View Poll Results: Do you think that Banning 'hands on' cell phones while driving is good

Voters
156. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    123 78.85%
  • No

    33 21.15%
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 139

Thread: nationwide ban on the use of cell phones and text messaging devices while driving.

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    1,188
    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.
    "To me, there's nothing freer than a bird, you know, just flying wherever he wants to go. And, I don't know, that's what this country is all about, being free. I think everyone wants to be a free bird." - Ronnie Van Zant

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    6,976
    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.

  3. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Peterson View Post
    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.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    The Hartland of Michigan
    Posts
    7,628
    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?
    Never, under any circumstances, consume a laxative and sleeping pill, on the same night

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    6,976
    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..

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, IN
    Posts
    4,563
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Meiser View Post
    Seems like an MRI while driving would be a big distraction.
    Now that was funny right there, I don't care who y'are.
    Jason

    "Don't get stuck on stupid." --Lt. Gen. Russel Honore


  7. #82
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Doylestown, PA
    Posts
    7,551
    Quote Originally Posted by John Coloccia View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Curt Harms; 12-15-2011 at 9:37 AM.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Saint Helens, OR
    Posts
    2,463
    Quote Originally Posted by David Weaver View Post
    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.
    Measure twice, cut three times, start over. Repeat as necessary.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,178
    Quote Originally Posted by David Weaver View Post
    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.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Monroe, MI
    Posts
    11,896
    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.


  11. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Drew View Post
    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.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Savannah, GA
    Posts
    4,422
    Quote Originally Posted by David Weaver View Post
    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.

    “Life is not so short but that there is always time enough for courtesy and chivalry.” —Ralph Waldo Emerson

    Everybody knows what to do with the devil but them that has him. My Grandmother
    I had a guardian angel at one time, but my little devil got him drunk, tattooed, and left him penniless at a strip club. I have not had another angel assigned to me yet.
    I didn't change my mind, my mind changed me.
    Bella Terra

  13. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Meiser View Post
    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/Jus...ng_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/applie...ltitasking.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/r...ireless/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.
    Last edited by Daniel Berlin; 12-15-2011 at 11:17 AM.

  14. #89
    Are these the new easy access MRIs we're talking about, or the old confining loud ones?

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Monroe, MI
    Posts
    11,896
    Either way the magnets really mess with the cell phone reception.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •