Ramblings of an old Doc

 

Tuesday, the NTSB called for this complete ban:

“Federal officials on Tuesday called for a nationwide ban on the use of personal electronic devices while driving—including talking on the phone, as well as sending and reading text messages.

The recommendation, from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), came out of a board meeting intended to evaluate an August 2010 multi-vehicle accident in Missouri caused by a distracted driver.

"More than 3,000 people lost their lives last year in distraction-related accidents," NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman said in a statement. "It is time for all of us to stand up for safety by turning off electronic devices when driving."

"No call, no text, no update, is worth a human life," she said.” - http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2011/gray_summit_mo/index.html

The above link leads to an accident report. It’s worth reading.

“As a result of this accident sequence, the driver of the GMC pickup and one passenger seated in the rear of the lead school bus were killed. A total of 35 passengers from both buses, the 2 bus drivers, and the driver of the Volvo tractor received injuries ranging from minor to serious.” – ibid

The bottom line is that these devices are used by careless, unthinking fools while driving or operating machines which by their nature (size, weight, speed, etc.) can magnify the results of distraction.

That’s not even counting such geniuses as Alec Baldwin and his “game” which couldn’t be interrupted by something as trivial as an airplane full of other people taking off at a busy airport. How many could he (and others) chalk up every year with their nonsense?

I’m not crazy about regulations. They limit one. They also depend on voluntary compliance. People (adults) should be able to control themselves and comply. The sad fact is that "should” and “reality” is so incredibly far apart that this is a case where that the “freedom” to comply or not should be taken away.

Why do regulators even think such a “freedom” does or should exist? What these users, wait… abusers is doing kills and maims themselves and others (and also drives up insurance rates so we all pay for it).

No one has the “freedom/right/entitlement” to take another life or maim another except in well circumscribed circumstances. SMS messaging, phone calls and “tunes” just don’t figure in those cases.

These devices should have an automatic “suspend” feature activated by motion (and turned off by stopping) which could only be overcome by appropriate authorities to relay emergency messages such as “Area X: Disaster in progress, take cover.”

What about an “emergency” message from a child in danger to his/her parent? The phone/device should have an “emergency button” for such an instance, and should go to the police and activate a GPS “marker”.  Any misuse prank should cost both the parent and child.

I believe that (as usual) the abusers lack of consideration of others has reached a level with such lethal results that “choice” (which honestly doesn’t really exist in such situations for normal adults) needs to be taken away. Any tampering with such limitations should carry penalties like tampering with smoke detectors, or perhaps sterner.

Enough is enough; in fact, too much and too dear.


Comments (Page 3)
6 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on Dec 15, 2011

The inflection point is the end of the innocent victim's nose...

Individual rights are fine, but not to the point of someone elses death/dismemberment.

We're not discussing a major alteration of The Constitution nor Bill of Rights. We're talking obvious limitations set to driving. Driving is a privilege not a right. It is regulated by law. Since this messaging/phoning stuff endangers others, end of story.

My life, my kids', yours and everyone's can't be equated with sms'ing, etc. while driving.

There is no such thing as risk-free driving (or living, for that matter).

That's a long way from advocating a supposed 'right' to engage in actively extremely dangerous activity, to the detriment of others.

It's one thing to deal with unavoidable risk.

It's quite another to actively maximize unnecessary risk.

on Dec 15, 2011

I live in a state that has already made it illegal to talk on a handset or text while driving. It is unenforced, nearly unenforceable and has done nothing to stop people from doing it. I support it being illegal, it just won't do what anyone hopes it will. I was nearly sideswiped two weeks ago by a texting driver who ran a red light, have been run off the road by people yacking on a handset, etc. It's clearly a problem, I am just not sure it has a solution OTHER THAN TECHNOLOGICALLY. The phone makers could easily enough put in software to DISABLE texting/phone calls if the phone is moving more than, say, 10 MPH. All it takes is GPS (which many phones have) and a will to make it happen. THAT is what should be legally required, you will never be able to enforce it on the consumer end.

on Dec 15, 2011

About time this happened. There is absolutely NO reason to be using a phone while driving. The latest tests have proven that using a mobile phone while driving is more dangerous than drink driving. If your call is so important then pull over, don't be a selfish prick and endanger other motorists for your own selfishness. If i had my way anyone caught using one while driving would not only get a fine, but also lose their licence for a period of time. I see idiots all the time with their phones glued to the ear while driving and it annoys me. Just who the hell do they think they are to be putting my life and other drivers lives in danger just because they are too selfish to pull over.

on Dec 15, 2011

I agree that distracted drivers are a major issue, however; I do not think that banning phones will help much.  I think the cell phones being used while driving are a symptom, not the cause.  Some people are just going to find something to be distracted by.  If you take away their phones they will be looking at things out the windows,worrying about getting a ticket from the cop that just pulled up behind them or fiddling with their radios.  In my opinion any crime that risks another person's life should have very severe consequences.  You want to risk everyone's lives by doing something stupid?  Get caught and you should be in jail for life or dead.  Risk your life, but leave the rest of us alone.

On another note, please don't assume that all gamers are mentally deficient because of one kid's post.

on Dec 15, 2011

I am just not sure it has a solution OTHER THAN TECHNOLOGICALLY. The phone makers could easily enough put in software to DISABLE texting/phone calls if the phone is moving more than, say,

2-3 mph. Usual strolling speed. Doesn't even need GPS (but that's ok too)... enough to have a motion sensor which when tampered with bricks the phone.

Nimbin
About time this happened. There is absolutely NO reason to be using a phone while driving. The latest tests have proven that using a mobile phone while driving is more dangerous than drink driving. If your call is so important then pull over, don't be a selfish prick and endanger other motorists for your own selfishness. If i had my way anyone caught using one while driving would not only get a fine, but also lose their licence for a period of time. I see idiots all the time with their phones glued to the ear while driving and it annoys me. Just who the hell do they think they are to be putting my life and other drivers lives in danger just because they are too selfish to pull over.

Major "Bravo!".

Delmoroth
I think the cell phones being used while driving are a symptom, not the cause.

I don't think it has to be belabored... enough to have "Autobrick" either the phone or the car gets bricked.... j/k - enough for the phone to be shut down by the carrier when the phone is moving > 2-3 mph.

Delmoroth
Get caught and you should be in jail for life or dead.

That's a bit over the top.. enough for the phone to shut down.

Delmoroth
On another note, please don't assume that all gamers are mentally deficient because of one kid's post.

Absolutely agree. See my #27.

"Stereotypes are great for stereos, not people." - doc, 12/15/11, Forums, WC.

 

 

on Dec 15, 2011

We agree more than disagree, Doc.  I'm not arguing in favor of 'the right to engage in actively extremely dangerous activity, to the detriment of others'.  But there is no end to what might arrive at the end of an innocent victim's nose.  The 'inflection point' is the point at which risk becomes unavoidable no matter what you do, which is the point to be 'decided' by someone/something.

For better or worse, the notion of an 'entirely innocent' victim is a bit of a fallacy because we accept that driving a vehicle entails inherent risk - if we choose to drive, we choose to place ourselves at risk.  Removing the emotional aspects of 'victimhood', it is no more 'necessary' for the innocent victim to have been driving than for the irresponsible driver to have been distracted.

Because I agree that operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right, the only way to avoid the innocent victim's nose is to ban motor vehicles.  Anything short of that, you are left with the same dilemma - as long as humans are operating them, innocent victims will be at risk.  Of course, one solution is the auto-pilot, which would let us text & talk to our heart's content, but that will take a while to materialize.  Shifting to mass transportation increases the number of people at risk per event, but is safer overall (e.g., air travel).  For better or worse, it's not particularly practical as a substitute for POV's.

What I disagree with is the notion that a conversation between two people in a vehicle in motion constitutes a proscribable (unnecessary) risk, or that using your thumb to decrease the radio's volume is an unnecessary risk.  For that matter, interacting with any vehicle controls or interfaces constitutes a 'distraction', i.e., the very act(s) of operating a vehicle.

If a device could be created (at a non-prohibitive cost), whether incorporated into the device or the vehicle, that would selectively disable voice calls & texting while a vehicle is in motion (without disabling GPS devices, radio reception & use of a smartphone as a radio, etc.), I'd have no problem with it - it would be no different than an air bag system, just another safety feature.  But a simple ban on such use has already been demonstrated to be ineffective.  It just adds another item to the perp's charge sheet.

on Dec 15, 2011

More like Ipad posts.

I once replied my mail and posted something here while stuck in traffic. This ban will make it very difficult for me to troll and be a nuisance.  

on Dec 15, 2011

What I disagree with is the notion that a conversation between two people in a vehicle in motion constitutes a proscribable (unnecessary) risk, or that using your thumb to decrease the radio's volume is an unnecessary risk. For that matter, interacting with any vehicle controls or interfaces constitutes a 'distraction', i.e., the very act(s) of operating a vehicle.

I'll agree, Doc.

I hate those damned phones... no good comes of them, unless it belongs to Hamas/Hizbullah and the Mossad is the telephone 'repair' man.

on Dec 15, 2011

id like to note that "portalble electonic devices" might include "mp3 players"

 

and. considering my only mp3 player is my phone... to which i hook an audiocable to my car...

 

but.

 

portable is the word here.

 

I for my 4 hour car trips from home to college... if i have to set up my computer in the passanger seat inorder to pump soundwaves into my ear , than SO BE IT.

 

the bright light of the monitor will prolly help me stay awake for longer too. hmm........

on Dec 15, 2011

If the two parties to the conversation are in the same environment [same car] the concentration loss is significantly less...as BOTH parties are aware of the surrounding traffic...level of 'danger'.  It is ONLY a significant issue when one is in an entirely different surrounding....ie. home or office and probably isn't even aware the other isn't likewise.

When you converse with someone you effectively socially relate to them - and that isn't in your passenger seat.

on Dec 15, 2011

I wish the inter-tubes weren't so corrosive of meatware memory skills. I managed to find an old PBS News Hour story about some statistical research indicating that mobile phone conversations are more distracting than conversations with a passenger. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/july-dec09/driving_07-28.html 

What I can't find quickly is some other neurological research I read about that seemed to indicate that talking on a phone actually involves a much larger portion of the brain than talking face-to-face with someone. If I recall even half-correctly, the hypothesis was that when you talk to someone not physically present with you, your brain struggles to simulate the non-verbal cues that are a large part of natural conversation. There's also the lossiness problem--normal speech sucks up cycles big-time just to fill in and clean up the incoming auditory signal. Audio signal strength over any phone system is worse than most in-person contexts.

Liberty is near and dear to my heart, but my liberty ends when a drunk driver or mobile phone addict behind the wheel kills me. The fundamental 'fixes' there are cultural, as we've seen with the dramatic reduction in drunk driving over the past three decades. But unlike the drunk driving problem, this toy-based problem also can be partly solved through smart regulation. The idea of locking out GPS-enabled devices that are moving above speed X is not at all surreal. Devices built into luxury cars are even easier to engineer--they can simply connect to the speedometer. 

And since the OP is an MD, I thought it an interesting cooincidence that today's Times has an article on "distracted doctoring." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/as-doctors-use-more-devices-potential-for-distraction-grows.html . Both the roadways and our hospitals seem to be suffering from a marketing-driven obsession with digital devices. Those of you who are old and thoughtful enough to remember the change should always be cautious when IT, a subset, is discussed simply as "technology." That change of language marked a substantial change in our political economy, and many aspects of that change are not fun.

on Dec 15, 2011

My 2 cent...

 Professional Baseball player can hit a 100mph fast ball ,Pro Jai alai players catch 188mph balls ,Pro Race car drivers such as NASCAR drive 200mph while talking about the handling of the car and the other drivers.........

Simply Put SOME CAN SOME CANT!!!!!!

but even the ones who can't are still on the road and using phones!

on Dec 15, 2011

GW Swicord
And since the OP is an MD, I thought it an interesting cooincidence that today's Times has an article on "distracted doctoring." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/as-doctors-use-more-devices-potential-for-distraction-grows.html . Both the roadways and our hospitals seem to be suffering from a marketing-driven obsession with digital devices. Those of you who are old and thoughtful enough to remember the change should always be cautious when IT, a subset, is discussed simply as "technology." That change of language marked a substantial change in our political economy, and many aspects of that change are not fun

Indeed. "Distracted Doctoring" is also caused by hospital loudspeakers, nurses and endless hours without sleep. Some digital devices can help in decision making, however. They can also have apps which link the hospital to the office making critical labs and imaging availableto the M.D. very quickly.

The idea is to prioritize, however.

MRI's, labs and driving don't mix. So.. it's a matter of "Location, location, location."

theAVMAN
Simply Put SOME CAN SOME CANT!!!!!!

No, my friend. No one can and not risk what isn't his to risk: Your and others' lives and limbs.

 

on Dec 15, 2011

Tying together an accelerometer log and your gps in phones that calculates your speed might be a good approach.  Take for example the phone knows you are driving at 70mph so when you dial out it automatically dials 911 and transmits your gps data to the emergency desk and begins logging your route and speed estimates there.

That might make it a little more enforceable.

This sort of thing is already used in automobiles by insurance companies.

 

on Dec 15, 2011

EDIT:

I was distracted while posting this. Should of looked at the page# I was reading.

Forgive me.

6 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last