But is smoking or eating not dangerous?
Neither require near the brain power or cognitive skills, its mostly muscle memory.
But is smoking or eating not dangerous?
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.But is smoking or eating not dangerous?
I would say reaching or the burger or soda or changing the radio is more distracting.
But your eyes are on the road when you are talking, it only takes a second to reach down and hit something.Both of which take a few seconds max. Conversations dont usually end that abruptly.
I would say reaching for the burger or soda or changing the radio is more distracting.
I would say reaching for the burger or soda or changing the radio is more distracting.
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
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
I'd say watching a movie on the hacked DVD player in the dash is the most distracting.
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.
But your eyes are on the road when you are talking, it only takes a second to reach down and hit something.
So how is that different from talking to a passenger.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.
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
So how is that different from talking to a passenger.
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 have you found studies about eating? Because there are no studies it is fine?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
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.
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.