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?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nationwide Hands free Cell Phone Ban for Drivers Urged
- Thread starter MacNut
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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?
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
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?
Then that would make passengers' phones useless as well, why are you trying to punish them too?
driving is not a right..
thats why i said rough ideas. by no means did i claim they were perfect, just brainstorming
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.)
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?
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.
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.
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
No one, cops can do whatever they want
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.
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.
I'm sure it would increase, but how many deaths/accidents are still going to happen because of Driving While Talking?
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?
That's not what I said. This law would protect innocent bystanders.
Is that a reason not to instigate it?
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.
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.