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

[David Keller NC]

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]

[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]

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]

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.

Is it a no cell phone ban or a hands free only use?

[Craig Matheny]

"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]

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

[Craig Matheny]

Frank got kids? if you do and they where babies once did you drive with them? That is a true distraction 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]

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]

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]

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

[David Keller NC]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.