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

#51
#51
In most states it is already against the law to drive in a manner that reflects being distracted. The problem is, such a law is very difficult to enforce without some objective and cognizable means to know it is happening. A law banning cell phone use while driving would be easily enforceable because it is easily recognized.
 
#52
#52
nbakerld said:
So you're saying a seatbelt makes you 500 x safer?

:lolabove: Let's definitely not put this guy in charge of anything.

If you are in the front seat, wearing a seat belt reduces the risk of death by 45%. So even if you said, "I'd rather be in 2 accidents with a seatbelt on than 1 without" you'd still be overestimating their safety value.
Click to expand...


You never answered my question about if you have been in a serious accident or not.

I recently totaled my car because a teacher was not paying attention and pulled out infront of me. Both cars were totaled. I had a seatbelt on, she did not. I walked away unscathed. She had a huge gash on her forhead from plowing into the windshield. I was only doing 30 mph, I could have been going 45 mph and she could have had a face full asphalt

Now have you ever been in a serious accident or not?
 
#53
#53
nbakerld said:
My GF in college was from DC (one of the first cities to pass "hands-free" laws). When we visited, the idea was to not get caught using your phone. As you can imagine, it's a hard law to enforce. Kind of like jaywalking.
Click to expand...

Just have to know where to go
 
#54
#54
lawgator1 said:
In most states it is already against the law to drive in a manner that reflects being distracted. The problem is, such a law is very difficult to enforce without some objective and cognizable means to know it is happening. A law banning cell phone use while driving would be easily enforceable because it is easily recognized.
Click to expand...

Apparently recognition is all it takes to enforce a law.
 
#55
#55
nbakerld said:
My GF in college was from DC (one of the first cities to pass "hands-free" laws). When we visited, the idea was to not get caught using your phone. As you can imagine, it's a hard law to enforce. Kind of like jaywalking.
Click to expand...


What was his name?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#56
#56
lawgator1 said:
In most states it is already against the law to drive in a manner that reflects being distracted. The problem is, such a law is very difficult to enforce without some objective and cognizable means to know it is happening. A law banning cell phone use while driving would be easily enforceable because it is easily recognized.
Click to expand...

hands free exception
 
#58
#58
VolsNSkinsFan said:
You never answered my question about if you have been in a serious accident or not.

I recently totaled my car because a teacher was not paying attention and pulled out infront of me. Both cars were totaled. I had a seatbelt on, she did not. I walked away unscathed. She had a huge gash on her forhead from plowing into the windshield. I was only doing 30 mph, I could have been going 45 mph and she could have had a face full asphalt

Now have you ever been in a serious accident or not?
Click to expand...

No I haven't. Maybe if I had, I'd irrationally say something like "I'd rather be in 500 accidents with a seatbelt on..."

Maybe I should give your madness the benefit of the doubt.
 
#59
#59
I get all my e-mails answered while driving. Is that OK since I can do that and not be on my cell phone?
 
#60
#60
lawgator1 said:
I just really think that we all know what a problem this is. And the only people who would oppose such a law are those who want to use it as a proxy for so-called government overreaching, or those that think they are so good at using their phones, and that it is the other idiots who can't manage to multitask, that don't want to give up the convenience.

Come on, be honest, its a huge problem.
Click to expand...

Anyone that doesn't agree with you is tied to a proxy for big government concerns, yet somehow your decision is simply fact-based and completely non-ideological. Must be tough to live in the world where you are the only rational thinker.

Nevermind the fact you've only provided your opinion and anecdotal evidence...
 
#64
#64
volinbham said:
Anyone that doesn't agree with you is tied to a proxy for big government concerns, yet somehow your decision is simply fact-based and completely non-ideological. Must be tough to live in the world where you are the only rational thinker.

Nevermind the fact you've only provided your opinion and anecdotal evidence...
Click to expand...

Never!
 
#66
#66
volinbham said:
Anyone that doesn't agree with you is tied to a proxy for big government concerns, yet somehow your decision is simply fact-based and completely non-ideological. Must be tough to live in the world where you are the only rational thinker.

Nevermind the fact you've only provided your opinion and anecdotal evidence...
Click to expand...

never stopped him before
 
#67
#67
nbakerld said:
No I haven't. Maybe if I had, I'd irrationally say something like "I'd rather be in 500 accidents with a seatbelt on..."

Maybe I should give your madness the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

Well when you get to experience two 3000 lbs cars colliding at 30 mph with zero warning and you walk away with zero injuries, you might take off the Ron Paul Freedom Lovin Sunglasses and view the world differently
 
#68
#68
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Well when you get to experience two 3000 lbs cars colliding at 30 mph with zero warning and you walk away with zero injuries, then you might take off the Ron Paul Freedom Lovin Sunglasses and view the world differently
Click to expand...

Not to be a jerk, seen my fair share of crashes........it may help, but its imperfect.
 
#69
#69
Its a case of "we will pass a law to make you safe, follow it or else." People are gonna do what they are gonna do, no "law enforcement" will stop that.


Its against the law for criminals to have guns right? How many criminals are arrested for gun crimes daily? Boy, thats what we need, more laws.
 
#70
#70
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Well when you get to experience two 3000 lbs cars colliding at 30 mph with zero warning and you walk away with zero injuries, you might take off the Ron Paul Freedom Lovin Sunglasses and view the world differently
Click to expand...

Post of the century right there. Logic is air-tight.
 
#71
#71
volinbham said:
Anyone that doesn't agree with you is tied to a proxy for big government concerns, yet somehow your decision is simply fact-based and completely non-ideological. Must be tough to live in the world where you are the only rational thinker.

Nevermind the fact you've only provided your opinion and anecdotal evidence...
Click to expand...


You don't think it's a problem?

You actually would oppose such a ban?

Did you know that 35 states already ban texting while driving?
 
#72
#72
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Well when you get to experience two 3000 lbs cars colliding at 30 mph with zero warning and you walk away with zero injuries, you might take off the Ron Paul Freedom Lovin Sunglasses and view the world differently
Click to expand...

30 mph; I thought your justification, as stated earlier, was simply one of convenience. Traffic accidents are caused by those not wearing seat belts and they back up traffic on I285 and GA400.

Your scenario, unless you were doing 30 on one of those highways, does not lead to a traffic-jam of 100K cars.

Now, you are telling NBA what he should do for his own good...Thanks, Pops!
 
#75
#75
lawgator1 said:
You don't think it's a problem?

You actually would oppose such a ban?

Did you know that 35 states already ban texting while driving?
Click to expand...

I'm certain that all of us agree cell phone usage is a problem distracting drivers. We just think banning it is a waste of resources.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top