The government should ban ALL drivers from using cell phones while driving – even “hands free” – and put on hefty fines if caught.
Nearly 80% of cell phone usage is personal calls; not business. In the recent past, cell phone providers fought this issue, but now with monthly “unlimited voice/text” plans, their arguement is slim to none. We’ve all been behind a driver on a cell phone – or worse – one who’s texting and they’re oblivious to their surroundings. They’re more dangerous than drunk drivers.
Sounds like trucker communications have changed a lot since the old CB days when radios were primarily used for “Smokey (Police) alerts”. These guys are supposed to be professional drivers and you would think they would know when it was not safe to use their cells, even hands free. Every private or commercial pilot and law enforcement, taxi, ambulance, fire or race car driver is constantly using their radios…and they aren’t always hands free. But usually those are brief one way-at-a-time (simplex) contacts. Unsafe cellphone usage is an epidemic. I was talking to my wife on my cell once and WALKED right thru a red light at the crosswalk…and I’ve had cells since 1988. Thankfully the driver of the pickup that stopped wasn’t on his cell.
I do not want to take away from the tragedy and the fact that this may not have been a hands free device (how could they not know if one was in use at the time or not?).
I am in total agreement that there should be a ban on texting, emailing, and to a large degree hand operated cell phones.
The story and the NTSB report glazed over a GLARING PROBLEM that the driver had. Fatigue, “Driver Fatigue may have compounded the distraction.” The driver is dead. Isn’t it possible that driver fatigue was in fact the sole cause of the accident? If you don’t have all of the facts, then how can you possibly point to the cell phone as the casue of the accident? Here is a govt agency looking for a way to push its agenda on opinions of what caused an accident and not facts. They inserted the use of the verbiage “texts” in the summary report, but quietly noted that it was phone calls that were made leading up to the crash. Do we know if those texts were made while he was driving?
Once again, I firmly believe that texting and hand operated cell phones are a problem. Hands free devices are distracting to the point that you need to dial the phone number (of which speak dialing has come a long way). Is looking at the cell phone to dial any more distracting than looking at the short skirt hiked up in the car next to them. Sounds sexist, but it is a reality and do not kid yourself if you think that is not happening or isolated (I supervised drivers an know what I am talking about).
Sorry if this seems to be a rant, but the report appears to be more “agenda” focused rather than “fact” focused. I also know that typically when the NTSB reccomends something, it becomes law.
I wonder when the NTSB is going to look at the distractions of a cop. Laptop, radio, stereo, and use of cell phones(even in states that ban it). The answer in my state is…. they are trained professionals and they might need the cell phone for an emergency. Until you can train someone to drive with their eyes closed and tell my that the police radio has been rendered useless, I find that arguement to be ludicrus.
Yes they do need them in emergencies. That’s what the article said:
“The U.S. government should ban truckers from using cellphones while driving *except in emergencies*”
I have known/ I do know many truck drivers and their families. I know of a few who are on their phones constantly for stupid reasons (I am not say all of them do this, but I think some do) “I just saw a red Pinto!”
I think that the younger generation of truck drivers especially, get bored easy and as they have grown up texting/talking and driving in their personal vehicles, why would a 18 Wheeler be any different.
In my area a few years ago a Semi slid into a broken down bus full of band students because he was driving and peeing at the same time. He killed a lot of people. It was tragic.
That being said I have also been traveling with Semi that are swerving all over and cutting into on coming traffic lanes etc and when you get up by them the are on a phone…
Hands free is safe IF you are using the voice dail/answer methods.
I have nothing against truckers as my family make up some of that workforce, Im just saying when you are Driving an 18 wheel battle cruiser that can kill people easily; it may be a good idea to be more attentive to your driving.
Truck drivers have a culture of cb use, constantly on the radio just to stay awake. Cell phones are just the evolution of that culture. Obviously didn’t work in the cited case. Personally, I think in the trucking industry, they probably do more good than harm.
i used to be a trucker…. here’s the problem #1… it was just one accident… so do we change laws just because of one incident? i know it’s a tragedy, 11 lives lost… but if you look at the total picture – how many drivers out there are driving while texting or even using a cellphone? in NY, all drivers are not allowed to be on the cellphone… if we are going to ban cellphones, then we need to ban them for all drivers and not just a selected few… cellphone usage is a privy based on drivers using them not a particular industry. next thing you know, they are going to say, i saw you sitting at the truckstop on the cellphone and you get a ticket. this is absolutely nuts! look at the majority of the incidences and determine if it truly is a risk, not just because of one tragedy! can they truly claim that call was at the time of the accident? if he was fatigued and tired, that is a driver error and not an industry error. as profession as we are supposed to be, it’s no different than anyone else on the road…
@wudchuck…the future is already here. One of my insureds pulled his pickup off the roadway onto the shoulder on a 2-lane to make a cell call. A cop (on his own cell) pulled up behind him and gave the client a ticket for talking on his cell while driving, because he had not put the truck in Park. He just stopped and had his foot on the brake. His brake lights were the give away. Someone else thought handsfree eliminates the hazard…not true…they just reduce the potential. The radio/CD/cassette, nav systems, conversations with passengers, eating, kids, etc., all increase the distraction factor.
Exactly wudchuck. Should be ban radios/CD players/mp3 players because they COULD distract the driver? How about no passengers because a passenger could distract the driver too. Ultimatly, it is and should be up to the driver to deside if it is safe for them to be talking on a cell phone or not.
In the United kingdom we banned mobiles/cellphones totally whilst driving any vehicle or cycle on the highway for the very reason you are talking about. a blanket ban across the country…
WARNING there will be some who think they are above the Law and still use it…
@Jonathan…the US operates differently from the UK as each of our 50 states have the right to establish laws as they see fit. What may be applicable in congested parts here may be unnecessary in our very lightly populated states like Wyoming, Montana, Alaska. A Brit, Piers Morgan, took over one of our popular TV interview programs this year and his most frequent comment is,”That’s not how we do it in the UK.” We have a rich tradition of personal freedoms and are reluctant to give up any…even to our own peril. I’ve traveled throughout Western Europe, Scandinavia and some of the UK. I’ve been asked most about our gun laws…no one understands them. If you study our history it’s easy to find their origin…your King George III.
Does your state have a seat belt law? A state does not get federal highway funds if they don’t.
Your state probably no longer has a blood alcohol limit of .10 for DUI. This was done as a result of the fed threatening funds for non compliance as well.
Don’t think for a second that the feds can’t get around that sovereign notion.
While Obama leads the current charge for socialism and taking away states rights, he is not the first.
The Central Coast is in the socialist state of California…and we probably have more laws than most that infringe on our liberties. And you are correct, the state chose the federal funds, but we also have a very high seat belt compliance percentage. We see very few seat belt tickets on MVRs. The feds provide funds for the weekend DUI stops too…but CA looks like they will be doing away with towing/storing cars for uninsured and unlicensed persons (read illegals) because our Democratic legislature & Gov. think it is unfair to the poor. Neither of those 2 ordinances in any way dispute my statement that each of the 50 states have the right to pass laws as they see fit…respecting traffic codes. Drive the speed limit in CA and cross into AZ and you better be in the slow lane. If you are interested in opposites…these 2 neighbors are about as polar as it gets in many respects. Further proof of concept…look up Joe Arpaio.
I hear you, I am from the socialist state of NJ on the east coast. But my point is the same. While a state can choose to have different laws, the Federal Govt uses funds that the states rely on in order to obtain compliance. This goes way beyond traffic enforcement. No Child left behind was a republican act. Schools must comply in order to get federal subsidies. The list goes on.
The government should ban ALL drivers from using cell phones while driving – even “hands free” – and put on hefty fines if caught.
Nearly 80% of cell phone usage is personal calls; not business. In the recent past, cell phone providers fought this issue, but now with monthly “unlimited voice/text” plans, their arguement is slim to none. We’ve all been behind a driver on a cell phone – or worse – one who’s texting and they’re oblivious to their surroundings. They’re more dangerous than drunk drivers.
Sounds like trucker communications have changed a lot since the old CB days when radios were primarily used for “Smokey (Police) alerts”. These guys are supposed to be professional drivers and you would think they would know when it was not safe to use their cells, even hands free. Every private or commercial pilot and law enforcement, taxi, ambulance, fire or race car driver is constantly using their radios…and they aren’t always hands free. But usually those are brief one way-at-a-time (simplex) contacts. Unsafe cellphone usage is an epidemic. I was talking to my wife on my cell once and WALKED right thru a red light at the crosswalk…and I’ve had cells since 1988. Thankfully the driver of the pickup that stopped wasn’t on his cell.
I do not want to take away from the tragedy and the fact that this may not have been a hands free device (how could they not know if one was in use at the time or not?).
I am in total agreement that there should be a ban on texting, emailing, and to a large degree hand operated cell phones.
The story and the NTSB report glazed over a GLARING PROBLEM that the driver had. Fatigue, “Driver Fatigue may have compounded the distraction.” The driver is dead. Isn’t it possible that driver fatigue was in fact the sole cause of the accident? If you don’t have all of the facts, then how can you possibly point to the cell phone as the casue of the accident? Here is a govt agency looking for a way to push its agenda on opinions of what caused an accident and not facts. They inserted the use of the verbiage “texts” in the summary report, but quietly noted that it was phone calls that were made leading up to the crash. Do we know if those texts were made while he was driving?
Once again, I firmly believe that texting and hand operated cell phones are a problem. Hands free devices are distracting to the point that you need to dial the phone number (of which speak dialing has come a long way). Is looking at the cell phone to dial any more distracting than looking at the short skirt hiked up in the car next to them. Sounds sexist, but it is a reality and do not kid yourself if you think that is not happening or isolated (I supervised drivers an know what I am talking about).
Sorry if this seems to be a rant, but the report appears to be more “agenda” focused rather than “fact” focused. I also know that typically when the NTSB reccomends something, it becomes law.
I wonder when the NTSB is going to look at the distractions of a cop. Laptop, radio, stereo, and use of cell phones(even in states that ban it). The answer in my state is…. they are trained professionals and they might need the cell phone for an emergency. Until you can train someone to drive with their eyes closed and tell my that the police radio has been rendered useless, I find that arguement to be ludicrus.
Yes they do need them in emergencies. That’s what the article said:
“The U.S. government should ban truckers from using cellphones while driving *except in emergencies*”
I have known/ I do know many truck drivers and their families. I know of a few who are on their phones constantly for stupid reasons (I am not say all of them do this, but I think some do) “I just saw a red Pinto!”
I think that the younger generation of truck drivers especially, get bored easy and as they have grown up texting/talking and driving in their personal vehicles, why would a 18 Wheeler be any different.
In my area a few years ago a Semi slid into a broken down bus full of band students because he was driving and peeing at the same time. He killed a lot of people. It was tragic.
That being said I have also been traveling with Semi that are swerving all over and cutting into on coming traffic lanes etc and when you get up by them the are on a phone…
Hands free is safe IF you are using the voice dail/answer methods.
I have nothing against truckers as my family make up some of that workforce, Im just saying when you are Driving an 18 wheel battle cruiser that can kill people easily; it may be a good idea to be more attentive to your driving.
Truck drivers have a culture of cb use, constantly on the radio just to stay awake. Cell phones are just the evolution of that culture. Obviously didn’t work in the cited case. Personally, I think in the trucking industry, they probably do more good than harm.
i used to be a trucker…. here’s the problem #1… it was just one accident… so do we change laws just because of one incident? i know it’s a tragedy, 11 lives lost… but if you look at the total picture – how many drivers out there are driving while texting or even using a cellphone? in NY, all drivers are not allowed to be on the cellphone… if we are going to ban cellphones, then we need to ban them for all drivers and not just a selected few… cellphone usage is a privy based on drivers using them not a particular industry. next thing you know, they are going to say, i saw you sitting at the truckstop on the cellphone and you get a ticket. this is absolutely nuts! look at the majority of the incidences and determine if it truly is a risk, not just because of one tragedy! can they truly claim that call was at the time of the accident? if he was fatigued and tired, that is a driver error and not an industry error. as profession as we are supposed to be, it’s no different than anyone else on the road…
@wudchuck…the future is already here. One of my insureds pulled his pickup off the roadway onto the shoulder on a 2-lane to make a cell call. A cop (on his own cell) pulled up behind him and gave the client a ticket for talking on his cell while driving, because he had not put the truck in Park. He just stopped and had his foot on the brake. His brake lights were the give away. Someone else thought handsfree eliminates the hazard…not true…they just reduce the potential. The radio/CD/cassette, nav systems, conversations with passengers, eating, kids, etc., all increase the distraction factor.
Exactly wudchuck. Should be ban radios/CD players/mp3 players because they COULD distract the driver? How about no passengers because a passenger could distract the driver too. Ultimatly, it is and should be up to the driver to deside if it is safe for them to be talking on a cell phone or not.
In the United kingdom we banned mobiles/cellphones totally whilst driving any vehicle or cycle on the highway for the very reason you are talking about. a blanket ban across the country…
WARNING there will be some who think they are above the Law and still use it…
@Jonathan…the US operates differently from the UK as each of our 50 states have the right to establish laws as they see fit. What may be applicable in congested parts here may be unnecessary in our very lightly populated states like Wyoming, Montana, Alaska. A Brit, Piers Morgan, took over one of our popular TV interview programs this year and his most frequent comment is,”That’s not how we do it in the UK.” We have a rich tradition of personal freedoms and are reluctant to give up any…even to our own peril. I’ve traveled throughout Western Europe, Scandinavia and some of the UK. I’ve been asked most about our gun laws…no one understands them. If you study our history it’s easy to find their origin…your King George III.
@ Central Coast
Does your state have a seat belt law? A state does not get federal highway funds if they don’t.
Your state probably no longer has a blood alcohol limit of .10 for DUI. This was done as a result of the fed threatening funds for non compliance as well.
Don’t think for a second that the feds can’t get around that sovereign notion.
While Obama leads the current charge for socialism and taking away states rights, he is not the first.
The Central Coast is in the socialist state of California…and we probably have more laws than most that infringe on our liberties. And you are correct, the state chose the federal funds, but we also have a very high seat belt compliance percentage. We see very few seat belt tickets on MVRs. The feds provide funds for the weekend DUI stops too…but CA looks like they will be doing away with towing/storing cars for uninsured and unlicensed persons (read illegals) because our Democratic legislature & Gov. think it is unfair to the poor. Neither of those 2 ordinances in any way dispute my statement that each of the 50 states have the right to pass laws as they see fit…respecting traffic codes. Drive the speed limit in CA and cross into AZ and you better be in the slow lane. If you are interested in opposites…these 2 neighbors are about as polar as it gets in many respects. Further proof of concept…look up Joe Arpaio.
I hear you, I am from the socialist state of NJ on the east coast. But my point is the same. While a state can choose to have different laws, the Federal Govt uses funds that the states rely on in order to obtain compliance. This goes way beyond traffic enforcement. No Child left behind was a republican act. Schools must comply in order to get federal subsidies. The list goes on.