NTSB seeks nationwide ban on driver use of personal electronic devices

[vi edit]

Actually you have a point. My senior year of high school and in college, I had an old school cell phone. Buttons and speed dials, that was it. If I wanted to call someone, I held down their speed dial number until it started a call. Didn't have to take my eyes off the road for more than half a second. One of my later cell phones had voice recognition activated by one of the side buttons so I didn't have to take my eyes off the road for any time at all.

That's one of my complaints. But the main point is the integrated "electronic" interfaces that many brands are going to. It's more common in luxury cars, but others are getting into it now. Dodge has it for the radio and temp controls, Ford has the "MyTouch" thing. Toyota is going that way with their latest music/tech product.

There's simply no replacement for a good old fashioned dial that has direct control over whatever you are trying to change. Volume. Temp. Fan speed. Ect. All of these nested control features using some form of jog dial or joystick are the polar opposite of preventing driver distraction. But the safety depts aren't clamoring for them to be removed.

 

[drebo]

How about we ban stupid people from driving?

Instead of making intelligent, competant people's lives more difficult, why not make it possible so that only intelligent, competant people are allowed to drive?

Shit, most US drivers would never pass the road tests in most parts of Europe.

Make the tests more expensive, more difficult, and require a road test every time your license is renewed. Then you won't need to worry about whether the cellphone is a distraction or if the idiot behind the wheel just doesn't fucking pay attention.

So many times I'll come up behind some jackass driving in the left lane of a 3 way highway going 55mph. And he just sits there. Like he's not paying attention to the fact that there's a mile long line of cars behind him. People like him are the problem. Not cellphone users. It's not the cellphone that causes the accident, it's the distraction from having the conversation, and people who cannot talk and drive at the same time should not be driving at all.

 

[edro]

Awww... no more Infinity Blade 2 while commuting.

 

[Patranus]

go read the constitution and tell me how a cell phone ban is different from any other laws that are not specifically mentioned.

and I always love when people buy into the "every state should have it's own say" argument. Like people in one state are different than people in others. Or some states should be allowed to discriminate if they choose, it's their decision! Now that is disgusting. common sense and morals don't change when you cross state lines. either people should be allowed to drive and use their cell phone, or they shouldn't. Most issues ARE black and white

Pretty sure discrimination *is* in the constitution.

Kids can be equally distracting. Are you going to suggest that we outlaw kids in the car? It is a black and white issue relating to distracted driving.....right?

 

[drebo]

Pretty sure discrimination *is* in the constitution.

Kids can be equally distracting. Are you going to suggest that we outlaw kids in the car? It is a black and white issue relating to distracted driving.....right?

That's why our standards for issuing licenses should be raised. Especially in California. And the fine for driving without a license should be gigantic (or instant deportation if you're not a citizen/legal resident).

 

[Vic Vega]

go read the constitution and tell me how a cell phone ban is different from any other laws that are not specifically mentioned.

and I always love when people buy into the "every state should have it's own say" argument. Like people in one state are different than people in others. Or some states should be allowed to discriminate if they choose, it's their decision! Now that is disgusting. common sense and morals don't change when you cross state lines. either people should be allowed to drive and use their cell phone, or they shouldn't. Most issues ARE black and white

Doesn't matter what you think, if you're disgusted or otherwise. This is a Republic with member states. The purpose of the Fed is to address issues States can't realistically manage themselves because of scale or funding. Cells phone use is not on of those issues, so it falls to the states.

Spare us your reply, it's not wanted or needed.

 

[MotF Bane]

I think destruction of the cell phone and a $500 fine would be a good start.

I favor treating it like a DUI. What's that, jail time, license suspension, and fine?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Doesn't matter what you think, if you're disgusted or otherwise. This is a Republic with member states. The purpose of the Fed is to address issues States can't realistically manage themselves because of scale or funding. Cells phone use is not on of those issues, so it falls to the states.

Spare us your reply, it's not wanted or needed.

Didn't the Fed threaten to withhold Federal highway funds to any states not enacting seatbelt laws? I don't think there are any states without seatbelt laws.

Seems reasonable to assume the Fed could push this through without much difficulty if they wanted to.

By the way, I fully support seatbelt (for motorists) and helmet laws for motorcyclists too.

 

[slayer202]

Doesn't matter what you think, if you're disgusted or otherwise. This is a Republic with member states. The purpose of the Fed is to address issues States can't realistically manage themselves because of scale or funding. Cells phone use is not on of those issues, so it falls to the states.

Spare us your reply, it's not wanted or needed.

this is ignorant semantics. republic with member states? it's 2011 not 1811. let's see rick perry try and secede Texas, see how that works out. if there is some sort of practice that is clearly dangerous to people, it will be disallowed on a federal level, regardless of that garbage you spewed. whether or not this is one of those issues is debatable. only lobbying, at times, prevents it from happening(in regards to any random issue).

Pretty sure discrimination *is* in the constitution.

Kids can be equally distracting. Are you going to suggest that we outlaw kids in the car? It is a black and white issue relating to distracted driving.....right?

It is a black and white issue, whether or not kids should be allowed in the car. Do you think it's an issue up for debate? With cell phones, maybe the stats/info isn't conclusive yet, but it is a black and white issue that is silly to vary from state to state. Of course it's a rather tame issue compared to abortion or the death penalty, so it's not really a big deal for most people.

to humor your argument, I'm sure cell phones are statistically much more dangerous than kids in the car. It's a slippery slope argument, you'll eventually get to "it's dangerous to drive in a pretty place because the scenery is distracting!" useless

 

[vi edit]

By the way, I fully support seatbelt and helmet laws for motorcyclists too.

Helmet I can understand...seatbelts seem like something that would cause more harm than good.

 

[Texashiker]

The purpose of the Fed is to address issues States can't realistically manage themselves because of scale or funding.

You forgot something on your list - when the states do not, or will not take action, then the fed must step in.

Its like the civil rights issues of the 1960s. Some of the states refused to take action, so the fed had to step in.

Cells phone use is not on of those issues, so it falls to the states.

Sure cell phones fall into the category. States have not taken action on the issue, so the fed is being forced to take action.

 

[DougK62]

Slippery slope. Cell phones are no more distracting than the radio, GPS, yelling at kids, etc. I hope something like this is not made law.

 

[slayer202]

ok, if texashiker seems to be on my side, I'm clearly in the wrong here...I apologize

 

[Patranus]

this is ignorant semantics. republic with member states? it's 2011 not 1811. let's see rick perry try and secede Texas, see how that works out. if there is some sort of practice that is clearly dangerous to people, it will be disallowed on a federal level, regardless of that garbage you spewed. whether or not this is one of those issues is debatable. only lobbying, at times, prevents it from happening(in regards to any random issue).



It is a black and white issue, whether or not kids should be allowed in the car. Do you think it's an issue up for debate? With cell phones, maybe the stats/info isn't conclusive yet, but it is a black and white issue that is silly to vary from state to state. Of course it's a rather tame issue compared to abortion or the death penalty, so it's not really a big deal for most people.

to humor your argument, I'm sure cell phones are statistically much more dangerous than kids in the car. It's a slippery slope argument, you'll eventually get to "it's dangerous to drive in a pretty place because the scenery is distracting!" useless

The issue should be distracted driving not cellphone use.

If a driver is driving recklessly than that action should be cited.

There is no need for more regulations, there simply needs to be greater enforcement and punishment for all distracted driving regardless of the source. It is irrelevant if that distraction that lead to reckless driving came about because of a cell phone, a kid, changing the radio state, ect.

 

[zinfamous]

Pretty sure banning cellphones while driving isn't part of the constitution.

not sure if serious...

 

[slayer202]

well that's obvious. but at a certain point, if statistics say cell phones cause x% more accidents, something should be done. punishments and penalties rarely prevent questionable actions. everyone thinks they are one of the people who can safely drive on the phone, yet every other person we see driving on the phone is driving like a douche

 

[Texashiker]

ok, if texashiker seems to be on my side, I'm clearly in the wrong here...I apologize

I feel the federal government should do whatever it takes to protect the health of the public.

Example - Rick Perry vetoed a texting while driving bill a few months ago.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/cont...011/06/17/perry_vetoes_textingwhiledrivi.html

Since the states will not take action on dangerous behavior like texting and driving, its left to the federal government.

If nothing can be done about texting and driving, then nothing can be done to protect the health of the public. Where are we supposed to draw the line?

Is it supposed to be ok for people to text and drive, but its not ok for someone with tuberculosis to walk around town?

Its ok to text and drive, but its not ok to have high levels of lead in our water?

 

[DougK62]

well that's obvious. but at a certain point, if statistics say cell phones cause x% more accidents, something should be done. punishments and penalties rarely prevent questionable actions. everyone thinks they are one of the people who can safely drive on the phone, yet every other person we see driving on the phone is driving like a douche

Then you cite them for "driving like a douche", not "driving while using a phone". There is a huge difference.

 

[slayer202]

Then you cite them for "driving like a douche", not "driving while using a phone". There is a huge difference.

but if using a phone causes you to drive like a douche(I'm not arguing that it does, or that does so at a rate high enough to police), then it's common sense that you would prevent using a phone in the first place.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Helmet I can understand...seatbelts seem like something that would cause more harm than good.

Seatbelts in cars... not for motorcyclists.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I feel the federal government should do whatever it takes to protect the health of the public.

Example - Rick Perry vetoed a texting while driving bill a few months ago.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/cont...011/06/17/perry_vetoes_textingwhiledrivi.html

Since the states will not take action on dangerous behavior like texting and driving, its left to the federal government.

If nothing can be done about texting and driving, then nothing can be done to protect the health of the public. Where are we supposed to draw the line?

Is it supposed to be ok for people to text and drive, but its not ok for someone with tuberculosis to walk around town?

Its ok to text and drive, but its not ok to have high levels of lead in our water?

I'd bet you a million dollars that he gets sizeable campaign contributions from companies like Verizon, AT&T, etc.

Golly gee, what do you know... I was right.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/meet-the-money-behind-rick-perry.php

Meet the Money Behind Rick Perry

AT&T
The telecom giant, or at least its political action committee, is a longtime friend of Perry, having donated over $500,000 since he took office. In May, Perry sent a letter to the FCC urging them to approve a merger between AT&T and T-Mobil, a deal that’s been thrown into question this week after the Department of Justice moved to block it as an alleged violation of antitrust laws. After state Democrats accused him of “pay to play politics,” Perry spokesman Mark Miner defended the move, calling it “good for consumers, good for technology innovation, and good for American job creation.”

 

[Patranus]

but if using a phone causes you to drive like a douche(I'm not arguing that it does, or that does so at a rate high enough to police), then it's common sense that you would prevent using a phone in the first place.

And there is the fundamental flaw in your thought process.

Its like "no gun zones" around schools. Do those laws prevent guns from entering schools or school shootings? Nope.

We need increased enforcement of reckless driving laws coupled with harsher punishments.

It is irrelevant as to the cause of the reckless driving.

I also think we also need a stricter drivers license renewal process but that is a different issue but is related to poor driving - but that is a state issue.

 

[SKORPI0]

Helmet I can understand...seatbelts seem like something that would cause more harm than good.

Well it didn't help save this guys life.

I-80 crash claims UNL student's life

Kieper, a 21-year-old senior at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, died early Tuesday morning when the Ford Explorer he was a passenger in travelled off an icy section of Interstate 80 and rolled several times in a ditch. Kieper, who was riding in the back seat of the Explorer, was ejected from the vehicle.

Two others in the vehicle, including the driver, Luke Havermann of Ogallala, and the front-seat passenger, Nick Uphoff of Randolph Air Force Base in Texas, sustained non-life threatening injuries.

Derek, who was thrown from the vehicle, was not wearing a seat belt, Lefler said. He said Havermann and Uphoff were wearing seat belts at the time. In a column written for the Daily Nebraskan in September, Derek attacked seat belt laws as intrusions on individual liberties and expensive to enforce.
"It is my choice what type of safety precautions I take," he wrote.
"There seems to be a die-hard group of non-wearers out there who simply do not wish to buckle up no matter what the government does. I belong to this group."

Read more: http://journalstar.com/news/local/i...492-54ef-849d-0a5d7f48027a.html#ixzz1gRzkoWqS
​

They should make a general anti-distraction law. If you're using a cellphone while driving, eating, putting on makeup, letting pet sit on you or roaming around the vehicle while in motion, kid on your lap, etc. you should be ticketed/license suspended for being a "potential source of an accident/endangering the public". If an accident happens and someone else is maimed/killed because of that distraction, equivalent jail time. That's just my $0.02.

 

[slayer202]

And there is the fundamental flaw in your thought process.

Its like "no gun zones" around schools. Do those laws prevent guns from entering schools or school shootings? Nope.

We need increased enforcement of reckless driving laws coupled with harsher punishments.

It is irrelevant as to the cause of the reckless driving.

I also think we also need a stricter drivers license renewal process but that is a different issue but is related to poor driving - but that is a state issue.

I'm willing to bet that the prevention laws have a bigger impact than the punishments. allowing the act that leads to punishments is not too sensible if you are trying to prevent something dangerous

 

[vi edit]

Seatbelts in cars... not for motorcyclists.

LOL. Yeh I read that as seatbelts on motorcycles to which I had to think "wtf?".