Proposed Banning of Cell Phone Use in Vehicles Regardless of Hands Free

which of the published studies was marked "Incomplete?" I guess I misunderstood that along with the facts as opposed to someones personal perception of themself. My bad.

Everyone on this site is superman and can drive perfectly fine while talking on a cell phone. That seems clear from most of the responses.

But the rest of society is far from perfect. Thus the reason we need to ban cell phones while driving. Because the rest of society simply cannot drive properly while talking on a cell phone. So we have to protect the rest of society, we cannot only think about ourselves.

gush
So let me get the right,you also believe you are in the beginnings of a police state? I didn't make such a outlandish statement he did. I could care less about the issue, as many people have made comments, only One personally attacked our country.

As far as my political views go, The man I supported for President did not win, however I stand behind Obama because he is our President and will continue to do so for the next four or eight years whichever it turns out to be. So what do the good ole boys got to do with slandering the United States of America, which what was being done when I made my statement. Know I don't know about you or the person that made the remark in the first place, But I happen to Love this country and don't take well to it's attacks, by him, you or anyone else.

Slander me if you like, I have thick skin. But slander where you live and then you can just pack up and leave and live with any of the isism's you like that are truly a Police State.

If you don't like the politicians, then campaign against them and either have them removed or get yourself elected, Your community voted them in and can take them out. Those are and have been my Politics around here. Be proactive in your country and simply either Love it or Leave it, as it was when I was a young lad and as it is now.

As we approach Jan 20th may GOD bless Mr Barack Hussein Obama as the 44th president of the United States of America.

Merriam-Webster,Define: police state

Function: noun
Date: 1851
A political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures

From the cab on my 18 wheeler I have seen flossing, playing the guitar and a lady puttin on panty hose as some of the top items that take both hands, The strangest was a small truck with the drivers head with a pillow against the left side window and a person sitting in the middle holding the steering wheel. But the most weaving and eratic speed I have seen was from cell phone users. I always wondered if St Peter will let you in if you have a cell phone stuck in your ear.

this is the most rediculuos thing thatthey can come up with, next thing no passangers, because they can distruct you too????????

Being an avid motorcycle rider people on cell phones scare the hell out of me. Too many driver distractions. Last summer I saw a gal talking on her cell phone and lighting a cigarette while making a left hand turn in a busy stop light controlled intersection. I could not figure out how she did it. Maybe she has a third arm.

The argument does seem logical. That the problem is not holding the phone with your hand but talking and being distracted with another conversation. I believe that the "cat is out of the bag" and that there would be great resistance of putting a ban on talking on the phone while driving. It is just like the government trying to take away everyone's guns. It just won't happen.

There is too much money in car electronics now. If it looked like this was going to pass, the lobbyists would kick it into high gear. Why do you think smoking is still legal?

What studies are you talking about? The article named one study from the University of Utah. Please provide links to scientific studies with conclusions.

As I've already said you can have multiple studies on the same subject with different conclusions.

So far I haven't seen any definitive studies where all scientists in the applied branch agree to the conclusion.

Wouldnt doubt someone will think of that.

BobDee, First let me say that I respect your opinions and your honesty.

I agree with you that we haven't reached a police state yet, but it is heading in that direction. Every year there are 1,000's of more law legislated and put on the books. It seems to be a political thing. Some laws like some safety equipment for cars are genuinely beneficial and have saved lives. Other laws are basically just put on the books for lobbyist interests, etc.

I didn't see spullis slandering the country. He was making a statement about the politicians that many people in the country agree with. You're right about getting rid of the bad politicians, but especially at the local level it is not always easy to understand a full range of the views and special interests have pervaded politics to a huge degree.

Would you agree that all Presidents of the US have pushed for and changed laws while in office? Just because they weren't happy with the previous laws or agendas of politicians before them, doesn't mean that they should leave the country because they didn't fully agree with the state of it before they took office.

I just truthfully believe you were a little hard on the guy and was exercising my right to say so.

Peace....time to take a Xanax.

Hehe...I've bet you've seen it all kgmilton. I love to hear trucker stories.

The problem is it would be very difficult to legislate specifically about flossing, putting on pantyhose, playing the guitar, etc. while driving.

Most jurisdictions already have legislation against these kinds of things though. Reckless driving, etc. If a policeman sees someone driving erratically because he's lost in phone conversation or pressing buttons on his GPS and not paying attention, there are already laws on the books that cover these things.

Not in public places here in Ohio it's not! and New York is even worse.

How many would you like? In a matter of a few seconds I could only find a couple hundred.

Here are a very few...
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/wireless/
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-13/driver-distr...
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/1533/2/97314...
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/541303/
http://www.ama.ab.ca/images/images_pdf/FinalReport_CellPhone...

So yes, the data is there. I could go on and on, but it's just as easy for you to find as it is for me.

Are researchers going to have identical conclusions? No. As more and more data is gathered, they will continue to more fully develope their conclusions. This is what researchers do. However, they do all have the same underlying conclusion in that there is increased distraction and decrease in driving performance while using a cell phone.
(Notice I didn't even list your Utah study?)

All they would have to do is mandate that new vehicles me manufactured and sold with bluetooth capability.

I don't think navigation has become a problem yet, and I would expect in-dash navigation will be more common in vehicles because that is 80% of its usefulness to most people.

drive-through restaurants, banks, ATMs, coffee houses next?

Big Mommy...grrr....

I really hope this doesn't happen. I don't mind the bluetooth/hands-free approach but this goes too far. I guess talking to other passengers would be a good thing to ban if this were to pass.

I just wonder are they gonna banning people kissing each other when driving too???

Too little too late for me. The woman I T-boned was on her cell while making U-turn into oncoming traffic with her 9 year old little girl in the front seat. If I hadn't swerved to the right, the little girl we have died on the scene. My wife and I both sustained permanent physical damage. No phone call is that important!

And to top it off, she had no insurance! Now you know the history behind my mantra below.

Why would they? you could always park then walk in and do your business, if your feeling uncomfortable using the drivethru!

They can't enforce it as many people have said, too many other reasons for lips moving while driving, but if you have an accident while on the phone then it WILL cost you.

There have already been several cases in Britain where drivers have been prosecuted for careless and/or dangerous driving based on cell phone records showing they were on their phones at the time of the accident.

It only gets better. I won't explain about a couple in an older Mustang going thru the Shasta Canyon both in the drivers seat.

Since the problem with cell phone use isn't usign your hands but carring on a conversation, will they outlaw talking to your passenger?

'

I agree with the comparison of being in a game of frogger on the motorcycle. I ride, and I am certain I will leave this world when a suburban mother driving a minivan full of kids watching videos and talking on the phone makes a left turn in front of me without looking. Scares the crap out of me. I also hate the government involvement in my daily activities, so I am torn on this issue. I agree with a ban on handheld and see the impact on accident rates. However, I am in my car several hours a day and being in touch with my clients is essential so I use the bluetooth.

I agree!

This thread is interesting.

I agree with some part of almost everything said here.

However, it's too easy to say, "get them, they're bad & I don't do it anyway so the law won't hurt me". Politicians want to "sound" like they're doing something, like they care, but ultimately want/need to raise money for government. As these laws are put on the books, the unintended consequence is that you become guilty until proven innocent. As others have noted, it will be up to the discretion of the officer as to what he/she thinks were your intentions. End result, whether you win or lose, it will cost you. You may be okay with them outlawing cell phones while driving, but the accidents will continue, so they'll take away something else. At some point they'll come after something that is important to you & then you'll say, "hey, that's not fair".

Also be intelligent with regards to surveys & data. You can create research to support any position. Much the same as you can interpret data in many different ways, 61% of the people know that.

Bad drivers are bad drivers. Yes, cell phones don't help the situation but take them away & there will still be bad drivers, who will be distracted by something else that's shiny. -Oooh, is that a stick of gum?

Ultimately, every accident ever recorded had one common denominator, in every case, KEYS we're involved. I've conducted countless studies, the data is conclusive & irrefutable. We have no other option, we must outlaw keys! We can't wait. How many unnecessary deaths will we allow?

In all the studies you posted (and some aren't even studies) I read through some of the content and often they pointed to inconclusive results.

As I stated before further more conclusive studies are needed. It's often difficult for the police to pin an accident on someone using the phone, as a lot of the perpetrators I'm sure won't admit to using the phone if no one saw them.

I'm simply saying further studies are needed. As I pointed out before most jurisdictions have reckless driving laws, etc. that cover cell phone and GPS inattention and the myriad of other things that can never be legislated against.

We don't need more laws on the books. We need common sense and there are already laws covering people that don't use common sense.

I agree with what you said. There are already laws on the books covering reckless/dangerous driving, etc. As much as they're trying, they can't legislate against every thing you can do in a vehicle that can cause bad or inattentive driving.

That's the truth of the matter. Bad drivers can accept blaming their cell phone habits, but can't really accept the raw truth.

I know people who have been using a phone in the car since the days of the bag phone, and have never had even one accident.

At least this is prosecutable.

Like that LA train.

Was the lady cute?

If they had done this on a closed circuit....

I have had phones in my cars both built in and hand held for over 30 years. In all those years I have never been involved in a accident or have I gotten a ticket. My first car phone had trunk mounted equipment with a handset in the car in a 1976 cadillac seville.

I use it when needed and never to just chat on the phone. Being a general contractor and going to jobsites all over town it can save a lot of extra driving and time. I found it was never more distracting then my pagers were.

The ones that get me are people that are texting while driving and steering with there knees or elbows. I was next to a women in a SUV the other day doing 65mph on the freeway and she was texting with both hands and had her baby in a carseat behind her, half the time she was not even looking at where she was going, if someone had hit their brakes she would not have had a chance.

I won't argue that I'm not impaired when talking on a cell phone while driving - but how impaired am I? That's the real question.

Do I present more of a hazard than most?

For me (and I suspect it differs for others) I prefer to not use a handheld phone while driving and will not answer/hang up if the driving becomes technical. Hands free devices, such as an earpiece and my GPS, distract me much less. For me, they are in no way equivalent distractions.

Who wants these laws, and why? There always seems to be a hint of jealousy in the tone of those who support them. The "how dare they feel important" factor, which reflects more on the psychology of the supporter than the supposed feelings of the phone user.

Since people always compare it to drunk driving, let's. You could be blitzed beyond redemption with a cop on your tail, but if you drove like a normal person you'd never get lit up. Cops pull over weavers.

I'd prefer a simpler law (one that already exists, by the way) that tickets you for exhibited poor driving no matter the cause.

Revenue Generator. I could be wrong but many if not all things like this tend to lead to the money.

I've seen makeup applied, maps and newspapers read, romances kindled, oral hygiene practiced and grooming being done by the driver to my immediate left or right. All odd and sometimes quite dangerous and silly.

The one that takes the cake for me was during an early AM drive from Long Island into Central Park the day before the NYC Marathon (I am a senior official).

I looked over to see (and don't forget that it is early morning) a guy eating corn on the cob while driving on the Long Island Expressway.

I'm not technologically advanced. How does the government propose to enforce the ban, especially for the factory-installed, hands-free ones?

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for safety. It's unsafe for anyone who's emotionally charged while on the cell phone, hands-free or not.

People don't get as emotionally charged when eating a burger or listening to radio or drinking a soda. Just my opinion.

Then there's no evidence.

Every call you make is logged. If you're on the phone at the time of an accident - you're pretty much toast.

While it sounds so nice and simple, to simply ban cellphones and think that most car accidents will simply disappear, I doubt reality will bear this out.

People's lives are busier than ever these days, and people not only are able to accomplish work on the phone while driving (contractors, truck drivers, taxi drivers, etc), but people also get personal things taken care of as well.

If you ban cellphones, people will be rushing in traffic trying to desperately reach their destination so they can get their stuff done. That would be risky behavior.

Instead of blindly banning cellphones, maybe an age restriction could be in effect.

Just like teenagers have to get a driving permit first, can't have passengers and can't drive past a certain time at night, have age restrictions that until a driver has a safe record for a year or two, cellphones are off limits.

Not everyone has the same capabilities, and to ban the entire population based on the lowest level of skills of the population is pretty absurd.

When people prove they can drive safely with a safe record, reward them by allowing them the privilege of cellphone use.

But all these laws / rules are a temporary solution. A permanent solution needs to be put in place - that of cars that can drive themselves.

It's absurd that in this day and age of quadcore computers that can do realistic driving simulations, that no car out there can take advantage of street sensors / GPS signals / video cameras to drive by itself, especially in heavily populated / modern areas.

The real solution is to take the human out of the equation. Why no lawmakers have proposed incentives for auto-makers to create intelligent vehicles that can at least drive themselves in heavily urban areas confounds me.

Meanwhile the blame game goes on, blame cellphones, blame GPS units, blame radios, blame every device / excuse but the real cause - people get tired, distracted, and lose focus. Find a real solution for that, not banning convenient and useful tools like cellphones, etc.