Banning Cell Phone Use while Driving

[darkendless]

Honestly, I don't like making everything that could possibly be harmful illegal. I think it's absolutely absurd that you can't smoke in a bar or buy a set of lawn darts or play poker if you want to. I sometimes feel I'm surrounded by hundreds of overprotective mommies, all of whom think they're my mommy.

I'd settle for a compromise -- like, say you can use a cellphone while driving a Volkwagen Bug but not while driving a Hummer. Approximately 90% of the drivers I see who seem completely oblivious to their surroundings are driving SUVs. They should be discouraged.

Smoking in a bar is gross. Think of all the second hand smoke people have to deal with as employees of these places. That, and its rude towards the other patrons who do not smoke. If people want to get cancer, they should be outside.

Cell phones should be banned because i think its something like a 30% reduction in attention. Now many people suck at driving to begin with, using a phone as well is just asking for someone to die.

 

[Smoke]

Smoking in a bar is gross. Think of all the second hand smoke people have to deal with as employees of these places. That, and its rude towards the other patrons who do not smoke. If people want to get cancer, they should be outside.

Health nuts shouldn't hang out in bars.

 

[darkendless]

Health nuts shouldn't hang out in bars.

Its not about health nuts, think of the staff. 8 hours of second hand smoke? who would want to serve people alcohol while they sit there and rot to death? Smoking is unhealthy for not just the smoker, but anyone who has to breathe it in. Thats just inconsiderate.

Smokers should be outside at all times, they stink and they waste health facilities when their bodies give up on them.

 

[Magic Man]

Everyone says they can handle it until something happens.

People think they can handle speeding until they go up on a curb and end up rolling through a row of trees.

I know. That's why I said it sounds like famous last words. However, there are some people who can handle it. I don't think I'm being arrogant in thinking I'm one of them.

 

[Magic Man]

Honestly, I don't like making everything that could possibly be harmful illegal. I think it's absolutely absurd that you can't smoke in a bar or buy a set of lawn darts or play poker if you want to. I sometimes feel I'm surrounded by hundreds of overprotective mommies, all of whom think they're my mommy.

I tend to agree, which is why I am undecided on this issue. However, the smoking in a bar thing I used to hate (especially when I was a smoker). But now I think it's a good idea. I think tobacco and weed are an interesting dichotomy. With one they let it be too present and with the other they tried to get rid of it too much. I think both should have a middle ground. They should be legal, but not allowed in public places where others would be subjected to them.

I'd settle for a compromise -- like, say you can use a cellphone while driving a Volkwagen Bug but not while driving a Hummer. Approximately 90% of the drivers I see who seem completely oblivious to their surroundings are driving SUVs. They should be discouraged.

That would be neat, but, of course, that would never happen.

 

[Magic Man]

Health nuts shouldn't hang out in bars.

It depends on what you mean by "health nuts". I'd consider people who don't want to inhale second-hand smoke normal not "nuts".

 

[Tiapan]

Australia has had it for a while. If you are driving a vehicle you are in charge of a lethal weapon. Undistracted diligence is vital. I am in favor of it, even though I am tempted to answer the damn thing when it rings.

Cheers

 

[Smoke]

Its not about health nuts, think of the staff. 8 hours of second hand smoke? who would want to serve people alcohol while they sit there and rot to death? Smoking is unhealthy for not just the smoker, but anyone who has to breathe it in. Thats just inconsiderate.

Smokers should be outside at all times, they stink and they waste health facilities when their bodies give up on them.

Try this: Open two identical bars side by side. Allow smoking in one and forbid smoking in the other and see which one does the better business.

 

[Smoke]

It depends on what you mean by "health nuts". I'd consider people who don't want to inhale second-hand smoke normal not "nuts".

I'll take the health concerns about public smoking seriously when they decide that nobody should have to breathe anybody else's automobile exhaust.

 

[zenzero]

Friend mball,

Banning Cell Phone Use while Driving

My vote for the referendum!
simply put, when we talk our focus/awareness shifts to what is spoken than to the task at hand that is the goings on in and around the point where we are while driving and everything around us. Accidents are bound to happen in such situations.

LOve & rgds

 

[monta]

I don't think the smoking bans in public places had as much to do with public health, as it had to to with avoiding litigation. Once the link between lung cancer and second hand smoke had been shown, it left businesses and governments open to been sued by non smokers who got cancers while working in business where they were exposed to second hand smoke, the same way people would sue if they got cancer and it was discovered their employer was knowingly using asbestos with the knowledge of the government.

 

[darkendless]

Try this: Open two identical bars side by side. Allow smoking in one and forbid smoking in the other and see which one does the better business.

Business aside its health concerns. Take note of how many hours the smoking bars employees spend in smoke clouds and then measure the health affects later in life.

Smoking is toxic to everyone who breathes in the fumes. In Oz you can't smoke inside a public place or within 5m of an entrance to one. Common courtesy, people's choice to **** their own health up should not impact the lives of those who don't want that choice made for them.

 

[darkendless]

I don't think the smoking bans in public places had as much to do with public health, as it had to to with avoiding litigation. Once the link between lung cancer and second hand smoke had been shown, it left businesses and governments open to been sued by non smokers who got cancers while working in business where they were exposed to second hand smoke, the same way people would sue if they got cancer and it was discovered their employer was knowingly using asbestos with the knowledge of the government.

Yeh pretty much.

As an ad to promote their new rules the government put on a programme going round to bars and opening all the vents in bars (we usually have vents here, its too hot to go to an open bar) to show the public all the crap that gets in there as a result of smoking. This was some time ago however, there hasn't been much opposition to these rules. Its common decency not to have to get coated in smoke while having a drink. If people want to smoke they can always go outside, it isnt that hard.

 

[Smoke]

Smoking is toxic to everyone who breathes in the fumes. In Oz you can't smoke inside a public place or within 5m of an entrance to one. Common courtesy, people's choice to **** their own health up should not impact the lives of those who don't want that choice made for them.

I agree. But nobody needs to be in a bar, and if there were really any demand for non-smoking bars you could open one and it would do great business. For some reason, in cities where smoking is allowed, people stay away from non-smoking bars in droves. Therefore, busybodies decided they would impact the lives of people who enjoy normal bars by making their choices for them.

 

[darkendless]

I agree. But nobody needs to be in a bar, and if there were really any demand for non-smoking bars you could open one and it would do great business. For some reason, in cities where smoking is allowed, people stay away from non-smoking bars in droves. Therefore, busybodies decided they would impact the lives of people who enjoy normal bars by making their choices for them.

No they don't, but i guess my opinion (which has been reflected by my government suprisignly), is that if people want to smoke, they should do so in areas which do not affect patrons who do not smoke. All bars and clubs here have designated smoking cages. It isn't that hard.

Its strange how these 2 issues (the other being cell phones) are so different between Oz and the USA in terms of government regulations. I thought the USA would be well ahead of us here.

 

[Smoke]

No they don't, but i guess my opinion (which has been reflected by my government suprisignly), is that if people want to smoke, they should do so in areas which do not affect patrons who do not smoke. All bars and clubs here have designated smoking cages. It isn't that hard.

Again, I'll buy that argument when you can't drive an automobile in areas that affect other people.

On the bright side, I'm very nearly fifty and I'll probably be dead long before the world is completely childproofed.

 

[Falvlun]

I really don't see how talking on the phone is any more distracting than any of the other things we do in the car-- listen to music, talk with a passenger, rant at Glenn Beck, eat food, rummage in your bag for something. Are we going to ban radios and french fries too?

How many people actually drive with two hands anyway?

Now, texting while driving, I do find pretty appalling.

 

[Gunfingers]

I really don't see how talking on the phone is any more distracting than any of the other things we do in the car-- listen to music, talk with a passenger, rant at Glenn Beck, eat food, rummage in your bag for something. Are we going to ban radios and french fries too?

Whether or not you can see how, it is. Cell phone use causes more accidents than listening to the radio or talking to a passenger. I dunno why, necessarily, either, but it's true.

And for the record, i used to text and drive too. >_<

 

[Falvlun]

Whether or not you can see how, it is. Cell phone use causes more accidents than listening to the radio or talking to a passenger. I dunno why, necessarily, either, but it's true.

See, I just don't know if you can say that.

There are many studies linking cell phone use and worse driving. Have there been comparable studies done on conversation/eating/listening to the radio and worse driving? Has it been shown that cell phone use is worse than some other distraction, or has it just been shown to be worse than no distraction?

Furthermore, when the officer asks why you got into the car accident, how many people would think to say "Oh, I was talking to the passenger" or "I was listening to music". They are much more likely to 'fess up to talking on the cell phone, though. So, of course, more accidents will be attributed to cell phone use, than the radio, simply because nobody considers the radio.

 

[Magic Man]

Try this: Open two identical bars side by side. Allow smoking in one and forbid smoking in the other and see which one does the better business.

I'd rather wait 5-10 years, and then try that experiment. I think once people get used to bars being non-smoking the attitude will change. If you try that in the future, I think you'll see the non-smoking bar do at least as much business, if not more, than the other one, obviously depending on the bars themselves, too.