For me personally the drunk driving law caused me to cease drinking and driving. I was caught in a "dragnet" by the police one saturday night and made to touch my toes, recite the alphabet, etc. The cop could tell I had been drinking but he left me when another car behind me had a driver collapse. It was as though the lion found an easier prey. Well I vowed never to allow myself to be subjected to the humiliation and possible financial penalties of drinking and driving after that night ten years ago. Credit law enforcement for my behavior modification. That cop taught me a valuable lesson I feel.
Please make sure to keep the discussion related to automotive legislation. Death row, and crime rates in socialist vs non-socialist countries aren't on-topic here, and distract from the focus of the topic. Thanks.
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
On the other hand, it has clearly been shown that talking on a cell phone while driving reduces reaction time. It has also been documented that "distractions" within the car (with cell phones as one of the primary contributors) are implicated in 80 % of all traffic accidents. It doesn't require a rocket scientist to derive the logical conclusion.
Where were all of the "freedom" advocates when the Patriot act was enacted? The absurdity of the US public. I'll fight for my right to talk on a cell phone while I should be driving, however, I could care less about my basic privacy and unalienable rights developed over 200 + years.
I don't believe I ever said that. This would be my criteria. First there has to be credible data that a problem exists that requires some type of law. Then after the law is enacted there has to be credible data that it is accomplishing its objective otherwise it would go away. I think by applying those simple rules we would drastically reduce the number of laws on the books while having no negative impact on society.
Laws are for people that were not given instruction as a child on what is good and what is not.
So you seem to think these laws will be effective. How would you measure this?
john500: On the other hand, it has clearly been shown that talking on a cell phone while driving reduces reaction time. It has also been documented that "distractions" within the car (with cell phones as one of the primary contributors) are implicated in 80 % of all traffic accidents. It doesn't require a rocket scientist to derive the logical conclusion.
No, but it does help to have some solid figures showing that increased cell phone use has lead to more traffic accidents and fatalities to back up those "guesses," which you don't.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that one, either.
So yeah, I saw this forum got active again, its nice to see new people and some old ones are having the same back and forth as 2 weeks ago with no new information. There are studies that show a decrement in driving performance while using a cell phone...those that don't like laws don't like those studies. There have been studies that show that eating a big mac while blind folded has a decrement in driving performance. Those that don't like laws want to outlaw big macs. Those that do want to legislate are on a continuum from banning cell phones and stoning to death their users to giving drivers a parking ticket after they run over a bunch of little old ladies because the driver was distracted by their conversation. I would assume the law lovers aren't just out to over regulate everything and the law haters aren't excited about mowing over a bunch of blue hairs, so what this is really about is do you think the average user can accept the personal responsibility of driving with this device?
I think Washington DC is a good example. They wrote 6018 tickets on folks breaking the cell phone ban. That should cover the donut bill for the year. I don't argue with your premise that a law not enforced is a poor law. I think we probably disagree on punishment being a deterrent. I saw a radical change working in a bar in San Diego, when the cops started doing random sobriety checks. Did it make any difference in the accident rate for drunks? I think it did.
It has also been documented that "distractions" within the car (with cell phones as one of the primary contributors) are implicated in 80 % of all traffic accidents. It doesn't require a rocket scientist to derive the logical conclusion.
If it's that logical, then shouldn't you be able to demonstrate that accident rates decline by 80% after such laws are enacted?
If you are unable to do that, then you really ought to ask yourself why no one is able to demonstrate these fantastic results in the real world. Perhaps the linkage is nowhere as clear to the rocket scientists as you might think.
"If it's that logical, then shouldn't you be able to demonstrate that accident rates decline by 80% after such laws are enacted?"
There are laws against jaywalking. Ever walk around in Manhattan? Do people still jaywalk? There are laws against drunk driving. Have you senn an obvious DUIs on the road or still hear of fatalities relating to drunk driving? There are laws against tax fraud. Yet the former CEO of CA just got indicted on a number of charges.
Your post makes an illogical conclusion. Laws don't stop people from doing the actions the laws were designed to prevent.
It will take time for the message to get out, even for those who believe they are the exception.
DC has definitely generated a lot of revenue with their cell phone laws. Unfortunately their accident and fatality rates are actually increasing, which is contrary to the national trend. Proponents of these laws argue that this is due to more traffic in DC. Guess what? There's more traffic everywhere so that excuse doesn't hold much water. If the purpose of these laws is to generate revenue then they will definitely be effective up until the point that everyone uses hands free units.
They also set up random sobriety checkpoints where I live and on the surface it would appear to have made a big difference. The people that used to go out and have 2-3 drinks are now afraid to do this. Since this represents the majority of people that were going to bars it is very noticeable. Some might argue that this is good because you shouldn't drink at all and drive. Maybe so but the fact is that these people accounted for very few of the alcohol related accidents. The median BAC in alcohol related fatalities is .16, twice the legal limit. This figure has remained almost unchanged in the last 20 years. When I criticize drunk driving laws often times it is interpreted that I am sympathetic to the drunk driver. Absolutely not. It is a very serious problem and we can't effectively solve it until we acknowledge that our current approach isn't working too well.
kdshapiro: There are laws against jaywalking. Ever walk around in Manhattan? Do people still jaywalk? There are laws against drunk driving. Have you senn an obvious DUIs on the road or still hear of fatalities relating to drunk driving? There are laws against tax fraud. Yet the former CEO of CA just got indicted on a number of charges.
Your post makes an illogical conclusion. Laws don't stop people from doing the actions the laws were designed to prevent.
Um, no.
When a law against a particular behavior is passed, no one expects that behavior to vanish overnight. It is, however, expected to REDUCE that behavior.
You are starting with the wrong question.
We need to ask whether the behavior in question - in this case, using a cellular phone while driving - is causing an increase in accidents and fatalities.
The answer, so far, is no. Given that cellular phone use has increased dramatically, while the accident rate for passenger vehicles has FALLEN, there is no need to ban it.
When a law against a particular behavior is passed, no one expects that behavior to vanish overnight. It is, however, expected to REDUCE that behavior.
And to add to that, if the behavior is reduced, we should see some benefits from reducing it, if the law is to make sense on its own merits.
Let's suppose that cell usage is deterred by the laws, but nothing happens with accident rates and fatalities. At which point do we conclude that the law is ineffective and adding unnecessary paper to our books? If the law only criminalizes behavior that doesn't hurt anyone, what exactly would be the benefit of having it?
"When a law against a particular behavior is passed, no one expects that behavior to vanish overnight. It is, however, expected to REDUCE that behavior.
You are starting with the wrong question.
We need to ask whether the behavior in question - in this case, using a cellular phone while driving - is causing an increase in accidents and fatalities."
I couldn't disagree more. The question that needs to be asked, is does cell phone usage (or drunk driving) laws have to potential to reduce anti-social or dangerous acts on the road. The answers to both are yes. Even if you can't see the obvious benefits from your corner of the world.
Hand-held cell phone usage in cars, unlike other dangerous acts, such as adjusting the radio or eating a lunch, has had the loss of concentration for the duration of the call, while driving well documented. Given the very high percentage of people using hand-held devices vs doing other stupid things, the law is a well justified law.
If just one life is saved, these laws are worth it.
If just one life is saved, these laws are worth it.
No, No, No, we have to have proof that 1000s of lives will be saved prior to any laws being put in place. Then if it only saved 999 lives we should remove it from the books.
I am glad the CA legislature was better informed than many on this forum. I just do not know why they are waiting so long to put the law into affect.
If just one life is saved, these laws are worth it.
I wonder who the first person was that spouted that mindless dribble. Its been repeated so many times that some people probably think it makes sense without actually thinking about it. The fact is that you have to weigh the number of lives saved against the cost, inconvenience, impact on quality of life, etc.. before deciding if any plan of action makes sense. I suspect we could save thousands of lives a year if we forced the auto manufacturers to install governors that limited a vehicles speed to somewhere around 50 mph. Would this idea have popular support. Absolutely not because we are willing to trade safety for convenience. If that wasn't the case the automobile never would have established itself in our society to begin with. You might say that the user of a cell phone is endangering others. All drivers are endangering others. It comes down to what is and isn't an acceptable level. So far there is no compelling proof that cell users are creating undue danger to others.
If it was your spouse that was killed by a driver who was proved to be at fault for cell phone usage, I'm sure your feelings would change.
Either way, I support laws limited hand held device usage while driving.
I accept the fact there will be a division in opinion. I also accept the fact that a lot of what government does is broke, some things it does do right. Protecting the public at large from real and perceived threats is something government should and will do.
Because it can't be measured under a microscope doesn't not make it right.
kdshapiro: The question that needs to be asked, is does cell phone usage (or drunk driving) laws have to potential to reduce anti-social or dangerous acts on the road. The answers to both are yes. Even if you can't see the obvious benefits from your corner of the world.
Again, you're starting from the wrong place.
There has been no proof offered that cell phone use while driving is "dangerous." This will only be proven when a connection is shown between increased cell phone use and increased accidents and fatalities.
So far, while standing in "your corner of the world," you haven't shown it, and neither has anyone else on this thread.
Incidentally, tougher "drunk driving" laws, as shown through the nationwide adoption of the .08 BAC level as the legal standard for driving under the influence, have not reduced fatalities from drunk driving.
So the correct answer, in this case, as to whether tougher drunk driving "laws have to potential to reduce anti-social or dangerous acts on the road" is actually "no," based on real-world experience.
kdshapiro: Hand-held cell phone usage in cars, unlike other dangerous acts, such as adjusting the radio or eating a lunch, has had the loss of concentration for the duration of the call, while driving well documented. Given the very high percentage of people using hand-held devices vs doing other stupid things, the law is a well justified law.
No, you have offered no proof that cell phone has led to increased accidents and/or fatalities. "Loss of concentration" is not synonomous with "increased accidents and fatalities," which is the only basis for banning this behavior.
If it was your spouse that was killed by a driver who was proved to be at fault for cell phone usage, I'm sure your feelings would change.
If anything bad happens to you, personally, it is entirely natural to feel negatively toward the cause of that bad outcome. That doesn't mean it makes sense to create a law banning it. While you might feel that way, personally, if every individual's feelings were taken into account when passing laws, there'd be almost nothing left that's legal to do.
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
There has been no proof offered that cell phone use while driving is "dangerous." This will only be proven when a connection is shown between increased cell phone use and increased accidents and fatalities.
There are many documented cases of folks using cell phones while driving, and in their distracted state have killed people. Many have been posted on this thread. We have laws in this land that came about because of only one death. Megan's law for example has been adopted in many states. I doubt seriously that there have been as many cases like that as ones where someone was killed by a driver using a cell phone.
Just because the act offends some people doesn’t make passing a law against such an act a good idea. Even more so if the law is hard to enforce and the offense considered harmless by most of the people affected by the law. Does 1919 and the Volstead act strike a familiar note? I happen to live in California which is one of the best examples of a wine producing area the United States has. The wine growers in this State couldn’t believe a law would be passed that would affect them. The people themselves couldn’t believe it as well. For 14 years the US tried to stamp out the manufacturing of Alcoholic drinks of any kind, including wine and beer. For the first few years wine grapes in California increased in value several times over. Part of the reason was the people living in the East portion of the US came from cultures that considered wine as a dinner drink. They simply returned to the practice of making their own. Did the people passing the law do their homework? Did people have problems with drinking before they passed the law? Did the law make drinking people more responsible? After 14 years the law was repealed. What made the law so ineffective? Not everyone saw drinking as a problem so they simply found a way around the law or disobeyed it openly. Hands free is like the speak easy of the cell phone ban. Far too many people feel they can drive and eat, drive and correct their children or drive and talk on the cell. If cell phone use is a detriment to driving it is just as much of one when on a hands free. If conversation while driving is a problem it is just as much of one with a real person in the car as it is on the cell. If those two things are true then this law will be far harder to enforce than the Volstead act ever was. It will also be ignored by more people than ever ignored the Volstead act.
Last summer I was reading business week and they had an editorial on Michigan law makers repealing the mandatory helmet law. The biggest gripe the commentator had was that this was a stupid move and that the law makers surely had better things to do. They were pulling for the governor to Veto the new law. Did the law makers do their homework? Was the original law any good? Was the new law any less good? Was it a waste of time and money? Same questions we have asked here and attempted to answer. But it was far easier to see someone not wearing a helmet and ticketing the rider than it is going to be to prove someone is on the cell phone. And this forum alone should show that cell phone users will be no less likely to pay attention to the new law than people were to pay attention to the Volstead act. But it will make some people feel they have done something even if they haven’t cause accidents to go down they will have fixed that rude person talking on the cell phone in the car next to them. Well, most likely it won’t fix anything, but much like the people in a firing squad and one person doesn’t have a bullet can claim they “know” they did not have the real bullet the law makers can claim they have saved a life. It feels good but does very little. The real truth is the cell phone doesn’t make people inattentive. It is that inattentive people will use the cell phone more, eat in the car more, argue in the car more, play with their CD entertainment system more and have more problems driving than attentive people
There are some famous grass-roots efforts that led to special laws where none existed before. To protect the future based on lessons from the past. Megans' Law is one that comes to mind.
Because a law is ignored by the people the law is effecting, does not make the law a bad law. Sex offenders will molest children despite Megan's Law and cell phone users will use the phone despite the ban. Does that make any law less valuable? On the other hand law abiding citizens will not use their hand-held cell phones, thus increasing the safety on the road.
I would argue that Megans' Law and the cell phone ban law are both laws that should be in existence, even though it might be impossible to predict what effect the law will have in the future.
There are concrete examples of areas that have few driving laws and little enforcement of driving laws. Try Rome, Italy for starters. Make sure that you drive there before wishing for the abolishment of frivolous laws and enforcement in the US. I suspect within a few years I will view the US roads as far too dangerous for me with all the medicated, uncoordinated lardos in the US can't even properly monotask (i.e. drive under ideal conditions), let alone multitask in their 3 ton tanks. Enough said for me.
Because a law is ignored by the people the law is effecting, does not make the law a bad law. Sex offenders will molest children despite Megan's Law and cell phone users will use the phone despite the ban. Does that make any law less valuable? On the other hand law abiding citizens will not use their hand-held cell phones, thus increasing the safety on the road.
Interesting. So let me get this straight. Are you saying that because of Megan's Law the law abiding citizens will stop molesting children, thus making the world safer for them?
"Interesting. So let me get this straight. Are you saying that because of Megan's Law the law abiding citizens will stop molesting children, thus making the world safer for them?"
No you are saying that.
I am suggesting the get tough stance of the law acts as a deterrent, in the same way cell phone bans acts as a deterrent. The deterrent in one is safer children, the deterrent in two is a safer roadway.
On the other hand law abiding citizens will not use their hand-held cell phones, thus increasing the safety on the road.
No. Law abiding citizens are already supposed to refrain from engaging in behavior that may cause "driver distraction," remember? That's a clause in every state's book. Studies seem to indicate that there is no difference between hand-held vs. hands-free cell phone use.
I would argue that Megans' Law and the cell phone ban law are both laws that should be in existence, even though it might be impossible to predict what effect the law will have in the future.
Say what? Laws that have adverse effects or are ineffectual should be eliminated from the books. That's the very basis of rational law making. Otherwise, why don't we just toss a bunch of nonsense in to the books. There has to be reasonable expectation that a law would actually achieve what it's set out to achieve, and that the benefits from it outweigh the detrimental effects.
"Studies seem to indicate that there is no difference between hand-held vs. hands-free cell phone use."
Really? Although I'm sure you could find some statistics that back that up, most studies say the conversation in conjunction with the act of holding the phone is an issue. (I'm not getting into the back and forth "show me the proof" thing, that seems to get topics shut down very handily)
"No. Law abiding citizens are already supposed to refrain from engaging in behavior that may cause "driver distraction," remember?"
Law abiding citizens are not supposed to speed or exceed the DUI limits either. But I wouldn't want to see those laws repealed because they are ineffective in stopping behaviors. Neither would I want to see "bias crime" laws repealed, even though there were prior laws on the books that would cover property and assault situations.
"Say what? Laws that have adverse effects or are ineffectual should be eliminated from the books."
I disagree. There are laws that need to be kept on the books because the laws move to the greater public good. It would seem some local and state governments think banning hand held phone usage is a good idea. Even though the legislatures and lawyers probably don't have the same broad picture as you on the subject, some information in some studies were found of value as the basis for these laws.
There has to be reasonable expectation that a law would actually achieve what it's set out to achieve, and that the benefits from it outweigh the detrimental effects.
Maybe we need a U.S. law totally banning cell phone use while driving except for emergencies (such as reporting an accident).
For those advocating that OK for drivers using cell phones, would like to know what are "detrimental effects" of an outright total ban of using while driving. Could some of those be: Cannot conduct business while driving; cannot gossip; cannot get grocery list of milk, bread, lettuce from spouse; cannot chat with boyfriend/girlfriend about last night's date; etc. What is so important to discuss that impairs your ability to operate a motor vehicle? Why is your discussion more important than the safety of other motorists and/or pedestrians?
There has been a lot of publicity about laws banning or limiting cell phone use while driving. This causes many cell phone drivers to rethink their behaviour. Some will make changes in how they use the phone while others may ignore. Only studies, polls, canvases might divulge what percent of drivers made a positive change to improve their driving safety.
More states, cities passing laws banning cell phone use will increase attention on the topic and will cause more otherwise "responsible" drivers who use cell phones to look inward and change their habits.
More laws, media attention will help to reduce amount of drivers using cell phones. This would be similar to amount of attention by media and groups such as MADD focussed on drunk driving. Remember that until MADD and attention was focussed on drunk driving, the case of drunkeness in general was used frequently in "comedy" skits on TV. There was one comedian, Foster Brooks I think, whose trademark routine was being drunk. Some people actually laughed at drunkeness.
Someone on this board previously cited apparently legitimate tests showing impaired reaction time by drivers using cell phones. If these tests are substantiated by NTSB, it should be "Case Closed". Cell phone use while driving should be banned across the U.S. Who in their right mind would advocate habits that impair driving ability and safety.
Drivers using cell phones would whine about a law to ban cell phone use that it is taking away their freedom. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands of laws, governing the requirements for building (mfrs) and operating (states) a motor vehicle. Each of these had reason for creation with ultimate objective of safety of persons on public roadways.
Having a driver's license means you are obligated to obey the laws of your state on rules of the road and are not "free" to make your own laws or rules. If you do not like one or more of the driving laws, such as there may be banning cell phones, then of course you are "free" to make a decision to stop driving. You are also "free" to petition government officials to change/remove/add laws.
Somehow we all got along fine without cell phones in cars before their intro in early 80's. Except for emergencies affecting life/injury such as reporting an accident, there is absolutely no rational responsible reason for a driver to have to use a cell phone.
For those advocating that OK for drivers using cell phones, would like to know what are "detrimental effects" of an outright total ban of using while driving.
The detrimental effects come primarily from abusing peoples' civil liberties by prosecuting them for "crimes" that can't be linked to anything problematic.
It also comes from law enforcement squandering scarce resources on enforcing laws that don't work, instead of preventing crimes that do cause problems.
The delayed-reaction-time argument is flawed, because there's no demonstrable evidence that any such delays can be linked to actual outcomes. Even if there is a delay of 13/100ths of a second, that amount of time is so brief that it is obvious why the accident and death rates don't seem affected by having phone usage -- whatever delay there may be isn't meaningful enough to make a difference.
Ultimately, you can't prove cause and effect. If 13/100th of a second is such a big deal, then you should be prepared to remove all of the other sources of such minute delays, such as cup holders, radios and passenger seats. 13/100ths of a second is such a ridiculously high bar that you'll be justified in banning everything and anything.
Very well stated. So many cell phone users feel they have a license to be rude drivers because they paid their cell phone bill. I would outlaw the blasted things in public. It is noise pollution. It is near impossible to find a place in the airport where you are not being forced to hear a one sided conversation with some jerk on his or her cell phone. It is epidemic in proportion to any other rude public behavior. Nearly as bad as smoking in public places. We got that nearly under control. Now is the time to do the same with cell phones.
Law abiding citizens are not supposed to speed or exceed the DUI limits either. But I wouldn't want to see those laws repealed because they are ineffective in stopping behaviors. Neither would I want to see "bias crime" laws repealed, even though there were prior laws on the books that would cover property and assault situations.
Then frankly, we have very different philosophies. While I'm not against laws regarding drunk driving or speed limit in principle, the numerical standards and enforcement method used for both are so atrocious as to make the laws in the books as they are written bad laws. It's interesting that you are upholding "bias crime" laws . . . did you ever think about the reality that when standards of criminalization is set so low, it inevitably make the enforcement selective and disproportionately penalize the population that are usually biased against? For example, the extra protection provided by hate crime legistlations (if any) can not come anywhere close to offsetting the selective enforcement of drug laws that is doing to the community that is supposed to be protected by the hate crimes. For what it's worth, I'm against hate crime legislations because it is redundant, subjective and make laws and enforcement unnecessarily complicated.
some information in some studies were found of value as the basis for these laws.
Or a simple case of revenue generation . . . just like artificially low speed limits that nobody obeys (including the cops when they are off duty), or turning free parking zone into metered zones.
Could some of those be: Cannot conduct business while driving; cannot gossip; cannot get grocery list of milk, bread, lettuce from spouse; cannot chat with boyfriend/girlfriend about last night's date; etc
In other words, we would need laws banning passengers not having their mouths taped :-) What about talk radio?
What is so important to discuss that impairs your ability to operate a motor vehicle?
Exactly. It does not impair my ability to operate a motor vehicle. Talking on the phone is no worse than talking to the passenger or listening to the radio, and a lot less distracting than looking at maps.
Having a driver's license means you are obligated to obey the laws of your state on rules of the road and are not "free" to make your own laws or rules. If you do not like one or more of the driving laws, such as there may be banning cell phones, then of course you are "free" to make a decision to stop driving.
We are discussing the merit of the law, right? By your logic, would you adovcate segregation too if you were in the 1950's Alabama? After all, riding in a public bus is a priviledge . . . if you don't like riding in the back, you could stay home (tongue firmly in cheek here). It's a classic case of bad law.
Somehow we all got along fine without cell phones in cars before their intro in early 80's.
And we did not have airbags till the mid-80's, no seat belt till the 1950's . . . no cars at all until the 1890's. Considering that cars kill 30-40k people in the US every year. Shouldn't you be advocating banning cars altogether? After all, people got around without cars back then.
The reason why we do not ban cars is because the use of cars renders us tremendous economic value . . . the means of transportation and communication facilitate the exchanges of goods and ideas, and make our lives better, statisticly speaking. That's what freedom is about, and why people prefer freedom over tyranny. Yes, life is precious, but the value of life is not infinite. We trade bits and pieces of life for income every day; it's called a job, and most people want one. The arbitrary outlawing of behavior is in essence taking life and liberty away in bits and pieces . . . although most people are not as eloquent as Patrick Henry, many do realize the axiom in "live free or die."
Like what? The cell phone usage rate has gone up dramaticly in the last decade, and accident and death rates have come down! Is it possible that cell phone use is reducing the number of trips and number of miles that people would have otherwise driven? thereby reducing accidents in the most fundamental way by reducing driving?
"Quiet contentment" is usually associated with private property ownership. In a public place, unfortunately, we are legally subject to monologues far worse than mere cellphone use . . . for example, someone standing on a soap box giving a passionate nonsensical speech of whatever he/she believes in ;-) It's his/her 1st Amendment right.
Is airport considered private property? If it is, and if there are enough people who want "quiet contentment," there can be a market place for "quiet booths" that people can enter by swiping their credit cards. An interesting idea, might just be a better use of airport space than those empty internet terminal rooms :-)
I submit you are totally off topic here. The topic "Should cell phone users be singled out" has little to do with public dissertation.
I want the dangerous hand held driving cell phone user off the road. I am very concerned about the data shown in the studies about how using hand held cell phones while driving impairs our driving ability.
I can easily close my ears to the noisy soap box preacher.
What is so important to discuss that impairs your ability to operate a motor vehicle?
brightness said:
Exactly. It does not impair my ability to operate a motor vehicle. Talking on the phone is no worse than talking to the passenger or listening to the radio, and a lot less distracting than looking at maps.
How do you know that talking on cell phone does not impair your ability? Can you say that you can devote the same amount of attention to periodic checks of your mirror and peripheral things on the side as well as approaching traffic (not on interstate), scanning upcoming intersections, scanning parked cars along the side for possible entry into traffic, scanning pedestrians/children on sidewalks, scanning upcoming parking lot exits, and so forth. Are you doing that with "less" attention or not at all when on the cell phone? What do you give up either in terms of total scanning or cutting back on the amount of scans while on the cell phone? Have you measured or been tested for these items?
Would need some kind of MD (brain surgeon?) to ascertain, but I would guess that listening to music radio requires far less brain processing than an engaging conversation on the cell phone. It might not need any processing.
Without disclosing anything personal, maybe you could give some examples of how you use your cell phone while driving - such as for business reasons, chatter/gossip, getting grocery list, making social calls, etc. Can you make a case that your conversations are so important to make and so critical that you are thus justified in diminishing the safe operation of a motor vehicle? Why so?
but I would guess that listening to music radio requires far less brain processing than an engaging conversation on the cell phone. It might not need any processing.
In your own words, "Have you measured or been tested for these items?"
"Can you make a case that your conversations are so important to make and so critical that you are thus justified . . . "
The justification is quite simple:
1. I make far less mistakes driving while talking on the phone than while driving and talking to my wife in person. Heck, I never made a single mistake driving while talking on the phone, but missed quite a few exists and turns while talking to her in person, ever since the dating days.
2. I'm far more attentive driving while talking on the phone after a good night's sleep than driving after a night's lack of sleep but not using cellphone.
3. I'm far more attentive to the road driving while talking on the phone than driving while looking at maps.
4. I'm have fare quicker reflexes despite being on the phone than the overwhelming majority of driving public even without use of phone.
Now unless you are into banning wives from passenger seats, checking and making sure everyone had enough sleep before getting into their cars, banning maps, and banning anyone who is not used to quick trigger response . . . the irrationally high standards you are erecting for attention/response level for cell phone use is little more than a witch hunt.
How so? If cellphone use is as detrimental as the critics are depicting, there has to be a rise in accident rates with what amounted to a couple orders of magnitude of increase in cell phone use over the past decade plus, don't you think? The reality is that even if some of the current generation of cellphone users may not have fully adjusted to multi-tasking as the generation-Y coming up, what little tiny fraction of second difference in response time makes no real life difference except in the extreme cases . . . cases that are so far out in the fringes that a ban would make about as much sense as banning car use in order to save 30-40k lives every year! Now, how many cellphobes are willing to ban cars in order to save 30-40k lives every year? That's the reality of life, despite all the idealized talks about "even saving one life." How many "even saving one lifers" have given up on driving?
So then you admit you fall into the category that you can multi-task infinitum and you get everything right? That's better than 100% of the population, where it has been proved multi-tasking will reduce efficiency or effectiveness of some tasks at the expense of others.
Sorry, I do not believe you are the exception to the rule. Next you'll try to convince us, you can finish a quart of 100 proof Vodka and drive perfectly fine.
I'm not the one who brought up the airport experience.
The topic is indeed "should cell phone users be singled out" in a real world where 30-40k people die every year in the US alone because we are not willing to ban all cars. Indeed, why should cell phone users be singled out for banning in such a real world where lives are indeed traded for better living standards, every hour of the day. Indeed, someone somewhere dies every 15 minutes or so because we are not willing to ban all cars. Now, where are the people advocating "even if one life is saved"??
Nope, I never claimed that I can multi-task infinitum. There are simply far more perfectly legal behavior that are far more distracting to driving than cell phone use. Does cell phone use make 1/100th second difference? perhaps it does . . . on the other hand, perhaps a timely cell phone call would have cancelled the appointment and avoided the extra driving that led to the accident to begin with.
The "even if one life is saved" argument makes no sense whatsoever in a world where 30-40 thousand Americans die every year so we can derive the economic benefit of driving.
I do not drink, so I have no idea what you are talking about regarding 100 proof Vodka.
"How so? If cellphone use is as detrimental as the critics are depicting, there has to be a rise in accident rates with what amounted to a couple orders of magnitude of increase in cell phone use over the past decade plus, don't you think?"
There is no doubt it contributes to anti-social behavior on the road and has a contributory effect to accident rates as well. IMO, from that perspective cell phone usage should be banned.
Comments
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
They should apply when someone kills somebody in a car crash while distracted by a cell phone or eating or whatever.
Where were all of the "freedom" advocates when the Patriot act was enacted? The absurdity of the US public. I'll fight for my right to talk on a cell phone while I should be driving, however, I could care less about my basic privacy and unalienable rights developed over 200 + years.
I don't believe I ever said that. This would be my criteria. First there has to be credible data that a problem exists that requires some type of law. Then after the law is enacted there has to be credible data that it is accomplishing its objective otherwise it would go away. I think by applying those simple rules we would drastically reduce the number of laws on the books while having no negative impact on society.
Laws are for people that were not given instruction as a child on what is good and what is not.
So you seem to think these laws will be effective. How would you measure this?
No, but it does help to have some solid figures showing that increased cell phone use has lead to more traffic accidents and fatalities to back up those "guesses," which you don't.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that one, either.
There are studies that show a decrement in driving performance while using a cell phone...those that don't like laws don't like those studies. There have been studies that show that eating a big mac while blind folded has a decrement in driving performance. Those that don't like laws want to outlaw big macs.
Those that do want to legislate are on a continuum from banning cell phones and stoning to death their users to giving drivers a parking ticket after they run over a bunch of little old ladies because the driver was distracted by their conversation.
I would assume the law lovers aren't just out to over regulate everything and the law haters aren't excited about mowing over a bunch of blue hairs, so what this is really about is do you think the average user can accept the personal responsibility of driving with this device?
I think Washington DC is a good example. They wrote 6018 tickets on folks breaking the cell phone ban. That should cover the donut bill for the year. I don't argue with your premise that a law not enforced is a poor law. I think we probably disagree on punishment being a deterrent. I saw a radical change working in a bar in San Diego, when the cops started doing random sobriety checks. Did it make any difference in the accident rate for drunks? I think it did.
If it's that logical, then shouldn't you be able to demonstrate that accident rates decline by 80% after such laws are enacted?
If you are unable to do that, then you really ought to ask yourself why no one is able to demonstrate these fantastic results in the real world. Perhaps the linkage is nowhere as clear to the rocket scientists as you might think.
There are laws against jaywalking. Ever walk around in Manhattan? Do people still jaywalk? There are laws against drunk driving. Have you senn an obvious DUIs on the road or still hear of fatalities relating to drunk driving? There are laws against tax fraud. Yet the former CEO of CA just got indicted on a number of charges.
Your post makes an illogical conclusion. Laws don't stop people from doing the actions the laws were designed to prevent.
It will take time for the message to get out, even for those who believe they are the exception.
They also set up random sobriety checkpoints where I live and on the surface it would appear to have made a big difference. The people that used to go out and have 2-3 drinks are now afraid to do this. Since this represents the majority of people that were going to bars it is very noticeable. Some might argue that this is good because you shouldn't drink at all and drive. Maybe so but the fact is that these people accounted for very few of the alcohol related accidents. The median BAC in alcohol related fatalities is .16, twice the legal limit. This figure has remained almost unchanged in the last 20 years. When I criticize drunk driving laws often times it is interpreted that I am sympathetic to the drunk driver. Absolutely not. It is a very serious problem and we can't effectively solve it until we acknowledge that our current approach isn't working too well.
Your post makes an illogical conclusion. Laws don't stop people from doing the actions the laws were designed to prevent.
Um, no.
When a law against a particular behavior is passed, no one expects that behavior to vanish overnight. It is, however, expected to REDUCE that behavior.
You are starting with the wrong question.
We need to ask whether the behavior in question - in this case, using a cellular phone while driving - is causing an increase in accidents and fatalities.
The answer, so far, is no. Given that cellular phone use has increased dramatically, while the accident rate for passenger vehicles has FALLEN, there is no need to ban it.
So let me understand this -- the law is OK, even if it is unenforceable, widely disobeyed or ineffective?
There seem to be no standards for creating a law, aside from that it feels good to pass laws, so let's pass them. Not exactly democratic, now is it?
And to add to that, if the behavior is reduced, we should see some benefits from reducing it, if the law is to make sense on its own merits.
Let's suppose that cell usage is deterred by the laws, but nothing happens with accident rates and fatalities. At which point do we conclude that the law is ineffective and adding unnecessary paper to our books? If the law only criminalizes behavior that doesn't hurt anyone, what exactly would be the benefit of having it?
You are starting with the wrong question.
We need to ask whether the behavior in question - in this case, using a cellular phone while driving - is causing an increase in accidents and fatalities."
I couldn't disagree more. The question that needs to be asked, is does cell phone usage (or drunk driving) laws have to potential to reduce anti-social or dangerous acts on the road. The answers to both are yes. Even if you can't see the obvious benefits from your corner of the world.
Hand-held cell phone usage in cars, unlike other dangerous acts, such as adjusting the radio or eating a lunch, has had the loss of concentration for the duration of the call, while driving well documented. Given the very high percentage of people using hand-held devices vs doing other stupid things, the law is a well justified law.
If just one life is saved, these laws are worth it.
No, No, No, we have to have proof that 1000s of lives will be saved prior to any laws being put in place. Then if it only saved 999 lives we should remove it from the books.
I am glad the CA legislature was better informed than many on this forum. I just do not know why they are waiting so long to put the law into affect.
I wonder who the first person was that spouted that mindless dribble. Its been repeated so many times that some people probably think it makes sense without actually thinking about it. The fact is that you have to weigh the number of lives saved against the cost, inconvenience, impact on quality of life, etc.. before deciding if any plan of action makes sense. I suspect we could save thousands of lives a year if we forced the auto manufacturers to install governors that limited a vehicles speed to somewhere around 50 mph. Would this idea have popular support. Absolutely not because we are willing to trade safety for convenience. If that wasn't the case the automobile never would have established itself in our society to begin with. You might say that the user of a cell phone is endangering others. All drivers are endangering others. It comes down to what is and isn't an acceptable level. So far there is no compelling proof that cell users are creating undue danger to others.
If it was your spouse that was killed by a driver who was proved to be at fault for cell phone usage, I'm sure your feelings would change.
Either way, I support laws limited hand held device usage while driving.
I accept the fact there will be a division in opinion. I also accept the fact that a lot of what government does is broke, some things it does do right. Protecting the public at large from real and perceived threats is something government should and will do.
Because it can't be measured under a microscope doesn't not make it right.
Again, you're starting from the wrong place.
There has been no proof offered that cell phone use while driving is "dangerous." This will only be proven when a connection is shown between increased cell phone use and increased accidents and fatalities.
So far, while standing in "your corner of the world," you haven't shown it, and neither has anyone else on this thread.
Incidentally, tougher "drunk driving" laws, as shown through the nationwide adoption of the .08 BAC level as the legal standard for driving under the influence, have not reduced fatalities from drunk driving.
So the correct answer, in this case, as to whether tougher drunk driving "laws have to potential to reduce anti-social or dangerous acts on the road" is actually "no," based on real-world experience.
kdshapiro: Hand-held cell phone usage in cars, unlike other dangerous acts, such as adjusting the radio or eating a lunch, has had the loss of concentration for the duration of the call, while driving well documented. Given the very high percentage of people using hand-held devices vs doing other stupid things, the law is a well justified law.
No, you have offered no proof that cell phone has led to increased accidents and/or fatalities. "Loss of concentration" is not synonomous with "increased accidents and fatalities," which is the only basis for banning this behavior.
I am starting from exactly the right place. You are not looking at the situation properly.
I don't have to offer any proof at all regarding hand held phone usage. As a voter and a tax payer I can effect the legislative process accordingly.
If anything bad happens to you, personally, it is entirely natural to feel negatively toward the cause of that bad outcome. That doesn't mean it makes sense to create a law banning it. While you might feel that way, personally, if every individual's feelings were taken into account when passing laws, there'd be almost nothing left that's legal to do.
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
I think you need to read my post again. I was agreeing with you.
There are many documented cases of folks using cell phones while driving, and in their distracted state have killed people. Many have been posted on this thread. We have laws in this land that came about because of only one death. Megan's law for example has been adopted in many states. I doubt seriously that there have been as many cases like that as ones where someone was killed by a driver using a cell phone.
Last summer I was reading business week and they had an editorial on Michigan law makers repealing the mandatory helmet law. The biggest gripe the commentator had was that this was a stupid move and that the law makers surely had better things to do. They were pulling for the governor to Veto the new law. Did the law makers do their homework? Was the original law any good? Was the new law any less good? Was it a waste of time and money? Same questions we have asked here and attempted to answer. But it was far easier to see someone not wearing a helmet and ticketing the rider than it is going to be to prove someone is on the cell phone. And this forum alone should show that cell phone users will be no less likely to pay attention to the new law than people were to pay attention to the Volstead act. But it will make some people feel they have done something even if they haven’t cause accidents to go down they will have fixed that rude person talking on the cell phone in the car next to them. Well, most likely it won’t fix anything, but much like the people in a firing squad and one person doesn’t have a bullet can claim they “know” they did not have the real bullet the law makers can claim they have saved a life. It feels good but does very little. The real truth is the cell phone doesn’t make people inattentive. It is that inattentive people will use the cell phone more, eat in the car more, argue in the car more, play with their CD entertainment system more and have more problems driving than attentive people
Because a law is ignored by the people the law is effecting, does not make the law a bad law. Sex offenders will molest children despite Megan's Law and cell phone users will use the phone despite the ban. Does that make any law less valuable? On the other hand law abiding citizens will not use their hand-held cell phones, thus increasing the safety on the road.
I would argue that Megans' Law and the cell phone ban law are both laws that should be in existence, even though it might be impossible to predict what effect the law will have in the future.
Interesting. So let me get this straight. Are you saying that because of Megan's Law the law abiding citizens will stop molesting children, thus making the world safer for them?
No you are saying that.
I am suggesting the get tough stance of the law acts as a deterrent, in the same way cell phone bans acts as a deterrent. The deterrent in one is safer children, the deterrent in two is a safer roadway.
Then they should ban sporty cars, and cars in general :-) 30-40k lives would be saved every year if we ban all cars.
No. Law abiding citizens are already supposed to refrain from engaging in behavior that may cause "driver distraction," remember? That's a clause in every state's book. Studies seem to indicate that there is no difference between hand-held vs. hands-free cell phone use.
I would argue that Megans' Law and the cell phone ban law are both laws that should be in existence, even though it might be impossible to predict what effect the law will have in the future.
Say what? Laws that have adverse effects or are ineffectual should be eliminated from the books. That's the very basis of rational law making. Otherwise, why don't we just toss a bunch of nonsense in to the books. There has to be reasonable expectation that a law would actually achieve what it's set out to achieve, and that the benefits from it outweigh the detrimental effects.
Rocky
Really? Although I'm sure you could find some statistics that back that up, most studies say the conversation in conjunction with the act of holding the phone is an issue. (I'm not getting into the back and forth "show me the proof" thing, that seems to get topics shut down very handily)
"No. Law abiding citizens are already supposed to refrain from engaging in behavior that may cause "driver distraction," remember?"
Law abiding citizens are not supposed to speed or exceed the DUI limits either. But I wouldn't want to see those laws repealed because they are ineffective in stopping behaviors. Neither would I want to see "bias crime" laws repealed, even though there were prior laws on the books that would cover property and assault situations.
"Say what? Laws that have adverse effects or are ineffectual should be eliminated from the books."
I disagree. There are laws that need to be kept on the books because the laws move to the greater public good. It would seem some local and state governments think banning hand held phone usage is a good idea. Even though the legislatures and lawyers probably don't have the same broad picture as you on the subject, some information in some studies were found of value as the basis for these laws.
Maybe we need a U.S. law totally banning cell phone use while driving except for emergencies (such as reporting an accident).
For those advocating that OK for drivers using cell phones, would like to know what are "detrimental effects" of an outright total ban of using while driving. Could some of those be: Cannot conduct business while driving; cannot gossip; cannot get grocery list of milk, bread, lettuce from spouse; cannot chat with boyfriend/girlfriend about last night's date; etc. What is so important to discuss that impairs your ability to operate a motor vehicle? Why is your discussion more important than the safety of other motorists and/or pedestrians?
There has been a lot of publicity about laws banning or limiting cell phone use while driving. This causes many cell phone drivers to rethink their behaviour. Some will make changes in how they use the phone while others may ignore. Only studies, polls, canvases might divulge what percent of drivers made a positive change to improve their driving safety.
More states, cities passing laws banning cell phone use will increase attention on the topic and will cause more otherwise "responsible" drivers who use cell phones to look inward and change their habits.
More laws, media attention will help to reduce amount of drivers using cell phones. This would be similar to amount of attention by media and groups such as MADD focussed on drunk driving. Remember that until MADD and attention was focussed on drunk driving, the case of drunkeness in general was used frequently in "comedy" skits on TV. There was one comedian, Foster Brooks I think, whose trademark routine was being drunk. Some people actually laughed at drunkeness.
Someone on this board previously cited apparently legitimate tests showing impaired reaction time by drivers using cell phones. If these tests are substantiated by NTSB, it should be "Case Closed". Cell phone use while driving should be banned across the U.S. Who in their right mind would advocate habits that impair driving ability and safety.
Drivers using cell phones would whine about a law to ban cell phone use that it is taking away their freedom. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands of laws, governing the requirements for building (mfrs) and operating (states) a motor vehicle. Each of these had reason for creation with ultimate objective of safety of persons on public roadways.
Having a driver's license means you are obligated to obey the laws of your state on rules of the road and are not "free" to make your own laws or rules. If you do not like one or more of the driving laws, such as there may be banning cell phones, then of course you are "free" to make a decision to stop driving. You are also "free" to petition government officials to change/remove/add laws.
Somehow we all got along fine without cell phones in cars before their intro in early 80's. Except for emergencies affecting life/injury such as reporting an accident, there is absolutely no rational responsible reason for a driver to have to use a cell phone.
The detrimental effects come primarily from abusing peoples' civil liberties by prosecuting them for "crimes" that can't be linked to anything problematic.
It also comes from law enforcement squandering scarce resources on enforcing laws that don't work, instead of preventing crimes that do cause problems.
The delayed-reaction-time argument is flawed, because there's no demonstrable evidence that any such delays can be linked to actual outcomes. Even if there is a delay of 13/100ths of a second, that amount of time is so brief that it is obvious why the accident and death rates don't seem affected by having phone usage -- whatever delay there may be isn't meaningful enough to make a difference.
Ultimately, you can't prove cause and effect. If 13/100th of a second is such a big deal, then you should be prepared to remove all of the other sources of such minute delays, such as cup holders, radios and passenger seats. 13/100ths of a second is such a ridiculously high bar that you'll be justified in banning everything and anything.
Actually it's been proven time and time again.
Then frankly, we have very different philosophies. While I'm not against laws regarding drunk driving or speed limit in principle, the numerical standards and enforcement method used for both are so atrocious as to make the laws in the books as they are written bad laws. It's interesting that you are upholding "bias crime" laws . . . did you ever think about the reality that when standards of criminalization is set so low, it inevitably make the enforcement selective and disproportionately penalize the population that are usually biased against? For example, the extra protection provided by hate crime legistlations (if any) can not come anywhere close to offsetting the selective enforcement of drug laws that is doing to the community that is supposed to be protected by the hate crimes. For what it's worth, I'm against hate crime legislations because it is redundant, subjective and make laws and enforcement unnecessarily complicated.
some information in some studies were found of value as the basis for these laws.
Or a simple case of revenue generation . . . just like artificially low speed limits that nobody obeys (including the cops when they are off duty), or turning free parking zone into metered zones.
In other words, we would need laws banning passengers not having their mouths taped :-) What about talk radio?
What is so important to discuss that impairs your ability to operate a motor vehicle?
Exactly. It does not impair my ability to operate a motor vehicle. Talking on the phone is no worse than talking to the passenger or listening to the radio, and a lot less distracting than looking at maps.
Having a driver's license means you are obligated to obey the laws of your state on rules of the road and are not "free" to make your own laws or rules. If you do not like one or more of the driving laws, such as there may be banning cell phones, then of course you are "free" to make a decision to stop driving.
We are discussing the merit of the law, right? By your logic, would you adovcate segregation too if you were in the 1950's Alabama? After all, riding in a public bus is a priviledge . . . if you don't like riding in the back, you could stay home (tongue firmly in cheek here). It's a classic case of bad law.
Somehow we all got along fine without cell phones in cars before their intro in early 80's.
And we did not have airbags till the mid-80's, no seat belt till the 1950's . . . no cars at all until the 1890's. Considering that cars kill 30-40k people in the US every year. Shouldn't you be advocating banning cars altogether? After all, people got around without cars back then.
The reason why we do not ban cars is because the use of cars renders us tremendous economic value . . . the means of transportation and communication facilitate the exchanges of goods and ideas, and make our lives better, statisticly speaking. That's what freedom is about, and why people prefer freedom over tyranny. Yes, life is precious, but the value of life is not infinite. We trade bits and pieces of life for income every day; it's called a job, and most people want one. The arbitrary outlawing of behavior is in essence taking life and liberty away in bits and pieces . . . although most people are not as eloquent as Patrick Henry, many do realize the axiom in "live free or die."
Like what? The cell phone usage rate has gone up dramaticly in the last decade, and accident and death rates have come down! Is it possible that cell phone use is reducing the number of trips and number of miles that people would have otherwise driven? thereby reducing accidents in the most fundamental way by reducing driving?
Is airport considered private property? If it is, and if there are enough people who want "quiet contentment," there can be a market place for "quiet booths" that people can enter by swiping their credit cards. An interesting idea, might just be a better use of airport space than those empty internet terminal rooms :-)
I want the dangerous hand held driving cell phone user off the road. I am very concerned about the data shown in the studies about how using hand held cell phones while driving impairs our driving ability.
I can easily close my ears to the noisy soap box preacher.
What is so important to discuss that impairs your ability to operate a motor vehicle?
brightness said:
Exactly. It does not impair my ability to operate a motor vehicle. Talking on the phone is no worse than talking to the passenger or listening to the radio, and a lot less distracting than looking at maps.
How do you know that talking on cell phone does not impair your ability? Can you say that you can devote the same amount of attention to periodic checks of your mirror and peripheral things on the side as well as approaching traffic (not on interstate), scanning upcoming intersections, scanning parked cars along the side for possible entry into traffic, scanning pedestrians/children on sidewalks, scanning upcoming parking lot exits, and so forth. Are you doing that with "less" attention or not at all when on the cell phone? What do you give up either in terms of total scanning or cutting back on the amount of scans while on the cell phone? Have you measured or been tested for these items?
Would need some kind of MD (brain surgeon?) to ascertain, but I would guess that listening to music radio requires far less brain processing than an engaging conversation on the cell phone. It might not need any processing.
Without disclosing anything personal, maybe you could give some examples of how you use your cell phone while driving - such as for business reasons, chatter/gossip, getting grocery list, making social calls, etc. Can you make a case that your conversations are so important to make and so critical that you are thus justified in diminishing the safe operation of a motor vehicle? Why so?
In your own words, "Have you measured or been tested for these items?"
"Can you make a case that your conversations are so important to make and so critical that you are thus justified . . . "
The justification is quite simple:
1. I make far less mistakes driving while talking on the phone than while driving and talking to my wife in person. Heck, I never made a single mistake driving while talking on the phone, but missed quite a few exists and turns while talking to her in person, ever since the dating days.
2. I'm far more attentive driving while talking on the phone after a good night's sleep than driving after a night's lack of sleep but not using cellphone.
3. I'm far more attentive to the road driving while talking on the phone than driving while looking at maps.
4. I'm have fare quicker reflexes despite being on the phone than the overwhelming majority of driving public even without use of phone.
Now unless you are into banning wives from passenger seats, checking and making sure everyone had enough sleep before getting into their cars, banning maps, and banning anyone who is not used to quick trigger response . . . the irrationally high standards you are erecting for attention/response level for cell phone use is little more than a witch hunt.
Sorry, I do not believe you are the exception to the rule. Next you'll try to convince us, you can finish a quart of 100 proof Vodka and drive perfectly fine.
The topic is indeed "should cell phone users be singled out" in a real world where 30-40k people die every year in the US alone because we are not willing to ban all cars. Indeed, why should cell phone users be singled out for banning in such a real world where lives are indeed traded for better living standards, every hour of the day. Indeed, someone somewhere dies every 15 minutes or so because we are not willing to ban all cars. Now, where are the people advocating "even if one life is saved"??
The "even if one life is saved" argument makes no sense whatsoever in a world where 30-40 thousand Americans die every year so we can derive the economic benefit of driving.
I do not drink, so I have no idea what you are talking about regarding 100 proof Vodka.
There is no doubt it contributes to anti-social behavior on the road and has a contributory effect to accident rates as well. IMO, from that perspective cell phone usage should be banned.