One thing thats been pointed out on this subject is the matter of an actual person in the car talking to you. I don't know if that would be so different, just because you are holding on to a phone. It really depends on the person and the conversation, for example arguing with your SO in the car is probably not going to be better than doing so on the phone.
Should Hand Held Cell Phones be Outlawed While Driving??
by minimus 140 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
boa
AlanF,
You're consistently failing to address the fact that a large fraction of the population doesn't have enough common sense to properly decide that they're incapable of simultaneously using a cell phone and driving safely. Maybe each of you is capable, but that doesn't affect the dummies who aren't. Maybe each of you is capable of driving while drunk better than most people can drive while sober, but that doesn't mean that drunk driving laws are bad. Laws have to apply to everyone, and as I said, are necessary to protect everyone from the dumbest of the population since they don't have the common sense or ability to decide proper courses of action for themselves. There can be no shades of gray in laws against drunk driving or using cell phones in cars. That should be obvious.
You've understood my point basically. However, laws only have a relative effectiveness on any sort of conduct/behaviour. I believe in personal responsibility which is not in favour in some lands like Canada, but THAT is a whole 'nother subject! I agree that so much of our society caters to the 'lowest common denominator' principle, however, a higher respect and enforcement of personal responsibility might just change that situation. An awesome sci-fi about a society based on being responsible for your actions is Le Modessitt jr. 'Gravity Dreams'.
I disagree with there being no shades of gray in lawss against drunk driving. The blood/alcohol limits are imposed by governments for political reasons and are not some sort of 'natural law'. Speed limits are based on many things but in the end are arbitrarily imposed by governments. This clearly shows that this issue about cell phones and a lot of other things are in 'shades of grey'.
People can take/use many different drugs and be 'legal' to drive: caffeine, antihistamines, have an 'endorphine' rush lol, nicotine and many others. These can affect a persons perceptions, mood, coordination and yet what will we require next? In car cameras to make sure you don't do ANYTHING that some person somewhere got in an accident over? Will you have to put your finger in a device that tests your blood for any known body-chemistry altering drug and if you have something (like that strong java in da morning), your car won't start? How many of us would like to have ALL of our cars hooked through wireless so that our speeds are monitored (they already are recorded in virtually all modern cars for use by Electronic Transmissions, ABS and Airbag systems) and everytime you go over the maximum possible speed for your state/province, you get a ticket in the mail? Hell, they have the technology now to track where you are on what street so that going over even less than maximum speeds in city limits could be fined!
Not trying to make a crapile out of a little turd here, its just that the emotional appeal of some of these posts because 'i was in an accident and it was terrible' isn't good enough a reason on its own to go BAN IT BAN IT! Don't get me wrong, a car accident is a terrible thing and I don't mean to diminish your suffering or painful experience, lord knows I've attended enough of them over the years, but the simple fact is that driving, drivers, and driving conditions are all a game of chance every time you go out. The reasons accidents happen are many. Cell phone use while driving IS a risk that varies in riskiness depending on where you are (heavy, light, or no traffic), driver skill (VERY variable), what you're talking about on the phone and many other things.
Banning cellphones is liking banning guns cuz dey hurt people...total crap....many thousands more people die each year from knife attacks/wounds. Implements you find in any kitchen.
boa...thought i was done up above....yikes
-
Cassiline
People can take/use many different drugs and be 'legal' to drive: caffeine, antihistamines, have an 'endorphine' rush lol, nicotine and many others. These can affect a persons perceptions, mood, coordination and yet what will we require next?
In many states, it is illegal to drive while under the influence of sedating medications,antihistamines, cold medicines, etc. If you are pulled over for your lack of driving abilities and can not pass a sobrity test you are issued a DUI. DUI ( driving under the influence) does not automatically mean drinking.
It's your body when you do not wear a seatbelt, or helmet, I couldn't care less if you don't want to buckle up. It could be my life you take while too busy on the phone to see my car or my child while walking across the street.
Cassi
-
moonwillow
Absolutely!
-
Dan-O
Yeah, here's my opinion: fooey on the states that wanna ban them. I can juggle a cell phone, steering wheel, gear shift, coffee cup, cigarette, and Day Planner all at tthe same time. I haven't been cited for a moving violation in traffic since long before I knew what a cell phone was.
-
Satanus
While some people can do a bunch of things while driving, including changeing the oil and filter, it is the morons who can't that cause the problems. Heck, some people can drive well drunk, or stoned on lsd. Yes, i did that when i was younger. Outlawing cellphoning while driving, while restricting the nonmorons, would save people from the morons who kill people and cause accidents and bottlenecks. Personally, i don't have a cellphone. Why should i let people interrupt me anywhere, anytime? I also don't drink and drive.
S
-
minimus
Boa said it PERFECTLY!! And here's something to think about---a lot of people are simply lousy drivers. They are the ones that cause accidents---whether they are on a phone or are switching stations on a radio. I'll bet thousands of persons have gotten into accidents because they switched a radio station. Perhaps you'd like to have a law enforcing a ban on that too.
-
Cassiline
Yes, lets compare apples to oranges. Something that takes a split second ( Im sure there have been a few accidents but taking something this far out of porportion is getting silly) to do to something that takes several minutes to and hour to complete. Most drivers have those little deals on their steering wheel now to change stations your hands never leave the wheel.
If you want to take it that far Min, you must outlaw checking the time on your in car clock, because it takes that much time to change a radio station.
Cassi
-
AlanF
I think you're missing a basic point, boa: Your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
In other words, freedoms cannot be absolute when your freedom puts others at unnecessary risk or infringes on their freedoms.
A good example is wearing a motorcycle helmet. I don't care a bit if someone wears one or not, or kills himself or not. If he kills himself, I'll chalk it up to natural selection in action. But if I'm affected in any way, then I'm certainly going to care. If my insurance rate goes up because morons are injuring and killing themselves because they won't wear helmets, then they're infringing on my rights. Same goes for seatbelts.
Smoking in public places is another good example. Thirty years ago nonsmokers like me had to endure inhaling other peoples' poisonous smoke. We could do nothing about it, because it was accepted by society in general. I don't care if people smoke or not (I have plenty of good friends who smoke, btw), as long as they don't do it so that I can't get away from it or when it infringes on my freedom to inhale reasonably clean air. While most of my smoking friends have the decency and common sense to smoke outside my home, without my having to tell them, plenty of smokers don't. That's why laws have been enacted prohibiting these people without common decency and common sense from smoking in public places.
Note that I was talking about illegal drugs, or any drugs that impair one's ability to handle machinery properly.
Now answer these questions:
Do you think it should be legal to drive under the influence of alcohol or any other drugs that impair your ability to drive without injuring others? State your reasons.
Do you think that all people are capable of judging whether they're impaired?
If many people are incapable of judging their state of impairedness, how should governments control them? Note that one of the main functions of government should be to stop people from hurting each other, such as putting in place laws to prevent murder and thievery.
Do you think that laws against murder and thievery are unfair infringements on people's freedom?
Do you think that smokers should be allowed to impinge on my freedom to breath clean air in public places?
Why do you think there's any difference between laws against murder, drunk driving and smoking in public places (which stop people from hurting others unnecessarily and impinging on others' freedom) and laws against using cell phones while driving (which stops people from hurting others unnecessarily and from impinging on others' freedom not to be hurt by stupid actions)?
Where does your freedom to swing your arm end?
AlanF
-
minimus
That's the point, Cas. I don't want to outlaw most of the things that a driver COULD do that MIGHT be dangerous. Good common sense comes in the picture again. If a person is impaired by drugs or alcohol, they should not be behind the wheel. This is where the BRAIN is impaired .And it IS different than talking to a person in your car (either by phone or in person). It's simple. Good drivers have to be able to multi-task. Maybe most persons are just not good drivers... I dunno know.