NTSB recommends full ban on use of phones while driving

[hal2kilo]

Except you're ignoring the science in countless posts here that hand-free doesn't help.

You're wrong. A reliable liberal, Bill Press disagrees with you.

Just yanking your chain.

He pissed me off this morning.

 

[Triumph]

Except you're ignoring the science in countless posts here that hand-free doesn't help.

Research shows that it is not the holding of the phone that is the problem, but the conversation. A hands free exception doesn't really solve the problem.

Well it's simply too late, honestly. Texting is worse, it must be ended.

 

[zsdersw]

it must be ended.

How, exactly?

If passing/enforcing a law were all it would take to end stupid decisions we wouldn't have any drunk drivers, murders, sexual assaults, and many other things.

 

[Craig234]

Well it's simply too late, honestly. Texting is worse, it must be ended.

Huh?

Ban all cell phone use, calls and texting.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Well it's simply too late, honestly. Texting is worse, it must be ended.

This is pretty much what it boils down to. There is no way now of completely abolish the use of cell phones by motorists. The best we can do it limit it to handsfree and hopefully that will at least reduce a lot of the problems and lead to greater compliance. That's how we have it here in Ontario.

Point is it still addresses the biggest issue of texting/emailing while driving. Argue the impact of talking all you like it just doesn't come close to the impact of texting. You won't get everyone, but you will get enough and the message will get through, eventually, I hope.

I know I would much rather have been giving tickets to motorists for texting than notifying their families.

 

[zsdersw]

I would much rather have been giving tickets to motorists for texting than notifying their families.

I would much rather that people learn from their mistakes (and the mistakes of others) via the harsh consequences of fatal or near-fatal accidents than have law enforcement give out tickets that mean far less to people than a serious accident and won't make a serious dent in the problem.

 

[Triumph]

How, exactly?

If passing/enforcing a law were all it would take to end stupid decisions we wouldn't have any drunk drivers, murders, sexual assaults, and many other things.

So pass no laws? Why have a law against red light running? Why have a law against speeding? I don't get your argument, this is not a Bill of Rights/Individual Liberties argument, driving is not protected by that. You people keep going to the extreme, saying if you ban cell phones you have to ban ALL distractions, therefore a law makes no sense. But you're ignoring the opposite. If you can't regulate ONE aspect of driving, why regulate any of it? After all, laws against running red lights don't stop people from running red lights, so why have a law at all? Right?

 

[zsdersw]

So pass no laws? Why have a law against red light running? Why have a law against speeding? I don't get your argument, this is not a Bill of Rights/Individual Liberties argument, driving is not protected by that. You people keep going to the extreme, saying if you ban cell phones you have to ban ALL distractions, therefore a law makes no sense. But you're ignoring the opposite. If you can't regulate ONE aspect of driving, why regulate any of it? After all, laws against running red lights don't stop people from running red lights, so why have a law at all? Right?

No, it's not about passing "no laws".. it's about enforcing and making stricter punishments for violations of laws we already have.

Driving, itself, is not protected by the Constitution... but an act doesn't need to be explicitly protected by the Constitution for it to be something we're free to do. The default position is that we are all free to do anything unless it violates the freedom of someone else.

When someone gets in a motor vehicle accident that's caused by intoxication, drowsiness, or driver distraction that represents a choice by the driver that resulted in the violation of someone else's freedom. It should be punished, harshly, proportional to the severity of impact upon the other person(s).

The government is neither the proper nor the best tool for society to use to mitigate the risks associated with life; especially the risks we choose to take like driving.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

what is their implementation plan?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I would much rather that people learn from their mistakes (and the mistakes of others) via the harsh consequences of fatal or near-fatal accidents than have law enforcement give out tickets that mean far less to people than a serious accident and won't make a serious dent in the problem.

I'd agree if they didn't frequently kill others. Unfortunately it's often other people that die as a result.

 

[Triumph]

When someone gets in a motor vehicle accident that's caused by intoxication, drowsiness, or driver distraction that represents a choice by the driver that resulted in the violation of someone else's freedom. It should be punished, harshly, proportional to the severity of impact upon the other person(s).

The government is neither the proper nor the best tool for society to use to mitigate the risks associated with life; especially the risks we choose to take like driving.

So A: the government is not the best nor proper tool to regulate driving and B: there shouldn't be laws specifically against drunk driving? That's insane.

 

[cybrsage]

Do you think it should be ok for Wyoming to legalize driving while intoxicated?

Yes. Then the citizens of Wyoming could vote them all out of office and vote in new legislators who would make it illegal.

I hold the view that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[cybrsage]

Please link. I would be interested in seeing this "science".

I would like that link too. I am interested in the ratios or how dangerous, the types of tests done, etc.

I saw a video where they took drunks and texters through a maze in a car...but I am interested in real studies.

 

[zsdersw]

So A: the government is not the best nor proper tool to regulate driving and B: there shouldn't be laws specifically against drunk driving? That's insane.

A: Proper tool? Not in my opinion. Best tool? Factually, no.. it is not the best tool.

B: Correct. There are already laws against causing injury to someone else; drunk driving is fundamentally no different than any other cause of an accident. It all comes down to driver error, whether that error is caused by intoxication, inattentiveness, drowsiness, or lack of proper vehicle maintenance.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Funny, here's what a drunk driver had to say:

wow, talk about being obtuse. These are clearly not the same, neither in level nor time. But yeah, keep trying to equate the two... :roll;

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Sounds like you have a lot going on while behind the wheel.

Maybe you should take the bus?

Nope, most of the time it is just me in the vehicle and I'm traveling to a job site many hours away on Interstates. Traffic is not an issue except in metro areas.

XM radio controls? normal radio controls? having a smoke? etc Each of those items takes your eyes off the road. Me having a conversation on my phone does not - especially when using a hands-free device.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

CAD the whole thing comes down to this. If talking on the phone while driving is WORSE than drunk driving, then NO ONE should be allowed to do it. No exceptions for law enforcement, sorry I do not want cops on the road who are more dangerous than Joe Six Pack.

Sure, but that's the thing. The resolution of your "If" is no. If it was "yes" then as you said- we should/would have a total ban. It's just like the smoking ban in private establishments. Here in Iowa they banned it - EXCEPT for casinos and a couple other places. If it really was a hazard there should be no exceptions.

 

[feralkid]

Nope, most of the time it is just me in the vehicle and I'm traveling to a job site many hours away on Interstates. Traffic is not an issue except in metro areas.

XM radio controls? normal radio controls? having a smoke? etc Each of those items takes your eyes off the road. Me having a conversation on my phone does not - especially when using a hands-free device.

I guess since you are such an expert, then the law should probably only apply to other drivers.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I guess since you are such an expert, then the law should probably only apply to other drivers.

Clearly the gov't should ignore realities of travel and just put a blanket law in place to help you bed wetters sleep better.

 

[Craig234]

There is no way now of completely abolish the use of cell phones by motorists. The best we can do it limit it to handsfree and hopefully that will at least reduce a lot of the problems and lead to greater compliance. That's how we have it here in Ontario.

Nonsense. Pass laws against it including hands-free. Enforce laws. It won't totally prevent it, what law does; it's better than legalizing it.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Nonsense. Pass laws against it including hands-free. Enforce laws. It won't totally prevent it, what law does; it's better than legalizing it.

Enforce laws? We can't even enforce the laws at the state level now what good does this do?

 

[Triumph]

A: Proper tool? Not in my opinion. Best tool? Factually, no.. it is not the best tool.

B: Correct. There are already laws against causing injury to someone else; drunk driving is fundamentally no different than any other cause of an accident. It all comes down to driver error, whether that error is caused by intoxication, inattentiveness, drowsiness, or lack of proper vehicle maintenance.

Alright well it sounds like you border on near anarchism liberterianism. In that case, there's not really any point discussing.

 

[zsdersw]

Alright well it sounds like you border on near anarchism liberterianism. In that case, there's not really any point discussing.

"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

 

[Gunslinger08]

From what I've read in the past, there wasn't really a safety difference between hands free and hands on phone calls, so that breaks the argument down to either "ban drivers from talking on the phone or not".

I wouldn't consider talking on the phone to be different from talking to a passenger. Heck, I probably pay more attention to passengers than phone calls. I don't think that cell phone calls should be banned while driving. I'm fine with fines for texting/browsing the internet while driving, because those activities take your eyes off the road. I've seen quite a few people swerving around while typing on their phones.

Edit: Even if I agreed with this, a federal law isn't appropriate. This is a state issue.

 

[RampantAndroid]

This is a natural inclination in people, but it's often quite wrong. You might think that people are more trustworthy than machines, but frequently when this is actually measured out the opposite is true.

Really? Possible news stories: New virus affects your car's AI Driving routine, causes car to drive into oncoming traffic.

Faulty sensor caused car to veer off road.

Shooting laser into car's LIDAR system causes system to think there is an obstacle in front of it and brakes, causing buildup.

Autopilot on planes is pretty simple by comparison. There's also someone there to override really fast, and the margin for error is larger. There isn't a plane 10 feet off to the side. And despite this, there have been deaths due to instrumentation failures (one comes to mind where a plane went into a mountain due to a faulty altimeter. Autopilot was directly related.) And they don't use autopilot to land for a reason.