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 5)
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 
on Dec 15, 2011

Easiest remedy to this dilemma and certainly easier to enforce is to allow phones and ban cars......

on Dec 15, 2011

Easiest remedy to this dilemma and certainly easier to enforce is to allow phones and ban cars......

That would only partially work, there are some people who can't walk and text at the same time.

on Dec 16, 2011

Horse and cart, then if you are on the phone the horse can drive ...

on Dec 16, 2011

I worked for an attorney.  He expected me to multitask.  I ate, drove and answered the phone in the car simultaneously.  He was very peeved when I told him I wouldn't talk until I could pull over.

Rofl  on the vid above.

FYI--multitasking usage as a word originated with the military.

on Dec 16, 2011

Sinperium
FYI--multitasking usage as a word originated with the military.

The origin of the term "multitasking" came from computers. People noticed that they seemed to be performing several functions at the same time. But were they really? Imagine two networks requiring access to same area at same time. Either the activity will alternate between the two, which deprives both of full access, or they will be active simultaneously but will not be fully effective because they interrupt each other. http://www.keyorganization.com/multitasking-effectively.php

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

In fact, it is the same with people. There is "alternate tasking" not "simultaneous tasking". This is why I said multitasking is a myth. 

"In his book, "The Myth of Multitasking: How 'Doing it All' Gets Nothing Done," author Dave Crenshaw breaks down the term "multitasking" into two different categories:

1. Switchtasking
2. Background tasking

These groupings are much more descriptive in analyzing behavior and determining which activities lead to problems and stress in our lives.

Switchtasking is what we do all day at work as we talk on the phone while scrolling through email and listening to colleagues' conversations. A law of physics says that no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time. While thoughts are not objects, the same concept applies. Attempts to multitask like this make you less productive, not more.

It is not possible to do two things at the same time and do them both at 100per cent. One will be more dominant. What might be the price you pay for partial attention on work items?

Every time you switch, there is a recovery period associated with it, so overall you are losing minutes. If you completed one type of activity and then moved to the other, it would be a lot quicker with better results.

Background tasking refers to the repetitive or mundane daily activities that you routinely perform. This can actually be very efficient, when you are not making decisions. Examples are reading a book while on a stationary bike, folding laundry in front of the TV, or listening to background music while washing the dishes.

In evaluating your multitasking habits, leave out background tasking.

Multitasking involves multi-thinking. If you claim that you are good at this, then you are good at an inefficient way to get things done. Maybe that could explain, "I'm in a hurry and don't know why." The why is because you are taking longer to get things done by splitting your attention." - ibid

Which I explained in a prior reply involving "task A and task B".

on Dec 16, 2011

LOL  Close enough--popularized by military/pentagon usage (along with business and IT folk).

I agree.  I am very able to handle the stupid requirement of "appearing to multitask" but fully agree--one thing at a time is best.

The phone while driving thing is a psychological problem--not one of "common sense".  It is too easy to get lost in thought while driving where seconds do count.  This has been suggested by scientific studies.

For those who feel "they" should not be restricted from using their devices while driving then the same freedom lets every irresponsible person do the same with impunity and then someone gets killed.

Just not worth it for 144 characters...Accident

It's actually a great point on the multitasking as that what is being touted by many as "the new evolution" by some experts, making today's youth potentially mentally more nimble and "smart". Hmm.

on Dec 16, 2011

The truth is, anyone can be an "expert" in things like this.

on Dec 16, 2011

In parts of NYC they have banned talking on cell phones while WALKING.  The nanny state run amok.

on Dec 16, 2011

gevansmd
In parts of NYC they have banned talking on cell phones while WALKING. The nanny state run amok.

Nah...let the fuckers die.  Idiots will always find a diversion.....

...oh look...a butterfly....

on Dec 16, 2011


Quoting gevansmd, reply 68In parts of NYC they have banned talking on cell phones while WALKING. The nanny state run amok.

Nah...let the fuckers die.  Idiots will always find a diversion.....

...oh look...a butterfly....

If it weren't so commonplace and droll, it might qualify for a "Darwin Award".

 

Just a thought...

 

on Dec 16, 2011

Interesting take.  With a bit more background on the triggering event.

on Dec 16, 2011

A really interesting experiment would be to implement the motion related 'bricking' and see the changes in all types of accidents...

on Dec 16, 2011

Conceptual thinking in the wiring of the female brain is over-rated. If wemen were such good multitaskers then they could be both male and female.  Its not necessary a case that this rule was made for men but a generalization that even wemen can stumble and shouldn't be texting and talking on the phone while driving. 

Men are both intellectuals and good multitaskers because the brain is a muscle and gets stronger which means it can endure just about anything from attention seeking posters, trolls to Tom  Dick and Harry. 

The honest truth is this ban is behind its time: With the introduction of Siri on the iPhone 4s and Samsung breaking just about every patent in can with apple then this law will be swept under the rug within 3 years as people will reply to text messages and calling on their apple and Samsung mobile devices by just talking. 

 

[Comment edited. Moderation]

on Dec 16, 2011

There are way to many people in the world that do a poor job of mono tasking. Inhale-exhale is near the limit of their focus.

on Dec 16, 2011

DrJBHL
Multitasking is a myth.

Multitasking is not a myth.  However, not everyone can do it.  When you are guiding a few tons of steel (or fiberglass) at 60 miles an hour, there is no time to test if you CAN multitask.  I agree people should get smart and just not do it.  I cringe at "laws" as they always go overboard, but do agree in this case, when you are risking OTHER lives, that you have no right to text and drive.

6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6