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

#351
#351
lawgator1 said:
I've never said you'd get 100 percent compliance. Deterrence is the best we can hope for, I agree.

What's wrong with that? We don't get 100 percent compliance with any criminal statute. Does that mean we should just quit?
Click to expand...

You are comparing REAL crimes with something that is not a crime (talking on a phone). Big difference.
 
#352
#352
lawgator1 said:
I've never said you'd get 100 percent compliance. Deterrence is the best we can hope for, I agree.

What's wrong with that? We don't get 100 percent compliance with any criminal statute. Does that mean we should just quit?
Click to expand...

That whole pesky freedom thing irritates you
 
#356
#356
lawgator1 said:
I've never said you'd get 100 percent compliance. Deterrence is the best we can hope for, I agree.

What's wrong with that? We don't get 100 percent compliance with any criminal statute. Does that mean we should just quit?
Click to expand...

What % of compliance should we anticipate? If it costs us $ millions and takes us from 2% of drivers texting down to 1.98% of drivers texting does that mean we should just quit?
 
#357
#357
lawgator1 said:
I don't see how thinking there are going to be less accidents makes you more aggressive.
Click to expand...

No, but I think an argument can be made for the opposite. I think if a person believes there is an increase probability of an accident because of a certain behavior or potential distraction, they will take countermeasures offset said risk. For example people who text or call on a cell phone, a person might slow down their speed. As volinbham alluded to, behavior economics can take over. For example, I am guilty of drinking an driving. I do it quite a bit. This is not to be confused with drunk driving (driving impaired). If I go to a bar and have a couple drinks, I drive home. Theoretically, their is an inherent risk economically, to others, and to myself. Once I have had a beer or two, I turn into the best driver ever. I stop at the stop lights for like five seconds, always under the speed limit (I'm a habitual speeder), and always have my turning signal on way in advance. Although I ought to drive like that all the time, I take those measures to make sure I offset the potential risk.

I know there are people who don't take countermeasures to offset a known potential risk; however I tend to think there is a good percentage of people (like me) who do.
 
#358
#358
PKT_VOL said:
No, but I think an argument can be made for the opposite. I think if a person believes there is an increase probability of an accident because of a certain behavior or potential distraction, they will take countermeasures offset said risk. For example people who text or call on a cell phone, a person might slow down their speed. As volinbham alluded to, behavior economics can take over. For example, I am guilty of drinking an driving. I do it quite a bit. This is not to be confused with drunk driving (driving impaired). If I go to a bar and have a couple drinks, I drive home. Theoretically, their is an inherent risk economically, to others, and to myself. Once I have had a beer or two, I turn into the best driver ever. I stop at the stop lights for like five seconds, always under the speed limit (I'm a habitual speeder), and always have my turning signal on way in advance. Although I ought to drive like that all the time, I take those measures to make sure I offset the potential risk.

I know there are people who don't take countermeasures to offset a known potential risk; however I tend to think there is a good percentage of people (like me) who do.
Click to expand...


Are you actually arguing that people texting and being on cell phones while driving is overall a good thing safety-wise?

Really?
 
#359
#359
lawgator1 said:
Are you actually arguing that people texting and being on cell phones while driving is overall a good thing safety-wise?

Really?
Click to expand...

For those of us with a measure of self control, yes. I think the law should be crafted so that you could voluntarily take away your own privileges and put some sort of marker on your car that says "stop me if I'm texting" to the police.
 
#360
#360
lawgator1 said:
Are you actually arguing that people texting and being on cell phones while driving is overall a good thing safety-wise?

Really?
Click to expand...

I sure didn't. I am saying that there are many people out there, who, if given no other reasonable option, will indulge in the risky behavior (texting or using cell phones), but, will take various countermeasures to hopefully keep said risk at a minimum.
 
#361
#361
theFallGuy said:
It's hysterical that you all assume that talking on cell phones and driving will miraculously stop because there is suddenly a law against it.

Secondly, there are numerous legitimate reasons why someone might need to talk on the phone while driving but let's throw that out the window because a select few idiots don't know how to talk on the phone and drive appropriately.

Lastly, you all realize you are just giving cops another excuse to pull you over without having probable cause for anything right? "Gee officer why did you pull me over?" "Well I clearly saw you with the cell phone in your hand". Hello police state.
Click to expand...

Name them.

Did these reasons suddenly appear in the mid 90s when everyone started getting cell phones? What did people do before then? The world didn't stop and no one's business suddenly went insolvent becasue they couldn't talk on the phone while driving.
 
#362
#362
YorkVol said:
For those of us with a measure of self control, yes. I think the law should be crafted so that you could voluntarily take away your own privileges and put some sort of marker on your car that says "stop me if I'm texting" to the police.
Click to expand...

Bullsh**
 
#363
#363
YorkVol said:
For those of us with a measure of self control, yes. I think the law should be crafted so that you could voluntarily take away your own privileges and put some sort of marker on your car that says "stop me if I'm texting" to the police.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if someone gets in a wreck because they were texting, charge them with wreckless driving. No need to ban cell phones while driving:

1) You avoid the cost of enforcement, while still establishing a deterrent
2) Drivers that can safely text and drive (say at a stop light) will not be doing so illegally, so we aren't inconveniencing them
3) All these violations give bad cops just that much more opportunity to racially profile.

I'm thinking the last point will definitely appeal to LG, but if there's anything he likes more than calling people racist, it's government rules and regulations, so I don't know if we can win him over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#364
#364
2ironVol said:
Name them.

Did these reasons suddenly appear in the mid 90s when everyone started getting cell phones? What did people do before then? The world didn't stop and no one's business suddenly went insolvent becasue they couldn't talk on the phone while driving.
Click to expand...

Here's evidence there was a need back in 1966...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns-JASaalj8&feature=related[/youtube]
 
#365
#365
2ironVol said:
Name them.

Did these reasons suddenly appear in the mid 90s when everyone started getting cell phones? What did people do before then? The world didn't stop and no one's business suddenly went insolvent becasue they couldn't talk on the phone while driving.
Click to expand...

Do you have kids? I have 3 and that makes 3 good reasons.

So I should go back to living in the pre-cell phone era for the purpose of supporting your argument?

People also didn't wear bike helmets and seat belts back then and we seemed to be fine. If you want to go back to living in the 70's and 80's let's do it. No more seat belt laws.
 
#367
#367
theFallGuy said:
Do you have kids? I have 3 and that makes 3 good reasons.

So I should go back to living in the pre-cell phone era for the purpose of supporting your argument?

People also didn't wear bike helmets and seat belts back then and we seemed to be fine. If you want to go back to living in the 70's and 80's let's do it. No more seat belt laws.
Click to expand...

:lolabove:
 
#368
#368
YorkVol said:
So I assume you never talk on the phone while driving?
Click to expand...

No he doesn't have a phone because he can't name a single reason anyone would have a need to call someone while in a vehicle. He only uses pay phones and never operates anything that is distracting in car. Nor does he eat, drink, or talk to passengers in a car. Right.....
 
#369
#369
So actually, I'm not joking. I lived in Japan for 3 years and they use a variety of markings on cars to indicate new drivers, elderly, hard of hearing etc. I could see a situation where if you got 2 or 3 moving violations because you were talking on the phone and distracted, you would then have to mark your car as a warning to others.

shougai_2
wheelchair
1 Japan adopted the shamrock symbol to designate handicapped drivers even though the international symbol of a wheelchair is recognized everywhere else in the world.
butterfly-mark
2
The weird butterfly mark is Japan’s “hard of hearing” symbol. Hard of hearing drivers must display these stickers, which forbids other drivers from cutting off or aggressively passing such cars. ear stickerThis butterfly-mark is an obscure, only-in-Japan symbol and other parts of the world use this easy-to-understand ear mark.
deaf-license
fallen leaf mark
3 Officially called the Koreisha mark (kōrei untensha hyōshiki), the fallen leaf mark must be displayed by drivers over 75 (and strongly recommended for those over 70) to warn other drivers of the impending danger.
Shoshinsha mark
4Officially called the Shoshinsha mark (shoshin untensha hyōshiki), new drivers must display the green leaf mark for one year after getting their license to warn other drivers that the driver is not very skilled.

UPDATE:
The Mainichi reports (2009 July 23) that Police want to come up with a new design to replace the “autumn leaf” symbol which designates an elderly driver. A survey has indicated that only around half of people questioned had an idea of what it meant.
 

Attachments

  • shougai_2.gif
    shougai_2.gif
    5 KB · Views: 23
  • tyoukaku_2.gif
    tyoukaku_2.gif
    11.8 KB · Views: 23
  • kourei_2.gif
    kourei_2.gif
    6.8 KB · Views: 23
  • soshsm.jpg
    soshsm.jpg
    8.8 KB · Views: 23
#370
#370
nbakerld said:
Yeah, if someone gets in a wreck because they were texting, charge them with wreckless driving. No need to ban cell phones while driving:

1) You avoid the cost of enforcement, while still establishing a deterrent
2) Drivers that can safely text and drive (say at a stop light) will not be doing so illegally, so we aren't inconveniencing them
3) All these violations give bad cops just that much more opportunity to racially profile.

I'm thinking the last point will definitely appeal to LG, but if there's anything he likes more than calling people racist, it's government rules and regulations, so I don't know if we can win him over.
Click to expand...


* reckless.

And I am sure that the grieving families of those killed by such drivers will be so glad that the at fault drivers were held accountable for it AFTER THE FACT.
 
#371
#371
lawgator1 said:
* reckless.

And I am sure that the grieving families of those killed by such drivers will be so glad that the at fault drivers were held accountable for it AFTER THE FACT.
Click to expand...

I get it. It's not about principle. It's not about utility or practicality. It's all about how it appears.
 
#372
#372
nbakerld said:
I get it. It's not about principle. It's not about utility or practicality. It's all about how it appears.
Click to expand...


Deterrence is specific and general. You can measure specific fairly easily, though you never know for sure what you prevented, just that you caught someone. General is purely speculative. I mean, its real, but its not easy to quantify.
 
#373
#373
Let's ban blunt objects to prevent the murders that are committed by bludgeoning. Sure we could just enforce murder laws after an act has been committed, but I'm sure grieving families of those killed will be so glad that the person at fault will be held accountable for it AFTER THE FACT.
 
#374
#374
2ironVol said:
Name them.

Did these reasons suddenly appear in the mid 90s when everyone started getting cell phones? What did people do before then? The world didn't stop and no one's business suddenly went insolvent becasue they couldn't talk on the phone while driving.
Click to expand...

Yes but the very nature of business communication and communication in general has changed since the advent of cell phones.
 
#375
#375
Verizon legal will love this idea! "yes mam, I need phone records for Jennie Doe phone number 867-5309. I issued her a citation for using her cell while driving. She has denied the allegation so I need all text, incoming and outgoing for said time period.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top