NTSB recommends ban on use of cell phones or texting while driving

#276
#276
volmanbill said:
I'm actually on both sides of this thread. Seatbelt usage would not seem to effect the safety of others while "distracted" driving obviously does. If I kill myself then so be it. If I'm a danger to others then I'm of the opinion that it should be "regulated".
Click to expand...

You also have to look at the economic impact of uninsured people kissing pavement.
 
#277
#277
GAVol said:
You also have to look at the economic impact of uninsured people kissing pavement.
Click to expand...

Should healthcare providers be legally obliged to provide care to the uninsured?

Do healthcare providers even have a moral obligation to provide care to the uninsured?

If you look at the first categorical imperative (with my actions I create a universal maxim), then in being uninsured and unable to pay for medical care I therefore assert that everyone should be uninsured and unable to pay for medical care. If everyone is uninsured and unable to pay for medical care, then nobody ends up paying for the costs associated with medical practice; this leads to an overall dearth of medical care.

Thus, by stating that it is a moral obligation to provide healthcare to the uninsured, one is, according to Kantian Morality, making the assertion that medical care should not exist, or at least exist in enough abundance to be accessible and/or provide adequate care.*

*(This is why some view Kant as a deontological consequentialist).

Therefore, individuals who make the decision not to be insured should be denied medical coverage that they cannot pay for.
 
#280
#280
lawgator1 said:
People will drive more recklessly because they will ponder the fact that they are not texting and so therefore can be reckless?

[X] Confirmed. Poster is not very bright.
Click to expand...

I won't argue about the last piece, 23 years in Army Intel proves I'm not very bright.

As to the first part, well you turned that around in a strange way...

To put it another way. Imagine you are crossing the street and it is a dark night. If the street light is out do you run across and hope you don't get hit, or do you look carefully, make sure it is clear and then walk briskly but watchfully so as not to trip? Point is as we advertise greater safety, we encourage riskier behavior. But when we know there is some danger we take measures to ensure our own safety.and those around us.

Next question, if these devices are so unsafe why have we increased their use in the vehicles we demand go the fastest? Every police cruiser, for truck and ambulance has a laptop, cell phone radio,camera and more all in reach and view of the driver, but no one complains about those being unsafe.
 
#284
#284
YorkVol said:
I won't argue about the last piece, 23 years in Army Intel proves I'm not very bright.

As to the first part, well you turned that around in a strange way...

To put it another way. Imagine you are crossing the street and it is a dark night. If the street light is out do you run across and hope you don't get hit, or do you look carefully, make sure it is clear and then walk briskly but watchfully so as not to trip? Point is as we advertise greater safety, we encourage riskier behavior. But when we know there is some danger we take measures to ensure our own safety.and those around us.

Next question, if these devices are so unsafe why have we increased their use in the vehicles we demand go the fastest? Every police cruiser, for truck and ambulance has a laptop, cell phone radio,camera and more all in reach and view of the driver, but no one complains about those being unsafe.
Click to expand...


Thankyou for your service, but the argument is of course fatally flawed because it depends on the absurd assumption that drivers will consciously think themselves so much safer because of a ban on cell phones that it causes them to change the way they drive.

That's just nonsense relative to this issue.
 
#285
#285
I do not understand the logic behind the cell-phone bans. According to studies, where does the danger lie? Does it lie in simply holding the phone to your ear and having a conversation? Does it lie in dialing? Most people I know that have hands free sets still dial/search their phonebook with their hands. I know very few who use voice-activated dialing, because the technology is just not good enough (I can't speak for SIRI). So, the prohibition on cell phone usage while permitting hands-free devices seems fatally flawed, anyhow.

If the danger is that one does not have two hands on the wheel, then governments might as well go ahead and ban eating, drinking (non-alcoholic beverages), standard transmissions, etc.

If not, then the entire thing is a farce.
 
#286
#286
therealUT said:
I do not understand the logic behind the cell-phone bans. According to studies, where does the danger lie? Does it lie in simply holding the phone to your ear and having a conversation? Does it lie in dialing? Most people I know that have hands free sets still dial/search their phonebook with their hands. I know very few who use voice-activated dialing, because the technology is just not good enough (I can't speak for SIRI). So, the prohibition on cell phone usage while permitting hands-free devices seems fatally flawed, anyhow.

If the danger is that one does not have two hands on the wheel, then governments might as well go ahead and ban eating, drinking (non-alcoholic beverages), standard transmissions, etc.

If not, then the entire thing is a farce.
Click to expand...

IIRC some research has shown the conversation to be the most distracting part (phone call).

I don't think there's any comparison to texting which requires considerable hand use and looking at the device.
 
#287
#287
volinbham said:
IIRC some research has shown the conversation to be the most distracting part (phone call).

I don't think there's any comparison to texting which requires considerable hand use and looking at the device.
Click to expand...

Then why allow hands-free devices?

Hell, if conversation is distracting, why allow passengers? music? NPR? audio-books?
 
Last edited:
#288
#288
lawgator1 said:
Thankyou for your service, but the argument is of course fatally flawed because it depends on the absurd assumption that drivers will consciously think themselves so much safer because of a ban on cell phones that it causes them to change the way they drive.

That's just nonsense relative to this issue.
Click to expand...

I believe the point is that the gains from removing cell phones may be partially mitigated by less concern about being careful. It's a straight forward behavioral economics concept.

The earlier example with seat belts and airbags applies - as people believe they are more and more protected from the ravages of an accident they may in fact become less careful drivers.
 
#289
#289
volinbham said:
I believe the point is that the gains from removing cell phones may be partially mitigated by less concern about being careful. It's a straight forward behavioral economics concept.

The earlier example with seat belts and airbags applies - as people believe they are more and more protected from the ravages of an accident they may in fact become less careful drivers.
Click to expand...


Garbage. Can you name a single person who has ever said he/she drives unsafely because, f it, the tech will save me? And even if you could find someone to say that, how does that compare to the millions who have in fact been saved by these devices?

And even if such an argument could be made with regard to devices that deploy to help you in an accident, that does not translate at all to not being on the phone when you drive.

What, you think people will run more red lights or speed because they think its safer to do so now that texting is banned?

Nutz
 
#292
#292
lawgator1 said:
Garbage. Can you name a single person who has ever said he/she drives unsafely because, f it, the tech will save me? And even if you could find someone to say that, how does that compare to the millions who have in fact been saved by these devices?

And even if such an argument could be made with regard to devices that deploy to help you in an accident, that does not translate at all to not being on the phone when you drive.

What, you think people will run more red lights or speed because they think its safer to do so now that texting is banned?

Nutz
Click to expand...

Behavioral Econ says otherwise. It's not about running redlights or speeding. It's more about consciousness of distraction. No one is saying it fully mitigates the effects of the ban.
 
#293
#293
NTSB can say what they want; this 'ban' won’t change anything. It is an unenforceable law, kinda like the dialing when driving issue that came up a couple of years ago. If someone wants to text while driving they will. They are not going to have an epiphany and put the phone down be cause of some retarded NTSB ban. It is about as stupid as the seatbelt law.
 
#294
#294
volinbham said:
Behavioral Econ says otherwise. It's not about running redlights or speeding. It's more about consciousness of distraction. No one is saying it fully mitigates the effects of the ban.
Click to expand...

And economists told us our houses would never go down in value. Well guess what 2012 looks like the 6th year in a row of declining values.

The argument that we shouldn't ban talking on the phone while driving because we are more cautious drivers while talking on the phone vs not talking on the phone is stupid
 
#296
#296
orangeslice13 said:
I have no problem with NPR. TRUT rarely does anything by accident. I thought it was odd he went NPR insted of talk radio. So I poked at him to see if he would elaborate further.
Click to expand...

Subconsciously, I probably think that if you are listening to other talk radio you are already a menace...:shades:
 
#297
#297
VolsNSkinsFan said:
The argument that we shouldn't ban talking on the phone while driving because we are more cautious drivers while talking on the phone vs not talking on the phone is stupid
Click to expand...

Depends on the person. Some do, some don't. This rational is not limited to the use of cells phones.
 
#298
#298
VolsNSkinsFan said:
The argument that we shouldn't ban talking on the phone while driving because we are more cautious drivers while talking on the phone vs not talking on the phone is stupid
Click to expand...

Hypothetical:

Science Institution (SI) releases a peer-reviewed and highly-esteemed study which empirically demonstrates that the majority of individuals are more careless drivers while they are talking on a cell-phone than when they are not.

Man A contacts SI and requests to go through the study. For A, the study actually proves that he is more careless when not talking on a cell-phone. In fact, every single one of the observers says that while A is not talking on the cell-phone, he is a very reckless driver. SI thinks that the man is intentionally acting in this manner to skew the statistics, so they have him analysed by psychologists and psychiatrists, and then, unbeknownst to A, they put a 'tail' on him when he leaves. Again, they observe that A is a dangerous driver while not talking on the phone; yet, while on the phone he is a very safe driver.

Should A be allowed (or even encouraged) to use a cell-phone while driving?
 
#299
#299
therealUT said:
Subconsciously, I probably think that if you are listening to other talk radio you are already a menace...:shades:
Click to expand...

Ha. I listen to NPR till they tick me off. Then I listen to Talk till they tick me off. I'm an enigma, a man without a party. You already knew that though.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top