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

#154
#154
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Like I said, we are going in circles here. You claim more accidents, sure there may be more, but how severe are they? We can all deal with fender bender on the side of the road, but I am talking about serious injuries requiring lots of our resources responding, which are more likely to happen if you are not wearing a seatbelt

FARS Encyclopedia

here is the NTSB data showing a 20% drop in death rates since 1994.
Click to expand...

It's on you to answer these kinds of questions. You want to exact change. You want to devote resources to enforcing the law. The onus is on you to find support that this law will make us better off.

You are simply guessing that it will result in greater convenience for other motorists.
 
#156
#156
therealUT said:
Can you point out the logical flaw? Or, is this just an empty retort you use of which you have no comprehension?
Click to expand...

By your logic this argument makes sense:

If I cannot drink my Bourbon while driving you cannot drink your coke next to me in a movie.
 
#158
#158
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Yea pretty simple. The less injured you are, the less resources we have to provide you.
Click to expand...

Wrong. If you die on impact, there would be less resources used than if you suffered massive brain hemorrhaging.

So, a reduction in fatalities tells us nothing as applied to your convenience argument.
 
#163
#163
slh1089 said:
By your logic this argument makes sense:

If I cannot drink my Bourbon while driving you cannot drink your coke next to me in a movie.
Click to expand...

While I agree with what you are trying to get at; you do not get it by an illogical statement such as the one above. Feel free to learn how to use syllogisms and logic, though. There are plenty of resources out there to help.

By logic, this argument makes sense:

If A has the right to do whatever A pleases as long as he does not infringe upon B's right to do as B pleases, then A can drink bourbon while driving as doing so does not infringe upon B's right to do as B pleases.

The moment that A actually infringes upon B, which would be the accident/car wreck/collision, is the moment in which A has violated the rights of B and has thus committed a crime.
 
#164
#164
nbakerld said:
It's on you to answer these kinds of questions. You want to exact change. You want to devote resources to enforcing the law. The onus is on you to find support that this law will make us better off.

You are simply guessing that it will result in greater convenience for other motorists.
Click to expand...

Utter and complete BS. Just establishing the law itself will enhance safety because there is always a segment of the population(even if it is a small one) that is going to obey the laws. It isn't a guess either. There are literally tons of accidents every single year as a result of someone using their cell phone. There are probably many others that were caused by it, but weren't attributed to it.
 
#166
#166
2ironVol said:
Utter and complete BS. Just establishing the law itself will enhance safety because there is always a segment of the population(even if it is a small one) that is going to obey the laws. It isn't a guess either. There are literally tons of accidents every single year as a result of someone using their cell phone. There are probably many others that were caused by it, but weren't attributed to it.
Click to expand...

:lolabove:

You live in fantasyland.
 
#168
#168
therealUT said:
Wrong. If you die on impact, there would be less resources used than if you suffered massive brain hemorrhaging.

So, a reduction in fatalities tells us nothing as applied to your convenience argument.
Click to expand...

False... So when you die in a car accident, someone calls 911 and they send a hearse. Cause thats all you need right? LMAO
 
#170
#170
therealUT said:
Wrong. If you die on impact, there would be less resources used than if you suffered massive brain hemorrhaging.

So, a reduction in fatalities tells us nothing as applied to your convenience argument.
Click to expand...

I think it would probably be about the same. If you kille yourself, most states shut down the accident scene to do a full investigation, you have the insurance company resources, funeral service resources and then there are the lawyers who come out to sue the car manufacturer, the guy who installed the brakes, then municipality for improperly engineering the road.

Now if you are just maimed, you replace some of the insurance and some of the traffic investigation with the trauma team, rehab hospital and associated therapists. Of course the lawyers still remain.
 
#171
#171
VolsNSkinsFan said:
False... So when you die in a car accident, someone calls 911 and they send a hearse. Cause thats all you need right? LMAO
Click to expand...

911: What's your emergency?

Caller: We've got a horrible 10 car pile-up.

911: Was anybody not wearing a seatbelt? We want to know exactly how many units to send out.
 
#173
#173
VolsNSkinsFan said:
False... So when you die in a car accident, someone calls 911 and they send a hearse. Cause thats all you need right? LMAO
Click to expand...

In your refusal to simply give up your argument of "convenience" and "resources" you are making yourself look extremely idiotic. Individuals who are DOA are not life-flighted; they are not given the same level of care (if any medical care) that someone with a brain-hemorrhage is provided; they are not given IVs; they are not worked on in the ER; etc., etc.

The decrease in fatalities, therefore, tells us absolutely nothing about the resources used and/or the other injuries sustained.
 
#174
#174
So why do we have laws banning drunk driving, and speeding. Why do I have to go get a drivers license? These all infringe on my rights and at one point were mocked. The data shows less people are dying. 7,000 less people are dying every year from car accidents.

If you could prevent 2 9-11s from happening every year by just passing a simple law saying you cant talk on a cell phone while driving, how could you be against it.
 
#175
#175
therealUT said:
In your refusal to simply give up your argument of "convenience" and "resources" you are making yourself look extremely idiotic. Individuals who are DOA are not life-flighted; they are not given the same level of care (if any medical care) that someone with a brain-hemorrhage is provided; they are not given IVs; they are not worked on in the ER; etc., etc.

The decrease in fatalities, therefore, tells us absolutely nothing about the resources used and/or the other injuries sustained.
Click to expand...

It's not even a decrease in fatalities, it's a decrease in fatalities per accident. Many economists argue the laws result in more accidents.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top