This suggests that cell phone fatalities are either trivial or a substitute for other distractions.
I would like to see some statistics quantifying the actual lives saved by banning cell phone use while driving.
I actually regard this as a temporary issue as manually operated cars are replaced with robocars. We already have cars that warn you if you get to close to the car in front of you or leave your lane.
It suggests no such thing. There are dozens of other more likely explanations, like better vehicle safety engineering, or more aggressive drunk driving law enforcement.
Plenty of research exists showing distracted driving is unsafe. I can’t see any way for a study to test the exact number of lives saved by banning their use.
Maybe fatalities are down because of safer cars; ABS, seat belts, air bags, etc. I notice that your cite doesn’t mention whether or not accidents are down, just that fatalities are down.
Maybe there would be even fewer fatalities if less people used phones while driving.
In any case, laws aren’t meant just to prevent fatalities. If you and I are driving on the same road then I have a right to expect you to take reasonable precautions against damaging my vehicle.
Public roads is irrelevant.
If you’re basing your logic on them being public, then does that imply we don’t have a right to require electricians to be licensed if they do their work on private property?
I’m sure most people are supportive of electrical regulations, because there’s a clear and legitimate safety interest in them. That is the reason I feel laws against texting, and drunk driving are just. If they’re presenting a hazard then the greater harm would be to allow them to continue to do so.
You say people get by without driving, and that’s true. However do you feel every person is in a position, or could reasonably be able relocate to a situation that economically permits not driving?
We agree on laws about cell phones (at least the voice and text functions) and driving, but we disagree on why they’re just.
Really, not reckless (compared to talking on a non-handheld, which is how I take your comment), based on what I remember hearing of a research study that found that handheld and non-handheld phones were equally detrimental to driving safety. I think they speculated that the underlying problem was that during a phone conversation the driver has a state of mind appropriate to the conversation, which is not happening strictly inside the vehicle (because the other participant is not in the car at all and has no awareness of the driving environment). It sounded as if we have a mental mechanism that orients us in some kind of “conversation environment” rather than the moving car. This is the reason that conversation with another vehicle occupant is not nearly so detrimental.
I usually support about every statute intended to increase safety on roads, generally putting me at odds with the majority of drivers, but when here (France) they mentionned they could ban non-handeld phones (handheld phones already are), even I thought it was a bit too much, thinking, like another poster “what’s the difference with talking with a passenger, for instance?”
When I mentioned this opinion in a cafe, to my surprise, most of the drivers present stated that indeed, a conversation on the phone was in their experience much more distracting than a conversation with passengers, some of them recounting anecdotes involving themselves or another driver using a phone, and even more surprisingly most were supportive of the ban, contrarily to what happens usually with almost all restrictions put on drivers.
I agree that phone conversations are different from passenger conversations. Two simple instances: (a) In a danger situation, a passenger stops the conversations and shouts, “Look out!” The person on the other end of the phone keeps blabbing. (b) Sound quality is better when the person you’re talking to is in the car with you. Listening on a cell phone requires much more concentration, which is more distracting.
I think that there’s also a serious problem with younger drivers. I’ve been driving for over 40 years, so I think I can probably deal with the side conversations. A brand new teenage driver doesn’t have enough experience to deal with distractions. And they’re not just using their phones now for calls, they’re texting, they’re using the GPS, they’re googling.
Any distraction is a danger. Even reaching over to change the button on the radio means your eyes and mind are not on the road. If THAT is the exact moment that a truck runs a stop sign in front of you, BANG!
And fatality statistics aren’t relevant. We’re talking the sum of all accidents, including those without harm to life or limb … but damage to the cars.
You are wrong. A state can put any restriction on obtaining and keeping a license as long it does not either disproportionately impacts a protected class and has a rational basis. Both cars and drivers need to meet certain requirements and follow specific rules.
Your house is plugged into an electrical grid. If a car crashes on your property, it affects no one but the people on your property. Improper electrical work can take down your neighbors power. Even with that, you do not need to be licensed to work on your own property, just to work on others.
Just does not enter into it. I was talking about why they are legal. Reducing all freeway speed limits in the state of California to 30 MPH for vehicles over one ton and making the first time you get caught using your cell a lifetime ban on driving while giving drunk drivers three chances before suspension is not particularly just, but it would be legal. The state could enact those laws. I suspect any legislature who did would see almost complete turn over the next election, if not immediate recall, but they could do it.
try this experiment, call someone on your hands free set while driving in town making turns and all that.
now the hard part, do not devote any extra attention to the call, stay focused on the road and the task at hand.
when I tried this the conversation was kinda funny, I must have said “what?” about 30 times in 5 minutes because I simply could not follow the conversation.
Not necessarily true. Walk. Take a bus. Take a taxi. Get a job closer to home. Get a friend to drive you. If faced with a driving ban, convince a judge that none of these options are viable for you personally.
We should also pass a law requiring hands to be at the 10 and 2 position at all times. Same thing for emotional driving. If you are angry, tired, or hungry, no driving for you.
I see the point of being safe, but I don’t like the government giving you hard and fast rules that don’t make sense at times. A straight interstate with no traffic around? Same rules? At a red light? Same rules?
Thank you very much, but as a free citizen who is concerned with my own life as well as others, I will decide what is safe for me. If we were really concerned with safety, we would ban automobiles entirely.
The FAA’s rules for aviation are hard and fast too - much more strict and complex than in driving - and also don’t make sense at times. Do you think they should be rolled back for free citizens who are concerned for their own lives as well as others?
I’d say no. Rules can always benefit from further scrutiny, but we have both the busiest and safest air system in the world largely because of them. If we were concerned with safety we wouldn’t ban cars entirely, we’d design a stricter system of road rules and licensing.
The correct way to state this is people aren’t driving more. The time period I mentioned was 2005 to 2010, which went from 2.99 trillion miles to 3.00 trillion miles.
I can understand requiring hands-free devices only, but to mandate no cell phone use at all while driving is insane. You might as well just ban transport of young children and babies, which are FAR FAR more distracting to drivers than a hands-free phone, and, no they won’t pause their screaming or fighting or crying based on the traffic situation at a given moment.
I am very, very liberal, but I can’t understand the Left’s desire to make life incrementally safer while trampling all over everyone’s freedoms. It’s just like speeding cameras, which cause me to spend all my time looking at my speedometer and not at the road. To heck with that and those who would implement them, and in effect CAUSE additional traffic accidents and loss of life. Blood is on their hands.
Cell phone use is distracting as hell. You can pull over and talk on the phone or you can wait until later. You do not have to speak on the phone while you are driving. Ten years ago they did not exist, now they are vital? I don’t think so.
You didn’t say anything about rational basis before. Back peddling.
You said “Not to mention there is no right to drive on public roads.”.
Clearly by your own argument now they do have such a right, so long as they don’t interferer with legitimate interests of society, such as safety, or pollution controls.
Which is closer to my argument all along. Although rational bases is a bit more lax than what I’ve been arguing.
So are you’re against it’s requirements for Ground Fault Protection in rooms with water? It provides no additional overload protection, just protection against electrocution.
You also have to have license to fly a Cessna. Do you support legalizing plane flight over private property, or do you have reasoning not related to public/private roads?
Irrelevant. Do you deny there’s situations where taking away someone’s license takes away their ability to provide for themselves or their family? Don’t use weasel words.