NTSB proposes no cell phones including hands free

[jcwit]

Originally Posted By: pottymouth
Originally Posted By: AstroTurf
I didn't say dump em.

Let's enforce the ones we have before we do anything else.

Sound fair?


But that would keep us from having more government intervention in our lives. Aren't we all helpless little lambs who need the nanny state to protect us?


In fact this is true because we have the idiots who neither have or refuse to use what common sense is available to them. You find this in all aspects of life, be it drugs, food, auto safety, gun control, labor laws the list is as endless as is the list of laws.

Sorry such is life, don't like it here, move away.

 

[UNC036]

WoW, Where did that come from?

If you don't like it here, move away...

Perhaps, It is you, who in fact, does not like it here.

You want to change it, so perhaps you SHOULD Move Away.

Or perhaps devise a way to enforce the current laws which were broken.

Jim

 

[jcwit]

Originally Posted By: AstroTurf
WoW, Where did that come from?

If you don't like it here, move away...

Perhaps, It is you, who in fact, does not like it here.

You want to change it, so perhaps you SHOULD Move Away.

Or perhaps devise a way to enforce the current laws which were broken.

Jim


Nope, I'm not moving away, watched to many of my brothers in arms spilling their blood for this great country, obviously you have missed that virtue and honor in serving this country. Like it here just fine.

Odd you should get so upset over something as simple as talking on a cell phone even while knowing it causes horrific accidents.

As far as being able to be inforced, with the ruling at a national level it will be enforced much more than today when the states see their highway funds dry up if they fail to enforce the ruling. Same situtation as the seat belt laws.

Seems as if someone needs to be able to control themselves.

 

[Vikas]

Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
That's the first thing that came to my mind as well.
So this is how I understand it went down:

1) An unladen tractor trailer makes an emergency stop for God knows what reason.
2) A pickup truck, driven by a man whose telephone had received some text messages prior to the accident, was unable to stop in time and crashed into the stationary tractor trailer.
3) Not one, but TWO school buses, through absolutely no fault of their own, piled into the truck and caused the slaughter of its driver.

The conclusion? Ban all telephone use while driving!

This is the kind of absolutely incomprehensible lunacy that you'd expect in a Stalin-era kangaroo court show-trial, not in the nation purporting to be the world's leader in justice and who knows what else.

What I propose is a reduction in workforce at the NTSB. Clearly, what we have here is an organization that is not working in the interest of the public.


Somehow, your sarcasm is completely lost on majority of them :-( Is it that difficult to understand that two school buses plowing in to truck had absolutely nothing to do with the cell phone usage of the truck driver? If the truck driver was not around, the school buses would have plowed in to tractor trailer. Why is it so difficult to comprehend???

 

[UNC036]

Originally Posted By: jcwit
Originally Posted By: AstroTurf
WoW, Where did that come from?

If you don't like it here, move away...

Perhaps, It is you, who in fact, does not like it here.

You want to change it, so perhaps you SHOULD Move Away.

Or perhaps devise a way to enforce the current laws which were broken.

Jim


Nope, I'm not moving away, watched to many of my brothers in arms spilling their blood for this great country, obviously you have missed that virtue and honor in serving this country. Like it here just fine.

Odd you should get so upset over something as simple as talking on a cell phone even while knowing it causes horrific accidents.

As far as being able to be inforced, with the ruling at a national level it will be enforced much more than today when the states see their highway funds dry up if they fail to enforce the ruling. Same situtation as the seat belt laws.

Seems as if someone needs to be able to control themselves.


Actually, I have served my country for 12 years, in two different branches of the US Armed Forces, and have two Honorable Discharges.

I have been a mobile service technician for the past 20 plus years, and of those years I have used a cell phone for the last 15 or so. I have never had an accident during that time.

I am not blind to the fact that their are those out there who cannot chew bubble gum and drive. I keep an eye out for them.

I drive defensively/offensively. I would say that is a man's first responsibility, is to prepare for the bubble gum chewers of this world. If you want to rest in someone else doing that for you, so be it. As for me and my household, we will prepare for them.

Take Care, Thanks for your service to our country.

Jim

 

[jcwit]

And back atach'cha with a Hardy Thank You for your service.

Basically I believe we see things similar except for the parts regarding the idiots out there that chew bubble gum and drive at the same time. I go along with the defensively/offensively driving but on country roads such as I drive mostly there's no place to go in an emergency caused by one of them. Unless you consider a mailbox or a ditch as a way out. Heck we even have crossroads with no Stop/Yield or anything sign. Figer that out!

Some things can not be prepared for, no matter how diligent one is. If we were able to there would be no need for insurance itself, we could always avoid any problem.

 

[UNC036]

jcwit,

http://handsfreeinfo.com/indiana-cell-phone-laws-legislation

It appears as though your state is taking measures to eliminate the problems with texting while driving and using a non hands free cell phones as well.

The problem is in enforcement of such laws.

It is illegal to break in to my home. The local police will enforce that law if they catch the crime in the act. Unfortunately, they are not always able to do that. So we have a neighborhood watch program. Further we arm ourselves against such actions.

The problem is not the law, but the enforcement of the law. Can you as a citizen, Capture the infraction and report it to the police? Certainly you can and should.

There is always more than one way to skin a cat.

Just Rambling On, Jim

 

[jcwit]

Sorta hard to capture the infraction after I've already taken out the mailbox to prevent a head on collision.

Enforcement would be as easy as the enforcement of seatbelt laws, and this was accomplished on a federal level by withholding federal funds to the states.

 

[oldmaninsc]

Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
That's the first thing that came to my mind as well.
So this is how I understand it went down:

1) An unladen tractor trailer makes an emergency stop for God knows what reason.
2) A pickup truck, driven by a man whose telephone had received some text messages prior to the accident, was unable to stop in time and crashed into the stationary tractor trailer.
3) Not one, but TWO school buses, through absolutely no fault of their own, piled into the truck and caused the slaughter of its driver.

The conclusion? Ban all telephone use while driving!

This is the kind of absolutely incomprehensible lunacy that you'd expect in a Stalin-era kangaroo court show-trial, not in the nation purporting to be the world's leader in justice and who knows what else.

What I propose is a reduction in workforce at the NTSB. Clearly, what we have here is an organization that is not working in the interest of the public.


Are we reading the same article?

You said:
"1) An unladen tractor trailer makes an emergency stop for God knows what reason."

Actual article states: "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. His pickup rammed the back of a tractor-trailer that had slowed for construction on Interstate 44 near Gray Summit."
I hate to state the incredibly obvious, but slowing down for construction is NOT the same as being stopped.

"2) A pickup truck, driven by a man whose telephone had received some text messages prior to the accident, was unable to stop in time and crashed into the stationary tractor trailer."
Again, the article doesn't state the tractor trailer was stationary, only that it slowed down for construction.
Also the article clearly states that the man's telephone also SENT some texts as well as RECEIVED. Eleven texts were sent in eleven minutes. I would have a hard time seeing how he could have been paying very close attention to the road and his driving while sending 11 texts in 11 minutes.

3) Not one, but TWO school buses, through absolutely no fault of their own, piled into the truck and caused the slaughter of its driver.

Now granted the problem with the brakes on both of the buses contributed somewhat to the accident - but how much NONE of us will know since we weren't there.

As for your brilliant statement: " What I propose is a reduction in workforce at the NTSB" maybe you should read the rest of the article.

"An estimated 3,092 traffic fatalities in 2010 were blamed on distracted drivers, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. More than one in six drivers send text messages while driving, and nearly half of drivers less than 25 years old are doing it, according to a NHTSA survey released last week.

"This is becoming the new DUI," said Robert Sumwalt, a member of the safety board. "It's becoming an epidemic."

I love the way people love to shoot the messenger or try to discredit the messenger for something they disagree with.
Sad but funny thing is - since this was thread was first posted - I've had 3 run ins with people texting on the road. One would have been a disaster had I not been paying attention and avoided the problem.
Four run ins actually if you count the lady at Sams Club today who was pushing her cart down the isle while texting on her phone. Again I saw her coming and got out of her way before she ran into me. She half smiled and said "Sorry" and kept on going. Sadly I think this is typical of people who text and NOT the exception! (My opinion).

 

[oldmaninsc]

Here is a better article that goes more in depth as to the events of the Missouri accident.

"While both school bus drivers were charged with careless driving . . . In the end, it was Schatz's texting that caused the wreck, the patrol and the NTSB determined."

http://news.yahoo.com/mo-students-cellphone-debate-isnt-academic-182455284.html

 

[UNC036]

Here is a better one...

http://www.kmov.com/news/local/2-buses-tractor-trailer-collide-on-I-44-100036604.html

And the NTSBs Report...

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2011/gray_summit_mo/index.html

My thoughts, nobody had to die this day. All of it could have been avoided. It cannot all be blamed on the cell phones usage. Had the 75 year old bus driver noticed the stopped traffic, and slowed, this would not have even been noticed and no deaths would have occurred.

Funny how the truth comes out, is is not?

Jim

 

[jcwit]

Of course if the driver of the 07 GMC Sierra had been paying attention and not texing in all probabality none of this would have happened.

Being as non of us were there at the time of said accident there can be no conclusion drawn here on BITOG forum.

So with the above said, lets continue as we now are and drive willy nilly with no cares as to what happenes on the highways. If you REALLT believe defensive/offensive driving will protect you from all accidents and other hazzards on the highway, just cancel your insurance and pray for the best.

Good Luck!

Funny how I know you're not going to do that tho. Remember you are human and being human are prone to errors and screwups.

As I said a few times before, I'm tired of sharing my side of the road with the idiots talking on the phone whether they're able to multitask or not.

 

[UNC036]

Whatever the answer is... I can tell you what it is not.

Relying on someone else to protect you and yours.

Good Luck and may God be with all of us, cause it ain't getting any better.

Jim

 

[jcwit]

Originally Posted By: AstroTurf
Whatever the answer is... I can tell you what it is not.

Relying on someone else to protect you and yours.

Good Luck and may God be with all of us, cause it ain't getting any better.

Jim


Do you not "rely" on the seat belt to protect you or the air bags which were mandated by the feds in case you or yours make the inevitable error?


So just what do you call it when you're wheeled into the operating room?

I tend to not engage in risky behavior if at all possible.

 

[UNC036]

Originally Posted By: jcwit
Originally Posted By: AstroTurf
Whatever the answer is... I can tell you what it is not.

Relying on someone else to protect you and yours.

Good Luck and may God be with all of us, cause it ain't getting any better.

Jim


Do you not "rely" on the seat belt to protect you or the air bags which were mandated by the feds in case you or yours make the inevitable error?


So just what do you call it when you're wheeled into the operating room?

I tend to not engage in risky behavior if at all possible.


Now, you are just being silly.

 

[65cuda]

I find it odd that in spite of the evidence of the hazards of driving and cell phone use of any kind, many are so addicted to using the phone that they will throw out any type of excuse to not have the law. From the excuse of it isn't different than talking to a passenger, to it is another nanny law, to I'm a good driver so it doesn't apply to me to now well they can't enforce it. Actually they do have some ways of enforcing it and just like DUI's it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be banned. I hope that the ones that are so against it never have to go to the funeral of someone they killed because of being on a phone, let alone one of their own family members.

 

[L_Sludger]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
That's the first thing that came to my mind as well.
So this is how I understand it went down:

1) An unladen tractor trailer makes an emergency stop for God knows what reason.
2) A pickup truck, driven by a man whose telephone had received some text messages prior to the accident, was unable to stop in time and crashed into the stationary tractor trailer.
3) Not one, but TWO school buses, through absolutely no fault of their own, piled into the truck and caused the slaughter of its driver.

The conclusion? Ban all telephone use while driving!

This is the kind of absolutely incomprehensible lunacy that you'd expect in a Stalin-era kangaroo court show-trial, not in the nation purporting to be the world's leader in justice and who knows what else.

What I propose is a reduction in workforce at the NTSB. Clearly, what we have here is an organization that is not working in the interest of the public.


Somehow, your sarcasm is completely lost on majority of them :-( Is it that difficult to understand that two school buses plowing in to truck had absolutely nothing to do with the cell phone usage of the truck driver? If the truck driver was not around, the school buses would have plowed in to tractor trailer. Why is it so difficult to comprehend???
Thank you for that - it really bothers me that they're blaming the deceased truck driver and not the errant school bus drivers who are the real culprits in this case! If they wanted to do real diagnostic legislation, they'd mandate a following distance of 1/4 mile for bus drivers!!

 

[UNC036]

Originally Posted By: 65cuda
I find it odd that in spite of the evidence of the hazards of driving and cell phone use of any kind, many are so addicted to using the phone that they will throw out any type of excuse to not have the law. From the excuse of it isn't different than talking to a passenger, to it is another nanny law, to I'm a good driver so it doesn't apply to me to now well they can't enforce it. Actually they do have some ways of enforcing it and just like DUI's it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be banned. I hope that the ones that are so against it never have to go to the funeral of someone they killed because of being on a phone, let alone one of their own family members.

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.


Go and convince Your Daughter first... Then come back here, and convince others.

Good Luck with that, Oh, and bring back facts too, O.K.?

 

[Kestas]

I read through the NTSB report. What stikes me odd is how they downplay the importance of the lead bus driver distracted immediately before his crash, leading to the death of the pickup driver.

I was always led to believe that a driver is ultimately responsible for any road conditions and traffic situations ahead of him. Granted, there are mitigating circumstances to this, but being distracted by a motorcoach on the side of the road should not be one of them.

 

[UNC036]

Both bus drivers were charged. Meaning they were BOTH at FAULT.

The lead bus driver was 75 years old??? Come on, Really?

Here is a listing of our 50 states laws regarding cell phones:

http://www.iihs.org/laws/cellphonelaws.aspx