Should cell phone drivers be singled out?

tpe

The stupid deserve no sympathy nor respect.

Okay, I'll admit it. As Forrest Gump would say, "I'm not a smart man". But I really don't want sympathy or respect. What I want is to be able to exercise my own judgement in deciding what I should and shouldn't be allowed to do. That freedom is rapidly eroding in this country.

snakeweasel

Thats not the issue here, the question was why was in a violation of personal rights. I answered it.

snakeweasel

Still no answer about those liberties...

I answered that one.

As for insurance, tpe did a good job at that. If you are going to complain about those who don't wear seat belts you have to complain about those who engage in high risk activities.

m1miata

I assume the question, " should cell phone users be singled out " implies that because there are other possible dangerous behaviors, one should overlook this dangerous behavior. Kind of gee, I am being picked on because I have a cell phone defence. Well, if it is indeed dangerous at ANY speed to use it while the car is in motion, and it becomes a law, I am OK with that. It makes sense. Seen too many people that can not control the car when talking on the cell phones. I see the car swerve or slow down, like the person inside is distracted. If the navigation systems on cars are causing a problem, rid the world of those too, while driving. Let's get back to driving. As for radios. While in town the radio should be lower, and at least a crack down to the windows so one can hear emergency vehicles.
-Loren

snakeweasel

Well, if it is indeed dangerous at ANY speed to use it while the car is in motion, and it becomes a law, I am OK with that.

Here in lies the problem, I am not so sure it is dangerous at any speed, or any conditions. Sure there are times when it can be more dangerous than others, just like at times driving 55 MPH is more dangerous than others. But yet I don't see a wide sweeping ban on driving 55 MPH. Yet it is addressed in those areas where it is deemed unsafe.

My point being is just because a segment of the population cannot seem to operate a car and use a cell phone at the same time does that mean that everyone has to suffer for their actions.

Sure you see the driver who seems inattentive look into the car and see them on a cell phone. So have I, I have also seen them eating, drinking, reading and the like. I have also seen them apparently doing nothing distractive These people are usually just lousy drivers to begin with.

Now the thing one has to think about is how often do you see someone driving down the street staying in their lane, going right away when the light turns green, changing lanes when its all clear and generally paying attention to their driving? Now how often do you look at what the driver is actually doing? My guess is not nearly as often as when you see someone driving like a total idiot.

The point of this is that you will notice the lugnut talking on the phone, you won't necessarily notice the good driver on the phone. Simply because the lugnut draws attention to themselves by their actions while the good driver doesn't.

tpe

Do you ever have passengers in your car? Do you talk to them?

fintail

That has nothing to do with 'liberties'. There's a little logic in diving without a seatbelt as there is yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. Defend the act.

fintail

Correct me if I am wrong, but an unhealthy person will end up paying more for life insurance, and certainly all health related insurance is going to follow suit.

If people don't like these laws, they are more than free to try to change them. It will be harder than ousting the current burgeoning corporate theocracy that has invaded every corner of the power structure. Good luck.

fintail

When you've proven you can pay for the risk you create, go ahead.

snakeweasel

Maybe in your opinion, but the fact is not wearing my seat belt might have negative consequences to only me, yelling fire in a crowded theater affects a whole lot more. So your logic fails.

Defend the act.

Defend what act?

snakeweasel

Correct me if I am wrong,

Consider yourself corrected.

tpe

If people don't like these laws, they are more than free to try to change them.

Or they can simply choose to ignore these laws like most people ignore the speed limits.

What's your opinion on motorcycles? In terms of accident and fatality rates riding a motorcycle is a far more dangerous activity than riding in a car unbelted.

cccompson

I would like the liberty of not being injured or killed because some idiot is talking on their cellphone while driving.

As I wait for the bus at 7 AM, I see folks driving by, yacking away - what the hell are they talking about at that time in the morning? Same thing with most cellphone conversations I overhear - it seems a great many people are talking simply because they can.

tpe

it seems a great many people are talking simply because they can.

I actually agree with that. At least when they are talking in their vehicles I don't have to listen to their inane conversations. I'd be more apt to support a law that restricted cell phone use to vehicles for that very reason.

tpe

I would like the liberty of not being injured or killed because some idiot is talking on their cellphone while driving.

I'm not a lawyer but I believe there are already laws on the books that cover a negligent driver killing or injuring someone.

rockylee

I talk on my cell phone, and even text message, while I drive. If your on a highway where the traffic is light, I see nothing wrong with it.

Rocky

"Okay I'm prepared to get attacked" :P

xrunner2

My point being is just because a segment of the population cannot seem to operate a car and use a cell phone at the same time does that mean that everyone has to suffer for their actions.

Everyone can operate a car (in some fashion) and use the cell phone at the same time. The question ought to be: If one can drive a car with less than 100 percent attention to driving, then what is safe level of attention (or percent) devoted to driving and what is safe level (percent) devoted to cell phone? This would be just like DUI laws. In my state, DUI is .08 level and above of alcohol in bloodstream.

I would guess that airline pilots would qualify as the most capable of talking on cell phone and driving a car with minimum reduction in driving attention. They have had training and experience to deal with multiple items occuring at the same time.

Some telephone calls we make require more thinking and brain power. Perhaps idle chatter (women talking about men they are dating, men on sports results) would not divert as much attention away from driving as would a contractor talking details with his customer while driving.

rockylee

xrunner,

good examples in your post pal.

Rocky

xrunner2

What I want is to be able to exercise my own judgement in deciding what I should and shouldn't be allowed to do. That freedom is rapidly eroding in this country.

Think that freedoms being misunderstood for rules/laws while operating a vehicle on a public road. You are free to an extent to break any law at the risk of being caught and prosecuted.

tpe

We have far too many driving regulations based on the fact that a small percentage of people can't exercise reasonable judgement. This is just one more example. Probably the best example is our speed limits. How can a static number represent what is a safe speed when road, weather, traffic, visibility, etc.. can vary so dramatically? The answer is that it can't. But legislators no longer trust the population to think for themselves. I find this to be a negative trend.

snakeweasel

At least when they are talking in their vehicles I don't have to listen to their inane conversations.

Then you love this.

fintail

Not wearing your seatbelt will also have consequences for those who are also members of your insurance company.

Defend not wearing your seatbelt. How can it be justified?

fintail

Issue the correction first there, Mr. Bluster

tpe

Yeah, that's pretty much the way I feel. When I'm flying somewhere its amazing to watch everyone reach for their phone as soon as the plane lands and the flight attendant gives the word. It's almost like a synchronized event. A lot of these people have their hands already poised on their phones just waiting for the okay. Kind of like a gun slinger. They typically call once at landing, call again when they reach the baggage carousel, call again when the bags arrives, call again when the shuttle bus arrives, call again when they reach the parking garage. Its at that point I lose contact, thankfully. I find myself wishing I had a gun. I'm not sure whether I'd shoot them, myself or both of us. Just as long as the misery ended. Being hit by a vehicle driven by a cell phone user would be relatively painless.

snakeweasel

Defend not wearing your seatbelt. How can it be justified?

Me being able to post here does, nuff said.

snakeweasel

well life insurance is more based on things other than your health at the moment. Now of course your health may keep you from getting insurance but won't increase your premiums.

Also consider your premiums will not change if your health gets better or worse.

gagrice

Still no answer about those liberties...

Just came in from spreading 20 yards of mulch around my trees. You guys are busy.

You of all people should understand the difference between laws to protect yourself and laws that protect others. You are absolutely right if I go out and get in a wreck without a seatbelt It is MY fault that I got injured. If my insurance goes up I am to blame. It is as much a violation of my rights as telling me I cannot eat myself into oblivion on candy or smoke cigarettes until I get lung cancer. I think others have already set you straight on the subject but I saw several references to me avoiding the issue.

gagrice

Defend not wearing your seatbelt. How can it be justified?

It would be difficult to defend not wearing a seat belt. Easy to defend my right to not wear one if I so please. I think the helmet laws have gotten tossed out in a couple states already. How many more laws would you like to see. Lots of people get hurt skiing and snowboarding each year. I think there needs to be a law against those dangerous sports.

As you well know there is a very vocal group in this country that want to ban boxing. Next football.

Helmet laws by state.

http://usff.com/hldl/frames/50state.html

gagrice

Governments may be acting under false assumptions of safety when making laws that require drivers to use headsets or other hands-free devices when talking on cell phones, as studies are indicating that hands-free devices may actually make distraction an even greater issue for drivers on the phone. Drivers using hands-free devices drive even faster than other cell-phone using drivers while their braking response time remains the same as other cell phone users – up to 45 percent slower than for drivers who aren’t talking on the phone.

For the NHTSA, all of this research means that headsets and other hands-free devices are just as unsafe as any other type of cell phone. Jeffrey Runge, NHTSA’s administrator, finds that problematic. "The thing that disturbs me is that we have states and local municipalities making rules that basically give hands-free phones a free pass as being safe. That’s not good policy," Runge told the Wall Street Journal.

m1miata

I would imagine the justification for such a law requiring helmets for motorcycles and seatbelts for cars may point towards to costs for life support and all other medical expenses which the citizens may have to cover if the driver / rider doesn't have enough insurance to cover the incident. In that respect, it can impact others.

Has nothing to do with cell phones however.
-Loren

m1miata

Not a good idea Rocky. Hey, do they still allow open containers of alcohol and hunting from a car in Texas. I understand things were pretty wild back when. Oh well, lots of space. But really now, having a beer while driving? Perhaps not as dangerous as text massaging while steering an auto.
-Loren

m1miata

Yes. And the point is? If you are trying to compare a telephone operation and conversation via phone, they are not the same as a conversion within the vehicle. That said, there is a risk of less attention when passengers are in the vehicle. It is a known risk. And people using cell phones while driving is a known greater risk. If I am in an point in time of driving where it takes more concentration on the road, I will ignore the conversation and pick it up later. And there is a difference.
-Loren

fintail

I didn't post anything about you avoiding anything, as you didn't squawk about having your liberties violated. Sorry for any confusion. I don't think anyone around here has the means to set anyone straight.

fintail

And if you don't wear one because of your so-called "rights" and end up severely injured through fault of your own that results in massive insurance company payouts, you should be able to be forced to pay those bills yourself, and if it completely destroys your life...no big deal. If you want to be stupid, you better have a thick wallet.

fintail

Maintain those delusions, amusing. Being able to post defends not wearing a seatbelt. Nice deflection. The fact that seatbelt laws are even a topic here is sickening.

Go write your congressman, see what it gets ya.

gagrice

I started using a seatbelt as a condition of employment in 1961. That was PT&T policy. That was their right. The government does not have that right. Just like so many things they take what they want. And we can leave if we don't like it. I just find it easier to get behind a law that protects other folks rather than laws designed to protect us from ourselves. I have worked under dictatorship like companies. I suppose I can live under a government that wants to protect us from ourselves at every juncture of life. If that is what everyone wants. Sounds like your behind them.

rockylee

Not a good idea Rocky.

I know, but it passes the time.

Hey, do they still allow open containers of alcohol and hunting from a car in Texas.

Unfortunately no !!!!

I understand things were pretty wild back when.

Yeah they were, but now they went way overboard.

Oh well, lots of space. But really now, having a beer while driving?

What's wrong with having a beer or two while driving, as long as one doesn't get plastered. I'd rather drive next to a person that had a couple of beers then some of the people that are stone sober and still can't drive at all.

Perhaps not as dangerous as text massaging while steering an auto.

LOL, well perhaps you are correct. I only do it on one-way highways and barely have to look down to see what I'm typing. I look at it this way, I'd rather do that then fall asleep at the wheel after a 13 hour day.

Rocky

wideglide

"have worked under dictatorship like companies. I suppose I can live under a government that wants to protect us from ourselves at every juncture of life. If that is what everyone wants. Sounds like your behind them."

Amen. If someone needs the govt. to protect them from me (or the other way 'round), so be it. But I do NOT need the government to protect me from myself. I am content to control my own destiny. If choose not to wear a seatbelt or a helmet (I sometimes weat the belt, rarely a helmet), I will not harm anyone other than myself, unlike those whose arcane phone conversations are above others well-being. And be assured, I will be a burden to nobody, as I do not want to be kept on life support.

From another poster....
"and if it completely destroys your life...no big deal. If you want to be stupid, you better have a thick wallet."

And if you talked like that amongst my friends, you'd best have a thick skull....

enjoynlifehere

There are already laws on the books that cover inattentive driving. USE THEM!!! dont make more laws. Inattentive driving would describe someone who is talking on the phone in a bad situation when they could just hang up, it does not include someone who IS paying attention and driving well while talking on the phone. It would also cover the idiot who is paying more attention to who around him is talking on the phone than he is to the brakelights in front of him. I would like to see a study of how many of these fools have caused accidents because they want to stick their noses into everyone elses business just because they are jealous they dont have anyone to talk to.

rockylee

lol, you got a point.

Rocky

nippononly

I have to issue a couple of thank yous here, and the first is to you, for providing the quote to affirm what I said initially - there is NOTHING out there in the form of studies or data to back up the assertion that banning handheld cell phone use will make the roads even a little bit more safe. IN FACT there is plenty of evidence that if you want to ban cell phone use you must ban all use of all voice-operated comm devices in the car (including hands-free sets for phones), and certainly the hand-operated ones like the (in some cases these days, very complicated) stereo and NAV system. And that should obviously include my favorite new one, witnessed today - a mommy trying to load the overhead DVD player for little squint, which was located BEHIND her head, requiring a contortion act and a TON of looking away from the road, while swerving all over her lane next to me at 65 mph on the freeway!

Face it folks, this law does nothing but annoy the people who have been talking on their handheld cell phones for a decade without a single incident, and completely fails to address one of the real problems of our times, on the roads: inattentive and negligent driving.

And THANK YOU enjoynlife! You hit it right on the head - we have umpteen billion driving laws on the books already, most of which are not enforced at all, which situation leads to abysmal driving by 75% of the populace AT ALL TIMES, and VERY OFTEN in ways that endanger others.

Actually, I suppose that should be a cause of comfort for me - this will just be one more stupid, pointless law that receives no enforcement by authorities.

m1miata

Common sense would make it impossible to take each case in which a person using a phone was or was not distracted. And to prove by what degree the individuals driving was compromised. Now that would be something. No, if they find that it is a dangerous distraction, everyone will have to drop using the phone except during an emergency. I don't think taking each individual to court and having to prove the conditions at the time where not good for using a phone, or the person was not a good multi-tasker. Speaking of which, I have seen people brushing their teeth. I try to avoid passing them at the wrong timing.

I doubt many people go around counting those people using cell phones. It is more likely people are taking notice of those people when they are driving strange and using a cell phone. And I would doubt most people in their right minds are jealous of people with telephone habitual yacking. What on earth do people find to talk about on phones day and night anyway? Almost like posting -- oh no, I am yacking too much myself - sorry! ;-)
-Loren

m1miata

Complicated stereos, navigation systems which distract, phones, TVs and who knows what, is not needed in a car. A car should be driven as a car. If it is parked, like at a car show, then go for it, if it turns you on. But really now what happened to auto for transportation. Seems to be an sound and video, and now a communications tool.
-Loren

wideglide

Face it folks, this law does nothing but annoy the people who have been talking on their handheld cell phones for a decade without a single incident,

You've got to be joking, right? Go to your favorite search engine and type in DRIVER CELL PHONE CAUSES ACCIDENT. I got 469,000 hits on Yahoo.... I'll bet there is a few more than a single incident chronicled there.

enjoynlifehere

You've got to be joking, right? Go to your favorite search engine and type in DRIVER CELL PHONE CAUSES ACCIDENT. I got 469,000 hits on Yahoo.... I'll bet there is a few more than a single incident chronicled there.

I went to YAHOO and searched for "politician tells the truth" and got 1.9 million hits. So if Yahoo hits really mean anything, then there is one accident caused by a cell phone for every four times a politician tells the truth. With that in mind, I feel pretty safe.

tpe

I don't think taking each individual to court and having to prove the conditions at the time where not good for using a phone, or the person was not a good multi-tasker.

You don't have to do that. You only have to prove who was at fault in an accident. Who cares what the reason was. These cell phone laws are not dissimilar to gun control and alcohol laws. They are based upon irresponsible, dangerous, reckless use. Responsible people in this country are already negatively impacted by the less responsible. We don't need laws to aggravate the situation. People see a behaviour that they don't like and the knee jerk reaction has become, "we need a law against that". When and how did we develop this mindset?

You never answered my question. When you have passengers in the car do you talk to them?

tpe

I went to YAHOO and searched for "politician tells the truth" and got 1.9 million hits. So if Yahoo hits really mean anything, then there is one accident caused by a cell phone for every four times a politician tells the truth. With that in mind, I feel pretty safe

Excellent point. I got 2.9 million hits on alien abductions. So based upon this very scientific methodology you have a 6x greater chance of being abducted and, in all likelihook, gang probed by aliens than being hit by a cell phone driver. I did a few more searches and found something with a comparable likelihood of occurring. An Elvis sighting. The truth is out there.

wideglide

What in the hell does that have to do with the price of friggin' rice in China?!? What does politicians lying have to do with people dying? (Not counting Iraq, of course!) You're throwing around more red herrings than a fish monger! Most of those results were NEWS Stories, not political speeches. Here's a small sample:

From the Chicago Tribune:

Just off a plane from Mexico and headed to meet his young grandson for the first time, Guadalupe Gonzalez was riding on the Dan Ryan Expressway early Thursday when the driver of an SUV just ahead reached for his cell phone.

With that movement, the driver told police he lost control of his Pontiac Aztek, setting in motion a collision that claimed the life of Gonzalez and sent four members of his family to hospitals, including his wife, who was seriously injured.

Joseph Burks, 30, who lives in the North Austin neighborhood, was cited with violating the city's year-old ordinance that forbids drivers from holding cell phones in their hands while talking. City officials say they believe it is the first time charges have been filed under the ordinance in a fatal accident.

From WFTV in Orlando, FL:

FHP says they had no choice. The closest Townsend, 22, came to being arrested was when she was interviewed inside an FHP cruiser. That's true despite the fact that witnesses say she ran over two children, Angelica and Victoria Velez, after running a red light while talking on a cell phone.

That's just two out of many. You can bury your head in the sand if you want, but it doesn't change the facts. Are you going to still feel the same way if your wife, or mother, or child is killed by someone too busy yakking to pay attention while driving? Or will you still think it's just a "conspiricy of politicians"?

tpe

What makes you think that if you take away a driver's cell phone he won't find some other diversion to occupy his time with? If a driver doesn't feel like he needs to pay full attention to the task of driving a law against cell phones isn't going to change that. Cell phones don't cause accidents, drivers cause accidents.

The only way a law against using cell phones while driving makes sense is if it can be shown there is no safe and responsible way that they can be used. I personally think that there are driving conditions that allow for the safe use of a cell phone, especially a hands free device.

What are your thoughts about talking to passengers in your car while driving?

imidazol97

Talking to a passenger is completely different than talking on a cell phone. The passenger is aware of what's happening around the vehicle and pauses the conversation and does not become a distraction; the drive feels an obligation to focus on the cell phone and not lose the person on the other end causing the ultimate distraction from driving.