Posted on 01/14/2009 10:10:59 AM PST by Graybeard58
The National Safety Council (NCS) says banning drivers from talking on hand-held cell phones doesn't reduce traffic accidents because the conversation, not the phone, is the distraction.
Look who just caught up. In 2005, when Connecticut enacted its feckless cell-phone ban, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said studies show hands-free devices offer no safety advantages over hand-held phones. Hands-on or -free, phoning while driving creates a response-time lag equal to drunken driving. For some, the distraction effectively blinds them. The NCS findings confirmed that, which it says justifies a nationwide ban on all cell-phoning by drivers.
Good luck with that. Four in 5 motorists admit they have driven while talking on a phone, including 15 percent who also text-message. Several million vehicles have GPS systems, which can be dangerously distracting, too. Shouldn't their use by drivers be prohibited, too?
As Connecticut has proved, prohibiting hand-held cell-phone use by drivers is problematic enough, but cell phones are well down the list of motorists' distractions. The AAA says 20 percent of crashes are caused by drivers distracted by people or objects outside their vehicles, 18 percent by motorists who were eating or drinking, and 11 percent by those who were playing with their vehicle's audio equipment. Cell phones cause 1.5 percent of accidents.
Eliminating distractions is a noble but unattainable goal, and bans that seek to change widely practiced behaviors don't work because they are unenforceable. Increasing public awareness to the dangers of phoning while driving remains the best strategy, even if it doesn't scratch do-gooders' do-something itch.
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this list, let me know.
They make a good point about cell-phone distractions at the wheel. The other day some broad was yakking on her cell phone and started merging her Suburban into the lane I was in... right across my hood! It scared me so bad I dropped my electric razor into my latte.
‘Several million vehicles have GPS systems, which can be dangerously distracting, too. Shouldn’t their use by drivers be prohibited, too? ‘
Where did this guy get this claim? Dangerously distracting is looking at a paper map while driving.
My system ‘talks’ I don’t have to look at the rolling map.
Funny. If I accept all the FACTS presented, I still come to a different conclusion.
Or their need for revenue generation..........
“My system ‘talks’ I don’t have to look at the rolling map.”
I’m sure you’ve never looked at it between waypoints, or messed with its controls while driving. Right.
Also, I wonder how many accidents have been caused by people panicking as they realize they’re about to miss a GPS waypoint...
By the way, I’m not advocating banning GPS, I’m advocating the authorities concern themselves with _actual driving performance_ as opposed to _theoretically bad driving behaviors_. The police don’t need to waste their time and invade my privacy by trying to peer into my vehicle and see if I’m behaving.
Down With The Nanny State!
But if you argue with it, it can be distracting.
At least you weren't using a straight razor.
The samethng happened to me.
The stupid driver made me spill some of my martini.
At least I had the good sense of having a shaker full next to me.
Remember, folks.... you drink, you drive, you spill. :)
Yes, I’ve ‘looked’ briefly at the screen, just as I do a billboard along side the highway.
But the system gets me into the correct lane on interestates I don’t usually drive on, well before I have to ‘push’ my way over because I did’t know the exact distance.
I don’t use the ‘waypoints’ so sorry, your wrong in that guess.
‘Bitchin Betty’ as we call ‘the voice’ does a great job, with no ‘distraction’ worthy of being put into the same catagory as hand held cell phones, let alone text messaging.
They're only for people who don't know where they are, don't know how they got there or how to get to where they want to go........
At a pizza place once, overheard a guy complaining to a waitress to turn the music down as he couldn’t concentrate on smoking.
More on-topic, a while back I had a guy in my lane, opposite direction, heading right for me, yet staring straight at me. It was only when I laid on the horn that he snapped out of his conversation on his phone and swerved over.
spam post alert...
As I stated to a nanny-state supporting do-gooder on another thread...
We should just ban ALL activities that MIGHT lead to the “careless driving” violations of law, including....
...Driving while under stress.
...Having an argument with your spouse less than one hour before getting behind the wheel.
...Getting fired or laided off prior to driving.
...Scantily clad pedestrians.
...Ugly pedestrians
...pedestrians in general
...billboards
...any vehicle that MIGHT cause a laughing distraction (such as “22’s”, “spinners” etc).
...Nose picking while driving (NPWD)
...teeth picking while driving (TPWD)
...outbursts from snot-nosed rebellious teenagers withing 30 minutes fo gietting behind the wheel
...Getting nagged by your mother or mother-in-law prior to driving (DUIN)
...Receiving a overdraft notice prior to getting behind the wheel
...Drinking one too many cups of coffee
All of those things should be illegal.
Heck, just make everyone a criminal right from the start, under the notion that they will ultimately commit some crime at some time in the future.
That just saves so much more time.
Dontchathink?
(last time I’ll post it...promise)
I’ve come to beleive that it should be perfectly legal to ram people who drive while they are on the phone.
My children squabbling in the backseat are far, far more distracting to me than cell phones.
I read studies that showed cell phone use is *not* correlated with more accidents. (Moreover, studies show that booster seats for 4 yr olds are not an improvement, as far as fewer injuries/deaths, over seat belt restraints.)
I hate living in CA where studies are ignored and ever-more oppressive laws are simply passed.
Huh? You need the belts to use the booster.
I mean, booster seats show no improvement over simply using seat belts alone. For 4 year olds.
And yet more and more states seem to be requiring booster seats for older and older children. Needlessly, and at great expense and hassle to all, as laws further prohibit the sale of used car seats.
The core argument he is making is that if you can’t eliminate EVERY cause of traffic accidents, you shouldn’t eliminate ANY cause.
Not really a good argument, imho. Just because you can’t find a perfect solution to a problem, doesn’t mean you should abandon imperfect solutions that reduce the problem.
I would not put my four old in the shoulder belt alone. The shoulder strap would go right across his throat. The booster raises him up so the shoulder belt goes across his chest. In CT we are supposed to keep him in a "seat" until he's 4 and 40 pounds. He's 45 pounds and is a monster but will not be 4 till March. We still cram him into the child seat. It's getting harder and harder to do.
Some people just cant walk and chew gum at the same time.
My GPS system gives voice instructions, and won't allow any input/messing with the controls, unless the car is completely stopped. ( I know, I've tried. Even rolling less than a foot/sec. causes it to cease accepting inputs )
Same here.
Slurp!!!
Dirving around Panama City is the most dangerouse thing one can do because of the triffic and the nutty drivers (no kidding).
I am still looking for that olive that is rolling around under my driver’s seat.
Luckily I had the forsight to have an extra jar of olives along with my shaker of martines.
One cannot trust these drivers with cellphones attached to an ear.
triffic = traffic
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.