

Is NTSB call for ban on electronics for drivers realistic? - junioreven
http://www.itworld.com/mobile-wireless/232973/ntsb-call-ban-electronics-drivers-realistic

======
cjoh
We don't need to ban electronics for drivers. We need to ban drivers from
cars. Banning electronics to prevent tragic accidents is like banning
cigarette lighters to prevent lung cancer. Our roads are littered with death:

<http://map.itoworld.com/road-casualties-usa#>

The solution? Self driving cars. I'm convinced that every dime we spend on any
transportation-related activity besides the self-driving car is a waste of
time. Every year, about 30,000 people die from fatal crashes:

<http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx>

That's twice the number of people who die of AIDS in any given year:

<http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm>

Electronics aren't the enemy. Drivers are.

~~~
benjiweber
Alternatively switch from cars to a combination of trains and bicycles.

In much of Europe there's no need to own a car at all. Towns have grown up
around railway stations, and shops are close enough to walk/cycle.

The problem in the US seems to be that homes/workplaces have been built up
around roads instead of rail infrastructure.

~~~
GertG
That's actually too rosy a picture of the situation in Europe. While indeed
many people have no objective need to own a car, most families do own at least
one. We might not have quite the ridiculous amount of cars as the Americans,
but large parts of Europe are not that far behind. [1]

More importantly - since this discussion is about driver behavior - if you
look at traffic deaths per vehicle, per driven kilometer, or even per
inhabitant, the US do better than a lot of European countries. [2] I'm sure
that the total disregard for the existing bans on cellphones [3] for drivers
is a factor here.

Also, regrettably, Europeans are repeating the mistake that I hear some US
cities are now regretting: building giant shopping areas outside the city
centers, thereby destroying commerce in those centers and worsening the
traffic situation. In one particularly megalomaniac example [4] they want to
build a giant shopping center right next to one of the busiest roads in
Belgium (the ring around Brussels), less than 10km away from several existing
and perfectly fine city centers.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_p...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita)
[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-
re...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-
related_death_rate) [3] <http://www.cellular-news.com/car_bans/> [4]
[http://www.uplace.eu/Default.aspx?PageID=166&Culture=nl](http://www.uplace.eu/Default.aspx?PageID=166&Culture=nl)

------
mberning
How stupid to vilify one source of distraction. They should also condemn
driving with a friend in the passenger seat, driving with children, driving
with a pet, listening to the radio, billboard advertisements near roadways,
etc.

We live in a society based on cowardice, fear, and a desire to be 'safe' at
all costs.

~~~
orangecat
It's actually less stupid than the state-level bans that allow hands-free
devices. Holding the phone isn't the problem; it's the mental distraction
caused by talking to someone who doesn't share your environment.

That said, I still oppose this proposal. It's impossible to enforce without
invasive hardware and software requirements, and it would inevitably be abused
by cops needing to meet their quotas, e.g. ticketing people who are texting or
checking maps at red lights.

~~~
jmagar
I think you are mistaken on the "Holding the phone isn't the problem;" (mental
distraction seems correct though) I suggest a quick test for you: 1) Grab the
edge of your display like it's the steering wheel 2) with your other hand hold
your phone to your ear 3) try to check both blind spots without moving your
hands

The freedom of movement is impaired with your elbow in the awkward position.
Also when I do it, my elbow and hand blocks my view to the blind spot on that
side.

~~~
GertG
Actually, studies really show there's no difference between hands-free and
hand-held. See e.g.
[http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/2006083010503...](http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/20060830105036.html)

I assume the obvious physical limitation makes at least some drivers more
aware that they should keep some focus on the road.

------
drcube
Eating while driving and driving while tired are just as dangerous as driving
drunk. The fact that everybody does the former is why they are still legal. We
simply have to face the fact that as long as people still drive themselves,
roads are inherently dangerous. If people want to make roads safer, they
should push for open-source software that drives cars rather than people.

~~~
shasta
If all of these things are "as dangerous as driving drunk", the threshold for
being considered drunk is too low.

~~~
drcube
I agree. .08 is hardly tipsy. MADD is a powerful lobby.

~~~
viraptor
I don't. Different people have different tolerance and response. I could be
fine after a couple of beers years ago when I was a typical drunk student. Now
I drink probably less than once a month and feel dizzy after a single one.

What's the reason for setting any limit though? Why would you want to drink
and think if you're still safe, on the border or not safe already? I like the
limit of 0.00 and really don't see a reason to set it differently.

~~~
shasta
Also people shouldn't be able to drive on less than 8 hours of sleep, on
allergy medicine, over the age of 65, when it's dark, or when it's raining.
Better safe than sorry.

~~~
viraptor
Maybe not 8, but yes, they shouldn't. There's also a reason why some pills are
labelled "do not drive after taking these". You can get your license taken
away (depends on a country) when you're not able to see, react or think
correctly anymore. You should avoid driving in heavy rain or at night if
possible.

Most of these are a reasonable advice (apart from the age limit) that I
thought is common knowledge. Pretty much what was taught on my driving course
years ago. Do you disagree with those points?

~~~
shasta
No. Where we disagree is on what the law should be.

------
windexh8er
The NTSB will then have to ban: talking (to anyone in the car since the
distraction is iplied as being the mental distraction of conversation),
listening to music, eating, application of makeup, and smoking to name a few.
Next up will be only allowing windows to be rolled down while the car is not
in motion or in an emergency situation.

Bottom line - if people aren't making new legislation (i.e. controls) they are
looked upon as doing nothing. So they do 'something' which is the next step of
control up from the last. This translates into a slow erosion (the boiled frog
analogy) of our overall freedom. The United States is ridiculous in it's
ludicrous enforcement of things that have little impact in the overall state
of affairs.

Nader did us all a favor by putting 3-point belts in cars - that saved lives.
But he never told us we had to wear them. Let nature takes it's course, I like
my life as a choose-your-own-adventure not as a marionette.

$0.02.

~~~
colanderman
_The NTSB will then have to ban: talking_

The studies on which they're basing their decision specifically find talking
on a phone to be much more distracting than talking to a passenger.

~~~
windexh8er
How about a screaming child in the back seat with only the driver in the car?
Maybe that child is old enough to unbuckle themselves. Is that more
distracting than talking to passengers?

I find it odd that people feel they will be safer with legislation like this.
The NTSB is making their point through scenario specific testing and while it
is interesting research it doesn't reflect other real world situations that
may be even more distracting than phones.

~~~
colanderman
_How about a screaming child in the back seat with only the driver in the
car?_

That's not exactly something that you need to focus on.

 _Maybe that child is old enough to unbuckle themselves._

Fortunately that's already illegal!

------
unpolloloco
Accident and death rates have been falling since the 70s, even through the
past decade as cell phone usage exploded. Is cell phone usage really as big a
problem as it's made out to be?

~~~
GertG
23% of all US car accidents are caused by cell phone use. [1] That's 1.3
million crashes per year. I'd call that a big problem.

[1]
[http://www.nsc.org/Pages/NSCestimates16millioncrashescausedb...](http://www.nsc.org/Pages/NSCestimates16millioncrashescausedbydriversusingcellphonesandtexting.aspx)

------
crikli
Makers could disable texting if the phone is moving > 5 mph. Easily defeated
and annoying, yes, but marginally less stupid than trying to legislate a
change in behavior.

~~~
onemoreact
It's ok for passengers to text, just not drivers.

------
danellis
The sole exceptions in the proposed ban are GPS devices and emergency calls.
So that rules out listening to the radio, then? Oddly enough, NPR didn't
mention that.

~~~
drcube
Why make any exceptions at all? If it's too dangerous, it's too dangerous.

People who demand these laws just want to look down on others while not
inconveniencing themselves.

------
recursive
What about pacemakers?

