[Curve63049]

but it takes legislators to enact laws and I can't imagine any among that crowd who'd see this as other than a waste of time

The "problem" is it only takes ONE legislator to introduce a measure. Say one who agrees with the institutes "thought experiment."

Now you're one of the other legislators in the state . . . and the matter comes for a vote. What's your *argument* against this?

If you vote against it are you prepared to have a campaign ad run against you in the next election saying YOU voted against making "roadways safer" by an opponent?

[Tlynnsmith]

We thought so too and banned him.

Uh oh! You were being very "judgemental" and didn't show crackberry love!!!!!!!! Hmmmph! I'm going over to "www.blackberryluvsme.com".

[Spinny]

The "problem" is it only takes ONE legislator to introduce a measure. Say one who agrees with the institutes "thought experiment."

Now you're one of the other legislators in the state . . . and the matter comes for a vote. What's your *argument* against this?

If you vote against it are you prepared to have a campaign ad run against you in the next election saying YOU voted against making "roadways safer" by an opponent?

My point is, as I said, this was already tried and abandoned--in New York, of all places. Been there, done that. If it were enforceable they'd have passed it with a pretty ribbon tied around it. It's not.

[jwolfe99]

Personally I support not using the cell phone while driving. Now as far as hands free I dont see where its any more distracting than talking to your passenger or listening to the radio while driving. That being said, I do have a beef with Uncle Sam writing a law to protect me ???? I dont need the government telling me how to protect myself or what is best for me, just put the facts out there, I am intelligent enough to make my own decision. If I am too dumb to make a qualified decision as to what is good for me then, well maybe I dont need to be driving anyway Just my 2 cents.

Julian

[rachel0179]

How many will change thier mind once thier insurance company knows the accident was caused by the user with the cell phone and wont pay them.

[rsweet]

Driving is inherently dangerous and full of distractions. Lets include kids and spouses in the law.

[kbell]

I think there's a disconnect between "criminal" and "civil" here. If you get nailed in NY for cell phone use while driving, it's a CIVIL offense, not a criminal one. You don't go to jail or get dragged before a judge unless you dispute the ticket. Just like speeding (short of reckless endangerment) you just incur a fine.

This is why I think they should enforce what they already have. For example:
Not staying in Marked lanes - currently minor moving violation
Reckless or driving to endanger - major moving violation (criminal)

Depending on how a person is driving, regular laws should & do apply.
The laws are there but there just aren't enough cops around to enforce them or a proposed ban, not around here anyway. The ban would only stop those law abiding enough to just stop doing it because they said so.

[Spinny]

How many will change thier mind once thier insurance company knows the accident was caused by the user with the cell phone and wont pay them.

In my most humble of opinions this is where it should be "enforced," if at all possible. It's how I feel about seat belt and helmet laws: if it can be shown you were not using them, the insurance company gets to wash its hands of you. That's really the only justification that's been able to be made for laws: it raises everyone else's insurance. Well, how about if it didn't? No compelling societal need for the law, the law can go away.

How you'd prove a cell phone were being used during an accident is another issue, though. There's not as much compelling physical evidence there. There's also the issue that cell phone use can be shown (with whatever degree of factual basis) to endanger OTHERS, by making you more likely to include them in an accident. That's a pretty easy sell, certainly. Again, can it be proven? Enforced? I believe those issues are not cleanly resolved.

[Curve63049]

My point is, as I said, this was already tried and abandoned--in New York, of all places. Been there, done that. If it were enforceable they'd have passed it with a pretty ribbon tied around it. It's not.

Trust me . . .in Jefferson City, Missouri, (Missouri's state capitol) the fact that NY doesn't have such a law would be considered *proof* that Missouri needs such a law.

[Spinny]

Trust me . . .in Jefferson City, Missouri, (Missouri's state capitol) the fact that NY doesn't have such a law would be considered *proof* that Missouri needs such a law.

LOL! Okay, I see your point.

[Curve63049]

How many will change thier mind once thier insurance company knows the accident was caused by the user with the cell phone and wont pay them.

Insurance companies pay for their own driver's negligence and inattendance all the time. Indeed, the *point* of insurance is to cover your negligence or failure to adhere to a standard of care.

Think about malpractice insurance, for example. It pays 3rd parties when the doctor or lawyer is *negligent* all the time.

The incentive not to be negligent comes in the ability to secure insurance and/or the cost of insurance.

Most states require insurance to drive . . . and, therefore, have "high risk" driver insurance pools. Thus, insurance coverage IS available. High risk pools, however, have pretty high deductible costs. Thus, if you want to pay lower rates, you need to be a safer driver.

[chelseytx]

my stand: it is not holding the dam thing that causes trouble. it is TALKING to someone and NOT PAYING ATTENTION!!!!!!!!


talking is the problem. having someone in the car is a similar distraction, but not as bad for some reason.

personally, while i am for a total ban on cell phones while driving, talking on the phone as never been a problem for me personally as i can multi-task. ( i am NOT saying that i shouldnt - because i shouldnt) but i can tune out the conversation that i am having and pay attention to the road. i am still listening to hte person on the phone but driving is my first point of concern.

[chelseytx]

There will never be a right answer to this...

well duh *G*

[Curve63049]

well duh *G*

There may not be a "right" answer, but some answers are better than others!! :-)

By the way, this article - reporting on a study conducted by a Federal Reserve economist - notes a statistically significant correlation between "ticket writing" by police officers and "declining revenues" by local governments. As local tax revenues fall (as in a recession) the amount of tickets written seems to climb (hmmmm).

01/06/2009 - Study finds another reason to hate recession: More tickets - STLtoday.com

I'm just not in favor of creating more "ticket writing" opportunities for police officers - especially when it's not entirely clear what the *actual* benefits will be (exactly HOW many fewer accidents will we have if a cell phone law is passed and HOW can police officers enforce it without being too intrusive?).

[chelseytx]

lol yeah...

from what i have seen and read.... the statistics have stayed the same IF NOT GONE UP, even though we have law in place to help STOP the accidents caused by talking on a cell phone.


that is what i find funny.

[mykey2k]

my stand: it is not holding the dam thing that causes trouble. it is TALKING to someone and NOT PAYING ATTENTION!!!!!!!!

I've used headsets mostly since I've had mobile phones (1998) and I can tell you there is a marked improvement in my driving using it hands-free vs. hand-held.

1) Handheld blocks my peripherial vision.
2) With the handheld, I need to move my hand with my head. Corollary: I move my head less
3) I am driving with one less hand. I actually do like two handed driving even if not "grasping" the wheel.

But let us think of this over the grand scheme of things. A quick search yields that in the US alone, we clocked 3 trillion vehicle miles travelled (VMT). With the gas prices skyrocketing since (only recently falling), sure we've curtailed a bit, but only 10% or so.

But let's see what the folks at NSC want us to believe Cell Phone Use While Driving Fact Sheet:

Cell phone use contributes to an estimated 6 percent of all crashes, which equates to 636,000 crashes, 330,000 injuries, 12,000 serious injuries and 2,600 deaths each year. (Harvard Center of Risk Analysis).

I can't find this at their website, though I did provide a link below to a Year 2000 publication of theirs. The charts provide some insight of more dangerous things during driving.

80 percent of crashes are related to driver inattention. There are certain activities that may be more dangerous than talking on a cell phone. However, cell phone use occurs more frequently and for longer durations than other, riskier behaviors. Thus, the #1 source of driver inattention is cell phones. (Virginia Tech 100-car study for NHTSA)

I shy away from studies that pull straight line conclusions like this. Plus, only a 100-car study? Is this their "Ace in the Hole?"

It is estimated that more than 100 million people use cell phones while driving. (CTIA – The Wireless Association reports 270 million cell phone subscribers. A Nationwide Insurance public opinion poll showed 81 percent of the public admit to talking on a cell phone while driving).

What was the question asked? "Have you ever? Have you in the past year, month, week, day, hour?" How many of us can admit to doing almost /anything/ while driving at one point or another.

There is no difference in the cognitive distraction between hand-held and hands-free devices. (Simulator studies at the U. of Utah.)

What were the tests? On MythBusters they asked questions like maths, and colors, asking the driver to repeat stuff back. I hardly think that's valid since we're not learning now to maintain a nuclear reactor, but having some sort of much more mindless conversation or sitting in on a con-call.

Driving should be a right-brain repetitive, almost rote activity. Our left-brain is most likely suspended. It's the people who need the left-side to pull them through that have the difficulty driving and talking at the same time. You see them leaning around the car like a wind-sock because they have their mirrors maladjusted, they drive too close to the wheel, they are talking, but not on the phone... because they're talking to themselves. They're overthinking the driving process.


I think I've rambled on enough here, but we need to remain calm and instead of taking sides, try to rationalise the why and how they came to their conclusions.

In a country of nearly 350mln people, it's easy to come up with something people are against. As such, we need to pick our battles, and quite honestly, this is one where education and not a ban should be instituted.


Have some more reading: Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (pdf): http://www.hcra.harvard.edu/rip/risk...p_July2000.pdf

Bah.
-m

[john45acp]

my point still is why do we need another law to duplicate an existing law? reckless operation.. its like the endless firearms laws it already illegal to kill,rob extort,terrorize etc.. criminals will do what they want reguardles of law

[john45acp]

why attempt to make everyone a criminal

[ninja please]

I almost totaled my car last year because of some moron talking on his cell phone, not paying attention. cell phones + cars = incompetence, I say ban them while driving. I see so many people out driving that have their phones pressed to their ear, not giving a damn what they're doing, running red lights, not using signals when changing lanes, generally driving like a dumbass. sure some people can multitask effectively, and while you may be a good multitasker, you're not absolutely 100% attentive to your surroundings when you're engaging in a phone conversation or fiddling with your phone while driving, I don't care who you are. if you're doing more than one thing at the same time, there is no 100% attention on any one thing. drivers need all their concentration on driving. I think the hands-free devices are good and all, but not while you're on the road, it's still a distraction.
but alas, the laws can ban cell use all they want but it won't do any good. there can't be one cop for every car in the world, making sure they don't use them. so unless car manufacturers implemented some kind of signal blocking devices (which we know would never fly), people are gonna do what they do.
that's my .02

[Hi-Definition]

There is so much to say; yet so little patience to say it. I will share this however; Curve63049...many of the examples/sentiments you've shared; and the framework you've put them in...are misleading and flawed (particularly when it comes to the application of your understanding towards the malpractice/insurance angle to this discussion).

[dave_sz]

I pray to god this law passes. I'm tired or being stuck behind idiots driving under the speed limit yapping away on their phone or idiots driving in a foot of snow sliding all over the place while on the phone. The sooner it passes the better. If you need to use the phone pull over and chat away.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[PRC]

Only one thing I don't get. Banning hands free calling. No point! Here is alist of things that distract you just as much.


1) The radio and singing along to it, or listening at high levels.
2) Passengers.
3) Pets.
4) Your phone ringing and knowing you cant pick it up. lol
5) Putting on your make up while driving.
6) Your gps system.
7) And anything else that make you think!

It all takes some common sense and self set limits. Where do these come from you say? Not laws, they come from you! Why does America need a law for anything that you know you are not supposed to be doing in the first place or you know it puts your and other peoples lives at risk. Come on ppl!
Sorry just venting.

[chelseytx]

I think that a law to ban all cell phone usage would be unenforceable if it included hands free devices since it would be practically impossible to prove since the defendant could claim to have just been talking or singn and not on the phone at all.

they are talking about using GPS to do this from what i heard tonight on the news. if the car goes over 5mph the carrier can disable the phone service via the GPS... dont know how it works but yeah, there ya go.

[ff_emtd]

I'd like to see cell phone use by drivers stop but I don't see any law making much of a dent. First off, who obeys all traffic laws? When's the last time you saw someone come up to a red light, come to a complete stop, look both ways, yield, and then make a right turn on red? Sometimes I think I'm the only one in the world that does all that. Second, will it be enforced? How many times have you seen a car with a cop (and I'm not ripping on cops) behind them make a turn without using their turn signal - and, did they get pulled over and ticketed because of it? Third, is it enforceable? I don't see it with hands-free options.

[MrSmartyPants]

This is very very common more than you realize

I used to work in DOT and people die because someone is addicted to yacking on their fliphone at the wheel