PDA

View Full Version : Nationwide Hands free Cell Phone Ban for Drivers Urged


Pages : [1] 2

MacNut
Jan 11, 2009, 10:09 PM
SUNDAY, Jan. 11 (HealthDay News) -- A leading consumer safety organization is calling for a nationwide ban on drivers using all cell phones and other messaging devices.

While there are a few state and local laws banning drivers from using hand-held cell phones, the National Safety Council (NSC) believes it's time to make it unanimous.

The NSC plans to lobby in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., for laws that ban both hand-held and hands-free cell phone use as well as texting while driving. The council also plans to work with the U.S. government to develop incentive programs and sanctions that will force states to enact such laws.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/11/AR2009011101959.htmlWhy stop at cell phones, ban everything in the car.:mad: So stupid.

dukebound85
Jan 11, 2009, 10:16 PM
about time. cell phones while driving should have been banned from the start

seriously, is it too much to simply pull over and take a call? i know thats the policy for some companies or you risk losing your job

r.j.s
Jan 11, 2009, 10:17 PM
Awesome, hand-held and hands-free. While I agree with hand-held bans, there is no need to make them mandatory. We have a ban on hand-held here, yet everyday I get cutoff by at least 4 drivers yapping on their phones.

If they ban this, they need to ban: smoking, eating, drinking (any beverage) and talking while driving.

MacNut
Jan 11, 2009, 10:18 PM
The problem is cell phones are not the only distractions, how about eating or smoking?

Shut down all drive thru's.

dukebound85
Jan 11, 2009, 10:19 PM
The problem is cell phones are not the only distractions, how about eating or smoking?

so why is it bad to ban one of the distractions again?

i believe cell phones are a worse distraction than say smoking as yout mind focuses on talking and conversing with the other person

heres an interesting study (about how much of a distraction cell phones are)
http://www.cmu.edu/news/archive/2008/March/march5_drivingwhilelistening.shtml

GoCubsGo
Jan 11, 2009, 10:19 PM
Awesome, hand-held and hands-free. While I agree with hand-held bans, there is no need to make them mandatory. We have a ban on hand-held here, yet everyday I get cutoff by at least 4 drivers yapping on their phones.

If they ban this, they need to ban: smoking, eating, drinking and talking while driving.

Exactly! I believe in the hands free bit but banning cell phone all over? Is it hard to pull over and take a call? YES, in some places it is too risky to pull over and then merge back into traffic. IE: The 405 freeway. :D

Ban smoking, eating, drinking, talking, reading, putting on makeup, talking to a passenger, playing with a radio, rolling down a window, etc. etc. :rolleyes:

r.j.s
Jan 11, 2009, 10:20 PM
Ok, so if you have bluetooth built into your car, how will they know?

MacNut
Jan 11, 2009, 10:21 PM
so why is it bad to ban one of the distractions again?If you ban one ban them all.

r.j.s
Jan 11, 2009, 10:21 PM
Ban smoking, eating, drinking, talking, reading, putting on makeup, talking to a passenger, playing with a radio, rolling down a window, etc. etc. :rolleyes:

Damn, I missed some.

We need to keep a running tally of everything they need to ban, then submit it to this group - tell them if they are going to ban cell phones, they had better ban all of this crap.

NT1440
Jan 11, 2009, 10:22 PM
about time. cell phones while driving should have been banned from the start

seriously, is it too much to simply pull over and take a call? i know thats the policy for some companies or you risk losing your job
+1

If you really need to talk so bad get a damn bluetooth headset.

The number of deaths cause by stupid people texting/using their phone is just plain stupid. Remember that SUV full of teenage girls that got killed?

MacNut
Jan 11, 2009, 10:23 PM
+1

If you really need to talk so bad get a damn bluetooth headset.They want to ban those too.

dukebound85
Jan 11, 2009, 10:24 PM
If you ban one ban them all.

so lets not ban a major distraction because smoking and driving wont necessarily be banned :rolleyes:

give me a break

as a motorcycle rider, cell phones while driving should be banned period. ive been cut off too many times by drivers not paying attention since they are on their effing phones

MacNut
Jan 11, 2009, 10:26 PM
I think smoking and eating are worse than talking.

GoCubsGo
Jan 11, 2009, 10:27 PM
so lets not ban a major distraction because smoking and driving wont necessarily be banned :rolleyes:

give me a break

as a motorcycle rider, cell phones while driving should be banned period. ive been cut off too many times by drivers not paying attention since they are on their effing phones

And I suppose we could discuss splitting lanes then too. It is not illegal to split lanes in some states still (IE: California).

NT1440
Jan 11, 2009, 10:27 PM
MacNut, why are u even outraged, its been illegal here for years.....

r.j.s
Jan 11, 2009, 10:28 PM
I think smoking and eating are worse than talking.

Damn straight, have you ever seen how someone reacts when they drop their smoke?

MacNut
Jan 11, 2009, 10:28 PM
MacNut, why are u even outraged, its been illegal here for years.....Not hands free. This is a blanket ban on everything.

r.j.s
Jan 11, 2009, 10:29 PM
MacNut, why are u even outraged, its been illegal here for years.....

Not hands free. This is a blanket ban on everything.

That's the key, they want to ban the cell phone from vehicles, essentially.

NT1440
Jan 11, 2009, 10:29 PM
Not hands free. This is a blanket ban on everything.

Could you point that out in the article? I skimmed the two pages looking for hands free being part of the ban but all I found was them saying its almost just as bad.

dukebound85
Jan 11, 2009, 10:31 PM
And I suppose we could discuss splitting lanes then too. It is not illegal to split lanes in some states still (IE: California).

umm what? how does that even relate to this thread about banning cell phones?

why dont we argue about speeding as in some other countries there are no speed limits...yea not relevant at all to topic at hand:rolleyes:

.Andy
Jan 11, 2009, 10:31 PM
Shut down all drive thru's.
This would be a step in the right direction as well :D!

r.j.s
Jan 11, 2009, 10:31 PM
Could you point that out in the article? I skimmed the two pages looking for hands free being part of the ban but all I found was them saying its almost just as bad.

Third graf

The NSC plans to lobby in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., for laws that ban both hand-held and hands-free cell phone use as well as texting while driving.

dukebound85
Jan 11, 2009, 10:36 PM
http://www.allencountydrivealive.org/cell%20phones.htm

oh and hands free are just as dangerous while driving

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/10/17/cellphone-handsfree.html


explain why a call is sooo important that it cant wait till you stop or pull off to the side of a road? because its an inconvienence? boohoo

sorry, any law that makes the road safeer for me is A-OK by me. why should i get hit due to some idiot on a cell phone when there could be laws that discourage that behavior?

MacNut
Jan 11, 2009, 10:37 PM
http://www.allencountydrivealive.org/cell%20phones.htm

oh and hands free are just as dangerous while driving

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/10/17/cellphone-handsfree.html


explain why a call is sooo important that it cant wait till you stop or pull off to the side of a road?But is smoking or eating not dangerous?

NT1440
Jan 11, 2009, 10:39 PM
Third graf

Thanks, it must be me in a dark room or my headache that made me miss that:)

I personally dislike how reliant we've become on cell phones, with calling about the stupidest little things to texting nonstop. I realize some people actually rely on them, but while driving, no, ive been in too many cars with my friends and it just scares me how bad some people drive with a phone in hand.

But then again, thats from the perspective of a 17 year old whos never owned a cell phone.

NT1440
Jan 11, 2009, 10:40 PM
But is smoking or eating not dangerous?

Neither require near the brain power or cognitive skills, its mostly muscle memory.

dukebound85
Jan 11, 2009, 10:40 PM
But is smoking or eating not dangerous?

not as dangerous as you arent nearly as distracted smoking as your are when talking. your mind gets off focus of driving when you talk as you focus on what you are saying


but thats besides the point. why are you against banning an activity that is known to be very dangerous while driving (more so or equal than drinking). because its not also banning every other distraction? thats horrible logic

MacNut
Jan 11, 2009, 10:42 PM
I would say reaching for the burger or soda or changing the radio is more distracting.

.Andy
Jan 11, 2009, 10:43 PM
But is smoking or eating not dangerous?
Good point. Are they as dangerous as talking on a phone (I don't know the answer to this)? If so you should suggest adding smoking and eating as part of the proposal to be considered.

NT1440
Jan 11, 2009, 10:44 PM
I would say reaching or the burger or soda or changing the radio is more distracting.

Both of which take a few seconds max. Conversations dont usually end that abruptly.

MacNut
Jan 11, 2009, 10:45 PM
Both of which take a few seconds max. Conversations dont usually end that abruptly.But your eyes are on the road when you are talking, it only takes a second to reach down and hit something.

Sun Baked
Jan 11, 2009, 10:45 PM
I would say reaching for the burger or soda or changing the radio is more distracting.

I'd say watching a movie on the hacked DVD player in the dash is the most distracting. ;)

dukebound85
Jan 11, 2009, 10:45 PM
I would say reaching for the burger or soda or changing the radio is more distracting.

ooook not saying those activities are safe but let me repeat my post


but thats besides the point. why are you against banning an activity that is known to be very dangerous while driving (more so or equal than drinking). because its not also banning every other distraction? thats horrible logic

.Andy
Jan 11, 2009, 10:46 PM
Instead of arguing over this why don't you guys try and back your points up with some data from studies?

edit: in the context of the relative dangers of smoking/drinking/phone use in causing accidents.

GoCubsGo
Jan 11, 2009, 10:47 PM
umm what? how does that even relate to this thread about banning cell phones?

why dont we argue about speeding as in some other countries there are no speed limits...yea not relevant at all to topic at hand:rolleyes:

It relates because you're pissing and moaning about bad drivers when motorcycle drivers are also a huge problem with their antics. So you're not talking on a phone but you're doing something just as bad. It relates, but not in your favor ... clearly.

r.j.s
Jan 11, 2009, 10:47 PM
I'd say watching a movie on the hacked DVD player in the dash is the most distracting. ;)

No *****. Why do people do that? I've seen people driving to work in the morning with a movie playing on all 5 screens that I can see, and they're the only one in the car.

dukebound85
Jan 11, 2009, 10:51 PM
It relates because you're pissing and moaning about bad drivers when motorcycle drivers are also a huge problem with their antics. So you're not talking on a phone but you're doing something just as bad. It relates, but not in your favor ... clearly.

please, there are many more safe riders than those that arent

there are also magnitudes more drivers who talk on cell phones than those who split lanes

why are you eveb trying to talk about motorcycle riders as dangerous?. you dont get the point do you? i could say even as a car driver its dangerous to get hit by an idiot whos talking on the phone

i said motorcycle as there is alot more potential to get injured due to a simple fender bender than if i were in a car. i said as a motorcycle rider as i now have a greater appreciateion for road safety than i did when i just drove a car


why dont we argue about speeders, those who run red lights as well. i mean those activites are dangerous. who woulda thunk

you post is not relevant at all.

pissing and moaning? how about more like wanting laws that enact greater road safety:rolleyes:

sorry if i value my life over another persons phone call. some people...

anjinha
Jan 11, 2009, 10:53 PM
It's funny how things are different from country to country. I never thought of eating in the car as dangerous because people here usually don't do it, plain and simple.

NT1440
Jan 11, 2009, 10:54 PM
But your eyes are on the road when you are talking, it only takes a second to reach down and hit something.

Eyes yes, but your brain, according to dukes article, is paying 37% less attention.

Sure u can see something, but if u dont process it quick enough whats the point.

MacNut
Jan 11, 2009, 10:56 PM
Eyes yes, but your brain, according to dukes article, is paying 37% less attention.

Sure u can see something, but if u dont process it quick enough whats the point.So how is that different from talking to a passenger.

NT1440
Jan 11, 2009, 10:57 PM
So how is that different from talking to a passenger.

So your NOT going to read the article? It says it in there.

dukebound85
Jan 11, 2009, 10:57 PM
MacNut

care to respond to my post? here it is once again


but thats besides the point. why are you against banning an activity that is known to be very dangerous while driving (more so or equal than drinking). because its not also banning every other distraction? thats horrible logic

anjinha
Jan 11, 2009, 10:59 PM
So how is that different from talking to a passenger.

Because the passenger is in the car with you and is also watching the road.

MacNut
Jan 11, 2009, 11:02 PM
I don't think you can just single out cell phones, if any distraction makes a driver less aware what is the problem with banning everything. I think the worst part about talking on a phone is the initial call. I never drive with 2 hands, I could be staring straight ahead not on the phone and only use one hand. So I don't buy the 2 hand argument.

I got into an accident because I was looking at the radio, it had nothing to do with a phone.

dukebound85
Jan 11, 2009, 11:05 PM
I don't think you can just single out cell phones, if any distraction makes a driver less aware what is the problem with banning everything. I think the worst part about talking on a phone is the initial call. I never drive with 2 hands, I could be staring straight ahead not on the phone and only use one hand. So I don't buy the 2 hand argument.

I got into an accident because I was looking at the radio, it had nothing to do with a phone.

but if its known that driving while talking on a phone is very dangerous, then how can anyone be against banning it? even if the ban doesnt include every other distraction.

or by your logic, should we un-ban drinking and driving since smoking and driving isnt banned as well?

the studies ive linked to prove that talking on the phone while driving is just as dangerous as driving drunk

MacNut
Jan 11, 2009, 11:07 PM
but if its known that driving while talking on a phone is very dangerous, then how can anyone be against banning it? even if the ban doesnt include every other distraction.

or by your logic, should we un-ban drinking and driving since smoking and driving isnt banned as well?

the studies ive linked to prove that talking on the phone while driving is just as dangerous as driving drunkBut have you found studies about eating? Because there are no studies it is fine?

I not saying cell phones are the best thing while driving, but don't just single them out.

NT1440
Jan 11, 2009, 11:08 PM
But have you found studies about eating? Because there are no studies it is fine?

I not saying cell phones are the best thing while driving, but don't just single them out.

Fine we ban everything, are you happy with that?

GoCubsGo
Jan 11, 2009, 11:08 PM
I think you're simply looking for a fight. I am all about safety, despite your random and completely wrong assumptions ... some people ... but you're deciding that what I say is irrelevant because it doesn't favor your initial theory. This discussion stopped being just about cell phones somewhere around post 5. I know it and you know it. :rolleyes:

anjinha
Jan 11, 2009, 11:10 PM
I don't think you can just single out cell phones, if any distraction makes a driver less aware what is the problem with banning everything. I think the worst part about talking on a phone is the initial call. I never drive with 2 hands, I could be staring straight ahead not on the phone and only use one hand. So I don't buy the 2 hand argument.

I got into an accident because I was looking at the radio, it had nothing to do with a phone.

So driving drunk should be ok as long as you keep your eyes on the road?

MacNut
Jan 11, 2009, 11:10 PM
My argument is why are we just focusing on cell phones, lets broaden it out. Cell phones are an easy target.

.Andy
Jan 11, 2009, 11:10 PM
In case anyone is interested here's a literature review from the Monahs University Accident Research Centre comparing crash statistics from 2006. They compare technology distractions (i.e. phones, GPS units, email/internet search, and radios) to non-technology distractions (eating, drinking, smoking, talking to passenger).

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc206.pdf

8.1 Summary of Key Findings

The following are the key findings that emerged from this literature review:

8.1.1 Mobile Phones

• Many studies have found that using a hands-free phone while driving is no safer
than using a hand-held phone (Haigney, Taylor & Westerman, 2000; Matthews
et al. 2003; Redelmeier & Tibshirani, 1997). Using a mobile phone while
driving can increase the risk of being involved in a collision by up to four times
(Redelmeier & Tibshirani, 1997).

• Research suggests that both the physical and cognitive distraction caused by
using mobile phones while driving can significantly impair a driver’s visual
search patterns, reaction times, decision-making processes and their ability to
maintain speed, throttle control and lateral position on the road (Green et al.,
1993; Reed & Green, 1999).

• Mobile phone use also often involves associated tasks that may further distract
the driver. These activities can include accessing written information such as a
phone number on a piece of paper or writing dates or notes in diaries.

• Sending a text message is far more distracting than simply talking on a mobile
phone (Direct Line, 2002).

• Research has found that talking on a mobile phone is more distracting than
holding an intelligent conversation with a passenger, but no more distracting
than eating a cheeseburger (Jenness et al., 2002; RoSPA, 1997).

8.1.2 Route Guidance Systems

• Entering destination information is believed to be the most distracting task
associated with the use of a route guidance system, however use of voice input
technology can reduce the distraction associated with this task.

• Route guidance systems that present navigation instructions using voice output
are less distracting and more usable than those systems that present the
information on a visual display.

• Route guidance systems with voice recognition technology are a more
ergonomic and safer option than systems that require visual-manual entry
(Tijerina et al., 1998).

• Route guidance systems that provide turn-by turn instructions, rather than
presenting complex holistic route information, are less distracting to the driver
and present the most useable means of navigation (Dingus et al., 1995).

8.1.3 Email and Internet Facilities

• Some researchers believe that speech-based email systems have the potential to
distract drivers and undermine road safety (Burns & Lansdown, 2002; Technical
Insights, 2001). As a result, a growing number of system designers are
recognising that speech-based systems are not a panacea for driver distraction
and are focusing on developing alternative interfaces such as those that rely on tactile feedback.

8.1.4 Entertainment Systems

• Tuning a radio while driving appears to have a detrimental effect on driving
performance, particularly for inexperienced drivers.

• Research also suggests that simply listening to radio broadcasts while driving
can impair driving performance (Jäncke et al., 1994).

• Research suggests that operating a CD player while driving is more distracting
than dialling a mobile phone and eating, however the use of voice-activation
may minimise this distraction.


8.1.5 Non-Technology Based Distraction

• A recent study by the American Automobile Association’s Foundation for
Traffic Safety revealed that a greater proportion of drivers involved in traffic
accidents are distracted by eating or drinking (1.7%) than by talking on a mobile
phone (1.5%) (Stutts et al., 2001). Results of an experimental study by Jenness
et al. (2002) also corroborate the results of Stutts et al. They found that eating a
cheeseburger was as distracting as using a voice-activated dialling system, but
less distracting than continuously operating a CD player.

• Several studies have found that smoking while driving increases the risk of
being involved in a crash (Brison, 1990; Christie, 1990; Violanti & Marshall,
1996).

• A summary of current research on teenage passengers revealed that the presence
of passengers increases crash risk, particularly for younger drivers, and this is
believed to result largely from distraction and peer-pressure (Williams, 2001).

Overall, there is evidence that both technology-based and non-technology-based
distractions can have a detrimental effect on driving performance. The extent, however,
to which distraction compromises safety is dependent on the frequency with which the
driver is exposed to the source of distraction in question. Very little, if anything, is
currently known in Australia, or in other countries, about the relative frequency with
which technology and non-technology-based tasks are performed.

MacNut
Jan 11, 2009, 11:11 PM
So driving drunk should be ok as long as you keep your eyes on the road?Where did I say drunk driving? I said lets blanket ban everything that is bad.

dukebound85
Jan 11, 2009, 11:11 PM
But have you found studies about eating? Because there are no studies it is fine?

I not saying cell phones are the best thing while driving, but don't just single them out.

why must eating be banned as well as phone for you to be ok with this? why must it be all or nothing? why cant you recognize that this will make the roads safer even if you dont ban everything else?

NT1440
Jan 11, 2009, 11:11 PM
My argument is why are we just focusing on cell phones, lets broaden it out. Cell phones are an easy target.

Exactly!

Thats why its a great place to start!

MacNut
Jan 11, 2009, 11:14 PM
why must eating be banned as well as phone for you to be ok with this? why must it be all or nothing? why cant you recognize that this will make the roads safer even if you dont ban everything else?Because I don't think it will be safer just banning cell phones. Ok is riding a motorcycle without a helmet ok? I see people do that all the time.

NT1440
Jan 11, 2009, 11:15 PM
Because I don't think it will be safer just banning cell phones.

:eek:

WHY?!

Less distraction = Less distraction anyway you cut it.

I think its a great place to start.

Edit: I also beleive riding a motorcycle without a helmet is ticketable in CT. I beleive they should all wear helmets.

dukebound85
Jan 11, 2009, 11:15 PM
Because I don't think it will be safer just banning cell phones.
really? not at all? care to explain that to me?
Ok is riding a motorcycle without a helmet ok? I see people do that all the time.

what? thats not even related. its not a distraction

why dont we talk about driving witout seatbelts too....yea not related to distractions while driving...:rolleyes:

MacNut
Jan 11, 2009, 11:17 PM
:eek:

WHY?!

Less distraction = Less distraction anyway you cut it.

I think its a great place to start.

really? not at all? care to explain that to me?Why are we just focusing on one distraction when others have been around much longer.

dukebound85
Jan 11, 2009, 11:18 PM
Why are we just focusing on one distraction when others have been around much longer.

so until everything is banned, no incremental steps should be considered.

um ok

NT1440
Jan 11, 2009, 11:20 PM
Why are we just focusing on one distraction when others have been around much longer.

Because you need to start somewhere. You know this country, we are so opposed to big change that something like that could never happen, do it little by little and its more acceptable.

That mentality is a double edged sword tho....

MacNut
Jan 11, 2009, 11:24 PM
Because you need to start somewhere. You know this country, we are so opposed to big change that something like that could never happen, do it little by little and its more acceptable.

That mentality is a double edged sword tho....So why are we starting with cell phones? Why no uproar about McDonald's drive thru's. Cell phones are a scapegoat and the lobbing is easier.

NT1440
Jan 11, 2009, 11:30 PM
So why are we starting with cell phones? Why no uproar about McDonald's drive thru's. Cell phones are a scapegoat and the lobbing is easier.

Why ask questions that you are just going to answer?

Yes its easier, which is why its a great place to start.

MacNut
Jan 11, 2009, 11:32 PM
Why ask questions that you are just going to answer?

Yes its easier, which is why its a great place to start.And you know that the fast food joints will never allow their drive thru's to be closed. That doesn't make the any more safe.

MasterNile
Jan 11, 2009, 11:34 PM
Well I really don't know what to think about this...it really doesn't affect me due to lack of a cellphone, but where else would they take this?

sorry, any law that makes the road safeer for me is A-OK by me. why should i get hit due to some idiot on a cell phone when there could be laws that discourage that behavior?

Why should you die or have more injuries just because you decide you like riding a motorcycle more than inside a car? Wouldn't a law against motorcycles on city streets prevent deaths and injuries as well?

The government should not be forced to babysit it's citizens while removing all of our choices. Sometimes it comes down to personal responsibility, do I think people should talk on cellphones while driving, no, but should the government be the one to make that decision, no. It is up to the people that are using the cellphones to decide "hey, maybe I don't want to run over any small children today, so I will not make/recieve any calls until I either pull over or get to my destination," but then again, I'm kind of an idealist I suppose.

I don't think you can just single out cell phones, if any distraction makes a driver less aware what is the problem with banning everything. I think the worst part about talking on a phone is the initial call. I never drive with 2 hands, I could be staring straight ahead not on the phone and only use one hand. So I don't buy the 2 hand argument.

I got into an accident because I was looking at the radio, it had nothing to do with a phone.

So if they said "after we ban cellphones from cars we will ban every other distraction as well," would you be OK with it then? or are you trying to get people to see that this will set precident for the government to ban all sorts of ridiculous things as well?

MacNut
Jan 11, 2009, 11:38 PM
So if they said "after we ban cellphones from cars we will ban every other distraction as well," would you be OK with it then? or are you trying to get people to see that this will set precident for the government to ban all sorts of ridiculous things as well?Right now we have double standards, People seem to be ok with cell phone bans, but I wonder how they would like food bans.

dukebound85
Jan 11, 2009, 11:40 PM
The government should not be forced to babysit it's citizens while removing all of our choices. Sometimes it comes down to personal responsibility, do I think people should talk on cellphones while driving, no, but should the government be the one to make that decision, no. It is up to the people that are using the cellphones to decide "hey, maybe I don't want to run over any small children today, so I will not make/recieve any calls until I either pull over or get to my destination," but then again, I'm kind of an idealist I suppose.


so you are against seatbelt and helmet laws too?

driving is not a right, its a priveledge:cool:

.Andy
Jan 11, 2009, 11:41 PM
Why should you die or have more injuries just because you decide you like riding a motorcycle more than inside a car? Wouldn't a law against motorcycles on city streets prevent deaths and injuries as well?
In the case of riding a motorcycle that puts the individual riding the motorcycle at risk first and foremost. In the case of being distracted whilst driving a motor vehicle you're seriously putting other people on the road in danger.

Right now we have double standards, People seem to be ok with cell phone bans, but I wonder how they would like food bans.
I'd be fine with both if there is evidence that it reduces accidents and road fatalities. In fact I can't remember the last time I ate while I drove. Eating is one of the greatest pleasures in life - why wouldn't one stop off in a park or cafe for a feed? Is anyone seriously that busy that the only place they car eat is their car whilst driving?

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 12:00 AM
Is anyone seriously that busy that the only place they car eat is their car whilst driving?People live in their cars here.

MasterNile
Jan 12, 2009, 12:03 AM
In the case of riding a motorcycle that puts the individual riding the motorcycle at risk first and foremost. In the case of being distracted whilst driving a motor vehicle you're seriously putting other people on the road in danger.

Well seat belt laws and helmets would already set precident for that, not wearing a seat belt (as far as I know if you can find any other evidence against this I will be proven wrong) only hurts those that choose not to wear them, yet it is still a law.

so you are against seatbelt and helmet laws too?

driving is not a right, its a priveledge:cool:

Well I'm kind of iffy on this, (and remember idealistic about the whole thing, oh it's fun living in fantasy land) people should be smart enough to wear seatbelts and helmets on their own without threat of tickets, but I do realize that people as a whole are stupid.

You know at this point I had some other things that I was going to say but however I could already hear the other side of it in my head (yes I argue with myself a lot cause I'm very good at playing devils advocate and seeing it from the other side). Like it should be left to the individual states to decide and each state should take a vote, but then again I realize people as a whole are stupid, so until I consider this more, you guys debate amongst yourselves.

NT1440
Jan 12, 2009, 12:08 AM
I could already hear the other side of it in my head (yes I argue with myself a lot cause I'm very good at playing devils advocate and seeing it from the other side).

Schizophrenia's a bitch aint it?:p

I do the same thing, run through full out scenarios in my head all the time. Sometimes it really worries me.

dukebound85
Jan 12, 2009, 12:11 AM
Well seat belt laws and helmets would already set precident for that, not wearing a seat belt (as far as I know if you can find any other evidence against this I will be proven wrong) only hurts those that choose not to wear them, yet it is still a law..

i think you forget the role of insurance in all of this

it can most certainly hurt the driver monetarily if the people he hit accidentaly did not wear seatbelts for example...thus making insurance claims well more than he is covered for

i for one, am gald we have seat belt laws

MasterNile
Jan 12, 2009, 12:11 AM
Schizophrenia's a bitch aint it?:p

I do the same thing, run through full out scenarios in my head all the time. Sometimes it really worries me.

LOL Indeed it is. Sometimes it really worries me too, but then the voices in my head say it's OK. :p

Edit:
i think you forget the role of insurance in all of this

Yes, you're right...more to think about.

NT1440
Jan 12, 2009, 12:15 AM
LOL Indeed it is. Sometimes it really worries me too, but then the voices in my head say it's OK. :p


I just get upset when they yell:eek:

On topic:

I dont think my position on cell phones is ever going to change, to me they are just ANOTHER distraction that only stands to get worse.

anjinha
Jan 12, 2009, 12:18 AM
Schizophrenia's a bitch aint it?:p

I do the same thing, run through full out scenarios in my head all the time. Sometimes it really worries me.

Oh good, I'm not the only one.

You know what's worse? Sometimes I hear myself think like it's another person and I have nothing to do with and I'm completely out of it thinking "wow, that is really stupid."

MasterNile
Jan 12, 2009, 12:23 AM
I dont think my position on cell phones is ever going to change, to me they are just ANOTHER distraction that only stands to get worse.

Well see I work for an answering service and we deal with a lot of A/C technicians and what not and sometimes people will call to get their A/C fixed and the techs hop in the truck and go, then the person will call back and cancel the call, so I have to call them while they're on the road, the smart thing to do would be pull over and answer the call, but the companies would then get upset cause of wasted time if it was another person calling to get their A/C fixed, but if they drove all the way to the job and found out when they got there the call had been cancelled then that's more wasted time, so in that situation you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Again I'm still thinking this over just wanted to give you some food for thought.

NT1440
Jan 12, 2009, 12:26 AM
Well see I work for an answering service and we deal with a lot of A/C technicians and what not and sometimes people will call to get their A/C fixed and the techs hop in the truck and go, then the person will call back and cancel the call, so I have to call them while they're on the road, the smart thing to do would be pull over and answer the call, but the companies would then get upset cause of wasted time if it was another person calling to get their A/C fixed, but if they drove all the way to the job and found out when they got there the call had been cancelled then that's more wasted time, so in that situation you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Again I'm still thinking this over just wanted to give you some food for thought.

I'd pull over every time, and if it cost me my job, then they'd get a nice lawsuit for trying to put my safety, as well as others, at risk and essentially forcing me to break the law.

I live in CT where cell phone use while driving is illegal. Not well enforced, though noteable, but still illegal.

No one forces me to put my safety in jeopardy, no one.

JNB
Jan 12, 2009, 12:26 AM
This is all so unbelievably off-target, it's hilarious.

It's not the activity, it's the driver. The level of incompetence and lack of skill that is allowed on the road causes most collisions. The little extra activities that amplify said lack of skill merely points out that these people should be off the road, not that the activities are inherently the problem.

If we actually required a sensible level of competence behind the wheel I'd venture that we'd lose about 75% of those on the road today. Instead, the standard approach is to make the cars and the rules more idiot-proof, knowing full well that idiots will find a way to do themselves in anyway.

.Andy
Jan 12, 2009, 12:32 AM
It's not the activity, it's the driver. The level of incompetence and lack of skill that is allowed on the road causes most collisions. The little extra activities that amplify said lack of skill merely points out that these people should be off the road, not that the activities are inherently the problem.
Let me guess. You'd classify yourself in the adept driver category?

dukebound85
Jan 12, 2009, 12:35 AM
Well see I work for an answering service and we deal with a lot of A/C technicians and what not and sometimes people will call to get their A/C fixed and the techs hop in the truck and go, then the person will call back and cancel the call, so I have to call them while they're on the road, the smart thing to do would be pull over and answer the call, but the companies would then get upset cause of wasted time if it was another person calling to get their A/C fixed, but if they drove all the way to the job and found out when they got there the call had been cancelled then that's more wasted time, so in that situation you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Again I'm still thinking this over just wanted to give you some food for thought.

and yet when i worked for an oil services company, some policies they had were:
1) no talking on cell phones unless pulled over
2) no driving between 10pm-6am
3) must wear seatbelt
4) must drive no faster than 60 and 10 mph less than posted otherwise(monitored by a black box)

all of these were enacted for safety purposes. if caught violating one, you could lose your job. if you didnt wear your seatbelt, you did lose your job. on of my managers at the time was fired due to this

Rodimus Prime
Jan 12, 2009, 12:36 AM
I'd be fine with both if there is evidence that it reduces accidents and road fatalities. In fact I can't remember the last time I ate while I drove. Eating is one of the greatest pleasures in life - why wouldn't one stop off in a park or cafe for a feed? Is anyone seriously that busy that the only place they car eat is their car whilst driving?

For me I tend to rarely eat in my car. Drinking something (like a coke) is a fair bit more common. But for the eating part is tends to only happen when I am driving long distance and in between big cities and very little traffic so the require attention on the road is greatly reduced.

The reason I think cell phones are being targeted is A takes 37% (as the study showed) off the road. A passager generally is aware of what is going on around them in the car and in traffic or other things pick up they tend to follow it as well and react accordingly.

But the reason they are being targeted is going to go to down to likely hood. What is the most common distraction you see while driving. Answer CELL PHONE. You see it in heavy traffic. Eating I tend to see more commonly on long distance drive. Also people tend to eat more often in things like that. So likely hood of a wreak being cause by a cell phone is a lot greater than others. Just because we know it greatly increases the chances and to top it off a lot of people do it.

Of all the times I almost been hit cell phones seems to be one of the most common things. Eating hardly ever.

I say all this knowing that I break the rule quite often and talk on my cell phone while driving. Hands free and with out hands free does not matter to much. I also tend to make judgment calls based on traffic. If it is heavier I end the call. Also I will not do anything that requires writing things down. Yes I know this is all bad stuff to do.

FrankieTDouglas
Jan 12, 2009, 12:37 AM
sorry if i value my life over another persons phone call. some people...

If you really valued your life, you wouldn't be riding a motorcycle, period.

Even when I'm not on a phone, seeing a motorcyclist coming is definitely harder than seeing a car coming. It's the simple fact of oncoming mass is connected to the probability of visibility. This is even worse when someone on a motorcycle guns it when the light turns green. It just doesn't have the size to signify the velocity it is moving towards you with.

Last time I was in Paris, it was amazing to see a motorcyclist weaving inbetween cars at stop signs or even in moving traffic. How does this activity prohibit accidents?

NT1440
Jan 12, 2009, 12:41 AM
If you really valued your life, you wouldn't be riding a motorcycle, period.

Even when I'm not on a phone, seeing a motorcyclist coming is definitely harder than seeing a car coming. It's the simple fact of oncoming mass is connected to the probability of visibility. This is even worse when someone on a motorcycle guns it when the light turns green. It just doesn't have the size to signify the velocity it is moving towards you with.

Last time I was in Paris, it was amazing to see a motorcyclist weaving inbetween cars at stop signs or even in moving traffic. How does this activity prohibit accidents?

Just because you see some people doing it doesnt mean all of them do. In fact Id wager I see more reckless driving than I do on motorcycles, percent wise.

Rodimus Prime
Jan 12, 2009, 12:46 AM
If you really valued your life, you wouldn't be riding a motorcycle, period.

Even when I'm not on a phone, seeing a motorcyclist coming is definitely harder than seeing a car coming. It's the simple fact of oncoming mass is connected to the probability of visibility. This is even worse when someone on a motorcycle guns it when the light turns green. It just doesn't have the size to signify the velocity it is moving towards you with.

Last time I was in Paris, it was amazing to see a motorcyclist weaving inbetween cars at stop signs or even in moving traffic. How does this activity prohibit accidents?


Just WOW.....

most motorcycle drivers DO NOT weave in and out of traffic. MOST of them are very safe drivers. Very few do the stupid things you list.

As for drivers I see to many of them pick on them. Ride the motorcycles rear tire and harrase them. One time I had to intervene by getting in front of the harasser to protect the rider. I am in a car so A if they did hit me I am a lot safer in my car than they are. B it gave the rider time to get away because I slammed on my brake hard.

As for see them I will admit motorcycles are hard to see because they are smaller in size but as a driver of larger vehicles we should watch out for them and give them some extra room.

I am on his side. He values his life more than a phone conversation. You frankie talk tough but if you hit some one on a motorcycle and either killed them or seriously hurt them you would have a lot of trouble forgiving yourself.

SkyBell
Jan 12, 2009, 12:48 AM
I don't think this should go through. My dad really needs to use a cell phone while driving, to talk to customers, the office, employees, etc.. Basically, he is consistently on his phone throughout the entire day. If he had to pull over every time he got a phone call, he wouldn't leave our driveway, and wouldn't be able to get any work done.

I'm sorry, but talking and driving is a necessity for some people. I'm not saying it isn't dangerous, it's just that for some people, their line of work requires it.

NT1440
Jan 12, 2009, 12:52 AM
I don't think this should go through. My dad really needs to use a cell phone while driving, to talk to customers, the office, employees, etc.. Basically, he is consistently on his phone throughout the entire day. If he had to pull over every time he got a phone call, he wouldn't leave our driveway, and wouldn't be able to get any work done.

I'm sorry, but talking and driving is a necessity for some people. I'm not saying it isn't dangerous, it's just that for some people, their line of work requires it.

Just asking, but does you dad use a headset? I know the studies dont support it but I still feel that maintaining two hands on the wheel is much more preferable if you HAVE to talk.

If not, get him one for fathers day, it shows you care about him and his safety.

.Andy
Jan 12, 2009, 12:55 AM
I don't think this should go through. My dad really needs to use a cell phone while driving, to talk to customers, the office, employees, etc.. Basically, he is consistently on his phone throughout the entire day. If he had to pull over every time he got a phone call, he wouldn't leave our driveway, and wouldn't be able to get any work done.

I'm sorry, but talking and driving is a necessity for some people. I'm not saying it isn't dangerous, it's just that for some people, their line of work requires it.
You'd put the convenience of your dad's work over his personal safety and the safety of other road users? There are most definitely other options for your father that ensure safety and the continuation of his work.

chainprayer
Jan 12, 2009, 12:57 AM
lol at least its safer than texting and driving. i once saw a kid texting while riding his bike... almost ran onto the road in front of a car

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 01:00 AM
What about people walking with tunnel vision. They are on their phones and forget about everything else around them as they walk into the street without looking.

NT1440
Jan 12, 2009, 01:02 AM
What about people walking with tunnel vision. They are on their phones and forget about everything else around them as they walk into the street without looking.

What does this have to do with the topic other than it involves cellphones, if a pedestrian cannot take their own safety in their hands thats their fault. If they get hit its only them getting injured vs a car that can hurt many.

dukebound85
Jan 12, 2009, 01:04 AM
What about people walking with tunnel vision. They are on their phones and forget about everything else around them as they walk into the street without looking.

soooooo supporting that this is a good ban then while driving? lol

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 01:05 AM
What does this have to do with the topic other than it involves cellphones, if a pedestrian cannot take their own safety in their hands thats their fault. If they get hit its only them getting injured vs a car that can hurt many.If we are talking about how dangerous cell phones are and putting restrictions on everything we do lets just ban them all together to keep everyone safe.

NT1440
Jan 12, 2009, 01:05 AM
evidence this is a good ban? lol

no, a strawman that has nothing to do with the topic, for some reason hes talking about pedestrians now as some sort of twisted logic that phones should be allowed in cars....:confused:

Unless i missed the point, which is known to happen:o

Edit: nope, just a strawman.

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 01:06 AM
no, a strawman that has nothing to do with the topic, for some reason hes talking about pedestrians now as some sort of twisted logic that phones should be allowed in cars....:confused:

Unless i missed the point, which is known to happen:o

Edit: nope, just a strawman.I saying that if the reasons are to keep people safe where do we stop.

iToaster
Jan 12, 2009, 01:07 AM
Just to throw my opinion out here, some people aren't good with moderating their own behavior. I don't make a habit of talking on my phone while driving, but based on the traffic situation around me I can make the decision wether it would be safe to answer knowing that the call should be from a source that has a need to know my whereabouts. I have no problem with letting ring and go to voicemail if I don't feel it to be a pressing matter. Number of times I've talked on my phone in my car last year: 5, each conversation being about 30 seconds in length and only mentioning where I am and that I am occupied. Outlawing cell phone use while driving would be a good idea, partly because it would lower the number of accidents, but also because I'd have a more concrete reason for not answering. That said, I do like to listen to the radio, drink, and eat when the situation permits it. The radio never changes stations, I have it set to exactly where I want it so it doesn't need to be fooled with. If I have a passenger in the car the radio is off. I'll generally have a Pepsi in the cup holder for drinking in favorable conditions (stopped traffic or few cars around), and I've got a tin of crackers in the passenger seat for snacking if I want to. For consuming foodstuffs I don't ever take my eyes off the road and everything is placed where I can reach it without considerable distraction. I try to be a safe driver in every way possible, but eating breakfast in slow traffic or sipping on a soda are not quite as involved as chatting on a phone. Statistics will be skewed, there are more people that eat or drink in their car (I eat inside whenever possible) than those who talk on their cellphone.

dukebound85
Jan 12, 2009, 01:07 AM
no, a strawman that has nothing to do with the topic, for some reason hes talking about pedestrians now as some sort of twisted logic that phones should be allowed in cars....:confused:

Unless i missed the point, which is known to happen:o

Edit: nope, just a strawman.

which is completely different as a person running into another person or a wall or whatever wont kill anyone else. a car on the otherhand, that weighs 3000+lbs going 40+mph is a bit more dangerous to others.........

I saying that if the reasons are to keep people safe where do we stop.


when that persons actions proceed to increase their chances of killing others is a pretty good line to go by when prohibiting certain activities

.Andy
Jan 12, 2009, 01:08 AM
^^^^Argh beaten by Duke :D.

If we are talking about how dangerous cell phones are and putting restrictions on everything we do lets just ban them all together to keep everyone safe.
People who are walking around on the phone usually don't have the inertia that a 1+ tonne car has.

NT1440
Jan 12, 2009, 01:09 AM
I saying that if the reasons are to keep people safe where do we stop.

I stop participating once the classic "slippery slope" argument comes up.

Goodnight all, and good luck duke.

@ .Andy - The keyword being USUALLY =P

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 01:09 AM
which is completely different as a person running into another person or a wall or whatever wont kill anyone else. a car on the otherhand, that weighs 3000+lbs going 40+mph is a bit more dangerous to others.........




when that persons actions proceed to increase their chances of killing others is a pretty good line to go by when prohibiting certain actionsUnless that person is on the phone and walks into the street.

Lets say I am driving watching where I am going and not on the phone, and a pedestrian not looking talking on his phone walks in front of my car.

.Andy
Jan 12, 2009, 01:16 AM
Unless that person is on the phone and walks into the street.

Lets say I am driving watching where I am going and not on the phone, and a pedestrian not looking talking on his phone walks in front of my car.
If you're reduced to hypothetical arguments you've nothing more to add.

dukebound85
Jan 12, 2009, 01:18 AM
Unless that person is on the phone and walks into the street.

Lets say I am driving watching where I am going and not on the phone, and a pedestrian not looking talking on his phone walks in front of my car.

do you really not see the difference here?

is this pedistrian killing others by his actions in this case? no just himself

is a car driver on phone increasing the chances he can kill others as a result of his actions? yes.....why should others be killed as a result of some person's call?


ill repost what i wrote

when that persons actions proceed to increase their chances of killing others is a pretty good line to go by when prohibiting certain activities



I stop participating once the classic "slippery slope" argument comes up.

Goodnight all, and good luck duke.

@ .Andy - The keyword being USUALLY =P

night!

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 01:18 AM
Im just saying that distractions are all over, if we want to be truly safe from ourselves we would ban everything that can hurt us.

MasterNile
Jan 12, 2009, 01:25 AM
Just to be fair, if that person walks into the street and a car hits another car while trying to avoid the person then they did cause damage to someone other then themselves.

anjinha
Jan 12, 2009, 01:28 AM
Im just saying that distractions are all over, if we want to be truly safe from ourselves we would ban everything that can hurt us.

Why is it a problem to ban something that causes accidents? Yes, car accidents will still happen. But there will be less accidents, less people getting hurt and less people getting killed. Is that a bad thing?

If I caused an accident because I was talking on a cell phone and someone got hurt I would never forgive myself.

FrankieTDouglas
Jan 12, 2009, 04:27 AM
Just WOW.....

most motorcycle drivers DO NOT weave in and out of traffic. MOST of them are very safe drivers. Very few do the stupid things you list.

As for drivers I see to many of them pick on them. Ride the motorcycles rear tire and harrase them. One time I had to intervene by getting in front of the harasser to protect the rider. I am in a car so A if they did hit me I am a lot safer in my car than they are. B it gave the rider time to get away because I slammed on my brake hard.

As for see them I will admit motorcycles are hard to see because they are smaller in size but as a driver of larger vehicles we should watch out for them and give them some extra room.

I am on his side. He values his life more than a phone conversation. You frankie talk tough but if you hit some one on a motorcycle and either killed them or seriously hurt them you would have a lot of trouble forgiving yourself.

I suppose I should state that my primary mode of transportation is actually a bicycle, not a car. And even with that, there are many good bikers but so many are rather stupid when on the road. Some people ride their bikes like they drive a car. I've almost been hit plenty of times on a bike. Even in crosswalks. Yet I realize that I have to modify my biking to avoid that ever happening. I'm a really small object on the road and must never forget that.

About motorcyclists weaving in and out of traffic, I have observed it happening countless times in various countries. I know it exists and rather common.

Yeah, I would rather not have a wreck with anyone. That doesn't even make sense. Of course I would feel bad if I was the cause of anyone's injury.

Xenious
Jan 12, 2009, 09:15 AM
I despise it when people get in their car and the first thing they do is call someone and prop the phone up with their shoulder. Ironically I do think they should NOT be banned but that if another incident occurs while talking (accident, individual injury, moving violation) that the penality should be increased. (Kind of how fines double in some construction zones when workers are present.) If you outright ban them then it is a gateway to ban other things. The solution here is education (i.e. this behaviour is not the safest thing, but could be ok in small moderation or emergencies) rather than an outright ban.

IJ Reilly
Jan 12, 2009, 11:13 AM
Im just saying that distractions are all over, if we want to be truly safe from ourselves we would ban everything that can hurt us.

As bad as this?

She cited a study from the Harvard Center of Risk Analysis that found cell phone use while driving accounts for about 6 percent of crashes each year nationwide. That's 636,000 crashes, 330,000 injuries, 12,000 serious injuries and 2,600 deaths, she said.

That's a lot of dead and injured people due to driving while phone drunk. I see a lot more people behind the wheel with a cell phone on their ear (even though it's illegal in California) than I see driving while eating cheeseburgers.

JNB
Jan 12, 2009, 11:36 AM
Let me guess. You'd classify yourself in the adept driver category?

Considering the hundreds of hours of professional training, multitude of licenses and certifications in the US and abroad, 40 years and hundreds of thousands of miles of collision and citation-free driving in hundreds of cars, trucks, and motorcycles, in and on every imaginable weather condition, road type, and traffic, then yes, I'd say I'm fairly adept.

r.j.s
Jan 12, 2009, 12:31 PM
What about places like rural Texas, or Arizona?

Places where there are very few cars on the road, why does it need to be banned there?

savar
Jan 12, 2009, 12:35 PM
Why stop at cell phones, ban everything in the car.:mad: So stupid.

Not a chance at the national level... it's a simple states rights issue.

Not sure what the vitriol is about cell phones in cars. Cell phones in the wrong hands are annoying everywhere, not just in cars. It's a lack of manners, not an inherent danger in using phones.

r.j.s
Jan 12, 2009, 12:37 PM
Not a chance at the national level... it's a simple states rights issue.

It should be a state's rights issue, but this group is pushing for a nationwide ban, so that when I go to Teh Middle of Nowhere, Texas, I can't even use my bluetooth legally.

Blue Velvet
Jan 12, 2009, 12:41 PM
Not sure what the vitriol is about cell phones in cars. Cell phones in the wrong hands are annoying everywhere, not just in cars. It's a lack of manners, not an inherent danger in using phones.


Heh. Just yesterday, I saw a driver trying to slowly round a city street corner with a phone in their hand, one hand on the wheel and having a conversation. They ended up on the pavement, had to put the phone down and reverse back onto the road while a group of us watched and cars behind were beeping their horns. Fortunately, he was only doing about 10mph and no-one was hurt.

People always over-rate their driving abilities and put their stupid trivial comforts over the safety of others.

savar
Jan 12, 2009, 12:43 PM
It should be a state's rights issue, but this group is pushing for a nationwide ban, so that when I go to Teh Middle of Nowhere, Texas, I can't even use my bluetooth legally.

No kidding. I've never caused an accident while using my phone, and I've never been hit by somebody who was using a phone.

I am a very defensive driver, however; in DC, the streets are so wild that you have to watch every other driver to make sure they are going to do what they are supposed to do.

I've seen people run red lights straight through, or make illegal turns from the wrong lane... if I had assumed my right-of-way in those cases, I would have been hospitalized.

The world is dangerous place. We should mitigate the *extremely* risky practices -- like drunk driving -- but cell phone usage doesn't have the same stark distinction in my eyes.

Blue Velvet
Jan 12, 2009, 12:47 PM
...but cell phone usage doesn't have the same stark distinction in my eyes.

Because you'd like to continue the practice? Rather than anecdotes, let's look at some research:

Cell phone driving statistics

• Distraction from cell phone use while driving (hand held or hands free) extends a driver's reaction as much as having a blood alcohol concentration at the legal limit of .08%. (University of Utah)

• The No.1 source of driver inattention is use of a wireless device. (Virginia Tech /NHTSA)

• Drivers that use cell phones are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves. (NHTSA, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety)

• 10% of drivers aged 16 to 24 years old are on their phone at any one time.

• Driving while distracted is a factor in 25% of police reported crashes.

• Driving while using a cell phone reduces the amount of brain activity associated with driving by 37%. (Carnegie Mellon)

http://www.nationwide.com/newsroom/dwd-facts-figures.jsp

IJ Reilly
Jan 12, 2009, 01:28 PM
People always over-rate their driving abilities and put their stupid trivial comforts over the safety of others.

I wonder how many people would rate their driving skills as being above average? Certainly more than half.

Abstract
Jan 12, 2009, 02:54 PM
If you're reduced to hypothetical arguments you've nothing more to add.

Yep. In this case, there are hundreds of 'what if' statements he could make. Of course, there are a hundred 'what if' statements that I could make to support the other viewpoint.


Anyway, 2 hands on the wheel. Simple. No mobiles, no food. Drinks are probably OK because you can pretty much drink anything nowadays without looking at it. Even with a burger, which I've eaten while driving, I need to look at it before I take a bite. Then I need to worry about crumbs from the bun getting all over my shirt, or ketchup and mustard stains.


Saying that, I don't believe there should be a complete ban on mobile phone use. As long as you're using a headset, you should be allowed to use it. Otherwise, there should be a fine.

mrkramer
Jan 12, 2009, 03:28 PM
Banning all cell phones is a horrible idea, since they were banned here in California I have just noticed that about the same ammount of people use them and they are worse drivers than before the ban since now they are just watching out for police instead of watching the road at all.

dukebound85
Jan 12, 2009, 03:36 PM
I wonder how many people would rate their driving skills as being above average? Certainly more than half.

obviously its everyone else that sucks at driving lol never the person being questioned

EricNau
Jan 12, 2009, 03:38 PM
Why stop at cell phones, ban everything in the car.:mad: So stupid.
Exactly. Will you sign my petition to de-criminalize DUI? Thanks.

:rolleyes:

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 03:45 PM
Exactly. Will you sign my petition to de-criminalize DUI? Thanks.

:rolleyes:There is a big difference between DUI and cell phones.

dukebound85
Jan 12, 2009, 03:48 PM
There is a big difference between DUI and cell phones.

all the studies ive linked to as well as BV say otherwise

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 03:50 PM
all the studies ive linked to as well as BV say otherwiseStudies can be made to say anything. I think if anything can cause an accident in a vehicle no matter what it is we should ban it.

I go back to Andy's post. http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6919288&postcount=518.1.4 Entertainment Systems

• Tuning a radio while driving appears to have a detrimental effect on driving
performance, particularly for inexperienced drivers.

• Research also suggests that simply listening to radio broadcasts while driving
can impair driving performance (Jäncke et al., 1994).

• Research suggests that operating a CD player while driving is more distracting
than dialling a mobile phone and eating, however the use of voice-activation
may minimise this distraction.


8.1.5 Non-Technology Based Distraction

• A recent study by the American Automobile Association’s Foundation for
Traffic Safety revealed that a greater proportion of drivers involved in traffic
accidents are distracted by eating or drinking (1.7%) than by talking on a mobile
phone (1.5%) (Stutts et al., 2001). Results of an experimental study by Jenness
et al. (2002) also corroborate the results of Stutts et al. They found that eating a
cheeseburger was as distracting as using a voice-activated dialling system, but
less distracting than continuously operating a CD player.

• Several studies have found that smoking while driving increases the risk of
being involved in a crash (Brison, 1990; Christie, 1990; Violanti & Marshall,
1996).

• A summary of current research on teenage passengers revealed that the presence
of passengers increases crash risk, particularly for younger drivers, and this is
believed to result largely from distraction and peer-pressure (Williams, 2001).

dukebound85
Jan 12, 2009, 03:54 PM
Studies can be made to say anything. I think if anything can cause an accident in a vehicle no matter what it is we should ban it.

I go back to Andy's post. http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6919288&postcount=51

i dont quite get your point. that doesnt disprove the studies that driving and talking is as bad as a dui.....

in fact, it supports the claim to ban phones. the only thing that article does is says that cell phones arent the only distraction which i have no issue in admitting.


you said theres a big difference between a dui and cell phones. give me data to back that claim up as opposed to deflecting and answering saying eating is a bad distraction too (which i am not really arguing it isnt)

EricNau
Jan 12, 2009, 03:55 PM
There is a big difference between DUI and cell phones.
I'm assuming you can substantiate this claim? And please, spare me anecdotal evidence.

Here's a study that found talking on a cell phone (hands free or otherwise) to be equally as dangerous as DUI: http://www.unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 03:57 PM
I'm assuming you can substantiate this claim? And please, spare me anecdotal evidence.

Here's a study that found talking on a cell phone (hands free or otherwise) to be equally as dangerous as DUI: http://www.unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1DUI impairs your driving from the moment you get behind the wheel. Unless you are on the phone the entire drive it isn't the same.

My main issue is that why are we just focusing on cell phones when there are many things that can be distracting.

EricNau
Jan 12, 2009, 03:59 PM
DUI impairs your driving from the moment you get behind the wheel. Unless you are on the phone the entire drive it isn't the same.
Would it be alright for me to drink while driving? What if I'm sober when I start the car?

dukebound85
Jan 12, 2009, 03:59 PM
DUI impairs your driving from the moment you get behind the wheel. Unless you are on the phone the entire drive it isn't the same.

but when you are talking, its the same. what point are you trying to make? that they are safe? they clearly are not

i dont quite understand the logic that it must be all or nothing in terms of banning distractions for you to be ok with it

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 04:00 PM
Would it be alright for me to drink while driving? What if I'm sober when I start the car?Now that is another issue, if the law is .08 and you have a beer and make it .02 is that illegal?

IJ Reilly
Jan 12, 2009, 04:01 PM
My main issue is that why are we just focusing on cell phones when there are many things that can be distracting.

Because they are thought to cause 2,600 deaths every year. If a disease caused that many deaths every year, we'd called it major pandemic and demand a cure.

dukebound85
Jan 12, 2009, 04:01 PM
Now that is another issue, if the law is .08 and you have a beer and make it .02 is that illegal?

there are things such as dwai as well. still illegal

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 04:03 PM
Because they are thought to cause 2,600 deaths every year. If a disease caused that many deaths every year, we'd called it major pandemic and demand a cure.But is that because a person was seen on the phone, what if you are distracted by something else. Are those numbers counted by being distracted by the radio.

EricNau
Jan 12, 2009, 04:05 PM
But is that because a person was seen on the phone, what if you are distracted by something else. Are those numbers counted by being distracted by the radio.
The aforementioned studies control for such variables.

dukebound85
Jan 12, 2009, 04:05 PM
But is that because a person was seen on the phone, what if you are distracted by something else. Are those numbers counted by being distracted by the radio.

once again, ill ask

why must it be all or nothing when it comes to bans for you to be ok with it?

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 04:07 PM
once again, ill ask

why must it be all or nothing when it comes to bans for you to be ok with it?In my opinion cell phones are an easy target, people would not want to give up their radios or cup holders.

156457
Jan 12, 2009, 04:09 PM
Good! It's banned in the UK and it makes me furious when I see people driving whilst on the phone.

anjinha
Jan 12, 2009, 04:11 PM
In my opinion cell phones are an easy target, people would not want to give up their radios or cup holders.

People don't want to give up cell phones either.

dukebound85
Jan 12, 2009, 04:12 PM
In my opinion cell phones are an easy target, people would not want to give up their radios or cup holders.

i guess i dont see the problem in banning a known major distraction while driving which will end up saving lives

i really dont see how anyone can argue that its safe and should be allowed

the only reasons ive heard are
1) well my job requires me talking..........well company policy will comply with any law
2) i live in a rural area so its safer............doesnt really matter. akin to saying its ok to drive drunk as theres nobody to hit. dosnt make it safe
3) there are other distractions just as bad.......so lets do nothing to improve the situation? i dont get this argument tbh

IJ Reilly
Jan 12, 2009, 04:13 PM
In my opinion cell phones are an easy target, people would not want to give up their radios or cup holders.

People don't want to give up blabbing on their cell phones while they drive either. You don't want to, no matter how dangerous it might be to you and others. Correct?

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 04:13 PM
People don't want to give up cell phones either.But those are easier laws to pass, do you think a ban on radios or food in the car would get support?

anjinha
Jan 12, 2009, 04:16 PM
But those are easier laws to pass, do you think a ban on radios or food in the car would get support?

Why is it a problem that it's an easier law to pass? Because it's an inconvenience for you? It will still save lives...

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 04:17 PM
Why is it a problem that it's an easier law to pass? Because it's an inconvenience for you? It will still save lives...All I am saying is why are we just ridding one evil when there are others just as bad that Im sure more people do. I bet more people eat in the car then talk on the phone.

EricNau
Jan 12, 2009, 04:17 PM
But those are easier laws to pass, do you think a ban on radios or food in the car would get support?
Does it matter? Don't base the legitimacy of cell phones on the legality of other activities such as eating, drinking, or smoking; just evaluate this issue based on its attributes alone.
All I am saying is why are we just ridding one evil when there are others just as bad that Im sure more people do. I bet more people eat in the car then talk on the phone.
And your solution is to not ban anything?

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 04:20 PM
Does it matter? Don't base the legitimacy of cell phones on the legality of other activities such as eating, drinking, or smoking; just evaluate this issue based on its attributes alone.Going back to the article, they say that they want all cell phones banned because they are a distraction, but they leave out all other distractions that can cause accidents. Why don't they just list everything that is a distraction and try to get it banned.

anjinha
Jan 12, 2009, 04:21 PM
All I am saying is why are we just ridding one evil when there are others just as bad that Im sure more people do. I bet more people eat in the car then talk on the phone.

Because we have to start somewhere. Why not start with easiest law to pass?

Peterkro
Jan 12, 2009, 04:22 PM
Does it matter? Don't base the legitimacy of cell phones on the legality of other activities such as eating, drinking, or smoking; just evaluate this issue based on its attributes alone.

And your solution is to not ban anything?

In the U.K. you can be done for eating in a car, I think the actual charge is "not being in full control of a motor vehicle" it's a charge that is used.I'm fairly sure there are equivalent laws in the U.S.

anjinha
Jan 12, 2009, 04:24 PM
Going back to the article, they say that they want all cell phones banned because they are a distraction, but they leave out all other distractions that can cause accidents. Why don't they just list everything that is a distraction and try to get it banned.

It's not that easy to change people's patterns all at once. It's better to just do incremental changes. Again, why does it have to be all or nothing?

Rt&Dzine
Jan 12, 2009, 06:02 PM
i for one, am gald we have seat belt laws

Many of you are too young, but remember how outraged people were at first about the seatbelt law?


Lets say I am driving watching where I am going and not on the phone, and a pedestrian not looking talking on his phone walks in front of my car.

So you think the law should be expanded to ban cell phone use while walking, driving, etc.? ... :eek:

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 06:04 PM
Many of you are too young, but remember how outraged people were at first about the seatbelt law?



So you think the law should be expanded to ban cell phone use while walking, driving, etc.? ... :eek:Lets look at cell phones, I would like to see them banned from restaurants, public parks, anywhere that they can be a disturbance to others. People have shown that they don't respect the use of a cell phone. If I get a phone call I go somewhere private, one I don't want others to hear and two I don't want to annoy others.

iJohnHenry
Jan 12, 2009, 06:05 PM
So you think the law should be expanded to ban cell phone use while walking, driving, etc.? ... :eek:

Sure, why not?

You want to make a call, stand still.

Walking down the street, and in traffic, is NOT your living-room.

skunk
Jan 12, 2009, 06:07 PM
In the U.K. you can be done for eating in a car, I think the actual charge is "not being in full control of a motor vehicle" it's a charge that is used."Driving without due care and attention" would do equally well.

dukebound85
Jan 12, 2009, 06:09 PM
Lets look at cell phones, I would like to see them banned from restaurants, public parks, anywhere that they can be a disturbance to others. People have shown that they don't respect the use of a cell phone. If I get a phone call I go somewhere private, one I don't want others to hear and two I don't want to annoy others.

your argument is all over the place

there is a difference to being a disturbance that puts others' lives in jeopardy (as is talkin on phone while driving) and merely being a nuisance to others (as in talking on phone in restaurant)

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 06:11 PM
your argument is all over the place

there is a difference to being a disturbance that puts others' lives in jeopardy (as is talkin on phone while driving) and merely being a nuisance to others (as in talking on phone in restaurant)I have talked on the phone in my car in private with no problem. I would rather have a private conversation in the car then a public one in a restaurant.

EricNau
Jan 12, 2009, 06:15 PM
I have talked on the phone in my car in private with no problem. I would rather have a private conversation in the car then a public one in a restaurant.
Likewise, many people have driven while intoxicated "without incident."

Once again, this is simply putting your preference and convenience above the safety of others, for which there is no excuse.

anjinha
Jan 12, 2009, 06:16 PM
I have talked on the phone in my car in private with no problem. I would rather have a private conversation in the car then a public one in a restaurant.

A lot of people drive drunk and don't get into accidents, does that mean it's safe? Using a cell phone in a restaurant doesn't put people in danger.

By your logic we should ban cell phones where they are annoying but allow them where they are a danger to others?

anjinha
Jan 12, 2009, 06:17 PM
Likewise, many people have driven while intoxicated "without incident."

You beat me to it. :D

dukebound85
Jan 12, 2009, 06:20 PM
I have talked on the phone in my car in private with no problem. I would rather have a private conversation in the car then a public one in a restaurant.

once again, whats your point? you are very hard to follow in this thread

your argument is summed to this

1) cell phones arent the only distraction and thus to you, it should be either all or no distractions should be banned
2) you then spout off opinions that have nothing to due with the topic such as "lets ban phones in parks or restaurants because they are annoying/disturbing "and then give your preference on where you would like to talk......this has nothing to do with how cell phones create a hazard while driving

you have yet to disprove the studies that cell phones distract drivers to the same extent as drinking. its been proven. accept the fact

until then, i dont see your logic that it must be all or nothing for you to be ok with it. surely incremental steps are better than nothing at all? why are you against any measure that can save lives? if its because its not the only distraction then i ask...why does it matter as its a positive step in reducing accidents? if you say it inconviences you, i say the greater safety on the road for everyone supersedes your want of convenience

zioxide
Jan 12, 2009, 06:21 PM
just ban cars.

skunk
Jan 12, 2009, 06:22 PM
Just ban MacNut.

yg17
Jan 12, 2009, 06:37 PM
I would say reaching for the burger or soda or changing the radio is more distracting.

I have steering wheel audio controls, so I can change the radio without taking hands off the wheel. But in my old car where I didn't have wheel controls, I could change the radio without taking my eyes off the road, and I think most people can. It's not that hard, nor is it distracting. And neither is reaching for a soda....again, if you know where your cup holder is, you can reach for it, take a sip and put it back without ever taking your eyes off the road or losing concentration.

And I know the next argument from some of you will be "But taking a hand off the wheel isn't safe!" I drive a stick, what the hell am I supposed to do? Drive 30 miles each way to work on the highway in 1st gear?

I don't think this should go through. My dad really needs to use a cell phone while driving, to talk to customers, the office, employees, etc.. Basically, he is consistently on his phone throughout the entire day. If he had to pull over every time he got a phone call, he wouldn't leave our driveway, and wouldn't be able to get any work done.

I'm sorry, but talking and driving is a necessity for some people. I'm not saying it isn't dangerous, it's just that for some people, their line of work requires it.

What cities does your dad typically drive around so I know not to go anywhere near them?

r.j.s
Jan 12, 2009, 06:42 PM
It will still save lives...

No it won't, because people are still going to talk on their cell phones. There is no reasonable way to enforce these laws, much like the seat belt law. Chances are they will just tack it on to anything else they pull you over for - much like the seat belt law.

Talking on the cell phone, hands-free excluded, is a $75 fine here, yet I saw at least 30 people doing it today.

landlover
Jan 12, 2009, 07:01 PM
Can not tell you how many times while driving, seeing people talking on phone or even worse texting. I like motorcycling and the thought of someone talking or texting any where near me scares the s*** out of me! They can wait to talk on the phone or text till they are at a standstill period! Don't see the need for right then and there.

iMacmatician
Jan 12, 2009, 07:04 PM
And I know the next argument from some of you will be "But taking a hand off the wheel isn't safe!" I drive a stick, what the hell am I supposed to do? Drive 30 miles each way to work on the highway in 1st gear?At least you won't be speeding (although I suppose on a highway, less speed can be dangerous).

EricNau
Jan 12, 2009, 07:08 PM
No it won't, because people are still going to talk on their cell phones. There is no reasonable way to enforce these laws, much like the seat belt law. Chances are they will just tack it on to anything else they pull you over for - much like the seat belt law.
And despite the fact that it's "not enforceable," what percentage of the general population wear their seatbelt anyway?

r.j.s
Jan 12, 2009, 07:09 PM
And despite the fact that it's "not enforceable," what percentage of the general population wear their seatbelt anyway?

No idea, you tell me.

NT1440
Jan 12, 2009, 07:12 PM
No idea, you tell me.

Many people wear seat belts because they know there is a risk to getting caught without it. If that fear saves lives I'm all for it. The same would be true for cell phones.

Here in CT its illegal to use a cell while driving, everyone knows its hard to get caught (though thousands of tickets are given each year), but its been my personal experience with friends that often they will either not answer the phone or cut their conversation MUCH shorter in hopes to not get caught.

Also cannot forget its a great excuse to not answer for someone you dont want to talk to:p


I can't beleive this thread got me in trouble....

dukebound85
Jan 12, 2009, 07:18 PM
No it won't, because people are still going to talk on their cell phones. There is no reasonable way to enforce these laws, much like the seat belt law. Chances are they will just tack it on to anything else they pull you over for - much like the seat belt law.

Talking on the cell phone, hands-free excluded, is a $75 fine here, yet I saw at least 30 people doing it today.

if the law acts as a detterent.....

i observe people speeding too, doesnt mean it should suddenly be allowed without consequences

r.j.s
Jan 12, 2009, 07:19 PM
Many people wear seat belts because they know there is a risk to getting caught without it. If that fear saves lives I'm all for it. The same would be true for cell phones.

There is tangibly safer about driving with a seat belt on, and I see your point, but I'm saying there are always going to be a good percentage of idiots on the road that will do what they want - law or not. I'd be willing to bet that almost every single accident caused by a cell phone distracting the driver would have still happened if there was a ban.

It may give people a warm fuzzy, but will be widely ignored, because there are that many morons behind the wheel.


I can't beleive this thread got me in trouble....

How did you get in trouble?

EricNau
Jan 12, 2009, 07:19 PM
No idea, you tell me.
In 2008, above 80% nationally, and even higher in areas with stricter (i.e. primary) enforcement. Link (PDF) (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811036.PDF)

I do believe that makes your argument moot.

gentlegiantcrai
Jan 12, 2009, 07:20 PM
Granted, there are other "distractions"

but this distraction can vary in length, a whole car trip, and is a distraction that A LOT of people partake in. You can just sit and watch cars go by you and easily start counting that every third or fourth car contains a person on a cellphone.

If you need both of yours hands for whatever it is your doing, then your brain should probably be on it too.

r.j.s
Jan 12, 2009, 07:21 PM
if the law acts as a detterent.....

My point is that it wont, not for the vast majority of people. People will just find creative ways around it, like radar detectors for speeding.

I do believe that makes your argument moot.

No it doesn't. I wear a seatbelt every time I get in the car because I've been in an accident (as a driver, and I was wearing the seatbelt then too), not because some law tells me to.

NT1440
Jan 12, 2009, 07:24 PM
My point is that it wont, not for the vast majority of people. People will just find creative ways around it, like radar detectors for speeding.

Also illegal in many places.

Beleive it or not but MANY people abide laws that cannot be easily enforced. And even if it doesnt stop it drastically, what harm is there in at least implementing it?

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 07:26 PM
As far as I know only 2 states ban radar detectors.

r.j.s
Jan 12, 2009, 07:27 PM
Also illegal in many places.

Only D.C. and Virginia. That's not many places.

Rodimus Prime
Jan 12, 2009, 07:27 PM
Not a chance at the national level... it's a simple states rights issue.

Not sure what the vitriol is about cell phones in cars. Cell phones in the wrong hands are annoying everywhere, not just in cars. It's a lack of manners, not an inherent danger in using phones.


Well just to point out how it is done.

The legal age to drink is a state's right issue and the each state decides what the legal age is going to be. Just if they put it under 21 they lose a lot of federal funding.

Same principle would be applied here. Put the law in place or loose a lot of money.

EricNau
Jan 12, 2009, 07:28 PM
No it doesn't. I wear a seatbelt every time I get in the car because I've been in an accident (as a driver, and I was wearing the seatbelt then too), not because some law tells me to.
Let's see:
It will still save lives...

No it won't, because people are still going to talk on their cell phones. There is no reasonable way to enforce these laws, much like the seat belt law. Chances are they will just tack it on to anything else they pull you over for - much like the seat belt law.

And yet, contrary to your suggestion, the seat belt law does indeed save lives. You're comparing this proposed cellphone ban to very effective and life-saving legislation. It completely invalidates your argument.

r.j.s
Jan 12, 2009, 07:34 PM
And yet, contrary to your suggestion, the seat belt law does indeed save lives:

Where did I say the seatbelt law doesn't save lives? I just said it was essentially unenforceable, and generally tacked on when a driver gets pulled over for - let's say speeding.

Making something illegal can save save lives, but it takes more than just that.

dukebound85
Jan 12, 2009, 07:37 PM
Where did I say the seatbelt law doesn't save lives? I just said it was essentially unenforceable, and generally tacked on when a driver gets pulled over for - let's say speeding.

Making something illegal can save save lives, but it takes more than just that.

if a cop sees one on a cell phone, they could pull them over. cops due drive on the streets with other cars. if I can see people driving and using cell phone, the cop can as well

how is that unenforceable?

r.j.s
Jan 12, 2009, 07:39 PM
if a cop sees one on a cell phone, they could pull them over

how is that unenforceable?

While that scenario is quite possible, and likely, what about using bluetooth? Speakerphone? The car's audio system? Any of the other hands-free devices out there?

That's what is unenforceable.

NT1440
Jan 12, 2009, 07:40 PM
While that scenario is quite possible, and likely, what about using bluetooth? Speakerphone? The car's audio system? Any of the other hands-free devices out there?

That's what is unenforceable.

So youd be for banning handhelds?

r.j.s
Jan 12, 2009, 07:41 PM
So youd be for banning handhelds?

Not necessarily for it, but I can at least understand it.

dukebound85
Jan 12, 2009, 07:42 PM
While that scenario is quite possible, and likely, what about using bluetooth? Speakerphone? The car's audio system? Any of the other hands-free devices out there?

That's what is unenforceable.

i agree, but non headsets are still very common when driving

the headset ones would be the ones that are tacked on after another charge most likely. however, if not using a headset, its really obvious

maybe there will be a cell detector lol, i dunno

maybe laws will be passed that will make the phone uselesss if say going past 5mph except for emergency lines by using the phones gps for example

just some rough ideas

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 07:44 PM
Isn't that a huge overstep in what the government can do, banning all hands free and speaker devices is going way to far.

It opens the door to ban more.

EricNau
Jan 12, 2009, 07:44 PM
Where did I say the seatbelt law doesn't save lives? I just said it was essentially unenforceable, and generally tacked on when a driver gets pulled over for - let's say speeding.

Making something illegal can save save lives, but it takes more than just that.
In your post, you asserted that the proposed cellphone ban would not save lives because it would be unenforceable, just like current seat belt laws.

However, it's well established that seat belt laws are extremely effective, despite their (apparent) lack of enforcement.

What part of this am I not understanding?

r.j.s
Jan 12, 2009, 07:45 PM
maybe laws will be passed that will make the phone uselesss if say going past 5mph except for emergency lines by using the phones gps for example

just some rough ideas

Then that would make passengers' phones useless as well, why are you trying to punish them too?

dukebound85
Jan 12, 2009, 07:46 PM
Isn't that a huge overstep in what the government can do, banning all hands free and speaker devices is going way to far.

It opens the door to ban more.

driving is not a right..:cool:

Then that would make passengers' phones useless as well, why are you trying to punish them too?

thats why i said rough ideas. by no means did i claim they were perfect, just brainstorming

JNB
Jan 12, 2009, 07:46 PM
So whom do I call when I see a cop driving while unbelted and talking on a cellphone with a donut and steering wheel in his other hand and a cup of coffee in his lap? (And I have seen it, btw! Pittsburgh, FWIW.)

r.j.s
Jan 12, 2009, 07:47 PM
What part of this am I not understanding?

Ok, I shouldn't have connected them in the same sentence like that. My point is that making something illegal isn't always effective at deterring the activity.

DUIs still happen, don't they?

NT1440
Jan 12, 2009, 07:47 PM
It opens the door to ban more.

Again, I don't subscribe to this "slippery slope" type of argument. It has been used for just about every law proposed in recent times.

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 07:48 PM
Again, I don't subscribe to this "slippery slope" type of argument. It has been used for just about every law proposed in recent times.And how many of those laws are good ones.

EricNau
Jan 12, 2009, 07:49 PM
Isn't that a huge overstep in what the government can do, banning all hands free and speaker devices is going way to far.

It opens the door to ban more.
Is it not the government's duty to protect its citizens from the dangerous acts of others?

In what way is the government overstepping their role by banning dangerous activities while driving? It's not just saving the lives of foolish drivers, but innocent bystanders as well.

dukebound85
Jan 12, 2009, 07:49 PM
Ok, I shouldn't have connected them in the same sentence like that. My point is that making something illegal isn't always effective at deterring the activity.

DUIs still happen, don't they?

are you then about to claim that the same amount of dui's would occur if it wasn't illegal

i bet with the law in place, there are less incidences

NT1440
Jan 12, 2009, 07:49 PM
So whom do I call when I see a cop driving while unbelted and talking on a cellphone with a donut and steering wheel in his other hand and a cup of coffee in his lap? (And I have seen it, btw! Pittsburgh, FWIW.)

No one, cops can do whatever they want:rolleyes:

I hate seeing them just idling in parking lots or when they pull up to their buddies and chat for hours.

Its well known, from the blockbuster employees in town, that our cops just rent movies and watch at least two a day on their in car laptops.

But yes, cops do get all hypocritical, at least around here.

EricNau
Jan 12, 2009, 07:50 PM
DUIs still happen, don't they?
Yes, but can you imagine how many DUIs would occur if it wasn't illegal?

NT1440
Jan 12, 2009, 07:52 PM
And how many of those laws are good ones.

That has no bearing on this topic at all. I was simply stating that the slippery slope is often viewed as an argument of desperation seeing as there is nothing to base it off of nor to back it up.

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 07:52 PM
Is it not the government's duty to protect its citizens from the dangerous acts of others?

In what way is the government overstepping their role by banning dangerous activities while driving? It's not just saving the lives of foolish drivers, but innocent bystanders as well.Since when have we become a policed state? Protecting us from ourselves?

r.j.s
Jan 12, 2009, 07:53 PM
Yes, but can you imagine how many DUIs would occur if it wasn't illegal?

I'm sure it would increase, but how many deaths/accidents are still going to happen because of Driving While Talking?

EricNau
Jan 12, 2009, 07:55 PM
Since when have we become a policed state?
Have you never heard of speed limits, red light violations, hit and run, reckless driving, or DUI, all of which are instituted for the same reason as this proposed cell-phone ban?

Protecting us from ourselves?
That's not what I said. This law would protect innocent bystanders.

I'm sure it would increase, but how many deaths/accidents are still going to happen because of Driving While Talking?
Is that a reason not to instigate it?

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 07:56 PM
Have you never heard of speed limits, red light violations, hit and run, reckless driving, or DUI, all of which are instituted for the same reason as this proposed cell-phone ban?Those are way different. How is talking with both hands on the wheel a crime?

r.j.s
Jan 12, 2009, 07:57 PM
Have you never heard of speed limits, red light violations, hit and run, reckless driving, or DUI, all of which are instituted for the same reason as this proposed cell-phone ban?

But, NONE of those are completely nationwide, as this proposed law would be. 100% illegal everywhere to talk on a phone while driving.

Look, I'm not completely opposed to banning talking on a phone while driving, but I don't think that someone whom has never been outside D.C. should be the one to tell me it's illegal. Leave it to the states/localities, don't force one standard on everybody. They don't even do that with DUI.

NT1440
Jan 12, 2009, 07:58 PM
Those are way different. How is talking with both hands on the wheel and a 37% lowered sense of awareness causing a potential safety risk to others a crime?

Fixed.

I dunno, seems pretty self explanitory to me.:p

EricNau
Jan 12, 2009, 07:59 PM
Those are way different. How is talking with both hands on the wheel a crime?
Because it's a proven danger to other drivers and pedestrians, akin to DUI.

I would link to some scientific studies, but I already have.

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 08:04 PM
Because it's a proven danger to other drivers and pedestrians, akin to DUI.

I would link to some scientific studies, but I already have.So what should we ban next? If it is a danger it should go right? Where do we stop. GPS, onstar, in dash dvd players.

anjinha
Jan 12, 2009, 08:05 PM
I'm sorry if I'm being blunt but for the most part it seems that this thread is:

people who don't want to be inconvenienced by this law vs. people who care about their and other people's safety.

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 08:07 PM
I'm sorry if I'm being blunt but for the most part it seems that this thread is:

people who don't want to be inconvenienced by this law vs. people who care about their and other people's safety.Banning all cell phones from every car in the US is a lot more than an inconvenience.

NT1440
Jan 12, 2009, 08:08 PM
Banning all cell phones from every car in the US is a lot more than an inconvenience.

Really? how?

Who cannot live without making a call?

EricNau
Jan 12, 2009, 08:08 PM
So what should we ban next? If it is a danger it should go right? Where do we stop.
It's already been pointed out to you that slippery slope reasoning isn't a valid argument.

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 08:09 PM
Really? how?

Who cannot live without making a call?Ok we have a cell phone ban, someone has a phone in the car, does a cop check to see when you last made a call. How do you enforce a blanket cell phone ban.

NT1440
Jan 12, 2009, 08:12 PM
Ok we have a cell phone ban, someone has a phone in the car, does a cop check to see when you last made a call.

:confused:

Where did you get the idea that you can't have a phone in a car?

You just won't be able to USE it in the car.

And that post had nothing to do with my question...

EricNau
Jan 12, 2009, 08:13 PM
Ok we have a cell phone ban, someone has a phone in the car, does a cop check to see when you last made a call.
And who's proposing this method of enforcement? This law would have to compliment all other laws, including those regarding probable cause and search & seizure.

That's nothing but a straw man (which, I should point out, is not a valid form of argument).

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 08:14 PM
:confused:

Where did you get the idea that you can't have a phone in a car?

You just won't be able to USE it in the car.

And that post had nothing to do with my question...

And who's proposing this method of enforcement? This law would have to compliment all other laws, including those regarding probable cause and search & seizure.

That's nothing but a straw man (which, I should point out, is not a valid form of argument).If it is a hands free ban, and you are using car speakers to make a call how does a cop decide. Does he look for someone talking to themselves? How do you enforce it?

leekohler
Jan 12, 2009, 08:14 PM
Ok we have a cell phone ban, someone has a phone in the car, does a cop check to see when you last made a call.

Of course not. But if they see you on your phone driving, you're gonna get it. We have a cell phone ban here, and I'm glad. I can't count the times I've almost been hit by a driver on their phone. Just about everyone I know has said the same has happened to them several times in the past. I haven't heard too many stories like that since the ban went into effect. Get a hands free headset if you really need to make a call.

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 08:15 PM
Get a hands free headset if you really need to make a call.That will be banned too, that is the point.

r.j.s
Jan 12, 2009, 08:16 PM
Get a hands free headset if you really need to make a call.

Under this new law, you can't do that.

SactoGuy18
Jan 12, 2009, 08:23 PM
Alas, I don't think they'll ever get such a ban--the quite powerful cellphone manufacturers will ensure such a ban will never come into place.

jzuena
Jan 12, 2009, 08:24 PM
please, there are many more safe riders than those that arent

there are also magnitudes more drivers who talk on cell phones than those who split lanes

why are you eveb trying to talk about motorcycle riders as dangerous?. you dont get the point do you? i could say even as a car driver its dangerous to get hit by an idiot whos talking on the phone

i said motorcycle as there is alot more potential to get injured due to a simple fender bender than if i were in a car. i said as a motorcycle rider as i now have a greater appreciateion for road safety than i did when i just drove a car


why dont we argue about speeders, those who run red lights as well. i mean those activites are dangerous. who woulda thunk

you post is not relevant at all.

pissing and moaning? how about more like wanting laws that enact greater road safety:rolleyes:

sorry if i value my life over another persons phone call. some people...

You want to get an appreciation for safety? Become a pilot. Not only are we expected to pay attention to what we are about to fly towards (keep your eyes on the road, so to speak) while also determining where we are trying to go (keep your eyes on a map and on electronic navigation aids, not all of which are as easy to use as GPS) and, horror of horrors, carry on a conversation on the "phone" while also getting weather information that must be used during the fight. And the "phone number" we need to talk on (VHF communication channel) as well as the one we need to navigate by (VOR navigation channel) is constantly changing. We don't have the luxury of just pulling over if things are happening too fast for us to keep up. Its called multitasking (as well as passing several tests that aren't a joke like a drivers license test... even a motorcycle one). Police already have the power to pull someone over for distracted driving. Rather than outright banning all use of the phone while driving, step up enforcement against those who show they clearly can't multitask, and let it be known that this will be an emphasis.

dmr727
Jan 12, 2009, 08:26 PM
My job requires me to be accessible while in the car, so I have a bluetooth headset as a result. If they don't allow cell phone use in the car at all, I'd be happy with it. My employer would deal, and like others have mentioned, it'd give me a great excuse to screen my calls. :)

Do I think I can drive safely with a bluetooth headset? Yeah, but I also think I can drive safely at only a .08. And I certainly don't have any problem with that law.

leekohler
Jan 12, 2009, 08:32 PM
That will be banned too, that is the point.

Hmm...then I don't support it. We allow hands free here, and it's been a long time since I've heard of any incidents. Gotta disagree with this, even as much as I hate cell phones.

jzuena
Jan 12, 2009, 08:44 PM
Likewise, many people have driven while intoxicated "without incident."

Once again, this is simply putting your preference and convenience above the safety of others, for which there is no excuse.

No, it might mean that MacNut has made an honest assessment of what is distracting and what can be done safely for MacNut. And a one-size fits all approach removes the ability for police to use their judgement of whether any given individual can use the phone responsibly and still drive effectively, which would actually make things safer. If the problem is driving while distracted, then enforce laws against those doing so regardless of what it was distracting them. By all means air public service notices showing what distracted driving looks like and make a cell phone user one of the skits (kind of like the drunk driving commercials that have been on for the last couple of years with drivers in cars filled with booze), but don't single that one cause out and just ban it outright, cause then you still haven't actually gotten to the real problem.

The real fix would be to use system like Germany. You don't get a license until you actually can show that you know how to drive. And if you f* up, you don't drive any more. People would be forced to really assess their driving skills and stay away from situations that are beyond their ability.

zioxide
Jan 12, 2009, 09:50 PM
Get a hands free headset if you really need to make a call.

How is that any safer? You don't get distracted by holding a phone to your ear. You get distracted by the conversation.



How many people are killed in car crashes every year? We should just ban cars. It would be a lot safer if everyone walked everywhere.

Banning everything is stupid. I'm sick of this nanny state ********.

NT1440
Jan 12, 2009, 09:51 PM
Banning everything is stupid. I'm sick of this nanny state ********.

Says the guy from the state that just got marijuana decriminalized;)

dukebound85
Jan 12, 2009, 09:58 PM
You want to get an appreciation for safety? Become a pilot. Not only are we expected to pay attention to what we are about to fly towards (keep your eyes on the road, so to speak) while also determining where we are trying to go (keep your eyes on a map and on electronic navigation aids, not all of which are as easy to use as GPS) and, horror of horrors, carry on a conversation on the "phone" while also getting weather information that must be used during the fight. And the "phone number" we need to talk on (VHF communication channel) as well as the one we need to navigate by (VOR navigation channel) is constantly changing. We don't have the luxury of just pulling over if things are happening too fast for us to keep up. Its called multitasking (as well as passing several tests that aren't a joke like a drivers license test... even a motorcycle one). Police already have the power to pull someone over for distracted driving. Rather than outright banning all use of the phone while driving, step up enforcement against those who show they clearly can't multitask, and let it be known that this will be an emphasis.

Well FAA requires communication by law with planes. These calls are concerning the flight, not your kids problems at school. See the difference? One distracts from flying and one encourages more attention to it. Not to mention that communication in no way is needed to operate a car, while it is for a plane....

Me thinks the requirements to be a pilot and to drive a car are just an itsy bitsy different, as are the regulations and area density of other vehcles around

leekohler
Jan 12, 2009, 09:59 PM
How is that any safer? You don't get distracted by holding a phone to your ear. You get distracted by the conversation.



How many people are killed in car crashes every year? We should just ban cars. It would be a lot safer if everyone walked everywhere.

Banning everything is stupid. I'm sick of this nanny state ********.

Do you talk to passengers in your car? Yes. I don't see a problem with hands-free devices. It was having to hold something with one hand that makes it dangerous in my book. Both hands need to be available in the event of possible emergency.

zioxide
Jan 12, 2009, 10:01 PM
Says the guy from the state that just got marijuana decriminalized;)

That was done by the voters. :D It's the retarded government who thinks they should ban everything to keep us "safe". Most of the congress here opposed the marijuana decriminalization. But to get back on topic...

Put the question to the voters. Congress shouldn't be able to pass laws that infringe on our rights like this.

Do you talk to passengers in your car? Yes. I don't see a problem with hands-free devices. It was having to hold something with one hand that makes it dangerous in my book. Both hands need to be available in the event of possible emergency.

I'm pretty sure you can control a steering wheel fine with just one hand.

drichards
Jan 12, 2009, 10:20 PM
People should be responsible enough to follow safe driving practices, but they're not. I am absolutely against a blanket ban on wireless mobile communications. I have been using handafree for much longer than the law has dictated, and I absolutely support that local law and the text ban, but this new law is ridiculous. Eating, windshield mounted GPS, and children all present a far more active safety risk. This type of suggested legislation is by and large a revenue generator. Talking on the cell phone is pretty easy to spot, and its an easy $90 for the local municipality for the officer's six minutes.

EricNau
Jan 12, 2009, 10:24 PM
Do you talk to passengers in your car? Yes. I don't see a problem with hands-free devices. It was having to hold something with one hand that makes it dangerous in my book. Both hands need to be available in the event of possible emergency.
The science contradicts your opinion. It's not holding the phone that's the distraction, it's talking on the phone that's the problem. This notion is very well supported among the scientific community, and can be found in the articles posted earlier in this thread.

People drive poorly while talking on the phone because they're distracted by the conversation, not because they don't have two hands on the wheel. Think about it: when you saw a driver distracted by a cellphone, were they currently in the midst of an emergency driving maneuver, or were they having difficulties performing normal driving procedures? In most instances, I would expect that latter to be the case. Hence, the current hands-free law is completely bogus.

Also, talking with passengers is an entirely different phenomenon, and our minds handle the process differently.

r.j.s
Jan 12, 2009, 10:28 PM
Also, talking with passengers is an entirely different phenomenon, and our minds handle the process differently.

This is where I believe your argument, or the science, to be flawed, a conversation is a conversation. If anything, I get more involved when the person is present because I will talk with my hands and glance over at them.

NT1440
Jan 12, 2009, 10:30 PM
This is where I believe your argument, or the science, to be flawed, a conversation is a conversation. If anything, I get more involved when the person is present because I will talk with my hands and glance over at them.

READ the links provided in the thread before you jump to your own conclusions, one of them clearly states they are different processes.

anjinha
Jan 12, 2009, 10:32 PM
This is where I believe your argument, or the science, to be flawed, a conversation is a conversation. If anything, I get more involved when the person is present because I will talk with my hands and glance over at them.

"Talking on a cell phone has a special social demand, such that not attending to the cell conversation can be interpreted as rude, insulting behavior," he noted. A passenger, by contrast, is likely to recognize increased demands on the driver's attention and stop talking.

from http://www.cmu.edu/news/archive/2008/March/march5_drivingwhilelistening.shtml

Moof1904
Jan 12, 2009, 10:34 PM
Governments are too lazy to enforce the laws they have so they try to ban the object that they blame for the unacceptable behavior that they've already made illegal and failed to enforce.

Every state in the U.S. and probably every country in the world has laws against reckless driving, not to mention a zillion laws against specific traffic violations. I say enforce all of those laws and there won't be a problem.

EricNau
Jan 12, 2009, 10:39 PM
This is where I believe your argument, or the science, to be flawed, a conversation is a conversation. If anything, I get more involved when the person is present because I will talk with my hands and glance over at them.
To be fair, the scientific literature is mixed. However, the majority of the studies found significant differences. As to the reason, most scientists have attributed the conversational flow as the major difference. In other words, passengers are able to regulate their conversation according to the current driving conditions, whereas the phone cannot.

There's undoubtedly truth to this notion, but the conditions to which this hypothesis apply may not be relevant to the conversations that lead to accidents (i.e. conditions leading to collisions may not be noticeable by passengers).

r.j.s
Jan 12, 2009, 10:46 PM
READ the links provided in the thread before you jump to your own conclusions, one of them clearly states they are different processes.

"Talking on a cell phone has a special social demand, such that not attending to the cell conversation can be interpreted as rude, insulting behavior," he noted. A passenger, by contrast, is likely to recognize increased demands on the driver's attention and stop talking.

from http://www.cmu.edu/news/archive/2008/March/march5_drivingwhilelistening.shtml

If you read the article, it says that it is not known how talking to a passenger compares. Regardless of the one person's opinion quoted in the article, they may have the same effect. We don't know.

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 11:21 PM
Can't the argument be made for kids in the back seat, I wonder what the studies are on that vs somebody in the front.

zioxide
Jan 12, 2009, 11:23 PM
Can't the argument be made for kids in the back seat, I wonder what the studies are on that vs somebody in the front.

Maybe we should just ban kids too.

r.j.s
Jan 12, 2009, 11:24 PM
Maybe we should just ban kids too.

Fine with me, they can stay home all day.




Oh, you mean completely.

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 11:29 PM
What are the studies on talking on a cell phone vs listening to the radio, are the distractions similar. Both have your mind listening to something else.

EricNau
Jan 12, 2009, 11:48 PM
What are the studies on talking on a cell phone vs listening to the radio, are the distractions similar. Both have your mind listening to something else.
"In two different experiments, associate professor of psychology Dr. Amit Almor found that planning to speak and speaking put far more demands on the brain’s resources than listening." Link (http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/541303/)

MacNut
Jan 12, 2009, 11:53 PM
"In two different experiments, associate professor of psychology Dr. Amit Almor found that planning to speak and speaking put far more demands on the brain’s resources than listening." Link (http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/541303/)I would think it would be more to listen and process what you are hearing.

So listening to a cell phone is not the problem it is the talking part?

How is that not different from talking to a passenger if it is the same brain power?

That study looks to me to say that any conversation is a distraction, not just cell phones.A study by a University of South Carolina psychology researcher featured in the journal, Experimental Psychology, provides a better understanding of why language – talking and listening, including on a cell phone – interferes with visual tasks, such as driving. Measurement of attention levels showed that subjects were four times more distracted while preparing to speak or speaking than when they were listening.

MacNut
Jan 13, 2009, 12:16 AM
If you read the article, it says that it is not known how talking to a passenger compares. Regardless of the one person's opinion quoted in the article, they may have the same effect. We don't know.Now that study says listening is bad, and it is using a simulator so I don't consider that a real baseline test.

Rodimus Prime
Jan 13, 2009, 07:03 AM
Of course not. But if they see you on your phone driving, you're gonna get it. We have a cell phone ban here, and I'm glad. I can't count the times I've almost been hit by a driver on their phone. Just about everyone I know has said the same has happened to them several times in the past. I haven't heard too many stories like that since the ban went into effect. Get a hands free headset if you really need to make a call.

yet it been proven hands free headset does jack in making some one a better driver. Studies have shown there is little if any difference between the 2.

I think the ban should go in place in cities. not such a huge fan of it for countries roads.

I can think of times when cell phones are very helpful while driving and that is for given directions.

Rodimus Prime
Jan 13, 2009, 07:08 AM
I would think it would be more to listen and process what you are hearing.

So listening to a cell phone is not the problem it is the talking part?

How is that not different from talking to a passenger if it is the same brain power?

That study looks to me to say that any conversation is a distraction, not just cell phones.


The part with the passenger is aware of their what is going on around them. the studies shows the passenger will tend to adjust the conversation based on current traffic. In the cell phone the person on the other end of the line is not aware of what is currently going on it the car so they do not adjust to it.
Which is why the the passenger part does not come into play in the cell phone ban.

jzuena
Jan 13, 2009, 07:55 AM
Well FAA requires communication by law with planes. These calls are concerning the flight, not your kids problems at school. See the difference? One distracts from flying and one encourages more attention to it. Not to mention that communication in no way is needed to operate a car, while it is for a plane....

Me thinks the requirements to be a pilot and to drive a car are just an itsy bitsy different, as are the regulations and area density of other vehcles around

My point is that there are people talking and operating motor vehicles all the time. And the density near an airport can be high, yet that's when pilots end up doing even more communicating than the rest of the flight. There are no laws requiring communications with/from airplanes by the FAA. You can hop in a plane and make an entire flight without uttering a single word. There are requirements to communicate before entering certain types of airspace or land at larger airports or fly in certain types of weather, but not a blanket rule that you must communicate while flying. Ironically, communication requirements only kick in when there is MORE traffic around meaning more distractions. Notice the lack of a one size fits all, total requirement rule here?

Who says all phone conversations are about the kids problems at school? Some of us don't even have kids, are we exempt from the law? Since this law just makes a blanket rule without leaving any leeway for law enforcement to see if the vehicle is still being handled safely, it will either never get passed or never get enforced unless there is an accident and then it will be added to the reckless/distracted driving charges that will already be given.

I'm sorry you don't feel safe driving on your motorcycle due to people having the right to use phones. I don't feel safe driving when there are motorcycles around, because I have seen enough of them going well above the speed limit and weaving in and out of traffic. Or driving between the rows of traffic when there is a stoppage on the highway, or making their own lane next to the right lane at a light with a long line of traffic in the city and almost causing an accident when a car then makes a right turn or tries to parallel park. Since there is a potential for that kind of behavior, maybe we should ban motorcycles on the road as well?

People are good at looking at a proposed law and saying "that won't affect me" and then not doing anything about it. I hate talking on the phone while driving and won't do it, but I still think outright banning it is the wrong way to go. Punish the resulting behavior not the device that might lead to that behavior, but can be used safely if done properly.

gnasher729
Jan 13, 2009, 12:23 PM
Of course not. But if they see you on your phone driving, you're gonna get it. We have a cell phone ban here, and I'm glad. I can't count the times I've almost been hit by a driver on their phone. Just about everyone I know has said the same has happened to them several times in the past. I haven't heard too many stories like that since the ban went into effect. Get a hands free headset if you really need to make a call.

Just yesterday I had some idiot on the motorway slow down to 50 mph in front of me for no apparent reason. When I passed him, my wife noticed that the driver was texting while driving.

I don't think this should go through. My dad really needs to use a cell phone while driving, to talk to customers, the office, employees, etc.. Basically, he is consistently on his phone throughout the entire day. If he had to pull over every time he got a phone call, he wouldn't leave our driveway, and wouldn't be able to get any work done.

I'm sorry, but talking and driving is a necessity for some people. I'm not saying it isn't dangerous, it's just that for some people, their line of work requires it.

No, it doesn't. When your dad kills someone while talking on the phone, will you tell that to the relatives of the victim?

MacNut
Jan 13, 2009, 12:41 PM
But is it ok for somebody to kill someone because they were eating a burger or putting on makeup or smoking? You know how many cars I have seen weave because they were lighting a cigarette.

IJ Reilly
Jan 13, 2009, 12:45 PM
But is it ok for somebody to kill someone because they were eating a burger or putting on makeup or smoking? You know how many cars I have seen weave because they were lighting a cigarette.

Cars lighting a cigarette -- now that's something I'd pay to see!

MacNut
Jan 13, 2009, 12:47 PM
Cars lighting a cigarette -- now that's something I'd pay to see!Well the cigarette lighter is doing all the work.

You know what I meant.;)

IJ Reilly
Jan 13, 2009, 01:00 PM
Well the cigarette lighter is doing all the work.

You know what I meant.;)

Well now I do.

MacNut
Jan 13, 2009, 01:07 PM
Countless times I have seen people light a cigarette and almost lose control of their car. I wonder how many people that are against cell phones don't mind smoking.

EricNau
Jan 13, 2009, 01:10 PM
Countless times I have seen people light a cigarette and almost lose control of their car. I wonder how many people that are against cell phones don't mind smoking.
Then why not propose your own law to ban smoking while driving? This thread, however, is about cellphones.

MacNut
Jan 13, 2009, 01:12 PM
Then why not propose your own law to ban smoking while driving? This thread, however, is about cellphones.No this thread is about the hypocrisy that just cell phones are a distraction. My whole point has been why are we just focusing on cell phones.

skunk
Jan 13, 2009, 01:14 PM
But is it ok for somebody to kill someone because they were eating a burger or putting on makeup or smoking?Isn't killing someone because they are eating a burger taking vigilantism just a little too far? :eek:

MacNut
Jan 13, 2009, 01:16 PM
Isn't killing someone because they are eating a burger taking vigilantism just a little too far? :eek:Not if it is a distraction to other people on the road. A distraction is a distraction it doesn't matter what it is.

Cell phones, eating, smoking, the result is the same. You are not focusing on the road.