National Ban on Text and Voice while Driving

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
gmsboss1 said:
After 22 years "on the road" as a traveling salesman and another 12 years and more than 120,000 miles as a retired RVer, I've come to the conclusion that 90+ percent of the people, myself included, can either A. pay attention to their cell phone conversation, OR, B. pay attention to their driving.

In my experience, when I observe a vehicle being driven erratically, i.e., no speed or lane discipline, the driver almost invariably has a cellphone or bluetooth device in his ear.

Back in the day, I used a cellphone (actually a "bag phone") as I drove but after scaring myself with near accidents that were totally because of my inattention caused by my phone conversations, I made it a practice to use the phone only when stopped.  The inattention to driving was present whether I was using my "hands free" installation or not.

My opinion is anyone who contends that they can use their cellphone and safely drive at the same time is just kidding themselves and that passing the "no cell phone use" laws might well save lives.

Don

I totally agree with you.  Humans depend on much more than just the voice for interpersonal communications.  Facial expression, hands, body posture and the nuances of voice inflection just don't come through over the phone.  Therefore, when using a cell phone vs next to us, we focus much more on the voice on the other end of the line and loose focus on what is around us, like the road.   

 
R1Kirby said:
Personally I agree with the ban on cell phone while driving. But after reading this thread, there are a lot of pros and cons, and excuses. But one question still remains: "What do you do before cell phones?"

I've asked that question many times...indoor plumbing, refrigerators, electric lights, and the list is endless...I guess we learn to adapt to the new hazards brought on by these advancements..I am nostalgic but not willing to give up my comfort... I vote for hands-free and good driver education training..
 
MarcL,

In both Canada and the US the motorcyclist without a helmet, besides injuring themselves, may cause medical costs that must be paid for by someone else.

To an Economist this is referred to as an Externality.  An externality is where something that someone does or someone mandates something and they do not have to pay the cost of doing it. 

A good example, here in the US, is where the Federal Government passes a law telling the States something they must do and then they do not fund the cost of doing it.  Obviously each state has to pay the cost to comply with the law.  This is an externality.  Our injured motorcyclist MAY pass on his or her medical costs to someone else.

On the other hand, a driver who is talking or texting may pass on the medical and any other costs to others if he or she causes an accident as in the most recent case where a 16 year old caused a horrific multi-vehicle crash because he was doing 11 texts in 11 minutes. 

JerryF
 
JerArdra said:
MarcL,

In both Canada and the US the motorcyclist without a helmet, besides injuring themselves, may cause medical costs that must be paid for by someone else.

To an Economist this is referred to as an Externality.  An externality is where something that someone does or someone mandates something and they do not have to pay the cost of doing it. 

A good example, here in the US, is where the Federal Government passes a law telling the States something they must do and then they do not fund the cost of doing it.  Obviously each state has to pay the cost to comply with the law.  This is an externality.  Our injured motorcyclist MAY pass on his or her medical costs to someone else.

On the other hand, a driver who is talking or texting may pass on the medical and any other costs to others if he or she causes an accident as in the most recent case where a 16 year old caused a horrific multi-vehicle crash because he was doing 11 texts in 11 minutes. 

JerryF

In addition to that, insurance premiums for everyone go up.
 
PancakeBill said:
How about a way during the accident investigation, if actual use had occurred, the driver is held responsible for entire accident?  No claims would be honored by the drivers insurance company.

There always has been a way.  Law enforcement agencies can can get a log of the use of your cell phone over a requested period of time from your service provider.  It shows time and location in which calls were placed, answering of incoming calls and their location, length of calls, data or voice usage, etc,.

Regardless, I am undecided on this issue.  I personally do not use the cell while driving.  As a trucker, I do not feel comfortable not keeping my focus on what I am doing, and what's going on around me, while driving.  This attitude carries over into home life.

I'm all for a total ban on cell phone usage while driving.  Would not hurt me one little bit!

BUT...
What does concern me is the fact that even a dash/windshield mounted GPS could be construed as a distraction.  Are they next on the list?  I have used a CB in my trucks for over 30 years.  It has been brought up before in various states that they should be outlawed.  Not only because of the informing of other motorist of where the "Bears" are, but also because of concerns of operators being distracted while driving such a large, heavy vehicle.

Some people swear that they can multitask without problem.  I say "HORSE PUCKY"
I see every day those who sit at traffic lights for another 10 seconds after the traffic light turns green, those who drift over the center line or off the shoulder while reading their incoming text, those who are going 10-15 MPH slower than than the flow of traffic in any lane while chitchatting on phone.  The operator is on the cell phone.  The list goes on...

By definition, distraction is just that.  Taking your mind and attention off of the task at hand and focusing on something else.  Not smart when behind the wheel.

   
 
R1Kirby said:
...But one question still remains: "What do you do before cell phones?"

I find that argument rather tiresome (the argument, not you). What did we do before we had automobiles? Or landline telephones? Or televisons? I did fine before cell phones. I was able to change my own tires or walk my way out if I had car trouble. I was also one heck of a lot younger back then. Even now, the only reason I have a cell phone is for emergencies when I'm on the road or a land line is not available. It stays in my purse, turned off, until I actually need to use the thing or I'm expecting a call (which is rare; my friends know to either use my land line or e-mail, the latter being preferable if the call isn't urgent).

But the issue isn't the cell phones themselves. It's the improper and inconsiderate use and abuse of them. Why should we do without a technology that's convenient, makes our lives easier, and makes our lives safer just because of idiots who abuse it?

People talk about how talking on cell phones, eating, and drinking are distracting but what about talking to a passenger in the front seat on a long drive? That actually can be safer because it can keep the driver more alert. Boredom can cause drowisiness or "zoning out." I find long trips with a companion to be much less tiring than when traveling alone. When traveling alone, having the radio on or playing music also breaks that monotony on long stretches. I consider a radio that also plays multiple CDs or from a USB stick or mp3 player to be a safety necessity. I can let it play without any intervention on my part and prevents my mind from going on vaction when on long trips.

Snacking also breaks that monotony (I only eat things that I can easily reach by feel from a bag next to me and pop into my mouth; that leaves out things that require attention like burgers, etc.). The jaw action and crunching are what prevent "zoning out."

I have chronic dry mouth so having something to drink while on the road (or anywhere else) is a necessity. Again, I make sure the drink (usually soda or water) is in a covered container that I can pull out of the holder by feel and drink through a straw.

How distracting a cell phone is depends heavily on how and where the phone is being used. Hands off operation where no manual intervention is required is the least distracting. Idle chit chat is nowhere nearly as distracting as trying to conduct business. When not in heavy traffic, talking on a handsfree phone may actually prevent accidents by alleviating boredom.

Banning cell phones completely, or, as I have seen some people suggest, blocking all of them when the vehicle is moving or along Interstates is just throwing out the baby with the bath water. I agree texting should be banned. Period. So should hand held cell phones. but common sesnse also need to be used when deciding what is really dangerous and what is actually beneficial, keeping in mind when is also a factor to consider. More education is needed and, for those who can't be educated, more enforcement. Just passing laws alone won't change anything.
 
Lady Fitzgerald said:
But the issue isn't the cell phones themselves. It's the improper and inconsiderate use and abuse of them.
Exactly, it's no different than if someone was trying to knit a pair of socks or sharpening a knife while driving.
 
The texting-caused accident to which Jerry referred above happened on Aug. 5, 2010 near Gray Summit, MO.  It involved two school buses with children inside, a tractor-trailer, and the pickup in which the driver was texting.  One of the students on the school bus, age 15, was killed and 38 people were injured.  Think of the cost of that driver's stupidity!  The family of the student killed has suffered an immeasurable loss.  The vehicle damages were considerable (a photo showed one school bus on top of the tractor trailer).  I don't know if any of the the injuried were seriously hurt, but probably several were and someone had to pay their medical costs.  The pickup truck was pancaked so the driver probably didn't fare very well.  I wonder if he now thinks those 11 text messages in the 11 minutes before the accident were important?  I wonder what the rest of his life will be like, not to mention that of his family who undoubtedly will pay the brunt of the damages.  I hope he spends time in jail because of his lack of responsbility.

By the way, this discussion of a national ban has produced quite a few maps on TV and more states are banning cell phones while driving, even Nevada which seldom bans anything!  Much to our surprise the Nevada law even applies if you're sitting at a traffic light.  An article in Wednesday's Las Vegas Review Journal titled "Cellphones:  Driver Distraction Increasingly a Factor in Deadly Crashes" states that "at any given moment last year [2010] on America's roadways, nearly one in every 100 car drivers was texting, emailing, surfing the Web, or otherwise using a handheld electronic device, the safety administration said.  Those activities were up 50 percent over 2009."

These people are endangering the rest of us so I'm in favor of a ban.  I know you can't legislate against stupidity, but something needs to be done.  Oh, and I've already heard on TV about insurance companies refusing to pay damages for such crashes.

ArdraF
 
Marc L said:
Exactly, it's no different than if someone was trying to knit a pair of socks or sharpening a knife while driving.

You sure about that statement?  Both things you mentioned requires both hands and a focus on the task at hand.

And to Lady Fitzgerald,
More education?  Your kidding, right?  When that phone rings, you just gotta see who called or sent you a text, right?
Your focus on the road ahead of you is now toward your phone.  More education will fix that?  I beg to differ.
 
ArdraF said:
The texting-caused accident to which Jerry referred above happened on Aug. 5, 2010 near Gray Summit, MO.  It involved two school buses with children inside, a tractor-trailer, and the pickup in which the driver was texting.  One of the students on the school bus, age 15, was killed and 38 people were injured.  Think of the cost of that driver's stupidity!  The family of the student killed has suffered an immeasurable loss.  The vehicle damages were considerable (a photo showed one school bus on top of the tractor trailer).  I don't know if any of the the injuried were seriously hurt, but probably several were and someone had to pay their medical costs.  The pickup truck was pancaked so the driver probably didn't fare very well.  I wonder if he now thinks those 11 text messages in the 11 minutes before the accident were important?  I wonder what the rest of his life will be like, not to mention that of his family who undoubtedly will pay the brunt of the damages.  I hope he spends time in jail because of his lack of responsbility.

By the way, this discussion of a national ban has produced quite a few maps on TV and more states are banning cell phones while driving, even Nevada which seldom bans anything!  Much to our surprise the Nevada law even applies if you're sitting at a traffic light.  An article in Wednesday's Las Vegas Review Journal titled "Cellphones:  Driver Distraction Increasingly a Factor in Deadly Crashes" states that "at any given moment last year [2010] on America's roadways, nearly one in every 100 car drivers was texting, emailing, surfing the Web, or otherwise using a handheld electronic device, the safety administration said.  Those activities were up 50 percent over 2009."

These people are endangering the rest of us so I'm in favor of a ban.  I know you can't legislate against stupidity, but something needs to be done.  Oh, and I've already heard on TV about insurance companies refusing to pay damages for such crashes.

ArdraF

Here is a link to the article;  http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/driver-in-fatal-crash-was-texting/article_45bdf5f5-0576-5633-adea-dd76ece9ffad.html#ixzz1gToV6aJ0

As you can read the the semi was stopped, and the young man in the pickup was texting, and ran into the semi, killing the young man.  The fact that the young man in the pickup was texting, was not to blame for the buses following too close to be able to stop, which caused the other death, and the other injuries.

I am not in favor of this proposed law.  It seems that many people have the idea that if we "ban" something, it will no longer be done.  that is just not the case, all that making something illegal does is provide punishment for someone who is convicted of the crime.

I can see no reason to give law enforcement another "probable cause" to stop people.

I also get a kick from the term "ban", as opposed to making something illegal?  Why is murder illegal, why dont we just "ban" murder?

Paul
 
ArdraF said:
The texting-caused accident to which Jerry referred above happened on Aug. 5, 2010 near Gray Summit, MO.  It involved two school buses with children inside, a tractor-trailer, and the pickup in which the driver was texting. . . .The pickup truck was pancaked so the driver probably didn't fare very well.  I wonder if he now thinks those 11 text messages in the 11 minutes before the accident were important?

That driver (19 years old) was killed in the crash as well, so his family is now left to ponder the importance of his cell phone use while driving.  Here is the CBS news link on the story that sparked the NTSB recommendation we are discussing here.

There is a problem with putting the task on law enforcement to investigate cell phone use AFTER a crash... yes it may be legally possible to obtain and examine cell phone records of drivers involved, but any larger police agency will likely not have the time or resources to follow up on every crash that occurs in their jurisdiction.  The primary focus is to clear the roadway and get traffic moving again, often to prevent additional crashes caused by restricted lanes and rubber-necked drivers who are paying too much attention to the crash scene as they drive by.

While there will always be justifications for allowing cell phone use while driving (because it's modern technology and so many of us have become used to it), perhaps the most effective deterrent does seem to be initial monetary penalties and/or license suspensions for repeat violations.  The money could even go to a survivor's fund of some kind, but that would have to be arranged through each clerk's office collecting the fines.  Those two approaches, along with public awareness (which is already under way for texting-and-driving) have worked for seatbelt and child carseat use, which used to be around 50% and now are in the upper 90% range in most states.
 
Paul & Ann said:
  http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/driver-in-fatal-crash-was-texting/article_45bdf5f5-0576-5633-adea-dd76ece9ffad.html#ixzz1gToV6aJ0

If you want to make this real personal, that was my cousin's daughter who died in that crash.

As a pilot on a radio, and a former police officer on a radio, and a user of cell phones for many years, I assure you that "distraction of attention" is real, and it is the substance of field sobriety tests for drunk driving suspects. It is physically impossible to do two things at one time; what you can do is rapidly switch between doing tasks well, but that ability breaks down under stress, i.e. driving in heavy traffic.

Every distraction is a problem for all drivers, from kids screaming in the back seat, to sensory overload from roadside advertisements, down to cell phones and texting.

But I would argue you cannot legislate common sense, i.e. wearing helmets on motorcycles, maintaining a safe following distance, managing speed with conditions.

I can easily support the ban of texting, however the enforcement effort would be monumental. What will happen, however, is those incredible phone records linked to your GPS position will provide attorneys some pretty irrefutable evidence when needed.

The digital age is a two edged sword.

 
I look it at it this way. How would you feel if your loved one were killed by a distracted driver talking or texting on a cell phone? Me personally I would make the person's life a complete living hell. Should it be a law NO. Take Personal Responsibility. What did we all do before the Age of Cell Phones? Just my 2 cents worth.
 
Possible penalties for texting or talking while driving might be:

Fines that go up to thousands of dollars.

Driver's license suspensions

Impound the car for 30 to 180 days.  This sure would make Mommy and Daddy happy.

Insurance companies saying that your Public Liability and Property Damage insurance will be null and void if the accident involved talking or texting.  Many have already done this with certain dogs on Homeowners Insurance.

Maybe we could just Cane them.  JUST JOKING ON THIS ONE

JerryF

 
The penalties for DUI are pretty severe, but still thousands of people each year are arrested for DUI. 

As someone once said, "You cant fix stupid".

Paul
 
skyking4ar2, I am terribly sorry for your family's loss.  It certainly puts things like this in a different perspective when there is a personal link.
 
It seems that many people have the idea that if we "ban" something, it will no longer be done.  that is just not the case, all that making something illegal does is provide punishment for someone who is convicted of the crime.

It may be instructive to note that Missouri already has a ban on texting by drivers under 21, so the young man who caused the accident was already ignoring a legal ban. Would he not also ignore a broader ban?

I can readily agree that inappropriate cell phone use is a problem, but do not necessarily agree that a ban will improve anything. And laws seldom achieve what the proponents think/promise it will. It is more likely to make us feel good about "doing something" than to actually prevent further accidents.
 
I believe what would work best is law that would make it illegal to be distracted while driving, but only impose a punishment when the distraction causes an accident.  It would be odd to be legal to eat a plate of spaghetti, put on makeup, while reading a newspaper while driving, but illegal to talk or text on a cellphone while driving.

Just my thoughts.

Paul
 
Interestingly, no one has mentioned the two school buses that rear-ended the pile-up.  The 19 yr. old kid may have caused the accident by being distracted while texting.  And one school bus rear-ending the crash might be understandable.  But two school buses???  There seems to enough blame to go around here.
 
Molaker said:
Interestingly, no one has mentioned the two school buses that rear-ended the pile-up.  The 19 yr. old kid may have caused the accident by being distracted while texting.  And one school bus rear-ending the crash might be understandable.  But two school buses???  There seems to enough blame to go around here.

I believe it was mentioned in the article I posted.  yes, this would not have been such a big deal, had it been just the young man hitting the back of the truck.  Perhaps, he may have survived the accident, had the school buses not run into his pickup.

Paul
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
132,174
Posts
1,391,439
Members
137,886
Latest member
Bob007
Back
Top Bottom