What would you consider the idea law re. cell phones?

[Peek a Boo]

Is there overwhelming evidence that homeschooling fails in a large percentage of cases? And is the result of failure death or severe injury? I don't think there is because if there was there are some people out there who would love to use that as fuel for their anti homeschooling fire. Most of the arguments made by those who are anti homeschooling are just feelings, not backed up by any real proof that it is harmful.

 

 

and like any other distraction, is there overwhelming evidence that using a cellphone results in death or injury to someone else? NO! It hasn't been PROVEN dangerous to other people.

 

so there's no overwhelming evidence that talking on a cell phone kills people around you, yet because there's a perceived destructive influence-- feelings-- y'all want to outlaw that specific thing instead of just enforcing the reckless driving laws. It doesn't make sense, and THAT's why I'm against the micro-legislating of bazillions of smaller items instead of letting officers continue to exercise their discretion to enforce laws we already have about reckless driving.

[Peek a Boo]

It hasn't. It may not be. Why does it matter? How is drunk driving different? Should we legalize drunk driving if putting on mascara is just as dangerous?

 

 

It matters because people are using their feelings rather than facts to consider the situation.

 

There is a difference between a distraction and an ongoing physiological impairment --even the study you quoted shows that.

 

When drivers were conversing on either a handheld or hands-free cell phone, their braking reactions were delayed and they were involved in more traffic accidents than when they were not conversing on a cell phone.

 

that doesn't tell us anything about how cell phone use compares to other distractions --why are we hell bent on outlawing one type of distraction when it carries little proof as to how destructive to others it really is?

[Perry]

that doesn't tell us anything about how cell phone use compares to other distractions --why are we hell bent on outlawing one type of distraction when it carries little proof as to how destructive to others it really is?

 

But that comparison doesn't matter.

 

 

What does matter is whether a ban on cell phones would decrease accidents. THAT is really the only outcome that matters. And right now we don't know the answer which is why I don't have an opinion one way or the other.

[Peek a Boo]

What does matter is whether a ban on cell phones would decrease accidents. THAT is really the only outcome that matters. And right now we don't know the answer which is why I don't have an opinion one way or the other.

 

RIGHT!!

 

There is no proof.

[Tree House Academy]

Is it really a *right* to engage in an activity which has been proven dangerous to the other drivers around you? Talking on the cell phone while driving is a right?:confused:

 

Call it a right, a privilage, whatever - it is something else that the government is trying to have control over.

 

Can you, in some way, prove that *I* personally am more of a danger to other drivers when I talk on my cell phone than I am when I, say, drop a quarter in the floor and drive with one hand while the other hand is on the floor searching for it? I am a 30 year old adult. I think I can judge when my actions are harmful and when they are not. When I talk on a cell phone, I use as much brain power as I do when I sing with a song on the radio. I put in my headset so that I am not holding the phone and driving. I do not text while driving, because I am no good at texting and that would definitely be a risk for me - one I am not willing to take at all. That doesn't mean others can't do it.

 

What I am saying is that I do not want "whether or not I can use a phone in my car" determined by the government. If you would like your rights and liberties (or use your own term) taken away, then ask that the government impose that on you...not me.

 

Now...ask me if I think the legal driving age should be raised (thus eliminating a lot of young, inexperienced..and perhaps cell phone/texting addicted...drivers from the road) and my answer is quite different. There comes a time and an age when we are reasonably able to judge what is okay and what is just ignorant. A 16 year old behind the wheel of a car does not always have that ability. I had 4 car wrecks from the time I was 16 until I was 20. Not ONE of them involved a cell phone.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Tree House Academy

[Perry]

RIGHT!!

 

There is no proof.

 

Don't put words in my mouth.

 

We do have proof that driving and cell phone use is dangerous. We don't have proof that a ban will decrease accidents. They are not the same.

[Perry]

Is there really a reasonable way to prove a cause and effect relationship between using cell phones while driving and causing crashes?

 

Yes- using simulators.

[Tree House Academy]

Pretty much any brain dead Tom, Dick, or Harry can get a driver's license. Maybe THAT is the problem.

 

Now you are on to something. For instance, the little old lady in McDonalds yesterday. She could hardly walk, could not hear the cashier, did not understand the question, "do you want to eat here or take your food to go?", barely managed to carry her tray to the table. Then, she ate her food, got up, and got behind the wheel of a car. :confused:

[Peek a Boo]

Don't put words in my mouth.

 

We do have proof that driving and cell phone use is dangerous. We don't have proof that a ban will decrease accidents. They are not the same.

 

 

We have proof that BREATHING is dangerous.

We have proof that walking down the road is dangerous.

We have proof that driving without distractions is dangerous.

We do not have any proof whatsoever that cellphone use is any more dangerous than driving w/ other normal variables, so your statement is empty: empty "proof" holds no credibility. i don't have to put words in your mouth, the effect of that lack of proof is staring everyone in the face.

 

I said:

It hasn't been PROVEN dangerous to other people.

 

That is a fact.

 

Since the purpose of the law is to protect people, there is no proof that cell phone use is killing or wounding people.

 

Wendy--

could have been caused is a popular conjectural statement that has led to most paranoia in studies when we have few solid facts.

 

i do agree that drivers license requirements should be much more stringent.

[Perry]

I wonder about that. I have to look around because cell phones have been banned in NY, NJ, and CT for awhile. I wonder if any studies have been done since.

 

Not that I know of.

 

From what I understand, the laws are widely ignored. It's possible that those that obey the law are the most conscientious and safest drivers in the first place. It's also possible that pulling off to answer the phone may in itself cause accidents.

 

I'd like to see some data but I can't find any.

[Peek a Boo]

But who does it harm to TRY something to reduce deaths and injury to innocent people?

 

History shows lots of harm results when you start heading down a road of unnecessary regulation. Especially when the action in question carries no proof to do what it means to do.

 

what would be the harm in outlawing homeschooling in an attempt to reduce poor education? If just one or two kids do better, wouldn't it be worth it?

[Perry]

My remarks in red.

 

We have proof that BREATHING is dangerous. A law against it won't be helpful.

We have proof that walking down the road is dangerous. Yes. And walking down the middle of the highway is a bad idea. So most people don't do it. I'm not getting your point here.

We have proof that driving without distractions is dangerous. Yes. Again, I don't get your point.

We do not have any proof whatsoever that cellphone use is any more dangerous than driving w/ other normal variables Yes. We do. Okay- not proof, but lots of evidence. We try not to use the word "proof " much in science.

 

 

July 12, 2005 -- Drivers who talk on a mobile phone are four times more likely to be involved in a serious crash, according to a new study.

Researchers found people who used a hands-free or regular handheld cell phone while driving were four times more likely to be involved in a serious crash within 10 minutes of the conversation.

Many states have enacted laws that prohibit using a handheld cell phone while driving in hopes of reducing the risk of accidents. But researchers say these results suggest that hands-free cell phone users are no safer.

The results of the study appear in the July 12 issue of the British Medical Journal.

Hands-Free vs. Handheld

In the study, researchers analyzed cell phone use among 456 drivers aged 17 or over in Perth, Western Australia, who owned or used a cell phone and had been involved in an automobile crash serious enough to merit a trip to the hospital.

Researchers compared cell phone use five and 10 minutes before the crash to other driving trips at the same time of day in the week before the crash.

Although it is illegal to use a handheld cell phone while driving in Western Australia, researchers found that one in three of all calls were placed on handheld phones.

The results showed that drivers' use of a cell phone within a period up to 10 minutes before the time of the crash was associated with a fourfold greater risk of crashing. The risk associated with using a handheld cell phone was only slightly higher than the risk associated with using a hands-free device (4.9 vs. 3.8 times increased risk).

This increase in crash risk associated with cell phone use was found regardless of the sex or age of the driver.

Researchers write that the use of mobile phones is associated with an increased likelihood of serious road crashes. Currently available hands-free devices do not seem to reduce the risk, they conclude.

 

so your statement is empty: empty "proof" holds no credibility. i don't have to put words in your mouth, the effect of that lack of proof is staring everyone in the face.

 

I said:

It hasn't been PROVEN dangerous to other people.

 

That is a fact. Not in my world.

 

 

Edited May 21, 2009 by Perry
Snark removed

[Peek a Boo]

My remarks in red.

 

We do not have any proof whatsoever that cellphone use is any more dangerous than driving w/ other normal variables YES. WE DO.

 

 

 

No, we don't: none of those studies compare the distraction of a cellphone to the distraction of children, radio, eating, makeup, sex [since it was mentioned ;) ], or other activities performed while driving.

 

we do NOT have proof that cellphone use is any more dangerous than driving w/ other normal variables. If we do, where is it??

 

breathing/ walking: that something is dangerous doesn't mean it warrants legislation: THAT's my point. we breathe in polluted air and noxious fumes. should we legislate air filter masks for children's lungs??? walking down a quiet sidewalk in a park during the afternoon is dangerous. dare I say 4 times more dangerous than sitting at home on your couch?? :lol:

 

That something "is proven dangerous" proves NOTHING.

[Perry]

No, we don't: none of those studies compare the distraction of a cellphone to the distraction of children, radio, eating, makeup, sex [since it was mentioned ;) ], or other activities performed while driving.

 

we do NOT have proof that cellphone use is any more dangerous than driving w/ other normal variables. If we do, where is it??

 

breathing/ walking: that something is dangerous doesn't mean it warrants legislation: THAT's my point. we breathe in polluted air and noxious fumes. should we legislate air filter masks for children's lungs??? walking down a quiet sidewalk in a park during the afternoon is dangerous. dare I say 4 times more dangerous than sitting at home on your couch?? :lol:

 

That something "is proven dangerous" proves NOTHING.

 

Of course we can't outlaw everything that has a risk. No one is arguing that.

 

Some risky things warrant legislation. That's why we have seat belt and car seat laws. And when careless and irresponsible actions of others put the general public at risk, I would support steps to reduce the risk. That might include legislation, engineered solutions, or education, depending on the issue. I don't necessarily support cell phone legislation. Other distractions may be just as risky-that just isn't clear yet. But clearly driving and talking on the cell phone increases risk. I just don't understand how you can deny that.

[Peek a Boo]

Of course we can't outlaw everything that has a risk. No one is arguing that.

 

Some risky things warrant legislation. That's why we have seat belt and car seat laws. And when careless and irresponsible actions of others put the general public at risk, I would support steps to reduce the risk. That might include legislation, engineered solutions, or education, depending on the issue. I don't necessarily support cell phone legislation. Other distractions may be just as risky-that just isn't clear yet. But clearly driving and talking on the cell phone increases risk. I just don't understand how you can deny that.

I never denied that there was NO risk: now you are putting words in MY mouth :)

 

I said:

We do not have any proof whatsoever that cellphone use is any more dangerous than driving w/ other normal variables.

 

you said:

YES. WE DO.

 

 

but we don't!

 

What i deny is that driving + cellphone use = a dangerous activity that needs to be legislated. We have no proof that it is anymore dangerous than any other driving variable out there. that's why i still come back to letting officers use the reckless driving laws that we ALREADY HAVE.

 

And when careless and irresponsible actions of others put the general public at risk: How is cell phone use careless and irresponsible? where is the risk to the general public above and beyond normal driving variables?

increases risk of WHAT?? compared to WHAT?? should we shoot all the squirrels and birds that zap in front of us because they "increase risk" too???

[Perry]

What i deny is that driving + cellphone use = a dangerous activity that needs to be legislated. I might agree with that bolded part. I don't know yet.

 

 

 

We have no proof that it is anymore dangerous than any other driving variable out there. But that's the wrong question to ask. From a research standpoint, it is interesting and helpful to know this (your question): "Is cell phone and driving riskier than other distractions?"

 

From a public safety and policy standpoint, the question you need to answer is: "Is cell phone use while driving riskier than no cell phone use?" And that's been answered.

 

The next question is how to reduce the risk. I don't think we have good data on that yet.

that's why i still come back to letting officers use the reckless driving laws that we ALREADY HAVE. I've thought about that and wonder how it would work. I could see how some people might define cell phone use as reckless, opening the door for ticketing. I don't think people would put up with that though, and it would be challenged. Or they could give an extra fine if cell phone use resulted in a wreck - but then the definitions would be screwy. Is it only reckless if it causes a wreck? I don't know anything about the law, but I'm guessing they wouldn't get far with the reckless driving angle.

 

And when careless and irresponsible actions of others put the general public at risk: How is cell phone use careless and irresponsible? I was speaking in generalities- I'm not referring to cell phones. My point was that there is a difference between a behavior that only puts yourself at risk, and something that endangers everyone else. I'm much more likely to support legislation in that category than policing personal risky behaviors.

[CAMom]

From a public safety and policy standpoint, the question you need to answer is: "Is cell phone use while driving riskier than no cell phone use?" And that's been answered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly! It doesn't matter how it compares to other distractions. It matters whether or not it is dangerous at all.

 

There are countless accidents reported in my area that were caused by a driver texting or talking (not hands free) on their cell. In fact, we had a major fatal commuter train accident recently where the driver was texting and killed several people.

 

Also, you can't compare it to breathing or walking in the park. Those are risks you assume for yourself. When you text or talk (again, not hands free) you are widening your own risk and risking others.

 

Again, in California, you cannot text while driving nor can you talk without a hands free device on your cell while driving.

[Jaxon]

The activity you seek to regulate (cell phone use) is basically communication. If your state were to pass a law prohibiting it, why should they not then pass a law prohibiting:

 

1. Talking to passengers?

2. Use of CB radios?

3. Use of police/EMS/fire radios and computers?

 

All of the above activities are just as distracting as using a cell phone. Shouldn't they also be prohibited in the interest of public safety?

 

I don't think there's a need for an additional law. The activity in question would have to be reckless bordering on assault for a new law to have my support. I think the additional risk one undertakes while talking and driving is amply addressed by the extant law in your state requiring drivers to demonstrate financial responsibility to recompense others for injury to persons or property.

[Peek a Boo]

Exactly! It doesn't matter how it compares to other distractions. It matters whether or not it is dangerous at all.

 

NO, that's NOT what matters: Driving itself is dangerous. go ahead and outlaw it.

There are countless accidents reported in my area that were caused by a driver texting or talking (not hands free) on their cell. In fact, we had a major fatal commuter train accident recently where the driver was texting and killed several people.

 

anecdotal.

what is the leading cause of auto accidents?

hint: it ISN't cell phones.

 

Also, you can't compare it to breathing or walking in the park. Those are risks you assume for yourself. When you text or talk (again, not hands free) you are widening your own risk and risking others.

 

children are a higher distraction than cell phones.

anytime you get in a car w/ children you are widening your own risk and risking others, and kids account for more driver distraction than cellphones. Should we eliminate driving w/ children?? Or is it ok to risk other people's lives just so you can drive your kids around? wouldn't that be selfish??

 

 

We have no proof that it is anymore dangerous than any other driving variable out there. But that's the wrong question to ask. From a research standpoint, it is interesting and helpful to know this (your question): "Is cell phone and driving riskier than other distractions?"

 

From a public safety and policy standpoint, the question you need to answer is: "Is cell phone use while driving riskier than no cell phone use?" And that's been answered.

 

The next question is how to reduce the risk. I don't think we have good data on that yet.

 

we do NOT have information that supports cell phone use as being dangerous to the public: we have information that supports the fact that cell phones can be a distraction.

and see, this is where I disagree: if we don't need to legislate every other risky distraction out there, then why focus on cell phones when there is no hard data that they are worse than any other distraction? In fact, evidence suggests they aren't even the worst. even the studies involved can't say that people will die if cell phones are used while driving. That doesn't sound like good policy that does anything for public safety and in fact sets up society for even more problems later on down the road.

[Spy Car]

Banning texting while driving? Yes.

Banning phone use while driving? Yes

 

When you've had someone plow into your family (spouse and child) with a huge truck on the freeway because they were too distracted talking on the phone to notice traffic had stopped, your attitudes harden.

 

Don't ask me how I know :glare:

 

Bill

[Peek a Boo]

Banning texting while driving? Yes.

Banning phone use while driving? Yes

 

When you've had someone plow into your family (spouse and child) with a huge truck on the freeway because they were too distracted talking on the phone to notice traffic had stopped, your attitudes harden.

 

Don't ask me how I know :glare:

 

Bill

 

but Bill, if they had been distracted by a child, would you then be for banning the transportation of children by individuals?? Or, why not ban large trucks or mandate bigger safer vehicles for individuals?

 

I can appreciate passion on a topic, but when it comes to turning that passion into a law that affects other people [like the religious people who want to ban gay marriage because the one gay person they knew happened to be a jerk of an abuser] where do you draw the line?

[Tree House Academy]

I just think government restriction, in general, is a bad idea. The less control they have over my life, my liberties, my rights, the better off I am (read: we all are).

[Highereducation]

Banning texting while driving? Yes.

Banning phone use while driving? Yes

 

When you've had someone plow into your family (spouse and child) with a huge truck on the freeway because they were too distracted talking on the phone to notice traffic had stopped, your attitudes harden.

 

Don't ask me how I know :glare:

 

Bill

 

Amen, I tried to raise this point earlier in the thread.

 

I guess some people just won't get it until it's their family member who gets hurt.

[Heather in Neverland]

Amen, I tried to raise this point earlier in the thread.

 

I guess some people just won't get it until it's their family member who gets hurt.

 

I get it. But I also get that a woman rear-ended me at 45 miles an hour, totaling my car and injuring me because she was CHANGING HER RADIO STATION....so should we outlaw radios in cars? Or just changing your station?

 

My aunt was killed in a car accident because she and her husband were arguing and my uncle was distracted by the argument and hit someone else. Should we outlaw ARGUING? Or maybe driving with one's spouse?

 

My mom was in an accident because my little brother had mischieviously unhooked his seatbelt and she reached to fasten it back up. So do we outlaw driving with your child? Or just driving with children who are naughty enough to unbuckle their seatbelt?

 

There are a million and one reasons why people get distracted and end up in a car accident. The real question is not whether or not cell phones are a distraction ...it is WHY ARE HYPER-FOCUSED ON CELL PHONES? It is like we have just picked one thing that possibly distracts drivers and now we are running with it???

 

There are LOTS of things that ALSO distract drivers. If we are going to go after cell phones, then let's go after those things too.

[Spy Car]

but Bill, if they had been distracted by a child, would you then be for banning the transportation of children by individuals?? Or, why not ban large trucks or mandate bigger safer vehicles for individuals?

 

 

Do you ever leave the house? :D

 

I can't tell you the number of times I've barely evaded being hit by a distracted driver on a cell phone. It happens. all. the. time.

 

It won't take a "study" for me to understand talking on a cell phone while driving is "crazy dangerous".

 

And transporting people is the purpose of transportation. Yacking on phones is not.

 

I can appreciate passion on a topic, but when it comes to turning that passion into a law that affects other people [like the religious people who want to ban gay marriage because the one gay person they knew happened to be a jerk of an abuser] where do you draw the line?

 

Whaa? What does it matter is the person behind the wheel is sweet as pie, or a big jerk. Kind hearted or a hateful bigot? Either way, their attention should be on the road.

 

If their kids are distracting them? Pull over.

If they need to apply mascara? Pull over.

If they need to make a phone call? Pull over.

 

Failure to do so puts lives at risk.

 

Bill

Edited May 22, 2009 by Spy Car

[Highereducation]

I get it. But I also get that a woman rear-ended me at 45 miles an hour, totaling my car and injuring me because she was CHANGING HER RADIO STATION....so should we outlaw radios in cars? Or just changing your station?

 

My aunt was killed in a car accident because she and her husband were arguing and my uncle was distracted by the argument and hit someone else. Should we outlaw ARGUING? Or maybe driving with one's spouse?

 

My mom was in an accident because my little brother had mischieviously unhooked his seatbelt and she reached to fasten it back up. So do we outlaw driving with your child? Or just driving with children who are naughty enough to unbuckle their seatbelt?

 

There are a million and one reasons why people get distracted and end up in a car accident. The real question is not whether or not cell phones are a distraction ...it is WHY ARE HYPER-FOCUSED ON CELL PHONES? It is like we have just picked one thing that possibly distracts drivers and now we are running with it???

 

There are LOTS of things that ALSO distract drivers. If we are going to go after cell phones, then let's go after those things too.

 

The things you've mentioned here happen occasionally. We don't hear every day that someone had an accident because of their kid, or because of the radio, or because they were putting mascara on while driving. And when those things do happen, the driver is dealt with accordingly.

 

Like Spy Car said, accidents caused by cell phones/texting are happening increasingly. In fact, to quote him, "All. The. Time."

 

If it wasn't such a problem, it wouldn't be getting the press it has been getting recently. Just because 20-year-old Suzie can't drive home without calling her boyfriend to tell him for the millionth time that day that she loves him, that's no excuse for putting someone else's life at risk.

 

And another thing: changing the radio isn't a constant thing. Kids don't constantly unbuckle their seatbelts. People don't constantly argue every time they get in a car - yet, many people ARE on the cell phone from the time they put the key into the ignition until they arrive at their destination. And if they get into a fight with their spouse on the phone, or they get bad news, or they get passionate about whatever they are talking about, THEY ARE NOT PAYING FULL ATTENTION TO THE ROAD.

[Peek a Boo]

The things you've mentioned here happen occasionally. We don't hear every day that someone had an accident because of their kid, or because of the radio, or because they were putting mascara on while driving. And when those things do happen, the driver is dealt with accordingly.

 

Like Spy Car said, accidents caused by cell phones/texting are happening increasingly. In fact, to quote him, "All. The. Time."

 

If it wasn't such a problem, it wouldn't be getting the press it has been getting recently.

 

with all due respect to SpyCar's sense of time, the statistics we DO have regarding driver safety reveal that cell phones are NOT the leading cause of driver distraction, and those other things DO happen All. The. Time. The reason it is getting the press it has been getting is because it's a popular bandaid solution that appeals to people's feelings, not because it's effective.

[Heather in Neverland]

The things you've mentioned here happen occasionally. We don't hear every day that someone had an accident because of their kid, or because of the radio, or because they were putting mascara on while driving. And when those things do happen, the driver is dealt with accordingly.

 

Like Spy Car said, accidents caused by cell phones/texting are happening increasingly. In fact, to quote him, "All. The. Time."

 

If it wasn't such a problem, it wouldn't be getting the press it has been getting recently. Just because 20-year-old Suzie can't drive home without calling her boyfriend to tell him for the millionth time that day that she loves him, that's no excuse for putting someone else's life at risk.

 

And another thing: changing the radio isn't a constant thing. Kids don't constantly unbuckle their seatbelts. People don't constantly argue every time they get in a car - yet, many people ARE on the cell phone from the time they put the key into the ignition until they arrive at their destination. And if they get into a fight with their spouse on the phone, or they get bad news, or they get passionate about whatever they are talking about, THEY ARE NOT PAYING FULL ATTENTION TO THE ROAD.

 

Interesting little article that cites the top 6 causes of car accidents: http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/07/20/the_6_most_common_causes_of_automobile_crashes.htm

 

Number one cause? DISTRACTED DRIVERS. It doesn't say cell phones are the number one cause...it says DISTRACTIONS are the number one cause...all of them and it even lists the worst offenders: rubbernecking (#1 cause), looking at scenery, other passengers, adjusting the radio, reading. It then goes on to mention that cell phone use is BECOMING more of a problem but it is far from the number one problem.

 

It then mentions the other main causes in this order: driver fatigue, drunk driving, speeding, aggressive driving, weather.

 

So I'd like to reiterate my point that essentially we are "picking on" cell phones when it is just one of MANY distractions that should ALL be dealt with.

[Peek a Boo]

Do you ever leave the house? :D

 

i just did :D

 

Whaa? What does it matter is the person behind the wheel is sweet as pie, or a big jerk. Kind hearted or a hateful bigot? Either way, their attention should be on the road.

no, no, no --YOU are supporting legislation that affects other people who CAN responsibly drive and talk simply because YOU had a bad encounter w/ someone who couldn't drive correctly.

[Spy Car]

no, no, no --YOU are supporting legislation that affects other people who CAN responsibly drive and talk simply because YOU had a bad encounter w/ someone who couldn't drive correctly.

 

Encounters. Plural. Multiple encounters. Too many encounters.

 

Bill

Edited May 22, 2009 by Spy Car

[Mamagistra]

Ever-so slightly off-topic here...

 

At dh's office, one may not use one's cell phone while walking. :confused: I'm serious.

[Peek a Boo]

Encounters. Plural. Multiple encounters. Too many encounters.

 

Bill

 

I'm sure --i hear that a lot on other issues too :)

[skaterbabs]

Again, anyone who causes a crash due to talking on a cell phone, changing the radio, speeding, falling asleep, desciplining children, reading, putting on makeup or ANYTHING else you can think of, has broken the strictest traffic law we *already* have, the one forbidding reckless driving.

 

Simply allowing officers to use THAT ONE LAW when writing tickets would go a long way towards prevention because the consequences that driver will recieve in court are pretty stiff, ranging from huge fines to loss of the driver's liscence to increased insurance rates and having to have SR-22 insurance.

 

Rather than make NEW laws, make it known throught the nation that if you cause a crash due to driver distraction, regardless of the cause, you WILL be cited with reckless driving, and be subject to state-imposed maximum sentences. Then you'll see a reduction of foolish behaviour. Right now people do stupid stuff like putting on mascara and searching for change on the floorboard or having fights with a passenger because they don't see it as a big deal. Safety doesn't enter into their thought processes. They don't CARE that they are distracted whle driving. Make the consequences stiff enough (simply by enforcing ALREADY-EXISTING reckless driving laws) to make them think twice.

 

After all, at that point, that rolling bump into someone else's back end that does no damage to either car, but was caused by a mom screaming at her kids? Mom will be less likely to do that when she gets slapped with reckless driving, and she'll tell all her friends and family. And they'll tell THEIR friends and family. And before too very long it will be understood. Cause a crash, get a ticket for reckless driving. It's that simple.

[momo9]

No I don't think it should be a law.

 

People need to be responsible for themselves and I'm tired of the gov't taking personal responsibility out of people's hands. The assumption there is that people are too stupid to use their brains.

 

What I do support is fining. IF someone is seen on the road driving erratically or causing traffic problems because the are talking or texting on their phone.....then a police officer should be able to pull them over and fine them.

[my3starsofthesea]

Texting while driving should be banned, as well as applying makeup, reading, or anything else that is obviously stupid to do while driving! It's a no-brainer to me!

[AuntPol]

Nope, don't need laws. Some people, like my husband can easily drive and talk on a head set with no issues. In fact, he's probably safer being on the phone because otherwise, he's be daydreaming and really not paying attention. Some people like me are easily distracted and should not. People need to learn to use their best judgement which is of course is extremely rare as individuals in our society seem to think they are the exceptions not the rule. I know that I don't drive well on the cell and sensory issues don't leave me inclined to use a headset, so I avoid using the cell phone as much as possible in the car. I am probably a rare breed. I don't usually listen to the radio because I hate the noise and the having to change chanels.

 

Enforce the laws we already have instead of creating new ones! I really hate that society needs to curtail the rights of many because of the stupidity of the few.

[Murphy101]

Reckless driving is reckless driving, whether it involves a phone or reading the newspaper in bumper to bumper traffic or scarfing down breakfast at 60mph.

 

I call these "mama get the hammer, there's a fly on papa's head" laws.

 

Reckless driving (defined as any activity causing a collision or unsafe driving conditions) is ALREADY ILLEGAL. Passing laws against specific behaviours just costs money and time that could be better spend ENFORCING already-existant laws.

 

:iagree:It seems the only point of such laws is city revenue making. It doesn't prevent anything, it just adds to the ticket. Just like a law against drunk driving doesn't prevent drunk driving at all, it just adds to the ticket and charges. For example, no one is pulled over for drunk driving. They are pulled over for reckless driving. The cop can't add drunk driving to the charges/ticket until he gets a breath or blood reading.

 

But we have become so used to it that in a torrential downpour, while doing 60 mph, folks are texting!!!!!!

 

wha???? who the heck are you hanging out with that does that at all, much less enough to "get used ot it"? Crickey. I'll admit there's some pure dumb in people at times, but I don't see that enough to get used to it! Yikes. Okay maybe your specific area has an issue that needs to addressed. Polluted water affecting brain function or something... I mean.. wow.:blink:

 

Now you are on to something. For instance, the little old lady in McDonalds yesterday. She could hardly walk, could not hear the cashier, did not understand the question, "do you want to eat here or take your food to go?", barely managed to carry her tray to the table. Then, she ate her food, got up, and got behind the wheel of a car. :confused:

 

oh my. I've seen that too. *shudder*

 

I didn't get my license until I was married, which happens to have been 19. My dh and I have discussed it and I really don't think I we will let our kids get a license before 18. The maturity, experience, and forethought just isn't there for most kids under that age, imho. Besides, the cost of insuring them will probably be way out of our league.

 

with all due respect to SpyCar's sense of time, the statistics we DO have regarding driver safety reveal that cell phones are NOT the leading cause of driver distraction, and those other things DO happen All. The. Time. The reason it is getting the press it has been getting is because it's a popular bandaid solution that appeals to people's feelings, not because it's effective.

 

:iagree:

[Spy Car]

A study from the University of Utah (a state that's not soft on alcohol consumption) found: cell-phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers.

 

http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/DrivingAssessment2003.pdf

 

But I already knew this. I see it with my own eyes on the free-ways of Los Angeles. Every time I'm on the road. People doing crazy erratic maneuvers while driving, and in nearly ever case they are on a cell phone and their minds are not on the road.

 

It is illegal now. But compliance with the law is less than universal. Once upon a time driving while drunk was "OK" too. Hopefully people grow up to the reality that driving while talking on a cell phone is more dangerous than driving while intoxicated.

 

And that doing so puts other peoples lives at increased risks. If that doesn't run against the principle of "loving ones neighbors" I don't know what does. Driving while on a cell phone says I don't give a **** about anyone but myself!

 

Bill

[Peek a Boo]

A study from the University of Utah (a state that's not soft on alcohol consumption) found: cell-phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers.

 

http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/DrivingAssessment2003.pdf

 

well, no, that's not what that study says.

 

It says that intoxicated drivers performed differently from cell phone drivers, and went on to say that "when controlling for....may actually..."

[Spy Car]

well, no, that's not what that study says.

 

It says that intoxicated drivers performed differently from cell phone drivers, and went on to say that "when controlling for....may actually..."

 

The conclusion in context

"With respect to traffic safety, our data are consistent with Redelmeier and Tibshirani’s (1997)

earlier estimates. In fact, when controlling for driving difficulty and time on task, cell-phone drivers

may actually exhibit greater impairments (i.e., more accidents and less responsive driving behavior)

than legally intoxicated drivers. These data also call into question driving regulations that prohibit

hand-held cell-phones and permit hands-free cell-phones, because no significant differences were

found in the impairments to driving caused by these two modes of cellular communication."

[Elaine]

I don't support any cell phone bans. Unless the laws include a ban on changing radio stations/cds, bickering children, GPS fiddling, searching for toll change, or eating a hamburger (which I most certainly do not want to see happen!), cell phone bans are unfair.

 

Reckless driving is reckless driving, whether it involves a phone or reading the newspaper in bumper to bumper traffic or scarfing down breakfast at 60mph.

 

:iagree: Stoopid government. Don't get me started on some of the completely ridiculous laws out there.

[Pajama Mama]

I wouldn't recommend banning cell phones. I greatly dislike using them when I'm driving. I will speak for as long as is necessary and then hang up. Most people do use them safely.

 

I still get a kick out of the this story though. The mom who was on the cell phone while bre@stfeeding and driving. She had her kid on the steering wheel. It sounds so unsafe but the thought just cracks me up. What was she thinking? This is not a debate about bf-ing. I nursed my 3 kids.

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2009/02/27/ddn022709breastfeedweb.html

[Peek a Boo]

The conclusion in context

"With respect to traffic safety, our data are consistent with Redelmeier and Tibshirani’s (1997)

earlier estimates. In fact, when controlling for driving difficulty and time on task, cell-phone drivers

may actually exhibit greater impairments (i.e., more accidents and less responsive driving behavior)

than legally intoxicated drivers. These data also call into question driving regulations that prohibit

hand-held cell-phones and permit hands-free cell-phones, because no significant differences were

found in the impairments to driving caused by these two modes of cellular communication."

 

yup. Like I said. when controlling for.... may actually...

It's a guess.

[Spy Car]

yup. Like I said. when controlling for.... may actually...

It's a guess.

 

Yeah, and what they are talking about is that people often drive slower when on the cell phone in their "distracted states" thinking that makes it safer.

 

Have you ever been on a free-way with someone driving below the speed limit? It is a very dangerous thing.

[Peek a Boo]

Yeah, and what they are talking about is that people often drive slower when on the cell phone in their "distracted states" thinking that makes it safer.

 

Have you ever been on a free-way with someone driving below the speed limit? It is a very dangerous thing.

 

 

i have. it's still much safer than someone speeding.

 

and ftr, i do agree that one is distracted while driving a cell phone or transporting children or rubbernecking. i don't agree that any of those should be outlawed. :001_smile:

[Perry]

i have. it's still much safer than someone speeding.

 

 

 

How do you know that?

 

The consequences of an accident at a high rate of speed are worse than those at a low rate of speed, but I don't know if driving at 70 without distraction is really more dangerous than driving 50 with a distraction.

[Peek a Boo]

Yeah, and what they are talking about is that people often drive slower when on the cell phone in their "distracted states" thinking that makes it safer.

 

Have you ever been on a free-way with someone driving below the speed limit? It is a very dangerous thing.

 

 

oops. i forgot the obvious:

 

The speed LIMIT is the speed LIMIT, not necessarily the optimum speed.

The minimum speed is usually 45. The study shows a drop in speed of about 3 miles per hour, and nowhere near 45mph. hardly enough to qualify as "dangerous."

[Peek a Boo]

How do you know that?

 

The consequences of an accident at a high rate of speed are worse than those at a low rate of speed, but I don't know if driving at 70 without distraction is really more dangerous than driving 50 with a distraction.

 

for the very basic reason that it is easier to avoid them. But since we're talking anecdotal evidence at this point, I figger I'll add my own. :)

 

feel free to offer another study.

 

 

=================

eta: to clarify:

 

SpyCar asked "have you ever..."

I replied that yes I have and gave my own interpretation of that which i witnessed. That's how I know ;)

Edited May 26, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[Spy Car]

yup. Like I said. when controlling for.... may actually...

It's a guess.

 

And cigarettes may actually kill you.

 

And soft-drinks may actually be bad for your health.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

i have. it's still much safer than someone speeding.

 

It's really not. If traffic on a freeway is flowing at 70 miles and hour and you have a person on a phone going 50, this creates a very dangerous situation. And the decrease in speed doesn't have to the that drastic for there to be increased danger.

 

Driving 5 miles an hour slower than traffic causes disruptions and unnecessary lane changes and a snarling of traffic. And it causes accidents.

 

 

:auto: