Cellphone ban while driving (1 Viewer)

Kraj

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 15:42
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,470
Here's a controversial one from Chicago. I'll be interested to see what opinions spring up.

Chicago recently passed a ban on cell phone usage while driving within the city limits. Do you think this is a good idea? Is this another example of over legislating or is it a good measure to help reduce traffic accidents? Will it help reduce traffic accidents at all?
 

Newman

Québécois
Local time
Today, 11:42
Joined
Aug 26, 2002
Messages
766
Many cell users drive badly, but not all.
Some drivers also drive badly, using the radio tuner, eating, looking at passenger while talking, etc.
Will the governments prohibit these things too?
It is not the use of cell phone that is the problem. It is the driver itself. They should be less tolerant with bad drivers, no matter what is the cause of it, may it be cell phone or radio tunning, etc. And let the ones that use a cell phone correctly alone.
BTW, they are talking about doing the same in the whole province of Quebec.

Pardon me for getting a bit out of subject...
It's like when they say they want to take the alcohol limit down from .08 to .05 because there is too many accidents involving drunk drivers. But why limit to .05 when all the time there is an accident with a drunk driver they say: "He was 3 times over the limit." Then we heard that he will be out of jail after two months or worst, he'll get a fine instead of jail time.
They should leave the limit at .08, but give bigger penalties to those who get caught over it.
 

Mile-O

Back once again...
Local time
Today, 15:42
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
11,316
We've had such a ban in Scotland since 1st December 2003 (England and Wales a few months later) and it has had both positive and negative results. Of course, smoking, eating, and drinking (non-alcohol) while driving hasn't been banned and I would consider them just as bad.
 
R

Rich

Guest
SJ McAbney said:
We've had such a ban in Scotland since 1st December 2003 (England and Wales a few months later) and it has had both positive and negative results. Of course, smoking, eating, and drinking (non-alcohol) while driving hasn't been banned and I would consider them just as bad.
Actually they are, you could suffer the same penalty for eating and drinking at the wheel, and could have for many years;)
It's very simple, whilst somebody's holding and talking on a mobile they are not in control of the vehicle, what happens if you want to change gear when talking on the phone, who's holding the wheel?
no jokes please:D
 

Pauldohert

Something in here
Local time
Today, 08:42
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Messages
2,101
If a calls necessary - what does it take - a few minutes to find somewhere to pull over safely and use the phone?

Whats the problem?

Anyone too self important to think that their phone call is more important than the safety of others should be dealt with accordingly.

10 years inside would do it for me!
 

Bodisathva

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 11:42
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
1,274
while travelling through New York I noticed signage on I84 that they have already enacted a ban on cell phone usage without a hands free device. Also talking about enacting a similar ban in Pennsylvania.

I have noticed that there seems to be a physiological short circuit that develops in the cerebrum when one's arm bends at the angle appropriate to put a phone to the ear. My own driving suffers if I don't plan ahead enough to have my earpiece in place when the phone rings, so I normally don't drive without it (or leave the phone) just in case. While I won't say I'm not distracted while talking with the hands-free device, I am no more distracted than when someone else is in the vehicle and I'm not inclined to take my eyes off the road to look at them. :rolleyes:
 

jrjr

A work in progress
Local time
Today, 11:42
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Messages
291
Bodisathva said:
while travelling through New York I noticed signage on I84 that they have already enacted a ban on cell phone usage without a hands free device.

As a NY state resident I can attest to this. The law has been in place for a couple of years. Sadly though it is still VERY common to see drivers using the hand held phone.

I rarely talk on my cell and I still think the law is a waste. Someone somewhere made some $$$ on it or it would have not have happened in the first place.

There are some extremely talented people on the roads these days. Some can talk on the phone, put on makeup, read the paper, drink coffee and eat a burger while driving. Pity they can't figure out how to use turn signals.
 

supercharge

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 08:42
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
215
jrjr said:
Pity they can't figure out how to use turn signals.

100% agree on this. It happens so often that everytime, I just yell it out loud in my car (of course, only myself in the car). I've seen so.....many people turning, changing lanes without ever turning on that d....signal.

Also, maybe because that I do it and I expect others to do the same, at least, they should raise their hand to show as a "Thank you" for those who slow down and let them join the lane. Whenever, people do something for you, don't you need to thank you for that? :mad:
 

Vassago

Former Staff Turned AWF Retiree
Local time
Today, 11:42
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
4,751
UUrrrgh... I hate people who don't use their turning signals when changing lanes. I swear it causes more accidents than actually speeding, using cell phones, etc.

I feel like it would be a good change if they banned hand held cell phone usage, but I don't really see anything wrong with using a hands free device, as long as it doesn't lower your ability to hear the traffic outside of your car. Using earpiece hands free devices should be a huge mistake. I believe there already is a law here against using headphones while driving, I wonder if this law applies to cell phone headsets too....
 

reclusivemonkey

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 15:42
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
749
Vassago said:
I feel like it would be a good change if they banned hand held cell phone usage, but I don't really see anything wrong with using a hands free device, as long as it doesn't lower your ability to hear the traffic outside of your car.

Hi Vassago,

The research I have seen stated that the problem with using a mobile whilst driving was that people started to concentrate on the conversation more than the driving. You can see this on the BBC link I posted; people using a hands free phone still had slower reactions than people who were over the legal alcohol limit.
 

Brianwarnock

Retired
Local time
Today, 15:42
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
12,701
I've spoken to a number of guys who have to be contactable by there employer at all times and have therefore been provided with handsfree sets , and everyone states that what the research says is true, it is very different talking on the phone than talking to a passenger, a passenger will normally be patient about responses if the driver is concentrating, or even stop talking in certain traffic situations, the guy on the other end of the phone just gets irate.

Brian
 

reclusivemonkey

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 15:42
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
749
Brianwarnock said:
I've spoken to a number of guys who have to be contactable by there employer at all times and have therefore been provided with handsfree sets , and everyone states that what the research says is true, it is very different talking on the phone than talking to a passenger, a passenger will normally be patient about responses if the driver is concentrating, or even stop talking in certain traffic situations, the guy on the other end of the phone just gets irate.

Thats an interesting point Brian. It seems this is very harsh on the driver; they are aware themselves that the phone is a distraction, yet they are required to have one. If one of these drivers was in an accident whilst on the phone who would be held to account? The driver, or the employer? It would seem to me that whatever it is they are wanting to accomplish by having a phone in the vehicle could be done by other methods (i.e. the vehicle can be tracked in many other ways, and they could text the driver so he can receive the message safely when its convinient for him).
 

Vassago

Former Staff Turned AWF Retiree
Local time
Today, 11:42
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
4,751
reclusivemonkey said:
Thats an interesting point Brian. It seems this is very harsh on the driver; they are aware themselves that the phone is a distraction, yet they are required to have one. If one of these drivers was in an accident whilst on the phone who would be held to account? The driver, or the employer? It would seem to me that whatever it is they are wanting to accomplish by having a phone in the vehicle could be done by other methods (i.e. the vehicle can be tracked in many other ways, and they could text the driver so he can receive the message safely when its convinient for him).

But again, this also depends on the awareness of the driver and the person on the other end of the phone, which is something not measurable by any means, so how do you make a law based on something that you can't prove one way or the other?
 

reclusivemonkey

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 15:42
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
749
Vassago said:
But again, this also depends on the awareness of the driver and the person on the other end of the phone, which is something not measurable by any means, so how do you make a law based on something that you can't prove one way or the other?

Its very simple. A phone call isn't important. People's lives are. I could go on but I've had a drink at the office party here and I'm not likely to add anything sensible at this stage. I do completely disagree that there is no proof; the studies that have been done refute your claim, the link is posted previously. Anyone who has spent any time on the road knows this to be true.
 

Kraj

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 15:42
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,470
I think the point that Vassago was trying to make (or at least is similar to) is that a skilled driver talking on the phone is likely to be less a hazard on the road than an idiot without a phone. Perhaps drivers with a clean record should be exempt from the law since they've demonstrated driving skills and good judgement?
 

reclusivemonkey

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 15:42
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
749
Kraj said:
I think the point that Vassago was trying to make (or at least is similar to) is that a skilled driver talking on the phone is likely to be less a hazard on the road than an idiot without a phone.

Hi Kraj,

Yes I can see the point that Vassago is trying to make. My point is that the idiots far outnumber anyone else ;-)

Kraj said:
Perhaps drivers with a clean record should be exempt from the law since they've demonstrated driving skills and good judgement?

A clean driving record to me is not an indication of good driving skills and judgement. It could simply be down to the fact that they only drive one hour per month. I will conceed that anyone who has passed an advanced driving test has displayed better judgement and driving skill. However the logistics of the police having to check who are the advanced drivers and who are not would be time consuming and expensive (just in case you are not aware Kraj, the advanced driving test in the U.K. is a test where your driving is tested to a greater degree. One of the most difficult points IMHO is that you have to clearly articulate what you are doing and why. This alone would make me fail ;-S)

Again, I stand by the point that people's lives outweight phone calls.
 

Bodisathva

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 11:42
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
1,274
Kraj said:
Perhaps drivers with a clean record should be exempt from the law since they've demonstrated driving skills and good judgement?


I'm afraid I would have to agree with 'monkey on this one. My wife has a perfectly clean driving record and scares me to death when she drives:eek: . Definitely should not be allowed to use the phone while on the road.

Vassago said:
Using earpiece hands free devices should be a huge mistake. I believe there already is a law here against using headphones while driving, I wonder if this law applies to cell phone headsets too....

Vass...they're not ear-plugs, they're ear-buds.:D There really is no notable difference in what you can hear while using a hands free. I have used the 'buds until I recently acquired a bluetooth wireless...marvelous! One touch to answer, voice dial, hang-up...definitely the way to go for commuters. While using, I can still hear the radio, external traffic, and even a valve-knock from the occasionally acquired cheap gasoline:eek:
 

Kraj

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 15:42
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,470
reclusivemonkey said:
Yes I can see the point that Vassago is trying to make. My point is that the idiots far outnumber anyone else ;-)
No argument here :D

reclusivemonkey said:
A clean driving record to me is not an indication of good driving skills and judgement. It could simply be down to the fact that they only drive one hour per month.
Good point. But in any case a person with a clean driving record is less a danger on the road, regardless of the reason.

reclusivemonkey said:
I will conceed that anyone who has passed an advanced driving test has displayed better judgement and driving skill. However the logistics of the police having to check who are the advanced drivers and who are not would be time consuming and expensive (just in case you are not aware Kraj, the advanced driving test in the U.K. is a test where your driving is tested to a greater degree.)
I actuall wasn't aware you had such a test in the UK. Sounds like a good idea. In the U.S., though, that information is at the fingertips of the police; there wouldn't be the slightest increase in cost or time investment.

reclusivemonkey said:
Again, I stand by the point that people's lives outweight phone calls.
I certainly agree, but many people's career is driving-based and telephone communication is necessary. So, what about someone's life versus someone's livelihood?
 
R

Rich

Guest
Kraj said:
I certainly agree, but many people's career is driving-based and telephone communication is necessary
Then they need only invest in the latest hands free kit, and in any case if they're using the car as their office how are they going to write anything down whilst driving and answering the phone all at the same time? In any case my mobile service provider provides me with an answering service, the messages can be picked up at any time. Don't you guys have the same service?

So, what about someone's life versus someone's livelihood
Without doubt, life, I can't see how you can even question the difference:confused:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom