US Government Considering Technology To Block Cell Phones In Moving Vehicles

[Aerin-Sol]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40418794/ns/technology_and_science-wireless

I don't know how much 911 services depend on cell phones, but this would make my IFT job much, much more annoying.

"Dispatch needs us to call them ASAP; let's pull over and add 10 minutes to our response time."

 

[18G]

They would probably make exception for Emergency Services. I'm sure as with all things tech there will be a way to circumvent it.

 

[JPINFV]

Restrictions like this needs to have no exemptions. If it's unsafe for me to drive and chat with my family and friends, it's unsafe for law enforcement, fire suppression, and EMS to drive and chat with their families and friends. Need to communicate? There's the radio or pull over. Either that, or shut the hell up over it.

 

[18G]

In an emergency vehicle however, there are usually multiple personnel onboard and someone other than the driver may (and should) be handling the communication.

There have been times when we were unable to get patched into the hospital for med command and had to revert to cellular. If this applied to every vehicle than contact with the physician would not be possible in case of radio failure.

 

[abckidsmom]

In an effort to control our lives, the government is going to take away yet another decision that people should make for themselves.

Where's the personal responsibility here?

I just had a discussion with a parent who was not properly restraining her child in the car because "the state's law doesn't require him to be in a carseat, why should I do more than the state requires?"

People should make their own right decisions, we should not rely on the government to legislate our lives into perfect safety.

 

[18G]

Exactly.... the government's basis for considering this technology is because of increased deaths from driver distraction???? then why not band in-vehicle radios, CD and MP3 players? How many people have been killed by changing a CD or trying to pick up a CD that fell on the floor?

The government has no right to impose this kind of restriction. As a society we have an obligation to police ourselves and practice responsible behavior.

 

[WolfmanHarris]

We carry a cell phone on each truck. They're used for:
- Contacting a Superintendent
- Talking to Dispatch if you don't want it on the air (but still recorded); i.e. "We'd love to do that non-emerg transfer, but we haven't had a break yet. So what do you say you send us back to our friggin station and send someone else."
- Patching to a Base Hospital Physician for advice or to go outside Directives
- Patching to the on-call Cardiologist as part of the STREAM Trial
- Alerting the Cath lab for STEMI bypass
- General admin calls

Like 18G said, I imagine if they passed something like this, Emergency services would be exempt.

When Ontario passed it's law that bans handheld electronic devices, Police, EMS and Fire were exempt.

I'm usually against laws that result in government mandating behaviour, but more and more, we as a group seem incapable of thinking beyond our own immediate wants. Case in point, a crew recently had someone attempt to steal their Ambulance while they were in the back working, because the truck had blocked him into his parking space. The crew was far nicer to him then I would be (no charges laid).

 

[Sandog]

In an effort to control our lives, the government is going to take away yet another decision that people should make for themselves.

Where's the personal responsibility here?

I just had a discussion with a parent who was not properly restraining her child in the car because "the state's law doesn't require him to be in a carseat, why should I do more than the state requires?"

People should make their own right decisions, we should not rely on the government to legislate our lives into perfect safety.

Your right to decide ends when the decision you make can endanger someones life. By your logic, drunk driving should be our choice.

 

[CAOX3]

Exactly.... the government's basis for considering this technology is because of increased deaths from driver distraction???? then why not band in-vehicle radios, CD and MP3 players? How many people have been killed by changing a CD or trying to pick up a CD that fell on the floor?

The government has no right to impose this kind of restriction. As a society we have an obligation to police ourselves and practice responsible behavior.

Well if you could assure me you would only kill yourself while texting/talking and driving that would be fine however these people are a risk to everyone on the road and they usually take an innocent bystander or two with them.

Yeah I'm going to leave the safety of my family on the road in hopes that some sixteen year old or whoever is policing themselves and practicing responsible behavior, ummmmm have you met most people or do you work EMS in Candy land.

 

[TransportJockey]

Well if you could assure me you would only kill yourself while texting/talking and driving that would be fine however these people are a risk to everyone on the road and they usually take an innocent bystander or two with them.

Yeah I'm going to leave the safety of my family on the road in hopes that some sixteen year old or whoever is policing themselves and practicing responsible behavior, ummmmm have you met most people or do you work EMS in Candy land.

So if you support them banning cell phones in moving vehicles, are you in favor or banning stereos and drinks and food in moving vehicles too?

 

[Sandog]

So if you support them banning cell phones in moving vehicles, are you in favor or banning stereos and drinks and food in moving vehicles too?

Sure, if you have statistics showing that listening to music while driving is dangerous, I'm thinking not. There are situations of too much big brother legislation but not in this case.

A comparative study of texting while driving vs drunk driving statistics published in a leading car magazine in the United States revealed that texting while driving is even more dangerous than drunk driving.

According to the texting while driving death statistics compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 5,870 people died in car crashes in 2008 alone. The same statistics revealed that 515,000 people were injured in various car crashes in the United States. Around 28 percent of all crashes in 2008 were caused by drivers in the age group of 18 and 29, who admitted to texting while driving.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/texting-while-driving-statistics.html

 

[TransportJockey]

Sure, if you have statistics showing that listening to music while driving is dangerous, I'm thinking not. There are situations of too much big brother legislation but not in this case.

http://www.rospa.com/RoadSafety/advice/driving/info/driver_distraction.pdf
Quick search yielded this. I was talking mainly of people fiddling with their radio while driving, since most people I know do that far more than mess with their cell phone. And if you add in people who not only fiddle with their radio but also a portable music player that is hooked into the system (I'm very guilty of that), it's even more distraction.

 

[firecoins]

Restrictions like this needs to have no exemptions. If it's unsafe for me to drive and chat with my family and friends, it's unsafe for law enforcement, fire suppression, and EMS to drive and chat with their families and friends. Need to communicate? There's the radio or pull over. Either that, or shut the hell up over it.

well the shut the hell up part goes well with civil discourse. I can't agree with you.

So pasengers in vehicles can't talk either?

 

[JPINFV]

well the shut the hell up part goes well with civil discourse. I can't agree with you.

...because there is no reasonable discourse involved with the handwaving-freakoutery of the moment. California mandates hands free devices, despite all of the evidence that points to hands free being just as dangerous. As others have pointed out, why ban cell phones but not ban drivers from manipulating CD players, MP3 players, eating, drinking, or playing with GPS devices? Why exempt emergency services? Banning drivers from using cell phones doesn't affect passengers, so the passenger argument is out. If it's anything that the driver has to communicate right this second, there's a radio. Anything else and the emergency vehicle operator can always pull over. Hence no reason to exempt emergency services, but yet there's the hand waving freakoutery that emergency services might not be exempt. Everything that Wolfmanharris pointed out could either be done by the passenger (who is not affected by cell phone bans anyways), can be done over the radio, or it can wait.

 

[abckidsmom]

Your right to decide ends when the decision you make can endanger someones life. By your logic, drunk driving should be our choice.

Supposedly, competent people are making the decision to text or chat and drive. Drunk people are not competent people, and the point at which they choose to get in the car, they do not meet the criteria for competence.

When we legislate away personal responsibility and the need for individuals to make their own good decisions for the good of everyone, we weaken ourselves.

 

[TransportJockey]

...because there is no reasonable discourse involved with the handwaving-freakoutery of the moment. California mandates hands free devices, despite all of the evidence that points to hands free being just as dangerous. As others have pointed out, why ban cell phones but not ban drivers from manipulating CD players, MP3 players, eating, drinking, or playing with GPS devices? Why exempt emergency services? Banning drivers from using cell phones doesn't affect passengers, so the passenger argument is out. If it's anything that the driver has to communicate right this second, there's a radio. Anything else and the emergency vehicle operator can always pull over. Hence no reason to exempt emergency services, but yet there's the hand waving freakoutery that emergency services might not be exempt. Everything that Wolfmanharris pointed out could either be done by the passenger (who is not affected by cell phone bans anyways), can be done over the radio, or it can wait.

except they're talking about banning them in a moving vehicle. Period. THere's no way, at least it seems that way in the article, for a passenger to talk on his phone if it's got the hardware enabled that just disables it after a certain speed.

 

[firecoins]

...because there is no reasonable discourse involved with the handwaving-freakoutery of the moment. California mandates hands free devices, despite all of the evidence that points to hands free being just as dangerous. As others have pointed out, why ban cell phones but not ban drivers from manipulating CD players, MP3 players, eating, drinking, or playing with GPS devices? Why exempt emergency services? Banning drivers from using cell phones doesn't affect passengers, so the passenger argument is out. If it's anything that the driver has to communicate right this second, there's a radio. Anything else and the emergency vehicle operator can always pull over. Hence no reason to exempt emergency services, but yet there's the hand waving freakoutery that emergency services might not be exempt. Everything that Wolfmanharris pointed out could either be done by the passenger (who is not affected by cell phone bans anyways), can be done over the radio, or it can wait.

I thought we got rid of talking. We take your opinion we shut up. Civil discourse is over.

Apparently passengers in moving vehicles can not talk either. But according to you, I can't talk about those guys. Demonstrate how passengers talking on cell phones are dangerous.

 

[MrBrown]

looks like the nrw world order strikes agaun

 

[JJR512]

Restrictions like this needs to have no exemptions. If it's unsafe for me to drive and chat with my family and friends, it's unsafe for law enforcement, fire suppression, and EMS to drive and chat with their families and friends. Need to communicate? There's the radio or pull over. Either that, or shut the hell up over it.

If it isn't safe to use a cell phone while operating a moving vehicle, then it isn't safe to use a radio while operating a moving vehicle.

As has already been pointed out, other persons in the vehicle should have the right to use their cell phones; they're not driving. There is no technology I'm aware of to selectively prevent one person in the vehicle from using a cell phone, while allowing anyone else to do so. I can imagine various ways of doing it, but it require vehicle modifications, too.

When I worked for a critical care transport service, we were hospital-based, and all our transports were arranged through a communications center in the hospital. Our model was that the hospital was a referral hospital, so other area hospitals would transfer patients they couldn't handle to us. Part of arranging for transport involved the communications center enabling the sending facility to speak with a doctor in the specific appropriate unit at our hospital, and that doctor would determine whether or not we were going to accept that patient, and so on. Once the transport was arranged, we would go pick up that patient, and on the way back, the nurse would call that doctor and give him or her a more recent update regarding what was going on with the patient.

I don't know if that could be accomplished through the radio system or not, but it seems easier to do it by cell phone. A lot of doctors speak English with foreign accents that are difficult enough to understand in person, and I'd hate to try to understand some of them over a radio.

So it is my opinion that there is a legitimate need in EMS for cell phone communications, and with many of the patients in critical care transportation, it isn't really a good idea to pull over and stop.

It's nice that our government cares enough about us to want to protect us. But they need to find a way to do it that doesn't infringe on legitimate rights and privileges. Unfortunately, the government does not have a very good track record when it comes to adequately protecting against the bad without also "protecting" against the good, or the not-bad.

 

[JPINFV]

If it isn't safe to use a cell phone while operating a moving vehicle, then it isn't safe to use a radio while operating a moving vehicle.

I would argue that it's much safer to operate a radio. I don't have to change the channel on the dispatch radio similar to dialing. I don't have to dig around for it as it stays clipped in the same location the entire shift. The conversation is different. If I'm talking on the phone there's a whole lot of pleasantries and normal grammatical rules that are simply understood when using a radio. To compare conversations, a simple, "Unit 75 transporting code 2" on a radio becomes something along the lines of, "Hi. Can I talk to North Dispatch? Thanks. Hi, I just to let you know that we're transporting. Ok, call you back when we get there."

Similarly, a radio conversation is largely scripted. If I say, "Unit 75, transporting," I expect to hear, "Copy unit 75" as the response, or as was often the case, a simple click from dispatch activating then releasing the microphone. So unless I get an inappropriate response, very little of my attention is diverted.

Similarly, and the call much more likely to get while driving, would be to get a page and the normal response is a simple, "Unit 75, copy page." Again, much different than operating a phone, especially since I don't have to move my head to look at what I'm doing. Muscle memory and all.

When I worked for a critical care transport service, we were hospital-based, and all our transports were arranged through a communications center in the hospital. Our model was that the hospital was a referral hospital, so other area hospitals would transfer patients they couldn't handle to us. Part of arranging for transport involved the communications center enabling the sending facility to speak with a doctor in the specific appropriate unit at our hospital, and that doctor would determine whether or not we were going to accept that patient, and so on. Once the transport was arranged, we would go pick up that patient, and on the way back, the nurse would call that doctor and give him or her a more recent update regarding what was going on with the patient.

I don't know if that could be accomplished through the radio system or not, but it seems easier to do it by cell phone. A lot of doctors speak English with foreign accents that are difficult enough to understand in person, and I'd hate to try to understand some of them over a radio.

So it is my opinion that there is a legitimate need in EMS for cell phone communications, and with many of the patients in critical care transportation, it isn't really a good idea to pull over and stop.

However that is a case that does not involve the driver. Given the proposal, there will need to be special phones that have the speed cutoff chip disabled. Of course non-official use of said phone would have to be illegal and access to phones where the speed cutoff is legally disabled would have to be restricted.

It's nice that our government cares enough about us to want to protect us. But they need to find a way to do it that doesn't infringe on legitimate rights and privileges. Unfortunately, the government does not have a very good track record when it comes to adequately protecting against the bad without also "protecting" against the good, or the not-bad.

Of course a similar question that needs to be answered is, "When is it the government's job to protect us and when is it our job?" Sure, how many accidents are caused by "distracted driving" (which is not necessarily caused by a phone) that could be prevented by good defensive driving on the other party's side?