1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Banning Cell Phone Use while Driving

Discussion in 'General Debates' started by Magic Man, Dec 1, 2009.

  1. sandandfoam

    sandandfoam Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    11,219
    Ratings:
    +1,712
    Psychology textbooks are pretty clear on the subject.

    "The use of mobile phones while driving a car has been identified as dangerous, and the danger is not limited to the case where the driver tries to hold the phone in one hand and drive with the other. If a hands-free headset is used of the type which delivers sound via an earpiece to just one ear, the callers voice sounds as if it is coming from one side. Attending to this signal has the effect of pulling visual attention towards the lateral message, reducing the driver's responsiveness to events ahead (Spence 2002)" - Naish 2005
     
  2. Watchmen

    Watchmen Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,462
    Ratings:
    +873
    Interesting.

    I don't have an earpiece - it works through my car speakers.
     
  3. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,801
    Ratings:
    +7,726
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    Well, they've been fined, and their license suspended, yet they still break the laws, so what's next? Maybe a taste of jail will give them the idea. I'm not that interested in the progression. I'm more interested that there be a progression of intensity for anti-social behavior. I'd want it to be clear to the criminal that the results are a practical response to anti-social behavior, and not an act of social vengeance.
    It doesn't start out that way. It only becomes more "strict" as one continues to ignore the laws.
    No, it's not. Your insurance company should not be allowed to punish you for causing them to make a pay out.
    Yeah, we call that assigning fault. But accidents happen all the time. And no one intended for them to happen. Accidents are not "fair". But the lawyers and insurance companies make money by assigning blame and then making people pay them money.
    I think it's bit of a stretch to claim that other people are harmed by flying bodies.
     
  4. Ozzie

    Ozzie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,321
    Ratings:
    +306
    Police are allowed to do it here and don't seem too interested in enforcing the law on this given the numbers of people I see daily driving with one hand on the wheel.
     
  5. Magic Man

    Magic Man Reaper of Conversation

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    18,594
    Ratings:
    +1,492
    OK, so you want the same basic system we have now. From what you said before I thought you were going for something more progressive (as in "new and different"). I thought you were advocating something different than throwing people in jail and the same old thing.

    Oh, well, that's not how you explained it. You explained it as making eating and pretty much everything but driving illegal. That's really strict.

    Really? So, let's say you sign up with an insurance agency, paying them $100/month. 8 months later you get slammed by another car, totaling your own. You now need a new car and a rental for a week, and you were in the hospital for 3 days. Total, your insurance company paid out $33,000. So, now the company is out $32,200. But they can't try to recoupe that money at all?

    Or does it seem like a better idea to have the other person's insurance pay for it, and then your insurance doesn't have to pay anything, and they have no reason to raise your rates?

    Well, call it whatever you want. You can call it "flying purple" for all I care. It's purpose is still the same. Yes, accidents happen all the time and no one intended for them to happen most of the time. So?

    No, the insurance companies make money by having people pay them premiums. People avoid having those premiums go up by having the blame rightly assigned to the other party.

    You're still missing the point of "assigning blame". The point is to have the person responsible for the problem pay for it.

    :areyoucra
    Think what you want, but I'll go with the facts that say that people not wearing their seatbelts put other people in extra danger. I'm sorry you want that not to be true, but ignoring it or refusing to look at the facts isn't going to make you any more correct.
     
  6. Smoke

    Smoke Done here.

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,892
    Ratings:
    +3,251
    You're right; I don't like the analogy. It's flawed. A better analogy would be if churches were not allowed to burn candles or incense because it might bother some people -- or if they were not allowed to teach doctrines that might bother some people.

    These laws are saying that people cannot choose to allow legal behavior in their own private establishments because it's offensive to others.

    People with peanut allergies can have severe reactions to other people's eating peanuts nearby. Should it be illegal for a restaurant or bar to serve peanuts?
     
  7. Smoke

    Smoke Done here.

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,892
    Ratings:
    +3,251
    I got a ticket for driving without a seatbelt. I usually wear one, but I had gone to the store to pick something up for work and didn't put the seatbelt on when I returned to my job. I just didn't think about it. I was traveling a fifth of a mile on a single road. I had made it about a tenth of a mile before I got pulled.

    Okay, fair enough. I know it's illegal to drive without a seatbelt. But I think it's odd that I can be ticketed for driving without a seatbelt, but we have no helmet law for motorcyclists.
     
  8. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,801
    Ratings:
    +7,726
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    I am, because they'd have to reverse the process to get out. The more a person continues to behave anti-socially, the further they are removed from society. And they must turn the behavior around to work their way back to being a free citizen. As it stands now, we "punish" anti-social behavior and then let them loose. I would rather see us respond to the behavior practically.
    From who? The other driver's insurance company? Why is it any more fair that they pay? The other driver? So if a person has an auto accident they deserve to be economically crippled for decades? I say we each insure ourselves, and learn to accept that accidents happen.

    Criminal negligence happens, too, and that should be prosecuted. But most auto accidents are not of that sort.
    Rates should be set according to the known rate of pay out over a large group of people. There is no need for them to raise your rates because they had to pay out. In fact, that should be illegal.
    No one is responsible for an accident.
     
  9. Magic Man

    Magic Man Reaper of Conversation

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    18,594
    Ratings:
    +1,492
    Ah, but see, that's the problem. It's not about being offensive. It's about being harmful.

    The point of the analogy was that nothing is being taken away from smokers. They can still smoke, just not in certain places.

    Yes, if the peanuts are being put on the people with allergies. This is a flawed analogy. It's possible to avoid contact with peanuts. It's impossible to walk into a bar where people are smoking and not inhale smoke.
     
  10. Magic Man

    Magic Man Reaper of Conversation

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    18,594
    Ratings:
    +1,492
    That sucks. I hate stupid tickets. I've had my fair share, that's for sure.

    I think that's odd, too. I don't understand states that don't require helmets.
     
  11. monta

    monta .

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    Messages:
    8,190
    Ratings:
    +1,334
    Here the tickets are only about making money, the police have targets they have to meet just like a bloody McDonalds.
     
  12. Magic Man

    Magic Man Reaper of Conversation

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    18,594
    Ratings:
    +1,492
    So, sending them to jail (like we do now) is "punishing" them for anti-social behavior, but sending them to jail (as you're suggesting) is responding to the behavior practically? :areyoucra

    Um...yeah, I thought that was obvious.

    Because it was the fault of the person they're insuring.

    No, but they're the ones who deserve to have the accident on their record.

    That would be great. Now all you have to do is find some insurance companies willing to overlook accidents and claims on people's records and not charge extra for people who've had accidents. Good luck with that.

    It depends on what you mean by "of that sort". Killing a bystander while driving while drunk is criminal.

    This is pretty much the same thing as criminal negligence; it's just not a criminal offense where you go to jail. Rear-ending someone while looking for a CD is negligence on your part, and your consequence is having to pay for the damages involved.

    Sure, so when you have your second accident in 2 years and they've now paid out $45,000 and gotten $2,000 from you, they shouldn't be able to raise your rates. That makes sense. Obviously, the case is a bit extreme, but I just use it to make the point obvious. It works when the numbers aren't so big, too.

    There is no reason for them to raise my rates after being with them for 8 years and having an accident where they have to pay out $800, but that's quite a bit different.

    :facepalm:
    No, of course not. The person not paying attention to the road while looking for a CD or texting is surely not responsible for the accident they cause...I'm really not sure how to respond to that. That might be the dumbest thing I've heard in months.
     
  13. Quoth The Raven

    Quoth The Raven Half Arsed Muse

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,045
    Ratings:
    +733
    The new laws here make it illegal for you to touch the phone (or your GPS, or anything else in that vein) so you actually have to have a hands free that's capable of being answered without you touching the phone now.
    I'm fast becoming of the opinion that 90% of the people on the road can't manage to drive properly with no distractions, so I'm perfectly happy to see people fined for wanton distraction.
     
  14. Quoth The Raven

    Quoth The Raven Half Arsed Muse

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,045
    Ratings:
    +733
    I don't understand riders who don't wear helmets regardless.
     
  15. enchanted_one1975

    enchanted_one1975 Resident Lycanthrope

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    9,700
    Ratings:
    +2,044
    A big difference between talking on the phone and being drunk is that you can put the phone down and you are immediately no longer on the phone.

    For those that think cell phones and driving don't mix, have you ever driven outside of the major metropolitan area that you live in? Once you are on the open highway, there is little to do but set the cruise control and keep it in your own lane. Personally, there have been times that I was so tired that the only thing keeping me awake was someone talking to me on the phone. Sure, it would have been great to park for a nap, but in most areas of the country, if you are not parked by 10pm or so you are stuck driving til 5am. There are more trucks in the US than there are public parking spaces. Nighttime becomes a game of duck-duck-goose for us and it is no fun. If people took half the energy that they put into hating cell phones and used that energy to lobby for more highway parking areas then lives might actually be saved.

    To put this in simpler terms, unless you can't handle your vehicle to begin with, a cell phone causes no negative affect on driving under ideal highway conditions. The problem lies when you get into populated areas where your attention is actually needed, when adverse weather is present, or when the driver is an idiot to begin with.
     
  16. Magic Man

    Magic Man Reaper of Conversation

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    18,594
    Ratings:
    +1,492
    You can't touch your GPS either? That seems kind of stupid. Can you still touch your radio while driving? And what's the difference between touching your radio and touching your GPS or even your cell phone?
     
  17. atteq

    atteq New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2
    Ratings:
    +0
    In the UK it is illegal to drive whilst using a hand held mobile phone, but sadly people take little notice of the law!
     
  18. taykair

    taykair Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2017
    Messages:
    297
    Ratings:
    +230
    Religion:
    Being. Just that.
    I know I'm responding to an old thread here, but the subject reminded me of something I heard a comedian (don't remember who - perhaps one of you folks can find it) who said something like:

    "Well, they've passed a law against texting and driving. Of course, it's still legal to write a letter in longhand and drive, though."
     
  19. lewisnotmiller

    lewisnotmiller Grand Hat
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    18,819
    Ratings:
    +10,999
    Religion:
    atheist
    Australian here. Talking hands free is allowed, although there was some thought of banning touching the phone itself altogether (so Bluetooth would be okay).

    Ban makes sense to me. Penalties are crazy harsh on the part of Australia where I live, since people ignored it at first.
     
  20. lewisnotmiller

    lewisnotmiller Grand Hat
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    18,819
    Ratings:
    +10,999
    Religion:
    atheist
    I'm okay with being irresponsible and hurting themselves, but draw the line somewhat where the harm is more likely to be to others.
     
Loading...