Total Cell Phone Ban While Driving?

[MatticusMania]

You can dismiss the "What if" if you want...
I still want to know how you are gonna feel when it happens to someone you know, knowing you opposed the ban that could have saved ONE life.
Or is someone else's life less important than than your need to drive distracted?

My ex-wife used to drive herself into panic attacks thinking about "what if this" and "what if that". Personally, I dont think thats any way to live.
Your second sentence also assumes that every car accident causes fatalities, when thats certainly not the case. Ive been rear ended a total of 5 times in the last 3 years, and not a single one caused more than a scratch to my rear bumper. I understand not everyone is lucky, but we also cant assume that everyone is unlucky.

 

[Tracebassplayer]

If the Nazi's were "the Banners" were they trying to save lives or ???
One could look at it this way. You are a Banner. By opposing the Cellphone Usage Ban, You want to ban safe driving laws, the safety of the Public in general, etc so you can drive distracted legally and possibly kill someone else.

 

[HaMMerHeD]

You can dismiss the "What if" if you want...
I still want to know how you are gonna feel when it happens to someone you know, knowing you opposed the ban that could have saved ONE life.
Or is someone else's life less important than than your need to drive distracted?

And BTW there IS a difference between having the authority to to something and having the Right to do something.

The data shows that banning cell phone use while driving has not resulted in a reduction of traffic accidents. They might as well have banned automobile collisions for all the good it has done.

 

[MatticusMania]

But that keeps going back to a point that's been made over and over. There are places that already have this ban (or something similar), and despite these bans there have been little to no reduction in automotive accidents. If this is the case time and time again then what is gained by implementing some sort of federal ban that will just as likely do nothing?

Because there is no counter to that argument (which happens to be the truth) all you will hear/read is more anecdotal evidence and "what ifs".

Its a mostly unenforceable ban. That said, I guess I dont really care if it passes or not, then, as its not likely to acheive any actual results. Those who don't agree with the ban are likely to carry on as usual.

 

[aborgman]

Safely multi-tasking while driving is a myth.

That is an interesting theory, problem is - driving itself IS multiple tasks.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

One could look at it this way. You are a Banner. By opposing the Cellphone Usage Ban, You want to ban safe driving laws, the safety of the Public in general, etc so you can drive distracted legally and possibly kill someone else.

I'm pretty sure this argument is a type of fallacy...

 

[MatticusMania]

That is an interesting theory, problem is - driving itself IS multiple tasks.

Homer: I pity those poor suckers on the freeway. Gas, brake, honk. Gas, brake, honk. Honk, honk, punch. Gas, gas gas!

 

[Tracebassplayer]

My ex-wife used to drive herself into panic attacks thinking about "what if this" and "what if that". Personally, I dont think that's any way to live.
Your second sentence also assumes that every car accident causes fatalities, when thats certainly not the case. Ive been rear ended a total of 5 times in the last 3 years, and not a single one caused more than a scratch to my rear bumper. I understand not everyone is lucky, but we also cant assume that everyone is unlucky.

I don't live for "What If", either. But, you DO have to ask that question when planning anything.
"Teenager - We're going to the mall."
Mom- Got money?
Teen - No...
Mom - What if you wanna buy something?
Teen - oh yeah, can I borrow 10 bucks?
If no one ever asks "What if" There would be no need for contingency plans. Even our Military has contingency plans.
"What If we're invaded?" We have the National Guard, That's their purpose. - well, They are supposed to be here for OUR National Defense - but that's not a topic for here.
A prudent man prays for PEACE but, IS prepared for war.


I neither said "every time" nor "ALL" collisions are fatal."
Having worked for AAA (Automobile Association of America) I've seen more than my share of collisions, most non-fatal but, many fatalities. So, yes, I know the difference.

You've been lucky so far.....

 

[MatticusMania]

I don't live for "What If", either. But, you DO have to ask that question when planning anything.
"Teenager - We're going to the mall."
Mom- Got money?
Teen - No...
Mom - What if you wanna buy something?
Teen - oh yeah, can I borrow 10 bucks?

I agree that "what if" needs to be asked at times, but your example is really weak

Teen - oh yeah, can I borrow 10 bucks?
Mom - Why dont you go get a job

In my house it went more like:
Teenager - We're going to the mall.
Mom- Ok, be home for dinner

 

[MatticusMania]

I don't live for "What If", either. But, you DO have to ask that question when planning anything.
If no one ever asks "What if" There would be no need for contingency plans. Even our Military has contingency plans.
"What If we're invaded?" We have the National Guard, That's their purpose. - well, They are supposed to be here for OUR National Defense - but that's not a topic for here.
A prudent man prays for PEACE but, IS prepared for war.


I neither said "every time" nor "ALL" collisions are fatal."
Having worked for AAA (Automobile Association of America) I've seen more than my share of collisions, most non-fatal but, many fatalities. So, yes, I know the difference.

You've been lucky so far.....

So let me ask you this, in regards to the thread topic...

What if the people who already talk on their cell while driving continue to ignore this next hands free ban?

Yeah, maybe I have been lucky, what if I wasnt?

 

[GregC]

Because there is no counter to that argument (which happens to be the truth) all you will hear/read is more anecdotal evidence and "what ifs".

Its a mostly unenforceable ban. That said, I guess I dont really care if it passes or not, then, as its not likely to acheive any actual results. Those who don't agree with the ban are likely to carry on as usual.

I just don't think there's enough data yet to determine the effectiveness of these bans--most of them are quite recent. One thing's for sure, cellphone usage does slow reaction time. I find it very difficult to believe that has no negative impact on safety. As for enforceability, Chicago ticketed 4 times as many people in 2010 for driving while using a cellphone as it did 3-4 years earlier when the ban was enacted. And studies have shown that useage has gone down as a result of the ban.

 

[MatticusMania]

I just don't think there's enough data yet to determine the effectiveness of these bans--most of them are quite recent. One thing's for sure, cellphone usage does slow reaction time. I find it very difficult to believe that has no negative impact on safety. As for enforceability, Chicago ticketed 4 times as many people in 2010 for driving while using a cellphone as it did 3-4 years earlier when the ban was enacted. And studies have shown that useage has gone down as a result of the ban.

Thats good that Chicago PD are making an attempt to enforce the ban, but clearly the fact that 4 times as many people were cited shows me that the ban is not effective as a means to keep people from using their phones while driving. Citing people for an offense does not correalte with deterrence, as they were caught doing what the ban should prevent.

 

[HaMMerHeD]

I just don't think there's enough data yet to determine the effectiveness of these bans--most of them are quite recent. One thing's for sure, cellphone usage does slow reaction time. I find it very difficult to believe that has no negative impact on safety. As for enforceability, Chicago ticketed 4 times as many people in 2010 for driving while using a cellphone as it did 3-4 years earlier when the ban was enacted. And studies have shown that useage has gone down as a result of the ban.

So if it's been long enough for studies to compile enough data to determine that usage has gone down, how has it not been long enough to determine that traffic incidents have not gone down? If the ban worked, and cell-phone use while driving has indeed measurably gone down, traffic accidents should have gone down as well. But the data does not show that to be the case.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that talking or testing on a phone while driving is perfectly safe. I think people are saying that cell-phones in this case are simply acting as just another distraction from driving, and in the absence of a phone, people are still distracted by other things (talking with passengers, music, changing radio stations, etc.).

 

[Tracebassplayer]

I agree that "what if" needs to be asked at times, but your example is really weak

Teen - oh yeah, can I borrow 10 bucks?
Mom - Why dont you go get a job

In my house it went more like:
Teenager - We're going to the mall.
Mom- Ok, be home for dinner

Same in my house. I'm evidently not as long winded as you.

 

[sonic assassin]

That is an interesting theory, problem is - driving itself IS multiple tasks.

this.

when you really break it down, its one of the more complicated things a person can do. perhaps its serendipity or luck and blissful ignorance that helps us.

or maybe we just go into a mechanical mode and access more of our brains when we need to. well.. some of us.

those that dont, shouldnt drive.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

I'm pretty sure this argument is a type of fallacy...

There has been about a bazillion logical fallacies in this thread, and a serious dearth of understanding of cognitive psychology...from both sides, but mainly from the anti-ban crowd.

As far as studies failing to show a decrease in accidents, does anyone have any links, particularly with a methods section so we can assess whether there are any threats to validity, especially history which is often a major threat when doing policy analysis?

 

[Skitch it!]

Common misconceptions:

- "I have GREAT taste in music"
- "I'm a KING in the bedroom - yeah!!!"
- "my timing is ROCK solid!"
- "I'm SPECIAL - I don't get distracted by talking on the phone while driving."
-It's the government, they're trying to take away MY FREEDOM!"
- "ME. ME. ME. ME. ME. Did I mention that it's all about ME?"

I'm hardly what you would consider a government line fella but as far as hand held ban here is concerned the post above is about right. 'Tis truly considered the trademark of slack jawed teenagers or the ignorant self righteous by anyone with any common sense here

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

this.

when you really break it down, its one of the more complicated things a person can do.

All the more reason to keep one's eyes on the road at all times while doing it, especially when the lives of others - including their children - hang in the balance.

those that dont, shouldnt drive.

Now this sentence makes sense IMO.

perhaps its serendipity or luck that helps us.

The more attention that gets paid to the job, the less these things are needed.

 

[MJ5150]

Does anyone think this ban will actually work? When we lived in Washington State, there was a law against driving and texting/holding your phone and talking on it. From my observations as I drove around town, many people continued to do those things. I don't know how many people it stopped, but I sure saw plenty of people still doing it.

-Mike

 

[Actium]

I totally support a cell phone ban while driving. That way women wouldn't drive at all.