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.