STAR/TRIBUNEKim Palmer
Two teenagers, both seriously injured a week apart while playing hockey, remained hospitalized on Sunday at Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis, where their family members anxiously watched their every movement, hoping for signs of improvement.
Jenna Privette, an 18-year-old senior at St. Croix Lutheran High School in West St. Paul who was injured on Friday, was in satisfactory condition, still unable to move her legs or feet and still experiencing pain and tingling in her arms, according to her father, Dan Privette of Burnsville. "There hasn't been a lot of change," he said on Sunday, although an MRI showed no breaks in her spinal cord. She will undergo further testing.
Jack Jablonski, a 16-year-old Benilde-St. Margaret's sophomore paralyzed on Dec. 30 after a check from behind that severed his spinal cord, had his feeding tube removed on Saturday, ate his first solid food -- cheese pizza -- and was lifted into an upright position for a few minutes. "He's been lying on his back for seven days, and he did very well," said his father, Mike Jablonski.
Jablonski, who has been told he will never walk or skate again, has regained some movement in both his shoulders and upper arms. "Moving his arms -- that's huge," said his father, who planned to spend Sunday decorating his son's hospital room with NHL jerseys sent to him in an outpouring of sympathy and support from the hockey world.
The family has been heartened by the small improvements in Jack's mobility, as well as by seeing his spirit returning. "All of a sudden we got Jack back. He's talking. His personality is there," Mike said. "With all the meds, he was so groggy. I told him, 'You've got a lot of people pulling hard for you.' The hockey community, and the community in general, has been beautiful."
But while his slight gains in mobility are positive, "it doesn't change the fact that the spinal cord is completely severed," said Dr. Tina Slusher, pediatric critical care doctor at HCMC. "With various devices, he will have some use, and even a little movement means you can do a lot more. Still, we're not very optimistic about a lot more return in function." If Jack's progress continues, he probably will be moved to a rehabilitation facility within the next week or two, Slusher said.
Privette's prognosis is unclear, although her injury appears less severe than Jablon-ski's. "She's had an MRI, and it did not show breaks in the spinal cord, which makes it different than Jablonski's [injury]," said Carl Lemke, athletic director at St. Croix Lutheran. "It's an injury she's had in the past. Hopefully, it will improve."
The two high-profile incidents have sparked debate about how the game should be played, coached and officiated to best protect the safety of young players.
Checking is not allowed in girls' hockey, under Minnesota High School League rules, yet Dan Privette said that he saw his daughter checked from behind and that the player who delivered the check did not receive a penalty.
Checking is allowed in boys' hockey, although not from behind, at the bantam and high school levels.
Mike Jablonski doesn't think checking should be banned, but he hopes that one result of his son's injury is stricter officiating. "Checking 10 to 20 years ago is different than it is now," he said. "You can't be hitting people blindly into the boards. Let's make this a finesse game of speed and skill."
Even before the recent injuries, Todd Cocallas, board member for the Eden Prairie Hockey Association, was calling for stricter officiating. His son, a bantam, suffered a concussion this season when he was crossed-checked from behind and sent face-first into the boards. "The kid didn't even get a penalty," Cocallas said. "He should have been kicked out of the tournament. Kids have got to be taught that this is not OK."
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Romney and Santorum in near dead-heat in Iowa; Ron Paul close behind
Des Moines, Iowa (CNN) -- Mitt Romney has defeated Rick Santorum in the Iowa caucuses by eight votes, clinching what appears to be the closest-ever margin of victory in a Republican presidential contest, the state Republican Party said early Wednesday.
Ron Paul finished a close third, according to the state GOP. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who placed fifth, said late Tuesday that he would return to his home state to consider whether his campaign would continue.
Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, had 30,015 votes. Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania and an upstart challenger who just weeks ago polled in the single digits, had 30,007, the state GOP said.
Each had roughly 25% of the vote in Iowa, the first state to vote in the 2012 presidential caucus and primary season. Paul, a U.S. representative from Texas, had 21%. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was at 13%. Perry was at 10%, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota had 5%, and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman had 1%.
The focus of the race now shifts to New Hampshire, which holds its primary election next Tuesday.
Ron Paul finished a close third, according to the state GOP. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who placed fifth, said late Tuesday that he would return to his home state to consider whether his campaign would continue.
Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, had 30,015 votes. Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania and an upstart challenger who just weeks ago polled in the single digits, had 30,007, the state GOP said.
Each had roughly 25% of the vote in Iowa, the first state to vote in the 2012 presidential caucus and primary season. Paul, a U.S. representative from Texas, had 21%. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was at 13%. Perry was at 10%, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota had 5%, and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman had 1%.
The focus of the race now shifts to New Hampshire, which holds its primary election next Tuesday.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Why should Iowa and New Hampshire always go first?
PALM BEACH POST
By Gerald D. Skoning
Florida's decision to hold its presidential primary on Jan. 31 has started a game of leapfrog among states trying to assert their influence in picking the nominee and to draw millions of dollars in candidate spending.
The Iowa caucuses are set for January 3rd, and the New Hampshire primary for January 10th. What is it about those idiosyncratic states that qualifies them for such status? Why should they go first? Why not Florida?
I'm tired of hearing about what voters in Iowa and New Hampshire think about the candidates for president. Neither state is a good bellwether. Each is smaller, older, whiter and more rural, and unemployment in New Hampshire is 4.8 percent, almost half the national average. The system needs to change if we are to find candidates who are more satisfactory to the country at large. We should rotate the order of the presidential primaries each election cycle. In 2016, Iowa and New Hampshire should go last.
Advocates for Iowa and New Hampshire going first argue that it gives candidates an increasingly rare opportunity to engage in retail politics and generate some momentum if they are starting with less money or name recognition. But many other states (like Florida) could provide those same grass-roots handshaking opportunities and "town hall meetings." The Iowa-New Hampshire primacy seems to be a case of inertia: We've just always done it that way.
Of course, while the political stakes are huge, the financial stakes are considerable as well. Early primary states reap a windfall in the form of campaign spending and media buys. New Hampshire officials estimate that their first-in-the-nation primary will mean $264 million in economic benefits.
Other states (like Florida) ought to have a shot at that windfall, particularly in light of the struggling economy. Hence the decision to move up the Florida primary. But we should have a chance to go first without being penalized by convention delegates. We need a better, more equitable way to schedule state presidential primary elections.
Some have suggested having regional primaries and rotating the order every presidential election - Northeast, Southwest, Midwest and so on. That would be vastly more democratic and would distribute the economic benefits of early primaries more equitably. But to be fair to all 50 states, maybe we should have a national lottery to determine the order of state primaries.
It would be conducted like many state gambling lotteries, as a televised event, but on a larger, national stage - the Lincoln Memorial? - with coverage by all the major networks and cable news programs. A lottery system would be simple to execute and would avoid the escalating interstate competition Florida has kicked off, an absurd scramble that could result in presidential primaries being held before Thanksgiving of this year or even earlier.
In 2008, Florida moved up its primary and made a difference in the selection of John McCain, but was threatened with the loss of convention delegates. The largest swing state should not have to break the rules to have a voice.
By Gerald D. Skoning
Florida's decision to hold its presidential primary on Jan. 31 has started a game of leapfrog among states trying to assert their influence in picking the nominee and to draw millions of dollars in candidate spending.
The Iowa caucuses are set for January 3rd, and the New Hampshire primary for January 10th. What is it about those idiosyncratic states that qualifies them for such status? Why should they go first? Why not Florida?
I'm tired of hearing about what voters in Iowa and New Hampshire think about the candidates for president. Neither state is a good bellwether. Each is smaller, older, whiter and more rural, and unemployment in New Hampshire is 4.8 percent, almost half the national average. The system needs to change if we are to find candidates who are more satisfactory to the country at large. We should rotate the order of the presidential primaries each election cycle. In 2016, Iowa and New Hampshire should go last.
Advocates for Iowa and New Hampshire going first argue that it gives candidates an increasingly rare opportunity to engage in retail politics and generate some momentum if they are starting with less money or name recognition. But many other states (like Florida) could provide those same grass-roots handshaking opportunities and "town hall meetings." The Iowa-New Hampshire primacy seems to be a case of inertia: We've just always done it that way.
Of course, while the political stakes are huge, the financial stakes are considerable as well. Early primary states reap a windfall in the form of campaign spending and media buys. New Hampshire officials estimate that their first-in-the-nation primary will mean $264 million in economic benefits.
Other states (like Florida) ought to have a shot at that windfall, particularly in light of the struggling economy. Hence the decision to move up the Florida primary. But we should have a chance to go first without being penalized by convention delegates. We need a better, more equitable way to schedule state presidential primary elections.
Some have suggested having regional primaries and rotating the order every presidential election - Northeast, Southwest, Midwest and so on. That would be vastly more democratic and would distribute the economic benefits of early primaries more equitably. But to be fair to all 50 states, maybe we should have a national lottery to determine the order of state primaries.
It would be conducted like many state gambling lotteries, as a televised event, but on a larger, national stage - the Lincoln Memorial? - with coverage by all the major networks and cable news programs. A lottery system would be simple to execute and would avoid the escalating interstate competition Florida has kicked off, an absurd scramble that could result in presidential primaries being held before Thanksgiving of this year or even earlier.
In 2008, Florida moved up its primary and made a difference in the selection of John McCain, but was threatened with the loss of convention delegates. The largest swing state should not have to break the rules to have a voice.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
North Korea's leader Kim Il Jung Dies
(CNN) -- North Korea's longtime leader Kim Jong Il, the embodiment of the reclusive state where his cult of personality is deeply entrenched, has died.
He was believed to be 69.
Regarded as one of the world's most-repressive leaders, Kim Jong Il always cut a slightly bizarre figure. His diminutive stature and characteristically bouffant hair have been parodied by some in the West.
"He's a mysterious person -- I think by design," said Han S. Park, director of the Center for the Study of Global Issues at the University of Georgia and a frequent visitor to North Korea. "Mystery is a source of leverage and power. It's maintaining uncertainty."
But for the citizens of his Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Kim was well regarded.
He was believed to be 69.
Regarded as one of the world's most-repressive leaders, Kim Jong Il always cut a slightly bizarre figure. His diminutive stature and characteristically bouffant hair have been parodied by some in the West.
"He's a mysterious person -- I think by design," said Han S. Park, director of the Center for the Study of Global Issues at the University of Georgia and a frequent visitor to North Korea. "Mystery is a source of leverage and power. It's maintaining uncertainty."
But for the citizens of his Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Kim was well regarded.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Last American troops pull out of Iraq whoop
STAR/TRIBUNE
KHABARI CROSSING, Kuwait - The last U.S. soldiers rolled out of Iraq across the border into neighboring Kuwait at daybreak Sunday, whooping, fist bumping and hugging each other in a burst of joy and relief. Their convoy's exit marked the end of a bitterly divisive war that raged for nearly nine years and left Iraq shattered and struggling to recover.
The war cost nearly 4,500 American and well more than 100,000 Iraqi lives and $800 billion from the U.S. Treasury. The question of whether it was worth it all — or whether the new government the Americans leave behind will remain a steadfast U.S. ally — is yet unanswered.
The 5-hour drive by the last convoy of MRAPS, heavily armored personnel carriers, took place under cover of darkness and under strict secrecy to prevent any final attacks on the withdrawing troops. The 500 soldiers didn't even tell their Iraqi partners they were leaving before they slipped out of the last American base and started down the barren desert highway to the Kuwaiti border before dawn Sunday.
The atmosphere was subdued inside one of the vehicles as it streamed down the highway, with little visible in the blackness outside through the MRAP's small windows. Along the road, a small group of Iraqi soldiers waved to the departing American troops.
But after crossing the berm at the Kuwaiti border, lit with floodlights and ringed with barbed wire, the troops from the 3rd brigade of the Army's 1st Cavalry Division were elated. They cheered, pumped fists in the air and gave each other chest bumps and bear hugs. "We're on top of the world!" shouted one soldier from the turret of his vehicle. "It's just an honor to be able to serve your country and say that you helped close out the war in Iraq," said Spc. Jesse Jones, a 23-year-old who volunteered to be in the last convoy.
The quiet withdrawal was a stark contrast to the high-octane start of the war, which began before dawn on March 20, 2003, with an airstrike in southern Baghdad where Saddam Hussein was believed to be hiding, the opening shot in the famed "shock and awe" bombardment. U.S. and allied ground forces then stormed from Kuwait across the featureless deserts of southern Iraq toward the capital.
Saddam and his regime fell within weeks, and the dictator was captured by the end of the year — to be executed by Iraq's new Shiite rulers in 2006. But Saddam's end only opened the door to years more of conflict as Iraq was plunged into a vicious sectarian war between its Shiite and Sunni communities. The near civil war devastated the country, and its legacy includes thousands of widows and orphans, a people deeply divided along sectarian lines and infrastructure that remains largely in ruins.
In the past two years, violence has dropped dramatically, and Iraqi security forces that U.S. troops struggled for years to train have improved. But the sectarian wounds remain unhealed. Even as U.S. troops were leaving, the main Sunni-backed political bloc announced Sunday it was suspending its participation in parliament to protest the monopoly on government posts by Shiite allies of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
President Barack Obama stopped short of calling the U.S. effort in Iraq a victory in an interview taped Thursday with ABC News' Barbara Walters. "I would describe our troops as having succeeded in the mission of giving to the Iraqis their country in a way that gives them a chance for a successful future," Obama said.
In the final days, U.S. officials acknowledged the cost in blood and dollars was high, but tried to paint a picture of victory — for both the troops and the Iraqi people now freed of a dictator and on a path to democracy. But gnawing questions remain: Will Iraqis be able to forge their new government amid the still stubborn sectarian clashes? And will Iraq be able to defend itself and remain independent in a region fraught with turmoil and still steeped in insurgent threats?
Some Iraqis celebrated the exit of what they called American occupiers, neither invited nor welcome in a proud country. Others said that while grateful for U.S. help ousting Saddam, the war went on too long. A majority of Americans would agree.
KHABARI CROSSING, Kuwait - The last U.S. soldiers rolled out of Iraq across the border into neighboring Kuwait at daybreak Sunday, whooping, fist bumping and hugging each other in a burst of joy and relief. Their convoy's exit marked the end of a bitterly divisive war that raged for nearly nine years and left Iraq shattered and struggling to recover.
The war cost nearly 4,500 American and well more than 100,000 Iraqi lives and $800 billion from the U.S. Treasury. The question of whether it was worth it all — or whether the new government the Americans leave behind will remain a steadfast U.S. ally — is yet unanswered.
The 5-hour drive by the last convoy of MRAPS, heavily armored personnel carriers, took place under cover of darkness and under strict secrecy to prevent any final attacks on the withdrawing troops. The 500 soldiers didn't even tell their Iraqi partners they were leaving before they slipped out of the last American base and started down the barren desert highway to the Kuwaiti border before dawn Sunday.
The atmosphere was subdued inside one of the vehicles as it streamed down the highway, with little visible in the blackness outside through the MRAP's small windows. Along the road, a small group of Iraqi soldiers waved to the departing American troops.
But after crossing the berm at the Kuwaiti border, lit with floodlights and ringed with barbed wire, the troops from the 3rd brigade of the Army's 1st Cavalry Division were elated. They cheered, pumped fists in the air and gave each other chest bumps and bear hugs. "We're on top of the world!" shouted one soldier from the turret of his vehicle. "It's just an honor to be able to serve your country and say that you helped close out the war in Iraq," said Spc. Jesse Jones, a 23-year-old who volunteered to be in the last convoy.
The quiet withdrawal was a stark contrast to the high-octane start of the war, which began before dawn on March 20, 2003, with an airstrike in southern Baghdad where Saddam Hussein was believed to be hiding, the opening shot in the famed "shock and awe" bombardment. U.S. and allied ground forces then stormed from Kuwait across the featureless deserts of southern Iraq toward the capital.
Saddam and his regime fell within weeks, and the dictator was captured by the end of the year — to be executed by Iraq's new Shiite rulers in 2006. But Saddam's end only opened the door to years more of conflict as Iraq was plunged into a vicious sectarian war between its Shiite and Sunni communities. The near civil war devastated the country, and its legacy includes thousands of widows and orphans, a people deeply divided along sectarian lines and infrastructure that remains largely in ruins.
In the past two years, violence has dropped dramatically, and Iraqi security forces that U.S. troops struggled for years to train have improved. But the sectarian wounds remain unhealed. Even as U.S. troops were leaving, the main Sunni-backed political bloc announced Sunday it was suspending its participation in parliament to protest the monopoly on government posts by Shiite allies of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
President Barack Obama stopped short of calling the U.S. effort in Iraq a victory in an interview taped Thursday with ABC News' Barbara Walters. "I would describe our troops as having succeeded in the mission of giving to the Iraqis their country in a way that gives them a chance for a successful future," Obama said.
In the final days, U.S. officials acknowledged the cost in blood and dollars was high, but tried to paint a picture of victory — for both the troops and the Iraqi people now freed of a dictator and on a path to democracy. But gnawing questions remain: Will Iraqis be able to forge their new government amid the still stubborn sectarian clashes? And will Iraq be able to defend itself and remain independent in a region fraught with turmoil and still steeped in insurgent threats?
Some Iraqis celebrated the exit of what they called American occupiers, neither invited nor welcome in a proud country. Others said that while grateful for U.S. help ousting Saddam, the war went on too long. A majority of Americans would agree.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Polls confirm Newt Gingrich’s rise to top of GOP — and potential to fall
THE HILL By Jonathan Easley
Newt Gingrich has sustained his surprising rise in the polls for more than a month, and a slew of new state polling data has cemented the former House Speaker as the GOP’s leading candidate for the nomination.
Of the four early-voting states, polling shows Gingrich leading in three of them — Iowa, South Carolina and Florida — and gaining ground in New Hampshire. But the polls also show that a majority of voters are undecided, meaning Gingrich could face the reality that has plagued so many other GOP contenders — what goes up could also come down.
In Iowa, which is first to vote, with its Jan. 3 caucuses, Gingrich leads with 22 percent, according to an American Research Group poll of likely caucus-goers released on Monday. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul both came in at 17 percent, followed by Rick Perry at 13, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum at 7 percent and Jon Huntsman at 5 percent. Only two months ago, Gingrich was an afterthought in the Hawkeye State, at 8 percent.
Gingrich also leads in South Carolina and Florida, the third and fourth states to vote, according to a NBC News-Marist poll released Monday.
Gingrich is highly popular with the older voters who make up a large part of the Republican electorate in Florida. And perhaps surprisingly for a candidate who is so closely tied to Washington, Gingrich is buoyed by Tea Party support in South Carolina.
New Hampshire is the only one of the first four early-voting states where Gingrich doesn’t lead. Romney is widely viewed to have an advantage in the Granite State because of its proximity to Massachusetts. The former Massachusetts governor also owns a home in New Hampshire. But here too Gingrich is closing the gap, within 10 points of Romney, according to a CNN-Time-ORC poll released last week. Gingrich campaigned in New Hampshire on Monday and debated rival Jon Huntsman in Hollis, N.H., on Monday evening.
Gingrich has also opened up a lead nationally, beating Romney 33 percent to 23, according to Gallup’s Daily Tracking poll. Gingrich has maintained a double-digit lead in the poll since Dec. 1. However, in a Republican nomination process that has seen Perry, Bachmann, Cain and Donald Trump all spend time at the top of the polls, a lot could change. According to the CNN-Time-ORC poll, 55 percent of voters in Iowa and South Carolina said they were open to changing their minds, while 53 percent of Florida voters and 48 percent of New Hampshire voters said the same.
Newt Gingrich has sustained his surprising rise in the polls for more than a month, and a slew of new state polling data has cemented the former House Speaker as the GOP’s leading candidate for the nomination.
Of the four early-voting states, polling shows Gingrich leading in three of them — Iowa, South Carolina and Florida — and gaining ground in New Hampshire. But the polls also show that a majority of voters are undecided, meaning Gingrich could face the reality that has plagued so many other GOP contenders — what goes up could also come down.
In Iowa, which is first to vote, with its Jan. 3 caucuses, Gingrich leads with 22 percent, according to an American Research Group poll of likely caucus-goers released on Monday. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul both came in at 17 percent, followed by Rick Perry at 13, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum at 7 percent and Jon Huntsman at 5 percent. Only two months ago, Gingrich was an afterthought in the Hawkeye State, at 8 percent.
Gingrich also leads in South Carolina and Florida, the third and fourth states to vote, according to a NBC News-Marist poll released Monday.
Gingrich is highly popular with the older voters who make up a large part of the Republican electorate in Florida. And perhaps surprisingly for a candidate who is so closely tied to Washington, Gingrich is buoyed by Tea Party support in South Carolina.
New Hampshire is the only one of the first four early-voting states where Gingrich doesn’t lead. Romney is widely viewed to have an advantage in the Granite State because of its proximity to Massachusetts. The former Massachusetts governor also owns a home in New Hampshire. But here too Gingrich is closing the gap, within 10 points of Romney, according to a CNN-Time-ORC poll released last week. Gingrich campaigned in New Hampshire on Monday and debated rival Jon Huntsman in Hollis, N.H., on Monday evening.
Gingrich has also opened up a lead nationally, beating Romney 33 percent to 23, according to Gallup’s Daily Tracking poll. Gingrich has maintained a double-digit lead in the poll since Dec. 1. However, in a Republican nomination process that has seen Perry, Bachmann, Cain and Donald Trump all spend time at the top of the polls, a lot could change. According to the CNN-Time-ORC poll, 55 percent of voters in Iowa and South Carolina said they were open to changing their minds, while 53 percent of Florida voters and 48 percent of New Hampshire voters said the same.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
NTSB recommends full ban on use of cell phones while driving
Washington (CNN) -- A federal safety board called Tuesday for a nationwide ban on the use of cell phones and text messaging devices while driving.
The recommendation is the most far-reaching yet by the National Transportation Safety Board, which in the past 10 years has increasingly sought to limit the use of portable electronic devices -- recommending bans for novice drivers, school bus drivers and commercial truckers. Tuesday's recommendation, if adopted by states, would outlaw non-emergency phone calls and texting by operators of every vehicle on the road.
It would apply to hands-free as well as hand-held devices, but devices installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer would be allowed, the NTSB said. The recommendation would not affect passengers' rights to use such devices.
NTSB members say the action is necessary to combat a growing threat posed by distracted drivers. While distracted driving has been a problem "since the Model T," in the words of NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman, authorities say it has become ubiquitous with the explosion in the number of portable smart phones. At any given daylight moment, some 13.5 million drivers are on hand-held phones, according to a study released last week by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Some 3,092 roadway fatalities last year involved distracted drivers, although the actual number may be far higher, NHTSA said. "This (distracted driving) is becoming the new DUI. It's becoming epidemic," said NTSB member Robert Sumwalt.
Accident investigators routinely seek protective orders to preserve smart phones for use as evidence in accident investigations, Hersman said. But because distracted drivers sometimes do not own up to their actions, or because they die during the crash, determining whether distraction was a factor in an accident can be difficult.
That was the case in a 2010 chain-reaction accident near Gray Summit, Missouri. During the 11 minutes prior to that incident, the driver of a pickup truck received five text messages, and sent six, and he was seen leaning over just before the accident, leading investigators to believe the driver was likely distracted when his truck plowed at 55 mph into the rear of a tractor trailer, which had slowed or stopped because of a highway work zone. Two school buses then plowed into the wreckage. Two people -- including the pickup truck driver and a bus occupant -- were killed; 38 other people were injured.
The driver of the pickup truck was 19 years old, and was in violation of a Missouri law prohibiting drivers under the age of 21 from texting while driving. But the safety board focused little on the age of the driver, casting "distracted driving" as epidemic among people of all ages.
A Virginia Tech Transportation Institute study of commercial drivers found that a safety-critical event is 163 times more likely if a driver is texting, e-mailing or accessing the Internet.
The recommendation is the most far-reaching yet by the National Transportation Safety Board, which in the past 10 years has increasingly sought to limit the use of portable electronic devices -- recommending bans for novice drivers, school bus drivers and commercial truckers. Tuesday's recommendation, if adopted by states, would outlaw non-emergency phone calls and texting by operators of every vehicle on the road.
It would apply to hands-free as well as hand-held devices, but devices installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer would be allowed, the NTSB said. The recommendation would not affect passengers' rights to use such devices.
NTSB members say the action is necessary to combat a growing threat posed by distracted drivers. While distracted driving has been a problem "since the Model T," in the words of NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman, authorities say it has become ubiquitous with the explosion in the number of portable smart phones. At any given daylight moment, some 13.5 million drivers are on hand-held phones, according to a study released last week by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Some 3,092 roadway fatalities last year involved distracted drivers, although the actual number may be far higher, NHTSA said. "This (distracted driving) is becoming the new DUI. It's becoming epidemic," said NTSB member Robert Sumwalt.
Accident investigators routinely seek protective orders to preserve smart phones for use as evidence in accident investigations, Hersman said. But because distracted drivers sometimes do not own up to their actions, or because they die during the crash, determining whether distraction was a factor in an accident can be difficult.
That was the case in a 2010 chain-reaction accident near Gray Summit, Missouri. During the 11 minutes prior to that incident, the driver of a pickup truck received five text messages, and sent six, and he was seen leaning over just before the accident, leading investigators to believe the driver was likely distracted when his truck plowed at 55 mph into the rear of a tractor trailer, which had slowed or stopped because of a highway work zone. Two school buses then plowed into the wreckage. Two people -- including the pickup truck driver and a bus occupant -- were killed; 38 other people were injured.
The driver of the pickup truck was 19 years old, and was in violation of a Missouri law prohibiting drivers under the age of 21 from texting while driving. But the safety board focused little on the age of the driver, casting "distracted driving" as epidemic among people of all ages.
A Virginia Tech Transportation Institute study of commercial drivers found that a safety-critical event is 163 times more likely if a driver is texting, e-mailing or accessing the Internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)