Originally Posted by
B. Carfree
Overall, I agree with you. However, there is an unintended consequence and an amoral implication in that approach. As we have made cars safer for the occupants when a crash occurs, we have very likely increased the amount of risky behavior. At the very least, people who insist on driving with reckless disregard don't get the same rate of "cure" (death) as they would if we didn't have so many safety features. Meanwhile out on the road, those folks who are not surrounded by these marvels of modern engineering are even more vulnerable because of this increase in risky behavior. I know there are many roads that I have stopped riding on over the decades because the carelessness of the motorists has risen to a level that makes me too uncomfortable.
There may a bit of an amoral aspect to considering all lives as equal, or maybe it's just my own moral failing. Since motorists outnumber cyclists by thousands to one, anyone looking to increase the safety of our roads by decreasing fatalities would naturally look to making things safer for drivers (most cars only have one person in them). Yet, it is those very drivers who are doing the killing and injuring of innocent people. Is preventing serious injury/death to a thousand drunks/texters really as important as preventing an injury or death to a pedestrian or a cyclist? I know that when I read about a drunk driver who met his/her end in a solo encounter with a tree at 2:00 A.M. (pretty common where I live), I rejoice because that drunk didn't take anyone with him/her. Maybe I'm just a wicked bigot.
I really fail to see how a device that disables distracted behavior would increase ANY risky behavior in the aftermath. It's not like ABS, which made idiots think they CAN'T skid out; it's a device that KEEPS people from doing one more stupid thing behind the wheel. Further, I don't see this as valuing a cyclist's life over a motorist's, either. It's valuing life over a perceived freedom. Period.
Originally Posted by
Road Fan
I think NHTSA may also not be able to bring home such a regulation. It's not just a matter of technology. Why isn't an alcohol content sensor part of every car now? NHTSAs process of regulation requires lots of research, and the decision process involves the car companies. The OEMs will fear that drivers will refuse to buy cars where they cannot make phone calls, as in point #2 above. That's where major opposition will enter the picture. I'm not at all sure the technical solution you advocate, for the car to turn the phone off in all cars, will see the light of day. I think what may be a more feasible regulation is to inhibit cell phone use technically as you say, UNLESS the car is equipped with communication (text display, voice to text, and possible text to voice message delivery).
The OEMs would not have to worry about that if every new car sold in the USA after a certain date was required to have such a device (unable to circumvent, as well), including imports. And even if that WAS a valid worry, hell, maybe that would put a dozen more people on the path to pedaling happiness!