Safety council: Ban cell phones while driving

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cancel3
  • Start date Start date
I oppose any ban on cell phones based on putting the facts in context. Meaning, sure they increase risk of accident, but so does a lot of things. In fact there are far more accidents resulting from adjusting the radio than cell phones:
"Currently, "Outside person, object, event" (rubbernecking) is the most reported cause of distraction-related accidents, followed by "Adjusting radio/cassette/CD". "Using/dialing cell phone" is eighth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety

As Darla correctly said, fears are overblown.

I don't even use a cell phone when driving, but I am surprised at how many people (and not just on this forum) are so willing to throw away freedoms based on their personal dislikes that obviously came out here.

"What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don't like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don't expect freedom to survive very long." – Thomas Sowell
 
"but I am surprised at how many people (and not just on this forum) are so willing to throw away freedoms based on their personal dislikes that obviously came out here. "

Yeah. I do have a strong dislike for vehicular manslaughter because another driver is trying to dial a # when he/she should be watching the road.

I'm so picky.
 
I like to use my cell phone while driving. It let's me destroy the planet and disrupt bees all at the same time and with such ease. You can have my cell phone when you pry it from my cold, dead hand.
 
Maybe banning the use of mobiles whilst driving is far too draconian when the only other options would be to pull over or use a hands free device.

That's tyranny alright.
 
charver said:
Maybe banning the use of mobiles whilst driving is far too draconian when the only other options would be to pull over or use a hands free device.

That's tyranny alright.
Click to expand...
I think you are forgetting that government is an ever growing Leviathan. There is already talk of the dangers of hands-free devices (as remember it takes more concentration to dial than talk)
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/081017/canada/consumer_cellphone_handsfree_1
And you can bet there will be ban proposals for that to come out as well.

Pulling over isn't always an option.
 
Onceler said:
"but I am surprised at how many people (and not just on this forum) are so willing to throw away freedoms based on their personal dislikes that obviously came out here. "

Yeah. I do have a strong dislike for vehicular manslaughter because another driver is trying to dial a # when he/she should be watching the road.

I'm so picky.
Click to expand...

Remember when you used to actually try a little Lorax? What are you reduced to now but emotional incredulity mixed with cynical bitterness.

I already showed the facts proving that adjusting the radio causes far more accidents, do we want to ban that?
Of course not because cell phones are newer and the left loves to go after that which is newer.
Same reason you go after newer gas-guzzling SUVs rather than gas-guzzling sports cars that have been around for awhile.

It'd be nice if for once you lefties would base your decisions on reason rather than outdated primal instincts based on fear of the newer and less known.
 
KingCondanomation said:
I think you are forgetting that government is an ever growing Leviathan. There is already talk of the dangers of hands-free devices (as remember it takes more concentration to dial than talk)
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/081017/canada/consumer_cellphone_handsfree_1
And you can bet there will be ban proposals for that to come out as well.

Pulling over isn't always an option.
Click to expand...

Dano, it is much easier to just argue that the law is itself impractical, as it is so difficult to enforce, rather than going down the route of loss of freedoms.

The outlawing of hands-free devices is even more impractical as nobody can tell that you're using one. BTW don't most people have voice activated dialling now which negates the need to actually dial?
 
Immanuel said:
Good! This is one law I'm all for. It is not necessary to talk on the phone while your driving. It is, however, extremely dangerous. I don't know how many times I've been cut off by idiots who don't have a clue that they did so because they have a frigging phone up against their ear. Their f'ing grocery list is not nearly as important as my life or the lives of my wife and children.

Get cell phones out of the cars! In fact, I would support a requirement that automobiles be required to come equiped with a jamming device that prevents the usage of the phone while the engine is running.

If you want to talk on the phone while you are in your car then pull over and stop the car damn it.

Immie

PS And reading the paper, putting on makeup, shaving etc should be banned as well.
Click to expand...

Here's something really scary. I read last week on CNN that auto manufacturers are now beginning to design vehicles with onboard keyboards. I nearly got sick on the spot. Isn't there a safety organization (NTSA comes to mind) or insurance lobby that could put a halt to this insanity? Like you, I've thought that the only way this could be acceptable is that it would be disabled while the vehicle is in gear.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Remember when you used to actually try a little Lorax? What are you reduced to now but emotional incredulity mixed with cynical bitterness.

I already showed the facts proving that adjusting the radio causes far more accidents, do we want to ban that?
Of course not because cell phones are newer and the left loves to go after that which is newer.
Same reason you go after newer gas-guzzling SUVs rather than gas-guzzling sports cars that have been around for awhile.

It'd be nice if for once you lefties would base your decisions on reason rather than outdated primal instincts based on fear of the newer and less known.
Click to expand...

A fear is something that is irrational, and not based in reality. The last time they took stats in 2005, cellphones were responsible for 2,600 deaths, and 330,000 injuries, many serious.

You talk a good game about "liberty," but what about my freedom to drive on the road without having to worry about some idiot who is too lazy to get a headpiece or pull over? Gimme a break. You always call it "emotionalism" when someone merely points out that cellphone use on the roads causes death & injury.
 
Onceler said:
A fear is something that is irrational, and not based in reality. The last time they took stats in 2005, cellphones were responsible for 2,600 deaths, and 330,000 injuries, many serious.

You talk a good game about "liberty," but what about my freedom to drive on the road without having to worry about some idiot who is too lazy to get a headpiece or pull over? Gimme a break. You always call it "emotionalism" when someone merely points out that cellphone use on the roads causes death & injury.
Click to expand...

I was taught from a very young age that freedoms always bear responsibility. My parents were pretty strict; responsibility always came first, and I still believe that that's the correct, reasonable order.
 
Thorn said:
Here's something really scary. I read last week on CNN that auto manufacturers are now beginning to design vehicles with onboard keyboards. I nearly got sick on the spot. Isn't there a safety organization (NTSA comes to mind) or insurance lobby that could put a halt to this insanity? Like you, I've thought that the only way this could be acceptable is that it would be disabled while the vehicle is in gear.
Click to expand...

I would imagine the insurance companies would LIKE keyboards in cars. Then they can justify charging ALL of us more for car insurance even though most of us will have the common sense not to be typing while driving.
 
Thorn said:
Here's something really scary. I read last week on CNN that auto manufacturers are now beginning to design vehicles with onboard keyboards. I nearly got sick on the spot. Isn't there a safety organization (NTSA comes to mind) or insurance lobby that could put a halt to this insanity? Like you, I've thought that the only way this could be acceptable is that it would be disabled while the vehicle is in gear.
Click to expand...

When they make it so that cars can drive themselves, I'm all for this stuff but not until.

Immie
 
Last edited:
Thorn said:
I was taught from a very young age that freedoms always bear responsibility. My parents were pretty strict; responsibility always came first, and I still believe that that's the correct, reasonable order.
Click to expand...

Then you misunderstood your parents lesson. If you are for a ban, you are against the freedom that that ban took away. You may ease your conscience by pretending that it was justified because SOME people use it irresponsibly, but what about those who do not?
Freedom and responsibility are an individual thing, if you are holding out for some utopian day when all of society acts responsibly with the freedoms they are given and THEN you will grant them those freedoms again then you will wait forever.
There will ALWAYS be some people who misuse the freedoms given to them, but going down a road where you just ban based on those who do, you will end up with very little freedom.

More people cause accidents by adjusting the radio, should we take that away? If not, then why cell phones which cause less accidents?
 
Onceler said:
A fear is something that is irrational, and not based in reality. The last time they took stats in 2005, cellphones were responsible for 2,600 deaths, and 330,000 injuries, many serious.

You talk a good game about "liberty," but what about my freedom to drive on the road without having to worry about some idiot who is too lazy to get a headpiece or pull over? Gimme a break. You always call it "emotionalism" when someone merely points out that cellphone use on the roads causes death & injury.
Click to expand...

You dodged the radio point.
More people cause accidents by adjusting the radio, should we take that away? If not, then why cell phones which cause less accidents?

Also when someone says cellphones are responsible for something, how can they know that without that cellphone the accidents would not have happened? For example, a guy crashed into me once because he slid on some ice going quick around a corner, if he was on a cell phone, that would have ended up in the stats book, it doesn't mean the cell phone caused the accident.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Then you misunderstood your parents lesson. If you are for a ban, you are against the freedom that that ban took away. You may ease your conscience by pretending that it was justified because SOME people use it irresponsibly, but what about those who do not?
Freedom and responsibility are an individual thing, if you are holding out for some utopian day when all of society acts responsibly with the freedoms they are given and THEN you will grant them those freedoms again then you will wait forever.
There will ALWAYS be some people who misuse the freedoms given to them, but going down a road where you just ban based on those who do, you will end up with very little freedom.

More people cause accidents by adjusting the radio, should we take that away? If not, then why cell phones which cause less accidents?
Click to expand...


Wow, the above is completely unexpected.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Also when someone says cellphones are responsible for something, how can they know that without that cellphone the accidents would not have happened? For example, a guy crashed into me once because he slid on some ice going quick around a corner, if he was on a cell phone, that would have ended up in the stats book, it doesn't mean the cell phone caused the accident.
Click to expand...

You could make the same argument if the chap who crashed into you had just drunk half a bottle of Jack Daniels. Was it the ice or was it the booze or was it a combination of the two which caused the accident?

You're not for drink driving as well are you?
 
charver said:
You could make the same argument if the chap who crashed into you had just drunk half a bottle of Jack Daniels. Was it the ice or was it the booze or was it a combination of the two which caused the accident?
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I just wonder if as many seem to be targetting cell phones, whether there is some bias in deciding that the cell phone was what caused an accident.

charver said:
You're not for drink driving as well are you?
Click to expand...
No, but the rate of accidents is much much higher for that than for any other factor. If a drunk driver gets home safely, it's because of luck, whereas with radio adjusting or cell phones it's skill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top