Feds want nationwide ban on cell phone use in cars(networkworld.com)
networkworld.com
Feds want nationwide ban on cell phone use in cars
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/federal-safety-board-wants-nationwide-ban-cell-phone-use-cars
84 comments
I'm sure the cops have better things to do with their days than pull over people talking on their cell phones.
On the contrary, I think the cops should be busting people left and right for that. First of all, driving-while-cellphoning does create a genuine risk for other road users, not just the driver - I live in SF too and entirely agree that drivers here pay no attention to the law. Second, if drivers become aware that chattering or texting on their phone imposes a real risk of being busted and ticketed, then if anything it's likely to make them more cautious about other aspects of their driving.
I think you're looking at it from the perspective that if the police are busting cellphone users, they're not chasing reckless drivers; but that assumes a flattening of both geography and time. As it is, if a cop is there to see you using your cellphone while driving, there's no logical reason to assume that ignoring you increases the cop's chances of detecting other kinds of illegal driving. Usually police are assigned to particular duties, so if a cop is on the traffic beat it's not like s/he is being diverted from investigating murder or robbery by pulling someone over.
On the contrary, I think the cops should be busting people left and right for that. First of all, driving-while-cellphoning does create a genuine risk for other road users, not just the driver - I live in SF too and entirely agree that drivers here pay no attention to the law. Second, if drivers become aware that chattering or texting on their phone imposes a real risk of being busted and ticketed, then if anything it's likely to make them more cautious about other aspects of their driving.
I think you're looking at it from the perspective that if the police are busting cellphone users, they're not chasing reckless drivers; but that assumes a flattening of both geography and time. As it is, if a cop is there to see you using your cellphone while driving, there's no logical reason to assume that ignoring you increases the cop's chances of detecting other kinds of illegal driving. Usually police are assigned to particular duties, so if a cop is on the traffic beat it's not like s/he is being diverted from investigating murder or robbery by pulling someone over.
In SF, I doubt that police are ever assigned to pulling people over for cell phone violations. It is usually something like a cop hiding on a side street at the top of Portola late at night waiting for someone to run a red light, which is financially worth a lot more to the city (~$500). The reality is that a cell phone violation is not worth much financially to the city ($20-$50) and drivers ignore the law since it is pretty much just a slap on the wrist. [1]
So, instead of banning the use outright, which a lot of people will object to because nobody likes to be told they can't do something (ignoring the whole driving is a right motto). I'd just say, increase the fines to the level of a red light run and increase the enforcement. The only people who will object to the fines are the people breaking the law. ;-)
[1] http://www.cbdlaw.com/CM/Articles/WirelessFAQs.asp
So, instead of banning the use outright, which a lot of people will object to because nobody likes to be told they can't do something (ignoring the whole driving is a right motto). I'd just say, increase the fines to the level of a red light run and increase the enforcement. The only people who will object to the fines are the people breaking the law. ;-)
[1] http://www.cbdlaw.com/CM/Articles/WirelessFAQs.asp
As described, this has interesting implications for GPS navigation: The NTSB recommendation calls for the ban the nonemergency use of portable electronic devices for all drivers.
When I'm driving in an unfamiliar city, I often keep my phone in a windshield holder, and leave the navigation display on. This allows me to glance down for an instant, and see the big arrow indicating the direction of my next turn.
Done right, this takes about a quarter second, and it gives me a half mile of warning before changing lanes. This seems like a net safety win, especially around cities like Boston, where last-minute lane changes can be dangerous.
Do the Feds have studies showing that dashboard GPS navigation makes us less safe? I'd love to know one way or another.
When I'm driving in an unfamiliar city, I often keep my phone in a windshield holder, and leave the navigation display on. This allows me to glance down for an instant, and see the big arrow indicating the direction of my next turn.
Done right, this takes about a quarter second, and it gives me a half mile of warning before changing lanes. This seems like a net safety win, especially around cities like Boston, where last-minute lane changes can be dangerous.
Do the Feds have studies showing that dashboard GPS navigation makes us less safe? I'd love to know one way or another.
I very much doubt they want to stop people using GPS, although I might be wrong. The key word here is 'portable'; if you have your phone installed in a holder such that it's in the same place for quick glances, then those glances are no more of a safety risk than the quick glances you take at the speedometer or other dashboard controls.
I think they're less worried about electronic devices as such, than by people futzing with them while they're supposed to be driving. If you set your destination at the beginning of the journey and merely look at the GPS screen occasionally, there's very little cognitive overhead. It's when you have to interact with the device and divide your attention between the different tasks of operating the device UI and operating the vehicle that you become highly distractable.
I think they're less worried about electronic devices as such, than by people futzing with them while they're supposed to be driving. If you set your destination at the beginning of the journey and merely look at the GPS screen occasionally, there's very little cognitive overhead. It's when you have to interact with the device and divide your attention between the different tasks of operating the device UI and operating the vehicle that you become highly distractable.
I used to do the glancing down thing, but I found that google voice navigation is good enough at warning me ahead of time that I don't really need to.
I was quite surprised coming to USA to find out that only "text" part from cell phone usage by driver is banned. Unfortunately, human brain is still not evolved enough to be able to concentrate on the road conditions and on the conversation over the phone (for most people I've seen. I bet there are person who handles both simultaneously very well).
Nor autonomous cars are spread enough yet.
So I would say banning phone is good measure for now.
Nor autonomous cars are spread enough yet.
So I would say banning phone is good measure for now.
Personally, I am against rules like this at the federal level, and it scares me how much of a nanny-state the US is becoming. This nation was founded on keeping as many freedoms as possible, from my perspective. It is already punishable by law if you cause an accident (or commit vehicular homicide), and this is just one more reason to pull people over and "check'em out."
Where I live, these laws only apply to people under 18, and we don't have a motorcycle helmet law either.
Where I live, these laws only apply to people under 18, and we don't have a motorcycle helmet law either.
Remember, you have no right to drive a car. So you're not losing any rights when the government says you can't talk on the phone and drive at the same time.
If you build your own road network, you don't have to follow any traffic laws. But most people are too cheap to do that, so they deal with a little regulation.
In this case, people aren't capable of making the right decision about cell phone use. They know there is a tiny risk of killing someone while distracted by their phone, but they feel that driving is so safe that it won't happen to them. Unfortunately, "it happens to them" rather frequently now, and a lot of people are being killed or injured unnecessarily. So it's clear that people aren't handling the freedom very well, and it's time to adjust it down to see what happens.
Take the train if you want to txt during your commute.
If you build your own road network, you don't have to follow any traffic laws. But most people are too cheap to do that, so they deal with a little regulation.
In this case, people aren't capable of making the right decision about cell phone use. They know there is a tiny risk of killing someone while distracted by their phone, but they feel that driving is so safe that it won't happen to them. Unfortunately, "it happens to them" rather frequently now, and a lot of people are being killed or injured unnecessarily. So it's clear that people aren't handling the freedom very well, and it's time to adjust it down to see what happens.
Take the train if you want to txt during your commute.
I simply believe that we already have laws that address the poor driving habits of others. We simply disagree, and that's ok. But, keep in mind some of us live in states with less than 5M people that are quite large; I don't have a commute, and there are very few trains in the Rockies (certainly no commuter trains outside of Denver).
Making more laws that people won't follow (as noted elsewhere in this discussion) just erodes more of our freedoms, but doesn't really protect us anymore. For example, I don't wear my seatbelt.
Making more laws that people won't follow (as noted elsewhere in this discussion) just erodes more of our freedoms, but doesn't really protect us anymore. For example, I don't wear my seatbelt.
I agree with most everything you've said. Also, the local PD has put up one of those feel-good-do-nothing 'BUCKLE UP IT'S THE LAW' blinking signs about 0.2mi from my driveway, so I've made a routine of preemptively shutting the car off and unbuckling just because I can.
However, just please be aware that not wearing a seatbelt can easily turn a 20mph walk-away accident into a fatal one. Despite the stupid laws surrounding them, buckling up isn't a bad habit to develop.
However, just please be aware that not wearing a seatbelt can easily turn a 20mph walk-away accident into a fatal one. Despite the stupid laws surrounding them, buckling up isn't a bad habit to develop.
Despite the stupid laws surrounding them, buckling up isn't a bad habit to develop.
Have you considered that the point of these 'stupid' laws is to save the public the expense of emergency medical care/roadside cleanup for non-seatbelt-wearing people who end up flying through the windscreen or pinballing around inside the vehicle? The government is not very interested in your private behavior, it's interested in minimizing the risk your behavior presents to others - both directly (DUI or cellphone bans) and indirectly (through the financial impact of accidents on the public purse).
Have you considered that the point of these 'stupid' laws is to save the public the expense of emergency medical care/roadside cleanup for non-seatbelt-wearing people who end up flying through the windscreen or pinballing around inside the vehicle? The government is not very interested in your private behavior, it's interested in minimizing the risk your behavior presents to others - both directly (DUI or cellphone bans) and indirectly (through the financial impact of accidents on the public purse).
Given that the cost to the public is much much less than the cost to the non-seatbelt-wearing person, I don't think it's very relevant. You've got to draw the line somewhere, otherwise such everything-affects-something reasoning can be used to justify anything.
Yes, but your comparing the collective with the individual there. You have to consider the aggregate cost of non-seatbelt-wearers to the public, ie the cost of all avoidable injuries resulting from nonuse of a seatbelt within a given jurisdiction, and including the opportunity cost of death or ongoing medical treatment as well as the direct costs.
Except you then divide the total cost by the number of people that bear it, and the term cancels out. Your reasoning implies that two governments merging justifies an increase in the number of restrictions simply because the numbers are bigger.
'the public' is the group of people that bear the cost. And no, it doesn't cancel out; the cost of avoidable accidents to the individual members of the population is small, but not that small. AAA (which is in the sinsurance business, admittedly) estimates, based on Federal Highway Administration data, that fatal accidents cost about $6m on average, and that the total cost to Americans is >$1500 per person per year: http://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2011_AAA_...
This is actually a great study - comprehensive, rigorous, and quite recent. The overall estimate of accident costs is just shy of $300bn/year, which is something like 1% of GDP. Even if we assume only 1/10th of fatal accidents involve innocent victims of careless drivers - probably somewhat low - that's still a substantial burden on the economy, which the public has a collective interest in mitigating.
This is actually a great study - comprehensive, rigorous, and quite recent. The overall estimate of accident costs is just shy of $300bn/year, which is something like 1% of GDP. Even if we assume only 1/10th of fatal accidents involve innocent victims of careless drivers - probably somewhat low - that's still a substantial burden on the economy, which the public has a collective interest in mitigating.
I was trying to compare the expected societal cost from one person driving without a seatbelt, to the actual cost to the victim in one instance, which seems wrong in retrospect. Honestly you took me back with that $6M number. But then I looked into it, and 98% of that is "work-loss costs", which are clearly borne by the victim. The actual costs to the rest of the group are nowhere near this amount (roughly $120k), while the victim is sacrificing $6M of self-value. The victim is by far the loser, so the idea that the victim somehow externalized his costs and cheated society is preposterous!
So if I mow you down, you're choosing to sacrifice your future income by getting in the way of my vehicle? Interesting theory.
I was talking specifically about those who choose not to wear seatbelts and then go on to become victims of their own decision.
I think we're somewhat talking right past one another on that more-philosophical thread. I'll respond there tomorrow.
I think we're somewhat talking right past one another on that more-philosophical thread. I'll respond there tomorrow.
[deleted]
> you have no right to drive a car
When roads are the sole form of developed transportation infrastructure in an area that's too sparse or weather-adverse for practical biking, one's right to travel implies a right to drive.
When roads are the sole form of developed transportation infrastructure in an area that's too sparse or weather-adverse for practical biking, one's right to travel implies a right to drive.
No, it doesn't. If you find yourself unable to drive by law, then you can take a bus or move to somewhere with better transport infrastructure. I can see why you think the law should work the way you describe, but it doesn't - and while I am only a student, my distinct impression is that it never has worked that way in regard to motor vehicles. In other words, courts have always treated driving as a privilege precisely because the amplifying effect of an engine + chassis upon a person's decisions involves a significantly heightened risks for other members of the public. Before the advent of the motor vehicle, riders of horses and operators of carriages were also held to an elevated standard of responsibility.
You should indeed move somewhere better, especially barring circumstances that prevent that, but this doesn't change one's current situation.
Philosophical rights and their interpretations by courts are quite disconnected, with courts mostly choosing to not restrict themselves (surprise, surprise).
The whole US legal system has been bursting at the seams for quite some time based on this flawed idea that rights are axiomatic rather than universal qualifications, with technology and privately-owned commons forcing the issue. For example, a communications network shouldn't have the ability to censor based on the contents of messages (this is currently mostly taken care of by lesser statutes, and luckily it's also easily solvable with encryption).
Philosophical rights and their interpretations by courts are quite disconnected, with courts mostly choosing to not restrict themselves (surprise, surprise).
The whole US legal system has been bursting at the seams for quite some time based on this flawed idea that rights are axiomatic rather than universal qualifications, with technology and privately-owned commons forcing the issue. For example, a communications network shouldn't have the ability to censor based on the contents of messages (this is currently mostly taken care of by lesser statutes, and luckily it's also easily solvable with encryption).
Of course rights are axiomatic. Rights only exist in relation to society; if you had your own planet and were the only being thereon with any kind of conscious agency, then it would be meaningless to talk about rights because your only concern would be natural hazards. You don't have universal rights any more than there are platonic solids lurking in some invisible dimension; the rights you have are what you are capable of asserting, either as an individual or collectively through a legislature.
Seriously, if you want to be left alone you can go live in the woods like Theodore Kacyzinski (before he started mailing bombs to people, obviously). Why is it that you think these universal rights are objectively real and articulable, but you are so opposed to the institutions that people collectively invest with agency in order to protect those rights - constitutional government, the UN and so forth? Laws are the accumulation of mutual agreements, when you get down to it. If you hate courts so much, go live in a civil law country where statute prevails over all else and the courts are limited to mechanistic applications of that. From what I can see, you enjoy substantially greater freedom in a common-law jurisdiction like the US than you do in most civil law jurisdictions, which is one reason that people are not fleeing the US to live in Latin America.
Seriously, if you want to be left alone you can go live in the woods like Theodore Kacyzinski (before he started mailing bombs to people, obviously). Why is it that you think these universal rights are objectively real and articulable, but you are so opposed to the institutions that people collectively invest with agency in order to protect those rights - constitutional government, the UN and so forth? Laws are the accumulation of mutual agreements, when you get down to it. If you hate courts so much, go live in a civil law country where statute prevails over all else and the courts are limited to mechanistic applications of that. From what I can see, you enjoy substantially greater freedom in a common-law jurisdiction like the US than you do in most civil law jurisdictions, which is one reason that people are not fleeing the US to live in Latin America.
No. By axiomatic, I mean viewed as a base level on which abstractions are built up from (primitive-based might be a better term). By universal qualifications, I mean applicable to situations based on their shape, rather than what abstractions they are built upon. "The content of speech shall not be considered when discriminating between members of the public" (or something like that, more formality is clearly needed).
For example, the primitive-based view of the right to free speech defends my ability to discuss whatever topic I'd like while in a public park (with the usual caveats about speech that incites actions). But if that public commons is sold to a private entity, those protections magically vanish and I can be kicked out arbitrarily based on the contents of what I am saying, even though society continues to have the same relationship with the park. The internet is one such privately owned public commons; should an ISP be able to cancel my service based on what I posted on a message board?
The standard ways of addressing the above problems are private contracts or additional laws. Both create unbounded complexity that isn't understandable by the common person and thus contrary to the very idea of 'rights'.
PS It's funny that you call me out for hating on institutions, because I think am starting to come around to seeing the importance of them as a concept. I just think many 'respected' institutions are calcified and bankrupt, with their actual behavior very different from what they purport. (Hm. I wonder if this is why people cling to process ('democracy') as an institution - there's little else left.)
For example, the primitive-based view of the right to free speech defends my ability to discuss whatever topic I'd like while in a public park (with the usual caveats about speech that incites actions). But if that public commons is sold to a private entity, those protections magically vanish and I can be kicked out arbitrarily based on the contents of what I am saying, even though society continues to have the same relationship with the park. The internet is one such privately owned public commons; should an ISP be able to cancel my service based on what I posted on a message board?
The standard ways of addressing the above problems are private contracts or additional laws. Both create unbounded complexity that isn't understandable by the common person and thus contrary to the very idea of 'rights'.
PS It's funny that you call me out for hating on institutions, because I think am starting to come around to seeing the importance of them as a concept. I just think many 'respected' institutions are calcified and bankrupt, with their actual behavior very different from what they purport. (Hm. I wonder if this is why people cling to process ('democracy') as an institution - there's little else left.)
Look, I appreciate your sincerity but think you are really starting to eat your own tail here. The standard way of resolving the problems you describe is in fact to assume that rights are bundles of actionable interests and to compare the interests at stake in a conflict - such as the right of a private property owner to exercise control over a park vs the right of park visitors to express themselves. That comparison is often carried out using economic methods, where possible; obviously it's hard to quantify the utility of free speech to citizens, but many other kinds of rights can be quantified (and the disutility of restricting speech may be quantifiable if the the overall utility of allowing it is not).
Allow me to suggest this book, which is a great introduction to law and economics without being too technical in either subject: http://www.amazon.com/Legal-Analyst-Toolkit-Thinking-about/d... or if it is not to your taste, this one is good too: http://www.amazon.com/Laws-Order-What-Economics-Matters/dp/0... At the very least, check out Arrow's theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrows_impossibility_theorem which explains why ideal procedural outcomes are not possible.
Allow me to suggest this book, which is a great introduction to law and economics without being too technical in either subject: http://www.amazon.com/Legal-Analyst-Toolkit-Thinking-about/d... or if it is not to your taste, this one is good too: http://www.amazon.com/Laws-Order-What-Economics-Matters/dp/0... At the very least, check out Arrow's theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrows_impossibility_theorem which explains why ideal procedural outcomes are not possible.
> Look, I appreciate your sincerity but think you are really starting to eat your own tail here
Care to elaborate why? I'm not arguing because I think you're going to suddenly acquiesce, but because I'm trying to refine my own viewpoint.
I obviously can't quickly read the linked books to see what they're actually saying, but they clearly have their own set of philosophies. This is fine, but these philosophies are not beyond reproach.
And as to Arrow's theorem and the problems of procedural outcomes - that's precisely my point! You're the one coming from the viewpoint where we're all bound to an ever-growing system that possesses the mandate to regulate whatever is economically prudent. If a system is incapable of adequately taking into account the conflicting desires of its inhabitants, it should be decentralized so that everybody doesn't have to agree!
Care to elaborate why? I'm not arguing because I think you're going to suddenly acquiesce, but because I'm trying to refine my own viewpoint.
I obviously can't quickly read the linked books to see what they're actually saying, but they clearly have their own set of philosophies. This is fine, but these philosophies are not beyond reproach.
And as to Arrow's theorem and the problems of procedural outcomes - that's precisely my point! You're the one coming from the viewpoint where we're all bound to an ever-growing system that possesses the mandate to regulate whatever is economically prudent. If a system is incapable of adequately taking into account the conflicting desires of its inhabitants, it should be decentralized so that everybody doesn't have to agree!
Basically, because you're assuming that you can identify universal rights and a procedure for reliably identifying them, which you think is going to free you from the implementation problems of axiomatic statements of rights. This is the legal equivalent to squaring the circle, and it has been argued that legal rules are likely as limited by Godel's theorem as any other formal system. Indeed, recognition of such procedural shortcomings is a big reason for the elevated role of the judiciary in common-law legal systems.
system that possesses the mandate to regulate whatever is economically prudent
I don't agree that it's necessarily ever expanding, but insofar as it involves regulating whatever is economically prudent then sure, because I'm a utilitarian. Of course, I only have limited foresight, so I support the democratic approach as a necessary evil although I'd rather a pure technocracy. As long as it produces a reasonable approximation of Pareto optimality, I'm OK with that. It's imperfect, of course, but at least it's a methodology.
[...] it should be decentralized so that everybody doesn't have to agree!
But it already is; living in the US gives you a choice between over 50 different legal systems, and that's only at the state level. Some of them provide exceedingly poor outcomes for their citizens IMHO, but there you go.
system that possesses the mandate to regulate whatever is economically prudent
I don't agree that it's necessarily ever expanding, but insofar as it involves regulating whatever is economically prudent then sure, because I'm a utilitarian. Of course, I only have limited foresight, so I support the democratic approach as a necessary evil although I'd rather a pure technocracy. As long as it produces a reasonable approximation of Pareto optimality, I'm OK with that. It's imperfect, of course, but at least it's a methodology.
[...] it should be decentralized so that everybody doesn't have to agree!
But it already is; living in the US gives you a choice between over 50 different legal systems, and that's only at the state level. Some of them provide exceedingly poor outcomes for their citizens IMHO, but there you go.
It's just another regulation that is impossible to enforce consistently without invasions into one's privacy.
We really don't have many "rights". Most "rights" people talk about are priviledges, like health care, schools, a job, etc.
The real rights we have, such as privacy, free speech, and the permission to own firearms, are being assailed by the government every day.
We really don't have many "rights". Most "rights" people talk about are priviledges, like health care, schools, a job, etc.
The real rights we have, such as privacy, free speech, and the permission to own firearms, are being assailed by the government every day.
"...impossible to enforce consistently without invasions into one's privacy." What? You have no privacy on the road, through a clear windshield. I fail to see any such violation. It would seem to me to be unconstitutional, but I assume they'll skirt around that like with drinking ages: withhold funds to states that don't pass the laws the federal government wants. That way the federal government technically isn't making something illegal, but is basically blackmailing the states into doing so. (It's not technically blackmail because the states aren't entitled to those funds, as they're provided at the discretion of Congress.)
[deleted]
So many people text below the windshield level. How will someone prove that I was texting at a certain time? Some cop will say he thought he saw me texting and demand my phone records.
And the original point of my post is that to ban texting is arbitrary; you can't ban everything before the fact. If anything, put additional punishment on someone whose accident was found to be caused by texting.
And the original point of my post is that to ban texting is arbitrary; you can't ban everything before the fact. If anything, put additional punishment on someone whose accident was found to be caused by texting.
It's not a rule at the federal level, it's a recommendation by a federal agency that all states adopt and enforce consistent rules about this behavior which is a known cause of numerous accidents. If you missed this simple distinction that was in every news report on the subject, then I don't think your opinion on regulatory issues is worth very much.
Where I live, these laws only apply to people under 18, and we don't have a motorcycle helmet law either.
Whoop-de-do. Besides thinking that motorcycle users who don't use helmets are semi-suicidal fools, I might point out that wearing a helmet or not has little bearing on the danger a rider presents to other road/sidewalk users; DUI or using a smartphone while driving does.
Where I live, these laws only apply to people under 18, and we don't have a motorcycle helmet law either.
Whoop-de-do. Besides thinking that motorcycle users who don't use helmets are semi-suicidal fools, I might point out that wearing a helmet or not has little bearing on the danger a rider presents to other road/sidewalk users; DUI or using a smartphone while driving does.
[deleted]
OK, on the face of it, this a people problem. But "distracted operator" issues have been known about for decades; how do other industries solve them?
How can we apply technology to at least alleviate the problem? Some phones have a speech-to-text mode where you can have texts read to you or you can speak and have it turned into SMS.
What happens when the phone is more integrated with the car? It limits the driver's interaction with it and gives the "system" an opportunity to control when the phone rings (perhaps don't allow it to ring when the car detects it's in stop & go traffic).
Rather than bitching about how "idiots" use their cell phones perhaps we can be more productive in thinking about other solutions to the problem .
How can we apply technology to at least alleviate the problem? Some phones have a speech-to-text mode where you can have texts read to you or you can speak and have it turned into SMS.
What happens when the phone is more integrated with the car? It limits the driver's interaction with it and gives the "system" an opportunity to control when the phone rings (perhaps don't allow it to ring when the car detects it's in stop & go traffic).
Rather than bitching about how "idiots" use their cell phones perhaps we can be more productive in thinking about other solutions to the problem .
Well, the real problem is the drivers who have poor response times for whatever reason. There's no current good way to judge who is really at fault for an accident, so society devolves into witch hunts against drunk drivers, speeding, cell phones, etc. What about simply recording as much data as possible so driver behavior preceding/during an accident can be reconstructed after the fact?
Such a system mandated by insurance/government (same thing) would clearly be an abomination of privacy/ownership issues, but if it was developed for end-users to help prove their innocence, it could be implemented properly (user-based crypto+open formats+local storage).
Such a system mandated by insurance/government (same thing) would clearly be an abomination of privacy/ownership issues, but if it was developed for end-users to help prove their innocence, it could be implemented properly (user-based crypto+open formats+local storage).
Wait, what?
Why do you argue that members of the public or of an insurance pool have no interest in minimizing the economic cost to them of reckless drivers' risky behavior? Sure, if you drive everywhere at 100 mph and we buy auto insurance from the same company, your direct impact on my premium is minimal, maybe a few cents extra annually, because your increased risk is spread out across a large pool of insureds. But risky drivers exist in quantity too, and collectively their impact on the cost of insurance is large, as is the drag they create on GDP or taxes.
Certainly, I think that vehicle telemetry data should be available to defendants in driving-related criminal cases or litigation. And as a matter of fact, it is, via the legal procedure of discovery. You seem to think that this should only be available to the defendant, but never to prosecutors or plaintiffs. Why not? If you're driving on the public highway, then your driving behavior is a matter of public concern to the extent that it impacts others; and to the extent that other people are exposed to the risks arising from your operation of a vehicle, you cannot reasonably claim an expectation of privacy - unless you're willing to move to a regime of strict liability for accidents, and pay correspondingly higher insurance premiums.
Why do you argue that members of the public or of an insurance pool have no interest in minimizing the economic cost to them of reckless drivers' risky behavior? Sure, if you drive everywhere at 100 mph and we buy auto insurance from the same company, your direct impact on my premium is minimal, maybe a few cents extra annually, because your increased risk is spread out across a large pool of insureds. But risky drivers exist in quantity too, and collectively their impact on the cost of insurance is large, as is the drag they create on GDP or taxes.
Certainly, I think that vehicle telemetry data should be available to defendants in driving-related criminal cases or litigation. And as a matter of fact, it is, via the legal procedure of discovery. You seem to think that this should only be available to the defendant, but never to prosecutors or plaintiffs. Why not? If you're driving on the public highway, then your driving behavior is a matter of public concern to the extent that it impacts others; and to the extent that other people are exposed to the risks arising from your operation of a vehicle, you cannot reasonably claim an expectation of privacy - unless you're willing to move to a regime of strict liability for accidents, and pay correspondingly higher insurance premiums.
My second paragraph wasn't trying to be philosophical, just what I see as the practical outcomes. If developed for the end user before becoming de facto mandated, there's a much better chance that it would be a system with some notion of privacy between independent actors. A court would have to request the relevant records of the accident rather than getting weeks worth of data ripe with circumstantial evidence. (Whether a defendant can refuse this request is irrelevant, eventually withholding the data while the other party's data shows reasonable actions would be viewed in a negative light)
What would such a system look like if developed by insurance companies? I'm guessing it would contain a cell modem that would continually upload as much data as possible to the insurance company. They'd then datamine that looking for 'dangerous' drivers and charge them more, even if they have less accidents.
Who would you rather have in your insurance pool going forward - someone who speeds everywhere with no accidents, or someone who drives under the speed limit yet has managed to total their car twice in the past year? There's no answer to that - my point is that we just don't really know who the bigger risk is a priori despite much effort, so the game-changing goal should be better analysis after the fact.
What would such a system look like if developed by insurance companies? I'm guessing it would contain a cell modem that would continually upload as much data as possible to the insurance company. They'd then datamine that looking for 'dangerous' drivers and charge them more, even if they have less accidents.
Who would you rather have in your insurance pool going forward - someone who speeds everywhere with no accidents, or someone who drives under the speed limit yet has managed to total their car twice in the past year? There's no answer to that - my point is that we just don't really know who the bigger risk is a priori despite much effort, so the game-changing goal should be better analysis after the fact.
Mindlsight, I don't think you have even the haziest idea of how criminal prosecutions or lawsuits work. Courts rarely request anything; prosecutors or plaintiffs make requests through the court, which can be contested by the defense, and the defense can seek records in turn (like the disciplinary record of an arresting officer, for example, or the records of equipment calibration in a DUI case etc.).
There's no answer to that - my point is that we just don't really know who the bigger risk is a priori despite much effort
What do you think insurance actuaries do all day, other than study insurable risk? Read your insurance policy if you have one, they can and will raise your premium if you have a history of accidents. Honestly, you seem kind of paranoid. Insurers want to reduce risk, but still keep their product cheap enough for people to buy it.
There's no answer to that - my point is that we just don't really know who the bigger risk is a priori despite much effort
What do you think insurance actuaries do all day, other than study insurable risk? Read your insurance policy if you have one, they can and will raise your premium if you have a history of accidents. Honestly, you seem kind of paranoid. Insurers want to reduce risk, but still keep their product cheap enough for people to buy it.
I do know how legal discovery generally works, there just wasn't much point getting into specifics when it doesn't change my point. Fundamentally, the court is what has the power to make requests, even though those requests originate from opposing counsel.
> What do you think insurance actuaries do all day, other than study insurable risk?
This is precisely what I meant by 'much effort'.
Let's make this concrete: If you frequented a lot of bars as a designated driver and the insurance companies gained access to your location data, what do you think would happen to your rates? How do you think this change compares to the change that would occur if they could somehow perfectly predict your expected payout?
And actually, yes, I am paranoid and proud of it. The corner cases of systems are the important ones; expected behavior is dead easy.
> What do you think insurance actuaries do all day, other than study insurable risk?
This is precisely what I meant by 'much effort'.
Let's make this concrete: If you frequented a lot of bars as a designated driver and the insurance companies gained access to your location data, what do you think would happen to your rates? How do you think this change compares to the change that would occur if they could somehow perfectly predict your expected payout?
And actually, yes, I am paranoid and proud of it. The corner cases of systems are the important ones; expected behavior is dead easy.
If you frequented a lot of bars as a designated driver and the insurance companies gained access to your location data, what do you think would happen to your rates?
Nothing, because my location data doesn't tell you whether I'm a driver or a passenger. Even if the insurance companies do have that information, your example depends on their being oblivious to the existence of designated drivers. I might, for example, be operating a taxi or limousine service, where my job is to drive drunken people around while they have a good time.
I'm all about corner cases, but it does not follow that paranoia is the sensible position to take. I can just as easily suggest corner cases where insurance companies decide to skip the analysis, increase premiums on everyone evenly, and blame inflation, because it considerably lowers their overhead and the administrative savings offset a good deal of the increased payouts, so that the premiums don't rise too much. Unsustainable over any period but the very short term, of course, but many would argue that something very similar happened at AIG in the runup to the financial crisis. Not performing proper diligence on the financial instruments whose risk they were insuring against (via credit default swaps) looked like financial genius until the claims suddenly exceeded the value of the premiums. That's why it's cheaper to pay actuaries than to place your faith in people's common sense.
There are different interests to be balanced here, but it seems to me you are complaining about the existence of the scales (ie the court).
Nothing, because my location data doesn't tell you whether I'm a driver or a passenger. Even if the insurance companies do have that information, your example depends on their being oblivious to the existence of designated drivers. I might, for example, be operating a taxi or limousine service, where my job is to drive drunken people around while they have a good time.
I'm all about corner cases, but it does not follow that paranoia is the sensible position to take. I can just as easily suggest corner cases where insurance companies decide to skip the analysis, increase premiums on everyone evenly, and blame inflation, because it considerably lowers their overhead and the administrative savings offset a good deal of the increased payouts, so that the premiums don't rise too much. Unsustainable over any period but the very short term, of course, but many would argue that something very similar happened at AIG in the runup to the financial crisis. Not performing proper diligence on the financial instruments whose risk they were insuring against (via credit default swaps) looked like financial genius until the claims suddenly exceeded the value of the premiums. That's why it's cheaper to pay actuaries than to place your faith in people's common sense.
There are different interests to be balanced here, but it seems to me you are complaining about the existence of the scales (ie the court).
The location data of the insured vehicle certainly indicates the context that it operates in. The commercial vehicles you cite have different insurance policies. And letting your friend drive your car home from the bar is presumably an even higher risk behavior! If you honestly think that an insurance company wouldn't raise the rates for something that correlates so strongly with drunk driving, you're really going to need some solid justification.
And as to the scales, one must recognize that they're imperfect. One is in a much worse position with a log of habitual speeding - having to then prove (from a presumption of guilt) that their speed was indeed prudent.
And as to the scales, one must recognize that they're imperfect. One is in a much worse position with a log of habitual speeding - having to then prove (from a presumption of guilt) that their speed was indeed prudent.
Now you're just using a 'no true scotsman' fallacy to exclude cases that don't fit your argument.
The most noteworthy part, perhaps: "The recommendation includes hands-free and hand-held phones and would go beyond what many states have done to curb texting while driving."
It sounds like they looked at the research instead of the not terribly well thought out state laws. E.g.:
This research examined the effects of hands-free cell phone conversations on simulated driving. The authors found that these conversations impaired driver's reactions to vehicles braking in front of them. The authors assessed whether this impairment could be attributed to a withdrawal of attention from the visual scene, yielding a form of inattention blindness.
Cell phone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. Strayer, David L.; Drews, Frank A.; Johnston, William A. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, Vol 9(1), Mar 2003, 23-32.
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xap/9/1/23/
and:
Summary: We used a high-fidelity driving simulator to compare the performance of cell-phone drivers with drivers who were legally intoxicated from ethanol. When drivers were conversing on either a hand-held or hands-free cell-phone, their reactions were sluggish and they attempted to compensate by driving slower and increasing the following distance from the vehicle immediately in front of them. By contrast, when drivers were legally intoxicated they exhibited a more aggressive driving style, following closer to the vehicle immediately in front of them and applying more force while braking. When controlling for driving difficulty and time on task, cell-phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers.
Fatal Distraction? A comparison of the cell-phone driver and the drunk driver. David L. Strayer, Frank A. Drews, and Dennis J. Crouch. Proceedings of the Second International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design.
http://cellphonefreedriving.ca/media/fatal_distraction.pdf
This research examined the effects of hands-free cell phone conversations on simulated driving. The authors found that these conversations impaired driver's reactions to vehicles braking in front of them. The authors assessed whether this impairment could be attributed to a withdrawal of attention from the visual scene, yielding a form of inattention blindness.
Cell phone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. Strayer, David L.; Drews, Frank A.; Johnston, William A. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, Vol 9(1), Mar 2003, 23-32.
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xap/9/1/23/
and:
Summary: We used a high-fidelity driving simulator to compare the performance of cell-phone drivers with drivers who were legally intoxicated from ethanol. When drivers were conversing on either a hand-held or hands-free cell-phone, their reactions were sluggish and they attempted to compensate by driving slower and increasing the following distance from the vehicle immediately in front of them. By contrast, when drivers were legally intoxicated they exhibited a more aggressive driving style, following closer to the vehicle immediately in front of them and applying more force while braking. When controlling for driving difficulty and time on task, cell-phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers.
Fatal Distraction? A comparison of the cell-phone driver and the drunk driver. David L. Strayer, Frank A. Drews, and Dennis J. Crouch. Proceedings of the Second International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design.
http://cellphonefreedriving.ca/media/fatal_distraction.pdf
At least it's based on science, unlike what most states are doing with banning only handheld phones even though all the research says they're just as bad as hands-free.
Would they really ban most modern in-car audio systems? What would they do, force manufacturers to put in a GPS lockout so that the Bluetooth doesn't work while moving in a state that bans hands-free use?
There is no reason to ban talking if you don't also ban handsfree use. Studies show it is no less dangerous to use a handsfree device.
My question is: Will states implement a mapping exception?
My question is: Will states implement a mapping exception?
To be somewhat devil's advocate:
There's only so far you can go to try to protect people from being idiots.
There are plenty of data points now that show that texting related accidents and deaths went up when the bans were enacted because instead of doing the sensible thing and NOT texting while driving, these people simply moved the phone into their lap instead of in a place where they could still kind of see the road ahead.
It's an unfortunate fact that people have tendencies to be extremely stupid under the guise of "I can do it, it won't cause me to crash", and no law will fix this.
There's only so far you can go to try to protect people from being idiots.
There are plenty of data points now that show that texting related accidents and deaths went up when the bans were enacted because instead of doing the sensible thing and NOT texting while driving, these people simply moved the phone into their lap instead of in a place where they could still kind of see the road ahead.
It's an unfortunate fact that people have tendencies to be extremely stupid under the guise of "I can do it, it won't cause me to crash", and no law will fix this.
There's only so far you can go to try to protect people from being idiots.
This isn't about protecting people from being idiots; it's about protecting people from idiots.
DUI bans aren't about the drunk drivers, they're about the innocent third parties they kill and maim. Ditto the requirement to hold third-party insurance when driving a vehicle.
I suspect that what's needed is not merely a ban, but a public education campaign to ram this point home. ("Do you want to be maimed by an idiot who can't pull over to answer a text? If not, don't do it to other people!")
This isn't about protecting people from being idiots; it's about protecting people from idiots.
DUI bans aren't about the drunk drivers, they're about the innocent third parties they kill and maim. Ditto the requirement to hold third-party insurance when driving a vehicle.
I suspect that what's needed is not merely a ban, but a public education campaign to ram this point home. ("Do you want to be maimed by an idiot who can't pull over to answer a text? If not, don't do it to other people!")
No, the point is that even if you ban it in order to protect "everyone else", people who insist on being unsafe will find new ways to do so regardless of the law. Banning behaviors is only effective if the ban is actually observed by the people who are most likely to cause the behavior you're trying to ban in the first place.
Edit: And yes, I agree with your last point about a PR campaign. Personally, I'm not convinced we should go about banning every little behavior (especially in cases like this which are effectively unenforceable) but instead spend the resources on education about why a behavior is undesirable, uncool, dangerous, etc.
Edit: And yes, I agree with your last point about a PR campaign. Personally, I'm not convinced we should go about banning every little behavior (especially in cases like this which are effectively unenforceable) but instead spend the resources on education about why a behavior is undesirable, uncool, dangerous, etc.
Most people do not insist on being unsafe, and will avoid behaviors that they are told are unacceptable and have concrete consequences.
Getting a ticket or even going to jail is a lot more concrete for most people than accidents, which happen to other people.
Getting a ticket or even going to jail is a lot more concrete for most people than accidents, which happen to other people.
>There's only so far you can go to try to protect people from being idiots.
If the only people impacted were the idiots, I'd agree with you. When some 21 year old valley girl kills a 5 year old kid because she was texting, or some 50 year old investment banker runs down a pregnant woman because he was screaming at someone on his cell phone, then it's not just the idiots who get hurt. Government shouldn't protect you from your own stupidity, but it should protect other people from it.
If the only people impacted were the idiots, I'd agree with you. When some 21 year old valley girl kills a 5 year old kid because she was texting, or some 50 year old investment banker runs down a pregnant woman because he was screaming at someone on his cell phone, then it's not just the idiots who get hurt. Government shouldn't protect you from your own stupidity, but it should protect other people from it.
Ok didn't expect the rate down. I ask you who did and who've replied, how does this law protect the innocent bystanders? It's still the driver who's doing something stupid, and most of the time they only get caught when things go really really bad.
Do you want roving scan vans on highways looking at every driver on the road for these infractions? Massively increase police presence on all roads (and gl getting anyone to pay for that these days)? Yes the Fed can try to make a full electronics ban, but that won't stop people from using the devices and still causing deaths that shouldn't have happened.
People are selfish by nature. They don't care about how their actions affect anyone else. Trying to put more and more laws in place to try to stop this just leads to societies that have already existed and failed under this massive weight of "there's a law covering absolutely everything you could possibly do".
So really, what is this Fed law going to stop?
Do you want roving scan vans on highways looking at every driver on the road for these infractions? Massively increase police presence on all roads (and gl getting anyone to pay for that these days)? Yes the Fed can try to make a full electronics ban, but that won't stop people from using the devices and still causing deaths that shouldn't have happened.
People are selfish by nature. They don't care about how their actions affect anyone else. Trying to put more and more laws in place to try to stop this just leads to societies that have already existed and failed under this massive weight of "there's a law covering absolutely everything you could possibly do".
So really, what is this Fed law going to stop?
how does this law protect the innocent bystanders?
By making drivers a bit more paranoid.
Massively increase police presence on all roads
Not needed. Police manage to enforce seatbelt laws quite effectively without any special technology or vast budget increases. It's pretty easy to see when someone is using a cellphone; I notice it all the time without having any special training whatsoever. You could also use evidence of a phone/text conversation as evidence in accident lawsuits, leading to increased damages or charges of criminal negligence where it can be shown that the driver was operating a phone at the time of the accident. This would probably provide an even larger disincentive than issuing tickets: where the action is unlawful, then liability for an accident involving that activity is much easier to prove and win damages for, so the cost of causing an accident becomes much higher and insurers start looking for ways to discourage drivers from engaging in cellphone use too, such as refusing to provide coverage where it is shown that the driver was on the phone. Emergency use would still be available as an affirmative defense.
So really, what is this Fed law going to stop?
It's not a fed law, it's an encouragement to the state governments to pass laws against cellphone use (and similar). If you read the NTSB report (executive summary: http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2011/gray_summit_mo/index.ht...) you'll see that they've anticipated many of the issues you raise and considered the problem in context. Personally, I think the NTSB is one of the best government agencies, along with NIST and a few others which have a strong engineering focus.
By making drivers a bit more paranoid.
Massively increase police presence on all roads
Not needed. Police manage to enforce seatbelt laws quite effectively without any special technology or vast budget increases. It's pretty easy to see when someone is using a cellphone; I notice it all the time without having any special training whatsoever. You could also use evidence of a phone/text conversation as evidence in accident lawsuits, leading to increased damages or charges of criminal negligence where it can be shown that the driver was operating a phone at the time of the accident. This would probably provide an even larger disincentive than issuing tickets: where the action is unlawful, then liability for an accident involving that activity is much easier to prove and win damages for, so the cost of causing an accident becomes much higher and insurers start looking for ways to discourage drivers from engaging in cellphone use too, such as refusing to provide coverage where it is shown that the driver was on the phone. Emergency use would still be available as an affirmative defense.
So really, what is this Fed law going to stop?
It's not a fed law, it's an encouragement to the state governments to pass laws against cellphone use (and similar). If you read the NTSB report (executive summary: http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2011/gray_summit_mo/index.ht...) you'll see that they've anticipated many of the issues you raise and considered the problem in context. Personally, I think the NTSB is one of the best government agencies, along with NIST and a few others which have a strong engineering focus.
Your arguments pretty much apply to drunk driving, don't they?
We need laws that focus on drivers, not the devices. There are plenty of ways to be distracted while driving. There are also reasonable ways to manage some of these distractions if you understand the risks. Saying "you can't do that" to specific items isn't going to fix the problem, because most people just don't get it. Driver education is severely lacking in the US. Now there's a space where we could use some innovative start ups.
One possibility is that if you're in an accident, and it can be proven you were on the cell phone at the time, that the presumption will be that you're at fault for the accident. Even more, your insurance would not be on the hook for any claims.
This should be a fair discouragement for the practice.
This should be a fair discouragement for the practice.
It took a decade or so of driving and killing for the first laws against drunk driving to be passed (1910). It took another 20 years (1930s) to really work out what "inebriated" meant in a legal context and set definite limits. Another 30-40 years passed before the "inebriated" limit got refined enough to have its greatest impact (impaired vs. stumbling drunk).
Please pass the law, then in 10 years we can all laugh about how people used to actually drive a car while talking on a cell phone as if that was acceptable!
(Although I hope not to be driving my own car in 10 years. That's robot work. I'll be reading a book or napping until the robot fires the "human attention required" alarm.)
Please pass the law, then in 10 years we can all laugh about how people used to actually drive a car while talking on a cell phone as if that was acceptable!
(Although I hope not to be driving my own car in 10 years. That's robot work. I'll be reading a book or napping until the robot fires the "human attention required" alarm.)
Yippee, another on-high edict completely out of touch with reality. People are just going to end up texting instead, so they aren't using the phone as long..
Does talking while driving divert some of my attention? Of course. But driving on an artificially speed limited controlled-access road (with low traffic) requires a limited amount of attention in the first place (a good chunk spent checking the mirror to avoid being hassled by the standard cop driving 95mph).
Does talking while driving divert some of my attention? Of course. But driving on an artificially speed limited controlled-access road (with low traffic) requires a limited amount of attention in the first place (a good chunk spent checking the mirror to avoid being hassled by the standard cop driving 95mph).
Banning hands-free is inane. Modern cars integrate hands-free operation very well. In many ways it's easier for me to use my integrated phone than it is the sirius radio.
True, but most people don't hold conversations with the radio.
'Yeah, so we should talk about this...hello? hello? Can you hear me now? I think going through a dead spot...how about nCRUNCH'
'Yeah, so we should talk about this...hello? hello? Can you hear me now? I think going through a dead spot...how about nCRUNCH'
[deleted]
Who will care when my Google's self driving car is the norm?
Should just have a nationwide ban on people driving cars. Let google drive us all. As long as people are allowed to drive we'll be killing each other in droves.
Does banning cell phone use while driving decrease the number of cell phone-related driving accidents? Are there numbers to back this up?
instead they'd better mandate the ultrasound radar in front of the vehicle, similar to parking sensor in the rear, yet with additional chip that would take the speed (and direction of the turn if any) into account to calculate the distance for sound&visual warning to the driver. A cheap solution to so many traffic accidents i see regularly on my commute on 101.
Actually, they did recommend that for commercial vehicles. The NTSB doesn't issue mandates because it's an investigative agency rather than an enforcement one. But none of the news reports include that information because it's boring and doesn't get as many eyeballs.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2011/gray_summit_mo/index.ht...
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2011/gray_summit_mo/index.ht...
Don't they know about autonomous cars?
Nevada (the first jurisdiction to officially allow self-driving cars) has, in fact, added an exemption to its cell phone ban for that type of vehicle.
The NTSB would probably love if autonomous cars became the norm. The rate of accidents would probably go through the floor, since most drivers suffer from a bad case of survivor bias. They actually talk about requiring more automated safety features (like collision detection for commercial vehicles) in their report.
You wouldn't be the "driver" then, would you?
Sounds like a bad idea. How would you enforce a ban on the use of hands-free devices while driving?
How do you enforce a ban on drunk driving?
Police patrols identify drivers who're driving erratically, video them if they're holding a handset, then pull them over. If not holding a handset, then (a) it's possible to detect cellphone emissions and pull over those who are driving without passengers, or (b) dangerous driving constitutes Probable Cause for pulling the driver's cellphone usage log to see if it was in use while the vehicle was in motion.
(It's labour-intensive, but it's not rocket science.)
Police patrols identify drivers who're driving erratically, video them if they're holding a handset, then pull them over. If not holding a handset, then (a) it's possible to detect cellphone emissions and pull over those who are driving without passengers, or (b) dangerous driving constitutes Probable Cause for pulling the driver's cellphone usage log to see if it was in use while the vehicle was in motion.
(It's labour-intensive, but it's not rocket science.)
Wouldn't it be better to forgo the ban on hands-free devices, and instead just direct the police to pull over and ticket people who are driving recklessly? Scanning for cellphone emissions sounds expensive and, as you said, labor intensive. I'm also not sure if that's currently legal.
I suppose I don't want to see the police patrols spending all of their time trying to enforce a ban on this one source of distraction. Instead of ticketing people for engaging in one behavior which makes them more likely to drive recklessly, just go after the people who are driving recklessly.
I suppose I don't want to see the police patrols spending all of their time trying to enforce a ban on this one source of distraction. Instead of ticketing people for engaging in one behavior which makes them more likely to drive recklessly, just go after the people who are driving recklessly.
Yes, but you don't want to re-litigate what constitutes recklessness in every case. Take drunk driving: a fixed threshold of blood alcohol content (0.08) is a rather crude threshold and takes little account of individual driving performance, but it would be expensive and time-consuming to objectively measure every motorist's baseline performance, degree of impairment, and so on in every case involving DUI. It's already difficult in that smart lawyers will challenge the accuracy and correct configuration of the breathalyzer equipment - as they should - and drivers who test just barely over the limit can often be acquitted or have their charges dropped. On the plus side, the arbitrariness of the threshold not only simplifies prosecutions where users are clearly very far over it, it also dissuades people from approaching the threshold by discouraging them from drinking and driving at all; thus the perception that a DUI charge is a big headache acts effectively to discourage the unwanted behavior. The fact that alcohol intake is objectively measurable, even if impairment is not, provides clarity about both the nature of the proscribed behavior and the risk of liability if one engages in it.
Interestingly, it appears that states where medical marijuana is legal see a lower rate of fatal traffic accidents; stoned drivers are thought to be more cautious than normal, and over-compensate for their psychomotor impariment by driving more slowly and waiting longer at stop signs: http://hometestingblog.testcountry.com/?p=17893
Interestingly, it appears that states where medical marijuana is legal see a lower rate of fatal traffic accidents; stoned drivers are thought to be more cautious than normal, and over-compensate for their psychomotor impariment by driving more slowly and waiting longer at stop signs: http://hometestingblog.testcountry.com/?p=17893
I think this is fine, because of course it's dangerous, but the same should go for many other activities behind the wheel. Eating, doing your makeup, any kind of reading... cell phone usage is so not the only thing distracting drivers behind the wheel.
Let's ban talking and adjusting the radio, lest you face the wrath of prison/thousands of dollars in fines.
I'm not sure you can argue that these are the same thing.
When you're talking to someone in the car, they can react to traffic and act as a second set of eyes for you. And, you're not struggling to hear them over all the noise injected by our 1990s-era cell phone networks. Finally, passengers in your car do not suddenly ring, giving you only a few seconds to acknowledge something potentially important (distracting you from the road). I've seen people when their phone rings; they go into crisis mode and mentally drop everything until they've answered the phone or decided to ignore the call. When you're driving, you can't do that. And it's something a passenger wouldn't require you to do.
As for the radio; you have the opportunity to adjust it at your leisure, typically without even moving your hands off the steering wheel. It's simply not as distracting as a phone call.
Passengers and the radio are dangerous, but not as dangerous as talking on your phone.
When you're talking to someone in the car, they can react to traffic and act as a second set of eyes for you. And, you're not struggling to hear them over all the noise injected by our 1990s-era cell phone networks. Finally, passengers in your car do not suddenly ring, giving you only a few seconds to acknowledge something potentially important (distracting you from the road). I've seen people when their phone rings; they go into crisis mode and mentally drop everything until they've answered the phone or decided to ignore the call. When you're driving, you can't do that. And it's something a passenger wouldn't require you to do.
As for the radio; you have the opportunity to adjust it at your leisure, typically without even moving your hands off the steering wheel. It's simply not as distracting as a phone call.
Passengers and the radio are dangerous, but not as dangerous as talking on your phone.
How do you know these (other people, radio, etc) aren't as distracting? Is there any research?
Yes, there is lots of research - see above: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3349117
Road accidents are expensive for the public finances - think of all the mergency workers and medical expenses multiplied by the large number of road accidents. That really adds up over a year, which is a big reason we have such a thing as a 'national transportation safety board' in the first place.
The most recent stats (2009) show about 30,0000 fatalities a year (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx). Thirty thousand deaths! Even in a country with a population of ~300m, that's a lot. On the plus side, it's fallen by about a third over the last 15 years. The most recent fall is probably linked to a loss of economic activity and the rising rice of gas, but regulation of vehicle construction and the like has played a big part too. Consider the loss to the economy of 30,000 people a year, plus the cost of people who are 'just' injured; there's no #s on that FARS page but I've seen estimates of $250-350 billion a year, which is near 2% of GDP. Put another way, if the ~30% drop in fatalities shown at the link above is a good proxy for costs, the US economy benefits to the tune of $100 billion a year. Changing driver behavior only accounts for a fraction of that, but the obvious place to start would be looking at DUI statistics.
Road accidents are expensive for the public finances - think of all the mergency workers and medical expenses multiplied by the large number of road accidents. That really adds up over a year, which is a big reason we have such a thing as a 'national transportation safety board' in the first place.
The most recent stats (2009) show about 30,0000 fatalities a year (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx). Thirty thousand deaths! Even in a country with a population of ~300m, that's a lot. On the plus side, it's fallen by about a third over the last 15 years. The most recent fall is probably linked to a loss of economic activity and the rising rice of gas, but regulation of vehicle construction and the like has played a big part too. Consider the loss to the economy of 30,000 people a year, plus the cost of people who are 'just' injured; there's no #s on that FARS page but I've seen estimates of $250-350 billion a year, which is near 2% of GDP. Put another way, if the ~30% drop in fatalities shown at the link above is a good proxy for costs, the US economy benefits to the tune of $100 billion a year. Changing driver behavior only accounts for a fraction of that, but the obvious place to start would be looking at DUI statistics.
The existing laws (I'm in San Francisco) are completely ignored and unenforced as it is. I see people using their cell phones while driving all the time. I'm sure the cops have better things to do with their days than pull over people talking on their cell phones. As a result, I'm now trained to really watch out for drivers who are on phones because I know they are dangerous and not paying attention.
I feel that even hands-free is distracting to drivers, I know it is distracting for me and I'm a great driver. If I need to use the phone while in the car, I either hand the phone to my wife, I pull over or I just hold off until I get to my destination.