Skip to comments.NHTSA Puts Industry On Notice: A Car Is Not A Mobile Device
Posted on 06/18/2011 8:30:40 AM PDT by Still Thinking
Continuing a campaign initiated by Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, the administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) addressed the Telematics Detroit 2011 conference with harsh words on the growing trend to integrate infotainment technology into cars.
David Strickland told those assembled, Im just putting everyone on notice. A car is not a mobile device. Im not in the business of helping people tweet better. Im not in the business of helping people post on Facebook better.
Thats not to say that the NHTSA and DOT are opposed to all telematics applications. In fact, the agencies support systems that provide remote vehicle diagnostics, on-board navigation and automated crash response (like GMs OnStar and Hyundais Blue Link). What the agencies oppose is any on-board system that leads to distracted driving, frequently citing that 995 of the 30,797 fatal crashes in 2009 involved drivers using cell phones.
Automakers, on the other hand, are caught between what the government requires and what their customers want. Generation Y drivers are focused on in-car technology and dont see texting as a distraction to driving; instead, they see driving as a distraction to texting, which is an alarming trend by itself.
Unless--or until--cars become automated transportation pods requiring no driver involvement, this clash between technology, the NHTSA and automakers wont find an easy resolution.
So what kind of device is an auto if not mobile?
Agreed there are too many distractions. A car should get you from point A to point B in relative safety. Nothing more, nothing less.
So if you have sex in the back seat you’ll still have to use your phone to tweet the pics.
“You can have any color you want as long as it’s black” LOL
Whilst I agree with his sentiment, The Sec Trans (being an Obamaloon appointee) will NEVER be in any business because businesses need folks with creativity and talent. Ergo, no Obamaloon appointees make the grade.
BTW, the no talent thing is what got Chrysler and GM. Still does.
Agree in principle. Where I may disagree with Ray TheHood is whether it's the government's problem or an individual's responsibility. Why not just step back from having any rules at all on distracted driving and just hold the individual responsible for the results? If some guy has attention surplus disorder and can safely do both at the same time, fine, but if someone else can't, it's their responsibility to know that and act accordingly. I definitely disagree with TheHood on OnStar and similar Big Brother systems.
Weiner is deeply saddened.
Plenty of them here on FR sadly. I’m sure some will turn up on this thread soon.
Notice the "I", "I", "I" focus of his remarks. David Strickland is a power-drunk statist who exemplifies much of what's wrong with our bloated Federal nanny state.
Look at some of the freedom-stifling "accomplishments" that he proudly touts on his bio page at http://www.nhtsa.gov/Administrator:
Mr. Strickland advised Congressional members on safety reforms and funding increases for NHTSA's seat-belt and drunk-driving grant programs and earned national recognition from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who named him Congressional Staffer of the Year in 2004 for his role in making the driving public safer.
MADD - gutting the Fourth Amendment is their goal. Random pull-over-motorists-and-search-their-cars police checkpoints are the proper tools for the Gestapo, the Stasi, and the KGB. Regardless of any ill-advised court rulings to the contrary, they are an affront to a decent, free people, and should not be tolerated.
You forgot to mention black helicopters.
Yes I love how one of their brainless, soulless hags justified probable-cause-free checkpoints. She said that at the BAL's they had managed to get enacted, someone might be over the limit and yet their driving might not be affected so that they would draw the attention of a patrol officer. [facepalm]
Whatever you do, never reexamine your original premise. Just erect more statist scaffolding to support your original wrong idea. D'oh! Like envirobots who won't simply admit they were wrong about plastic grocery bags or diet Nazis about replacing animal fats with hydrogenated poison, just trash the stuff YOU forced on us and steal our freedom to do THAT too, as if we wanted to. Never admit you didn't know what you were talking about in the first place.
Oh, and don't forget the perfidy and fraud of MADD trumpeting the "increase" in "drunk driving" for fund-raising purposes, when the "increase" was actually due to a more stringent definition THEY brought about!
No I did not. Prior restraint is almost never a good idea. It’s like having gun control when there are already laws against murder and holding up liquor stores.
There’s a solution to the texting while driving.
Those devices has GPS capabilities, and if there are some that don’t have it, then maybe it should be mandatory.
So, the GPS capability can sense when it’s moving at a fast pace, say, 5mph or more, and if that’s the case, the texting capability should be automatically disabled on the smartphone. Of course, there will be people who use their smartphones while going for a jog, but even then, it’s a bit dangerous to run and text at the same time.
Excellent. If I’m riding in your car, I shouldn’t be able to text.
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood is a Luddite asshole.
"Democrat" is shorter.
Besides, he supports new technology, as long as it invades YOUR privacy, dilutes YOUR control, and gives them to him and his henchmen, so you can't really call him a "Luddite".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.