An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
NTSB Proposes National Ban On Cell Phones While Driving
Posted by PATRICK EDABURN, Assistant Editor in Science & Technology, Society.
Dec 13th, 2011 | 10 responses
Dec 13th, 2011 | 10 responses
The NTSB is proposing a nationwide ban on the use of cell phones while driving but the ban would not apply to hands free devices or to use by passengers.
Although it would not eliminate the mental distractions caused by cell phone use, the ban would eliminate the physical distractions caused by holding the phone itself.
While I would rather that people exercise the common sense idea of not using a phone while driving it seems this kind of a law may be needed to stop the idiots who don’t exercise common sense.
10 Responses to “NTSB Proposes National Ban On Cell Phones While Driving”
There’s at least one study, probably more, that show that there’s no reduction in accidents when one switches from handheld to hands-free. I would be fine if we banned all cell phone use while driving, but this is just a cash-cow for the ubiquitous, and universally obnoxious, Bluetooth technology.
This law is in reaction to an idiot texting while driving. 11 times just before the accident. Yeah, that’s dangerous. Why would they ban all cell-phone use? Sorry, but a lot of us need to be using our phones when we drive.
Roro80, then pull over and conduct business at the side of the road!!!!
Uh, no!!!!! Mind your own business, please, RP!!!!! Your circumstances might be different than other peoples, RP!!!!!
I can’t tell you how many people I’ve seen “almost” be in an accident, or doing things like crossing the line back and forth, while they were on their cell phones and driving. Ogh, and the number of times I’ve been crossing at a corner in a cross walk and almost creamed by someone on their cell phone. Unfortunately they are too busy talking to realize they almost caused an accident or are driving poorly. If it weren’t for sharp-minded drivers around them they would have been in an accident. Because they are not in an accident they feel as though they can talk and drive. Of course they only realize they are engaging in dangerous behavior once they are in an accident and cause injury or death to someone.
I don’t know if hands-free is better statistically. However I think it is somewhat better because you have both hands holding the steering wheel and nothing is interfering with your field of vision.
Might as well ban fiddling with radios and eating while driving while you’re at it. I lost a car to a Whopper.
The issue isn’t whether it is a “good idea” or not. (I think it is, but who cares?) How in the world can anybody think it’s a matter of federal law? Driving laws and regulations are within the power of the individual States — not the federal government. Has anybody read the 10th amendment? Good Lord, almost makes me wanna start drinking that Ron Paul cool aid.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
I too have heard that studies say the problem isn’t that you have a cell phone in your hands, but that you are using one at all (in the hand or hands free). I have also heard that cell phone usage is only one cause of distraction that causes accidents. So this seems a case of legislating for the sake if it.
Keelaay,
You forget that Congress may grant or withhold spending to coerce states to abide by the Congressional will. See the way we managed to nationally increase the minimum drinking age to 21. Congress, there, told states that they would lose 5% of their federal funding towards their Transportation Departments unless they increased the drinking age to 21. Shortly thereafter, almost all States had increased the drinking age to 21. Here, a similar tactic may be used. The States could be told that they will lose a small, but meaningful, portion of their federal funding if they fail to comply with Congress’ desire. This is wholly constitutional as well. See South Dakota v. Dole.
Personally, I would rather see a law passed making car manufacturers who transact either international or interstate business, in any amount, per Art. I. Sect. 8 of the US Constitution, required to put a cell-phone dampener in the car.
Didn’t forget. Am just advocating against.
I would argue that the tactic “we” (not me…) managed to increase the drinking age is also unconstitutional. And the opinion in the case you mention actually hinges on the minimum amount of funds withheld (“only 5%”) deeming such non-coercive. If actually coercive as you suggest, then the law may not have passed muster. Just as a coercive national restriction on private cell phone usage in a private vehicle on state funded roadways may not pass muster with today’s more conservative Supreme Court. (In my opinion, the 21 year drinking age is bad law if there ever was one. I have a 20 y.o. friend serving in Iraq that I can’t offer a beer to when he comes home? I can’t decide at what age my children can be allowed a glass of wine? Spare me the social engineering in my own home… especially from D.C.)
Anyway, at least Congress is beholden to the voters, where the NTRSB is not. As far as the law you would like to see passed, why not try to pass it in your state? And not mine