nationwide ban on the use of cell phones and text messaging devices while driving. [Archive]

alex grams

12-13-2011, 3:59 PM

You have no chance of this being enforced upon police. Police can speed/run signs/lights without using sirens or lights (which i abhore that they can do so). So enforcing this restriction upon them will never happen.

Also, as far as enforcing it on the general public, this is the law in Canada. Tickets are common for it, and while it may get a lot of retaliation at first, i think over time you could change the culture for people to accept it.

I would be fine if they wanted assess extra fines for people involved in accidents when it is proven they were talking/texting/etc on their phone while driving. I think that would be a next logical step before an all-out ban.

james glenn

12-13-2011, 4:15 PM

I should qualify my previous comment, that currently in NY a driver can talk on their cell phone while using a handsfree device. But they are not allowed to text or talk while holding the phone.

It hasn't been that big of a deal here, and didn't get a lot of resistance. Not sure how well it works, but police do pull people over when they see them talking or suspect they are texting.

Personally, I don't like talking on the phone much when not driving, so it doesn't bother me. However, I do see a lot of 'Distracted Drivers' out there not paying attention despite the law.

John Pratt

12-13-2011, 4:33 PM

Not sure how to vote on this one. I am tired of more and more laws telling us what to do, but at the same time I never text, talk, or other while driving. Not even a hands free device. Distracted driving is distracted driving. I remember in Germany when I was stationed there, that even if you were using a hands free device you would be cited in an accident for distracted driving and held liable. What about the screaming kids in the car, the lady putting on makeup (no offense ladies), the idiot eating a Big Mac and fries, working on a IPAD or computer, or even the radio playing. where does it stop? If you can make the case for one, surely someone can make the case for the others. I think it would come down to a court to decide in individual cases whether the driver was indeed "distracted". I think a lot of this stems from the big pile up in Missouri and some other accidents, but how do the numbers play out when compared to deaths from smoking, alcohol, etc and those are still legal.

ray hampton

12-13-2011, 5:22 PM

there is a number of things that we do not need to do while we are driving, sneezing is one of them that I dread

David Weaver

12-13-2011, 5:37 PM

Not into the idea of a ban of talking. Texting, yes, no problem with banning that, but we don't need more nanny laws.

Larry Edgerton

12-13-2011, 5:57 PM

glenn bradley

12-13-2011, 6:13 PM

People were driving distracted by putting on make-up, reading the newspaper or shaving long before cell phones became so prolific. We already had laws for such things but, we had to add a 'special' one for cell phones. More laws on the books, more loopholes for lawyers to cash in on (sorry all you lawyers out there but, you know . . . ). Even with the law in place I see people blatantly ignore it. If they get a ticket, it was "some dumb cops fault" for catching them :rolleyes: not their fault for ignoring the law. People who think safety is someone else's problem and act stupidly careless abound. I just wish they were held responsible for their own misbehavior instead of getting to sue someone for it. Rant over :D

John Coloccia

12-13-2011, 6:16 PM

David Larsen

12-13-2011, 6:44 PM

I think maybe the time has come for a national ban!

My first thought. There seems to be some validity to the exception for police. The police are there to save lives and protect the public. The phone is a tool to make that happen. Joe citizen is using his phone to conduct business or personal tasks. That falls short of saving lives and protecting the public in my book!

For those smart people out there: How do you know the cop is just talking to a friend, running the red light to get to the next donut shop, speeding to get to lunch? I would hope that the police officer isn't abusing the usage of the phone, speeding ,or running the red light for non-police business.

The federal government may be onto something. Sometimes they have to tell people what is the right thing to do. Something on this caliber shouldn't be left to each individual state to regulate.

Most people don't respect the responsibility that comes with operating a motor vehicle! Many of those people end up killing themselves in their quest. I just don't want one of them killing me in the process. They cannot handle the responsibility so maybe the privilage should be taken away from them.

Ken Fitzgerald

12-13-2011, 6:54 PM

They have a "no cell phone use" while driving in the State of Washington, and yet you will see a lot of drivers talking on cell phones and driving there.

You first have to convince people that safety is more important than talking on the cellphone.

Anthony Whitesell

12-13-2011, 6:57 PM

I gave up street bikes because of idiots on cell phones. Every time someone tried to kill me, they were on a phone.

Used to be you just had to look for blue hairs in Buicks

Ban GPS while you are at it. I just love that they build them into the dash with a nice big screen that you have to look away from the road to see. Brilliant!

Larry

Atleast the windwhield ones are in the corner of your eye and when looking at it the road is in the background. I don't care for the in dash one at all.

Anthony Whitesell

12-13-2011, 6:58 PM

And what should we do for the guy texting (or atleast looing at the phone) while driving...an 18 wheeler. Almost got hit by that one on Sunday.

Jason Roehl

12-13-2011, 7:08 PM

It's just another nanny law. Talking on a cellphone while driving is a skill. A good driver shouldn't have to think about what they are doing--it should be in the muscle memory and "second nature".

What's next, a law against talking to your passengers? Picking your nose? It's silly and needs to stop. We have hundreds of thousands of laws already, if not millions, and (I've heard) add something like 10,000+ nationwide each year. If you're distracted and cause an accident, it should be held against you and/or your insurance, no matter whether you're talking on a phone, reading the paper or putting on lipstick. If you're weaving all over the road, there are already laws against that (unsafe lane changes and the like).

David Larsen

12-13-2011, 7:44 PM

It's just another nanny law. Talking on a cellphone while driving is a skill. A good driver shouldn't have to think about what they are doing--it should be in the muscle memory and "second nature".

Many people aren't coordinated enough to do this. They will be the reason for the ban!

I personally don't want the uncoordinated/ distracted driver using the cellphone missing the stop sign that he/she was supposed to stop at and crashes into my vehicle injuring or killing my loved ones!

Alan Trout

12-13-2011, 7:55 PM

Frank Drew

12-13-2011, 8:03 PM

Before everyone gets their knickers all in an uproar, this is NOT another draconian federal law about to take effect, it's a recommendation from the NTSB, and it doesn't have the force of law. Of course, it does have the force of logic and common sense behind it -- as borne out by the accident statistics -- but don't anyone let that get in the way of a good Nanny State rant. (NTSB=National Transportation SAFETY Board; this is what they're supposed to do, this is what they get paid to do, make recommendations on matters of SAFETY. Sheesh!)

People, if you want to talk or text on your cellphones while in your cars, please pull over, or even stay in your own driveways while you do it; just don't come on the roads with the rest of us and not pay complete attention to driving. Thank you. (Most of us think that we're highly-skilled multi-taskers, it's everyone else who isn't.

Right.)

John Coloccia

12-13-2011, 8:28 PM

Before everyone gets their knickers all in an uproar, this is NOT a federal law about to take effect, it's a recommendation from the NTSB, without the force of law. Of course, it does have the force of logic and common sense behind it, as borne out by the accident statistics, but don't anyone let that get in the way of a good Nanny State rant.

Uh, the NTSB is calling for a nationwide ban. The states already have the power to regulate cell phone use while driving, and many have. This is the wonderful part about living in the United States. You have the freedom to move to whichever state you wish and to choose a state that has the kind of laws you prefer.

So I'm not sure what we're talking about if we're not talking about federal legislation, or at a minimum economic pressure, to enact such a ban since the states already have all the power they need to do so, and have been doing so (or NOT) as they see fit for some time now.

Now if you REALLY want to make a dent in accident statistics, ban alcohol and driving. That accounts for 40% of traffic fatalities. A lot more people use a cell phone than drive drunk, and far more drunk drivers cause accidents than cell phone users. I don't think people would take too kindly to being told that they can't drive for 8 hours after having any alcohol, but I'm sure there are many that would be just fine with that. Common sense would then dictate that states should adopt a zero tolerance alcohol policy as it would save far more lives than a cell phone ban.

:::shrug:::

Dave Lehnert

12-13-2011, 9:01 PM

Driving is a privilege not a right. So not sure if any argument for cell use would have any traction.

Frank Drew

12-13-2011, 9:21 PM

John,

Not to beat this issue to death, but this, from a news article in today's NY Times:

"A federal traffic safety agency is recommending that states prohibit all drivers from using cellphones, for talking or texting. The National Transportation Safety Board said on Tuesday that it had voted to recommend the ban... The agency said it is recommending that drivers be allowed to use their phones for emergency purposes. The N.T.S.B., an independent federal agency that is responsible for promoting traffic safety and investigating accidents and their causes. [I]It will be up to the states to decide whether they want to follow the agency’s recommendation." (Italics added by me.)

As for the comparison with alcohol, every state already does have a zero tolerance policy with regards to drinking and driving, so I'm not sure of your point. More relevant to this discussion, though, most who've studied cell phone use while driving, including the private enterprise, non-governmental Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, have concluded that it's very likely as risky as driving and drinking.

"An Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study that relied on driver phone records found a 4-fold increase in the risk of injury crashes associated with phoning. A study in Canada found a 4-fold increase in the risk of crashes involving property damage. The crash risk associated with texting hasn't been quantified as precisely, but it may be comparable, if not greater, than the risk associated with phoning."

John Coloccia

12-13-2011, 9:48 PM

Just like the NTSB recommended passive restraints (automatic seatbelts/airbags), for example. It IS up to the states to decide, not because the NTSB allows it to be so, but simply because we haven't passed a national law yet. There are those of us that feel these decisions belong at the state level. I understand the article and the concept of a recommendation perfectly fine, and I also have a good memory and understanding of history, and specifically in this case for what historically happens with NTSB recommendations.

And this entire thread is about the concept of a national cell phone ban, not whether individual states should do it, which they're already free to do anyway.

Dan Friedrichs

12-13-2011, 10:08 PM

If they ban cell phone use they need to ban eating, applying makeup, holding your dog, listening to the radio, CD, MP3, Talking to any others in the car. No kids in the car because they are distraction, No CB, No drinking of any liquids, no smoking, etc. It can be get pretty ridiculous.

The problem with cell phones is not necessarily that you're holding the phone - is that you're holding a conversation with someone not in the car. When you're talking with a passenger, he won't think it's odd if you pause for a minute while navigating a difficult intersection. But when you're talking on the phone, you make an unconscious effort to maintain "normal" conversation, even when you momentarily need 100% of your attention.

Numerous studies have shown that handsfree devices do not afford significantly more safety over handheld devices.

Frank Drew

12-13-2011, 10:30 PM

Just like the NTSB recommended passive restraints (automatic seatbelts/airbags), for example.

That was the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), a different agency, not the NTSB.
"The NHTSA [part of the Dept. of Transportation] is charged with writing and enforcing safety, theft-resistance, etc... standards for motor vehicles."

Greg Peterson

12-13-2011, 10:31 PM

Not into the idea of a ban of talking. Texting, yes, no problem with banning that, but we don't need more nanny laws.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Banning texting and cell phones while driving is about protecting the other drivers, riders and pedestrians.

John Coloccia

12-13-2011, 10:46 PM

That was the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), a different agency, not the NTSB.
"The NHTSA [part of the Dept. of Transportation] is charged with writing and enforcing safety, theft-resistance, etc... standards for motor vehicles."

You're right. Passive restraints came from NHTSA. From Wikipedia, NTSB recommendations that have been adopted include:

"Graduated drivers license laws for young drivers, age-21 drinking laws, smart airbag technology, rear high-mounted brake lights, commercial drivers licenses, improved school bus construction standards."

If I thought about it, I could probably name more.

FWIW, I'm just going to check out now before the thread gets derailed and has to be nuked.

Kevin W Johnson

12-13-2011, 11:42 PM

The problem with cell phones is not necessarily that you're holding the phone - is that you're holding a conversation with someone not in the car. When you're talking with a passenger, he won't think it's odd if you pause for a minute while navigating a difficult intersection. But when you're talking on the phone, you make an unconscious effort to maintain "normal" conversation, even when you momentarily need 100% of your attention.

Numerous studies have shown that handsfree devices do not afford significantly more safety over handheld devices..

I disagree with this. The person on the other end likely knows your driving and reacts the same way as a passenger. If not, tell them so.

As for studies? They can easily fall into the same category as polls, and easily manipulated to produce the desired outcome to match a bias or support an agenda.

No texting is a given. I can live with and encourage requiring hands-free devices while driving, but an outright ban on talking, NO.

Greg Peterson

12-14-2011, 12:17 AM

The problem with cell phones is not necessarily that you're holding the phone - is that you're holding a conversation with someone not in the car. When you're talking with a passenger, he won't think it's odd if you pause for a minute while navigating a difficult intersection. But when you're talking on the phone, you make an unconscious effort to maintain "normal" conversation, even when you momentarily need 100% of your attention.

Numerous studies have shown that handsfree devices do not afford significantly more safety over handheld devices.

Bingo! This is the nut of the problem. A conversation with a passenger is not the same as a conversation on a telephone. Entirely different protocols.

For those who think they can do both, try watching a hockey game on the TV and talk to an old high school buddy you haven't talked to in years. If you feel you are able to give your complete, undivided attention to both activities you are a better engineered person than I. Feel free to tailgate me during commuting traffic.

ray hampton

12-14-2011, 12:32 AM

do the driver that talk on a cell phone turn the radio off first, will this rule affect airplane pilots ?

Kevin W Johnson

12-14-2011, 1:49 AM

Bingo! This is the nut of the problem. A conversation with a passenger is not the same as a conversation on a telephone. Entirely different protocols.

For those who think they can do both, try watching a hockey game on the TV and talk to an old high school buddy you haven't talked to in years. If you feel you are able to give your complete, undivided attention to both activities you are a better engineered person than I. Feel free to tailgate me during commuting traffic.

Yeah, I feel so much safer with people having conversations with other people in the car, when they are constantly turning their head towards the passenger and talking with hand gestures. If you think for one second that people having conversations in the car aren't distracted the same as those on a hands-free cell phone call, it's possible you're a bit naive.

With 2600 (from yr 2009) deaths attributed to cell phones compared to nearly 11,773 (from yr 2008) for alcohol related crashes, it's clear where we need to focus attention most.

Jason Roehl

12-14-2011, 6:19 AM

Keep in mind, too, that the problem with drunk driving is not that there aren't enough laws against it--it's the lack of enforcement (or selective enforcement) of the already existing laws that is the problem. So adding more laws that the police can't enforce (or do so randomly/selectively) is going to help us how?

How many of you drive on a few hours of sleep or after a long day at work? What about while taking any medication? High risk of stroke or heart attack? Those are all huge risk factors for accidents. Truck drivers are limited to 11 hours per day and 70 hours per week on the road--how many of you always stay within those limits? (Not illegal for non-commercial drivers to exceed them, but there's a reason that CDL holders have to abide).

Rich Engelhardt

12-14-2011, 7:39 AM

I voted - no - I don't do bans anymore.

Bill Edwards(2)

12-14-2011, 8:07 AM

It's hard to back ANOTHER "Protect us from ourselves" law, but until driver license

testing includes such things as proving you can walk and chew gum at the same time,

it's all we got.

And as for privilege, not a right, that may have been a good definition when people didn't

have to commute to work, but these days driving should at least be considered a

necessity.

Belinda Barfield

12-14-2011, 8:21 AM

It's hard to back ANOTHER "Protect us from ourselves" law, but until driver license

testing includes such things as proving you can walk and chew gum at the same time,

it's all we got.

Here in Georgia you have the option to renew a driver's license by Internet for either 5 or 8 years up to age 59, then you can only renew for 5 years due to the requirement of vision testing at age 65. :eek: A lot can change in eight years. Speaking of distracted driving, I know a couple in their 60s who take their teenaged granddaughter and a friend to Disney World every summer. Both of the grandparents drive with earbuds so they can listen to their Ipods during the trip. I do not understand this insanity.

Paul McGaha

12-14-2011, 8:24 AM

My wifes car is being repaired right now. She was stopped at a red light, in line with other cars, someone hit her from behind knocking her car into the car in front of her.

We dont know if the person that hit her was using their cell phone or smart phone at the time or not, certainly a possibility.

I voted for the ban. The smallest lack of attention at just the wrong time could result in people being seriously injured or killed. I think the cell phone laws would probably be helpful so I'm for them.

PHM

David Weaver

12-14-2011, 8:26 AM

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Banning texting and cell phones while driving is about protecting the other drivers, riders and pedestrians.

If you want to protect everyone from cars, ban cars. Make everyone ride a bus, put the bus on rails so it's more safe, ban people from talking while the bus is moving.

Ban everything that is remotely unsafe. That's the end. The line of thinking that you can just define a narrow line of thinking and action to make everyone perfectly safe from everyone else is overreaching and bordering on a disorder.

Robert McGowen

12-14-2011, 8:48 AM

Police can speed/run signs/lights without using sirens or lights (which i abhore that they can do so).

Not to get off topic, but this is absolutely not true in Texas, which location shows you are in. The above actions can be done only when using a siren. The flashing lights are not legally required, but are almost always used when the siren is also being used.

David Weaver

12-14-2011, 9:06 AM

And as for privilege, not a right, that may have been a good definition when people didn't

have to commute to work

Yeah, that's nothing but claptrap until you aren't paying taxes for roads and maintenance and such if you're not driving. It's a definition that exists as such for legal purposes more than for practical purposes.

Matt Meiser

12-14-2011, 9:24 AM

My wifes car is being repaired right now. She was stopped at a red light, in line with other cars, someone hit her from behind knocking her car into the car in front of her.

We dont know if the person that hit her was using their cell phone or smart phone at the time or not, certainly a possibility.

I was the middle car in the exact same accident in 1992. Pretty sure he wasn't texting.

put the bus on rails so it's more safe

One word: Amtrak.

Kevin Gregoire

12-14-2011, 10:13 AM

i just seen this morning on GA they were talking that congress wants to ban all types of cell phones including hands free devices
saying talking while driving can be just to distracting.

now i agree about getting rid of any hand type devices but im not so sure about hands free types.
i wonder how Ford feels about this with there new Sync system or whatever its called?

*off topic*
i wonder why i never get any emails from here when someone replies to my post?

Paul McGaha

12-14-2011, 10:16 AM

Some of this may have to do with where you live and the quality of the drivers in the area.

I live in a suburb of Washington, DC. Any idea that might help these people drive better I'm for.

PHM

Belinda Barfield

12-14-2011, 10:50 AM

Some of this may have to do with where you live and the quality of the drivers in the area.

I live in a suburb of Washington, DC. Any idea that might help these people drive better I'm for.

PHM

I lived in the Hilton Head Island area for a while and had to go on to the island every day. Talk about distracted drivers! Lots of retired folks being told by their wives (typically) where to go and when to turn - cross four lanes of traffic to make a last minute left turn. This was pre GPS, so now I guess they have a passenger and a GPS telling them when to turn. Also a lot of family vacationers with three or four kids hanging out of the SUV windows. Oh, and those SC resident drivers are notorious for driving slow in the left lane.

Bill Edwards(2)

12-14-2011, 11:21 AM

One word: Amtrak.

I agree, but thanks to GM, Big oil(don't remember which) and one of the big tire
companies, that's not going to really happen.
But then it would probably end up like the airline industry. We sure don't seem to know
how to run big competative businesses in this country.

Brian Elfert

12-14-2011, 11:37 AM

Someone mentioned Canada bans cell phone use while driving. Not true. They ban hand-held cell phones. Only one province bans cell phone use all together while driving.

Matt Meiser

12-14-2011, 12:12 PM

I agree, but thanks to GM, Big oil(don't remember which) and one of the big tire
companies, that's not going to really happen.
But then it would probably end up like the airline industry. We sure don't seem to know
how to run big competative businesses in this country.

I was thinking more to the safety aspect. Then there's their inability to get somewhere on-time.

Larry Browning

12-14-2011, 12:52 PM

Is it illegal drive while blindfolded? Or does that fall under some sort of a general unsafe driving law? Just wondering.

David Weaver

12-14-2011, 12:55 PM

I was thinking more to the safety aspect.

I'm not sure how the buses here are for people in them, but they're pretty hard on pedestrians around town.

Brian Loucks

12-14-2011, 1:01 PM

Here in NY, as stated above, cell use and texting are banned while driving. At least in my area of upstate NY it doesn't seem to be enforced on a regular basis. This past Sunday a friend of mine got rear ended by a speeding drunk texting idiot as she was turning into her driveway. Totaled her car, wrecked her knee, out of school and work. He got 3 tickets, which with the right lawyer will cost him a bit of money, but he will be back on the road in no time.
And the soapbox goes to...

Andrew Pitonyak

12-14-2011, 1:09 PM

You have no chance of this being enforced upon police. Police can speed/run signs/lights without using sirens or lights (which i abhore that they can do so). So enforcing this restriction upon them will never happen.

The law enforcement that I know personally (local and federal) pretty much do what they want (reasonable speeding, whatever that means) and then use the badge to not get a ticket. One of them complained to me that his son had no respect for the law and would speed a lot.... and I was thinking "duh, he watches you". Last time I saw the son, he was driving so far under the speed limit it was a bit funny to remember his past behavior.... and I was thinking "really, you drive race cars now".

If there is a total ban, on cell phone use in cars I will reinstall the electronic gear I used to have in my cars. After I run the power through the firewall, I might as well go all the way. CB, Ham (2-meter mostly), and Scanners. Never had much use for HF in a car, however.

Matt Meiser

12-14-2011, 1:11 PM

speeding drunk texting

Well, there you go, we need a ban on speeding drunk texting too.

Bill Edwards(2)

12-14-2011, 1:13 PM

I was thinking more to the safety aspect. Then there's their inability to get somewhere on-time.

Billy Goat Gruff :D

Kind of tough to be on time when the people who own the track you use, would just
as soon you failed.

Larry Browning

12-14-2011, 1:15 PM

got rear ended by a speeding drunk texting idiot as she was turning into her driveway. .
Whew, took me a while to figure out that the speeding drunk wasn't the one turning into her driveway. I thought, "why would his friend get 3 tickets for getting rear ended?".

Mike Henderson

12-14-2011, 1:45 PM

I'll add a comment about GPS. I use GPS a lot and find that I drive a lot safer with it than without it. The main reason is that the GPS gives me lots of warning about an upcoming turn. Before GPS I'd be trying to read the street names on those corner posts, and many were so small that you couldn't read the name until you got right on top of the sign. Then, if I missed a turn, I'd be trying to figure out how to get back. Talk about distracted. With GPS, I get several notices of an upcoming turn, both speech and on the screen, and it tells me exactly how far it is to my turn. And if I miss a turn, the GSP just recalculates and takes me another route. And when I reach my destination, it tells me on what side of the street the office (or store, or whatever) is so I can get into the correct lane to turn into the parking lot.

No, in my opinion, GPS improves driving safety instead of diminishing it.

Mike

Ben Hatcher

12-14-2011, 2:04 PM

Stealing is illegal. Is there another law that bans taking something without paying for it? A distraction is a distraction.

Randy Alkins

12-14-2011, 2:04 PM

What is so important that you have to be in constant contact while driving. If it is an emergency they should be calling 911 not you. If it is you boss he is extrememy inconsiderate to assume he is so important that you MUST answer him immediately. Don't give me the doctor crap; You can not perform brain surgery over the phone so don't talk on it while driving. You are putting me in danger.

Bill Edwards(2)

12-14-2011, 2:44 PM

I don't really understand the "Constant" contact thing either.

I think my phone has rang once in public.

And to show how foolish I think it is, if I was standing next to you
and my cell rang, this is what you'd hear:

http://www.billsid.com/snds/billring.mp3

Brandon Windes

12-14-2011, 2:46 PM

Most places distracted driving is already against the rules. The problem with a ban is. The people that are already breaking the rules that would be trying to text with the phone in their hand up in the "10&2" position on the steering wheel and glancing partially away (much like checking the rear view mirror), will now be texting with the phone in their lap, completely losing sight of the road and with no peripheral warnings of anything. I would have to look up the actual statistics but going the length of a football field only takes a couple of seconds when going just over 30mph. Distracted driving is very dangerous. I just don't know if another knee jerk reaction law is the solution. At some level if there was a way to prove it one should be at fault no matter what if you are a distracted driver. It’s kind of like on the Autobahn over in Germany, Yes you can drive as fast as you want in certain areas but after you go over a certain speed (over 120kph), you are going to be liable for the accident even if it wasn't "your fault".

David Weaver

12-14-2011, 3:05 PM

I sit in a high position when I'm on the way home from work. I can see down into cars, and I see cars in three different scenarios - on the freeway, on a road that is not limited access, but going 3/4ths of freeway speed, and at stoplights.

Nearly all of the texting I see is on the last two. When people are talking on the phone on the freeway (I have not seen people texting out there, in heavy traffic at least. If I've seen it any other time, i don't remember it), they tend to drive a little slower while they're talking. That's an inconvenience, but with traffic all heading in the same direction, it's not really a safety problem.

I'd guess that while you can find texting and cell phone responsible for a lot of accidents, you will find that the severity of the accidents they've involved in is less than other causes (speeding and drunk driving, etc) because a lot of the texting is done by people either at lights or when they're driving somewhere that doesn't seem to them to demand full attention.

I do not next or talk on the phone while I'm driving. I don't do it because I don't like to do it, I think it's irritating as a driver to have to try to pay attention to more than one thing at a time. I don't think that just because I feel that it's irritating that it should be banned for everyone else. We're going way overboard prosecuting/persecuting people who could possibly cause harm as opposed to people who have caused harm.

I wonder how many deaths are caused by people fidgeting with their radio, why not make those illegal, too? When someone gets killed while texting, it practically becomes a national news story. When someone dies fidgeting with their radio, it probably doesn't get out of the township.

Andrew Pitonyak

12-14-2011, 3:26 PM

Now if you REALLY want to make a dent in accident statistics, ban alcohol and driving. That accounts for 40% of traffic fatalities. A lot more people use a cell phone than drive drunk, and far more drunk drivers cause accidents than cell phone users. I don't think people would take too kindly to being told that they can't drive for 8 hours after having any alcohol, but I'm sure there are many that would be just fine with that. Common sense would then dictate that states should adopt a zero tolerance alcohol policy as it would save far more lives than a cell phone ban.

Zero tolerance might then mean I have to wait eight hours after communion to drive.... Time to buy a horse :-)

I remember when they lowered the legal level here in Ohio. As soon as it passed they said something like "this will have no effect.... but we sent a message". Near as I can figure, I can get a ticket even if I am not legally drunk as long as I am impaired (according to those cops in my family).

Andrew Pitonyak

12-14-2011, 3:28 PM

Well, there you go, we need a ban on speeding drunk texting too.

I am on the fence.... Should we ban, or encourage, "drunk speed texting"

Jeff Monson

12-14-2011, 5:42 PM

My truck has a blue tooth hands free device for my phone. After using this for a little over a year now, I cant stand trying to hold my phone and talk while driving. The hands free devices make it very easy to drive and talk on a phone, no different than talking to a passenger. Dialing, answering and talking, are all done with a push of a button on the steering wheel, and voice commands. The more of these that auto mfgs. implement into new cars the better IMO.

Bryan Morgan

12-14-2011, 6:53 PM

As much as I hate people yacking on the phone I don't think the Feds have the authority to impose something like this. I know they think they are gods and all, but it is my understanding that if it isn't in the Constitution, they can't do it. I'm pretty much against the Feds telling anyone what they can and can't do. We defeated a lot of Brits who behaved like that.

David Larsen

12-14-2011, 7:39 PM

An excellent texting and driving video.
http://www.mountainwings.com/past/10363.htm

This one is even better.
http://ut.zerofatalities.com/texting.php
Pay special attention to the message at the 13:33 mark! That pretty much sums up this entire debate.

And since I am on the subject, the experts say that using a cellphone for talking or texting is similar to driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The following video is the most moving ad I have ever seen. Watching this will make you think! *(warning: it is graphic)
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Z2mf8DtWWd8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Z2mf8DtWWd8)

Jeff Nicol

12-14-2011, 8:02 PM

I do not agree. I have used hands free devices for over 10 years and would not use a phone any other way in a vehicle. If I could not use my phone while driving it would destroy my business. I drive 3 to 5 hours a day and I have to answer my calls or I do not get jobs. If I do not answer they go to the next guy and so on.

I do think if you are driving it needs to be with a hands free device and no texting. But that is common sense.

If they ban cell phone use they need to ban eating, applying makeup, holding your dog, listening to the radio, CD, MP3, Talking to any others in the car. No kids in the car because they are distraction, No CB, No drinking of any liquids, no smoking, etc. It can be get pretty ridiculous.

The government cannot prevent stupidity. But they will try. What a shame.

Alan

I think Alan is correct oneverything he said, if you know what common sense is and know how to use it, what to do and what not to do while driving and in every other aspect of life. Like a buddy of mine always says: " You can fix ugly, with enough money and time, but you can't fix stupid!" Even the ugly part is a tough fix sometimes, but if there is character and pride in your heart everyone can be a "10".

We already have the 10's 0f thousands of laws, regulations, and rules that are on the books, many of them are outdated and have no bearing on where we are today, but if you go to many cities, states and the federal government you will find the some the most unbelievable laws. Just like the tax code, when will it stop???????? only when we realize that we are better at taking care of ourselves than any government entity will ever do. So make the fine for inattentive driving stiff enough to deter the next knucklehead from doing it, say like if you cause an accident because you were talking on a handset, eating a burger, watching a movie(have seen it many times) make up, reading a book(also a scary thing I have witnessed!), and others you pay a $5000.00 fine and loss of driving privilages for a year other than for work, may get the point across. Maybe the national debt could be worked off that way!

So to end this, if we all respect ourselves and do what we would want others to do in their lives that effect us and themselves we all will get and give the same respect needed to maintain a sane nation and world.

Common sense is key, it is just that simple,

Jeff

Curt Fuller

12-14-2011, 8:17 PM

I drive a truck for a living, local delivery, usually in or around town and in traffic. What amazes me is that people have to be told that driving while distracted is dangerous and that they shouldn't do it. I think everyone that does much driving has experienced multiple (usually many times every day) situations where someone on their phone talking or texting has either almost caused an accident or at least a major traffic disruption. So why would you think that you're immune from that. The fact is that driving and talking is dangerous because you usually don't even realize you're causing a problem. Sure there are times when you can probably get away without causing an accident. But isn't it a little selfish to think that your call or text is more important than everyone else that's driving along with you.

Belinda Barfield

12-14-2011, 10:18 PM

So to end this, if we all respect ourselves and do what we would want others to do in their lives that effect us and themselves we all will get and give the same respect needed to maintain a sane nation and world.

Common sense is key, it is just that simple,

Jeff

Ahh, and there's the rub. We have raised a society of selfish, self serving, self absorbed individuals who do not understand the concept of self respect and "do unto others". If we had people who understand that what they do in their lives effects others we wouldn't have OWS or occupy the ports. Common sense? Seemingly a thing of the past.

Greg Peterson

12-14-2011, 11:48 PM

Having been on the receiving end of a driver that was 'distracted', I can say that it is not fun. My vehicle was totaled and my passengers neck/back have never been the same since. But there is an inherent risk we all accept when we drive on public roads.

Banning a device that is by its very nature is an obvious and serious distraction seems a reasonable and logical action. I fail to see how increasing the general public safety is a bad thing.

If you want to protect everyone from cars, ban cars. Make everyone ride a bus, put the bus on rails so it's more safe, ban people from talking while the bus is moving.

Ban everything that is remotely unsafe. That's the end. The line of thinking that you can just define a narrow line of thinking and action to make everyone perfectly safe from everyone else is overreaching and bordering on a disorder.

I don't 'want' to protect everyone from everything. Not sure how or why you would infer that was my meaning, but whatever. It's the Internet.

Sure eating and fiddling with the radio are serious distractions and I believe cause more accidents than cell phones. But at the time I heard that report texting wasn't as ubiquitous as it is now. And I would be surprised if the trend was going to be declining any time soon.

But the notion that all distractions (eating, radios, passenger conversations...) should be banned or none at all seems a bit odd.

Daniel Berlin

12-15-2011, 1:14 AM

It's just another nanny law. Talking on a cellphone while driving is a skill. A good driver shouldn't have to think about what they are doing--it should be in the muscle memory and "second nature".
There is literally no evidence to support this, and mounds of research that shows the exact opposite:
People think they are significantly better at multitasking than they are, and in fact, we just split our time and think we aren't.
In this particular case, MRI's show that focusing on conversation and the road both use the same part of the brain, and it is literally not possible to perform both to the same effective as both alone.

Matt Meiser

12-15-2011, 7:36 AM

Seems like an MRI while driving would be a big distraction. :)

Karl Card

12-15-2011, 7:58 AM

I voted YES only because it would be VERY little improvement over hands on. I feel anything whethere it is in your hand or not is a mental distraction. I see way to many people all over the road with a cell phone, KUDOS to those of you who use a cell while driving and still drive good. Me myself and I do not drive good while onthe phone so I do not do that myself, and I also thank God for giving me the ability to know that I am not good at doing that.

Rich Engelhardt

12-15-2011, 8:02 AM

As much as I hate people yacking on the phone I don't think the Feds have the authority to impose something like this. I know they think they are gods and all, but it is my understanding that if it isn't in the Constitution, they can't do it
The feds collect a gas tax, then decide who gets it back & how much for funding highway projects.
You don't dance to their tune and the taxes they collected from your state go somewhere else.

David Weaver

12-15-2011, 8:07 AM

But the notion that all distractions (eating, radios, passenger conversations...) should be banned or none at all seems a bit odd.

I can't see why a driver should be allowed to eat, shave or put on makeup if they are not allowed to talk on the cellphone while they're driving.

Standing waiting for public trans in the morning (right by a busy road), I often see people using an electric razor as they go by or putting on makeup.

I don't think any of it should be illegal, actually, but if you ban one, you should ban them all - go right down the list of items that cause the most fatal accidents and ban them, make the law include a list of actions instead of one specific one.

I think from what i could find, phones are a factor in a lot of accidents. Whether they're the only factor in most of them, who knows. What the statistics that I did find also led me to believe was that the accidents that cause fatality are much more highly skewed toward drunk driving and excessive speed, assuming that accidents are attributed to one cause in the end (i.e., the numbers were something along the lines of 70% of fatal accidents were attributable to either drunk driving or excessive speed, and 25% of accidents overall include a phone were statistics given with the summary of one study. Obviously, there is a logic gap somewhere there, where having a list of accidents and fatal accidents separately with statistics would be nice).

If phones caused a large % of fatal accidents, or were the main factor in them, I think the article would've listed that.

Myk Rian

12-15-2011, 8:10 AM

My Wife's new Taurus has SYNC. It connects through Bluetooth. It's great and she loves it. Mind you, she is not the type to get in a car and on the phone before starting it. She uses the phone more than I do, but she isn't a talky-talky-on-the-phone person.
I can use my GPS to link my phone, but I rarely get, or make phone calls.

This proposed law is totally un-enforceable. Heck, what will Legislators' Wives do when stopped for talking on a cell?

Rich Engelhardt

12-15-2011, 8:21 AM

Heck, what will Legislators' Wives do when stopped for talking on a cell?
Exempt themselves from the law probably.
That sort of thing has been the trend for some time now..

Jason Roehl

12-15-2011, 8:51 AM

Seems like an MRI while driving would be a big distraction. :)

Now that was funny right there, I don't care who y'are.

Curt Harms

12-15-2011, 9:34 AM

Bah. Beyond just being a bad idea for government in general to stick their nose into everything, I certainly don't see what business the federal government has telling people how they may behave in their own states. It's just really none of their business. If a state wants to do that, fine. I'll not be for it but at least it will be done at the right level.

In Pennsylvania a some years ago, there was a ...... contest...... between the Commonwealth & Feds re a mandatory use seat belt law. Feds wanted it, PA. did not. PA. said "you can't make us". Feds said "true, but we CAN withhold tens or hundreds of millions in federal highway funding if you don't pass this law." Nothing like a little good ol' blackmail. I think New Hampshire was the only one to tell 'em to get stuffed.

Greg Peterson

12-15-2011, 10:08 AM

I can't see why a driver should be allowed to eat, shave or put on makeup if they are not allowed to talk on the cellphone while they're driving.

Standing waiting for public trans in the morning (right by a busy road), I often see people using an electric razor as they go by or putting on makeup.

I don't think any of it should be illegal, actually, but if you ban one, you should ban them all - go right down the list of items that cause the most fatal accidents and ban them, make the law include a list of actions instead of one specific one.

I think from what i could find, phones are a factor in a lot of accidents. Whether they're the only factor in most of them, who knows. What the statistics that I did find also led me to believe was that the accidents that cause fatality are much more highly skewed toward drunk driving and excessive speed, assuming that accidents are attributed to one cause in the end (i.e., the numbers were something along the lines of 70% of fatal accidents were attributable to either drunk driving or excessive speed, and 25% of accidents overall include a phone were statistics given with the summary of one study. Obviously, there is a logic gap somewhere there, where having a list of accidents and fatal accidents separately with statistics would be nice).

If phones caused a large % of fatal accidents, or were the main factor in them, I think the article would've listed that.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Eating, fiddling with the radio and bickering offspring in the back seat are distractions. But because these distractions already exist we should allow new ones to emerge in addition? Who knows what other technologies or societal trends will introduce more distractions. Should we make room for these potential distractions simply on the basis that other distractions already exist? The more the merrier it seems.

The line needs to be drawn somewhere, otherwise there are virtually no limits.

Frank Drew

12-15-2011, 10:12 AM

I can't see why a driver should be allowed to eat, shave or put on makeup if they are not allowed to talk on the cellphone while they're driving.

David, perhaps you've heard the saying, "The perfect can be the enemy of the good"? If we can't have perfection we shouldn't try for any improvements? Is that your argument?

I don't think any of it should be illegal, actually, but... I think from what i could find, phones are a factor in a lot of accidents. What the statistics that I did find also led me to believe was that the accidents that cause fatality are much more highly skewed toward drunk driving and excessive speed

Both drunk driving and excessive speed are already illegal in every jurisdiction, and offenders are frequently prosecuted, of course.

Obviously, there is a logic gap somewhere there.

Agree.:D

Matt Meiser

12-15-2011, 10:23 AM

Texting has existed for several years now, so by your criteria it actually shouldn't be banned. I believe satellite and HD radio and GPS are actually newer--would they be included in your "newly created distraction" ban? How about looking at these new electronic billboards that change?

Related, I've often wondered how many texting bans specifically ban "texting?" If they do, then Tweeting, Facebook, Google searching, email, forum posting, etc are all legal. I actually think that's hilarious because its what happens when old-fart political types create laws to solve a problem they don't understand.

David Weaver

12-15-2011, 10:31 AM

David, perhaps you've heard the saying, "The perfect can be the enemy of the good"? If we can't have perfection we shouldn't try for any improvements? Is that your argument?

I'm saying that perfect safety on the road isn't the only consideration. If it were, we would just ban something annually, and regulate additions to cars that provide marginal benefit but make driving a miserable though functional experience.

Something like:
* no phone, no radio, no visibility impairments in car design (bye bye high deck lid and thick C pillars)
* an electronic system that requires the driver to check in with the car every 20 seconds
* a visual and audio recording of the driver 100% of the time

Little increments will get you there.

Driving a car is inherently unsafe, and it always will be until people are not driving the cars. My opinion is that it is materially safe now (this is obviously subjective) because the two biggest contributors to fatalities are already illegal and taken care of.

Pecking away at the little bits that are left will just make driving miserable without a material effect on fatalities. As I stated above, I don't use the phone in the car - personal choice. I don't believe penalizing people for something that a lot of folks can do quite capably is the answer though. Penalize the folks who proved after the fact that they couldn't do such a thing quite capably. It's very easy with cell phones to prove who was on the phone at the time of an accident.

I really don't have any interest in living in a society that decides that iterative regulation and laws are the answer, there is never any wrap-back of the iterations that have already been made, and we just in the end get to be lifeless, freedomless rule-mongering automatons.

Belinda Barfield

12-15-2011, 10:41 AM

I don't believe penalizing people for something that a lot of folks can do quite capably is the answer though. Penalize the folks who proved after the fact that they couldn't do such a thing quite capably. It's very easy with cell phones to prove who was on the phone at the time of an accident.

I really don't have any interest in living in a society that decides that iterative regulation and laws are the answer, there is never any wrap-back of the iterations that have already been made, and we just in the end get to be lifeless, freedomless rule-mongering automatons.

I just don't want to be one of the statistics after the fact. How many people were killed by drunk drivers before DUI laws were put in place? About a month ago three people were killed in motorcycle accidents in the space of three weeks in a nearby small town. Two of those deaths were caused by someone texting while driving.

Having said that, I'm not in favor necessarily of more laws on the books either. I don't talk on the phone while driving because it's just not for me. I do believe there should be a law (for lack of a better word) that makes texting or talking on a hand held cellphone illegal until you reach a certain age, similar to the laws in Georgia about driving at night, etc., when a young driver has a learner's permit.

Daniel Berlin

12-15-2011, 10:44 AM

Seems like an MRI while driving would be a big distraction. :)
I was waiting for this one :)
It was simulated driving (even if you could get an MRI machine into a car, it would be hard to power :P) so i await the howls of how it's "magically different" than real driving :)

Here's one study (newer, actually, that finds some non-overlapping activation regions, but an even worse result for drivers on cellphones):
"The new findings clearly establish the striking result that the addition of a sentence listening task decreases the brain activation associated with performing a driving task by 37%"
http://www.ccbi.cmu.edu/reprints/Just_Brain-Research-2008_driving-listening_reprint.pdf

For the record, here is another actual research study that finds that drivers can't be taught to multitask cell phone and driving:
"Neither real-world practice nor simulator training made drivers perform better in novel dual-task conditions. There was no evidence that drivers
became experts at the dual-task combination of talking on a cell phone while driving. We suggest that the dynamic nature of both driving and
conversing on a cell phone precludes the possibility of practicing away the dual-task costs of this concurrent activity"
http://www.psych.utah.edu/lab/appliedcognition/publications/distractionmultitasking.pdf

Analysis of crash statistics shows that number of crashes due to telephone usage was rising very rapidly ... 15 years ago
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/wireless/c4.htm

I'm trying to find newer data on the last point, but it's a bit hard because you mostly find news articles that don't bother to link to their sources.

I can cite more studies and stats if anyone cares, like I said, there are plenty of experiments and data going back at least 15 years that show that people think they are good at talking while driving, or multitasking while driving in general, and I have yet to find anything that suggests anything but the opposite is true.

BTW, i'm certainly biased. I bike to work every day. The number of times i have almost been creamed by geniuses on cellphones is about 6. The number of times i've been almost creamed otherwise is 1 (teen driver). Cell phone usage while driving is not legal here.
As a piece of complete anecdote, the people on cell phones almost never look both directions while doing things like right turn on red, or look in the mirror before doing lane shifts.
I now try to avoid them like the plague.

David Weaver

12-15-2011, 10:47 AM

Are these the new easy access MRIs we're talking about, or the old confining loud ones?

Matt Meiser

12-15-2011, 10:53 AM

Either way the magnets really mess with the cell phone reception.

David Weaver

12-15-2011, 2:41 PM

Either way the magnets really mess with the cell phone reception.

I have a solution. Lead-wrapped "talking" phone with external antenna. Bingo, now you can multi-task and talk on the phone while doing a daily personal scan.

Daniel Berlin

12-15-2011, 3:18 PM

Are these the new easy access MRIs we're talking about, or the old confining loud ones?

All it says is "Participants were scanned at 3 Tesla with a blood-oxygenation level dependent fMRI acquisition sequence while they maneuvered a virtual car in a driving simulator (see Fig. 1). "

(Figure 1 is, sadly, not a cool picture of a guy lying in an MRI machine playing video games with a cell phone taped to his head)

Actually, here are some more details i dug up:

"The imaging was carried out at the University of Pittsburgh
Magnetic Resonance Research Center on a 3-Tesla GE Signa
scanner using a GE quadrature birdcage head coil. For the
functional imaging a T2⁎-weighted single-shot spiral pulse
sequence was used with TR= 1000 ms, TE= 18 ms, and a flip
angle of 70°. Sixteen adjacent oblique-axial slices were
acquired in an interleaved sequence, with 5-mm slice thickness,
1-mm slice gap, and a 20 × 20 cm FOV. The spiral k-space
data was regridded to a 64 × 64 matrix, resulting in in-plane
resolution of 3.125 × 3.125 mm"

Bryan Morgan

12-15-2011, 4:10 PM

I was talking to someone at work about something he wanted to be banned because they "might" cause harm (fireworks). I propose a solution. When the numbers of bad incidents increase past the incidents of nothing bad happening, then we can talk about "banning" things. For example, if 1,000,000 light off a firework (or yack on the phone, shoot a gun, etc etc) and only 1000 get hurt/cause damage, banning is off the table. When 500,001 people get hurt or cause damage maybe then we will discuss it. The masses should not be punished for the actions of the few. Freedom is too precious to be ruined by worry warts and chicken littles.

ray hampton

12-15-2011, 4:14 PM

Greg Peterson

12-15-2011, 4:38 PM

Daniel - Science is no longer a legitimate explanation. People know what they know. Besides, scientists are only milking the grant gravy train.

Bryan - Your firework analogy leaves some factors off the table. In short, it is an over simplification. While you and Ray appear to be in agreement, I would argue that there is more at stake than just physical injury. Property damage would have to be a factor as well. Another factor, believe it or not, is that some folks are actually ambivalent or worse about fireworks. It would be one thing if everyone did their stuff on the 4th, but we are 'treated' to random explosions for weeks before and after the 4th. If I want to partake in fireworks, I'll go to a professionally staged display. Or if I feel the need to blow things up I'll go where it imposes the least on others.

Under your rule, over half the population would have to sustain an injury before fireworks could be banned. Interesting. How about just having a majority vote on the matter rather than having some arbitrary injury threshold. That seems to be a more sensible approach.

Let's put the cell phone ban to a simple majority vote. This thread is overwhelmingly in favor of banning them.

Adding undue risk to an already risky action might prove Darwin was right, but in my experience it ain't all that much fun. YMMV.

John Coloccia

12-15-2011, 4:45 PM

Let's put the cell phone ban to a simple majority vote. This thread is overwhelmingly in favor of banning them.

I know I said I was bowing out, but I couldn't let this one go.

Tyranny of the majority is no better than tyranny of a ruling class. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right. There's good arguments on either side of the issue, but this just isn't one of them.

Daniel Berlin

12-15-2011, 5:04 PM

I know I said I was bowing out, but I couldn't let this one go.

Tyranny of the majority is no better than tyranny of a ruling class. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right. There's good arguments on either side of the issue, but this just isn't one of them.
This is of course, why the US is not a strict democracy, but instead a republic

Chuck Stone

12-15-2011, 5:13 PM

i just seen this morning on GA they were talking that congress wants to ban all types of cell phones including hands free devices
saying talking while driving can be just to distracting.

Somehow I doubt this. Perhaps they just need more money from the lobbyists,
so they're stirring the pot.
Congress couldn't pass such a bill and expect to get re-elected.

Cynical much? :p

BTW.. I didn't vote because the initial post says that the NTSB wasn't proposing
to eliminate hands free devices, but that isn't true. They are calling
for a ban on all cell phone devices not installed by the manufacturer.
(I'm not sure why a cell phone built into your radio is any different than
a Bluetooth that works through your radio, but there it is.)

I could never understand trying to use a cell phone while driving, but when I
went hands-free it was different. And I find it no different than having a
passenger talking or the radio going. When I need to focus, I can tell a passenger
or caller to wait. I can press a button and kill the radio.

And not answering a cell phone definitely means lost revenue. People want their
calls answered now, not later. "No answer" is no longer acceptable. It may not
be right, but this is what people have come to expect.. if you don't answer,
they'll move on to the next number

ray hampton

12-15-2011, 5:16 PM

There is no need to ban the cell phone use while you are driving instead hire a driver or a passenger that can do all of the talking, the second method will be to invent a better mouse trap than the cell phone

ray hampton

12-15-2011, 5:23 PM

I drive a Jeep Liberty [use ], one thing that are different on this truck is the radio controls are on the steering wheel, what happen to the phone that would dial a number when you spoke to it ?

John Coloccia

12-15-2011, 6:16 PM

I drive a Jeep Liberty [use ], one thing that are different on this truck is the radio controls are on the steering wheel, what happen to the phone that would dial a number when you spoke to it ?

It's funny. Out Volvo has controls on the wheel too. I NEVER use them, not because I don't want to but simply because my hand just naturally reaches out for the radio dial. Controls on the wheel are so counter intuitive to me...why would I want to combine non-essential functions with the primary steering of the car? Planes often have controls on the yoke or stick, but that doesn't twirl around...hitting the Push-To-Talk or trim never puts my hands in a situation where an emergency maneuver would be awkward.

::::thread hijack:::::

Which brings up another issue, though somewhat off topic. Why is the steering wheel right smack dab in front of my face where it can cause massive injuries in an accident when we can have a side mounted knob/wheel/stick/whatever, with power assisted steering? That makes no sense to me at all. I know there will be problems because of glitches in the steering system but I would bet that injuries and deaths saved from not having a steering wheel, plus removing engineering compromises from needing a mechanical linkage, would more than make up for it.

::::::thread hijack done::::::

ray hampton

12-15-2011, 7:16 PM

It's funny. Out Volvo has controls on the wheel too. I NEVER use them, not because I don't want to but simply because my hand just naturally reaches out for the radio dial. Controls on the wheel are so counter intuitive to me...why would I want to combine non-essential functions with the primary steering of the car? Planes often have controls on the yoke or stick, but that doesn't twirl around...hitting the Push-To-Talk or trim never puts my hands in a situation where an emergency maneuver would be awkward.

::::thread hijack:::::

Which brings up another issue, though somewhat off topic. Why is the steering wheel right smack dab in front of my face where it can cause massive injuries in an accident when we can have a side mounted knob/wheel/stick/whatever, with power assisted steering? That makes no sense to me at all. I know there will be problems because of glitches in the steering system but I would bet that injuries and deaths saved from not having a steering wheel, plus removing engineering compromises from needing a mechanical linkage, would more than make up for it.

::::::thread hijack done::::::

I total my f i l car when a stone wall got in my way, my hand were at the top of the wheel, my head smack my hand hard enough so two teeth came out, if my hand were not in my mouth , I would ate the steering wheel, the impact from my head on my hand broke the wheel

Greg Peterson

12-15-2011, 8:52 PM

I know I said I was bowing out, but I couldn't let this one go.

Tyranny of the majority is no better than tyranny of a ruling class. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right. There's good arguments on either side of the issue, but this just isn't one of them.

What argument are you referring to. The portion of my post you quote presents no argument. It was clearly a statement.

Craig Matheny

12-15-2011, 9:29 PM

Hands free is the only way to go Reality is do we want the government to control more of our life/ Personally I am in the opinion people need to be responsible for their actions, more people are killed by drunk drivers then from cell phones but yet you don't see a hole lot happening to the drunk drivers usually a ticket slap on the hands and a class. Now the whole texting and driving thing first who in their right mind thinks that is safe? Secondly until the police enforce the law there is not a lot that is going to happen. If you recall in California Schwarzenegger (sp?) past the hands free only law and who but his wife was caught not once but twice doing it, the penalty is to weak or the problem is not that big an issue. I live in So. Cal and every day I can count 10 - 15 people to and from work on phones that includes police (they have radios for police business).

Kevin W Johnson

12-15-2011, 9:33 PM

This proposed law is totally un-enforceable. Heck, what will Legislators' Wives do when stopped for talking on a cell?

Nahh, it's called selective enforcement.

David Keller NC

12-15-2011, 9:41 PM

An interesting discussion.

But (not that I think this is a good thing, but it is coming, and much sooner than folks think) "driving a car" is going to be very swiftly obselete. The enabling technology is already quite mature, and continued advancements are happening at breathtaking speed. Based on knowledge of the tech industry, machine learning and artificial intelligence, and the rather unpleasant fact that the majority of people will choose safety over freedom in most cases, I forsee controlling your own vehicle in a major city will be illegal in about 15 years. Controlling your own vehicle period will be illegal in 25.

On the subject of cell phones, however, my opinion is quite harsh -

1) Cell phones enable and ecourage some of the worst aspects of human nature - the propensity to yack without thought or reason.
2) It is not necessary nor useful for anyone to be instantly available, nor for others to expect them to be so.
3) Presuming that the playing field is equal, no one would be "out of business" if they couldn't use a cell phone while driving. The fact that cell phones were extremely uncommon and extremely expensive 20 years ago puts the lie to any attempt at arguing otherwise.
4) Our culture would be far better off if the fundamental technology that enables cell phones to exist were instantly and permanently disabled - tomorrow. They are the bane of civil society.

Enforcement of using a cell-phone-while-driving ban is actually quite easy, and does not require an investment in new technology - any technology. It's quite simple: If you are involved in an accident, the black box that is in almost 99% of the cars on the road will precisely identify the time of the accident. The cell phone company has a precise record of the time that you were connected on a call (or connected to the internet). If you are found to have had a connection at the time of the accident:

1) You are required to pay all material damages to all vehicles and other property involved in the accident. Ditto for all medical expenses, including "real loss" calculations for permanent disability or death to the other party. This is regardless of the actual fault-finding of the accident itself.
2) You are fined $5000 in addition to paying the damages associated with the accident.
3) You lose your driving priveleges for all but driving back and forth to work for one year. No after-hours driving, period.
4) If mutiple parties involved in the accident are found to have been connected to a call or the internet, each will pay the sum of the damages associated with the accident, in addition to the $5000 fine and losing driving priveleges. The overage will be donated to the local school district.

A second offense will result in the above measures with the addition of loss of all driving priveleges, including driving to work for a period of one year (similar to a drunk driving conviction).

A third offense will result in a mandatory 6 month prison sentence, forfieture of the vehicle, and loss of driving priveleges for a term of 10 years.

It's probably true that there will be a very few cases nationwide of 4th offenses. In these cases, we can simply make it a class II felony punishable by a mandatory 10 year prison sentence.

But I'm betting that most people will learn where the "power off" switch is on their phone - as I do every time I get behind the wheel. I don't even want it to ring, much less answer it.

Kevin W Johnson

12-15-2011, 9:51 PM

[QUOTE=Greg Peterson;Let's put the cell phone ban to a simple majority vote. This thread is overwhelmingly in favor of banning them.

[/QUOTE]

Once, the majority in some parts thought slavery was ok too. Were they right?

Craig Matheny

12-15-2011, 9:55 PM

If you are found to have had a connection at the time of the accident:

1) You are required to pay all material damages to all vehicles and other property involved in the accident. Ditto for all medical expenses, including "real loss" calculations for permanent disability or death to the other party. This is regardless of the actual fault-finding of the accident itself.
2) You are fined $5000 in addition to paying the damages associated with the accident.
3) You lose your driving priveleges for all but driving back and forth to work for one year. No after-hours driving, period.
4) If mutiple parties involved in the accident are found to have been connected to a call or the internet, each will pay the sum of the damages associated with the accident, in addition to the $5000 fine and losing driving priveleges. The overage will be donated to the local school district.

A second offense will result in the above measures with the addition of loss of all driving priveleges, including driving to work for a period of one year (similar to a drunk driving conviction).

A third offense will result in a mandatory 6 month prison sentence, forfieture of the vehicle, and loss of driving priveleges for a term of 10 years.

It's probably true that there will be a very few cases nationwide of 4th offenses. In these cases, we can simply make it a class II felony punishable by a mandatory 10 year prison sentence.
.

Wow this is harsher then drunk driving. I think we all forget that there are many other distractions then cell phones in a car and they come supplied with the purchase of the car nav systems radios that hook up to mp3 players not to mention video players. To stop phones is very easy there is already a computer in all new cars add a jam-er to disable the jam-er the car is off or only allowed outgoing calls to police / emergency. Also remember this is all started because a 19 year old with very little driving experience was on the phone texting not talking and caused a wreck that killed him and one other. This is terrible but this is minimal comparable to all the other issues we deal with in daily life. I would rather have someone using a phone then trying to read a map to find where they are going.

Craig Matheny

12-15-2011, 9:58 PM

Craig Matheny

12-15-2011, 10:04 PM

"It would not apply to hands-free devices, or to passengers."this is what everyone needs toremember. My phone is voice controlled as most new phones are I can text and talk all by voice commands I don't do the texting being it is distracting. Someone said lets put it to a vote but most here are talking about usage of a phone not the fact the new law they want is already in all but 14 states and that is a hands free only law that is not enforced.

Craig Matheny

12-15-2011, 10:05 PM

Karl the proposed issue is for a hands free only law not the removal of all cell use while driving

Craig Matheny

12-15-2011, 10:11 PM

Frank got kids? if you do and they where babies once did you drive with them? That is a true distraction:D so do we put a ban on taking our children with us. Yes this is way out on the extreme but it is the point that is being made we all have to be responsible for our actions I can drive and talk on the phone with no issues been doing it for years however I do know that at one point I will not be able to do that as I will get older and slower just like everyone else and also get to a point I should not drive like many that still drive. I am responsible for that decision.

Craig Matheny

12-15-2011, 10:17 PM

Frank how can you come with a 4-fold increase in risk that is all done by polling data and any one knows that data can be polled to prove anything and just to address the zero tolerance to drinking and driving yes we have it but not enforced put Breathalyzer in all cars and they wont start if the person was drinking that is zero tolerance. Now you get stopped, and they give you a ticket if your under.08, and that is it get an attorney and no jail time or lose of license.

Kevin W Johnson

12-15-2011, 10:18 PM

What argument are you referring to. The portion of my post you quote presents no argument. It was clearly a statement.

In what you refer to as a statement, your making the arguement that the majority must some how always be right, which it clearly isn't.

Craig Matheny

12-15-2011, 10:22 PM

Point made "Obamacare" Had to go political it was just to easy sorry :rolleyes: this was voted in by the majority and opposed by the majority at the same time who was right?

David Keller NC

12-15-2011, 10:41 PM

Wow this is harsher then drunk driving.

And intended to be. Cell phones and the selfish and always-available culture they have enabled are evil. I can guarantee that I would not have one if I was not required to for my job.

One should also remember that the 19 year old that slammed into the back of the truck was just an extreme case cited by the news media. There have been many thousands of traffic deaths directly attributable to distracted-by-cell-phone-driving in the years since they have become cheap and nearly universal. And you are quite correct - there are other causes of distracted driving, but that doesn't mean that cell phones are OK - it's just that they are demonstrably not necessary nor desirable. There is a very recent history of perhaps 10 years ago before "smart" phones (and dumb users), texting, unlimited-minutes-so-you-can-yack-your-head-off next to the other customers in line at the store that can be referenced to know that they simply not desirable in a civil society.

Greg Peterson

12-16-2011, 12:33 AM

Once, the majority in some parts thought slavery was ok too. Were they right?

Once? LOL. Okay!

The poll is running at 80%. I can think of a lot of issues where the majority holds a vastly slimmer lead over the minority aim since they are the majority they are correct.

I don't have a cell phone. I refuse to have one. IMO, using a cell phone while driving is the height of conceit.

Kevin W Johnson

12-16-2011, 2:30 AM

Once? LOL. Okay!

The poll is running at 80%. I can think of a lot of issues where the majority holds a vastly slimmer lead over the minority aim since they are the majority they are correct.

I don't have a cell phone. I refuse to have one. IMO, using a cell phone while driving is the height of conceit.

Yeah, I should have changed that. I decided against posting some of which I had typed, and made changes. It made more sense combined with what I deleted.

Otherwise, I see you're stuck on the majority being "correct". Too many examples in history to prove such a mindset is incorrect.

Kevin W Johnson

12-16-2011, 3:03 AM

1) Cell phones enable and ecourage some of the worst aspects of human nature - the propensity to yack without thought or reason.

I guess the same could be said for internet forums, with your diatribe serving as an example.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

David Keller NC

12-16-2011, 7:54 AM

Actually. No - the written word encourages cogent thought, in much the same vein as an essay. Net forums allow read and reply in a public space that discourages yakking, and definitely does not set up the expectation of "always available" that cell phones enable.

Jason Roehl

12-16-2011, 8:19 AM

Doctors and nurses kill upwards of 100,000 people each year. Should we ban their use as well? On a related note, I noticed that nobody piped up to answer my question about driving while drowsy or tired. I say it's related because doctors (particularly in their residency years) are often on duty 24 hours at a time. Do you want that doctor working on you after 23 hours of no sleep? What about driving home next to you after his/her shift?

David, I'd say cell phones are here to stay. Those who use them rudely were probably rude to begin with. I don't believe talking loudly on a cellphone in a restaurant is any ruder than talking loudly to one's dinner companion. Some of us know not to talk loudly as there's no need.

Greg Peterson

12-16-2011, 10:08 AM

Yeah, I should have changed that. I decided against posting some of which I had typed, and made changes. It made more sense combined with what I deleted.

Otherwise, I see you're stuck on the majority being "correct". Too many examples in history to prove such a mindset is incorrect.

Your characterization that I am 'stuck on the majority being correct' is inaccurate. Since the majority rules was suggested as a common threshold for banning fireworks, I suggested that perhaps majority rules would be a more appropriate means of regulating their use. And then I said that perhaps majority rules could be applied to a cell phone ban, citing the overwhelming result set in favor of the ban.

Indeed sometimes the majority is in the wrong. But we are discussing a communication device that by its very nature diminishes the attentiveness of every driver using one. The greater good of the community is best served by enhancing drivers attention to the task of maintaining control of their vehicle, rather than further enabling them to abdicate their responsibility to fellow drivers and members of the community. Many would consider this a reasonable demand.

Driving is not a right. It is often perceived as such, but there is no legal standing for any claim to such a right. As such, it is a privilege. Nothing more.

The broader discussion should involve how many more distractions will we allow into the drivers environment. The ban opponent's primary argument is that there already exist several socially acceptable distractions in the vehicle so why should a cell phone be singled out. The logical conclusion to this perspective is that there is no limit as to what should be allowed. If one is allowed then all must be allowed, no exclusions.

Doctors and nurses kill upwards of 100,000 people each year. Should we ban their use as well?

Can't ban human error. But you can address the systemic causes of many of the errors that lead to these deaths. I agree that I would not want a doctor attending to me or my loved ones after being on task for 23 hours. I'm not sure what purpose of these long hours serve, but I believe some institutions are starting to move away from this traditional system.

John Coloccia

12-16-2011, 10:46 AM

Driving is not a right. It is often perceived as such, but there is no legal standing for any claim to such a right. As such, it is a privilege. Nothing more.

I hear this all the time and it's really not accurate, though I can't really blame people for saying it because we've heard it ever since we are kids. We have a constitutionally protected "right to travel", and until recently this has included using whatever mode of transportation you wished. Courts routinely struck down attempts at licensing for various modes of transportation because you can't require a license to exercise a right. You also can't say it's a right and then build roads and highways everywhere making alternate forms of transportation entirely impractical. It's only recently that courts have gotten stupid, and people have forgotten their rights to the point that we somehow think traveling using the common mode of transportation of the day is anything but a right.

But it really has nothing to do with cell phone use in the car anyway. Just because something is a right doesn't mean it doesn't have limits. For example, I have a right to the pursuit of happiness, but if shooting my neighbors makes me happy it doesn't mean I have a right to shoot them. There's never been any question that you are free to exercise your rights to the point that they don't impinge on the rights of others. I don't question that regulating cell phone use in a vehicle is something that any state has the power to do.

Just to be clear, the right to travel does not appear in the constitution but courts have accepted that it us a right protected by the constitution, just like the constitution doesn't grant me the right to drink water.

Chuck Stone

12-16-2011, 11:26 AM

"It would not apply to hands-free devices, or to passengers."this is what everyone needs toremember..

From CNN's page: (emphasis is mine)
A federal safety board called Tuesday for a nationwide
ban on the use of cell phones and text messaging devices
while driving.

The recommendation is the most far-reaching yet by the
National Transportation Safety Board, which in the past
10 years has increasingly sought to limit the use of portable
electronic devices -- recommending bans for novice drivers,
school bus drivers and commercial truckers. Tuesday's
recommendation, if adopted by states, would outlaw
non-emergency phone calls and texting by operators of every
vehicle on the road.
http://articles.cnn.com/images/pixel.gif

It would apply to hands-free as well as hand-held devices,
but devices installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer
would be allowed, the NTSB said. The recommendation
would not affect passengers' rights to use such devices.

Belinda Barfield

12-16-2011, 3:11 PM

Can you hear me now?

Larry Fox

12-16-2011, 3:46 PM

But the actons you note are momentary actions 2-5 seconds and you're done (well, except for the smoking). Whereas a phone call can last from tens of seconds to minutes or hours.

2-5 seconds is a VERY long time to take ones eyes off the road. Try this experiment, close your eyes and imagine you are traveling at 60mph. Now count one-mississippi, tw-mississippi all the wya to 5. Seems like an eternity.

ray hampton

12-16-2011, 4:05 PM

Can you hear me now?

I am not deaf, I am ignoring you

ray hampton

12-16-2011, 6:06 PM

I use a cell phone but not to the extreme that some people do, a man in his twenties from Georgetown,KY were kill by a freight train
the man was walking the tracks while listening to music on the cell phone and never heard the warning BLAST of the train WHISTLE
if the man hearing were good then the cell phone got turn up too high

Marvin Hasenak

12-16-2011, 9:28 PM

I am crippled so I don't drive but I get to see a lot more than any driver will ever see. Those that think they are safe might be, but they are still a safety hazard, I see people all of the time texting and talking, I see the erratic driving habits. Yesterday I watched a car run another, one driver was on the phone at impact. We stopped, and when the law enforcement officer arrived, he took statements, I was interviewed. When I mentioned the cell phone the person that was yakking on the phone and was at fault denied it. Called me a liar and then cussed me. After I explained to this ignorant individual that the cell phone records would verify what I saw. They politely admitted they were on the phone and did run the red light. This is the third time this year that I seen a person on the phone cause a wreck. Strange, I wonder why I haven't seen any that were not on the phone??????????

Some say the world is a circus, it really is, try being a rider and watching what is going on around you. There are more clowns than any circus in the world, and some of them are driving, while using the phone!

Jim Matthews

12-16-2011, 10:22 PM

It's just another nanny law. Talking on a cellphone while driving is a skill. A good driver shouldn't have to think about what they are doing--it should be in the muscle memory and "second nature".

How long does it take to read 140 characters? 3 seconds? 5?
At 55mph 5 seconds covers how much road?

Every driver thinks they're better than average, and looking down to a small screen can't improve that.

The NTSB recommendation makes it easier to get citations on the books that will stick.
This is no more a nag than mandatory seat belt use.

Just when I thought driving in Massachusetts couldn't get worse - the Twits hit the road.

Greg Peterson

12-16-2011, 10:54 PM

I hear this all the time and it's really not accurate, though I can't really blame people for saying it because we've heard it ever since we are kids. We have a constitutionally protected "right to travel", and until recently this has included using whatever mode of transportation you wished.

Certainly we have a right to travel, unless we are Barry Bonds for the next 30 days.

Traveling and operating a vehicle are two different things in my book. You are free to travel via any mode of transportation available. You don't need papers or authorization to travel about the country. You may travel at your leisure upon all the public lands this nation has to offer.

Operating a vehicle is not a right. Two of my siblings are legally blind. Are you going to say they have a right to drive? I can not think of any rights that are conditional like this.

John Coloccia

12-17-2011, 1:11 AM

Operating a vehicle is not a right. Two of my siblings are legally blind. Are you going to say they have a right to drive? I can not think of any rights that are conditional like this.

I have a right to free speech and expression, but that right is limited:

1) I can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre (kind of a cliche, but accurate)
2) I can't crank a PA system and wake up my whole neighborhood at 2:00am
3) I can't threaten bodily harm
etc etc

I have a right to freedom of religion. If my religion includes sacrificing children....

All of our rights end where the rights of others begin, and they are all subject to limitations. If you think about it for a minute you'll see how absurd it is that we charge our governments with the task of building us roads, and of maintaining those roads, and that the government then feels it's okay to restrict access and setup arbitrary criteria for their use. Our founding fathers would have a fit. It's sort of like the concept of public parks closing at night. How does that happen? It's our land simply held in trust by the government for the sole purpose of our use and pleasure. When you think about it with a fresh mind, it's a very strange concept.

I'll tell you just how absurd it is. For me to leave my general area, I need to either walk down the end of my street and essentially hop onto a small interstate, or I need to walk the other way and get onto the major road that goes through my town. Either way it's completely unsafe to walk it, it's illegal to do so on the interstate, and if I were to simply walk down the other road I'm sure that the first trooper that drove by would stop and ask me what I'm up to. What am I supposed to do? Flap my wings and fly to the store? This isn't an usual situation, either. It seems absolutely absurd to me that many areas have become totally unwalkable due to laws or danger, and that you're forced to be licensed just to use the roads that we had built for our use. I'd like to see someone walk up Central Avenue from Yonkers to White Plains. LOL.

We already have reckless endangerment laws. That's all you need. You don't need licensing, cell phone laws, traffic tickets, a huge DMV infrastructure or anything else. If you're driving recklessly, you get arrested and go to court, just like if you shoot a gun into the air or drop rocks off an overpass. That's just far simpler, more consistent and a lot less intrusive.

Jason Roehl

12-17-2011, 4:37 AM

How long does it take to read 140 characters? 3 seconds? 5?
At 55mph 5 seconds covers how much road?

Every driver thinks they're better than average, and looking down to a small screen can't improve that.

I didn't support texting while driving in any way.

Interestingly enough, Indiana just outlawed texting while driving, and I saw some cops interviewed about it on the local TV station. If they can't see the phone, they can't pull you over for it, and they've noticed that since the law has passed, people now either text with the phone in their laps, taking their eyes farther off the road, or they text at stoplights, not paying attention to signal changes.

Chris Terrell

12-17-2011, 6:56 AM

Well, today I would vote yes. Yesterday I was behind a guy who was obviously textin while driving and he was all over three lanes and nearly sideswiped a car. This morning a guy making a left turn almost ran into me at a traffic light - he was talking on his phone, and another car almost rearended me - talking on the phone. Yep, today I vote yes!
Yes I agree with you there, I've seen a lot of similar incidents, despite using a cellphone while driving being illegal here in the UK, often while I've been cycling and less protected than in my car! Enforcement is difficult for an already heavily stretched police force, but we're seeing convictions over here partly thanks to checks of phone call logs in evidence. I used to operate a cb-style radio and that's a different issue as you don't need to look at buttons to operate it; I hope your Government isn't looking at banning their use. Cell/mobile phones should definitely not be used while driving, though I'd let somebody off in a dire emergency or if stuck in a stationary traffic queue, it's still best to pull over and call then.
Best wishes for the Christmas and New Year Season!
Chris

Greg Peterson

12-17-2011, 9:30 AM

I have a right to free speech and expression, but that right is limited:
If you think about it for a minute you'll see how absurd it is that we charge our governments with the task of building us roads, and of maintaining those roads, and that the government then feels it's okay to restrict access and setup arbitrary criteria for their use. Our founding fathers would have a fit. It's sort of like the concept of public parks closing at night. How does that happen? It's our land simply held in trust by the government for the sole purpose of our use and pleasure. When you think about it with a fresh mind, it's a very strange concept.

How would your right to travel be limited if your license were revoked? At the time that right was established, transportation was pretty much limited to walking, ship and horse.

Private roadways could potentially be restrictive to individuals as well as commerce. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". Sure government could regulate private roadways ensuring access to all, but then what would be the point of private roadways. The interstate hiway system is as much a foundational part of our economy as the Internet. Where would be be today had it not been decided to install such a infrastructure?

Public roadways are for the general use by all citizens. Rules of the road are clearly required and would be in place regardless of ownership arrangement.

You public parks argument is legitimate, but I'm sure that in most cases it boils down to a matter of resources. Is it really cost effective to maintain lighting and safety twenty four hours a day? Would the local tax base support the cost of additional police monitoring in the night time? Besides, I'm not interested in using the parks after sunset.

Larry Edgerton

12-17-2011, 1:20 PM

Here is the American Motorcycle Assn. take on cell phone use.

http://www.motorcyclists-against-dumb-drivers.com/cell-phone-ama-msf-mrf-call-to-action.html

I am not sure if it is this article but I am an AMA member and in the research that they sited it was found that hands free had little or no effect on how likely you were to cause an accident while driving.

As I said before I have given up [pretty much] riding on the street because of too many close calls with cell phone idiots.

Larry

Bryan Morgan

12-18-2011, 12:51 AM

Bryan - Your firework analogy leaves some factors off the table. In short, it is an over simplification. While you and Ray appear to be in agreement, I would argue that there is more at stake than just physical injury. Property damage would have to be a factor as well. Another factor, believe it or not, is that some folks are actually ambivalent or worse about fireworks. It would be one thing if everyone did their stuff on the 4th, but we are 'treated' to random explosions for weeks before and after the 4th. If I want to partake in fireworks, I'll go to a professionally staged display. Or if I feel the need to blow things up I'll go where it imposes the least on others.

Who cares if people shoot them off every single day of the week. If they aren't infringing on anyone's Constitutional rights or damaging life or property its not really an issue. The irony of public displays on the 4th is that you are celebrating FREEDOM secured by people dying for us by going to a "government approved" fireworks display. That almost makes me want to cry.

Under your rule, over half the population would have to sustain an injury before fireworks could be banned. Interesting. How about just having a majority vote on the matter rather than having some arbitrary injury threshold. That seems to be a more sensible approach.

Under my rule, free people would be free.

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)." -Ayn Rand