Before today's battles over cell phones and distracted driving, there were battles over car radios and distracted driving. Matt Novak (of Paleofuture fame) describes the debate in the Pacific Standard:
In the early 1930s legislators in states like Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Ohio all proposed steep fines for drivers, while others imagined that making the installation [of a car rado] a crime—since few automobiles came with them pre-installed—would help keep drivers safe. In May of 1935 state legislators in Connecticut introduced a bill that would have made the installation of radio into a car subject to a $50 fine, or about $825 adjusted for inflation. It didn't pass.
Naturally, industry pushed back:
In 1930 the former president of the Radio Manufacturers Association, C.C. Colby, claimed that talking to people in the back seat of the car posed a greater risk to public safety than the new car radio: "Radio is not distracting because it demands no attention from the driver and requires no answer, as does conversation between the driver and passengers. Motor car radio is tuned by ear without the driver taking his eyes off the road. It is less disconcerting than the rear view mirror."…
Instead, they said, radio might actually reduce the number of collisions. Bond Geddes, executive vice president of the Radio Manufacturers Association, said in 1935: "Since that time [when auto radio first became popular] there has not been a single case according to any information in our possession where an automobile radio has been the cause of any major accident. Against this is the almost unanimous opinion of operators of automobiles equipped with radio that they tend to reduce speed and, therefore, are not a source of danger but actually become a safety factor."
Read the whole thing here. Then prepare to relive the argument yet again when drivers start wearing Google Glass.
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com
posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary
period.
Subscribe
here to preserve your ability to comment. Your
Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the
digital
edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do
not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments
do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and
ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
In 1930 the former president of the Radio Manufacturers Association, C.C. Colby, claimed that talking to people in the back seat of the car posed a greater risk to public safety than the new car radio
How is talking to someone in the back seat more or less distracting than using a cell phone?
" "Radio is not distracting because it demands no attention from the driver and requires no answer, as does conversation between the driver and passengers."
And comparisons of cell-phone use to radio use are an argument for using cell phones while driving...how?
How is talking to someone in the back seat more or less distracting than using a cell phone?
I imagine it would be more distracting if you turned around in your seat.
Especially if you're Italian.
The image should have been today's Friday Funnies. Back in those days, cartoonists showed true mastery of the use of labels.
The people I see most using cell phones while driving are police officers.
They've had training. Have you had training? See? That's why they don't have to follow the laws that they enforce. They've had training.
Hell, I've seen them typing instant messages on their in-car laptops while driving.
"Then prepare to relive the argument yet again when drivers start wearing Google Glass."
Wouldn't that involve somebody wearing Google Glass? I think we're safe.
" "Radio is not distracting because it demands no attention from the driver and requires no answer, as does conversation between the driver and passengers."
And comparisons of cell-phone use to radio use are an argument for using cell phones while driving...how?