Total Cell Phone Ban While Driving?

[BurningSkies]

TBOT: The place where the lunatic libertarian fringe meets the self centered over confident.

 

[Skitch it!]

"Nobody questions things in this country anymore; people are way too ******g prosperous for their own good. Everyone’s got a cell phone that’ll make pancakes and rub their b***s now. —George Carlin, It’s Bad For Ya!"

Yeah baby, whilst guiding up to 2 tonnes of metal and glass

 

[jmattbassplaya]

TBOT: The place where the lunatic libertarian fringe meets the self centered over confident.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

IMHO, people who insist on using their phones while driving should find a way to do so rectally.

If the phone call or text message is so important, go park and then handle it. After you're done, then resume driving.

+1

 

[Febs]

As I stated my belief above, I dont think any faction of gov is independent from all other gov agencies.

You're getting caught up in whether NTSB is completely independent. That was not really the point of my post. The point was that NTSB is merely making a recommendation to the states. The suggestion that the sole purpose of that recommendation is to "make more money" does not appear to have any basis in fact or reason.

I recognize that you are not making that argument, but to those who are, I really am curious about why you view the proposal as a revenue generator.

 

[BurningSkies]

You're getting caught up in whether NTSB is completely independent. That was not really the point of my post. The point was that NTSB is merely making a recommendation to the states. The suggestion that the sole purpose of that recommendation is to "make more money" does not appear to have any basis in fact or reason.

I recognize that you are not making that argument, but to those who are, I really am curious about why you view the proposal as a revenue generator.

I also have a friend who refers to parking tickets as "taxation without representation" even though he parks in metered spots and freely chooses to ignore the meters.

 

[electracoyote]

TBOT: The place where the lunatic libertarian fringe meets the self centered over confident.

I don't think frowning on this and similar "bans" is indicative of a "lunatic libertarian fringe" element, or any other fringe. Conservative perhaps. Hardly the "fringe."

 

[MatticusMania]

You're getting caught up in whether NTSB is completely independent. That was not really the point of my post. The point was that NTSB is merely making a recommendation to the states. The suggestion that the sole purpose of that recommendation is to "make more money" does not appear to have any basis in fact or reason.

I recognize that you are not making that argument, but to those who are, I really am curious about why you view the proposal as a revenue generator.

Im not getting caught up in that point, someone else asked for elaboration on that point, which Im not going to get into here. As for the point that you are trying to make, I agree with you, which is why I even argued about the non-logical standpoint that the sole purpose of the recommendation is to make more money.

I also have a friend who refers to parking tickets as "taxation without representation" even though he parks in metered spots and freely chooses to ignore the meters.

Thats just laughable.

 

[BurningSkies]

Thats just laughable.

Some people think that paying for parking is limiting their freedom just like some think that the government banning the convenience of talking on the phone while driving is limiting their freedom.

 

[electracoyote]

Some people think that paying for parking is limiting their freedom just like some think that the government banning the convenience of talking on the phone while driving is limiting their freedom.

Weak sauce, bro. Failed comparison in my book.

 

[MatticusMania]

Some people think that paying for parking is limiting their freedom just like some think that the government banning the convenience of talking on the phone while driving is limiting their freedom.

I think that paying for parking is stupid, unless its in a privately owned lot, in which one is paying for the convenience to park there.

I also think that banning the use of a hand-free device in my car is limiting my freedom to make or accept a call at my discretion.

 

[electracoyote]

Someone needs to tell me how hitting a button on my cell and using voice activation to make a hands-free call in my car is different from hitting a button on my radio and having a conversation with a passenger in my car, and why one and not the other should be banned.

Please make it thoughtful and compelling, or I'll just dismiss you as an ignorant troll.

 

[MatticusMania]

Someone needs to tell me how hitting a button on my cell and using voice activation to make a hands-free call in my car is different from hitting a button on my radio and having a conversation with a passenger in my car, and why one and not the other should be banned.

Please make it thoughtful and compelling, or I'll just dismiss you as an ignorant troll.

Been trying for the last 18-1/2 pages and I havent seen it yet.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Someone needs to tell me how hitting a button on my cell and using voice activation to make a hands-free call in my car is different from hitting a button on my radio and having a conversation with a passenger in my car, and why one and not the other should be banned.

Please make it thoughtful and compelling, or I'll just dismiss you as an ignorant troll.

I'll give you a hint - they can't

 

[BurningSkies]

I think that paying for parking is stupid, unless its in a privately owned lot, in which one is paying for the convenience to park there.

I also think that banning the use of a hand-free device in my car is limiting my freedom to make or accept a call at my discretion.

Do you, or have you ever lived in a city? Because there are very few cities that have open and free street parking, so if you do, I assume you stick to mini-malls and the like.

Speeding laws also limit your freedom to go as fast as you would at your discretion. Gun laws also restrict your freedom to carry a concealed weapon at your discretion (or to brandish it at anyone). Zoning laws also limit your ability to alter your home at your own discretion. Noise laws limit your ability to play music at a specific volume or time of day as you might at your discretion.

My point being that everyone has an arbitrary place where they consider their 'freedoms' are being infringed upon. The more people that live together, the denser the population, the more need for such 'rules'. If we all lived in rural areas where the next house down the street is 5 miles away, or where there are few cars on the road for people to hit when they're driving distracted, it wouldn't be much of a concern.

These laws aren't there to protect you. They're there to protect those around you. That's what society is all about.

 

[MatticusMania]

These laws aren't there to protect you. They're there to protect those around you. That's what society is all about.

This makes very little sense.
Being that I would be a part of that same society those laws would also be there to protect me.

And yes, I do live in a city. See my location? There are plenty of cities with free street parking, including Los Angeles. It might not be as close to ones destination as one would care for, but its there. You shouldnt make assumptions.

 

[aborgman]

What gov agencies do you believe influence the NTSB?

NHTSA, Congress, Executive.

 

[Febs]

Someone needs to tell me how hitting a button on my cell and using voice activation to make a hands-free call in my car is different from hitting a button on my radio and having a conversation with a passenger in my car, and why one and not the other should be banned.

Please make it thoughtful and compelling, or I'll just dismiss you as an ignorant troll.

At the risk of being branded an ignorant troll , I will point out that there was some discussion earlier in the thread about studies that concluded that talking on a cell phone is a greater distraction than talking to a passenger, apparently because the passenger is able to observe traffic and is therefore better able to regulate the conversation in response to traffic hazards. I have not yet read the actual study, so I don't want to comment on its validity, but I find the hypothesis to be at least plausible.

 

[BurningSkies]

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[electracoyote]

My point being that everyone has an arbitrary place where they consider their 'freedoms' are being infringed upon. The more people that live together, the denser the population, the more need for such 'rules'.

I see your point.

You can't have people driving as fast as they want to, because too many people in society don't have the self-control to drive at an appropriate speed.

That is what I call a reasonable law.

But now the issue is merely having a conversation while driving. Not driving too fast. Just talking while you drive (indeed, studies show that people who talk while driving often drive slightly slower than those around them).

Zoning laws, parking laws, speed laws, those have a basis in reasonable expectations for members of society.

But I can not agree that limiting a person's ability to have a conversation while driving is even remotely "reasonable."

Again, I'm hitting a button and having a voice-activated, hands-free conversation, and someone wants to limit my ability to do that? How is that "reasonable?"