US proposes cellphone ban for truck drivers

[Grid]

I think that cell phones shouldn't be banned for truck and bus drivers. I don't think we should discriminate against someone just because they drive a truck. However, I believe that the trucking companies should be allowed to decide whether or not they want to permit their truckers to use cell phones while driving or not.

WASHINGTON - The U.S. government on Friday proposed prohibiting commercial truck and bus drivers from using cellphones while behind the wheel.

The Transportation Department rule would affect approximately 4 million drivers, who are already banned by the government from texting while working.

The proposal is the latest move in Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's stepped-up campaign against distracted driving in which he has questioned cellphone use in passenger cars and "hands free" communications technology.

"Every time a commercial truck or bus driver takes his or her eyes off the road to use a cellphone, even for a few seconds, the driver places everyone around them at risk," LaHood said in a statement.

Nearly 5,000 people were killed and another 500,000 were hurt in crashes of all vehicles involving a distracted driver in 2009, government safety figures show.

Inattention was a factor in 9 percent of large truck crashes, which fell overall in 2009 from the previous year. Most truck crashes involve collisions with other vehicles.

Read more: http://www.cnbc.com/id/40724585

 

[fss]

The odds of such a law being upheld as constitutional are exceedingly low with the current business-friendly Supreme Court.

Current bans on cell phone use while driving are either state laws or apply only to federal employees.

 

[berkeman]

It's already a law for all motor vehicles in California -- you have to use hands-free cell phone devices:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/cellularphonelaws/index.htm

.

 

[Al68]

I think that cell phones shouldn't be banned for truck and bus drivers. I don't think we should discriminate against someone just because they drive a truck. However, I believe that the trucking companies should be allowed to decide whether or not they want to permit their truckers to use cell phones while driving or not.

I've seen truck drivers with a Mountain Dew and their CB mike in one hand, and a sandwich/map in their other hand. The way I see it, they have to put something else down to use a cell phone, so it's a wash.

 

[berkeman]

BTW, the cell phone bans (or hands-free limitations) do not currently apply to half-duplex radios like CB and HAM. Not sure I understand the logic, but whatever.

 

[Al68]

The odds of such a law being upheld as constitutional are exceedingly low with the current business-friendly Supreme Court.

You mean (partially) constitution-friendly Supreme Court? As long as the prohibition applies only to when the truck is crossing a state line, I think it would be upheld.

 

[Jasongreat]

The odds of such a law being upheld as constitutional are exceedingly low. I guess Secretary LaHood has never heard of the commerce clause.

Current bans on cell phone use while driving are either state laws or apply only to federal employees.

It seems to me that commercial drivers are the only ones that the constitution allows for having their traveling rights restricted, through the commerce clause according to, my reading, of a few USSC rulings. How would the commerce clause prevent the ban? I would guess that one could argue that it only covers insterstate commerce, and therefore truckers who never cross state lines would be exempt, but the USSC has ruled that the commerce clause covers the feds fining an ohio farmer for using his own wheat because he didnt put it on the market, so I am sure they would allow the feds to control in-state truckers as well. I see no way the ban would be ruled unconstitutional.

To the OP, would you also have problems with the feds restricting dangerous behaviours of other groups in the name of safety, such as drinkers?

References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn"

USSC cases involving right to travel: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221., Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579, Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125., and Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm"

USSC case involving the right of the feds to regulate commerce, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbons_v._Ogden" and by that to regulate navigation, which in todays terms would be truckers the way it was boats on water ways in that case, imo.

 

[JaredJames]

So people here support drivers using cell phones whilst driving?

Are you serious? You think that allowing a bus driver to use a cell phone whilst they are driving a bus full of passengers is safe?

I can give you numerous studies showing how badly cell phone use affects car drivers and how it increases the likelihood of a crash. (Plus I believe mythbusters did an episode proving it.)

It is illegal in the UK to use a mobile phone whilst driving for precisely this reason.

 

[Al68]

So people here support drivers using cell phones whilst driving?

Nobody said that. The issue is whether the U.S. federal government has the power to override a state's decision according to the U.S. Constitution.

The issue is analogous to whether the U.N. has the legitimate authority to enforce a similar law on member states instead of each member state making their own laws. It's a separate issue from whether such a law should exist.

In the case of the U.S., the federal government's charter (constitution) authorizes the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. That clause has been fraudulently used as an excuse for countless shenanigans. Banning cellphones while driving is not regulating interstate commerce, but a general safety issue, and as such the power to make such laws is reserved to the respective states by the U.S. constitution. And nobody really thinks the purpose of such a law is to regulate interstate commerce, it's just a blatantly transparent cover.

 

[WhoWee]

There are major differences between route delivery drivers, bus drivers, local freight haulers, local aggregate haulers, and over the road freight haulers. Some businesses require constant communication with their local drivers. For the over the road (long distance) driver, the cell phone is the only connection to family while working.

Any ban would need to provide greater specificity. I can see this type ban leading to bans on all delivery drivers and salespersons - very slippery slope (IMO).

 

[JaredJames]

Nobody said that. The issue is whether the federal government has the power to override a state's decision according to the U.S. Constitution.

From the OP:

I think that cell phones shouldn't be banned for truck and bus drivers. I don't think we should discriminate against someone just because they drive a truck. However, I believe that the trucking companies should be allowed to decide whether or not they want to permit their truckers to use cell phones while driving or not.

The first statement is regarding whether or not the laws should exist. My comment is appropriate to that.

And given the fact the poll is simply "should cell phones be banned for truck drivers?", I'd say yes, people did say that.

The fact is, using a phone whilst driving is dangerous. I believe one study compared it's effects to drunk driving and they were virtually analogous.

The question asked is "should truck / bus drivers be banned from using phones whilst driving". Other posters commented regarding whether or not the law could be upheld, not the OP.

 

[Al68]

The first statement is regarding whether or not the laws should exist. My comment is appropriate to that.

And given the fact the poll is simply "should cell phones be banned for truck drivers?", I'd say yes, people did say that...Other posters commented regarding whether or not the law could be upheld, not the OP.

OK, my bad. You are correct. I hereby retract my statement that "nobody said that" and replace it with "most posters in this thread didn't say that."

 

[JaredJames]

OK, my bad. You are correct. I hereby retract my statement that "nobody said that" and replace it with "most posters in this thread didn't say that."

Strictly speaking, "many posters" in this thread aren't discussing what the OP specified.

I'd also add that any person who votes no in the poll is advocating the use of mobile phones whilst driving, given what the ban entails from the OP:

WASHINGTON - The U.S. government on Friday proposed prohibiting commercial truck and bus drivers from using cellphones while behind the wheel.

 

[fss]

So people here support drivers using cell phones whilst driving?

That's quite a liberal interpretation of the original post. Take that mentality for another issue- say, gun control- do you feel the same way? I don't support murder or gun violence, but I don't think the government should regulate against owning guns.

(Plus I believe mythbusters did an episode proving it.)

Mythbusters "proving" something? More like Mythbusters performed a poorly thought-out and poorly executed experiment that happened to produce results that coincided with your point of view... kind of like they always do.

 

[Al68]

I'd also add that any person who votes no in the poll is advocating the use of mobile phones whilst driving, given what the ban entails from the OP:

WASHINGTON - The U.S. government on Friday proposed prohibiting commercial truck and bus drivers from using cellphones while behind the wheel.

That quote specifically refers to a federal government ban, and opposing a federally imposed ban isn't equivalent to opposing a ban in general. But you're right that the poll question itself only asks whether cell phones should be banned.

But even so, opposing a ban on something isn't equivalent to advocating it. For example, I oppose a ban on abortions, but I don't advocate abortions. And I oppose a ban on smoking pot, but I don't advocate smoking pot.

I need to retract my earlier retraction. Nobody in this thread has advocated the use of cell phones whilst driving.

 

[JaredJames]

Mythbusters "proving" something? More like Mythbusters performed a poorly thought-out and poorly executed experiment that happened to produce results that coincided with your point of view... kind of like they always do.

If by that you mean they had someone drive around a course without a phone and then with one and noted the difference in the driving, I'd agree. But then, what else would you have them do? It answered the question posed very well.

That's quite a liberal interpretation of the original post. Take that mentality for another issue- say, gun control- do you feel the same way? I don't support murder or gun violence, but I don't think the government should regulate against owning guns.

That quote specifically refers to a federal government ban, and opposing a federally imposed ban isn't equivalent to opposing a ban in general. But you're right that the poll question itself only asks whether cell phones should be banned.

But even so, opposing a ban on something isn't equivalent to advocating it. For example, I oppose a ban on abortions, but I don't advocate abortions. And I oppose a ban on smoking pot, but I don't advocate smoking pot.

I need to retract my earlier retraction. Nobody in this thread has advocated the use of cell phones whilst driving.

I'm going to answer these two together.

Firstly, call it what you like, I responded specifically to the question asked in the OP. My problem is that I don't know if people have voted based on the question asked or what they thought was being discussed based on the posts of others.

OK, so what I'm seeing here is this:
"I don't think truck drivers should be banned from using phones whilst driving."
but
"I don't support driving and using a phone."
Now, by not having a law one way or another, you leave it down to personal choice. A personal choice as to whether or not you use your phone and endanger the lives of those around you.

So by leaving it to personal choice you give people the option of being a danger to others. Note that at no point are you advocating the use of phones whilst driving. All you are saying is "if you want to risk the lives of the passengers on the bus, that is your choice."

Abortions are completely separate and not analogous in any way. By leaving the choice to the person, it doesn't affect anyone else (let's not go down the child road). You are not granting the choice to a person to be a risk to those around them.

 

[skeptic2]

I've seen the statistics, that someone talking on a cell phone has the response time of a drunk. One question none of the studies answers is, if talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as claimed, why have both fatal crashes/100 million miles driven and crashes all causes/100 million miles driven continued to decline since before cell phones were first introduced. Here for instance are the figures for the last 15 years for fatal crashes per 100 million miles driven which is all the farther back the chart goes. The data are from here.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

1994 1.73
1995 1.73
1996 1.69
1997 1.64
1998 1.58
1999 1.55
2000 1.53
2001 1.51
2002 1.51
2003 1.48
2004 1.44
2005 1.46
2006 1.42
2007 1.36
2008 1.26
2009 1.13

The question that comes to mind is that if talking on a cell phone while driving is as dangerous as a drunk driver and we have gone from zero cell phones in 1984 to perhaps 150 million today (not all of which are in use while driving all the time), wouldn't we expect to see an increase in car crashes per 100 million miles driven instead of a significant reduction? Assuming talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as claimed, what factors would be in play to reduce fatalities by such a significant amount in spite of increasing cell phone use? Let's not forget that in 1984 the 55 mph speed limit was still in effect. Can we possibly believe that putting tens of millions more drivers on the road that are effectively temporarily drunk would not cause the crash rate to increase?

Could it be that, while talking on a cell phone while driving is an added distracting, it either is not nearly as dangerous as a drunk driver or that with practice drivers learn to compensate for the distraction by using the phone only in light traffic, leaving more space between them and the car ahead or other ways?

 

[JaredJames]

1994 1.73
1995 1.73
1996 1.69
1997 1.64
1998 1.58
1999 1.55
2000 1.53
2001 1.51
2002 1.51
2003 1.48
2004 1.44
2005 1.46
2006 1.42
2007 1.36
2008 1.26
2009 1.13

Just a guess but safer cars comes to mind (these numbers are specifically for fatal crashes as you point out). Cars get safer, less people die in crashes. Numbers drop.

Perhaps numbers for total crashes need to be brought up before we can say one way or another whether crashes have increased or decreased.

 

[skeptic2]

I don't deny that cars have gotten safer over the years but would that increase in safety be able to not only offset the effect of millions of additional "drunk drivers" but also reduce fatalities by 35% in 15 years?

Yes, the total number of crashes have gone up but as the number of miles driven has increased also and as highways become more congested one would expect the number of crashes per 100 million miles to increase not decrease. I cannot find the data on crashes all causes right now but that data closely parallels the fatal crash data.

I am not saying that using a cell phone while driving is not a distraction, only that the data seem to suggest that the danger of that has been grossly exaggerated.

 

[fss]

It answered the question posed very well.

Seriously? If that's what you consider scientific evidence, I'm not sure anyone's going to get through to you.

OK, so what I'm seeing here is this:
"I don't think truck drivers should be banned from using phones whilst driving."
but
"I don't support driving and using a phone."
Now, by not having a law one way or another, you leave it down to personal choice. A personal choice as to whether or not you use your phone and endanger the lives of those around you.

Well that's a ridiculous assertion as well. You could extend this line of reasoning to many other things; driving while eating, driving while talking to a passenger, driving with one hand on the wheel, driving with a GPS mounted on the dash, driving with shouting kids in the back seat, etc. Are you also supportive of federal laws regulating those situations as well?

So by leaving it to personal choice you give people the option of being a danger to others.

When is there zero chance of a personal choice endangering another person? Perhaps the federal government should ban (and pay to enforce the ban) the potentially harmful practice of carrying hot coffee with one hand in close proximity to innocent bystanders on the grounds that you might trip and spill it on someone, causing bodily harm.

Note that at no point are you advocating the use of phones whilst driving. All you are saying is "if you want to risk the lives of the passengers on the bus, that is your choice."

Federal legislation is not needed in the case of bus drivers, as they are restricted from cell phone use by their employer. If they are not restricted and cause an accident, they are charged with manslaughter, reckless endangerment, etc. which are prosecuted on the state level.

You are not granting the choice to a person to be a risk to those around them.

Again I ask, when is this not true?

 

[JaredJames]

I don't deny that cars have gotten safer over the years but would that increase in safety be able to not only offset the effect of millions of additional "drunk drivers" but also reduce fatalities by 35% in 15 years?

I don't know, we need the data to check this.

Yes, the total number of crashes have gone up but as the number of miles driven has increased also and as highways become more congested one would expect the number of crashes per 100 million miles to increase not decrease. I cannot find the data on crashes all causes right now but that data closely parallels the fatal crash data.

Until we have said data, we cannot draw such a conclusion.

I am not saying that using a cell phone while driving is not a distraction, only that the data seem to suggest that the danger of that has been grossly exaggerated.

Again, the data we have only shows fatal crashes have decreased. Until full crash stats are available we can't say whether or not "the danger of that has been grossly exaggerated", because we simply don't know.

Just because the number of miles driven increases, does not mean that the number of crashes should increase.
If the number of miles driven increases by 100 million, you would need another 1 fatal crash to maintain the statistic (or whatever the figure is). However, if those extra 100 million come from 'safer' vehicles driving only short weekly trips (perhaps to the shops and back, never breaking 30mph), the chances of that additional fatality arising are slim. So you get your increase in road miles, but not an increase in fatalities. So the overall statistic becomes lower.

Like I said, you need the full crash stats before you can draw the conclusion. We'd need to see whether or not the number of overall crashes has increased or not.

 

[Al68]

Abortions are completely separate and not analogous in any way. By leaving the choice to the person, it doesn't affect anyone else (let's not go down the child road). You are not granting the choice to a person to be a risk to those around them.

I agree that using a cell phone while driving is a public safety issue instead of a private issue, but I never claimed that abortion was analogous in that way. It's analogous only in the sense I stated: opposing a ban on it (tolerating it) isn't equivalent to advocating it. Tolerate does not mean advocate.

 

[skeptic2]

I don't know, we need the data to check this.

Until we have said data, we cannot draw such a conclusion.


Again, the data we have only shows fatal crashes have decreased. Until full crash stats are available we can't say whether or not "the danger of that has been grossly exaggerated", because we simply don't know.

Just because the number of miles driven increases, does not mean that the number of crashes should increase.
If the number of miles driven increases by 100 million, you would need another 1 fatal crash to maintain the statistic (or whatever the figure is). However, if those extra 100 million come from 'safer' vehicles driving only short weekly trips (perhaps to the shops and back, never breaking 30mph), the chances of that additional fatality arising are slim. So you get your increase in road miles, but not an increase in fatalities. So the overall statistic becomes lower.

Like I said, you need the full crash stats before you can draw the conclusion. We'd need to see whether or not the number of overall crashes has increased or not.

I made a formal request for that data at the NHTSA site. I received a message saying requests typically take 2 weeks to be filled.

 

[JaredJames]

Seriously? If that's what you consider scientific evidence, I'm not sure anyone's going to get through to you.

The mythbusters thing was an aside (in brackets?) to my main point. I can cite you a shed load of papers on the issue if you want. The mythbusters episode wasn't my "definitive proof" or "scientific evidence" that completely and utterly defines the issue.

Now instead of being flippant, why don't you provide me with something that shows mobile phones use whilst driving is safe? Or are you simply arguing on a ridiculous point based on your dislike for mythbusters?

Well that's a ridiculous assertion as well. You could extend this line of reasoning to many other things; driving while eating, driving while talking to a passenger, driving with one hand on the wheel, driving with a GPS mounted on the dash, driving with shouting kids in the back seat, etc. Are you also supportive of federal laws regulating those situations as well?

Yes I could, and I do. In the UK for one, we have something called "driving without due care and attention" and "reckless driving". Which basically means, if the police feel you aren't fully concentrating on driving you can be charged. I fully support this and find myself curious if the US has something similar?

It is very much a law which employs officer discretion when applying it, but gives an officer the ability to deal with any action on the part of a driver which (s)he feels endangers others around them.

You don't need individual laws, but one that allows officers to work as indicated above.

When is there zero chance of a personal choice endangering another person? Perhaps the federal government should ban (and pay to enforce the ban) the potentially harmful practice of carrying hot coffee with one hand in close proximity to innocent bystanders on the grounds that you might trip and spill it on someone, causing bodily harm.

When did I say there was ever a "zero chance of a personal choice endangering another person"?

You are liable for injuring someone with your coffee, just as you are if you crash whilst on the phone. However, this is a question of scale and potential damage. Again these aren't analogous situations.
When something poses a strong risk to the public, it is the governments job to step in and deal with it.
In the UK, accidents involving distraction (specifically mobile use) increased and so they brought in laws to deal with it. (I'm now going to look up the stats.)
If the risk of people spilling coffee and causing serious injury (including a number of deaths) appeared, I would expect them to deal with it.

Federal legislation is not needed in the case of bus drivers, as they are restricted from cell phone use by their employer. If they are not restricted and cause an accident, they are charged with manslaughter, reckless endangerment, etc. which are prosecuted on the state level.

And if they are not restricted? I somehow doubt it's a slap on the wrist and told to stop doing it.

 

[JaredJames]

I agree that using a cell phone while driving is a public safety issue instead of a private issue, but I never claimed that abortion was analogous in that way. It's analogous only in the sense I stated: opposing a ban on it (tolerating it) isn't equivalent to advocating it. Tolerate does not mean advocate.

Agreed, and I attempted to clarify my own position by removing advocation.

 

[JaredJames]

I made a formal request for that data at the NHTSA site. I received a message saying requests typically take 2 weeks to be filled.

Should be interesting. Keep us (well me) posted.

 

[NeoDevin]

While most studies have (correctly, I would imagine) concluded that the response time and reduction in awareness of someone using a cell phone is comparable to that of an impaired driver, there is a significant difference between using a cell phone (or any other activity that requires attention) and being drunk: One can stop paying attention to the cell phone (or put it down it altogether) in a difficult driving situation requiring full attention. For example: One can talk on a cell phone/fiddle with an iPod/eat food/etc. while driving on a straight highway with little traffic (or in a traffic jam where the speeds are very slow). For city driving in moderate-to-heavy traffic requiring full attention, they can put whatever they're doing down and pay attention.

Drunks can't "turn off" being drunk.

This probably explains why the statistics don't support the addition of fifty-million-plus drunk drivers to the road.

I used to live outside the city, and had a 30 minute drive on straight highway with good visibility in all directions. Because I was working odd hours at the time, I had the road almost completely to myself most times I was driving. I would frequently talk on my cell phone while driving, and then hang up when I got to the city so that I could pay attention when it counted.

 

[cristo]

I can kind of see both sides to this story, and I think the difference between the US and the UK is wider in this case than some might think. The main difference is between automatic and manual cars. In the UK most cars are manual, so it's clearly very distracting to be driving with one hand a phone since you will, at some point, have to drive with no hands in order to change gear. However, in the US cars are automatic, so it could be argued that 'losing a hand' is less of a distraction. I've done both and, to be honest, I don't really see the difference between driving an automatic with one hand on a phone and driving a manual car talking on a hands free: both are the same level of distraction.

The thing that gets me is people who text while driving. That, in my opinion, should be illegal.

 

[NeoDevin]

I can kind of see both sides to this story, and I think the difference between the US and the UK is wider in this case than some might think. The main difference is between automatic and manual cars. In the UK most cars are manual, so it's clearly very distracting to be driving with one hand a phone since you will, at some point, have to drive with no hands in order to change gear. However, in the US cars are automatic, so it could be argued that 'losing a hand' is less of a distraction. I've done both and, to be honest, I don't really see the difference between driving an automatic with one hand on a phone and driving a manual car talking on a hands free: both are the same level of distraction.

If I recall correctly, studies have shown that hands free is almost as bad as using a phone. It's not the loss of a hand that is the problem, rather it is the inattention caused by focusing on the conversation.

Edit:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#Handsfree_device"

Handsfree device
Driving while using a handsfree cellular device is not safer than using a hand held cell phone, as concluded by case-crossover studies.[18][19] epidemiological,[2][3] simulation,[5] and meta-analysis[7][8]. The increased "cognitive workload" involved in holding a conversation, not the use of hands, causes the increased risk.[20][21][22] One notable exception to that conclusion is a study by headset manufacturer Plantronics, which found 71 percent of the test subjects steered more accurately, 100 percent had faster brake reaction times, and 92 percent maintained a more consistent speed when using a headset versus handheld.[23]