Ban cell phone use?

[Lynda/WA]

NY just banned cell phone use while driving. Good idea or too much government control and why do you feel the way you do?

[Amy2]

It seems a little arbitrary to me. I mean, what about eating a burger and driving? Changing the CD player? Handing the kid a bottle? Lipstick? There are so many unsafe things that people do while driving. The only difference I can see between phones and most of these other things is that when you're on the phone it's for a prolonged period of time, rather than just a quick second to do the other activity.

That said, I think that cell phones in the car ARE unsafe. I am guilty myself, though I try not to use them on the freeway.

Amy

[JAK]

That a tough one. My dh and I just had a discussion about this the other day. I did think they should be banned while driving. I see people all the time talking and driving and they drive like idoits. In NC a police officer was KILLED by a woman who ran him over while she was talking on the phone. That should not have happened. When speaking to my dh he said what if you had a cell phone and the only people who had the # were people who were caring for you children- would you not answer it because you were driving and it was the law? It really made me think. I think if you could answer the phone and pull over to talk it might be better. I'm not sure now. In an emergency situtation you'd want to answer you phone but could it be done safely?

[kat]

I think it should be banned. It's dangerous. I saw on some news show the other day where this guy had a mini office set up in his car: phone, fax, computer and he's conducting business as he's driving.

What did we do before cell phones. Why do we feel this overwhelming need to constantly be connected by phone. Is everything so urgent that it can't wait a couple of minutes to pull over. As a society sometimes I think we need to just "take five". Everything is drive up and instant and open 24/7. Time out.

That said, what about what Amy said about other things that people do that are dangerous while driving. Do we ban everything. Where do we stop. Can we legislate common sense.

Good topic.

Just for clarification--NY will allow hands-free phones so noone is unreachable or out of touch (other than my children in an emergency-I can't see that constant communication need either!). Quite a bonus for the makers and sellers of the newest phones, but at $100 per ticket, probably worth it to the consumer.

Aside from that, I hate the thought of government banning or requiring things. I really feel that every time I, as a citizen, give up one of my responsibilities (like using good judgement) to the government, I lose rights. I don't think we live in a risk-free world, and I'm not comfortable with laws that protect me from having to take responsibility for myself. What's next down the slippery slope of "the government can take care of you better than you can, because they know what's best."

[AnnW]

Originally posted by Cathy

Aside from that, I hate the thought of government banning or requiring things. I really feel that every time I, as a citizen, give up one of my responsibilities (like using good judgement) to the government, I lose rights. I don't think we live in a risk-free world, and I'm not comfortable with laws that protect me from having to take responsibility for myself. What's next down the slippery slope of "the government can take care of you better than you can, because they know what's best."



AMEN!!!!!!!!!

[MaryL]

I agree with Amy. I also wonder about people who apply make-up, eat, open up coffee lids, change a cd or tape, look for something in their purse, etc. I have a car phone...but only for a true emergency...like if I should break down, etc. I've never actually used it to call anyone while I was driving. (It does have a microphone type thing...so I don't need to hold the phone, but I'd still have to hold it to dial.) I just don't think I need to call people while I am in the car...I get enough calls at home, and I can always wait until I get home to make my calls. Great debate, though.

[TXmom]

I know of someone who got a ticket for inattentive driving. That should cover everything, so I don't know why they would need to target cell phones specifically.

[AnnW]

I was thinking about this..if the point of the law is to ban things that are disruptive and distractive to our driving, then I guess we will have to stop driving with our KIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :newwink:

[Lynda/WA]

Yes, the NY ticket is $100 for the first 4 offenses. The point was made on the radio that if the reason is because cell phone cause accidents then they are putting an awfully low value on a life.

Yes, currently hands free cell phones are allowed but there has been talk about how hands free models actually encourage you to talk longer and are a greater distraction. A spokesperson for the AAA mentioned some study. I think he may have been speaking with Matt Lauer on the Today show? I'm not entirely sure that I'm getting which guest was on which show correct. There was someone from the NY government. He didn't come right out and say it but it sounds like they would consider banning more things. He said something about *at this time*. So, will the next step be to ban hands free phones as well? I've heard the hands free enhancement costs an extra 25$ - $100. I don't think DH's company will spring for that extra amount since few calls are handled in the vehicles.

And yes, on nearly all the studies I heard of cell phone use came way down at the bottom of the list. I didn't write down who did which study just the stats. In a 1997 study only 57 deaths were linked with cell phone use. Since then cell phone use has increased and deaths in vehicle accidents have decreased (don't know how many deaths since 97 from cell phones). You are 8 times more likely to be in an accident as a result of fiddling with the radio/CD than a phone from another study. In yet another the percent of accidents caused by distractions was broken down. Radio/CDs attributed to 11.5%, another person was 11%, 1.7% was to drinking (distraction not from affects of alcohol), and only 1.5% was attributed to cell phone use.

But - when I mentioned these stats to my DH he suggested that people may not fess up to cell phone use as easily. He drives from job site to job site alot and says he sees alot of cell phone use.

Other things to consider - truckers have used CBs for years. Has there EVER been an accident attributed to that. Maybe the problem isn't with the talking or even using one hand but with the looking down to punch in the number. There are voice acctivated systems but that isn't mentioned in the law (to my knowledge).

How many lives have been saved as a result of cell phone use? I know people that have called in an erratic driver. Perhaps that driver was pulled over before causing an accident. Or someone calling in that they just witnessed an accident? Or someone witnessing a crime? I sure wouldn't want to stop the vehicle to call in that I just witnessed a crime!

I think the inattentive driving ticket varies by state. I know OR does have such a law on the books. In that case making an extra law is just busy work. That would allow that person stuck in backed up traffic behind an accident to call home and say they will be late. The NY law would make that a crime.

I'm against the law. I don't agree with reactionary legislation - making laws to prevent something just because you know of it happening once. I also am hesitant to pass laws that will be a precident for more laws. In this case the next laws will be to ban all phone use, ban changing the radio, ban eating or drinking, ban CBs, ban talking to another person - especially the kids!

[netmechwife]

I don't like the government putting restrictions on my rights either. I don't have a cell phone but I agree that there are many other distractions while driving that are just as or more dangerous than cell phone use. The government was created to protect our freedom and rights not restrict them. When the government starts restricting our personal rights in stupid areas then they get closer and closer to taking all of our freedom away.....

[Tessa]

Australia has also banned the use of cell-phones while driving. The reason is because of an increase of accidents caused by people being distracted while talking on the phone. I myself, was nearly hit by a car whos driver was on the phone. I was crossing at traffic lights when the driver ran through a red light, the only reason he missed me was because someone called out to me making me suddenly stop, just in time to she the offender whiz by. At the time I was 6 months preggers with twins so I can't have been that hard to see LOL. Hands free mobile kits are legal in Australia but I would like to see these banned as well because the drivers mind is still elsewhere and not on the very serious task of driving. I believe driving a vehical is not a right, it is a priviledge that you share with all the other users of the roads.

I think this topic also asks serious questions. If a driver kills or injures another person while talking on a cell-phone are they liable for dangerous driving? Does anyone know if this has been tested in the courts yet? If you thought you could be liable would you still use the phone?

I don't think it takes too much effort to let the calls go to a message bank and answer them when you stop the vehicle.

[KarlaB]

Originally posted by Tessa

I think this topic also asks serious questions. If a driver kills or injures another person while talking on a cell-phone are they liable for dangerous driving? Does anyone know if this has been tested in the courts yet? If you thought you could be liable would you still use the phone?


I saw a lady on Oprah who's daughter was killed when a man ran a stop sign while on his cell phone and hit their vehicle. I can't remember the state, but he was only charged with a minor traffic violation. :(

[Linda/NE]

Obviously there isn't one answer that will be appropriate in every situation.
I'll admit I do talk and drive but not for extended lengths (if I can help it). I think the hands free is the way to go. My BIL has an earpiece device (costs less than $20 I think) that he has the piece in the ear and the microphone part goes around his neck.

I heard on the radio that someone (didn't catch who) said its the conversations that are distracting not the phones themselves.
Maybe this idea applies here--phones don't cause accidents, people using them do and those people's attitudes about this is what needs to be changed??? (okay sounds alot like the gun issue--I won't go there :) )

How is NY enforcing this? Can people be pulled over if the officer sees them on a cell phone or is it a secondary law--they can only be ticketed if they are pulled over for something else (such as driving left of center) while talking on a cell phone? It does seem rather hard to enforce and in busy places how could officers possibly catch everyone. It's a nice idea to think people would personally monitor themselves and refrain from using them because it's the law, but just like speeding, how many people have the attitude "I won't get caught" or 'It's only wrong if I get caught."

There has been an ad on the radio stations here from the highway safety council about all the different things that are dangerous to do while driving, not just cell phone use.

[netmechwife]

I agree Linda/NE. It is the person who allowing themselves to be distracted that kills others not the fact that they are on a cell phone. I personally wouldn't use a cell phone while my car is moving because I know I would be easily distracted. Even just driving with my 2 children is distracting at times but I make myself focus on my driving. I also agree that driving is a priviledge. I don't agree that drinking and cell phone use can be put in the same category. Drinking impairs a persons abilities whether they try not to be impaired or not. Cell phone use the person has a choice. I do think if someone is injured by a cell phone user who is driving the cell phone user should be tried accordingly...

[Mickey]

Dh and I have talked about this and I believe that there is definitely something about having a phone to your ear that causes most people to be extremely distracted (myself included). Most people can talk to someone sitting next to them in the car without much trouble, so a hands-free option sounds good to me.

I think that how dangerous it is also depends on how the person drives in general. I have seen people with cell phones at their ears cross 5 lanes of traffic on the freeway to exit over a median when they realized they were missing their exit. I would never do that (with or without a cell phone). But because many people do drive like this, I think it's necessary to avoid added distractions when possible.

And I don't see the restriction as teetering on the slippery slope of total government control. I see it as a rule that may one day save my life or the life of someone I love.

Mickey, While I never take life lightly, I disagree about this law not reflecting government control. It could also be said that high-fat foods, meat of any kind, swimming pools, and large dogs should be regulated in order to save lives (or even one life). Where's the line that's too far for you to accept regulation?

[Mickey]

Again, I don't see it that way. And I don't have a problem with being made to wear seatbelts in cars and helmets on motorcycles either. Where other people are directly and immediately effected by another's actions, I believe those actions need to be regulated. Banning fatty foods is a far cry from restricting cell phone use while driving to hands-free.

I just don't buy into the "government control" thing.

[Lynda/WA]

Mickey - why do you consider banning a high fat diet so different than banning hand held cell phone use in vehicles? Cell phone use only killed 52 people in 1997. Studies have put a high fat diet as more dangerous than smoking. Based on that fact alone more people die from a high fat diet than accidents where cell phones may have played a part. Maybe even someone you care about.

And since eating, drinking, talking to passangers, changing the radio/CD etc have all caused more accidents (based on actual accident reports) shouldn't we make that illegal based on the same logic as banning cell phones? After all someone you care about is more likely to be saved by banning those.

Studies have shown that driving while tired is more hazardous than driving drunk. Should we ban that as well?

Where do we draw the line? Ban the distractions that are most hazzardous? Cell phone use is near the bottom of the list in that case.

[TXmom]

Not trying to answer for Mickey - but in my opinion if I kill myself with a high fat diet it's not the same as killing myself and anyone around me in a car accident.

[Mickey]

Thanks, Donna! I totally agree!

Lynda, driver inattention in general does account for many accidents--driver inattention includes all the things you mentioned as well as cell phone use. Obviously, many accidents are attributed to cell phone use alone. If one other individual distraction (like eating, drinking, smoking OR changing your radio station) distracts to that degree, then I wouldn't have a problem with the government regulating that, either.

If you are unhealthy and at high risk of heart attack, you are obligated by law to notify the licensing agency in your state of that health condition and in turn they have the right to require verification from your doctor stating that you can drive safely. They will revoke your license if your doctor says it's not safe for you to drive. You can also be denied a license if your vision isn't up to par or you are epileptic. Do you consider that a horrible violation of rights? Why not let 14 year olds drive? Why can't the 90-year-old Alzheimer's patient drive?

The bottom line is this: Driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. If you don't want to follow the rules, don't drive.