True Or False: Hands-Free Calls Are Safer Than Hand-Held?
Today, 10 states and several U.S. territories have banned the use of hand-held mobile phones by drivers. The thinking behind those laws is that folks need to keep their hands on the wheel, and trying to fumble with a mobile device is a major distraction.
But we have to wonder: have state legislatures missed the point? Is it the device that's the problem, or is the conversation itself?
As we enter the final week of National Distracted Driving Awareness month, we thought it was a good time to take a look at the evidence.
LaHood: Hand-held devices are the problem
Earlier this year, California's Office of Traffic Safety released the results of a study conducted by the Safe Transportation Research and Education Center at the University of California, Berkeley (PDF). That study looked at California's traffic fatality statistics since the state enacted a ban on hand-held calls in July, 2008.
The findings were encouraging. Overall, traffic deaths fell 22% (in keeping with the national trend), but deaths linked to drivers using hand-held devices plummeted 47%.
Findings like that help to explain why Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has focused so much of his attention on banning hand-held devices, while giving a thumbs-up to gadgets that enable hands-free calling.
In fact, when the National Transportation Safety Board proposed banning all calls for drivers -- both hand-held and hands-free -- LaHood basically threw the Board under the bus, saying that hands-free calls aren't such a big deal. Specifically, he said "The problem is not hands-free.... That is not the big problem in America."
NTSB: The conversation is the distraction, not the device
But the NTSB isn't giving up. Earlier this month, the Board defended its proposed ban on drivers taking any calls at all*. Board member Robert Sumwalt pointed to data that shows talking on a mobile device -- either hand-held or hands-free -- increases the likelihood of an accident by four times. (Sumwalt was probably referring to the Australian study conducted by Suzanne McEvoy.)
"But what about the data from California?" some might ask. "Doesn't that prove that hand-held devices are dangerous?"
It does, indeed. But it doesn't show that hands-free devices are necessarily safer. Who's to say that if California had outlawed drivers from taking any calls behind the wheel that traffic fatalities wouldn't have dropped another 47%?
The problem, of course, is that no state in the nation has such a law on its book, so we don't have any real-world data to examine. In fact, only one municipality has such a law -- Chapel Hill, North Carolina -- and that was enacted just last month.
Our take
Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege, and with that privilege come certain responsibilities.
Late last year, the Governors Highway Safety Association published a study showing that few of us take those responsibilities very seriously. In fact, we're distracted behind the wheel 25% - 50% of the time.
The biggest distraction of all involves conversing with passengers, but as studies have shown (PDF), that's actually less dangerous than chatting on a mobile phone.
In the best of all possible worlds, drivers would stow their mobile devices while driving. It's what Oprah recommends, and unlike some of her dodgy book club picks, we stand by her on this one.
But while texting behind the wheel is always a bad idea, we understand that there are times when you have to take an important call -- someone's in the hospital, a child is ill, you're picking up a friend at the airport, whatever.
If you can pull over to take that call, do. If you can't manage that, take the call hand-free -- either through an in-dash system like Ford Sync, or simply via a clip that holds your phone in place. Using a Bluetooth headset is okay, but in our books, that's really just another device liable to fall to the floorboard.
And of course, take some responsibility for your kids. Make them use an app like DriveSafe.ly that limits their ability to call or text while driving. If they don't have a smartphone, that's no problem: Cellcontrol has created a system that works similarly for some feature phones.
Be safe, be thoughtful, be responsible. That's the best any of us can do -- during Distracted Driving Awareness month, or any month for that matter.
* Note: For now, the NTSB seems to be okay with in-dash systems from OEMs and aftermarket suppliers (e.g. systems like OnStar and Ford Sync). However, based on the agency's insistence that it's the call that's the distraction, not the manner in which it's fielded, we suspect they'd like to make those systems off-limits, too.
This story originally appeared at The Car Connection
Don’t Get Mad, Don’t Get Even: New Jersey Outlaws Road Rage
On Friday, New Jersey governor Chris Christie signed into law a bill that stiffens penalties for drivers convicted of road rage.
The law is known as "Jessica Rogers' Law" (PDF), named for a young woman who was paralyzed in 2005 when the car in which she was riding hit a telephone pole. The driver of the car was hurtling to catch up with another vehicle that had cut him off when he lost control of the vehicle. He served four months in jail.
According to the text of the law, if a driver is found guilty of "road rage", it ups the charges, either from a disorderly persons offense to a fourth degree crime, or from a fourth degree to a third degree crime. For example:
Under the provisions of the bill, assault by auto or vessel is upgraded from a crime of the fourth degree to a crime of the third degree if a person operates an auto or vessel recklessly, in knowing disregard of the rights or safety of others, in a manner so as to endanger, or be likely to endanger, a person or property and causes serious bodily injury.
With those upgrades come heightened financial penalties and longer possible prison sentences.
The good, the bad
On the one hand, it's impossible to defend road rage. It's obviously very dangerous and can lead to serious injury or death, and in some ways, it's worse than other violent acts because it's being carried out with a machine that weighs a couple of tons.
On the other hand, we don't envy the job facing New Jersey's courts. Determining whether an accident was the result of road rage seems like a fairly tall order. For example, how does one decide whether an accident or reckless driving incident was due to aggressive driving (which, in New Jersey, is a subjective assessment of the officer on site) or to full-on road rage?
And while we're sure that the New Jersey Assembly feels very good about passing Jessica Rogers' Law -- unanimously, even -- we're not entirely sure that it will cut down on the problem itself. Road rage is often considered a crime of passion, and legislating against passion seems...well, it didn't work out so well for the Puritans, did it?
What's your take? Is this a step in the right direction? Or a feel-good measure that fails to address the root of the problem? We'd especially love to hear from folks in New Jersey, but feel free to sound off, where ever you are.
[h/t John Voelcker]
This story originally appeared at The Car Connection
Coming Soon To Your New Car: A Black Box Data Recorder
Last week, we told you about a proposal from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that would require brake-override systems on new vehicles. But there's more change afoot in D.C.: according to Mashable, legislation has passed in the U.S. Senate that would mandate the installation of black box data recorders too, beginning with the 2015 model year.
The exact verbiage can be found in Section 31406 of S.B. 1813*, and it goes something like this:
"Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall revise part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to require, beginning with model year 2015, that new passenger motor vehicles sold in the United States be equipped with an event data recorder that meets the requirements under that part."
While the devices would clearly benefit law enforcement agencies and insurance companies, they're also meant to help NHTSA evaluate customer complaints about specific vehicles. For example, data recorders could've cut through some of the confusion and panic surrounding 2010's Toyota/Lexus recall fiasco. (Though we're not sure that the floormat issue would've been caught with black boxes.)
Our take
Black boxes are already being tested on European cars. From where we sit, though, there are at least two major hurdles facing the installation of data recorders on American vehicles: privacy and cost.
The Senate bill addresses the former pretty clearly, stating that owners and lessees have sole ownership of their black box data, unless (a) the owner/lessee consents to share it, (b) it's subpoenaed by a court, or (c) there's a life-threatening accident, like a collision.
Cost is a different matter. The bill simply says that within two years, the Secretary of Transportation must report to Congress on the cost of the data recorders, but by that time, the 2015 model year will be mere months away. Even if the recorders are discovered to be cost-prohibitive, workers at factories around the globe will already be installing them. We suppose NHTSA will have to cross that bridge when it comes to it.
Of course, for any of this bill to pan out, it'll have to pass the House too. Mashable thinks that's likely to happen, but given the state of Capitol Hill these days, we're slightly less certain.
Take a look at the news clip below and let us know: do you think mandating data recorders is a great idea, a terrible idea, or somewhere in-between?
* The entire bill is a really interesting read, if you've got nothing better to do on a Friday.
This story originally appeared at The Car Connection
