"Point is, we’re all doing something incredibly dangerous while driving, and those few who don’t usually tend to be horrible drivers and enter the freeway at 30mph and then merge.
If you don’t want other people needlessly endangering your life, you shouldn’t live in a human society, IMO."
This is after he admits driving down the freeway at 80 mph checking the status of a FedEx delivery on his cell phone. Which means that the stupid thoughtless fuckwit is reading a 15 digit number into his cell phone while speeding down the highway. His justification is the one used by jackasses the world over when they’re doing something incredibly selfish and idiotic, namely, “everyone else is doing it, but I’m doing it safely because I’m somehow superior.”
Now I’m sure that Groman’s FedEx delivery is incredibly important and I’m sure that * even if it were delayed, there’d be something he could do about it while driving down the highway *, so what he’s doing is clearly vital to him and the economy of the US. I’m sure that’s going to be just a huge fucking consolation to the person that Groman rearends while he’s trying to read that tracking number.
Groman, I just hope that when your superior driving habits do finally result in your getting some mileage out of your organ donor card, that you’re the only one involved in the accident, and that you have your seat belt fastened so that the resulting cleanup isn’t too traumatic for the EMT’s and highway patrol.
Except I contend that talking on a hands free device (and I remembered the tracking number) is no more dangerous than having a casual conversation with a passenger. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Have you never had a casual conversation with a passenger while driving?
One possible explanation for the disparity is that during conversations with passengers, there are additional sets of eyes able to monitor road conditions. Passengers can warn the driver of impending hazards.
I’ll give you that, however, I am aware of the fact that anything I do in a car besides driving increases risk to others and adjust my driving accordingly. Proposing that under no circumstances should anybody ever endanger others for their own benefit will eliminate nice things like BBQs, golfing and competitive sports.
Ditto, there is quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. There was just a special on the Discovery channel on drivers who were, variously, drunk, sleep deprived, and distracted.
Even the people who were doing something hands-free, like talking, were significantly impaired - almost as much as drunk drivers.
The fact that you don’t feel impaired smacks of a guy leaving a bar, saying “Naw, guys, I’m cool to drive.”
You only think you are. A great deal of research shows that drivers conversing on cell phones are unaware of the level of impairment. Several studies have demonstrated that drivers talking on a chell phone, either using a headset or holding the handset, move their eyes around far less frequently than they do when not on the phone, including conversations with passengers. Additionally, they appear to develop a kind of tunnel vision which persists even after ending the call, apparently as a result of the necessity of the brain to process the data. Participants who were later asked to rate their degree of impairment while engaged in cell phone conversations vastly underestimated the degree of said impairment, when compared to actual test results.
But then why do you chose to draw the line there? As per linked articles it seems that talking to a passenger is still more dangerous than not talking at all, and I’ve just found a study that says that high intensity music impairs your reaction time. (here, however, it also states that low-intensity music improves driving ability)
Why draw the line at one dangerous activity rather than a slightly more dangerous or a slightly less dangerous? More importantly, who should draw that line for any particular individual? The person driving who has been licensed to drive an automobile, who carries the liability, and who everybody trusts not to plow into pedestrians on a whim, or you, an unrelated third party who feels nervous?
This is hardly the case. Almost unanimously, various studies and analyses of accident statistics show that talking on a cell phone is four to five times as likely to lead to an accident. This is comparable with the risk of driving while drunk.
Which means that the risks of driving drunk are highly exaggerated, or San Franciscans would go extinct in a very short order.
No, I don’t contend those stats, I contend that it’s my decision to increase the risk of an accident four to five times by talking on the phone, just like it’s your decision not to drive drunk or not plow into kindergarteners on purpose. Personal responsibility people.
That would be all well and good if you could guarantee that any such accident only involved you. But, you cannot. There exists a significant risk to others, as well. It may be acceptable to you, but it is not acceptable to those who must share the road with you.
Now you’re just trying to dress your own personal irresponsibility in pseudo-libertarian verbiage. If you really believe in personal responsibility, you will be personally responsible for the accidents what you cause, and not file any insurance claims.
Better yet would be to take the responsibility to personally not use the cell phone while driving.
Even better yet, stop the pseudo-intellectual self-justifications and admit that you have personally done an irresponsible action.
I agree that even hands-free cell use probably impairs driving. From personal use, I believe it (no accidents, but I think I can tell the difference).
Groman did bring up a good point, though. Why draw the line at cell use, hands-free or otherwise? I’m sure there are other issues that are of greater impact that hands-free phone use.
Off the top of my head, I can think of several mechanical issues that I would guess have greater impact (no pun intended):
[ul]
[li]Tire pressure / age[/li][li]Wheel alignment[/li][li]General health of the car (bolts tightened, facia well-connected, etc.)[/li][li]Super-loud music (it HAS to be distracting)[/li][/ul] [ul]
[li]Diabetes (who’s to say a lapse in control doesn’t produce a problem?)[/li][li]Epilepsy (same as above)[/li][li]Heart Conditions [/li][/ul]
I wonder if people don’t jump on the first popular target for crappy driving.
The battle is not always to the strong nor the race to the swift, but that’s the way to bet it. If somebody’s talking on a cell phone and rear-ends somebody, nobody’s going to wonder whether or not his tires were properly inflated.
But it’s not just “my decision” not to drive drunk. The law “helps” me make that decision by decreeing that I MAY NOT drive drunk, and if they catch me at it (accident or no accident), they’re going to can my ass.
If talking on a cell phone while driving produces a similar level of impairment to driving drunk, I see no reason not to make that illegal too.
Probably, and a lot of them are also covered by law. For example, the “general vehicular health” issue you bring up is why cars are legally required to pass an annual inspection.
