[Lemmy]

This is kind-of the same problem as we discussed recently on the "impaired driving" thread. I see it as an issue of deterence. We need start penalizing people more severely when they crash. A crash like the one Yogi cited ought to earn the driver a life sentence. If we started handing out life sentences for fatal, negligent crashes, people'd smarten up with their behaviour behind the wheel, whether we're talking about drinking or cellphones or any other type of behaviour.

I understand Brenda's and Acid's point, to a degree. I'm a better, safer driver blind-drunk and stoned, texting while getting a hummer in the backseat and stearing with my feet than a lot of people following the rules of the road to the letter.

I don't think cell-phones, as voice devices, are much of a distraction...they're nothing worse than talking to someone in the car with you. But text-messaging certainly crosses the line because it takes away visual attention. I think we should allow cellphone use, but charge people for careless or dangerous operation for texting and forget about any special, new laws.

[acidcomplex]

Yogi Yogi:

Is this ( and the hundreds others just like it) 'nonsense' too???

This accident happened on September 28th, 2005 in Riverview FL. A careless driver on a cell phone blazed through a red light at 55 mph and struck my mom's drivers door as she was going 20 mph attempting to make a left turn towards home. Her car was pushed 40 feet and my mom's neck was broken in 2 places. She died instantly. As her daughter, and someone that had to go to the scene to identify her, I can't tell you enough-

so you assume this would not have happened if the person was not on there cell phone? What if they happened to be looking at the radio or yelling at there kids, or couldn't see because of big stupid electronic sign. All very possible but no you use this incident because this person just happened to be on there cell.

Again if you basing a rule on it being distracting then you cant selectively apply that rule based on your preference. Somehow i dont think this applies to cops or emt, of course it dosent cause its needed for "there job" nhey wait a minute what about taxis? Needed for there job so it should be allowed right? Does this apply to CB radios for truckers?

Agaain you cant selectivity apply a rule like this, all or none

[Yogi]

I'm not 'assuming' anything. Let the facts speak for themselves!

[acidcomplex]

Yogi Yogi:

I'm not 'assuming' anything. Let the facts speak for themselves!

well yeah you are, you said it was because they were on the cell phone that this happened.

[Robair]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I don't think cell-phones, as voice devices, are much of a distraction...they're nothing worse than talking to someone in the car with you. But text-messaging certainly crosses the line because it takes away visual attention.

What's the difference between dialing a number or scrolling through your contacts and texting?

[Choban]

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

Common sense. It would save a lot of lives, worse is when some idiot wants to send a text tessage.

Problem with common sense is it's mislabeled, as in it's not very common.

[Robair]

acidcomplex acidcomplex:

stupidest rule ever, better take out radios,passengers,crying babies, signs on the side of the roads, big electronic signs, contruction.....alll distractions

So stay in AB.

You don't have to deal with the stupidest rule ever, and our roads in BC will be safer.

Win win.

[Yogi]

acidcomplex acidcomplex:

Yogi Yogi:

I'm not 'assuming' anything. Let the facts speak for themselves!

well yeah you are, you said it was because they were on the cell phone that this happened.

This accident happened on September 28th, 2005 in Riverview FL. A careless driver on a cell phone blazed through a red light at 55 mph and struck my mom's drivers door as she was going 20 mph attempting to make a left turn towards home. Her car was pushed 40 feet and my mom's neck was broken in 2 places. She died instantly. As her daughter, and someone that had to go to the scene to identify her, I can't tell you enough-


the article was not written by me. Note the RED TEXT above!

[Brenda]

There are more examples of people NOT on their cell causing a same sort accident. What were they doing? BAN IT!

Again, I am not against a "no hand held device in the car"-rule. But then still, like Robair says, you have to dial the number still. If you blame it on "cells are a distraction, ban it", then you have to ban everything that is a distraction, including fighting kids.

[Yogi]

Brenda Brenda:

There are more examples of people NOT on their cell causing a same sort accident. What were they doing? BAN IT!

Again, I am not against a "no hand held device in the car"-rule. But then still, like Robair says, you have to dial the number still. If you blame it on "cells are a distraction, ban it", then you have to ban everything that is a distraction, including fighting kids.

Yogi
CKA Elite




Posts: 4082 Posted: 2009-10-22, 11:54:01


We will never be able to eliminate all driver-distractions, but I can't wrap my head around the thinking 'if we can't eliminate all distractions, we shouldn't eliminate any!

Certainly there are many other causes of injurious/fatal accidents. The very fact that it is within our grasp to cut down on some of them, with no more than minor inconvenience to some drivers speaks for itself!

[Brenda]

Yogi Yogi:

Brenda Brenda:

There are more examples of people NOT on their cell causing a same sort accident. What were they doing? BAN IT!

Again, I am not against a "no hand held device in the car"-rule. But then still, like Robair says, you have to dial the number still. If you blame it on "cells are a distraction, ban it", then you have to ban everything that is a distraction, including fighting kids.

Yogi
CKA Elite




Posts: 4082 Posted: 2009-10-22, 11:54:01


We will never be able to eliminate all driver-distractions, but I can't wrap my head around the thinking 'if we can't eliminate all distractions, we shouldn't eliminate any!

Certainly there are many other causes of injurious/fatal accidents. The very fact that it is within our grasp to cut down on some of them, with no more than minor inconvenience to some drivers speaks for itself!

That is not at all what I am saying. I am saying, that the reason for banning a cell phone in the car, is based on a bullshit reason.
You can not hold it in your hand, but you can use it as long as you don't hold it. Where is the logic?? It is not the fact that you drive with one hand, it is the fact you are TALKING AND DRIVING that distracts you.

[Yogi]

Brenda Brenda:

Yogi Yogi:

Brenda Brenda:

There are more examples of people NOT on their cell causing a same sort accident. What were they doing? BAN IT!

Again, I am not against a "no hand held device in the car"-rule. But then still, like Robair says, you have to dial the number still. If you blame it on "cells are a distraction, ban it", then you have to ban everything that is a distraction, including fighting kids.

Yogi
CKA Elite




Posts: 4082 Posted: 2009-10-22, 11:54:01


We will never be able to eliminate all driver-distractions, but I can't wrap my head around the thinking 'if we can't eliminate all distractions, we shouldn't eliminate any!

Certainly there are many other causes of injurious/fatal accidents. The very fact that it is within our grasp to cut down on some of them, with no more than minor inconvenience to some drivers speaks for itself!

That is not at all what I am saying. I am saying, that the reason for banning a cell phone in the car, is based on a bullshit reason.
You can not hold it in your hand, but you can use it as long as you don't hold it. Where is the logic?? It is not the fact that you drive with one hand, it is the fact you are TALKING AND DRIVING that distracts you.

Can't agree with you there B. We all know that talking on a cell phone requires/takes more of our attention than just looking ahead, and driving whilst talking to a passenger, which, in my own experience only requires the occassional glance in their direction, and the obligitory " yup...uhuh...ok... mmmm...lol,...
quite a difference.

[Brenda]

You're not reading what I wrote.

[acidcomplex]

Yogi Yogi:

acidcomplex acidcomplex:

Yogi Yogi:

I'm not 'assuming' anything. Let the facts speak for themselves!

well yeah you are, you said it was because they were on the cell phone that this happened.

This accident happened on September 28th, 2005 in Riverview FL. A careless driver on a cell phone blazed through a red light at 55 mph and struck my mom's drivers door as she was going 20 mph attempting to make a left turn towards home. Her car was pushed 40 feet and my mom's neck was broken in 2 places. She died instantly. As her daughter, and someone that had to go to the scene to identify her, I can't tell you enough-


the article was not written by me. Note the RED TEXT above!

correct my bad, the person who wrote this article then

[tritium]

Yogi Yogi:

I would like to see ALL provinces enact, and then strictly enforce such a law. There is one county here which has recently done so, but it doesn't apply to provincial roadways within the county. No word yet as to how that is working out.

ditto

As a truck driver I see people sway back and forth in a lane or cross the line.

When I pass they are on the phone, trying to dial or texting.

If the phone call is that important, pull over and talk, otherwise, drive your vehicle.

Talking on Cell Phone as Dangerous as Driving Drunk