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?
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
Filed Under: driving distractions, hands-free, mobile phones, ray lahood
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
yes yes yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And how do we watch the watchers?
Where's my camera when I need one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And how do we watch the watchers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And how do we watch the watchers?
http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Car
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about signing along to the radio?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about signing along to the radio?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about signing along to the radio?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exemptions, etc
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exemptions, etc
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I know
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silly Rule
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Talking to passengers
You could, but since there have been studies showing it is more dangerous, you should probably bring some evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or maybe we could pass a law that they have to be belted down. Nah, such a law would never pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this really about insurance companies not having to pay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something to it - not talking while driving
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something to it - not talking while driving
Sir, you and I can hang out anytime, anywhere....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something to it - not talking while driving
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Idea
--Posted from my BMW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
distractions while driving
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: distractions while driving
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: distractions while driving
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: distractions while driving
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still holds:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still holds:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Still holds:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Still holds:
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!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Still holds:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Still holds:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Still holds:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Still holds:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Still holds:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Still holds:
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Still holds:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Still holds:
And the same should be applied to yakking while driving too then, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Still holds:
Like some people can drive just fine drunk and others can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still holds:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Still holds:
A little meth will combat the fatigue and make you a better driver too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How low can we go?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How low can we go?
I'm posting a message on tech dirt
It stops from getttinnnnngg
other work done
other work done
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a problem....
Ban stupid people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is a problem....
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missin' the point
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ban People
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Billboards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mandatory seatbelt or car won't start
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....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mandatory seatbelt or car won't start
I *do* wear my seatbelt, btw, but not because I'll get a ticket if I don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mandatory seatbelt or car won't start
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mandatory seatbelt or car won't start
Where the hell is average_joe when I actually need that guy? :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mandatory seatbelt or car won't start
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. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Passengers actually help
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NEW BILL
WALK YOU LAZY bastas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NEW BILL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
txting while driving
These technologies are not going to go away - we need to redesign the car and give the passengers some of the responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ban all talking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Passengers actually help
I'll have to tell my wife about this. She just screams and digs her nails in my arm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the Earth is Flat
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cly
Battery powered tow lights.
wireless tow lights
wireless trailer lights
Wireless signal lights
tail light system
signal lights
Tail lights
tow lights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
replica ray bans
Good to have replica ray bans wayfarer. The replica ray ban sunglasses sale hot. Just choose what you like in replicaraybanswholesale.com online store, you will be satisfied.
https://www.replicaraybanswholesale.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]