They might as well put irritants in vehicles that prevent people from talking, because an individual TALKING on a handsfree headset is no different than talking to someone in the car. Or maybe...maybe they should ban the sale of phones to people under 21...hmmm...
...
Of course the answer is more govt regulation, instead of people just being smarter about what they're doing. It's simply Darwinism at work.
...
It's not Darwinism when it involves innocent victoms in other vehicles. That's why we have drunk driving laws. If only the offender was affected, that would be fine, but when other people can be hurt then a law is a good thing. The line should be only if other people can be affected, which is why I'm opposed to seatbelt and helmit laws (though I always wear them because it is safer).
That said, there IS a difference between talking on a hands-free device and to a person in the car. I don't know why but I think it's because the voice quality is still not as good as in person, so it is necessary to focus more on trying to listen, which DOES take away from driving. So I don't even use a hands-free device any more, either.
Distracted...
(continues)
...
I disgree with others not being affected by not wearing a helmet or seatbelt. if someone gets into an accident with you and you werent wearing a helmet/seatbelt and are killed then that person driving the other car is greatly affected by that. Maybe not physically, but mentally.
...
The same thing can happen those someone wearing a helmet or using a seatbelt so the point is null.
...
jmaloSep 27, 2010, 2:52 PM
The same can be said of accidents. Accidents can happen with or without cellphone use so that makes your point null? 🙄
...
Actually my point is solidified...which is why they are called 'accidents'.
...
jmaloSep 27, 2010, 3:16 PM
And so accidents don't kill people now?
...
No, people kill people 🙂
They might as well ban vehicles, bikes, skateboards, rollerblades, and physical sports because every one of those can be 'distracted' and cause a death when the wrong person is behind it.
...
My driving instructor so many years ago had an interesting philosophy about the use of the term "accident." He told us never to use "accident" in that context. He said it's a "crash", not an "accident", because car crashes are avoidable. It's a subtle difference, but I tend to agree with him on that.
I also agree with banning cell phone use while driving, even though it would slightly inconvenience me. If it was an issue of people getting distracted while on their cell phone and falling off a cliff, well, then natural selection is just fine. When idiots are operating thousands of pounds of machinery as if playing with a toy, while yacking on their cell phone, they become a risk to others. That's where individual liberties conflict a...
(continues)
...
I agree that distracted driving is a problem, but there are always gonna be people who can't drive, with or without distractions. I don't see anybody clamoring for "no makeup application while driving" laws. Again, statistically speaking, it might result in fewer accidents per day but maybe more accidents per instance.
My whole point is like that of Trenen's (later post on down)- you can ban all you want and people are still going to get into accidents. We could ban automobiles and somebody will still find a way to run into the side of one and hurt him/herself. We just have to decide when is enough. For me, handsfree operation should be allowed. It is the same (to me) as talking to a passenger. It is the same as listening to music. All el...
(continues)
...
The largest problem with human behavior, is that as much as we don't want Government intervention, we don't practice responsibility in preserving our freedom.
I'm not talking about the responsible individuals. I'm conveying that I do know people that complain about Government interfering with choice yet they don't wear Bluetooths or they are so drunk that they can't drive correctly. Both these examples are direct safety concerns for those that do abide by the rules or laws.
When I started driving, my Father used to tell me that I could do everything right by the book and still get hurt or killed due to some idiot not paying attention. I'm lucky to have lived through one of these circumstances. Others have not been so lucky.
I don'...
(continues)
...
The whole thing is dumb and just reeks of just another way for the government bureaucracy to lock away our individual freedoms and rights. What's dumber is "we the people" are allowing this to happen. It is NOT the governments responsibility to protect individuals but the nation as a whole. Leave this small-time stuff to the states.
...
That was my point in my lengthy spew.
Take the initiative to help control the situation so the Government doesn't need to. While you and I fight to keep our own control, millions of others are asking Government to do something about situations on the rise.
John B.
...
MennoSep 27, 2010, 11:11 AM
on cellphones than I've ever seen by people under 21.
Specifically women, aged 35-50 who REFUSE to get bluetooths because "they never talk in the car" and yet you never see them in the driver seat without a cellphone stuck to their cheek, which they press against their shoulder (skewing vision, blocking peripheral vision).
...
Now that you say that, I've kind of noticed that too. This is along with those woman I've seen reading books or applying makeup while driving. Guys don't have much to distract them...except maybe alcohol or coffee 😛
...