Why Not Ban Car Radios While You're At It As Well?
from the can't-legislate-away-stupidity dept
There are huge problems with driver distraction laws that try to, one-by-one, ban each and every possible type of driver distraction. As we've pointed out, they're really all trying to legislate away stupidity, and unfortunately that doesn't work. There are always more distractions... and more stupidity. The latest is that an auto safety group is asking regulators to require the various telematics systems (like OnStar) that automakers put in cars to not work while the car is in drive. It's not hard to see the problems with such a law. While dealer-installed systems are increasingly popular, there's a huge aftermarket for these things, and the regulations being pushed don't cover those. Even if they also regulate the aftermarket, it still seems likely that there will be a thriving blackmarket to make these things continue to work while you're driving. Also, if you look at the text of the proposed regulation, it certainly sounds like it could easily be extended to things like the radio as well. There are always going to be things in the automobile that are distracting to drivers (including passengers). Trying to ban each and every one isn't a solution. Focusing on better driver education and laws against bad driving make a lot more sense.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ban on Big Macs...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other items that distract driving
Speedometer
Climate control
Turning on and off windshield wipers
Turning on the rear defrost
Finding the way to turn on lights
Passengers
Turn signals
Other cars
Other drivers
Wet roads
Icy roads
Snow
On and on and on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignorance is... Re: Other items that distract driv
But hey, why let actual facts get in the way of righteous indignation and smart-aleck comments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other items that distract driving
Speedometer
Climate control
Turning on and off windshield wipers
Turning on the rear defrost
Finding the way to turn on lights
Passengers
Turn signals
Other cars
Other drivers
Wet roads
Icy roads
Snow
On and on and on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Other items that distract driving
Actually it is not gadgets and it never was and never will be. The problem is the amount of vihicles on the road today as compared with how many were on the road when it was so much safer "without the gadgets/high tech goodies". It is time to give ground traffic a nitch in the air just as airwaves are assigned to other tech and lets get on to "Back to the future", now that would take care of ground traffic and give us even more high tech vehicles that would just drive themselves. As we already know high tech gear is smarter and more safer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ban Police Radios
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ban Police Radios
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ban Police Radios
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ban children
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
auto drive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ban women
Ban the traditionally bad drivers;
Anyone under 30
African Americans
Asians
Women anyone older than 65...You know, the groups of drivers that are most likely to cause an accident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ban women
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ban women
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ban women
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ban women
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Accidents in the back seat can cause children.
Life is funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A little too far this time maybe...
The individual is always going to argue they have the 'right' to use a phone while driving but what about my 'right' not to get hit by some prat who mounts the pavement whilst trying to thumb through to a phone number?
Theres been plenty of research showing that phones are a major driver distraction and plenty of press coverage on this however people still use them - heres just one http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=524&id=958062006
I remain a bit sceptical regarding exactly how distracting a phone conversation itself is but it should be obvious to anyone that having one hand on a phone or concentrating on a gadget is going to reduce your ability to drive safely
Since the public are proven to ignore the advice (its out there, its clear, I still see people trying to navigate complex junctions, shift gears and steer with one hand on a phone) I personally think this is exactly the point you legislate
No you won't remove all possible stupidities and no you won't stop it completely but again you are reinforcing the message "this is a dumb idea" and in the event of an accident responsibility is clearly defined in law
My only hope is that they are careful with the systems referenced in this post and work with the manufacturers as I believe Ford etc are truly trying to reduce the impact of such gadgets on peoples driving, it would be a shame to throw out the baby with the bathwater
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Follow the money
This "research" by the radio industry is a little self-serving. Radio listening plummets as cellphone rate plans decrease in price. The "solution"? A ten-year PR campaign about the "dangers" of cellphones.
Here's a news flash... some drivers are safe drivers. Some are unsafe drivers. Cellphones don't change that.
I'm not sure if the print media echos the radio industry's propaganda out of sympathy or ignorance. Certainly, in-car conversation is as much (or more) distracting as cellphone conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Follow the money
Do you not think thats just a little bit tin-foil hat? I've not yet come across a piece of research by the radio industry (although I did come across several national road safty organisations)
"Here's a news flash... some drivers are safe drivers. Some are unsafe drivers. Cellphones don't change that"
Sorry but yes they do - anything that takes one of your hands off the wheel or distracts you by forcing your eyes to wander off the road makes you less safe and less able to respond quickly to an event - yes this includes eating food etc
A common falicy of many drivers is they believe that because they are good drivers they are ready for anything. If it makes you feel any better and allows you to keep your ego intact 'anything' can include other peoples dumbassed mistakes - you need to be able to respond quickly to these as well
Finally just because I can't resist a save the children reference - do you think you would respond better to a small child stepping from behind a parked car in front of your vehicle if you
a) Were looking at the road with both hands on the wheel
b) Were dialling a phone number into you phone at the time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Follow the money
Sorry but yes they do - anything that takes one of your hands off the wheel or distracts you by forcing your eyes to wander off the road makes you less safe and less able to respond quickly to an event - yes this includes eating food etc
A common falicy of many drivers is they believe that because they are good drivers they are ready for anything."
No they don't. A SAFE DRIVER pays ATTENTION TO DRIVING, not to the
distractions in the car. A SAFE DRIVER expends the attention to drive, and
not to fiddle, preloads the CD player before leaving the driveway, and pulls
over when they absolutely need to take/make that call.
Someone who thinks they're good enuff to add distractions isn't a SAFE driver, they are a distracted driver.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Follow the money
Like changing gears? Looking at the speedometer, or your mirrors?
Geeze, people, get over it. 100% of people will never pay 100% attention to the road. In fact, I would say no one pays 100% attention to the road at all times.
I would also wager that, while driving a stick shift in city traffic and talking on a cell phone, I am a safer driver than a significant portion of the population. Compare those driving and reaction times to the average elderly person in a similar situation (hell, give them an automatic), and you will see what I mean.
I would contend that a SAFE driver knows their distraction tolerance and can accommodate for various situations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Follow the money
It probably does actually make you marginally less able to turn quickly to the right, but since its part of the very act of driving saying we should rule it out too is maybe being a bit schoolyard about this?
Mirrors should not distract you from the road - if they aren't focused on the road anyway you may need alter their angle and stop doing your hair while driving
Speedometers can help distract you from the road (hence all the manufacturers looking at HUDs these days) but are unfortunately a necessary evil to reduce accidents from another source – I would suggest if you spend that much time looking at your speedo that it severely impairs your concentration, you perhaps drive on the edge a little too often?
Cell phones however are not an integral part of driving (no not even if you're getting directions) so should realistically not be added to the myriad of distractions you already seem to think there are
I am quite sure that every driver who drives with a cell phone thinks he/she is a safe driver (in some cases right up to the point where they plough into another vehicle). Perhaps the solution would therefore be to only stop unsafe drivers using phones while driving?
Wait no that wouldn't work cos the police would have to know who was who and the current state of your ego - so since cell phones are unnecessary and make you LESS safe its probably a more workable idea to ban these
Safe driver (post #50) - I think you are agreeing with me and some of the others that a safe driver doesn't take calls while driving?
In general roads are hopefully getting safer, in part due to technological improvements (brakes, air-bags, tyres etc etc), also in part to a group of people you elected passing laws to protect the whole by regulating what is an inherently dangerous activity. If these individuals stopped looking for improvements and facing up to changes in society which impact this safety they would be being negligent
If you want absolute individual freedom to do anything (anarchy incidentally) start a revolution. Then see who cares when someone comes drunk out of a bar and slams into you at 150mph whilst chatting to his girlfriend on his Motorola
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Follow the money
Actually they do. The difference is that the safe drivers have a margin to sacrifice to the distraction and still perform reasonably well, the unsafe drivers don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Follow the money
Uh... yes they do. Cellphones make even the best driver into a distracted driver.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Everyone is not entitled to their own facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Driving distractions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Distracted driving
We took driver education out of all the schools that I know of, which was not the best program on the planet but it did teach some common sense for drivers and I see very little of that on the road today. Now at whatever age 16, 18, a person is allowed to get a drivers license, they are immediately propelled into our traffic with ipods, telephones, gps systems because most can not find their way around the block without a gps, and an assortment of other distractions that are in main stream today.
Most climb into a toy car that will do 100 mph plus with no experience behind the wheel or in the classroom, and most have never heard of the movie Death On The Highway, which is an eye opener in itself. Yes we complained and kabitzed about having to take driver education in high school, but some of the lessons it taught could not help but impress themselves on our runaway teen age brains, which kept pace with our hormones.
Detroit and other auto maker cities are trying to more and more make autos idiot proof, but so far have failed dismally in their efforts.
I think we are reaping the lack of driver education for our young people on our roads today in a big way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it the car...
For those out there that believe that it is their “right” to drive, please remember it’s not. Driving is a privilege that is why we have a licensing system. Yea we should probably ban that too. Obviously they have failed and let the stupid people get licenses too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it the car...
Wouldn't people on there be a distraction too?
So.... everyone walks.
I hope to God they ban stupid, we need a new president...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's be honest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why not just ban the destractions.
Even if driving while you are on the phone is illegal, people will still do it.
So why not introduce driving bans for people caught behaving in an irresponsible manner while driving.
For example if a driver causes an accident and they were distracted by something at the time, why not simply take away their license.
Being allowed to drive is not a right, its a privilage, and the sooner that the stupid drivers are off the road, the less traffic there will be, and the liklihood of accidents is reduced.
Possibly something like if you get caught once you can consider it a warning, if you get caught again, or cause an accident the only thing you will be driving will be a moped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go ahead and ban my radio...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Washington DC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Self Driving Cars
Any way, let's get on with developing self driving cars, whatever that may look like, then we can have all the distractions we like as we won't be driving but instead will be a passenger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why dont they take it like DUI
Go with the don't punish the whole group for the act of those not able to multi-task while driving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why dont they take it like DUI
I'm from the UK - we have a system based on points and fines
Do something wrong you get fined, if it qualifies you also lose points off your license, lose 12 or more points off your license in a 3 year period and you lose your license. Depending on the severity of the offence you may lose the right to reapply for a number of years or indeterminably. The number of points lost for driving on the phone is currently 3
I'm getting the impression that perhaps this isn't the same in the US? We tend to legislate things like this as the law has some teeth and can do something about it. If there is no substance behind the law then yeah it probably won't do much (we just had to add the 3 point penalty to the legislation as a small fine on its own was proving impotent)
I am not sure that banning radios is really a serious proposition anywhere (at least I would hope not) but full on hand-full phone conversations should be
The suggestions that it should all be OK and that fines etc should only be imposed if you cause an accident are all very well and good but are akin to closing the stable door after the horse has bolted - by that time you already caused an accident. Its not unreasonable to suppose you just seriously injured/maimed/killed someone learning that you weren't as perfect as you thought - why should they suffer for your arrogance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why dont they take it like DUI
I can drive and talk on a cell at the same time without loosing concentration on the road. and yes I can talk on a cell and watch TV at the same time too. I am smart enough to know that if its crowded on the road then I don't pick up the cell phone. If I am on the cell phone I don't think too much about what I'm talking about, I think more about the road. I drive with one hand already, in fact, I get scared when I see someone driving with two.
The main problem with driving today is that cops don't care. I have been driving and been cut off by someone not looking where there going. I did almost hit the guy but I was paying attention to the road. I slammed on my breaks and the cop behind me almost hit me. Did he pull the guy over for cutting me off? Did he even pull me over for stopping like that? No, he didn't even flinch. The cops need to start enforcing this stuff. No law will work if no one enforces it, even this stupid one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple fact is driving is a privilege
Why do so many people pause their Tivo or DVD when they get a phone call, but think its ok to keep driving?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure, feel free to talk on your phone while driving, just stay in the travel lane (don't pass). Feel free to eat while driving. Feel free to change CDs while holding a cigarette and taking a sip from your water bottle. If your negligence causes an accident, however, you will be prosecuted for reckless endangerment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I should ban myself...
I have been doing this for 8 years and have never been so much as honked at. Some people are great at multitasking, most aren't. I have had many run-ins with people doing such daunting tasks as looking for street signs to some guy towing his lawn mower behind his car by the trailer hitch and looking in the rearview to make sure it didn't come un-velcro'ed from his trailer hitch.
On a side note.
Most do not pay enough attention on the road. Most countries in the world have stop lights. Most. One place in Britain I believe, took out all stop lights. Traffic fatalities dropped significantly, and minor fender benders went up a little the first year it was introduced. It forced people to pay attention while driving. I doubt you will find many people on cell phones there. It also reduced the time it took to get through rush hour.
Check this out...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8434415824222638615&q=india+driving&hl=en
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The top threat to a driver (or the cause of bad driving) is having to reach for something. Ranking right up there is having a bee in the car. Bee's cause a surprising amount of accidents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
good idea for most people != good law for all peop
Saying that "driving isn't a right" doesn't solve anything -- it only twists the issue around to a "guilty until proven innocent" perspective. It's sort of like saying that voting isn't a right. The fact is, we all begin with an equal right to secure driver licenses and to make use of the pubic roads that our tax dollars pay for.
I am a taxpaying citizen with no points on his license -- who's going to tell me I don't have just as much a RIGHT to drive on my public streets as any of the other license-bearing taxpaying citizens in my community?
Yet I am even more discouraged by those who would legislate by statistic. I imagine it would be easy to produce studies that show an "average person" is more likely to commit a traffic violation when performing nearly any other particular activity, but real people drive in the real world -- not in the abstract speculations of overambitious social reformer's "research." It's my opinion that there is no such thing as an "average person" in the real world.
We already have laws against unsafe driving. If I drive unsafely -- for any reason, regardless of the particular distraction you think may have led to my violation -- take away my license or throw me in jail. But keep the pretentious "I know you better than you do" legislation out of my car and out of my head. People are smarter than laws; laws that try to outsmart people never work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: good idea for most people != good law for all
Yeah, it should be a right, I think, but it ain't. I live in Washington DC, where we don't even have a congressman or a Senator (let alone two), and where we couldn't vote for president or vice president until 1961!
Look up Minor v. Happersett (1874) or Dred Scott, or Adams v. Clinton
http://www.dcvote.org/trellis/acting/avdmemomajorityopinion.pdf
Nowhere does the Constitution guarantee the citizen a right to vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's make a new law.
2. On Star et al are hands-free, voice activated systems with minimal distraction ability.
Logical conclusion? Let's ban On Star and make everyone go back to the hand-held cell phones we have to dial by hand! Perfect logic!
By the way, Fungo, driving is a privilege - there is no God-given or Constitutional right to drive. Just try telling the judge you refused to take a sobriety test because you have a right to be there and you'll see how quickly that privilege is revoked!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's make a new law. (#34)
Then would you say that living in my home, and not in a penitentiary, is also a "privilege" and not a "right"? After all, I could be arrested for interfering with a judicially warranted search of my private residence.
A few months ago I was arrested simply for walking near a jewelry store with a broken burglar alarm. I was released after the overzealous cops realized I wasn't a thief, but not before I was threatened at gunpoint, cuffed, frisked, and incarcerated in the back of a squad car for nearly an hour. Should I also consider walking down the street a privilege? Is it a privilege that I am allowed out in public at all?
I respect your commitment to the cardinal platitude of every driver's ed class ever, but I think disputing the semantic differences of "right" and "privilege" sort of misses the larger point I was trying to make, about how the government is empowered to grant "rights" and "privileges" in the first place.
The point was that we are the government. Since you mentioned it, the Constitution actually does have great influence over our laws -- including laws about who can and cannot make use of roads and other public property. But ultimately, regarding any new government policy, we each must consider whether our citizenship is a right for which we will take personal responsibility, or a privilege whose particulars we will tacitly abide.
Sure "legislators can be idiots." But who voted them into office?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Send the driver a license plate message using Plat
If you see a distracted driver, remember their license plate and post a message to the public on Platester.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny you mention passangers . . .
She starts talking and her attention is completely removed from the road. I have to tell her every 10 or 15 minutes to stop driving 35 on the freeway, and we all hold on for dear life when she discovers she's about to miss a turn and drives across three lanes of traffic.
All the while this goes on she continually repeats "I don't drive this way when I'm not talking to people". To which we reply "Don't talk to us then!"
If we're legislating to the least common denominator, all cars are going to be single passenger in a few years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dialing isn't the problem!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(What's that? I have to dial numbers? Funny, cell phones have this new fangled technology thing that let you say "Call mom" and it calls the phone number labeled mom. Huh...imagine that...)
Also, have you considered that maybe someone driving while talking on a cell phone can have the presence of mind to be more careful _because_ of the distraction? Perhaps they go a little slower, or they leave a greater following distance.
Now, this is not to say that most idiots on a cell phone aren't totally ignorant of their surroundings. I, thankfully, am not one of those idiots.
2) #33, you say that going twice the limit will result in your license being cut right there. I was once given a bullshit charge for doing 2x the speed limit, and I had to actually appeal it. Apparently, you _can_ appeal traffic violations.
Anyway, cutting the license up at the side of the road is complete and utter bullshit. There's this thing, it's called Due Process, and I think it's somewhere in this other thing called a Constitution...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummm
Now, as for legally banning such practices... I personally am indifferent on this issue. I don't listen to the radio when I drive. I only recently obtained a cellphone; if someone important calls, I tell them I'm driving and that I'll call again later. It wouldn't affect me a whole lot if they banned everything from listening to the radio to eating food while driving. Granted, I don't represent 99% of the world; there are those who thrive on their cellphone because for many, driving is the only free time they have. Most of my friends would go INSANE without their car radios/stereos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hand held cell phones .. bad bad bad
* dont have both hands free to steer in an emergency
* are far less likely to use their turn signals - which would clue other drivers in
* partially distracted by the act of actively holding something next to their head
The problem is that their stupidity increases the chances they are going to have an accident with me. Now, I can balance this a bit because I have had years of high performance driving schools, and usually know how I can steer out of a problem. Perhaps that makes me that much more aware of what a bad idea hand held cell phones are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I forsee greater issues
IMO, if you can't drive while on the phone don't. I can and have done it since cell phones weighed in at a .5 kg. Don't even think of removing my radio, as it prevents more road rage than accidents. Maybe those lacking the skills should check out these nifty things call headsets. They are sold EVERYWHERE!. It's just like talking to the person in the passenger seat. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If your worried about unsafe drivers, just wait.
These systems will eventually become mandatory in all vehicles just as air bags, seat belts, and now stability control systems are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I forsee greater issues
cell phones don't weigh in kg... nothing has a weight in kg. a gram is a unit of mass, newtons are the unit of measurement of weight in the metric system. remember, weight is a measurement of force caused by gravity acting on our mass. a cell phone with a mass of .5 kg weighs 4.9 newtons. people often get confused with this: lbs and kgs do NOT measure the same thing. it's lbs and newtons (english system and metric system) that are the same type of measurement. slugs and kgs are the measurements for mass. IMO, if you're going to say stupid shit, don't open your mouth (or start you fingers typing.
sorry for the rant, i've had a long day :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I forsee greater issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't believe the anti-cellphone zealots
1. Very few people had cellphones in 1990.
2. A very large number of people have cellphones now
3. Cellphone usage has grown from 1990 to present.
4. Cellphone usage in cars has also grown
If cellphones are as dangerous as anti-cellphone zealots make them out to be, then the accident rates from 1990 to 2006 should have gone way up.
From what I understand the accident rate per 100,000 miles traveled have dropped continuously over this time.
What conclusion can be drawn other than the anti-cellphone zealots are wrong.
A a check on the hypothesis, as cellphone use is restricted, the accident rate should SIGNIFICANTLY drop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't believe the anti-cellphone zealots
you're excluding every other variable that has to do with car accidents while formulating your hypothesis.
what conclusion can be drawn other than you're a complete moron?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't believe the anti-cellphone zealots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"anything that takes one of your hands off the wheel or distracts you by forcing your eyes to wander off the road makes you less safe"
Like changing gears? Looking at the speedometer, or your mirrors?"
Actually, if you are a good SSD, you would know that there are times when steering though a canyon run that you would not take your hands off the wheel to shift...
And.. the OP said "wander", not "flick eyes to side to check".
Even in track schools you are taught to check your mirrors, and to look out of the top half of the windshield...
A real ssd :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ban young drivers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about emergencies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You sound like a bunch of drunks
Other people don't care how you can flap on a cell phone while driving so well. It's about safety; you're on a public road so your little self important life takes a backseat to the public well being.
And the simplistic obtuse choads whom attempt to compare Cell phone conversations, to radio fiddlings and passenger conversations need to keep their droolings to themselves. Since they ignore the fact radio fiddlings and passenger conversations are extremely different. Radio adjustments are what like a few seconds where phone flappings are the order of minutes. Also a person on the cell phone is NOT putting their lives in the hands of the driver like the passenger, and they usually will be able to judge the conditions to determine whether or not it's appropriate time to demand an answer for the terribly important questions like; "What do you want for dinner?"
Again the same mentality that allows drunks to think they can drive while impaired is being recycled by the phone flappers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ban women
statistics don't lie, but statisticians do...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no ban
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police
[ link to this | view in chronology ]