Should talking on a cell phone while driving be banned?

[racaulk]

Poll question: Should talking on a cell phone while driving be banned?

Discuss. :)

[taterguy]

1. Wouldn't it be easier to solve the problem by just banning driving?

[Deep13]

15. Easier? No. Cleaner? Yes.

[Hugin]

2. There are plenty of so-called hands free tools out there...

So, I say 'Yes'.

[SteppingRazor]

3. Of course not

Hell, while we're at it, what say we have the nanny state force seatbelt and helmet usage, ban all drugs except the ones with massive lobbies behind them, and ... oh, wait. Never mind.

[Alexander]

22. Yeah, and let's allow drunk driving too.

After all, it's only a product of the nanny state. :eyes:

[Rabrrrrrr]

24. And let's get rid of the FDA, OSHA, and labor unions while we're at it.

And then let's spread our legs as wide apart as they go for Ayn Rand!

[SteppingRazor]

54. I'm certainly not for any of that.

I'm all for regulation of corporations and big business. I just don't like regulation of individuals. Two different things, no?

[SteppingRazor]

53. Thank you for coming to Democratic Underground. Have a nice day.

[electron_blue]

30. What do you think about dvd's on the dashboard?

Like some cars nowadays have. Just curious if you think all distractions should be left to the discretion of the driver, or if you'd draw a line somewhere.

[SteppingRazor]

52. I'm just not big on preventative laws like this...

if someone puts a dvd player on their dashboard and then gets in an accident, prosecute them for the accident. Prosecute people for something they actually do, not something that they might do at some future point.

[Richard Steele]

4. Yes. Statistically, it raises crash risk to the same level as "legally intoxicated" driving.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[Left Is Write]

5. Not unless every other potentially distracting activity is banned.

[Rabrrrrrr]

17. I like to put on my pants while I drive.

[Left Is Write]

19. I suppose that's better than taking them off.

[dolo amber]

6. Whatever, as long as texting while driving isn't

:patriot:

[Little Wing]

9. 2 6 33 66 1111111

[KG]

7. yes, except for people like me, who can actually drive and blab.

:hi:

[One_Life_To_Give]

8. As long as you drive like your life depends on it.

Don't matter what you do while driving as long as you drive like your life depends on how well you drive.

[Oeditpus Rex]

10. Absolutely

I can't imagine what's so important to talk about that it can't wait until you stop. The fucking things are a menace — "hands-free devices" notwithstanding. No DWT, period.

[BuelahWitch]

12. Yeah I almost got hit by a guy trying to either text or dial

While he was turning a corner onto my street. I was walking, btw.

[BarenakedLady]

11. already is illegal here.

Still see people doing it ALL THE TIME.

[GenDem]

31. And I know a few people that have gotten pinched.

The fines run between 50 and $100. My son just got one, but hasn't been to court yet.

[GoneOffShore]

13. DWD - Driving While Distracted

We ban drinking and driving, so why not this?

Everytime I get out on the roads there is some dingbat on a cellphone who almost causes an accident.

My dad taught me to drive at 18. I drove school buses when I was in college. I moved to England at 22 and relearned to drive - the driving test there being about 5 times more difficult than any stateside test. I drive a manual transmission car.

So, it's both hands on the wheel except when I'm changing gears. No eating while driving. No talking on the cell phone unless the vehicle is parked.

I've seen truckers in 18 wheelers doing 80 on I95 through Philly on cell phones, bimbos & himbos in Hummers chatting to their buddies, little old ladies in Priuses (Priui?) with Kerry stickers yakking away and all of them totally oblivious to what was going on around them.

So yeah, let's ban cellphones while driving.

[Rabrrrrrr]

14. Without a headset it should be. Absolutey. With jail time for accidents,

just like drunk drivers.

[LanternWaste]

16. After seeing some actuarial tables

After seeing some actuarial tables (that I wasn't supposed to) showing that talking on cell phone ranked number three as the leading cause of traffic accidents in the U.S., just below speeding and intoxication, I'm now inclined to emphatically say, Yes.

Exceptions? Sure, like all laws there are plenty of them-- if someone's chasing you, feel free to call 9-1-1. If you're about to have a baby, by all means call the hospital and tell 'em you're on your way.

But if you're calling 'cause you're five minutes late for that all-important second date-- well, you simply should've managed your time a little better.

[AlCzervik]

18. i don't on my cell while i'm driving for 2 reasons, 1 i drive a stick shift and 2

i really don't believe my little brain can successfully toggle between 2 tasks that require a lot of attention.

[alarimer]

20. same here. I need both hands to drive my car.

Sometimes a manual transmission has its drawbacks. So I ignore the phone until I stop.

[Alexander]

21. Yes. People who talk on the phone while driving are idiots...

Unless it's an emergency.

If that includes any DUers, so be it. I will never apologize for demanding common sense.

I drive, bike and walk quite a bit. This city essentially requires a car to be functional. I can't even begin to list the number of times I've nearly been killed doing all three because some Arizona dufus couldn't be bothered to hang up and drive.


Anyone arguing the opposite has some seriously flawed logic, and in many cases probably yaks away on the phone themselves. Why don't we allow drunk driving, while we're at it? After all, not everybody causes accidents while drunk...:sarcasm:

[Dukkha]

23. yes but it would be a pretty unenforceable law

and would be impossible to prove in court if the driver contested it.

[Chan790]

37. We have it here in CT...

and neither has been an issue.

The courts pretty-much won't let you get out of the ticket by writing Not Guilty. (It's a $200 fine. The cops will show up to defend that ticket, let me tell you.) As for contested, nobody has managed to contest it and win yet. 2+ years.

It has nasty insurance ramifications too.

[Solon]

47. So when the time of the ticket is within the timeframe of the phone call...

according to the phone records, its impossible to prove?

[trof]

25. Anecdotal, but I swear 90% of the dumb/dangerous driving I see

is done by people on cellphones.
And I've done it.
But I really try not to.
Really...is there ANY conversation that just cannot wait until you get where you're going?

Recently observed:
Lady blows through a red light on the expressway.
On the phone.
Guy in the turn lane & gets the green arrow and SITS there.
On the phone.

And today:
On the main drag at Lowe's parking lot.
Slam on brakes for a guy coming out of one of the parking lanes.
HAS NOT EVEN LOOKED MY WAY!
On the phone.

Don't get me started.
Oh...I guess you already did.

[Skittles]

26. I cannot believe the ARROGANCE of those assholes

people - if you think you can drive while yakking non-stop on a cell phone - YOU CAN'T SO F***ING JUST STOP IT PLEASE

[trof]

27. Well, I just do believe some ASSKICKING is called for here.

SOMEBODY hadda say it.

[Skittles]

33. yes

I have used a cell phone in a car - when I've been paged I've speed-dialed and said I'M DRIVING AND WILL CALL YOU BACK SOON. That's IT.

[Alexander]

28. People need to realize the human brain can only process one thought at a time.

The pro-DWT crowd always comes back with silly, arrogant statements, like "Oh, but I can think of 7 different things at once".

No, you can't. You aren't special, you are just a human. Either the phone conversation will suffer, or in most cases, driving will suffer. We cannot concentrate on two tasks at once.

[Skittles]

32. I just think it is asking for trouble

it's true fiddling with my radio is a distraction too - but I don't fiddle with my radio for 45 minutes straight either

[AlCzervik]

39. check this out, this guy is the ultimate driving nightmare

Dungan found guilty of killing Rocklin police officer

By Art Campos - Bee Staff Writer
Published 3:13 pm PDT Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Eric Kenneth Dungan was found guilty today by a Placer County jury of second-degree murder in the hit-and-run death of Rocklin police Officer Matthew Redding.

The jury also returned a guilty verdict against the 26-year-old Dungan on a charge of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated.

In addition, the jury determined that an allegation that Dungan fled the scene of an accident was true.

Redding, 29, was killed on Oct. 9, 2005, as he was diverting traffic on Highway 65 near the Stanford Ranch Road exit. Dungan, who had been drinking throughout the night, was driving a pickup truck and trying to send a text message on his cell phone as he approached Redding, who was standing outside his patrol car at 4 a.m.

The prosecution called nearly 40 witnesses during the trial, including a cab driver who dropped Dungan off at his truck in Roseville just minutes before the fatality, warning him three times not to drive.

A forensics expert said Dungan's blood alcohol level was at .17 or .18 when he attempted to drive. Under California law, a person is considered legally intoxicated at .08.

Placer Superior Court Judge Larry D. Gaddis scheduled sentencing for April 26.

Deputy District Attorney Joe Hoffmann, who assisted lead prosecutor Daniel Gong in the case, said Dungan faces a state prison term of 15 years to life for the conviction.

The manslaughter charge carries a sentence of four to 10 years in state prison and the enhancement for fleeing the scene would add another five years to the manslaughter count, Hoffmann said.

However, he said the manslaughter sentence is expected to run concurrent with the murder sentence, meaning Dungan would serve no time beyond the 15-year-to-life term.

http://www.sacbee.com/101/v-print/story/137208.html

[Alexander]

48. Some people, like this guy, just need to be locked away forever...

Some folks are determined to get into a car while drunk, no matter how many times they get thrown in jail.

If there is to be a "three strikes law" it should be for this - 3 DUIs and you get jail for life.

[trof]

29. Great bumpersticker: HANG UP AND DRIVE!

I want one.

[racaulk]

43. You can find them all kinds of places online.

But here's where you can get one for free: http://www.legislatorcooper.com/bumpersticker.html

If you don't mind that legislator's name being on the sticker (he's a Dem)... :)

[Ookie]

34. I don't know that adding another law is the answer

I would like to see the police enforce the laws against running red lights, swerving all over the road, failing to change lanes or merge properly, etc. The fact is, when you are behind the wheel, your attention needs to be on your driving. I know I'm always looking all around my vehicle, and I see people everyday yakking on the phone and driving like crap. Of course, some people can't pilot their vehicle properly without any distractions. Maybe we could raise the bar a bit and require better driving skills to get a license?

[Left Is Write]

41. See, that's the thing - there are already laws against reckless, careless, and inattentive driving.

I can think of other things that are just as distracting/dangerous as cell phone use: turning attention to children in the backseat, eating, having a beverage, smoking, fiddling with CDs or the radio, reading the newspaper (I've seen it done!), applying makeup.

I agree that people should pay attention to driving while driving, but will another law make that happen?

[Oeditpus Rex]

50. By that logic

they may as well remove DUI laws. Most traffic laws are more preventative than punitive, and the simple act of driving while intoxicated harms no one directly. It's what's liable to happen that's the problem — that is, more liable than if a driver weren't intoxicated. The same goes for DWT, if we believe the statistics.

I'm sure there've been accidents as a result of the other stuff you mentioned, but I doubt it's very many in terms of accidents per mile or however they measure such things. Not so with DWT.

What I can't figure out, though, is why police cars aren't equipped with headsets, since cops use their radios so much. And now that so many police cars have laptops, I gotta wonder how many cops use those while they're driving.

[Left Is Write]

51. Driving under the influence is more than a distraction.

Driving under the influence involves a physical altering of one's physical abilities. That makes it apples and oranges to me.

Inattentive and careless driving laws are already on the books - surely using a cellphone would come under one of them.

[Tektonik]

35. I'd make everyone have a headset/bluetooth thing

but I wouldn't ban it altogether, may as well ban having passengers, using the radio, etc

[L A Woman]

36. while driving a car, everything should be illegal...

but driving. Period.

[SPKrazy]

38. You May Be Right...

my tendency is to want to argue... but, everything one does but drive is a distraction... and I don't think hands free devices are anything but a slight degree of being "safer", because one's attention is still elsewhere.

:thumbsup:

:hi:

[Alexander]

40. Well said!

:applause:

[MonkeyFunk]

42. absolutely yes

and punishable by a big haddock-smack.

I can't count how many idiotic moves i've seen performed by people on the phone. Alexander Graham Bell had the right idea when he had 'em hard-wired to the wall.

[hedgehog]

44. Here's my solution:

I tell one of my kids to get my phone out of my purse and make the call when I'm driving! They're perfectly capable of calling home to tell them that we're running late and/or to start heating the oven!

BTW - I used to get calls at work from a sales rep who was obviously driving at the time. I hated it because I was always waiting for the sounds of crunching metal and breaking glass!

[Hav]

45. .

I couldn't even do it because I'm one of those who hates (or is unable) to multitask when it comes to certain things ;). Even if the phone is on the seat next to me and easy to get, I couldn't answer the phone while driving.
Maybe some people believe that they can handle it but it's definitely a distraction.

[jobycom]

46. Dunno, but stopping in the middle of the goddamned road to take a call should be.

I swear there's some new idiot germ going around. I keep seeing people literally stop in the right lane of traffic to talk on the phone, even on service roads to the highway. I don't mean slowing down or becoming distracted so much that they slow down or forget to go when the light changes green. I mean these idiots just pull over into the right lane and park it to talk on their phones. Yeah, that's safer! (As Borat would say) NOT!! I don't want them to get tickets, I want them spanked.

[Pushed To The Left]

49. Mixed feelings, but leaning towards No

On the one hand, I have seen people who do something incredibly stupid and then I see that they are on their cell phone. On the other hand, if you're driving less than 1 mile per hour due to a traffic jam caused by a freeway accident, and you are calling your job to let them know you'll be late, I think that is totally acceptable (and I've done it). I can see the logic behind wanting to ban handheld cell phones, even though I think an outright ban is going too far due to some special circumstances where exceptions should be made. However, I am 100% opposed to banning hands-free cell phones, and would be willing to be politically active against such a thing. Conversations on a headphone can be distracting, but so can listening to the radio or talking to a passenger. A more common sense approach would be to enforce laws against distracted driving, rather than banning things that distract some and not others.

[Phillycat]

55. Man, I would be so bored. :)

I can't remember the last time I drove somewhere that I wasn't on the phone. Driving time is time for me to catch up on my phone calls.

Accident-free here - ask State Farm! :D

[Coyote_Bandit]

56. As a former auto insurance claims manager

who supervised a five state area for over seven years I would say that all cell phone conversations have the potential to be distracting and cause accidents. That includes conversations utilizing hand free devices. Why? There is research that shows that the same area of the brain is utilized in driving and in conversing. There is also research that shows cell phone usage can slow reaction time as much or more than alcohol intoxication. Some conversations are more intense or more distracting than others. Some people are more easily distracted than others. That said, I have worked more than one claim where the accident occurred while the fellow driving was getting a blow job. One of those accidents was a high speed multiple fatality accident.

It should not be necessary to regulate and prohibit distracting behaviors while driving. But there are some really stupid people who put other people at significant risk. We should not have to tell folks not to put others at risk. We should not have to tell folks not to drive if they are drunk. We should not have to tell folks not to drive down a crowded highway at 80 miles an hour while having engaging in sexual activity. And we should not have to tell folks not to negotiate major business deals, discipline their teenagers, or argue with their current or former spouses while driving. Unfortunately, when folks show themselves unable to self-regulate their behavior then some restrictions become necessary.

We like to think that cell phone usage while driving results in only small fender benders. We don't recognize the potential for significant personal injuries and fatalities which can result at even low speeds. One does not have to be traveling at a high rate of speed to fatally injure a pedestrian or cyclist. I once worked an accident where a young man was paralyzed from the waist down. The vehicle in which he was riding had been struck from behind at a speed of less than 25 mph. The driver who struck the vehicle had been distracted by a conversation and had failed to notice traffic slowing ahead until it was too late to avoid the collision. The young man in question was en route to a follow up visit with his physician and had recently required a spinal fusion because he had a genetic condition that resulted in spinal degeneration. The force of the impact combined with the nature of his pre-existing condition was sufficient to produce the paralysis. The insurance coverage which was available was grossly insufficient to compensate him for his future medical expenses.

Personally, I do not use my cell phone while driving. That choice is the result of both safety considerations and a realization that I do not have to make myself instantly accessible.