Raising awareness is a good thing, and any incentive to think twice about being safe is a good thing too. Now maybe there are many dangers we cannot control, but we can do whatever it takes to control what we can.

I was taught back in the day it only takes a second to make a choice that screws yourself over, and someone else too. But be it from a thoughtful choice, or fear of a ticket, getting where you are going safely is the goal.

Prevention, as unattractive and futile as it may seem, has its place, NO DOUBT, because you never complain until the damn fools actions affect you. Then we raise all kinds of holy hell. When it happens to others, lets be honest, who cares?

We go about our business, and scream the government is all in our business when you get that ticket. With more than 240 million vehicles in America, the chances of an irresponsible fool driving near you or a loved one, is very high. Even if that darn fool is you or a loved one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

if we ban cars there will be no accidents. Insurance incentives for taking continued drivers education go a long way towards making the roads safer and drivers aware of the dangers. I takes the AAA course every 3 years and get a significant rate reduction .
Not everything in life requires laws.

---

So we go from the sublime to the ridiculous. We understand you are the exception to every rule Tom. Laws exist because the general population is too stupid or self focused to exercise common sense. If everyone followed your lead there would be no unemployment in the US as everyone would be course lecturers helping the insurance companies reduce premiums and the roadtoll would fall because of all those cars not being used.

The statistics are clear compare the road accident statistics between your country and mine, no prize for guessing which one has a ban on cell phone usage in cars, the same comparison is valid for other countries. Anyway this argument has run its course because you have gotten back on your favourite hobby horse which of course is your constitutional rights, you have the right to kill yourself if you wish but not the right to kill others

Quote:

---

Laws exist because the general population is too stupid or self focused to exercise common sense

---

You really are the poster spokesperson for the nanny-state .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

You really are the poster spokesperson for the nanny-state .

---

Not at all Tom I believe in freedom but as I said you don't have the right to kill other people no matter what you might think your rights are, so I don't have the right to act in an irresponsible manner and it has nothing to do with the nanny state and a lot to do with respect of the rights of others. You see Tom where I come from we don't get into an argument about big government every time some one says this is a problem, and we don't rush about shouting state rights.

Our next nanny state ban will be plain packaging of cigarettes and you can bet big american tobacco are in a panic state about that, that, of course, followed the requirement for the fast food industry to display nutritional information about their products, another tilt at the international conglomerates who control the industry. We regard ourselves as progressive and so far democracy remains unthreatened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

A thorough section on this in drivers ed would be practical as well. I know there's a correlation but I think we are becoming more aware of what a distraction cell phones can be. Focus on the road no matter what you're doing and things will be fine.

As tom's quote said, it's usually the "old-fashioned kind of driver inattention that has caused most accidents since the beginning of the automobile age."

---

Hi Speech,

Yes, but why add another distraction to the large number we already have while driving.


Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I do not see the constitutional authority for Federal Government directives . As I've pointed out already they use a system of back door funding mechanisms to get their will on issues like speed limits and drinking age etc. You can be assured that if they did they would make such a directive even though it would be a stupid law for much of the geographic territory of the nation.

Now I have done some digging into the specific case that prompted the NTSB to make it's recommendation . It involved a kid texting (already illegal in Missouri where the pileup occured ) and this little tid bit of detail they failed to emphasis .



Why the Proposed Car Cellphone Ban Is Wrong - Popular Mechanics

---

Hi Tom,

Popular Mechanics should stick to mechanics. Too many A caused B assumptions. We can safely say that alcohol causes liver damage. The reason being is because we have a good understanding of how alcohol attacks liver cells.

When it comes to road accidents there are too many variables, especially in a complicated scenario like this one. Contributing factors would be the best we can come up with. No doubt there were many. I am sure that a person texting while driving would be very high on the list.

"Texting while driving is already illegal in Missouri for under 21".. If you are over 21 you can text while you drive?

P.S. The article only supports what the research tells us. That is, there is a correlation when it comes to mobile phone usage and accidents

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

http://inside.mines.edu/~dkaffine/CELLACCIDENTS.pdf

So while the nanny state makes y'all feel good ;it really doesn't effect much change. But it does give cops a reason to pull you over and give you a ticket .... good for local revenues .

---

Interesting, but...

Just wondering why RDD statistical analysis was used in this case. I would have though this method is better suited to controlled experiments.

I don't really see the point of setting up an null hypothesis for these particular types of studies. Isn't the statistical power of these types of studies always lower than randomized experiments?

Why change from linear type analysis unless you are trying to prove something that cannot be demonstrated otherwise. Unless of course you are trying to demonstrate a political point.

Anyone familiar enough with statistical analysis who can help? Not really my area.

Tut

OK then I'll use the government's own study then . A 2009National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA)[a different alphabet soup Federal agency with overlapping authorities... such is the nature of the Lavithian] study found that 80% of all car wrecks are caused by drivers eating or drinking... not cellphone use... with eating food and coffee drinking being the top offenders.

Again ;I have no problem with states making restrictive rules as they see fit. I especially have no problem with laws against texting . But talking on a cell phone ;especially utilizing hands free devices, is no more distracting then choosing a cd to put in the car stereo ,and much less a distraction than many other common driving activities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Again ;I have no problem with states making restrictive rules as they see fit. I especially have no problem with laws against texting . But talking on a cell phone ;especially utilizing hands free devices, is no more distracting then choosing a cd to put in the car stereo ,and much less a distraction than many other common driving activities.

---

Hi Tom,


I agree, but...

Why would you want to add another common distraction? Wouldn't it make more sense to try and eliminate as may distraction as we can?

Tut

So by Tom's research the answer is simple you can improve ameriacn raod safety instantly by banning all fast food drive throughs and noones rights is infringed because they can still buy the food. Along with this I would recommend a ban on consumption of food and beverages in motor vehicles. Another nanny state ban achieved.

Tut , not sure how it works in Aussie... but here there are many small private business owners who make a living on the road. Their territories usually cover hundreds of miles. Often they don't have office managers and secretaries who screen the incoming calls or contact customers . A missed call is often a business opportunity lost ,and often pulling off the road to answer a call also is a job opportunity lost (this is true with private contractors here and sales people in rural areas ) .

For ages ;truckers used CB devices to contact other truckers and their own dispatchers in their business and no one ever said that their usage was a big public menace. I can't see how using a cell phone is any different than the use of the CB radio in the past.

This propaganda that it's just a bunch of kids texting each other is false. Denying the use of cell phones in the course of business is to deny business opportunity .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Tut , not sure how it works in Aussie... but here there are many small private business owners who make a living on the road. Their territories usually cover hundreds of miles. Often they don't have office managers and secretaries who screen the incoming calls or contact customers . A missed call is often a business opportunity lost ,and often pulling off the road to answer a call also is a job opportunity lost (this is true with private contractors here and sales people in rural areas ) .

---

Tom two things, don't you have answering services over there and what did these guys do before the invention of the cell phone.

Quote:

---

For ages ;truckers used CB devices to contact other truckers and their own dispatchers in their business and no one ever said that their usage was a big public menace. I can't see how using a cell phone in the conduct of their business is any different than the use of the CB radio in the past.

---

I think you might find a CB radio is incapable of sending text messages and professional drivers are a slightly different bag to the average air head.

Quote:

---

This propaganda that it's just a bunch of kids texting each other is false. Denying the use of cell phones in the course of business is to deny business opportunity .

---

So now we have it, its an infringement of some commercial right so therefore it ought be allowed. Perhaps you could have a selective law where a licensed business person could do it and everyoneelse can't.
I say you can't tell the difference, texting is a distraction. Dialing while driving is a distraction and carrying on an argument while driving is a distraction.

Yeah and having noisy kids in the passengers seats are too. Seeing a scantly clad beauty on the side of the road is too. Changing a 5 cd stereo is a distraction too. Women putting on make-up /men shaving... I've seen it all.
Getting behind a wheel implies responsibility for your actions . If a cop sees someone driving erratically they have the responsibility to pull them over anyway . Driving erratically itself is a ticketable offense here.
So this on a national level is unwarranted and unnecessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Getting behind a wheel implies responsibility for your actions . If a cop sees someone driving erratically they have the responsibility to pull them over anyway . Driving erratically itself is a ticketable offense here.
So this on a national level is unwarranted and unnecessary.

---

Too many people knowing their rights but not their responsibilities. I don't know how many times that needs to be demonstrated in all areas of life.

Police are responsible for enforcing the law because that is a requirement of the job. Knowing the road rules is a requirement of obtaining a licence.
Because you know what is required doesn't mean you are going to exercise responsibility.

Tut

Quote:

---

Driving erratically itself is a ticketable offense here.
So this on a national level is unwarranted and unnecessary

---

Now texting/using a cell phone while driving gets you a ticket. That should make you think before you kill somebody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Now texting/using a cell phone while driving gets you a ticket. That should make you think before you kill somebody.

---

Its not in the name of safety so please don't even try to go there. Its just another avenue for the government to step into and intrude on our lives in personal ways.

Tell that to the families of the victims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

Its not in the name of safety so please dont even try to go there. Its just another avenue for the government to step into and intrude on our lives in personal ways.

---

Irresponsible people need to be made responsible. If you behave in a responsible fashion and make a commitment not to text while driving then what is the problem if this responsibility is put into law?


Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Irresponsible people need to be made responsible. If you behave in a responsible fashion and make a commitment not to text while driving then what is the problem if this responsibility is put into law?


Tut

---

The main issue I have is that what is really going on behind the law. Its not designed to help with safety its designed to step into your life and intrude into your privacy. There is already court battles taking place because of intrusion. If they believe you were texting how are they going to prove it? They will take the phone and download everything on it including where you have been and what has been said and to whom it has been said. Not just the incodent but whatever is on there. They have tried it out already in Michigain already this year.

We all know its bad to drive drunk. And there are laws against it. But as a free citizen should you be pulled over and asked for all your papers just because your driving down the road and they are looking at you under the guise of drunk driving?

I for one say no. It gives the government too broad of power for their brush to be painted upon the landscape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Tell that to the families of the victims.

---

Then why not ban cell phone altogether? Sue the crap out of the cell phone companies because they have the technology to stop you from texting if your moving down the road. What would you have me tell them? Life as well as death happens. I know Ive seen it in the over 1 million miles I have driven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

We all know its bad to drive drunk. And there are laws against it. But as a free citizen should you be pulled over and asked for all your papers just because your driving down the road and they are looking at you under the guise of drunk driving?

---

Hi Dad,

Of course they should and they do in Australia on a regular basis. Police can pull a motorist over and request a breath test any time and anywhere. This is regardless how you are driving.

Police set up road blocks on roads requiring drivers to pull over when directed for a random breath test. You don't have this?


Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

The main issue I have is that what is really going on behind the law. Its not designed to help with safety its designed to step into your life and intrude into your privacy. There is already court battles taking place because of intrusion. If they believe you were texting how are they going to prove it? They will take the phone and download everything on it including where you have been and what has been said and to whom it has been said. Not just the incodent but whatever is on there. They have tried it out already in Michigain already this year.

We all know its bad to drive drunk. And there are laws against it. But as a free citizen should you be pulled over and asked for all your papers just because your driving down the road and they are looking at you under the guise of drunk driving?

I for one say no. It gives the government too broad of power for thier brush to be painted upon the landscape.

---

You must have a class of cop over there with nothing better to do, probably because you have another layer of law enforcement. Despite what you might regard as restrictive laws regarding cell use, drink driving, etc it is fairly rare to see a cop on our roads and as long as you behave in a reasonable manner you rarely get pulled over unless you are a motor bike or have a dodgy looking vehicle. The exception might be Friday night/Saturday and holidays when the booze bus is operating or the last day of the month. The point I'm making is a law doesn't mean intrusive behaviour by police (have to make the quota). Once we were allowed to have radar detectors, now outlawed. I expect that if cell phones are a problem police will be given detection devices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi Dad,

Of course they should and they do in Australia on a regular basis. Police can pull a motorist over and request a breath test any time and anywhere. This is regardless how you are driving.

Police set up road blocks on roads requiring drivers to pull over when directed for a random breath test. You don't have this?


Tut

---

The road blocks they have. Not random breathalizer tests. If your suspect then you get one. Why would a random one even matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

. The point I'm making is a law doesn't mean intrusive behaviour by police (have to make the quota). Once we were allowed to have radar detectors, now outlawed. I expect that if cell phones are a problem police will be given detection devices.

---

Here it is for you in a nutshell. If you allow the law (police and other managing agencies) any slack and not be diligent then they will start to intrude on your rights in that name. Its like hearing its for the children. It's a game to strip rights from the people. I watched as a seat belt law was voted in. Makes sense everyone agrees it makes you safer. The law stated that if you were pulled over and weren't wearing one then you get a ticket. OK, sounds good so far. Let the offender beware. In less then 2 years time it morphed into having roadblocks to check for seatbelts and being pulled over simply because your not wearing one. That wasn't what was voted in. Give them an inch and they rob you blind.

Do you actually think it is right for the government to have all the information you have on your cellphone just in case you did something wrong? To me no. They should have a warrant to get that information. You have a right in this country to privacy and to be free to move about without interference. Yes life throws curves your way. But its not the governments job cradle to grave. If you act irresponsibly then let them put you away. Otherwise they should leave you alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

The road blocks they have. Not random breathalizer tests. If your suspect then you get one. Why would a random one even matter?

---

Hi again Dad.

I would say it matters because it makes people too afraid to drink and drive. I'd imagine the same thing works for seat belts. You wear one because you don't know when you will be pulled over for a seatbelt check, i.e. pay a fine.

Tut

Its like any other ticket you get, go to court and pay the fine, or fight it. Inconvenient, and expense maybe, but like anything it CAN be used as a pretext, to check the car, driver ID, papers.

Yeah then we got PROFILING, and nobody cares about that much, because they were profiling before cell phones, or seat belts.

So while I can see the argument against another excuse/reason to hassle, harass, and fill the ticket book, with minority faces, if you aren't breaking the rules and being a responsible citizen, you have nothing to hide, or fear from a cop right? RIGHT?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

The road blocks they have. Not random breathalizer tests. If your suspect then you get one. Why would a random one even matter?

---

Because Dad this is how you catch those who think they are fine but are over the limit. It also means there is a visible police presence, no hiding in the shurbary as I saw one cop car recently

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

Here it is for you in a nutshell. If you allow the law (police and other managing agencies) any slack and not be diligent then they will start to intrude on your rights in that name. Its like hearing its for the children. Its a game to strip rights from the people. I watched as a seat belt law was voted in. Makes sense everyone agrees it makes you safer. The law stated that if you were pulled over and werent wearing one then you get a ticket. OK, sounds good so far. Let the offender beware. In less then 2 years time it morphed into having roadblocks to check for seatbelts and being pulled over simply because your not wearing one. That wasnt what was voted in. Give them an inch and they rob you blind.

---

You vote on how a law should be enforced?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

Do you actually think it is right for the government to have all the information you have on your cellphone just incase you did something wrong? To me no. They should have a warrant to get that information. You have a right in this country to privacy and to be free to move about without interference. Yes life throws curves your way. But its not the governments job cradle to grave. If you act irresponsibly then let them put you away. Otherwise they should leave you alone.

---

This is the bit I don't get.

In Australia police don't have the right to confiscate mobile phones because you were texting while driving. They do where your are? If so I would find that very surprising.

Tut

Tut . Here is NY they confiscate cars if the driver was over the alcohol limit. Often the owner never gets them back and they end up being auctioned . Not sure if they are empowered to take the cell phones from offenders.

Cal's point is that the only proof someone is using the cell is to get access to the phone records . That also allows them to see other contacts made on the phone.
Surely all the people concerned about civil liberties for terrorists should show similar concerns for the rights of the motorists .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

You vote on how a law should be enforced?




This is the bit I don't get.

In Australia police don't have the right to confiscate mobile phones because you were texting while driving. They do where your are? If so I would find that very surprising.

Tut

---

You have 2 parts here. So I will address them seperatly.

1) In California they have a process called referendum. It is a means for the voters voice to be heard at the ballot box. It can create or direct to be created laws. Like the seat belt law or the helmet laws. It is our peoples way to have a representative voice into legislative law.


2) They don't take away the actual cell phone. What they can do is take it to their patrol car and download everything from it. I feel this is just an avenue for the government to step in and broaden the search to where it goes beyond the scope of original intention.

Here is some info on what has been happening so far. So you can get the idea of what Im talking about.

Michigan Police Use Cellphone 'Data Extraction Devices;' ACLU Objects - ABC News

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

So while I can see the argument against another excuse/reason to hassle, harass, and fill the ticket book, with minority faces, if you aren't breaking the rules and being a responsible citizen, you have nothing to hide, or fear from a cop right?? RIGHT?

---

Love this argument. Will you allow the police in at anytime into your home or your personal space just because the "feel" you could have done something wrong? How do you feel about the fourth amendment? Should we just throw it away since really if your not doing anything wrong you don't need to ever use it.

In this case its about personal information. Which is very broad in its scope. Its not like speeding where a line is drawn. Or drunken driving where certain amounts may be acceptable. Its about entering a grey area. One that shouldn't be. If they observe you texting then it should be limited to that. Just like if your speeding and they "see" you they are limited to that observation only.


Michigan Police Use Cellphone 'Data Extraction Devices;' ACLU Objects - ABC News


http://thenewspaper.com/news/34/3458.asp


See the above quoted article as to how they have broadened their scope.

I doubt you find a cop that's limited to observing you breaking the law, and has no power to exercise his power to investigate.

They have been doing it for centuries, what ever the law is at the time, haven't they??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I doubt you find a cop thats limited to observing you breaking the law, and has no power to exercise his power to investigate.

They have been doing it for centuries, what ever the law is at the time, haven't they???

---

Not really. Only on more severe crimes do they mandate opening an investigation. For simple more non severe crimes like speeding or j-walking they usually go no further then observation. If they see you then they have a right to act upon it. If a crime is in progress it involves a different area of the law. But most others are through observation. Isn't it like that where you live?

Most cops can pass on J walking, but that's up to them, you can still get a ticket for being wrong. That's how it is here, sometimes they warn you that you are wrong, sometimes they write the ticket.

The more wrong they find, the further they go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Most cops can pass on J walking, but thats up to them, you can still get a ticket for being wrong. Thats how it is here, sometimes they warn you that you are wrong, sometimes they write the ticket.

The more wrong they find, the further they go.

---

Exactly. But in the case of them downloading your information from a cellphone they are taking everything and can have a look at it just for a texting violation.

Lets use as an example the "I never do anything illegal so I dont have to worry about it attitude".

So you're a person male/female and on your cellphone for whatever reason you have a personal picture of your spouse/husband or girlfriend/boyfriend. Your all adults and all over 18. Is that legal? With respect to the law it is. You're an adult and your allowed those adult things. So now your being pulled over. Should the police be allowed to see that picture too or did you really have it as a private thing?

In my opinion no they shouldn't see it nor who you talk to or where you have been. Not for simple texting. That is way too far of an intrusion into your privacy. What about that text you sent... you know the one a week ago about wanting to kill your child because they broke a window on your neighbors new car?? Sure you were blowing off steam. Its just an expression right?? In the hands of the police it could mean child abuse even when it wasn't. Think about that. Do you actually favor that type of intrusion? Not me. Not without a warrant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

You have 2 parts here. So I will address them seperatly.

1) In California they have a process called referendum. It is a means for the voters voice to be heard at the ballot box. It can create or direct to be created laws. Like the seat belt law or the helmet laws. It is our peoples way to have a representative voice into legislative law.

---

I get that bit, but what I am saying is that once a law is enacted you don't get to vote on how it is policed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

2) They dont take away the actual cell phone. What they can do is take it to thier patrol car and download everything from it. I feel this is just an avenue for the government to step in and broaden the search to where it goes beyond the scope of original intention.

Here is some info on what has been happening so far. So you can get the idea of what Im talking about.

Michigan Police Use Cellphone 'Data Extraction Devices;' ACLU Objects - ABC News

---

If they are doing this then the police are breaking the law. I'm not a lawyer but I would say that this type of evidence would be inadmissible proof of texting because it was obtained illegally.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

I get that bit, but what I am saying is that once a law is enacted you don't get to vote on how it is policed.




If they are doing this then the police are breaking the law. I'm not a lawyer but I would say that this type of evidence would be inadmissible proof of texting because it was obtained illegally.

Tut

---

Once the law is actually put into the books then it retains a life of its own. Its out of the hands of the people other then to overturn the law itself. The people still have that power but then its up to the courts to uphold it.

Its not breaking the law if they ask your permission first. Its stated in the article that what they were doing was asking people to allow them to do it and thinking that they weren't ever doing anything wrong they gave permission. From there the entire content was open for evaluation. Not just for text but everything including where you are and where you were etc. Everything.

What I fear is in passing a law without more formal protection then they will intrude upon privacy on a grand scale. After all was that person really texting or just dialing a number. If they were dialing then it wasn't illegal to begin with.

Here is a link as to how it works in California. Not all states have this same process.

California ballot proposition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michigan Police Use Cellphone 'Data Extraction Devices;' ACLU Objects - ABC News

While its no telling what's really going on the fact that no one has complained is telling. This is but an example of where technology has developed faster than a law to govern them.

What does that have to do with a law against texting while driving, or is this a fear of big brother, or a police state?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

What does that have to do with a law against texting while driving, or is this a fear of big brother, or a police state?

---

What it has to do with it is that the only real way for them to "know" what your doing is to download your records. Unless they "observe" you texting in an obvious fashion then they don't really know if your dialing or not. It is a catch 22. I don't want to give away my rights to privacy nor anyone else's without just cause.


A quote from this article:
Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops


A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections.
"Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags," a CelleBrite brochure explains regarding the device's capabilities. "The Physical Analyzer allows visualization of both existing and deleted locations on Google Earth. In addition, location information from GPS devices and image geotags can be mapped on Google Maps."