Maybe the drunk driving laws should be removed as well. For unless the police either witness an accident or witness the perp being drunk, what good is the law? Applying your thoughts drunk driving accidents should be punishable under minor "infraction" laws since there are enough of them anyway.
By your logic, since the drunk driving laws really don't stop drunk driving, what good are they?
BTW I couldn't disagree more with the thoughts presented in the post.
You hit the nail on the head with this comment: "It doesn't necessarily have to be enforced other than when the actions of the simplest 10 % results in a death."
kdshapiro: Maybe the drunk driving laws should be removed as well. For unless the police either witness an accident or witness the perp being drunk, what good is the law? Applying your thoughts drunk driving accidents should be punishable under minor "infraction" laws since there are enough of them anyway.
Except that drunk drivers are not charged solely on the basis of eyewitness testimony by the police or anyone else.
There must be a legally valid blood alcohol content (BAC) reading to prove that the driver's condition meets the legal definition of "driving under the influence" before he or she can be tried and convicted of this offense. And refusal to take the test can result in its own set of punishments.
By your logic, since the drunk driving laws really don't stop drunk driving, what good are they?
Good question. Their only value is that they allow society to extract revenge on the perpetrator of this anti-social act. I guess if it was a family member of mine that had gotten injured by a drunk driver I would want my pound of flesh. The reality is that it didn't stop this tragedy from happening and it doesn't reverse the consequences. Capital punishment is a great example. It has zero deterrent value but does provide a means to seek revenge. Maybe that's a good enough reason to justify a law.
I love it when someone references kids. Since we were talking about Homer Simpson it reminds me of Maude Flanders who used to always shriek at town meetings, "will someone please think about the children". The cynicism is classic.
No, by my logic they are spitting in the wind with this one. If we think about it this is going to be a pretty hard to prove law. My state has give the hand held units cart blanch for Usage till 2008. Anyone that is now using them can easily switch to a blue tooth style phone and go hands free after 2008. The only people that will be deterred from using the cell phone in the car will be the people that don't like them in the first place. Cell phone users can continue to use their cell phones just as much as they are now.
But let us use your example. You get pulled over for suspicion of Drunk driving and you blow a .05. They can shake their finger at you but they would have to let you go. The point is they have something to measure against. Lets saw you have nextel/Sprint. even with a hand held you don't have to be near your ear or the side of your face. Red light hit you and you what? Ask the person to hold while you get a ticket? Or do you hang up and ask the officer why he pulled you over, as several people go speeding by? With drunk driving there is a test to see if you are under the influence. How will that work with a cell phone? We are after all a nation of laws aren't we? Innocent till proven guilty? Or do you disagree with that as well? It isn't what you or I might do. I don't believe in drinking and driving at "all" but that doesn't stop some from doing it, legally under .08. I just can't see people that have been using the cell phone legally for so many years not finding a legal way around this law because it is so easy to beat. I am sure some people will get caught at first but how long before they find a way around this? And of course like I said before, there are already laws concerning being the cause of an accident. We didn't need another one that is doomed from the beginning. At least in my state I believe it is doomed.
They're not going to outlaw donuts next, are they? I see people eating them while they drive almost every day, AND they contribute to an increase in the burden of healthcare for the uninsured, as well as mortality from obesity, heart attack, stroke, you name it! It's a double whammy! Heck they should have gotten the legislation done on this one first, it's urgent!
:-P
This legislation is an example of something all too common in the many state legislatures across the land - trying to take credit for doing something, while in reality accomplishing nothing.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"You get pulled over for suspicion of Drunk driving and you blow a .05. They can shake their finger at you but they would have to let you go."
I'm not sure of your point. Because proving usage on a cell phone *might* be more difficult than drunk driving the law doesn't belong on the books. I don't agree. Cell phone users (not hands-free) are a danger to the public at large. In the same way a drunk driver doesn't recognize the danger, neither does a cell phone user. The law gives the police more teeth in dealing with this issue.
It's a matter of time before all 50 states adopt some type of resolution.
"This legislation is an example of something all too common in the many state legislatures across the land - trying to take credit for doing something, while in reality accomplishing nothing."
Maybe we should elect politicians who get rid of every law and use the ten commandments. Right? The basis of every law on the books is buried within those 10 little guidelines.
I agree. And I for one am happy drunk driving and cell phone laws are in place. These laws obviously do not stop behaviors, which can cause issues on the road, but maybe, and this is a big maybe, people will get the message to make our roads safer.
Since when does a law have to be effective in order to justify its existence?
Exactly. No one seems to care if the laws actually work, they seem motivated just by the urge to have "done something", even if that something isn't particularly effective.
Perhaps we should just jump to the next step, and think of another dozen things that we can ban. We could start a crusade to eliminate radios, cupholders, CD's, CB's and ashtrays. When we've run out of objects, we can move on to banning kids, conversation, passenger seats and talking to one's self.
If all that doesn't do any good...who cares? If it feels good, ban it.
Exactly. No one seems to care if the laws actually work, they seem motivated just by the urge to have "done something", even if that something isn't particularly effective.
I really think that the best recent example was when Montana replaced its set speed limits with the term "reasonable and prudent". Accident/fatality rates actually declined a little. The problem is that laws provide comfort for some people and this "reasonable and prudent" approach was way too unorthodox for their mindset. So it didn't last long. My prediction is these cell phone restrictions will eventually get adopted nationwide. We will see no drop in accident rates yet the laws will continue to exist. How could any politician suggest eliminating this type of law without coming under attack for being anti-highway safety? Reagan once said that the nearest thing we will see to eternal life on this earth is a government program. He was right and that applies to legislation as well.
Maybe we should elect politicians who get rid of every law and use the ten commandments. Right? The basis of every law on the books is buried within those 10 little guidelines.
The tactic of arguing against a position by taking it to the opposite and ridiculous extreme is fairly common and also fairly mindless.
While way off topic your statement regarding the ten commandments is so blatantly false that I feel compelled to inform you of this. If you disagree then I suggest you do a web search on Thomas Jefferson, Christianity, common law and the Ten Commandments. Since Thomas Jefferson was the primary framer of our constitution I consider his position to be definitive on this matter.
"The tactic of arguing against a position by taking it to the opposite and ridiculous extreme is fairly common and also fairly mindless."
I agree. That seems to be tatic to rally against another law trying to do some good. Since the law encroaches on your "personal freedom", at the expense of the safety of the public at large, let's try all sorts of ridiculous arguments in a public forum to try to prove the law is stupid.
Thank you for pointing that out.
As for the search regarding the framers of the constitution, we're having a discussion, not a discourse of our constitution.
As for the search regarding the framers of the constitution, we're having a discussion, not a discourse of our constitution.
And you should all be thankful, or I would win hands-down :P
Let's try to stay away from hyperbole and concentrate on the existing or potential laws that relate to using a cell phone while driving, please. Hyperbole doesn't demonstrate anything, apart from permitting me the opportunity show off my ability to use polysyllabic words.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
this morning, and a guy comes shooting on from the on-ramp in his Chevy pick-up. Right away he is driving like an absolute FREAK, braking and acclerating for no reason, almost rear-ending the guy in front of him more than once, weaving left to right.
"What could be up with this guy?", I wonder to myself. When I get the chance I go around him, and glance over. He is trying to eat what looks like cereal from a bowl which I guess he is clutching with his knees, causing him to spend most of his time staring down into his own lap.
Not a single phone in sight. But this behavior, which almost caused an accident, will never be outlawed, while they waste time with other ineffective legislation.
Here's a thought: in the hyper-paranoid culture in which we find ourselves in this country today, we probably wouldn't be able to repeal the 55 speed limit if it were still in effect today. It would be dangerous and bad for highway safety. Good thing they went back to 65 a decade ago.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"Not a single phone in sight. But this behavior, which almost caused an accident, will never be outlawed, while they waste time with other ineffective legislation."
So what? Of course anything that takes away from driving is dangerous, but what is the percentage of cereal eating dudes vs cell phone users? Obviously those states that outlawed hand-held phones have done their homework and responded in an appropriate manner.
As for the search regarding the framers of the constitution, we're having a discussion, not a discourse of our constitution.
I agree completely. Remember that you were the one who originally mentioned the 10 commandments being the basis for laws. I just pointed out that you were wrong and I did preface this comment by acknowledging it was way off topic just like your comment that I was responding to. Its difficult for me to let misinformation go unchallenged.
Nippon is correct. The studies that are cited most often showing cell phone use as a distraction have shown eating while driving to me more of a distraction. Cell phone use was not at the top of the list. But that isn't the point is it? The point is do we float useless laws simply make us feel like we are doing something or because they solve a problem or even address it? Creating a law is a lot more expensive than simply the cost of the ink and paper.
The approach we most often see reminds me of the commercial with the king sitting discussing the problem of an attacking giant sloth. He looks around and one of his consultants suggest that they toss a giant projectile at the sloth. The projectile is a large bag of money. We all see how silly that concept is but we all also see it happen time and time again. Then somewhere down the road we have to clean out our laws to reflect modern technology. But that isn't any problem, it may cost more than it is worth but it makes us feel like we have done something to correct a problem even if it may not be a problem. Just because someone passes a law doesn't make it a good law.
but what is the percentage of cereal eating dudes vs cell phone users? Obviously those states that outlawed hand-held phones have done their homework and responded in an appropriate manner.
Someone referenced a study that indicated eating was the number one distraction that led to accidents, with cell phones being second. This makes the states inconsistent response somewhat curious and not what I would describe as appropriate based on homework. I'm guessing there are a lot of people that personally feel cell phones are more dangerous regardless of the data and they are the squeaky wheels driving legislation.
"The studies that are cited most often showing cell phone use as a distraction have shown eating while driving to me more of a distraction"
I don't understand. So studies have shown that cell phone users have an equivalent mental driving capacity as a DUI, and cereal eaters even have less than that. If that is really the case, then cell phone and eating laws ought to be in the same package.
"But that isn't any problem, it may cost more than it is worth but it makes us feel like we have done something to correct a problem even if it may not be a problem."
That's the crux of the discussion isn't it? You don't believe it's a problem, while I believe it's a very big issue. Well today, November 7, you get to speak your mind. I did.
I voted last week and sorry, I don't remember seeing that on my ballot. Did I miss it? I think I am able to eat, drink coffee, turn to the back seat to chastise a child, talk heatedly and still talk on the cell phone at the same time legally tomorrow. Should I or would I is the question. Now if I don't do any of those things because I am a responsible driver then being educated as to my responsibilities was enough. If I am also aware that not paying attention and having an accident will cause me to be held responsible for my actions that should be enough. But lets say I decide to ignore the first two. So we spend the time and money to pass a law that can easily be defeated by stealth or technology and that somehow will have more effect on my driving than the first two? I don't follow how that is supposed to work. Someone is concerned enough to pass a law banning hand held cell phone use because cell phone use is distracting and yet they leave a loop hole the size of Texas in that reasoning that says simply put your hands free to use and it is ok? Is cell phone use a problem or is it a red cape to people that don't like cell phone use while driving? Maybe if we simply enforced some of the laws on the books this wouldn't be a problem? Unless we are saying the laws we already have are ineffective? And if they are ineffective does it do any good to pass simply another law that is even more ineffective? Passing laws that are easily circumvented is not doing your homework, it is knee jerk politics.
I voted last week and sorry, I don't remember seeing that on my ballot. Did I miss it?
I plan on voting this evening. Are you telling me that I won't find a referendum opposing cell phone legislation? Well then I'll just vote for the candidate that opposes additional, ineffective legislation in general. What, there isn't one of those either? Occasionally there's a Libertarian candidate but that's purely a protest vote. But somehow the fact that I can vote indicates that I do have some input in these matters. I disagree, voting is merely an exercise in choosing the lesser of two evils. A viable candidate that challenged the status quo would be devoured by the entrenched interests long before he made it on a ballot. I remember a thread a while back concerning our speed limits and the comment would be made that if you don't like them then use the democratic process to change them. Funny I don't seem to remember ever being given that opportunity either.
"Passing laws that are easily circumvented is not doing your homework, it is knee jerk politics."
Who said the laws were ineffective. A number of people including me, stopped using phones held to their ears and got headsets? Not only is it much more comfortable, it's safer.
The NHTSA actually opposes the hands free legislation. Their reason is that the primary distraction is due to the conversation, not the phone itself. They believe that these hands free laws will send the wrong message. Regardless, the fact that hands free phones exists is why cell phone laws are unenforceable and we're far better off with an education campaign that encourages motorists to exercise good judgement when using cell phones.
I would SO love to see an education campaign just like that! And I would want it to be more broad-ranging, addressing good-judgment responses to other situations and potential distractions behind the wheel.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"Their reason is that the primary distraction is due to the conversation, not the phone itself."
Not true.. both items are a major contributing item. While hands-free is still not all roses, it's a better compromise than outright banning cell phone usage.
I think raising public awareness through ad campaigns is very effective. I attribute the significant drop in alcohol related injuries and fatalities during the 80's to these methods. On the other hand the get tough approach during the last 10 years hasn't yielded much in the way of results. Maybe more arrests and penalties but no fewer deaths. The data speaks for itself. I'd like to believe that you could solve social problems with laws because it would be so simple. Unfortunately to subscribe to this approach requires that your head be buried deeply in the sand.
"On the other hand the get tough approach during the last 10 years hasn't yielded much in the way of results"
There are more public awareness ads than ever before about drunk driving. The only conclusion you can make is that people aren't listening to these messages anymore. Hence maybe a get tough approach will be able to work.
I'd like to believe we are all part of Planet World and with a twinkle of the nose all ills of earth would be wiped away, but back here on earth this really isn't so. Get tough laws have a place in our society. Holding cell phones to your ear whilst driving carrying on an intense conversation is begging for trouble.
A friend of mine relayed a story to me that backs up the claims about cell phone users blanking out. Friend took a cell phone call on the hands free, engaged in an intense office conversation. When the guy hung up he was at least 40 miles off course, didn't even know where he was.
No matter how it's sliced, cell phones and intense conversation do not go hand in hand with driving (or go minimally).
I'd like to believe we are all part of Planet World and with a twinkle of the nose all ills of earth would be wiped away, but back here on earth this really isn't so. Get tough laws have a place in our society.
The US has an incarceration rate that is 6x that of Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and all European countries. That represents getting tough. We also continue to have a higher crime rate than these countries. That represents ineffectiveness, or maybe we are just defective. Ineffective approach or defective population. Those are the only two options that I can see. But let's not get bogged down with trivial matters like results. I mean maybe the problem is that we aren't tough enough. We can always enact more laws, hire more cops and build more jails. Some might think that 2 million people already in jail was more than enough. Not the real hard-liners. Let's get it up to 3 million. If the problems still exist then 4 million. No need to ever admit that what you're doing isn't working. It's all about "staying the course".
one valid reason to not legislate cell phones. Appeals to utopian societies where no laws are needed do not pragmatically accomplish anything. Laws do accomplish things to a very limited extent. Think back. Why are there laws against drunk driving? It was primarily due to activist groups such as MADD (mothers against drunk driving). There was no "hard statistical evidence". It was emotional appeals from parents who watched a drunk kill their son/daughter and walk away scott free. That is where vigilantism comes into place. It says put away your AK-47 and let us (the courts) try to take care of it.
Ummm.. two things I will say on the matter is the US is not a socialist state. That in and of itself is a huge difference between the US and other countries listed. Second, with the exception of our neighbors to the North the US has the most lax policy on immigration.
Appeals to utopian societies where no laws are needed do not pragmatically accomplish anything
Give an example of a utopian society where no laws are needed. Oh wait, you were using the take a point to a ridiculous extreme tactic. Very clever and compelling. I merely pointed out that the US has the highest incarceration rate on the planet. It should be a national disgrace. Using laws and the threat of punishment is a simplistic approach to solving social problems. Nothing wrong with that, often times the simplest solutions are the best. However intelligent people should be capable of recognizing when a tactic isn't working and re-think their approach. Especially when we are wasting a lot of resources on this futility. In a society that supposedly prides itself on freedom we are awfully enamored with laws.
Do you honestly feel that cell phone legislation will be effective at making the roadways safer? If so I wish that I could share your naivete. If not then what's the point?
Ummm.. two things I will say on the matter is the US is not a socialist state.
Most of the countries mentioned are not socialist states. In fact some socialist states have very high crime rates. Venezuala for one. You're correct though, the US is not a socialist state, we are becoming a police state. Much, much better.
I still haven't heard one valid reason to not legislate cell phones.
In a democracy, the burden of proof is on the person who wants to restrict liberty. The default position in our system is to allow everything, unless there is a good reason to outlaw it.
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
In other words, the Constitution doesn't need to spell out a right in order for us to have it (Amendment IX), and issues not decided by the Constitution are left to the states or to the people (Amendment X). The burden is on you.
US has the highest incarceration rate on the planet
Could it be due to the fact that we have death row prisoners waiting 20+ years to get whacked? It has nothing to do with making the streets safer by banning cell phone use. Not only safer but smoother running. If nippon wants to include eating cereal and Krispy Kremes I say go for it. We have lots of driving laws that get broken continually. That does not mean you take the law off the books. Do you want people speeding through your neighborhood or past your schools? Do you want drug dealers with access to the schools. I think their civil rights are being violated by forcing them to sell their product off of the PUBLIC school grounds. :sick:
Yes, they should. Just from personal experience, I've seen how unattentive cell users are while driving. I've been almost hit several times because the other driver swayed into my lane. or worse, just starting to move to the right into my lane while talking on a cell phone. Some of it was blatent negligent driving. The worse is that they then display an attitude about it. Sorry women, but you are the worst in this. No sexual discrimination intended, but every near miss has been the cause of a female on a cell phone that has occurred to me. There is hands-free now, it is called blue-tooth and many carmakers offer the option. Get it or stop using the cell phone while driving.
Because they are ineffective and take resources away that can be better used in other places. The police might even be out preventing a crime against society, like rape, robbery or the like. They might be able to respond to a abuse call if they weren’t trying prove the car they pulled over was talking on a cell phone and not just singing with his CD player. I am sure you will agree that you will agree that Kdshapiro is one of the supporters of this legislation. As such you would think that we have a perfect example of how people will respond to such a law. And because of such staunch support and the conviction that Cell phone usage is detrimental to a persons driving skill that such activity would stop because of that stand. Didn’t kdshapiro say in post 792, “No matter how it's sliced, cell phones and intense conversation do not go hand in hand with driving (or go minimally).”? But there seems to be a contradiction with something posted in 780, “Who said the laws were ineffective. A number of people including me, stopped using phones held to their ears and got headsets? Not only is it much more comfortable, it's safer.” If on the one hand someone is in full support of cell phone restriction for safety reasons wouldn’t you think they would reject all cell phone use for the same safety reasons? And if a cell phone restriction supporter has simply switched to hands free do we believe the ones that are already abusing cell phones now will be less likely to use this as a replacement for their hand held?
While tpe and I don’t always agree I think his post 782 is pretty much spot on., “The NHTSA actually opposes the hands free legislation. Their reason is that the primary distraction is due to the conversation, not the phone itself. They believe that these hands free laws will send the wrong message. Regardless, the fact that hands free phones exists is why cell phone laws are unenforceable and we're far better off with an education campaign that encourages motorists to exercise good judgment when using cell phones.”
Could it be due to the fact that we have death row prisoners waiting 20+ years to get whacked?
The simple answer to that would be no. There are 2.1 million people in jail at the present time and only 3,400 on death row. Execute them all right now and it won't make a dent in our incarceration rate. If we had an incarceration rate similar to Canada, Europe, New Zealand, Australia, Japan there would be 300-400 thousand people in prison. That's a staggering difference.
Do you want people speeding through your neighborhood or past your schools?
No but they do. Good example of ineffective laws.
Do you want drug dealers with access to the schools.
No, but I'm fairly sure that they do, at least drugs were available when I was in school. If drug free school zones are effective why not declare a drug free nation? Our drug policy might be the greatest example of squandering huge amounts of resources on an approach that not only fails to solve a problem but creates additional, worse problems. Remember Prohibition? Apparently our government didn't learn that lessson.
My primary point is that cell phone laws will be almost universally blown off. The small percentage that will comply probably represented the more responsible drivers to begin with, in other words not the problem.
The more useless laws we decide to put on the books the more the system as a whole is discredited.
It would be my suggestion to discontinue the hyperbole. We are not a police state simply because we have some laws on books that you don't agree with. (BTW. most of those countries are socialist states). I do not believe you have a complete picture of the issue. I do believe you have a passionate opinion however, and I respect that position. But as far as all the facts go, I'm not sure any of us has access to that information.
The laws were created for a reason. There were some facts behind the creation of the laws. Do you know those facts? How do you know that non-fatality accidents haven't increased severely and the police have been tracking the root cause, and the root cause was cell phone usage.
In the same way it took a long time to get drunk driving laws to where they are, I suspect it will be some time for cell phone usage laws.
Do you know those facts? How do you know that non-fatality accidents haven't increased severely and the police have been tracking the root cause, and the root cause was cell phone usage.
I've posted several times that the property damage only accident rate has dropped significantly and consistently in the past 15 years. My source is the NHTSA's data up through 2005. People have argued that this is due to safer cars. Well more people do wear their seatbelts and airbags are also standard but I don't see how that prevents the fender bender. Maybe its the anti-lock brakes that have perfectly negated the cell phone's impact. That's kind of a stretch as far as I'm concerned.
Property damage collisions could go down, but the root cause of a majority of them could be cell phone usage. My point is the thinking and rational behind the laws are not known, so how can we discuss the legislative process until the facts are known?
If drug free school zones are effective why not declare a drug free nation?
Lack of resolve, enforcement or tough penalties, like whacking drug dealers. The point being if no law existed on the books what would stop a drug dealer from setting up a booth in the playground? You would like for there to be NO laws. Some of us would not sell drugs because we may feel it is morally wrong. Or we may not use the cell phone in the car because we realize what a huge distraction it is for us. Others need laws to tell them "do not use your cell phone you idiot it is a big distraction". Laws are for people that were not given instruction as a child on what is good and what is not.
My point is the thinking and rational behind the laws are not known
These debates are public, the government doesn't work in secret. Basically, they quote the very same type of distraction studies posted earlier on this forum.
Which goes back to the other point being made here by the critics: Since we aren't seeing declining accident and fatality rates because of such laws, how can anyone possibly believe that they accomplish anything?
And as Boaz pointed out, having dumb laws on the books **distracts** the police from enforcing laws that might actually do some good. If you want to focus on distractions that actually cause problems for society, you might want to think about that one...
Latest negligent drive sighting was particularly striking: someone in a Crown Vic that kept stopping for green lights, or not noticing when the light they were sitting at had turned green, and not moving. One of the times I was grimly amused to see someone go screeching into the back of this driver, horn blaring, as they realized that the driver in front of them was not moving even though the light was green. As tires screeched and the horn blared, the driver of the CV hit the gas like a startled rabbit - only problem was, the wheel wasn't facing straight ahead, and she almost sideswiped the car next to her (waiting for a left turn light)!
So this driver was alongside me part of the time, and of course I looked for a cell phone. None in sight. What there WAS, however, was a very heated discussion/argument going on between the driver and her passenger, with both of them talking at once at times, and various hand gesticulations.
Negligent drivers are negligent drivers. The cell phone thing is a smokescreen.
But gagrice: YES! Absolutely, let's eliminate the hypocrisy/double standard. If we are going to ban handheld cell phone use, than I would like to see at the same time a ban on hands-free use as well, and a ban on all eating in the car, which is a far bigger contributor to erratic driving than the phones are. The cereal and Krispy Kremes MUST GO! In fact, it should be an all-inclusive ban that also prohibits reading while driving, including trying to read a map. Also, use of any A/V devices in the car that require loading a CD/DVD, and all communication via Bluetooth and OnStar-type devices. Accessing any function that is not located on the steering wheel, or voice-commanded, should be outlawed. You want to do something about highway safety and driver distraction? This is the only way. Not that this type of law would succeed, as drivers would revolt in large numbers, I am sure. :-/
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Funny. Yesterday, I was in a crosswalk, trying to cross on a green light with a WALK sign nicely lit, and two cars blew right in front of me, even though I had the right of way. It was only the third driver who obeyed the law and stopped.
Of course, it was the person who was on the phone who actually stopped to let me cross. The other two who paid no mind to my right of way were not on the phone. Perhaps they should be given phones so that they drive more safely?
kdshapiro: There are more public awareness ads than ever before about drunk driving. The only conclusion you can make is that people aren't listening to these messages anymore. Hence maybe a get tough approach will be able to work.
Except that states, under pressure from the federal government, have enacted the .08 BAC standard for drunk driving. Pennsylvania had to enact this lower standard or face federal sanctions (i.e., loss of a portion of federal highway funds).
States are already using the "get tough" approach with drunk driving, and, judging by the results, it is not effective.
kdshapiro: I'd like to believe we are all part of Planet World and with a twinkle of the nose all ills of earth would be wiped away, but back here on earth this really isn't so. Get tough laws have a place in our society. Holding cell phones to your ear whilst driving carrying on an intense conversation is begging for trouble.
Get tough laws have a place where they are effective, and are addressing a concrete problem.
So far, I've seen no evidence that cell phone usage has led to increased accidents and fatalitites.
kdshapiro: A friend of mine relayed a story to me that backs up the claims about cell phone users blanking out. Friend took a cell phone call on the hands free, engaged in an intense office conversation. When the guy hung up he was at least 40 miles off course, didn't even know where he was.
Anecdotes are interesting, but they are not the same as data.
Based on this story, I think your friend has issues far deeper than being distracted by cell phone use while driving.
kdshapiro: No matter how it's sliced, cell phones and intense conversation do not go hand in hand with driving (or go minimally).
No matter how it is sliced, no one has shown that increased cell phone usage has conclusively led to more accidents and fatalities.
Comments
By your logic, since the drunk driving laws really don't stop drunk driving, what good are they?
BTW I couldn't disagree more with the thoughts presented in the post.
You hit the nail on the head with this comment: "It doesn't necessarily have to be enforced other than when the actions of the simplest 10 % results in a death."
Even if its your death? Or your kids?
Except that drunk drivers are not charged solely on the basis of eyewitness testimony by the police or anyone else.
There must be a legally valid blood alcohol content (BAC) reading to prove that the driver's condition meets the legal definition of "driving under the influence" before he or she can be tried and convicted of this offense. And refusal to take the test can result in its own set of punishments.
Good question. Their only value is that they allow society to extract revenge on the perpetrator of this anti-social act. I guess if it was a family member of mine that had gotten injured by a drunk driver I would want my pound of flesh. The reality is that it didn't stop this tragedy from happening and it doesn't reverse the consequences. Capital punishment is a great example. It has zero deterrent value but does provide a means to seek revenge. Maybe that's a good enough reason to justify a law.
I love it when someone references kids. Since we were talking about Homer Simpson it reminds me of Maude Flanders who used to always shriek at town meetings, "will someone please think about the children". The cynicism is classic.
But let us use your example. You get pulled over for suspicion of Drunk driving and you blow a .05. They can shake their finger at you but they would have to let you go. The point is they have something to measure against. Lets saw you have nextel/Sprint. even with a hand held you don't have to be near your ear or the side of your face. Red light hit you and you what? Ask the person to hold while you get a ticket? Or do you hang up and ask the officer why he pulled you over, as several people go speeding by? With drunk driving there is a test to see if you are under the influence. How will that work with a cell phone? We are after all a nation of laws aren't we? Innocent till proven guilty? Or do you disagree with that as well? It isn't what you or I might do. I don't believe in drinking and driving at "all" but that doesn't stop some from doing it, legally under .08. I just can't see people that have been using the cell phone legally for so many years not finding a legal way around this law because it is so easy to beat. I am sure some people will get caught at first but how long before they find a way around this? And of course like I said before, there are already laws concerning being the cause of an accident. We didn't need another one that is doomed from the beginning. At least in my state I believe it is doomed.
:-P
This legislation is an example of something all too common in the many state legislatures across the land - trying to take credit for doing something, while in reality accomplishing nothing.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I'm not sure of your point. Because proving usage on a cell phone *might* be more difficult than drunk driving the law doesn't belong on the books. I don't agree. Cell phone users (not hands-free) are a danger to the public at large. In the same way a drunk driver doesn't recognize the danger, neither does a cell phone user. The law gives the police more teeth in dealing with this issue.
It's a matter of time before all 50 states adopt some type of resolution.
Maybe we should elect politicians who get rid of every law and use the ten commandments. Right? The basis of every law on the books is buried within those 10 little guidelines.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Exactly. No one seems to care if the laws actually work, they seem motivated just by the urge to have "done something", even if that something isn't particularly effective.
Perhaps we should just jump to the next step, and think of another dozen things that we can ban. We could start a crusade to eliminate radios, cupholders, CD's, CB's and ashtrays. When we've run out of objects, we can move on to banning kids, conversation, passenger seats and talking to one's self.
If all that doesn't do any good...who cares? If it feels good, ban it.
I really think that the best recent example was when Montana replaced its set speed limits with the term "reasonable and prudent". Accident/fatality rates actually declined a little. The problem is that laws provide comfort for some people and this "reasonable and prudent" approach was way too unorthodox for their mindset. So it didn't last long. My prediction is these cell phone restrictions will eventually get adopted nationwide. We will see no drop in accident rates yet the laws will continue to exist. How could any politician suggest eliminating this type of law without coming under attack for being anti-highway safety? Reagan once said that the nearest thing we will see to eternal life on this earth is a government program. He was right and that applies to legislation as well.
The tactic of arguing against a position by taking it to the opposite and ridiculous extreme is fairly common and also fairly mindless.
While way off topic your statement regarding the ten commandments is so blatantly false that I feel compelled to inform you of this. If you disagree then I suggest you do a web search on Thomas Jefferson, Christianity, common law and the Ten Commandments. Since Thomas Jefferson was the primary framer of our constitution I consider his position to be definitive on this matter.
I agree. That seems to be tatic to rally against another law trying to do some good. Since the law encroaches on your "personal freedom", at the expense of the safety of the public at large, let's try all sorts of ridiculous arguments in a public forum to try to prove the law is stupid.
Thank you for pointing that out.
As for the search regarding the framers of the constitution, we're having a discussion, not a discourse of our constitution.
And you should all be thankful, or I would win hands-down :P
Let's try to stay away from hyperbole and concentrate on the existing or potential laws that relate to using a cell phone while driving, please. Hyperbole doesn't demonstrate anything, apart from permitting me the opportunity show off my ability to use polysyllabic words.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
"What could be up with this guy?", I wonder to myself. When I get the chance I go around him, and glance over. He is trying to eat what looks like cereal from a bowl which I guess he is clutching with his knees, causing him to spend most of his time staring down into his own lap.
Not a single phone in sight. But this behavior, which almost caused an accident, will never be outlawed, while they waste time with other ineffective legislation.
Here's a thought: in the hyper-paranoid culture in which we find ourselves in this country today, we probably wouldn't be able to repeal the 55 speed limit if it were still in effect today. It would be dangerous and bad for highway safety. Good thing they went back to 65 a decade ago.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
So what? Of course anything that takes away from driving is dangerous, but what is the percentage of cereal eating dudes vs cell phone users? Obviously those states that outlawed hand-held phones have done their homework and responded in an appropriate manner.
"Good thing they went back to 65 a decade ago."
Wrong thread for this.
I agree completely. Remember that you were the one who originally mentioned the 10 commandments being the basis for laws. I just pointed out that you were wrong and I did preface this comment by acknowledging it was way off topic just like your comment that I was responding to. Its difficult for me to let misinformation go unchallenged.
The approach we most often see reminds me of the commercial with the king sitting discussing the problem of an attacking giant sloth. He looks around and one of his consultants suggest that they toss a giant projectile at the sloth. The projectile is a large bag of money. We all see how silly that concept is but we all also see it happen time and time again. Then somewhere down the road we have to clean out our laws to reflect modern technology. But that isn't any problem, it may cost more than it is worth but it makes us feel like we have done something to correct a problem even if it may not be a problem. Just because someone passes a law doesn't make it a good law.
Someone referenced a study that indicated eating was the number one distraction that led to accidents, with cell phones being second. This makes the states inconsistent response somewhat curious and not what I would describe as appropriate based on homework. I'm guessing there are a lot of people that personally feel cell phones are more dangerous regardless of the data and they are the squeaky wheels driving legislation.
I don't understand. So studies have shown that cell phone users have an equivalent mental driving capacity as a DUI, and cereal eaters even have less than that. If that is really the case, then cell phone and eating laws ought to be in the same package.
"But that isn't any problem, it may cost more than it is worth but it makes us feel like we have done something to correct a problem even if it may not be a problem."
That's the crux of the discussion isn't it? You don't believe it's a problem, while I believe it's a very big issue. Well today, November 7, you get to speak your mind. I did.
I plan on voting this evening. Are you telling me that I won't find a referendum opposing cell phone legislation? Well then I'll just vote for the candidate that opposes additional, ineffective legislation in general. What, there isn't one of those either? Occasionally there's a Libertarian candidate but that's purely a protest vote. But somehow the fact that I can vote indicates that I do have some input in these matters. I disagree, voting is merely an exercise in choosing the lesser of two evils. A viable candidate that challenged the status quo would be devoured by the entrenched interests long before he made it on a ballot. I remember a thread a while back concerning our speed limits and the comment would be made that if you don't like them then use the democratic process to change them. Funny I don't seem to remember ever being given that opportunity either.
Who said the laws were ineffective. A number of people including me, stopped using phones held to their ears and got headsets? Not only is it much more comfortable, it's safer.
The NHTSA actually opposes the hands free legislation. Their reason is that the primary distraction is due to the conversation, not the phone itself. They believe that these hands free laws will send the wrong message. Regardless, the fact that hands free phones exists is why cell phone laws are unenforceable and we're far better off with an education campaign that encourages motorists to exercise good judgement when using cell phones.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Not true.. both items are a major contributing item. While hands-free is still not all roses, it's a better compromise than outright banning cell phone usage.
There are more public awareness ads than ever before about drunk driving. The only conclusion you can make is that people aren't listening to these messages anymore. Hence maybe a get tough approach will be able to work.
I'd like to believe we are all part of Planet World and with a twinkle of the nose all ills of earth would be wiped away, but back here on earth this really isn't so. Get tough laws have a place in our society. Holding cell phones to your ear whilst driving carrying on an intense conversation is begging for trouble.
A friend of mine relayed a story to me that backs up the claims about cell phone users blanking out. Friend took a cell phone call on the hands free, engaged in an intense office conversation. When the guy hung up he was at least 40 miles off course, didn't even know where he was.
No matter how it's sliced, cell phones and intense conversation do not go hand in hand with driving (or go minimally).
I'd like to believe we are all part of Planet World and with a twinkle of the nose all ills of earth would be wiped away, but back here on earth this really isn't so. Get tough laws have a place in our society.
The US has an incarceration rate that is 6x that of Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and all European countries. That represents getting tough. We also continue to have a higher crime rate than these countries. That represents ineffectiveness, or maybe we are just defective. Ineffective approach or defective population. Those are the only two options that I can see. But let's not get bogged down with trivial matters like results. I mean maybe the problem is that we aren't tough enough. We can always enact more laws, hire more cops and build more jails. Some might think that 2 million people already in jail was more than enough. Not the real hard-liners. Let's get it up to 3 million. If the problems still exist then 4 million. No need to ever admit that what you're doing isn't working. It's all about "staying the course".
Give an example of a utopian society where no laws are needed. Oh wait, you were using the take a point to a ridiculous extreme tactic. Very clever and compelling. I merely pointed out that the US has the highest incarceration rate on the planet. It should be a national disgrace. Using laws and the threat of punishment is a simplistic approach to solving social problems. Nothing wrong with that, often times the simplest solutions are the best. However intelligent people should be capable of recognizing when a tactic isn't working and re-think their approach. Especially when we are wasting a lot of resources on this futility. In a society that supposedly prides itself on freedom we are awfully enamored with laws.
Do you honestly feel that cell phone legislation will be effective at making the roadways safer? If so I wish that I could share your naivete. If not then what's the point?
Most of the countries mentioned are not socialist states. In fact some socialist states have very high crime rates. Venezuala for one. You're correct though, the US is not a socialist state, we are becoming a police state. Much, much better.
In a democracy, the burden of proof is on the person who wants to restrict liberty. The default position in our system is to allow everything, unless there is a good reason to outlaw it.
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
In other words, the Constitution doesn't need to spell out a right in order for us to have it (Amendment IX), and issues not decided by the Constitution are left to the states or to the people (Amendment X). The burden is on you.
Could it be due to the fact that we have death row prisoners waiting 20+ years to get whacked? It has nothing to do with making the streets safer by banning cell phone use. Not only safer but smoother running. If nippon wants to include eating cereal and Krispy Kremes I say go for it. We have lots of driving laws that get broken continually. That does not mean you take the law off the books. Do you want people speeding through your neighborhood or past your schools? Do you want drug dealers with access to the schools. I think their civil rights are being violated by forcing them to sell their product off of the PUBLIC school grounds. :sick:
While tpe and I don’t always agree I think his post 782 is pretty much spot on., “The NHTSA actually opposes the hands free legislation. Their reason is that the primary distraction is due to the conversation, not the phone itself. They believe that these hands free laws will send the wrong message. Regardless, the fact that hands free phones exists is why cell phone laws are unenforceable and we're far better off with an education campaign that encourages motorists to exercise good judgment when using cell phones.”
The simple answer to that would be no. There are 2.1 million people in jail at the present time and only 3,400 on death row. Execute them all right now and it won't make a dent in our incarceration rate. If we had an incarceration rate similar to Canada, Europe, New Zealand, Australia, Japan there would be 300-400 thousand people in prison. That's a staggering difference.
Do you want people speeding through your neighborhood or past your schools?
No but they do. Good example of ineffective laws.
Do you want drug dealers with access to the schools.
No, but I'm fairly sure that they do, at least drugs were available when I was in school. If drug free school zones are effective why not declare a drug free nation? Our drug policy might be the greatest example of squandering huge amounts of resources on an approach that not only fails to solve a problem but creates additional, worse problems. Remember Prohibition? Apparently our government didn't learn that lessson.
My primary point is that cell phone laws will be almost universally blown off. The small percentage that will comply probably represented the more responsible drivers to begin with, in other words not the problem.
The more useless laws we decide to put on the books the more the system as a whole is discredited.
The laws were created for a reason. There were some facts behind the creation of the laws. Do you know those facts? How do you know that non-fatality accidents haven't increased severely and the police have been tracking the root cause, and the root cause was cell phone usage.
In the same way it took a long time to get drunk driving laws to where they are, I suspect it will be some time for cell phone usage laws.
I've posted several times that the property damage only accident rate has dropped significantly and consistently in the past 15 years. My source is the NHTSA's data up through 2005. People have argued that this is due to safer cars. Well more people do wear their seatbelts and airbags are also standard but I don't see how that prevents the fender bender. Maybe its the anti-lock brakes that have perfectly negated the cell phone's impact. That's kind of a stretch as far as I'm concerned.
Lack of resolve, enforcement or tough penalties, like whacking drug dealers. The point being if no law existed on the books what would stop a drug dealer from setting up a booth in the playground? You would like for there to be NO laws. Some of us would not sell drugs because we may feel it is morally wrong. Or we may not use the cell phone in the car because we realize what a huge distraction it is for us. Others need laws to tell them "do not use your cell phone you idiot it is a big distraction". Laws are for people that were not given instruction as a child on what is good and what is not.
These debates are public, the government doesn't work in secret. Basically, they quote the very same type of distraction studies posted earlier on this forum.
Which goes back to the other point being made here by the critics: Since we aren't seeing declining accident and fatality rates because of such laws, how can anyone possibly believe that they accomplish anything?
And as Boaz pointed out, having dumb laws on the books **distracts** the police from enforcing laws that might actually do some good. If you want to focus on distractions that actually cause problems for society, you might want to think about that one...
You mean like the law that says, the last cop at the donut shop buys the Krispy Kremes?
So this driver was alongside me part of the time, and of course I looked for a cell phone. None in sight. What there WAS, however, was a very heated discussion/argument going on between the driver and her passenger, with both of them talking at once at times, and various hand gesticulations.
Negligent drivers are negligent drivers. The cell phone thing is a smokescreen.
But gagrice: YES! Absolutely, let's eliminate the hypocrisy/double standard. If we are going to ban handheld cell phone use, than I would like to see at the same time a ban on hands-free use as well, and a ban on all eating in the car, which is a far bigger contributor to erratic driving than the phones are. The cereal and Krispy Kremes MUST GO! In fact, it should be an all-inclusive ban that also prohibits reading while driving, including trying to read a map. Also, use of any A/V devices in the car that require loading a CD/DVD, and all communication via Bluetooth and OnStar-type devices. Accessing any function that is not located on the steering wheel, or voice-commanded, should be outlawed. You want to do something about highway safety and driver distraction? This is the only way. Not that this type of law would succeed, as drivers would revolt in large numbers, I am sure. :-/
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Of course, it was the person who was on the phone who actually stopped to let me cross. The other two who paid no mind to my right of way were not on the phone. Perhaps they should be given phones so that they drive more safely?
Except that states, under pressure from the federal government, have enacted the .08 BAC standard for drunk driving. Pennsylvania had to enact this lower standard or face federal sanctions (i.e., loss of a portion of federal highway funds).
States are already using the "get tough" approach with drunk driving, and, judging by the results, it is not effective.
kdshapiro: I'd like to believe we are all part of Planet World and with a twinkle of the nose all ills of earth would be wiped away, but back here on earth this really isn't so. Get tough laws have a place in our society. Holding cell phones to your ear whilst driving carrying on an intense conversation is begging for trouble.
Get tough laws have a place where they are effective, and are addressing a concrete problem.
So far, I've seen no evidence that cell phone usage has led to increased accidents and fatalitites.
kdshapiro: A friend of mine relayed a story to me that backs up the claims about cell phone users blanking out. Friend took a cell phone call on the hands free, engaged in an intense office conversation. When the guy hung up he was at least 40 miles off course, didn't even know where he was.
Anecdotes are interesting, but they are not the same as data.
Based on this story, I think your friend has issues far deeper than being distracted by cell phone use while driving.
kdshapiro: No matter how it's sliced, cell phones and intense conversation do not go hand in hand with driving (or go minimally).
No matter how it is sliced, no one has shown that increased cell phone usage has conclusively led to more accidents and fatalities.