Ban cellphones in vehicles

[Law]

I think we can all agree on the fact that there are many distractions associated with the operation of a motor vehicle. Therefore, would it not make more sense to try and eliminate as many distractions as we can rather than justify newer ones?

[Golfpeasant]

I do not agree banning cell phones in cars. For years I had amateur radios in my vehicles and not once did I have an accident while talking on one. The radios were a lot more complex to use than cell phone.

People need to learn how to drive.........period. The other day I was getting ready to pull out of a Tim Hortons, there is a stop light 75 left of the entrance I was exiting. I looked, the light was RED, no cars coming around the other corner. So I started to pull out and here comes a lady who drives right through that RED LIGHT. It is not like it just turned red either, it was red for at least 20 seconds before she got to it. She was not talking on a cell phone, she was just not paying attention or just didn;t give a S#@T

In general drivers just need to slow down, or leave for their destinations 10 minutes eariler. Pay attention to what is going on around them.

To ban cell phones in cars because they cause accidents? You might as well ban the cars too. It is like saying "GUNS KILL", guns do not kill, it is the idiot pulling the trigger on the gun that is causing someone to die.

What I do agree on would be mandatory hands free cell phones if being used in a vehicle.

While I do agree golfbum that people are CAPABLE of learning to drive and use a phone (or CB), the reality is no one does. There are BARELY CAPABLE drivers as it is, adding a phone doesn't help.

Ban it, its stupid and pointless. There is NO REASON to be using a phone while driving, NONE.

[Golfbum]

While I do agree golfbum that people are CAPABLE of learning to drive and use a phone (or CB), the reality is no one does. There are BARELY CAPABLE drivers as it is, adding a phone doesn't help.

Ban it, its stupid and pointless. There is NO REASON to be using a phone while driving, NONE.

I beg to differ, I could drive, tune my HF rig by hand, and talk around the world and I never once came close to being in an accident.

Put it this way, how long have motor vehicles been on the roads? 100+ years. How many people have been killed in motor vehicle accidents? Millions I would guess. Now back in 1965, were accidents caused by cell phones, or CB, or Ham radio Ops? I don't think so. Driver error, poor road conditions etc caused accidents back then. Same thing that is causing accidents today, plus SPEED.
Some people rely on cell phones in their daily business dealings, why punish them because of the idiots who can't drive properly even if they had no cell phone in their hands?

Banning cell phones is just another way that Big Brother Government dictates your life. They do that enough already.

[em69]

Thank you Judge dHacka.

The only thing g8r did was to indicate that he is twice as inattentive as those who are not on their phone. Not only is he talking on the phone, but he is changing the radio station, talking to passengers and drinking coffee.

The point is, nobody in this forum can say they need to talk on the phone while driving. It has been proven that this action causes accidents...many accidents.

[dH]

Driving back to work from the bank today.

Going through an intersection; the car infront of me almost hit another car taking a right turn into the street infront....

Reason? - Your not going to believe this but some joker was PULLED OVER talking on his cell phone about 15-20 feet in from the corner of the street. So the intersection backs up a bit and as I drive by I look to see why ANYONE could possibly be stopping in such an awful spot than I see him talking on his cell phone. no more than 100 meters further down traffic is slowing down because someone else is parked on the side of the road talking on their cell phone.

Didn't want to reopen this thread but most streets aren't wide enough to have parked cars and two lanes of traffic FLOWING steadily. The whole idea of pulling over to talk on your phone is an awful one.

If you can't figure out how to safey talk and drive at the same time; don't bring your cell phone with you; or turn it off; Pulling over to the side of the road on a busy street that has constant / near constant two way traffic is even more of a hazard than keeping the flow while talking on the phone.

Another thing; If talking on the phone is toooo much of a distractionl under the same logic you shouldn't be talking to a passenger either should you?


Didn't want to reopen this but I just couldn't believe these people...

[Andru]

I agree you should ban cell phones while driving. Here's the biggest problem you only have 2 hands. One to hold the wheel and one to hold the phone. How am I suppose to drink my beer? I suppose I could get one of the those beer hats with the straws but I don't have enough head room! Therefore we must Ban Cell phones NOW!

[Kilroy]

Err, pull off to a side sreet??

[jonf]

anyone stupid enought to pull over on a major street to take a call barely deserves the right to vote, let alone the privilege of driving

[Pinshark]

Pulling over to the side of the road on a busy street that has constant / near constant two way traffic is even more of a hazard than keeping the flow while talking on the phone.

What busy street isn't lined with PARKING lots. Use them. Although if someone who is driving a vehicle isn't smart enough to figure that out should they really be allowed to drive a car? Raising the point again that is it really the cellphones that are the problem?

[Golfpeasant]

But thats the whole point. NO ONE thinks they're a bad driver. EVERY ONE thinks they can drive using a phone. A BIG PERCENTAGE think they can drive while impaired.

Why would you add difficulty to a process (ie driving) that could potentially kill.

Simply put, people are, by nature, stupid.

Ya ya, thats fine, you learned how to drive with a CB/phone/etc, and never had an accident...bully for you. There are exceptions to the rule.

[jonf]

You can't punish all for the stupidity of some. What is necessary in this case is to create laws, not to ban cell phones in cars, but to stiffen the penalties for those who do it and cause accidents. This is NOT the same as drinking and driving. Alcohol is proven to impair physical reaction times etc, that are needed to drive. Cell phones do NOT prevent one from driving properly however. They DO prevent IDIOTS from driving properly. (rant time...look away if you're looking for a logical argument about cell phones).

The extent to which our society panders to idiots is getting ridiculous. Why is it that all of society should be restricted by the ineptitude of others. Next time some idiot on a cell phone causes an accident, take away his license. If he injures someone, put him in jail, as you would with an impaired driver. I'm tired of having to inconvenience myself because of safeguards put in place for stupid people. Its no wonder society is becoming full of them - they have no reason to learn. If bill jams his hand in a toaster and burns it, nobody will tell bill he's stupid, or not to do it again, they'll force all toasters to come with a safety shield. Everything you buy these days has 20 pages of warnings on it, all because stupid people do stupid things, then stupid courts award them stupid amounts of money. Anyone seen the microwaves that warn not to place live pets inside? And EVERYONE has seen the warnings that their hot coffee is hot. what a concept, hot coffee. The next time you see someone hurt themselves doing something stupid, turn, point, and laugh. Maybe some good old fashioned ridicule will help. Nothing else seems to. The moral of the story? stupid people suck

[covanant]

Is that why those little sillica packets in electronics say"Do not eat"

[dH]

People just have to be more accountable. If you feel that you can't operate a motor vehichle efficiently while talking on a phone than CHOOSE NOT TO.

Banning removes choice; CHOICE is the ultimate freedom when you remove choices you become ... need I say ... Communist / Dictatorship?

The freedom to choose is everyones right if you begin making laws for everything and anything you remove that freedom.

Just because I can't shoot under 90 doesn't mean someone else can't. (out of context but you know what I'm saying...)

Trying to ban something for everyone simply because you can't do it is immature, know your limits; know what your capable of doing and act within that realm.

Personally I choose touse my cell phone when in the car. I just got a new car however which is standard so I will choose to turn my cellphone off / or put it on vibrate and check the phone when I'm done because I'm not comfortable with my clutch yet. Do I think all others should ... NO!!!! I know plenty of people that can manage it safely; it's their choice and decision; living in a democarcy that we do we SHOULD respect that.

People should stop labelling everyone stupid; take a good look in the mirror and make their own decisions for themselves. You govern yourself and no one else this isn't pre-school it's the real world realize that...

[dH]

P.S Yes I have read Milton Friedmann (sp?) and yes I'd rather be golfing than reading this message board from my desk at work

[jonf]

People should stop labelling everyone stupid; take a good look in the mirror and make their own decisions for themselves. You govern yourself and no one else this isn't pre-school it's the real world realize that...

That's the trouble though. People DON'T govern themselves any more. That's the only reason we're having this debate. If people would govern themselves, we wouldn't have this problem, because the people who can't drive safely with cellphones would realize their folly and stop. But as it is, until the government tells them they can't do it, they will believe that there's nothing unsafe about it. How many times have you told someone they shouldn't do something stupid, or unsafe, or dangerous to others, and they respond with something like "it's a free country" or "its not illegal is it"? Yes, it is a free country, but that doesn't mean you should go around doing something dangerous simply because you can. And no, it's not illegal to smash yourself over the head with the baseball bat, but that doesn't mean you should do it.

[Golfpeasant]

The reason you ban something IS because its IMPOSSIBLE to police a small number. It would be great if we had the resources to police the infractions that make it worse for everyone...we don't.

So far, for all you incredibly adept people, you haven't explained to me why you NEED to be talking on the cell phone. All doctors and emergency personnel excluded, I suspect you have no good reason except you hate when you're "rights" are infringed upon.

We have rights that infringed upon every day, but we don't complain, because we grew up that way. We don't pour paint down the toilet (or shouldn't anyway). We don't allow hate crimes. We don't drop cigarettes in dry forests. WE USED TO DRINK AND DRIVE, and slowly that's changing. We used to SMOKE IN HOSPITALS, and indoors, thats changed.

Why is this different? Because proud people can't accept the facts.

[dH]

Golfpeasant,

Your obviously not a business man; business doesn't stop because your in a car. Must be nice to have a life without demands placed on you.

Back to my previous post; than choose not to because obviously you dont' feel comfortable doing it or you wouldn't be making a big deal over it. CHOOSE NOT TO. Others CHOOSE to because they can.

This is a ridiculous debate obviously talking on a cell phone is different than hate crimes and the other "examples" you chose to use.

When are we going to stop allowing people to ride with passengers because they cause FAR more distraction than a phone ever would. Look at the big picture and stop being so short sighted.

[jonf]

We have rights that infringed upon every day, but we don't complain, because we grew up that way. We don't pour paint down the toilet (or shouldn't anyway). We don't allow hate crimes. We don't drop cigarettes in dry forests. WE USED TO DRINK AND DRIVE, and slowly that's changing. We used to SMOKE IN HOSPITALS, and indoors, thats changed.

Why is this different? Because proud people can't accept the facts.

It is different because all of those things, by nature, are inherently harmful to others. If you pour paint down the drain, it will damage the environment, and eventually have negative effects on humans. I don't have to explain how hate crimes harm people. Dropping cigarettes in a dry forest destroys forests and homes etc. Smoking in hospitals causes harm to patients. Drinking and driving always endangers other road users. Talking on a cell phone, however, is not inherently dangerous. We ban things that inevitably lead to harm. I don't talk on my cell phone while driving, because I personally don't think that I can handle driving and fumbling with my cell phone. That is no reason to say that someone who CAN handle both at once should not. Almost every action CAN be harmful. You can't ban everything though...you have to punish those who act improperly. That is why we have the offence of negligence in the criminal code - to punish those who cause harm to others without breaking any specific law.

[Golfpeasant]

I guess my point is 30 years ago no one saw the harm in smoking in a hospital (or indoor) and now they do. People were pouring pain down the sewers 40 or 50 years ago, I saw neighbours pour oil trays down sewers as a kid, and i'm sure some still do.

10 years from now, once those negligent incidents lead to deaths, cell phones and driving will be banned.

[Sakuraba]

Bad drivers are bad drivers and they do not very often rehabilitate. I talk to people all day about how many and what types of accidents they have had over the years, and the ones who had accidents years ago are the ones who are still having them now. A driver with 20 years experience and no accidents is much less likely to have an accident in the coming 12 months than someone who has had several in the past 20 years. These are the same drivers who have multiple speeding tickets, drivers license violations and money problems. Of course these are generalizations, but there is an entire multi billion dollar industry devoted to the actuarial breakdown of drivers habits and patterns of behavious, and the larger the pool of examples, the more accurate the data.

They driver that ran into you or cut you off that happened to be talking on a cell phone is most likely a bad and irresponsible driver, whether or not using a cell.

If the logic is that banning cell phones will reduce the # of accidents and injuries and deaths attributable to car accidents, it probably would. So would reducing speed limits, banning all cars that don't have side curtain airbags, or that don't score well in crash testing.

Banning cell phones won't keep these people from causing accidents.

There, my rant is over.

[Wesvans]

Just one question: How many times have you been at home or the office and talking on the phone and somebody comes up to you trying to talk to you or just generally have you do something that requires some attention? Out of those occurances, have you ever had to wave them off because you were intently trying to pay attention to the phone conversation?

Imagine that situation now happening in a car.

I'm not saying everybody has this problem, but talking on the phone is not as passive an activity as changing a radio station, smoking a cigarette, etc. It requires a lot of your attention and focus.

Those saying a ban is bad are correct in saying that there are also other problems causing accidents with agressive drivers, speeding, tailgating, not having mandatory safety devices like side airbags. But most of those things are controlled by a law, and if you are caught breaking them there are consequences. For those that currently aren't (side airbags), there is precedent for them to be law going forward (they made seatbelts mandatory, daytime running lights, the third brake light in back of the car, etc).

If I drive 150 in a 50 and hit and kill somebody I am definitely charged. If I drive 50 in a 50, cut somebody off hit and kill them because I held a phone to my right ear and didn't do a blind spot check there is no part of the law that guarantees I will be charged for my poor decision as a driver even though in both situations a bad decision was made that resulted in the death of another person.

I know it is just one study, but here is a study done by the US National Safety Council in 2002 that talks about the reaction times of a controlled sample group while on and off the phone: http://www.nsc.org/issues/idrive/inincell.htm They have a newer study, but it appears to be behind a pay subscription and I'm not shelling out the cash.