Are Studies Evaluating Cellphone Use & Car Crashes Overestimating Risk?
- Posted on December 15, 2011 at 1:28pm by
Liz Klimas
- Print »
- Email »
(Photo: AP)
A new study evaluating earlier research of cellphone use and car crashes is saying that the risk claimed to be associated with driving and using a cellphone may be overestimated. News of this study was released just days after the National Transportation Safety Board recommended all states issue a ban on portable electronic device use while operating a motor vehicle.
Richard Young, Ph.D., a professor of research in Wayne State University’s Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences in the School of Medicine, looked at two studies — one a 1997 Canadian study and the other a 2005 Australian study — to identify possible bias. The news release reports that these studies used cellphone billing records of people who had been in a crash and compared their cellphone use just before the crash to the same time period the day (or week) before — the control window.
What Young thinks is that earlier investigators assumed that people were driving during the entire control period, while they may not have been, thus skewing the results.
Richard Young. (Photo: Wayne State University)
“Earlier case-crossover studies likely overestimated the relative risk for cellphone conversations while driving by implicitly assuming that driving during a control window was full time when it may have been only part time,” said Young in the news release. “This false assumption makes it seem like cellphone conversation is a bigger crash risk than it really is.”
Young and his team conducted a new study using GPS to track the habits of 400 drivers for 100 days. The release states that Young then divided the days studied into pairs with the first day representing the “control” day and the second day representing the “crash” day from earlier studies. What the team found was that there was little consistency in the amount of time spent driving between the two days — driving time on the control day was about a fourth of the driving time on the crash day.
“This underestimation of the amount of driving in the control windows by nearly four times could reduce cellphone conversation time in that control period,” Young said. “It makes it appear that there is less cellphone conversation in control periods than in the time just before a crash, making the relative risk estimate appear greater than it really is.”
Therefore, Young concluded that crash risk due to cellphone conversation is about one-fourth of what is estimated in previous studies — close to normal baseline driving.
Young, considering NTSB’s recent recommendation, has said he thinks the ban may go too far in not allowing cellphone conversations on the road.
“Recent real-world studies show that cellphone conversations do not increase crash risk beyond that of normal driving — it is the visual-manual tasks that take the eyes off the road and the hands off the wheel that are the real risk,” said Young in the release.
In this, Young agrees with many other that texting could be dangerous while operating a vehicle. It was texting that resulted in a deadly crash in Missouri that the NTSB was investigating when it made its recommendation to ban all mobile device use while driving.
So perhaps its use of hands-free devices that could remain on the road, which is something many states already require if one is going to use a cellphone while operating a car. But NTSB includes even hand-free sets in its recommended ban and recent research states that hands-free devices can be just as risky as regular handsets.
“There is a large body of evidence showing that talking on a phone, whether hand-held or hands-free, impairs driving and increases your risk of having a crash,” Anne McCartt, senior vice president for research at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said to the Associated Press.
Jim Hedlund, a safety consultant and former National Highway Traffic Safety Administration official, recently examined 300 cellphone studies for the Governors Highway Safety Association. He couldn’t recall a single study that showed drivers talking on a headset or hands-free phone were at any less risk of an accident than drivers with one hand on the wheel and a phone in the other.
A similar analysis for the government of Sweden recently came to the same conclusion: “There is no evidence suggesting that hands-free mobile phone use is less risky than handheld use.”
What’s missing is hard evidence that accidents are increasing because of cellphone use. One reason is that U.S. privacy laws have made it difficult for researchers to study whether cell phones were in use in accidents in the U.S. The two large studies that have been done — the Canadian and Australian studies evaluated by Young — found drivers were four times more likely to have a crash if talking on a cellphone. It didn’t matter whether the cellphone was hands-free or hand-held. It is this finding, that Young believes he has debunked with his research.
If a ban on hands-free devices were enacted, some of said that they would have to ignore it. The Associated Press reported Bruce McGovern as one of these people.
McGovern, who owns four Massage Envy and four European Wax Center franchises in the Dallas area, said he spends up to four days a week on the road, traveling between his businesses.
“My business would go down. We‘d have problems we couldn’t solve. My employees wouldn’t be able to reach me and get timely answers,” McGovern said to AP.
“Customer issues that only I can resolve would have to be delayed. And in this day and age, customers want instantaneous results for things. They’re not willing to wait three or four hours,” he said.
McGovern, who said he uses hands-free technology 90 percent of the time, said he’s been conducting business from his car for more than 20 years, starting with an early “bag phone” that predated today’s much smaller cellphones.
“It’s a total overreach of the government. It’ll be enforced erratically. They can’t even enforce the speed limits,” McGovern said.
Boston attorney Jeffrey Denner said he racks up at least 25 billable hours each week while driving.
“I probably spend three hours a day on the phone in the car – minimum. In an hour, I can talk to 10 people. On my way to court, I call people to make sure witnesses are lined up. It’s become a part of my life.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
This story has been updated since its original posting to correct an error.
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 684 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 648 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 523 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 361 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 318 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 183 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 213 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Scathing New Ad Capitalizes on Rep. Ryan‘s ’Fading Obama Posters’ Remark 124 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 183 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (102)
JRook
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:46pmA) The same type of flawed statistics are used by MADD who want the US blood alcohol level dropped to zero. They use data from people who are in accidents and if there is any alcohol in their system they attribute the accident to the alcohol. As is the case with the cell phone use, when you just choose people who have been in an accident you have to account for all potential contributing factors. Such as the idiot who just changed lanes without signaling.
Report Post »B) This whole campaign has nothing to do with liberals, big government or actually safety, although safety would be a potential byproduct. This has to do with big insurance companies reducing their risk and lowering their total claim payouts. Oh and don’t expect to see a reduction in auto rates. The extra profits will go to the lobbyists who got this done and the CEO of course.
Just A Private
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 4:59pmSo drinking and driving should be allowed?
Report Post »KevINtampa
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 5:50pmIn Florida, if you register .01 BAC, and someone who registers .00 BAC hits you in the rear end while you are stopped at a red light, it is your fault.
That’s retarded law, but Drinking and Driving is retarded anyways…
All that said: DUI Checkpoints are the biggest sign of our police state. They are Curfew Checks…NOTHING MORE. Right now they are ‘mainly’ used for DUI, unless you are in certain parts of Philly. I’ve been through several in Florida, and every time they have asked me “Where have you been and where are you going?”. Why they think they should know my business baffles me; but the one time I did say “That’s absolutely none of your business, officer” I was handcuffed, placed in the back of a paddy wagon for 45 minutes, then let go…evidently telling an officer the truth gets you put in the “timeout” corner. No charges were ever made against me, no Miranda Rights ever read.
Drinking and Driving is retarded, but so are “DUI Checkpoints”. Go arrest the drunks and stop harassing those who are NOT!
Report Post »jacques.daspy
Posted on December 26, 2011 at 11:21amPeople don’t seem to understand that there is an acceptable casualty rate for individual irresponsibility. What is needed is simply no regulation but the legal acceptance of responsibility. Cause an accident, go to jail, kill a pedestrian, go to jail, kill a passenger, go to jail, cause a fatal accident, summary execution by the roadside. Life is simple, death is even simpler.
Report Post »ares338
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:45pmPeople will always do stupid things while driving. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen people reading a newspaper while driving. Adding more laws will NOT help.
Report Post »Dismayed Veteran
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:42pmI can state with 100% accuracy that using cell phones while driving can result in an accident. A 16-year old in a RAM plowed in the rear of my RAV4 during rush hour. I was stopped in a lane of traffic and saw this kid coming and knew he didn’t see me. My air bag deployed and my nose was broken. The crumple zone worked both the rear where I was hit and the front where I hit the guy in front of me.
Report Post »ocean1994
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 2:05amCrumple zones worked, you are alive to type this comment, what the problem? I think it’s ignorant of you to assume he was texting, especially after reading this article. Rear ending is the most common type of accident in the US and it happens to everyone. Yet, if the person who accidentally hit you was 50 you would not state the age or assume they were texting. What an ageist! Letting go of a grudge is good for you, try it.
Report Post »Salamander
Posted on December 17, 2011 at 9:39pmA few months back, I had a woman blow through a traffic light at an intersection, directly crossing my path of travel! If we had an accident, one or both of us would have been killed! But, it wasn’t the cell phone that caused her infraction–it was the inattention that comes from not learning how to properly use the device in the first place! How about a cell-phone segment in the driving exams, BOTH on the test AND in the DRIVING segment? (They might want to include a segment on how to powder your nose as well, as this seems to be a popular driving pasttime!) Humor aside, if there are going to be cellphones, let’s learn how to use them properly, which includes the decision when NOT to use them!
Report Post »jacques.daspy
Posted on December 26, 2011 at 11:27amLove it, people should only be allowed to use a cell phone that is less intelligent than they are. The big problem is that the “smart phones” are not smart enough. A simple motion detector could simply shut down the phone. Some decisions have to be made by the smartest equipment in the car.
Report Post »Arshloch
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:40pmBig brother says, EVERYONE MUST be one hundred percent safe at all times, ERGO no text or cell phones in a vehicle. Better idea no people allowed in vehicles, safer yet. Next if no people were born, no one could be hurt, ah… let’s make conception illegal. Now everyone is safe and, in one hundred years, there will be no unsafe actions – but no people. The ecologists now have their wish, the world is now as it was before man arrived; run by a bunch of apes. Oh…maybe that’s the problem at present.
Report Post »Coffeehead
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:43pmLet‘s eliminate all laws and stop lights and stop signs because we don’t want big brother telling us what to do. OR we could move to Afghanistan where their roads are like that already.
Report Post »Coffeehead
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:48pmI can text, eat food, use the phone, tune the radio and drive at the same time. It’s YOU people I worry about. What dope believes this. Distracted is bad. Driving without distractions is good.
Report Post »Brooke Lorren
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 3:10pmYou must also add that listening to a portable music device while driving is also dangerous and can cause an accident. I‘m not sure why it’s more dangerous than listening to the radio, but the government wants to ban it so it must be.
Report Post »ocean1994
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 2:13amdear coffeehead,
Report Post »Im shure that this person does not advocate for the removal of stop lights and all laws. As we all now know laws banning cell phones is nothing but governmental vanity
jacques.daspy
Posted on December 26, 2011 at 11:32amThat’s part of the problem. too many people think that they are smarter than chimpanzees, they just don’t know how smart chimpanzees are. You hardly ever see a chimpanzee driving while under the influence of stupid nor do they use a cell phone when driving. Consequently, very few chimpanzees are involved in auto accidents.
Report Post »garbagecanlogic
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:38pmThe answer is: The states need to enforce or enact laws. If you drive around any city on any given day, and in an unmarked car, you can cite a minimum of 30 drivers who are using their cell phones or texting. Mostly women.
The U.S. Out Of The U.N.
Report Post »The U.N. Out Of The U.S.
SpankDaMonkey
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:35pm.
Report Post »Cell phones, no worse than some woman late for work doing her eyes in the rearview…………..
HorseCrazy
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:34pmI will still drive and talk on the phone. I have dark tinted windows and dont give a rip. havent ever been in an accident and only use my phone when necessary. some people are just bad drivers whether they are on the phone or not. This is just another control tactic. I am beyond tired of it
Report Post »nelsonknew
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:30pmDoes anyone see the OTHER things the NTSB wants to go after? Deborah Hersman, the head of the National Transportation Safety Board, went on WNYC’s Brian Lehrer Show Wednesday morning to talk about the Board’s recent recommendation for a national ban on cell phones. Among Hersman’s comments were; “Is listening to talk radio distracting? Music? Or eating? Why are those things any less dangerous than talking on the phone?” Talk radio? CONSERVATIVE talk radio? People like Glenn Beck? hmmmm does anyone see what’s coming?
Report Post »Brooke Lorren
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 3:11pmThey want to ban listening to the radio while driving. Using an MP3 device connected to an FM transmitter is also banned under these new proposed recommendations.
Report Post »benshivd
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 7:38pmCombined with the current legislation that allows indefinite detention of Americans suspected of being terrorist. What will they define as “terrorist”. Seems like there is some really curious things coming our way in the future. History tells us they are no where near done trying to legislate our behaviors.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:26pmWhenever the word POTENTIAL is used… what follows is PROPAGANDA!
Report Post »HorseCrazy
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:32pmtotally agree
Report Post »NeverSurrender
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:24pmI am sorry to hear about you and your wife, coryf076, but guess what….I got rear ended last December while at a red light and the woman wasn’t doing anything except DAY DREAMING!!!!!! There are thousands of things in a vehicle to distract a driver from food, to passengers to kids to evidently themselves. I would much rather be stopping at a red light in front of someone talking on a hands free cell phone while looking at the road than in front of a car full of people all holding a conversation as the driver repeatidly takes their eyes off the road to look at the passengers while talking.
I’m sorry coryf076, but neither you nor the government will ever be able to completely peotect everyone from accidents until the two of you finnally are able to only allow the chosen few to own automobiles.
Report Post »NeverSurrender
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:19pm“It was texting that resulted in a deadly crash in Missouri that the NTSB was investigating”
This is a blad face lie. The KID that was texting rear ended a semi truck because he was texting…… and he lived. THEN a bus driver that was following too close for conditions and with bad brakes rear ended the KID’s truck killing the KID. Regardless of whether the KID was there or not the bus would have still rear ended the semi. The cause of the “deadly” collision was improper lookout, following too close for conditions, driver inattention and failing to maintain a vehicle on the part of the BUS!!!!!
Report Post »chips1
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:27pmMissouri doesn’t enforce the following too closely laws. They need money so radar is the money making scheme out here. It’s like none of the officers have been trained on Rules of the Road.
Report Post »Salamander
Posted on December 17, 2011 at 9:43pmYou are EXACTLY right in your assessment of this accident, which I have seen cited in 4 different states! It makes me wonder if the ‘accident’ isn’t a montage of several different events!
Report Post »chips1
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:15pmDid the study indicate the language they were speaking when using the phone? Nationality might have something to do with the number of accidents.
“Si si Sinor!!!
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:10pmThe bottom line is, you can’t consentrate on driving and hold a conversation on a phone at the same time. Lets all understand this and be responsible. Next thing you kow, we’ll have yet another law that will grow into a monster like the red light cams.
Report Post »NeverSurrender
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:27pm“The bottom line is, you can’t consentrate on driving and hold a conversation on a phone at the same time”
JLGUNNER, I presume according to your excellent logic you also cannot “consentrate on driving and hold a conversation with anyone at the same time”
When will YOUR government outlaw passengers and children from being in the vehicle with the driver?
Report Post »George Patton
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 4:00pm@neversurrender
Indeed laws are used to oppress people but that does not mean every law is oppressive. You don’t have a right to jeopardise my life by texting on the road. I have a right to drive down the road without being smashed into from some 16 year old dimwit texting her boyfriend.
Report Post »Lonescrapper
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:10pmAccording to these studies, just talking to someone is a risk behavior. We should ban passengers.
Report Post »starchy
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:47pmI think this might upset the environmentalists, and we certainly do not want to do that!
Report Post »Wilkins
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:19pmTalking to someone who’s in the car with you is completely different than talking to someone on the phone. The person in the car shares your environment, and normally will pause in the conversation if they see a situation developing in front of you. The person on the phone just yaks on obliviously, demanding your attention. That’s why talking on the phone is more distracting.
I ALWAYS look to pull over before I take a call. People in my personal life and my business life know to leave a message, and I will get back to them.
Except for the passenger who yaks on, oblivous to all around them. Driving with those people is as bad as drinking and driving. If they won’t straighten up, kick them to the curb (at the bus stop if you’re a gentleman, or a lady).
Report Post »Salamander
Posted on December 17, 2011 at 10:11pmWilkins, when talking on cell phone in the car, YOU need to control the conversation! Just break in and say “Please stand by, I’m in traffic.” If it doesn’t clear, then when the opportunity presents itself, say “I’ll call you back.” Don’t ask, TELL! Just like in Radio, you need to SAY it because they can’t SEE it! And, above all, DRIVE THE VEHICLE, then communicate!
Report Post »w4rpedfr4me
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:09pmWhat the hell is “evalutating?”
Vote Ron Paul.
Report Post »saranda
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:04pmThe guy with the massage and wax shops has a pretty big ego if he thinks his employees require instant access to him constantly. Likely a micro manager who could stand to let go of a little of his “power”. And the lawyer billing hours from his car is fine if he is using handsfree with voice activated dialing as I have in mine.
Report Post »Cell phones IMHO are the worst thing to happen to civilization ever. No one needs to be in constant touch with work and as far as texting, I find it a waste of effort and nothing that could not wait. Very few times in my life has it been critical I have immediate access to text or call someone, in fact maybe never.
Salamander
Posted on December 17, 2011 at 10:22pmPersonally, I agree! I even had a great period where I had NO phone service! If you wanted to reach me, leave a message at the A&P downtown, and I’ll get back to you! But, I must say that cell phone service is invaluable to me at work! I drive deliveries and it is so great to give a client 20 minutes to 30 minutes notice of a delivery ( in which they usually have to clear their driveway, or leave work and meet me at the delivery site), and then be on time +- 1-minute! I can usually nail it even an hour out! And with 150,000 miles of driving a year and 1,500 deliveries, I can ALWAYS find a ‘safe’ piece of road (no traffic, no lights or stop signs, no schools or school buses, no pedestrians, straight enough for my speed to open the decision threshold and wide enough for my speed to reduce the ‘drop a steer tire off the pavement’ hazard) to make a short call! If not, I stop–but NOT on the roadway! My ETA is no good until I’m underway and out of the departure neighborhood. I devote, maybe, 10% of my attention to the call and the verbiage is rote. I control the call and I‘ll state ’I’m in traffic, please stand by!” if I have the least doubt about my surroundings. I may say, I’m entering a traffic zone, let me call you again in 10/20 minutes. Or, if it is urgent, I punch out of the call or just drop the phone and worry about it later! I also have to glance at the delivery particulars, but I don‘t focus on them or ’read’ them!
Report Post »Mandors
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 1:53pmCanadian and Australian “studies” were behind the whole plastic bags and soda rings endanger sea life myth. The original study was talking about commercial fishing debris not consumer garbage. The Canadians and Australians mixed up the data. So not surprised that the Canuks and Aussies screwed up on this one.
Report Post »Blacktooth
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 1:47pmI would prefer we did not have cell phones at all. They consume too much of our time and attention. Does anyone have the time or freedom to just walk around and enjoy our world without the constant slavery to the all consuming and false importance of the cell phone? Do we really need to be “talking all the time?”
Try this: Don’t use the phone for one entire day! Bet you can’t do it.
Report Post »TXPilot
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:00pm@BLACKTOOTH……I never thought I would agree with something like you said, but you are correct. Up until recently, I didn’t see anything wrong with cellphones, but that has all changed. When everywhere you go, you see people walking around like zombies, texting, talking or doing whatever on their phone, it’s becoming apparent that the cell phone is one of the things ruining “real” communication these days. lol…..that point really hits home, when you see your kids sitting on opposite sides of the same table texting each other, instead of talking.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 1:44pmPretty soon, the rationale will have developed into “Humans are incapable of thinking or operating themselves in any manner. The government must now take total control of your body through electronic means.
***HITS SWITCH***
“Your body and mind is now under government control.”
Report Post »jacques.daspy
Posted on December 26, 2011 at 11:41amTotal government control, it’s coming. People have elected officials and have authorized them the power of “creation.” It usta be a job description for gods but now anyone with a Harvard degree will do?
Report Post »deeberj
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 1:39pmI guess my post disappeared.
I said if hands free phones are banned because they are distracting, I want other stuff banned too.
No children in cars.
Report Post »No one other than the driver in cars.
No GPS.
No media – no radio, CD players, DVD, computers
No billboards or signs on buildings. Only street signs.
deeberj
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 1:39pmSorry for double post.
Report Post »Salamander
Posted on December 17, 2011 at 10:34pmWRONG! Drivers CAUSE accidents; thus, NO DRIVERS in cars!!! This is the ONLY logical solution!
Report Post »cemerius
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 1:39pmThere are so many “cell phone” users that should NOT be driving in the first place!!! Texting while driving? Might as well be reading a book too!!! People that text and drive should be punished like a DUI!!! When I am behind some nimrod driving eratically they are either drunk or on the damn phone!!! When I mention erratically it’s the ones that are driving below the speed limit and causing back ups on the highway!! I talk say my piece and hang up my number one thing to do when driving is DRIVE!! Oh yeah for those that WANT this “law” be prepared to say good bye to drive thru windows too!! No more eating or drinkg and in some places no smoking when children are in the car!!! Damn “NANNY STATE”!!!
Report Post »sbleve
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 1:55pmReading while driving! It happens, at least once in my experience. Congested urban heavy traffic. Some stop and go – where a driver next to me was reading a kindle like reader, held in place with hand on the steering wheel. Oh, he was just prepared for the stop and go.
Report Post »Armyforlife
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 1:38pmI am starting to see the long-term plan. If you ban cell use while driving, then the government can encourage cabs in lieu of privately owned vehicles, then ban privately owned vehicles when accidents increase and then we will be just like Afghanistan under the Taliban regime.
Report Post »Salamander
Posted on December 17, 2011 at 10:25pmGreat idea! I’ll just order up a taxi-truck! My boss will be pleased! Cell phone use in ALL commercial vehicles WAS BANNED on November 23, 2011 ! It will cost my tiny company about $15,000 to $45,000 a year in compliance! That’s about a headcount (or two)!
Report Post »deeberj
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 1:34pmIf even hands free phones are distracting enough to ban them, then I have a list of other things that need to be banned when I’m driving because they are distracting:
Report Post »1. Children in my car.
2. Anyone in my car. After all, they may talk to me and I may be distracted.
3. GPS in my car.
4. Radio, CD player, any sort of musical device or even the radio, dvd, computer. Listening to them and fiddling with the tuning knob and buttons can be distracting. Just no media period.
5. NO roadway signs, like billboards and signs on buildings. Only street signs allowed.
TSUNAMI-22
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 1:34pmEven as a pilot I find it very distracting to have to monitor and talk on a radio. Most people don’t realize the distances traveled while distracted.
Report Post »Arch Stanton
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 2:34pmI seriously hope you’re kidding, or that you’re only a sport pilot. If you aren’t kidding…never ever get your instrument rating.
As far as the cellphones go, they are only a distraction to small minded people. If you can’t have a conversation and drive…you should be smart enough not to do it. If you’re not smart enough…then there’s always that thing called evolution when you go flying off the road into a concrete barrier. Public safety of other vehicles is NOT a valid concern.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Benjamin Franklin, 1775.
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 1:32pmNo!!! The Government lied??? Say it isn’t so!!!
Report Post »Time to defund the NTSB along with the EPA and about 20 other agencies.
Get the F’ing government off our backs!
CatB
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 1:47pmAgree completely!
TEA!
Get out of our business and lives!
Report Post »