Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Tech
The National Transportation Safety Board has called for a nationwide ban on the use of all portable electronic devices by drivers, except in an emergency. That means no more phone calls or texting from behind the wheel. It would also ban drivers from using iPods or GPS units not integrated into a car's controls.
The NTSB is serious and is backing up its proposal with statistics.
Drivers using cell phones fail to take in half of what's going on around them while they drive, according to the National Safety Council. And research in the The New England Journal of Medicine found a person using a cell-phone when driving is four times more likely to crash and end up in the hospital.
Distracted driving was the cause of more than 3,000 deaths in 2010. One of many examples the NTSB cites is an August 2010 pileup in Gray Summit, Missouri. An investigation showed the driver of a GMC pickup was texting just before the accident, which involved two school buses and killed two people.
Next we’ll see if these recommendations get any traction with lawmakers.
—Larry Greenemeier
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
21 Comments
Add CommentI can't believe society has finally realized this, its unfortunate that so many countless lives were lost in the process.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, if using a "communications device" is criminalized (even as a misdemeanor) won't that invalidate your insurance if you have an accident while using one*? Sounds like the insurance lobby lawyers at work, to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course it's nuts to text or dial while trying to drive - brains are really one-tracked if concentrating. That does not stop people from trying.
*and I'll bet the phone co can tell when and where you were using one, as well - evidence-wise.
Will this ban apply to law enforcement officers, who are the worst offenders for using handheld devices while operating motor vehicles at high speeds? Or will this be a typical Obama Administration effort of selective regulatory over-reach?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSetting and enforcing Uniform Traffic Code is the business of the States based on local assessment of safety needs. If the State of Texas wants to allow use of handheld devices on endless miles of straight, flat, lonely highways, so be it. If the State of New Jersey wants to limit use of handheld devices on its crowded, chaotic turnpikes, so be it.
QUESTION: What is the difference between using an I-Pod or GPS in handsfree mode, and using one that is factory installed by unionized labor at the Government Motors Plant? ANSWER: the selective regulation of Obama's crony capitalism.
"QUESTION: What is the difference between using an I-Pod or GPS in handsfree mode, and using one that is factory installed by unionized labor at the Government Motors Plant? ANSWER: the selective regulation of Obama's crony capitalism."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't like Obama, either, but your answer is a bit skewed. The difference is that factory-installed units cannot be operated while the car is moving. I understand you wrote "hands-free", but studies have shown that hands-free is no safer because your brain is still distracted.
Two months ago I test drove a Chevy Volt. The combination, touch screen, navigation/stereo system played all the while the Volt lumbered down the street.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAGAIN MY QUESTION: "what is the difference between using my Sprint Samsung Epic in hands-free mode and using a factory installed unit? Besides the fact that the US Government owns GM? ANSWER: I can voice command the Samsung, but I my hands must leave the steering wheel to command the GM, factory-installed unit.
I am not going to justify the pro cell phone fans comments. There is NO reason to EVER allow the driver to use a cell phone while in motion. Please don't make up "movie" scenarios. Yes, ANY distraction is bad, especially if it involves digital manipulation or averted eyes. GPS has voice, as do most electronic communication. Bluetooth at least lessens the distraction. The reasoning behind this is the same as careless driving while putting on makeup, reading the newspaper, using your laptop, and eating. It is mindless to try and justify these actions. Every driver THINKS they are the exception. I cannot count the times in these forums that I see something written by THAT person. NONE of us are special regarding this issue. This NOT about lobbying unless it's to KEEP cell use legal. Again, there is ZERO justification for driver cell use while the car is in motion.....ZERO.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh yeah, if you try to bring politics into this, you are on the wrong forum. The cell phone issue has been one of the few truly bipartisan supported studies. So please stop the inane party cr*p; it's just stupid. I DO NOT CARE if you die while using the cell phone; not even a little bit. I DO CARE for the person killed while the cell user exhibits mindless stupidity. We are NOT legislating this for the inconsiderate user, we are legislating this for the other innocent people who WILL be killed by their thoughtlessness and selfishness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the Feds want to make new laws, then the Feds should pay the costs of enforcement instead of continuing their practice of handing off unfunded mandates to the States, Counties, and Cities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suspect all car manufacturers will eventually succumb to pressure, thus having a universal requirement for "in gear disconnect". Backed up by the tach input as well...it's very basic electronics.....and cheap. I guess, then it is back to using ones brain for some semblance of logic. No call or text is worth dying......at least not logically. This isn't about taking away "rights", it's about ME not dying because of some thoughtless, distracted driver. This NOT to protect us from ourselves. Yes, we can make arguments about loud music, smoking, beverage consumption, and animated conversation; all distracting (also unlawful in most states, to a degree if it is considered either wreckless or careless or causes an accident) (uh, probably not the conversation part). But, do we really need to nitpick? No, we don't. We have witnessed the fact that people are neither logical nor responsible.....in large enough a demographic to require this legislation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's already banned in China that using cellphone while driving. The fine is $30
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have no problem with regulating communication devices in moving automobiles. My practical point here is that the job of regulation is best left to the respective states which own, maintain and police the major arterials. In most of the states, where the local governments own, maintain, and police the roads, the state governments have been authorized by statute to establish Uniform Traffic Code enforceable by local authorities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRay LaHood and the USDOT are not the right people to establish rules enforceable in the fifty-seven (I mean the fifty) states. USDOT does not own, maintain, or police roads. What makes Washington expert on what is enforceable in Wyoming? We've been through this before and it doesn't work.
The states and local governments are superior laboratories for discovering solutions to serious social problems, such as driving while physically or mentally impaired and distracted. Many states are already engaged in finding solutions. Getting the Feds involved is like inviting Dr. Seuss' Cat-In-The-Hat into your living room on a rainy afternoon.
I have no problem with regulating communication devices in moving automobiles. My practical point here is that the job of regulation is best left to the respective states which own, maintain and police the major arterials. In most of the states, where the local governments own, maintain, and police the roads, the state governments have been authorized by statute to establish Uniform Traffic Code enforceable by local authorities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRay LaHood and the USDOT are not the right people to establish rules enforceable in the fifty-seven (I mean the fifty) states. USDOT does not own, maintain, or police roads. What makes Washington expert on what is enforceable in Wyoming? We've been through this before and it doesn't work.
The respective states and local governments are superior “laboratories” for finding solutions to serious social and safety problems such as distracted driving. Many States are already tackling the issue. Turning the matter over to the Feds is a lot like inviting Dr. Seuss’ Cat-In-The-Hat into your living room on a rainy afternoon.
In theory less distractions means better driving behavior. The problem is that there are just too many distractions to manage. If the government decides to stop the use of all portable electronic devices there are the other driver distractions such as the car radio (my daughter is always changing stations), or an installed GSP, or just talking to people who are in the car. I can see it now, all new cars come with a cone of silence. Finally, there is the value of some distraction to keep drivers awake since falling asleep is a major cause of accidents. Finally, I can see it now, the shoulders of our high speed highways littered with cars pulled off to make a phone call. Each car becomes a distraction, either sitting or merging into or from traffic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe exacerbating problem in the August 2010 pileup in Gray Summit, Missouri was not the texting driver. If anything, the NTSB should be recommending more training on what a safe following distance is for bus drivers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook, having a reasonable conversation on a handsfree cellphone is less distracting than an argument with someone who is in the car with you. Most phones now have decent voice dialing capabilities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd how the heck why have a GPS if you can't use it while the car is moving? At least in handsfree mode. If it needs to recalculate and you need to interact with the thing, what use is it if you can't do that while driving?
Hi Sheep. I'm glad that you want to throw away your rights to use a GPS or any other electronic device while driving. Research argues differently: "Wayne State study shows early research on cellphone conversations likely overestimated crash risk" (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-12/wsu--wss121411.php). Next of course they will outlaw day-dreaming behind the wheel; not to mention eating McDonalds, listening to music, blinking your eyes, sneezing and yawning. My girlfriend used to do her makeup while driving. Let's put her in jail. I like to read the newspaper while driving, oh my. Why not think of every possible distraction and make a law against it because uptight, controlling politicians need to justify their role and sway to anecdotal reactionism. Bah, Bah Bah.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere you have a situation, due to the technology of GPS and cellphones that by government mandates for these devices you could make them impossible to work above say 10 mph. No let's instead make the use of them illegal. I guess we don't have enough people already involved in the legal system. A perfect example of governmental insanity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose who spend so much time and energy pretending to find some imaginary link between cellphone radiation and cancer are looking in the wrong direction. The real danger lies in the distraction caused by the use of these and similar devices while driving. I hope the laws against such use pass before more accidents occur.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere I live, in Western Australia, a nearly decade long study demonstrated that cellphones were causing more accidents than alcohol. (Perhaps because the very slightly inebriated tend to be very cautious and concentrate like crazy to avoid trouble?) Now the penalty for cell usage while driving is $1400. In extreme cases, several years in jail and long loss of license are prescribed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEither the education program or penalties seem to work because it is now very rare to see anybody driving while chatting or texting. Mind, you do see a lot of cars in Loading Zones, stranger's driveways or wherever they can stop to return missed calls. Nonetheless, I feel distinctly safer on the road.
TKerr
Well, it may be officially banned, but that ban is totally ignored by Chinese motorists. (I lived in China for 10 years until last Christmas.) It reminds me of the strict anti-pollution laws, the carbon emission laws, etc. There is an ancient Chinese proverb "The emperor is in Heaven and Beijing is far away." Westerners who cite the progressive environmental laws of the PRC should understand that they cease to be effective about 100m outside the gates of the Forbidden City.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbsolutely correct Pariah! And when you have one hand on a cellphone and yawn and spit some of your Big Mac into the newspaper you have draped on the steering wheel...and where did that car come from? Bang!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Australia, you may be looking at 2 years in jail. If someone dies in the Bang! contemplate 14 years.
Don't call me a whoose. I held a North American Racing Licence and competed in SCCA for several years. Getting such a licence teaches concentration, situational awareness and avoiding guys like you on the road; also gives me the ability to run over near empty, windy country roads 'down under' at better than 200K in my vehicle and really love it because I know that I am safe
TKerr