U.S. ban sought on cell phone use while driving

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

By Jim Forsyth

SAN ANTONIO | Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:13pm EDT

(Reuters) - U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood called on Thursday for a federal law to ban talking on a cell phone or texting while driving any type of vehicle on any road in the country.

Tough federal legislation is the only way to deal with what he called a "national epidemic," he said at a distracted-driving summit in San Antonio, Texas, that drew doctors, advocates and government officials.

LaHood said it is important for the police to have "the opportunity to write tickets when people are foolishly thinking they can drive safely or use a cell phone and text and drive."

LaHood has previously criticized behind-the-wheel use of cell phones and other devices, but calling for a federal law prohibiting the practice takes his effort to a new level.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/27/us-usa-driving-idUSBRE83Q00C20120427

[2on2u]

1. How many people have been in an accident whilst arguing

with their GPS device?? These will be the next things to go. After that you won't be allowed to speak to your passengers, comb your hair, adjust your seat, fiddle with the radio knobs, make waffles or gargle. Makes sense.

[kristopher]

17. Ray LaHood is a Republican - the timing for this wedge issue is too coincidental.

It feeds the wingnut narrative on big government.

[williesgirl]

81. Next will have to be: no kids in the car. They're sure as hell more distracting than cell phones

[panzerfaust]

72. Watch this video: Then tell me texting and driving is like "... {making} waffles ..."

The United Kingdom has taken all fluff out of the Public Service Announcement (PSA) posted on YouTube. The PSA shows the graphic potential threat of texting while driving...

[2on2u]

80. My failure to put a sarcasm thingy or a humor icon has left

me open for this and I deserve it. I always said, texting should be done by a server at the other end of the cell phone link... when it looks good, you should be able to say "send". There should be little eye contact necessary and absolutely no hands involved. It should all be oral commands. The technology existed even before keyboards came to phones.... why it wasn't used.... I dunno.

[Enrique]

2. this was the first thing Hitler did

[Stainless]

22. Damn Nazis........

LOL

[Art_from_Ark]

3. I've almost gotten hit several times by drivers who were distracted with their cell phones

Drivers should concentrate on driving, period.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Distracted or negligent driving can be caused by anything.

A cell phone is no more or less of a problem than a cheeseburger, or the radio dial, or a GPS, or anything that deducts any portion of the driver's attention away from the task of driving.

Banning it just moves the goal posts. We already banned it in my state. Nobody cares. Just another way to get a ticket, since everyone drives 10+ over the speed limit anyway.

[Art_from_Ark]

46. Like I said, I have been almost hit several times by drivers who are engrossed in their damn phones

Last edited Sat Apr 28, 2012, 03:58 AM - Edit history (1)

I've even seen bicyclists riding the wrong way in the street while fooling with their phones.

Driving while texting just adds yet another unnecessary traffic risk.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. I have been hit. 5 times. Mostly in the city of bellevue.

None of the drivers were holding a phone when they did it. All of them entered into a crosswalk when they did not have right of way.

For drivers that don't take paying attention seriously, I doubt taking away their phones is going to make you any safer.

[shawn703]

4. I heard on the radio today

That driving while having to urinate is equivalent to driving with a BAC of .05. Guess they will have to start handing out tickets at the rest stops soon?

[TheWraith]

5. I'd like to see non-anecdotal evidence that it will help.

Yeah, yeah, everyone has an anecdote, but here's the thing: have states that banned cell phone use suddenly had their traffic accidents go away? I doubt it, particularly since people are just going to do it anyway.

[Serve The Servants]

7. Probably not...

But I bet the revenue sure went up.

[OnlinePoker]

13. In BC for the first year after the ban, not much

The total of collisions (reported to ICBC, the provincial car insurance agency) dropped from 269,000 in 2009 to 257,000 in 2010, the first year of the ban. The trend had been down already from 2007 where there was a high of 281,000.

http://www.icbc.com/about-ICBC/Newsroom/quick-statistics.pdf

There was anecdotal evidence that cell phone drivers were causing a lot of accidents, but no firm statistics. Would you admit to being on a cell phone if you caused an accident? From what I've seen, a large percentage of drivers are simply ignoring the law as I have never gone more than a few blocks, whether driving or walking, without seeing someone with a phone to their ear. The police do enforcement campaigns on occasion, but they have to catch the people in the act and prove it in court. For the limited amount the fines are, I doubt many think it is worth the paperwork.

[thesquanderer]

18. What states have banned cell phone use?

The ones I'm aware of only ban hand-held use... and the occupied hand probably isn't really the problem.

[melm00se]

41. Chapel Hill, NC

passed a ban on cell phone usage (in any form) in a car effective June 1:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/03/27/1960281/chapel-hill-to-consider-cell-phone.html

[slackmaster]

27. It hasn't helped in a measurable way here in California because the law is widely ignored

Every day I see people driving in heavy freeway traffic with their eyes obviously off the road. Mostly younger people. It's obviously not a safe way to drive.

[bhikkhu]

31. Here are some statistics

"Teen Driver Cell Phone and Text Messaging Statistics

Despite the risks, the majority of teen drivers ignore cell phone driving restrictions.
In 2007, driver distractions, such as using a cell phone or text messaging, contributed to nearly 1,000 crashes involving 16- and 17-year-old drivers.
Over 60 percent of American teens admit to risky driving, and nearly half of those that admit to risky driving also admit to text messaging behind the wheel.
Each year, 21% of fatal car crashes involving teenagers between the ages of 16 and 19 were the result of cell phone usage. This result has been expected to grow as much as 4% every year.
Almost 50% of all drivers between the ages of 18 and 24 are texting while driving.
Over one-third of all young drivers, ages 24 and under, are texting on the road.
Teens say that texting is their number one driver distraction."

From http://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cell-phone/statistics.html - which is a long article of statistics.

I think there is a window of opportunity to change some behavior before it becomes embedded. As a lifelong cyclist, I have to say that driver inattention is more likely to kill or cripple me than anything else on the road, and cell phones have been a game-changer in that regard. In a bad way.

[Posteritatis]

42. Accellerometers in the phones, which will explode above 15mph. Problem solved. (nt)

[MiddleFingerMom]

6. Finally.

[Serve The Servants]

8. But, but...

How are we supposed to snitch on drunk drivers and other traffic violators if we can't use our cell phones?!?

Pull over, you say? Yeah, fat chance.

I guess it wasn't that important after all.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Our state law has an exemption for 'emergency situations'.

Which means, I call people whenever the fuck I feel like it. If they can catch me, they can give me a ticket.

[BlueJazz]

9. I'd ban them. People drive like shit anyway...they don't need any help driving more shitty.

[RebelOne]

19. I agree. n/t

[kestrel91316]

10. Good. As a pedestrian OBEYING ALL LAWS I have nearly been struck by I-don't-know-how-many

vehicles over the years where the driver was yakking on a cell phone.

Jackasses need to learn how to STFU and drive. We managed to survive JUST FINE in the days before cell phones.

[dhill926]

24. agreed.....

but mostly texting in my case, which is against the law in some places.....doesn't stop the shits.

[goclark]

53. I'm not sure but I think Los Angeles

tries to enforce the cell phone ru;e.

I don't drive much but when my friends drive with me in the car, I am so afraid because they are trying to keep their phone in their lap and drive at the same time.

Los Angeles is filled with CRAZY DRIVERS always darting in and out of lanes
at speeds way over the Max.

[kestrel91316]

86. ".....Los Angeles is filled with CRAZY DRIVERS....." - sums it ALL up.

[truthisfreedom]

11. You can't ban phone use in cars. Texting, yes, that should be illegal unless parked, but hands-free

seems like it should be reasonable for phones.

[They_Live]

33. Depends on the conversation/argument

the caller is having and their ability to split their attention between driving and talking/listening. Some can handle it, and some cannot.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. We gonna ban passengers too?

You should have been a fly on the wall for some of my carpool's political arguments.

Good times.

[Spider Jerusalem]

50. There have been studies; hands-free mobile phone use is as distracting as using a handset.

See for instance here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/01/030129080944.htm

And here: http://www.nsc.org/safety_road/Distracted_Driving/Documents/Dstrct_Drvng_White_Paper_Fnl(5-25-10).pdf

[Occulus]

60. Then conversing with a passenger should be just as much so.

Is it?

[Spider Jerusalem]

62. You clearly didn't bother to read the links

In 2001, Strayer and colleagues received worldwide publicity when they used a joystick-equipped computer display to show that people talking on cell phones were more likely to miss or react slowly to simulated traffic signals than people who were not conversing on cell phones. Driving impairment was just as bad regardless of whether participants used hands-free or hand-held cell phones. That suggested the phone conversation itself was a distraction for motorists in addition to the distraction of handling the phone.

The earlier study also found there was no impairment of drivers who either conversed with a passenger or who listened to the radio or to books on tape.

(snip)

Forty students drove 40 miles on a simulated freeway, staying in the right lane and responding to brake lights from a pace car in front of them. The simulation included light and heavy traffic. Sometimes students talked on a hands-free cell phone; other times they did not.

There were no accidents in light traffic or among those not using cell phones. But three cell phone users in heavy traffic rear-ended the simulated pace car.

Drivers who talked on a cell phone reacted sluggishly, and compensated by increasing their distance behind the pace car. But when the pace car braked in heavy traffic, cell phone users took longer to brake, rode the brakes longer and took longer to accelerate again.

[denverbill]

12. There needs to be a regulation on the phones themselves.

Require new phones to shut down when in motion > 5 mph. Or require automakers to disable the signals when the car is turned on.

[thesquanderer]

15. banning phones in motion...

...would prevent passengers from using them as well.

[Thor_MN]

26. And?

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Why in the hell would one do that?

[frylock]

40. because some people are just afraid of technology i guess..

they can't figure out how to use a smartphone, so nobody should be able to use them.

[Posteritatis]

43. Hey now, brandishing a cane while using a cell phone is a complex juggling act. (nt)

[Thor_MN]

47. An acceptable price for removing millions of impaired drivers from the roads

We managed to drive for decades without being able to phone someone while in transit. We currently have a serious problem with distracted drivers. Losing the ability to reach out and touch someone, even if you are a passenger, is not going to end the world.

I have an Android cell phone. More computing and communication power than my first several computers. And I don't use it in my car. Trust me, it is possible to survive an hour commute without a phone glued to your ear or texting anyone. I've been in a situation where work was trying to reach me in a crises situation. My manager tried to give me grief for not answering the phone (they managed to solve the problem on their own in the 5 more minutes it took to get into the parking lot at work.) I looked her in the eye and said that I do not use my phone while driving. End of discussion. It is possible for people to survive, disconnected, for hours at a time.

I see no problem with either requiring the phones not work over X miles an hour, or requiring vehicles and phones to work together to disable function while in motion.

There is no need to use phones while driving that can justify a nation of impaired drivers.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. I use my phone while driving all the time.

I've never so much as touched another car involuntarily.

Not all drivers are 'impaired'. How do you handle calling the police when following a drunk driver, if your car disables your phone? What an amazingly useful feature. There's a possibility I saved a life or lives last time I did that. She even bumped a motorcycle in motion, but fortunately, didn't wreck him. Eventually, we vectored in the police on top of her, and they got her off the road.

I used my phone to chase down a hit and run one day too.

If only there was some way we could amplify penalties for driving in a distracted manner that would discourage it, and could be applied to anything, from a phone to a cheeseburger... if only.

[Thor_MN]

73. Well, possibly you are the exception to the rule, so far...

It amazes me the way that people respond to indisputable population based facts with anecdotal personal observations. As if it justifies all the accidents, injuries and deaths that have occured due to impaired driving during cell device use because you like to play police officer once in a while.

It would be simple enough to allow 911 only use, so I see no reason not to implement features that prevent other use of the phone while moving.

[Quantess]

55. That would spoil all the fun.

Seriously though, that's going too far.

[Ter]

45. Hello 1984

n/t

[Exultant Democracy]

14. It is not the phones it is the people.

People are just not qualified by temperament or biology to drive safely. Viva google car.

[Enrique]

23. they will be giving tickets to the people

not to the cell phones.

[Orrex]

16. They ought to ban arguing about cell phones while driving, while driving.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

32. This has to be the dumbest ...

... HEY! WHERE'D YA LEARN TA DRIVE, YA KNUCKLEHEAD??!!!11!!

... idea in this whole

... C'MON YA MORON! THE LIGHT'S GREEN! MOVE YER ASS!

... thread

[Eric J in MN]

20. Hopefully, our cars will drive themselves soon and it won't be an issue (NT

NT

[kentauros]

79. I, too, want to see this happen.

It would solve this whole mess.

However...
I remember reading a quote from several years ago (NYT, I believe) where someone from one of the American automotive companies nixed this idea. Why? Because "we don't want to take the fun out of driving."

Now, my guess then as well as now is that this person (and those he represented) either don't have to drive, or they fly to work and back. While I do try to have some fun while driving, my efforts are usually thwarted by the mindless and distracted motor vehicle operators "sharing" the road with me. The MVOs were sold a fantasy that they will never. ever. imagine, much less attempt. They would do well with an automated vehicle, too

[ZombieHorde]

21. Bwahahahaha! nt

[slackmaster]

25. I absolutely agree it should be banned but where in the Constitution would the federal government...

...find the power to do something like that?

It can regulate interstate commerce, but something that foolish people do while driving their cars within a state is obviously neither interstate activity nor commerce.

The other problem is that even if the federal government passed such a law, who would enforce it? The federal government can put immigration checkpoints on interstate highways, but there is no federal agency with the authority to patrol public roads. Requiring the states to enforce it, unless they were compensated monetarily, would be an unfunded mandate.

[Serve The Servants]

28. Ohhh, nobody follows that silly little document anymore. N/T

[Thor_MN]

48. What is the justification for the seat belt? Airbags? Third, high mounted brakelight?

Why can't you simply buy a radio transmitter and start blasting out 100 thousand watts of free speech?

I don't think that anyone would be able to mount a successful constitutional challenge to cellphone regulation.

You do have a point about an unfunded mandate with a simple ban, which is why they need to require technology to have the phones or the car to enforce the ban.

[slackmaster]

49. Those examples, i.e. equipment standards for cars, all involve interstate commerce

The Constitution. Read it.

You do have a point about an unfunded mandate with a simple ban, which is why they need to require technology to have the phones or the car to enforce the ban.

Wait, what?

You're saying the government should REQUIRE that cell phones be installed in cars, so that their (I assume non-emergency) use can be BANNED?

That might address the interstate commerce issue, but wow. Just wow.

[Thor_MN]

57. And standards for communication equipment are?

Yes, I do believe I read something about safety equipment in gas powered automobiles written on parchment somewhere, where was that again? Oh, that's right, there's not a word in the constitution about cars.

You might try reading my post without trying to interject your own opinions. The phone could disable itself, the car could jam cell frequencies, or the car could send a signal that the phone reads and and they work together to disable function.

Where in anything I posted that even remotely suggests that cell phones be requried to be installed in cars? That "wow, just wow" is somthing from your own imagination, so you just simply amaze yourself.

[slackmaster]

58. You haven't addressed the issue of federal regulation of privately owned phones being used for...

...non-commercial purposes by individuals, which is the subject.

The federal government has no more authority to regulate the USE of those devices than it does over USE of seatbelts.

[Thor_MN]

61. Can you make the same arguement for brake lights and airbags please?

I'd like to see how you can strech your arguemnt out. Am I also free to not use those?

I also have noticed that you have ignored that there are already numerous federal reglations covering the functionalty of cellphones. Am I able to up the wattage of the transmitters in my cell phone so I can be sure to reach the tower and squash out any other cellphones? Can I use my cell phone in a manner that interferes with other devices? Can I tell a flight attendant that I have a constitutional right to use my phone however I please?

Bottom line. Impaired driving due to cell phone use exists. Death, injury and financial harm have occured. No use of a cell phone while in motion can justify the damage that occurs because of it. If it requires state by state laws to justify the percieved state's rights arguements you are throwing up as roadblocks, so be it. In transit use of cell phones needs to be stopped, by a technological basis, such that enforcement is not an issue.

[slackmaster]

64. The USES of brake lights and air bags and brake lights are regulated by state laws

Not federal.

...Bottom line. Impaired driving due to cell phone use exists. Death, injury and financial harm have occured. No use of a cell phone while in motion can justify the damage that occurs because of it. If it requires state by state laws to justify the percieved state's rights arguements you are throwing up as roadblocks, so be it. In transit use of cell phones needs to be stopped, by a technological basis, such that enforcement is not an issue.

I hate distracted drivers more than anything else in this world.

[Thor_MN]

66. I believe I addressed that, but you have still ignored federal regulation of cell phones themselves

States can and do ban use of cell devices while driving, which get totally ignored. That is why the only real solution is to require the technology to enforce the concept. A hodge podge of state regulations on the features of cell phones would not be practical or enforceable. The FCC already regulates the manufacture and use of cell phone in many aspects.

[happyslug]

63. The Courts have long ruled, it is CONGRESS that decides what is interstate Commerce

Prior to the 1930s, the Supreme Court would decide what was interstate Commerce, but that ended with Jones & Laughlin Steel Company vs. National Labor Relations Commission, a 1938 Supreme Court decision. Basically the Court ruled that it is up to Congress to decide what is interstate Commerce, not the Courts. The Supreme Court followed that policy ever since. The only decision where the Supreme Court ruled that Congress overstepped this power was in regard to selling firearms within 300 feet of a School (and even then Four Justices would have upheld the right of Congress under the interstate Commerce to pass such a law).

[Fumesucker]

52. Having a certain weed growing in your yard is "interstate commerce" according to the SCOTUS..

The commerce clause is the basis for the federal drug war..

I don't like it but that's the way it is..

[slackmaster]

54. Yes, I've read all about Wickard v. Filburn and how expansion of federal power is based on ICC

There actually is an interstate market for cannabis, as there is for wheat. Something you grow at home does indeed affect the market, however indirectly.

Extending that power to regulation of private activity that doesn't involve commerce in any respect would be a much greater stretch.

[Fumesucker]

56. Using a cell phone doesn't involve commerce?

You could be talking a business deal to someone in another state.

The cell phone companies are all involved in interstate commerce..

And so on...

[slackmaster]

71. Yes, of course. Also the frequencies, power, etc. are all regulated and MUST be to avoid chaos.

I don't want the federal government saying what people can and cannot do when they are in the privacy of their own vehicles.

My state bans use of hand-held devices while driving. It's a good law. I like it, but it needs to be enforced much more aggressively.

[customerserviceguy]

29. Some can do it, some can't

Talking, that is. Texting, ban that shit.

We have tests to allow a person to drive a motorcycle. Maybe we can have tests to weed out people who have to gesticulate with the other hand while talking on a cell phone, or worse, those who feel the strange and incomprehensible need to look in the direction of the phone while they're talking on it.

[high density]

30. AT&T and Verizon will ensure this never happens

What distractions do we approve of in cars? Pets? Food? GPS devices? We can't legislate people into better drivers with stuff like this.

[leveymg]

38. Then, no more talking to the control tower while piloting an airplane.

Or, is landing a Boeing 747 now easier than a driving a Lincoln Town Car, Mr. Secretary?

[PavePusher]

51. Damn, you beat me to it.

Of course, in "normal" air traffic patterns, you aren't flying in close formation with dozens of other planes, all without the benefit of an external monitor/controller. And with highly random levels of training and destination in the other pilots.

That said, I, an aircraft maintainer, can manage to multitask ground-running an aircraft, converse with my right-seater and ground observer, read a tech-order/checklist, talk to ground control, run ops checks and maintain situational awareness of the aircraft exterior all at the same time.

When driving in urban environments, I do keep the conversation to anyone, phone or passenger, to a minimum. See "formation flying" above.

[panzerfaust]

70. Training

Part of, a surprisingly large part of, pilot training is learning how to use the radios and fly the plane at the same time.

The Lincoln driver, who probably does not actually know how to drive in the same sense that the pilot knows how to fly, has never had such training.

Virtually every day on my near 50 mile commute I see people with phones plastered to their ears run stop signs, red lights, drift out of their lanes --- I also get to take care of victims of the resulting accidents.

Do I ever talk on my phone whilst driving - yep, every day, using voice control for calling and hands free for talking. I am also a pilot, and know when not to talk.

Texting and driving is too incredibly stupid for words, and this I have never done.

Pilots know that there is a time to talk and fly, and a time to concentrate solely on the flying. Even so, some forget and there have been accidents resulting from "flying the microphone, instead of flying the plane"

The United Kingdom has taken all fluff out of the Public Service Announcement (PSA) posted on YouTube. The PSA shows the graphic potential threat of texting while driving.

Watch the video, then tell me texting is worth it.

[leveymg]

76. Not advocating texting while driving. Talking is a different matter. Fed law? - No.

This is another 55mph national speed limit in the 1970s. Nothing but a revenue enhancer - popular with local and state gov'ts, but otherwise not a good policy solution.

[SpartanDem]

39. How is this business of the feds?

[harun]

65. It isn't.

[Fumesucker]

75. Anything that can effect interstate commerce in any way is the business of the feds..

Right down to a weed growing in your garden.

Indeed, that's the primary basis of claims that the PPACA mandate for private insurance is the business of the feds.

[Ter]

44. Come on, there's no need to make this federal

NY banned it, and I understand that. Montana does not have the amount of cars, it's not the same.

[cstanleytech]

83. Would it even be legal if the federal government tried? Just wondering.

[fujiyama]

59. I'm almost convinced that he's announcing things like this

to make it seem like we're the nanny state party. After all, he is a republican.

Let the states deal with this. I think talking on the cell phone (physically holding it) while driving is foolish and potentially dangerous. Texting while driving IS dangerous and incredibly stupid.

But not every stupid thing people do and can do should be banned, especially at the federal level. I use a hands-free car bluetooth. It's great, but of course it's a late model car that includes technology like that. But I am capable of hitting a button, paying attention to traffic and holding a conversation. I know that people say that it's almost as bad as talking on the phone otherwise, but honestly I'm more distracted when I have conversations with passengers in the car. So why don't we ban that as well? And radios (after all, if I hear a song I don't like I change it), and GPSs, and food, and all beverages, because everything can potentially be a distraction.

And something I never hear people address - do you really want to give cops MORE excuses to pull people over? I wish people would think more critically before they supported some blanket ban or regulation on something.

[Lars77]

69. I thought most states had bans against this already. Guess i was wrong.

[sofa king]

74. (Raises hand) Get out of my way! Can't you see I'm on the phone?!

[arikara]

77. What people are failing to realize is that

the cell phone is distracting not because of the conversation. You can drive the car with live passengers and still concentrate on the road, people have managed that feat since cars were invented. The cell phone is distracting because the emissions screw up your brain functioning after a very short time. Its worse in the car because you are sitting inside a metal box that acts as a big antenna and it amplifies the effect, which like anything is worse for some people than others. Thats why hands free doesn't really help, and that's why its not good for passengers in the car to be yakking or texting on phones either.

I know this upsets some people and that's a shame I guess. But smoking was good for people too until it became bad.

[slackmaster]

82. A simple Faraday cage around the driver's cranium would solve that problem

[arikara]

84. LOL... I know its not something most like to hear

but there you have it. That pic is funny.

[Fearless]

78. Good. n/t

[madville]

85. Who enforces such a law, local law enforcement?

That's a whole new ball of wax, having local LE enforce a federal law, that's the whole stink with various immigration laws, the feds say local LE has no jurisdiction.

I drive about 1000 miles a week in my work vehicle, I see weaving cars everyday and have to look when I pass by (they are usually 5 or 10 mph under the speed limit on the interstate). 9 times out of 10 it is female less than 30 yo with their phone glued to their face between them and their line of vision. See it everyday, I think it is a much worse threat than drunk driving these days.

[Blue Hen Buckeye]

87. I think we should have a ban on bans