Ntsb National Ban On Cell Phone Use

Matt13C said:
I would also like to see a study of driving speed when on and off a phone. I would be willing to bet, that a driver on a phone is driving slower than a driver off the phone. What is more dangerous?
Click to expand...
Hmm, paying attention and driving 50 mph, or distracted driving 35. I think I'll take the attentive driver every time.


Matt13C said:
There has to be a reason that in the states that banned texting accidents went up instead of down. What caused that?
Click to expand...

Do you really need the reason pointed out to you? Really?


That said, I am against this ban. The technology is just now getting to the point where you can make a call without ever removing your eyes from the road. Seems a shame to abort it now.
 
Matt13C said:
Good thing I have the government there to protect me from myself!

I can think of one reason why your bold statement is a terrible idea. Had a friend who was in an accident and needed to make a call while in the car. Unfortunately he did not make it, but if this device was in place he would not have been able to even make the call.

We live in a connected and frenzied world. So what if you can't make a call, you still have GPS, satellite radio, CD's, DVD's, iPods, food, other passengers, other drivers and yourself.

I would also like to see a study of driving speed when on and off a phone. I would be willing to bet, that a driver on a phone is driving slower than a driver off the phone. What is more dangerous? There has to be a reason that in the states that banned texting accidents went up instead of down. What caused that?
Click to expand...

This sentiment seems odd on this board of all places. In the past, have you supported NTSB recommendations in aviation safety? These people are the safety experts. If there's an area of gov I'd be willing to blindly follow, it'd be this group.

But like I said, once this gets to the regulators...
 
darrenf said:
Hmm, paying attention and driving 50 mph, or distracted driving 35. I think I'll take the attentive driver every time.




Do you really need the reason pointed out to you? Really?


That said, I am against this ban. The technology is just now getting to the point where you can make a call without ever removing your eyes from the road. Seems a shame to abort it now.
Click to expand...

You live in Jersey, you know as well as I do that 50 is only hit on the way to 80. Also, just because they are not on the phone, does not mean they are paying attention.

Since I did not read the article she quoted and my deduction skills are vastly inferior to yours, I guess I do.
 
Matt13C said:
You live in Jersey, you know as well as I do that 50 is only hit on the way to 80. Also, just because they are not on the phone, does not mean they are paying attention.

Since I did not read the article she quoted and my deduction skills are vastly inferior to yours, I guess I do.
Click to expand...


Saying 50 is on the way to 80 is not only disingenuous, it's missing the point. The point is someone who is texting isn't looking at the road. You can be killed by someone driving as slow as 5 mph if they run you over.

It was already mentioned that once a ban was in place, people started holding their phones even lower in the car, thus pulling their eyes further away from the road. Doesn't take any great deduction skills to realize that will increase accident frequency.
 
highspeed said:
This sentiment seems odd on this board of all places. In the past, have you supported NTSB recommendations in aviation safety? These people are the safety experts. If there's an area of gov I'd be willing to blindly follow, it'd be this group.

But like I said, once this gets to the regulators...
Click to expand...

I am not saying that texting or talking on the phone while driving isn't dangerous, I just dont think making a law against it will do anything. It is illegal in NJ, I see people on their phones every single day. Better to find a way to make it safer because people will not give up their phones.
 
darrenf said:
Saying 50 is on the way to 80 is not only disingenuous, it's missing the point. The point is someone who is texting isn't looking at the road. You can be killed by someone driving as slow as 5 mph if they run you over.

It was already mentioned that once a ban was in place, people started holding their phones even lower in the car, thus pulling their eyes further away from the road. Doesn't take any great deduction skills to realize that will increase accident frequency.
Click to expand...

The first part was said in jest, my point was, just because you cant use your cell phone doesnt mean you will be looking at the road. Just now when you are not looking you are going faster, potentially. People will still be looking at their iPods, iPads, GPS, touch screen entertainment system, looking back at their kids or a whole host of other distractions available to you in the car.

I missed that post, hence the question. That makes sense though.
 
Matt13C said:
I am not saying that texting or talking on the phone while driving isn't dangerous, I just dont think making a law against it will do anything. It is illegal in NJ, I see people on their phones every single day. Better to find a way to make it safer because people will not give up their phones.
Click to expand...

I agree. That didn't seem to be your argument before though. Where is the "beer" smiley?
 
darrenf said:
I agree. That didn't seem to be your argument before though. Where is the "beer" smiley?
Click to expand...

Yeah, my first post was more about creating a device that makes cell phones unusable in cars. I don't think that is the answer and could have unintended consequences, such as the example I gave. I went on to point out that it doesnt matter if you make them illegal there are plenty of other distractions that could have the same effect.

Better find a way to make them safer vs trying to legislate them away. We have free will, people still speed, pass in the right lane and run stop signs even though they are all against the law. Adding one more law will add money to government coffers, but wont cure the problem.

It was all in my brain, it just didn't make it to the post. :oops:
 
You know, I'd be ok with this if they also ban eating, reading newspapers, shaving and putting on makeup all while driving 10 under the speed limit in the "fast" lane. Oh, then swerving across 5 lanes of traffic cause your exit is in less than a 1/4 mile.
 
skatergeek said:
You know, I'd be ok with this if they also ban eating, reading newspapers, shaving and putting on makeup all while driving 10 under the speed limit in the "fast" lane. Oh, then swerving across 5 lanes of traffic cause your exit is in less than a 1/4 mile.
Click to expand...

I reserve the right to prop a good book on my steering wheel while driving through Kansas.
 
We can all give me gf's dad a hearty "THANK YOU!!" for this fine piece of work. Yep. It's true. He bottom lined this deal.

I have my own list of questions for him at Christmas. Like: Why not improve Driver's Ed? Why not make the requirements for GETTING a license more stringent? How are you going to give this teeth? I'm sure there will be more.



I'll get to yours after he addresses the entire family's.
 
reguardless of bans or laws or any other regulatory garbage, people are goint to do what they want. if they really want to text, call, read or whatever while driving then that's what's going to happen. when it comes right down to it you can't regulate or fix stupidity. besides, i'm sure that most of the individuals creating this storm are just as guilty as everyone else. and the ones who will enforce it are worse. i can say (atleast in east tennessee) if you see an officer driving down the road who isn't on the phone it's only because he's eating...
 
genot said:
I'd much prefer the European model of driving schools although I know it isn't as feasible here. A piece of me dies inside when I see people bump into parked cars because they can't parallel park (not required on the test in most places), take up two lanes because they're on the phone (hey that's legal here!) or stare cow eyed as they roll backwards down a hill presumably muttering to themselves about that cute third pedal and wondering what its for (hey pass the test in an automatic, get the green light on a manual! Its not any different, don't mind that grinding noise!).
Click to expand...

I hear ya. I wish they would make the driving tests more realistic and tighten the standard. I also wish they would get the beaters off the road. Seriously,if it putting more smoke than smoke grenade something is wrong. Lastly, ENFORCE THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS ALREADY. This would solve a lot of the problems. The cops seriously need to enforce the left lane is for passing only. I can't tell you how many times i get on the e-way with a 70mph limit and all three lanes are doing 55-60 with open road in front of them. If you aren't passing, move the over. That and basic common courtesy would go a long way. A lot of the accidents I see around my house are from shear rudeness and stupidity.

:end rant:
 
We just had a cell phone bill pass in Nevada. I am not going to get on my rant, because it will waste virtually all of Doug's bandwidth. I am just glad rather than all the substantive issues our legislature could have addressed (Nevada has more than most) they chose to dither in the minutiae of traffic law. I guess now I can take comfort when I am rear ended by the at fault driver, who was playing with the radio, putting on makeup, changing clothes, digging around in the foot well, disciplining the kids in the back seat, filming Lake Tahoe with the camcorder, or any of the myriad of stupid things I have seen people do in cars, at least they weren't on the cell phone, because that would be illegal!

Anyway, in practice it has been shown, as in the case of the GHSA study released this spring, cell phone laws make little to no difference in enhancing traffic safety, and may in some cases increase accidents....
 
Studies also show decreasing speed limits increases accidents.

Masterclass:

Swindon-Magic-Roundabout.svg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top