The End of the Road For Texting Truckers 171
crimeandpunishment writes "The US Transportation Department is calling for a permanent ban on texting while driving, for interstate truck and bus drivers. An interim ban has been in place since January. The government says it is doing everything it can to make roads safer by reducing the threat of distracted drivers. The Transportation Department says nearly 6,000 people were killed and half a million injured in crashes involving distracted drivers in 2008."
Learning the lessons from across the pond (Score:2)
But what about Teddy Bear? (Score:2)
His daddy died in a wreck about a month ago, and now he guesses that cell phone belongs to him and his mom.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, fucking WONDERFUL - thank you so very very much! 35ish years to get that out of my head, and now it's back.
Odd... (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember when truck drivers aimed for 1 million miles with no accidents, usually because it ended with a nice pretty statue, name in most of the large trucking magazines and a nice wad of cash. Well that was before the semi-licenced idiots got on the road. Carry on...carry on.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Good companies still do, as LTIs (lost time incidents) are expensive. In my industry, our locations have parties and rewards when they reach milestones like 100 days without an LTI. LTI scores are also something like 20+% of most manager's yearly goal, and is taken into account on their bonuses.
It pays to be safe for the employees and the company.
On a side note... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, that's not the gearstick, and I think you know it's not the gearstick.
Why only truckers? (Score:4, Insightful)
All the studies show it isn't safe - it has been banned in several states. Why not everybody?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think its cute that you think Congress would allow itself to be limited to only the powers granted to it by the Constitution.
In all seriousness, it seems likely that the Federal Government would encourage enforcement at the state and local level in the same ways they enforce speed limits and drinking ages. By offering Federal funds on the condition that states enforce the "suggested" requirement.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not everybody?
Well, there's this little pesky document called the Constitution. Banning texting on the road would be about as Constitutional as a federal ban on violence against women..... I am pretty sure that would fall outside the bounds of the Commerce Clause.....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Check your state assault laws first. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
CB Radio (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely you see the difference between texting and talking on a CB radio? If not, try it sometime. In a simulator.
Re: (Score:2)
I think texting is inherently dangerous in a way that cell phone use is not. As for CB radio? If non-hands-free cell phone use is banned, why not ban all such radio traffic as well?
In fact, why not ban all cell phone and two-way radio entirely, and make cops pull over before they talk into them?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry for the snark at the end.
But I do wonder how many state texting bans are written to be inappliable to, say, police officers' habits of typing (on their laptops) while driving.....
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it. We're much more likely to put blame on technology now.
Dupe from four articles ago (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
How about editing slashdot while driving? (Score:5, Informative)
This is not only a dupe of an article published 5 hours ago [slashdot.org] (still near the top of the front page), it's from the exact same submission. Perhaps samzenpus has been editing slashdot while driving and this is the result?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it is an (early?) April Fool's Day prank.
What about taxi drivers? (Score:2)
Some taxi companies have custom texting rigs in the cars used for receiving dispatching info and sending status updates (usually sent by pressing one of the pre-programmed buttons). "On my way." "Picked up fare." "Dropped off fare." "Off duty." "Available." "Being hijacked/robbed!" (I'm just assuming that last one's in there.) Is that kind of thing also going to be banned?
Re: (Score:2)
I work for a trucking company and the Qualcomm units that we use for driver messaging do not allow the driver to interact with the unit while it's moving. It's been that way for quite some time.
tech solution (Score:2, Insightful)
sledgehammer where you need a tackhammer (Score:2)
So, you think passengers in a car or bus (or cab, or other commercial vehicle) must be prevented from texting too? Why?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. They are really annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
So if I hire a cab, I am not allowed to talk on my cell phone because you find that annoying?
that's absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Using the phone (incl. texting) should be still possible from inside of the car. Just not -while- driving.
OP's solution is overzealous too: would exclude passengers from using the phones.
What the DOT failed to say: (Score:2)
Almost all of those crashes caused by texting involved only 4-wheelers.
Were's the War? (Score:2)
Half million injured and six thousand dead? Were are the troops? How come there's no Secretary of State at the U.N. waving vials of a broken IPod next to some charts? Where are the mushroom clouds behind the speakers at podiums?
-[d]-
Re:This requires federal government intervention? (Score:5, Insightful)
Reckless driving is already an offense in every state I know of. Why not just enforce that law?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
which shows something wrong... (Score:4, Interesting)
I will side with Hatta that there are reckless driving charges - and these should be made to stick.
ThunderDan's point shows that something is wrong with the law in general, though, and that is people think more and more laws need to be added to ensure that courts can't re-interpret things in a different way.
On the other hand - the rising number of laws increases the complexity of the law in such a way that it might well require courts to make bigger or even more ridiculous judgement calls, based on different individual laws that maybe might make sense on their own, but show discrepancies when seen together.
Secondly, the constant addition of more and more laws - to clarify what is legal and what isn't - basically fucks our own 'moral compass'. How should you even begin to form a feeling what's legal and what isn't when law books become ever more complex to clarify more and more things that SHOULD be obvious to be seen as 'wrong' by even a casual observer.
Take an example - right now, it may be forbidden to specify age or gender (or physical attributes) of potential applicants in job ads.
That's all fair enough. On the other hand, I think we are approaching the situation where a company could actually place a job ad specifically to hire, say, a developer, female, age 30, at least 5'8" tall, slim, very attractive simply based on a companies attempt to support 'diversity' in its workforce (because right now, we don't have any good looking young women working for us - so we may actually be required to try and hire one, JUST so that to the outside it doesn't look like we're descriminating against good looking candidates).
Surely, this example IS exaggerated, but what has been around have been cases, where laws were created (in the name of equal opportunity), which specify a women's quota in specific jobs; and this resulted in a man being turned down for a promotion because the local administration still had too few women at the next level up. The guy had to go up all the way through the courts to get his way, after he could show that in the years before, his performance had always ranked better - but the law to 'clarify' that we need more women effectively barred him from getting ahead in his job. Is this still equal opportunity? No. The law 'requiring' the promotion of women, because there are too many men in higher positions right now, basically was a bad thing for women as well - as the promotion of a 'lower performing' women just to satisfy the quota can't be a good thing for women either - it will damage companies (which don't get to pick the best possible candidates; and it hurts women, if women in leading positions are seen as 'only having been promoted because of a law, not because of skill' - therefore enforcing the view that many women may be worse employees.
Don't get me wrong here, I am against sexual discrimination in the work place; women should not be barred from higher positions based on their gender. But they shouldn't be hired/promoted because of a law forcing it, as that would discriminate against men that might be better suited to the specific role at hand.
What we need is not more laws to 'clarify' the situation, what we need is more investment in education to fix and strengthen people's moral compasses in a way that the same kind of discrimination will not happen in the future. Or - in this case - that people KNOW any kind of distraction while driving is a bad thing, and should be considered reckless.
The only people who can really benefit from the law getting bigger, to me, seems to be lawyers, professional crooks, and rich people who might have pockets deep enough to figure out what loopholes have been created in the law, due to the addition of more laws.
Re: (Score:2)
ThunderDan's point shows that something is wrong with the law in general, though, and that is people think more and more laws need to be added to ensure that courts can't re-interpret things in a different way.
Possibly the problem lies with the basic principles behind legislation - it seems to me that in Common Law, each law each rule is formulated specifically rather than generally; this appears to be the problem with the drugs legislation in UK at the moment, where, say, Amphetamine is prohibited, but if somebody comes along and sticks a small molecule at one end of the amphetamine molecule, it is "A New Drug" and therefore legal; even though it is bleedingly obvious that it is almost identical. In this case, p
Re: (Score:2)
perhaps a better policy would be to ban all new molecules until they have been proven safe
Sounds like someone has been taking some psychotropic substances... And the problem with drug legislation in the UK is that it exists. If 2 people are killed by a substance that has been safely used by thousands there is no need for prohibition anymore than for baby slings, paracetamol, or bicycles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Positive Discrimination" is just plain old discrimination only against everybody else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the legal procedure to accomplish what you're talking about would be for a higher court to set a precedent on the existing reckless driving law. Determining if something is "reckless driving" or not is, after all, up to the courts. Of course, using categorical logic, we can figure on not needing a new law specifically for text-driving UNLESS there are cases in which texting while driving doesn't constitute recklessness.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And the same goes for having an argument or talking about something emotional to a passenger. People look at each other all the time.
It's a question of how dangerous texting is.
Which means they need some hard counts of how many accidents involve texting specifically.
Is it 100? 200? The article throws around 6,000-- is that it?
Or is it another "all the glaciers will be gone by 2035" factoid?
I've almost T-Boned a person talking on their cell phone who pulled right out in front of me and as I'm smoking the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with the majority of your points, but if you want "safe driving," take humans out of the equation. Put "Hal" in charge of transportation and let the "system" get you there. A side benefit is that it might actually speed things up.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Trust the computer is modded Insightful with all the recent Toyota problems? This should be modded Funny, he even mentioned putting Hal in charge
I learned a long time ago, NEVER trust the computer. You don't have enough clones. Paranoia [wikipedia.org] isn't when the computer really is out to get you.
Re:This requires federal government intervention? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's assume all of the Toyota problems are due to the computer. Now how many crashes have occurred due to the problems? A small handful? Now compare that number by how many crashes have been caused by human error in the same makes and models of Toyota cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because a slight upward trend in one category doesn't successfully overshadow another category doesn't mean it should not be taken seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Trusting a human is given serious consideration with all the recent Human problems (40000 dead/year, AFAIK)? This should be modded funny, they even mentioned putting drunk/distracted/sleepy humans in charge.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How many of those problems are really Toyota problems and not one of:
Come up with a way to sift those and other incidences of driver error out of the numbers and then you got something to talk about.
Re: (Score:2)
old people using the two foot method and then using the wrong foot to brake, panicking and pressing the "brake" foot down even harder
Why would that affect Toyota more than other cars?
If you can't disprove an accusation, cast doubts to the reliability of the accuser. Do it in a vague enough way that nothing concrete can possible ever be proved one way or another.
Nice, but a bit transparent.
Re: (Score:2)
there's conclusive research showing texting and talking on the phone impairs the drivers abilities. you've got one hand off the wheel and your distracted.
there's nothing wrong with just not answering the phone, pulling over or installing a hands free kit.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at the causes of distracted driving accidents, cell phones (even texting) are way down on the list. Orders of magnitude more dangerous is eating or consuming a beverage (non-alchy) while driving. We should go for the percentages and start with the thing that will be the most benefit rather than the thing that will be the least benefit, but is politically unpopular enough that no one will object to its ban.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but "everybody knows" that it's perfectly fine to eat and drive cause "everyone" does it all the time, it's just these new fangled cellio phones and wireless teletypes that these kids use that are the problems. Adjusts onion on belt, spits into a spitoon
But seriously I still get old timers who think it's *crazy* that everyone has to wear a seat belt and will argue it is safer to drive without one due to some outrageous edge case where you're trapped in the car and can't release the belt. There doesn't s
Re: (Score:2)
And install Cabin Voice Recorders (CVR's of this sort are not new technology), and take away the radio. No unnecessary distractions while operating a motor vehicle........
Re: (Score:2)
Take away the radio? Aside from the lobbyists that will have your head from Pioneer, Sony, et al.... Wtf do you do to entertain yourself for long drives. If if didn't have the radio or aux input I'd probably end up going crazy and never reaching my destination.
Your crazy CVR idea aside, it's called OnStar and plenty of people yank them from vehicles for good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
First, if the goal is to prevent dangers due to distracted drivers, the idea is not crazy in the least: It does just that very, very well. Min
Re: (Score:2)
You can take the the mic. from my ham radio from my dead, cold hands....
Re: (Score:2)
Smoking? how do you figure?
Doesn't take much attention to smoke.
Re:This requires federal government intervention? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they fumble around lighting the smoke in the first place, take their eyes off the road to tap off the ash and if you drop it in your lap you bounce around trying to avoid it
. 95% of the time, when I light a smoke in the car I don't even look at it, my hand's are just used to positioning themselves where they are needed. The other 5% of the time, I'm smoking 100's, which are longer than what I'm used to. Additionally, unless I'm driving a vehicle which is different from the one I usually drive, I'm similarly accustomed to ashing either out the window or in the ashtray without looking. It's not a distraction, unless you're
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Smoking while not good for health isn't a dangerous activity whilst driving in fact over all it is probably safer than banning it.
Your smoker driver is more likely to become irritated by smaller things whilst deprived of nicotine.
More likely to feel drowsy and fall asleep.
More likely to drive faster and less responsibly (in order to get where they are going and make up the time they lose on a cigarette break as well as boredom).
smoker is more likely to open the window getting fresh air in the car and increa
Re: (Score:2)
because someone texting may not be appear to be driving recklessly
Anyone taking their eyes off the road appears to be driving recklessly. It's easy to eat using only proprioception, so you're not taking your eyes off the road. You can't text without taking your eyes off the road, AFAICT.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because that's a lot harder than it sounds. If a cop pulls you over for "reckless driving" you have a chance to say it wasn't reckless because you're a just that good at driving or a variety of other subjective excuses. This can eat up court time etc.
If they pull you over for talking on a cell phone, all they have to do is testify you were talking on a cell phone. Case closed. Same reason they use radar guns.(Aren't those often required to give speeding tickets nowdays?)
Not saying it's right, but that i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, which is the problem.Here in SC the law allows the arresting officer to "inspect" the phone in question to determine if it was being used illegally. Ain't that nice.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why you should just make it illegal to hold the phone while driving. It's a distraction even if you are not texting, calling, emailing or whatever, just drooling over your new iPhone or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point, I wasn't paying enough attention.
I just was thinking about the normal ban on cell phones. Banning just texting is down right retarded.
Re:This requires federal government intervention? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, truckers can still look up contacts, dial their phones, look up addresses and map them, download apps, and play games on their smartphones while driving. They just can't text.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, truckers can still look up contacts, dial their phones, look up addresses and map them, download apps, and play games on their smartphones while driving. They just can't text.
You raise an interesting point. Would a court be persuaded if the driver introduced their statement from their wireless carrier showing they didn't send or receive texts around the time of the citation? Or if the driver simply argues they weren't texting, can the state then pull their statement? It probably boils down to a question of state evidentiary rules and prosecuting economy, but when you can't be certain of a person's activities by simple observation, these questions inevitably arise.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He would never find time in my truck. You need both hands, feet and plenty of concentration to double-declutch through the ratios on an 18-speed Eaton Fuller gearbox while keeping the rig moving in the right direction.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He would never find time in my truck. You need both hands, feet and plenty of concentration to double-declutch through the ratios on an 18-speed Eaton Fuller gearbox while keeping the rig moving in the right direction.
Sorry, but every experienced truck driver I've ever known doesn't use the clutch except when starting and stopping. The rest of the time they do what's called floating--shifting gears without using the clutch. If you time your upshifts properly and match engine and tranny speeds on downshifts, it's a piece of cake. I do it all the time, even in my personal vehicle.
You're absolutely right about needing plenty of concentration, though. Keeping one of those fuckers on the road can be challenging in the best o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its a technique to match input rpm to output rpm when down-shifting so you cause less strain on the gearbox.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have thought private companies and municipalities would have already implemented protocols prohibiting texting while driving.
Federal government sets the minimum standards for driving with CDLs. The states can be more restrictive if they wish. This has been the case since 1986. Also I know more people who are more likely to blow off a rule made by a company but would not risk breaking the law.
Re:This requires federal government intervention? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but at the same time, law-makers can say, "I took a stand against this, and voted for your safety!!!1one!" The alternative is to stand around, impotently, and say, "We _have_ laws on the books; it's tha po-lice that ain't doin' their jobs." Law-makers have to consider "Directive #1": get re-elected.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't feed the trolls...even the anonymous ones.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you elaborate on how you can text safely in a moving vehicle that you are driving?
I agree with your argument about other types of distraction (such as talking on the phone) but it's not a matter of correlation vs. causation. Being distracted causes your risk of being in an accident to increase. That causal link has been shown by experiments, not correlation only studies. You're correct, there are situations, and drivers, in which you're at a low risk of collision anyway and your total risk including
Re: (Score:2)
Oh? Do you look at screens while you're talking to yourself while driving? And use your hand as well? Perhaps you stare at yourself in the rear view mirror while using one of your hands for, um, something else. Still sounds dangerous to me.
I'll also dispute the "asynchronous" bit. Most people I know who text are completely useless while sending a text, they're concentrating so hard on where to put their fingers, what they're going to say, spelling, whatever. Rarely do they stop in the middle because t
Re: (Score:2)
(my teenage daugheter) texts without looking at the keypad. She only looks at the screen to read the messages. This is not a *good thing* but it is an interesting skill.
Full stop. Looking at the screen means that she's not looking at the road. As any experienced driver can tell you, "it only takes a second for something to go badly wrong" is NOT just an empty phrase when driving, because in reality the time is even lower than that.
On a related note, I fail to understand the people who look at passengers when talking to them. Overcome your social conditioning and recognize that your eyes belong ONLY on the road, no matter what your mouth is doing.
Re:(Correlation == Causation) = Over-regulation (Score:5, Insightful)
can arguably be done perfectly safely in the right circumstances.
I wouldn't call luck being "perfectly safe".
Seriously, do you understand what you have to do to text while driving? You have to take your eyes off the road completely and focus most of your attention on entering your text message.
Most of your job while driving is not keeping the vehicle running down the street straight. A six year old can do that (there are a number of COPS episodes that prove that). Most of your job as a driver is making sure you are not going to run into someone else, or that someone else is not going to run into you. It doesn't take a PHD in statistics to recognize that any activity that requires your entire attention, and requires you to remove your eyes from the road, is going to prevent you from doing your job as a driver. It isn't rocket science.
I do believe it's fair to say that drunk driving is a causal factor in accidents - the difference being that alcohol is a cause of bad judgment while things like driving too fast for the conditions are an effect of bad judgment.
There are a number of studies that show your judgment while just talking on a cell phone is nearly as impaired as being drunk. Can you honestly say texting is going to be better than that?
Common sense man, you don't need a scientist to tell you everything. Correlation does not prove causation, sure, but this isn't bizzaro world where correlation proves there is no causation. Correlation is strong evidence suggesting a link, and a little common sense points out the obvious factors. Distractions cause accidents, in fact very few things cause accidents except distractions and chemical or physical impairments (i.e. drugs, alcohol, or sleep deprivation). To take something as distracting as texting and say you can't assume it causes accidents is down right idiotic.
To sum it all up, you sir, are a dumbass.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since we are talking about "interstate truck and bus drivers", actually it IS. And since most truckers and bus drivers are presumably more developed than a six-year-old, maybe it's not necessary to force them into highway hypnosis [wikipedia.org] by making them do nothing else at all while keeping the vehicle running down the street straight.
"Correlation is strong evidence suggesting a link, and a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are three ways in which you can get a correlation: (1) A causes B, (2) B causes A, or (3) C causes A and B. In the case of ice cream and cancer, a little thought shows it's (3). In the case of texting and accidents, it's clear it's (1); there is no other possibility.
More to the point, it is obvious that talking on the phone while driving causes more accidents. Except that it doesn't
Your interpreting that data wrong. The law is ineffective because of lack of compliance, not because of lack of causat
Re: (Score:2)
A few thoughts.
One: I find it kind of funny that it's okay to deluge us drivers with advertisement. Billboards, small signs, flashing strobe lights in convenience stores. This is all designed to drag a driver's attention off other traffic and entice them to read about the SPECIAL sale/price/product/crap businesses offer.
Two: I've texted while driving. Just like any other non-driving action taken in the car (such as changing radio stations or inserting CDs) I deliberately chopped the task up into short st
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is dangerous to, say, grab your breakfast to eat in the car on your 15 min. drive to work
Doesn't that depend on your breakfast? Sure, a bowl of cereal would be a problem, but a power bar or a sausage biscuit? You pick it up once, you eat it without having to look at it, you drop the wrapper in your trash. Done.
Re: (Score:2)
I think when driving through residential neighborhoods, (and even commercial districts) it might be a good idea to have no unnecessary distractions. Ideally, that means no unnecessary conversations with the driver as well.
On the open highway it's different. That's where the hypnotic sta
you don't know what you're talking about (Score:2)
There is more than enough evidence that texting causes crashes and isn't just correlated with them. And the causal relationship is such that if you prohibit the texting and people comply, you'll see fewer crashes.
You can still argue that texting shouldn't be prohibited, but you can't argue it based on correlation/causation arguments; causation is clear in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I want to ban kids in cars. Not just juveniles, but those damned kids under 50 who can't drive properly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am pretty sure that these are more than 1-T trucks....
However by your view the truck driver who glances at the spedometer is guilty of reckless driving, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you have no problem with him talking on his hands-free cell phone, but he can't look down at the radio to change the station?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Want truckers to slow down and obey the time limit laws? Don't pay them by the mile. Oh, and if you don't like being overtaken by semi at 70+ mph, don't drive on the highway. Having to pass an idiot driving 50mpg in the center of a three lane highway is very disconcerting.
Maybe they should install Breathalyzer ignition interlocks in all cars to prevent drunk driving. Maybe they should install 30 minute black boxes in all cars to encourage safer driving. Maybe they should put speed limiters in all cars to pr
Re: (Score:2)
Try being stopped at a red light in a small car with a truck behind you and having the truck start moving forward and pushing you towards the car in front of you while the light is still red. And try having the truck driver not even know he's hitting you, and his buddy having to tell him there's a problem.