http://www.cnbc.com/id/40724585 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/40724585)
U.S. proposes cellphone ban for truck drivers
Published: Friday, 17 Dec 2010 | 5:53 PM ET
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.
Fatal bus crashes jumped from 20 to 38 in 2009.
Between 6 percent and 13 percent of bus crashes were linked to inattention, according to a National Transportation Safety Board investigation of those types of accidents between 1998-2008.
Many big transport companies, like UPS Inc and Wal-Mart Stores Inc, already prohibit drivers from using a cellphone while operating their trucks.
The cellphone proposal is subject to a 60-day comment period before being finalized.
Not surprising at all, most americans are ready to give up just about every right (most in the interest of safety) because those without common sense cannot judge what is reasonable. Use a bluetooth headset, if your phone voice dials get accustomed to using before you drive. and thirdly common sense shouldn't be too much to ask IMO. Rush hour on I80\90 prob should stay off the $%^& phone...
Sorry had to vent, JMO Thanks for the post ;D
I am all for it, so many drivers talking on the phone and not looking at the road.
Lonnie
Next it will be no billboards or big boobed, mini skirted women in convertibles. In fact lets remove all Freeway signs. Then they can paint a blue stripe in the center of the road that a laser must follow. It can be 40ft in front of you. If it gets on the trunk of any car then your to close and a 911 call will be sent by On-star to the nearest trooper. Drivers must be in fully blacked out cube not to be distracted by any passengers. I am sure this will help the government break the link to inattention. I bet my passenger is 10 times more distracting then any cellphone conversation. Hell sometime she kisses my cheek while I am driving. Maybe she needs a good A$$ kicking off the bus to break the link. It's going to get lonely out there on the highway. Sorry lol
I keep thinking ray lahood was picked on by bullies growing up...I bet they took his crayons! He also wants to take the CB radios out of the trucks. They just passed a law in which all cars built in 2014 must have a back up camera installed. Is that needed? I feel there will be a lot more crashes due to folks relying on the cameras as opposed to simply looking back!
I am just before getting out of this driving gig...the cops take way too much of my time. I spend 12 hours a year wasted in Florida alone just on the scales. Now mind you we are never near overweight, but they pull us across the scales anyway. That wastes 2 minutes every time, times 12 scales a week times 50 weeks in a year. Not to mention the extra fuel burned by going up and down through the gears instead of running 45MPH on the by-pass lane.
i was held for an hour and a half on the side of the raod...in the dark a few weeks ago in Florida while the so called dot idiot went over my logs from the past week with a fine tooth comb...then comes back and writes me a violation for falsified logs. Said I was not in Jacksonville when I fueled. The Pilot is at Exit 329, they get their mail addressed Jacksonville, UPS and FED-EX bring packages in addressed Jacksonville, the mailbox is in front of the truckstop.
He had the reciept in his hand that says Jacksonville.
One of the major problems is that there are too many cops!
Rest assured they will get the phones taken out of cars too! ray lahood has already said he likes the technology in which cell hones can be blocks when the car is moving!
Let me ask you this question;
Do you want cell phones banned in your cars?
Jack
It would suck big time if cell phones are banned in cars. I am on-call basically 24x7. I would never be able to go anywhere if my cell phone didn't work in the car. I might not get a call for weeks or months on end, but my employer still needs to reach me if something does happen.
Are we going to have to go back to pagers, or are those illegal too under text messaging bans? Would passengers also be banned from mobile device use ini cars if cell phones were actually disabled in cars? How would the car or phone know who is driving?
That's a good question Brian...however I am sure ray lahood can answer it! ;D
Jack I hear ya on cops. This is no joke. Last night I was pulled over for 15min at 11pm for doing the speed LIMIT in the left lane of an almost empty road. He asked me if I had ever heard of a passing lane on the highway. He then explained to me that slower traffic must stay to the right. Mind you it was only me and him on the road. I set my cruise on 65 and drove for about 2 miles with him behind me. I told him I could not be passed I was going as fast as the law let anybody go. He said if he got a call he could not pass on the right because if he bumped me he would be liable. I told him it did not matter if he bumped me on the right or left he would still be at fault. Then I had to tell him that If he had a call he could turn his light on and I would move out of his way just like I did when he was following me to the side of the road. Mind you I was in my Chevy truck not my bus. What is it coming to when you are pulled over for going as fast as you are allowed because the speeders can't pass you. I did not get any tickets but what a waste of time for someone that might have really needed him for the great things the perfect people do.
Shoot, what are the police and fire departments going to do without their radios? I wonder how many accidents have been avoided because someone calls in a road hazard? I was on I-10 this week and there was a ladder lying across two lanes. Cars were swerving to avoid it. I called 911 which goes to the CHP. The lady the answered said, "Are you calling about the ladder? A units on the way."
There are always shortsighted fools to deal with in every field. Unfortunately, there a bunch in the bureaucracy too. Somewhere you will find one the wants to outlaw eating to prevent food poisoning.
Eddie, I disagree with you. Left lane is the passing lane. Go whatever speed you want but it is not your job to enforce speed limits. Of course, in your case you were not blocking traffic since there were no other cars, but you do create a possible problem. Personally, I wish lane blockers would get ticketed more often.
AMEN!!!
Eddie could move and drive on the shoulder to let traffic pass if he was causing a back up Texas is one the few states that allow it sounds like the officer was bored
good luck
please , we need more laws that they dont enforce. This does not bode well for us busnuts as the states look for more revenue. around long island you have to watch out for jaywalkers who will step right in front of you while chatting it up on the cell phone. At an intersection waiting for the light 3 out of 5 cars passing will be on a phone up to their ear, alot of them cops. And Eddie, stay out of the hammer lane! the slow lane is the new passing lane!
Quote from: Lin on December 17, 2010, 05:58:22 PM
Eddie, I disagree with you. Left lane is the passing lane. Personally, I wish lane blockers would get ticketed more often.
I tried to bite my tongue on this. They should get 30 days hard labor!
Why does it need to be a law, it is just common sense and courtesy. Jim
I think cell phones should be banned in cars or any other moving vehicle, as far as the driver is concerned. I learned a long time ago that if you are concentrating on a conversation on a telephone, you can't concentrate on driving. I haven't answered a cell phone in a moving car that I was driving in at least 5 years. The science is there, if you care to learn about it.
Brian
Don't get me wrong lol I never block traffic. Just were I was is the intersection of a major spaghetti bowl that is patrolled heavily. I was doing 80 through the ez tag toll. I just slowed knowing where the cops sit. I am always cussing people in the left lane slowing me down. It was just a speed trap through there. I had just never been pulled over for going top legal speed. I just turned 40 so it made me feel a Little old being pulled over for going to slow even though it was the speed limit ;D
The problem isnt the phone, or the backup camera, or the reverse beeper going beep beep beep, or the cute chicky babe putting on eyeliner while driving. Its the idiots they pass licenses out to like candy who shouldnt be allowed behind the wheel of anything. Stricter licensing with more emphasis on actually being able to FULLY control the vehicle your RATED for, would solve 99% of all accidents, simply because the morons who cant drive without hitting anything or running people over will be off the road. We dont need more laws, we need better enforcement of the laws we already have. Why dont they test people for driving on the freeway? How about different levels of license for different ability, make you reach a higher level of competency before allowing you on a freeway? Maybe recurring testing, bi annually?
But Liberals will never understand that, because they cant ever understand what the phrase "personal responsibility" means. Instead of arresting the fork lift driver for backing over an old lady, they go after the fork lift company or the back up camera company. Instead of going after the retard who shoots someone, they go after the gun company. Instead of telling a smoker their a moron, they go after the tobacco companies. Instead of telling the 400 pound guy stuffing his face with McDonalds hes an idiot, they try suing McDonalds. So whats the use in complaining? If some Bus gets into an accident and kills people, they can sue the Bus manufacturer, or the phone provider. Anything they can do to destroy the economy while taxing hard working people to death, and make sure every zombie who can limp gets a license, its all good. Hell, these days you can lie you have a PHD, and engineer sweeping legislation that costs the trucking industry $Billions, and still keep your job.
Maybe someone should do a background check on Lahood and all those other clowns. Fatal bus crashes jumped from 20 - 38? Where did that figure come from, they make it up? The last data I saw compiled by the NTSB was for 2007, 2008 isnt done yet, where did they get 2010 figures? What are the specifics in each accident? Were cellphones the primary cause? What kind of busses, school busses? Is 38 Bus crashes excessive? Do we need to make a major knee jerk reaction over it? What if it drops back to 20 crashes, do we get our phones back? Reinstate our rights? Like that would ever happen without a fight.
Wake up people, its not about saving lives, its about taking away our rights and making the country a police state, so police can stop you for anything and everything under the sun without cause, fine you and imprison you, and the Government can kill every last breath of American Industry by suing companies out of existence. I can talk and drive. In fact, as a student pilot I was able to fly a plane while talking on the radio and manuvering through all three axis, while reading a map and compass, looking out the window to watch where I was going, and monitoring all my flight and engine instruments while talking to my instructor, ALL AT THE SAME TIME. If you cant even drive and talk at the same time, maybe you shouldnt be out on the road with the rest of us.
If they want to ban something, how about banning stupid mothers from driving around with their kids loose in the back seat without a seat belt. How many people do they kill each year?
Art,
Well said, Just like the about 87,000 gun laws on the books. The legislator can not use a current law as a platform for re election, no He must enact "new" laws to save us all & insure his/her perpetuation of a job.
I can't believe the backup camera law, just heard it and shook my head. Why the heck do I need to pay for this when I know GOAL.
Big boobed (either original equipment or store bought) mini skirted girls will always be attracted to the convertibles and the stack of cash the guys have. I have no problems with that, just the animal attraction, I guess.
Very good analogy of piloting a plane, needle, ball, airspeed, altitude, heading, primary, secondary scans, pilotage, scan for traffic, communication and more. The military says it best, Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.
Great comments of all posters here centering on personal responsibility.
I will also agree with Brian, in regard of certain phone calls, In depth concentration calls, I pull over & stop to discuss. Of course, since I am from West Virginia, I need to pull over. The milk, bread, eggs request, I do not.
A couple of comments to your post Brian.
The flying analogy was right on!
When the tobacco companies started putting chemicals in the cigarettes that keep me addicted to them...therefore taking away my ability to stop smoking on my terms...then they deserve to be litigated right out of business!
I do think that the companies that sell on board recording devices have given big bucks to lahood and his ilk. Have you not heard...they are trying to make EVERY truck in America install on board recorders...when they have said that only 1% need them! Guess who ends up paying for those cameras?
The back up camera thing...I bet if you follow the money you will find that that lobby gave big bucks to lahood too! Guess who ends up paying for those back up cameras?
And ya'll please quit pickin' on poor Eddie...he said there was no body around!
Oh yeah...I got in a rather heated argument the other day in Savannah, GA. They are paving the road down there, (I-95.) I commented that it was a big waste of tax dollars...that it was another obama stimulus waste...folks got madder that you know what! The road was one of the smoothest in the country...just ask Kyle...he thought it so smooth he did 80MPH on it...in a truck towing a camper! ;D It did not need paving!
Meanwhile you would have found Eddie only 50 miles back in South Carolina running in the left lane...BECAUSE THE ROAD IS SO ROUGH!
Here in the west you see it in different states TRUCKS LEFT LANE ONLY speed limit 65 mph for trucks 75 for autos that trooper could write till his arm fell off out here
good luck
Quote from: artvonne on December 17, 2010, 11:09:43 PM
The problem isnt the phone, or the backup camera, or the reverse beeper going beep beep beep, or the cute chicky babe putting on eyeliner while driving. Its the idiots they pass licenses out to like candy who shouldnt be allowed behind the wheel of anything. Stricter licensing with more emphasis on actually being able to FULLY control the vehicle your RATED for, would solve 99% of all accidents, simply because the morons who cant drive without hitting anything or running people over will be off the road. We dont need more laws, we need better enforcement of the laws we already have. Why dont they test people for driving on the freeway? How about different levels of license for different ability, make you reach a higher level of competency before allowing you on a freeway? Maybe recurring testing, bi annually?
But Liberals will never understand that, because they cant ever understand what the phrase "personal responsibility" means. Instead of arresting the fork lift driver for backing over an old lady, they go after the fork lift company or the back up camera company. Instead of going after the retard who shoots someone, they go after the gun company. Instead of telling a smoker their a moron, they go after the tobacco companies. Instead of telling the 400 pound guy stuffing his face with McDonalds hes an idiot, they try suing McDonalds. So whats the use in complaining? If some Bus gets into an accident and kills people, they can sue the Bus manufacturer, or the phone provider. Anything they can do to destroy the economy while taxing hard working people to death, and make sure every zombie who can limp gets a license, its all good. Hell, these days you can lie you have a PHD, and engineer sweeping legislation that costs the trucking industry $Billions, and still keep your job.
Maybe someone should do a background check on Lahood and all those other clowns. Fatal bus crashes jumped from 20 - 38? Where did that figure come from, they make it up? The last data I saw compiled by the NTSB was for 2007, 2008 isnt done yet, where did they get 2010 figures? What are the specifics in each accident? Were cellphones the primary cause? What kind of busses, school busses? Is 38 Bus crashes excessive? Do we need to make a major knee jerk reaction over it? What if it drops back to 20 crashes, do we get our phones back? Reinstate our rights? Like that would ever happen without a fight.
Wake up people, its not about saving lives, its about taking away our rights and making the country a police state, so police can stop you for anything and everything under the sun without cause, fine you and imprison you, and the Government can kill every last breath of American Industry by suing companies out of existence. I can talk and drive. In fact, as a student pilot I was able to fly a plane while talking on the radio and manuvering through all three axis, while reading a map and compass, looking out the window to watch where I was going, and monitoring all my flight and engine instruments while talking to my instructor, ALL AT THE SAME TIME. If you cant even drive and talk at the same time, maybe you shouldnt be out on the road with the rest of us.
If they want to ban something, how about banning stupid mothers from driving around with their kids loose in the back seat without a seat belt. How many people do they kill each year?
Nothing scares the sh** out of me than riding my motorcycle and passing car drivers that are texting, applying makeup, eating lunch, etc. You combine that with the good chance that many people behind the wheel are medicated (legally or otherwise), stressed, angry, etc. We need to make people more personally liable for their actions. Rather than pass a blanket law against cell phone use in your car which is next to useless, make the penalties for irresponsible driving tougher. That should include road rage too. Maybe people would think twice about texting while driving if the accident they caused would cost them their driver's license for 5 years!
And please don't throw blanket accusations at "liberals". You don't know what that means. It's not just "liberals" that cause stupid laws to pass. It's insurance companies, trial lawyers, lobby groups, citizen action groups, politicians on both sides of the aisle, judges, etc. Using words like "liberals" or "conservatives" to place blame does nothing productive other than be derisive and antagonistic. It's A LOT more complex than that. The guilt for stupidity lies on both sides of the political spectrum despite what fox news says.
Quote from: luvrbus on December 18, 2010, 03:47:28 AM
Here in the west you see it in different states TRUCKS LEFT LANE ONLY speed limit 65 mph for trucks 75 for autos that trooper could write till his arm fell off out here
Certainly not saying this doesn't happen, but I have never personally seen a sign for trucks in the left lane only. Generally the signs I have seen say trucks in the right lane or right two lanes only. Many of the interstates in the Chicago area ban trucks from the left lane or lanes.
I've caused a few collisions. None involved me using a cell phone.
All were caused by my chosen driving style (which included tailgating & 'working traffic' to pass a few cars) - NOT the "distractions".
Carelessness takes many forms - Go after the cause, NOT the symptom!
A passanger can cause more distraction than simply talking on the phone. It is the fiddling around with the phone that causes problems. Same as looking for that certain CD or tape. Or tuning in that certain radio station.
I know for a fact that I can handle driving & talking on the phone.
I was talking on the phone while driving one day so that left only one hand to steer with. Was driving a RED suburban pulling a new, black dump trailer in the left lane a 4 lane divided road. Someone in a red Kia minivan (he had both hands on the wheel & a front seat passanger) pulls out right in front of me into my lane. If I did nothing, I would have hit his driver door.
I maintained control of my vehicle & phone & I was able to successfully steer around him.
I do not think banning cell phones will work to even reduce collisions.
To effectively reduce collisions, you will have to remove the no-driving fools from behind the wheel.
Good luck with that. . . . .
Hank, you said, "Rather than pass a blanket law against cell phone use in your car which is next to useless"...here is how it will probably go down...the cops will see you talking on the phone, pull you over, demand the phone, look at the time of your last conversation, then write you a ticket. Sound preposterous...that is where this country is headed under this administration!
Shoot....my dad was ticketed in the DFW area on the interstate because he was driving the speed limit. He actually had his cruise control set at the speed limit and was in the right lane. The officer cited him for "impeding the flow of traffic" because everyone ELSE was speeding. And, of course, my dad, being an elected official, wouldn't contest the ticket because it could appear "improper."
All -
After all the BS flying around with this post, go back and read the original message, particularly this line:
"The cellphone proposal is subject to a 60-day comment period before being finalized."
If you don't like it, then get up off your duff and comment. Here's contact info:
http://www.dot.gov/contact.html (http://www.dot.gov/contact.html)
Be aware that handwritten letters carry more weight than emails and/or phone calls. Especially if they're sent "return receipt requested". Send it directly to the boss, Ray LaHood.
Before dashing off your letter, on a separate sheet outline the points you want to make first. Then compose your letter based on these points. DO YOUR HOMEWORK FIRST!!!!
Write intelligently, NOT emotionally.
Got it?
Now do it.
FWIW & HTH. . .
;)
PS: If this passes, and you didn't make an effort to stop it, then you have no right to complain.
I was on a trip recently and saw a lot of "trucks left lane only" signs, in construction zones.
Also: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081201081917.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081201081917.htm)
Argue all you want about loss of liberty and how you can tailgate and work traffic while talking on the phone driving a red suburban... ;) The science is there, too much of it to ignore or explain away.
I figure if I don't talk on a cell phone while I drive, I at least improve my chances by 50%! ;D
Brian
Quote from: bevans6 on December 18, 2010, 11:42:31 AM
Argue all you want about loss of liberty and how you can tailgate and work traffic while talking on the phone driving a red suburban... ;)
It was my tailgating & working traffic that caused my collisions. Not the cell phone.
Outlawing cell phones while driving because they contribute to collisions in some cases will lead to even more restrictions - not much of a stretch for them to ban bus conversions because some can't drive them properly.
I've got no problem with some restrictions on cell phone useage, but I've got a huge problem with baning them outright.
Personal responsibility ought to be encouraged. I know when to ignore the phone!
Why should I be penalized because of the actions of a few idiots (OK, probably more than a few ;) )
I always wear my seatbelt, but I believe the seatbelt law is another stupid one.
BTW, I've looked at the parameters of some of the cell phone / collision "studies", there were more than a few great leaps of faith to get to the published conclusions. . . .
Quote from: jackhartjr on December 18, 2010, 10:38:12 AM
Hank, you said, "Rather than pass a blanket law against cell phone use in your car which is next to useless"...here is how it will probably go down...the cops will see you talking on the phone, pull you over, demand the phone, look at the time of your last conversation, then write you a ticket. Sound preposterous...that is where this country is headed under this administration!
Yes, write your politicians...it's like voting, you have no right to complain about who's in office if you didn't vote! I don't agree with the statement "that is where this country is headed under this administration!" per se-this law's coming was inevitable regardless of who was in office. My point is, it's not a partisan issue so don't turn it into one. It's a sign of the times. And I also don't agree that it's BS to discuss this issue here in this thread because the use of cell phones and laws concerning them is very relevant to us as bus drivers, truck drivers, motorcyclists, car drivers, etc. As Brian Elfert pointed out for many of us it's a matter of commerce (survival). I'm a coach mechanic and drive coach occasionally and cell phones are vital for our operation. My brother is a trucker. Cell phones are vital to his operation and sanity. We have drivers that abuse the privilege too. Our coaches are equipped with SmartDrive and some of our drivers have been caught blabbering on the phone while going 80 in the left lane tailgating someone. They get spanked for that! A good example of people being more personally liable for their actions rather than imposing draconian laws that bring down innocent responsible folks.
"some of our drivers have been caught blabbering on the phone while going 80 in the left lane tailgating someone. They get spanked for that!"
for which part? Breaking 4 laws at once? Breaking three would have been OK? You guys should listen to yourselves, this is hilarious!
I wish there was some midway point on the issue. What about on-call doctors? Do they sit at home just in case because their cell phone doesn't work in the car?
I think there are entirely too many people who spend too much time on the phone in the car. How many salespeople do you know who spend almost every minute in the car on the phone? Even worse is when they write things down while driving. Salespeople still sold stuff before cell phones. If someone's business model for running their business requires them to be on the phone all the time in their vehicle they need to change their business model.
Cell phones are great tools, but they can be abused too. There is a expectation today that people be reachable practically 24x7 especially in the business world. Folks who previously had to be at home when on-call now can actually leave home when on-call.
Hank, this administration is has all kinds of plans to take away things...it's the way they think. This ray lahood guy has gone nuts with his policies and policies to come. He got the texting ban on truck and bus drivers done so fast...I feel that just got his chops salivating!
Not trying to make this a political rant...just stating facts as I see them!
Illusory superiority is a cognitive bias that causes people to overestimate their positive qualities and abilities and to underestimate their negative qualities, relative to others. This is evident in a variety of areas including intelligence, performance on tasks or tests and the possession of desirable characteristics or personality traits. It is one of many positive illusions relating to the self, and is a phenomenon studied in social psychology.
Illusory superiority is often referred to as the above average effect. Other terms include superiority bias, leniency error, sense of relative superiority, the primus inter pares (first among equals) effect,[1] and the Lake Wobegon effect (named after Garrison Keillor's fictional town where "all the children are above average"). The phrase "illusory superiority" was first used by Van Yperen and Buunk in 1991.[1]
I KNOW my driving skills are lacking. Perhaps that is why I try harder to pay attention to what is most important when distractions occur.
Leave it to the media to delete a KEY phrase in their reporting. Sure, it makes a bigger news story when they make it sound like an absolute ban, but it is also lying by omission.
The proposed rule is aimed at HAND-HELD cell phones, which a number of states already ban anyway. (List of current state laws: http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html (http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html)). I expect most interstate drivers already have hands-free devices, assuming their company lets them be used at all.
Quote
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/news/news-releases/2010/Rule-to-Ban-Hand-Held-Cell-Phone.aspx (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/news/news-releases/2010/Rule-to-Ban-Hand-Held-Cell-Phone.aspx)
FMCSA 21-10
Friday, December 17, 2010
Contact: Candice Tolliver
Tel: 202-366-9999 or 202-306-4580
U.S. DOT Proposes Rule to Ban Hand-Held Cell Phone Use for Commercial Truck and Bus Drivers
WASHINGTON - As part of its campaign to put an end to the practice of distracted driving, the U.S. Department of Transportation today proposed a new safety regulation that would specifically prohibit interstate commercial truck and bus drivers from using hand-held cell phones while operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV).
"Every time a commercial truck or bus driver takes his or her eyes off the road to use a cell phone, even for a few seconds, the driver places everyone around them at risk," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "This proposed rule will go a long way toward keeping a driver's full attention focused on the road."
The proposed Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) rule would prohibit commercial drivers from reaching for, holding or dialing a cell phone while operating a CMV. Drivers who violate these restrictions would face federal civil penalties of up to $2,750 for each offense and disqualification of their commercial driver's license (CDL) for multiple offenses. Additionally, states would suspend a driver's CDL after two or more violations of any state law on hand-held cell phone use.
Motor carriers that allow their drivers to use hand-held cell phones while driving would face a maximum penalty of $11,000. Approximately four million interstate commercial drivers would be affected by this proposal.
"We are committed to using every resource at our disposal to ensure commercial drivers and vehicles are operating safely at all times," said FMCSA Administrator Anne S. Ferro. "Implementation of this proposal would help make our roads safer and target a leading cause of distracted driving."
FMCSA research shows that using a hand-held cell phone while driving requires a commercial driver to take several risky steps. In particular, commercial drivers reaching for an object, such as a cell phone, while driving are three times more likely to be involved in a crash or other safety-critical event. Drivers dialing a hand-held cell phone while driving increase their risk by six times. Many of the largest carriers, such as UPS, Covenant Transport, and Wal-Mart, already have company policies in place banning their drivers from using hand-held phones. In September 2010, FMCSA issued a regulation banning text messaging while operating a commercial motor vehicle.
Nearly 5,500 people died and half a million were injured in crashes involving a distracted driver in 2009. Distraction-related fatalities represented 16 percent of overall traffic fatalities in 2009, according to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) research.
FMCSA is providing 60 days for the public to comment on this rulemaking. The comment period begins once the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register. The proposal and information about how to submit comments is here.
To learn more about the U.S. Department of Transportation's efforts to stop distracted driving, please visit http://www.distraction.gov (http://www.distraction.gov).
If you want to read the actual proposal in mind-numbing detail, it's 20 pages of the Federal Register dated yesterday: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/rulemakings/proposed/Mobile_phone_NPRM.pdf (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/rulemakings/proposed/Mobile_phone_NPRM.pdf).
I agree with the hand-held cellphone ban.
A couple of days ago I sat through a normally very long wait traffic light three times because the WOMAN first in line waited and talked on her cellphone while the light was green not one, but TWO TIMES until I honked the horn. She then proceded to accelerate through the light as it turned RED---and I got to sit through it a third time. >:(
The people who are the problem are the ones who probably shouldn't be on the road in the first place. I understand that sometimes people need to talk on the phone while driving. BUT everyone who doesn't NEED to should probably not. I normally answer on speakerphone, tell the caller I am driving, and can I call them back when I get to a safe place to pull over. Normally it is not something that important that it can't wait for a while. We think because we can talk and drive --we should! And we think it is our right -- since there is no law against it.
Drivers who command vehicles that are heavy and or transport people have additional responsibility, and should be the examples of expert driving, and should be held to a higher level of accountability.
Just because something is legal for us to do --that does not mean it is beneficial to us or others.
Just my 1/2 cent worth
Steve Toomey
pabusnut
Quote from: Nusa on December 22, 2010, 02:32:11 PM
Leave it to the media to delete a KEY phrase in their reporting. Sure, it makes a bigger news story when they make it sound like an absolute ban, but it is also lying by omission.
The proposed rule is aimed at HAND-HELD cell phones, which a number of states already ban anyway. (List of current state laws: http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html (http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html)). I expect most interstate drivers already have hands-free devices, assuming their company lets them be used at all.
There are still plenty of folks who want cell phone use by ALL drivers prohibited period.
I skimmed through the 20 pages about the new rules and came away more confused than when I started. They really need a short summary for those of who are not lawmakers or lawyers.
Quote from: belfert on December 22, 2010, 06:31:17 PMThere are still plenty of folks who want cell phone use by ALL drivers prohibited period.
And having seen some wild antics on the road, I can understand their feelings. But a law would make rolling down I-40 alone in your own car in eastern New Mexico with no car within a half a mile of you the same as a bus driver getting onto the George Washington bridge from New Jersey at rush hour with 47 passengers on board. In my opinion, not the way to go (but that's just my opinion ...)
BH NC USA
Quote from: Oonrahnjay on December 23, 2010, 03:22:12 AM
Quote from: belfert on December 22, 2010, 06:31:17 PMThere are still plenty of folks who want cell phone use by ALL drivers prohibited period.
And having seen some wild antics on the road, I can understand their feelings. But a law would make rolling down I-40 alone in your own car in eastern New Mexico with no car within a half a mile of you the same as a bus driver getting onto the George Washington bridge from New Jersey at rush hour with 47 passengers on board. In my opinion, not the way to go (but that's just my opinion ...)
BH NC USA
True, but if you agree that some cellphone restriction is necessary, how could you write the rules for all conditions with making it a thousand pages of gibberish.
You have to trust that the law enforcement officer is going to make that judgment. Sure, some will abuse it, but the vast majority will use common sense.
Very well said, Len.
You can not legislate common sense.
Quote from: Gary '79 5C on December 23, 2010, 04:39:17 AM
Very well said, Len.
You can not legislate common sense.
Maybe not, but the gubbermint seems to act as that is their job.
They should go after the cause, not the symptom. There were traffic fatalities long before cell phones.
The problem being created by these 'safety' laws is that idiots modify their behaviour to keep the danger at a given level.
Studies showed that when people knew the car had anti-lock brakes, they shortened the safe following distance. With airbags, they drove faster. . . . .
Mandated safety features often bring a sense of complacency & sometimes contempt for the inherent danger of the activity.
This is what can and has happened when talking on a cell phone. 11 ELEVEN people lost their lives including the truck driver in this accident. We think these things don't happen to us but they do and will. Do a Google search and read some of the reports from the medical journals about using a cell phone while driving.
I-65 tragedy
The National Transportation Safety Board is still investigating the March 26 accident in which a tractor-trailer owned by Hester crossed the median on Interstate 65, colliding with a van carrying a Mennonite family and friends to a wedding.
The board isn't expected to release a report on the crashes cause until next year.
But a Kentucky State Police report found that the truck driver, Kenneth E. Laymon, was distracted and didn't have his tractor-trailer under control. The report said Laymon, who died in the crash, was talking on a cell phone and may have been speeding.
It is a tragedy. Please, people that can't talk on the phone and remember what they are doing DON'T TALK ON IT! I don't believe it was the phone call that caused him to cross a median and never know it. He may have been looking at paperwork or in a glovebox. Think about it, who looses all controle and brain function when on the phone. if you can't talk on the phone and walk at the same time without stepping off the sidewalk, you may should leave your phone at home when you drive. It should not mean I have to also. I think it the phone is just something to blame it on to help the cause of the imposed laws. I could come up with all kinds of accident out there because drivers fall asleep. Maybe we should go back to horses because of that. In stead of scales to stop at maybe it should be government ran hotels where they give you a pill and make you sleep for a couple of hours before you get to the next stop. This way we can insure no sleepy drivers out there too. Do you know when to not drive because you to tired to do it? Well some don't. It happens. What right do you want to give up to fix that problem. Oh wait, It's a privilege. We have no rights.
What did they blame the bad wrecks & fatalities before cell phones came out?
I wonder why more blame isn't placed where it really belongs - on the loose nut behind the wheel?
Every regulation that exists is because somebody died. Actually, it was probably a lot of people who died before anyone started thinking about regulating any particular behavior.
I have no doubt at all that YOU can safely drive and talk on the phone at the same time. Actually, you could probably talk on the phone while downshifting going around a corner and lighting a cigarette at the same time.
The problem is that not everyone can do that, and because they can't, people die.
The same thing applies to other regulations that take away your freedoms. Thirty or forty years ago, I knew truckers who bragged about New York to L.A., non stop. Some of them died and some of them killed other people. Now we have Hours of Service regulations. If no one had ever been killed, there would be no such regulations.
Believe it or not, it is not the President sitting in the White House thinking "I'm going to screw with some truck drivers today".
ALL of the laws that are passed are to protect people --- usually based on one DUMB SHI T and his lawyer -- the DUMB S thinks it's your fault and the lawyer wants the money
So now our country is under the control of one dumb s and his lawyer and our Fing or excuse me I mean FINE congress people think they are doing someone a favor --- they probably are but it is not you nor I
YMMV
HTH
Melbo
Quote from: Gary '79 5C on December 23, 2010, 04:39:17 AM
Very well said, Len.
You can not legislate common sense.
I disagree. A pilot lands a plane and blows a tire. He loses control and wrecks the plane. The FAA terms it as pilot loss of control, but weighs the situation with contributing factors. A person has a blowout on the interstate going straight down level highway, loses control and rolls over and dies. The courts go after the car and tire company.
We can legislate common sense by simply making loss of control an irresponsible act. There simply is no excuse for losing control if your well trained and qualified to operate a piece of equipment. And the weight of that responsibility should be squarely placed on the operator to decide if they are qualified or not.
Once again, to use aviation regulations as an example, the pilot is "in command", and all power of decision making rests entirely on the pilot in command, from determining the airworthiness of the aircraft, to his own abilities to operate it. Should he fail to control it, or recognise deficiencies, there is a whole agency above him looking down upon him with the power to act.
We dont need to ban cell phones, we need to come down hard on people who lose control, or who otherwise fail to act responsibly.
I agree. If every driver had to have 40 hours of training before they could drive solo, an annual physical and check ride, a complete investigation of every accident, etc. there would be far fewer accidents. There would also be far more regulations.
What happens when a pilot is found to have been chatting with his wife on the radio instead of 100% attention to flying?
Do you not think that if a new tire blows on a plane that the manufacturer and?or the installer will not be found at least partly responsible.
QuoteOnce again, to use aviation regulations as an example, the pilot is "in command", and all power of decision making rests entirely on the pilot in command, from determining the airworthiness of the aircraft, to his own abilities to operate it. Should he fail to control it, or recognize deficiencies, there is a whole agency above him looking down upon him with the power to act.
So how would the bureaucratic structure and regs look from a federal agency controlling all motor vehicle drivers?
You are correct, there are far too many lawyers chasing a dollar and very poorly trained drivers in this country. I do believe that the vast majority of blowout accidents are driver error, but how many drivers have been trained to handle one? Are you willing to spend thousands of dollars to make sure your kids are properly trained to drive a car?
Can you blame the driver who loses control when that have not been trained? Worse, they don't even know that they are not trained.
Quote from: Melbo on December 23, 2010, 07:44:58 PM
ALL of the laws that are passed are to protect people --- usually based on one DUMB SHI T and his lawyer -- the DUMB S thinks it's your fault and the lawyer wants the money
I've heard that a great majority of the codes in the National Electric Code are there because one or more people died or were seriously injured and there may have also been lawsuits.
Some of the NEC codes are just stupid and are reactions to either problems in old houses (before the codes) or issues that should NEVER happen in a structure built to current code. Arc fault breakers are required now because a nail or screw can sometimes penetrate a wire causing an arc, but not tripping a regular breaker. A house built with the wire installed properly to code and drywalled with the proper length screws/nails should never allow a metal object to get close to the wire!
If someone ignores the NEC would they pay the $35 (instead of $5 or less) per breaker for AFCIs?
I doubt very much that Arc fault breakers came about because of nails driven into a wire. Much more likely is a loose wirenut in a junction box in the attic or loose screw in a fixture. I've had them trip when a bulb blew out and think they are the greatest invention since GFI's.
Granted, the licensed electrician properly tightened everything up, but how about the home owner who installs a fan or new light fixture and doesn't properly tighten things up. How about the guy who drives a 3 inch nail into the wall to hang a picture?
I know that all of us would do it right, just like we can talk on a cell phone and drive well. It's all those other people screwing up that we have to worry about.
$35.00 is pretty cheap compared to a house fire.
Oh, how did our forefathers handle such? We always believe our problems and issues so vast, that the simple minded folk of old surely could not fathom our modern complexities.
They would have handled such with the block, the whip, or the gallows. Pay attention boy. Do you think they handed over a three masted ship to an 8 year old ship hand still wet behind the ears? You found your way to the helm by proving yourself before your peers. Dash it on the rocks and be found lacking in conscience, and if your surviving crew didnt hang you from the yard arm, the ship owners might.
If an idiot ran wild down the street with horse and buggy, and trampled a child, would they have shot the horse? Would they have rousted the buggy maker from his sleep and lashed him in the street with a cat-o-nine tails for building a faulty brake?
I am not exclaming we need more regulation, we need better enforcement of the regulations we have currently, and simple common sense. We dont need a giant national beaurocracy watching over us, we need our states to put us to task in being responsible. This malaise that has taken over our Nation, this attitude that no man is held responsible for their actions, its spread to everything, and everyone. But most sadly, its spread to our schools, and our children.
Of course we have to ban everything in such a society. We need to fence off the rivers and lakes, block the precipices of the canyons, label everything we see and touch with warnings. In the Twin Cities, after the Halloween Snowstorm of 1991, it was reported that nearly 1000 people had chopped up thier hands in running snowblowers attempting to unclog them. I assure you, that nearly 100% of those morons share the road with us. When will we ever learn to hold idiots responsible for their actions, instead of holding the rest of us hostage to thier idiocy.
You just have to understand that ignorance can be fixed with education, but there is no cure for stupid.
If stupid people only hurt themselves, it would not be that big of a deal. The fact is that stupid people hurt others.
Quote from: Len Silva on December 24, 2010, 07:33:00 AM
. . . . Are you willing to spend thousands of dollars to make sure your kids are properly trained to drive a car?
. . . .
Of course! I spend time teaching by explaining what I'm looking for & also explaining the risks of some of the stupid things I sometimes find myself doing.
The car may not cost thousands of dollars, but the lives on board are, so I put in the time & $$$ to ensure my kids are ready.
RE: "Can you blame the driver who loses control when that have not been trained? Worse, they don't even know that they are not trained."
Who gave them permission to drive? They should have passed a test showing they know these things before being given a license.
Personal responsibility for one's own actions is what needs to be encouraged / enforced. But, since the litigation lottery can't make any money there, it ain't likely to happen.
The worst & scariest electrical messes I have ever seen were created by licensed electricians . . .
I see arc fault breakers as protection from faulty appliances - electric blankets come to mind. Broken outlets & faulty plugs can also need this protection.
I'd like to be able to use the phone while driving - provided the road conditions permit. Also, how is it to be determined who was using the phone - passangers often use my phone while I'm driving, how is that such a big distraction?
Quote from: Len Silva on December 24, 2010, 09:19:22 AM
I doubt very much that Arc fault breakers came about because of nails driven into a wire. Much more likely is a loose wirenut in a junction box in the attic or loose screw in a fixture. I've had them trip when a bulb blew out and think they are the greatest invention since GFI's.
Granted, the licensed electrician properly tightened everything up, but how about the home owner who installs a fan or new light fixture and doesn't properly tighten things up. How about the guy who drives a 3 inch nail into the wall to hang a picture?
I know that all of us would do it right, just like we can talk on a cell phone and drive well. It's all those other people screwing up that we have to worry about.
$35.00 is pretty cheap compared to a house fire.
Quote from: kyle4501 on December 26, 2010, 07:57:44 AM
RE: "Can you blame the driver who loses control when that have not been trained? Worse, they don't even know that they are not trained."
Who gave them permission to drive? They should have passed a test showing they know these things before being given a license.
Kyle,
That was my point exactly. Drivers in this country (unlike some European countries), get very little training. You pass a written test on rules and regulations, and a 15 minute road test to check the use of turn signals and a full stop at a sign.
There is no test for high speed merging or lane changes, for handling a blowout, or skid. There would be no way to train or test for those abilities without a closed course or expensive simulator. That's what I was talking about when I said "thousands of dollars to train your kid". Not the cost of the car but the cost of real training and testing.
Most of us here have an affinity with our machines. We have driven race cars and heavy equipment or otherwise just have a relationship with machinery, and as a group, are probably better than average drivers and better than average is not saying much. Many, many people don't have that. A car is to get them someplace with no inkling of how it operates or what it's limitations are.
We, the people who tell our government what we want, are the ones who gave them permission to drive. The examiner who issued the license is the one who told them that they were trained, so they don't know what they don't know.
There would be a huge outcry if RV drivers were required to be trained and test their abilities in handling heavy vehicles, so we as a community are as much to blame as anyone.
I have been keeping up with the Hester wreck since it happened...it appears the phone call the dead driver was on terminated two minutes before the crash.
Jack
Jack,
If you keep this up, you may not get as many Christmas cards next year. ;)
Those who are so eager to take away your right to choose (in the name of 'safety') don't want the rest of the story known.
'They' don't want anyone to bring up facts that don't sensationalize the drama.
Banning cell phones because they contribute to some collisions will not change anything except what people blame the stupidity of others on next.
len, I will enroll both of my kids in a performance driving school so they will learn how to handle a car at speed. That class will come only AFTER they have a solid understanding of how the basic systems of the car work & have actual experience of all basic routine service procedures.
I took a defensive driving course years ago. The one thing that still stands out is the result of all the testing said that I was a better driver than most. Now, I know my driving skills suck, so I'm really nervous in traffic & when I buy a car, I'm definitely looking at crash survivability.
Kyle, you're doing the same thing the news media did...talking about absolute bans when the legislation proposed is only about hand-held use of phones. Not even close to an absolute ban.
Yes, it would be nice if personal responsibility was enough...but if that were true, we wouldn't need any rules of the road at all!
Quote from: Nusa on December 27, 2010, 04:40:21 PM
Kyle, you're doing the same thing the news media did...talking about absolute bans when the legislation proposed is only about hand-held use of phones. Not even close to an absolute ban.
Yes, it would be nice if personal responsibility was enough...but if that were true, we wouldn't need any rules of the road at all!
I don't have a problem with 'rules of the road' per se, just a problem with what I see as political maneuvering creating laws that aren't practical to enforce.
It ain't just the media wanting an absolute ban on cell phones while driving. All I'm trying to do is express my thoughts concerning what I believe to be excessive legislation.
I'd be more inclined to back laws that encourage responsible behaviour without punishing the whole due to the actions of a irresponsible few.
Yeah, like that will ever happen. . . . ;)
The world can be dangerous. In an effort to pretend that we have more control of fate than we do, we make laws. If one goes over highway fatality statistics, I think you will find that we are doing pretty well compared to the pre-cellphone days when the highway death tolls were constantly being updated on the radio on any holiday weekend. When was the last time you heard those? I wonder how many accidents have been caused by indigestion; we should probably ban fast food.
What we need is a graduated license
Hey, I wonder how many accidents were caused by people being out shopping for Christmas. Can we pass a law requiring it be done online?
Yes Lin, they can but they are trying to pass laws where Christmas is not allowed in public. My son had a party at school for Christmas and needed to bring a book as a gift. The main thing was it could not be a Christmas book.
Eddie,
I can see the point of that rule. Allowing Christmas books to be distributed in school could be used to proselytize. I do not think that you would want your son coming home with a Koran or an instructional video on the Sharia parameters of wife beating that he was given as a gift as part of a school activity. We all know that our spiritual beliefs are accurate and those of others are not, so it is a good idea to keep the likely debate out of the classroom. As Sgt Friday used to say, "Just the facts, Mame."
Sgt Friday did not use a cellphone while driving a bus, right?