Ban Cellphones in Cars????

@Ticomaya,

I'm generally not convinced by Slippery Slope arguments.

Re: Rothlesberger, they don't play till Monday night, and I'm worried that I'll be stuck with Brown trying to get the ball from Charlie Beyotch instead...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm generally not convinced by Slippery Slope arguments.

There are those who would call that "short-sighted."

I tend to not be convinced by the post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.

Quote:

Re: Rothlesberger, they don't play till Monday night, and I'm worried that I'll be stuck with Brown trying to get the ball from Charlie Beyotch instead...

Yup ... sucks to be you. Laughing

1 Reply

Tico:

No, I did not mean to say that we should ban radios and passengers in cars.

Not very careful writing is the cause.

DWI means Driving While Impaired. They've shown that using a cellphone or earpiece impairs the ability to drive safely. The consequences for DWI should be the same whether you impair yourself with alcohol or with a deeply serious discussion about football on your cellphone/earpiece whatever.

I know, some people absolutely KNOW that their driving is just dandy no matter what they've imbibed or what activity they employ themselves with while at the wheel. (Why am I thinking about all kinds of things I've engaged in while on a darkened stretch of highway??) We won't know until they smash-up somebody's nice side panel.

Ahem. Just once I'd like to meet a man who says that their spouse drives better than they do or even just as well. Talk about blindspots, let's ask her.

Joe(Oh, Mrs. Mayo!!!)Nation :-)

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm generally not convinced by Slippery Slope arguments.

There are those who would call that "short-sighted."

I tend to not be convinced by the post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.

The scientific experiments on this issue are not based on post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments. In fact, they are carefully designed to avoid such fallacies. So, I can't take that as a valid criticism of the point I'm making.

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Rothlesberger, they don't play till Monday night, and I'm worried that I'll be stuck with Brown trying to get the ball from Charlie Beyotch instead...

Yup ... sucks to be you.

I still have a great shot anyway. Arian Foster, 4 tds, GOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I still have a great shot anyway. Arian Foster, 4 tds, GOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

You have more than a great shot, you have some choice match ups. You are clearly the favorite to win.

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

No, I did not mean to say that we should ban radios and passengers in cars.

Yes, it would be silly to ban those things. Yet they can distract a driver just as much as, and often times more than, a conversation on a cell phone.

Quote:

DWI means Driving While Impaired. They've shown that using a cellphone or earpiece impairs the ability to drive safely. The consequences for DWI should be the same whether you impair yourself with alcohol or with a deeply serious discussion about football on your cellphone/earpiece whatever.

Meanwhile, back here on Earth ...

Should we charge a driver with DWI because he is listening intently to an NFL football game on the radio while he's driving, and happens to get in an accident? Makes as much sense.

Quote:

We won't know until they smash-up somebody's nice side panel.

Yeah, that's right, we often don't know until the accident has occurred. And when they do smash up someone's side panel, we know they are at fault because of their bad driving, and we cite them with the appropriate ordinance that they violated. But we do that because they drove badly ... not because they were talking on the phone at the time of the damn accident.

Quote:

Ahem. Just once I'd like to meet a man who says that their spouse drives better than they do or even just as well. Talk about blindspots, let's ask her.

My wife's a menace behind the wheel. And she couldn't find her way out of a paper bag, even with a map. She'd have to call me -- on her cell phone -- to give her directions.

Quote:

Joe(Oh, Mrs. Mayo!!!)Nation :-)

Just think of poor Mrs. Mustard!!!

0 Replies

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

we got along for years without cell phones, business got done, things got accomplished, groceries and other items got bought, lots of non-driving time to talk and text in my opinion

I'm working a temp job, and this 20 something works next to me.

She's always 5 to 15 minutes late (she stays later) because "my garmin's directions sent me this way, and there was traffic"

I once asked her why she bothered with (I was nice putting it that way) it because she took the same route every day.

She said "I like to know my ETA"

Yeah. Her ETA is 5 to 10 minutes late.

I also once asked her what route she took. When she told me I said "Don't go that way. No one who lives here goes that way (she from out of state). Cut across on 71 and pick up 360 at 290.

"That's not the route the Garmin gives me"

This chick has her masters degree

0 Replies

Only a couple of people have mentioned studies showing phone use while driving is as dangerous as driving over the legal limit for alcohol.

Sure, most of us are 'excellent' drivers, but there are so many drivers who seem to be brain dead. The idea to make talking on the phone while driving is to protect us from the crazy peopple who think they are just fine, whether drunk or whether driving while yakking on the phone.

Years ago when seat belts were made mandatory, so many people said that they thought they would be more likely to be in a crash that would cause their car to blow up. These people probably watched too much tv, because a car is highly unlikely to burst into flames when in a crash.

When there have been enough studies done to show that using your phone while driving is dangerous, it becomes obvious that there should be a law to prevent yet another danger on the highway.

Seat belts have been shown to prevent many accidents and injuries.
I think there have been sufficient studies to prove using a phone while driving is dangerous. If you refuse, I hope you are wearing your seatbelt if you are in an accident.

0 Replies

I can answer my cell from the car’s steering wheel. It would be fine with me if then ban it, most of the time when I’m driving home and someone calls me I just click ignore call. They can wait until I get home if they want to talk to me, besides when they call it cuts off my ipod from playing.

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I still have a great shot anyway. Arian Foster, 4 tds, GOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

You have more than a great shot, you have some choice match ups. You are clearly the favorite to win.

Hah - as the consistent winner of our league, you have a definite x-factor advantage!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I am in favor of banning cellphone use in cars although some individuals are capable of carrying on a conversation without being distracted, because it's obvious from the studies that more aren't.
If I'm alone on the road with Tico - and he's able to carry on a handsfree conversation without plowing into me - well, okay.
Maybe from now on, part of the driving test should focus on testing one's ability to drive while engaging in cell phone conversations - then you get this enhanced license - same as if you prove you can drive a bus or heavy goods vehicle...

I know I am a highly distractable person - although also an excellent driver who has driven hundreds of thousands of miles without an accident.
Still, I know that if my stereo is too loud, I have to turn it down to focus my attention on a potentially dangerous situation while driving and by that I mean, when I'm just coasting along - I have the music up full blast, but if someone slams on brakes ahead of me, my first instinct is to turn down the music so I can concentrate fully- that's how I know that I shouldn't ever really be someone having a conversation on a cell phone while I'm driving.

When someone calls me on my phone while I'm in the car, I have to divert my attention from the road to turn down the radio.
What if that person called me at exactly the same moment the driver in front of me slammed on his brakes?
You know - these situations happen- even to the best drivers.
You should control what you can control. You can't control a bee getting in your window and causing a distraction, but you can control whether or not you make or take calls in your car.
And if you're making the choice to accept possible dangerous distracting activity while you're driving, you should take responsibility for that choice.

I have to say, I'm glad there are laws that protect me and everyone else from people who would choose to make irresponsible choices.

1 Reply

Always reminds me of Jack Robinson, a rather strange perennial candidate for public office in MA a few years ago. At the time, he was running, I think, for governor, and driving down a somewhat winding major artery out of Boston, using his cellphone to do an on-air interview with our major NPR radio station. The interview was going along all right, until sudden loud noises and an "Oops, sorry, I've gotta go. I just rear-ended someone." He lost the election.
Hmm, maybe while it's still legal we should encourage Mitt and Newt to do some car cellphone interviews.

0 Replies

@aidan,

You just indicted your radio pretty thoroughly.

0 Replies

I saw an interesting piece on one of those "teevee journalism" programs in which a woman stoutly denied that using her cell phone distracted her--so they put a cameraman in her car. In 30 mintues time, she ran about five stop signs and one red light, and continued to deny it until they showed her the video tape. I think Thomas fits in that category. If i had to drive on the expressway, i'd record a message on my phone to the effect that i was driving and the caller should leave a message. The only exception to that was calling The Girl when i was driving into Toronto, and i shouldn't have done that. Fortunately, it didn't result in any tragedies.

0 Replies

@jcboy,

jcboy wrote:

.....I just click ignore call. They can wait until I get home if they want to talk to me

I love this.

There are a lot of people (most I'd bet) that don't get the concept that because their phone rings, it doesn't mean they have to answer it.

Maybe going off topic, but I see all of this as the belief today that we must be able to do what we want immediately. Everything is NOW.

With all this cell phone talk, what's left to talk about with our loved ones when we get home?

There's a lot to be said for delayed gratification.

0 Replies

Lookit, what I'm saying is that we are trying to get out ahead of this.

Driving While Distracted
Tico wants to know if someone is listening to a football game so intently that he fails to yield the right of way, should he be ticketed for something more than "Failing to Yield"?

I say yes. DWI- Driving while Idiotic, sorry, Driving While Impaired. The choice to listen to the completely unimportant details of a sports event to the extent that it limits your ability to make judgments which effect the health and safety of others should be taken into serious consideration when seeking the proper punishment.

That goes for talking on your cellphone if said activity directly affects your judgment.

Here's the thing: for almost sixty years, from the 1920's to the middle seventies, drunk driving was not taken seriously in the USA. It took the (very loud) efforts of Mothers Against Drunk Driving to finally get judges, police officials and lawyers to take away Driver's Licenses from people who willfully endangered the public by driving while intoxicated and get them off our roads.

Driving While Distracted should be taken just as seriously because 1) it is a choice a person makes and 2) it can be just as deadly.

Today's car is full of distractions: Cellphones, Laptop Computers, GPS Screens, iPads, MP3 players --the list could go on, the choice to use any or all of those things while driving puts the rest of us in danger, therefore, there should be additional consequences for the driver who is voluntarily distracted by his gizmos and one who has his eyes diverted momentarily by the girl in the white shorts bending over to pickup a Frisbee, even though they both ended up shoving their left headlights into the back end of a city bus.
Yes?

Joe(am I making any sense>)Nation

2 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

Driving While Distracted
Tico wants to know if someone is listening to a football game so intently that he fails to yield the right of way, should he be ticketed for something more than "Failing to Yield"?

I say yes.

yup yup yup

and you'd be with the lawmakers in a number of North American jurisdictions (and me - I want people to pay attention to their driving when they're driving)

I don't there are many people who are interesting or important enough to need to be on the phone while driving.

Really. Most of you are just not that important.

~~~

I find tico's position on this quite entertaining - given his views on a cellphone for his son. One set of values for him, a different set for his son.

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

Today's car is full of distractions: Cellphones, Laptop Computers, GPS Screens, iPads, MP3 players --the list could go on, the choice to use any or all of those things while driving puts the rest of us in danger, therefore, there should be additional consequences for the driver who is voluntarily distracted by his gizmos and one who has his eyes diverted momentarily by the girl in the white shorts bending over to pickup a Frisbee, even though they both ended up shoving their left headlights into the back end of a city bus.
Yes?

Joe(am I making any sense>)Nation

You are making sense in the sense that I understand the point you are trying to make. I agree with you that any of those things can distract a driver, just as a blaring radio and passengers in the vehicle can. But should we have a law that says there are additional consequences for a driver who has passengers in his vehicle? Or who had the radio turned on at the time of the wreck? I think not. Nor do I think we should have a law that says there should be additional consequences for a driver who was on a cell phone using a handsfree device. (I am okay with a requirement for a handsfree device.) On the other hand, if we can show that the use of the phone did in fact cause the driver to be distracted, which caused the accident, well then sure, additional consequences should attach. But that is relatively difficult to demonstrate in a court of law, of course. Which is why a "strict liability" type offense would be desirable, for ease of prosecution. But there's that slippery slope again.

Where do we end the ban on things that have the potential to distract?

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Joe Nation wrote:
Tico wants to know if someone is listening to a football game so intently that he fails to yield the right of way, should he be ticketed for something more than "Failing to Yield"?

I say yes.

yup yup yup

I say "yes" too. But what I don't say "yes" to is the notion that merely because he was listening to the football game on the radio he is per se distracted to the point he is culpable for the accident, without any further showing that he was, in fact, distracted.

Quote:

I find tico's position on this quite entertaining - given his views on a cellphone for his son. One set of values for him, a different set for his son.

You know that I do try to entertain you as often as possible, Beth.

But you make little sense, here. You find my position that my 13 year old son does not need a cell phone inconsistent with my view that I should be able to use my own cell phone while driving in my car? That makes no sense to me, Beth. Perhaps you could explain why you think so.

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

easy peasy

you need to use a cellphone about as much as your son does

life without you having a cellphone worked. life without you using a mobile while driving will also work.

1 Reply

Ban Cellphones in Cars????

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know