The problem is there is no statistics only a lot of evidence. I can't understand someone who has seen a yakker on a cell phone driving erratically and thinking it's okay. In my book it is not okay to drive with your head up your you know what. I don't care about ipods, smoking, untethered kids or animals. I care about yakkers who drive erratically, which is almost 90% of them.
I shouldn't have to put up with any of that either
I agree, ban it all. Then when a cop that ain't eatin' donuts sees someone distracted to the point of not leaving the stop sign in a reasonable length of time, he has a law with a number to give them a ticket. I don't think there is a law against taking too long at a stop sign. How would you deal with people that are in their own coffee drinking, soda sucking, cell phone talking little world not paying attention to the traffic signs? Maybe shoot em' is the answer. We have enough road rage in America without adding more.
Driving with a hands free cell phone is basically the exact same thing as holding it. Its not the act of holding something in your hand that makes you drive worse its the attention you divert from the road to the conversation. It doesnt matter if you are holding the cell phone or not, its the attention to the convo. People who think that hands free is safer are ignorant.
It makes no differnce whether or not you hold the cell phone while you drive or not, except possibly in an emergancy situation where you would need 2 hands on the wheel to maintain control. Someone who holds the cell phone in his hand is no more dangerous than someone who uses hands free because its the attention you are diverting from the road that matters, not whether or not you are holding something in your hand. Where do you all stand on this?
Almost 90% huh? Do you have a study of some kind? Seems kind of steep.
Don't care about the other distractions...maybe one will give your car some custom bodywork. My first car was taken out by a woman in a minivan distracted by her kids...
There are studies that show cell phone use while driving. Of course if you are driving on I5 vs the middle of Montana what you will see as far as driver cell phone use will be different.
Well, you may think I'm a bit "ignert" on this... but I think hands free is somewhat safer.
Unfortunately, many people are unable to safely handle the difficult task of talking and driving at the same time. So, cell phone laws must be passed to prevent everyone from doing so.
My new car has hands free calling as part of the On-Star package. I tried it once, and it worked great. Tried it again, parked no less. Next time, Me: "Dial 913-xxx-xxxx" OnStar: "pardon?' Me: "Dial 913-xxx-xxxx" OnStar: "Pardon?" Me: "Forget it!" I turned off the "phone" and wished I hadn't left my cell phone behind...
I dunno...ban cupholders and drive through windows? Might make people healthier, too.
No, let's go your way and get rid of all laws. It should be incumbent upon everyone who is a responsible driver to avoid those that aren't.
Speaking of which, I recall my old real estate agent having her big Lincoln fitted up with two cell phones, a computer and a fax machine - all in the passenger seat. This was the early 1990's when that stuff had to be hardwired. Heaven help anyone that got in her way. She had 3-4 mostly minor accidents during the time I was working with her (fortunately, none with me in the car) and held up traffic at every other stoplight. I believe she was credited with inventing "multi-tasking". Possibly road rage as well. On a couple of occassions, she was citing for "negligence" but because none of that stuff was actually illegal, she succeeded in sweet-talking the liberal judges and always got off.
P.S. I'm still trying to figure out why we now have laws that require kids to be in car seats. I had a great time sitting in the back of my Dad's station wagon and tossing popcorn out the rear window. And I don't recall any kids ever getting hurt in accidents. Damn authoritarians.
"P.S. I'm still trying to figure out why we now have laws that require kids to be in car seats. I had a great time sitting in the back of my Dad's station wagon and tossing popcorn out the rear window. And I don't recall any kids ever getting hurt in accidents. Damn authoritarians."
The reason kids are now required to be in car seats is to increase their chances of not getting hurt in a car crash due to the increases in crashes that now occur because of the phenomonal increase of cell phone usage in todays society.
"People who think that hands free is safer are ignorant." "except possibly in an emergancy situation where you would need 2 hands on the wheel to maintain control."
Don't you think this is possibly a huge issue, control of the car?
Subzeroak...they aren't banning hand-helds, the are banning ALL PHONES.
And yes, I agree with the exception of the dialing event, which most "hands free" kits still require you to do by hand anyway, hands free isn't any safer.
I can see the aggravation in trying to get a call placed thru On-Star as the fuel for incidents of road rage...or at least highly distracting :mad:
My brother has On-Star on his Pontiac Montana. Despite clear enunciation from my brother, it took the On-Star computer about 3-4 times to recognize the command and make the call. To be fair, there have been times where it worked on first command.
Exactly...because phone yappers are causing a massive increase in incidents of all kinds, from fender benders to fatalities. Really, all traffic laws can be traced back to protection from phone yappers, even if said laws existed before cellphones. Our astute, credible, hardworking, and responsible legislators, especially those who lean right, anticipated this technology from the beginning.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
Speaking strictly for myself, I have an Acura TL 6-speed with Bluetooth hands free link and a 911 6-speed with no such device / interface. Huge difference.
On the TL, with the phone in my pocket or briefcase, I can press a button on the steering wheel and voice dial a number, with my eyes never leaving the road. On an incoming call, I can glance to the left of the tachometer and see the number and decide whether I want to answer.
With the Porsche, I'm taking my eyes off the road to dial or answer a call. Not to mention, until I grow a third arm, shifting and cell phone dialing/holding are incompatible.
However even in our automatic MDX, the Bluetooth link-up is the difference between never taking your eyes off the road and having to look away and futz around. Even with the "voice dialing" feature of most phones, theere is still some visual distraction to check an incoming number, etc.
So, in the TL or MDX, I'll use the Bluetooth hands free link with reasonable comfort. There have been a times when I've elected not to answer and instead send and incoming call to voicemail due to heavy traffic, poor road conditions, etc. There have also been times when I've told the other party that I'll need to call them back on a serious discussion when I don't want to concentrate on a business deal or legal contract while driving. But in the Porsche, the only time I will make or take a call is when I am cruising on the highway with plenty of open road in front of me.
I'm not going to quote any non-existent studies or voodoo statistics to try to make my opinions sound more credible. But I do believe that with the majority of "distractions", it's an event that causes you to take your eyes off the road that causes most accidents. It's not stuffing a french fry, Big Mac or straw in your mouth. It's looking down on the passenger seat for that last fry. Or looking for a napkin when the Big Mac squirts catchup on your crotch.
I agree with you when you say with the handheld you have to look at the phone to dial as opposed to some hands free where you can just say the number out loud, but, if there is so much happening on the road that you cant look away for a second or two at a time to dial some numbers one shouldnt be using the phone in the first place.
Myself, I HARDLY EVER talk on the phone and drive at the same time, and when i do its with a regular hand held cell phone. If I want to dial a number or something I hold the phone up to the windshield kinda above my steering wheel so I can see the road and phone at the same time.
"You're the one interjecting some political whine...I take it you're a neandercon? Aren't you people all about less regulation?"
I guess you were too busy multitasking and distractedly forgot your own "political whining" that I was responding to:
"The fallacy is the massive problem that the wannabe authoritarians claim is taking place...with nothing to back it up. The actions of irresponsible credibility-free legislators aren't a leg to stand on."
And my "irrelevent tangent" to car seats was indeed intended as a humorous irrelevent tangential response to your own semi-serious babbling about:
"...in car electronics, smoking, daydreaming, untethered kids and animals, eating and drinking, etc? Why do the wannabe authoritatians ignore this? I shouldn't have to put up with any of that either."
Sorry to dissapoint your intended "neandercon" insult, but I'm pretty much apolitical. I can criticize and offend "authoritarian" conservatives almost as easily as "irresponsible and immoral" liberals when their position on an issue is nonsensical or stupid. And the idea that I've heard in this forum by some, suggesting cell phones in a moving vehicle is an inalienable right entitled to protection on the level of free speech is more than borderline stupid.
I don't need a pile of 10 year multi-variate statistical studies or dead human bodies to conclude that the hand held cell phone ban in DC was probably a good decision. I had plenty of anecdotal evidence via my own observations, conversations with police officers, etc.. But I would not necessarily advocate legislation in other geographic areas where the circumstances and conditions are significantly different. Wow, a "balanced" approach. That's got to be politically incorrect.
Where did I say anything political before replying to your whine? I guess I have only seen you criticizing one side, my bad. The 'authoritarian' line is hardly about conservatives, as a lot of left wingers like the idea of a nanny state. Mellow out...
Balanced approaches are not what we will see from en masse legislation. At least, if history is used as a predictor. I wouldn't expect a balanced view from law enforcement, either. Trusting all of these people to make decisions without offering up proof is more than borderline stupid.
I must have missed any serious free speech comparisons, too. I have similar anecdotal views and my observations of a lack of damning evidence that tell me this whole issue is a mountain sized molehill.
And really, what you or I "need" is of little matter, isn't it...and the same can be said for anyone else here.
"Balanced approaches are not what we will see from en masse legislation. At least, if history is used as a predictor. I wouldn't expect a balanced view from law enforcement, either. Trusting all of these people to make decisions without offering up proof is more than borderline stupid."
Sometimes legislation is just common sense. You don't need "proof" to enact certain laws because you know the laws make sense. Do you drive without seatbelts? Or ride a motorcycle without a helmet? That has less effect on me than the cell phone, yet there are laws against both. Why is that? Is is because lawmakers want to erode your personal freedom to zero? Or is it because the lawmakers want to provide as safe an environment as possible, when people are to stupid to use their common sense to protect themselves. One less life lost on the road, benefits society to the tune of $1M, and saves a lot of grieving. I really have less of an issue with this than I do for the seatbelt laws.
Helmets and seatbelts are easily proven and really not possible to doubt. The same can't be said for dubious anti-phone studies.
All I want is to have all distractions targeted, not just this example of cherry picking. I wouldn't be surprised if enforcement and legal defense expenditures outweighed benefits, too.
"Helmets and seatbelts are easily proven and really not possible to doubt. The same can't be said for dubious anti-phone studies."
That is not what I asked. I specifically asked why have a law that protects me from myself and not you from me. All that is required is a little common sense. You want to talk about cherry picking, let's talk about motorcycle helmets and seat belts.
Those laws are easier to enact, I am sure. The easiest make it through.
In the realm of distractions, phones are the easiest cherry to pick, and it is irresponsible to target one while ignoring all the others...as our brilliant and accountable legislators surely will do.
Maybe I should take up smoking, start consuming meals while driving, get a car with a cumbersome nav/hvac system, groom myself while driving to work, keep a dog or a cat in the car while I drive, along with a chatty passenger. It'll all remain legal.
I think you're missing the point. When I'm in the car I rarely talk I concentrate on driving, and when I do talk I don't get involved in the conversation. When one makes a call on their cell phone:
1. Holding the cell phone to their ear involves less control and loss of cognitive ability and distractions due to dialing and looking at the phone, not the road. 2. Using hands-free causes loss of cognitive ability.
In the event of an emergency not having absolute control of the car is a big issue and can result in a car crash or worse. While using hands-free the risk is mitigated somewhat by because your hands are on the wheel and if you keep the conversation in check, can react in an emergency although less than ideal.
Twiddling with the radio and the like is a far less distracting and dangerous thing, especially with steering wheel controls.
How much more cognitive ability does a handsfree unit take compared to a passenger, a meal, a hairdo, a kid, a pet, a cig? Is this anecdotal or concrete? That "less that ideal" seems to apply to EVERY driving situation save for a coherent solitary driver with no radio and no daydreams.
How much of the vehicle fleet has steering wheel radio controls? Yet more or less all vehicles have radios. I can reach for mine without even looking at it...but I suspect most can't. Yet it's perfectly fine, according to the spirit of this dreamed-of legislation.
Why don't you try it out to see? Perform a science experiment. Smoke a cig, bring in a 5 course meal, have a kid in the car seat in the back, apply your makeup, etc.
You are making excuses to try and make every driver distraction the equal of phone conversation. It just doesn't work that way. I will grant you a one minute phone conversation on a hands-free probably has less distraction than eating a five course meal. But a one hour business conversation is probably a heck of a beast. And therein lies the rub. That is why lawmakers are out to curb cell phone use.
But I do believe that with the majority of "distractions", it's an event that causes you to take your eyes off the road that causes most accidents.
While that may seem to make sense, if you believe the studies, then the claim is that there is no difference between hands-free and handheld.
I go back to the point that many people keep sidestepping in these discussions: a few drivers are involved in a majority of the accidents. These drivers manage to have accidents that could be attributed to a laundry list of "reasons", but it ultimately comes down to them as individuals and their inability to combine the various activities needed for successful driving -- good judgment and an ability to anticipate situations before they happen -- into a driving routine that results in safe passage.
There have been a times when I've elected not to answer and instead send and incoming call to voicemail due to heavy traffic, poor road conditions, etc
That's an example of driving safely -- to know when you are within your limits, and to avoid exceeding them. That's an example of what differentiates good judgment from a lack of it, and gets to the heart of the matter. If you are one of the vast majority who can drive without colliding, then sending law enforcement after you is just a waste of their time and my tax dollars.
"While that may seem to make sense, if you believe the studies, then the claim is that there is no difference between hands-free and handheld."
I haven't actually seen the "studies" you keep referring to, so I can't say whether I believe them or not. But there are plenty of studies out there that even an high school math student could drive a truck through the methodology. Sometimes there is an underlying intentional bias, like the studies commissioned by the cigarette companies in the 50's and 60's that showed no correlation between smoking and lung cancer. Other times, the studies are done in good faith, but without enough data or the proper methodology to reach statistically accurate conclusions. If you can point me to the source(s), I'll take a fresh look before deciding whether or not I believe them, based upon the methodology, data, etc.
Helmets and seatbelts are easily proven and really not possible to doubt. The same can't be said for dubious anti-phone studies.
I would say with some sense of credibility that it can be proven that smoking kills more people each year than seatbelts and helmets save. So why the one law protecting us from ourselves and not the other? At least as has been pointed out numerous times a cell phone ban will do more to protect me from others than the seatbelt law. I was wearing a seatbelt as a condition of employment in 1961. I don't need a law telling me that I have to wear a seat belt. It is mind boggling that anyone could support seat belt and helmet laws and not a ban on cell phones.
I go back to the point that many people keep sidestepping in these discussions: a few drivers are involved in a majority of the accidents.
I agree. How would you control them? I have proposed in other forums that taking someone's license for a year when they are at fault in an accident. I was treated like a pariah. Like driving is guaranteed under the Constitution. If a few people cause most of the accidents. Ban them and you can probably keep your cell phone. We have so many laws because a few folks have so little common sense.
I'm not making an excuse. The pro-legislation side still hasn't proven their side and their logic to nearly a reasonable level. Responsibility abandoned.
I'm reiterating Kirstie's post. Enough with the personally directed comments, already. They do nothing in the way of winning the other person over to your argument and only serve to exclude other members from participating in a healthy discussion on the subject matter at hand.
Any future posts containing personally directed comments will be removed without notice. For a refresher on the general guidelines for forum posting, please visit the Rules of the Road
Maybe I should take up smoking, start consuming meals while driving, get a car with a cumbersome nav/hvac system, groom myself while driving to work, keep a dog or a cat in the car while I drive, along with a chatty passenger. It'll all remain legal.
OK. So you would eat breakfast while driving to work with your dog in the back seat while having a smoke, shave your face, and maybe talk on the cell phone and with your passenger. A multi-tasking challenge. Split your attention mulitiple times on a lot of stuff with concentration on driving not possible.
Might want to check your State's Rules of the Road on what is legal.
According to my State's Rules of the Road, a driver "must" concentrate on the road and drive defensively. Note that the word "must" is used rather than a word such as "should" which would be suggestive. I might add that a driver also has to obviously attend to the operation (steering, speed, brakes) and navigation of the vehicle.
The requirement for "concentration" literally means that attention shall not be parcelled to other matters such as consuming a meal, grooming, disciplining a kid or cell phone conversations.
I believe that driver cell phone advocates on this board mistakenly believe that a State's Rules of the Road reads:
A driver "should" concentrate on the road and drive defensively and "may" multitask when desirable to make/receive cell telephone calls.
With 40 countries adopting cell phone restrictions, more most states enacting laws for GDL drivers and cell phone restrictions, my case is unconvicing?
I have already proved my case to the intended audience.
If there is such a law on the books do we need another?
To make it a clear as being a violation of the law. It simply makes what is already established as a distraction, a violation to use. Pretty simple.
Just thought I would check in here again. Behold the thread is still marching along like the Eveready Bunny! A simple thing like making a law to cut down on cell phone distraction, and it gets debated to death, as though there is some justification for its use while in motion. Yes, there are times when it is not an issue, and it is safe to use the phones. But a law can not be an on and off, wishy-washy thing. At 2am in the morning, there are likely some stop signs or stop lights which you could slowly roll on through without killing some one, but who would decide the appropriate situation?
Bye for now, the Bunny and I will check back later on to see if this keeps going and going, and....
The "we need proof" crowd and the "seems like a good common sense policy" crowd don't see eye to eye. The "we need proof" crowd focuses on one study that points to the last three seconds before an accident, claiming cell phone usage is ranked way down as causes for an accident.
The "seems like a good common sense policy" crowd says, if 25% or more of the people around you are on phones are driving erratically, it doesn't take a rocket scients to see there is a problem in the making. In addition, 15 years of studies show the amount of cognotive attention lost due to cell phones.
Oh, I wouldn't do all that stuff at once, it would have to be safe if done individually, right? I mean, there are no laws specifically against smoking or eating or playing with electronics etc, so it must be safe! :P
What a state puts as some trumped-up "rules of the road" and what is permitted in real life are completely different worlds.
If those rules held any water, people would actually be nabbed for driving in a distracted manner...and I can't recall the last time I heard of anyone getting an extra-tax-ticket for smoking or eating or being otherwise distracted while driving, anywhere.
But going after one distraction will certainly improve things. These laws will be easy to enforce, will be financially viable, and will improve driving conditions. I must be blind to have not realized all that before!
Used to be Cops wrote tickets for failing to signal, using high beams against on-coming traffic, unsafe lane changes and even failing to stop completely. Those have mostly gone by the wayside with the budget crunches, lack of manpower, and more serious crimes increasing. Several Highway Patrol buddies of mine look for reasons NOT to stop people because of the huge increase in assaults on officers for merely pulling someone over for a ticket. They dread possibly being killed over a failure to signal ticket, and I don't blame them.
All that being said, legislators caving and writing laws because they want to get a vocal minority off their backs, will do nothing. It will be a useful tool for insurance companies to deny liability coverage, if phone usage can be proven, but little else. Those who want or need to use the phone, will continue to do so, making no one "safer" than before.
And these things are always a slippery slope. The same people who are convinced cell phones are to blame, will then turn their sights on Navigation systems, entertainment systems, etc.
And it's funny...that ticky-tacky stuff isn't being called so tightly these days, but there's no explosion in incidents because of it. Maybe they just figured out a better use of scarce and expensive resources, or that they should pick and choose their fights. Or maybe they just felt a little hypocritical seeing as many cops engage in those same dopey behaviors.
You're right about the vocal minority spurring action. That's all this really is. And about the insurance thing too...not having coverage won't stop people denied it from dubious phone use from driving. But the insurance industry could certainly profit from jacking up rates with phone use tickets. They'd love it, and so would small towns. That's a big part of what it comes down to.
I'm waiting for phone disguise devices to come along. I've already seen the banana one, what else is there?
"Used to be Cops wrote tickets for failing to signal, using high beams against on-coming traffic, unsafe lane changes and even failing to stop completely."
The great thing is cops are still going to ticket these things. But in addition, if you are holding a phone to your ear, you will get an additional present.
Comments
I agree, ban it all. Then when a cop that ain't eatin' donuts sees someone distracted to the point of not leaving the stop sign in a reasonable length of time, he has a law with a number to give them a ticket. I don't think there is a law against taking too long at a stop sign. How would you deal with people that are in their own coffee drinking, soda sucking, cell phone talking little world not paying attention to the traffic signs? Maybe shoot em' is the answer. We have enough road rage in America without adding more.
It makes no differnce whether or not you hold the cell phone while you drive or not, except possibly in an emergancy situation where you would need 2 hands on the wheel to maintain control. Someone who holds the cell phone in his hand is no more dangerous than someone who uses hands free because its the attention you are diverting from the road that matters, not whether or not you are holding something in your hand. Where do you all stand on this?
Don't care about the other distractions...maybe one will give your car some custom bodywork. My first car was taken out by a woman in a minivan distracted by her kids...
Unfortunately, many people are unable to safely handle the difficult task of talking and driving at the same time. So, cell phone laws must be passed to prevent everyone from doing so.
Tried it again, parked no less.
Next time, Me: "Dial 913-xxx-xxxx"
OnStar: "pardon?'
Me: "Dial 913-xxx-xxxx"
OnStar: "Pardon?"
Me: "Forget it!"
I turned off the "phone" and wished I hadn't left my cell phone behind...
No, let's go your way and get rid of all laws. It should be incumbent upon everyone who is a responsible driver to avoid those that aren't.
Speaking of which, I recall my old real estate agent having her big Lincoln fitted up with two cell phones, a computer and a fax machine - all in the passenger seat. This was the early 1990's when that stuff had to be hardwired. Heaven help anyone that got in her way. She had 3-4 mostly minor accidents during the time I was working with her (fortunately, none with me in the car) and held up traffic at every other stoplight. I believe she was credited with inventing "multi-tasking". Possibly road rage as well. On a couple of occassions, she was citing for "negligence" but because none of that stuff was actually illegal, she succeeded in sweet-talking the liberal judges and always got off.
P.S. I'm still trying to figure out why we now have laws that require kids to be in car seats. I had a great time sitting in the back of my Dad's station wagon and tossing popcorn out the rear window. And I don't recall any kids ever getting hurt in accidents. Damn authoritarians.
The reason kids are now required to be in car seats is to increase their chances of not getting hurt in a car crash due to the increases in crashes that now occur because of the phenomonal increase of cell phone usage in todays society.
The libs wouldn't get it though.
"except possibly in an emergancy situation where you would need 2 hands on the wheel to maintain control."
Don't you think this is possibly a huge issue, control of the car?
And yes, I agree with the exception of the dialing event, which most "hands free" kits still require you to do by hand anyway, hands free isn't any safer.
My brother has On-Star on his Pontiac Montana. Despite clear enunciation from my brother, it took the On-Star computer about 3-4 times to recognize the command and make the call. To be fair, there have been times where it worked on first command.
Comparing car seats to car phones now. The irrelevant tangents never cease.
Those evil liberals...bahahaha :lemon:
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Speaking strictly for myself, I have an Acura TL 6-speed with Bluetooth hands free link and a 911 6-speed with no such device / interface. Huge difference.
On the TL, with the phone in my pocket or briefcase, I can press a button on the steering wheel and voice dial a number, with my eyes never leaving the road. On an incoming call, I can glance to the left of the tachometer and see the number and decide whether I want to answer.
With the Porsche, I'm taking my eyes off the road to dial or answer a call. Not to mention, until I grow a third arm, shifting and cell phone dialing/holding are incompatible.
However even in our automatic MDX, the Bluetooth link-up is the difference between never taking your eyes off the road and having to look away and futz around. Even with the "voice dialing" feature of most phones, theere is still some visual distraction to check an incoming number, etc.
So, in the TL or MDX, I'll use the Bluetooth hands free link with reasonable comfort. There have been a times when I've elected not to answer and instead send and incoming call to voicemail due to heavy traffic, poor road conditions, etc. There have also been times when I've told the other party that I'll need to call them back on a serious discussion when I don't want to concentrate on a business deal or legal contract while driving. But in the Porsche, the only time I will make or take a call is when I am cruising on the highway with plenty of open road in front of me.
I'm not going to quote any non-existent studies or voodoo statistics to try to make my opinions sound more credible. But I do believe that with the majority of "distractions", it's an event that causes you to take your eyes off the road that causes most accidents. It's not stuffing a french fry, Big Mac or straw in your mouth. It's looking down on the passenger seat for that last fry. Or looking for a napkin when the Big Mac squirts catchup on your crotch.
Myself, I HARDLY EVER talk on the phone and drive at the same time, and when i do its with a regular hand held cell phone. If I want to dial a number or something I hold the phone up to the windshield kinda above my steering wheel so I can see the road and phone at the same time.
I guess you were too busy multitasking and distractedly forgot your own "political whining" that I was responding to:
"The fallacy is the massive problem that the wannabe authoritarians claim is taking place...with nothing to back it up. The actions of irresponsible credibility-free legislators aren't a leg to stand on."
And my "irrelevent tangent" to car seats was indeed intended as a humorous irrelevent tangential response to your own semi-serious babbling about:
"...in car electronics, smoking, daydreaming, untethered kids and animals, eating and drinking, etc? Why do the wannabe authoritatians ignore this? I shouldn't have to put up with any of that either."
Sorry to dissapoint your intended "neandercon" insult, but I'm pretty much apolitical. I can criticize and offend "authoritarian" conservatives almost as easily as "irresponsible and immoral" liberals when their position on an issue is nonsensical or stupid. And the idea that I've heard in this forum by some, suggesting cell phones in a moving vehicle is an inalienable right entitled to protection on the level of free speech is more than borderline stupid.
I don't need a pile of 10 year multi-variate statistical studies or dead human bodies to conclude that the hand held cell phone ban in DC was probably a good decision. I had plenty of anecdotal evidence via my own observations, conversations with police officers, etc.. But I would not necessarily advocate legislation in other geographic areas where the circumstances and conditions are significantly different. Wow, a "balanced" approach. That's got to be politically incorrect.
Balanced approaches are not what we will see from en masse legislation. At least, if history is used as a predictor. I wouldn't expect a balanced view from law enforcement, either. Trusting all of these people to make decisions without offering up proof is more than borderline stupid.
I must have missed any serious free speech comparisons, too. I have similar anecdotal views and my observations of a lack of damning evidence that tell me this whole issue is a mountain sized molehill.
And really, what you or I "need" is of little matter, isn't it...and the same can be said for anyone else here.
Sometimes legislation is just common sense. You don't need "proof" to enact certain laws because you know the laws make sense. Do you drive without seatbelts? Or ride a motorcycle without a helmet? That has less effect on me than the cell phone, yet there are laws against both. Why is that? Is is because lawmakers want to erode your personal freedom to zero? Or is it because the lawmakers want to provide as safe an environment as possible, when people are to stupid to use their common sense to protect themselves. One less life lost on the road, benefits society to the tune of $1M, and saves a lot of grieving. I really have less of an issue with this than I do for the seatbelt laws.
All I want is to have all distractions targeted, not just this example of cherry picking. I wouldn't be surprised if enforcement and legal defense expenditures outweighed benefits, too.
That is not what I asked. I specifically asked why have a law that protects me from myself and not you from me. All that is required is a little common sense. You want to talk about cherry picking, let's talk about motorcycle helmets and seat belts.
In the realm of distractions, phones are the easiest cherry to pick, and it is irresponsible to target one while ignoring all the others...as our brilliant and accountable legislators surely will do.
Maybe I should take up smoking, start consuming meals while driving, get a car with a cumbersome nav/hvac system, groom myself while driving to work, keep a dog or a cat in the car while I drive, along with a chatty passenger. It'll all remain legal.
1. Holding the cell phone to their ear involves less control and loss of cognitive ability and distractions due to dialing and looking at the phone, not the road.
2. Using hands-free causes loss of cognitive ability.
In the event of an emergency not having absolute control of the car is a big issue and can result in a car crash or worse. While using hands-free the risk is mitigated somewhat by because your hands are on the wheel and if you keep the conversation in check, can react in an emergency although less than ideal.
Twiddling with the radio and the like is a far less distracting and dangerous thing, especially with steering wheel controls.
How much of the vehicle fleet has steering wheel radio controls? Yet more or less all vehicles have radios. I can reach for mine without even looking at it...but I suspect most can't. Yet it's perfectly fine, according to the spirit of this dreamed-of legislation.
You are making excuses to try and make every driver distraction the equal of phone conversation. It just doesn't work that way. I will grant you a one minute phone conversation on a hands-free probably has less distraction than eating a five course meal. But a one hour business conversation is probably a heck of a beast. And therein lies the rub. That is why lawmakers are out to curb cell phone use.
Can't help it if you can't see the issue.
While that may seem to make sense, if you believe the studies, then the claim is that there is no difference between hands-free and handheld.
I go back to the point that many people keep sidestepping in these discussions: a few drivers are involved in a majority of the accidents. These drivers manage to have accidents that could be attributed to a laundry list of "reasons", but it ultimately comes down to them as individuals and their inability to combine the various activities needed for successful driving -- good judgment and an ability to anticipate situations before they happen -- into a driving routine that results in safe passage.
There have been a times when I've elected not to answer and instead send and incoming call to voicemail due to heavy traffic, poor road conditions, etc
That's an example of driving safely -- to know when you are within your limits, and to avoid exceeding them. That's an example of what differentiates good judgment from a lack of it, and gets to the heart of the matter. If you are one of the vast majority who can drive without colliding, then sending law enforcement after you is just a waste of their time and my tax dollars.
I haven't actually seen the "studies" you keep referring to, so I can't say whether I believe them or not. But there are plenty of studies out there that even an high school math student could drive a truck through the methodology. Sometimes there is an underlying intentional bias, like the studies commissioned by the cigarette companies in the 50's and 60's that showed no correlation between smoking and lung cancer. Other times, the studies are done in good faith, but without enough data or the proper methodology to reach statistically accurate conclusions. If you can point me to the source(s), I'll take a fresh look before deciding whether or not I believe them, based upon the methodology, data, etc.
I would say with some sense of credibility that it can be proven that smoking kills more people each year than seatbelts and helmets save. So why the one law protecting us from ourselves and not the other? At least as has been pointed out numerous times a cell phone ban will do more to protect me from others than the seatbelt law. I was wearing a seatbelt as a condition of employment in 1961. I don't need a law telling me that I have to wear a seat belt. It is mind boggling that anyone could support seat belt and helmet laws and not a ban on cell phones.
I agree. How would you control them? I have proposed in other forums that taking someone's license for a year when they are at fault in an accident. I was treated like a pariah. Like driving is guaranteed under the Constitution. If a few people cause most of the accidents. Ban them and you can probably keep your cell phone. We have so many laws because a few folks have so little common sense.
Can't help it if your case is unconvincing.
Didn't you suggest jail time for phone offenses? Pariah actions receive pariah treatment.
It's mindboggling how people can blindly defer when there is such spurious evidence.
Any future posts containing personally directed comments will be removed without notice. For a refresher on the general guidelines for forum posting, please visit the Rules of the Road
Thank you for your cooperation!
EltonRon
Host- Automotive News & Views
OK. So you would eat breakfast while driving to work with your dog in the back seat while having a smoke, shave your face, and maybe talk on the cell phone and with your passenger. A multi-tasking challenge. Split your attention mulitiple times on a lot of stuff with concentration on driving not possible.
Might want to check your State's Rules of the Road on what is legal.
According to my State's Rules of the Road, a driver "must" concentrate on the road and drive defensively. Note that the word "must" is used rather than a word such as "should" which would be suggestive. I might add that a driver also has to obviously attend to the operation (steering, speed, brakes) and navigation of the vehicle.
The requirement for "concentration" literally means that attention shall not be parcelled to other matters such as consuming a meal, grooming, disciplining a kid or cell phone conversations.
I believe that driver cell phone advocates on this board mistakenly believe that a State's Rules of the Road reads:
A driver "should" concentrate on the road and drive defensively and "may" multitask when desirable to make/receive cell telephone calls.
With 40 countries adopting cell phone restrictions, more most states enacting laws for GDL drivers and cell phone restrictions, my case is unconvicing?
I have already proved my case to the intended audience.
To make it a clear as being a violation of the law. It simply makes what is already established as a distraction, a violation to use. Pretty simple.
Just thought I would check in here again. Behold the thread is still marching along like the Eveready Bunny! A simple thing like making a law to cut down on cell phone distraction, and it gets debated to death, as though there is some justification for its use while in motion. Yes, there are times when it is not an issue, and it is safe to use the phones. But a law can not be an on and off, wishy-washy thing. At 2am in the morning, there are likely some stop signs or stop lights which you could slowly roll on through without killing some one, but who would decide the appropriate situation?
Bye for now, the Bunny and I will check back later on to see if this keeps going and going, and....
-Loren
The "seems like a good common sense policy" crowd says, if 25% or more of the people around you are on phones are driving erratically, it doesn't take a rocket scients to see there is a problem in the making. In addition, 15 years of studies show the amount of cognotive attention lost due to cell phones.
What a state puts as some trumped-up "rules of the road" and what is permitted in real life are completely different worlds.
If those rules held any water, people would actually be nabbed for driving in a distracted manner...and I can't recall the last time I heard of anyone getting an extra-tax-ticket for smoking or eating or being otherwise distracted while driving, anywhere.
But going after one distraction will certainly improve things. These laws will be easy to enforce, will be financially viable, and will improve driving conditions. I must be blind to have not realized all that before!
All that being said, legislators caving and writing laws because they want to get a vocal minority off their backs, will do nothing. It will be a useful tool for insurance companies to deny liability coverage, if phone usage can be proven, but little else. Those who want or need to use the phone, will continue to do so, making no one "safer" than before.
And these things are always a slippery slope. The same people who are convinced cell phones are to blame, will then turn their sights on Navigation systems, entertainment systems, etc.
You're right about the vocal minority spurring action. That's all this really is. And about the insurance thing too...not having coverage won't stop people denied it from dubious phone use from driving. But the insurance industry could certainly profit from jacking up rates with phone use tickets. They'd love it, and so would small towns. That's a big part of what it comes down to.
I'm waiting for phone disguise devices to come along. I've already seen the banana one, what else is there?
The great thing is cops are still going to ticket these things. But in addition, if you are holding a phone to your ear, you will get an additional present.