Ban Cellphones in Cars????

@ehBeth,

I see ... you're comparing apples and oranges. No wonder I had trouble following you. I thought we were discussing whether or not the law should prohibit cell phone use while driving.

But as to whether or not my son needs a cell phone ... he does not. Do I? Perhaps not, but it's paid for by my firm who thinks I need to be in contact with the office day and night. My son does not have a 30 minute commute after work -- his bike ride to school takes him about 3 minutes. He does not need to make work-related phone calls. Nor does he drive around town where he needs to be in communication with his wife and children.

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

Quote:

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

I am not in favor of banning anything. You can burble on your earpiece with the stereo pumping so loud the static pressure inside your sleek four-wheeler reaches the 200mmH2o level all while screaming at your wife that YOUWILLNOTSTOPANDASKFORDIRECTIONS!!!

Ahem. Oh, sorry, I meant to start this post with a comment about your avatar.
Such a handsome man!

I do, (he went on), expect and demand that you (or any other distracted drivers) be held fully accountable for your actions and the resulting inattention to your only mission as an automobile operator, driving.

I think we can take the evidence that a cellphone call was in progress at the time of the accident to place the blame where it belongs. If we did I guarantee more people would have shorter calls or, more likely, pull over to discuss page sixteen of that contract.

Joe(Wait...was that the party of the second part or third party of the first part??)Nation

3 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Still, if you get T-boned because someone ran a stop sign, the damages don't belong to you because you happened to be talking on the phone. Obviously, if the offender states he saw you with a phone in hand, he also saw you when he ran the sign.

You make a good argument, as usual. And as usual, I disagree.

1 Reply

@roger,

Many accidents have witnesses who are not the drivers of the cars involved - passengers, pedestrians, cyclists, people in other cars. Someone else could report you as a mobile user.

Even in cases like your example, the 'innocent' mobile-using driver could lose mitigation points in their tort claim if they were determined to have been using a mobile at the moment of the accident (or immediately beforehand). And luckily (?), the technology to make that determination is good and solid.

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

You don't need a mobile.

You want one and you have one.

You're not a surgeon. No one needs to be in constant contact with you. They may feel that they want to be for whatever reason, but ...

they don't need to.

~~~

Your son doesn't need a mobile and neither to you.

It's quite simple.

3 Replies

@ehBeth,

but...

all of his attorney friends have one. it would be very bad form not to...

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

<snicker>

good thing he is in a jurisdiction that it is still allowed in that case

(is that why he had to move?)

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

I'm not allowed to talk about that, or Herman Cain's sleeping arrangements...

0 Replies

I had a wreck once while I was on the phone. I didn't offer that version to the investigator when he arrived, I didn't think I wanted the extra attention that went with it. I don't know that the phone caused it, but...

even so, I was cited for inattentive driving, and my insurance went up.

I don't talk and drive much anymore, if I do, it's out on the open road where I am not around other drivers so much...

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

I do, (he went on), expect and demand that you (or any other distracted drivers) be held fully accountable for your actions and the resulting inattention to your only mission as an automobile operator, driving.

Right, and on that point we agree ...

Quote:

I think we can take the evidence that a cellphone call was in progress at the time of the accident to place the blame where it belongs.

... and on that point we do not.

Evidence that a cell phone call was in progress at the time of the accident does not mean the driver on the cell phone was at fault for the accident. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Even in cases like your example, the 'innocent' mobile-using driver could lose mitigation points in their tort claim if they were determined to have been using a mobile at the moment of the accident (or immediately beforehand).

Why? The innocent mobile-using driver's duty is to keep his/her car under control in his lane of travel, and keep a proper lookout for other drivers and pedestrians. Being on a cell phone does not mean the driver behaved in a manner different than an ordinary reasonable and prudent person NOT on a cell phone would have behaved in same or similar circumstances.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

You don't need a mobile.

That's a debatable point. I tend to agree, but my wife would disagree with you, as would my employer.

Quote:

You want one and you have one.

And my employer insists that I have one, and that's why my employer pays for it. I have one of those there fancy Iphones that allow me to get emails and stuff on them. I use the phone to be in contact with my office and clients at times when I am not driving in my car.

Quote:

You're not a surgeon. No one needs to be in constant contact with you. They may feel that they want to be for whatever reason, but ...

Tell that to my employer who believes my phone to be an essential piece of equipment for my job.

Quote:

Your son doesn't need a mobile and neither to you.

It's quite simple.

My son doesn't "need" a car either. Whether I "need" a car is as debatable as whether I "need" a cell phone. I use my car every day for my 30 minute commute to work, but I could walk to a bus stop, and use public transportation to get to my office. I've looked up that route before, and the bus ride alone would be about 1.5 hours. The walk to the bus stop is probably 20 minutes. Adding in waiting around for the various buses to arrive, and the commute becomes 2 hours. So that's 4 hours of my working day spent getting to work and back home. Plus, I need to get to the courthouse or other places during the day, so that's a problem I would have to deal with if I didn't have a car. And the same analysis could be applied to whether or not I "need" computer. My grandfather managed to be a lawyer for 40+ years, and he never used a computer once. What do we really "need" besides food and shelter?

If I concede your point, will you explain it's relevance to the issue in this thread?

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

I think we can take the evidence that a cellphone call was in progress at the time of the accident to place the blame where it belongs. If we did I guarantee more people would have shorter calls or, more likely, pull over to discuss page sixteen of that contract.

good point.. but. I have to disagree.

If the simple thought of a 'possibility' of getting in trouble were enough to make people change their behaviors, we would not have drunk drivers, thieves, murderers etc.

just telling people that they COULD get a ticket, or have an accident or what have you ..from cell phone use, is not enough to change human behavior . We all know that a DWI is a felony, yet most everyone has driven a car after drinking. Maybe not to the point of serious intoxication.. but everyone has done it to one point or another..

I think, as the law is here in texas.. it makes sense that if an officer SEES you texting while driving you should get a ticket. Texting pulls away too much of your attention from the road. Texting at stop signs, stop lights, and while pulled over is NO big deal. Using a hands free device to make a call is a good idea but I do not think it is necessary. Distractions.... no matter WHAT it is from, happen all the time.

Everyone drinks coffee in their car.. that can spill.. OOPS distraction!
radios, food, passengers.. hell..BIRDS can be a distraction. It doesnt matter. I think, actually I should say i wish instead..but I wish there was a way to determine the LEVEL of distraction to help create a law . Sort of like there is a way to determine the level of intoxication. Under a certain limit... you are actually ok. Over it? Ticket.

but.. do we REALLY want the law that far up our asses ?

We know that texting and paying too much attention to our phones takes our focus away from driving. We are adults.. we are humans.. and we are capable of individual thought. Do we really need someone telling us everything there is to do and not do ?

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

No one needs to be in constant contact with you. They may feel that they want to be for whatever reason, but ...

this i agree with 100% ( and not just aimed at Tico...)

some where in the last few years some one has determined that constant contact was necessary...yet life has not changed to prove so.

answering machines still do the trick, driving home for 20 or 30 minutes still does not change life.. but we have convinced ourselves through this materialistic american mentality that WE HAVE TO HAVE something...

but we dont.

2 Replies

@shewolfnm,

Heh. I was so proud the day I got my first beeper. I was doing outside sales calls for an office furniture company.

Lookie, I said, I is a real bidnessman now!

It wasn't until it beeped the fourth or fifth time that I figured out it was dog collar and leash. Arrrgh.

I think shewolfnm has the same wish as I that the level of distraction could be measured and appropriately punished.

On the ticket there could be a series of boxes for the arresting officer to fill in:
Assholeness 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,

Joe(you could just draw a circle aroung them all for Complete Assholeness)Nation

2 Replies

@shewolfnm,

shewolfnm wrote:

ehBeth wrote:

No one needs to be in constant contact with you. They may feel that they want to be for whatever reason, but ...

this i agree with 100% ( and not just aimed at Tico...)

some where in the last few years some one has determined that constant contact was necessary...yet life has not changed to prove so.

answering machines still do the trick, driving home for 20 or 30 minutes still does not change life.. but we have convinced ourselves through this materialistic american mentality that WE HAVE TO HAVE something...

but we dont.

Yeah, that's what I was meaning in my post above about someone tracking their progress on their GPS Every Day, when they are driving to the same place.

This same chick texts ALL day long. I cannot for the life of me think of what requires this constant communication. This isn't a teen, it's a 26 year old, that was weaned on all this stuff.

It feels to me akin to obsessive compulsive. MUST be on phone saying something that can easily wait. CANNOT wait, MUST be now. MUST program where I want to go into a GPS.

Off topic, but I think having a GPS is total bullshit.
NO place is THAT hard to find.

3 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

Heh. I was so proud the day I got my first beeper. I was doing outside sales calls for an office furniture company.

Heh. I remember getting my first beeper, and all it meant was I could now be bothered at 3 o'clock in the morning.

0 Replies

@chai2,

chai2 wrote:

This same chick texts ALL day long. I cannot for the life of me think of what requires this constant communication. This isn't a teen, it's a 26 year old, that was weaned on all this stuff.

Got a gal in my office just like that. Little younger (21-22?) and she is always texting.

Quote:

Off topic, but I think having a GPS is total bullshit.
NO place is THAT hard to find.

I don't know where you live, but having GPS in my phone is occasionally useful for me, when I find myself in a strange part of the city.

2 Replies

My husband's a scientist and is usually an early adopter -- he was on the Internet way way back in the day, he's always had the bestfastestnew Apple computers at work, etc.

But he's refused to get a cell phone. Through waves upon waves of people telling him how awesome they are and how much he needs one (which redoubled when the iPhone came out and every scientist he knows got one, and then renews again in waves whenever a new iPhone comes out), he remained steadfast.

In the last couple of years, instead of the incredulous and pitying reactions he'd gotten up 'til then, there's started to be some envy mixed in. "Man, that must be great. So nobody can reach you when you're not at home or the office, then? Wow."

1 Reply

There are seven billion people in the world.
There are five billion cell phones.

0 Replies

Ban Cellphones in Cars????

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know