NTSB proposes no cell phones including hands free

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Jeepster_nut
There is a huge difference in using a radio in a professional manner and/or life saving event vs. some stupid teenager or 20 something texting their moronic friends about Sabrina's Facebook update or Twitter post while going highway speeds. I am all for jamming devices being phased into new car production that only allows 911 calls while the vehicle is in motion.

Im all against irradiating people with jamming devices in their vehicles. Id prefer severe pain and equivalent bodily harm inflicted upon the guilty party (even if a minor) if they are found to be at fault for using a phone while driving.

(I am totally against any additional RF from a jammer, and mostly joking about the pain/harm thing.)

 

[65cuda]

I know I have a daughter that will have a panic attack if her cell phone goes dead or she doesn't have it in her hand or by her side. What is it that makes people addicted to a device? I mean they can't even hold a conversation without playing a game or checking facebook. They never would have made it when we only had the dial telephone and it was a party line.

 

[jcwit]

Originally Posted By: 65cuda
I know I have a daughter that will have a panic attack if her cell phone goes dead or she doesn't have it in her hand or by her side. What is it that makes people addicted to a device? I mean they can't even hold a conversation without playing a game or checking facebook. They never would have made it when we only had the dial telephone and it was a party line.


Don't forget who's raising her.

 

[65cuda]

Oh I don't but she is 25 and married with 2 kids. Didn't get the cell phone until a senior in HS and all it did go ring a ding. Her husband and inlaws are also addicted to the stupid phone and have to be in constant touch for everything.

 

[calvin1]

I used to be against such things but watching the continuous chaos on the roads perpetrated by people on their phones I've come around to the totalitarian approach. It's just not possible for the human mind to carry on a coherent conversation and drive safely at the same time. Besides, most Americans are mediocre drivers even when they're supposedly paying attention. I also believe that anytime there is a crash or citation issued any mobile phone usage at the time ought to be added as a contributing factor or aggravating factor respectively.

just my $.02

 

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted By: Maximus1966
Originally Posted By: pottymouth
Originally Posted By: Maximus1966
I've heard that the technology exists to prevent cell phones from working if moving more than 5MPH. If this is true, wouldn't that be the answer? I'm sure the manufacturers would have to be forced to provide the technology, but the idea seems appealing.


How would this technology differentiate between a driver on the phone and a passenger? How about taxis and liveries?


I don't see the need to differentiate. If the driver can wait until safely stopped to talk or text, certainly a passenger can also. Having come from an era when you had to stop, get out and talk on a pay phone if travelling, I feel we won't have much of a problem with not texting while driving. Added to that is the fact that an extremely high percentage of these mobile calls and texts are probably totally not necessary. From my experience they mostly consist of, "Hey, howya doing?, "How was your day?, "What's for supper?, " How did Timmy do in school today?", etc.

Taxis? I don't think there is much of a safety problem with experienced taxi drivers using their radios as intended.


So now even passengers should not be able to talk on the phone while someone else drives? Seems a bit over-reaching to me.

As far as taxis and liveries, I'm talking about a paying customer riding in the back seat. Should the phone prohibit these people from talking because the vehicle is in motion?

This proposal would prohibit all cell phone use, not only texting. While I'm sure most people would be in favor of a texting ban, I'm not convinced that the average driver would also support a ban on phone conversations while using hands-free devices. I drive 30K miles a year on average and have been using cell phones with hands-free devices of one type or another since the mid-90's. I have yet to have an at fault collision of any kind, much less one that occurred while I was using my phone. I remember the days of scanning the roadside looking for operable pay phones. Seems to me it was just as much a distraction as pressing the talk button on my steering wheel and saying "Call Jim" into the air.

I'll echo what was said earlier. Simply enforcing the laws that are currently on the books will make the roads safer. More laws that are selectively enforced to generate revenue will not. People are so concerned with safety in NJ that motor vehicle inspections no longer include a safety inspection, just emissions and paperwork. Now any pile of dung with cords showing through the tires, bad brakes, faulty lights and a cracked windshield can pass inspection. Of course the police can still give you a ticket if any of these safety issues exist. If highway safety is such a priority, why was this done? Giving the state another means to prey upon the public in order to fill the coffers is something I am firmly against.

 

[65cuda]

do the research and you will see that there isn't much difference between hand held and hands free. Reason being is that it isn't the holding of a phone that is the problem as much as the brain shifts concentration some from the driving to the conversation. For some reason they don't see this when you are talking to a passenger.

 

[rg200amp]

Originally Posted By: oldmaninsc
Originally Posted By: rg200amp


You know, I hear North Korea is really nice this time of year. You would like it.


Wow - it really makes me wonder how so many of us survived ALL those years - decades actually without a cell phone. Somewhere I missed the part where it became a right to drive AND to have a cell phone to talk on and text on!

Maybe we should just have a cell phone implanted into babies when they are born.

The problem is - if people had "common sense" there wouldn't be a need for ANY laws, period! I just wonder if some of our opinions would change if it was one of our loved ones who was killed in an "accident" or more accurately 'incident' involving texting!


We survived without cell phones the SAME WAY we survived without CARS 200+ years ago.

Soo. I say again. If you care at all about the lives lost from auto accidents, you would be pushing to ban all automobiles.

O, your "implanting cell phones into babies" line was great. Really. Did you come up with that? MSNBC will like to use that line for sure.

You write "if people had common sense".

Thats funny. People have the least amount of common sense.
We kill eachother for pleasure. We rape babies. We destroy nations.

Common sense?

The common sense thing to do is to lay off the nanny state bull and focus on fixing our issues. Like our country, world, the child rapist, the murderers, ect. . .

Whats more dangerous? A 34 year old woman driving down a highway, holding and talking on her phone?

Or

A 17 year old girl, driving down the highway with her music going, talking to her girl friend sitting next to her about her crush in high school, while she is putting on make up.

Guess what one the NTSB wants to BAN.

Yep. That makes sense.

 

[UNC036]

Whatever happened to defensive/offensive driving?

It really doesn't matter what they are doing as long as you are aware of, and can react to it.

Be aware, Be proactive, Stay alive.

Take care of yourself, and let the others drive off the side of the road.

Jim

 

[zyxelenator]

Yes, cell phones do distract,know it myself,especially txt msgs. I usually tell that I'm driving and call back, or that I need to shift, and need my second hand(if I'm in city)

I might talk for couple minutes if it's really important.
But baning talking at all is too much. Promote to talk only if it's really important.

 

[rshaw125]

Has anyone else noticed how all these large government agencies are recently trying to appear relevant? Could it be the large (finally) budget cuts on the horizon?

 

[UNC036]

Originally Posted By: rshaw125
Has anyone else noticed how all these large government agencies are recently trying to appear relevant? Could it be the large (finally) budget cuts on the horizon?


We can only hope...

 

[oldmaninsc]

Originally Posted By: rg200amp


We survived without cell phones the SAME WAY we survived without CARS 200+ years ago.

Soo. I say again. If you care at all about the lives lost from auto accidents, you would be pushing to ban all automobiles.

Can't you come up with a better line than that?

Quote:
O, your "implanting cell phones into babies" line was great. Really. Did you come up with that? MSNBC will like to use that line for sure.

That was meant to be sarcastic - it makes about as much sense as your "ban all automobiles" line.

Quote:

You write "if people had common sense".

Thats funny. People have the least amount of common sense.
We kill eachother for pleasure. We rape babies. We destroy nations.

Common sense?

The common sense thing to do is to lay off the nanny state bull and focus on fixing our issues. Like our country, world, the child rapist, the murderers, ect. . .

Wow where did all that come from? But I'll bite - how do we "fix" all these issues? Wave some magic wand and it will all be better? "Nanny state bull"? That's funny. So I guess you would have us do away will ALL laws - like the ones against drunk driving, the ones against theft, murder, etc. oh wait you just said we need to " focus on fixing our issues." Enlighten us - how do we do that? We kill each other for pleasure? Maybe YOU do, but I sure don't.

Quote:

Whats more dangerous? A 34 year old woman driving down a highway, holding and talking on her phone?

Or

A 17 year old girl, driving down the highway with her music going, talking to her girl friend sitting next to her about her crush in high school, while she is putting on make up.

Guess what one the NTSB wants to BAN.

Yep. That makes sense.


That's a very subjective call. I can't say which one is more dangerous and neither can you. Too many variables to call - plus I have a feeling if I picked one you would disagree. I just love people that talk out of both sides of their mouth.

Two questions for you:

One: Would you feel the same if someone you loved was seriously hurt and/or killed as a result of someone texting while driving?

Two: Ever witness an accident that was the direct result of someone texting? I have on both.

Personally I've never understood why people seem to think they have to be in touch CONSTANTLY with the rest of the world 24/7 anyhow. What is so important that it can't wait a few minutes until you are home?

Edit: I've wasted enough keystrokes on this as it is so I'm going to end it here. But - I just love people that criticize yet have no solution for the problem.

 

[rshaw125]

Ban everything. That'll do it. I had a buddy that was distracted by a teenage girl in shorts walking down the street. He ran into two cars and took out a road sign.
How about the guy in China that was busted on camera (speeding) with his hand down the girl's t-shirt? That should be banned as well.

 

[rshaw125]

Here's another one. Apparently eating lunch should be banned.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...trate-road.html

 

[greenjp]

Originally Posted By: rshaw125
Ban everything. That'll do it. I had a buddy that was distracted by a teenage girl in shorts walking down the street. He ran into two cars and took out a road sign.
How about the guy in China that was busted on camera (speeding) with his hand down the girl's t-shirt? That should be banned as well.

Back on page 1 we touched on risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis. Silly examples like this show a lack of familiarity with either, which is critical to intelligently discussing the issue.

side note - it's often said that the most dangerous thing on a motorcycle is a pretty woman on the sidewalk

jeff

 

[Vikas]

Anybody wants to explain to me how the part of the accident where school buses rammed in to each other had anything to do with the cell phone usage? Were drivers of the school buses using cell phone and texting? If not, why cell phone became the lightening rod in this highly publicized accident?

- Vikas

 

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted By: 65cuda
do the research and you will see that there isn't much difference between hand held and hands free. Reason being is that it isn't the holding of a phone that is the problem as much as the brain shifts concentration some from the driving to the conversation. For some reason they don't see this when you are talking to a passenger.


I never suggested that cell phone converstations are not distracting. There are more distractions on the roads than you can count. Car audio, seat adjustments, HVAC, billboards, people in your car, exotic or interesting other cars, people picking their noses in other cars, etc. I am suggesting that it is entirely possible to carry on a cell phone conversation and still drive safely and responsibly. I've been doing it 5 days a week for over 15 years. The vast majority of people I know who use their cell phones while driving have also never been in a collision while talking on the phone. Several have been when they fell asleep behind the wheel. Perhaps if they had been talking to someone they would have been able to stay awake?

 

[carwreck]

Originally Posted By: Carbon
Proposes coercing states to not allow cell calls (except "emergency") even with hands-free in vehicles. Sounds unreasonable to me.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-13/ntsb-cellphone-ban-driving/51874966/1

The debate in this tread has been about how the proposed laws might prevent accidents.

The answer is actually in the facts of the case cited. A new law would not have made any difference, and will just be used by the police as "probable cause" to pull you over.

"The recommendation from the safety board followed a hearing on a Missouri highway crash...."
"The board ruled that the initial collision was caused by a pickup driver, Daniel Schatz, 19, who was one of the fatalities, sending 11 text messages in the 11 minutes before the crash."

The law that applies to this is already in place, and the driver Daniel Schatz, 19, was violating an existing Missouri DMV law !
"Is it illegal to drive while sending, reading or writing a text message? ...Yes, if you are 21 years of age or younger it is...."

http://dor.mo.gov/forms/4821.pdf

As others have said in this thread, you need to be responsible for your own actions, instead of a new law every time someone does something stupid.
I predict the next new laws will be to control the use of Fix-a-Flat (search yahoo "new use for fix-a-flat").

 

[jcwit]

So a Mo. Law being broken by the driver who caused this accident should not become an National Law?

Somehow I'm missing your logic.