<<  <  Page 5/7  >  >>
bob from maine
User Rank
Distracted Driving
bob from maine   1/9/2012 1:17:45 PM
Police need cellphones, multi channel radios, and computers while responsing to emergencies; sometimes they use all 3 at once while driving in extremely stressful conditons.

Firefighters use radios and often computers and internal communications while responding to fires to do size-up and coordinate equipment deployment. Desirably there is someone available int he cab to do some of these things, but not always. 

Aircraft pilots have far greater opportunities for distraction than most of the rest of us, yet for the most part they recognize their primary purpose for occupying the seat is to fly the airplane.

None of these occupations have extraordinary training or abilities beyond normal defensive driving and the recognition that while operating a moving vehicle their primary responsiblity is the safe operation of that vehicle.

It isn't the cell phone, GPS, coffee cup, newspaper, or passenger that causes accidents; it's the operator. Let's outlaw them! Sure would cut down on traffic congestion. We really need to stop making laws that solve nothing except the apparent overwhelming need to do something, even if it's wrong.

APG3 inventer
User Rank
Not another Mother -May I law - mudders me
APG3 inventer   1/9/2012 12:22:01 PM
This is just yet another 'Mothering' bill.   No intent to infer that it is bad to mother ones kids, or be a mother, but we have lost so many rights (bill of rights) and common abilities from over protective agencies I must just say it.

States that forbid drivers to have phones have not reported any change in distraction accidents.  And why just now ?  Nothing else to do in Washington ?

How about a budget ?  Trimming fat, etc.  Laws upon the voters won't work well in the future. And the future is upon us.


User Rank
Re: Distracted Driving
David12345   1/9/2012 12:09:12 PM
It ultimately boils down to the driver.  Are some drivers more experienced, some more responsible, some healthier, some more skilled, some more able to focus on the task at hand and shut-out lower priority distractions? Yes, the answer will always be yes.  In this country we try to minimize restrictions on freedom; however, where you draw the line when it puts others at greater risk always becomes a debate.

Nascar race drivers talk on the radio to their pit crews.  Drivers without cell phones may talk to passenger, use a GPS, listen to the radio, change a CD, sip a cup of coffee, or switch MP3 songs. Ultimately, driving is the responsibility of the driver.  I am not in favor or restricting conversation on cell phones.  I am in favor of restricting looking down to read newspapers, look at magazines, read texts, type texts, read electronic tablets/ipads, read touch screen controls, or punch in GPS data while moving.  Can that be regulated?  Probably not, but if it is illegal and has a significant fine, blatant violations clearly leading to an accident can certainly be enforced.

Regulation may sort out the worst drivers, but distractions cannot be totally regulated away.  That being said, I wish drivers would be supported by all cars having touch identifiable controls so that eyes would not have to go from the road to adjust ANYTHING. Many older cars did. Motorcycle controls have been much more standardized since the late 1970's. Most newer radios are much more difficult that way and less standardized.  I wish cars/music players standardized the controls, and any control that required reading would not work when the car was moving. 

Eventually, cars will have electronic chauffers (akin to the movie "Sleeper" and many others depicting the future since then).  As that technology gets perfected, we will all be passengers in our own car and we can be as distracted as we want.

User Rank
No stomach for enforcement
Ggarnier   1/9/2012 11:11:34 AM
(For some reason my browser or the site would not let me Post a Comment, but I could Reply - this is not meant to be a specific reply to Lou's post.)

Here in California hand-held phoning while driving has been illegal for about three years, and texting about two, as I recall. My observation has been that law enforcement has made no specific commitment to developing enforcement methods. As a result, in my small hometown, I can stand on the main drag and it won't take more than five minutes to spot someone with the phone to their ear - usually their left ear (I guess to keep the right hand free to play with the iDrive knob in their BMW). Often the vehicle is a convertible with the top down! So there appears to be no conscious fear of being ticketed. All it would take would be a couple of officers, one on the sidewalk and one stationed in a spot where the offender could be waved over, to help drivers internalize the message that the law is real and the penalties are substantial.

Stand at the exit to a Home Depot or an elementary school, and see how many SUVs roll onto streets with the driver having just initiated a cell call. Again, a pair of officers on foot could have a great effect on reducing this offense. But I have never seen any such measures taken.

Likewise with texting on the road. I can't take a ten-mile trip on a freeway without seeing a neighboring driver's head bent down into their lap, with only an occasional quick glance up through the windshield before returning to the task of keying in a message. An unmarked van or pickup with an officer as observer riding shotgun could put the fear of God into people who indulge in this irresponsible practice. For that matter, given the oblivious state most of these offenders operate in, the vehicle could be in full CHP livery with little effect.

In order to clamp down on drunk driving, spot traffic stops (called DUI checkpoints here) have been successful in significantly reducing that hazard. In order to have a measurable impact on cellphone-related violations, similar modalities need to be developed.

User Rank
cell phone ban
joejoe111   1/9/2012 11:04:23 AM
A partial solution to the problem of distracted drivers might be requiring cell phone manuf.'s to remove the built in speakers in the phone thereby necessitating the use of some type of earpiece.

User Rank
Re: Really??
alexatradio   1/9/2012 10:50:25 AM
yes you ae right,but don't forget where we are, here in the US, and here  it is customary to toss out he child with the badwater.

But don't worry if the phone companies will se deminishing business they will loby and we could have phone again


User Rank
Lou_C1357   1/9/2012 9:57:04 AM
While I understand the need to be totally aware of your surroundings while driving, Does the government really need to step in?

Lets face it, every drive is faced with numerous "distractions" while driving a car these days.  Ther are the verly complicated radio systems, heater controls, head light systems, warning bells, indicators, guages.  Look at the dash on a car today compared to one 20-30 years ago.  Radios used to have two knobs and 5 memory presets.  Now we have 20+ preset stations, knobs for volume, tuning, eqquilzer contol, AM, FM, Satillite, CD, MP3.  Heater controls have gone from a lever to control air flow, a lever to control air temperature, and a 3 speed fan control, to complex "automatic" systems with digital readouts, multiple buttons to push to direct the air where I want it to, driver/passenger temperatures, touchscreens, GPS systems, DVD players... etc.. I can go on all day...

I remember when I could tune a radio station in with out looking at the controls, or adjust the hear/air conditioning the same way.  Now I am constantly looking at the controls first. 

How is talking on a cell phone either in the hand or via bluetooth worse than haveing a conversation with the person sitting next to you??  How is holding a phone in the hand worse that having to reach to shift a manual transmisstion??

Couple all of this with the increased speed driven today and what do you get, more accidents.  Buy can one really pinpoint the cause??  Statistics can shead some light, but statistics can really show anything if you adjust the parameters to fit your desired outcome.

User Rank
Mobile Electronic Devices
fatmanonabicycle   1/9/2012 9:57:00 AM
Simple really, the task is for the lawmakers. Ask the question- "would you use any form of mobile communications device or watch a movie while in control of any form of mechanical transport ."

Those that do not immediately answer "No"; ban them for life.

Doesn't get easier.

User Rank
Another modest proposal
Ratsky   1/9/2012 9:54:40 AM
I think most folks here have agreed that there really isn't an effective way for the government bureaucracies to address this critical issue. How about a true "free-market" solution that could actually work?  Insurance companies could offer an option: in return for a substantial premium reduction, there would be a clause added that would severely limit (5%? $10K?) or even eliminate the amount of liability payment coverage in the event that the insured is found guilty of "distracted driving" or equivalent in relation to an accident.


Unlike the original "modest proposal" (Google it) or my favorite alternartive (make attempted suicide a capital offense), this one is totally serious!

User Rank
Re: Distracting Devices
Walt   1/9/2012 9:53:10 AM
Yes, let's require an audio feed in all cars that let's the government know if the driver is talking to a passenger and a camera to watch the drivers pupils to tell the government whether they look at their HVAC settings or instrumentation too often.  Then if the driver talks to a passenger, or looks too much at their dash or any other items, the government can send them an automatic citation.  Oh, I forgot that passenger conversations are a distraction to the driver.  We'd better cite any adult passenger that speaks at over 60dB.  We'll need to require retinal scanners for passenger ID.

(Please do not take this seriously - this is intentionally ridiculous to demonstrate the direction we're headed.)

<<  <  Page 5/7  >  >>

Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
Eric Chesak created a sensor that can detect clouds, and it can also measure different sources of radiation.
Festo's BionicKangaroo combines pneumatic and electrical drive technology, plus very precise controls and condition monitoring. Like a real kangaroo, the BionicKangaroo robot harvests the kinetic energy of each takeoff and immediately uses it to power the next jump.
Practicing engineers have not heeded Yoda's words.
Design News and Digi-Key presents: Creating & Testing Your First RTOS Application Using MQX, a crash course that will look at defining a project, selecting a target processor, blocking code, defining tasks, completing code, and debugging.
Rockwell Automation recently unveiled a new safety relay that can be configured and integrated through existing software to program safety logic in devices.
Design News Webinar Series
3/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
2/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
12/18/2013 Available On Demand
11/20/2013 Available On Demand
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Apr 21 - 25, Creating & Testing Your First RTOS Application Using MQX
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: April 29 - Day 1
Sponsored by maxon precision motors
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service