I have a bluetooth phone system in my car. I can dial any number in my phone's memory by voice and complete the entire phone call without using my hands. It came with the car and will probably be standard on all new cars within a few years.

Leaving aside the question of how this is any more dangerous than say driving with two screaming toddlers in the car, singing along to the radio, or having a conversation with a passenger, etc. How do you propose that the police enforce a ban on this sort of activity.

Perhaps the police will drive up to each car and see if the driver is talking, then read his or her lips to see if it is a phone call or not.

by dcdriver on Jul 5, 2012 5:00 pm • link • report

AMEN!

by thump on Jul 5, 2012 5:11 pm • link • report

All you have to do is google "hands free cell phone just as dangerous" to see the wealth of articles on the subject. The research has been in for 15 years on the subject (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199702133360701#t=article), hands-free or handheld, the problem is the conversation on the cell phone.

The reason why a phone conversation is more dangerous is because of "cognitive distraction" (http://articles.mcall.com/2012-02-23/news/mc-cellphone-driving-passenger-talk-20120223_1_hands-free-distraction-cellphone-chatter); your brain visualizes the other end of the conversation and that takes away from your ability to concentrate on the road. In-person conversations do not have this effect, and there is also evidence that in-car conversations change with changes in traffic - the person in the car with you subconsciously notices that you are concentrating harder and the conversation subsides.

As for how you enforce it, you probably wouldn't be able to pull someone over for this; as you said, how could you tell? But if you get pulled over for whatever reason you could be cited if you're having a phone conversation.

by MLD on Jul 5, 2012 5:14 pm • link • report

The obvious means of enforcement is to require such devices to have an interlock with the parking brake.

by Ben Ross on Jul 5, 2012 5:18 pm • link • report

@dcdriver

There sure are a lot of distractions on the road, but cell phones have been shown to have a greater affect on people's ability to focus on driving. IIRC, the basic idea is that cell phone conversations are an active process that requires more attention from your brain. That's different from more passive activities like listening to the radio. Screaming kids certainly are a problem, though rare in most situations, but in general you can ignore them - I certainly do. There's also a difference between cell phone conversations and conversations with other people in the car. Studies have shown that passengers often wait for the driver to reach red light to begin speaking and instinctively pause conversations when the driver needs to concentrate on the road.

That said, it is very difficult to enforce "no cell phone" laws, but that's just more reason area jurisdictions need to step-up enforcement of distracted driving in general.

by Adam L on Jul 5, 2012 5:31 pm • link • report

@MLD

You beat me to it.

by Adam L on Jul 5, 2012 5:31 pm • link • report

Why on Earth would you remain on the phone once you realized you were getting pulled over? You simply hang up the call with a voice command or a press of a button on the steering wheel. By the time the officer walks up to your car, you are no longer on the phone.

The reality is that nearly every person in the country now carries and uses a mobile phone. Banning talking on a handheld phone makes sense and is enforceable. Banning talking on a hands free phone is totally unenforceable and will do nothing to improve driver or pedestrian safety.

By the way, if want to talk about safety, what do the safety experts say about pulling over on a highway? They say it should only be done in an emergency, certainly not simply to make a phone call. What if the road you are on doesn't have a full shoulder (like the GW Parkway as a local example)? That is why the police use all sorts of colored warning lights when they pull over and why states are now cracking down on trucks that park for the night on the sides of the road. A car hitting a stopped car in the rear at 70mph will almost always be a fatal accident for at least one of the drivers.

Look, there is no way to make driving 100% safe. Again, driving at night or in bright sunlight is a cause of many accidents, but we aren't mandating driving only in certain hours. Real world risk reduction strategies are worth talking about. Pie in the sky ideas like banning what is essentially an invisible device are not.

by dcdriver on Jul 5, 2012 5:41 pm • link • report

I don't know about MD or VA, but this would be pointless in DC. Using a cell phone without a hands-free device while driving is already illegal in DC. But tons of drivers do it, and I've never seen the DC police pull anyone over for doing it -- or for any other traffic violations, for that matter.

If you want to protect pedestrians in DC, forget about writing new laws. The first step should be to get the police to enforce the laws we already have.

by Rob on Jul 5, 2012 5:52 pm • link • report

Back in the 60s many people thought driving while drunk was a harmless lark, but sustained public censure based on the evidence can change people's attitudes and it can work against driving while using mobile phones too.

by Steve S. on Jul 5, 2012 6:02 pm • link • report

I'd love to meet the cops you frequently pass by, Rob. Sure, I see lots of drivers getting away with talking on hand-held devices in DC, but I also see lots getting pulled over for it. There's a cop who sometimes stands on 14th street and flags over and tickets drivers he sees on cell phones. I have seen traffic control officers in downtown intersections flag over and ticket drivers on cell phones. Once, when I still owned a car, I got in my car while on the phone. I was talking to the person I was going to pick up, and had no intention of continuing the conversation after driving off, but a cop stopped and waited for me to hang up the phone before driving off. The first day I lived in the District I had a cop issue me a verbal warning for talking on the phone while stopped dead in traffic due to police activity...again I was calling the person I was meeting quickly to let them know I was stopped and delayed. Enforcement isn't perfect, but it does happen. And the simple existence of the law stops some people from doing it. A "no cell phone" law would have much the same effect...stopping some people from doing it. Also, if a driver caused an accident, the police could subpoena their cell phone records and hit them with an additional charge should it reveal they were on the phone, which is an incentive to stay off the phone.

by Ms. D on Jul 5, 2012 6:30 pm • link • report

The obvious means of enforcement is to require such devices to have an interlock with the parking brake.

Woah, now. That sounds pretty draconian. So, we're going to require all new vehicles to come equipped with some kind of interlock for cell phones? Maybe require existing owners to get retrofitted for one? We don't even require that for alcohol -- i.e., an interlock you have to breathe into to start your ignition (although, that's required if you've had multiple DUIs).

I'd support a limited ban...but with teeth. Ban all cell phone use -- whether hands free or not -- anywhere where the speed limit is 25 mph. In addition to ticketing (although that's hard to do), the teeth would be that if you get in an accident while on your cell phone, you would automatically be at fault. In the event of an accident, this could be verified through cell phone records (which may be a contoversial invasion of privacy but there's a solid argument for using cell records that way).

by Falls Church on Jul 5, 2012 6:31 pm • link • report

@Ms. D: Your experience seems very different from mine -- or from anyone else I've ever talked with about this. I walk to and from work through downtown DC (roughly Chinatown to Dupont Circle, about 25-30 minutes each way), every weekday for the last 4 years, and I have literally never seen anyone pulled over for any traffic violation. And my experience seems to be typical. I've asked people at work about this, and none of them has ever seen anyone pulled over either (though a bunch of them have gotten speed camera tickets).

Just to be clear, I support the concept of outlawing cell phone use while driving. I just don't think it'll do any good, because the police won't enforce it. And if you could get the police to start enforcing the existing traffic laws, that would do a lot more good (I care less about a driver talking on a cell phone than I do about drivers ignoring crosswalks, running stop signs and red lights, etc.).

by Rob on Jul 5, 2012 6:50 pm • link • report

We have laws. The infraction is reckless driving. Just enforce it. Yeah, look at all the drivers in DC using handheld cellphones, despite the existing ban.

by Karl on Jul 5, 2012 6:50 pm • link • report

How about writing jaywalking tickets to pedestrians who jump in front of moving traffic in the middle of a block while listening to their ipods?

How about banning bike riders (who want to be treated like drivers, sort of, but not really) from running through intersections and wearing earphones (and talking on bluetooth phones for that matter)?

How about actually enforcing DC and federal regulations on commercial vehicles which weigh multiple times more than passenger cars but get a free pass under the MPD's current enforcement policies?

These things might actually save a few lives. Or we can pass a law banning something that the police can not see, save no one, but feel better about ourselves.

by dcdriver on Jul 5, 2012 6:54 pm • link • report

Implementing this NTSB recommendation is mainly up to the two state legislatures and the DC Council. But Metro itself can lead the way.

DC and MD are done. They've banned hand-held calling. Period. No need for WMATA to step in. VA had banned texting, and will at some point also outlaw handheld calling.

I like the idea of in-car systems being interlocked with the parking brake, although that would make in-car systems rather useless.

We don't even require that for alcohol -- i.e., an interlock you have to breathe into to start your ignition (although, that's required if you've had multiple DUIs).

And it works fantastic. In the Netherlands, there are so many convictions that there's a shortages of the car-breathers. Great idea. Should be a mandatory life-long penalty for anyone ever caught with a DUI. There is no excuse.

@ dcdriver:How about...

Ahhh, everybody breaks the law but you. Right.

by Jasper on Jul 5, 2012 8:58 pm • link • report

Dcdriver has now fallen to a troll.

by Mase on Jul 5, 2012 9:25 pm • link • report

Anyone who posts something I don't like is a troll.

Especially when they do it more than once!

by ceefer66 on Jul 5, 2012 9:48 pm • link • report

The law needs is a little personal responsibility. Once people are made responsible for the damage they do, most of them will start being careful. I will never understand why crashing into someone's car isn't treated the same as bashing it with a baseball bat or why injuring someone in a car accident isn't treated the same as injuring them in a bar fight.

In this day and age, there are few acceptable excuses for getting in an accident. 1. Unexpected equipment failure. 2. Act of nature. That's it. That's the list. Every other accident someone is at fault, often both. Once you get behind the wheel, you are operating a dangerous piece of machinery. (Unless, of course, you did not intentionally get behind the wheel...) Drivers ought to accept that responsibility for what it is.

If the law were updated in this way, we wouldn't need to micromanage all of these different laws that vary from state to state depending on whether you are drunk, stoned, on the phone, texting, using an earpiece, not using an earpiece, doing your nails, reading the newspaper, or whatever other excuses/reasons for driving badly people have. There is precedent for this. If an infant drowns in a bathtub or a kid shoots someone with a gun, the parents are criminally responsible.

by movement on Jul 5, 2012 9:57 pm • link • report

There are lots and lots of possible cognitive distractions that may make driving more dangerous that we do not make illegal (eg, eating and driving, or arguing with your spouse and driving). Furthermore, I've yet to see how these cell phone bans result in lower accident rates.

Distracted and reckless driving should be prosecuted as distracted and reckless driving, regardless of the underlying cause.

by Tyro on Jul 5, 2012 10:11 pm • link • report

I'm probably not the best source for personal experience, but @movement, the only "accident" I've been in in the last 14 years was bumping bumpers with someone in a parking lot. We were both backing out of parking spots on opposite sides of a giant SUV in opposite directions, and neither of us could see the other until we bumped. Fortunately there was no damage or injury, but it was neither mechanical failure nor weather conditions, we simply couldn't see each other. Sometimes, stuff happens.

I'm sorry you haven't seen the enforcement, Rob. The traffic control officer I spoke of is at Penn/E/14th NW, and the cop I spoke of frequently stations himself between Constitution and Pennsylvania on 14th. The cop who gave me a verbal warning was somewhere in Georgetown, can't quite place the cross street these days but I was on M, and the cop who stopped and watched me was on the corner of 4th near Constitution NE. In other words, I have witnessed enforcement in various places around the city. Do I wish it was better? Sure. But it does happen to some extent even today.

by Ms. D on Jul 5, 2012 11:34 pm • link • report

I got stopped on Missouri waiting at a light. Female officer was on foot and came up and tapped me on the window. Now I use a hands free device. I agree though, would prefer seeing more enforcement.

by Kyle-w on Jul 5, 2012 11:47 pm • link • report

There are plenty of ways to enforce (or discourage) talking on a cell phone while driving. If phone records show you are talking when an accident occurs, an extra charge (above the level of a ticket, akin to a DUI) can be added, or a driver can be presumed responsible for the accident. Or perhaps insurance policies can have exclusions for coverage if you are in an accident while talking.

Plenty of people will run the risk of a ticket, especially when enforcement is sporadic. The prospect of financial ruin, however remote, can be a more effective deterrent.

by dcd on Jul 6, 2012 7:42 am • link • report

I'm not quite sure I get the point of the article. The author focuses on distracted pedestrians, and how the most dangerous part of their journey is walking to the bus stop/train station.

So what does this have to do with WMATA? That's like saying the most dangerous part of your next flight to London is the drive to the airport (which is true), so MWAA needs to focus on improving traffic safety.

by Justin on Jul 6, 2012 7:57 am • link • report

Studies have also shown that having children in the car is as distracting as being on the cell phone.

Can we require all cars carrying children have one of those plexi taxi walls?

You keep your crotch fruit, Ill keep my cell phone

by one-star on Jul 6, 2012 8:22 am • link • report

@movement
I will never understand why crashing into someone's car isn't treated the same as bashing it with a baseball bat or why injuring someone in a car accident isn't treated the same as injuring them in a bar fight.

Because we have built a society in which cars are "absolutely necessary" so we think we can't punish people by taking away their ability to drive as that means they can't do anything (get to work, go to the store, etc.) Also, since we're so car-centric, deaths are seen as an unfortunate but necessary consequence, and are also often blamed on the deceased (e.g. if a pedestrian is killed they shouldn't have been in the way; they are different and abnormal because they're not driving so they are to blame).

by MLD on Jul 6, 2012 8:29 am • link • report

Can we require all cars carrying children have one of those plexi taxi walls?

What a good idea! We could also require that children wear straitjackets and gags.

-- parental sigh --

by goldfish on Jul 6, 2012 8:44 am • link • report

I'd be happy with fore and aft warning lights somewhere on all vehicles when a cell phone is being used. Whether speaking on phone is legal, at least I could adjust.

by Jim Totus on Jul 6, 2012 8:57 am • link • report

Dc issues thousands of tickets for cell phone violations every year. I'm pretty sure a quick google search would let anyone know the exact number. But I agree that we need stepped up enforcement because drivers care little about the law or being legal or safe.

by David C on Jul 6, 2012 9:44 am • link • report

Tyro, that there are other dangerous things that are not illegal is an argument that the law might be inconsistent (though for good reason). But it doesn't mean that making this dangerous activity illegal is a bad idea. "there are many diseases more dangerous than chicken pox for which we dont take a vaccine, so we should not get vaccinated against it"

by David C on Jul 6, 2012 9:50 am • link • report

Enforce the law retrospectively. If there's a crash with injuries or major property damage, provide for an automatic search of the cellphone records. If the driver was on the phone or texting at the time of the crash, they are in automatic violation and subject to steep penalties, in addition to the evidence of distraction made available in a civil case.

by Greenbelt on Jul 6, 2012 1:38 pm • link • report

Distracted driving caught on video: notice how the brake lights flash only at the last millisecond before impact -- I doubt this was a brake failure. This is a CNN video, you have to watch a 30-second commercial first: http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c2#/video/us/2012/07/05/evexp-dart-van-crash.hln

by Greenbelt on Jul 6, 2012 5:28 pm • link • report

But I want to talk on my cell phone while sitting in my car! Just like I want free parking wherever I go. If I want it, it must be a God-given entitlement, right?

by Sydney on Jul 6, 2012 6:12 pm • link • report

@DCDriver - By the way, if want to talk about safety, what do the safety experts say about pulling over on a highway? They say it should only be done in an emergency, certainly not simply to make a phone call.

Thats right. Sensible people will not pull over on an interstate merely to take/make a phone call. All phones have voice mail and texts are stored. There is absolutely no reason to endanger yourself and others merely to take/make a call. Even if someone is calling to tell you of an emergent event in which you are needed asap, taking the call at that moment will not mitigate the situation; it will only increase the odds of creating another emergent event.

What if the road you are on doesn't have a full shoulder (like the GW Parkway as a local example)?

Sensible people will not pull over simply to take/make a call.

A car hitting a stopped car in the rear at 70mph will almost always be a fatal accident for at least one of the drivers.

This is why sensible people will not pull over in unsafe conditions just to take/make a call but will instead wait a few minutes until they can get somewhere to safely stop.

Why do you feel you need to answer every call that comes in? Don't you have voice mail? Why do the people calling you expect you to answer every time without the call going to voice mail? Don't they ever expect you to be: in the shower, on the toilet, sleeping, talking to someone else, out of range, on an airplane, driving, etc.?

by Tina on Jul 9, 2012 3:48 pm • link • report