Total Cell Phone Ban While Driving?

[MatticusMania]

Yeah, some of them are blinding. But why give them or any other billboard any more than a fraction of a second of attention, if any?

Now youre starting to make some sense!

Answering a phone call takes just a similar amount of time. Once the call has been answered, the conversation is no more distracting than a conversation with a passenger.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Now youre starting to make some sense!

Answering a phone call takes just a similar amount of time. Once the call has been answered, the conversation is no more distracting than a conversation with a passenger.

Answering a phone might actually be safer. I never have to look for my phone to answer it. Billboards actually remove my eyes from the road.

 

[MatticusMania]

Answering a phone might actually be safer. I never have to look for my phone to answer it. Billboards actually remove my eyes from the road.

I agree.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

For some, maybe, but I often eat lunch while talking to my wife on the phone without a problem, and it surely isnt damn hard to do.

That would probably work with my wife, too. She talks and talks, I listen and eat.

But normal conversing over a meal would require pauses for eating, which is not awkward with people eating with you but would tend to be on a phone with someone located elsewhere. At least lunch won't run over someone when you're not paying attention to it.

 

[MatticusMania]

That would probably work with my wife, too. She talks and talks, I listen and eat.

But normal conversing over a meal would require pauses for eating, which is not awkward with people eating with you but would tend to be on a phone with someone located elsewhere. At least lunch won't run over someone when you're not paying attention to it.

As a multitasker I am capable of chewing and listening at the same time! (I swallow before I speak as well!)

 

[jmattbassplaya]

As a multitasker I am capable of chewing and listening at the same time! (I swallow before I speak as well!)

At least we know you're not a complete neanderthal

 

[BurningSkies]

Now we're talking!

But seriously, we've made it this far without cell phone use killing off entire communities, and studies have shown that these kinds of bans do zero, nada, zilch to lower automobile accidents. Why should we willfully allow a law to pass that has already shown to do nothing? What good does it do besides make you pro-ban folks feel better about the road? Do you think all cell phone related accidents are going to suddenly be nonexistent?

No. Of course not. Just like drunk driving accidents still happen though it's illegal. Most drunk drivers think they're driving just fine too. I have a couple dubious friends who will tell me how they're fine with a handful of drinks...judgement impaired even though they don't think they are.

But seriously, there's a big difference between a ban and an ENFORCED ban. Until people start getting ticketed arrested for such things (sort of like how police will pull people over here quite readily if they're visibly driving without a seatbelt) no ban does anyone any good.

There's a specific town nearby where the cops are complete sticklers for the speed limit. While most everyone does 60 in the 50 zone or 70 on a highway with a 65 speed limit...the minute they're driving through this one town, people step on the breaks. Its amazing to watch people hit that 30mph zone and actually GO 30mph until they hit the town limits.

Hey, how'd you know I drive a Suburban?

If you see me hitting one button on my cell phone and making a hands-free, voice-activated call that poses no greater distraction than a billboard as "cognitively impaired," I can't help you there.

But I think many "reasonable" people would disagree. It really feels like a stretch to me.

I'm very effective at profiling people.

How about this. If people want to drive and talk on their phones (even hands free), we should have a special driving test for them, sort of like if you're a truck driver and you need a special license for that. The test will be similar to the current standard test drivers take now, except that you'll also be on your phone, taking a verbal driving test at the same time (instead of a written test). If you can pass, you can drive and talk on the phone.

Have you seen an LED billboard at night? Darn right it's distracting - and blinding too!

I find them annoying. The one closest to me was actually turned down after commuters complained about the brightness being distracting and hazardous. If you've got appropriate wording, feel free to add it to the no-cell bill.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Now youre starting to make some sense!

Answering a phone call takes just a similar amount of time. Once the call has been answered, the conversation is no more distracting than a conversation with a passenger.

All along, actually.

The real question is whether the phone conversation is indeed no more distracting, or whether the distraction of the phone conversation itself inhibits the driver's ability to judge the amount of distraction it causes.

Like many other things in life, it's often more telling to know what others think of your driving than what you think of it yourself.

 

[MatticusMania]

All along, actually.

Refer to:

Like many other things in life, it's often more telling to know what others think of your post than what you think of it yourself.

 

[GregC]

Answering a phone might actually be safer. I never have to look for my phone to answer it. Billboards actually remove my eyes from the road.

I agree.

1. Who pays that much attention to billboards?
2. A billboard is something you look at one time. You ignore the repeats. More importantly, you don't see billboards all the time when you're driving--generally only on highways, and not every highway has them.

As much as you guys have pushed the idea over and over and over in this thread, not all distractions are equal.

On another note responding to a few of your other posts, just because a law won't stop every single instance of something doesn't mean it shouldn't be enacted.

 

[MatticusMania]

As much as you guys have pushed the idea over and over and over in this thread, not all distractions are equal.

Who is to determine which distractions are worse than others? I still havent seen confirmation that a phone conversation is any more distracting than other variables.

On another note responding to a few of your other posts, just because a law won't stop every single instance of something doesn't mean it shouldn't be enacted.

While I agree with you on that, I think a look to the recent ban on cell phones while driving (actual hand held devices, not hand free) proves that unless more is going to be done to enforce it, this isnt going to be an effective ban.

 

[BurningSkies]

Who is to determine which distractions are worse than others? I still havent seen confirmation that a phone conversation is any more distracting than other variables.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Refer to:

Sure, I think I'm an above-average driver just like everyone else does.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

1. Who pays that much attention to billboards?
2. A billboard is something you look at one time. You ignore the repeats. More importantly, you don't see billboards all the time when you're driving--generally only on highways, and not every highway has them.

As much as you guys have pushed the idea over and over and over in this thread, not all distractions are equal.

On another note responding to a few of your other posts, just because a law won't stop every single instance of something doesn't mean it shouldn't be enacted.

+1

 

[LiquidMidnight]

That being said, and speaking from my own experiences both talking to passengers and having a conversation via cell phone, and witnessing others do the same, my reaction is: I can't put any weight on that study. I don't buy it.

Are you saying that you don't buy it because

A). It goes against your experience?

or

B). The study has serious threats to either internal and/or external validity that render its results meaningless?

The former argument holds no water, because its an ecological fallacy - just because you can or cannot talk on a cell phone doesn't mean that large aggregates of peope are the same (well, technically its like an inductive version of the ecological fallacy). That leaves the second argument, which means you need to state why the study is invalid. However, the bottom-line is, with all of these studies being cited - both pro and con - none of us can make a legitimate declaration of their validity without a methods section. You can't state whether or or not a study is valid, prima facie, which is what I'm reading a lot of here.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

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

LMFAO!

 

[MatticusMania]

I'm not positive how relevent a 10 year old study is in todays driving climate, being that handheld devices are already banned in most places, but thanks for the link. I'll have to give it a read.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Who is to determine which distractions are worse than others? I still havent seen confirmation that a phone conversation is any more distracting than other variables.

+1

And what is distracting to some might not be distracting for others.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

And what is distracting to some might not be distracting for others.

True. You can't really be distracted by what you choose to ignore.

 

[BurningSkies]

I'm not positive how relevent a 10 year old study is in todays driving climate, being that handheld devices are already banned in most places, but thanks for the link. I'll have to give it a read.

It speaks to hands free too. Beyond that, I can't see that the dynamics of driving have changed in 10 years. Its a pretty detailed study (including methodology, which someone mentioned was lacking in past postings), not that I think you'll read it with any sense of balance anyway.

And lets not bring climate change into this discussion.