Is NTSB call for ban on electronics for drivers realistic? | Hacker News Reader

Is NTSB call for ban on electronics for drivers realistic?

itworld.com

12 pointsjunioreven42 comments

We don't need to ban electronics for drivers. We need to ban drivers from cars. Banning electronics to prevent tragic accidents is like banning cigarette lighters to prevent lung cancer. Our roads are littered with death:

http://map.itoworld.com/road-casualties-usa#

The solution? Self driving cars. I'm convinced that every dime we spend on any transportation-related activity besides the self-driving car is a waste of time. Every year, about 30,000 people die from fatal crashes:

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

That's twice the number of people who die of AIDS in any given year:

http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm

Electronics aren't the enemy. Drivers are.

Alternatively switch from cars to a combination of trains and bicycles.

In much of Europe there's no need to own a car at all. Towns have grown up around railway stations, and shops are close enough to walk/cycle.

The problem in the US seems to be that homes/workplaces have been built up around roads instead of rail infrastructure.

Easy! Make every American move with a self-driving moving van!

That's actually too rosy a picture of the situation in Europe. While indeed many people have no objective need to own a car, most families do own at least one. We might not have quite the ridiculous amount of cars as the Americans, but large parts of Europe are not that far behind. [1]

More importantly - since this discussion is about driver behavior - if you look at traffic deaths per vehicle, per driven kilometer, or even per inhabitant, the US do better than a lot of European countries. [2] I'm sure that the total disregard for the existing bans on cellphones [3] for drivers is a factor here.

Also, regrettably, Europeans are repeating the mistake that I hear some US cities are now regretting: building giant shopping areas outside the city centers, thereby destroying commerce in those centers and worsening the traffic situation. In one particularly megalomaniac example [4] they want to build a giant shopping center right next to one of the busiest roads in Belgium (the ring around Brussels), less than 10km away from several existing and perfectly fine city centers.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_p... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re... [3] http://www.cellular-news.com/car_bans/ [4] http://www.uplace.eu/Default.aspx?PageID=166&Culture=nl

I'm unconvinced that the rights of 30,000 dead (may they rest in peace) trump the rights of safe, responsible people who enjoy driving themselves.

How about the rights of the safe, responsible people who get killed and maimed because others are drunk, tired, or yakking on the phone?

There's no protected right to drive anywhere in the constitution. That's why you have to get a driver's license, why it can be taken away, and why you can be pulled over. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

We need to ban drivers from cars.

Nanny states are borne from thought processes like this.

It doesn't matter that the overwhelming majority of drivers don't get into accidents because of their phones, nor does it matter that eliminating risk from an inherently risky activity such as traveling in a 3000-pound metal object is all but impossible.

Regulations and rules are useful. Banning things outright is ridiculous.

Way to miss the point. He's talking about making drivers obsolete, not banning everybody who doesn't drive perfectly from getting behind the wheel. It's about using technology to improve our lives, not burdening ourselves with bureaucracy.

How stupid to vilify one source of distraction. They should also condemn driving with a friend in the passenger seat, driving with children, driving with a pet, listening to the radio, billboard advertisements near roadways, etc.

We live in a society based on cowardice, fear, and a desire to be 'safe' at all costs.

Personally, I'd prefer to live in a society that dissuades the irresponsible from taking risks with other people's lives every time they get behind the wheel.

It's actually less stupid than the state-level bans that allow hands-free devices. Holding the phone isn't the problem; it's the mental distraction caused by talking to someone who doesn't share your environment.

That said, I still oppose this proposal. It's impossible to enforce without invasive hardware and software requirements, and it would inevitably be abused by cops needing to meet their quotas, e.g. ticketing people who are texting or checking maps at red lights.

There could always be an exception for a car that isn't moving. I don't have hard data to back this up, but my gut tells me that the car being in motion adds to the danger.

In Alberta a new law was passed that bans all this stuff, including while on a red light.

I guess this is to prevent people from not noticing when the green light goes on. I don't think I've seen any less people talking on their phones while driving though :(

http://blogs.canoe.ca/canoetech/in-the-news/tough-alberta-di...

I think you are mistaken on the "Holding the phone isn't the problem;" (mental distraction seems correct though) I suggest a quick test for you: 1) Grab the edge of your display like it's the steering wheel 2) with your other hand hold your phone to your ear 3) try to check both blind spots without moving your hands

The freedom of movement is impaired with your elbow in the awkward position. Also when I do it, my elbow and hand blocks my view to the blind spot on that side.

Actually, studies really show there's no difference between hands-free and hand-held. See e.g. http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/2006083010503...

I assume the obvious physical limitation makes at least some drivers more aware that they should keep some focus on the road.

There's a difference between the level and type of distraction associated with talking to a passenger, having a dog in the backseat or having kids in the car and using one of these devices.

Most of those things that you are equating with device use are passive activities. Do you stare at the radio while listening? Do you turn around to talk to a passenger in the rear seat? Do you swerve the car to look at a billboard?

Drivers who are affected by passive distractions are usually inexperienced. That's one of the reasons why new teenage drivers are usually restricted from carrying teenage passengers, driving at night, etc.

Device usage, especially smartphones, is totally different. They are active distractions that involve your sight, touch and hearing. People tune out the world as they text or futz around on the phone -- anyone who has seen a colleague walk into a wall or hunch over a BlackBerry in a meeting can attest to that.

I don't want to die or be injured because some careless idiot needs to carry on some inane text banter with a friend. You can call it cowardice, I call it common sense.

Honestly, apart from dialing, how is talking on a phone any different from talking with a passenger?

The passenger is aware of local conditions (weather, traffic density, whether you're getting ready to make a turn or merge) and the person on the other end of the phone connection is not.

Another occasional source of discussion is driving while sleep-deprived. For mostly practical reasons, the driving-while-impaired laws target specifically chemical impairment (mainly drinking), since you can do blood tests for those. But, though estimates vary, sleep-based impairment appears to be responsible for more annual fatalities than drunk driving.

Eating while driving and driving while tired are just as dangerous as driving drunk. The fact that everybody does the former is why they are still legal. We simply have to face the fact that as long as people still drive themselves, roads are inherently dangerous. If people want to make roads safer, they should push for open-source software that drives cars rather than people.

Not true.

Drowsy driving is generally a serious moving violation or minor crime. In most states, you can be charged with reckless driving.

If your eating was affecting your driving to the extent that a policeman thought you were drunk, he could cite you with any of a half dozen violations.

If all of these things are "as dangerous as driving drunk", the threshold for being considered drunk is too low.

I agree. .08 is hardly tipsy. MADD is a powerful lobby.

I don't. Different people have different tolerance and response. I could be fine after a couple of beers years ago when I was a typical drunk student. Now I drink probably less than once a month and feel dizzy after a single one.

What's the reason for setting any limit though? Why would you want to drink and think if you're still safe, on the border or not safe already? I like the limit of 0.00 and really don't see a reason to set it differently.

Also people shouldn't be able to drive on less than 8 hours of sleep, on allergy medicine, over the age of 65, when it's dark, or when it's raining. Better safe than sorry.

Maybe not 8, but yes, they shouldn't. There's also a reason why some pills are labelled "do not drive after taking these". You can get your license taken away (depends on a country) when you're not able to see, react or think correctly anymore. You should avoid driving in heavy rain or at night if possible.

Most of these are a reasonable advice (apart from the age limit) that I thought is common knowledge. Pretty much what was taught on my driving course years ago. Do you disagree with those points?

No. Where we disagree is on what the law should be.

The NTSB will then have to ban: talking (to anyone in the car since the distraction is iplied as being the mental distraction of conversation), listening to music, eating, application of makeup, and smoking to name a few. Next up will be only allowing windows to be rolled down while the car is not in motion or in an emergency situation.

Bottom line - if people aren't making new legislation (i.e. controls) they are looked upon as doing nothing. So they do 'something' which is the next step of control up from the last. This translates into a slow erosion (the boiled frog analogy) of our overall freedom. The United States is ridiculous in it's ludicrous enforcement of things that have little impact in the overall state of affairs.

Nader did us all a favor by putting 3-point belts in cars - that saved lives. But he never told us we had to wear them. Let nature takes it's course, I like my life as a choose-your-own-adventure not as a marionette.

$0.02.

I agree with your philosophy, but the problem is that all the costs aren't borne completely by the driver choosing to be distracted. Oftentimes, they'll cross the centre lane and take someone with them.

That's the paradox: I want MY freedom within my vehicle, but I also want to be sure other drivers on the road are not being negligent. I want the rules to apply to them.

That's part of the problem - people think they're entitled to these guarantees. Even if this is law, there's no guarantee.

Example: my sister went on a road trip with someone she did not know was bi-polar. That someone had not been taking their medication and had an episode while driving. She threatened to drive the car into a tree, luckily this didn't happen. So should bi-polars be required to prove they are medicated before driving? That's one heck of a rabbit hole (and my original point)!

Point being, you have no control - no matter what the rules are. You also have no guarantees so you can never be sure. In fact, the only way to be sure is to avoid the situation at all costs. Banning all electronic devices will not ever provide that warm fuzzy you're looking for, rules or not.

The NTSB will then have to ban: talking

The studies on which they're basing their decision specifically find talking on a phone to be much more distracting than talking to a passenger.

How about a screaming child in the back seat with only the driver in the car? Maybe that child is old enough to unbuckle themselves. Is that more distracting than talking to passengers?

I find it odd that people feel they will be safer with legislation like this. The NTSB is making their point through scenario specific testing and while it is interesting research it doesn't reflect other real world situations that may be even more distracting than phones.

How about a screaming child in the back seat with only the driver in the car?

That's not exactly something that you need to focus on.

Maybe that child is old enough to unbuckle themselves.

Fortunately that's already illegal!

Accident and death rates have been falling since the 70s, even through the past decade as cell phone usage exploded. Is cell phone usage really as big a problem as it's made out to be?

23% of all US car accidents are caused by cell phone use. [1] That's 1.3 million crashes per year. I'd call that a big problem.

[1] http://www.nsc.org/Pages/NSCestimates16millioncrashescausedb...

Makers could disable texting if the phone is moving > 5 mph. Easily defeated and annoying, yes, but marginally less stupid than trying to legislate a change in behavior.

It's ok for passengers to text, just not drivers.

This doesn't work - consider subways, trains, and as mentioned previously, passengers.

The sole exceptions in the proposed ban are GPS devices and emergency calls. So that rules out listening to the radio, then? Oddly enough, NPR didn't mention that.

Why make any exceptions at all? If it's too dangerous, it's too dangerous.

People who demand these laws just want to look down on others while not inconveniencing themselves.

What about pacemakers?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com