Transportation Secretary Wants To Ban All Driver Talking (Except To Other Passengers)

from the yeah,-that'll-work dept

Just after new evidence has come out showing that various driving-while-texting bans have had the opposite effect, by causing people to just keep on texting, but do so by holding their phone lower so cops can't see it (but also so they are paying even less attention to the road), Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood now wants to make our roads even more dangerous by trying to ban pretty much all driver talking in a car, with the exception (so far) of talking to other passengers. He wants to ban all mobile phone talking by drivers, even if it's handsfree, and he wants to extend that to vehicle information systems like OnStar or GPS systems.

Again, we've discussed repeatedly that we agree such things can be quite dangerous, though you can argue if talking to OnStar or to someone on the phone is really that much more dangerous than talking to a passenger. However, it's becoming increasingly clear that these sorts of laws don't actually help. They don't stop people from doing these actions, and seem to only get more people doing them in even more dangerous ways. Continuing down this path, that already doesn't work, is a huge mistake, and you would think that someone in a position like LaHood would actually pay attention to the evidence that this isn't working, and wouldn't suggest making the problem worse.

Of course, if this ban does go into effect, and the reports of accidents continue to rise, how long will it be until LaHood also bans talking to passengers in your car?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 7:39am

    yes yes yes

    damn ya like that ( as the man drove down the road )

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    TasMot, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 7:46am

    And how do we watch the watchers?

    Maryland's "No texting while driving law" has gone into affect and who do we catch texting while driving? A Baltimore County cop in a patrol car, looking down at his phone held down near the passenger seat while he is driving his patrol car past White Marsh Mall (a very busy area of course)!

    Where's my camera when I need one?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    fogbugzd (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 7:50am

    Google Car

    If a Google car is being driven by a computer, would that computer be allowed to talk to other computers while driving?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 7:50am

    Google/Stanford will enable the jackass to pass a law prohibiting humans to drive :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Idobek (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:06am

    What about signing along to the radio?

    A happy habit of many a lone driver might soon cause many to be pulled over by the police?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Mark B (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:09am

    What about professionals like taxi drivers, delivery drivers, ambulance, etc... Are they no longer allowed to talk to their dispatchers?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    ComputerAddict (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:10am

    Easy Solution,

    No officer I wasn't talking on my handsfree I was simply talking to myself.

    Just like, No officer I wasn't texting on my iPhone, I was selecting a new album on the iPod app. (only works for states without bans on "all electronic devices")

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:10am

    So cabbies, police, emergency response, truckers, tow drivers, package delivery, Secret Service, military, maintenance crews, and bus drivers, to name a few, can only talk to their passengers according to this guy? I mean, they're squawking away with dispatchers all the time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Joseph Durnal, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:11am

    Exemptions, etc

    Have you seen some of the exemptions written into some of the state laws that exempt just about any government official from the law? What makes a government official any less likely to be in an accident while talking on the telephone than you or I?

    Millions of people drive and do other things while driving every day without crashing. Should they ban GPS's? Car stereos? Smoking and driving? Really, what is the problem with checking your texts while you are stopped at a traffic light?

    This is a way for politicians to claim that they are doing something good, but it is just a claim. The next campaign ad will use it to say that as .... candidate ... saved millions of people from dying and cured cancer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:11am

    Re:

    Agh, ninja'd by Mark B. Sorry for the repeat.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    fogbugzd (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:11am

    Re: What about signing along to the radio?

    I think that is already illegal. Someone might read your lips, and that would be a public performance.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    fogbugzd (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:11am

    Re: What about signing along to the radio?

    I think that is already illegal. Someone might read your lips, and that would be a public performance.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Bengie, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:12am

    I know

    They should do something similar to a breath-a-lizer.

    If you get into an accident and near the time of the accident your cell phone was in use, then they take away your cell phone, give you some shitty cell phone and while your car is moving, your cell phone won't work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Darby, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:12am

    Silly Rule

    Reminds me of a list of "Company Rules" at my 1st job in 1971. Along with Alcohol Consumption and fighting, was Reading on the Job. We had a running joke that the Company couldn't hold many mistakes against us since we weren't allowed to read the prohibitions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:15am

    Talking to passengers

    you can argue if talking to OnStar or to someone on the phone is really that much more dangerous than talking to a passenger.

    You could, but since there have been studies showing it is more dangerous, you should probably bring some evidence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:15am

    OH! We should ban kids in cars too, they are distracting as all get out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:18am

    Is this really about insurance companies not having to pay?

    I have found with most politicians and "their" proposals you just need to follow the money, so where does the money lead here? Are the insurance companies pressuring him so that they can find a way not to pay claims? You just need to find the motive folks!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Spaceman Spiff (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:25am

    Something to it - not talking while driving

    They call id DWD - Driving While Distracted. The only time I ever had an accident involving another vehicle (over 40 years ago) was when I was distracted by talking with some Latina hitchhikers I picked up on the Pacific Coast Highway in California. Perhaps we should just put the driver in a sound-proofed compartment with no view of the passenger area... Distractions happen. It is the driver's responsibility to keep their attention on the road and conditions. Nothing that outside agencies do can change that, and there will ALWAYS be things competing for our attention.

    So, I guess I am saying that regulations should punish drivers ex post facto - after an accident - if they are guilty of exhibiting bad judgment, but not before the fact just because there is something distracting in their environment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:27am

    Re: Something to it - not talking while driving

    "The only time I ever had an accident involving another vehicle (over 40 years ago) was when I was distracted by talking with some Latina hitchhikers I picked up on the Pacific Coast Highway in California."

    Sir, you and I can hang out anytime, anywhere....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    justok (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:27am

    Bad Idea

    I think this is a bad idea.
    --Posted from my BMW

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Randy, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:31am

    distractions while driving

    I think they should ban the sirens and flashing lights on those police cars. Man, they are so distracting when they are on my back bumper.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Ron (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:32am

    Still holds:

    ... If you're driving then your attention should be on driving, not on the other stuff going on inside the car or talking on the phone, etc. If you need to do something that distracts you from paying attention to the road, traffic, etc. then find a safe place to pull off and do what needs to be done. There's nothing so important that it's worth risking your life or the lives of those around you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    kryptonianjorel (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:32am

    Re: And how do we watch the watchers?

    Its only a secondary offense. You can text while a cop is watching, but if he doesn't have a reason to pull you over in the first place, he can't ticket you for the cell phone

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Pickle Monger (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:34am

    How low can we go?

    How soon 'til there's a law that makes it illegal to sing along with the car stereo?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Ryan Diederich, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:34am

    There is a problem....

    Texting can be very dangerous, just like other things and speeding. Do speeding laws stop people from speeding? No. Stupid people cause accidents, not because they were texting or speeding, but because they were stupid.

    Ban stupid people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Pips, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:40am

    Makes sense.

    Makes sense, they've shown hands free is actually far more dangerous than talking on a cell phone in your hand because you get a false sense of security and end up piling into the back of a stopped truck a lot more than if you had not been on the phone to begin with. Holding a phone in your hand makes you aware that you're on the phone, so it's not quite as dangerous, but either method of talking is a distraction.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Michael, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:41am

    Re: Something to it - not talking while driving

    "when I was distracted by talking with some Latina hitchhikers I picked up on the Pacific Coast Highway in California"

    Those Latina hitchhikers are always distracting to me too.


    Hey, didn't Homer Simpson invent the car you are talking about?
    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images.loqu.com/contents/821/153/image/C/U2148P2D T20080626081320(1).jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.loqu.com/ford-nuclear-reactor-top-10-craziest-concep t-car/blogs/american-1206&h=282&w=494&sz=23&tbnid=-McOHJBF8pCVDM:&tbnh=74&tb nw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhomer%2Bsimpson%2Bcar&zoom=1&q=homer+simpson+car&hl=en& ;usg=__LTrjAxW8ciuIAXiwS89h9lel_vU=&sa=X&ei=sYG0TMB6wvrwBuncpIcM&ved=0CCwQ9QEwAg

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Michael, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:46am

    Re: distractions while driving

    I cannot find it, but there was a study about rear-end traffic accidents on highways in CT a few years back and the vast majority were the result of traffic slow-downs due to other accident scenes, police having someone pulled over, and construction.

    The study was something about the ripple effect of traffic slowing.

    So, I agree - let's get the vehicles with lights off of the roads because they are a real problem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Michael, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 8:52am

    Re: Still holds:

    So what do you consider "too distracting"?

    Can I adjust the volume on the radio? What about putting down my sun visor when the sun gets into my eyes? Oh - turning on the wipers or lights?

    Drivers are all different and different tasks have a varying effect on their attention to the road. Outlawing all distracting behavior is not really feasible. It is a distracting world. Read a billboard lately?

    We already have laws that say we can get fined for driving poorly. Making the punishments more harsh may work. Incentives for driving well are probably more effective. Making sure cars are safe in the event of an accident is likely to be more real-world useful. Outlawing talking on a hands-free device pretty unlikely to be useful in making us safer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 9:14am

    Re: Re: Still holds:

    We already have laws that say we can get fined for driving poorly. Making the punishments more harsh may work.

    I've read that harsher punishments are not a very effective deterrent, but increasing the chance of getting caught is. Unfortunately, harsher punishments are cheap and easy, while adding more police to the roads is expensive and (politically at least) difficult.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    BBT, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 9:16am

    Re: Re: distractions while driving

    That's not really accurate. The vast majority (all?) were the result of dumbfuck drivers tailgating.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 9:18am

    Re: Re: Still holds:

    You're not even thinking of distracting things *outside* of the car. I should probably pull over every time I see one of those LCD billboards. Oh no! If I pull over too quickly, I'll be stuck forever!!

    I think we can safely assume that Google is the financial backing of this and all other ridiculous driving laws, to pave the way for their self-driving cars. (After sitting in ~2hrs/day of bumper to bumper traffic for 4 years, I'm ready for a car that drives itself!)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 9:33am

    Missin' the point

    You're all kind of missing the point here..... laws like this enable 2 things:
    1/ The appearance of doign something useful rather than really dealing with congenstion and other road issues - "it's all those evil drivers' faults"
    2/ You can *charge* people for doing something and generate revenue from it. "Oh no... it's all about road safety really"

    /cynicism

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Another User, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 9:34am

    Ban People

    Lets just ban drivers from cars and you will no longer have accidents. /s

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 9:40am

    Traffic safety laws are almost universally the province of the states, and not the federal government. I have never had the "FBI" issue me a ticket for a moving violation.

    Seems to me this would be an unprecedented stretch of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause and almost immediately challenged in court, as is currently the case with provisions of the federal health care legislation.

    I wonder what would be the reaction if this subject was raised at The Volokh Conspiracy?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    joha0193 (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 9:55am

    Billboards

    We should probably ban billboards while we're at it. They are designed to take our attention off the road. Oh wait, they generate revenue for media companies that pay off legislators, so I guess they're off limits.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Joseph Durnal, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 10:02am

    Re:

    Traffic safety laws are almost universally the province of the states

    Not really, the feds just threaten to return less of your federal tax dollars to your state if they don't do what the feds want.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    tbuskey, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 10:03am

    Mandatory seatbelt or car won't start

    This reminds me of when seatbelts started getting required in the 70's.

    People were not using seatbelts while driving or as passengers. Air bags didn't exist yet. I don't think there were laws requiring people to use them yet. Kids didn't use booster seats.

    Some car makers started putting in sensors that wouldn't let the car start unless you were buckled in. Another had something attached to the door that moved up to your shoulder after you closed the door.

    People would leave the belt clicked and sit on top of it. Some figured out a way to slide out of it after starting. Some disabled the sensors however they could.

    Now we have airbags and a good portion of the population wears seatbelts. Kids and grand kids admonish their elders to wear them. They always wear the seatbelts. And cars no longer have ignition locks on seatbelt use. Just the buzzer that tells you you're not wearing one.

    This will happen to texting/cell phone use too....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Ron (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 10:14am

    Re: Re: Still holds:

    I stand by my original statement: If what you're going to do distracts you from the primary task of driving the vehicle then don't do it. If changing the volume of the radio cannot be done safely, then don't. If pulling down your visor interferes with safe driving then don't (although, one might consider that if a person cannot safely do that task then maybe that person should not be driving at all). Your primary goal is to safely drive the vehicle, not to engage in phone conversations, texting, searching for a radio station, etc. And, I said nothing about new laws. This is something for which PEOPLE have to take responsibility. Laws will not necessarily make for safer drivers. And, certainly banning little bits piece by piece will do nothing of real value.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Ron (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 10:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Still holds:

    I would love to see billboards banned. And, if not all then at least the ones that have mothion etc. Those are highly distracting. And, they are generally fairly ugly as well.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 10:22am

    Re: Re: And how do we watch the watchers?

    I assume this post is referring to Maryland's backwards law? Maryland has it as a secondary offense. Neighboring Washington, DC (as well as California, Connecticut, Deleware, New Jersey, New York and Oregon) has talking on a cell phone without a hands-free device as a primary offense which CAN get you pulled over and ticketed.

    http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 10:25am

    Re: distractions while driving

    Plus, it's really a buzz-killer! I'd have to speed to make sure I was able to get to the liquor store before they close!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    Jon Snow (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 10:26am

    Passengers actually help

    Can't find the reference just now, but I remember hearing a bit on the radio a couple weeks ago that some new research is actually showing that having a passenger (not a kid I assume) can actually help the driver. Something about passengers reacting to things happening on the road in ways that the driver might subconsiously pick up on -- like stopping talking when another car gets too close.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 10:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Still holds:

    Challenging your original statement, what makes you believe that talking on the phone distracts all drivers equally? Some people are quite able to focus on the road and handle their vehicles better than many who can't. Others shouldn't be tasked with chewing gum and operating an electric can-opener.

    This is not a matter of "laws", this is a matter of consequence. We get it that a law on banning things you deem inappropriate is well-intentioned, but that does not make it "right". If the law does not fix the consequences (and initial reports on texting bans suggest they even make things worse as offenders will take their eyes ENTIRELY off the road to text from their laps, etc), it is a BAD LAW and should be repealed and replaced ONLY when you can demonstrate that a better solution to the problem exists.

    I don't advocate texting while driving, or ignore the benefits of some sort of a rule against them, but if the PEOPLE are the concern, I suggest it is the people who are to demonstrate their ability or inability to multi-task and consequences should be determined based on the findings at the time for the individual. And again, it's a matter of enforcement, not new laws. Plenty of laws already exist for distracted driving, and I propose this narrow subcategory of specific distractions is more harmful than beneficial.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 10:38am

    NEW BILL

    bans the real problem , motorized vehicles
    WALK YOU LAZY bastas

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 11:03am

    Re: Mandatory seatbelt or car won't start

    Since you brought it up-- I don't understand how any form of our government can make it illegal to put myself into danger. How does *not* wearing a seatbelt hurt someone else?

    I *do* wear my seatbelt, btw, but not because I'll get a ticket if I don't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 11:26am

    Re: Re: Mandatory seatbelt or car won't start

    If you're the only person in the car it probably won't usually make a difference, but under some circumstances you could get hit but still be able to control your car. This might give you a chance to avoid or minimize another impact (thus affecting other people), while if you were not belted you would get thrown around or injured and be unable to do so. How often would that happen? I have no idea.

    If there are others in the car, anyone not belted in becomes a hazard to everyone else in a collision as they are thrown around the inside of the car.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    boatcapt, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 11:35am

    txting while driving

    The issue with texting, cell phones, OnStar's and GPS's is that the driver now has to deal with multiple devices. Commercial airplanes have solved this issue - you have a pilot and co-pilot and even a navigator at times. Even military aircraft that are single seat suffer greater crash rates - some of it due to sensory overload.
    These technologies are not going to go away - we need to redesign the car and give the passengers some of the responsibility

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    ron (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 11:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Still holds:

    My original statement was: "If you need to do something that distracts you from paying attention to the road, traffic, etc. then find a safe place to pull off and do what needs to be done". I said nothing about "talking on the phone distacting all drivers equally". That was not even implied. People need to realize that the phone, textig, the radio, conversation with passengers, etc. is ALWAYS secondary to driving the vehicle. So, instead of additional laws, let's get people into the mindset that when operating a vehicle, safely driving the vehicle is THE only important thing; everything else is secondary.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 12:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Mandatory seatbelt or car won't start

    Interesting theory, but I don't buy it. If shit breaks while I'm skydiving I could land on someone and kill them, but skydiving isn't illegal. It's the same as wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle, some states require them, but I can't understand under what authority. Does the government have the ability to mandate that we not take foolish risks with our own bodies? I can't imagine it does.

    Where the hell is average_joe when I actually need that guy? :P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Dave, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 12:24pm

    Ban all talking

    I wonder if there is no passenger in the car, can you still talk to yourself? Or I wonder if the ban includes singing at the top of your lungs to the tunes on the radio. Oh I know listening to music should also be banned because that would cause us to sing to something and get distracted from driving.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    ltlw0lf (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 1:01pm

    Re: There is a problem....

    Ban stupid people.

    That is a good idea, then there would be no traffic problems as most of the folks out there wouldn't be driving. Depending on how high you set the bar (do you include even smart people that occasionally do stupid things?) that may include just about everyone. Of course, how do you enforce the ban? Many police officers (at least 50%, if we are talking about putting the bar at 51% on an IQ scale,) may not fall into the smart category and thus aren't able to drive either. Then again, people who drive and text/drive and phone despite there being a ban, will likely continue driving even though they are banned because of being stupid.

    I think the problem is usually that 99% of the drivers out there think they are good drivers, and can deal with distractions. Sadly, most drivers who think they are good drivers, aren't. Most folks that have taken advanced driving courses (for driving emergency vehicles,) know that the problem isn't just speed or distractions, but a combination of all sorts of problems: speed, driving too close (not giving yourself enough distance to avoid an accident,) not giving yourself a way out or having a backup plan, being distracted (day dreaming, shaving, reading, eating/drinking, fiddling with the radio, etc.,) not watching for threats further down the road (how many people only pay attention to the car or two in front of them,) and not being familiar with your location/how to get to your destination. The best drivers account for all of these...but then again, the best drivers don't tailgate, don't go faster than the normal flow of traffic, have a plan, try to remove as much distraction as possible, watch for problems far down the road, and know before they start driving how to get to their destination via multiple paths.

    I don't claim to be a good driver, nor do I think I am stupid, but I try my hardest to live by defensive driving techniques I've been taught, and part of those rules is not to talk on the cell phone and not to text.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 1:14pm

    Re: I know

    I have often wondered why the insurance companies haven't jumped on this. Charge an extra $100 a year if you use a cell phone. If you have an accident they pull the records look at the GPS an deny claim if you haven't opted for the additional coverage.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Oct 12th, 2010 @ 2:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Mandatory seatbelt or car won't start

    It's the same as wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle, some states require them, but I can't understand under what authority.

    I agree with you about motorcycle helmets, there is no good reason for those laws. Though why you would want to drive a motorcycle without one, especially on the highway, is beyond me. Supporters probably trot out something about burdens on public health care when people get hurt and their insurance doesn't cover it. I wouldn't find that to be justification. Perhaps require adequate insurance in order to register a motorcycle, and that would solve that problem.

    Also, don't text while driving a motorcycle. :-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Yeah Right, Oct 12th, 2010 @ 2:59pm

    Passengers actually help

    Having a passenger can actually help the driver. Something about passengers reacting to things happening on the road in ways that the driver might subconsiously pick up on -- like stopping talking when another car gets too close.

    I'll have to tell my wife about this. She just screams and digs her nails in my arm.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    alternatives(), Oct 13th, 2010 @ 12:39am

    Re: How low can we go?

    Finally - a use for my impromptu (and lousy) skill of adapting a conversation to pop lyrics.

    I'm posting a message on tech dirt
    It stops from getttinnnnngg
    other work done
    other work done

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Oct 13th, 2010 @ 5:12am

    Re: NEW BILL

    Was it NYC where it is now an offense to walk and talk at the same time ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    A Dan (profile), Oct 13th, 2010 @ 10:31am

    Re: Still holds:

    I tend to find that focusing completely on driving and having nothing else to distract me raises fatigue. Talking with passengers helps you stay awake and aware on long drives, and other things (like singing to the radio or, potentially, talking on the phone) can have the same effect.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    A Dan (profile), Oct 13th, 2010 @ 12:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Still holds:

    You could consider a different state, if you like one of the options: Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii, and Maine ban billboards, according to Wikipedia.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 13th, 2010 @ 2:46pm

    And the Earth is Flat

    though you can argue if talking to OnStar or to someone on the phone is really that much more dangerous than talking to a passenger.

    Plenty of scientific studies have shown that it is, but I guess you could argue otherwise any. Just like you can argue that the Earth is flat. Though it only makes you look ignorant to do so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 13th, 2010 @ 3:01pm

    Re: Exemptions, etc

    Have you seen some of the exemptions written into some of the state laws that exempt just about any government official from the law?

    One of the most egregious one's I remember was the federal law against the possession of child pornography passed by Congress that, of course, exempted Congress. I guess they just didn't want to give it up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 13th, 2010 @ 3:04pm

    Re: Re: I know

    If you have an accident they pull the records look at the GPS blah blah blah...

    Ummm, you do realize that not all cell phones have GPS and that it can usually be turned off on those that do, don't you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 13th, 2010 @ 3:06pm

    Re:

    OH! We should ban kids in cars too, they are distracting as all get out.

    Or maybe we could pass a law that they have to be belted down. Nah, such a law would never pass.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 13th, 2010 @ 3:10pm

    Re: Re: Still holds:

    Drivers are all different and different tasks have a varying effect on their attention to the road.

    Like some people can drive just fine drunk and others can't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 13th, 2010 @ 3:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Still holds:

    Challenging your original statement, what makes you believe that talking on the phone distracts all drivers equally?

    It doesn't. Neither does alcohol.

    Some people are quite able to focus on the road and handle their vehicles better than many who can't.

    And some people are quite able to drink and drive better than others can drive even without drinking.

    This is not a matter of "laws", this is a matter of consequence. We get it that a law on banning things you deem inappropriate is well-intentioned, but that does not make it "right". If the law does not fix the consequences (and initial reports on texting bans suggest they even make things worse as offenders will take their eyes ENTIRELY off the road to text from their laps, etc), it is a BAD LAW and should be repealed and replaced ONLY when you can demonstrate that a better solution to the problem exists.

    And the drunk driving laws are all bad and should be repealed too, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 13th, 2010 @ 3:20pm

    Re: Re: Still holds:

    I tend to find that focusing completely on driving and having nothing else to distract me raises fatigue.

    A little meth will combat the fatigue and make you a better driver too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2010 @ 1:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Still holds:

    "And the drunk driving laws are all bad and should be repealed too, right?"

    Actually yes. The same argument holds - banning something that affects different people differently and is synonymous with many other effects that could not be possibly banned (driving while tired?) is pretty silly IMO.

    On the other hand it *should* be a factor in the secondary case. If you knowingly get behind the wheel when drunk or drugged and injure someone in the process it should be considered attempted murder and pre-meditated.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2010 @ 3:47am

    next thing you know they will ban masterbation while driving.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 14th, 2010 @ 3:54am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Still holds:

    On the other hand it *should* be a factor in the secondary case. If you knowingly get behind the wheel when drunk or drugged and injure someone in the process it should be considered attempted murder and pre-meditated.

    And the same should be applied to yakking while driving too then, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    iffath@tamaki, Jul 2nd, 2012 @ 2:10am

    cly

    Our high quality Wireless Tow Lights is very affordable, cheap and easy to install.also you can find here
    Battery powered tow lights.
    wireless tow lights
    wireless trailer lights
    Wireless signal lights
    tail light system
    signal lights
    Tail lights
    tow lights

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This