California may ban cell phones for some...


PDA






Nick1911
April 26, 2004, 12:38 AM
All I have to say is wow. This is for anyone who thinks the "slippery-slope" is a myth. Here's proof. (http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040425-041209-6435r.htm)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

California may ban cell phones for some



SACRAMENTO, CA, Apr. 25 (UPI) -- Legislators in Sacramento, Calif., have been considering a bill to ban cell phones while driving for bus drivers and teens under the age of 18.

The Los Angeles Times reported Sunday that even though a 2002 California Highway Patrol study endorsed the idea of banning hand-held cell phones while driving, legislators against the bill said that studies have shown that cell phones are not the only thing distracting drivers.

"The research is very sketchy on how much more dangerous are cell phones than eating a hamburger," said Anne Drumm, legislative representative for the Automobile Club of Southern California.

Hands-free phones might be a good alternative, according to California Assemblyman Joseph Simitian, a Democrat, who has sponsored a ban on hand-held phones for the past four years. "If we have a readily available technology that costs next to nothing and saves lives, why wouldn't we use that?" he asked.

However, this view has lost support as studies have found hands-free phones to be a significant distraction, perhaps as much as hand-held phones.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because when your 16 year old daughter's car breaks down at dusk in a bad neighborhood, cell phones are still just too dangerous.

:cuss:

Nick

If you enjoyed reading about "California may ban cell phones for some..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Chuck Jennings
April 26, 2004, 03:34 AM
Incrementalism at work!! :banghead:

Drjones
April 26, 2004, 03:38 AM
The really funny (read: pathetic) thing about this whole cell phone fiasco is that, in reality, on the list of distraction-caused accidents, cell phones are 3rd, 4th, or maybe even 5th on the list, well below food, makeup, and other longtime distractions. Cell phones actually only account for, IIRC, barely two percent (yes, 2%) of distraction-attributed accidents.

*sigh* :rolleyes:

:banghead:

c_yeager
April 26, 2004, 03:45 AM
The really funny (read: pathetic) thing about this whole cell phone fiasco is that, in reality, on the list of distraction-caused accidents, cell phones are 3rd, 4th, or maybe even 5th on the list, well below food, makeup, and other longtime distractions. Cell phones actually only account for, IIRC, barely two percent (yes, 2%) of distraction-attributed accidents.

Please, don't sully this trendy emotional argument with FACTS.

Bruce in West Oz
April 26, 2004, 04:30 AM
$100 on the spot fine for using a mobile (cell) phone here, unless fitted with a hands-free kit. No correspondence was entered into, the .gov just made the decision and banned it. We actually DID hear the phrase, "If it saves just one life .... "

Silly things is, couriers et al. can still use two-way radios and taxis still use the dash-mounted computer. :rolleyes:

Bruce

Pendragon
April 26, 2004, 05:16 AM
Uhm. I seriously doubt cell phones are banned from the CAR - you just cant USE one while driving.

Merits aside, not allowing a cell phone in a car would be assinine - even for CA.

I believe its already illegal here in Texas.

4570Rick
April 26, 2004, 05:21 AM
My Nanny State will take care of me, right? Right?

:fire: :cuss: :banghead: :barf:

Leatherneck
April 26, 2004, 10:53 AM
I'm with the Banners on this one. Because your simply using one causes an increased hazard to me and my family. And I don't believe for a minute that the total decrement in driver performance from eating a burger is anywhere near as bad as that caused by even a normal cellphone conversation. The mental effort required to participate in any kind of two-way discourse is subtracted from that available for attending to driving. Why do you think pilots have to say "Stand by, Center" every once in a while? Because driving the airplane requires their attention at the moment, and they can't spare the attention required to chat.

TC
TFL Survivor

erikm
April 26, 2004, 12:56 PM
Having heard/seen second hand what cellphone distraction can do (my sister got distracted one time and fender-bended a bus:D ), I'm partway with the banners on this one.

While I would not outright ban drivers using cellphones while operating vehicles of any kind, I would say that to do so you have to use a handsfree handset and/or a headset.


Cheers,
ErikM :evil:

nero45acp
April 26, 2004, 01:17 PM
Nowadays when I hear the expression "land of the free, home of the brave".........I laugh.



nero

GigaBuist
April 26, 2004, 01:19 PM
Because your simply using one causes an increased hazard to me and my family.

And the proof that EVERY person on the face of this nation cannot use a cell phone and operate a vehicle at a satisfactory level is where?

You only ever hear about the reports of them causing accidents. The news doesn't come across at 6pm with the groundbreaking news that thousands of cell calls were handled today by people operating a vehicle who didn't get into an accident. It's just like the gun news.

If somebody doesn't have the mental capacity to hold a conversation while running a phone then fine -- they shouldn't do it. I don't need a law telling me I can't hold a casual conversation with my mother as I tool down a nearly empty expressway for 15 minutes though. On the other hand I had to stop a phone call once (actually a conference that I got buzzed into) because I was not going to try and recall blueprints, network designs, and such while driving a stick shift through the city without a hands free set.

Know your own capabilities. Don't let the government mandate them.

sm
April 26, 2004, 01:32 PM
Memo to the Department of Gummit Meddling.

It is the user - not the object.

This DOES NOT mean besides meddling with objects the DGM should meddle with users.

See a Document called the Constitution.

Regards,

Steve

Joe Demko
April 26, 2004, 01:36 PM
Someday, you all may see me on TV doing the perp walk. The charges? Well, whatever you get charged with for badly beating another driver and inserting that person's cell phone into his rectum. Sure most people can drive and talk on the phone at the same time. It's the ones who can't that trip a whole row of breakers in my skull.

Drjones
April 26, 2004, 01:40 PM
I'm with the Banners on this one. Because your simply using one causes an increased hazard to me and my family. And I don't believe for a minute that the total decrement in driver performance from eating a burger is anywhere near as bad as that caused by even a normal cellphone conversation.

"My mind is already made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."

Sorry man, but the numbers don't lie.

"According to an American Automobile Association study -- one of the key studies used by the insurance industry in setting rates across the country -- cell phones did not rank in the top five causes of auto accidents last year. Of the 32,000 analyzed accidents, cell phones contributed to only 1.5 percent.
Tops, attributing to more than 29 percent of accidents, was driver distraction thanks to an ''outside object, person or event'' -- tough to legislate against gawking at that cute puppy on the roadside or trying to steal a few extra seconds looking at that nice body on the sidewalk or even rubber-necking at those poor souls who had an accident in front of you.
Other causes factoring in well above cell phones include messing with a cassette or CD player (11.4 percent of accidents caused by this) and distractions from a chatty passenger or baby (there's another 10.9 percent of accidents). Even eating, drinking and smoking figure in above cell phone use (1.7 percent)."

Source: http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/070701/opi_0707010001.shtml



"Cell phones rank between fifth and eighth on the list of driver distractions involved in traffic crashes. The list includes listening to the radio, talking to passengers, eating and drinking and fiddling with tape decks or CD players."

Source: http://www.thehollandsentinel.net/stories/071403/new_071403031.shtml

"A recent study conducted by the Network of Employers for Traffic Safety, a coalition of government and corporate members interested in reducing traffic accidents, revealed that: 70% of distracted drivers talk to passengers, 29 percent eat while driving, and just 19% talk on the phone. A survey conducted by Response Insurance, a nationwide auto insurance company, claims that a whopping 26% of drivers "caused or nearly caused an accident by separating their kids." The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety has the most surprising statistics of all: After scouring 26,000 police reports, they found that using or dialing a cell phone was the cause of accidents in just 1.5% of the crashes."

http://wireless.itworld.com/nl/wireless_watch/08222001/

cordex
April 26, 2004, 01:46 PM
I think we should just be done with it and ban driving. Yeah, cell phones contribute to some accidents, but motor vehicles contribute to 100% of motor vehicle accidents.

dischord
April 26, 2004, 02:25 PM
New Jersey, New York and Washington, D.C. already have banned cell phone use while driving.

Of course, New Jersey doesn't let people pump their own gas.

Ratus
April 26, 2004, 02:34 PM
nero45acp said:
Nowadays when I hear the expression "land of the free, home of the brave".........I laugh.


No, its now "land of the fee, home of the blame"

Drjones
April 26, 2004, 02:59 PM
I think we should just be done with it and ban driving. Yeah, cell phones contribute to some accidents, but motor vehicles contribute to 100% of motor vehicle accidents.


Hahahahaha!

Right on!

:D :D :D

Yowza
April 26, 2004, 03:02 PM
However, this view has lost support as studies have found hands-free phones to be a significant distraction, perhaps as much as hand-held phones
This is what gets me about these studies. If you can't concentrate on the road well enough to not get in a wreck while simply talking, then you don't need to be driving, period. What's the difference in using a hands free cellphone kit and talking to a passenger in your car? Is the distraction level any greater? I would guess it would be less because at least you wouldn't be tempted to turn and look at the person you're talking to. Logically, if there is practically no difference between speaking on a hand-held and a hands-free cellphone, then there must be no difference between speaking on a hand-held cellphone and the person in the passenger's seat. So how are they gonna ban that?

Rick

dischord
April 26, 2004, 03:18 PM
What's the difference in using a hands free cellphone kit and talking to a passenger in your car? Is the distraction level any greater? Although I'm not in favor of banning cell phone use while driving, yes, talking on a hands-free device can be more distracting than chatting with the person in the passenger seat.

The difference has to do with the type of conversation -- idle chatter versus indepth, work-related conversations. A lot of cell phone calls are work related, and some people tend to blank out their physical surroundings when talking work -- partly because they often are dealing with more abstract, higher-order thoughts and partly because they simply feel obliged to give a little more focus to their jobs than they would to idle chatter.

I suppose that if your boss were in the passenger seat discussing work, you'd be just as distracted as if he were on your hands-free device, but how often does that happen for most people?

CannibalCrowley
April 26, 2004, 03:22 PM
Why aren't there laws against using make up, fighting with children, adjusting the radio, looking at hotties, and talking with passengers? Simple, just like cell phone use most states already have laws prohibiting such actions if they are having an affect upon one's driving. It's usually called distracted/impaired/inattentive driving.

When the public feels a threat their first response is usually to demand new laws. But just like gun control, we should concentrate on enforcing the current laws instead of making new ones.

How many people here have been in an accident where the cause was a cell phone? I've been hit three times and none of them involved a phone (drunk driver, guy fighting with his kids, and an old lady not paying attention). While on the road I have observed people who appear distracted while using their phones; but most of the time they're also doing some additional activity (the scariest ones are the women who use a hand required phone and put on make up at the same time).

cordex
April 26, 2004, 03:28 PM
there must be no difference between speaking on a hand-held cellphone and the person in the passenger's seat. So how are they gonna ban that?
By mandating that the driver be in an isolated booth with an intercom system that can be activated only by coming to a complete stop, of course.

Not that difficult.

Hkmp5sd
April 26, 2004, 03:31 PM
The mental effort required to participate in any kind of two-way discourse is subtracted from that available for attending to driving.
In that case, they had better start installing the "Cones of Silence" from the old Get Smart TV series in all vehicles. If a person can't handle talking to a single individual over the phone while driving, there is no way they can handle talking to 3 or 4 passengers simultaneously. I've even witnessed drivers actually look over their shoulder while talking to someone in the back seat!:rolleyes:

dustind
April 26, 2004, 03:35 PM
I have a feeling this law will not make us any safer.

Waitone
April 26, 2004, 08:03 PM
Sorta reminds me of gun control arguments.

--If it saves one life. . . . .

--18 years old before. . .

--Hands-free installed . . . .

--Can't use it while driving

--Did not rank in the top five of accident causes

Simply amazing how groups demonize things then proceed to solve a perceived problem by manipulating factors unassociated with the problem.

Still reminds me of the drunk on his hands and knees under a street light late at night. A passerby asks what was he looking for. The drunk answers he is looking for keys which he lost across the street. Then why asks the passerby are you looking over here? Because I can see better here than where I lost my keys.

Another example of how consistency overrules logic.

The_Antibubba
April 27, 2004, 12:18 AM
I can't really oppose this one. If any of you have ever spent time on California highway, the problem is rampant. Most of the drivers with phone in hand are on it the entire trip-it's almost ingrained behavior here. And it has done nothing to improve it. The main purpose of driving should be getting to a destination, and most of us can't drive and talk long distance at the same time. I can't, and I don't.

Look at this another way. Recently, there was a thread about walking around in Condition White, and "checking your six". Most of us here are in condition Yellow when we're out and about, and notice that most people are blissfully unaware. Well, most of these White Walkers are White Drivers, too. Hell, they can barely drive with just the stereo blasting and balancing the breakfast burrito and coffee. Add in a cellphone conversation, and driving is the last thing on their mind.

Hey, if they want to kill themselves, fine. Please do it in the privacy of your own home, without involving other people.

Nick1911
April 27, 2004, 12:32 AM
Hey, if they want to kill themselves, fine. Please do it in the privacy of your own home, without involving other people.

That's a valid point and intersting way of looking at it I hadn't really considered.

However, if someone is not able to balance driving with some other activity (if that's possible), shouldn't it their responsibility to correct their problem? Why should there be legislation against it if some people can't handle that much or type of multi-tasking? Is that really any different from saying that no one can have a CCW because some people can't handle that kind personal responsibility?

I have a feeling I stir'd the pot. :uhoh:

:D

Nick

artherd
April 27, 2004, 07:59 AM
The mental effort required to participate in any kind of two-way discourse is subtracted from that available for attending to driving.

Are you KIDDING ME?!

Come on.

If you idoits out there lack the simple mental capacity to drive a car, and do one other task (let's say, I don't know, avoid the car infront of you? Not bounce off the guard rails just because they're there?)

You know why piolits say "Hold, Center!" every now and then? Yeah, it's because they're prioritizing. If you're too dumb to say "Hold" when you need to, or hang the ???? up when you need both hands and both ears, then you deserve to crash. Think of it as evolution in action.


What do you idoits do, close your eyes drive by feel because the visual input is too much for your puny brains!?


Jesus, if you can't prioritize DRIVING over talking to your stupid boss in your mental queue, then you do NOT belong in a car or anywhere near one!


Who the hell 'zones out' while talking on their cell phone? We need to BAN THESE PEOPLE, not the phones.

PS: I'm an avid cell user, the time doing nothing but driving is great. I have headsets stashed everywhere and a handsfree in the car.

I can even chew gun while walking :P)

PPS: I should add, I don't mean to defame anyone who decides at any (or all) particuliar moment(s) that they do NOT want to be on the phone in the car. I have told a senator I will call him back because I had to drive. If you *never* want to be on the phone in the car, more power to you. That is RESPONSIBLE behavior.

444
April 27, 2004, 08:17 AM
I am all for it.
I would be in favor of making it totally illegal to communicate on a cell phone in any way while in motion.
"The Numbers Don't Lie"
BS. Where did these numbers come from ? They asked people who had been in accidents what caused it ? "Oh, no, I wasn't on the phone" BS and BS again. Then we get into the definition of what causes an accident: "Oh yeah, I was on the phone at the time but it wasn't what caused the accident, a dog ran out in front of me." Total and complete BS.

There is no reason to be on the phone while driving. Civilization got along for many years before cell phones. Powers of industry and business made fortunes long before their were cell phones. Mothers raised their children for thousands of years before cell phones existed. THERE IS NO REASON TO BE ON THE PHONE WHEN YOU ARE DRIVING.
Our society is a total slave to the telephone. If one rings, people will risk life and limb to answer it. If their phone fell off a 1000 foot cliff while ringing, most people who go right over after it. They are conditioned automatons.
Let me ask you this, and be honest. How many phone calls have you gotten in your life that were critically important ? Now how many of those calls were time sensitive ? None ? One in your life ? I am not saying you don't get important phone calls, but I am talking about phone calls where 10 minutes made a CRTICAL difference.
I would be willing to bet that for the average person on a cell phone in public (including the car) 99.9999999999% of the conversations are of a non-critical nature. Just idle BS.

CannibalCrowley
April 27, 2004, 09:08 AM
Laws like this would be easier to support if it covered all communication devices which require hand use to operate. Of course something like that would bring too much opposition, so instead they go after the EVIL cell phones (sound familiar?).

New York has banned cell phone use for a couple years (aren't they progressive :rolleyes: ), have their accident rates seen any major decreases?

444 There is no reason to be on the phone while driving. Civilization got along for many years before cell phones.
There's no reason to own an assault weapon, civilization got along for many years before assault weapons (and toilets, electricity, cars, et cetera).

The_Antibubba Hell, they can barely drive with just the stereo blasting and balancing the breakfast burrito and coffee. Add in a cellphone conversation, and driving is the last thing on their mind.

So let me get this straight, it's okay not to pay attention when doing all these other things; but a cell phone being involved suddenly makes it wrong? Many drivers are already distracted by many things, why make just one of the factors illegal?

Oleg Volk
April 27, 2004, 09:10 AM
On a practical level, I'd say that 30% of my in-car calls deal with trying to figure out where I am going or with emergencies. Even if they were 100% BS, having someone else tell me what to do or not do is morally wrong...so long as I don't crash into others. If I crash into a cliffside, that's my problem. Same things with doing other things in the car, like digging in the rear seat or eating -- they may be stupid to do, but legislating common sense isn't a good idea.

Poodleshooter
April 27, 2004, 11:55 AM
New Jersey, New York and Washington, D.C. already have banned cell phone use while driving.
Of course, New Jersey doesn't let people pump their own gas.

New York doesn't allow the people pumping gas to use the "handsfree" pump lock in some areas. Aluminum keychain devices that wedge the lever open to keep the pump running are a popular item in the Rochester area.
Ridiculous nanny-staters
I voluntarily avoid cell use in the car. The real problem is the idiots who don't know that their driving sucks when they're on the phone. Once again, irresponsibility trumps liberty.

riverdog
April 27, 2004, 12:39 PM
I use a cell phone routinely while driving, but I use an ear bud with a mic leaving both hnads free. As for the conversation distracting me from driving, I find the opposite to be true; often I find myself talking about an a&&hole driver or just telling the guy on the other end of the call to wait. Prioritization is key and driving has to be #1.

If you enjoyed reading about "California may ban cell phones for some..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!