Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood may not be able to bring the automakers on board his anti-distracted driving campaign, but it has managed to get Consumer Reports onto the bandwagon as the campaign nibbles around the edges of the real problem. The partnership has produced a brochure on the dangers of cell phone use in cars [PDF here] which encourages schools and parents to discuss the issue of distracted driving, but comes up short of establishing a firm line between acceptable and unacceptable distractions. Though panelists at the joint DOT-Consumer Reports press conference point out that hands-free cell phone systems are no more safe than using a hand-held cell phone, the PDF makes no such distinction. And though a police officer on the panel notes that police need to lead by example, no initiative reflecting this fact seems to have emerged from this latest battle against Distracted Driving.
In other words, LaHood’s latest effort is focused entirely on the old chestnut of “raising awareness” while continuing to avoid making the tough policy choices that would seem likely to follow the tough “epidemic” rhetoric that continues to come out of DOT. Sooner or later, raising awareness won’t be enough, and real lines will have to be drawn between safe and unsafe distractions. Unfortunately, today is not that day. The half-hearted “war” on distraction continues apace…
Easiest solution to distracted driving? Much higher speed limits.
For me personally as a driver the answer to that would be, “Absolutely.” Driving my first car (1982 Celebrity) was challenging at the double nickle because it was a POS. Driving a modern car at even 75mph (interstate speed limit in NM) is no challenge, 85 to 90mph keeps me alert, scanning the road for bad drivers, and for smokeys.
The rich, enveloping sound of multi-speaker, multi-channel audio systems is very distracting. Mandating a limit of one mono speaker would be a small step to reducing distracted driving.
In addition, morning drive time radio shows tend to be rambunctious and distracting, perhaps the Fairness Doctrine can abate those as well. Replace those with some monotone NPR reports about irrigation efforts in the third world.
One of Consumer Reports’ supposed value to the public is its stated independence due to its refusal to accept ads from manufacturers, unlike the eee-vil Consumers’ Digest. Well, hopping into bed with the Federal Government on such issues as ObamaCare (CR is all for it, even if it will eventually result in a reduction in health care quality, choices and freedom for its loyal readers), childhood obesity (CR is against it, even though the mandates behind combatting it will increase the cost of providing all-days meals for both paying and non-paying students in local school districts), and now texting while driving (CR doesn’t like it, and will partner with the federal government to leverage CR’s “independence” in order to get laws passed banning the practice) throws the last shovel of dirt on their perceived lack of bias. As the Wisconsin union battle has shown that public sector employees are in it for themselves rather than the public they serve, the buying public can now see CR for what it really is: Another mouthpiece for the government that shouts into an anti-business, and ultimately anti-consumer, megaphone, drowning out any solution that doesn’t have the weight of the federal government behind it. Choosing sides does not lessen one’s bias, it enhances it, and subscribers should let CR know that enough is enough by cancelling their subscriptions and donations. CR needs to stop trying to influence public policy, and stick to telling me which TV to buy.
Shouldn’t we be glad that LaHood isn’t wading into the “hard choices” of making real policy on this issue? Especially after his personal handling of the political hatchet-job perpetrated against Toyota…
Seems like his first-choice policy would probably be to mandate On-Star in all vehicles to be sold in the U.S. since that’s the govt’s best hope at ever really recovering its full “investment” in GM.
If distracted driving isn’t epidemic, I must be living in an anamolous area where all the weavers and darters live. Must be that elsewhere, folks are actually paying attention. My wife got run into by just one such darter and was lucky to come out alive. The othe “driver” was celling while turning one-handed. The other day, one of our locals died in her BMW while going head-on into the other lane on a wide road with big shoulders and great site lines. No seat belt and who knows what else. Maybe eating, or applying makeup, or scribbling notes. I’ve seen some people reading while zipping along at 70, though not in an especially straight line. No need here to even get into the subject of DUIs and racers. So there’s not a legitimate problem, one to be serious about?
Ed, home run, outta the park.
I’ll have to disagree with FleetofWheel that listening to music on a good sound system or tuning into a silly morning show are anywhere near as distracting as having a phone conversation while driving. My understanding is that there are already piles of research making this point, but for me it is obvious from personal experience – talking with some disembodied person while driving is very distracting, and hands-free devices make little or no difference in that regard. So yeah, get real and just make it illegal.
Is texting while driving even worse? Of course! Again – try it and it is obvious. I am too much of a spaz to even attempt it, but even sneaking a quick glance at an email is, in my experience, a really really bad idea.
Driving is serious business. If that phone call, text message or email is so important, pull over and deal with it. I don’t find this a very complicated issue, really, and crafting effective legislation shouldn’t be too tough.
Ah, yes. Another war.
So that’s The War on Poverty, The War on Drugs, The War on Drunk Driving, The War on Terrorism, and now The War on Distracted Driving…
How many more concepts are we going to fight (and continue to lose to)?
Ray LaHood’s job is to avoid political incorrectness, uphold any way to get more taxpayer money, and to appear relevant. It is not to solve any problems – real or perceived. Distracted driving is just another symptom of some individuals disregard of how their behavior effects more than just themselves.