Total Cell Phone Ban While Driving?

[Lee H]

Likewise, implementing such a ban would take away someone's choice to make a phone call if they need to while driving. And again, if studies show that these sorts of bans don't actual help then what's the point of the ban? We've actually had such a ban in my area for a while now and yet I constantly see people on their phone while driving. It just seems naive to think this ban would really solve anything or fix the problem.

Also, I wasn't saying people can't choose their mode of transportation... I'm not quite sure where you got that. I just meant that there is a more inherent risk in driving a motorcycle, and that people who choose the drive them need to accept those risks before getting on the road with one. If they can't, then they might want to choose to drive a car instead.

In saying that you ASSUME that driving while using the phone is an inalienable right. It is not. Driving is a provisional privilege, subject to regulation and even revocation based on the safety of the general public. To that end, it is acceptable to ban activity that is unsafe for not only the driver and passengers of the vehicles, but also other motorists

By saying that motorcyclist should protect themselves more, you are punishing the innocent for the irresponsibility of the guilty parties. if we are going to do that, shouldn't we also punish all religions for the irresponsibility of Westboro? (who's actions I find deplorable)

I do understand that you are probably not advocating a revocation of rights. But By suggesting that motorcyclists should better protect themselves you do fall into society's tendency to blame a potential victim for irresponsible action of the guilty. That is a mentality I find dangerous to our legal system

 

[Grabow]

had contact with a guy who wanted to audition for my band
we talked for a while on the phone, he told me he was invloved in head on collision
with another driver who was texting at the time. a coupl of day later he sent me an email
saying that he was not up for thge audition because he still has no memory retention due to the post concuusion syptoms he still expereinces becasue of the accident
the accident was 18 months ago
very very sad
definitely behind a law banning texting or talkiing while driving

 

[Lee H]

BTW..to Jady's point...your attitude will change once you have kids of your own...
but I also agree about video devices in vehicles. I do have a TV in my pickup, but there has only been one DVD in it, and that was for setup.
I really only use it for the Satellite navigation.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

In saying that you ASSUME that driving while using the phone is an inalienable right. It is not. Driving is a provisional privilege, subject to regulation and even revocation based on the safety of the general public. To that end, it is acceptable to ban activity that is unsafe for not only the driver and passengers of the vehicles, but also other motorists

By saying that motorcyclist should protect themselves more, you are punishing the innocent for the irresponsibility of the guilty parties. if we are going to do that, shouldn't we also punish all religions for the irresponsibility of Westboro? (who's actions I find deplorable)

I do understand that you are probably not advocating a revocation of rights. But By suggesting that motorcyclists should better protect themselves you do fall into society's tendency to blame a potential victim for irresponsible action of the guilty. That is a mentality I find dangerous to our legal system

And you likewise assume all drivers who talk on the phone while driving are dangerous. By brushing all drivers with the same brush you are ignoring the real issue, and that's that stupid drivers will put lives at risk regardless of what they're doing. Saying cell phones are the problem and not the (individual) people using the cell phones is like saying guns kill people and not the people wielding the guns. When used in proper hands they cause no harm. It's the few idiots who ruin it for everyone else, and just because there are a few idiots in the mix doesn't mean you should punish everyone else.

 

[jady]

had contact with a guy who wanted to audition for my band
we talked for a while on the phone, he told me he was invloved in head on collision
with another driver who was texting at the time. a coupl of day later he sent me an email
saying that he was not up for thge audition because he still has no memory retention due to the post concuusion syptoms he still expereinces becasue of the accident
the accident was 18 months ago
very very sad
definitely behind a law banning texting or talkiing while driving

This is why these bans happen. Grabow, whereas that is a truly horrible thing to happen to anyone, we cannot make laws based on knee-jerk emotional reactions. We need to do studies, take into account the legality from ALL sides of banning something and how it will effect the rights of ALL citizens.

We had a ban imposed, no texting or talking without a hands-free device. It did nothing to reduce accidents. How is broadening a ban that had no real effect to begin with going to suddenly have an effect? That is like doubling your dosage of placebos.

 

[LAPetrarca]

And you likewise assume all drivers who talk on the phone while driving are dangerous. By brushing all drivers with the same brush you are ignoring the real issue, and that's that stupid drivers will put lives at risk regardless of what they're doing. Saying cell phones are the problem and not the (individual) people using the cell phones is like saying guns kill people and not the people wielding the guns. When used in proper hands they cause no harm. It's the few idiots who ruin it for everyone else, and just because there are a few idiots in the mix doesn't mean you should punish everyone else.

Well played!!!!

Suffice to say that stupid drivers will put lives at risk regardless of what they're doing OR what you legislate.

 

[kanonfodr]

Something hit me in retrospect that I don't know if everyone in this discussion understands so I'm going to bring in the concept of Task Loading as I know it best then try to apply it towards Driving a car. Here is a link to give you an idea of where I'm coming from: Task Loading Tips For Underwater Photographers & Videographers .

First I want to break the task of driving into a few of the basic tasks that you are doing all the time, whether you realize it or not:

Monitoring speed, direction, position in traffic
Adjusting any of the above
Maintaining Geographical Situational Awareness (Where I am, where my destination is, how I'm going to get there)
Monitoring your dash instruments (speed, fuel level, oil pressure, etc)
and more...

Doing all that requires a certain amount of mental bandwidth, think of it like a percentage of your available brainpower is devoted just to driving. Driving straight on a 2-lane highway may only require 50% of that bandwidth, heavy traffic maybe 85%, maybe the road has lots of curves and it's raining, so 95% capacity.

Now we want to change the CD in our disc player, that requires some bandwidth because that's several sub-tasks (finding the CD we want to hear, securing it from our CD holder, ejecting the other CD, inserting our new CD, putting the CD in the CD holder) so we will assign that a bandwidth requirement of...15%. So that's not a problem when we are devoting only 50% of our available mental bandwidth to driving on a straight, 2-lane road with no other traffic. But if you passed 2nd grade math you will notice that changing the CD puts us at 100% of available mental bandwidth when we are in traffic, and exceeds that in miserable conditions.

So what happens when we meet 100%, or exceed it? Well, operating at 100% is fine, as long as nothing gets in our way: someone cutting us off, braking hard, or the phone rings. Exceeding 100% means that one or more tasks is going to receive less attention. What task gets the short end?? We may start wandering in our lane, move into somebody's blind spot, or miss a turn.

One of these by themselves may not necessarily be life-threatening, but what ultimately gets folks killed is the Snowball Effect. You focused on changing the CD, wandered a bit to the right of your lane, someone moved into your blind spot, and you see your turn at the last second so you try to take it and end up colliding with them.

That's why I generally don't touch my cell phone in my vehicle, don't use a touchscreen radio, and even limit conversations if the drive is getting a bit too intense. While I would like to believe that I am more technically proficient than the average operator, I also understand entertaining a distraction can lead to a snowball effect so I try to avoid them as much as possible because I understand others are not so dedicated to the task of operating a motor vehicle and I've gotta watch out for those morons as well.

Peace,
Greg

 

[kanonfodr]

Wow, spoken like someone who has never raised children

Never have, never want to .

Peace,
Greg

 

[MatticusMania]

I do understand that you are probably not advocating a revocation of rights. But By suggesting that motorcyclists should better protect themselves you do fall into society's tendency to blame a potential victim for irresponsible action of the guilty. That is a mentality I find dangerous to our legal system

I would suggest you are doing just the same for motorcyclists.

In saying that you ASSUME that driving while using the phone is an inalienable right. It is not. Driving is a provisional privilege, subject to regulation and even revocation based on the safety of the general public. To that end, it is acceptable to ban activity that is unsafe for not only the driver and passengers of the vehicles, but also other motorists

Riding a motorcycle is also not an inalienable right.

Look at it this way:

By saying that driving during a phone call should be banned, you are punishing the innocent for the irresponsibility of the guilty parties.

 

[Lee H]

And you likewise assume all drivers who talk on the phone while driving are dangerous. By brushing all drivers with the same brush you are ignoring the real issue, and that's that stupid drivers will put lives at risk regardless of what they're doing. Saying cell phones are the problem and not the (individual) people using the cell phones is like saying guns kill people and not the people wielding the guns. When used in proper hands they cause no harm. It's the few idiots who ruin it for everyone else, and just because there are a few idiots in the mix doesn't mean you should punish everyone else.

But we cannot regulate intelligence, responsibility, or maturity. We can only regulate distractions, and even that has to be regulated to what can safely be handled by the lowest common denominator.

 

[Johnny Crab]

The NTSB suggestion is to ban all electronics - INCLUDING hands free.

There goes my pocket-sized Gigaware mp3 player with all of the band songs in alphabetical order.
There goes the GPS.
Is the car's factory stereo included in the "ALL ELECTRONICS" jargon?
Is the cruise control included in this law?

 

[jmattbassplaya]

But we cannot regulate intelligence, responsibility, or maturity. We can only regulate distractions, and even that has to be regulated to what can safely be handled by the lowest common denominator.

And when already instituted bans on cell phone usage have proven to be ineffective we should still ban them for everyone because...?

 

[kanonfodr]

And you likewise assume all drivers who talk on the phone while driving are dangerous. By brushing all drivers with the same brush you are ignoring the real issue, and that's that stupid drivers will put lives at risk regardless of what they're doing. Saying cell phones are the problem and not the (individual) people using the cell phones is like saying guns kill people and not the people wielding the guns. When used in proper hands they cause no harm. It's the few idiots who ruin it for everyone else, and just because there are a few idiots in the mix doesn't mean you should punish everyone else.

And those idiots behind the wheel while texting are endangering other people's lives for something stupid. If you've gotten to read my above post about Task Loading, it makes perfect sense to try and get folks to think twice about something that will detract from their ability to not kill other people. Let's face it, most folks really don't need to be driving anyway (from an operator's mindset perspective) and then we are going to allow them to be distracted??

This is why these bans happen. Grabow, whereas that is a truly horrible thing to happen to anyone, we cannot make laws based on knee-jerk emotional reactions. We need to do studies, take into account the legality from ALL sides of banning something and how it will effect the rights of ALL citizens.

We had a ban imposed, no texting or talking without a hands-free device. It did nothing to reduce accidents. How is broadening a ban that had no real effect to begin with going to suddenly have an effect? That is like doubling your dosage of placebos.

It's more about getting folks to think about NOT doing something, that's why it's Banned. If they aren't thinking twice about NOT endangering other people on the road with a cell phone, video game, or a few too many beers do you really want them getting near you and your family while they are in operation of a 3k+ pound battering ram??

I would suggest you are doing just the same for motorcyclists.

Riding a motorcycle is also not an inalienable right.

Look at it this way:

Difference is that not nearly as many people are endangered if I am operating my motorcycle responsibly, versus I am texting while behind the wheel of Ford Expedition in heavy traffic.

Peace,
Greg

 

[Jinro]

BTW..to Jady's point...your attitude will change once you have kids of your own...

Doubtful. I have noticed today's children are completely undisciplined. If I did half the crap kids do today I would have been smacked. Jady has probably noticed the same. Parents these days are too busy and too irresponsible to properly raise their kids.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

And those idiots behind the wheel while texting are endangering other people's lives for something stupid. If you've gotten to read my above post about Task Loading, it makes perfect sense to try and get folks to think twice about something that will detract from their ability to not kill other people. Let's face it, most folks really don't need to be driving anyway (from an operator's mindset perspective) and then we are going to allow them to be distracted??

I read it. It's cute, assuming those figures account for everyone's Task Load - and I'm sure they don't. The thing is, a smart driver will be able to asses his surroundings and say, "Yes, I can safely answer my phone, change CD's, put more focus on my passenger, etc..." A bad driver will do so regardless if their surroundings and what is 'safe'.

 

[kanonfodr]

I read it. It's cute, assuming those figures account for everyone's Task Load - and I'm sure they don't. The thing is, a smart driver will be able to asses his surroundings and say, "Yes, I can safely answer my phone, change CD's, put more focus on my passenger, etc..." A bad driver will do so regardless if their surroundings and what is 'safe'.

Once again, you're expecting people to be smart about operating a vehicle. I'm expecting them to not care if I live or die because of their actions so I keep my distance. The law should be considering the middle of those two viewpoints, but it generally weighs towards the "Most of these people can't drive to begin with" side so that's what happens. Wanna talk on your phone, pull over just like I do. If you're gonna drive, please focus on it for your sake, my sake, and all those other numbskulls as well.

Peace,
Greg

 

[jady]

Never have, never want to .

Peace,
Greg

I am beginning to rethink my position on this myself lol

Doubtful. I have noticed today's children are completely undisciplined. If I did half the crap kids do today I would have been smacked. Jady has probably noticed the same. Parents these days are too busy and too irresponsible to properly raise their kids.

Do you have children? Judge not until you have walked a mile in the others shoes.........We live in an age where BOTH parents have to work, there is no stay at home parents anymore (at least far far less) How is working 3 jobs between 2 parents to keep the household running being lazy and irresponsible?

And for the record, my kids do get smacked for the same things I did (which is not very often)

 

[MatticusMania]

Difference is that not nearly as many people are endangered if I am operating my motorcycle responsibly, versus I am texting while behind the wheel of Ford Expedition in heavy traffic.

Peace,
Greg

Im not talking about texting, Im talking about phone calls, which require much less attention from a person. If I use my cell responsibly while in the car I am not endangering anyone.

+1

I read it. It's cute, assuming those figures account for everyone's Task Load - and I'm sure they don't. The thing is, a smart driver will be able to asses his surroundings and say, "Yes, I can safely answer my phone, change CD's, put more focus on my passenger, etc..." A bad driver will do so regardless if their surroundings and what is 'safe'.

 

[Jinro]

Do you have children? Judge not until you have walked a mile in the others shoes.........We live in an age where BOTH parents have to work, there is no stay at home parents anymore (at least far far less) How is working 3 jobs between 2 parents to keep the household running being lazy and irresponsible?

And for the record, my kids do get smacked for the same things I did (which is not very often)

I've been a kid. I've seen many kids act out and watched their parents do nothing far too often. I personally know many parents that play a stay-at-home role and their kid is still nuts. I've babysitted. I've had to transport other people's kids in my car. I haven't walked 5 miles in a parent's shoes, but I have walked at least 1 mile in them.

I don't need to have a kid to know what parents have to go through. Experience is not a prerequisite for knowledge.

This is beside the point, but yes, we do live in an age where both parents have to work. However if you're having to work 3 jobs to keep your house then you can't afford kids and shouldn't have them. Or you can't really afford the house you're in and should have gotten something that you could afford. Factor in that there are 7 billion people in the world (and counting), what's the point of having kids anyway?

 

[MatticusMania]

Experience is not a prerequisite for knowledge.

Einstein disagrees. Knowledge without experience doesnt count for much in the real world.

“The only source of knowledge is experience”
-Einstein

Factor in that there are 7 billion people in the world (and counting), what's the point of having kids anyway?

Really? Well, I doubt all those 7 billion other people have your genetics. How do you propose to further your bloodline without having kids?