By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
That's true. The reaction to dumping 24 ounces of icy soda into a driver's lap is going to be a lot more disruptive. Try this one with a friend, and see how well it goes!
It might help to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. I never said that fines should be abolished for traffic offenses.
Traffic fines are to deter unsafe behavior. When they are used to raise revenue, two things happen:
1. The pressure builds to have fines applied to behavior that is not really unsafe, but bothers some people. This is under the guise of improving safety, but it is really about raising revenue, while satisfying the uninformed who want to "do something" about some imaginary problem.
2. The fines assessed are out of proportion to the violation, so officers become reluctant to assess them, and people are happy to help others evade them (please review the history of the 55 mph speed limit in the 1970s and 1980s for a refresher on this topic).
Using traffic fines as a revenue source - as opposed to a deterrent that happens to bring in some money - is a long-term trap that increases public cynicism and disrepect for the law.
habitat1: That is patently FALSE. I read the complete audit published in the Post. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just repeating somebody else's heresay, but you need to stick to the facts.
It might help to do more research before claiming that something is "patently false." And while doing this research, look for articles that are more recent than 2000 (which would have been about six months after the cameras were installed in the city). This way YOU can stick to the facts.
Here is an article in The Washington Post that was published in October 2005:
The District's red-light cameras have generated more than 500,000 violations and $32 million in fines over the past six years. City officials credit them with making busy roads safer.
But a Washington Post analysis of crash statistics shows that the number of accidents has gone up at intersections with the cameras. The increase is the same or worse than at traffic signals without the devices. (emphasis added)
D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey said citations for red-light running have dropped by about 60 percent at intersections that have the cameras.
The D.C. government installed the first of its red-light cameras in 1999. By the following year, 37 intersections were covered in the city, some with more than one camera. The number of traffic accidents at the 37 intersections has gone up since the cameras were installed. The increase is the same or worse than at the 1,520 intersections with traffic lights that do not have red-light cameras. (emphasis added)
Three outside traffic specialists independently reviewed the data and said they were surprised by the results. Their conclusion: The cameras do not appear to be making any difference in preventing injuries or collisions.
"The data are very clear," said Dick Raub, a traffic consultant and a former senior researcher at Northwestern University's Center for Public Safety. "They are not performing any better than intersections without cameras."
The District started the camera program in 1999, and from the beginning, officials said they were aiming to curtail red-light running and accidents. At the time, Terrance W. Gainer, then the second-highest ranking D.C. police official, said the cameras would "get people to stop at red lights and avoid crashes. . . . Hopefully, we'll have a few less messes to clean up."
But that hasn't stopped the intrepid D.C. police chief from supporting the red light cameras:
D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey said he remains convinced that the devices are worthwhile. Even if the number of crashes is not going down, he said, citations for red-light running have dropped by about 60 percent at intersections that have cameras.
Ramsey said the number of accidents would be even higher without the cameras, adding that he would like to install them at every traffic light in the city. He pointed to last year's steep decrease in traffic fatalities -- 45 people died compared with 69 in 2003 -- as evidence that the program is working.
"I'd rather have them than not have them," Ramsey said. "They make people slow down. They reduce the number of traffic violations, and that's a good thing."
You said that you "have great respect for the majority of police oficers. They are charged with the task to "protect and serve" and oftentimes find that duty interfered with by those that think every bloody thing they do is a violation of somebody's civil rights. If you think you can do a better job, have at it."
I'd suggest you have a greater respect for the truth, along with a more sophisticated understanding of how to examine statements by public officials, so that you can accurately discern whether said public statement can be backed up with the facts.
First we get police doing the jobs of meter maids (apparently you haven't heard of them) and now we have six-year-old articles being quoted that have apparently been refuted by newer articles in the exact same publication.
You seem to be developing a credibility problem here...which leads me to suggest you need to think twice before telling anyone else to stick to the facts.
One reason - officers are now pulling over people who weren't as much of a problem, which gives them less time to go after people who ARE the problem, namely those with a BAC much higher than .10.
So your tougher stance has backfired, causing exactly what you wanted to prevent.
Or is the return of Prohibition on the agenda next?
That is the best rebuttal to the last 1922 posts? We should go back to Prohibition because the number of DUI fatalities increased because of *my* tough stance against drunk driving? Well okay then, onward and upward.
And two of the ways that a civilized society get around irrational law is:
(1) Non-enforcement. For example, many states have have requirement on residents paying sales tax on items that they purchase from out of state, both mail orders and purcahses made in person. How often is that enforced? Some states also have anti-fornication laws and anti-sodomy laws, even between husbands and wives; how often is that enforced? This approach unfortunately often leads to selective enforcement and presecutorial abuse.
A far better approach is (2) avoiding silly laws to begin with.
In other words, more Big Brother.
Even if some laws "appear" to be unenforceable a complex society needs a complex set of laws to govern our existence.
So the city hall thugs get more opportunities to fleece the hapless citizens.
Well, taxes and sodomy are the best reasons you can come up with for repeal of cell phone use restriction laws? Your conversation would be credible if maybe, you might talk about cell phone restrictions vs public safety or even personal safety.
This is your reasoning:
1. There is one stupid unenforceable law on the books, and,
2. Since there is at least one stupid unenforceable law on the books therefore,
3. All laws must be stupid and unenforceable and they all should be repealed.
That is utter nonsense.
I gotta agree with brightness, we have way to many stupid laws that are unenforcable and often times don't enforce the ones that should be important to you and I.
Rocky
How do you know what I consider to be important? I do agree there is a lot of non-enforced laws in the country. But to take an example, enforcing the immigration laws is not going to change the enforcement of any local roads.
And the cops already have to worry about giving me a ticket for non-seat belt use. I would rather them worry about giving someone a ticket for dialing a cell phone or finding a DUI.
I'd say that you may have missed the point of a test track, and how it differs from normal driving.
A test track is an environment that is both controlled, but is also designed to push drivers to higher limits than they would be on the street. The exercise is for man to push the machine and its capabilities as much as possible, while eliminating most of the stuff in the real world that bars you from doing this on the street.
The street is just that. Its purpose is to transport people and goods from A to B. It is not a battle of man and machine -- speeds are lower, and the driving is less demanding. There is less need for car control, and more need to balance your actions with the outside environment of cars, pedestrians, pets, and the rest.
You can't compare the two, it would be like claiming that you need the skills of a tightrope walker in order to take a stroll down the sidewalk. If the car control skills needed for track driving are at perhaps 90-100% of one's technical skills, that level is perhaps 20-30% on your average highway.
You absolutely don't want people driving on the street in the same manner that they do on the track, and vice versa. Obviously, multitasking is a bad idea when one of the tasks is being pushed to the extreme. On the track, this happens as a matter of course; on the street, it doesn't happen that often at all.
Of course not, and nobody would debate that. When evaluating driving behaviors you have three options:
1. put cameras and monitoring equipment in vehicles,
2. use a simulator,
3. take it to the track.
Only 2 and 3 can be used to test illegal and dangerous situations. A pro defensive driving instructor would never advocate that type of real test on the streets. In the relative safety of the test track, however, it is legal and safe (for the rest of the world) to test out what happens when people talk and drive.
I can't understand the anti-phone legislation bunch. There is not one shred of evidence that indicates a virtual ban on wireless devices would not be a good thing, yet the crowd is balking when the laws are only saying a hands-free has to be used. This is the most common sense legislation to be enacted in decades.
One reason - officers are now pulling over people who weren't as much of a problem, which gives them less time to go after people who ARE the problem, namely those with a BAC much higher than .10.
So your tougher stance has backfired, causing exactly what you wanted to prevent.
Don't agree with conclusion.
Comparing the absolute number of fatalities year by year would only be valid if all things were constant such as same number of drivers, vehicles and miles driven in US year after year. But, that is not the case. All of these (drivers, vehicles, miles driven) keep going up every year. Given that, the rate is actually improving and this is due to the combined efforts of media tv ads, beer responsibility tv ads, enforcement, MADD, etc.
Technology for enforcement of a total ban on cell phone use while vehicle is moving could be near. Most newer vehicles already have a black box that records data about the vehicle similar to boxes in airplanes. Would seem relatively easy for telecom scientists/engineers to build capability into box to capture any cell tower signals being received/transmitted in vehicle.
Any vehicle involved in an accident that caused the accident would have its black box examined similar to airplane crash for whether or not cell phone was in use at time of accident. Mic pickups in vehicle would distinguish whether driver or passenger(s) were using cell phone.
Of course, making cell phone calls in a parked/stopped vehicle would be OK and no data would be recorded in black box.
There would be much publicity about this along with severe penalties when data shows driver using cell phone and cause of crash. I believe most drivers would not use cell phone for fear of severe penalty if caught and/or public education campaigns of the danger to safety of using the phone. But, as in any law, there will be some who will violate. Maybe some would be from this Board who claim their multi-tasking skills give them the "priviledge" and the "right" to make calls.
Believe that some European countries have a ZERO tolerance for drivers having alcohol in blood. It is zero. If they are found with any alcohol at all, no matter how much, severe penalties are applied.
Does the world really terrify some people this much? Orwell and the Founders would be turning over in their graves if they could read all of this excitement and glee over being monitored.
Founders would be astonished at the stupid behaviour of drivers using cell phones.
Absolutely no problem in making as many cell calls as a driver wants to do in vehicle - as long as it is parked. Total freedom to use phone, conversation is private and guarded - don't see how our Founders would consider this as any kind of problem on "Violation" of our rights.
As has been pointed out many times on this Board, there are already many things that laws state can or cannot be done in vehicles. These pertain to use of seat belts, child restraints, no open liquor, no loaded handguns in glovebox, proof of insurance, don't exceed BAC level, wear eyeglasses if required per drivers license test, don't drive and use prescribed drugs that impair ability, and on and on. Not using a cell phone while driving will be added to that list. Not a big deal.
Those drivers that are truly upset about a total ban have many alternatives:
Plan your life and time more efficiently to make calls before or after vehicle trip.
Stop and park vehicle and make call.
Hire a chaueffer and sit in back seat and make calls on the move. Trump does this.
Use public transportation if available.
"They who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
Explain why/how using a cell phone while driving is a basic right. Show where in Constitution or Bill of Rights that there are guarantees that could be interpretted to mean that use of cell phone while driving is a Right.
-Benjamin Franklin
That is hogwash in the context of motor vehicle laws. Good ol' Ben was referring to basic inalienable rights.Not the right to operate a motor vehicle, as *you* see fit.
And Ben Franklin also uttered these words of wisdom:
"None but the well-bred man know how to confess a fault, or acknowledge himself in an error."
"The learned fool writes his nonsense in better lanuage than the unleared, but still 'tis nonsense."
If we are going to quote good 'ol Ben, here is a list of his sayings:
http://home.att.net/~howingtons/benf.html
The basic rights are to be left alone, presumed innocent and to avoid the intrusion of government into our lives. Black boxes, cameras, and all these other crazy fantasies of yours clearly step over the line. Phones don't give you an excuse to launch a hogwild attack on the Constitution, just because you've decided that they are the exception to the rule.
Nobody on this board decided. Lawmakers have already made that decision. Right, wrong, indifferent. Like seat belt laws (protecting (the generic) me from (the generic) myself), child restraint laws (telling me how to parent), pubic intoxication laws, etc, the cell phone use restriction laws are just one more law in the motor vehicle code. Nobody has taken away any rights; any more than freedom to speed, tailgate, be an LLC or ignore stop signs.
Fantasies?
Black boxes and cameras are in use already and are legal.
Anybody on this Board that can point to specific part(s) of Constitution or Bill of Rights that would "guarantee" that drivers can use cell phones while driving?
Obviously, no cell phones back when original Bill was written, but what part(s) could be construed to mean that drivers can use cell phones while driving.
Nobody on this board is trying to take away the right to use cell phones, only using while driving. This is like liquor. Adults are free to purchase and use liquor, but not in a vehicle on a public road.
This is no different then many other restrictions on things guaranteed by our Rights. Another example is guns. These can be owned by citizens, but not those that were convicted felons. Also, use of guns for hunting have a lot of restrictions such as you cannot go hunting for animals such as deer in a moving vehicle. One cannot have a loaded handgun in glovebox.
One does have basic freedom to own a gun, but there are strict laws as to how that gun can be used. In a similar fashion, citizens are free to own and use a cell phone, but would not be able to while driving a vehicle because of diminishment of driving abilities. Pretty simple to understand.
If you have to ask a question like that, then you don't understand the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
These are not statutes that specifically spell out every right, but broad foundations that establish the premise that people have basic liberties of which they can't be deprived.
The basic premise is that you have a right unless there is an extremely compelling reason to take it away. You're not supposed to sacrifice your rights just because some paranoids who look for demons under every bed can't stomach it.
The ultimate arbiter in our country is the Supreme Court. I suppose you could sue and go all the way up to the Court, if necessary. I doubt it will go anywhere though.
I do believe these laws fall under states' rights, which is why the federal government is not stepping in. As xrunner point out, having an open container of alcohol in a car is illegal, even if the driver isn't drinking it and has zero BAC. That seems to be more of an issue of my right being taken away than restricted cell phone usage. Are you opposed to the open container statutes as well?
Seems to me however, with Germany's cell phone laws and a their safe AutoBahn, and our cell phone laws and the mayhem on American highways there is something fundementally wrong going on. Maybe the callous attitude of the "I can do anything I want in my own car crowd" shows up very clearly in the fatality rates of US highways vs the Autobahn.
A right to what? What are you talking about?
Are you perhaps talking about free speech? But, remember that speech does have limitations such as fire in a theatre, defaming a person, etc.
Be specific about a part or parts of Constitution or Bill of Rights that could be construed in 2006 to mean that citizens have the right to use a cell phone while driving.
Without turning this too much into a political discussion, a basic constitutional lesson here:
-4th Amendment bars unreasonable search and seizure.
-5th Amendment bars self-incrimination
-6th Amendment ensures fair trials
-9th Amendment notes that the Constitution does not need to reference specific rights in order for the People to have them. ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.")
-10th Amendment states that on issues where the Constitution is silent, it is assumed that rights are held by the People and the states
The 9th and 10th Amendments make it clear that you are coming from the entirely wrong angle. The Constitution does not need to spell out your rights in detail in order for the people to have them, and any restrictions need to conform to what is allowed by the Constitution.
The burden of proof is on the party who wants the restriction, and the default position is to be free of restrictions. The Founders made it clear that the Constitution doesn't have to spell things out in order for it to acknowledge our rights.
The 4th Amendment requires that the government leave you alone without good cause. Stopping people for no good reason would fall under that provision.
The 5th Amendment ensures that you do not need to implicate yourself. Having your own car testify against you doesn't exactly sound very much in line with the spirit of that amendment.
Again, I don't understand your utter, absolute joy to be spied on, observed, monitored, measured and stopped whereever, whenever and however because of a telephone. It sounds like the stuff that totalitarian states resort to when they are afraid of the people. Ben Franklin had it right.
My friend, the horse is already out of the barn, it's a done deal. This is not Constitution 101. NY, NJ, Conn, CA and where ever else already have restrictions in place. The constitution says the government shall not abridge states rights. The states have decided to protect the public at large through the motor vehicle operations code and hence, these laws have already been enacted.
This is not a recreation of 1984. It is an attempt to keep the public safe. I don't understand what is so hard about this? The fact the lawmakers are doing their job, makes this a totalitarian state? The constitution also does not protect the rights of citizens to drive drunk.
What utter rubbish.
The simple fact may be that cell phones are a distraction. There are many distractions people become involved in every day. But can they drive and deal with those distractions? The answer is yes unless we are going to state that all cell phone use leads to accidents. If all cell phone use did lead to accidents then no one would be willing to make exceptions to the law but they are and do.
These posts have been full of statements like, "people should plan better, people should pull over, I don't see why others feel they can't wait to make a call." All of those statements are judgments on what other people do that some don't approve of. The thing that is disturbing about this trend is that we are willing to accept legislation based on fear of what might be a problem with out the normal process of finding out if it is a problem. If safety devices have been improving to such a degree than accidents have dropped as much as they have there has to be something wrong with the assumption that cell phones are causing more accidents because cell phone use has been increasing at fantastic rate over the last 10 years. I am not making a connection between cell phones and the dropping accident rate but neither can anyone else make a connection that the rate would fall even faster if cell phones were banned completely. If these were all voter driven actions in might be easier to swallow. But they are not voter driven actions in many cases they are preemptive legislative actions and that is more like how Germany works than I care for.
Don't see how any of what you listed could prevent a state from adopting a law forbiding use of cell phone by driver while driving. If a state does pass a total ban, maybe some group (nutball) would take to court to challenge. What would be their case?
Perhaps by your reasoning and logic, we ought to be free to do as we please in our motor vehicles. Soooo, should be ok to carry open bottles of liquor, drink a beer while driving as long as we don't exceed state blood alcohol level (or maybe alcohol level is an infringement of our rights), carry loaded handguns in glovebox, not buckle up, let babies lay on blanket in front seats of cars, not carry insurance, go as fast as we want on highways, and so on. Guess all laws associated with these items violate Constitution and Rights according to your interpretation.
And frankly, you are waaaaaaay too overjoyed about intrusion for my comfort. I don't have problems with fair laws that can be justified, but those who beat the zero-tolerance drum harder than the rhythm section of a heavy metal band are clearly out on a Constitutional limb.
As the advocate of restrictions, it's up to you to prove your case. So far, about the best we've got are some theoretical studies that are contradicted by real-world data, combined with "'cuz I said so." Neither pass the sniff test required for new law.
I would guess (strictly) that most drunk driving does not lead to an accident, yet we have very strict laws and punishment covering DUI if caught or in an accident. So, just because some think that most driver cell phone use does not lead to an accident is not good reason to oppose a ban.
There are many drivers who may drive drunk from time-to-time but do not get in accidents and do not get caught.
The point is that their abilities are impaired.
Drivers using a cell phone also have an impairment and most do not even realize it. Similar to DUI, we need cell phone bans along with publicity and education.
Zealous defense? Have only pointed out that technology (to determine drivers using cell phones that caused an accident) could be easily developed. That could be part of the "enforcement" question that the pro-cell phone using drivers have been asking if a ban were effected.
No, they aren't. Your motor skills are not affected by phones. Depth perception is not affected by phones. A phone won't give you a hangover or slur your speech.
Then again, at least, I've learned from this discussion a few catchy (albeit hollow and pithy) excuses for dealing with my passengers:
"I'm not changing the radio station. That would the equivalent of drinking a Screwdriver, three Long Island Ice Teas and two shots of tequila, so stop asking me to put in your Madonna CD."
"Kids, be quiet. Talking to you is the equivalent of doing two lines of coke and shooting up heroin. Now drink your Big Gulps and keep it down."
"No, I am not going to look at my side view mirrors when changing lanes. Being distracted by looking out at the side view mirror or turning my head is like drinking a bottle of Bourbon, and then finishing it off with a six pack of King Cobra. No way, Jose, those guys are just going to need to hit their brakes if they don't like my lane changes."
I could go on, but I'm too distracted to continue. (The phone is ringing...)
I have had a cell phone since 1990. I will admit that I don't use it often nor have I even had a conversation while moving that lasted more than five minutes. But I will also admit that once I got hands free I do use it more often than when I didn't have one. I have not had a accident of a moving violation in all that time. Does that make me a superman? I hardly think so. I think there are a lot more people like me that only use the cell when necessary and when we can afford the distraction. It seems more likely that some people simply can't make those decisions and they are the ones that reach into the back seat or search through their briefcase or do any number of silly mistakes and run into people or have a near miss. The very fact that these people exist and do not take into consideration where they are or what they are doing hardly seems to warrent taking a useful technology away from the rest of us. Give us some guide lines maybe. Can we use a cell when in a traffic jam and we can't make an appointment? Seems reasonable to me. If I am out on interstate 10 and I can see the road ahead for ten miles should I be allowed cell phone use? We already know that emergencies are an exception to the cell phone ban what else should be? every time we come up with a new technology that changes our society we see some who fear it. Is this a case of techno fear? It wasn't cell phones that caused the development of ABS, Anti skid control, Radial tires, disk brakes, power stearing and now proximity detection it was people having accidents without these devices. We can pass laws and we can develop safety devices all we want but till we find a way to get the nut behind the wheel under control we will have accidents caused by driver distraction or error. Maybe it is good that we are being forced into hands free cell phones and maybe business will benefit because people will have to buy new phones to avoid a ticket. But it sure seems like a massive waste of time for no promised results. when they passed such laws as the seat belt laws they at least posted figures on how many lives it would save. I don't know if they met their target but it was well studied and documented. The cell phone issue is simply voodoo politics at their best. It comes from the land of, We don't like it, we don't understand it, we can't prove it, but we want to ban it.
This forum must have dozens of links to this information. If you are not inclined to review the posts, do a web search for "cell phone fatalities", you will find what you are looking for. Even if you choose to find the studies meaningless to you.
BTW, since you admit to using a hands-free and having no accidents, you are certainly better off than the lawyer who killed someone, lost her license and got a 2 million dollar judgement against her firm. All because she was on the phone doing business. But since you are on the hands-free or whatever, I can assume you understand the safety and cognitive issues and all of these posts are much ado about nothing. Since you are in compliance with states that have restrictions.
This issue has been debated longer than the Constitution has been around. Well it seems like an eternity. Someone end the madness! Just realize, there will be a law, it is a safety issue, just like other laws on the books, and it is gonna happen. Case closed!
Someone please start a 12 step plan for cell phone addicts!
-Loren
Did you happen to see the 2003 study where the legally drunk DUI actually drove better than the cell phone addict?
Is that delivered in the same sort of menacing tone as a hooded klansman speaking to free blacks?
Did you happen to see the 2003 study where the legally drunk DUI actually drove better than the cell phone addict?
Well, if the legally defined DUI BAL is so low that it does not impare driving at all, does that mean any and all behavior now are subject to banning?
Germany has lower accident rate because it's much harder to get license there.
BTW, ths line is classic:
"This is not a recreation of 1984. It is an attempt to keep the public safe."
hmm, to keep the public safe was exactly the reason used repeated in 1984, duh?!
1. All laws are good because lawmakers worked hard on it
2. Cellphone ban is a law
3. Therefore it must be a good law, and it must be slavishly followed.
It takes only one exception to disprove your major premise, item (1) above.
What's so hard to understand that, in many people's opinion, in fact the majority states, it's silly to have a law banning cellphone use.