[Curve63049]

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).

Yes, it takes so much to come on to an internet forum and say "you're wrong" . . . but, then, NOT to make a specific rational reason as to why.

True or false: You drive your car into another car on the highway because you were following too closely or you failed to check your blind spot (i.e., negligence). A typical, standard automobile liability insurance policy will pay for the damages YOUR negligence caused to the other driver/car (within policy limits)?

C'mon true or false?

[mykey2k]

Cali girl sent over 14,528 text messages in one month | BlackBerry Cool

(Title does not relate to the video. Video is only 2 minutes.)

I've been driving and using a mobile for coming up on 10 years, 350K miles, 4 continents and have never had an issue. The gal in the video has had like what, 10 incidents in 4 months?


-m

[psionfenix]

as they say in latin

"Corruptisima republica plurimae leges".

"The more corrpt the republic, the more laws."

Its not so much that I have a problem with the ban (though if they do that, i'll be making a big fuss about everything else that distracts drivers and throwing more stuff at the police and government then i already do, but i digress). It's the fact that every little thing requires a NEW law.

Really? We need 6 billion laws? We're about to hit another great depression due to this recession and these knuckleheads are worried about talking while driving? How about turning your focus to, oh, i don't know, FIXING THE ECONOMY.



as a side note: Cops can now no longer have radios in their cars, they dont get a passenger, and all cars will now have 1 seat, no radio. Also, you can be pulled over for sneezing, coughing, yawning or looking in your blindsport for over half of a second.

[john45acp]

as they say in latin

"Corruptisima republica plurimae leges".

"The more corrpt the republic, the more laws."

Its not so much that I have a problem with the ban (though if they do that, i'll be making a big fuss about everything else that distracts drivers and throwing more stuff at the police and government then i already do, but i digress). It's the fact that every little thing requires a NEW law.

Really? We need 6 billion laws? We're about to hit another great depression due to this recession and these knuckleheads are worried about talking while driving? How about turning your focus to, oh, i don't know, FIXING THE ECONOMY.



as a side note: Cops can now no longer have radios in their cars, they dont get a passenger, and all cars will now have 1 seat, no radio. Also, you can be pulled over for sneezing, coughing, yawning or looking in your blindsport for over half of a second.

mel brooks said we have to protect our phoney baloney jobs in blazing saddles thats what its all about if they didnt make a law they would have nothing to show for the time spent "doing the business of the people" probably ought to ban smoking in cars and puttin on makeup all cud cause an accident but once again it is covered ubder reckless operation

[bobc4d]

I guess that means I can't use my OnStar to make calls either. (you speak the number)

they always talk about the cell phones, have you seen some of the radio head units out now? most are touch screen which requires you to look away from the road or they have a remote but you still have to look away from the road and NOT concentrate on driving.

what about police ? our's have laptops in the car so they can run plates, they do this while driving.

sounds like someone has a burr up their asp.

[psionfenix]

I've seen more than one accident involving a cop using his laptop.

Allowing them to use such devices will be breaking the new law they want to pass. However, they'll get by, just like they do with everything else.

[BerryMedic20]

Let's not start that debate. Cops and other responders in many places are exempt from cell phone laws because they need them to ensure your safety. Is it abused? Sure, its tough to enforce cell phones for personal use on the job, but there's a fine line there anyway. The laptops are another requirement to enforce the law and keep you safe - hopefully they're using them safely for the most part.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[ff_emtd]

I'm required to carry a cell phone when I'm on duty. I rarely drive at work but you won't see me yapping on the phone if I'm driving. You won't see someone driving me yapping on the phone either. I think all of us can, at least, give anectodal evidence or testimony to the effect that cell phones plus driving means less safe driving.

[snork]

Let's not start that debate. Cops and other responders in many places are exempt from cell phone laws because they need them to ensure your safety. Is it abused? Sure, its tough to enforce cell phones for personal use on the job, but there's a fine line there anyway. The laptops are another requirement to enforce the law and keep you safe - hopefully they're using them safely for the most part.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

hopefully? cops abuse their powers all the time. im not saying they are 'omg corrupt', but i've certainly observed many cops sitting on their cell phones or laptops while driving. further, ive seen plenty use their sirens to get through traffic and then shut them off as soon as the road is clear.

cops need to be held to the same standards. dont like it? give them hands free headsets. have them install them in their vehicles. they are NO BETTER than us when it comes to driving ability while on a cell phone. i had a cop tailing me one time in the rain. I signaled to make a u-turn, then turned, and he pulled me over, insulted MY driving and tried to give me a ticket for an unsafe turn because HE was not paying attention and didn't slow down, thus nearly rear ending me.

double standards are crap, and its stuff like that which causes myself and many others to lose respect for many law enforcement personnel.

cell phones shouldn't be banned while driving. require headsets if you will, and fine those who cause accidents due to being on their cell phone, but leave us responsible drivers who know how to do more than one thing at a time, alone.

[Chrisy]

what about using cell phone navigator in the car? will that be banned?

[madphone]

...what the difference between using a wireless device and talking to others that are in the car. Or how about the mother who is driving, reaching behind her to comfort a child, or eating a burger, or smoking. All of these things are a distraction when driving.

I have an idea.......we should make all cars single person, and NO cell phone use at all. then there would be no distractions.

This is all crap, 6% to 7% is a pretty small number. Sure there are those highly publicized crashes that involve a person texting while driving, but considering the many things that can distract a driver, why pick on phones? I have been just as distracted by some emotional issue, or work frustration.

This is crap, and another way for someone that has lost a loved one to feel better by punishing everyone.

[Blkbear]

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

You know if the law were to be written in such a way as to include children/pets, eating and drinking, using non voice GPS, radio usage and talking to passengers, it would of course never pass.

But such a law will be passed somewhere sooner or later if it only pertains to cell phone use while driving. The only problem is it will not be enforced.

[chef garry]

But such a law will be passed somewhere sooner or later if it only pertains to cell phone use while driving. The only problem is it will not be enforced.

That was said about the seat belt law as well. As far as other distractions are concerned - studies have shown that cell use when driving equates to drinking and driving. At some point laws need to be made for the common good - I believe this is one that desperately needs to be enacted.

[madphone]

That was said about the seat belt law as well. As far as other distractions are concerned - studies have shown that cell use when driving equates to drinking and driving. At some point laws need to be made for the common good - I believe this is one that desperately needs to be enacted.

WE CAN NOT REGULATE STUPIDITY OUT OF SOCIETY

You can not be realistic to think that there are not distractions that are inherently more dangerous than talking to someone using a wireless device. I have seen drivers using maps, doing makeup, shaving, eating, tending to children, talking on a phone, texting, and a plethora of other things while driving, and many of these are far more distracting than talking while using a wireless device.

Fact is, if this ever becomes law, there will be thousands more people that will be considered criminals.

[psionfenix]

Hey, we're all criminals now anyway. Just about anything you do is a criminal act.

soon they'll tax breathing.

[Blade_27]

Bluetooth Wireless Key Fob That Disables Cells

Many parents would love to be able to give their teenagers a cellphone that couldn't be used while driving. Now some inventors say they have come up with ways to make that possible, but they appear to be relying on wishful thinking.

One product to hit the market, a $10 (U.S.)-a-month software by Dallas-based WQN Inc., can disable a cellphone while its owner is driving. It uses GPS technology that can tell how fast a person is travelling. But it can't determine whether the person is driving - and therefore it can needlessly lock a phone. WQN, which sells cellphone and Internet security software under the name WebSafety, says it signed up about 50 customers for its first month of service.

Aegis Mobility, a Canadian software company, plans to release a similar global positioning system-based product this fall, known as DriveAssist. Aegis is in talks with large U.S. wireless phone carriers, which would have to support the software and charge families a fee of about $10 to $20 a month, said David Teater, the company's vice-president.

The DriveAssist system will disable a phone at driving speeds and send a message to callers or texters saying the person they are trying to reach is too busy driving. But because that person could be a passenger, the approach is a blunt tool.

Other product concepts that don't involve GPS systems have their own flaws. As a result, Parry Aftab, who advises families on technology and safety, suggests parents find another way to stop their kids from calling or texting while driving. Parents are better off taking away a child's cellphone if it is used improperly, she said.

"More and more, we see any solution is in large part education and awareness, parents getting involved," said Ms. Aftab, executive director of WiredSafety.org. Driving and cellphone use can be a bad combination, "but so is putting on makeup and eating a three-course meal," Ms. Aftab said. "I wish technology providers would look hard at the problems before coming up with a knee-**** solution."

The U.S. National Safety Council said this month that there should be a ban on cellphone use while driving, citing the higher risk of accidents and deaths.

At least 18 states restrict cellphone use - talking or texting - for some or all drivers, according to the insurance-industry-funded Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Yet even in those states, motorists and especially young drivers are hardly deterred.

In the fall, Ontario announced it may join Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec and Nova Scotia, which have implemented a ban on the use of handheld devices to talk, e-mail or send text messages while a person is behind the wheel. Manitoba and Prince Edward Island are also considering bans on handheld cellphones by drivers.

WQN's surveillance service promises more than just disabling the phone in cars. It can monitor a person's whereabouts, notifying parents by text message when their children step out of designated zones or return home. It also can turn off a cellphone at school, which may help to prevent cheating by text message, based on a reading of the school's location.

The question parents would have to ask themselves is whether they would want to prohibit their children's activities this way. The kid you're trying to control might not be driving, but rather sitting on a train, a city bus or in the passenger seat of a friend's car.

Michael Hensley has thought about this very dilemma. The 52-year-old manager for a defence contractor worries that his 23-year-old daughter is a "thumb Olympian" inclined to send text messages while driving.

But he says savvy kids "will always find a way to defeat" a technological product. "It's human nature to defeat the system." Instead, Mr. Hensley said, he's tried to educate his daughter about the dangers of mixing phones with driving.

Meanwhile, a separate, hardware-based solution appears to have its own flaws.

A pair of inventors affiliated with the University of Utah have developed a prototype of a key fob device that communicates with a cellphone over Bluetooth wireless signals. The key fob wraps around an ignition key; when the key is flipped or slid open, the device disables the cellphone paired with it.

This turns out to be easy to beat. A kid could remove or run down the key fob's batteries or duplicate the key - without the fob. So in response to questions from The Associated Press and critics on the Internet, the Utah inventors, Wally Curry and Xuesong Zhou, have dropped their original concept.

[Mamaluka]

If this law gets passed, and I don't think it ever will, what about the last 40 something years of CB Radios?
For the past 4 decades truckers have successfully utilized a device that requires at least one hand to operate and allows its user to communicate with not just one person at a time, but hundreds. The CB Radio. It is not only a tool of the trade, but a truckers best friend sometimes.
A truck also requires one hand to shift the gears, and both feet to operate the foot controls. All these limbs busy busy busy and they can still steer, shift, smoke, and have a serious case of ratchet jaw all at once...how? Without daily blood on the highway?
I'll tell you how.
When your job, life and the lives of everyone around you are at stake, you tend to PAY THE F**K ATTENTION.
Unfortunately, the new breed of truck driver seems to be falling victim to the disease of the cellular 4 wheeler. I see more and more drivers of big trucks with that phone smashed to their ears and sometimes they're driving like a jeyk off! (and I mean jeyk off)

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[minnesota_yoda]

All we need is an app for our BB's to pilot the car for us while we relax and do whatever we like.

[Blade_27]

If this law gets passed, and I don't think it ever will, what about the last 40 something years of CB Radios?
For the past 4 decades truckers have successfully utilized a device that requires at least one hand to operate and allows its user to communicate with not just one person at a time, but hundreds. The CB Radio. It is not only a tool of the trade, but a truckers best friend sometimes.
A truck also requires one hand to shift the gears, and both feet to operate the foot controls. All these limbs busy busy busy and they can still steer, shift, smoke, and have a serious case of ratchet jaw all at once...how? Without daily blood on the highway?
I'll tell you how.
When your job, life and the lives of everyone around you are at stake, you tend to PAY THE F**K ATTENTION.

Your actually comparing the amount of hours logged on the road by the mature grown ups that drive miles upon miles a day every day to the inexperienced teens that manage to gamble their way though traffic?

I can't remember where but there was one place that only restricted those under a certain age to not drive while on the phone. Places in Europe allow you to drive using phones but if you should be driving without "undue care" with or without a phone they bend you over your own car {figuratively speaking}. I just fail to see why everybody's gotta a suffer because others can't keep an adequate amount of attention where it's needed {not that I need to drive and talk at the same time}. Should I have to wear glasses to drive because others don't have 20/20 vision?

All we need is an app for our BB's to pilot the car for us while we relax and do whatever we like.

You should really check out DARPA's show on the Discovery Channel called "Robocars", you'd be amazed just how advanced the technology is that's already available.

[taddley]

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).

If you're questioning his "application" to the argument here, HiDef, maybe that's one thing. But Curve's stated understanding of insurance, negligence, and malpractice is spot on. On this specific subject, he has not stated anything that is misleading or flawed.

The causation statements I've seen have some merit, at least in this sense - the statistics almost certainly must be revised downward, irrespective of your position on this. Are there instances where the direct cause was a driver distracted on a cell phone? Absolutely. But one cannot say that every accident that occurs involving cell phone usage is directly attributable to the cell phone use, any more than one can say that every accident involving someone listening to today's number one radio single is the direct cause. If 25% of the driving population is listening to the single, you can reasonably predict that 18+% of those involved in an accident today will be listening to the single. And before someone gets on me about the difference in listening to music and using a cell phone ... I got that part. I'm simply saying that a raw count of cell phones used while in an accident is not properly representative. To represent otherwise is ... well ... misleading and flawed.

I'd also like to say something about the difference between "entitlement" and "rights", but I'll let that one go.

[Curve63049]

If you're questioning his "application" to the argument here, HiDef, maybe that's one thing. But Curve's stated understanding of insurance, negligence, and malpractice is spot on. On this specific subject, he has not stated anything that is misleading or flawed.

The causation statements I've seen have some merit, at least in this sense - the statistics almost certainly must be revised downward, irrespective of your position on this. Are there instances where the direct cause was a driver distracted on a cell phone? Absolutely. But one cannot say that every accident that occurs involving cell phone usage is directly attributable to the cell phone use, any more than one can say that every accident involving someone listening to today's number one radio single is the direct cause. If 25% of the driving population is listening to the single, you can reasonably predict that 18+% of those involved in an accident today will be listening to the single. And before someone gets on me about the difference in listening to music and using a cell phone ... I got that part. I'm simply saying that a raw count of cell phones used while in an accident is not properly representative. To represent otherwise is ... well ... misleading and flawed.

I'd also like to say something about the difference between "entitlement" and "rights", but I'll let that one go.

Thanks for the defense, taddley. You said succinctly what I was trying to say with respect to causation.

As for HiDef's post concerning negligence/insurance/malpractice, I'm still at a loss to understand his objection . . . mostly because he didn't really state what his objection was. He only provided a conclusion that I was wrong; his basis for that conclusion still eludes me.

As a lawyer, I think I understand the concepts of "negligence" and "insurance" pretty well. But, this *is* the internet and anyone can claim anything.

At the end of the day, I'll stand on the the actual experience of actual people (people in the US, that is, I can't speak to the law in other countries). That experience is this: if you negligently operate your motor vehicle causing injury to another person and/or their property, your automobile liability insurance company WILL pay the claim (to the limits of the policy). At the present time, it matters not whether your negligence was caused by poor driving habits (e.g., failing to check your blind spot) or talking on a cell phone - the claim WILL be paid.

If HiDef has information to the contrary, then I'm willing to read it.

Curve63049

[bgwavrder]

Not sure what the problem is with hands free. The bottom line is all drivers should be held accountable for their actions and the results of those actions.

[FF22]

I admit I have no read the entire thread. I've dropped in occasionally and read a day's worth of replies and then skipped some.

The stats in WA state are slipping. As people become more comfortable ignoring our secondary offense law on cell phone use.

While folks are definitely responsible for their actions, the question is should innocent victims be created by those actions or should there be a bit of preventive maintenance? Admittedly the victims can sue, if they live, or their estate, if they don't. But if we know that driving while using a cell phone, hands-free or not, impairs driving why should we not try to limit the number of victims before they become victims. Otherwise, why not allow drunk drivers to do their damage and allow their victims to sue after the "accident."

And I've read and see mascara being applied, hamburgers being consumed, etc but that does not mean we can't single out one behavior and reduce accidents before we tackle all of those other behaviors. Do we all lead such rich/entangled lives that we HAVE TO PHONE while driving? Emergencies, okay. Otherwise wait. We, the generic population drove for decades without a phone in our ear and survived. Maybe we can try that again.

Just one more opinion.

[taddley]

... the question is should innocent victims be created by those actions or should there be a bit of preventive maintenance? ... if we know that driving while using a cell phone, hands-free or not, impairs driving why should we not try to limit the number of victims before they become victims. Otherwise, why not allow drunk drivers to do their damage and allow their victims to sue after the "accident."

And I've read and see mascara being applied, hamburgers being consumed, etc but that does not mean we can't single out one behavior and reduce accidents before we tackle all of those other behaviors. Do we all lead such rich/entangled lives that we HAVE TO PHONE while driving?

F2 ... I like these kinds of discussions - sort of a sucker for them. My comments are not intended to flame you or anything else personally negative. Just discussion ... call it "idea-tennis" ... ok?

What "data" we have, reliable or not, appears to indicate that changing the radio / cd player is a 2% greater "cause" of accidents than cell phone use. In fact, the data imply that there are 4 or more sources of driver distraction causing accidents more frequently. Based on your thoughts, should we not, first, outlaw and remove radios and other entertainment devices from vehicles? And your statement about allowing drunk driving strikes me as hyperbole and demagoguery.

Single out one behavior, before we tackle the others? You mean outlawing slowing down to gawk at an accident (16%), or driver fatigue (12%), or looking at scenery (10%), or the presence of other passengers (9%)? And while percentages are attached, fact is, we really don't know (see below).

Rich and entangled? Allow me to take a stab at this hyperbole gig. At the end of the day, what is another source of death and injury? Is it not the act of driving, altogether? Do we live such rich and entangled lives that we can't do without powered vehicles? For 130+ years we were just fine without these deadly automobiles - can't you just park it and ride a bike?

Finally, see below.

New York Times / Oct. 24, 2007 / "Yes, Accidents Happen. But Why?"

... Dr. Mannering�s study of accidents in Washington State from 1992 to 1997, a period during which air bags and antilock brakes became prevalent, showed that counter to what would seem logical, there was no major reduction in accidents even with the spread of two seemingly effective safety features.

�What seems like an exact science � determining who or what causes accidents � is actually quite difficult,� Dr. Mannering said.

Insurance companies, carmakers, inventors, safety advocates and clearly drivers themselves all have an interest in learning about what might reduce the number of accidents or at least make them less severe. Yet there is surprisingly little data to help them.

�Speeding causes crashes,� said Anne McCartt, senior vice president for research at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a nonprofit group financed by auto insurers. �Running through a red light causes crashes. Drinking alcohol certainly causes crashes, but to what extent? That has been difficult to determine.�

Rob Foss, a senior research scientist at the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, confirmed the elusive nature of pinpointing the causes. �I guess all we can safely say we know with certainty is that virtually all crashes are caused by a series of things coming together all at once,� he said. �Driving after you have too much to drink is dangerous, but, strangely, we don�t know how much, despite laws that have alcohol limits. Many people take trips after having too much to drink and manage to get home.�

[Curve63049]

F2 wrote:

We, the generic population drove for decades without a phone in our ear and survived.

By the same token, we did very well on horseback for decades too and survived. . . so why not outlaw driving an automobile altogether?

And, btw, even though such an argument sounds ridiculous *today* it WAS made when automobiles were not as numerous.

We accept that the automobile brings us more in terms of benefits (increased mobility, the ability to do more in less time) than it does in cost (lives lost in accidents, pollution, etc.).

but that does not mean we can't single out one behavior and reduce accidents before we tackle all of those other behaviors.

True enough, but every behavior has a cost/benefit trade-off.

So focusing on the "benefit" of eliminating a behavior (i.e., fewer accidents) is only part of the equation.

Even YOU made an "exception" for emergency calls . . . so that's where YOU draw the line.

Others in this thread have said "short calls" are ok (i.e., tell spouse to pick up milk, etc.).

Others will draw the line in a *different* place (i.e., business reasons for making longer calls).

So the question is not whether there is a benefit, but at what cost?