Total Cell Phone Ban While Driving?

[jmattbassplaya]

Ok, let's change the perspective here...to all you who are in favor of allowing phone use while driving...ride a motorcycle for a summer

people in cars are interested in convenience. if they bump someone else, they have a scuff in their paint, or a dent that insurance will pay to fix. For a motorcyclist a scuff means roadrash, pain, hospital bills, loss of work, etc, etc...
Now just how important do you think your convenience is when compared to the life and likelihood of another human being? Do you really think your convenience is that important that it justifies your acts of endangering others?

And people drive motorcycles for fun and recreation?

Motorcyclists know of the increase risk that comes with driving a motorcycle instead of a car. If your safety is that important to you then I'd think you'd opt to drive a car instead. Otherwise you'd realize that a phone is like any other distraction. You can substitute one for any other with similar results and risks.

Jady hit the nail on the head.

 

[tastybasslines]

So if I am a passenger in a car I should not be able to get a phone call?

You do realize that this would shut down cel phone companies pretty much all-together. Why would I pay for a phone to be on me at all times when it does not work.

How is it a terrible disease? You seem to be starting a pattern here of making some pretty grand statements with no explaination or reasoning to back them up. You do not seem to have anything to say except for "get off my lawn!!"

No. You shouldn't.

There would be no way to enforce the safety of the general public otherwise.

Is your "right" as passenger more important than killing someone? Because it's happening all the time.

 

[Febs]

No....the first statement presumes I'm guilty because the police officer said so. Therefore, unless I can prove otherwise, I am.

Wrong. You can ask the court to dismiss the case when the prosecution fails to meet its burden of proof. In your hypothetical, the officer's testimony, "I saw his lips moving" is not sufficient to meet the state's burden of showing that the defendant was using a cell phone. Even if the state's burden was to make that showing by a "preponderance of the evidence" as opposed to the much higher "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, the evidence in your hypothetical doesn't rise to that level.

 

[Richland123]

I have been almost hit numerous times by people more interested in chatting or texting on the phone than driving. One time, a lady was in my lane heading right for me while on the phone and driving and I swered off the road so she would not hit me head on and another time a lady had the phone in one hand, a cigarette in the other hand and no hands on the steering wheel and I had no idea how she was driving. Yes, we all take our hands off the steering wheel for a few seconds to change radio stations or eat and drink but that is not quite the same issue as looking at a phone screen and texting instead of not watching the road. A hands free ear phone only costs a couple dollars here but I see many people holding the phone against their shoulder and ear. With all the car accident and death data related to cell phone use while driving is well documented and frightening, if one person's life is saved, it is well worth having the laws in place.

 

[LAPetrarca]

Not really. All they'd have to do is check your most recent phone history. "oh looky what we have here... A five minute call within the last few minutes of my pulling you over."

In this country, we have laws against unreasonable search and seizure as well as being protected from self incrimination.

You wanna' charge me with breaking the law but you're not 100% sure you've got a case? Don't expect me to just go ahead and cooperate with you. If you are the accuser, it's YOUR responsibility to prove my guilt and not MY responsibility to prove my innocence.

As someone said earlier, it's called due process.

 

[guy n. cognito]

if one person's life is saved, it is well worth having the laws in place.

I hate this type of logic. Hell, you could outlaw blinking and probably save 1 life, so let's do it!!!!!

 

[jmattbassplaya]

I hate this type of logic. Hell, you could outlaw blinking and probably save 1 life, so let's do it!!!!!

Might as well outlaw driving. That would reduce death by motor accident down to 0%.

 

[handofseven]

In this country, we have laws against unreasonable search and seizure as well as being protected from self incrimination.

You wanna' charge me with breaking the law but you're not 100% sure you've got a case? Don't expect me to just go ahead and cooperate with you. If you are the accuser, it's YOUR responsibility to prove my guilt and not MY responsibility to prove my innocence.

As someone said earlier, it's called due process.

Yeah, we have those laws as well.

The point was for evidential purposes, not to suggest that you would be expected to provide your phone at the time you were pulled over. As was stated before, this is the kind of evidence which will be used against you at court when defending against the ticket...

 

[handofseven]

Might as well outlaw driving. That would reduce death by motor accident down to 0%.

Nope... 'cause people would still do it!

 

[LAPetrarca]

Wrong. You can ask the court to dismiss the case when the prosecution fails to meet its burden of proof. In your hypothetical, the officer's testimony, "I saw his lips moving" is not sufficient to meet the state's burden of showing that the defendant was using a cell phone. Even if the state's burden was to make that showing by a "preponderance of the evidence" as opposed to the much higher "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, the evidence in your hypothetical doesn't rise to that level.

If I have to PROVE my innocence in court then am I not considered GUILTY until such time? That goes against our constitution.

So, if I don't ask for a dismissal, am I then presumed guilty? Why should I have to ask if the state can't prove it's case?

I understand where you're going but, my point is, the inconvenience and burden prove my innocence are borne by me rather than my accuser. That's wrong!

 

[bobunit]

If there was a beautiful naked women in your passenger seat, would you be able to keep your eyes on the road?

Nope... Because we'd be in the back seat.

 

[LAPetrarca]

I hate this type of logic. Hell, you could outlaw blinking and probably save 1 life, so let's do it!!!!!

....not to mention coughing and sneezing behind the wheel! And yawning......what about yawning behind the wheel????

 

[Jared Lash]

I rode a M/C for a few years. This was in 1989-90, well before cel phones were normal. Not to be harsh but these are the risks you assume when you decide to ride a M/C. I had many people almost hit me without cel phones........

And to be honest, It is my duty to operate my vehicle responsibly and safely. If you decide to risk yourself by putting yourself out there with no safety equipment (air-bags, crumple zones) that is your risk and should have no bearing on how I drive. It is like saying some people don't wear seatbelts so no-one can drive over 30 because it is much more deadly to them.

Just because YOU choose to ride a M/C why should I be legislated more because of it?

And people drive motorcycles for fun and recreation?

Motorcyclists know of the increase risk that comes with driving a motorcycle instead of a car. If your safety is that important to you then I'd think you'd opt to drive a car instead. Otherwise you'd realize that a phone is like any other distraction. You can substitute one for any other with similar results and risks.

Jady hit the nail on the head.

This is a complete side issue. Yes, motorcyclists accept a greater degree of risk due to their choice of transportation. And that very likely gives them a greater vested interest in proposed traffic safety laws like these.

But that doesn't change the fact that distracted drivers that hit ANY vehicle (motorcyle or not) due to their distraction are endangering other people's lives due to their behavior.

 

[handofseven]

Nope... Because we'd be in the back seat.

Yeeeaaaaaahhhh BABY! Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!

 

[LAPetrarca]

But that doesn't change the fact that distracted drivers that hit ANY vehicle (motorcyle or not) due to their distraction are endangering other people's lives due to their behavior.

Exactly. If it's not one distraction, it's another. Along with legislation, it requires one thing that can't be taught OR regulated....common sense.

You may get the impression from previous posts that I'm against this ban. What I'm REALLY against is any and all knee-jerk legislation.

Truth is, you can't enforce a ban on ALL devices. Legislate what is reasonable and possible but you will NEVER, I repeat, NEVER be able to legislate common sense.

 

[GregC]

a phone is like any other distraction. You can substitute one for any other with similar results and risks.

Leaving aside the motorcycle conversation--I don't believe any study has found this to be true.

 

[Febs]

If I have to PROVE my innocence in court then am I not considered GUILTY until such time? That goes against our constitution.

No, you are considered innocent until the prosecution meets its burden of establishing your guilt. You do not have to submit any evidence. You do not have to testify. You don't have to put up any witnesses. You don't have to introduce any documents. You can simply wait for the prosecution to put in its evidence, and then move for a dismissal if the prosecution fails to meet its burden.

 

[MatticusMania]

Oh.....I DO understand. That's both the point AND the problem.

Why should I have to show my phone to anyone? To satisfy your curiosity as to what I've been doing? It's my personal property. Last I knew, there were laws against unreasonable search and seizure as well as the right to be protected against self incrimination.

It wouldnt be considered unreasonable search & seizure as you would have been pulled over under the suspicion.
As far as self incrimination, go ahead and plead the 5th, and serve your day in court, or show the officer he was wrong and be on your way.

ummmmm......since the STATE is accusing ME of breaking the law, how does the burden of proof fall on me? Isn't the accuser responsible for providing evidence?

If you really think the law works that way you may have bigger problems to worry about. As for your account, you already stated the STATES evidence, the officer saw you lip synching and assumed you were on the phone, so now the burden of proof is on YOU to show them that you werent.

If that is not enough evidence for the courts to prosecute you, then this whole scenario you proposed would not happen, as the officer would not cite you without further evidence.

 

[MatticusMania]

No. You shouldn't.

There would be no way to enforce the safety of the general public otherwise.

Is your "right" as passenger more important than killing someone? Because it's happening all the time.

Im not seeing the correlation between a passenger talking on a cell phone and a driver killing someone.

Please people, if you have a point we will listen, but have some sense of logic before making your case.

 

[MatticusMania]

You wanna' charge me with breaking the law but you're not 100% sure you've got a case? Don't expect me to just go ahead and cooperate with you. If you are the accuser, it's YOUR responsibility to prove my guilt and not MY responsibility to prove my innocence.

As someone said earlier, it's called due process.

Where your sense of logic is failing you is that if the court (or an officer) is not 100% sure they have a case, they most likely arent going to cite you for something they cannot prove.