DOT to ban phones in cars

[DinoLast]

DinoLast, I agree with you that it was entirely the responsibility of the driver who hit you to stay in his lane. You were not at fault.

DC, I'm not entirely clear on what you're saying.

Thanks man.
At the end of the day we are just debating the issue. I'm genuinely not angry with people for disagreeing with me, all I want is people to not go through the same ordeal I had to

 

[devilof76]

I understand that perfectly. You're not the only one.

I have a major issue with drunk driving laws, essentially because they're useless. One afternoon in the late 90's, a local high school senior accepted to Boston University for journalism (an only child) was riding his bike in a residential neighborhood. He was killed by a drunk driver.

Sometime within the past five years, that same driver was arrested on his ninth OUI charge. I have no respect for a legal system that holds the life of that man higher than the life of that child. Simple as that.

 

[Kamandi]

Why make car producers responsible for fixing this problem when the cell phone is the focus? Rather than car makers covering the cost for jammers make cell providers deal with this.

I heard earlier today about a mobile app that uses GPS to detect when the phone is in motion at speeds greater than 5 mph. All calls become disabled except emergency numbers like 911.

Another compromise would be to only allow bluetooth earpiece calls after the phone is traveling at car speed. In my state cell calls are legal, but the driver must use an earpiece. Why should I have a piece of crap jammer attached to my car I shouldn't have to buy?

 

[devilof76]

But why should people who are capable of driving while using their phones be held responsible for the people who insist on doing it when they aren't capable?

 

[Kamandi]

I understand (and agree with) your civil liberties argument. At the same time I'd like to see lawmakers at least focus on the proper root cause - drivers with phones, not cars

Phone jammers are a stupid idea with lots of unintended consequences, most of all degrading cell phone reliability for people who are simply near a busy street. It also burdens the car industry with R&D costs and hardware costs.

The real answer is to subpoena the cell records of a driver responsible for serious accident and determine if they were on the phone/texting prior to the incident. It's been done many times. Then you throw the book at that person.

But politicians like to offer "solutions".

 

[ProgMatinee]

Do you guys really think that "throwing the book" is really a deterent for these types of things?

I understand the hesitance to infringe on a liberty, but people don't get deterred from doing these things because they all have a "it will never happen to me" attitude to this kind of stuff. I don't think the severity of the punishment really changes people's habits in this case.

 

[BadMoon]

Do you guys really think that "throwing the book" is really a deterent for these types of things?

I understand the hesitance to infringe on a liberty, but people don't get deterred from doing these things because they all have a "it will never happen to me" attitude to this kind of stuff. I don't think the severity of the punishment really changes people's habits in this case.

Doesn't really effect drunk driving either. Do you propose we go back to making alcohol illegal because some idiots choose to drink and drive?

 

[ProgMatinee]

Doesn't really effect drunk driving either. Do you propose we go back to making alcohol illegal because some idiots choose to drink and drive?

You know I like to drink. LOL. I will say, I never quite understood the point of a parking lot at a bar.

 

[Kamandi]

@ProgMatinee - It makes more sense than holding car makers responsible for phone use.

The proposed law burdens one party (car makers) for the actions of another (cell makers/people who use them irresponsibly) by proposing the installation of hardware in the car.

Argue whatever you want, you have yet to convince me the root cause is the car.

If the law were to create any regulation it makes more sense to at least focus on cell makers for the solution.

 

[karamazov80]

Doesn't really effect drunk driving either. Do you propose we go back to making alcohol illegal because some idiots choose to drink and drive?

Well, it is currently illegal to drink while in a car. Devil (I believe) thinks this is an unjust law.

 

[Kamandi]

And I think you've just put words in somebody else's mouth.

Drinking is proven to impair driving, while talking is not.

There are solutions to free up the hands of the driver, and many states already require their use.

Also nobody has even mentioned what a power grab this represents by the DOT to assert authority over cell phone use, an FCC domain. The jammer itself is a transmission device.

 

[karamazov80]

This was said:

I see no reason for a person who has been drinking to not drive if they are no threat to anyone beyond themself.

Personally, I disagree. And distraction impairs driving. My issue here was always more with the texting than talking.

 

[BadMoon]

And I think you've just put words in somebody else's mouth.

Drinking is proven to impair driving, while talking is not.

There are solutions to free up the hands of the driver, and many states already require their use.

Also nobody has even mentioned what a power grab this represents by the DOT to assert authority over cell phone use, an FCC domain. The jammer itself is a transmission device.

I think this needs clarified. Talking on a cell phone HAS been proven in studies to impare driving as much and in some studies more than drunk driving.

However, I'm still very much against this. I just want to make it clear that there has been studies done to prove that it does in fact impair driving.

That said so does everything else a person may do in a car. You know playing with your radio, navigation, and everything else one may find in a modern car. IMO thats just as dangerous.

 

[hairlesswookiee]

I think this needs clarified. Talking on a cell phone HAS been proven in studies to impare driving as much and in some studies more than drunk driving.

However, I'm still very much against this. I just want to make it clear that there has been studies done to prove that it does in fact impair driving.

That said so does everything else a person may do in a car. You know playing with your radio, navigation, and everything else one may find in a modern car. IMO thats just as dangerous.

Yes. I've been rear ended at light by someone who was playing with their radio. Luckily nobody was hurt, but yeah even looking down to change stations slows your reaction time.

 

[ProgMatinee]

@ProgMatinee - It makes more sense than holding car makers responsible for phone use.

The proposed law burdens one party (car makers) for the actions of another (cell makers/people who use them irresponsibly) by proposing the installation of hardware in the car.

Argue whatever you want, you have yet to convince me the root cause is the car.

If the law were to create any regulation it makes more sense to at least focus on cell makers for the solution.

I'm on your side of that, I said so a few pages ago. Its the phone, not the car. I don't own a phone, so why should the car I drive have an added cost?

I also agree that the DOT doesn't have jurisdiction over cell phone use (thats probably why they are proposing to put the tech in the car).

 

[barryo]

cell phones & texting in cars............that's for amateurs ..........

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/klteYv1Uv9A?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/klteYv1Uv9A?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[ShadowX81]

But why should people who are capable of driving while using their phones be held responsible for the people who insist on doing it when they aren't capable?

The same reason that the people who are capable of driving with a blood alcohol level of above .08 are held responsible for those that aren't.

Considering it endangers the safety of everyone on the road, its better to just ban it. Especially because it is not a necessity and those that cannot do it safely will continue to endanger the public if you allow it.

Rules exist because 95% of the time they work in every case. However you still need them 100% of the time because everyone thinks that they are in that 5%.

Your car also has an added cost becuase of the seatbelts and airbags. No one is advocating to take those out too.

Drinking is proven to impair driving, while talking is not.

Actually mythbusters did an experiment proving that cell phone use is similar in distraction level to being somewhat drunk (legally they could only do road tests with them at a .078).

And this law seems more about banning texting, which is much more dangerous.

 

[tomandshell]

Would this impact my use of GPS? Because I've really become dependent upon that when I travel.

 

[karamazov80]

Would this impact my use of GPS? Because I've really become dependent upon that when I travel.

It might as well. Because once you take away our ability to text while driving, the arbitrary imprisonment of political opponents, torture and "disappearance" of dissidents, and general institution of Martian Law are not far behind.

 

[devilof76]

The problem isn't the car, or the phone. It's the person using it.

The real answer is to subpoena the cell records of a driver responsible for serious accident and determine if they were on the phone/texting prior to the incident. It's been done many times. Then you throw the book at that person.

Yes. That is exactly the answer.

The same reason that the people who are capable of driving with a blood alcohol level of above .08 are held responsible for those that aren't.

There are people plenty capable of driving safely with higher levels.

Considering it endangers the safety of everyone on the road, its better to just ban it. Especially because it is not a necessity and those that cannot do it safely will continue to endanger the public if you allow it.

Making it illegal doesn't protect you.

Besides that, had you considered how dangerous it is to drive 70-75mph? Or to drive in heavy rain and snow? How about driving a car that passed inspection when the sticker was up, but couldn't pass it a month later?

Do you really think that treating everyone like they're as inept as the worst is a solution to the problem of every real or imagined danger you face in day to day life?

Rules exist because 95% of the time they work in every case. However you still need them 100% of the time because everyone thinks that they are in that 5%.

95%!!!!

Your car also has an added cost becuase of the seatbelts and airbags. No one is advocating to take those out too.

Because when those laws were passed, people were much more inclined to roll over and lube their backsides in the name of safety. People are still just as much a bunch of pushovers now, but those who aren't are much more vocal.

I still upbraid cops if they give me a ticket for not wearing my seatbelt.

And this law seems more about banning texting, which is much more dangerous.

Well then that seals it. Texting is more dangerous than drunk driving, and we all know how well drunk driving laws work. 95% of the time.

It might as well. Because once you take away our ability to text while driving, the arbitrary imprisonment of political opponents, torture and "disappearance" of dissidents, and general institution of Martian Law are not far behind.

Or yellow stars. I know, crazy right?