Setting the record straight on technological solutions to distracted driving

In this day and age, one inaccurate story can spread far and fast, so I want to set the record straight on the potential role of technology in preventing distracted driving.

A story in The Daily Caller this morning inaccurately characterized my response to a question I was asked on MSNBC earlier this week, specifically about whether I believed we should employ a specific technology that would block cell phone signals in cars to prevent drivers from talking or texting behind the wheel.

What I actually said was:

“There’s a lot of technology out there now that can disable phones and we’re looking at that. A number of [cell technology innovators] came to our Distracted Driving Summit here in Washington and presented their technology, and that’s one way. But you have to have good laws, you have to have good enforcement, and you have to have people take personal responsibility. That’s the bottom line.”

Again, personal responsibility – that’s the bottom line. When you get behind the wheel of a 5,000 pound automobile, you have a personal responsibility to drive that vehicle safely. That means, put away cell phones and other devices that take your focus off of the road.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is currently conducting broad distracted driving research so that we can expand what we know about the problem and look for ways to solve it. As part of that research, NHTSA is also evaluating some kinds of technologies that might one day prove helpful, such as collision avoidance and lane departure warning systems. But we also recognize the limitations of technology.

For starters, there will never be a technological device that imparts common sense when it comes to safe driving.

That’s why our anti-distracted driving campaign has focused on raising awareness, getting good laws on the books, stepping up enforcement, and most importantly, taking personal responsibility. No one should need a piece of technology in their car to tell them that talking or texting while driving is incredibly dangerous. Just ask Elissa Schee, Amos Johnson, and Laurie Hevier how dangerous it is.

Distracted driving is a public safety crisis we are working to tackle on all fronts. But no one should misunderstand their own role in fighting this epidemic – safe driving starts with you.

Comments

[Janet Stone]

Thank you Mr. LaHood for your service to the USA and in your efforts at reducing auto crashes and fatalities.

I have been teaching Driver's Ed for 8 yrs. This is what I have learned.

-An avg. of 117 people are killed daily on the roadways.(annual avg. 43,200 per NHTSA)

-6,000 (mostly unlawful) teens, are killed annually in America, which is equivalent to about 10-12 graduating senior classes.

-Intoxication manslaughter violaters get 10 yrs in prison and their victims get life in the cemetary, nursing home, or wheelchair, etc.

-Running a red light/stop sign is avg. $225 ticket, speeding $180+ for >10 over the limit.

-25-35% drivers do not have liability insurance (per Texas State Troopers), so those of us who pay insurance have to carry uninsured motorist coverage-which is insane that we are now technically paying liability insurance for the 25-35% who don't carry liability. (These cars should be impounded and licenses suspended like the laws says!And these uninsured should never be the recipients of insurance money if they are hit by someone with ins. coverage since they are not in the paying pool of insured motorist!! Fair is fair!)

-In Texas (where I teach) there are 180,000 combined PI's, DWI'S, MIP's & Drugs violaters annually. People ARE NOT AFRAID OF DOING WRONG. We need to increase fines, or something.

-Increase red light running tickets. $225 running the light, $450 if you hit another car running the red light, $675 if you injure someone running the red light and $900 if you kill someone running a red light and $1800 if you kill two people, $2700 if you kill three.

-If people knew that an intoxication manslaughter violater would get the death penalty, I guarantee you they would find another way to get home from their social drinking event. Their victim gets the death penalty. Intoxication manslaughter violaters are the American terrorists. Nine-eleven killed 3,500 in one day, drunk drivers kill that many in only 4.5 days in America and we give them living free food and living quarters for 10 yrs. Wow~~

People are not afraid of doing wrong in order to prevent doing wrong.

Thank you for listening.
Janet Stone

[Marsh Ray]

"For starters, there will never be a technological device that imparts common sense when it comes to safe driving."

Thank you for saying that.

[Marsh Ray]

"For starters, there will never be a technological device that imparts common sense when it comes to safe driving."

Thank you for saying that.

We need be conscious of the fact that technological solutions are usually easier to deploy than common sense, and that inflexible mechanical rules which require no human judgment are easier to enforce. If we common-sense humans don't remain vigilant, these easier choices will accumulate in our environment to the point of absurd tragedy.

[will]

How about we don't let immature 16-year olds with a week of experience behind the wheel get a license? Why is it that Americans insist on catering to the idiots? If you cant use nun-chucks without hitting yourself in the face, why do I have to give mine up?

Aspiring drivers should have to actually prove driving skills in all situations, not just some stupid "lets see if this kid slows down over train tracks...heh". If you crash while training/testing or can't stay off the phone.....I guess you're not ready for driving.

When will Americans realize that making something illegal will never make it go away, but instead will always create a circumventive industry? Such is the result of reactionary, topical approaches to problem-solving.....again, when will Americans get the hint?

Free to be stupid, I guess.

[will]

Oh....forgot to mention,

5,000 pound vehicles are also a fundamental problem; recall F=m*a. Less mass gives less force which creates less damaging accidents. Are you addressing this, Ray? I will also mention that lighter cars are more fuel efficient and more fun to drive, accelerate faster, turn quicker, stop faster, and are less prone to throttle lift oversteer, which is a leading cause of panic-brake crashes.

Now go do your job.

[Scott Hilton]

I think this guy needs to get a clue before he puts more people in jeopardy then he is trying to save. What about all of those roadsigns encouraging people to call 911 to report drunk drivers? Hard to do that if the phone signal is being blocked. What if I'm being followed by someone who is yelling at me and making threatening remarks? Can't call for help if the cell phone is being jammed. What if I'm in an accident, and it screws up the card, but not the jamming device? Or what if the jamming device doesn't turn off when I'm in an accident?

This guy needs to stop earning taxpayer money until he gets a clue. I don't ever talk on my cell phone while driving, but I want to have that option there in case of a true emergency. This guy is a clueless, brainless oaf who needs to stop talking without thinking of the possible consequences first. You talk about personal responsibility, but how about exercising some yourself before making comments like these and going off on a personal "crusade" against talking on cell phones while driving? There are exceptions to any rule, but obviously not in his eyes.

[Joe]

So, if you're being followed by a suspicious person, and you want to call for help, you're out of luck because LaHood decided that you're not capable of exercising your own judgment?

Or, if you crash your car, but not hard enough to disable the jammer, you're out of luck because you can't call 911.

Brilliant, sir, utterly brilliant.

[Howard Blair]

What happens if the cellphone disabler is "stuck on" after an accident, and the driver and/or passengers can't call 911? Who is responsible for the death of the car's occupants then? I don't want to put my life in the hands of a device that was put in my car without my express consent that may make it impossible for me to call out in the case of an emergency. This appears to be a clear case of over-legislating. It would make much more sense to make the penalties for "distracted driving" more severe, and revoke licenses for repeat offenders, than make me pay for something I don't want in my car in the first place....at the moment, I don't even have a cellphone; why would I need one of these in my car? Again, this seems to be unnecessary and just plain STUPID.

[Seanism]

Well said. Take the focus off cell phones and place it on distracted driving in general.

[Ben]

Ray, you make a great campaign for awareness and I would be surprised to find more than a few people who disagree that texting while driving is distracting. I personally do not text and drive, but I do use a bluetooth to make calls and talk on the phone. Passengers in the car are just as distracting as a phone call, and honestly the bigger distraction is advertising in the form of enormous billboards every 100 yards. Does your campaign move to eliminate advertising?

[Rjornd]

Granted, texting while driving is dangerous and should not be done. However tragic the loss of Elissa Schee's daughter is, I think the way that particular segment was presented is done in such a way that takes a cheap shot against the MILLIONS of professional drivers out there that operate daily on the roadways of America. Just because the driver of the truck that struck the bus was on his cell phone at the time doesn't mean that every driver who operates a Class 8 truck is so one-track minded that they block out everything else that goes on around them. Sec. LaHood, if you choose to make your vehicle a no-call zone that's your right. However, there are a vast number of owner-operators of single truck businesses that conduct their operational business from the cab of their truck while going down the highway with the aid of a hands-free device.

A recent study by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found that "one noteworthy finding from the analyses was the result for cell phone use. As indicated above, reaching for or dialing a cell phone were associated as high-risk tasks. However, talking or listening on a hand-held phone was found to have an odds ratio that was not significantly different than 1.0 (thus, it did not elevate the likelihood of being involved in a safety-critical event); this finding was consistent with Klauer et al. (2006). Furthermore, talking or listening on a hands-free phone provided a significant protective effect (OR = 0.4). A similar significant protective effect was found for using a CB radio (OR = 0.6)." This study can be found at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/report/FMCSA-RRR-09-042.pdf

So, my point is that, as with anything, due care should be taken in any activity. Any time I receive a call when I'm behind the wheel, I make sure that I have a hands-free device accessible. If I need to make a call while driving I simply press a button on my bluetooth headset and use the voice activation functionality. The study indicates that simply talking on the phone while driving doesn't mean that you're distracted and that your risk of being involved in an accident is actually significantly REDUCED if hands-free technology is available. In conclusion, Sec. LaHood, the days of being able to pull into a truck stop and finding a pay phone to make a call are long gone. If you want to mandate that hands-free technology be used for any professional (or otherwise) driver while traveling, fine. I can live with that. But, please don't dictate how I need to conduct my business by telling me that I can't operate safely simply because I need to make a call while driving.

[John Holmes]

I find it interesting that no mention of removing distracting billboards is mentioned. Nor is there any mention of better driver training. Rather than knee-jerk responses, perhaps we would be better off having Mr. LaHood concentrate on removing billboards (like they do on german autobahns), increasing speed limits and mandating better driver training so the driver can determine what a safe and reasonable speed is (like..oh..the german autobahns) and enforcing laws related to tailgating (especially by police departments who tailgate drivers at night without lights to try and get them to cross the speed limit), overtaking, driving in the left lane and various other useful laws on the books which are conveniently ignored. distracted driving is not a public safety crisis as much as random responses to non problems.

[Alan B.]

Hello Mr LaHood,

It's good to hear that you are not supporting blocking cell phone use via jamming, etc. There are many risks from this approach which need to be understood. radio waves are not confined by glass, so there is risk of impacting bystanders outside of the vehicle, etc.

Worse, it is not illegal or unsafe for passengers to utilize cellphones, and any technology approach would ban them as well. Given how many 911 calls are place via cellphones you could create more problems than you solve.

Awareness is fine, but heavy handed approaches will create more problems than they realistically solve.

[Paul Kreiner]

It's a broadly-known concept that one cannot correct a societal problem with a technological solution. The societal problem must be corrected first. In this case, it's personal responsibility, or rather lack thereof.

Driving is not viewed as a privilege that is prestigious and/or highly valued, therefore people treat it as a low-valued commodity and have little incentive to take personal responsibility. Make driving privileges more difficult to obtain, and people will automatically treat them as a valued privilege instead of a commodity.

Some ideas to do this are: much more stringent and frequent driving tests before licenses are issued/renewed, increased license-testing fees, mandatory driver-training courses for all drivers, and/or limited number of licenses issued per year. All of these make the driver's license a valued item, not just a commodity that can be had for a $50 fee and a few minutes' wait at the DMV.

[Eric Crouch]

Extreme Makeover Home Edition is actually building a house right now for a family in Wellman, Texas. Their daughter died because she was texting while driving. They've been campaigning in our region and nationally about the dangers of texting while driving. They might have some interesting info to contribute to your efforts. You can find more info at
http://everythinglubbock.com/extrememakeover .

[Electra Glide In Blue]

Personal responsibility while driving is key in driver safety. It seems with some people they are driving in another world unaware of they surroundings just like a drunk. Until we handle distracted drivers like DUI drivers we will see more and more of these types of accidents. We do have a technological device that tells drunks, drinking while driving is incredibly dangerous and their cars do not start.

[Karen B. Jones]

I wholeheartedly agree. Put down the phone and drive!

[ScottGingold]

I realize that you are not proposing (at least yet) blocking cell phones while driving, but if you decide to, count me in as a HUGE supporter! I have used cell phones for 23+ years. Sadly, every day I see more and more cases of distracted drivers and in nearly every case, they are holding and using handheld cell phone.

Outside of dialing 911, I see no valid reason for drivers to talk and drive.

You may be interested in a recent study that my company did on this topic.

http://powerfeedback.tumblr.com/post/1609603005/dying-to-drive

[Nunia Bisnesque]

I assure you that the American people will not allow the governement to take this step against our personal rights.

For the government to even think that they have the right to disable our cell phone use in our cars, is beyond reasonable and constitutional.

This is a false premise based on "saving lives" which does not wash. It is all about CONTROL and free people will not abide it.

We have the numbers behind us and it is past time that the government listens.

More people die from being sleepy, than from cell phones. FACT. So what is next....mandatory sleeping and driving allowances?

No. This will not be allowed...we will not be "nudged " into further government control by these "feel good" lies that do not hold up to the facts, nor common sense.

[Aaron Marr]

Sounds like a reasonable approach to me, this certainly was taken a bit out of context. I was not a fan of the idea, because I stream Pandora on my phone rather than play with the radio (start it and stop it while I'm not driving), but I did notice some support. If people would be willing to deal with a jammer, maybe it's not crazy to suggest getting rid of the driver all together. We should start seriously planning for a driverless future. There are so many benefits to removing the person behind the wheel. Computers are always on and always aware, and with everything being computer controlled in a car these days there would be no delay in reaction. Of course this would require a decades long process, but that is why we should start now! We can eliminate accidents, re-purpose traffic police, do away with traffic and reduce fuel consumption. Lives will be saved, improved, and enriched. Now is the time to start planning for a future without a driver. If the government sets out requirements, industry will find a way.

[Virginia Cochrane Torbert]

It is fortunate we have a Secy' of Transportation who has made distracted driving a priority. Here in Pennsylvania it is frustrating because we still haven't been able to get even a modest law restricting texting or cell phone use by minors. Since the recent election, the chances for the bill are probably worse.

[Mouhamad A. Naboulsi]

I fully agree with the Secretary position. My research since 1994 into solving the multitasking while driving clearly indicates that we need a technology that is backed up by good laws and enforcement.

My technology does both, but makes enforcement free because it requires licensing, age and location of driving and it will automtically adjust the Car and the Phone to meet the existing regulations and driving etiquette.

We exhibited at the Driver Distraction Summit for a quick review of what was on exhibit, including iQ-Telematics,please see:
http://www.wusa9.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=614718174001#/Can+More+Technology+Solve+The+Texting+And+Driving+Problem%3F/614718174001

Best regards
Mouhamad A. Naboulsi
http://iQ-Telematics.com

[Julie]

All of you havne't done your research on these devices. First off, the device allows you to have three emergency contacts you CAN CALL, when you are in an accident or being harrased. It is said that we in America have be forced to put down our cell phones. I am all for it. I seen to many times, somebody talking on there cell phone not paying attention to the rode, even hands free devices. You are engaged in a conversation and not paying attention to what is going on in front of you. I am all for this device. I hope one day the federal government make a law to have it madated to have in ALL cars! So many of you are worried about the device not working when you get into an accident, well maybe because you were on your cell phone! Keep the phone turned off while driving,that simple!!!

[bolanon]

When you are driving or even riding in a vehicle, buckling your seat belt will decrease your chance to death or serious injury, if you get in a serious accident.

Too many unnecessary looses of live occur each year for the simple reason—people just don’t wear seat belts.