"Even MADD has recently come out in favor of a more high tech approach to keeping drunk drivers off the road. I guess they've realized the limited effectiveness of legislation."
We actually agree drunk driving is bad? And maybe multiple tactics are necessary to attempt to mitigate the issue. But it all starts with legislation.
Now if we can agree cell phone usage while driving is bad, and maybe multiple tactics are necessary to attempt to mitigate the risks...
Because something hasn't been proven to your satisfaction, doesn't mean the legistlation is bad. You probably want a vast amount of carnage on the highway attributed to cell phone usage before you will accept any idea cell phone usage while driving is a bad thing. Maybe with this legislation this unnecessary carnage can be avoided.
Actually its been proven to my satisfaction that cell phones aren't as dangerous as some people are stating. The proof is that this vast carnage hasn't materialized, not even minimal carnage. Actual numbers are more compelling then speculative studies. BTW, even these studies don't support your position that banning handheld units will be effective.
"Actually its been proven to my satisfaction that cell phones aren't as dangerous as some people are stating. The proof is that this vast carnage hasn't materialized, not even minimal carnage. Actual numbers are more compelling then speculative studies. BTW, even these studies don't support your position that banning handheld units will be effective."
It's been proven to my satisfaction that buried in the numbers could be a sad story related to hand held cell phone usage, but we won't know until this information is really tracked nationwide, for some years. In the meantime the legislation is a great start.
It is a bit like our legislators never read Parable about the Emperor making a decree telling the ocean just how far the tide was allowed. It my have made the Emperor feel good but it didn't stop the tide. we all agree that cell phone use has been going up. We all agree that Accident percentage rates have been going down. If cell phones cause 12 percent of the accidents and if cell phones increased two fold in the last five years the accidents would not be going down if they were the cause. . Death rates have nothing to do with cell phones. There is no reason to conclude a person in more or less likely to die because they were using a cell phone. All that matters is the percentage of accidents. And that was falling as cell phones were rising. If someone is contending cell phones are responsible for accidents and cell phone use is increasing then there is no way the accident rate should be dropping. Unless cell phones are not the real problem.
Think about what you just said. Cell phone use is increasing and they are supposed to be the cause you are most concerned with. If cell phone use is increasing and accident rate are decreasing it would be just as likely they they were preventing accidents. This isn't science but see if it doesn't work. If accidents before cell phones were 22.5 per 100. After cell phones were introduced the accident rate dropped to 22 per hundred. When cell phones increased by 100 percent accidents dropped to 19 per hundred. How in the world would you conclude cell phones caused the accidents? (Numbers were used as examples only.)
You keep thinking that your view is "the point". Just because a lazy bunch of glorified public servants can enact legislation sponsored by their whiny minions doesn't mean that they are acting correctly, defendably, or with logic. Because they don't have to. Bottom line is, going after this one branch of distractions while ignoring so many others is negligent at best, it's nothing more than an easy segment to target. Lowest common denominator lawmaking for lowest common denominator citizenry.
"You keep missing the point, this is not a theoretical discussion"
But ALL you provide is theory.
All we get from the wannabe authoritarians here is "maybe", "perhaps", "what if"....
That is about as scientific as "I turned on my hair dryer today. It was 5 degrees warmer today than yesterday. Thus, my hair dryer must have warmed my city by 5 degrees.". There are, unfortunately, tens of thousands of other variables that must be considered before drawing that type of conclusion.
Actually real world numbers are far more compelling. The accident and fatality rate have dropped 30% since 1990. I guess someone could always argue that these rates would have dropped even further had it not been for cell phones. That's the same argument that people opposed to higher speed limits use. They concede that fatalities have dropped but claim they would be even less with lower speed limits. At that point the dialogue becomes almost meaningless because its based on someone speculating about what would have been and ignoring what is.
"You keep thinking that your view is "the point". Just because a lazy bunch of glorified public servants can enact legislation sponsored by their whiny minions doesn't mean that they are acting correctly, defendably, or with logic"
How is it that drunk driving rates went up? How does one even know this happened. So as a trend over the years, with some minor exceptions (like the 65 bump in NJ) fatalities went down, while fatality per mile went down. How can this be. Isn't then the NHTSA wrong, how can measurements go up and down at the same time?
I don't see any conflict with hypothesis (not conjecture: conjecture is not really based on fact or logic) that cell phones could play a significant role in accidents or fatalities and we don't know.
I don't need any studies to tell me that cell phone use while driving increases the probability of causing an accident. I just had surgery after getting hit by someone totally distracted on a cell phone. They didn't even apply the brakes - just plowed right into my car. Sure, such accidents occurred before cell phone use, but why increase the probability for such an unnecessary activity. Who do you really need to talk to while driving? :mad:
I thought I was all alone in thinking that legislators should have the burden of proving a problem exists before enacting legislation that inhibits my lifestyle, and then ought to really show that the legislation they come up with will do something about that problem. I am glad to see there are still a few free spirits like me out there! :-)
And this law, as I see it, fails on both the counts I mentioned. So I am going to go see if I can find a citizens' group willing to take up the cause of readying a ballot measure to repeal this pointless law before it ever takes effect. I think such a measure would stand a good chance of passing once people learn the things that actually significantly contribute to driver errors and an increase in accidents and injuries on the roads. Of which group handheld cell phone calls cannot reasonably be singled out as a member.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
start the petition. We could get hundreds of signatures on line alone. They would have never passed this legislation had they put it to a vote in the first place.
start the petition. We could get hundreds of signatures on line alone. They would have never passed this legislation had they put it to a vote in the first place.
Can I just call in my vote? (I'll do it from the car if it will help!)
I don't see any conflict with hypothesis (not conjecture: conjecture is not really based on fact or logic) that cell phones could play a significant role in accidents or fatalities and we don't know.
The operative word here is "could". If someone proposed this theory to me I would initially think that is sounded plausible. Before enacting legislation I would make my best attempt to determine that it was more than theory. There are few agencies that maintain stats as comprehensive as those of the NHTSA, so that would be my best source. Not studies or people's individual observations. I'd conclude that there is no evidence that a problem exists and certainly not one of any significant magnitude as many would have us believe. That being the case the only reason to enact legislation is for some sort of political gain. Unfortunately this happens all the time and will continue to happen but it reflects poorly on our system and is a big reason some of us don't hold it in such high regard.
Sure, such accidents occurred before cell phone use, but why increase the probability for such an unnecessary activity.
The probability has decreased. That's not a study but hard data coming from an agency that actually supports your point of view. So they certainly wouldn't manipulate the numbers to contradict this position.
Individual experiences are somewhat meaningless. I've never hit anyone nor been hit by someone on a cell phone yet I was in an accident 30 years ago that obviously didn't involve cell phones. Therefore cell phones seem to have made the roads safer.
If at any given time 2% of the drivers are on cell phones and it turned out that 4% of two car collisions involved a vehicle whose driver was on a cell phone would that mean using a cell phone doubles your chance of being in an accident? If you say yes then you don't grasp basic probability even though I suspect that this is the nature of some of the studies being put forth and why they don't agree with real world data.
"The operative word here is "could". If someone proposed this theory to me I would initially think that is sounded plausible"
When it comes to saving lives on the road, I'm ok with word "could". There are enough studies that show the detrimental effects of driving while talking to merit the word "could".
I think it is a great reflection on lawmakers finally doing something about an issue before it becomes a real problem.
"The probability has decreased. That's not a study but hard data coming from an agency that actually supports your point of view. So they certainly wouldn't manipulate the numbers to contradict this position"
I think what you are doing is mistaking, or trumpeting, some misinformation communicated in one study, which contradicts every other study done.
Individual experience should sort of take on a common sense approach. Ever see a drunk driver on the road. Ever think it's okay for them to drive? Same with a cell phone user totally absorbed in their conversation with driving coming in second.
In all frankness, I'm not sure you even read the studies out there, if you had you would be coming to different conclusions.
"I thought I was all alone in thinking that legislators should have the burden of proving a problem exists before enacting legislation that inhibits my lifestyle, and then ought to really show that the legislation they come up with will do something about that problem."
What is meant by inhibiting lifestyle?
Having a driver's license means that we are bound to operate our motor vehicles according to all laws of the state where driving. There are probably many dozens, if not hundreds (low), of laws that have to be obeyed while on public roads. Do any of these other laws inhibit one's lifestyle? Don't understand how safely operating a motor vehicle has anything to do with a lifestyle. Think that any person can have a very enriching and fulfilling lifestyle and not use a phone while driving.
What is so difficult about a driver making a cell call while stopped in a safe and legal spot? Why does a driver feel that it is his "right" to make a call while driving? Do these drivers have problems in planning ahead and making their business/personal calls before their trip? Or, alternatively, wait until at end of trip.
Except for reporting an emergency while on the road (and usually can stop in safe place to make call), why do cell phone using drivers feel that they can compromise their response time and safety and jeopardize others for "their" convenience?
Any cell phone/driving laws will be the beginning and the foundation for further actions to focus attention and change behaviour of driving public and get compliance. Would think that most cell phone using drivers are not even aware of their dangerous habits and new laws banning cell phone use will increase publicity and educate these persons to safe driving practice.
I'll wager everything I own that even if desperate-for-attention politicos who act to appease braying sheep enact such laws en masse, there will be no call to curtail other distractions. No bans on eating, drinking, smoking, etc. Sad and ridiculous.
Of course not. Because this has nothing to do with safety or it would have been a issue with eating while driving long before cell phones. The passenger issue would have been delt with long before cell phones. But there is no political mileage to be gained with those issues. With cell phones you can get free air time without investing time or your own money.
Since it's no big deal to be distracted while driving, maybe we should allow pilots to drink and fly the plane, or pilots to be involved in everything but safe aircraft operation while taking off or landing. I'm sure we could find some studies that support the notion a pilot can do everything else except fly the plane and yet take off and land safely.
following your example If communication is so dangerous we shouldn't allow intense conversation over a telecommunication device either? If either hands free or hand held devices cause drunken like actions and distractions we should ban our pilots from using these devices because they are equal to being drunk? No thank you I would rather my pilot be able to talk and communicate with other pilots and the control tower thank you. And by the way I have been in the cockpit and all the conversation is not all business. I have heard the pilot ask to have reservations made for over night stays in a Hotel and even reservations for a car. Short and brief, yes. All emergency flight information, no. So to be consistent if you believe it is the same as flying drunk would you ban talking and flying for the pilot?
Or are we about to get another "Ya, but argument." Ya but they are professional. Ya but it is necessary. Well ya but you are equating it with being drunk and we don't allow drunk even in an emergency.
Having a driver's license means that we are bound to operate our motor vehicles according to all laws of the state where driving.
I'd be very surprised if the majority of cell phone opponents abide by the posted speed limits. And their rational is that, yeah, I'm technically breaking the law but I have the judgement to decide what is and isn't safe, and besides, everybody does it. So most of us really don't feel compelled to operate our motor vehicles according to "all" laws. Some of us however think that we have a keener insight into which laws are more important.
I agree, we should cut all r/f communication from the cockpit and hope everything turns out okay. :sick I think your post is rather ridiculouos. Nobody would advocate what you are suggesting I was alluding to. But if a pilot were about to land a 500 person jetliner, and at 2000 feet says, hold on I have to call my wife to order dinner for me...do you think that would fly? (no pun intended). I'm not sure why it is okay in a car?
You not I equated talking and driving to being drunk or drinking and driving. If it was indeed the same then you would ban it from planes as well. Remember you made the distinction not me. There would be no reason to allow him to talk on a communication device where the conversation was intense if indeed you believed for a second that conversation and being drunk was the same. (but drunk flying was simply a smoke screen.) So if it is not the same and if you are willing to allow someone flying a plane with several hundred passenger the discretion as to when the conversation was necessary or even worth the risk why not allow the same for a driver of a car? If drunk driving and flying drunk are not the same as communication then your question about the pilot being drunk has no relation to this debate. If driving drunk and communicating on the phone is the same as being drunk how will a plane make that different? It wouldn’t so the relationship is not the same and the laws are not related.
"You not I equated talking and driving to being drunk or drinking and driving. If it was indeed the same then you would ban it from planes as well. Remember you made the distinction not me. There would be no reason to allow him to talk on a communication device where the conversation was intense if indeed you believed for a second that conversation and being drunk was the same. (but drunk flying was simply a smoke screen.) So if it is not the same and if you are willing to allow someone flying a plane with several hundred passenger the discretion as to when the conversation was necessary or even worth the risk why not allow the same for a driver of a car? If drunk driving and flying drunk are not the same as communication then your question about the pilot being drunk has no relation to this debate. If driving drunk and communicating on the phone is the same as being drunk how will a plane make that different? It wouldn’t so the relationship is not the same and the laws are not related."
I don't feel unsafe when the pilot communicates with the tower, but I do feel unsafe when you talk on your cell phone. There are actually rules in effect regarding cockpit behavior during takeoff and landing. Did you know that? Do you know why the FAA has to tell pilots how to behave during takeoff and landing? Why do you think these rules are in existence?
I notice you never seem to address my questions directly, only seem to deflect the answer.
"I don't feel unsafe when the pilot communicates with the tower, but I do feel unsafe when you talk on your cell phone. There are actually rules in effect regarding cockpit behavior during takeoff and landing. Did you know that? Do you know why the FAA has to tell pilots how to behave during takeoff and landing? Why do you think these rules are in existence? "
Yes I know there are rules for pilots communicating while flying. Knowing this doesn't have a thing to do with how you feel it "allows conversation, even intense conversation while flying a plane." It mandates it in fact. Now if as you contend it is as bad as being drunk or drinking would they mandate it? You have often equated cell phone use to driving when drunk or drinking. I am answering your question as directly as I can. They allow communication between pilots multi tasking and they do not allow drinking or being drunk for any reason. How can you equate the two actions as being the same when you are in a car and not the same in an airplane? Remember the last time you flew anywhere? Did the pilot make announcements to you over the intercom? Did he describe what was out side of your right or left windows? Did he ever tell you about that mountain top off to the left or that other plane off to your right? Did he ever tell you the weather conditions as he was circling LAX or Heathrow? Looking, talking explaining and flying all at the same time. Does that sound the same as being drunk to you? Does that sound like a emergency? Does that sound like landing instructions? Or does that sound like simple chit chat?
Pilots aren't worried or using hand held devices, they are using headsets. They are communicated infrequently and quickly only about flying the aircraft. They in fact do not have to worry about 33/1000 seconds before a collision. They in fact can have instrumentation keep the plane on course automatically and even land the plane without any intervention. They have radar to tell if there are any obstructions within miles, much less feet. They don't talk about dinner, when landing the plane.
I'm glad you understand the difference between flying and driving, my original point was regarding rules in the cockpit and you didn't answer it.
You're assertation equating using a hand held cell phone worrying about dinner to using a headset communicating with the tower and equating the two was all I needed to hear. According to your interpetation of what I said, anybody who uses any communication device is drunk when they use it.
It has been you that has tried to connect cell phones and drunk driving for a very long time during this debate. I have responded to that assertion and contend that based on your equation that using a communication device is a distraction that can equal drunk driving it would seem you would approve of you pilot a communication device to do anything but business. Being a tour guides doesn't sound like business to me.
You have said:
#944 of 1191 Re: We all quote studies [boaz47] by kdshapiro Nov 12, 2006 (1:33 pm) Some studies even suggest a cell phone user has a mental capacity of a legal drunk. That in my opinion is a huge difference between twiddling with the radio and talking on a cell phone
But you weren't through:
1062 of 1191 Re: Speaking of studies [boaz47] by kdshapiro Nov 16, 2006 (9:22 am)
“What this means, is that while a person is talking on the phone, let's say for an hour, they have the driving capacity of a drunk driver for an hour.”
So a Pilot talking to the passengers on the plane has the capacity of a drunk driver during the time he is conversing?
I do believe I have been answering your questions.
I used to fly C-130s and I can assure you that while almost all contact with control centers is flight related there was quite a bit of banter over the intercom that had nothing to do with flying. Granted this wasn't going on during departure or landing but so what. You seem to think that there are no suitable times when a driver can use a cell phone and you also like to make flying analogies. So I'll assume that you believe pilots and flight crew should limit the use of the intercom to flight related conversations. I hope this doesn't make you feel less safe but that just isn't the case.
After all what would be more relevant to automotive accident rates, the organization chartered with the responsibility of collecting that data or the NEJM? It doesn't matter if we agree or disagree with the conclusions of the NHTSA all we need are the numbers. The study we posted earlier said the NHTSA admitted that cell phone use was a distraction and yet that same organization said it was only involved in 1.3 percent of the accidents they "observed" during the study. The statistics quoted from the NEJM said cell phones could have been a contributing factor. Could have is a long way from observing accidents in a study group.
"It has been you that has tried to connect cell phones and drunk driving for a very long time during this debate."
I actually never made the assertion, I pointed to studies that made this assertion, which you obviously haven't read.
"So a Pilot talking to the passengers on the plane has the capacity of a drunk driver during the time he is conversing?"
This is so far-fetched it doesn't even deserve an answer.
“What this means, is that while a person is talking on the phone, let's say for an hour, they have the driving capacity of a drunk driver for an hour.”
Absolutely. I've pointed to studies that verified this. But, this is not the same as a pilot landing the plane, to make that leap means all you want to is say things for the sake of just saying any old thing. To that end I have nothing else to say. Personally it doesn't bother me that you don't get it, I'm glad the lawmakers do however.
You are only quoting the results from one study that probably will be superceded by a real study. According to the NEJM up to 12% of accidents could be attributable to cell phone use.
There is no other data available except to estimate number of accidents a year multipled by 12%. Wow, 720,000 accidents could be caused by cell phones. It's no wonder lawmakers are jumping on the bandwagon. Just like you sort of throw out NEJM, I throw out that other study as an anomaly that contradicts evertbing else. I agree with the lawmakers.
According to the NEJM up to 12% of accidents could be attributable to cell phone use.
If this is true, then why can't you name a single place on Planet Earth that saw its accident rate decline at its previous rate of decline, plus 12%, after enacting a law?
There are 40+ countries, plus New York, that have had such laws for a few years now. Yet you can't name a single one of the bunch that saw these great results. Not one.
P.S. What's next a monitor that dials Richard Simmons 24 hr. help line because you were labeled obese by your crack pot doctor, and took in to many calories at the local crab shack :surprise:
It is not just a few that agree with the lawmakers. Take a poll where you work. You will find that most people want to see cell phones while driving banned. At least in the civilized world. In fact everyone I have asked had a story about cell phone users that think they can drive and talk.
It is not just a few that agree with the lawmakers.
I'm sure it is more than a few. It could potentially be a majority.
Even those that oppose these laws have seen people driving erratically while talking on a cell phone. I see stupid things on a regular basis and don't have the knee jerk response that we need a law. I don't assume that these people driving poorly while on the phone would be paying significantly more attention without a phone. I do think there are driving situations where it is possible to safely use a cell phone. If it is safe whether or not it is necessary becomes irrelevant. It doesn't seem to me that there are more bad drivers than 15 years ago and accident stats back this up. And lastly, I don't think the law will be the least bit effective at improving highway safety.
Show me one place on earth the tracks nationwide cell phone accident and fatality rates for years. Study after study shows there is a link between distracted driving behavior and cell phone usage. That's good enough for me. While I think cell phone usage should be banned outright in the car, I'm okay the hands-free device. I think that is a good starting point.
You don't have study drunk driving for too long to know it's not a good thing and should have been outlawed in 1905. As we get smarter about tracking nationwide cell phone incidents with additional studies, I think more bans will be on the way.
Those of you who protest to much, get hands-free hardware for your phone and stop the nonsense.
Comments
We actually agree drunk driving is bad? And maybe multiple tactics are necessary to attempt to mitigate the issue. But it all starts with legislation.
Now if we can agree cell phone usage while driving is bad, and maybe multiple tactics are necessary to attempt to mitigate the risks...
But it starts with legislation.
Actually its been proven to my satisfaction that cell phones aren't as dangerous as some people are stating. The proof is that this vast carnage hasn't materialized, not even minimal carnage. Actual numbers are more compelling then speculative studies. BTW, even these studies don't support your position that banning handheld units will be effective.
It's been proven to my satisfaction that buried in the numbers could be a sad story related to hand held cell phone usage, but we won't know until this information is really tracked nationwide, for some years. In the meantime the legislation is a great start.
Totally unnecessary post. Just a put down.
Just ignore my posts instead of playing a game. I'll turn on the filter.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
"You keep missing the point, this is not a theoretical discussion"
But ALL you provide is theory.
All we get from the wannabe authoritarians here is "maybe", "perhaps", "what if"....
Actually real world numbers are far more compelling. The accident and fatality rate have dropped 30% since 1990. I guess someone could always argue that these rates would have dropped even further had it not been for cell phones. That's the same argument that people opposed to higher speed limits use. They concede that fatalities have dropped but claim they would be even less with lower speed limits. At that point the dialogue becomes almost meaningless because its based on someone speculating about what would have been and ignoring what is.
Okay. Back at ya.
I don't see any conflict with hypothesis (not conjecture: conjecture is not really based on fact or logic) that cell phones could play a significant role in accidents or fatalities and we don't know.
Exactly right.
And this law, as I see it, fails on both the counts I mentioned. So I am going to go see if I can find a citizens' group willing to take up the cause of readying a ballot measure to repeal this pointless law before it ever takes effect. I think such a measure would stand a good chance of passing once people learn the things that actually significantly contribute to driver errors and an increase in accidents and injuries on the roads. Of which group handheld cell phone calls cannot reasonably be singled out as a member.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Can I just call in my vote? (I'll do it from the car if it will help!)
I don't see any conflict with hypothesis (not conjecture: conjecture is not really based on fact or logic) that cell phones could play a significant role in accidents or fatalities and we don't know.
The operative word here is "could". If someone proposed this theory to me I would initially think that is sounded plausible. Before enacting legislation I would make my best attempt to determine that it was more than theory. There are few agencies that maintain stats as comprehensive as those of the NHTSA, so that would be my best source. Not studies or people's individual observations. I'd conclude that there is no evidence that a problem exists and certainly not one of any significant magnitude as many would have us believe. That being the case the only reason to enact legislation is for some sort of political gain. Unfortunately this happens all the time and will continue to happen but it reflects poorly on our system and is a big reason some of us don't hold it in such high regard.
The probability has decreased. That's not a study but hard data coming from an agency that actually supports your point of view. So they certainly wouldn't manipulate the numbers to contradict this position.
Individual experiences are somewhat meaningless. I've never hit anyone nor been hit by someone on a cell phone yet I was in an accident 30 years ago that obviously didn't involve cell phones. Therefore cell phones seem to have made the roads safer.
If at any given time 2% of the drivers are on cell phones and it turned out that 4% of two car collisions involved a vehicle whose driver was on a cell phone would that mean using a cell phone doubles your chance of being in an accident? If you say yes then you don't grasp basic probability even though I suspect that this is the nature of some of the studies being put forth and why they don't agree with real world data.
When it comes to saving lives on the road, I'm ok with word "could". There are enough studies that show the detrimental effects of driving while talking to merit the word "could".
I think it is a great reflection on lawmakers finally doing something about an issue before it becomes a real problem.
I think what you are doing is mistaking, or trumpeting, some misinformation communicated in one study, which contradicts every other study done.
Individual experience should sort of take on a common sense approach. Ever see a drunk driver on the road. Ever think it's okay for them to drive? Same with a cell phone user totally absorbed in their conversation with driving coming in second.
In all frankness, I'm not sure you even read the studies out there, if you had you would be coming to different conclusions.
"I thought I was all alone in thinking that legislators should have the burden of proving a problem exists before enacting legislation that inhibits my lifestyle, and then ought to really show that the legislation they come up with will do something about that problem."
What is meant by inhibiting lifestyle?
Having a driver's license means that we are bound to operate our motor vehicles according to all laws of the state where driving. There are probably many dozens, if not hundreds (low), of laws that have to be obeyed while on public roads. Do any of these other laws inhibit one's lifestyle? Don't understand how safely operating a motor vehicle has anything to do with a lifestyle. Think that any person can have a very enriching and fulfilling lifestyle and not use a phone while driving.
What is so difficult about a driver making a cell call while stopped in a safe and legal spot? Why does a driver feel that it is his "right" to make a call while driving? Do these drivers have problems in planning ahead and making their business/personal calls before their trip? Or, alternatively, wait until at end of trip.
Except for reporting an emergency while on the road (and usually can stop in safe place to make call), why do cell phone using drivers feel that they can compromise their response time and safety and jeopardize others for "their" convenience?
Any cell phone/driving laws will be the beginning and the foundation for further actions to focus attention and change behaviour of driving public and get compliance. Would think that most cell phone using drivers are not even aware of their dangerous habits and new laws banning cell phone use will increase publicity and educate these persons to safe driving practice.
I'll wager everything I own that even if desperate-for-attention politicos who act to appease braying sheep enact such laws en masse, there will be no call to curtail other distractions. No bans on eating, drinking, smoking, etc. Sad and ridiculous.
Or are we about to get another "Ya, but argument." Ya but they are professional. Ya but it is necessary. Well ya but you are equating it with being drunk and we don't allow drunk even in an emergency.
NHTSA statistics are not studies but historical facts. And yes, facts do trump studies.
I'd be very surprised if the majority of cell phone opponents abide by the posted speed limits. And their rational is that, yeah, I'm technically breaking the law but I have the judgement to decide what is and isn't safe, and besides, everybody does it. So most of us really don't feel compelled to operate our motor vehicles according to "all" laws. Some of us however think that we have a keener insight into which laws are more important.
I don't feel unsafe when the pilot communicates with the tower, but I do feel unsafe when you talk on your cell phone. There are actually rules in effect regarding cockpit behavior during takeoff and landing. Did you know that? Do you know why the FAA has to tell pilots how to behave during takeoff and landing? Why do you think these rules are in existence?
I notice you never seem to address my questions directly, only seem to deflect the answer.
"I don't feel unsafe when the pilot communicates with the tower, but I do feel unsafe when you talk on your cell phone. There are actually rules in effect regarding cockpit behavior during takeoff and landing. Did you know that? Do you know why the FAA has to tell pilots how to behave during takeoff and landing? Why do you think these rules are in existence? "
Yes I know there are rules for pilots communicating while flying. Knowing this doesn't have a thing to do with how you feel it "allows conversation, even intense conversation while flying a plane." It mandates it in fact. Now if as you contend it is as bad as being drunk or drinking would they mandate it? You have often equated cell phone use to driving when drunk or drinking. I am answering your question as directly as I can. They allow communication between pilots multi tasking and they do not allow drinking or being drunk for any reason. How can you equate the two actions as being the same when you are in a car and not the same in an airplane? Remember the last time you flew anywhere? Did the pilot make announcements to you over the intercom? Did he describe what was out side of your right or left windows? Did he ever tell you about that mountain top off to the left or that other plane off to your right? Did he ever tell you the weather conditions as he was circling LAX or Heathrow? Looking, talking explaining and flying all at the same time. Does that sound the same as being drunk to you? Does that sound like a emergency? Does that sound like landing instructions? Or does that sound like simple chit chat?
Does this sound like a response to your post?
Pilots aren't worried or using hand held devices, they are using headsets. They are communicated infrequently and quickly only about flying the aircraft. They in fact do not have to worry about 33/1000 seconds before a collision. They in fact can have instrumentation keep the plane on course automatically and even land the plane without any intervention. They have radar to tell if there are any obstructions within miles, much less feet. They don't talk about dinner, when landing the plane.
I'm glad you understand the difference between flying and driving, my original point was regarding rules in the cockpit and you didn't answer it.
You're assertation equating using a hand held cell phone worrying about dinner to using a headset communicating with the tower and equating the two was all I needed to hear. According to your interpetation of what I said, anybody who uses any communication device is drunk when they use it.
I don't think so.
You have said:
#944 of 1191 Re: We all quote studies [boaz47] by kdshapiro Nov 12, 2006 (1:33 pm)
Some studies even suggest a cell phone user has a mental capacity of a legal drunk. That in my opinion is a huge difference between twiddling with the radio and talking on a cell phone
But you weren't through:
1062 of 1191 Re: Speaking of studies [boaz47] by kdshapiro Nov 16, 2006 (9:22 am)
“What this means, is that while a person is talking on the phone, let's say for an hour, they have the driving capacity of a drunk driver for an hour.”
So a Pilot talking to the passengers on the plane has the capacity of a drunk driver during the time he is conversing?
I do believe I have been answering your questions.
If the NHTSA states that the accident rate is down 30% since 1990 that is based on actual numbers. How is that not factual?
I actually never made the assertion, I pointed to studies that made this assertion, which you obviously haven't read.
"So a Pilot talking to the passengers on the plane has the capacity of a drunk driver during the time he is conversing?"
This is so far-fetched it doesn't even deserve an answer.
“What this means, is that while a person is talking on the phone, let's say for an hour, they have the driving capacity of a drunk driver for an hour.”
Absolutely. I've pointed to studies that verified this. But, this is not the same as a pilot landing the plane, to make that leap means all you want to is say things for the sake of just saying any old thing. To that end I have nothing else to say. Personally it doesn't bother me that you don't get it, I'm glad the lawmakers do however.
There is no other data available except to estimate number of accidents a year multipled by 12%. Wow, 720,000 accidents could be caused by cell phones. It's no wonder lawmakers are jumping on the bandwagon. Just like you sort of throw out NEJM, I throw out that other study as an anomaly that contradicts evertbing else. I agree with the lawmakers.
I guess someone's got to.
If this is true, then why can't you name a single place on Planet Earth that saw its accident rate decline at its previous rate of decline, plus 12%, after enacting a law?
There are 40+ countries, plus New York, that have had such laws for a few years now. Yet you can't name a single one of the bunch that saw these great results. Not one.
You guys should love this one, eh ?
Big Brother, has got his hand in your back pocket ! :surprise:
Rocky
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061121/AUTO01/611210355/- - - - - 1148/AUTO01
Rocky
P.S. What's next a monitor that dials Richard Simmons 24 hr. help line because you were labeled obese by your crack pot doctor, and took in to many calories at the local crab shack :surprise:
I'm sure it is more than a few. It could potentially be a majority.
Even those that oppose these laws have seen people driving erratically while talking on a cell phone. I see stupid things on a regular basis and don't have the knee jerk response that we need a law. I don't assume that these people driving poorly while on the phone would be paying significantly more attention without a phone. I do think there are driving situations where it is possible to safely use a cell phone. If it is safe whether or not it is necessary becomes irrelevant. It doesn't seem to me that there are more bad drivers than 15 years ago and accident stats back this up. And lastly, I don't think the law will be the least bit effective at improving highway safety.
You don't have study drunk driving for too long to know it's not a good thing and should have been outlawed in 1905. As we get smarter about tracking nationwide cell phone incidents with additional studies, I think more bans will be on the way.
Those of you who protest to much, get hands-free hardware for your phone and stop the nonsense.
If there is a law against it, it makes it much easier to get damages from a lawsuit in event of injury or fatality.
Any legislation that has the potential to generate more lawsuits is definitely what this country does not need.