TheAgitator.com
DOT Sec. LaHood Takes Aim at Texting While Driving, Car Gadgetry, Sound Policy
Wednesday, February 24th, 2010Obama Transportation Secreatry Ray LaHood is now formally pushing a federal law banning texting while driving. LaHood has already banned texting for commercial truck and bus operators and federal employees on the job, but applying the ban to regular motorists would presumably involve blackmailing the states with federal highway funds.
But LaHood isn’t stopping there. According to US News, LaHood also wants “a device to shut down phones and BlackBerrys when the engine is started.” And he’s not a fan of GPS, satellite radio, and other enhancements that make time in the car more enjoyable, explaining in curmudgeon dialect that “I’m concerned that some of these car manufacturers are putting all these gadgets and bells and whistles in cars that are going to distract people.”
As I explained in a piece for US News last year, it’s far from clear that any of these distractions are causing mass carnage on the highways:
Since 1995, there’s been an eightfold increase in cellphone subscribers in the United States, and we’ve increased the number of minutes spent on cellphones by a factor of 58.
What’s happened to traffic fatalities in that time? They’ve dropped—slightly, but they’ve dropped. Overall reported accidents since 1997 have dropped, too, from 6.7 million to 6 million. Proponents of a ban on cellphones say those numbers should have dropped more. “We’ve spent billions on air bags, antilock brakes, better steering, safer cars and roads, but the number of fatalities has remained constant,” safety researcher David Strayer told the New York Times in July. “Our return on investment for those billions is zero. And that’s because we’re using devices in our cars.”
Strayer would have a point if he were looking at the right statistics. But we drive a lot more than we did in 1995. Deaths in proportion to passenger miles are a far better indicator of road safety than overall fatalities. In 1995, there were 1.72 deaths for every 100 million miles traveled. By 2007, the figure had dropped to 1.36, a 21 percent decline.
Of course, it’s possible that were it not for all the distraction LaHood bemoans, those numbers would be even lower. But let’s at least have an honest debate: We’re on our cell phones more, we’re driving more, and we’re on our cell phones while driving more. In that time, the roads have gotten safer, not more dangerous.
Intuition also suggests that getting step-by-step GPS directions from your cell phone is quite a bit less distracting than fumbling with and following your trip progress in an Atlas. It’s also hard to conceive of a device of the type LaHood wants that would kill the driver’s phone but still allow passengers use of their cell phones. Barring all cell phone use in the car seems like a horrendous overreaction, with all sorts of unintended consequences I’ll bet LaHood hasn’t considered.
But LaHood has met with the families of people allegedly killed by distracted drivers. And he has said that cell phone-toting drivers in D.C. annoy him. All of which suggests enforceability, practicality, perspective, and the possibility of unintended consequences aren’t likely to factor into his decision, nor into whether Congress decides to follow his lead.
Are cops going to have their radios and lap top computers taken out of their cars too? I wonder how many times a cop has rear-ended someone while trying to run their tags?
I think a better indicator of “distractions” while driving would be accidents reported per 100,000 miles driven (kind of a per-capita statistic). That would tell us if these gadgets are to blame or not.
Either way, I just don’t see XM or GPS being more of a distraction than, say, traditional radio. As a matter of fact, since there are no commercials, you don’t have to change the channel as much on XM, so it should offer less distraction compared to AM/FM.
“And he has said that cell phone-toting drivers in D.C. annoy him.”
Isn’t this, really, all that matters?
I understand Mr. Ray LaHood’s concerns, but it’s a little silly. To enforce a law and/or device that shuts down all cell phones as the engine is started on vehicles is crazy. He seems to forget that its advertised in every state the if you see someone on the road that is driving unsafely or is “under-the-influence” that you should report them right away. You have to write down their information (Enter it into your cell phone or reach to find a pen and some paper “while driving” then call the proper authorities). I understand that you are to use good judgement in doing so, but that wouldn’t be possible if your cell phone is shut down while driving.
I always tell everyone don’t point out the problems without first finding a solution.
Anecdotal almost every time someone almost hits me, they are inevitably fucking with their cell phone. Then they usually give me some kind of mean face because they weren’t paying attention.
I am supposedly of that generation that can’t live without their cellphones…
Yet I can manage to drive just fine without using a phone. What call is so urgent that you cant call them back when you are done driving. Hell I dont even look to see who is calling untill I get to where I am going.
I think people get this idea that they must be immediately reachable all of the time. It’s b.s. Quite frankly I would love to just go back to a time when cellphones were only for the rich and powerful.
I dont eat when I drive. I dont smoke when I drive. I dont screw with the radio when I drive. My hands are on the wheel and my eyes are on the road and my mirrors. If I ever get hit by an inattentive driver on their cellphone it will be hard to restrain myself from shoving it down their throat.
It may seem strange, but LaHood’s detachment from reality fills me with optimism. Somehow reminds me of Elagabalus sending the soldiers of Rome to gather nine tons of cobwebs… it was a sign that the government’s days were numbered.
“Call me a killjoy, but I think that because this is not to my taste, no one else should be able to enjoy it!” Marge Simpson, regarding the Ultimate Punching League:
LaHood thinks them new-fangled satellite radios and cell phone thingamabobs are just not to his liking, so by golly he’s gonna do something about it!
And, like drinking and driving, somewhere down the road this will involve people who do pullover to use their phones. And ultimately, preemptive strikes. You have a phone. You have a car. Therefore you had the ability to potentially be a road hazard later.
But we won’t ever use the law in that way. (*rubs hands together evilly*) Just trust us.
If he is really serious about making the roads safer, he should go all out. Have zero revenue generating aspects to the bans. You lose your license or you do jail time. Period. No tickets or fines. Period. If saving lives is that important, no one will have a problem with not having a revenue stream attached to the effort. Make it strictly a money loser. Lives are worth it.
Good old prior restraint laws. Attempting to prevent stupidity (or crime) by removing the circumstances under which it is even possible is, quite frankly, fucking retarded.
Sorry Pierre but I’m a better driver than 99% of the drivers on the road while simultaneously talking on my cell phone and screwing with my radio. Or eating. Or whatever. Because, see, I can multitask this stuff and not be unsafe. When I lived in El Paso for four years, I almost got hit every day several times and I’ve developed extremely sharp reflexes and learned to look WAY ahead to try to anticipate any problems and avoid them before they start. It has proved useful in ice-sheet-road Alaska as well. I’ve never had an at fault accident, but I DO avoid accidents on a daily basis, especially near UAF where people regularly spin out into the oncoming lane because someone decided to build a negative camber S curve and never gravel it…
There is no blanket statement you can make about people, and no law that is proper and fitting either. It is up to the individual driver to make his decision regarding his abilities–if he chooses poorly and creams a pedestrian because he was talking on a phone, well, charge him with negligent homicide. But how do you prove it had anything to do with the phone and the guy isn’t just a completely spaced out dumbass?
Watch how most people operate their SHOPPING CARTS in the grocery store. I absolutely guarantee you they drive their cars the same way. Phone or not, they’re still mostly idiots who are oblivious to their surroundings.
I’ll take my risks with idiots on cell phones over sacrificing ever more freedom, mmk?
Oh, and yeah… why the hell did they just ignore the accident rates and use raw data? I actually hope they were specifically trying to mislead us rather than just being so fricking dumb. That at least is to be expected.
What’s wrong with the laws already in place? I’m sure every state has something on the books about inattentive driving. If you’re at fault in an accident, you have to take responsibility. How will passing another law on top of the ones we already have do any good?
OK – if he want’s a device to turn off cell phones, what kind of device will keep people from drinking coffee, eating a McMuffin, putting on make-up, shaving, reading a book, or talking to a passenger?
#8
I love this! I plan to steal this idea and use it any time someone suggests we need a new law for “safety”.
#10
Passing new laws and new regulations is the only way to increase your own personal kingdom. The bureaucrat/politician who dies with the most laws/regulations wins.
#9, you sound just like me, especially with the “watch how people operate their shopping carts”. I add “watch how people walk in a mall, on the sidewalk, etc.” A large number of people just don’t seem very coordinated and/or capable of much multitasking.
Michigan legislators are currently hard at work trying to pass a texting ban and Michigan Radio (local NPR) covers it like its some major news. Another law that people will ignore.
These people are trying to make me a libertarian, part XXIX
Wouldn’t a device that jams a driver’s cell phone signal also jam a passenger’s jail phone signal?
Why would a passenger’s use of a cell phone add to risk driving behavior in the slightest??
Yes, because reading a piece of paper with directions is so much less distracting than having voice commands.
What a complete idiot.
And nevermind the idea of making driving so boring that people lose focus. No more radios, and maybe we should make gags mandantory as well.
What a complete f*cking idiot.
@ #8 You don’t go nearly far enough.
I can stop ALL fatal accidents- 12 MPH speed limit on every road. Speed bumps every 50 feet on every road.
As long as one life is saved it’s all worth it. Time to get serious about SAVING LIVES.
We already have that here in Los Angeles California every Monday through Friday from 7AM to 10AM and then again from 3PM to 7PM.
All these kind of rules do is lead to arbitrary enforcement of laws and fishing expeditions. The police already have ample authority to stop anyone on the road they see driving dangerously.
God help the government official that tries to take my Mrs. GPS away.
“But we drive a lot more than we did in 1995″
This kind of surprises me as I drive less now and I would assume that the higher prices of gas would deter people from driving for pleasure. I certainly don’t go “cruising” when I’m bored these days.
I HATE texting. My main question is “why?” I can talk a lot faster than typing on a tiny keypad. It is like going back to a telephone modem vs FIOS.
I would prefer some kind of “voicing” that did not require all the crap that current voice mail requires. Push a record button, record your voice message, and send just like a text message. I hate all the long drawn out stuff you have to listen to to get to voice mail just so the cell phone providers can burn your minutes.
//What call is so urgent that you cant call them back when you are done driving.//
How about “XX is going to be running late, so we’re going to be meeting at YY instead of ZZ”, when the driver is presently en route to ZZ? Or “Can you please stop at the store en route and get XX”, when going to the store after reaching the destination would entail an extra half hour or more of driving?
Certainly a driver shouldn’t be trying to enter a text message on a phone number-pad while in busy traffic, but a text messaging system could be designed to pose minimal distraction to a driver. A driver could know when he can spare a quarter second to glance at a screen, and in a well-designed system one could send common replies to messages (e.g. “Yes”, “No”, “Acknowledged”, “Later”, etc.) entirely via sound and touch.
//Barring all cell phone use in the car seems like a horrendous overreaction, with all sorts of unintended consequences I’ll bet LaHood hasn’t considered.//
The primary consequence of these policies is to make life miserable for anyone who can’t afford to be chauffeured in a limo. I’m not sure why you think that’s “unintended”.
[...] DOT Sec. LaHood takes aim at texting while driving, car gadgetry, sound policy (The Agitator) Obama Transportation Secreatry Ray LaHood is now formally pushing a federal law banning texting while driving. LaHood has already banned texting for commercial truck and bus operators and federal employees on the job, but applying the ban to regular motorists would presumably involve blackmailing the states with federal highway funds. [...]
I’m in favor of the ban because texting while driving is such an obviously stupid thing to do, though I am concerned with the enforcement problems Radley mentioned. But I really have to wonder how and why the huge number of deaths and injuries due to automobile accidents became acceptable to society as a whole. 45,000+ deaths a year? It’s a very crude and barbaric transportation system that would lead to so many violent deaths, despite any minor decrease over a couple of years. And it’s not as if anyone can opt out – even in high pedestrian/public transport cities people who don’t drive still have to assume the risk created by other reckless drivers.
So my question to you all is:
1) Are the numbers and deaths and injuries simply an acceptable cost of living in free society?
2) If you don’t want to ban dangerous behavior, what measures would you advise be taken in order to have a safer system?
Personally I believe a ban on texting while driving will eventually create an awareness so people will recognize and avoid the risk, similar to the way in which seatbelt laws encouraged people to buckle up. You don’t really hear anyone screaming to repeal those laws.
#18
i would also add that all left turns should be illegal too
#25-
‘Personally I believe a ban on texting while driving will eventually create an awareness so people will recognize and avoid the risk, similar to the way in which seatbelt laws encouraged people to buckle up. You don’t really hear anyone screaming to repeal those laws.’
People aren’t screaming to repeal those laws because of the billions of dollars forked out in propaganda, threats to cut funding to states not enacting seatbelt laws, and all the revenue generated by people who don’t comply. New Hampshire is the only state without seatbelt laws and their stats are in line with comparable states- no huge differences in fatalities.
can you point to any laws based on anectodal evidence that have benefitted us?
Ear buds in, Pandora on (Foo Fighters channel, where I got turned on to Kings of Leon’s _Sex on Fire_), and all is right with the world. Incoming call? Touch the screen to answer and I’m basically hands-free. Outgoing call? Press the ‘microphone’ symbol, say “Call Donny cell”, and I’m done.
If this Luddite doesn’t like all these new-fangled contraptions that make our lives more productive then he should move to Amish country and be happy with a horse and buggy. Or else tar and feathers.
#27 So, are you actually arguing that seatbelts don’t significantly reduce the risk of injury or death in an accident?
In other news, smoking causes cancer, but that’s just anecdotal…
Oy, that’s #28 of course
Anyone who believes, really believes, that he/she is as competent driving while texting or talking on a cell is a deluded simpleton. End of story. There will always be drivers less competent than oneself, but that’s hardly a valid excuse for making yourself incompetent as well. Let’s all try to get beyond terminal adolescence.
I’m sure he’ll next want a ban on bored but adventurous girlfriends in the passenger seat…
#30 | boomshanka
‘#27 So, are you actually arguing that seatbelts don’t significantly reduce the risk of injury or death in an accident?’
not at all. I’m stating that there’s so much propaganda, the bullshit govt stats are taken as fact. I do believe seatbelts reduce some traumatic injuries/fatalities. I wear a seatbelt MOST of the time. However, there are numerous factors- airbags, better brakes, cars that crumple around passenger compartments, etc that factor into safety. Seat belt nannies will cite ‘the fact’ that 95% of all car seats are incorrectly installed and that children are at risk because of this. Do you really believe that a car seat with 2″ play in the seatbelt is more dangerous than a car seat with the recommended 1″?
We can examine these issues by comparing a state that doesn’t have seat belt laws (New Hampshire) and to comparable states that do. I believe that seat belts are worthwhile, but I don’t believe that not wearing them is the scourge to public health that nannies proclaim. I believe that seat belt laws are more about generating revenue than increasing safety.
MADD will swear that raising the drinking age to 21 reduces highway fatalities. The US has some of the strictest drinking laws in the free world. They don’t work. The govt and MADD have repeatedly been exposed fudging data.
We’re creating laws based on anectodal evidence. Now there are federal grants available for police departments to enforce seat belt laws, underage drinking, etc. They haven’t made us safer. They have generated a bunch of revenue for the govt.
These laws are designed to protect us from ourselves. Should we really be prosecuting people when they’re not harming anyone else?
I want a Gumball revolution. I want automakers and car enthusiasts to stand up and say ENOUGH! I will do what I want to do in my car. That includes dropping the top and smoking my pipe or a good cigar. When people start ignoring the “motorist laws” maybe someone will take a hint. However it will most likely end up with some sort of MORE tyrannical system.
We already have such a device: it’s called an EMP generator.
Installing one in minivans and SUVs would solve the reckless driving issue on many levels.
“LaHood also wants “a device to shut down phones and BlackBerrys when the engine is started.””
That may not be possible without a broadband jammer, but maybe we could probably do some kind of app that shuts down the engine when the driver uses his phone. I can’t think of any problems with that idea…
@ Xenocles:
Here’s a couple problems with it: I’m driving down the interstate doing 55 mph. I’m passed by a minivan. Through the windows, I see a kid matching the description of an Amber alert. I wish to call the authorities while keeping the van in view. Oppps… my car shuts down. Now the van got away, and I was just killed when someone rear-ended my car, and I had forgotten to wear my 5point seatbelt and neck restraint.
Second problem: Who’s going to pay for all this tech connection of phone to the engine? More stimulus money, or is it added onto the price of the car? What about the 30 trillion cars already out there?
Third problem: When it screws up – and it will – do I get to sue Ray LaHood? Or will it just be another round of “Congress feigns Horror” as they’re doing with Toyota?
These days the Beach Boys would be singing “She’ll have fun fun fun till her Daddy took the GPS away”
On a more serious note: the issue is whether people can take “due care” when driving. Some people can drive safely while multitasking. Other people are dangerous even when fully focused on the road, either because of age, disease, speed, etc.
I’m kind of curious about where that 45,000 number is derived from?
I’m also curious about out of that 45,000 how many, of those killed, were breaking existing laws. A law is no good if nobody obeys it.
Take the speed limit for example. An interstate highway that I drive on daily has a speed limit of 65 MPH. Nobody should be going faster than 65, yet if I am driving in the left lane at 65 MPH, I’m yelled at, have horns honking at me and I am probably getting flipped off as people move to the right lane to pass me. Pennsylvania has passed a law that prohibits me from driving in the left lane for more that two miles, even if I am driving at the speed limit. They actually passed a law to make it easier for people to break another law.
Holy crap, thorn, it was a joke. Thanks for beating it to death, though.
The sarcasm didn’t translate too well… Cheers.
17 years ago I flipped my Celica GT. My 2 roommates & I were unhurt. The cop knew none of us had our seatbelts on because if we did, he said all 3 of us would have been dead. The roof had collapsed in by over a foot. Our necks would of snapped like pencils. It should be my choice to wear a seatbelt or not!
Cops will really enjoy this one.
Talk about creating a target rich environment!
I wonder when the hamburger & fries will be banned?
#41 | Jim Collins-
I’m one of those ‘if you’re not passing, get out of the left lane’ types. I feel it’s common courtesy. people tying up the left lane, compelling other drivers to pass on the right, are creating a real hazard.
Whim: “Wouldn’t a device that jams a driver’s cell phone signal also jam a passenger’s jail phone signal?” It sure would. And when you are on the side of the road trying to call a tow truck, every car whooshing by will break your connection.
Jeez- when will the Earnest-Do-Gooders strop. Stay the hell out of my life! I am so sick and tired of the government (and the little groups who are trying to make the world perfect, sticking their noses into my business.
What I eat, what kind of health care I have, what safety devices I must have on my car, whether I have a fire alarm and/or a CO2 detector in my house, how high I can build a fence in my back yard, where and if I can smoke, manditory trash bags in my car, etc., etc., etc.,etc.
Leave me alone.
And how much would this new, required piece of “safety equipment” add to the cost of a new car (which most Americans already can’t afford.)
And hey- how many times have you seen people driving and talking on a cell phone and they WEREN’T driving badly?`