"Nope, I never claimed that I can multi-task infinitum."
Well then you really don't know your limits do you? I'm very happy to see legislatures address a problem that I believe is already a significant issue on the road. Just because you can't see radiation doesn't mean it can't harm you.
In other words, statistics be damned, and you are holding onto your own prejudice. In case you missed it, accident rates are coming down while cell phone use mashroomed over the past decade. Either cellphone use are reducing accidents or its use is not much of a factor despite anecdotal observations by cellphobes. When I get a cell phone call and an appointment is cancelled, when I get a cell phone call and I get to pick up an extra item at the store so I do not have to make another trip . . . those reduction in driving, aggravation and time consumption (so I have more time to sleep at night and drive the next day better refreshed) are simply not picked up by the anecdotal cellphobe observer.
Just because you can't see Sharia Law (or whatever other religious law) is the God's command, doesn't mean someone else smarter than you should not make it into the law of the land. Tongue firmly in cheek ;-)
In a more enlightened society, that's called religious idiocy.
"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."
The point you are attemping to make is a strawman argument. Why address this when 40K people die every year, is a strawman argument.
No it's not. The issue is at the very foundation of your earlier argumentment "even if one life is saved." The fact that 30-40k people die every year so that we can derive the economic benefit of cars vividly illustrates the point that "even if one life is saved" is not how the real world operates.
"Even if one life is saved" is a convenient ruse for gathering votes from the politically unsophisticated. The real driving force for cellphone ban legislation is the municipal revenue generation monster.
There is no data showing any relationship between cellphone ban and reduced accident rate at all. The only statistic we have is that accidents are dropping over the past decade despite, or because of, 100+ fold increase in cell phone usage. The "response time" lab tests are meaningless because it's still a theoretical study on "what could happen" not "what do happen." In the real word, the tiny fraction of a second difference makes hardly any difference at all. The cities would probably achieve better safety result by removing wet leaves and other road debris quicker and keep roads cleaner, but that would cost money instead of making money for the municipal coffer.
It's the age-old scheme of pitting one group of citizenry against another, while making hay for the ruler.
Actually, your post demonstrates a naviety about the way the real world and government operates.
Megan's law is an example of a law trying to protect the innocent. We will never know how many lives it affects and how many children are saved by it. But according to your thinking this law is frivolous and should never be on the books since the effect can't be quantified, or the numbers are miniscule. Even if the law saves one life, the law, IMO, should remain on the books. (and it probably will)
Similiar rebuttal for the hand held cell phone ban. (and these laws will probably remain on the books as well)
for example, someone standing on a soap box giving a passionate nonsensical speech
Having spent literally hundreds of hours in airports over the last 30 years commuting to Alaska, I never saw one of those soap box types. A few Hare Krishnas a while back. Nothing compares to the din in public places like dozens of thoughtless people in conversation with themselves or maybe someone on the other end of their cell phone conversation. I would almost rather have the smokers back. At least they were quiet and not adding to the noise in an already noisy environment. It is obvious you are oblivious to the problem when you think it does not impair your driving. If you were willing to subject yourself to one of the many tests that were posted I would imagine you would fall right in with the other cell phone users. They were slightly more impaired than someone driving legally drunk.
I need to visit with my Congressman that just got re-elected. Maybe Congress needs to take this issue on.
No one has made the argument that all laws are bad. We are also not foolish enough to contend that all laws are good. In fact no one should be able to contend that all laws are passed for good reasons. Some laws are passed for political reasons alone. Laws should be measured against peoples freedoms and their personal obligations for their own actions. Most would agree that motorcycle helmet laws were enacted for a good reason. The Feds used financial incentives to force states to enact these laws country wide. As soon as the federal blackmail ended some states have started to repeal such laws. Why? Because people have to take some responsibility for their actions and there is simply no way to legislate utopia. If cell phone use is going up and accident rates are going down what is the problem? If we don't "like" other people using cell phones and can see no use for them is that a reason to ban them? Have we started down a slippery slope? Head banging to a favorite CD is objectionable to many but we have yet to ban it. I am sure some technophobes would love to ban such behavior. But there is no need, because the Law already says we have to be able to hear and respond to emergency vehicles and we are responsible for any accidents we cause. We don't need another law to address attentiveness. We already have such laws.
Some people even in this forum quote studies saying cell phone use is distracting and applaud the efforts of law makers for banning hand held units held up to the ear. My cell phone has a pretty good speaker and from a small Stalk sticking out from the dash is quite capable of being used without placing the phone next to my ear. Does the law address this feature? If it does can I be observed using the prohibited hand held unit? If I can't be observed can I be cited? These are all issues such laws must address over the long run. But it seems even more strange that someone would be against cell phone use and use these studies and yet say they have simply switched over to hand helds because they don't accept the same studies they are using to say hand helds are distraction. It simply doesn't follow.
Why do so many people not get it might be the question the anti cell people may ask? Like stated before, cell phone use is up and accident rates are down. I am sure there are many laws that remain on the books because law makers don't get much publicity for repealing such laws. Adultery laws, premarital sex laws. The old alienation of affection laws. many of the Blue laws some cities had and some still have. I am sure they must have done their homework before they passed such laws. But the people over the years rejected most of them or reduced them to civil matters and we as a society have still survived. I might agree with Brightness. I don't drink so because drinking and driving has been cited as a cause of accidents and even death I might support a total ban on "any" drinking and driving. The could close all of the bars in Southern California because everyone drinks and drives to some degree even if it is below some theoretical limit. But I would not support such a law because it simply isn't workable.
I have seen my share of stupid mistakes by people on cell phones. But I have also seen my share of mistakes by people without cell phones. ( I have made them myself looking for street signs.) The cell phone law may stay on the books for a very long time, but I doubt if it will decrease accident rates at all. And we will have a perfect chance to see if I am right by 2008. At than time hand helds will be illegal to use in vehicles. How many want to bet accident rates will not drop by anything close to the percentage of drivers now using cell phones? But I am sure than even if the law doesn't do anything the people that passed it will pat themselves on the back and tell us how good they feel about it. It is a bit like banning floods. Sounds good on paper.
Megan's law is an example of a law trying to protect the innocent.
What's this fascination you have with Megan's Law all about? This is a good example of grieving parents driving legislation. Hardly the most objective and level headed group that should be performing this duty. I'm sure this law will accomplish nothing in terms of protecting children but we've erected a nice shrine in the form of legislation for some parents that lost a child. Seriously, do you think there is some deviate out there agonizing over the fact that he really wants to molest a child but this darned Megan's Law is getting in his way? I'm remembering the Brady Bill that followed the Reagan assasination attempt. Another big success there for legislation.
"What's this fascination you have with Megan's Law all about?"
It's a great example of law trying to do some good, that sprung from a grass roots effort, where it "supposedly" encroaches on personal freedom, where the results may or may not, according to some, be worth the paper the law is printed on.
According to some people on this forum, the ban on hand held phones while driving fits into the same category, and thus the end doesn't justify the means. While there are definitely laws that should be on the books circa 2006, the ban on hand held phones isn't one of them.
This is a good example of grieving parents driving legislation
That is exactly right. Just as their are folks grieving over lost loved ones due to drivers being distracted by cell phones and killing people. Just because we don't have 100s of documented cases of cell phone distraction killing people does not mean we should not pass a law against the distraction. One parent that has lost a child can move mountains.
One parent that has lost a child can move mountains.
In Southern Maryland, where I live, there are a lot of crosses erected along the roadside. I'm guessing that these are sites that someone died in an accident and the parents are the ones that placed these crosses. I used to live in So. California and I never remembered seeing anything like this so I don't know if it is a regional phenomena or a recent development. These sites are getting more elaborate over time, almost like a competition amongst the grieving. There's one in particular that I expect to see a gazebo on pretty soon. I sympathize with grieving parents but they aren't exactly rational and shouldn't be driving legislation.
Not sure why you are so obsessed with Megan's Law (perhaps you are new to civics? no offense intended, we all go through a political maturing process.) Megan's Law is about the worst example you can give for arguing in favor of all laws being just or rational. Megan's Law has been in place for only a few years, and we are already witnessing some absurdities:
(1) Brother and sister that got caught in consensual incest in their teens decades ago now face the prosect of losing their jobs because they are in the public registry, despite neither posing any threat to anyone else or to each other, never was.
(2) Husband and wive who went through a tough period decades ago, wife filed for spousal abuse/battery in the heat of the moment, husband entered plea bargains because they could not afford lawyers . . . decades later the two are reconciled, but somehow the husband now has to be in the registry, which does not mention anything what actually happened, and the family faces hardship because they are being shunned by employers and community alike because the hunsband's name is in the company of rapists and child molestors.
(3) 16 States of the union had antimiscegenation laws, banning inter-racial marriages, until 1967. People did get prosecuted, convicted and sent to jail for practicing inter-racial marriage. They'd also be in the sex offender's list just like the polygamists.
Now for a really interesting scenerio, many states still have laws in the books against fornication and sodomy, even between husbands and wives. So if some sheriff has a vandetta against someone, and busts him/her for engaging in unusual forms of sex (is it still really unusual? considering one of our ex-presidents popularized it) with his or her own spouse . . . the couple will end up in the sex offender's list for the rest of their lives!
Do we really want to promote this kind of nanny-state law making?
BTW, not surprised by your bringing up the "even saves one life" argument again . . . so are you now advocating banning cars in general? 40 thousand lives a year is quite a few more than one life.
I have spent my share of time in airports. Noise never bothered me. I bring my own books, noise cancelling headsets and good old ear plugs (I need that for napping on the plane anyway). What's next after banning phones? banning conversations?
Talking on the phone is less distracting than talking to a live person in the passenger seat, in my experience anyway. So unless we are advocating banning passenger seat too, I don't see why cell phone use should be singled out for banning.
"One parent that has lost a child can move mountains."
And that is the beauty of our government and legal system. Thanks for pointing that out.
Or a clear indicator of crisis of civilization: a people that are so obsessed with the value of government intervention and become oblivious to the cost of the intervention.
so obsessed with the value of government intervention and become oblivious to the cost of the intervention.
Cost to whom? This should be a money maker for the state of CA. Lot of hard headed people would rather pay a $100 fine than give up their stupid Cell phone.
Cost to the free flow of goods and ideas . . . i.e. commerce and non-commercial exchange. It's like a banning of cars . . . even if the government reimburses everyone for all the cars given up, there would still be a tremendous cost in terms of the transactions and transportation that would not be taking place. A banning is effectively an especially stiff confiscatory tariff.
If a person is using a hands free cell phone how will they ever get cited? I guess a cop could pull someone over for moving their lips but that won't pass the sanity test.
Glad to find a fellow poster who do not drink. I have noticed that posts from you are especially level-headed and logical, boaz, across several fora. Perhaps there is something to be said about not dissolving one's brain cells in alcohol . . . perhaps we should try impose our own righteous behavior pattern on others too and advocate prohibition laws . . . hahaha, someone tried that wacky idea already, nearly a century ago, darn ;-)
"Not sure why you are so obsessed with Megan's Law (perhaps you are new to civics? no offense intended, we all go through a political maturing process.)"
Nah, non taken. It's fun to what your response is. Doesn't seem like you have a lot of experience in the real world.
"Do we really want to promote this kind of nanny-state law making?"
If it's for the greater good...yes.
BTW there are many, many laws that have unintended fallout. The DCMA is one law that comes to mind, where the uses are being bent far beyond what the law was intended.
Unfortunately the CA law does not include hands free. It would be easy to add a signal tracer to the cop car. Same as having radar. They can tell if you are transmitting in the Cell phone band. If they wanted to get very inventive they could tie your drivers license to your auto license to your cell phone number tied into a GPS tracking system and just send you the ticket when you are moving and making a cell call. The technology is in place and used by major trucking companies already. Your days on the phone in the car are numbered. Get use to it.
Do you think the FCC mandating GPS tracking on cell phones was just to protect you if you are in distress and call 911 from your cell phone? It would be so easy to track a moving cell call and nail the perpetrator.
They can? They know it is my phone and not the car next to me or the person walking down the sidewalk talking on the phone? Sounds like we are getting close to not needing any officers. Maybe they can learn to trace run away kids with this new device they have installed in their car? Could they use this new device to monitor all of our conversations and tell us who is planning a crime?
Cell phones are only part of the technology we will have in our vehicles. Does anyone think they are going to outlaw On-Star? Is there a difference between my phone sending out a signal for location information and On Star?
Trucking companies can also track the speed their trucks are going. Do you think our days of needing traffic cops are over as well? Do you think they will simply get a printout of everyones speed and send out tickets in mass once a month? On just maybe we still have a few years of due process left?
Last time I checked the CHP can't tell where a Cell call comes from when I make a 911 call unless I tell them where I am calling from, either that or they are too lazy to use that tracking technology when I call to tell them about a motorcycle accident last weekend. Oh and my phone does have GPS technology but darn it, they still needed me to tell them my location.
If my days of using a cell phone are numbered I can accept that. I already know that my calls can be monitored, as are my home cordless phones. However to use that call to convict me of a crime to date the police at least still need a warrent. But I am not ready to start holding my breath just yet. I remember when they were going to put breatholisers in every car so you would have to blow into it before you could start the car. I haven't seen one on the showroom floor just yet but I have seen cars with built in cell phones. I wonder what the chances are they will mandate the manufacturers into removing them?
It is one thing to go to court and have the officer say to the jury, I pulled the man over and he has a BAC of .09. And it is quite another to say I pulled him over because I think he was talking on the cell phone and not to his wife in the car next to him. The question is, officer could his wife have been talking on the phone? Was his car the only car around that could have been using a phone? And I would ask, how much time and money will it take to prosecute such a case? Is it worth it? Maybe it is to some. It just seems silly to me.
"Do we really want to promote this kind of nanny-state law making?"
If it's for the greater good...yes.
In other words, you are very much in support of a nanny-state. Since when is any law making not "for the greater good"?? Any law, from prohibition to slave capture and return were always presented as "for the greater good." The intention of a law is irrelevant. The consequence of a particular legislation is how it should be judged by.
BTW there are many, many laws that have unintended fallout. The DCMA is one law that comes to mind, where the uses are being bent far beyond what the law was intended.
Thank you for contributing to my argument. DCMA is another piece of those laws that should never have been made. It's highly doubtful the current use of the law is truely "unintended." Most laws regarding commerce and fines are usually put together by the astute movers and shakers who know exactly what they are doing and what exact supposedly "unintended" benefits they seek to reap, with the support of the clueless innocents who do not know that big-governments are always born of "the greater good" intentions but turn out to serve the interests of the few.
"Thank you for contributing to my argument. DCMA is another piece of those laws that should never have been made."
No your argument is fuzzy and I'm not sure what your talking points other than some grandstanding. My argument is clear:
1. Studies show hand held cell phone usage cause concentration issues while driving. 2. Laws that ban hand held cell phones are for the greater good. 3. I support those laws. 4. States and municipalities, which may have insight you don't, also recognize the potential issues and are banning hand held cell phone usage.
The DCMA is not a law for the greater good. Case closed.
1. Studies show hand held cell phone usage cause concentration issues while driving.
So do a large number of other behaviors. Why single out cellphone use? Concentration issue alone is nowhere near ground enough for banning. A certain threshold has to be crossed. Otherwise, why don't we ban radio, CD, A/C, passenger, vanity mirror and map lights? Lab condition concentration studies are meaningless when real life data indicates that accidents rates have been dropping over the same decade that cell phone use has gone up by 100+ fold.
2. Laws that ban hand held cell phones are for the greater good.
That's strictly your own opinion. I'm sure DCMA supporters argued that was for the greater good, too, whatever "greater good" means. Thousands of cellphone users obvious do not agree with you.
3. I support those laws.
And I'm against those laws :-)
4. States and municipalities, which may have insight you don't, also recognize the potential issues and are banning hand held cell phone usage.
Would that be the same kind of insight they have about why there should be blue laws (no alcohol sale on Sundays except for restaurants), laws banning fornication (premarital sex) and laws banning sodomy (whatever that means) even between married couples? Care to enlighten the rest of us what these insights are?
The DCMA is not a law for the greater good. Case closed.
Sure, DCMA supporters got the law passed in Congress by claiming it was a really rotten piece of legislation . . . Obviously not. Every dim-wit legislation had the supportor base who claimed it was for the greater good.
My point has been quite straight forward: we should not single out cellphone use for banning. The lab test reaction time argument rests on the assumption that not using cell phone _could_ be better, and if it saves even one life . . . the argument fails in front of three real-life problems:
(1) We do not live in a "if it saves even one life" world. If saving one life is enough justification for banning an entire class of behavior, there would be precious little activity that are still legal . . . the least of which would be driving itself: 35000-40000 lives are lost in the US alone every year due to the use of autmobiles. If advocates of cell ban really believe in "if it saves even one life" they should really look into banning cars altogether.
(2) There are numerous other potential distractions besides cell phone use that are potentially even more distracting. For example, reading map while driving, changing CD while driving, having a heated argument with the passenger while driving, not having enough sleep before driving, etc. etc. Singling out cellphone use makes no sense.
(3) Whatever small delay in reaction time that may be observed in lab conditions obviously does not add up to much in real life. Accident/death rates have been dropping over the past decade and half, when cell phone use has gone up by over 100 times. Obviously, even if you do not want to translate that correlation into causation, it should be obviously that cellphone use is at least not much of a factor.
"So do a large number of other behaviors. Why single out cellphone use?"
In my opinion, it gives teeth to instances where cell phone usage was conclusively implicated in accidents or homocides. I believe this one law is a good law. Let the government collect revenue from it for all I care. I personally would like the fines from eating and putting on makeup to be equal to the fines for cell phones, but it ain't gonna happen.
"That's strictly your own opinion"
Yes, it is. Except for the studies everything is IMO.
"And I'm against those laws :-)"
I have no problem at all with your position.
"Sure DCMA supporters got the law passed in Congress by claiming it was a really rotten piece of legislation . . . Obviously not. Every dim-wit legislation had the supportor base who claimed it was for the greater good."
But you and I really know what it is about is content control. That goes contra to the fair use doctrine. Thus in my opinion, the law is not for the greater good. Proabably a bad example anyway.
"Would that be the same kind of insight they have about why there should be blue laws (no alcohol sale on Sundays except for restaurants),"
Frankly you thoughts makes no sense to me. I don't claim government is 100%..in fact far from it. For purposes of this conversation I believe in this one instance on this topic I have no issue with the ban on hand held cell phones while driving.
In my opinion, it gives teeth to instances where cell phone usage was conclusively implicated in accidents or homocides. I believe this one law is a good law. Let the government collect revenue from it for all I care. I personally would like the fines from eating and putting on makeup to be equal to the fines for cell phones, but it ain't gonna happen.
That makes no sense at all. Do you actually think $100 fine is going to be factor when there is an accident or death?
But you and I really know what it is about is content control. That goes contra to the fair use doctrine. Thus in my opinion, the law is not for the greater good.
Of course it is about content control, just like cellphone ban/fine is about revenue generation. It's a terrible allocation of policing resources. The same number of cops would have been far better used enforcing laws against real crimes or facilitating traffic flow, instead of stopping traffic for issuing tickets to a harmless or nearly harmless behavior, which may have significant unexpected value (just like Fair Use). Fair use is fundamentally about not putting undue burden on interpersonal exchange . . . why is it so hard when it comes to the use of cell phones? why is exchange of ideas suddenly become crime-worthy if it is conducted over cell phones?
Frankly you thoughts makes no sense to me. I don't claim government is 100%..in fact far from it. For purposes of this conversation I believe in this one instance on this topic I have no issue with the ban on hand held cell phones while driving.
You are the one claiming that supporters of the law are privy to insights that I do not. I want to know what these insights are. If there is none, your generic argument that the local government may have such insight where I do not can be applied to 100% of what the local government wants to do. If you agree that the magic box does not have 100%, it better be able to produce some valid arguments before bamboozling us with fanciful "greater good." Like what are the greater goods? And how is it weighed against lost commerce and non-commercial opportunities resulting from the ban? None of the arguments produced by the supporters are valid so far. The lab test reaction time argument rests on the assumption that not using cell phone _could_ be better, and if the difference saves even one life . . . The argument fails in front of three real-life problems:
(1) We do not live in a "if it saves even one life" world. If saving one life is enough justification for banning an entire class of behavior, there would be precious little activity that are still legal . . . the least of which would be driving itself: 35000-40000 lives are lost in the US alone every year due to the use of autmobiles. If advocates of cell ban really believe in "if it saves even one life" they should really look into banning cars altogether.
(2) There are numerous other potential distractions besides cell phone use that are potentially even more distracting. For example, reading map while driving, changing CD while driving, having a heated argument with the passenger while driving, not having enough sleep before driving, etc. etc. Singling out cellphone use makes no sense.
(3) Whatever small delay in reaction time that may be observed in lab conditions obviously does not add up to much in real life. Accident/death rates have been dropping over the past decade and half, when cell phone use has gone up by over 100 times. Obviously, even if you do not want to translate that correlation into causation, it should be obviously that cellphone use is at least not much of a factor.
So why single it out for banning? Why waste policing resources on it when there are more urgent needs? Why wasting police resources on ban something is harmless or nearly harmless and disrupt the normal flow of commercial/non-commercial flow and exchange of ideas at the same time?
the CHP can't tell where a Cell call comes from when I make a 911 call unless I tell them where I am calling from
Sounds like an implementation problem to me. I was at the CTIA convention about 5 years ago when that was the main subject of debate. The Cell Carriers have fought it from the start. The liability of dealing with 911 was something they were not wanting to accept. I could get into it from a very technical perspective. This is not the forum for it. The technology exists to track and follow every GPS equipped cell phone. I would not carry one of the darn things. I like my privacy way too much. The one on my desk has been out of the charger maybe 5 times in the last year. I got in on the FREE Pioneer plan from Sprint 8 or 9 years ago. Only costs me if I use it. My bill for all of last year was under $10. If you don't like being watched by Big Brother, why do you buy into the system?
I think we are very close to not needing cops to give tickets for most traffic offenses. They will be dispatched to clean up the wrecks caused by cell phone users and donut munchers. Look at London for an example. This article is from 2002. I recently read the police now have over 3 million cameras watching the city. Coming to a city near you very soon.....
British authorities have placed great faith in CCTV as a crime control device, installing an estimated 1.5 million police cameras along the country's streets, buildings and mass transport systems. Still shots taken from video feed are used to identify protesters and hooligans.
"That makes no sense at all. Do you actually think $100 fine is going to be factor when there is an accident or death?"
No, but it makes a lawsuit win with damages much easier if a ticket were given.
"Of course it is about content control, just like cellphone ban/fine is about revenue generation"
IMHO, that's a ridiculous statement.
"You are the one claiming that supporters of the law are privy to insights that I do not."
True, but we have no real way of knowing the rational behind the law coming from any governing body.
"We do not live in a "if it saves even one life" world."
I disagree. Megans Law and the drunk driving laws are good examples of this.
"There are numerous other potential distractions besides cell phone use that are potentially even more distracting."
That statement is a diversion. Again, for purposes of this topic, this conversation, this one law makes sense to me.
"Whatever small delay in reaction time that may be observed in lab conditions obviously does not add up to much in real life."
To say what has been said previously. All laws in this land are preventitive. You can't stop any person from committing an illegal act. So it makes no difference to me where accident rates have gone, I believe not using hand held phones are not only a good rule of thumb while driving, but a good law to back up the good rule of thumb.
"So why single it out for banning?"
Because more people are using cell phones than ever before. It's a disturbing trend given the studies and seeing how people drive in real life with a phone stuck to their ear. The law just makes good sense. Just because you believe this is harmless, doesn't make it so. That's where we disagree.
"Sounds like an implementation problem to me. I was at the CTIA convention about 5 years ago when that was the main subject of debate"
You're correct. Ever hear of the Migo phone? It's a Verizon phone that lets parents track the whereabouts of their kids that have this phone. Also VZ Nav let's the phone and software plug into the GPS network to have your phone act as a nav system for $10/month. So yes, the technology exists.
Yes, you are correct that they could circumvent our freedom from self incrimination if they wanted to. The point it where will it stop? Have you looked at the GPS systems in many new cars? Will they transmit a signal and will people have to look at them? Have you seen the Tom Tom comercials or On Star comercials? Will they also ban my digital recorder because I use it to make notes and practice speeches on it? At what point will we say enough? The singling out of cell phone users wouldn't be so suspicious if Cell phone use was the number one reason for distractions or if accidents had not been falling despite the increase of cell phone use. I don't remember the order they studies suggested but it seems like eating while driving was a more serious distraction and drive through fast food places have to indicate that the practice of munching on a big mac and fries is increasing. I have five cup holders in my car, one for every passenger that has a seat belt. There are 4 places to get coffee in the little mountain community I live in as I drive through town. I have been know to drink coffee and drive myself. It it distracting? I am sure it is but I try to do it in places when the distraction isn't as important. That is called personal responsibility. I have yet to see any laws against drinking coffee or eating a big mac while driving but I am sure it would be far easier to enforce. The evidence would be easily visible in the car the officer pulled over. No special equipment would have to be installed in his car to do so. I am even willing to bet "more" people eat in their car than use cell phones. So why cell phones? And if they are detrimental why only hand helds? Almost every new hand held, and the sprint Nextel phones are a perfect example, can be used with the hand held unit below the line of sight from outside your car. So who was doing their homework?
At what point do we object the loss of our responsibilities to monitor our own actions. When the state starts to monitor your phone 24/7? Will they ban Tom Toms from my car because I have to talk to them, listen to them and look at them? will On Star go out of business because I can't contact them while I am driving?
You are correct that they could develop and mandate tracking systems in our phones and in our cars to eliminate the need for traffic cops. They could cut back on the need for court time by passing a law not allowing people to fight computer generated tickets. Will the voters allow it? I am sure some would feel total state protection and monitoring of the people would make the world a safer place. But then a Zoo is a safer place for animals as well.
Actually it's (cause and effect) has been proven time and time again.
That's the whole point -- it hasn't been proven. If it was, you'd have an open-and-shut case, but you haven't done this at all.
Again, the question you all avoid: If phones are killing off so many people, then why aren't fatalities increasing?
If you had shown cause-and-effect, it would be really obvious that phones were a problem. We would be seeing accident and death rates leaping and bounding as phone usage increases.
But this isn't happening, the rates are actually falling, as they have been for decades. If you were correct, they would be increasing significantly, yet they insist on doing the opposite.
The implications of this are obvious -- theoretical studies don't translate into real-world results. There's no point in passing yet another law if it won't do any good.
I don't really have to show cause and effect. All that has to be shown is that hand held cell phone usage contributes to detrimental driving behaviors and that has been proved without doubt by study after study.
As far as fatality rates, I don't buy into those statstics as it relates to cellphones and apparently neither do the lawmakers who voted these bans into effect. IMO and the opinion of lawmakers, if these bans contribute to a safer driving environment, which you have not shown it doesn't (and I don't believe you have to prove the opposite to make the law valid), the law is worthwhile.
To your way of thinking, if the drunk driving laws were totally eliminated, but fatality rates still went down, would you still want to drive next to a drunk driver? Would you still believe the drunk driving laws should have been repealed? That's what these studies show. Hand held cell phone users have the driving capacity of a drunk driver.
If you believe these studies are flawed or somehow invalid, or not real world, that's another story completely. If that is the case then we're debating another topic. To my mind enough studies have been done to show how using a hand held cell phone and driving affects driving behavior. You of course are welcome to debate the veracity of these studies, but I for one think there is a lot of truth to what has already been looked at.
All that has to be shown is that hand held cell phone usage contributes to detrimental driving behaviors and that has been proved without doubt by study after study.
If nobody's getting hurt, then how exactly are they detrimental?
That's my point, there is no proof nobody is not getting hurt. Figures are too high level and sporadic to show anything with any systematic regularity.
There have been several news articles(at least on the east coast) about people getting killed by the other driver being on the phone at the time of the accident. Was it the cell phone that cause it vs let's say smoking a cigarette or twiddling with the radio? We may never know.
So I believe this is a reasonable law given the seemingly overwhelming evidence to date.
That's my point, there is no proof nobody is not getting hurt.
It is not my responsibility to prove you wrong, it is your responsibility to prove your own point.
That's how the process of logic works. If you want to argue a positive, then you need to prove it with a positive. Show us some evidence that your argument makes sense.
NHTSA conducted a "naturalistic study" that involved studying 109 primary drivers who were each studied for a year. The study included installing cameras and measuring devices in their cars, and reviewing the number of near accidents and accidents that each of them had.
This study was insightful because the events could be recorded (they weren't just relying on statements made after the fact). Also, minor accidents that normally aren't reported were also recorded, including single-car events that don't involve other vehicles, so it could capture results that accident and fatality data don't pick up.
What it illustrates nicely is a variation on the old 80/20 rule that all of us are familiar with. One table in the report shows these results --
Number of accidents -- Percentage of drivers 0 - 64.5% 1 - 21.5% 2 - 6.5% 3 - 3.7% 4 - 3.7%
If you do the math on this, you will see that very few people are responsible for most of the accidents.
-3.7% of the drivers were involved in about 25% of the accidents. -Another 3.7% of the drivers were involved in another 18% of the accidents. -The next 6.5% were involved in 21.5% of the accidents. -While 64.5% of drivers had no accidents at all.
So, let's put these results into simpler terms (with a bit of rounding to make the math easier):
-The worst 1 of every 25 drivers were involved in about one-quarter of the accidents -The worst 1 of every 7 drivers were involved in about two-thirds of the accidents -2 out of 3 drivers had no accidents at all.
It's pretty obvious that accidents are not evenly distributed among the population -- they aren't really "accidents" at all. Rather, there are a very few people who are causing the vast majority of the problems, while most of us can drive with perhaps a few near-misses, but no actual collisions.
Being that "accidents" aren't really accidental, I find it hard to believe that simply taking phones away from the bottom feeders, who really do make up a small proportion of the population, is going to make any difference in how well they drive.
If we really care about safety, the question should be: Why are the worst drivers allowed to drive at all? Since a few people are causing most of those problems, the best thing that you could do to address automobile safety is to make sure that these few people no longer have cars, regardless of whether they have phones or not. Take keys away from the right people, and you should get substantial results.
"It is not my responsibility to prove you wrong, it is your responsibility to prove your own point."
I don't need to "prove" anything. It's my opinion the law is a reasonable law given the studies to date, as well as what I've observed on the road with cell phone users.
You are trying to "prove" my opinion wrong. I'm not trying to "prove" your opinions wrong, I'm stating my rational.
Of course you do, otherwise, your opinion is just based upon thin air.
Why should anyone have to pay a fine just because you've decided that they should? Unless someone just named you Head Dictator, you'll have to do better than that.
I don't know about your state, but the assigned risk pool in my state makes driving a very expensive proposition. I agree we should take the keys away if a threshold is reached. But to stay on topic, maybe you want to create another thread entitled: "Why are the worst drivers still allowed to drive?" Or maybe the "Good and the bad about the NHTSA."
As I previously said, I also believe we need specific laws dealing with special situations.
"Of course you do, otherwise, your opinion is just based upon thin air."
That's your opinion, which is not univerally shared. So obviously there are some who think my opinion has some validity. Even if you (wrongly) believe my opinion is based on thin air, it's still my opinion.
But to stay on topic, maybe you want to create another thread entitled: "Why are the worst drivers still allowed to drive?"
This is the essence of the entire discussion. You are blaming phones and devices for accidents, while I am pointing out that accidents are caused by specific drivers, irrespective of whether they have phones, cupholders, newspaper subscriptions, hamburgers or whatever.
This shows why the accident rates don't fall every time that you pass a new law. If a law doesn't target these bad drivers, it is doomed to fail, because these bad drivers stay on the road. They aren't bad because of the equipment in their car, but because of their conduct.
You keep banging the drum for a law that won't do any good. I'm showing you that you could target a few drivers who deserve it, and eliminate most of the accidents. Your enforcement plan will simply make it harder to target the bad drivers, because the cops will spend more time ticketing people who haven't done anything wrong, while failing to address the bottom of the bottom who are responsible for most of the damage.
Even if you (wrongly) believe my opinion is based on thin air, it's still my opinion.
No one disputed that it was your opinion. But I have come to learn over the years that "'Cuz I said so" isn't a valid justification for anything. You can impose rules on your kids based on logic like that, but the rest of us expect better.
"This is the essence of the entire discussion. You are blaming phones and devices for accidents,"
No I'm pointing out that studies indicate using a hand held phone while driving drastically reduce the driving ability of the driver. Do you deny this? Do you believe widespread use of any device that distracts a driver to this extent should be banned behavior?
In the long run I expect this law in conjunction with public awareness to stop an issue, before it becomes an issue.
You still haven't proven to me that cell phone usage is safe and there is comprehensive statistical evidence to show that cell phones do not cause driver distractions, which can lead to accidents and fatalities.
"You can impose rules on your kids based on logic like that, but the rest of us expect better."
I believe the government has acted in our best interests for the greater public good. You are the one keep saying: "Cuz I said so", not me. If you want to repeal cell phone bans, your best bet is come up with information that shows cell phone use is safe, it doesn't distract driver attention from driving, and it has a zero contributory effect to the accident rate. Not quote irrelevant NHTSA studies that have no bearing on the topic on hand.
That should be an easy thing to do. Right? CNN, The New York Times, IIHS, every government agency and every driver on the road would be very interested in that information.
I'm saying the facts are in and the goverment has started stepping in with preventitive measures to help disarm an issue before it becomes a problem.
No I'm pointing out that studies indicate using a hand held phone while driving drastically reduce the driving ability of the driver. Do you deny this?
Yes, of course I do. If there was a problematic delay or impact on behavior, we'd be seeing more accidents. But we're not.
"Yes, of course I do. If there was a problematic delay or impact on behavior, we'd be seeing more accidents. But we're not."
Okay, so it's your opinion the studies are invalid. It's my opinion there is no comprehensive statistical data to prove using hand held cell phones while driving is safe and a lot of evidence to prove they are not. Until the NHTSA keeps accurate national records of accidents by cause, we may never know. Changes in the number of fatalities over time have varied reasons, can't say it's only due to x reason. Therefore imo, the governments', an ounce of prevention attitude is the right thing to do.
Comments
Well then you really don't know your limits do you? I'm very happy to see legislatures address a problem that I believe is already a significant issue on the road. Just because you can't see radiation doesn't mean it can't harm you.
In a more enlightened society, that's called religious idiocy.
The point you are attemping to make is a strawman argument. Why address this when 40K people die every year, is a strawman argument.
Not exactly. I'm using the existing studies as a basis for my belief that a ban on hand held phones is a win for the greater public good.
"Even if one life is saved" is a convenient ruse for gathering votes from the politically unsophisticated. The real driving force for cellphone ban legislation is the municipal revenue generation monster.
It's the age-old scheme of pitting one group of citizenry against another, while making hay for the ruler.
Megan's law is an example of a law trying to protect the innocent. We will never know how many lives it affects and how many children are saved by it. But according to your thinking this law is frivolous and should never be on the books since the effect can't be quantified, or the numbers are miniscule. Even if the law saves one life, the law, IMO, should remain on the books. (and it probably will)
Similiar rebuttal for the hand held cell phone ban. (and these laws will probably remain on the books as well)
Having spent literally hundreds of hours in airports over the last 30 years commuting to Alaska, I never saw one of those soap box types. A few Hare Krishnas a while back. Nothing compares to the din in public places like dozens of thoughtless people in conversation with themselves or maybe someone on the other end of their cell phone conversation. I would almost rather have the smokers back. At least they were quiet and not adding to the noise in an already noisy environment. It is obvious you are oblivious to the problem when you think it does not impair your driving. If you were willing to subject yourself to one of the many tests that were posted I would imagine you would fall right in with the other cell phone users. They were slightly more impaired than someone driving legally drunk.
I need to visit with my Congressman that just got re-elected. Maybe Congress needs to take this issue on.
Some people even in this forum quote studies saying cell phone use is distracting and applaud the efforts of law makers for banning hand held units held up to the ear. My cell phone has a pretty good speaker and from a small Stalk sticking out from the dash is quite capable of being used without placing the phone next to my ear. Does the law address this feature? If it does can I be observed using the prohibited hand held unit? If I can't be observed can I be cited? These are all issues such laws must address over the long run. But it seems even more strange that someone would be against cell phone use and use these studies and yet say they have simply switched over to hand helds because they don't accept the same studies they are using to say hand helds are distraction. It simply doesn't follow.
Why do so many people not get it might be the question the anti cell people may ask? Like stated before, cell phone use is up and accident rates are down. I am sure there are many laws that remain on the books because law makers don't get much publicity for repealing such laws. Adultery laws, premarital sex laws. The old alienation of affection laws. many of the Blue laws some cities had and some still have. I am sure they must have done their homework before they passed such laws. But the people over the years rejected most of them or reduced them to civil matters and we as a society have still survived. I might agree with Brightness. I don't drink so because drinking and driving has been cited as a cause of accidents and even death I might support a total ban on "any" drinking and driving. The could close all of the bars in Southern California because everyone drinks and drives to some degree even if it is below some theoretical limit. But I would not support such a law because it simply isn't workable.
I have seen my share of stupid mistakes by people on cell phones. But I have also seen my share of mistakes by people without cell phones. ( I have made them myself looking for street signs.) The cell phone law may stay on the books for a very long time, but I doubt if it will decrease accident rates at all. And we will have a perfect chance to see if I am right by 2008. At than time hand helds will be illegal to use in vehicles. How many want to bet accident rates will not drop by anything close to the percentage of drivers now using cell phones? But I am sure than even if the law doesn't do anything the people that passed it will pat themselves on the back and tell us how good they feel about it. It is a bit like banning floods. Sounds good on paper.
What's this fascination you have with Megan's Law all about? This is a good example of grieving parents driving legislation. Hardly the most objective and level headed group that should be performing this duty. I'm sure this law will accomplish nothing in terms of protecting children but we've erected a nice shrine in the form of legislation for some parents that lost a child. Seriously, do you think there is some deviate out there agonizing over the fact that he really wants to molest a child but this darned Megan's Law is getting in his way? I'm remembering the Brady Bill that followed the Reagan assasination attempt. Another big success there for legislation.
It's a great example of law trying to do some good, that sprung from a grass roots effort, where it "supposedly" encroaches on personal freedom, where the results may or may not, according to some, be worth the paper the law is printed on.
According to some people on this forum, the ban on hand held phones while driving fits into the same category, and thus the end doesn't justify the means. While there are definitely laws that should be on the books circa 2006, the ban on hand held phones isn't one of them.
That is exactly right. Just as their are folks grieving over lost loved ones due to drivers being distracted by cell phones and killing people. Just because we don't have 100s of documented cases of cell phone distraction killing people does not mean we should not pass a law against the distraction. One parent that has lost a child can move mountains.
In Southern Maryland, where I live, there are a lot of crosses erected along the roadside. I'm guessing that these are sites that someone died in an accident and the parents are the ones that placed these crosses. I used to live in So. California and I never remembered seeing anything like this so I don't know if it is a regional phenomena or a recent development. These sites are getting more elaborate over time, almost like a competition amongst the grieving. There's one in particular that I expect to see a gazebo on pretty soon. I sympathize with grieving parents but they aren't exactly rational and shouldn't be driving legislation.
And that is the beauty of our government and legal system. Thanks for pointing that out.
(1) Brother and sister that got caught in consensual incest in their teens decades ago now face the prosect of losing their jobs because they are in the public registry, despite neither posing any threat to anyone else or to each other, never was.
(2) Husband and wive who went through a tough period decades ago, wife filed for spousal abuse/battery in the heat of the moment, husband entered plea bargains because they could not afford lawyers . . . decades later the two are reconciled, but somehow the husband now has to be in the registry, which does not mention anything what actually happened, and the family faces hardship because they are being shunned by employers and community alike because the hunsband's name is in the company of rapists and child molestors.
(3) 16 States of the union had antimiscegenation laws, banning inter-racial marriages, until 1967. People did get prosecuted, convicted and sent to jail for practicing inter-racial marriage. They'd also be in the sex offender's list just like the polygamists.
Now for a really interesting scenerio, many states still have laws in the books against fornication and sodomy, even between husbands and wives. So if some sheriff has a vandetta against someone, and busts him/her for engaging in unusual forms of sex (is it still really unusual? considering one of our ex-presidents popularized it) with his or her own spouse . . . the couple will end up in the sex offender's list for the rest of their lives!
Do we really want to promote this kind of nanny-state law making?
BTW, not surprised by your bringing up the "even saves one life" argument again . . . so are you now advocating banning cars in general? 40 thousand lives a year is quite a few more than one life.
Talking on the phone is less distracting than talking to a live person in the passenger seat, in my experience anyway. So unless we are advocating banning passenger seat too, I don't see why cell phone use should be singled out for banning.
And that is the beauty of our government and legal system. Thanks for pointing that out.
Or a clear indicator of crisis of civilization: a people that are so obsessed with the value of government intervention and become oblivious to the cost of the intervention.
Cost to whom? This should be a money maker for the state of CA. Lot of hard headed people would rather pay a $100 fine than give up their stupid Cell phone.
Good to see you here.
Nah, non taken. It's fun to what your response is. Doesn't seem like you have a lot of experience in the real world.
"Do we really want to promote this kind of nanny-state law making?"
If it's for the greater good...yes.
BTW there are many, many laws that have unintended fallout. The DCMA is one law that comes to mind, where the uses are being bent far beyond what the law was intended.
Do you think the FCC mandating GPS tracking on cell phones was just to protect you if you are in distress and call 911 from your cell phone? It would be so easy to track a moving cell call and nail the perpetrator.
Cell phones are only part of the technology we will have in our vehicles. Does anyone think they are going to outlaw On-Star? Is there a difference between my phone sending out a signal for location information and On Star?
Trucking companies can also track the speed their trucks are going. Do you think our days of needing traffic cops are over as well? Do you think they will simply get a printout of everyones speed and send out tickets in mass once a month? On just maybe we still have a few years of due process left?
Last time I checked the CHP can't tell where a Cell call comes from when I make a 911 call unless I tell them where I am calling from, either that or they are too lazy to use that tracking technology when I call to tell them about a motorcycle accident last weekend. Oh and my phone does have GPS technology but darn it, they still needed me to tell them my location.
If my days of using a cell phone are numbered I can accept that. I already know that my calls can be monitored, as are my home cordless phones. However to use that call to convict me of a crime to date the police at least still need a warrent. But I am not ready to start holding my breath just yet. I remember when they were going to put breatholisers in every car so you would have to blow into it before you could start the car. I haven't seen one on the showroom floor just yet but I have seen cars with built in cell phones. I wonder what the chances are they will mandate the manufacturers into removing them?
It is one thing to go to court and have the officer say to the jury, I pulled the man over and he has a BAC of .09. And it is quite another to say I pulled him over because I think he was talking on the cell phone and not to his wife in the car next to him. The question is, officer could his wife have been talking on the phone? Was his car the only car around that could have been using a phone? And I would ask, how much time and money will it take to prosecute such a case? Is it worth it? Maybe it is to some. It just seems silly to me.
If it's for the greater good...yes.
In other words, you are very much in support of a nanny-state. Since when is any law making not "for the greater good"?? Any law, from prohibition to slave capture and return were always presented as "for the greater good." The intention of a law is irrelevant. The consequence of a particular legislation is how it should be judged by.
BTW there are many, many laws that have unintended fallout. The DCMA is one law that comes to mind, where the uses are being bent far beyond what the law was intended.
Thank you for contributing to my argument. DCMA is another piece of those laws that should never have been made. It's highly doubtful the current use of the law is truely "unintended." Most laws regarding commerce and fines are usually put together by the astute movers and shakers who know exactly what they are doing and what exact supposedly "unintended" benefits they seek to reap, with the support of the clueless innocents who do not know that big-governments are always born of "the greater good" intentions but turn out to serve the interests of the few.
No your argument is fuzzy and I'm not sure what your talking points other than some grandstanding. My argument is clear:
1. Studies show hand held cell phone usage cause concentration issues while driving.
2. Laws that ban hand held cell phones are for the greater good.
3. I support those laws.
4. States and municipalities, which may have insight you don't, also recognize the potential issues and are banning hand held cell phone usage.
The DCMA is not a law for the greater good. Case closed.
So do a large number of other behaviors. Why single out cellphone use? Concentration issue alone is nowhere near ground enough for banning. A certain threshold has to be crossed. Otherwise, why don't we ban radio, CD, A/C, passenger, vanity mirror and map lights? Lab condition concentration studies are meaningless when real life data indicates that accidents rates have been dropping over the same decade that cell phone use has gone up by 100+ fold.
2. Laws that ban hand held cell phones are for the greater good.
That's strictly your own opinion. I'm sure DCMA supporters argued that was for the greater good, too, whatever "greater good" means. Thousands of cellphone users obvious do not agree with you.
3. I support those laws.
And I'm against those laws :-)
4. States and municipalities, which may have insight you don't, also recognize the potential issues and are banning hand held cell phone usage.
Would that be the same kind of insight they have about why there should be blue laws (no alcohol sale on Sundays except for restaurants), laws banning fornication (premarital sex) and laws banning sodomy (whatever that means) even between married couples? Care to enlighten the rest of us what these insights are?
The DCMA is not a law for the greater good. Case closed.
Sure, DCMA supporters got the law passed in Congress by claiming it was a really rotten piece of legislation . . . Obviously not. Every dim-wit legislation had the supportor base who claimed it was for the greater good.
My point has been quite straight forward: we should not single out cellphone use for banning. The lab test reaction time argument rests on the assumption that not using cell phone _could_ be better, and if it saves even one life . . . the argument fails in front of three real-life problems:
(1) We do not live in a "if it saves even one life" world. If saving one life is enough justification for banning an entire class of behavior, there would be precious little activity that are still legal . . . the least of which would be driving itself: 35000-40000 lives are lost in the US alone every year due to the use of autmobiles. If advocates of cell ban really believe in "if it saves even one life" they should really look into banning cars altogether.
(2) There are numerous other potential distractions besides cell phone use that are potentially even more distracting. For example, reading map while driving, changing CD while driving, having a heated argument with the passenger while driving, not having enough sleep before driving, etc. etc. Singling out cellphone use makes no sense.
(3) Whatever small delay in reaction time that may be observed in lab conditions obviously does not add up to much in real life. Accident/death rates have been dropping over the past decade and half, when cell phone use has gone up by over 100 times. Obviously, even if you do not want to translate that correlation into causation, it should be obviously that cellphone use is at least not much of a factor.
In my opinion, it gives teeth to instances where cell phone usage was conclusively implicated in accidents or homocides. I believe this one law is a good law. Let the government collect revenue from it for all I care. I personally would like the fines from eating and putting on makeup to be equal to the fines for cell phones, but it ain't gonna happen.
"That's strictly your own opinion"
Yes, it is. Except for the studies everything is IMO.
"And I'm against those laws :-)"
I have no problem at all with your position.
"Sure DCMA supporters got the law passed in Congress by claiming it was a really rotten piece of legislation . . . Obviously not. Every dim-wit legislation had the supportor base who claimed it was for the greater good."
But you and I really know what it is about is content control. That goes contra to the fair use doctrine. Thus in my opinion, the law is not for the greater good. Proabably a bad example anyway.
"Would that be the same kind of insight they have about why there should be blue laws (no alcohol sale on Sundays except for restaurants),"
Frankly you thoughts makes no sense to me. I don't claim government is 100%..in fact far from it. For purposes of this conversation I believe in this one instance on this topic I have no issue with the ban on hand held cell phones while driving.
That makes no sense at all. Do you actually think $100 fine is going to be factor when there is an accident or death?
But you and I really know what it is about is content control. That goes contra to the fair use doctrine. Thus in my opinion, the law is not for the greater good.
Of course it is about content control, just like cellphone ban/fine is about revenue generation. It's a terrible allocation of policing resources. The same number of cops would have been far better used enforcing laws against real crimes or facilitating traffic flow, instead of stopping traffic for issuing tickets to a harmless or nearly harmless behavior, which may have significant unexpected value (just like Fair Use). Fair use is fundamentally about not putting undue burden on interpersonal exchange . . . why is it so hard when it comes to the use of cell phones? why is exchange of ideas suddenly become crime-worthy if it is conducted over cell phones?
Frankly you thoughts makes no sense to me. I don't claim government is 100%..in fact far from it. For purposes of this conversation I believe in this one instance on this topic I have no issue with the ban on hand held cell phones while driving.
You are the one claiming that supporters of the law are privy to insights that I do not. I want to know what these insights are. If there is none, your generic argument that the local government may have such insight where I do not can be applied to 100% of what the local government wants to do. If you agree that the magic box does not have 100%, it better be able to produce some valid arguments before bamboozling us with fanciful "greater good." Like what are the greater goods? And how is it weighed against lost commerce and non-commercial opportunities resulting from the ban? None of the arguments produced by the supporters are valid so far. The lab test reaction time argument rests on the assumption that not using cell phone _could_ be better, and if the difference saves even one life . . . The argument fails in front of three real-life problems:
(1) We do not live in a "if it saves even one life" world. If saving one life is enough justification for banning an entire class of behavior, there would be precious little activity that are still legal . . . the least of which would be driving itself: 35000-40000 lives are lost in the US alone every year due to the use of autmobiles. If advocates of cell ban really believe in "if it saves even one life" they should really look into banning cars altogether.
(2) There are numerous other potential distractions besides cell phone use that are potentially even more distracting. For example, reading map while driving, changing CD while driving, having a heated argument with the passenger while driving, not having enough sleep before driving, etc. etc. Singling out cellphone use makes no sense.
(3) Whatever small delay in reaction time that may be observed in lab conditions obviously does not add up to much in real life. Accident/death rates have been dropping over the past decade and half, when cell phone use has gone up by over 100 times. Obviously, even if you do not want to translate that correlation into causation, it should be obviously that cellphone use is at least not much of a factor.
So why single it out for banning? Why waste policing resources on it when there are more urgent needs? Why wasting police resources on ban something is harmless or nearly harmless and disrupt the normal flow of commercial/non-commercial flow and exchange of ideas at the same time?
Sounds like an implementation problem to me. I was at the CTIA convention about 5 years ago when that was the main subject of debate. The Cell Carriers have fought it from the start. The liability of dealing with 911 was something they were not wanting to accept. I could get into it from a very technical perspective. This is not the forum for it. The technology exists to track and follow every GPS equipped cell phone. I would not carry one of the darn things. I like my privacy way too much. The one on my desk has been out of the charger maybe 5 times in the last year. I got in on the FREE Pioneer plan from Sprint 8 or 9 years ago. Only costs me if I use it. My bill for all of last year was under $10. If you don't like being watched by Big Brother, why do you buy into the system?
I think we are very close to not needing cops to give tickets for most traffic offenses. They will be dispatched to clean up the wrecks caused by cell phone users and donut munchers. Look at London for an example. This article is from 2002. I recently read the police now have over 3 million cameras watching the city. Coming to a city near you very soon.....
British authorities have placed great faith in CCTV as a crime control device, installing an estimated 1.5 million police cameras along the country's streets, buildings and mass transport systems. Still shots taken from video feed are used to identify protesters and hooligans.
No, but it makes a lawsuit win with damages much easier if a ticket were given.
"Of course it is about content control, just like cellphone ban/fine is about revenue generation"
IMHO, that's a ridiculous statement.
"You are the one claiming that supporters of the law are privy to insights that I do not."
True, but we have no real way of knowing the rational behind the law coming from any governing body.
"We do not live in a "if it saves even one life" world."
I disagree. Megans Law and the drunk driving laws are good examples of this.
"There are numerous other potential distractions besides cell phone use that are potentially even more distracting."
That statement is a diversion. Again, for purposes of this topic, this conversation, this one law makes sense to me.
"Whatever small delay in reaction time that may be observed in lab conditions obviously does not add up to much in real life."
To say what has been said previously. All laws in this land are preventitive. You can't stop any person from committing an illegal act. So it makes no difference to me where accident rates have gone, I believe not using hand held phones are not only a good rule of thumb while driving, but a good law to back up the good rule of thumb.
"So why single it out for banning?"
Because more people are using cell phones than ever before. It's a disturbing trend given the studies and seeing how people drive in real life with a phone stuck to their ear. The law just makes good sense. Just because you believe this is harmless, doesn't make it so. That's where we disagree.
You're correct. Ever hear of the Migo phone? It's a Verizon phone that lets parents track the whereabouts of their kids that have this phone. Also VZ Nav let's the phone and software plug into the GPS network to have your phone act as a nav system for $10/month. So yes, the technology exists.
At what point do we object the loss of our responsibilities to monitor our own actions. When the state starts to monitor your phone 24/7? Will they ban Tom Toms from my car because I have to talk to them, listen to them and look at them? will On Star go out of business because I can't contact them while I am driving?
You are correct that they could develop and mandate tracking systems in our phones and in our cars to eliminate the need for traffic cops. They could cut back on the need for court time by passing a law not allowing people to fight computer generated tickets. Will the voters allow it? I am sure some would feel total state protection and monitoring of the people would make the world a safer place. But then a Zoo is a safer place for animals as well.
That's the whole point -- it hasn't been proven. If it was, you'd have an open-and-shut case, but you haven't done this at all.
Again, the question you all avoid: If phones are killing off so many people, then why aren't fatalities increasing?
If you had shown cause-and-effect, it would be really obvious that phones were a problem. We would be seeing accident and death rates leaping and bounding as phone usage increases.
But this isn't happening, the rates are actually falling, as they have been for decades. If you were correct, they would be increasing significantly, yet they insist on doing the opposite.
The implications of this are obvious -- theoretical studies don't translate into real-world results. There's no point in passing yet another law if it won't do any good.
As far as fatality rates, I don't buy into those statstics as it relates to cellphones and apparently neither do the lawmakers who voted these bans into effect. IMO and the opinion of lawmakers, if these bans contribute to a safer driving environment, which you have not shown it doesn't (and I don't believe you have to prove the opposite to make the law valid), the law is worthwhile.
To your way of thinking, if the drunk driving laws were totally eliminated, but fatality rates still went down, would you still want to drive next to a drunk driver? Would you still believe the drunk driving laws should have been repealed? That's what these studies show. Hand held cell phone users have the driving capacity of a drunk driver.
If you believe these studies are flawed or somehow invalid, or not real world, that's another story completely. If that is the case then we're debating another topic. To my mind enough studies have been done to show how using a hand held cell phone and driving affects driving behavior. You of course are welcome to debate the veracity of these studies, but I for one think there is a lot of truth to what has already been looked at.
If nobody's getting hurt, then how exactly are they detrimental?
There have been several news articles(at least on the east coast) about people getting killed by the other driver being on the phone at the time of the accident. Was it the cell phone that cause it vs let's say smoking a cigarette or twiddling with the radio? We may never know.
So I believe this is a reasonable law given the seemingly overwhelming evidence to date.
It is not my responsibility to prove you wrong, it is your responsibility to prove your own point.
That's how the process of logic works. If you want to argue a positive, then you need to prove it with a positive. Show us some evidence that your argument makes sense.
This study was insightful because the events could be recorded (they weren't just relying on statements made after the fact). Also, minor accidents that normally aren't reported were also recorded, including single-car events that don't involve other vehicles, so it could capture results that accident and fatality data don't pick up.
What it illustrates nicely is a variation on the old 80/20 rule that all of us are familiar with. One table in the report shows these results --
Number of accidents -- Percentage of drivers
0 - 64.5%
1 - 21.5%
2 - 6.5%
3 - 3.7%
4 - 3.7%
If you do the math on this, you will see that very few people are responsible for most of the accidents.
-3.7% of the drivers were involved in about 25% of the accidents.
-Another 3.7% of the drivers were involved in another 18% of the accidents.
-The next 6.5% were involved in 21.5% of the accidents.
-While 64.5% of drivers had no accidents at all.
So, let's put these results into simpler terms (with a bit of rounding to make the math easier):
-The worst 1 of every 25 drivers were involved in about one-quarter of the accidents
-The worst 1 of every 7 drivers were involved in about two-thirds of the accidents
-2 out of 3 drivers had no accidents at all.
It's pretty obvious that accidents are not evenly distributed among the population -- they aren't really "accidents" at all. Rather, there are a very few people who are causing the vast majority of the problems, while most of us can drive with perhaps a few near-misses, but no actual collisions.
Being that "accidents" aren't really accidental, I find it hard to believe that simply taking phones away from the bottom feeders, who really do make up a small proportion of the population, is going to make any difference in how well they drive.
If we really care about safety, the question should be: Why are the worst drivers allowed to drive at all? Since a few people are causing most of those problems, the best thing that you could do to address automobile safety is to make sure that these few people no longer have cars, regardless of whether they have phones or not. Take keys away from the right people, and you should get substantial results.
I don't need to "prove" anything. It's my opinion the law is a reasonable law given the studies to date, as well as what I've observed on the road with cell phone users.
You are trying to "prove" my opinion wrong. I'm not trying to "prove" your opinions wrong, I'm stating my rational.
Of course you do, otherwise, your opinion is just based upon thin air.
Why should anyone have to pay a fine just because you've decided that they should? Unless someone just named you Head Dictator, you'll have to do better than that.
As I previously said, I also believe we need specific laws dealing with special situations.
That's your opinion, which is not univerally shared. So obviously there are some who think my opinion has some validity. Even if you (wrongly) believe my opinion is based on thin air, it's still my opinion.
I didn't make the laws, I just support 'em.
This is the essence of the entire discussion. You are blaming phones and devices for accidents, while I am pointing out that accidents are caused by specific drivers, irrespective of whether they have phones, cupholders, newspaper subscriptions, hamburgers or whatever.
This shows why the accident rates don't fall every time that you pass a new law. If a law doesn't target these bad drivers, it is doomed to fail, because these bad drivers stay on the road. They aren't bad because of the equipment in their car, but because of their conduct.
You keep banging the drum for a law that won't do any good. I'm showing you that you could target a few drivers who deserve it, and eliminate most of the accidents. Your enforcement plan will simply make it harder to target the bad drivers, because the cops will spend more time ticketing people who haven't done anything wrong, while failing to address the bottom of the bottom who are responsible for most of the damage.
No one disputed that it was your opinion. But I have come to learn over the years that "'Cuz I said so" isn't a valid justification for anything. You can impose rules on your kids based on logic like that, but the rest of us expect better.
No I'm pointing out that studies indicate using a hand held phone while driving drastically reduce the driving ability of the driver. Do you deny this? Do you believe widespread use of any device that distracts a driver to this extent should be banned behavior?
In the long run I expect this law in conjunction with public awareness to stop an issue, before it becomes an issue.
You still haven't proven to me that cell phone usage is safe and there is comprehensive statistical evidence to show that cell phones do not cause driver distractions, which can lead to accidents and fatalities.
I believe the government has acted in our best interests for the greater public good. You are the one keep saying: "Cuz I said so", not me. If you want to repeal cell phone bans, your best bet is come up with information that shows cell phone use is safe, it doesn't distract driver attention from driving, and it has a zero contributory effect to the accident rate. Not quote irrelevant NHTSA studies that have no bearing on the topic on hand.
That should be an easy thing to do. Right? CNN, The New York Times, IIHS, every government agency and every driver on the road would be very interested in that information.
I'm saying the facts are in and the goverment has started stepping in with preventitive measures to help disarm an issue before it becomes a problem.
Yes, of course I do. If there was a problematic delay or impact on behavior, we'd be seeing more accidents. But we're not.
Okay, so it's your opinion the studies are invalid. It's my opinion there is no comprehensive statistical data to prove using hand held cell phones while driving is safe and a lot of evidence to prove they are not. Until the NHTSA keeps accurate national records of accidents by cause, we may never know. Changes in the number of fatalities over time have varied reasons, can't say it's only due to x reason. Therefore imo, the governments', an ounce of prevention attitude is the right thing to do.