[excon]

Hello:

How about installing technology that turns your phone OFF when the car starts? Is that too nanny state-ish for you? What if YOUR child was killed by a distracted driver?

excon

[Curlyben]

Sounds like a plan, also how about a Blow to Start system would stop the instances of DUIs. ;)

[excon]

Hello ben:

We already have that if you've proven to be a drunk driver... Most people don't do that, so I think it's a little TOO nanny state-ish for me. However, I WOULD consider one that was activated after, say 9:00 PM.

excon

[tomder55]

So if you pulled over to the curb to make a call you'd have to turn off the car ?

[excon]

So if you pulled over to the curb to make a call you'd have to turn off the car ?

Hello again, tom:

How about the phone goes off when the wheels are moving?? But, that misses the thrust of my post. Would you be willing to forgo some technical gadgets in your car in the name of safety? It's an age old question. Do you support seat belts in cars, and helmets for motorcyclists? Would you rather the state NOT regulate those activities?

excon

[tomder55]

When they crash does my tax money pay for the EMS personnel to come to the rescue ?

[Curlyben]

In the case of the UK, most defiantly..

[Fr_Chuck]

Well I don't believe in seat belt laws since it only protects me, not anyone else, the issue with cell phones protects others.

But it is easy, a few cell phones have the ability, they block all call except 911 calls if the phone is traveling over a specific MPH ( so a person can walk or run while using) ties into a tracking system in the phone,

As the seat belt, I am one of the "others" I am alive today because I did not have mine on. I was thrown from the car but the drivers area was smashed , steering wheel to back for the seat, roof down to the seat, had I stayed in the car I would be dead, getting thrown out saved my life.

[slapshot_oi]

An easier and more sensible solution would be to make public transportation more accessible and free.

[tomder55]

Everything is free when someone else pays for it

[this8384]

everything is free when someone else pays for it

Agree wholeheartedly. So much easier to say "You know, you should try...." when it's coming out of someone else's pocket.

[TUT317]

In Australia it is against the law not to wear a seat belt or a helmet. What is the law in the U.S. Does it vary from state to state?

Tut

[this8384]

In Australia it is against the law not to wear a seat belt or a helmet. What is the law in the U.S.? Does it vary from state to state?

Tut

As far as I'm aware, seat belts are required in every state. Regardless, I wear mine every time I'm in the vehicle - I know far too many people who have died simply because they weren't wearing one.

The thread is regarding texting while driving. What are your thoughts on what excon mentioned?

[Fr_Chuck]

Each state does have their own laws, but the Federal Government years ago , threatened to take away Federal Funds from the states if they did not do seat belt laws.

[Wondergirl]

Twenty states and the District of Columbia have motorcycle helmet laws that require all riders to wear a helmet. Twenty-seven states have a motorcycle helmet law that only require some riders to wear a helmet. Three states (Illinois, Iowa, and New Hampshire) do not have a motorcycle helmet law.

It's scary to be on a fast-moving expressway driving in my car next to a couple on a motorcycle -- the female passenger has on a bikini with no helmet, and the male driver has on shorts and a tank top, both helmet-less.

[TUT317]

As far as I'm aware, seat belts are required in every state. Regardless, I wear mine everytime I'm in the vehicle - I know far too many people who have died simply because they weren't wearing one.

The thread is regarding texting while driving. What are your thoughts on what excon mentioned?

I think it is a case of positive right being balanced against negative rights. There are many different ways to formulate these rights. One way of looking at is to say that my negative rights allow me to text where ever and when ever Ilike. In other words, I should be allowed to make my own decisions. Against this is the right of other people to use the roads safely without these drivers being a danger on the road. Positive and negative rights can also be formulated to protect ourselves from our own stupidity.

As far as ex con's idea is concerned? I think if some won't take no for an answer when it comes to texting and driving then stronger measures are needed.

Regards

Tut

[earl237]

My political views are usually libertarian when it involves doing something that doesn't harm anyone else, for example if people want to drink or smoke pot at home, fine, but don't drive while doing it. Distracted driving however, is an issue that can cause death and serious injury to innocent people so since many people lack the common sense to do the right thing and watch the road, I have no problem with distracted driving laws and a ban on using cellphones while driving.

[paraclete]

Whatever you may think it is not possible to legislate common sense. Texting and to some extent using a mobile while driving is dangerous, however manufacturers don't think so as vehicles now come with bluetooth. Where I come from it is illegal to use a mobile in the hand or make a call while driving but hands free is permitted. It is far better to loose a little time and pull over to the side than risk an accident through inattentiveness. What is it that makes us think we should be contactable 24/7 no matter what the circumstances, are we really that important?

[J_9]

I have no problem with distracted driving laws and a ban on using cellphones while driving.

Since that law was implemented in Tennessee the accident rates have actually increased because people are now holding the phones lower so that they aren't seen while driving, thus taking their eyes off the road even more than before.

[Curlyben]

Interesting..

The US government may require cars to include scrambling tech that would disable mobile-phone use by drivers, and perhaps passengers.

"I think it will be done," US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood said on Wednesday morning, according to The Daily Caller. "I think the technology is there and I think you're going to see the technology become adaptable in automobiles to disable these cell phones."

LaHood is on a self-described "rampage" against distracted driving, and if making it impossible to use a mobile phone while in a car can save lives, he's all for it — although, according to TDC, LaHood also emphasized the role of "personal responsibility."

In a Tuesday blog post announcing an online video series, "Faces of Distracted Driving", which presents first-person accounts of distracted-driving tragedies, LaHood noted that "Just last year, nearly 5,500 people were killed and 500,000 more were injured in distracted driving-related crashes.

"These lives, and too many others like them, were cut short — not because of malice, but because of carelessness," he added.

The problem is that the average driver doesn't think that he or she is an average driver: nearly two-thirds of drivers think of themselves as safer and more skillful than a driver of median safety or skills — a statistical impossibility, of course.

Source: US may disable all in-car mobile phones ? The Register