The National Transportation Safety Board recommended Tuesday that all states and the District ban cellphone use behind the wheel, becoming the first federal agency to call for an outright ban on telephone conversations while driving.
Distracted driving, some of it due to cellphone use, contributed to an estimated 3,092 deaths in highway crashes last year, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
“No call, no text, no update, is worth a human life,” said NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman. “It is time for all of us to stand up for safety by turning off electronic devices when driving.”
I agree that texting while driving should be banned nationwide……I certainly don’t have a problem with that, and carrying on conversations over the phone while driving should be banned as well. No phone call, such as for business purposes, is so important that it can’t wait until you stop and get out of your car, [b]but there is an exception to this:[/b] emergencies, such as accident reporting and unsafe drivers.
I am a handicapped driver, and I cannot risk driving without my cellphone in my car. If I break down on the road, I can’t risk trying to change a flat tire or getting out to try to flag someone down. Waiting for help to come along in the form of a deputy or CHP officer isn’t feasible for me (I don’t recommend standing alongside one’s vehicle while seated in a wheelchair or using crutches…..it isn’t safe), and that’s why I never go anywhere without the phone.
If someone calls me, I let the call go to the answering service, and when it’s safe to do so, I pull off the road and return the call. Otherwise, I wait until I get to my destination.
Cennydd, I don’t think that’s an exception. Pulling over to take/make a call is recommended standard procedure. Distracted driving legislation took effect in my province this year, and lots of folks bought hands-free devices, myself included. It’s far better for “receiving” calls. But the temptation is still there to dial while driving. There’s no good argument against the logic of the proposal, but people will still argue, because it will require a lifestyle change.
I am not sure why talking on a hands-free mobile phone would be more distracting than talking to a person in the vehicle. I have seen some research, however, that tends to indicate that this may be the case. In any event, a wholesale ban in all the states would no doubt have a very good effect.
It could be said that if cellphone use were to be totally banned while driving, then why not place a ban on talking to one’s passenger, such as wife or husband? Try to enforce [b]THAT[/b] and see how far it gets you! Or how about banning the use of car radios, CB radio, or CDs?
CHP officers have told me that banning cellphone use is like whistling into the wind; virtually impossible to enforce evenly. And I’ve seen police officers on cellphones while driving, so how can they fairly enforce the law?
I think the problem, No. 4, is keyboard use and vision shifts between the out-the-windshield view to the near in device screen or keyboard view. I think of myself as a superb driver (doesn’t everyone?) but I have noticed that the manipulation necessary even to answer a mobile phone does sometimes pull my eyes away from the immediate external environment of the vehicle.
For enforcement purposes, I would think the distraction would have to be blatant to be observable from outside the vehicle. My guess, however, is that a nationwide ban (imposed by the individual states – I don’t believe driving behaviour is a legitimate federal issue) would save a few lives, even if not universally honoured. It might change the ethic of phone use while driving.
Personally, I’d just as soon call and leave a message. Texting should not only be banned while you’re driving; a technology should be developed to ensure that it’s automatically disabled in your phone while while you’re driving, and for that, we’d need to urge the cellphone manufactures to find a solution.
I have a slightly different take.
It’s none of the Feds business. If the states want to do it then let’s discuss it on the merits, but not the Feds.
On the merits, in a perfect world I think that the ban makes sense. Driving in the single most dangerous most of us do. Piloting a thin sheet steel capsule at speeds on up to 70-80 mph (in oncoming traffic double that) in frequently changing driving conditions is inherently dangerous. When I go to the shooting range driving there is the most dangerous part.
Driving demands 100% of the drivers attention. Using the cell phone and texting while driving is dangerous and stupid. It’s as dangerous as women applying eye makeup while driving.
If we are going to ban the phones folks, there is a whole list of things that comprise that “distracted driving” statistic in the story: talking GPS units, dashboard navigation/electronic devices, mp3 players connected to onboard stereos, dvd players that need to be fiddled with, women putting on make-up, people reading newspapers, how about eating while driving, perhaps no children in a car with only a driver and no passanger to manage the children, no passangers talking to the driver while driving; if you want to ask him/her something, pull off the road. In fact, I’m sure many things could be added to the list.
And what priority should this federal legislative effort have relative to say; the debt? deficit spending? our economic mess? national defense? our perilous energy situation, repealing Obamacare? scrapping the IRS?
RE: “There’s no good argument against the logic of the proposal . . . ”
Well, other than that it’s an unconstitutional taking away of individual liberty, but that shouldn’t stop anyone determined to be The People’s Officious Caretaker.
For that matter, stripping all cars of radios I’m sure would also “save lives” since people have had wrecks while fiddling with dials. Let’s go ahead and do that.
And of course, the ultimate “life saver” would be to make all cars illegal — *those* are what are killers in the US, not fiddling around the edges with bannings of cell phones.
Again — none of the above should be a problem for officious meddlers using the power of the State to plan our lives for us. The Constitution is but a “living breathing document” anyway, just like Holy Scripture is, and can be molded into whatever suits our desires anyway.
Sarah–I agree that the issue is whether an overbearing Federal Government should be involved in this at all. Also, I think the NTSB needs to ban makeup, cosmetic surgery and low cut and/or tight dresses. Pretty girls are much nore distracting to me than hands free cell phone use.
Sarah,
As you undoubtedly know, driving a car is not a constitutionally guaranteed liberty. A driver certainly has the right to kill themselves anyway they want, but they don’t have the right to kill other people. Personally, I’m opposed to this ban for many of the reasons stated above, but are you opposed, in principle, to any restrictions placed on a driver? That you can’t consume alcohol and drive? (In my state, that you cannot have an open container of alcohol in the car other than the trunk — that is, you not only can’t drink, you can’t place yourself in a situation that you could be drinking?) That you can’t consume certain prescription medicines and drive? That you must wear vision correction, if prescribed? That a truck driver can only log a certain number of driving hours without taking a break?
If you think there should be no regulations on drivers (or which restrictions do you approve of?) how do you feel about regulations on airline pilots or ferryboat pilots?
I have always understood the “the government can’t make me wear a helmet when I ride a motorcycle” argument (although I don’t agree) but I must say I need clarification on the “the government can’t regulate my behavior while piloting a ton (or much more) of steel at 65 miles per hour down a narrow strip of concrete with scores of people within a few hundred feet of me.”
BTW, if you read the article, you will see that the NTSB is only making a recommendation to the states. There is no authority for the federal government or a federal agency to make such a rule nor are they trying to do so. They are saying “we’ve done a 10 year study on this and these are our finding and this is our recommendation.” The states can use these findings (rather than commissioning expensive studies of their own) when they consider regulations in these areas. The states can then do as they please — assuming that their citizen believe that they have the authority to regulate the behavior of licesensed drivers at the time that they are driving.
I understand the “restriction of personal liberty” argument; by the same token I seen tons of people on the road being irresponsible with cell phone use.
[i]but are you opposed, in principle, to any restrictions placed on a driver? [/i]
How silly. Of course the driver can pay for the consequences of his/her actions. Let their insurance rates reflect their behavior or record. That is a powerful inducement that requires no massive Federal or even state bureaucracy to manage. And the bonus for good, safe drives is that their rates should go down as they are no longer subsidizing the bad drivers.
Bring it on!!!!!
Here is what do-gooder legislation leads to;
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/dc/dc-resident-fined-thousands-for-not-recycling-cat-litter-121311#ixzz1gSaP6zTy
Washington DC bureaucratic fines for not recycling cat litter. How do they know the lady is not recycling cat litter? They searched her garbage cans! Another desparate enemy of the state brought to justice for their crimes!
I wonder how many pages in the city codes are used to describe how you “properly” recycle cat litter? How many committee meetings were required to promulgate this incredibly important law?
The mind reels in amazement…….
So basically (#14) the driver can kill my children and the consequences will be that their insurance rates go up.
Sorry, I don’t buy it.
You’re changing the subject to cat litter. The subject is not cat litter. The question is “can the state lawfully regulate your behavior while you are driving a multi-ton piece of steel at 65 mph and coming within 10 feet of other people.” This is pretty much a “yes” “no” or “under these circumstances only” answer. It’s not a cat litter answer. Can the state tell you that you cannot take lawfully prescribed medication and drive at the same time? Can the state require a truck driver to take a break every 8 hours or whatever it is?
If texting while driving should be banned (and I most emphatically believe that it should be banned), then doesn’t it make sense that cellphones with texting capability should be outlawed in this country?
Texting someone while you’re driving is downright [b]deadly,[/b] and if you kill someone while you’re driving (it’s called vehicular manslaughter for you if you survive) and texting, it should result in jail time.
Full disclosure: My brother was killed by a drunk driver.
Drinking is a legal behavior. The states have, individually and in varying degrees, made it not only a driving offense but an actual crime to drink while driving. I assume that most people, other than Capt. Warren, are in agreement with this this. If a state concludes, based on independent studies, that talking on a cell phone while driving has the same functional effect as drinking and driving (and I don’t say it does — that, indeed, is the question) do they not then have the right to ban talking on a cell phone while driving?
My teenage granddaughters will be heading off to college soon, and they’re of driving age. Neither of them thinks texting while driving is safe, and they won’t do it. The very idea that either of them could be seriously injured or killed on the highway because some idiot thinks he or she has to text someone while driving drives me to demand that cellphones with texting capability should be banned in this country. Think of how many lives could be saved, and how many people could be saved from life-changing disabilities as a result. Then maybe that “loss of personal freedom” wouldn’t seem so important anymore, would it?
Cennydd13:
“Doesn’t it make sense that cellphones with texting capability should be outlawed?”
Not at all. Anymore than alcohol and prescription drugs should be outlawed simply because it is illegal to use them when driving.
Think about it!
20. Well, then. educating the driving public about the dangers of texting while driving doesn’t seem to be working, does it? What else could be done?
Make it illegal to text and drive, as 35 states have done. What that generally means is that, as with alcohol, drivers know that if you kill somebody while texting (which is a very simple to prove) you will go to jail.
Interestingly, my GPS has a warning screen that you have to go through every single time you turn it on that says, essentially “I know and agree that it is dangerous and potentially life-threatening to diddle with my GPS while driving and I agree to only play around with it when my car is not moving.” Then you have to hit a button that says “I agree.” Of course you can then do whatever you please, but you know that if you end up a parapalegic because you rammed into a concrete wall while trying to spell out “Wampanoag” on your GPS, you won’t be able to sue the GPS company.