| |
|
The most interesting latest news on the topic: Policy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Want to send a text message while out on a stroll? In part of New Jersey, hold still, or face a hefty fine.
Fort Lee, N.J. banned texting while walking, illustrating how far lawmakers are going to remedy the dangers of texting-induced distractions. Three pedestrians in Fort Lee died because of texting while walking in the past year, and officials decided to outlaw the habit to ramp up safety measures. With a population of around 32,000, the city has already issued 117 tickets since the law's start several weeks ago. Fort Lee is the first place to start and enforce such strict guidelines. Philadelphia began a campaign to curb pedestrian texting, but the police issued reminders, not tickets, a far cry from Fort Lee's $85 fine. Other cities and towns have mulled distracted walking bans in the past, but none have passed them. Research indicates texters on the move are 60 percent more likely to swerve into someone, but issuing tickets for the behavior is a little extreme. People have also died while listening to their iPods and crossing the street, but for most people who listen to music while walking, multitasking is not a problem. The ban dismisses the idea of personal responsibility and shows what it looks like when governments try to micromanage citizen behavior. Aside from the distracted texting deaths in Fort Lee, distracted texters have made the national news on several occasions recently, with a man nearly walking into a bear, a teenager in China walking into a sinkhole and woman falling into a fountain -- all stumbling because they glued their eyes to their phones. Anyone doing anything besides staring directly at the road ahead is in danger of not paying attention, but one of the benefits of walking is you can't kill anyone (besides possibly yourself) by going off-course and bumping into them. Distracted driving bans are reasonable, because the fatalities and stakes are much higher. But aside from isolated incidents, texting while walking is not particularly more treacherous than doing anything else while walking. Fort Lee's decision to focus on distracted pedestrians, instead of accelerating a campaign to punish the far more lethal problem of distracted driving, misdirects valuable time and energy. Moreover, people may respect law enforcement authorities less if they receive tickets they perceive as unwarranted, which may lead to an increase in illegal behaviors with legitimate risks, like texting while driving. Distracted pedestrian texting might cause problems on occasion, but responding with a blanket ban is not an appropriate response. Lawmakers should focus their energies on curbing practices that are dangerous on a wider level, like distracted driving, or they run the risk of undermining the authority of its law enforcement officials by asking them to carry out a petty ban. If Fort Lee's policy takes hold in other cities, it will do more to inspire doubt about law enforcement's priorities than it will to keep people safe. Targeting distracted pedestrians demonstrates a profound lack of efficiency, as the town goes after people who are primarily nuisances, not dangers. Fort Lee and other areas contemplating a distracted pedestrian ban should refocus their efforts on distracted drivers and more pressing public safety concerns. |
|
|
|
|
Want to send a text message while out on a stroll? In part of New Jersey, hold still, or face a hefty fine.
Fort Lee, N.J. banned texting while walking, illustrating how far lawmakers are going to remedy the dangers of texting-induced distractions. Three pedestrians in Fort Lee died because of texting while walking in the past year, and officials decided to outlaw the habit to ramp up safety measures. With a population of around 32,000, the city has already issued 117 tickets since the law's start several weeks ago. Fort Lee is the first place to start and enforce such strict guidelines. Philadelphia began a campaign to curb pedestrian texting, but the police issued reminders, not tickets, a far cry from Fort Lee's $85 fine. Other cities and towns have mulled distracted walking bans in the past, but none have passed them. Research indicates texters on the move are 60 percent more likely to swerve into someone, but issuing tickets for the behavior is a little extreme. People have also died while listening to their iPods and crossing the street, but for most people who listen to music while walking, multitasking is not a problem. The ban dismisses the idea of personal responsibility and shows what it looks like when governments try to micromanage citizen behavior. Aside from the distracted texting deaths in Fort Lee, distracted texters have made the national news on several occasions recently, with a man nearly walking into a bear, a teenager in China walking into a sinkhole and woman falling into a fountain -- all stumbling because they glued their eyes to their phones. Anyone doing anything besides staring directly at the road ahead is in danger of not paying attention, but one of the benefits of walking is you can't kill anyone (besides possibly yourself) by going off-course and bumping into them. Distracted driving bans are reasonable, because the fatalities and stakes are much higher. But aside from isolated incidents, texting while walking is not particularly more treacherous than doing anything else while walking. Fort Lee's decision to focus on distracted pedestrians, instead of accelerating a campaign to punish the far more lethal problem of distracted driving, misdirects valuable time and energy. Moreover, people may respect law enforcement authorities less if they receive tickets they perceive as unwarranted, which may lead to an increase in illegal behaviors with legitimate risks, like texting while driving. Distracted pedestrian texting might cause problems on occasion, but responding with a blanket ban is not an appropriate response. Lawmakers should focus their energies on curbing practices that are dangerous on a wider level, like distracted driving, or they run the risk of undermining the authority of its law enforcement officials by asking them to carry out a petty ban. If Fort Lee's policy takes hold in other cities, it will do more to inspire doubt about law enforcement's priorities than it will to keep people safe. Targeting distracted pedestrians demonstrates a profound lack of efficiency, as the town goes after people who are primarily nuisances, not dangers. Fort Lee and other areas contemplating a distracted pedestrian ban should refocus their efforts on distracted drivers and more pressing public safety concerns. |
|
|
|
|
Lawmakers are intensifying efforts to ban employers from asking job seekers for their Facebook passwords -- and it's about time.
What's the Plan? Rep. Eliot Engel (D., N.Y.) and Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.) introduced a bill banning employers from asking job candidates and current employees for their Facebook passwords, complete with a $10,000 fine. The Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOPA) also extends to colleges and educational institutions, and looks to curb the practice of snooping through Facebook information to make hiring decisions. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) discussed drafting similar legislation, but this is the only federal bill in the hopper, following a ban on the practice from Maryland's state legislature. Snooping Is Wrong Demanding Facebook passwords violates users' privacy, not to mention the site's terms of service. People use Facebook to send and receive private messages, photos and videos, just as they do e-mail. As the practice grows more widespread, a federal bill is necessary to quell the unscrupulous behavior. Employers shy away from candidates who post pictures of themselves on social media boozing and wearing scandalous clothing, and they also look through their status updates for references to drugs, drinking and other undesirable activities. All of this is within bounds, and savvy job seekers should make sure to present a suitable public profile while looking for jobs. Rejecting someone based on an unacceptable social media persona shows good sense; smarter candidates go into interviews conscious of their online impressions. Scouring candidates' personal social media information, however, and demanding access to an employee's entire profile, is a whole other matter. Even people who take care to post professional-caliber photos to their public page may make send racy pictures to lovers or dirty jokes to friends through Facebook's messaging function. The public profile on Facebook can be used as a supplement to the traditional resume, but the rest of it is tantamount to snooping through personal e-mails, letters and diary entries. "We'll take action to protect the privacy and security of our users, whether by engaging policymakers or, where appropriate, by initiating legal action," said Facebook privacy chief Erin Egan, who likely welcomes the bill. Facebook is building political clout, and may use its alliances to push the bill forward, as the employer controversy undermines Facebook's privacy goals. Personal E-Mail in Danger? SNOPA is expected to face opposition from Republicans, but if it does not go through, employers will likely continue asking for Facebook passwords, which will erode public confidence in Facebook's security and cause major problems for the social network. Allowing this behavior to continue begs the question: is anything really private on the internet? After all, if employers can read personal Facebook messages, what will stop them from asking for personal e-mail passwords as well, especially in a world where they are basically the same? Granting access to private electronic information to employers will have serious implications for the way people communicate. If every e-mail and Facebook message sent has the potential to be read by bosses, teachers and admissions counselors, people will stop using these forums of communication for personal correspondence. This may be a big win for the postal service and land lines, but it will likely spark widespread outrage. Interests are lining up against SNOPA, but this bill will happen sooner or later, as people continue to fight for their rights to personal online communication. |
|
|
|
|
Regulators are debating the merits of a nationwide ban on distracted driving, sparking debate over whether a block across the U.S. goes too far, or if state and industry efforts can counter the rising problem.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood wants a federal ban on using cell phones on the road, calling for increased ticketing with a proposed nationwide law. Legislators are pushing for stricter law enforcement in a number of states, but LaHood's nationwide ban would give the country a unified, blanket law. LaHood, comparing the distracted driving epidemic to drunk driving, announced his intentions at a distracted-driving summit amid victims of accidents caused by reckless in-car cell phone use, but his proposal will not go through without opposition from powerful lobbying interests, who say significant efforts are already underway at the state and industry level. Aren't States Doing Enough? Gary Biller, president of the National Motorists Association (NMA) opposes federal legislation, pointing out state-specific laws will have the same effect. New York, California and a number of other states have outlawed phone use on the road, but this ban would extend to all 50 states. California's campaign, for example, included ramped up ticketing and highway signs comparing distracted drivers to zombies, and accident rates have dropped. However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration called for beefed up federal guidelines for automakers to discourage cars built with features that encourage cell phone use, giving LaHood's proposition a boost on the national level. Auto Makers and Other Industry Efforts to Combat Distracted Driving The auto industry is unlikely to embrace LaHood's proposal, since it runs counter to automakers' intentions to incorporate the technology into their vehicles. The auto industry, while supportive of lawmakers' efforts to make the roads safer, is already making inroads using smartphone technology to alleviate traffic and develop smarter cars. A number of apps guiding motorists through congested areas have hit the market, and the trend towards cars integrating smartphone technology is unlikely to cease. A ban on using cell phones in vehicles may produce tension between automakers who want to keep pace with innovative mobile technology and legislators who want to safeguard against the effects of technology and public safety. Carriers, for their part, helping to discourage distracted driving with motion-sensitive apps available to re-route calls to users in transit, including offerings from AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile. Is It Enough? No one argues distracted driving is a serious issue, but the scale of LaHood's proposed ban may be startling for industry and lawmakers to mull over. LaHood's proposed ban may negate the potential benefits arising from incorporating technology into cars and driving, and prove problematic for automakers trying to make their cars stand out from the crowd with smartphone-integrated accessories. However, distracted driving persists despite increased penalties and crackdowns, with no existing solution able to curb an increasingly serious problem. |
|
|
|
|
Colleges and employers are demanding access to private Facebook and Twitter profiles, as the debate over online privacy continues to escalate. Institutions like the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Maryland Dept. of Corrections asked prospective student athletes and employees to "friend" a staff member on Facebook, allowing access to their personal profile. The demand for access to social networking profiles is raising public concern, with a growing number of objectors who say such demands violate First Amendment rights. Users assume social networking profiles are private, a belief reinforced by most sites' privacy policies. But if institutions can force people to grant access, the line between what's public and private quickly blurs. "I can't believe some people think it's OK to do this," said Bradley Shear, a Washington D.C. lawyer, to MSNBC. "Maybe it's OK if you live in a totalitarian regime, but we still have a Constitution to protect us. It's not a far leap from reading people's Facebook posts to reading their e-mail... As a society, where are we going to draw the line?" Across the country, lawmakers, politicians, and federal government agencies are seeking answers to that question, trying to figure out how to use the Internet to increase public safety and education while avoiding allegations of "Big Brother" type scrutiny. Twitter made headlines recently when it provided profile information to the Boston Police Department concerning an alleged hacker. Organizations like the Maryland DOC say they need to completely screen applicants, and FB profiles contain vital information, including hints at drug use or gang affiliation that could endanger other staff and inmates if undetected. The organization denied seven applicants based on Facebook photos in which potential employees flashed gang signs. Colleges likely hope to avoid embarrassing student posts about sports teams and faculty by infiltrating Facebook profiles, but Shear says that's no excuse for privacy bullying. "A good analogy for this, in the offline world, would it be acceptable for schools to require athletes to bug their off-campus apartments?" Shear said. "Does a school have a right to know who all your friends are?" Some states are taking action. Maryland legislators created two bills to ban forced social media access by schools and potential employers, and the American Civil Liberties Union is enthusiastically supporting the bills. "This is an invasion of privacy. People have so much personal information on their pages now. A person can treat it almost like a diary," said Melissa Coretz Goemann, Maryland ACLU legislative director. "And [interviewers and schools] are also invading other people's privacy. They get access to that individual's posts and all their friends. There is a lot of private information there." Perhaps most importantly, forced access is against Facebook's official Terms of Service. "Under our terms," says Frederic Wolens, a Facebook spokesperson, "only the holder of the e-mail address and password is considered the Facebook account owner. We also prohibit anyone from soliciting the login information or accessing an account belonging to someone else." The debate over online privacy continues to rage, and social profiles once heralded as "private" hang in the balance. The question remains whether information is public property just because it is on the Internet. Meanwhile, Shears thinks federal legislation might be the best solution. "After 9/11, we have a culture where some people think it's OK for the government to be this involved in our lives, that it's OK to turn everything over to the government," he said. "But it's not. We still have privacy rights in this country, and we still have a Constitution." |
|
|
|
|
The U.S. Justice Department may sue Apple and a handful of major book publishers, accusing them of collaborating to keep e-book prices high. Sources tell The Wall Street Journal the U.S. Justice Department is accusing Apple and 5 book publishers of essentially creating an agreement among themselves to price books at a level that profits retailer and publisher while barring publishers from offering lower prices at rival retailers. Whether the situation gets resolved through settlement or court case, the outcome is likely to change the price of e-books as the feds look to break up the potential antitrust ring, especially since European regulators are reportedly also looking into the case. Meanwhile, the growing e-book industry will level off, delivering affordable consumer prices that don't sacrifice value for the producers. The involved companies include Apple, Simon & Schuster, Hachette Book Group, Penguin, Macmillan and HarperCollins Publishers. The Justice Department has examined allegations of antitrust violations for some time, as publishers sought to partner with Apple as a way to take advantage of the exploding popularity of tablet reading. As described in the release of the third-generation iPad, reading on the device is one of its most popular uses, according to Apple's survey of its consumers. If a settlement or court case determines the current pricing model is found insufficient or violating antitrust laws, it could vastly change how Apple operates in a vital modern industry. According to the American Association of Publishers, e-book sales hit $970 million in 2010, a growing market that makes up for a steep decline in book sales, especially as retailers like Borders fade away. While there's no sign the antitrust suspicions will soon be resolved, either through a settlement or an expensive, lengthy court battle, the allegations against Apple and the publishers have the potential to drastically change how they determine prices, sending a ripple effect through the market. Self-publishing throws a curve, albeit a small one, into the future, a process Amazon is looking to jumpstart. But the model self-publishing presents threatens traditional publishing houses, and their pricing arrangements, as authors seek to publicize their work on popular platforms like the Kindle. E-book pricing and associated concerns culminated in 2010 when Apple released the original iPad. Book publishers, in conjunction with the powerful Cupertino, Calif. brand, set "agency" model pricing that allows publishers to set the price and gives Apple a 30 percent cut. The model competes with Amazon's system of offering $9.99 books, often selling best-selling books less than they paid for them, which publishers worried would not be enough to sustain the business and kept other retailers from joining in out of fear of being unable to compete. But the agency model allowed retailers and publishers to take profits, and publishers say the model helps increase competition by letting more electronic retailers take advantage of the opportunity. While there is no word on how long the Justice Department will take in addressing the e-book pricing concerns, if officials consider the agency model unfit it could lead to lower prices, and more opportunity for new electronic retailers to enter the market on other tablet platforms. Regardless of the resolve, Apple, and its publishing counterparts, are likely to change their arrangement if federal officials are wary of monopolistic behaviors. |
|
|
|
|
A proposed law to safeguard children may threaten U.S. Internet privacy, as battles over online freedom ramp up. The same representative who sponsored the anti-piracy SOPA legislation, Rep. Lamar Smith (R.,Texas), offered The Protecting Children from Internet Pornography Act, or H.R. 1981, which would require Internet providers to store and monitor personal information linked with IP addresses, including data entered on mobile handsets. Smith touts the bill as a tool for law enforcement to catch child pornographers, but analysts are crying foul, saying the sweeping expanse of the bill jeopardizes the privacy and security of every U.S. Internet user. H.R. 1981's introduction, and the building outrage accompanying it, point to the ongoing debate in the U.S. over Internet freedom, and privacy in general. Smith and his supporters highlighted the proposal's function, to catch deviants. Still, critics say it positions citizens as suspicious, if not guilty, until proven innocent, since the bill's proposed changes would stockpile information about all U.S. citizens using the Internet, looking for clues into possible criminal activity. "This type of legislation goes against the fundamental values of our country where individuals are treated as innocent until proven guilty," activist Rainey Reitman said. "H.R. 1981 would uproot this core American principle, forcing ISPs to treat everyone like a potential criminal." Debate over the bill emerges as proposed legislation over data privacy ramp up. To protect consumers from tech companies mining their data, President Obama unveiled a Consumer Bill of Rights, making sure businesses do not use customer information for their own benefit. The Consumer Bill of Rights speaks to lawmakers and regulatory bodies' building concerns about Google and Facebook's potential privacy violations. Tech companies agreed to tighter privacy policies for their apps at the behest of U.S. authorities, signaling the tech titans understand the issue of protecting citizen privacy online. Both consumer watchdogs and the government emphasize the importance of general privacy online, but navigating between tech innovations and personal security remains tricky. At the same time as the government rallies against online privacy invasion, lawmakers like Smith are going forward with their own plans to compile data, intending to keep a log of websites visited by individual IP addresses for over a year and harness intuitive searching to sniff out possible criminals. Meanwhile, hacktivist groups like Anonymous have joined the fight to eradicate child pornography, taking down pornography rings and publishing users' names as part of their "OpDarkNet". Their vigilante crusade to shame and expose child pornographers involves hacking into personal data. H.R. 1981 would give law enforcement access to Internet users' personal data, no warrant required. The bill's stated function, catching child pornographers, is hard to argue against, but many fear its methods may cross the line. |
|
|
|
|
President Obama unveiled a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, underscoring a need to give users greater control over their online and mobile identities. The Obama administration's new online consumer privacy guidelines, released yesterday, form a code that could serve as a basis for future legislation governing how Internet companies and the mobile industry can gather, store, share and use personal information. The bill revives "do not track" technology and other practices that allow consumers to change settings in their browsers to notify advertisers that they do not wish to be tracked. As mobile use and Internet activity continue to heat up and the companies involved in these industries grow larger and more powerful, consumer privacy concerns grow as well. The President's guidelines come in the midst of several events pointing to a need for lawmakers to get involved and put control back in the hands of consumers. Technology proceeds at a breakneck pace, and features like location tracking, intuitive searching, instantaneous social media sharing and targeted advertising that did not even exist a couple of years ago are now commonplace. Users enjoy the convenience and entertainment these technological advances provide, but are often unaware of the mechanisms tech companies employ to make all that "intuitive" information possible, underscoring a need for greater transparency and clearer privacy policies across the Internet and mobile industries. Obama's plan puts pressure on companies to come clean about exactly what information they collect from users and how they use it, and to do so before a user gets involved with a website, app, device or other offering -- rather than after the fact, as often happens now. For example, Google recently announced changes that unite myriad sites and services under a single privacy policy. The shift ignited criticism among consumer watchdogs and legislators, who fear the new policy gives the search giant too much access to user data and too much opportunity to share personal information without requiring additional consent. Google's new policy will allow it to draw in more advertising revenue by targeting ad efforts specifically to individual users. Facebook is fueling its recent IPO with a similar strategy, boosting its revenue stream with advertising targeted to users based on app activity, spurring further privacy inquiries into the social media site. Apple is the target of recent privacy criticisms as well, as Congress questions the company about how it stores user data after discovering an iOS app called Path collects and stores users' address books without first seeking permission. An agreement this week between Apple, Google and other top technology companies and the California Attorney General's office dovetails with the upcoming federal guidelines, requiring stronger, clearer privacy policies regarding apps. In today's climate of heated competition in the mobile tech and Internet industries, user information is a coveted commodity, because it holds the key to reaching users with products, services, sites and advertising specifically designed for the greatest appeal. Increased sharing of data, however, triggers the need for stronger standards and privacy protection. The Obama administration's new guidelines bring consumers a step closer to clicking a single button on their Web browser to set privacy standards, though that day is still far off. |
|
|
|
|
Carriers, regulators and lawmakers all agree over the need for more spectrum, but efforts to expand it are often mired by political infighting, which could hamper the latest efforts to resolve the shortage. The current bill in Congress to extend the payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits includes FCC authorization of incentive spectrum auctions, which will expand airwaves, bring service to rural areas and ease data congestion on networks. Revenue from wireless auctions is expected to offset the tax cuts and unemployment benefits. Voluntary spectrum auctions, in which broadcasters give up their share of under-used spectrum for auction in exchange for part of the proceeds, generates substantial income for the government and can ease the looming spectrum crunch to expand mobile broadband services. The current bipartisan agreement to move forward with spectrum auctions heralds some concrete first steps forward, which was previously mired in political infighting. Last summer, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's proposal to end the debt ceiling stalemate included giving U.S. regulators the authority to hold a spectrum auction, but the idea stalled along with the debate. Last fall, President Obama featured wireless spectrum auctions in his American Jobs Act, which became part of the "super committee" budget review process that eventually failed because of lack of consensus. After failing to get traction last year, FCC chief Julius Genachowski urged immediate incentive auctions at last month's Consumer Electronics Show, and warned of negative consequences if the lawmakers continue to debate, but not act. Nearly all parties involved agree spectrum auctions are a win-win scenario, easing carriers' spectrum fears and generating revenue for the government. There is broad agreement between political parties on the need for spectrum auctions, the role of the FCC in authorizing the sale, and the idea to set aside a portion of un-auctioned spectrum at no cost to the public safety community. But the idea to build a nationwide wireless network for first responders has drawn ire from the Republican party, which has tied up spectrum expansion with political maneuvering. For example, some House Republicans expressed concern that using this spectrum, called D-block, for public safety would not generate revenue, so they couldn't support the legislation. In addition to lawmakers debating the issue of spectrum auctions in legislative bills, several industries and their corresponding lobbying groups are also in conflict over the airwaves. Just last week, the FCC, which had earlier given LightSquared's proposed network conditional approval, said the company's plan would interfere with GPS receivers, a conclusion many felt was influenced by the GPS industry's successful lobbying effort to quash the plans. LightSquared was planning to use just under half the amount the FCC identified as possible wireless broadband spectrum in the satellite bands. LightSquared's network, which would have sold wholesale 4G LTE access to other carriers like Sprint, promised to cover more than 260 million consumers and present another major competitor in a market dominated by AT&T and Verizon. The ensuing debate over how to balance the GPS's industry's concerns the network would interfere with existing GPS devices with LightSquared's offer of concessions, played out in a series of tests to show the interference's extent. In the end, the GPS industry, backed by such heavyweights as the Federal Aviation Administration prevailed, amidst LightSquared's claims the testing was unfair. Many in the wireless industry have already called the looming shortage a "spectrum crisis," but others believe with some consensus and creativity, the looming crunch isn't necessarily inevitable. Still, these two examples illustrate the ongoing discussion to secure more spectrum will likely face political considerations, and the way they are resolved on Capitol Hill will have a big impact on the mobile industry's future. |
|
|
|
|
The U.S. Department of Transportation proposed new guidelines to prevent cell phone use while behind the wheel, pressuring automakers to join the fight against the rising safety hazard of distracted driving. Federal regulators are asking car makers to either stop integrating built-in features like online connections that encourage drivers to look away from the road, or to make it impossible for drivers to use those features while the car is in motion. The guidelines, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, are tricky for automobile manufacturers, however, since commuters increasingly depend on access to mobile technology while in the car. A recent study found 30 percent of drivers under age 30 text while behind the wheel, and 63 percent of them used a cell phone while driving. Many states, including New York and California, passed laws banning hand-held talking and texting behind the wheel, but if adapted, the NHTSA's guidelines would become the first federal mandate. Since not every state has the same legal guidelines for cell phone use, automakers are left with a tough decision: build cars without features drivers want and face the potential of decreased sales in a lagging economy, ignore federal safety guidelines, or build different makes and models for each state, increasing manufacturing costs. Still, with rising rates of accidents caused by texting and talking behind the wheel and several states unwilling to change laws, the NHTSA is using its clout to appeal to the auto industry. The NHTSA also says distracted drivers react at the speed of a person at the legal limit for drunk driving, and that drivers who text are 23 times more likely to get into an accident than those who don't. "We recognize that vehicle manufacturers want to build vehicles that include the tools and conveniences expected by today's American drivers," NHTSA administrator David Strickland said. "The guidelines we're proposing would offer real-world guidance to automakers to help them develop electronic devices that provide features consumers want --without disrupting a driver's attention or sacrificing safety." Even with help from the auto industry, drivers will continue to use external devices, and though test programs last year proved higher fines and increased oversight by law enforcement effectively decreased distracted driving, not all states have yet been willing to change laws. The NHTSA has no direct authority to compel automakers to adopt its recommendations, but the organization is determined to have an impact. The guidelines for automakers are only the first phase of its three-part plan of action, and phase two will address "devices or systems that are not built into the vehicle but are brought into the vehicle and used while driving." The recommendations are subject to public debate during a 60-day period, with forums taking place in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. before issuing the revised guidelines. Until then, automobile manufacturers might face increased public scrutiny and regulatory pressure to join the fight to make American roads safer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tags: