While Department of Transportation Sec. Ray LaHood and the National Transportation Safety Board aren't on exactly the same page when it comes to regulating drivers' use of cellphones and other personal electronic devices it's clear that official bureaucratic Washington has decided to control the way Americans act behind the wheel. In December, the NTSB proposed using the power of the federal purse to impel the 50 states to outlaw all cellphone and PED use, including hands-free devices, while driving. At the time Sec. LaHood said he thought that went too far, saying that he didn't think that hands-free and other devices were necessarily a problem. LaHood did, though, recommend more study. Apparently, in the two months since LaHood made his statement enough study has been done for the DOT, through NHTSA, to release the first phase of voluntary guidelines (PDF) to auto manufacturers concerning devices that cause drivers' distraction. The guidelines address "visual-manual" distraction, "meaning the driver looking at a device, manipulating a device-related control with the driver's hand, and watching for visual feedback", and they call for manufacturers to disable built-in access to social media, the Web, and text messaging while driving, as well as prohibiting any built-in devices that require drivers to use both hands or take their eyes off the road for more than two seconds.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers trade group, representing 12 major automakers, acted like most trade groups do, and avoided ruffling the feathers of those who regulate them. Gloria Bergquist, speaking for the AAM, was rhetorically supportive of the new guidelines saying, "They're based on guidelines we developed 10 years ago." She did express the common sense that drivers will simply use handheld devices if they can't access the same technologies through their cars' built-in systems. "If you can't put an address into GPS while moving, then you'll just use your handheld Garmin," Bergquist said. I haven't pored over every one of the 177 pages in the document but the guidelines don't appear to discuss the fact that the driver is not the only person in the car that might have a reason to use some of the new features that cars now offer. How manufacturers will keep drivers from getting distracted by the new technologies while simultaneously keeping children occupied with infotainment in the back seat or while a spouse is checking directions on the nav system is apparently not considered by DOT/NHTSA to be an important factor. Some of you who aren't familiar with the American system of government might wonder, why doesn't Washington just ban drivers from doing what they don't want them to do? In the United States' federalist system, a ban on individual drivers' behaviors would probably be unconstitutional. The federal government simply does not have the legal authority to tell you that you can't use your cellphone while driving. That's clearly a power and right that is in state hands, not those of the feds. So Washington regulators have two options to get the behavior they want. They can use the threat of withholding federal highway or other funding, as the NTSB suggested, to effectively blackmail the individual states into enacting legislation that complies with Washington's wishes (that's how we got a de facto national 55 MPH speed limit back in the malaise era), or they can use the regulatory powers of the DOT and other federal agencies to force automakers to build cars that force drivers to do what the bureaucrats want. Regulators are apparently taking the second tack, though the guidelines are technically voluntary for the time being. According to NHTSA administrator David Strickland the agency decided to make them optional. Of course, if that option is up to the agency, are the guidelines really voluntary? From Strickland's comments in the Automotive News it appears that NHTSA's decision to make compliance optional was not to make things easier for manufacturers to comply but rather to give themselves, the regulators, flexibility to adjust to quickly changing technologies. If it's an actual regulation, with appropriate enabling legislation, well then, NHTSA's powers are regulated. "Voluntary" guidelines, on the other hand, because they're not really the law, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, don't restrain the agency nearly as much. As if to demonstrate the amount of power that he has over the automobile industry, Strickland also indicated that his agency hoped that the car companies will use their compliance with the guidelines as a marketing tool to consumers. Now let's look at what just happened there. The head of an agency that regulates the auto industry makes it clear that he could have, on a whim perhaps, made some "guidelines" obligatory. Then in the context of inferring his regulatory power, he states how he'd prefer that his regulatory subjects advertise their wares. Something that Michael Barone once said about "gangster government" resonates here. Nice little car company you have there. We wouldn't want anything to happen to it would we? Oh, and be sure and tell your customers what a good job we're doing keeping them safe. While the "voluntary" guidelines issued this week are directed at manufacturers, it's obvious that NHTSA/DOT has greater plans for their involvement in your driving. The current guidelines are only the first phase of the process.
So despite Sec. LaHood's earlier remarks about not wanting to ban hands-free cellphones, that's undoubtedly being considered, as is regulation of other voice-operated and vocal recognition technologies. How a federal agency will regulate consumers' choices and drivers' behavior concerning portable and aftermarket devices is unclear. Also unclear is how any distraction caused by "auditory-vocal interfaces" could be distinguished the distraction of having a conversation with a passenger. I suppose that while the feds can't make it illegal for your significant other to ignore you, they can make it illegal to sell you a car that pays attention to what you say. My attitude about these guidelines and any actual laws that might try to enforce the same behaviors or technology implementation (in the case of cellphone blockers or other disabling techs) is similar to that of Second Amendment advocate Dave Koppel concerning firearms laws. Koppel says that he's fine with gun control laws, just as long as those laws apply equally to government employees, law enforcement officers included. If a trained and licensed gun owner can't bring his weapon into, let's say, a house of worship, well then, neither should a cop. If the gun is what's dangerous, it's dangerous for everyone. The same is true of driving. The proposed guidelines make frequent use of the word "inherent". NHTSA considers some behaviors to be inherently distracting to a driver's ability to concentrate on the task of driving. Anti distracted driving activists like Sec. LaHood keep reminding us that you can't learn to not be distracted by these new technologies. If something is inherently distracting it's just as distracting to a police officer behind the wheel of a cruiser as it is to you and I when we are driving our Camcordatas. So I'm cool with these guidelines and any proposed laws on distracted driving as long as they apply equally to government employees including police officers. The 2012 Chicago Auto Show wraps up tomorrow. Perhaps more so than the other big North American auto shows, it's important for commercial vehicles, with lots of trucks and fleet vehicles (and sales reps). Ford had their new SHO Taurus based Police Interceptor and Chevy had the new RWD 9C1 Caprice on the show floor. A modern cop car is filled with all sorts of distracting electronic equipment including interactive computer screens. I'm fine with Ray LaHood disabling my nav system as long as he disables Johnny Law's LEIN screen, at least when he's behind the wheel. If it's dangerous for regular folks to use cellphones, radios and computers behind the wheel, it's just as dangerous for cops to do it. Actually, since cops appear to be among the most flagrant speeders, on and off-duty, it's probably even more dangerous. U.S. DOT press release below:
Ronnie Schreiber edits Cars In Depth, a realistic perspective on cars & car culture and the original 3D car site. If you found this post worthwhile, you can dig deeper at Cars In Depth. If the 3D thing freaks you out, don't worry, all the photo and video players in use at the site have mono options. Thanks – RJS from The Truth About Cars http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com | |||
| |||
| |||
|
Sunday, February 19, 2012
USDOT Issues Guidelines to Automakers on Distracted Driving: Should They Apply to All Drivers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Archive
-
▼
2012
(7297)
-
▼
February
(621)
- Hyundai i-oniq Concept: A Hatchback for Hyundai’s ...
- Citroën DS3 Racing Limited Edition Honors Rally Go...
- Audi Announces U.S. A3 e-tron Pilot Program; R8 e-...
- Swedish Film: Volvo V40 Official Photos and Video ...
- 2013 Buick Enclave Headed to the Big Apple with Up...
- Volkswagen Prices 2013 CC Sedan From $31,430, Top ...
- Nissan Leaf EV Available to Customers Nationwide i...
- Cars.com Reviews the 2012 BMW 3 Series
- Volkswagen Looking To Overtake Honda In The United...
- Jaguar XF Gains Wagon Body Style at the 2012 Genev...
- Name That Car Clock: Black Analog Quartz
- Nikkei: Honda’s Future Hinges On A Kei Car
- 2013 Ferrari F12berlinetta: First Look
- PSA And GM Are Doing It While Marchionne Watches
- LeMons Good/Bad Idea of the Week: Bribing with Dio...
- BRAND NEW Hates BRAND NEW Jaguar Logo. And They Sh...
- Ferrari F12 Berlinetta; More Wretched Excess
- Kinetic Motorsports to Expand Availability of Perf...
- 2013 Jaguar XF Sportbrake Officially Debuts [Genev...
- Cars.com News Briefs: Feb. 29, 2012
- Jaguar XF Sportbrake; A Diesel Wagon, But Alas, No...
- 2013 Ferrari F12berlinetta – Official Photos and Info
- Mini Adds John Cooper Works Edition to Countryman
- Chinese Government Fools Autoblog, Autoguide, Left...
- Driven: Volkswagen Cross Up! / E-Up! / Up! GT Conc...
- Review: A Week In A 2012 Nissan Leaf
- Junkyard Find: 1977 Fiat 124 Sport Spider
- Piston Slap: Justy-fied Freestylin’ over CVTs, Par...
- Back That You-Know-What Up
- Cars.com Family Reviews the 2012 Nissan Juke
- Dodge Unveils Test Configurator for 2013 Dart
- 2013 Volkswagen Golf GTI Cabriolet Photos and Info...
- Supplier Magna Steyr Creates Oddball MILA Coupic C...
- Name That Exhaust Note, Episode 125
- 2013 Mini John Cooper Works Countryman Gets Specs ...
- TechArt Announces Body Bits, Exhaust System for 99...
- Subaru, Mazda Rise, Ford Crashes, in Consumer Repo...
- The Iranian Connection In The GM/Peugeot Alliance
- 2012 Kia K9 RWD Sedan Photos and Info: Insert Unin...
- Fisker Hires Former Chrysler Boss LaSorda, Company...
- 2013 Volkswagen CC Starts at $30,250
- Volvo V40 Gets 254-Horsepower 5-Cylinder, Start-St...
- Lamborghini SUV Rendered, Coming in Concept Form Soon
- Nissan Teases Hi-Cross Concept
- Aston Martin Updates the Vantage Range for 2012
- Quote Of The Day: “Five Years From Now, When I’m N...
- Fisker Names Ex-Chrysler Boss Tom Lasorda As New CEO
- Backup Cameras Likely Mandated for 2014
- NASCAR Shouldn’t Run In The Rain — And Neither Sho...
- This Is Not The Most Beautiful Cars Of All Times. ...
- Cars.com News Briefs: Feb. 28, 2012
- Kia KH Heralds The Start Of The “Monkfish Age” In ...
- Lighter, More Muscular And More Striking Boxster P...
- When Was The Last Time You Used Your Sunroof?
- Marchionne: Every 5th Auto Plant In Europe Should ...
- Coming Soon: Kia's K9 Flagship
- Junkyard Find: 1971 Fiat 124 Sport Spider
- Car Collector’s Corner: 1985 Oregon Highway Patrol...
- Best Selling Cars Around The Globe: Chile Loves Ja...
- Tycho’s Illustrated History Of Chinese Cars: A Red...
- What's the Most Affordable Full-Size Crossover?
- 2012 Toyota Camry: Car Seat Check
- Odd Couplings: GM To Buy 7 Percent Of PSA? What For?
- Blind Spot: Electric Cars And “The Freedom Thing”
- 2012 Audi A1 Quattro Driven: 256 HP, All-Wheel Dri...
- Pininfarina Cambiano Sports-Sedan Concept Revealed...
- Jaguar XF Sportbrake Brochure Leaked [Geneva Auto ...
- 2013 Lamborghini Aventador Roadster Spy Photos: Th...
- 2014 Chevrolet Corvette C7 Spied! We Catch the Sev...
- Bill Ford’s “Blueprint For Mobility” Calls For Car...
- Nissan Hi-Cross Concept is Coming, Probably a Hybr...
- Audi Announces Electric Pilot Program
- Jaguar XKR-Based Lyonheart K Pays Homage to E-Type...
- Leaf’s Grandfather
- Name That Car Clock: Extremely Classy Cartier Analog
- TTAC Photo Documentary: Carlos Ghosn Talks The Yen...
- Kia K9 Rear Drive Sedan Spied In South Korea
- Land Rover Eyes Convertible for Evoque
- QOTD: What’s wrong with this statement?
- Recall Alert: 2012 Nissan Murano and Nissan Rogue
- Finally, Real Pictures Of The Volvo V40
- Capsule Review: 2012 Hyundai Azera
- Cars.com News Briefs: Feb. 27, 2012
- Name That Shifter, No. 65
- Recall Alert: 2011-12 Porsche Cayenne
- Recall Alert: 2011-2012 Infiniti M, QX and Nissan ...
- Detroit Sleeps Through Chinese SUV Boom
- Junkyard Find: 1983 Mazda GLC Sedan
- Piston Slap: Frontal Area, Our Friend?
- Would You Buy It? Chevrolet Cruze Station Wagon
- 2012 Hyundai Azera First Drive: It’s a Long Way to...
- Avoidable Contact: Lexus killed Saab, but GM let S...
- Hammer Time: Past Profits, Future Prophets
- China Billionaire Special: The Dartz Prombron Blac...
- 2012 Mercedes-Benz C300 4Matic
- Junkyard Find: 1992 Ford Tempo GL
- Most-Read Car Reviews of the Week
- TrueCar Projects 14 Million New Car Market, Confir...
- High Speed Pursuits Endanger Your House
- Car Collector’s Corner: 1965 Mercury Comet-Rescued...
-
▼
February
(621)
No comments:
Post a Comment