Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Voice dialed handsfree ought to be a required mfg safety standard on all new cars by 2010

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 12:29 PM
Original message
Voice dialed handsfree ought to be a required mfg safety standard on all new cars by 2010
Edited on Mon Dec-08-08 12:32 PM by ddeclue
As a licensed private pilot, I often find that driving in Florida seems to be far more dangerous than flying.

Pilots are extensively trained to be safety conscious and to think ahead to all of the possible risks in their flight.

Highway drivers by comparison seem utterly unappreciative of just how much risk they are at in a 4,000 pound piece of steel moving 60 miles an hour - allowing themselves to be distracted by all sorts of unnecessary activity inside their car instead of outside their window.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently released a study which confirms what I've believed to be true for some time now:

Many if not most accidents are the result of distracted drivers - since the 1990's they have often been cell phone related distractions.

Drivers often get distracted talking to passengers, looking at things inside the car too often, eating and talking on the cell phone.

My new car came with a hands-free system option that even allows voice recognition dialing. This has made using a cell phone in my car so much easier and safer than in my old car and has allowed me to keep my eyes on the road and my hands on the wheel in a way simply not possible previously.

At a Federal level, this type of system ought to be a required safety standard (as opposed to optional extra as it was for me) in any new car beginning in the 2010 model year to help reduce these types of driver distraction accidents.

At a State level we ought to start requiring more serious driver education especially with high school students and more rigorous testing standards to include teaching the dangers of distracted driving by reviewing accident cases with the students showing the importance of paying attention and constantly scanning around outside the car for possible accident risks while driving.

Improving automobile safety is a worthwhile investment of our tax dollars that will ultimately pay for itself.

Improved automobile safety should be an important goal of any elected official at any level- whether through automated traffic signal photo enforcement, improved driver training, or additional manufacturer safety standards - all of these would serve to reduce the number accidents, deaths and injuries by the driving public.

If we could substantially reduce the 40,000 or so annual deaths and many more injuries that occur every year we would be able to reduce the resulting lost work time, reduce insurance costs, reduce medical, legal and long term disabled care expenses, and reduce the amount of effort and tax money required to respond to these accidents by EMS, police and fire departments.

-------------------------------

From ABC News:
Dangerous Driving Errors
Government Hopes to Spur Advancement of New Technologies to Prevent Crashes
By LISA STARK and HUMA KHAN
Dec. 5, 2008

Post a Comment
FONT SIZE
EMAIL
PRINT
RSS

Daydreaming drivers are getting a reality check.
Distracted while Driving
Inattention, talking on the cell phone, and distraction while driving are some of the leading factors behind car crashes in the U.S. New technologies have also added a new dimension of danger to the highways, officials say.
(ABCNews Photo Illustration)

A significant number of car crashes are caused when drivers are not paying attention, according to a new report released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

The study -- dubbed as landmark by the U.S. government -- is the first of its kind in 30 years. The research, officials say, could be helpful in determining what crash avoidance technologies may help prevent collisions.

The NHTSA analyzed 5,470 crashes occurring between 6 a.m. and midnight from July 2005 to Dec. 2007.

In 36 percent of those crashes, vehicles were turning or crossing at intersections right before the accident occurred. About 22 percent of the vehicles ran off the edge of the road. Only 5 percent were driving too fast when the accident occurred and 2.1 percent of crashes were caused by poor road conditions.
Related
Sam's Brush With Death
WATCH: Child Dies While Riding on Grandma's Lap
WATCH: Deer Tossed in Car Crash

In other results, about 41 percent of the crashes were attributed to drivers being distracted, not paying attention (which would include daydreaming) and failing to look or see when it would be safe to maneuver. Thirty-four percent of the accidents were blamed on driving errors, such as driving aggressively or too fast. Ten percent were due to performance errors.

"I'm not sure if there are any real surprises because through history we've known that human error is the largest factor in vehicle crashes, so that part of it wasn't a real surprise," said Rae Tyson, spokesman for NHTSA. "I think what we've learned since the last causation study we did 30 years ago is that a great deal has changed in terms of the vehicle, in terms of the driver behavior, and of course in terms of roadway."

He added that new technologies, such as cell phones and Blackberries, have added a new dimension of danger.

The report may also spur debate on whether drivers should be allowed to use cell phone while driving.

Nearly 41 percent of drivers in the case cars were involved in another activity besides driving -- mostly talking on the cell phone or with a passenger -- and most of these were drivers in the 16-25 age group. Currently, five states, Washington, D.C. and the Virgin Islands prohibit drivers from talking on handheld cell phones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'd suggest instead a built-in that detects cell-phone RF
Edited on Mon Dec-08-08 12:34 PM by bean fidhleir
and gives the driver 60secs grace before switching on the emergency flashers and beginning to (virtually) lift the driver's foot from the gas pedal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I think that's ridiculous and an unsafe suggestion.
You can't just force a vehicle to stop in the middle of traffic beyond the driver's control that's a recipe for instant pileup on I-285 in Atlanta or I-95 in Florida or New Jersey.

By the way in most states it is illegal to drive with flashers on. They are only for stationary use.

Often times you NEED to be able to dial while driving and it CAN be done safely if done handsfree voice dial. I've dialed 911 or the highway patrol on numerous occasions when driving past an accident and unable to stop at the scene.

I was posting a serious discussion piece - your response is flippant.

Doug D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amdezurik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. leaving behind the forced stopping
I would support a special flashing light on the top of all such cars. one that illuminates a "REALLY STUPID PERSON DRIVING" sign on that roof...and if any cop sees it an automatic driving while distracted ticket. hell, in that situation the phone should call the cops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
30. I think that is a sober and excellent suggestion that will rival seatbelts for lifesaving effect
Edited on Mon Dec-08-08 04:23 PM by kenny blankenship
Once upon a time seatbelts weren't mandatory equipment either much less required to be used, and many people opposed them in ignorance with such objections as "seatbelts will make it impossible to get out of a crashed vehicle before it explodes!"

On second thought though, I'm not so sure. Oh it would save lives no doubt about it, but it would start us down a slippery slope of intrusive nanny state legislation: next thing you know there'd be a law that you can't clean a gun or sight in a scope while driving. This would be an intolerable burden upon our God given Liberty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amdezurik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
3. simply a jammer for all cell freqs would do it.
i would support that. it is a sign of the Apocolypse when you boss/wife/kids can command your attention even while driving...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Again not a practical or safe suggestion.
You can't really "jam" cell phone frequencies like that because you would be denying a lot of people NOT driving their car the use of the phone. Moreover there ARE legitimate uses for the phone while driving and it CAN be done SAFELY as long as it is handsfree and voice dialed.

If I can fly an airplane and talk on the radio, I can drive a car and do the same. It's all a matter of good judgement and we can't legislate this based on the worst case examples only - there has to be some reasonable give and take.

The solution of requiring handsfree in new cars is the best one to solve this problem.

Doug D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amdezurik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. yeah I was thinking of that
a spark generator would cover to wide an area, but perhaps a way to tag a phone from the local cel's so if it moving at over (for instance) 10 mph via GPS verification it's access is denied until the GPS shows they are stationary?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #8
35. Actually there's no need for GPS to do that
given that the phone itself knows that it is moving and roughly how fast due to Rayleigh fading effects and for that matter modern phones ALSO have GPS location builtin to satisfy 911 requirements anyways and it could be written into the software on the phone.

That said it is still a bad idea and carrying the fix TOO far.

The sensible solution is to force the dialing to be voice recognition and the speaking to be hands free. If there is STILL a significant accident rate due to "phone distraction" after that THEN it might be time to talk about more serious restrictions.

Doug D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. No, it CANNOT be done safely -
numerous studies have shown that the distraction of talking on a phone, hands-free or not, is what causes accidents. Claiming that you can do it while flying means you can do it while driving is specious - there's damn little to bump into up there. A three second distraction while flying will virtually never cause a problem - a three second distraction while driving can kill you.

The best solution is to have NO cells while driving - any use other than in a legitimate emergency should have HEAVY fines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Agreed. Cognitive dissonance is a wonderful thing...
I think laws (and the attempts to enforce them) against use of cell phones in a moving car are a waste of time. I just spot the head tilted to one side, slow driving and the vague vehicle wander, and avoid the driver as a drunk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enlightenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Are you really comparing driving on a crowded highway
with flying at altitude (I assume you're flying at altitude)? Yes, there are other planes up there and you do need to be vigilant - particularly when you're in a landing pattern - but there really is very little comparison to the amount of distraction and danger that you face driving your car on any major street or highway. And yes, I did have a private pilot's license for many years (which I allowed to lapse - expensive damned hobby) so I do 'know what it's like'.

I'm not trying to attack you; I just find your comparison pretty much apples and oranges.

I agree that something needs to be done about people using mobiles while driving, and your suggestion is no worse than other suggestions that stop short of complete prohibition. Still, this is a debate that's going to incite a lot of fervour - suggesting that people should not be allowed to use their mobiles while driving (or in restaurants or on airplanes, etc) seems to precipitate the same response that Chuck Heston had at his NRA speech - those of us who don't see them as a body part will have to pry them from the cold, dead hands of those that do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. You mustn't be a very good pilot if you can't see the difference between
the air and the ground.

How often in the air must you react instantaneously to avoid collision? Have you ever? Was someone punished for it? On the ground, that's an everyday situation, everywhere. I drive (when I drive) very defensively - staying, if I can, a half-mile ahead of my car, but that doesn't save me from the stupidity of others, and I couldn't possibly count the number of times I've had to jam on the brakes to avoid some arsehole who changed lanes onto my front bumper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. "If I can fly an airplane and talk on the radio, I can drive a car and do the same."
you got lots of tailgaiters, speeders, lane changers up there while you're flying?

Oh you don't? Then talking on the radio while flying is (do you have a copilot?) not the same as driving and talking on a cell phone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QueenOfCalifornia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
41. This is simply
not a rational suggestion.

Maybe you think that all cell calls are unimportant - granted, most of them can wait - but jamming a frequency is insane. I have had to dial 911 on at least 4 occasions while on the highway to report accidents and once to report a dangerously drunk driver. A jammed frequency would have endangered the lives of the injured unnecessarily.

Hands free dialing is a great suggestion. Here, in CA, a law was just passed that requires a bluetooth device when driving - it is not hands free - to answer you have to press a button on the head set - this takes about a second - it is much safer and easier to take a call while driving while using the bluetooth. I can place a call on my iPhone using voice recognition - I do have to press one button to do this - It is a free app and works very nicely. I rarely make a call while driving but I can answer a call now without it being a big deal. :)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
6. People really just need to shut the hell up and drive.
I love driving and I'm a car nut. But the fact is, driving is a task and people need to pay attention to that task. I'm not saying turn off the radio or not have passengers, that's just dumb. But people need to not talk on the phone, not text, not eat, not look at a laptop and not fiddle with a GPS while driving. People have gradually turned their cars into their living room on wheels.

I'm especially impressed :eyes: with folks that have manual (stick) transmissions yet still find a way to hold onto that cell phone. Too much of a distraction.

Morons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I love the handsfree in my new automatic but I never viewed shifting gears
as any kind of distraction in my 6 speed manual Z28 or my 4 speed manual 82 Rabbit or my 5 speed manual Mazda 626 before that. Driving a stick is one of the most natural things I've ever done - I can easily parallel park on a steep hill and did it daily when I lived in Atlanta. I don't get people who like automatics and I feel I am missing an essential element of control over my car in an automatic.

Doug D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. I meant
shifting while holding a cell phone. Either you have to concentrate on holding the phone with your shoulder, or steer and shift with one hand. I love my 6 speed as well, but I won't hold a phone and drive (though I'm guilty of the rare Bluetooth usage).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. stop and go traffic is murder on clutches.
In the city, either your clutch will go out from riding it in heavy traffic, or your automatic will break down from the heat (I''m talking in the South) breaking down the tranny fluid.

I have a 15 year old Mazda that's on its third automatic transmission.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #14
23. My Z28 lost 5th and 6th gears for some reason in late 2002
my theory is that the accident I was in in early 2002 resulted in a misaligned transmission that wore down these gears (the rear differential had to be replaced as it was collapsed in the accident).

The clutch itself was fine but as long as they had to rebuild and replace the missing gears I had them redo the clutch. I've had no problems with it in 188,000 miles of driving other than what I believe to be the result of the accident. I am on my second clutch only because of the accident and would probably still be on the first.

I think it has to do with the design and the driving style of the driver. I drove this car in a lot of city traffic over the years with no problems.

Doug D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. that's the answer right there. STFU and drive! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
34. "I might lose you, there's no reception on this bridge for some stupid reason" -flvegan,
on his cell phone, driving a stick.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
15. It's not the hands, it's the distraction of your attention from the road.
I don't think you can use a cell phone while driving and NOT be distracted.


There is no way I would talk on a cell phone while driving. I see people all the time driving with a cellfone glued to their ear, and it's quite scary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. I can talk and think and observe at the same time. I'm sorry that you can't
The big problem comes in pushing buttons and looking at controls which requires you to take your eyes off the road.

I have only ever had one at fault accident that was in 1990 before I had a cell phone and I haven't been IN an accident at all since 2002 when I was hit, ironically, by a cell phone talker.

I've had a cell phone since 1996 and have easily driven 250,000 miles since then without an at fault accident and only been in two accidents where someone else was at fault.

In one of these I was boxed in in a parking lot when a woman hopped into her Volvo and backed into my door without looking behind her. Her fault.

The other I got tagged in the passenger side rear quarter panel as I was going down an otherwise unoccupied street NOT talking on my cell phone when a woman in a parking lot pulled out into me without looking left first - she was a cell phone talker.

1996 is also the same time I started flying - something I haven't done since 2002 because of costs but hope to resume soon assuming falling fuel prices translate to falling av-gas prices.

I think the difference is that I know HOW to pay attention to the road and control how much focus I place on talking. I know when to hang up as well when the situation demands it. I also drive my car as far ahead in my mind as I can see. I don't obsess on the guy directly in front of me but the fools all around me and up the road 200, 300, and 400 yars as well - most people's eyes never get beyond 11 oclock and 1 oclock positions - they are tunnel vision drivers.

Doug D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetpotato Donating Member (678 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. Mythbusters tested cell phone while driving
For those that they tested, their results from driving while engaged in a conversation on a cell phone were almost identical to their results while intoxicated.

I'm gald you are comfortable driving and talking.

There are lots of people who are convinced that they drive better when they are a little drunk - it makes them pay better attention and drive more carefully, you know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. I saw the episode and it was HARDLY what I would call "conclusive scientific proof".
Most "Mythbusters" human factors tests are antecdotal at best where they test a theory a few times on themselves over a short duration of time - not hundreds of subjects over a long period of time.

Mythbusters testing in these cases is hardly statistically meaningful.

Again I think it is also important to evaluate handsfree vs. handheld and the issues of dialing etc. Also I think a real test course would need to involve realistic traffic situations with real traffic, traffic signals, pedestrians, construction, weather, time of day, secondary distractions (food, radio, etc), animals, etc.

Also signficant would be the notion of "spontanaiety" in the testing - i.e. when you receive a phone call at random in the car - I have to believe that your response would be different when you are not expecting a call than when you DO receive a call.

Doug D.
Aerospace Engineer/Licensed Pilot

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #29
45. You talk about 'statistically meaningful' -
How about the fact they you have been hit, twice, by cell phone users?

You really are not better than they are - you've only been luckier.

I just hope you don't kill somebody when your luck runs out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #19
28. You only think you can.
There's an elegant little test that demonstrates the falsity of that conceit. Try counting backwards from 100 by 3s out loud. Do it till you can do it smoothly without pausing. Then do it once more and when you pass 80 write your name - without faltering in your counting. Humans can't. We're serial processors. Anything that can't be handled at the autonomic level requires task switching in our brains - and the switchover time can be the rest of your life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. I know I can because I do it every day.
Actually human beings process a great deal of information in a PARALLEL not a serial fashion, particularly visual and auditory information and we do a lot of things on reflex or rote learning at a much faster (almost instantaneous) rate than you can sit down and think about it and do it consciously.

You need to read the Gleick book "Blink".

Sometimes our reflexes and rote learning fail us when the proper response is counter-intuitive but more often than not it saves our lives and it is basically part of our genetic survival programming.

The skills you are citing are higher cognitive functions involving LANGUAGE and those don't work the same way as skills involved in operating a motor vehicle like a car or plane or boat.

Doug D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. No, you don't. You've been able to succeed so far because you've not yet been in
a situation that took more processing power than your brain could provide.

The little test I described is a benign way to create such a situation, but it is *not* the only way to do it. People get wrecked or killed all the time because they try to swat a wasp buzzing around their face or their kid distracts them or two different jerks have to be evaded at the same time. They can't do two things at once, and they can't switch back and forth fast enough, and so they crash.

I wish I had a hundred dollars for everyone I've met over the years who's been as cocksure of his abilities as you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. Your test is invalid because it doesn't actually test
the neural circuitry you actually use while driving.

It's apples and oranges.

Go read the book I talked about. It covers this very subject.

I have a good sense of my "processor loading" if you will and know when to hang up and drive. I also have a high degree of discipline that a lot of people don't have in prioritizing what's important like the bee buzzing in the car etc. I drive and ignore the bee.

I'm not "cocksure" of my abilities and recognize that I can't do everything in every situation but I'm not so timid as to think I'm incapable of handling more than one thing at a time.

People absolutely CAN do two things at once. Indeed they can do more than that if necessary, especially if trained and able to do one or more of those activities on rote memory. Ever see a paramedic or emergency doctor at work? Ever see a pilot? (especially helicopter pilots..) Soldiers as well, cops also.. lots of different jobs demonstrate the multitasking skills I'm talking about every day. If we could only do tasks serially our species would have been extinct millions of years ago.

The thing is that these reflexes and rote behaviors are often life savers but occasionally make the wrong decision for us like the cops in NYC who shot the unarmed black guy 41 times for doing nothing more than pulling out his wallet.

The biggest thing that gets you into trouble in these reflex situations is PANIC. You PANIC - you DIE.

Read Blink.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #32
46. And using a cell phone does not require language? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
18. Is it taking your eyes off of the road to dial that's the problem,...
...or is it the act of conversing itself that's the real reason for a break in attention needed to handle a car safely?

I think they share equal blame.

I have made a serious driving mistake before because I was talking to passenger. The pervasiveness of cell phones now simply means that no one drives alone anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. I think taking your eyes off the road is far more serious than
talking to someone while driving. It is easy for me to talk and also scan the traffic and make good driving decisions. It is HARD for me to focus on buttons and press them and not look at the road. I think that should be intuitive to anyone. Perhaps this should be the next thing the NHTSA tests (in simulation of course).

As for those here who say people don't talk in the pattern when flying or close to the ground, they are forgetting calling out your position in the pattern at uncontrolled airports and all the conversation that goes on between the tower and the pilot at controlled airports including asking for winds on final for instance.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JimWis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
20. In my opinion, I don't feel anyone should be talking on a phone
while driving. I don't think it is safe. The phones are ok for emergencies, but otherwise, should not be used. Course I am a bit old fashioned about that - why in the hell would anyone want to yak on the phone while driving anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetpotato Donating Member (678 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
22. But you can't *text* hands free, can you?
I've almost accepted the damn cell phone drivers. Talking I can take. Texting - not so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. No but I DON'T text not even when sitting in chair...
the only way I text is with my broadband EVDO (wireless WAN card) plugged into my laptop so that I can use a real keyboard.

I hate texting as a generally rule and tell people who text me that hey...you know... that thing can also be used as a PHONE...

Anyone who texts while driving ought to have their license suspended - I have no problem saying THAT.

Doug D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gidney N Cloyd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
25. People should have to talk on a cell while taking their road test.
If you can pass under those conditions you get a special endorsement on your license to phone and drive. Fail, you can take it again w/o the cell but no chance of an endorsement.

I haven't figured the rest of the details out. I'm just an idea man. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. I'd go along w/that..
I think driver training should be much more involved and rigorous and the driver test should be much much harder than it is in this country though. In most places it's still a joke with only an eye test and a basic trip around the block involved with the proverbial parallel parking at the end.

I think drivers should have to get at LEAST their blood pressure, blood sugar, eyes and ears tested every two years and a road test every four years. Older drivers should have to be tested more frequently after age 70 as well. I've seen plenty of old folks losing control of the cadillac and driving it into the storefront accidents in Florida.

Of course that will never happen because AARP is the strongest lobby in America and politicans fear the power of organized old people.

Doug D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
31. Why on earth do people HAVE to yak on the phone while they drive??
That's the problem..

If you simply MUST know "whatchadoing?", just pull over and THEN call..or better yet, wait until you get where you are going, and then call :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. We live in a very time pressured society and time driving is otherwise time lost.
Many people talk to handle urgent business issues

Sometimes they need to make last minute arrangements on the way to a meeting.

Sometimes they need directions.

Sometimes they are reporting an emergency.

I think good judgement needs to be exercised as to when it is appropriate and when it is not.

Rush hour traffic on surface streets with construction and rain at night: Absolutely no.

I-95 in South Brevard County on a sunny afternoon with no cars in front or behind for 300 yards: Why not?

Doug D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blaze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
36. I drive a service van
and got my first blue tooth about six months ago. I have no idea why I waiting so long, but the calls to or from the shop or the supervisor or the customer are SO much less stressful now. What a difference! These are never long, chatty phone calls. These are, "I'm running about 30 minutes late" calls. Or, "Do you have 24v coil contactor on your truck?" calls. Both hands on the wheels. Both eyes on the road. I love it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
38. My wife's Ford has SYNC. Nice technology. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
39. standard? what if you don't have/want cellphone service?
Edited on Mon Dec-08-08 04:46 PM by QuestionAll
let them make it an option, if anything.

what i'd like to see is something that would jam phone signals unless the car was in park, or the engine was off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Jamming is NOT an option.
People here who say this know nothing about RF engineering - I do. They've seen too many Hollywood movies that fictionalize this to an extent that is ridiculous.

There are many reasons why this won't work.

Moreover it is not a reasonable approach given that there ARE valid reasons to make phone calls while driving - for that matter how would distinguish between a PASSENGER making a phone call and a DRIVER??

As for what I'm suggesting, your rationale is fairly silly, cell phones are everywhere in our society now, this is 2008, not 1988. It should be STANDARD, not an option as a matter of public safety, not personal convenience because people are going to talk on the phone when they drive and you aren't going to stop them.

Sticks don't solve problems - carrots do.

Doug D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. ...
:eyes:

i'm guessing you hear the words "pompous ass" quite a bit, don't you...?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
44. Probably not going to help much
A study (I'll link to it if I can find it, heard it on the CBC) showed that drivers tended to "self-talk" ("Look out for that pedestrian!!") and talking on a cell phone even hands-free interfered with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jul 28th 2014, 01:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC