The National Transportation Safety Board is calling for every state "to ban the non-emergency use of portable electronic devices for all drivers." National Highway Transportation Safety Administration data say that distraction-affected crashes kill 3,092 people each year, about a hundred more people every year than al-Qaeda killed on September 11, 2011.
Alas, killing fellow Americans for our craving for 24/7 connection is not the moral equivalent of jihad; it's just the friendly exercise of our God-given right to drive however the heck we want to. We can trample the Constitution out of Muslim terrorists, but tell folks to shut up and drive, and you're an evil nanny-stater.
Slippery slopers occasionally argue that if we ban cell phone conversations in the car, we have to ban conversations with passengers as well. A distraction is a distraction, right?
Wrong. Communicating remotely with someone on the phone differs significantly from communicating with someone who shares your physical space and situation in the car:
Of course, drivers don't have to be using cellphones to have conversations — they talk with passengers all the time. But talking to an adult passenger doesn't involve the same risk as a phone conversation, researchers said. That's because passengers are engaged in the driving experience with the driver. If they see a danger, they'll usually warn the driver. Passengers also tend to instinctually adjust their conversation to the level of traffic and other difficulties confronting the driver [Joan Lowy, "Research Shows Hands-Free Phones Just as Risky," AP via Yahoo News, 2011.12.15].
So quit griping about the nanny state and look out for your fellow citizens on the road. Your phone call is not more important than your need and mine to get home alive. Hang up and drive.
I dread saying this, Cory, but I AGREE WITH YOU on banning cell phone use while driving. Cell-phone accidents have exceeded alcohol-related accidents. This decision is all about respecting our fellow-man and families who are affected by distracted driving accidents and deaths.
Drive now, Talk later!
I agree with the spirit of this proposal, but I wonder how enforceable it is.
I recall the national 55 mph speed limit under President Carter, when we faced a fuel shortage. I also remember a certain country song called "Convoy." People disobeyed the law in such great numbers that the troopers couldn't keep up. In Connecticut where I lived at the time, the speed limits were posted as 55 mph, but the troopers didn't enforce any speeding unless you went over 70. Seems even the troopers thought the law was stupid, and figuratively thumbed their noses at it (and the people who composed it and passed it).
In rural states such as ours, people will use their cell phones when they feel like it if a cop isn't in sight, and you can see a long way in most of South Dakota!
I'd rather have a law requiring cell phones to cease functioning when moving faster than a certain speed relative to the ground (and therefore relative to the antennas on the repeater towers) -- say 1 mile an hour -- except when dialing 911. We certainly have the technology to do something like that. Then there'd be no need to have cops rubber-necking on the beat, trying to identify miscreant motor-mouths.
When you pass unenforceable, restrictive laws, you cause the public to react with civil disobedience and a general rise in disrespect for the law (and the people who make the laws). That social effect, in itself, is a bad thing too, no?
The 55mph limit saved some fuel, but the real surprise was the drop in highway fatalities. Not sure if banning use of cellphones in vehicles would do the same.
What would seem to make sense would be to require all cellphones and cell systems to work with voice dialing and automatically put audio on some specified frequency on the auto radio dial when moving.
I forgot to say that voice dialing etc should not add to basic rates.
Rod, it's funny how often people "dread" agreeing with me. I must be doing something wrong in my marketing. :-)
Ah, but Doug, the problem is just as bad with hands-free systems. Remote communication is the danger.
Stan, you propose a remarkable alternative I've never heard. Speed limits on cell phones! That could work! I'll ask that you bump up that speed limit to something like 5 mph to accommodate my walking speed. I might even offer a slightly more liberal "emergency" call plan. Allow each phone 10 minutes of highway speed calling time a month. Grant that some folks might have legitimate family emergencies that don't require calling 911 but require getting a message to Mom or wife or kids immediately. You don't get daily yakkity-yak, but you get a few security minutes, just in case.
But then we get the problem of the passenger who wants to call. Dang! How do we engineer that?
What about passengers in trains or buses? In certain parts of the country they move a huge percentage of the city's population.
All it will take is one high profile accident resulting in a high death toll for a lawyer to sue and win a judgment against a cell phone company.
Back to the drawing board. Back to the nerd cave!
If purely verbal communication is the problem, Cory, then Highway Patrolmen and police must be the most dangerous drivers on the highway.