3 ms·

The NTSB will then have to ban: talking (to anyone in the car since the distraction is iplied as being the mental distraction of conversation), listening to mus

The NTSB will then have to ban: talking (to anyone in the car since the distraction is iplied as being the mental distraction of conversation), listening to music, eating, application of makeup, and smoking to name a few. Next up will be only allowing windows to be rolled down while the car is not in motion or in an emergency situation. Bottom line - if people aren't making new legislation (i.e. controls) they are looked upon as doing nothing. So they do 'something' which is the next step of control up from the last. This translates into a slow erosion (the boiled frog analogy) of our overall freedom. The United States is ridiculous in it's ludicrous enforcement of things that have little impact in the overall state of affairs. Nader did us all a favor by putting 3-point belts in cars - that saved lives. But he never told us we had to wear them. Let nature takes it's course, I like my life as a choose-your-own-adventure not as a marionette. $0.02.

tatsuke95 15y ago
I agree with your philosophy, but the problem is that all the costs aren't borne completely by the driver choosing to be distracted. Oftentimes, they'll cross the centre lane and take someone with them. That's the paradox: I want MY freedom within my vehicle, but I also want to be sure other drivers on the road are not being negligent. I want the rules to apply to them.
- windexh8er 15y ago
  That's part of the problem - people think they're entitled to these guarantees. Even if this is law, there's no guarantee. Example: my sister went on a road trip with someone she did not know was bi-polar. That someone had not been taking their medication and had an episode while driving. She threatened to drive the car into a tree, luckily this didn't happen. So should bi-polars be required to prove they are medicated before driving? That's one heck of a rabbit hole (and my original point)! Point being, you have no control - no matter what the rules are. You also have no guarantees so you can never be sure. In fact, the only way to be sure is to avoid the situation at all costs. Banning all electronic devices will not ever provide that warm fuzzy you're looking for, rules or not.
colanderman 15y ago
The NTSB will then have to ban: talking The studies on which they're basing their decision specifically find talking on a phone to be much more distracting than talking to a passenger.
- windexh8er 15y ago
  How about a screaming child in the back seat with only the driver in the car? Maybe that child is old enough to unbuckle themselves. Is that more distracting than talking to passengers? I find it odd that people feel they will be safer with legislation like this. The NTSB is making their point through scenario specific testing and while it is interesting research it doesn't reflect other real world situations that may be even more distracting than phones.
  - colanderman 15y ago
    How about a screaming child in the back seat with only the driver in the car? That's not exactly something that you need to focus on. Maybe that child is old enough to unbuckle themselves. Fortunately that's already illegal!

tatsuke95 15y ago

I agree with your philosophy, but the problem is that all the costs aren't borne completely by the driver choosing to be distracted. Oftentimes, they'll cross the centre lane and take someone with them. That's the paradox: I want MY freedom within my vehicle, but I also want to be sure other drivers on the road are not being negligent. I want the rules to apply to them.

windexh8er 15y ago
That's part of the problem - people think they're entitled to these guarantees. Even if this is law, there's no guarantee. Example: my sister went on a road trip with someone she did not know was bi-polar. That someone had not been taking their medication and had an episode while driving. She threatened to drive the car into a tree, luckily this didn't happen. So should bi-polars be required to prove they are medicated before driving? That's one heck of a rabbit hole (and my original point)! Point being, you have no control - no matter what the rules are. You also have no guarantees so you can never be sure. In fact, the only way to be sure is to avoid the situation at all costs. Banning all electronic devices will not ever provide that warm fuzzy you're looking for, rules or not.

colanderman 15y ago

The NTSB will then have to ban: talking The studies on which they're basing their decision specifically find talking on a phone to be much more distracting than talking to a passenger.

windexh8er 15y ago
How about a screaming child in the back seat with only the driver in the car? Maybe that child is old enough to unbuckle themselves. Is that more distracting than talking to passengers? I find it odd that people feel they will be safer with legislation like this. The NTSB is making their point through scenario specific testing and while it is interesting research it doesn't reflect other real world situations that may be even more distracting than phones.
- colanderman 15y ago
  How about a screaming child in the back seat with only the driver in the car? That's not exactly something that you need to focus on. Maybe that child is old enough to unbuckle themselves. Fortunately that's already illegal!