NTSB recommends ban on use of cell phones or texting while driving

#326
#326
lawgator1 said:
No, they will pull you over and give you a ticket. If you want to claim you weren't using your phone, you can go to court and tell the judge.

No different than running a stop sign. There is no need for positive proof. Officer says you did and testifies, you say you didn't and testify, judge decides who he believes. Happens every day.

Let's say you convince the judge you weren't on the phone and the officer is mistaken. You'll have spent a half day dealing with the issue. Still has the effect of dissuading you from doing it next time.
Click to expand...

Officers here have to have documented evidence. Videoed radar for speeding...video of running stop sign etc. If it didn't happen on tape...it didn't happen.
 
#327
#327
lawgator1 said:
Have my copy of the Constitution right here and trying to find reference to right to use cell phone.... or drive a car ....


Nope, not in there. Whew, had me worried for a second.
Click to expand...
driving is a privledge not a right...
 
#328
#328
lawgator1 said:
Have my copy of the Constitution right here and trying to find reference to right to use cell phone.... or drive a car ....


Nope, not in there. Whew, had me worried for a second.
Click to expand...

Wow, I wasn't aware that they had cell phones in the 1700's.

Are you going to pull over and eat that sandwich? What about brushing your hair? Is that banned yet? We need to make that illegal. Also, navigation systems are a distraction. Hell, talking to a passenger is a distraction, we should ban that too.

Top distractions other than cell phones:

Eating and drinking
Talking to passengers
Grooming
Reading, including maps
Using a navigation system
Watching a video
Adjusting a radio, CD player, or MP3 player


Besides, you can already get ticketed for driving distracted what is the point of having an additional law that focuses on cell phones?
 
#331
#331
lawgator1 said:
That's simply not true.
Click to expand...
Yes it is true I witness it on a daily basis. I will be glad to bring you to court any time you like. If its not on tape the judge will give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. I am not saying that an officer can't issue a citation but if its not on tape and the defendant doesn't plea he is just wasting his time.
 
#332
#332
theFallGuy said:
Wow, I wasn't aware that they had cell phones in the 1700's.

Are you going to pull over and eat that sandwich? What about brushing your hair? Is that banned yet? We need to make that illegal. Also, navigation systems are a distraction. Hell, talking to a passenger is a distraction, we should ban that too.

Top distractions other than cell phones:

Eating and drinking
Talking to passengers
Grooming
Reading, including maps
Using a navigation system
Watching a video
Adjusting a radio, CD player, or MP3 player


Besides, you can already get ticketed for driving distracted what is the point of having an additional law that focuses on cell phones?
Click to expand...

It is against the law to drive in a reckless manner, whether it is caused by distraction or not. And I am sure many a ticket has been given out based on someone having violated a traffic law whilst doing one of the things you mentioned.

But when it comes to texting and cell phones we can empirically observe two differences. First, there has literally been a huge explosion of such use in the last decade and we've all experienced/witnessed people driving extremely poorly and apparently because they were on the phone or busy making a smiley face with a colon and a parentheses.

The use of them is such widespread that it is an identifiable and repeating phenomenon on every street in the country, and on a basis far more frequent than any other distraction I've ever seen.

Second, you can't compare the energy and focus spent on, say, texting, to, say, talking to the passenger.

Can talking to a passenger distract you from the task at hand ? Sure. And if so you should not be having the conversation, I agree. But we realistically cannot police or enforce that, whereas someone holding a cell phone up to his head I think we can spot.

I really don;t see the debate here as driven by ideological lines as much as driven by age differences. People under 35 think they can manage a phone conversation while they drive and those over that age have enough life experience to realize the folly of that belief.
 
#333
#333
cd12 said:
Yes it is true I witness it on a daily basis. I will be glad to bring you to court any time you like. If its not on tape the judge will give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. I am not saying that an officer can't issue a citation but if its not on tape and the defendant doesn't plea he is just wasting his time.
Click to expand...


You have no idea what you are talking about.
 
#335
#335
You are saying that if the cop doesn't video you running a stop light the judge will side with the defendant EVERY time?

Not true.
 
#336
#336
lawgator1 said:
You are saying that if the cop doesn't video you running a stop light the judge will side with the defendant EVERY time?

Not true.
Click to expand...
Did you not see where I put HERE officers must have it on vid? It wasn't a blanket statement. As in this jursidiction!
 
#337
#337
lawgator1 said:
Have my copy of the Constitution right here and trying to find reference to right to use cell phone.... or drive a car ....


Nope, not in there. Whew, had me worried for a second.
Click to expand...

You may want to read it more carefully and understand rights and negative rights.
 
#338
#338
VolsNSkinsFan said:
And economists told us our houses would never go down in value. Well guess what 2012 looks like the 6th year in a row of declining values.

The argument that we shouldn't ban talking on the phone while driving because we are more cautious drivers while talking on the phone vs not talking on the phone is stupid
Click to expand...

Huh - which economists said houses would never go down in value?

Behavioral econ looks at human behavior and incentives.

You and LG keep creating a strawman version of the concept. No one is saying that it is a reason not to ban - the concept suggests that the ban may not be as effective as it could be because the effect can be partially mitigated by other changes in behavior.

Hell, I support a ban on texting. I'm just not evangelical about it to the point that I'll ignore various aspects of how effective it could be.
 
#340
#340
I concede that it will not be one hundred percent effective and that people will continue to do it. But it will be at least somewhat of a deterrent and the arguments against it just seem so weak to me.

The personal privilege argument: Ok, so you think you are good at driving while texting or cell phone use, that you personally are aware of the dangers and will drive responsibly so why should a few idiots who can't manage multitasking cause you to lose the privilege?

Even if I were to agree that you, personally, can manage it, its not you I am worried about. Its the ones that can't manage it that concern me. Even worse are the ones that think they can but actually cannot.

There is no meaningful way to distinguish between the good and the bad cell phone drivers. Ergo, yes, the bad ones have ruined it for the good. Sorry.


The it won't work because its hard to enforce argument: I think this is pure balderdash. There will be the specific deterrent at the moment. Plus of course its the publicity associated with the new law that is also so important.

Consider child safety seat laws as an example. It has taken a decade or more for such laws to become well respected. The fact that there is initial resistance for convenience's sake is no reason not to make the effort and achieve the long term result.

The it will cause people to think they are safer and so they will drive poorly argument: I understand the theory behind this and its application to passive restraints, like seatbelts and airbags. I am pretty sure I join the majority of social science people on this when I say that whatever minimal truth there might be to this claim, it is heavily outweighed by the increased safety associated with those items.

Moreover, I see a big distinction between being generally aware that you have some "back up" safety devices in your car like a seat belt versus thinking you can drive more aggressively because you and others are not on cell phones. The former is an embedded safety device that makes it safer IF you are in an accident, the latter is something that will hopefully keep you out of an accident.

I don't see how thinking there are going to be less accidents makes you more aggressive. And, whatever minimal such effect there is would be isolated and fleeting, whereas we know for a fact that use of cell phones for conversation or texting is indeed a cause of more accidents.
 
#341
#341
lawgator1 said:
I don't see how thinking there are going to be less accidents makes you more aggressive. And, whatever minimal such effect there is would be isolated and fleeting, whereas we know for a fact that use of cell phones for conversation or texting is indeed a cause of more accidents.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify the concept - it is not that you would be more aggressive; it is that you would be less focused on safe driving.
 
#342
#342
volinbham said:
Just to clarify the concept - it is not that you would be more aggressive; it is that you would be less focused on safe driving.
Click to expand...


I can speak only for myself on that point, and would say that I assume all people on the road around me are drunk and stupid. Whether they are on cellphones doesn't enter into the equation, until after I have passed them safely and at that point it usually comes to mind only in reenforcing the stupid part.
 
#343
#343
lawgator1 said:
I concede that it will not be one hundred percent effective and that people will continue to do it. But it will be at least somewhat of a deterrent and the arguments against it just seem so weak to me.

The personal privilege argument: Ok, so you think you are good at driving while texting or cell phone use, that you personally are aware of the dangers and will drive responsibly so why should a few idiots who can't manage multitasking cause you to lose the privilege?

Even if I were to agree that you, personally, can manage it, its not you I am worried about. Its the ones that can't manage it that concern me. Even worse are the ones that think they can but actually cannot.

There is no meaningful way to distinguish between the good and the bad cell phone drivers. Ergo, yes, the bad ones have ruined it for the good. Sorry.


The it won't work because its hard to enforce argument: I think this is pure balderdash. There will be the specific deterrent at the moment. Plus of course its the publicity associated with the new law that is also so important.

Consider child safety seat laws as an example. It has taken a decade or more for such laws to become well respected. The fact that there is initial resistance for convenience's sake is no reason not to make the effort and achieve the long term result.

The it will cause people to think they are safer and so they will drive poorly argument: I understand the theory behind this and its application to passive restraints, like seatbelts and airbags. I am pretty sure I join the majority of social science people on this when I say that whatever minimal truth there might be to this claim, it is heavily outweighed by the increased safety associated with those items.

Moreover, I see a big distinction between being generally aware that you have some "back up" safety devices in your car like a seat belt versus thinking you can drive more aggressively because you and others are not on cell phones. The former is an embedded safety device that makes it safer IF you are in an accident, the latter is something that will hopefully keep you out of an accident.

I don't see how thinking there are going to be less accidents makes you more aggressive. And, whatever minimal such effect there is would be isolated and fleeting, whereas we know for a fact that use of cell phones for conversation or texting is indeed a cause of more accidents.
Click to expand...

They practically want kids to ride in safety seats until they are 15 years old. It's a bit overboard IMO. I understand the importance of putting babies, toddlers, and kids up to age 6 in car seats, but having a 12 year old in a flipping booster seat retarded.
 
#348
#348
lawgator1 said:
If you hadn't been on the phone, you wouldn't have to make up the time.

You lose argument.
Click to expand...

For the record, just because you declare that I lost and I'm too distracted by work to refute, it does not mean that I accept your declaration as true.

I will assume you are one of those who doesn't bother to slow down when you talk or text while you are driving so your support of the law is really your own cry for someone to stop you before you kill someone. You probably don't adjust your speed to fit the conditions during rain storms or snowy/icy roads and would thank the officer when he stops and cites you. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean the rest of us need it imposed upon us.
 
#350
#350
OrangeEmpire said:
Speed laws deter speeding then, just like a cell ban will deter its use.

People dont care.........
Click to expand...


I've never said you'd get 100 percent compliance. Deterrence is the best we can hope for, I agree.

What's wrong with that? We don't get 100 percent compliance with any criminal statute. Does that mean we should just quit?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top