But then, how could you enforce the no hands free rule? If you have a passenger in the car you could say you were talking to them, or if alone that you were talking to yourself. Unless they could subpoena phone records…
Thespos
There’s a helluva lot of folk who think they can drive whilst they have alchohol in them, there’s folk who think they can do three or four things at once and not compromise any of them. They may believe this in all earnestness, but it isn’t true, just as you may truly believe you can drive whilst on the mobile.
Even if it were true that you can drive this way, fact is you have had many near misses that were not your fault, because just about everyone who drives has near misses. You are not just looking at your own abilities, you should drive defensively, you should understand that everyone else on the road can and will make mistakes, or are just plain incompetant.
With that in mind it makes sense to ensure that you have your best driving head on at all times.
You obviously didn’t read any of the links I posted, or you’d now be aware of all the fatalities caused by driving whilst using the mobile phone, or maybe you just don’t fucking care, it’ll never happen to you, just like it never happened to them, oh wait, it did, didn’t it ? and now they are in prison.
So you and a few like you are so special, we should pass a law that applies to everyone else and not to those who think that can drive whilst distracted ? Oh yeah, get real.
There isn’t any doubt whatsoever that if you are distracted whilst driving that your ability to respond to the unexpected is diminished.
There is no way to compel people to pay attention, to stop them daydreaming or whatever, but given that this is readily enforceable, that it is known to be the major contributing factor in a number of fatal road traffic incidents, give me a logical reason why it should not be enforced ?
Or perhaps you actually enjoy visiting the relatives of the deceased and explaining why you reacted just that little bit too late.
No it has not occurred to me because it is wrong. Driving can be routine until something unexpected happens then a diminished concentration could be crucial in causing an accident. I have seen many red lights run by a person on a phone. I walk my dogs across a busy highway everyday and every time I had a close call it was a person on a cell who almost hit me.
If you believe you can drive just as well while on a phone you are deluding yourself and endangering others.
I rarely make cell phone calls while driving, and don’t often receive them. But when I do get them, I’m glad I have my phone. They’re not emergencies, but the calls are usually to let me know about changes in plans, or from my wife to tell me to stop at a store and buy something. Without the calls I’d have to do a lot of extra driving.
So to answer what someone else said, of course people managed without cell phones in the past. But in cases like this, they also used a lot more gas.
Ed
How do you propose that the people who can’t handle driving and talking on the phone at the same time be dealt with? Leaving it up to the individual’s judgment doesn’t seem to have worked too well. Problem is, a lot of the people who can’t talk on the phone and drive at the same time think they can talk on the phone and drive at the same time.
You really think these are equitable situations? Really? In your counter-examples, I’m not operating a ton or more of metal at highway speeds while distracted, putting myself, my passengers, and complete strangers at risk of death. Mass times velocity is a motherfucker.
Just because it’s possible to do something (talk on the phone while driving) doesn’t mean you should. There are plenty of examples cited here to show this is dangerous.
And thanks for (not) giving an example of when it’s absolutely necessary to do this. You’re not really interested in proving anything, are you? Just want to get your own way on this one.
I wish I had the answer. One thing I do know for sure, however, is that requiring another device be used (handsfree) isn’t the answer. And I think we’ve established that in this thread.
Two things I’d like to point out here:
-
You’ve never seen me drive. Interesting that you can make these assertions without the benefit of observation.
-
By this logic, we ought to act on studies that demonstrate the effects of other distractions that cause accidents. Let’s ban eating in cars, changing stations on the radio (no, no exceptions for people who have radio buttons on their steering wheels. After all, it’s the distraction that causes accidents, not the reaching over to fiddle with the knobs), talking to passengers and anything else that takes our full attention away from the road. Doing so would save lives, no?
One of my dads friends was lighting up a cigarette a few years ago. The ash jumped on his sweater. He was trying to find it and when he looked away from the road a car in front of him stopped. he was in the hospital for 3 weeks.
First, it’s not about being able to “handle” driving while yapping. The reason most people can do it so well most of the time is because most of the time, driving requires very little conscious attention.
The problem is with those other times - emergencies and unanticipated events that demand the driver’s FULL attention RIGHT NOW. That is much more difficult to provide while on a cell phone.
I would submit that the difference between “people who talk on cell phones while driving but never get into accidents” and “people who talk on cell phones while driving and get into accidents” has a whole lot more to do with luck than skill. Those of you who do it successfully are not better at it, just luckier.
Second, yes, of course freeway driving can be boring. And yet there are periodic moments of terrific excitement - those times when people get into collisions. It is those times that your attention needs to be 100% available to you in order to prevent tragedy for you or someone else. It would be nice to have advance warning so you can end your phone call after the “boring” part of freeway driving but before the exciting and attention-demanding part of collision-avoidance. But it doesn’t work that way, and a cell phone conversation can really fuck you up if it’s going on when the excitement begins.
Finally, I think the solution to this is quite simple: insurance companies need to crack down on making payouts for collisions caused by drivers who are talking on their cell phones when it happens. Insurance companies can quickly and easily accomplish what legislation can totally fail to do, it happens all the time. In fact, if insurance companies aren’t on this already, I’d be surprised.
Eh, I’m no Master of Offense, it’s just a hobby. Me stating that I had a completely different experience does not equate to me interpreting that you meant literally every girl and adult, but I feel your statement to be broadly incorrect. If you meant your classmates, you should’ve said so. This was not an attack on your support of feminism, but a distaste for your stereotyping of me. Your statement was simply untrue, and I’m pretty sure we’re in the business of fighting ignorance here.
:rolleyes: Wow, a whole field of straw men, one as brainless as the next.
Whilst I have not seen you drive, I have seen plenty of other folk drive, and no matter how good you are, there are plenty of opportunities to get into an incident because of a mistake someone else made.
You do not get the luxury of choosing when something will happen, there are enough studies that show distractions can be fatal, and as I said, those distractions cannot be eliminated, but those that can be readily enforced against should be enforced.
If you are that bit safer, then maybe someone else will survive their own mistakes.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but that sounds an awful lot like you’d support the aforementioned ban on eating, talking to passengers, etc.
Is this the case?
I hear this coming out of the mouths of motorcyclists all the time. Usually, it’s after someone who wasn’t paying attention left-turns someone on a bike, and a fellow motorcyclist ends up paying with his life. The consequences of a motorcycle accident are undoubtedly heavier than an auto accident, owing to the protection one enjoys driving inside an enclosed vehicle as opposed to being out in the open. Yet, motorcycles are still legal.
So yeah, I wish you’d reconsider that maybe this is an issue of balancing interests, rather than a quest to minimize risks at all costs.
Who has proposed this, other than you?
It won’t happen. Fast food chains and auto companies have too much invested in eating and playing music in the car for a ban to be politically feasible. Legislators can’t just pass any laws they feel like- if they don’t want to ruin their (or their party’s) chances for re-election and waste time and energy trying to push legislation that nobody else supports, they have to be aware of political realities.
The mobile phone companies may have too much political pull for a total ban on mobile phone use while driving, as well.
Now, I could see a ban on smoking while driving happening. Restricting smoking is politically popular these days.
I’m not proposing it. I’m saying that if you follow casdave’s logic to its reasonable conclusion, you could easily make a case for banning other activities because they’re also distracting - in some cases, just as distracting as DWY.
I could not let that slip by without appropriate kudos. 
Thespos ,Right I never saw you drive but I would suggest you drive better when concentrating on the road rather than spitting your attention to the phone. You do not drive just as well when you are on the phone. Studies have proven it. That is why so many jurisdictions frown on it.
I don’t drive as well while eating a Big Mac, either. Or talking to my wife in the passenger seat. Just because something distracts doesn’t mean it distracts enough to merit an outright ban. And if it does, then you might as well ban all the other stuff that distracts at least as much.
Oh, and BTW, my objection to the law isn’t as rooted in defining the problem as it is a function of what some governments think is the solution - hands free kits.
In the UK, if it can be proven that you were, say, fishing about in a bag of candy and this distraction caused a fatal crash, you will certainly be prosecuted, however this is very difficult to prove and even more difficult to enforce, so a specific ban on eating through legislation would be pointless, you do not enact laws you cannot effectively enforce.
The mobile phone one is rather differant, you have a phone to your ear, you are nicked, its simple to enforce.
Cause a traffic incident whilst on the mobile, evidence is easy to gather, mobile phone records can and are used to show that a driver at the time of an incident was distracted, and this can be discovered well after the event itself.
If you have a crash over here and claim on your insurance, they can and do require that you show your mobile phone timings.
The mobile phone use law is readily enforced, it can be shown that use of mobile phones is a significant factor, indeed at times it is the only factor in traffic crashes, it is a completely unnecessary risk, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, and it is politically acceptable.
The idea that there could be the slightest justification for banning bikes due to accident risk is just a strawman, an irrelevant argument in a mobile phone use thread.
If you want to discuss the merits of banning bikes, then thats a differant subject and should be addressed as such.