Ford Endorses Bill on Text Messenging Ban

[ANTAUS]

LINK-Detroit News

[rmc523]

Eh, Bill just wants to sell more SYNC equipped vehicles.... LOL :shades:

 

 

I could support that.....I can't tell you the number of people I see looking down while driving, in fact, I've been guilty of it myself a few times.

 

As for that National Safety Council or whatever it's called - that'd be absolutely ridiculous for them to ban any use of cell phones in vehicles, even through voice-activated systems. Crazy people.....

[BrewfanGRB]

I am 100% against (I'd be more, if I could) text-messaging while driving. At a minimum, use of a cell phone for voice should absolutely be hands-free.

 

The problem is enforcement--how can any of this possibly be enforced? Unless a police officer actually SEES it (which probably would happen pretty easily since most of these yahoos are oblivious to the world around them when they are the phone), it would be hard to prove, I think.

 

When I see a moron putting having to tell grandma about Johnny's soccer game before my and others' safety by going 60 in the left lane or swerving all over...I prefer to pull even with them, give them the gesture to put down the phone and DRIVE THE F-ING CAR and quickly get as far away from them as possible.

[ausrutherford]

And is this really something that the feds need to waist time on...seems like they should manage healthcare, NK, and iran before this.

[Noah Harbinger]

I was under the impression that studies show drivers are no safer with hands-free sets than holding the phone in their hand.

 

One study found the level of impairment to be equal to a .04% BAC - which is of course well within the legal limit (at least, in the US).

[Noah Harbinger]

And is this really something that the feds need to waist time on...seems like they should manage healthcare, NK, and iran before this.

 

Because obviously the federal government is so tiny it can only handle one issue at a time... and a ban like this would consume so much resources as to fatally distract them from all other duties.

[J-150]

Eh, Bill just wants to sell more SYNC equipped vehicles.... LOL :shades:

 

 

lawsuits.

 

remember durig the Explorer rollovers... a truck full of drunken collge students in Texas were driving too fast, without seatbelts and they crashed. So they sued Ford. Now whether Ford wins or loses or settles out of court, they still rack up huge legal bills.

 

 

so yeah, this makes sense.

[FordBuyer]

It's gettin very scary now with the new 3G and now 4G smartphones. You see all kinds of drivers now raising up their phones on slant trying to look at them and pressing keys while driving. You lose upwards of 50% of your driving concentration doing that and your reaction time slows to that of a drunk driver. Very scary. You also see so many pedestrians walking in front of cars looking at their smart phones. People are addicted to these hand held computers and can't go more than one minute in many cases without looking at them. I wouldn't be suprised if they wake up every five minutes while sleeping to check them out. Great! Desktop computers are no obsolete and the new mode is to use hand held computer while driving and walking in crosswalks. Pedestrians and cyclists are being killed and injured in increasing numbers by these distracted drivers.

[NickF1011]

Because obviously the federal government is so tiny it can only handle one issue at a time... and a ban like this would consume so much resources as to fatally distract them from all other duties.

 

It's not that the federal government doesn't have the resources, it's that they shouldn't. This should be a locally decided and enforced issue.

[ANTAUS]

I dont see how they could enforce this. Whether looking down, or even with tints, you can't really see whats happening inside many cars to be able to point out the issue. I know people who are not even text messenging BUT they are surfing the web, as they drive....

[FordBuyer]

It's not that the federal government doesn't have the resources, it's that they shouldn't. This should be a locally decided and enforced issue.

 

Ford's Virtex Labs in Deaborn and other researchers have proven that you are twenty-three more times likely to crash while using a hand held phone, especially if text messaging or interfacing with smart phone while driving. That is worse than being drunk in most cases unless of course the drunk driver is like 2-3 times over the legal limit. So I agree Congress needs to vote on this bill and pass it and make the penalty severe as in lots of money for doing it if caught. Most police officers will tell you that it's pretty easy to observe someone doing this while driving. I myself pick up on it very easily and it's getting worse. Much worse. Some days it seems like half the drivers around me are on phones when driving.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Drivers who adjust sat-navs, tinker with MP3 music players such as iPods or send text messages at the wheel could also face prison sentences of 2 years, or a £5,000 fine in a Ford in the UK, SYNC is a must.

 

In addition, drivers who kill while using mobile phones could be charged with causing death by dangerous driving, which carries a 14-year jail term. In extreme cases they could be charged with manslaughter for which a life term can be imposed. If you are a muslim terrorist bomber and blow up a 747 killing and mass murder 270 folk they let you go free.

 

You still see loads of Brits still using them regardless on UK roads.

LINK

Edited September 11, 2009 by Ford Jellymoulds

[FordBuyer]

Drivers who adjust sat-navs, tinker with MP3 music players such as iPods or send text messages at the wheel could also face prison sentences of 2 years, or a £5,000 fine in a Ford in the UK, SYNC is a must.

 

In addition, drivers who kill while using mobile phones could be charged with causing death by dangerous driving, which carries a 14-year jail term. In extreme cases they could be charged with manslaughter for which a life term can be imposed. If you are a muslim terrorist bomber and blow up a 747 killing and mass murder 270 folk they let you go free.

 

You still see loads of Brits still using them regardless on UK roads.

LINK

 

Yep, it's called Negligent Homicide. Just yesterday in Washtenaw County Courtroom in Ann Arbor, MI, a 20 year old man was charged with Negligent Homicide when he hit a cyclist and killed him while bending down to pick us something off floor. The cyclist was a 42 year old engineer with a 4 year old daughter and 18 year old son. His vehicle clipped the rear of the bicycle and sent the rider for long ride through the air. Just about two months ago in Dearborn Hts., MI, a woman text messaging hit a woman walking on the sidewalk with her toddler daughter and sent both of them 60 feet down the street through the air where they ended up in critical condition in the hospital. Like I said, it's getting very scary out there with this out of control phone use and just lettling distractions getting the best of you while driving. Drivers more than ever want to do everything in vehicle while driving....eat breakfast and lunch, make all the phone calls for day, put on make-up, shave, change clothes, fiddle with CD's, change clothes, brush their teeth, check their Emails and stock market, and everything else they can think of. They disrespect the driving task and many pay for it by hurting or killing someone and facing Negligent Homicide charges. It only take a momentary lapse of judgement and split second for your life to end as you know it and some innocents life to end forever.

[NickF1011]

Ford's Virtex Labs in Deaborn and other researchers have proven that you are twenty-three more times likely to crash while using a hand held phone, especially if text messaging or interfacing with smart phone while driving. That is worse than being drunk in most cases unless of course the drunk driver is like 2-3 times over the legal limit. So I agree Congress needs to vote on this bill and pass it and make the penalty severe as in lots of money for doing it if caught. Most police officers will tell you that it's pretty easy to observe someone doing this while driving. I myself pick up on it very easily and it's getting worse. Much worse. Some days it seems like half the drivers around me are on phones when driving.

 

I'm not disagreeing that it is dangerous. What I disagree with is that it's a federal issue. It is not. This should be enacted by local legislatures. The federal government should not ban anything unless they have the ability to enforce that ban. Making something illegal on the federal level and forcing local officials enforce it is wrong and possibly even unconstitutional.

[FordBuyer]

I'm not disagreeing that it is dangerous. What I disagree with is that it's a federal issue. It is not. This should be enacted by local legislatures. The federal government should not ban anything unless they have the ability to enforce that ban. Making something illegal on the federal level and forcing local officials enforce it is wrong and possibly even unconstitutional.

 

That precedent has already been set. If you remember, individual states used to set their own BAC levels for intoxication. Michigan's used to be .10. But the Feds said to MI that you either reset it down to .08, or you lose all Federal Road Funds. So now it's uniform throughout all 50 states at .08 BAC in determining Intoxication while driving. I hear Congress is going to use same threat...you either ban text messaging or we will deny you Federal Road Funds. All states give in when confronted with that threat.

[aneekr]

As for that National Safety Council or whatever it's called - that'd be absolutely ridiculous for them to ban any use of cell phones in vehicles, even through voice-activated systems. Crazy people.....

The studies cited by National Safety Council focus on the effect of holding a phone conversation on cognitive distraction (University of Utah Applied Cognition Laboratory, see here and here). Based on the results of these studies, NSC's recommendations don't seem ridiculous to me.

 

Without going into the debate about federalism and the Constitutional aspects of the proposed legislation (I'm in agreement with NickF1011 here, incidentally) or Ford's corporate position on it, the most pragmatic policy regarding mobile phone use while driving is what my employer has in place: don't do it at all- regardless of whether the device is handheld or hands-free, or whether it involves voice or text; pull over to a safe area and stop your vehicle if it's necessary to use a mobile phone; encourage adherence to the policy with appropriate sanctions (in my employer's case, repeated violations can lead to the employee being terminated).

Edited September 11, 2009 by aneekr

[NickF1011]

That precedent has already been set. If you remember, individual states used to set their own BAC levels for intoxication. Michigan's used to be .10. But the Feds said to MI that you either reset it down to .08, or you lose all Federal Road Funds. So now it's uniform throughout all 50 states at .08 BAC in determining Intoxication while driving. I hear Congress is going to use same threat...you either ban text messaging or we will deny you Federal Road Funds. All states give in when confronted with that threat.

 

That's all fine and dandy, as long as it is the states writing the laws. It's sickening that the states are so dependent on federal funding though that they can threaten with such things and it actually works. There is no state independence anymore, and it's to the detriment of all of us.

[FordBuyer]

That's all fine and dandy, as long as it is the states writing the laws. It's sickening that the states are so dependent on federal funding though that they can threaten with such things and it actually works. There is no state independence anymore, and it's to the detriment of all of us.

 

I would agree with you. Gradually, states are losing their ability to govern themselves as Federal takes over more areas of governance. I also lament that other than scenery all states look pretty much the same now with the same corporate logos everywhere. Everyone dresses the same, pretty much talks the same, and their main streets are dotted with corporate logos like Burger King, Taco Bell, The Hampton Inn, and so on. This summer I drove US12 through Michigan and lamented the loss of most of the diners, quaint motels and motel cabins, and everything else that made Route 66 and US12 unique. All that stuff is long gone.

[ANTAUS]

You would be amazed at how much federal funding and grants are available to cities, pertaining to specific issues and events. I know when city staff presents us with options on specific issues, I'm amazed at what some of the conditions are, for us to receive free money. Many are understandable and comprehensive, some are beyong rediculous, "What do you mean we have to invest $144K a year to run this building, for us to get a $5K grant, just close it down!!"...

 

I know one Master Planned PUD city in S.FL, where "low income housing" doesn't exist. Nor do they care, nor have a need to provide it. And on comprehensive plans cities must turn into the state for regulation, they'll ask "What percentage of low income housing does your city have"...and pretty much they state (to paraphrase), "We dont have any, and we aren't providing any"...well because of that detail, they fall out of other funding sources, and THATS ok, they DO NOT need it. BUt I find it amusing.... When they came to our city we said "well we already have some, and no we aren't doing anything other than improve sidewalks, ornamental benches, lamp-posts, rezoning them to higher density in the hopes they MOVE OUT and we can build something of quality". And thats usually what small cities will do, but VERY contrary to what Major cities will do.

 

In fact, MANY cities up north such as Buffalo (I just had discussions with lawmakers there) thrive on that fact to collect more money from the government for low income programs rather than improve infrastructure because their belief is, "We dont have quality industry and we wont attract any, so lets cater to programs that will allow us to get money in other ways"....

 

Now for this messenging ban to take place, or stick they must show ways that it's enforceable. If not, your creating frivilous laws with no legal standing and can be tied up in the court systems. But normal cities could and even at the county level impose something such as that...I say a good 10 minute preaching, and end it with "For the safety of our children", and it'll pass...Once you throw "safety of our children", it will null and void anyones counter claims because there's NO ONE that will battle that...

[Tribunius]

This kind of thing should be shown on US tv and during drivers Ed classes.

 

It is a rather graphic example of what could happen to people when they text and drive.

 

Its a short clip from a drivers educational video to be shown from next year onwards to high school kids in the UK.

 

[rmc523]

lawsuits.

 

remember durig the Explorer rollovers... a truck full of drunken collge students in Texas were driving too fast, without seatbelts and they crashed. So they sued Ford. Now whether Ford wins or loses or settles out of court, they still rack up huge legal bills.

 

 

so yeah, this makes sense.

 

I was just kidding...

 

one_txt_msg_restrictions_109.pdf"]NSC's recommendations[/url] don't seem ridiculous to me...... while driving is what my employer has in place: don't do it at all- regardless of whether the device is handheld or hands-free, or whether it involves voice or text; pull over to a safe area and stop your vehicle if it's necessary to use a mobile phone; encourage adherence to the policy with appropriate sanctions (in my employer's case, repeated violations can lead to the employee being terminated).

 

well, the roads would be empty down here then.....what's next you can't carry on a conversation with your passenger while driving? What's the difference between that and talking with someone one a voice activated/hands free phone?

[aneekr]

What's the difference between that and talking with someone one a voice activated/hands free phone?

This University of Utah study analyzes the difference between those two scenarios in terms of impact on driving performance.

[BrewfanGRB]

Just to add to what aneekr has linked, the difference is your passenger can see what's going on. If they see it's snowing or the traffic is bad or there's construction, they can shut up (and normally do). If they don't, it's much easier to ignore them or ask them to be quiet.

 

What I've found (which is why I like Sync and otherwise never use my phone in the car) is you become so engrossed in the phone call, your attention is diverted from driving and don't think to put the phone down or ask the other party to wait a moment. With a passenger in the car, I find myself much more focused on driving than the passenger or am more likely to ask them to hang on while I am merging or whatever.

 

I still think it's a difficult-to-enforce law to begin with and I agree w/ Nick that using the threat of withholding federal highway funds is highly suspect. They did that to force everyone's drinking age to 21 and the BAC to .08 (as noted). I pay INTO the federal trust fund via federal gas tax and even if all my senators and reps voted against the federal bill, if it passes, then my state legislature has to cave. That's inappropriate, IMO.

[twintornados]

How about a device that blocks the use of cell devices unless it is routed through an approved vehicle device?

[J-150]

How about a device that blocks the use of cell devices unless it is routed through an approved vehicle device?

 

 

or a device that blocks all cell calls unless the veehicle is in Park