National ban on cell phones and texting while driving! [Archive]

TheJDMan

12-13-2011, 02:29 PM

FINALLY!!!! The NTSB today is calling for a national ban on cell phone use and texting by drivers while driving. It's about damn time! Numbers indicate that distracted drivers now account for more traffic deaths than drunk drivers. While it may be an inconvenence for some of you, there is no amount of inconvenence that is worth a single death. I for one am totally 100% in agreement with the NTSB on this recommendation.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/us/ntsb-cell-phone-ban/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Those of you who use a cell phone and/or text while driving and don't think it has a negitive impact on your driving are in denial. Try this simple test yourself if you think otherwise.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t1#/video/us/2011/12/09/ac-foreman-dangers-of-driving-and-texting.cnn

HotRod47

12-13-2011, 02:38 PM

olason

12-13-2011, 02:50 PM

North Dakota this fall passed the no texting. I think the texting can go away, but the use of cell phones for calling purposes is alright by me. If they want to ban cell phones, it should also be that an officer has to abide as well as they can't have their computer out and assessable while driving.

I know from work and growing up, I am only 20 years old, but cell phones are a convient means of communication. Alright, they are a pain when you try to dig through cover-alls to get your phone out, especially when in a truck. The farm radios we use can be just as distracting as a cell phone other than the not needing to dial. I don't see the total cell phone usage going away especially if a double stand is already happening. The problem with cell phones is more people who are not taking into account the hazards they are taking on when they are on the phone.

Why should a farmer, in a pickup, truck, or tractor, not be allowed to use his cell phone while driving if he is the only person within a mile or two of his location? I use mine a lot while driving, but I don't like using it in what I consider a city, 90,000 people. I can see a ban when on Interstate and in the city.

garickman

12-13-2011, 03:12 PM

I think it's funny how it is illegal in Connecticut to talk on the phone and drive, but a cop can do it all day long. I would love someone to explain to me why it's ok for them? They say it is for emergency purposes, but I followed a state trooper down the highway this morning for 30 miles, he was on his phone the entire time. How big of an emergency could that possibly have been.

Double standards suck. If I can't do it (which I agree with by the way) than neither should they be able to.

Sorry for the high jack....... now back to your regular scheduled program.

I can't speak for the state trooper in Connecticut, but if you have ever served a high risk search warrant where the suspect opened fire on you the minute you came through the door only to find out he was listening to your every move on his scanner or if you have ever followed a narcotics suspect dropping off 8 kilos of cocaine only to have the suspects pull along side your partner who is sitting at a red light in a rental vehilce and shoot him multiple times because they were listening to a scanner and knew what you were driving, you would understand why it is legal for the police to be on a cell phone. I am aware there are police officers who abuse the fact that they are exempt from the law, but it is a necessity for officer safety.

Damn True

12-13-2011, 03:28 PM

We have laws that preclude texting while driving. "Inattentive or distracted driving" is already a ticketing offense in any state I can think of. What purpose does a federal law serve than to further erode the 10th Amendment?

FirebirdSteve

12-13-2011, 03:44 PM

HotRod47

12-13-2011, 04:57 PM

I can't speak for the state trooper in Connecticut, but if you have ever served a high risk search warrant where the suspect opened fire on you the minute you came through the door only to find out he was listening to your every move on his scanner or if you have ever followed a narcotics suspect dropping off 8 kilos of cocaine only to have the suspects pull along side your partner who is sitting at a red light in a rental vehilce and shoot him multiple times because they were listening to a scanner and knew what you were driving, you would understand why it is legal for the police to be on a cell phone. I am aware there are police officers who abuse the fact that they are exempt from the law, but it is a necessity for officer safety.

Well said....I have no argument for that at all. I have friends that are police officers and would not want them hurt. However, it is greatly abused by most here in CT., and that is frustrating to see.

moreHP

12-13-2011, 06:08 PM

So all the new cars that have the hands free blue tooth set up wont be legal? I dont think a hands free set up is any different than talking to your passengers in the car.

sniper

12-13-2011, 06:10 PM

Yea, more laws. What could go wrong?

analyte

12-13-2011, 06:25 PM

[/QUOTE]Those of you who use a cell phone and/or text while driving and don't think it has a negitive impact on your driving are in denial. Try this simple test yourself if you think otherwise.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t1#/video/us/2011/12/09/ac-foreman-dangers-of-driving-and-texting.cnn[/QUOTE]

Ok, I'm confused and not trying to be difficult.

I checked out the link and I'm not sure what's being tested as it appears to be nothing more than how long it takes him to do those tasks while driving. I don't know about anyone else, but I have voice activated dialing on my cell phone. All I have to do is say the name for it to start calling so if I needed to make a call, it won't require me to stare at a phone for six seconds. Not viable or definitive.

Kerry

parsonsj

12-13-2011, 07:06 PM

I can see both sides of this argument. I'm tired of being stuck behind a slow-moving driver in the left lane of the freeway who has no idea I'm behind them, fully alert, and practically reading their lips as they chat away.

I also spend a lot of time on the phone, via hands-free mechanisms. Lately, my iPhone and truck require direct pairing for that to occur, and I have to do it every time I drive the truck. Pairing while driving has got to be as dangerous as texting... I have to code 4 digits.

My daughter tells me that talking on the phone isn't so dangerous... it's the transition from not talking to talking when the phone rings that is a significant distraction.

JMitch19

12-13-2011, 07:52 PM

I agree with what John(or John's daughter) said about transition from not talking to talking being the problem. I mean some people have trouble walking and using a cell phone at the same time. With that said I really don't see what the difference is with talking on my phone and talking to a passenger in my car while taking a drink of water. Opening and closing the water bottle has to be as distracting as answering the phone and I'm carrying on the same conversation with my passenger as I could be on the cell phone. I guess all I'm saying is what's next? Are we going to be told that we can't talk to a passenger while driving a car? How about driving my car while talking to a passenger, listening to the radio, eating a Big Mac, and steering with my knee so the hand that isn't on my Big Mac can grab my drink. Do I need a law to tell me that is a bad idea?

andrewb70

12-13-2011, 07:54 PM

There have been studies that show that enacting "no texting while driving laws" actually increase accidents. This makes perfect sense. If texting and driving is legal, then drivers tend to have a phone up in front of their line of sight while they type a message and drive. However, when texting becomes an illegal activity that carries legal consequences the behavior does not go away, it just becomes more hidden. So drivers will then hold their phones in their lap, out of sight of John Q Law, and thus make the activity more dangerous.

This is a perfect example of how the best of intentions can have negative consequences, because unfortunately, behavior is not changed at the stroke of the law maker's pen.

That argument of course goes way above "what the fukk are the Feds doing meddling in something that is clearly in the domain of the states?!" We do after all have a thing called a Constitution and it does after all specifically state what the Federal government can and cannot do. Right?

Andrew

Damn True

12-13-2011, 08:22 PM

But Andrew...Think of the Children!!!!

parsonsj

12-13-2011, 08:26 PM

We do after all have a thing called a Constitution and it does after all specifically state what the Federal government can and cannot do.Specifically? Not really... I mean, cell phones aren't mentioned at all in the Constitution. :) Just yankin' your chain, my friend.

Kenny

12-13-2011, 08:51 PM

I always wondered why the founding fathers didn't weigh in on the whole cell phone debate....... any decision they made would have been suspect anyway since all they seemed to drive were Mustangs and Broncos. Obvious corporate bias.

ModernMuseum

12-14-2011, 05:12 AM

Texting and driving has been banned here in BC Canada for a year now... along with handling the phone for calling purposes, Bluetooth only. I believe talking via Bluetooth is akin to talking to a passenger or no worse that all the other crazy things folks do in the car while driving!!! Like driving with a f%$#&%g dog on your lap!!!

What? Driving with a dog in your lap in a car is nothing. Check out this retard that I captured a few years ago. :lol:

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2011/12/3596558863_3983ba39da-1.jpg

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2011/12/3597368404_fe31717e79-1.jpg

I am all for banning cell phone communication in cars of all types, save bluetooth. Although still distracting, I think it's the least likely to completely divert your attention.

People pull out in front of me while I'm on my bike all the time. Most of the idiots are TALKING on their phone. Try engaging in a conversation while pulling out into a heavy intersection. It's damn near impossible to do both.

TheJDMan

12-14-2011, 08:55 AM

I consider Distracted driving to be in the same catagory as Drunk driving and it should be treated as an equivalent crime with the same legal consiquences. Distracted drivers caused over 3000 deaths last year according to the NTSB. Drivers I see with phones stuck to their ear are NOT aware of what is going on around them any more than a drunk driver is. How many of you have seen the female driver putting on makeup in her rear view mirror, more distracted driving. Everyone thinks it will not happen to me, that I'm good enough to do both, that it's the other driver that is the problem. Anyone who thinks they can talk or text (or apply makeup) and drive safely is just kidding themselves. Accident statistics show this is especially true of younger drivers under 30. The majority of members here on PT.com recognize the concentration that is required to be a competitive racecar driver. Why is driving on the street any different? In many ways street driving is MORE dangerous than a racetrack. If you have to talk or text, pull over in a safe location and do it SAFELY!

parsonsj

12-14-2011, 09:38 AM

There is no doubt that talking on the phone, even with hands-free devices, reduces concentration. I think we all agree with that. The question is if that is a dangerous practice. Does it reduce concentration to dangerous levels? Is it any worse than talking with a passenger? Is it worse than singing along with the radio? Listening to the radio? Listening to Rush Limbaugh? Al Sharpton?

Those are the hard questions.

As far as driving on a race track goes, at HPDE1 in NASA, you've got a headset and are constantly talking to your instructor. Obviously you are talking about your driving -- except when the instructor wants to know about where you live, or if you like the new Mustangs, or what kind of tires you have on the car (all have happened to me). :)

Not a simple black and white deal, no matter how you look at it.

cheapthrillz

12-14-2011, 01:09 PM

Ok, I'm confused and not trying to be difficult.

I checked out the link and I'm not sure what's being tested as it appears to be nothing more than how long it takes him to do those tasks while driving. I don't know about anyone else, but I have voice activated dialing on my cell phone. All I have to do is say the name for it to start calling so if I needed to make a call, it won't require me to stare at a phone for six seconds. Not viable or definitive.

Kerry

LOL^^^^ My thoughts exactly....

"The Virginia Tech Researchers also found that it takes approximately 1-30 minutes to successfully take a dump. Therefore if you concentrate on your dump, you will drive completely blind for 1 to 30 minutes!"

What a stupid demonstration..... freaking CNN idiots.

andrewb70

12-14-2011, 02:06 PM

Specifically? Not really... I mean, cell phones aren't mentioned at all in the Constitution. :) Just yankin' your chain, my friend.

Neither were smoke signals, and thus are not the domain of the federal government. :-)

Andrew

hifi875

12-14-2011, 02:28 PM

whats next, outlawing car audio system, navigation systems. you can't just pass a new law when a issue arises. its all about personal responsibility.

DartorDemon

12-14-2011, 03:17 PM

shortrack

12-14-2011, 03:20 PM

We have a no texting/cell phone law up here.....cops are allowed.....I drive around town/city all day every day, hasn't slowed anyone down at all.....I personally still take calls but pull over to make a call (the most dangerous part IMO) and stay pulled over till Im done (never used to do that).....I dont have a huge problem with just talking (you can at least keep your eyes on the road) but I have a REAL problem with texting!!.....looking down in your lap for 3 or 4 sec at at time (I NEVER text EVER!) thats BS!!! and the saddest part I see is most of the people texting are 20 somethings (mostly girls) people who need to watch the road the most!.....In this day and age a 20 something girl cant go five minutes without a text!.....just watch one at a stoplight 80% of them will be looking down in their laps texting....I see it everyday its unreal.

Its also said that cell/ texting is like driving drunk, I see that......so cops are allowed to drive drunk????.....I dont know about that.

Kenny

12-14-2011, 03:25 PM

I totally agree with personal freedoms and responsibilities until there are innocent lives at stake. I think a man should be able to stab himself in the eye with an icepick, smoke or eat boogers as long as they are the only ones getting hurt...... I don't even care if he marries a '72 Datsun hubcap. It has no effect on anyone else. Go for it.

That all changes when some moron can't understand that what he/she is doing is dangerous and puts my child's life at risk. It is a shame there has to be a law to start with. If there were less dumba$$es there may be fewer laws. I'm all for culling the herd

parsonsj

12-14-2011, 03:49 PM

Neither were smoke signals, and thus are not the domain of the federal government. :-)I see you chose your example carefully... picking something that existed in 1787, and something that might arguably be left to state control. That was very wise. :)

BulldawgMusclecars

12-14-2011, 04:18 PM

Why not open it up to distracted driver, and leave cell phones out of it? I'm perfectly capable of talking on the phone while driving, yet this is more dangerous in the law's eyes than driving with screaming bratty children in the car, or morons reading books or eating cereal while driving (I have seen both recently...ATL, home of the world's worst drivers).

andrewb70

12-14-2011, 04:23 PM

I see you chose your example carefully... picking something that existed in 1787, and something that might arguably be left to state control. That was very wise. :)

I know how you slippery fellas operate :-)

Andrew

Chevelle598bb

12-14-2011, 06:24 PM

I am going to have to agree with Andrew. This is a states rights issue and the Feds should not be able to make blanket legislation on issues as such. Andrew made a great point about laws such as this not deterring cell phone use while driving. Also if the federal government outlawed cell phone communication while driving then who would enforce it? State police and local law enforcement officers cannot enforce federal law. Are the feds going to start a federal police agency just for traffic violations? That would go over like a turd in a punch bowl.

As far as the numbers for fatality crashes involving cell phone use, the op stated there are approximately 3000 traffic crash related deaths due to distracted driving with cell phones. According to nhtsa there are around 42000 traffic crash related deaths per year from 1999 to 2010, most of which are due to driver inattention. 40% of the 42000 fatalities are crashes where alcohol is a factor in the cause of the crash. Dwi and DUI offenses are hard enough for law enforcement to handle let alone a petty traffic offense. I don't like the person in the left lane driving 10 under the speed limit just as much as the next guy but the Feds passing another law (we already have too many) that will erode our rights even more is just unacceptable. What's next? Will they pass a law where we can't transport our children in our own vehicles? No eating while driving? Make-up? Pro-touring.com app for your smart phone? ;). It all boils down to personal responsibility. We can't keep wiping everyone's butts all the time and expect them to make the right decisions. They will just ask for better toilet paper!

sniper

12-14-2011, 07:12 PM

I am all for banning cell phone communication in cars of all types, save bluetooth.

I think what most people with the above mindset don't get is this. When you crack the door open for an idea you agree with, someone will come behind you and kick that sucker down. Patriot act anyone? Look at where that has gone and headed.

This is the mentality that has this country where it is. If you want to nail a person for causing an accident while using a cell phone, FINE. It was a determining factor. It is just America now. We try not to think about anything, zero tolerance in schools comes to mind.

TheJDMan

12-14-2011, 07:45 PM

This video makes some more good points about distracted driving.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c1#/video/politics/2011/12/14/bts-hersman-ntsb-cell-phone-ban.cnn

Chevelle598bb

12-14-2011, 08:49 PM

There can be a million distracted driving videos and it wouldn't change a thing. Ultimately it boils down to self responsibility and common sense. We all know that not all Americans have either one. Myself, I don't need CNN to give me tips on common sense.

LeadSSled

12-14-2011, 08:57 PM

I agree with the no texting and no hand-held phone calls. But I disagree with proposal for the hands-free/bluetooth phone usage ban. IMHO having a hands-free conversation on the phone is no more distracting than having a hands-free conversation with a passenger inside the car. Are they going to ban all in-car conversation? Don't think so...

cheapthrillz

12-15-2011, 05:50 AM

I still contest that the easiest way to create a safe driving habitat for ALL drivers is to remove all steering wheel airbags and replace them with a 10 inch stainless steel spike......

Mike Holleman

12-15-2011, 06:25 AM

I looked at the NTSB news conference and press release and at no time did they mention a federal law being considered. What they said was that cell phone usage in any form while driving was dangerous and should be banned. They were encouraging all States to consider looking into laws to this effect. My State,NC, has already banned texting while driving, no brainer, and is currently looking into all cell phone usage being banned while driving. I'm in agreement that you cannot drive and do anything else and give the attention needed to be 100% focused on the job of driving the car. So next will it be illegal to eat while driving? How about having a conversation with a passenger? Not to mention beating out that drum solo on the steering wheel to In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida.

cheapthrillz

12-15-2011, 06:54 AM

God forbid you pick up your coffee on the way to work and take a sip.....

ModernMuseum

12-15-2011, 06:59 AM

This law is so stupid. They need to stop punishing everyone because of the dumb people. If they wanna reduce this stuff, they need to make the law apply to people who are obviously distracted. ie: going out of their lane.

I drive all day at work and have to use a phone. I don't have accidents because i'm not a simpleton.

Just because you are seemingly responsible doesn't mean everyone else is. What about the 16-yr old girl who just got her license and is texting/calling her best friend and runs over a motorcyclist? What if that motorcyclist was a friend or relative of yours? Would that change your mind?

I still contest that the easiest way to create a safe driving habitat for ALL drivers is to remove all steering wheel airbags and replace them with a 10 inch stainless steel spike......

Guess where your face is headed when a soccer mom rear ends you because she was chatting with her sister about how much she should spend on Christmas presents? :smoke:

There can be a million distracted driving videos and it wouldn't change a thing. Ultimately it boils down to self responsibility and common sense. We all know that not all Americans have either one. Myself, I don't need CNN to give me tips on common sense.

Yerp, except that most individuals think they are the exception to the rule until it is too late. There are MANY countries that have already banned cell phones while driving - America is just a little behind on the curve. Some people do still use their phones in these countries because they think they won't get caught, but the fines are stiff, which also helps to curb the behavior.

Just the other day I was walking in from lunch with a friend. I parked at the back of our parking lot so we were talking towards our building at the edge of the lot (where people turn around when looking for a spot amongst all the rows of cars). Some lady talking on her phone, going around 5-10mph was making loops looking for a spot. We crossed in front of her at the end of one of the rows, so she should have known that we were there and the direction we were headed. She did a U-turn in our direction and met us at the next row, seriously almost running over us, barely 10 seconds later. I had to grab my friend's hand so we didn't get run over even though she was creeping along. I don't think she ever even saw us, even though we were in the right.

Bluetooth is probably the safest alternative and will probably be considered anyway since it has become such a commonly integrated technology.

cheapthrillz

12-15-2011, 07:05 AM

Guess where your face is headed when a soccer mom rear ends you because she was chatting with her sister about how much she should spend on Christmas presents? :smoke:

Use your brain dude.... soccer mom wouldn't rear end me because she would be driving carefully because she also has a 10" stainless spike mounted on her steering wheel.

JEFFTATE

12-15-2011, 07:11 AM

I think the police should give tickets for distracted driving .
It is as dangerous as speeding .

andrewb70

12-15-2011, 07:28 AM

I still contest that the easiest way to create a safe driving habitat for ALL drivers is to remove all steering wheel airbags and replace them with a 10 inch stainless steel spike......

This example is obviously extreme, but holds a lot of truth. Every "safety" device that is implemented in a vehicle makes us just ever so slightly bolder. It is not a conscious choice, but it is indeed what happens. Economists call this moral hazard. Essentially, when risk (whatever that risk may be physical, psychological, financial, etc...) is reduced, individuals will alter their behavior. This is one reason why race car drivers get equipped with every safety device imaginable. Yes, we want to save a driver's life in case of a crash, but race car drivers will also push harder if they know that their risk of injury is greatly reduced.

Andrew

andrewb70

12-15-2011, 07:32 AM

I think the police should give tickets for distracted driving .
It is as dangerous as speeding .

Great idea! How do you suppose we define "distracted driving?" How is a police officer to know when a person is "distracted?" Why don't we just have one police officer assigned to each person and they can monitor all of our activities 24/7 and make sure that we drive right, eat right, sleep 8 hours per day, don't do drugs, don't smoke, don't work on our own cars because that's dangerous you know, say "please" and "thank you" and call our mother once a week...

Andrew

cheapthrillz

12-15-2011, 07:33 AM

Thanks Andrew. If I knew how to use big boy words, I would have spoken it as elegantly as you. Atleast somebody understands where I'm coming from....

parsonsj

12-15-2011, 07:43 AM

Why don't we just have one police officer assigned to each person and they can monitor all of our activities 24/7 and make sure that we drive right, eat right, sleep 8 hours per day, don't do drugs, don't smoke, don't work on our own cars because that's dangerous you know, say "please" and "thank you" and call our mother once a week...Jeff gets a call to come and pick up the remains of his destroyed argument, but when he gets there all he finds is somebody else's straw, some worn-out farmer's clothes, and an old hat. :)

andrewb70

12-15-2011, 07:51 AM

Jeff gets a call to come and pick up the remains of his destroyed argument, but when he gets there all he finds is somebody else's straw, some worn-out farmer's clothes, and an old hat. :)

What you call "straw man", I call a natural progression of proposed action. The value of any argument can be assessed by carrying it's logic to its ultimate conclusion.

Besides, police can already give tickets for "distracted driving," it is called careless or reckless driving.

Andrew

ModernMuseum

12-15-2011, 08:12 AM

Use your brain dude.... soccer mom wouldn't rear end me because she would be driving carefully because she also has a 10" stainless spike mounted on her steering wheel.

Your hypothesis assumes that soccer moms can think more than one step ahead. Myth debunked! :smoke:

Black93GT

12-15-2011, 08:19 AM

In CA there has been a ban on cell phone use unless with a hands free device. I'd bet more people call and text now than ever. Lotta good its done. I've even seen motorcycle riders talking and texting.

I admidt I call/text while driving.... and yet I spend most of my time behind the wheel cursing at other drivers who are consumed by talking and texting. You're driving so f'ing drive already. It comes down to task saturation, which task has mental priority and the driving situation. There are people who are so uncoordinated they can't walk and chew bubble gum.... let alone drive a vehicle and adjust the cabin temprature.... yet they are on the road and equally dangerous as a texting teenager. They can't maintain speed and/or lane position to begin with.... now stick a phone in their hands.

I agree that while it certainly doesn't make you a safer driver, sticking with a hands free devices then its no worse than changing a CD and talking to a passenger.

cheapthrillz

12-15-2011, 08:34 AM

Your hypothesis assumes that soccer moms can think more than one step ahead. Myth debunked! :smoke:

:offtopic:

What makes me, you, or anybody else different from "soccer mom"? We can't always be three steps ahead. Everybody has mental lapses.... You missed the point of my idea..... people wouldn't make as many careless actions if their sense of security and safety was not there. They've become so reliant on their safety equipment that they think they are indestructable....

ModernMuseum

12-15-2011, 09:13 AM

:offtopic:

What makes me, you, or anybody else different from "soccer mom"? We can't always be three steps ahead. Everybody has mental lapses.... You missed the point of my idea..... people wouldn't make as many careless actions if their sense of security and safety was not there. They've become so reliant on their safety equipment that they think they are indestructable....

I didn't miss your point. That was a joke.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2011/12/imagesqtbnANd9GcRY4adFXH6fxTjRX4xDNdncSU-1.jpg

cheapthrillz

12-15-2011, 09:30 AM

I didn't miss your point. That was a joke.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2011/12/imagesqtbnANd9GcRY4adFXH6fxTjRX4xDNdncSU-1.jpg

Gotcha... hard to pickout sarcasm through text.

parsonsj

12-15-2011, 09:48 AM

Besides, police can already give tickets for "distracted driving," it is called careless or reckless driving. Now, we're back on track. I agree, and maybe the way to proceed might be to allow visual sighting of a handheld electronic device to be used as evidence of distracted driving.

One of my favorite family stories involves the disbelief my sister-in-law expressed when she got a ticket for using her cell phone while driving in New York. The best part was what she said to her caller as the officer stood outsider her window: "Hang on a minute, I just got pulled over".

andrewb70

12-16-2011, 08:12 AM

Now, we're back on track. I agree, and maybe the way to proceed might be to allow visual sighting of a handheld electronic device to be used as evidence of distracted driving.

So you have a cellphone in your pants pocket, you get in the car and start driving. Ten minutes into your 30 minute commute you realize that the phone is a bit uncomfortable and while you are stopped at a red light, you reach in your pants pocket and move the phone to your shirt pocket. Of course you didn't see the officer in the lane next to you, who just spotted what looks like a "handheld electronic device" at which point he pulls you over and gives you a ticket to distracted driving. Sounds swell.

Instead of trying to pass all these silly laws that continually attempt to preempt some sort of imaginary danger or risk that some "dogooder" deems "unacceptable" why don't we concentrate on actual ACTIONS that are the result of "distracted" driving. If we are to assume that local law enforcement officers will be burdened with the added responsibility of enforcing "distracted" driving, why not make it easy on them. LEOs are already trained to spot erratic driving that can be caused by drunk driving or other distractions. Most states traffic laws already include provisions for "careless driving." This is a lesser charge than reckless driving and includes all manners of behavior that are the result of poor vehicle control resulting, but not limited to being distracted.

In other words, any proposed ban on cellphones in cars is redundant and places an unnecessary burden on LEOs.

Andrew

DirtShark

12-16-2011, 09:23 AM