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.