By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
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.