NTSB recommendation: no cellphone use of any kind, not even handsfree

[hbelkins]

Dislike.

You'll never convince me that talking on the phone is more distracting than trying to light a smoke, or dealing with a nagging spouse or screaming bratty kids.

[corco]

And...if we were looking for an example of where I think the federal government should stay out of transportation legislation, this is it.

OK, sure. It's dangerous to drive down a congested, fast moving freeway at 60 while on the phone. But is it dangerous to drive down a rural highway in the middle of Wyoming on a summer day on the phone? I'd argue it actually helps keep you awake in the latter, so why have a blanket ban.

I do think it can be a bit more difficult to talk on the phone and drive than talk with somebody in the car and drive- a passenger can read body language and see what's going on and adapt to the situation- the person on the other end of the phone can't, so you have to devote more attention to that conversation.

I also worry about the effects of this on roadgeeks. Is it going to become illegal to take pictures while driving (which I think anybody who has done it extensively enough realizes it's not distracting at all)?

I am glad the no-hands free thing is finally catching on- there's absolutely zero sense in banning handheld devices and not hands free. Having a hand on the phone cannot possibly the problem, otherwise it would be illegal to drive a car with a manual transmission

[hbelkins]

The proposal exempts things like OnStar systems that are built-in. So it would be illegal for me to make a call on my iPhone using the speakerphone or a Bluetooth headset, but not illegal to push the phone button on my OnStar console to make the call.

I use a BT headset when traveling on roadtrips, because it allows me to have a hand free to hold the camera as well as to comply with state laws banning handheld use when I am in one of those states.

[agentsteel53]

yet another example of failing to make illegal acts which actually harm others.

if you drive recklessly, regardless of what your internal problem may be, get a ticket.

doesn't matter if it's because you're talking on the phone, or putting on makeup, or you just don't know how to drive.  the reason should not matter - the effect (poor driving) is what is deleterious to society as a whole; that is what should be made criminal.

[corco]

Exactly- why is somebody driving like an asshat who is not on the phone doing anything less illegal than somebody who is driving like an asshat on the phone? I'll never understand that logic.

[J N Winkler]

And...if we were looking for an example of where I think the federal government should stay out of transportation legislation, this is it.

This is just a NTSB recommendation, not legislation.  NTSB recommendations are always addressed to a specific entity or group of entities.  The OP does not say to whom this recommendation is addressed.  If it is addressed to state legislatures, then action is at the legislatures' initiative and the NTSB cannot penalize them for failing to follow through unless Congress uses Spending Clause powers to orchestrate state-level bans.

OK, sure. It's dangerous to drive down a congested, fast moving freeway at 60 while on the phone. But is it dangerous to drive down a rural highway in the middle of Wyoming on a summer day on the phone? I'd argue it actually helps keep you awake in the latter, so why have a blanket ban.

It is easier to argue for local exceptions if you can plausibly claim that they are cost-free.  Free pass on red when it is 4 AM and there is no traffic?  Not cost-free since it complicates enforcement.  Metric signs on I-19?  Cost-free since the existing signs comply with MUTCD and don't need replacement with English-unit signs.  Cell-phone use at 60 MPH in rural Wyoming?  The case remains to be made . . .  (Personally, I think that if you are at the point where you need someone talking on the phone to keep you awake, you are better off pulling off the road for a power nap.)

[hbelkins]

This is just a NTSB recommendation, not legislation.  NTSB recommendations are always addressed to a specific entity or group of entities.  The OP does not say to whom this recommendation is addressed.  If it is addressed to state legislatures, then action is at the legislatures' initiative and the NTSB cannot penalize them for failing to follow through unless Congress uses Spending Clause powers to orchestrate state-level bans.

That's exactly to whom it was addressed, the 50 states plus DC. There are also recommendations addressed to the school district whose buses were involved in the wreck in question.

I think a similar ban on cellphone usage was suggested when they investigated that wreck in Kentucky where the semi hit the van carrying members of a family on the way to a wedding on I-65. This is a new recommendation of the same action, if I am correct.

What triggers an NTSB investigation, anyway? Why are some wrecks investigated and not others?

Members are appointed for 5-year terms by POTUS. So it will take at two terms from a new POTUS to clean out the current board. Sounds like a good campaign plank for Newt Romney to me.

[vdeane]

I also worry about the effects of this on roadgeeks. Is it going to become illegal to take pictures while driving (which I think anybody who has done it extensively enough realizes it's not distracting at all)?

In some places (NY, ON) it already is.

The proposal exempts things like OnStar systems that are built-in. So it would be illegal for me to make a call on my iPhone using the speakerphone or a Bluetooth headset, but not illegal to push the phone button on my OnStar console to make the call.

Sounds like OnStar corrupted the NTSB.

[roadman]

I think a similar ban on cellphone usage was suggested when they investigated that wreck in Kentucky where the semi hit the van carrying members of a family on the way to a wedding on I-65. This is a new recommendation of the same action, if I am correct.

With the exception of the Largo MD I-495 accident, which was principally attributed to novice driver inexperience, all the previous major NTSB crash investigations where inattention due to cellphone use was cited as a proximate cause of the collision involved professional drivers (either CDL holders or law enforcement officers).  As such, NTSB recommendations in these cases have focused on employee training and CDL requirements instead of general laws and regulations.

The texting pick-up truck driver in the Missouri crash was neither a professional driver nor an LEO.

[Mr_Northside]

I don't really like the "hands-free" part, and it's not because I think it's that much safer, but how do you enforce it?
I guess if you're using hands free with some sort of ear piece that's visible, that could be done... but I'm more worried about a speaker-phone type deal.........

Obviously if you are using the law in the course of an "after-the-fact" thing in the case of an accident, you could subpoena records to prove they were using their phone, regardless of how..... That's one thing.

But if a law that includes hands-free is passed, and were made a primary offense (that alone can get you pulled over), it seems there could be a situation where, if a cop was following me, and I was in the car by myself, NOT using a phone, but singing along to a song, or ranting out loud at some talk radio - and it looked very much like I could be talking on a hands-free phone...... I could be pulled over under suspicion of driving while on a cell phone, despite the fact I don't even have a cell phone with me. 

[hbelkins]

In some places (NY, ON) it already is.

Seriously? I'd like to see the cite on that. If so, I've violated it every time I've driven in New York.

[oscar]

In some places (NY, ON) it already is.

Seriously? I'd like to see the cite on that. If so, I've violated it every time I've driven in New York.

I recall seeing signage in ON prohibiting hand-held devices while driving, that was broad enough to cover driver-held cameras.  But not broad enough to cover dash-mount videocams. 

[roadman]

I don't really like the "hands-free" part, and it's not because I think it's that much safer, but how do you enforce it?
I guess if you're using hands free with some sort of ear piece that's visible, that could be done... but I'm more worried about a speaker-phone type deal.........

Obviously if you are using the law in the course of an "after-the-fact" thing in the case of an accident, you could subpoena records to prove they were using their phone, regardless of how..... That's one thing.

But if a law that includes hands-free is passed, and were made a primary offense (that alone can get you pulled over), it seems there could be a situation where, if a cop was following me, and I was in the car by myself, NOT using a phone, but singing along to a song, or ranting out loud at some talk radio - and it looked very much like I could be talking on a hands-free phone...... I could be pulled over under suspicion of driving while on a cell phone, despite the fact I don't even have a cell phone with me. 

There's a very simple solution to this - you write the law so PED use is a "standard of fault" in a crash, and permit insurance companies to reduce or deny claims where PED use was the proximate cause of the crash.

This approach also avoids the inevitable "nanny state" objections that will be raised by many.  Want to call or text while driving - OK, but you accept the responsibility if you crash because of it.

[Quillz]

I doubt this will pass, and even if it does, good luck trying to enforce it. It's already illegal in CA to use a cell phone while driving, and yet I do it, my parents do it and I see many, many people on the freeways doing it.

[pianocello]

I can see where they get the idea, but there's no point in trying. If they make handheld devices illegal but still keep handsfree devices legal, then they may as well ban cars with manual transmission, as well as anything else that people use their hands for while driving.

OTOH, when it comes to distractions, there's no difference between a hands-free device and a passenger, so banning one without the other would be stupid and banning both would be unreasonable (and hypocritical, considering the push towards carpooling nowadays).

[formulanone]

I don't see this type of law passing, as it's going to be difficult to enforce...at least by daylight. At night, your average phone emits enough backlighting to signal to an officer that a phone is in use.

I like my Bluetooth and speakerphone...but I also rarely carry on conversations for more than 10 minutes. But this just sounds like feel-good legislation, at best. Texting is much more dangerous than pressing two buttons on your phone, which is all it takes to make a phone call. Inexperience is what caused this latest high-profile crash, not telephone usage.

[US71]

MoDOT has banned cellphone use in commercial vehicles beginning Jan 3
http://www.kmbc.com/news/29988452/detail.html

[corco]

there's no difference between a hands-free device and a passenger

Several studies have proven that false- it's pretty well accepted among researchers at this point that there is a big difference between hands free and a passenger- you have to concentrate more to talk to a person on the phone than to a passenger. A passenger can read your body language and shut up/change volume/subconsciously react to allow you to pay more attention to driving when necessary, but you have to continue conversing and giving full attention to have a phone call

[Brandon]

However, the accident the NTSB is using the push the agenda has a few flaws.  This is from TTAC, and it clearly shows a problem with the NTSB's argument.  Note the school bus on top of the tractor and the pickup truck.

[hbelkins]

there's no difference between a hands-free device and a passenger

Several studies have proven that false- it's pretty well accepted among researchers at this point that there is a big difference between hands free and a passenger- you have to concentrate more to talk to a person on the phone than to a passenger. A passenger can read your body language and shut up/change volume/subconsciously react to allow you to pay more attention to driving when necessary, but you have to continue conversing and giving full attention to have a phone call

You'll never get me to buy that.

[corco]

...science!

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xap/14/4/392/
http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/16/3/128.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457508002029
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437509000292
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00637.x/full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11760132

The abstract of that third one is most germane:

Of particular interest was the phenomenon of conversation suppression, the tendency for passengers to slow their rates of conversation as the driver approached a hazard. On some occasions these passengers also offered alerting comments, warning the driver of an approaching hazard. Neither conversation suppression nor alerting comments were present during cell phone conversations. Remote passengers displayed low levels of alerting comments and conversation suppression, but not enough to avoid negative effects on driving performance.

I could keep them coming...


There is one study that didn't find it (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847805000471
), but it required the passenger to maintain exactly the same level of difficulty of conversation as the cell phone talker- the idea is that your conversations over the phone are more complicated and require more thought than the ones with a passenger- a passenger will either consciously or subconsciously dumb it down to match you available brain capacity (to put it very simply). On the phone, the driver himself has to be more concentrated on keeping a conversation flow- you don't stop talking for a prolonged period on the phone like you can in an in-person conversation.

If you're riding in your car with a passenger when a deer runs out, and if that passenger is paying any attention at all they'll either A) shut up so you can focus or B) yell "OH MY GOSH A DEER"- startling you into doing something. That doesn't happen on a cell phone.


With the sole exception of a study that required passengers to have an equally  complex converstaion as a person on a cell phone, every study I've read (and I've seen a lot more than the three I linked) has found that in organic conversation, hands-free is more distracting than a passenger.

There's good reason to believe this isn't some conspiracy- you think the cell phone lobby is happy about this proclamation? I strongly doubt that. Hands-free was fine because it meant they got to sell bluetooth headsets, but you can't work around an outright ban. It's a reasonable theory supported by scientific research that doesn't stand to make a nickel off the proclamation.

For instance, if you really wanted to go there (I wouldn't go there) you could argue that there is money to be made off selling global warming- false science created to help push an ideological agenda and sell green products of dubious actual value. I think that's a somewhat fanatical position to take, but I at least understand the position.  But there's no potential for profit here and no ideologies to advance- the research here is about as clean as science can get.

[pianocello]

A passenger can read your body language and shut up/change volume/subconsciously react to allow you to pay more attention to driving when necessary, but you have to continue conversing and giving full attention to have a phone call

Makes sense now that I think about it.

[Duke87]

The proposal exempts things like OnStar systems that are built-in. So it would be illegal for me to make a call on my iPhone using the speakerphone or a Bluetooth headset, but not illegal to push the phone button on my OnStar console to make the call.

I believe the assumption is that a built-in console is voice activated while bluetooth still requires you to push buttons to dial and whatnot. So therefore the built-in console is safer.


Talking on the phone is definitely a lot more distracting than talking to someone physically present - and not just while driving, it's been well demonstrated that people who talk on their phone or text while walking can get into accidents because of it. (remember this video?)
Although it is definitely true that talking to someone physically present is still distracting. I find that I drive slower and less aggressively when I have someone in the car with me, because I'm less alert to my surroundings. And when I'm walking and talking to someone I find it's very easy to walk right past the place we were looking to go, or walk out into the street without amply looking both ways.
Of course, the same can be said of simply being lost in thought. There is no way to eliminate all distraction from driving or from anything. We're human, we can't constantly focus on nothing but one thing. We get distracted.

[kphoger]

Where handheld devices are banned in the car, is it still legal to eat French fries and drink a Dr Pepper?

[vdeane]

In some places (NY, ON) it already is.

Seriously? I'd like to see the cite on that. If so, I've violated it every time I've driven in New York.

It's pretty recent: http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/071211drivingwhiletexting