Should cell phone drivers be singled out?

1606163656681

Comments

  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Isn't that like saying, guns are the number one cause of shootings?
  • waterdrwaterdr Member Posts: 307
    There are people that want and use the gun argument as the reason why they should be banned, but they are guarenteed as a right of ownership as part of being an American....juts like freedom of speech, and why sir, you can not ban conversation.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    you can not ban conversation.

    Sure you can - come into my living room cussing like a marmot and I may very well throw you out. Free speech is a government thing, and owners of private property can largely do what they wish. For example, spam the forums and we'll pull your posts. :shades: (this Wiki link may be of interest)

    Make all the roads intrastate private toll roads and maybe the owners will ban cells so they'll reduce their potential liability for car wrecks?
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    Make all the roads intrastate private toll roads and maybe the owners will ban cells so they'll reduce their potential liability for car wrecks?

    A good idea there. Illinois has a tollway system where this could be applied. Would think that technology could provide detection systems along the toll roads to catch any car/vehicle with only a driver that is transmitting/receiving cell signals.

    Just like red light cameras, monitoring would not have to be manned. It would be portable, have a camera and signal detectors, not seen by drivers and be moved around day-to-day. Any car passing it with only a driver and transmitting/receiving would have its cell id recorded with place and time of day. Owner of cell phone would get ticket and fine in next month's cell bill.

    Drivers on phone every day over a stretch of toll road might get hit with 10-20 infractions before they would see it on monthly cell bill. Cell providers would get a small amount of the fine for their administration expense. Anyone not paying the fine with their cell phone service would have their service turned off. Would be good source of revenue for the state to fund schools.

    Of course, there would be lots of publicity and warnings about banned cell phone use on toll roads well in advance of implementation of system.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Easier to install cell phone jammers.

    But you'll have to get the FCC to play along and they don't like them.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    Marmots cuss? :shades:
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Freedom of speech, is an illusion. The government can't make any laws restricting what you say, but try stepping aboard a commerical aircraft and proclaiming you have a bomb.

    Driving is not a right either. The let me catch up on my day with my wife, cell phone user is a danger to themselves and people around them. I don't advocate suspending their license, but if they are driving like they are drunk, make them pay a healthy fine.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Marmots cuss?

    Whistle too. :shades:

    My brother turned off his land line last month. My sister did an airport run today back East and borrowed a cell so she could wait in her car in the holding area while her friend debarked (sounds too marmottish, let's say deboarded). She's never used one before but is now shopping for a cell. Guess I'll be the last hold out among my siblings to get one, although I did call home last week driving down Bogus Basin Road on my boarding buddy's phone.

    This topic is going to be filed under losing battles when the dust settles I think.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    My brother turned off his land line last month.

    Land-line phones connected to tel co central offices are more reliable than cell phones. The central offices usually have batteries and standby generators that automatically kick in when commercial power is lost. Cell phones rely on cell towers that also use commercial power but have limited amount of emergency backup power.

    Best is combo of home land line phone with cell phone for making long distance calls and for use while driving. :P
  • waterdrwaterdr Member Posts: 307
    Making a public toll road private would be impossible and impractical. For one thing, the government co-mingles funds, so you would have to prove that the road is funded 100% by tolls which would never happen. Second, highways are considered Public Goods. In other words, even those that do not use them, use them. Grandma Moses who has never driven in her life, still gets goods and services as a result of the highways.

    Never happen.
  • waterdrwaterdr Member Posts: 307
    I am shocked at how impractical some of you are and how willing you are to give up yoru rights as a citizen.

    Face it, cell phones are never going away.....there will always be voice communication devices in cars. Trying to stop it is wasted breath and energy...it is a loss cause. Society wants it....businesses provide it. The price is worth the benefit.

    Hell, one of the biggest automakers in the world (Ford) is now putting devices in all of their cars. GM has been doing it for years.

    You might as well go on strike against the wheel.
  • waterdrwaterdr Member Posts: 307
    Those cameras are being pulled everywhere. They eliminate a basic right....called "due process". They are not constitutional they way they are employed. So, you forget about cameras doing your bidding for you.
  • waterdrwaterdr Member Posts: 307
    OMG! Saying you have a bomb on a plane is NOT freedom of speach.....not in any legal definition. Don't you rember the "shouting fire" in a crowded theater argument when studying the constitution in 7th grade?

    Heck, you can't slander either. Freedom of Speach does not mean you can say what you want whenever you want to. But is does allow someone to have a conversation in private.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Er, privatization of public toll roads is already occurring. One example:

    Indiana Toll Road Sold to Foreign Company (leasing deal). The Chicago Skyway was leased for 99 years not long ago (link).

    Since you can exclude those who don't pay the toll, it would seem to fall outside the public goods example.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    I agree, so when you said freedom of speech, not really.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    I am shocked at how impractical some of you are and how willing you are to give up yoru rights as a citizen.

    Face it, cell phones are never going away.....there will always be voice communication devices in cars. Trying to stop it is wasted breath and energy...it is a loss cause.


    Rights?? Nobody has a right to operate a vehicle on public roads. Individuals are granted priviledge to do so as long as having drivers license, licensed vehicle, insured vehicle (many states), have a legally functioning vehicle and operate it according to rules of the road or state dot.

    There is precedence for new laws that might ban drivers using cell phones. You just can't do what you want in your car on a public road. For example - cannot have open liquour containers, cannot have loaded weapon in console or on passenger seat, cannot drive naked nor can passenger(s), cannot exceed 0.08 blood alcohol level, cannot throw garbage out the window, cannot drive when taking certain medications, etc. Laws were put in place for common good of both driving public and pedestrians. As more and more legislators in states see the light, they will pass laws banning cell phone use.

    It took decades after invention of auto in 1890's before laws were passed on DUI and open liquor containers. Same will be true of cell phones and drivers.

    One has got to get away from notion that motor vehicle is private and that the driver and/or occupants can do as they wish in vehicle when operated on public roads.
  • waterdrwaterdr Member Posts: 307
    Hello McFly.....a car is private property and NO I never said, nor have I EVER implied that you can do what you wish in a car.

    BUT, I don't give a crap if a road is private, public or whatever......you can't stop a conversation in a car.

    AND roads are by definition a PUBLIC GOOD. Just because a road may be owned, does not mean that the governemt does not impose standards. Schools are also public goods private or otherwise. The term neither implies government ownership or not.

    I just returned from a business law class....used my cell the whole way home. Cell phones will not ever go away. They may take on a different form, but you can't ban conversation.

    I think some of you may want to move to China or Korea to find laws more to your liking. DUI and phones virtually have nothing legally in common, while they both embody an issue regarding safety, conversations are 100% legal and protected by the Constitution (you guys remember that peice of paper?) and getting drunk is not. BTW, you can consume booze and drive and still not break the law, you just can't do it in a car...in most places. This implies that a little bit of booze if OK, just like a little bit of cell phone use - lol

    Besides, ANY law attempting to ban cell phones would be completely, utterly, unenforceable. PLUS, can you imagine the law suites that localities will face? The exposure is tremendous for them. That si why most of them of caving under legal pressure shortly after laws are envoked. Not to mention, not one of these laws has resulted in a decrease in fatalities.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    I just returned from a business law class....used my cell the whole way home.

    Yeah, I encounter guys like you all the time. Just yesterday I encountered a driver ahead of me with a cell phone on his ear on a long stretch of straight 2-lane highway. His speed was fluctuating, but I will admit he was keeping his car centered in the lane. This is not always the case. I finally passed him when I got the opportunity, not wanting to fluctuate in speed like he was.

    I also returned from a class yesterday, but I had planned ahead and made some calls before the class, made a call during a break and then waited until I got home to make another call on land line. Not rocket science to have paper day-planner with schedules and contacts or have a PDA such as old-fashioned Handspring Visor. Any frivolous or personal calls are usually made from home.

    AND roads are by definition a PUBLIC GOOD.

    What is that?

    DUI and phones virtually have nothing legally in common, while they both embody an issue regarding safety, conversations are 100% legal and protected by the Constitution

    Not necessarily so. I can think of many occassions where talk or conversation will get you arrested or fined or otherwise penalized.

    Besides, ANY law attempting to ban cell phones would be completely, utterly, unenforceable.

    Re laws banning drivers using cell phones. It would be possible to enforce this.

    PLUS, can you imagine the law suites that localities will face?

    Alternatively, perhaps drivers using a cell phone and causing a crash with injuries might have extra level of prosecution and face a law suite for negligence in driving. This is more likely.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    AND roads are by definition a PUBLIC GOOD.

    Toll roads are quasi at best. link
  • waterdrwaterdr Member Posts: 307
    I know, it is a true miracle I got home in one piece. At one point, it was a close call....I came within a 1/4 mile of hitting a bus, but by the skin of my teeth....or my blue tooth, I made it.

    I did, however, not break the law.

    And no, you can not, nor will you ever have an enforceable cell phone law. Need we go down this road again? OK...one more time....nearly every GM vehicle has On Star. Ford now has a similar hands free system. How they heck can Mr. Police Officer pull someone over for using these devices....let alone the countless other handsfree style devices available. It is just not possible.

    I am glad you can plan ahead.....I don't need to....I have a phone. Why sit in class for an extra 20 minutes when you can drive and talk? Phones are a great convenience....some of use can walk and chew gum at the same time.

    BTW, newsflash, if you truly cared about safety, you should not drive to class. You should take a class online. Would that not be the best use of time and technology? You risked your life and others just by driving to school when it could have been avoided. (tongue in cheek).

    There are so many more important issues in socierty when it comes to health and death threats. How about heart disease? Obesity? Or cancer? 1 in 330 children are diagnosed with cancer in this country before the age of 19.
  • waterdrwaterdr Member Posts: 307
    But it is because I can use it and so can you and when I use it, it does not use it up. Naturally, roads are built with resources and they need to be renewed, but they are available to all, and we all benefit from them even if we don't ever drive a car. We are all naturally dependant on them.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    I did, however, not break the law.

    I was watching an episode of cops where a driver was pulled over for some reason. Cops tested him and he had a BAC of .79. They gave him a citation and let him go. He, however, did not break the law either. Would you want him around you and your family on an expressway?

    And no, you can not, nor will you ever have an enforceable cell phone law

    And you can argue no law is enforceable if people en-masse decide to disobey it.

    am glad you can plan ahead.....I don't need to....I have a phone

    Sure and the next time they may be carting you and your family to the morgue because you have a phone and decided to use it inappropriately and didn't have the brain power to control your vehicle as needed by road conditions. That's the down side of freedom and liberty.

    There are so many more important issues in socierty when it comes to health and death threats.

    So we should get laws such as noise and public disorder off our books because people die of heart disease? I think not. You are never going to stop people from using hands-free, but a very stiff fine for driving like a drunk, ought to sober up the cell phone user. Some edumacation about the hazards of driving while your brain is impaired wouldn't hurt either.
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Phones are a great convenience....some of use can walk and chew gum at the same time.

    Here I was almost convinced that you were capable of acknowledging that talking on a cell phone could impair the drivers ability to react but then you have to go and revert back to troglodyte mode.

    Yes phones are a great convenience but equating talking on a cell phone while driving (two cognitively demanding tasks) to walking and chewing gum (simple motor skills) only demonstrates your ignorance.

    -Frank
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    There was an article in the local paper stating that anti-texting legislation was stalled in committee because some legislators didn’t believe that additional laws were necessary.

    The legislation was introduced in reaction to an incident where a 16-YO girl who was texting, crashed head-on into an oncoming car, killing both drivers.

    I’m a firm believer in personal responsibility so on one hand, I agree that making more laws accomplishes little. However on the other hand, some peoples total lack of common sense makes it necessary to pass laws which define acceptable behavior.

    Even if it’s not readily enforceable, having a law would hopefully raise the awareness of the potential dangers of driving while texting or talking on the phone

    In a very real sense, cell phone legislation is much like drunken driving legislation. There are countless occasions where drivers with far more than a .08 BAC have safely made it to their destination. But that doesn’t mean I want to be on the road with them. Similarly, the vast majority of the time, a driver having a heated conversation on the cell phone will also make it safely to their destination but that doesn’t change the fact that they were dangerously distracted from the act of driving and were at a much higher risk of causing an accident.

    -Frank
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    BTW, newsflash, if you truly cared about safety, you should not drive to class. You should take a class online. Would that not be the best use of time and technology?

    How can one take a black belt course online? Apparently, some law classes do not have 4th grade spelling proficiency as prerequisite.

    And no, you can not, nor will you ever have an enforceable cell phone law. Need we go down this road again? OK...one more time....nearly every GM vehicle has On Star.

    When total ban laws are enacted, On Star will be allowed only in emergencies such as in a car crash or medical emergency.

    Total ban has kind of started in my State. Drivers under 19 are not allowed to use a cell phone while driving.

    Besides a ban on frivolous driver cell phone conversations, the new ban laws should also cover drivers using their car as a rolling business office who conduct business calls while driving.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    "Pam Fischer, director of New Jersey's Division of Highway Traffic Safety, said officers will be on the lookout for telltale signs of distracted drivers _ slow driving and the "cell-phone weave."

    No Text Messages or Calls for NJ Drivers (Seattle Times)
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    I'll let you know how it goes. :)
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Yeah, if you see someone driving erratically you can call the cops on your cell.

    Hey, wait a minute... ;)
  • ponderpointponderpoint Member Posts: 277
    Just talked to a friend who is a cop and is now enabled to pull over motorists for cell phone use/texting and said the law was WAY overdue.

    His informal observation/fact finding from accidents/fender benders is that distracted drivers from cell phones/texting is a major growing problem that is causing more accidents than excessive speed, aggressive drivers and tailgaters.

    He is suppose to treat all traffic offenses equally but smiled slightly and said "The speeder may still get occasional warning.... The cell phone user will NOT!"

    That's a cops opinion, he's on the road more than anybody except perhaps a trucker/bus driver so the debate over cell phone use is pretty much a mute point for me.

    Also have a trucker in the family that is of the same opinion - "It was bad enough before cell phones, %#%$@ idiots that couldn't even stay in their lane or put their eyeballs out for trouble even back then!" I think he posted in this thread a while back and was not to impressed with the "experts" that were pro-use. Hates the internet anyway so you can snark away.... You'll be typing white letters on white paper.....

    I think I'm with him.... Last Post (seriously).... Snark away...
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    You probably are referring to NJ, but maybe not. There was an article in a NJ paper about a poll that lists the top 5 drivers pet peeves:

    1. don't remember
    2. texting
    3. aggressive driving
    4. tailgating by large trucks
    5. cell phone usage

    "The speeder may still get occasional warning.... The cell phone user will NOT!"

    I was pulled over by a state trooper for speeding (20+ very unlike me) and quick lane changing without signals (very unlike me). After a long day at the office, no alchohol, no cell phones, no distractions except my mind. Took my information and asked if record is clean. Said "yes". Came back a few minutes later with a written warning. To say I was surprised is an understatement but grateful at the same time. Easily could have nailed me. Even if people around you are doing the bad behavior and you are with the crowd, you still can get nailed.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Click here

    More proof of the pudding.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Hmm, it's not April 1 and it's not the Onion.

    It sure looks like a foxnews.com URL. :shades:
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I think I know the reason behind that behavior ModBob.

    And I think you'll agree with my premise. :shades:
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    It's just more of "all the world is a blog." It's a sickness. Although back in the day cbs were in order and one could strike up a conversation. At least it didn't require one to try to read and memorize a 10 digit phone number while cruising down the highway at 70.

    Hopefully the cops will be ticketing people who display them in the window.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,517
    Yesterday I saw an older guy yapping on his phone, weaving all over the left lane at 5-10 under the limit (and traffic flow). He was in a pristine 944 Turbo. It seemed so wrong.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    At least it didn't require one to try to read and memorize a 10 digit phone number while cruising down the highway at 70.

    That "prism" device has very small numbers. A better device, if it were legal, would project large letters/numbers on back window of car/suv such as: Chat?, Call me NNN-NNN-NNNN.

    But, who would be dumb enough to display their number on back window?

    Yesterday, I was in dentist waiting room and a woman left inner office with cell phone to her ear talking loudly. She walked across waiting room to exit door then out to parking lot. How "Stupid" and inconsiderate to do that and not wait perhaps 30 seconds until she was in her car or parking lot to make her call. Maybe antidote for this is to start singing loudly in the company of these boors.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    "the study released this week by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a nonpartisan public policy institute in California, says their new hand held cell phone ban is saving 300 lives each year."

    Cell phone ban while driving saves lives (KTBY.com)
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    The next time you see someone talking on a cell phone where it's illegal, just open up your favorite IM program and send a text message to the cops. Or email them.

    Chrysler to offer wireless Internet on 2009 models (Straightline)
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Due to the number accidents and deaths attributed to texting while walking, especially in the roadway, Illinois lawmakers are considering a ban on texting while walking. Aside from the further intrusion of the government to protect us from ourselves, one has to wonder if texting and walking is dangerous, how dangerous is texting and driving.

    My take, you can't legistate common sense. People who drive and text and who are caught, should be jailed as a minimum though.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,517
    The other day I saw a woman drinking a big iced coffee when she was driving. She was doing a good imitation of a drunk (all over her lane, 10mph under the limit, wouldn't get within 100 yards of the car in front of her). If texting while driving should put one in jail (in a nation with a criminal justice system as broken as it is in the US?), eating and smoking while driving should have severe penalties too.
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    My take, you can't legistate common sense. People who drive and text and who are caught, should be jailed as a minimum though.

    I'm all for personal responsibility and common sense but clearly both are becoming increasingly scarce in today's society.

    There have been numerous instances just in the past year where a teenage driver who was texting either had a head-on collision or ran off the road and rolled and these incidents invariably resulted in multiple fatalities.

    So... since you can't lock up a dead person, how do we prevent this from happening and protect other drivers from becoming innocent victims? How would you feel if a loved one was killed by someone texting while driving?

    -Frank
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    There are always those people who can't walk and chew gum. Drivers who can't drive and drink coffee are probably in the minority, in fact I can't even remember the last time I had a complaint about a coffee drinking driver. In fact, that driver you referered to might have been drunk or on medication.

    So if your point is any driver can do anything and be distracted from driving, I agree. But with electronic portable devices it's the lack of common sense and the percentage of usage. Since people don't seem to have enough common sense, the government will step in.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    So... since you can't lock up a dead person, how do we prevent this from happening and protect other drivers from becoming innocent victims? How would you feel if a loved one was killed by someone texting while driving?

    I can't control what other people do. All I can do is drive defensively. But those who cause wrongful death via electronic portable device, should be made to pay and laws should be in place to make that happen.

    Hey, I heard on the news a guy was awarded $750K when a golf ball went through his windshield and glass fragments entered his eye. After recovery his vision suffered.

    Cell phone usage while driving seems to be on the rise, but so do tickets being issued. I avoid being next to cell phone driving users like the plague, they cannot drive safely.
  • kendahlkendahl Member Posts: 3
    Modern cell phones contain a GPS receiver which can measure speed. The talking/texting problem would go away if the phones were programmed to drop the call anytime speed exceeded 10 mph. The only exception would be calls to 911.

    Personally, I would prefer summary execution at the side of the road. But that's just me.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,517
    Point taken about people lacking common sense...but one must remember the government is made up of people who have perhaps even less common sense than the masses in general, and seeing the distinct inability of the government to do much correctly over the past century, I wouldn't expect a logical solution from the public sector.

    There should be some kind of emphasis against all distracted driving - no matter if yapping or texting or eating or smoking or kid-tending etc. I wonder what the cost has been over the years by those who light up when driving.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,517
    The dedicated yappers would just get an old phone. I have an odd uncle who still uses a Nokia 51xx.
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    I don't see that happening because it would also prevent passengers from talking on their phone when the vehicle was moving.

    -Frank
  • waterdrwaterdr Member Posts: 307
    Droppping calls over 10 mph? I can see it now....people slowing down and slamming their brakes so they can make a call. Imagine all the rear-end collisions. Then, they will want a new cell phone lane on the highways. Which will go nicely next to the Car Pool Lane and the HyBrid Lane.

    No matter what law you pass with phones, there will always be an electronic solution to avoid it.

    We really should just get rid of all technology. Life, I think, was better for all of us when we lived in caves and drew on walls.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Life, I think, was better for all of us when we lived in caves and drew on walls.

    Well, I wasn't actually alive then. How old ARE you exactly?! :-P

    They managed more than 2500 cell phone tickets in the first couple of weeks of the new law here in California, but most people are still openly continuing their old habits. The fine is a joke, no points go on your record if you're ticketed, it's a much less severe infraction than speeding in the eyes of the law. And judging from what I see personally, I would say that about 95% of the drivers on the road are speeding on a regular basis.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

Sign In or Register to comment.

Your Privacy

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.