This law makes no sense to me

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that enjoys cooking.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Now let me post another point. I was just at the supermarket and while waiting for a light to change I noticed the guy next to me (he was alone) obviously listening to the radio and "bopping" his head and hands and singing. When you listen to talk radio in the car or sing along with a music station are you not doing the very thing that could distract you? HOw many people do you know never talk to passengers, never listen to music and/or sing along, and never listen to talk radio? I couldn't come up with one if I had to.

So what's one more distraction?

Chit chatting while driving is just plain stupid and text messaging is not only stupid it is criminal in my opinion and should result in having their license revoked. I don't want some idiot putting me or my family in jeopardy for the sake of asking, "hey watcha doin.?"
Geez.

I don't want me or my family to be put in jeopardy for the sake of ANY conversation!
 
Here is my two cents...well maybe a little bit more.

I wouldn't dare to quote percentages on who is saying what on their cell but if it's anything like the conversations I overhear while in a store then there is a lot of idle chit chat although not all.

Having a cell phone, no matter what you do, is a luxury not an absolute necessity.

But on the other hand there are too many rules and regulations. Anything you do while driving besides concentrating on your driving is a distraction. Drinking coffee, changing stations on the radio, talking to a passenger etc. are all distractions, even if it's for a brief moment. I think anyone driving a car is guilty of at least one of these.

My car is equipped with bluetooth but I generally have my phone off while driving. In my little world, I don't need a phone call in my car. I know this is not true for everyone.
 
I have heard of places--but I can't remember where so don't quote me on this--that have a law where you can't be pulled over for talking on your phone, but if you get pulled over for some offense and have been talking on your phone or doing a number of other distracting things you get an additional fine. It seems wise to be able to fine people for being irresponsible while driving, but I think it could get out of hand. It places the police officer as a judge to decide whether the driver should have been eating their french fries or not while driving. It seems so arbitrary to me.

I do however agree that you can't argue with numbers and studies truly have shown that drivers make more mistakes while on a cell phone than talking to a passenger. I don't presume to know the reason, but as long as the studies were done correctly, the numbers don't lie.

Article 1

Artice 2
Article 3

There were plenty more articles as well. And it doesn't mean every driver--it just means most drivers are more distracted while on a phone than when talking to a passenger.
 
I wouldn't dare to quote percentages on who is saying what on their cell but if it's anything like the conversations I overhear while in a store then there is a lot of idle chit chat although not all.

I agree with your observation, elaine, but I would extend way beyond stores, to conversations overhead IN PUBLIC.

Man, everyone, but everyone is on cell phones in my area: in ALL stores, walking down the street, public transportation, at Red Sox games, in restaurants, on the beach, in the car, at the pool ... oh, wait, I've said all this before .... I continue to tilt at windmills.

But I digress.

My point (this time) is that I agree with those who have observed that the overwhelming majority of cell phone conversations I've overheard are entirely gratuitous.

Lee
 
The ones that look really silly are the ones that seem to be talking to themselves while walking down the street. I would rather see a real phone at their ears so at least they look normal...:LOL:
 
I use hands free and speed dial on my cell phone. I am a firm believer that people should not text while driving. I do not think the cell phone companies will loose too much money if laws pass not allowing cell phones even if hands free to be used while driving. Their is too much money being made allowing drivers to talk while driving. I know safety should come before profits. But I just have a feeling that this is one law that will not go without a lot of lobbying.
 
I really think that it has a lot to do with the individual driving. Some folks can talk and drive safely others cannot. Instead of making law after law and taking all the possibly dangerous toys away from each person till we end up with lots of laws that are not enforceable why not just hold people responsible for their actions. Swerve lanes exhibit intention etc. Get a ticket for thatction. Remember, we are paying legislator's salaries
 
Their is too much money being made allowing drivers to talk while driving. I know safety should come before profits. But I just have a feeling that this is one law that will not go without a lot of lobbying.

Probably same reason why they (cell phone companies) will oppose private ownership and use of portable cell phone jammers. I could have so much fun with such device if I owned one.
 
Did you read what I posted?

Yes, I read your post. If we believe that theory, then we have to believe that no one ever had an accident before cell phones, no one was or is now distracted while carrying on a conversation before cell phones, that if no one was allowed to even bring cell phone into a car at all, there would never be another distraction caused accident.

As for the the comment from Roadfix who said OUR cell phones are merely an accessory, maybe yours is but mine isn't. A couple of months ago, my 17 year old grandson bought a car. The day after he got that car I got a cell phone call from him - he was in a panic. I happened to be in my car a mile away when he told me he ran out of gas at a very busy intersection at 4 pm in the afternoon. Now this kid had just gotten his license the day before he bought the car so this really threw him. (Just for the record his gas gauge showed nearly half a tank - it was broken.)
If I hadn't had my phone or didn't have it turned on, this kid would have been in trouble. He was blocking traffic from all angles. His mother is not allowed to have her cell phone on her at work and my son was in his garage without his phone. I was the only one available to help him. I never consider my phone an "accessory" not as long as I have family out there. I hope none of you ever have you family try to get in touch with you during an emergency.
 
DramaQueen,

1. Jennyema, b'sgirl and I did not post "theories". We posted research findings.

2. It is acknowledged (and obvious) that many things cause accidents besides talking on cell phones. But the point remains that talkng on cell phones while driving is hazardous. MORE so than talking to a passenger, for example.



Lee
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK folks everyone take a breath. This thread is heating up again. LOL.

Out of curiosity, do you believe that those studies are completely unbiased? Or that the statistics you read are not manipulated in some way?

My personal feeling is that numbers can be manipulated to support nearly any position. I had an example to share, but it will really hijack this baby so I'm not posting it.
 
...My personal feeling is that numbers can be manipulated to support nearly any position. I had an example to share, but it will really hijack this baby so I'm not posting it.

I totally agree with you that studies can and sometimes are biased. That being said, IMO that usually happens when someone has something to benefit from the study turning out one way or another.

I don't think these cell phone studies are biased because of several reason:
1) the cell phone companies are going to be up in arms over lost revenue.
2) there are several independent studies being done by folks who stand to gain nothing from this law passing.
3) My own observations lead me to believe these studies are indeed true.
 
OK folks everyone take a breath. This thread is heating up again. LOL.

Out of curiosity, do you believe that those studies are completely unbiased? Or that the statistics you read are not manipulated in some way?

My personal feeling is that numbers can be manipulated to support nearly any position. I had an example to share, but it will really hijack this baby so I'm not posting it.

That's funny. Your comment about studies being biased was exactly why I called it a theory, but like you, I didn't want to open that can of worms.
 
I totally agree with you that studies can and sometimes are biased. That being said, IMO that usually happens when someone has something to benefit from the study turning out one way or another.

I don't think these cell phone studies are biased because of several reason:
1) the cell phone companies are going to be up in arms over lost revenue.
2) there are several independent studies being done by folks who stand to gain nothing from this law passing.
3) My own observations lead me to believe these studies are indeed true.

This thread is still alive no matter how hard we beat it, so let me ask the question. How do phone companies lose revenue over people not being able to talk while driving? Not getting that one. I pay for a certain number of minutes per month no matter where I am while talking.
 
There are lots and lots of plans that are either prepaid or you can "pay-as-you-go". The more you talk the more money they make. Even if you don't have one of those plans, if you talk enough, you will run out of minutes and when you do, they charge you a ridiculous amount per minute.
 
OK folks everyone take a breath. This thread is heating up again. LOL.

Out of curiosity, do you believe that those studies are completely unbiased? Or that the statistics you read are not manipulated in some way?

My personal feeling is that numbers can be manipulated to support nearly any position. I had an example to share, but it will really hijack this baby so I'm not posting it.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, ****ed lies, and statistics. -- Mark Twain
This quote is so true. A town can have one traffic accident in the 70's and two in the 80's, and someone will be there to say that traffic accidents doubled in just 10 years... :rolleyes:
 
awww, that's a terribly flawed arguement.

they didn't even have cell phones in the 70's... :glare:


lol.

it's only common sense that some people are able to use a cell phone and drive very well. but it's also common sense that many, many people cannot. it's just too obvious.

like i said, i almost always believe in the case for more freedom and more personal responsibilty. but since the thing you're doing can (and does everyday) easily harm or kill, you have to err on the lower demoniator.
of course, i think it's not as applicable in less populated areas.

hmmm, didn't anyone ever see jiminey cricket when they were young?
 
You guys are right in pointing out that studies can be biased. I haven't read them so I don't know which are and which aren't. A law like that will always be controversial because even if good studies prove this or that about cell phones, where do you draw the line? No dogs in the car? No children? I am most likely to lose control of my vehicle while trying to calm a hysterical child in the back seat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom