[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
banning cell phones (was: 30 days...)
Maybe the cellular phone discussion is becoming more and more off topic,
but some opinions posted here raised my desire to speak out too.
I hope that any disagreement in opinions will not be taken personally
> Cellphone use while driving is unsafe period.
And so as giving an access to anyone to the liquor store. Do you think
that fighting alcohol related crime and alcohol related health problems
with the PROHIBITION was a right choice in '30s ? Did it make sense? Did
it help?
Tuning the radio while driving may also be unsafe. Is it wise to write a
law about it? I guess people simply don't tune the radio when passing on
two way highways. And if some jerks do and you succeed in enforcing such
a law, those jerks will find many other ways to jerk and still create
hazard to the society.
There were several political campaigns recently: SPEED KILLS! DWI KILLS!
Both statements are true _in_principle_ . What was and still is wrong
with these campaigns? First of all the motivation. The main motivation
is fundraising for budgets at all levels. Fighting speed and alcohol is
used in campaigns ran by some organizations and individuals seeking
political or economical benefit. How are these laws enforced? First of
all arbitrary speed and BAC limits are set. Then speed traps are ran on
open highways instead of school districts (certainly more people speed
on highway than near schools). I have also heard that some government
official expressed his fear that Police departments will still consider
the behavior of the vehicle and driver on the road instead of simply
arresting everyone whose BAC is higher than some level set arbitrary. To
justify all that, the lying statistics is often used. If the Police
Officers write speed as the cause of the accidents and neglect to
mention tailgating or no-flashing before the lane change, the "Speed
Kills" argument becomes supported by convincing statistics. I still
haven't heard of a single case that someone was ticketed for driving in
the left lane, although in many states the law requires to keep to the
right. And very few are ticketed for no blinking before changing lanes
which certainly cause many accidents. Of course it is harder to monitor
these people then simply read a newspaper or eat a donut under the
bridge with the radar on. And the money flow into the budgets is much
higher this way.
I feel that simply banning cell phones is of as much common sense than
above mentioned campaigns. Hands free phones are certainly steps in the
right direction. And telecom companies now invest millions of dollars
to bring this technology to good sound clarity. When they come, people
will switch to them by free choice due to obvious convenience and common
sense. Why do 90% of drivers turn their lights on in the daytime when
it's raining? Because of the law? No! People violate speed limits
although it is the law too. They turn the lights on because it makes
sense, unlike driving 55 mph on an open highway. The same way people
will use hands free phones when they will be competitive.
>> With a hands free phone I would guess it to be no more dangerous
>> than having a conversation in the car with a passenger.
> Very wrong. A passenger is also aware of what is going on around the
> car, and will readily tolerate seconds or minutes of silence as the
> driver deals with issues around the vehicle.
How about some kids in the car? Dogs? How about some talkative wives or
mothers-in-law? Do they know when to shut up any better? Should we ban
them from riding in cars? Of course, dialing the phone might be
dangerous. But no less than looking up the direction without first
pulling over to stop. There is no law banning that. People with common
sense do it anyway. People without don't and won't.
> Anyone driving a vehicle who diverts 1% of their attention away from
> that task - bearing in mind the consequences of their inattention -
> deserves everything the law can throw at them.
The natural conclusions from these statement would be to allow one seat
per car, ban radio broadcasting, road advertisement, etc. I would also
suggest a special law that orders nice looking women not to show up
anywhere close to the streets and roads unless they hide their figure
and face.
> This isn't a "personal freedom" issue - the family coming the other way has rights, too.
But still, there should be some common sense. If some jerk feeling his
tank at the self service gas station made a fire, it would not be wise
to order all stations to be full-served. Although, to ban smoking there
is a right thing to do.
Well, it came out to be much more than $0.02...
Andrei