National Cell Phone Talking and Texting Ban Requested

[Earthling]

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

[diamondlarry]

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.

[worthywads]

Originally Posted by lightfoot

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

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.

[diamondlarry]

Originally Posted by worthywads

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.

Well there you go citing that silly outdated Constitution thing.

[50 mpg by 2012]

Originally Posted by worthywads

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.

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?

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Originally Posted by diamondlarry

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.

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.

[WriConsult]

Originally Posted by diamondlarry

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?

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.

Originally Posted by diamondlarry

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

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".

[WriConsult]

Originally Posted by worthywads

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.

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.

[50 mpg by 2012]

Originally Posted by worthywads
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.

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?

[PaleMelanesian]

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

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.