Feds call for ban on cell phone use

In the wake of a deadly accident involving two school buses, a pickup truck and a tractor-trailer in Missouri last year, the National Transportation Safety Board has called for a ban on the use of cell phones by drivers. The ban would affect both hand-held and hands-free phones and is more stringent than most state bans on the use of electronic devices while driving.

In the last few years the board has investigated a commuter rail accident that killed 25 people in California in which the train engineer was texting; a fatal marine accident in Philadelphia in which a tugboat pilot was talking on his cellphone and using a laptop; and a Northwest Airlines flight that flew more than 100 miles past its destination because both pilots were working on their laptops.

It's probably not a bad idea. My wife likes to tell me that women can multitask while men can't (I then respond that I'd rather be doing one thing well than a bunch of things half-assed, but that's a discussion for another day). The truth of the matter is that there is more than enough stuff in a car to distract us from the task at hand. Whether it be adjusting the radio or CD player, checking out the GPS, turning the a/c up, adjusting the side mirrors, shifting gears, talking to your passenger or trying to keep the kids in the back seat from killing each other, it's hard to keep your focus on the road in front of you. And then you have to keep an eye on the other motorists, watch out for people coming out of parking lots and look to see what color the traffic light is.

All it takes is a split second for your pleasant afternoon drive to turn into a nightmare - and that's without any alcohol being added to the mix.

While I don't think this is a matter for los federales, it is an issue that should be considered by the states. To date, 35 states have banned (to some degree) texting while driving. Now whether that includes updating your Facebook status or tweeting, I don't know.

According to the NTSB, about 1 in 100 drivers is texting, surfing the internet or otherwise using an electronic device while driving. They know this because they stake out intersections and count the number of drivers using their phones while driving.

So, be careful out there and leave the phone in the seat unless it's an emergency.

Now let's see what the Mythbusters discovered when they compared distracted driving with drunk driving...

Part One: Control



Part Two: Distracted driving



Part Three: Drunk driving

The latest cancer risk (or just another scare)?

So cell phones can cause brain cancer.

Or not.

The World Health Organization released a study in which the agency listed cell phones as a "carcinogenic hazard."

"The biggest problem we have is that we know most environmental factors take several decades of exposure before we really see the consequences," said Dr. Keith Black, chairman of neurology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

WHO based their findings on a 2010 survey of cell phone use among cancer victims. The survey asked participants to estimate their cell phone usage over the previous ten years. The problem with that methodology is that it assumes cell phone usage causes cancer and it doesn't differentiate between heavy and light cell phone usage.

A Danish study followed 420,000 healthy Danes around and tracked both their cell phone usage and cancer rates and found no link between cell phone use and cancer risk.

Of course cell phone usage might raise one's risk factor of being stricken by cancer. But so might playing out in the sun, drinking artificial sweeteners, breathing exhaust fumes and just living a long time.

In the end, we just don't know. That may be a bit unsettling to some, but it's about par for the course when it comes to assessing future risks based on current behavior.

The biggest danger of cell phone use isn't cancer. It's focusing more on a phone call than the road when driving.

Some experts recommended people use a headset or earpiece if they are worried about the possible health dangers of cellphones. "If there is a risk, most of it goes away with a wireless earpiece," said Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society. 

Brawley said people should focus on the real health hazards of cellphones. "Cellphones may cause brain tumors but they kill far more people through automobile accidents," he said. 

Is this "shattering" news that using something might cause you to get some disease really going to change the way you conduct your daily business? Are you going to think before picking up that cell phone when it rings? Are you going to put the call on speaker and shout into the phone sitting on the desk?

Bill to ban texting while driving on cusp of passage

State Representative Tom Craddick (R-Midland) has proposed legislation (HB243) that would ban drivers in Texas from sending or reading text-based messages while driving. The measure passed 124-16 in a preliminary vote and will go before the House for formal approval today. Should it pass, the companion bill in the Senate will take up the matter.

Supporters of the bill argue that banning texting while driving will make roads safer as there will be one less distraction for drivers to deal with. Opponents cited privacy concerns as a reason for voting against the proposed legislation. In response to critics who raised questions about privacy rights, Rep. Craddick answered:

"Driving is not a right. Driving is a responsibility and a privilege."

While that is what the courts have ruled, motorists are still afforded their Fourth Amendment rights to be free of unreasonable search and seizure while driving a car. Calling something a privilege does not give the government carte blanche to do as it wishes.

But more interesting that Rep. Craddick's parsing of rights and privileges is another statement attributed to him by the Houston Chronicle:

Citing research, Craddick said texting while driving is 20 times more dangerous than drunk driving.

I don't know to what research Mr. Craddick is citing but I think he's right that texting while driving is more dangerous than drunk driving. Let's think about it for a second. Most drunk driving incidents occur after dark when there are fewer people on the roads. During the day roads are jammed and if you take a look around you'll see plenty of drivers on their cell phones.

According to the House Research Organization:

CSHB 243 would promote driver safety by prohibiting drivers from texting, instant messaging, or e-mailing. Texting may not be the only distraction while driving, but it is one of the most dangerous. The bill would introduce a commonsense safety law that would help deter this dangerous behavior.  

Accumulating research resoundingly concludes that texting while driving distracts drivers and increases response times to sudden traffic incidents. Like drunk driving, driving while texting has injured and killed drivers, passengers, and innocent bystanders. 

And what punishment will the state mete out for violators who endanger their fellow Texans by reading and sending text messages while driving? What will these motorists who are more dangerous than drunk drivers get when they step in front of a judge?

Jail time? No. Probation? No.

It'll be a Class C misdemeanor with a $200 fine.

That's right. For committing a crime that, according to the bill's author, is twenty times more dangerous than driving while intoxicated, you'll get a traffic ticket with a maximum fine of $200. Go to the window, ask for a deferred, pay a fine and it'll be dismissed in 90 days.

Washington's latest assault on the Fourth Amendment

The existence of sobriety checkpoints on our roadways is an affront to the Fourth Amendment. The very notion that it's okay for the police to stop folks without cause simply because they are driving on the road should have all of us up in arms.

Of course it doesn't because most folks are lemmings who are more than happy to hand over their liberty in exchange for the "protection" of the state.

The Fourth Amendment says that the police can't arrest you without a warrant absent probable cause. Our courts managed to screw that up by proclaiming that the police can stop a person if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity might be afoot. This lowering of the standard had led to police arresting motorists for driving while intoxicated even though they can't point to a single traffic violation as the basis for the stop.

Now the Constitution has never gotten in the way of our beloved senators and representatives in Washington. Quite a few senators are up in arms over a couple of apps available for your smartphone that will tip you off to the location of sobriety checkpoints. The senators called on Apple, Google and Research in Motion to remove the apps from the online stores.

As a result, if you own a BlackBerry, RIM sold you down the river. (But you can still get a game the glorifies Al Capone.)

PhantomALERT and Trapster will provide motorists with notices of nearby checkpoints as well as speedtraps and red light cameras.

"These applications are nothing more than a how-to guide in avoiding law enforcement and they provide drunk drivers with the tools they need to go undetected, putting innocent families and children at risk." Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) 

Hey, Chuck, since you took that oath to uphold the Constitution, you might want to revisit the presumption of innocence and the Fourth Amendment. It's not against the law to have a drink and then get behind the wheel of a car. It's against the law to do so if you've lost the normal use of your mental or physical faculties.

Sure, there will be drivers who are intoxicated that avoid a checkpoint thanks to their smartphone -- but there will be many more drivers who are able to avoid the assault on their civil liberties and privacy. Contrary to what Mr. Schumer and his ilk believe, we shouldn't be subjected to mandatory encounters with the police just because there are some folks out there breaking the law.

Plugging in and tuning out?

I never realized how addicted I had become to my phone until the trackball stopped working a couple of weeks ago. Suddenly I was unable to read through e-mails because I couldn't scroll down the page. I couldn't send text messages. I couldn't surf the internet. Now my phone was nothing more than a... phone.

Until yesterday, that is. For some inexplicable reason while I was sitting down and eating lunch I picked up my phone to see if I had received any new e-mails. As usual I started trying to scroll down the screen -- but this time it worked. After two weeks of feeling no friction when scrolling down, it had come back.

Suddenly I was able to read my e-mails, send text messages and surf the internet. Life was good again.

But it made me pause and think about my addiction to always being in touch. It also made me think about how much reliance we place on technology. We are rapidly becoming less and less social. There are a multitude of cable and satellite channels for niche interests. There's Facebook and Twitter. Texting and e-mail. Increasingly our interactions with each other are through technological means rather than face-to-face.

How does that affect our ability to communicate with a jury? Are we losing our ability to just sit and talk with one another? Are we losing our ability to concentrate on one matter for more than a few seconds? Has dialog been reduced to sound bites?

Can't stop the flow

Authoritarian leaders have tried for years to block the flow of information to their citizens -- Dubai is but the latest example with the announcement that web service, e-mail and messaging on Blackberry devices will be cut off starting in October. To make matters worse for those doing business in the emirates, the ban will affect tourists as well as those who receive their service through the government's cell provider.

In the old days it was fairly easy to cut off the flow of information -- erect a wall around the town and restrict access to the inner city. Since news traveled by word of mouth, the residents of the walled city had no access to the outside world.

The East German government tried to emulate the ancients by constructing a wall around East Berlin. That kept news from the outside inaccessible for a while, but walls can't block radio waves. Eventually the people behind the wall found out what was going on on the western side and decided they had had enough. When the wall came crashing down it was a reminder that barriers to information were doomed to fail.

The North Korean and Chinese governments have also put forth their best efforts to prevent their citizens from finding out what's happening outside their walls. The Chinese government realized the error of their ways when citizens were accessing the internet through Google's portal in Hong Kong (which was not censored) and threatened to cut off Google's access to the country if it didn't kowtow. Google, putting profit before right, then bowed and kissed the emperor's feet.

And now the government of Dubai has decided that not having access to the encrypted messages sent and received on Blackberry devices makes it harder for them to limit the flow of information in and out of the country. The solution? Cut it off.

When will the dictators learn that the flow of information is something that can't be stopped. Radio waves, television signals and satellite reception don't stop at artificial borders drawn on maps? Not only has technology made it easier to communicate (remember mailing letters), the barriers that limited the number of information-providers have crumbled, increasing the supply of information. Cable news networks, the internet, blogs, cell phones with internet access have made it easier both to receive and to supply information.

The same problem presents itself in the courtroom when a judge admonishes a jury not to do any research on their own -- the panelists have cell phones, internet access and television.Telling them not to use those resources to find out more about any given case is the modern-day equivalent of the Maginot Line.

Welcome to the People's Republic of Maryland

The State of Maryland is contemplating a rule that would ban people from carrying communication devices, including cell phones, into courthouses. The judiciary rules committee (or Chinese politburo) is up in arms over Facebook, Twitter, blogs and the like shedding a little bit of light on what goes on behind the walls of the courthouse.

Proponents of the ban say it would protect witnesses from having their pictures snapped by "snitch" hunters carrying cell phones.

A person may not bring any electronic device into any court facility. -- Maryland's proposed policy

I hate to be the one bearing bad news but the Chinese, the Soviets and every other totalitarian regime has tried to restrict the flow of information but cyberspace knows no boundaries (except for the self-imposed ones companies have implemented when bowing down to kiss the feet of the Chinese dictators). The only entities that fear the public's access to information are those entities that have something they wish to hide.

Anyone arrested in this country has the right to a public trial -- and the public includes the blogosphere, Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites.

Galveston to ban driving while texting

Well it certainly didn't take Galveston long to ban motorists from texting while driving. The island city made it a Class C misdemeanor to the use "wireless communication devices to view, send or compose an electronic message" while driving. Of course that does lead to the question "What is driving?"

Violators will be subject to a fine of up to $500.

The new ordinance will go into effect ten days after publication in the local paper (approximately January 27, 2010) which should be this Sunday.

See also:

"New advocacy group seeks to ban cell phone use when driving" The Defense Rests (Jan. 13, 2010)

New advocacy group seeks to ban cell phone use while driving

A new advocacy group has formed preaching the evils of talking on cell phones and texting while driving. FocusDriven was born in Grapevine, Texas where a mother lost her daughter due to an accident with a distracted driver.

The group appears to be following MADD's successful blueprint by creating awareness, pushing for legislation and supporting victims.

I would look for a push to create more "cell-free" zones in the next year. We may also begin to see prosecutors issuing subpoenas to cell phone providers to determine if someone was using their phone at the time of any fatality accidents.

See also:

"FocusDriven launch draws nation's attention to distracted driving epidemic" Welcome to the Fast Lane (Jan. 13, 2010)

"Grapevine woman's MADD-like group fights distracted driving" Dallas Morning News (Jan. 13, 2010)

"DWT is more dangerous than DWI" The Defense Rests (Dec. 22, 2009)

Distraction.gov (Official US Government website for distracted driving

DWT is more dangerous than DWI

A new study found that motorists who text while driving are six times more likely to be involved in a crash that those who just drive. University of Utah psychologists placed 20 men and 20 women between the ages of 19-23 in a driving simulator to test the effects of texting while driving. The tests indicated that motorists who texted while driving had reactions times 30% slower than those who just drove and that motorists who talked on their cell phone reacted 9% slower than non-talking drivers. Interestingly enough, reading text messages slowed braking times more than sending text messages.

An earlier study conducted in 2006 found that motorists who drove while talking on cell phones - either handheld or hands-free - were more likely to be involved in a rear-end collision than motorists who had an alcohol concentration of .08. Researchers believe that motorists talking on cell phones miss up to 50% of the visual cues that a non-talking driver sees.

None of this is to suggest that one get hosed and get behind the wheel of a car. The larger point seems to be that with every new device we put in a car we create more distraction for drivers. It is that distraction, whether caused by electronic devices or alcohol, that makes driving more hazardous.

The LackBerry Bold

Last week my Dash crashed on me. That sucked. Instead of having access to my contacts and my calendar at my fingertips outside the office, all I had was a phone. Couldn't access the internet and couldn't "sync" it up with Outlook.

A former client of mine is a phone dealer. I told him I wanted the new Dash 3G. He told me I should get the new BlackBerry Bold 9700. He told me it was the most advanced phone out there and that I'd love it. So I told him to get me one.

I picked it up from him on Saturday morning and was excited to play with it. That's when the nightmare began. It was so "technologically advanced" that it was impossible to set the clock without calling tech support. Due to household chores and a housewarming party it was nearly impossible for me to do much more than charge the battery on the phone over the weekend.

I did try to set up my e-mail but, no matter what I did, the icon for managing e-mail would never appear on the screen and I couldn't find any other way to set up my e-mail accounts otherwise. On Monday morning I called tech support about setting up my e-mail and was told I would have to upgrade my internet service to BlackBerry internet in order to receive e-mails on the phone. Then she told me it would take between 2 and 48 hours to set it up. That's a worse time frame than the damn phone company.

That was it. I decided to get a Dash instead, but the nearest dealer was out. So I called a store by the house and drove out in the pouring rain to get the new Dash. The customer service rep told me she could get me hooked up with the upgraded internet service in less than 2 hours -- which still made the phone useless since I had to head down to Galveston in a little over 90 minutes.

After handling the jail docket on the island I was able to set up my e-mail on the phone. Now all I had to do was "sync" up Outlook so I could get my contacts, my calendar and my e-mail. Unfortunately the phone would only download my contacts, calendar and tasks from Outlook. It wouldn't "sync" up my Outlook e-mail inbox.

I called tech support and was transferred to RIM (the manufacturers of the software that runs the BlackBerry). Then I found out the terrible news -- there was no way to "sync" up my Outlook e-mail inbox to the BlackBerry. This meant that once an e-mail from my internet server was forwarded to Outlook, I could no longer access it on the phone. Absolutely unacceptable.

Now, after spending hours trying to set this phone up how I needed it set up for my work situation, I have no choice but to get rid of this expensive paperweight and head back to the store to pick up the phone I wanted in the first place.

And before anyone tells me how wonderful the iPhone is -- I don't want one. I have never wanted one. I don't want a touch screen phone. Besides, you can't get one for T-Mobile (and I'm not changing carriers).

Excuse me while I beat my head up against the wall.

Cell phone users pose more danger than drunk drivers

A study from the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis claims that 6% of all motor vehicle accidents in the United States - some 636,000 a year - are caused by drivers talking on their cell phones while driving.

Dr. David Strayer of the University of Utah found that it is more dangerous for a driver to talk on his cell phone while driving than it is to talk to a front seat passenger. He said it didn't matter whether the driver was talking on a conventional phone or on a hands-free model -- because the degree of impairment was so great.

"When you're on a call, even if both hands are on the wheel, your head is in the call," said Janet Froetscher, president of the National Safety Council.

In a previous study, Dr. Strayer concluded that drivers talking on cell phones pose a greater hazard to other motorists than drunk drivers. His research indicated that drivers talking on cell phones exhibited slower responses than drivers dosed to a .08 alcohol concentration as measured by breath.

At any given time you are more likely to be on the road next to a driver talking on his cellphone than you are to a drunk driver. How safe do our drunk driving laws make you feel now? And if cell phone users are a greater hazard to the driving public, what is really behind the new "pretrial diversion" plan in Harris County?