’s New Hands-Free Law,” which looks at the potential effect of a new state law prohibiting drivers from using hand-held cellphones. Based on the experience of the three states (New York, New Jersey, Connecticut) and Washington, D.C., where similar laws are already in effect, researchers concluded that the ban will reduce traffic deaths by about 300 a year, but only in adverse conditions, such as on wet or icy roads.
http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/cellphones/

I think it's to be expected that in such conditions you can avoid situations by being able to steer properly. And then when you are holding a phone, you can't.

[SMadsen]

Well yes it probably ought to be illegal, but given that we don't have many facts or studies on the issue, nor are we aware of any record of substantial killings resulting from this, I can only conclude that it would not be prudent to create a law for this at this time - pending further study of course.

This is categorically different than the 'cell phone usage' while driving issue where we do have many facts and studies on the issue and we do have a record of substantial numbers of innocent deaths (potentially/presumably/partially) caused by this. Thus, creating a law against this is therefore justified.
That is indeed what it's all about. If something can be shown to cause fatalities then it should be attended to in order to continuously justify the privilege of driving (not doing so is either due to special interests or to the inability to distinguish, or, at least in this case, the unwillingness to accept the difference, between privilege and right).

I wonder, though, if there aren't even more numerous records of fatalities due to the handling of stereos while driving. But that's probably a topic of its own.

[Helene]

That is indeed what it's all about. If something can be shown to cause fatalities then it should be attended to in order to continuously justify the privilege of driving (not doing so is either due to special interests or to the inability to distinguish, or, at least in this case, the unwillingness to accept the difference, between privilege and right).

I wonder, though, if there aren't even more numerous records of fatalities due to the handling of stereos while driving. But that's probably a topic of its own.

When reading about studies regarding the handling of hands free phones (such as having to redail more often than with hand helds, resulting in less safety), I came across the following numbers:

When talking on the phone, the reaction time is 1.3 times longer than when not talking on the phone.
When trying to catch a falling cup, the reaction time is 9 times longer than when not trying to catch a falling cup.

In other words, eating/drinking in the car is potentially far more dangerous than talking on the phone.

[Michael]

When reading about studies regarding the handling of hands free phones (such as having to redail more often than with hand helds, resulting in less safety), I came across the following numbers:

When talking on the phone, the reaction time is 1.3 times longer than when not talking on the phone.
When trying to catch a falling cup, the reaction time is 9 times longer than when not trying to catch a falling cup.

In other words, eating/drinking in the car is potentially far more dangerous than talking on the phone.
The cup may be dangerous - but only potentially if/when it is dropped/falling (which is a momentary action).

The telephone is dangerous when it is turned on and stays dangerous the whole time (which is continual).

[Michael]

Ah, I found a study that supports my idea that a hand held device can be worse, but, it's limited only to adverse conditions:


[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/cellphones/

I think it's to be expected that in such conditions you can avoid situations by being able to steer properly. And then when you are holding a phone, you can't.
I think we can all agree that 'hand-held' communications devices are MORE dangerous than 'hands-free' communications devices. They both use up high levels of valuable brain-concentration that is needed for driving safely - but the 'hand-held' one has the additional danger of limiting hand movements and is thus 'more dangerous'.

However, the key point I'm making is that the 'hands-free' devices are still sufficiently dangerous enough to warrant a ban while driving.

[SMadsen]

The cup may be dangerous - but only potentially if/when it is dropped/falling (which is a momentary action).

The telephone is dangerous when it is turned on and stays dangerous the whole time (which is continual).
Nah, the telephone isn't dangerous (I know, it's a BOPP thing). More to the point, though, speaking on the phone while driving is only dangerous when a dangerous situation arises.

Or are you saying that speaking on the phone while driving creates potentially dangerous situations? If so, couldn't it be said that handling a drink creates situations that are 9/1.3 = 6.92 times as potentially dangerous?

[Michael]

Nah, the telephone isn't dangerous (I know, it's a BOPP thing). More to the point, though, speaking on the phone while driving is only dangerous when a dangerous situation arises.

Or are you saying that speaking on the phone while driving creates potentially dangerous situations? If so, couldn't it be said that handling a drink creates situations that are 9/1.3 = 6.92 times as potentially dangerous?
Speaking on the telephone while driving causes cognitive impairment of the ability to drive - in itself. Thus, the 'normative' function of using the telephone while driving is an impairment.

Holding a cup of coffee poses a potential impairment - if it is dropped. If not dropped, it causes no cognitive impairment in its 'normative' usage.

[SMadsen]

Speaking on the telephone while driving causes cognitive impairment of the ability to drive - in itself. Thus, the 'normative' function of using the telephone while driving is an impairment.

Holding a cup of coffee poses a potential impairment - if it is dropped. If not dropped, it causes no cognitive impairment in its 'normative' usage.
Well, it couldn't be put clearer and more pedantic-proof than that. Excellent. :)

Of course, fact remains that cups are being dropped and stereos are being mangled with while driving and the unattentive moments that arise due to such situations do cause an awful lot of fatalities. But you have made the case, I think, that they are issues separate from that of speaking on the phone while driving and thus aren't fair arguments in that regard.

[drgoodtrips]

It should probably be illegal to drive cars at all (from a safety perspective).

...

I've always thought that the particulars of driving distraction bans are, if not whimsical and arbitrary, at least grossly missing the point. Driving a car with a passenger, while talking on a cell phone, or with a crying baby in the backseat is certainly more dangerous than driving a car with no distractions, but in any of these cases, you're piloting an enormous hunk of metal and plastic at a high speed, which is extremely dangerous.

I'd imagine that, on some kind of danger scale, the difference between responsible and distracted driving are relatively negligible compared to the difference between not driving and driving.

[partofme]

It should probably be illegal to drive cars at all (from a safety perspective).

...

I've always thought that the particulars of driving distraction bans are, if not whimsical and arbitrary, at least grossly missing the point. Driving a car with a passenger, while talking on a cell phone, or with a crying baby in the backseat is certainly more dangerous than driving a car with no distractions, but in any of these cases, you're piloting an enormous hunk of metal and plastic at a high speed, which is extremely dangerous.

I'd imagine that, on some kind of danger scale, the difference between responsible and distracted driving are relatively negligible compared to the difference between not driving and driving.

For me you have to weight the pros and cons though. The pros of being able to drive which means being able to get to a job and be productive and take care of other family and personal needs is very high while the pros of talking to somebody at that very moment as apposed to waiting until the car ride is over is not in the same ball park as far as the pros are concerned. While driving has high negatives and positives talking while driving has additional negatives on top of what already there with very little pros other than indulging impatience. I would not be so supportive of such bans if the only person in danger was the driver on the phone keep in mind.

[drgoodtrips]

For me you have to weight the pros and cons though. The pros of being able to drive which means being able to get to a job and be productive and take care of other family and personal needs is very high while the pros of talking to somebody at that very moment as apposed to waiting until the car ride is over is not in the same ball park as far as the pros are concerned. While driving has high negatives and positives talking while driving has additional negatives on top of what already there with very little pros other than indulging impatience. I would not be so supportive of such bans if the only person in danger was the driver on the phone keep in mind.

Well, that's the rub. Most of these debates aren't about "safety" in a vacuum, but rather about safety when its convenient or not a detriment to the function of other areas of society. So, concerns of enforceability and productivity enter the picture. Convenience also rates. Consider the following ideas that would probably do much more for safety than banning cell phones:

- Make the driver test much, much more difficult.
- Mandate engineering for cars such that high speed accidents would not be fatal.
- Reduce the speed limit on all roads to 20 mph.
- Produce cars that won't do 0-60 any faster than a minute.
- Produce cars that will not go over 55 mph.
- Produce cars with more sophisticated governors that depend on the width of the road (i.e. cap speed at 20 on narrow roads, 40 on wider roads, 60 on highways).
- Mandate that cars are not allowed to have radios/stereos.
- Ban eating and drinking (not alcohol) while driving.
- Pass a law that only the driver is allowed to be in the car.

All of these things have drawbacks related to cost and convenience or environmental impact, as opposed to strict productivity concerns. And, this suggests that safety isn't the number one concern, per se. We're content with the paradigm that you might well die while driving to work.

I think that a lot of these laws, where we allow the dangerous activity to continue unchecked, but squabble over the details (what BAC, whether you have to hold the cell phone or not) are fights for safety by proxy. That is, we feel that we're putting a huge dent in the inherent dangerousness of the activity, but we do it without removing any of the convenience.

(And the productivity angle can easily be applied to cell phone/driving - business hotshots might argue that being out of the loop during their commutes is a drain on corporate profits).

[Michael]

It should probably be illegal to drive cars at all (from a safety perspective).

...

I've always thought that the particulars of driving distraction bans are, if not whimsical and arbitrary, at least grossly missing the point. Driving a car with a passenger, while talking on a cell phone, or with a crying baby in the backseat is certainly more dangerous than driving a car with no distractions, but in any of these cases, you're piloting an enormous hunk of metal and plastic at a high speed, which is extremely dangerous.

I'd imagine that, on some kind of danger scale, the difference between responsible and distracted driving are relatively negligible compared to the difference between not driving and driving.
That driving automobiles (or riding inside one) is inherently dangerous is already well established. However, that particular danger is known and consistent.

As I noted with my reply to SMadsen above, some 'distractions' are only 'potential' distractions that may increase that danger (passengers, coffee, stereo, etc) under certain conditions. Normative carrying of passengers, or normative listening to the stereo or normative coffee drinking doesn't actually pose much of an increase to the danger of automobles. These things (passengers, stereos and coffee cups) only pose a potential danger when they are handled badly.

Operating a telecommunications device (while driving) is categorically different in that even when used 'normatively' a significant increase in danger is produced.

One cannot reasonably make laws against all possible situations or circumstances of 'potential' dangers. One can make reasonable laws against known and consistent dangers.

[Michael]

Well, that's the rub. Most of these debates aren't about "safety" in a vacuum, but rather about safety when its convenient or not a detriment to the function of other areas of society. So, concerns of enforceability and productivity enter the picture. Convenience also rates. Consider the following ideas that would probably do much more for safety than banning cell phones:

- Make the driver test much, much more difficult.
- Mandate engineering for cars such that high speed accidents would not be fatal.
- Reduce the speed limit on all roads to 20 mph.
- Produce cars that won't do 0-60 any faster than a minute.
- Produce cars that will not go over 55 mph.
- Produce cars with more sophisticated governors that depend on the width of the road (i.e. cap speed at 20 on narrow roads, 40 on wider roads, 60 on highways).
- Mandate that cars are not allowed to have radios/stereos.
- Ban eating and drinking (not alcohol) while driving.
- Pass a law that only the driver is allowed to be in the car.

All of these things have drawbacks related to cost and convenience or environmental impact, as opposed to strict productivity concerns. And, this suggests that safety isn't the number one concern, per se. We're content with the paradigm that you might well die while driving to work.
The issue is 'relative' degree of safety.

I think that a lot of these laws, where we allow the dangerous activity to continue unchecked, but squabble over the details (what BAC, whether you have to hold the cell phone or not) are fights for safety by proxy. That is, we feel that we're putting a huge dent in the inherent dangerousness of the activity, but we do it without removing any of the convenience.
Yes. Cars are popular and a necessity for many people.

Stereos, passengers and/or cell phones are not.

Of the latter, cell phones are a clear and persistent danger. Stereos and/or passengers are only 'potential' dangers.

(And the productivity angle can easily be applied to cell phone/driving - business hotshots might argue that being out of the loop during their commutes is a drain on corporate profits).
Dead customers also are a drain on potential corporate profits. Dead executives are also a drain on potential corporate profits.

Heck, most safety standards, labor standards and accounting laws are a drain on corporate profits.

[Michael]

Looks like the data is just going to keep piling up on this issue.

People who use cell phones while driving poses a significant threat to themselves as well as to anyone who uses the road.

It doesn't matter if that device is 'hands-free' or not. Driving while talking on a cell phone is equivilent to drunk driving.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/technology/19distracted.html?_r=1&hp)

I get bored reading about new studies confirming this.

For those who aren't bored, try this link (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/Driver%20Distraction/Wireless_Device_Biblio2k5.pdf) for an extensive bibliographic listing of such studies.

I don't support the right of people to carelessly endanger others.

[Michael]

Btw, the best part of that news story is about the 16 year old who killed someone while using his cell phone while driving.

His thoughtful mother was kind enough to buy him a 'hands-free' cell phone afterwards - apparently making sure he has the ability to do it again.

Accidentially killing people I suppose is a small price to pay for the convenience of talking on the telephone. :shrug:

[The Drunk Guy]

Accidentially killing people I suppose is a small price to pay for the convenience of talking on the telephone. :shrug:
Well, if Tony hadn't told Marcia that Tyler wasn't going to the football game, then Kyle wouldn't have had to text Marcia and explain that, indeed, Tyler was going to be at the game. So, technically, it's Tony's fault for being a lying bastard. We should ban lying.

Seriously, though, they say that, psychologically, childhood reaches into the twenties nowadays. I think that driving age should be adjusted accordingly. Eighteen sounds good to me.

[drgoodtrips]

Looks like the data is just going to keep piling up on this issue.

People who use cell phones while driving poses a significant threat to themselves as well as to anyone who uses the road.

It doesn't matter if that device is 'hands-free' or not. Driving while talking on a cell phone is equivilent to drunk driving.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/technology/19distracted.html?_r=1&hp)

I get bored reading about new studies confirming this.

For those who aren't bored, try this link (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/Driver%20Distraction/Wireless_Device_Biblio2k5.pdf) for an extensive bibliographic listing of such studies.

I don't support the right of people to carelessly endanger others.

Happened on this on slashdot and though it might interest you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/technology/21distracted.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Evidently, these studies were squelched to some degree in the US for fear of pissing off Congress. Safety never seems to be paramount in safety-related legislation.

[Michael]

Happened on this on slashdot and though it might interest you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/technology/21distracted.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Evidently, these studies were squelched to some degree in the US for fear of pissing off Congress. Safety never seems to be paramount in safety-related legislation.

No surprise there at all.

What is bizarre is the way Congress is muzzling the Highway Safety people here. Apparently informing State Governments about the results of one's scientific studies constitutes "advocacy".

Funny how that works. If these same studies proved that seat-belts saved lives, there'd be criminal liability lawsuits if the information wasn't published/distributed. I suppose the fact that adding seatbelts wasn't perceived as a profit-killer. But if the studies prove that a highly profitable consumer product is harmful, then it must be silenced since it would harm profits.

Private profit always trumps public safety when Congress is involved.

[Americano]

No surprise there at all.

What is bizarre is the way Congress is muzzling the Highway Safety people here. Apparently informing State Governments about the results of one's scientific studies constitutes "advocacy".

Funny how that works. If these same studies proved that seat-belts saved lives, there'd be criminal liability lawsuits if the information wasn't published/distributed. I suppose the fact that adding seatbelts wasn't perceived as a profit-killer. But if the studies prove that a highly profitable consumer product is harmful, then it must be silenced since it would harm profits.

Private profit always trumps public safety when Congress is involved.

Seat belt requirements were lobbied in by the insurance industry, who still holds great power within the public department of safety. In the US each municipality still receives periodic LE grants to enforce those seatbelt laws. Every year there's always a crackdown with expensive citations providing muni revenue and filled-out forms with the number of citations issued to justify the grants. The fine here is $150+.

It's doubtful that'll be the experience with cell phone usage banned while driving in my state as the fine is......$90. A patrol vehicle can't hardly afford make a traffic stop for that pittance when exceeding the speed limit in school zones brings in hundreds of dollars per offense and DUIs are $1500+ for first offense. LE traffic patrol is all about generating revenue, little else.

[Lily]

I don't have a landline, so my cell phone is my only means of telephonic communication. But, I don't use it while driving. I know it's distracting. I'm absolutely for banning cell phone use while driving, even hands-free use.

Also, I like the idea of raising the age of granting drivers' permits; 18 seems reasonable.

[Americano]

We don't have to worry about getting cited for using a cell phone while driving as we got rid of them two years ago. Sure was nice to regain my privacy.

[Michael]

I notice that Ford is advertising their new car line with 'built-in' hands-free communications.

I'm thinking that's a lawsuit nightmare that Ford is going to regret very soon...

[Americano]

I notice that Ford is advertising their new car line with 'built-in' hands-free communications.

I'm thinking that's a lawsuit nightmare that Ford is going to regret very soon...

Almost like chumming for sharks (lawyers) with fresh blood.

[The Drunk Guy]

Almost like chumming for sharks (lawyers) with fresh blood.
We'll hear next to nothing about it. Those sharks see green, not red.

[dilettante]

If you think TALKING on the cell phone while driving is dangerous...

Bill Seeks to Ban Texting By Drivers

A bill introduced Wednesday in the Senate would require states to write laws to prohibit text messaging by drivers or risk losing 25 percent of their annual federal highway money.

The proposal, sponsored by a group of Democrats including Sen. Charles E. Schumer (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/s000148) (N.Y.), came a day after the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute released a study on commercial truck drivers that found texting drivers to be 23 times more likely to be involved in a crash or a near miss.

The legislation would set deadlines for Transportation Department regulators to devise minimum penalties for states to implement. States would have two years to enact their own laws.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/29/AR2009072902039.html

[Americano]

IMO good legislation. I don't want 80,000 pound tractor/trailer rigs at 65mph on my highways with a driver concentrating on making a date through text messages. I don't want any drivers concentrating on anything but driving on my highways.

Sounds like current administration has been using federal funding to again override states rights. Same old game, same old interested parties. I wonder what the other half of the political trade is.

[dilettante]

IMO good legislation. I don't want 80,000 pound tractor/trailer rigs at 65mph on my highways with a driver concentrating on making a date through text messages. I don't want any drivers concentrating on anything but driving on my highways.

Sounds like current administration has been using federal funding to again override states rights. Same old game, same old interested parties. I wonder what the other half of the political trade is.

Yeah, it makes me uncomfortable when the Federal government orders the states to pass laws. I'd rather they just pass a national law and be done with it.

[Americano]

Yeah, it makes me uncomfortable when the Federal government orders the states to pass laws. I'd rather they just pass a national law and be done with it.

The insurance lobby takes no prisoners.

[Michael]

Yeah, it makes me uncomfortable when the Federal government orders the states to pass laws. I'd rather they just pass a national law and be done with it.
I doubt if the Federal government has sufficient consitutional jurisdiction to pass such a law.

I believe the roadways are governed by State law.

I say ban the usage of ALL 'personal communication devices' while operating a motor vehicle. No exceptions. If you need to make a call, park the vehicle.

[dilettante]

I doubt if the Federal government has sufficient consitutional jurisdiction to pass such a law.

I believe the roadways are governed by State law.


I'm sure your right, but this kind of thing seems to make having that sort of jurisdiction pointless, except of course that it forces the states to pay for and enforce rules made in Washington.

It rubs me the wrong way just as when judges 'order' legislatures to pass new laws. There's no real point in dividing powers if one power can dictate the actions of another.

[Michael]

I'm sure your right, but this kind of thing seems to make having that sort of jurisdiction pointless, except of course that it forces the states to pay for and enforce rules made in Washington.
Actually, the way it works is the other way around.

The only way Washington can pass laws that impinge upon State jurisdictions is by offering financial bribes to the State governments. This is called the "Federal Spending Authority". It is very similar to the way Federalism works in Canada as well.

The US Highways Act is a perfect example of how this works in practice.

As such, States tend to agree with the plan, take the bribe money and then whine that they are having some Federal policy jammed down their throats. This is the meat and potatoes of State-level politics.

Bobby Jindal of Louisiana is a good case in point. He fought tooth and nail against the Federal Stimulus plan and publiclly refused to take the money. But he did take the money and is now dispursing it all over Louisiana under his own name, taking full credit himself, yet still railing against the impetuitous Federal government for trying to interfere in Louisiana. This is normal State-politics.

It rubs me the wrong way just as when judges 'order' legislatures to pass new laws. There's no real point in dividing powers if one power can dictate the actions of another.
Courts NEVER order legislatures to pass new laws!!! That's not how the judicial authority works.

1. Courts can strike down laws that are unlawful.
2. Courts can choose to re-interpret a given law to make it lawful.
3. Courts cannot create news laws or order the creation of new laws. They can only reject or reinterpret existing laws.

Number 2 only works because the law is being redefined to make it compatible with other existing laws. The law cannot permit laws to stand that are in direct conflict with each other.

Same-sex marriage is a good example of "type 2" judicial actions. No legislature is forced to pass any new law here, though they often choose to do so after the fact.

[The Drunk Girl]

I say ban the usage of ALL 'personal communication devices' while operating a motor vehicle. No exceptions. If you need to make a call, park the vehicle.

Not sure if this was already mentioned or not, so please let me know if it has been...

What about the police? They have their computers and phones in their vehicles, right? I'm not sure about ambulances and fire trucks and what all is installed in their vehicles, but in case of an actual emergency are the police really going to have time to pull over to park a vehicle to get the information they need?

[Americano]

Not sure if this was already mentioned or not, so please let me know if it has been...

What about the police? They have their computers and phones in their vehicles, right? I'm not sure about ambulances and fire trucks and what all is installed in their vehicles, but in case of an actual emergency are the police really going to have time to pull over to park a vehicle to get the information they need?

In my state all public safety vehicle operators are excluded.

[The Drunk Guy]

Actually, the way it works is the other way around.

The only way Washington can pass laws that impinge upon State jurisdictions is by offering financial bribes to the State governments. This is called the "Federal Spending Authority". It is very similar to the way Federalism works in Canada as well.

The US Highways Act is a perfect example of how this works in practice.

As such, States tend to agree with the plan, take the bribe money and then whine that they are having some Federal policy jammed down their throats. This is the meat and potatoes of State-level politics.


But, technically, couldn't a state refuse to create the law, take the cut in funds, and then take it to the Supreme Court as unconstitutional procedure?

[Michael]

But, technically, couldn't a state refuse to create the law, take the cut in funds, and then take it to the Supreme Court as unconstitutional procedure?
Yes, but that's not likely to work since the Federal action was optional to the States. If the individual State can refuse, how can the State define that as a coercive Federal procedure that ought to be banned or redressed?

More properly, individual States could refuse the federal law and suffer the loss of the federal money. That's their choice since there is no constitutional rule that says the Federal government is obligated to give money to the States.

[The Drunk Girl]

New York City cabbies have been banned (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/05/nyregion/rule-would-restrict-cabbies-cell-phone-use.html) from using cellphones for a decade — even the hands-free type, putting the city a step ahead of state law. But the stringent rules remain almost entirely unenforced, even amid research that shows (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/technology/21distracted.html) drivers who talk on cellphones are four times as likely to cause a crash.


And as the city struggles to find more effective ways to confront the problem — call it an epidemic of gab — much of the burden to report cellphone abuse falls on passengers, who can feel powerless or intimidated.
The authorities issued just 232 summonses for cellphone use in yellow cabs during the first six months of this year, or one ticket for every 517,241 cab rides during that period, based on the city’s estimated ridership.


For the same period in 2008, 411 summonses were issued, or about one for every 291,971 rides.
The head of the Taxi and Limousine Commission (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/t/taxi_and_limousine_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org), the city agency that regulates the industry, acknowledged that combating phone use by drivers remains “a constant battle.” But the commissioner, Matthew W. Daus, said the problem is not as bad as it used to be, citing a decline in summonses and consumer complaints from 2008 and this year.


Yet for many New Yorkers, the sight of a cabby using a cellphone while driving has become an indelible part of the urban milieu — the vehicular equivalent of jaywalking.


Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/nyregion/04taxi.html?_r=1&hp)

[Michael]

Same law as in Toronto - been around for years. The law is totally ignored as cab-drivers are notorious for using cell phones while driving. They just yak on them all day long.

[andrew45611]

Sure - and putting on makeup, drinking coffee and changing the radio station: all at the same time. Which is what I witnessed today on Shelbourne - unreal.

Fact is this regulation does not go far enough. It's a step in the right direction but hand free is still a distraction. As an overall awareness campaign - with some bite (you cause an accident while on the phone, you pay!), this might help to change the culture.

In Europe when these bans came out there was division and derision, much like here. Now it is totally unacceptable to be on the phone - hands free or otherwise - while driving.

[Michael]

Sure - and putting on makeup, drinking coffee and changing the radio station: all at the same time. Which is what I witnessed today on Shelbourne - unreal.

Fact is this regulation does not go far enough. It's a step in the right direction but hand free is still a distraction. As an overall awareness campaign - with some bite (you cause an accident while on the phone, you pay!), this might help to change the culture.

In Europe when these bans came out there was division and derision, much like here. Now it is totally unacceptable to be on the phone - hands free or otherwise - while driving.

Drinking coffee, putting on makeup or changing the radio stations are common distractions while driving, but statistically speaking, they are nowhere near as dangerous as driving after drinking alcohol, or driving while talking/texting on a cell phone/device. The latter two are statistically quite similar and corelate with a significant increase in accidents/injuries.

I'm not familiar with European numbers or laws on this topic.