National Cell Phone Talking and Texting Ban Requested

Discussion in 'In the News' started by xcel, Apr 27, 2012.

  1. lightfoot

    lightfoot Reformed speeder

    It's not clear to me why cops need to talk on their handheld cells while whizzing down the highway when they have all those radios??? It irritates me, too.
     
  2. diamondlarry

    diamondlarry Super MPG Man/god :D

    True, bugs the heck out of me too. However, as related to the topic of the thread, how is that different from them talking on their police radios (carrying on a form of conversation of sorts) with dispatch or other officers not present with them in the car?
     
  3. lightfoot

    lightfoot Reformed speeder

    It's different because (1) their one hand is holding the mic only while they are talking (or for all I know they may have voice activated microphones in the car??) whereas a hand holding a handheld cell is constantly off the steering wheel and (2) police radio calls are typically short, coded, and related to emergency situations, not idle chitchat.

    But I just realized there may be a reason for police to use a cell to prevent people (perps) from listening in as they can on the police channels.

    I suppose the law allows police to multitask while driving because they are trained to do so, just like pilots, especially combat pilots. And because the added risk from distraction is presumed to be counterbalanced by the necessity for them to do this to perform their job properly, a job which is essential for the safety of others. There is no such counterbalance for probably 99% of the jabbering that the public does on cells while driving.
     
  4. Blackbelt

    Blackbelt Well-Known Member

    Isn't it amazing that we actually survived as a species before cell phones existed??? How did we do that? How did we manage to exist without yakking away on a cell phone all hours of the day?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    Most things really are not THAT important. Driving IS that important. STFU, hang up and DRIVE. Nothing you or anyone else has to say is more important than driving. Even a slight distraction can result in people being injured, or even in their death.
    I don't care how good you think you are, when you are talking on cell phone, hands free or not, you are a worse driver than if you were not on the phone. Some of you have precious little driving skill to start with, so you cannot afford to surrender any of it to distracted driving.
    If the phone is moving more than 10MPH, the phone is disabled, other than a 911 call. Easily done and it makes perfect sense.
     
  5. diamondlarry

    diamondlarry Super MPG Man/god :D

    Bluetooth/hands-free.

    I knew that would come up. So, it does seem that some people can indeed safely talk and drive. So maybe instead of a knee-jerk ham-handed reaction of banning, training could be set up? You pass, you can use? But of course, that wouldn't be any easier to enforce than a ban. As far whether or not it's just jabbering, a conversation is a conversation. You can't have it both ways.
     
  6. diamondlarry

    diamondlarry Super MPG Man/god :D

    How can you tell that phone moving at 10+ mph is being carried by a driver? It may be carried by someone who is a passenger on a bus and working outside the workplace. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems when you think it through far enough.:rolleyes:
     
  7. worthywads

    worthywads Don't Feel Like Satan, I am to AAA

    What is the point of this article then, it is currently legal in most places to talk on the phone while driving and the discussion is whether it should be banned nationally. If that happens that right is taken away. Get it?
     
  8. lightfoot

    lightfoot Reformed speeder

    And because the added risk from distraction is presumed to be counterbalanced by the necessity for them to do this to perform their job properly, a job which is essential for the safety of others. There is no such counterbalance for probably 99% of the jabbering that the public does on cells while driving.

    Sorry my post was too complicated for you.
     
  9. lightfoot

    lightfoot Reformed speeder

    I'm afraid you don't. Just because something is not prohibited doesn't make it a right. Is that clearer??
     
  10. diamondlarry

    diamondlarry Super MPG Man/god :D

    Not complicated at all. It seems to bear a striking resemblance to backpedaling since before the police angle was brought up a total ban was being advocated now, it's an "acceptable" risk.
     
  11. Earthling

    Earthling Trying to be kind to Mother Earth

    Drivers on Cell Phones as Bad as Drunk Drivers:

    http://www.unews.utah.edu/old/p/062206-1.html

    June 29, 2006 -- Three years after the preliminary results first were presented at a scientific meeting and drew wide attention, University of Utah psychologists have published a study showing that motorists who talk on handheld or hands-free cellular phones are as impaired as drunken drivers.

    "We found that people are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated at the legal blood-alcohol limit” of 0.08 percent, which is the minimum level that defines illegal drunken driving in most U.S. states, says study co-author Frank Drews, an assistant professor of psychology. “If legislators really want to address driver distraction, then they should consider outlawing cell phone use while driving.”


    By the way, I'm one of those safety-Nazi's who gladly contributes to MADD.

    Harry
     
  12. diamondlarry

    diamondlarry Super MPG Man/god :D

    For the record, for the vast majority of the time (95%+) I don't use my phone when driving. In the rare cases I do, the traffic density in my area is so low that it is a negligible level of risk. I just think that blanket one-size-fits-all bans just don't seem like an acceptable solution.
     
  13. worthywads

    worthywads Don't Feel Like Satan, I am to AAA

    Nope I have it "correct".

    Ninth Amendmend - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    I have the right to do anything that isn't prohibited by law. You saying it isn't a right doesn't make it true.

    From wiki - The connection between rights and struggle cannot be overstated — rights are not as much granted or endowed as they are fought for and claimed, and the essence of struggles past and ancient are encoded in the spirit of current concepts of rights and their modern formulations.
     
  14. diamondlarry

    diamondlarry Super MPG Man/god :D

    Well there you go citing that silly outdated Constitution thing.;):p
     
  15. 50 mpg by 2012

    50 mpg by 2012 Well-Known Member

    All I can suggest is do NOT use cell or texting while driving in NC ... because by law ... it is ILLEGAL.

    How about letting your passenger make the call?
     
  16. ItsNotAboutTheMoney

    ItsNotAboutTheMoney Super Moderator Staff Member

    Oh, pish. You'd say that speeding is illegal even though it's allowed in a limited set of circumstances.

    A cellphone ban would operate the same way.
     
  17. WriConsult

    WriConsult Super Moderator

    I will repeat what I've said in my earlier posts: talking on the phone engages the brain in a more engrossing way than other modes of conversation. When you're on a two-way radio the flow is much different; not only can both people NOT talk at the same time, but there are often substantial pauses between one person talking and the other person talking. That allows for critical driving tasks to happen, and if needed the pause between sentences can be extended a few seconds without the other person feeling like they're being ignored. Listen to the police or CB channels and you will hear this.

    I've known some people who were still decent drivers when they were a drink over the limit. Some people have better skills, reflexes and/or innate judgment than others. And if they're just driving the speed limit on a limited-access rural freeway, are they really endangering others that much? Possibly not. But that doesn't mean I think we shouldn't have a one-size-fits-all ban on drunk driving.

    I remember hearing these arguments a lot back in the early 80s when MADD was making its big push to stiffen drunk driving laws. SOME people were capable of driving reasonably safely while at the (then) 0.10% limit, so why not have the police only bust people for the bad things they actually DO while driving drunk? In the end I don't think we lost any essential freedoms. But we did lose some "freedom" in the sense that we couldn't drink however much we felt like and jump behind the wheel of a car to get home afterward. Drinking away from where you were spending the night lost (for some) its spontaneity, requiring premeditation of either a very limited number of drinks, a designated driver or an alternate way home.

    And hopefully someday we all are going to need to figure out how not to text/telephone while driving. As with DUI, once the penalties are severe it will become socially acceptable to say "sorry, couldn't answer. I was in the car".
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2012
  18. WriConsult

    WriConsult Super Moderator

    Ahh, the Ninth. One of my favorite Amendments (though under attack by "strict constructionists" who want to limit us to the "enumerated" rights). In fact, it is the one Amendment whose inclusion Thomas Jefferson demanded or else he would not sign. He was dreadfully concerned that without the Ninth, the Bill of Rights could be construed as an "enumeration" of rights.

    However. As you have pointed out, the Ninth Amendment does not mean you can do whatever you wish, wherever and whenever you wish, to whomever you wish. It still allows the state to prohibit things that are in the public interest to prohibit. Such as drunk driving. Such as driving while yakking. And driving on public roadways is fundamentally not itself a right ... it is a privilege granted by the state, which can be revoked if abused.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2012
  19. 50 mpg by 2012

    50 mpg by 2012 Well-Known Member

    A silly, but possibly relevent question ... is there anything specific in the Constitution granting or denying the right to shoot your neighbor?

    How about simply shooting a firearm inside most city limits?
     
  20. PaleMelanesian

    PaleMelanesian Beat the System Staff Member

    I think this covers the "shoot your neighbor" part.
     

Share This Page