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

[1995hoo]

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.

....

I think this largely depends on the Bluetooth device and your phone, especially whether they support voice-dialing. Hitting a single button on your steering wheel and saying, for example, "Call Home" is quite different from, say, fishing out your iPhone, unlocking it, dialing with the keypad, and then putting the call on your Bluetooth device. (An iPhone supports voice-dialing regardless of whether you're using Bluetooth, of course, as do many or perhaps most phones these days, but surprisingly few people seem to use that option.)

I think a ban on these sorts of devices would be very difficult to enforce, but it wouldn't be without some level of benefit insofar as laws of this sort may constitute persuasive evidence of the standard of care applicable in a tort action for negligence. That is, if you're sending text messages while driving and you run into me, the fact that a law on the books makes the sending and receiving of such messages illegal might be accepted by the court as evidence that a reasonably prudent driver would not be sending or receiving such messages. (There's a further point to this rule of construction that says the purpose of the statute has to be reasonably related to the reason why you're citing to it, but that's not really an issue here.) Of course, a court or a jury might still draw that conclusion even absent such a law, but if such a law is in effect, you stand a better chance of the judge finding as a matter of law that the statute establishes the standard of care (whereas your average juror may say, "Hell, I do that all the time, ain't nothin' wrong with doing that."), which further means that it raises the chance that the judge might overturn a jury verdict finding it's not negligence. The statute might also make it easier to obtain mobile phone records during the discovery process.

I think there's a valid argument that existing laws on the books SHOULD cover this sort of behavior. If I were a judge, I'd look favorably on prosecution of text-message drivers for reckless driving. Problem is, the way our society is today, if you don't explicitly cover every last little possible form of behavior, someone's going to try to argue that there's a loophole.

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 don't think that's as much a giveaway as you suggest, because with a Bluetooth device there's no reason why the phone needs to be visible to anyone either inside or outside the car. When I drive my Acura, for example, my phone is in the upper compartment in the center armrest regardless of whether I have the Bluetooth on. The car's built-in handsfree system means that if I get a call, the caller ID info will display on the little screen where the odometer display is, so having the phone stashed in the armrest is a non-issue. (I'm also the type of person who sets distinctive ringtones for particular callers so I know who's calling even without the caller ID....) A number of my female friends who have earpieces leave their phones in their pocketbooks, usually on the floor in the backseat. Long way of saying, I don't think phone backlighting is necessarily as obvious a telltale sign as it might seem at first blush.


This morning on my way to get the car serviced I was just behind a guy with diplomat plates who was swerving all over. When I got a clear shot and passed him, I looked over and saw that he was pretty obviously sending or reading e-mail or text messages, based on the way he was holding his phone with two hands. Things like that spook me regardless of whether there were a law in place about such things because I'd expect the diplomat to claim immunity.

[hbelkins]

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

That press release just references electronic devices. Wonder if a digital camera qualifies? Wonder if a film camera would qualify?

Talking on the phone is definitely a lot more distracting than talking to someone physically present ...

I don't find it to be such. May be for some, but I don't find it to be such.

Sounds like I'm different than much of the general population in that I can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[vdeane]

That press release just references electronic devices. Wonder if a digital camera qualifies? Wonder if a film camera would qualify?

From the press release:

Illegal activity includes holding an electronic device and:
Composing, sending, reading, accessing, browsing, transmitting, saving, or retrieving electronic data such as e-mail, text messages, or webpages
Viewing, taking, or transmitting images
Playing games

[hbelkins]

A violation would hinge on the determination of what an "electronic device" is. Typically that term is used to describe a smartphone. i've never heard a camera described as an "electronic device."

The way I interpret that press release, the act of taking pictures with an electronic device is what's expressly verboten, not just the act of taking pictures.

[NE2]

Sounds like I'm different than much of the general population in that I can walk and chew gum at the same time.

No, just more overconfident.

[agentsteel53]

i've never heard a camera described as an "electronic device."

happens to me all the time when I'm trying to take photos out the plane window during takeoff.  "you're gonna have to put that away."  implication: camera is an electronic device.

[hbelkins]

Sounds like I'm different than much of the general population in that I can walk and chew gum at the same time.

No, just more overconfident.

FIFY.

[mightyace]

i've never heard a camera described as an "electronic device."

happens to me all the time when I'm trying to take photos out the plane window during takeoff.  "you're gonna have to put that away."  implication: camera is an electronic device.

OK, so I'll get an antique camera that doesn't even use a battery so it is a mechanical not electronic device!

[Brandon]

i've never heard a camera described as an "electronic device."

happens to me all the time when I'm trying to take photos out the plane window during takeoff.  "you're gonna have to put that away."  implication: camera is an electronic device.

OK, so I'll get an antique camera that doesn't even use a battery so it is a mechanical not electronic device!

Use a daguerreotype. 

[formulanone]

Rookies...I sketch my images and then paint the canvas later.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Rookies...I sketch my images and then paint the canvas later.

I only drive near sandstone cliffs so i can carve the scene as I drive by.

[Scott5114]

Obviously NTSB is in league with state DOTs to curb the practice of sign photography so there's not so much proof of erroneous road signs out there

[Takumi]

Fine then. I'll park and walk

[Sykotyk]

...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.

I've seen enough of the studies to realize they're flawed. In order to conduct the test, the driver is required to repeat key phrases that are said over the phone. They're required to drive a course while doing this. I've driven over 700,000 miles. Passengers present more problems than a hands-free or even handheld cell phone. I never motion or glance to the right when on a cell call. Why would I? There's nobody next to me. When my wife and I are driving on a trip, we're talking, commenting, etc. We're less likely to pay attention.

The issue is not when the driving circumstances become difficult that either affect you. It's when something presents itself when nothing is expected. That's where a passenger can be a huge problem. Anybody who thinks "I'm on the phone, I have to give 100% of my attention to this phone call" is an absolute moron and I don't believe really exist. There's been thousands of times I've been talking to someone on the phone, whether they know I'm driving or not, and had them repeat something, or told them to wait a sec, or just gone silent while I dealt with whatever it was I was approaching. If they have a problem, f*** 'em. I'm driving. That's priority #1. Talking in a conversation, whether on a phone or with a passenger, is secondary.

Education is most important to fighting this problem. Especially with texting with younger drivers not realizing the true danger, because, as we all know, teenagers are immortal. They're not. But, they don't know it. But, teaching them is paramount.

Secondly, enforcement of the laws we already have. "Reckless Driving" is such a nasty mark on your license, that it rarely ever gets cited, and even more rare gets upheld by a judge. And so many police officers only are out there to collect revenue in the form of petty speeding offenses. I saw a cop sitting on the shoulder at the start of an exit ramp. An SUV veered across four lanes of traffic, across the white hash marks separating the right lane from the already divergent exit ramp, cutting off two cars in the road and one on the ramp. AND hitting his brakes hard once on the ramp to stop for the light. The cop was in his car, watching traffic with a radar gun. He never left to go after the guy. He was looking for money. Not for the welfare of the motorists out here.

Weaving, leaving your lane, etc are precursors to what will happen, yet they're very rarely if ever caught. And usually that's when a cop pulls up behind a drunk only.  Because,... again, it's revenue. A DWI/DUI/OVI is much more lucrative.

Here's one, failure to use a turn signal. I think this should be punishable by death. Yet, every day I see people not using them to their detriment. I saw a guy drift in front of an officer on a freeway to change lanes lacking the signal (lamp or hand) to change lanes. Yet, the cop did nothing.

But, it comes down to the big bad cell phone. Idiots using cell phones cause the problems. Beefing up cars with better safety standards, comfier rides, more amenities have made idiots less likely to pay attention to the job of driving. Take away cell phones, they'll find something new to cause problems. And next up on that list is GPS units. They'll watch that thing tell them when to exit, turn, stop, etc rather than the big clear piece of glass in front of them.

Yeah, I'm rambling. But, hand-held: yes, there's an issue. hands-free: no. Not unless they want to ban passengers.

[agentsteel53]

Here's one, failure to use a turn signal. I think this should be punishable by death. Yet, every day I see people not using them to their detriment. I saw a guy drift in front of an officer on a freeway to change lanes lacking the signal (lamp or hand) to change lanes. Yet, the cop did nothing.

meh.  I use turn signals maybe one-third of the time when changing lanes.  most of the time, it is fairly obvious what I am doing and every other car is far enough away that my lane change does not in any way affect their behavior. 

[Duke87]

There's what the law says and then there's how it's enforced. While, given the wording, it is tough to question that use of a camera while driving is a ticketable offense in New York, would a cop actually pull you over for it?

My understanding is that cell phone laws are, like seat belt laws, not heavily enforced, because it requires the cops to actually be paying attention to what drivers are doing - in contrast to radar, which you turn on, then kick back and wait for it to beep.

[Sykotyk]

The problem is it becomes an 'after the fact' penalty. If somebody hits you, and you are entirely not at fault. If they found you to be taking road photos, they could argue that there was a chance you were holding the camera while you got hit, and had you not, you might have been able to avoid the accident. Whether or not it actually affected the outcome or the fault. It becomes your fault due to a bad law.

[SidS1045]

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood has come out in favor of a ban on handheld phones, but NOT for hands-free setups.  Probably recognizing reality, since in all the states where hands-free bans have been proposed, none have passed.

LEO's in my state were, surprisingly, against a blanket ban on cell phone usage in cars (we only prohibit handheld phones for drivers under 18), saying that drivers often phone in tips on traffic situations (accidents, DUI's, etc.) which would require a cop to be present, and they don't want to lose that input from the public.

[agentsteel53]

drivers often phone in tips on traffic situations (accidents, DUI's, etc.) which would require a cop to be present, and they don't want to lose that input from the public.

I don't even think twice to call 911 over an incident - immediately, upon my spotting the problem, without pulling over.  the last time I had to call was because there was a refrigerator-sized piece of machinery (possibly a refrigerator) in the #3 lane on CA-152 coming around a curve.  152 is pretty iffy for a place to pull over, so I didn't.  

had I gotten pulled over, I'd have told the officer "hey, I wouldn't be surprised if I was just on the phone with your dispatcher".

[corco]

The problem is it becomes an 'after the fact' penalty. If somebody hits you, and you are entirely not at fault. If they found you to be taking road photos, they could argue that there was a chance you were holding the camera while you got hit, and had you not, you might have been able to avoid the accident. Whether or not it actually affected the outcome or the fault. It becomes your fault due to a bad law.

So I guess the solution is to carry around a backup SD card with non road photos, and if you get into a wreck quickly do the switcharoo and eat the SD card full of road photos

[Henry]

IMHO, this is the best idea they've come up with since seat belts and the breathalyzer test!

[agentsteel53]

IMHO, this is the best idea they've come up with since seat belts and the breathalyzer test!

negative.  the hands-free device itself is the idea which is analogous to those other two. 

this is the equivalent of mandatory seat belt use and ignition interlocks.

[hobsini2]

Just because the average dopey motorist can't "drive and chew gum at the same time" doesn't mean that MY responsible driving and reasonable use of my cell, which i need for work, can't be used at the same time.  Just another example of a few dummies ruining the gig for the rest of us. Screw the NTSB, their recommendation, and their lobby in Congress. I have a bigger problem with people who text and drive. That should be banned. Not simple talking on a hands-free device. What next? Banning eating and drinking while driving? PISS OFF NTSB!

[Scott5114]

Just because the average dopey motorist can't "drive and chew gum at the same time" doesn't mean that MY responsible driving and reasonable use of my cell, which i need for work, can't be used at the same time.

I am not really for a cellphone ban, but if you were on the phone driving and you hit me, you can't really expect me to give too much of a shit about whatever Penski file or the Glamrocker account you were working on. Frankly, if my boss wanted to converse with me while I was driving, I'd tell him to piss off and wait until I get to wherever.

[signalman]

I couldn't agree more with that statement, Scott, well said. 

I'm not going to say that I never use the phone when driving, but it's extremely rare.  I keep my conversations short and sweet while driving.  That said, I do not have any hands free device, nor do I intend on getting one.  Even though I personally don't use the phone while driving, I don't think it should be banned.  That's a choice I made personally, even though hand held phones are illegal in the state that I live.  I prefer to focus on the road and other cars around me, also my car is stick.  So unless I'm cruising on the highway, I need two hands to drive. 

They could add fines or something to other moving violations (failure to keep right, failure to signal, etc.) that may have been caused because of cell phone use by the driver.  Perhaps that might deter some from using the phone while driving.