Feds: Ban all portable electronic devices in cars!

LLIB wrote: I just don't see how hands-free talking is any more dangerous than having smokes, food/drink, a yacky passenger or kids/ a wandering pet, or anything else that could cause the driver to be distracted. The law wouldn't bother me since I hate talikng on the phone for any reason, but it's just not enforceable given 90% or more own cell phones and so many seem to be addicted to them.

To me the issue has little to do with how dangerous using a cell phone in a car is- the issue is government getting involved in every aspect of our lives and regulating us out of the freedom to make our own choices and take personal responsibility for ourselves - regulated into a place where big brother is looking after every detail of our lives.

Lots of things are dangerous- screaming kids in a car can be much more distracting than a cell phone- should the government then be telling us if we can have a kid in the car?- or of we can eat food or have a drink? Because that's where this is all headed.

We might slip in the bathtub too- should government put out a 1000 page regulation on how we are supposed to take a bath?

We could cut out almost every fatal car accident by lowering the speed limit to 5 mph- should we do that too- because if it saves one life it would be worth it right? We take risks as free citizens every day- and the government could go on and on with rules like this "for our own good".

Risk is a part of life- and if you never take any risk- you'll have a pretty boring life- and all you're choices will be decided for you - like we are all little children that need to be tended according to government that thinks like this.

Get the government out of our lives- let us take our own responsibility- let me choose if it's safe to make a cell phone call in my car (by the way I don't own a cell phone).

Billions upon billions of cell phone calls are completed without causing harm or death every day! Dont we get any credit for those?

Government- butt out!

Obviously, the invasion of government into our personal lives all under the guise of protecting us is total BS. We do not need our neighbor to protect us from ourselves much less the US or local government. The sooner people accept that as a reality, the better off this world would be.

If there's one thing I know how to do man, its drive while on the cell phone.

Everyday- thousands of women manage to put on lipstick and eyeliner - blazing down the road at 75 mph- 99.99% of them look fabulous when they step out of the vehicle! Just dazzling.

Every now and then- one of um ass packs the guy in front of her. It happens. But you know what? We already have laws to address this- it's called personal responsibility. You cause an accident- you are liable for the damages you cause. Do we need a law against estee lauder and maybelline in moving vehicles?

Come on now everybody- you all know the answer is NO!

Cell phones are the same way- 99.9999% of them are used responsibly. For that one in a million screwup- we have laws in place already to hold those liable- and accountable.

Government- get the hell out of our lives- I can't help but think that these guys coming up with this stuff are Over-Funded.

BearMtnHIB wrote: Cell phones are the same way- 99.9999% of them are used responsibly. For that one in a million screwup- we have laws in place already to hold those liable- and accountable.

I agree we don't need any more laws on the books to ban cell phones, but I don't agree that 99.9999% are used "responsibly". Not even close. I'd say one in three drivers I see uses them when they shouldn't, or in ways they shouldn't. I have lost count of how many times I've been a passenger in a car with someone on a cellphone who is weaving through traffic, even hitting curbs, who when I pointed out to them what they were doing was TOTALLY OBLIVIOUS of how badly they were driving.

But I still don't think we need more laws when we aren't even enforcing the ones on the books.

Rockdoc Franz wrote: Obviously, the invasion of government into our personal lives all under the guise of protecting us is total BS. We do not need our neighbor to protect us from ourselves much less the US or local government. The sooner people accept that as a reality, the better off this world would be.

We have laws against drunk driving. Is that government intrusion? Driving while talking on a cell phone has been shown to be approximately as dangerous as drunk driving. Why shouldn't there be a law concerning this?

AspenValley wrote:

BearMtnHIB wrote: Cell phones are the same way- 99.9999% of them are used responsibly. For that one in a million screwup- we have laws in place already to hold those liable- and accountable.

I agree we don't need any more laws on the books to ban cell phones, but I don't agree that 99.9999% are used "responsibly". Not even close. I'd say one in three drivers I see uses them when they shouldn't, or in ways they shouldn't. I have lost count of how many times I've been a passenger in a car with someone on a cellphone who is weaving through traffic, even hitting curbs, who when I pointed out to them what they were doing was TOTALLY OBLIVIOUS of how badly they were driving.

But I still don't think we need more laws when we aren't even enforcing the ones on the books.

You're right- I see many people mis-using cell phones too- and what I ment to say was 99.9999% of all cell phone calls do not result in an accident or death.

Which is amazing- with all the people using them in cars- the numbers have to be somthing like this...

Number of cell calls that DO NOT cause an accident
10 Million to every 1 that results in an accident.

Now there's a utility to being able to make a call on the move- there are personal, business and emergency uses. All those calls that are made every day without incident- make the choice of preserving our freedom to make our own choices worth while. The argument of drunk driving does not serve enough utility to make allowing drunks on the road worth while.

But that's a whole nuther can a worms.

The reason why we don't make the speed limit 5 mph to save lives is because there is a utility to a society being able to move around faster- even if somebody dies as a result every now and then.

It's called reality.

agreed, Franz... I drive when I drive... one good tip I got from a SF bus driver superintendent once is to make sure that YOU are not in someone's blind spot. Speed up or slow down to make sure you are not driving where the car next to you can't see you. I find I use that one A LOT

Kate wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote: Obviously, the invasion of government into our personal lives all under the guise of protecting us is total BS. We do not need our neighbor to protect us from ourselves much less the US or local government. The sooner people accept that as a reality, the better off this world would be.

We have laws against drunk driving. Is that government intrusion? Driving while talking on a cell phone has been shown to be approximately as dangerous as drunk driving. Why shouldn't there be a law concerning this?

By your line of reasoning almost anything can be deemed as dangerous and therefor justified for a law. No we do not need a law against drunk driving. What we do need is more personal responsibility. And just what does this law accomplish? You can argue that those arrested for drunk driving save lives. So does a designated driver. The latter is far more effective than some law which may or may not get enforced. There are always alternative solutions that do not require laws.

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

Kate wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote: Obviously, the invasion of government into our personal lives all under the guise of protecting us is total BS. We do not need our neighbor to protect us from ourselves much less the US or local government. The sooner people accept that as a reality, the better off this world would be.

We have laws against drunk driving. Is that government intrusion? Driving while talking on a cell phone has been shown to be approximately as dangerous as drunk driving. Why shouldn't there be a law concerning this?

By your line of reasoning almost anything can be deemed as dangerous and therefor justified for a law. No we do not need a law against drunk driving. What we do need is more personal responsibility. And just what does this law accomplish? You can argue that those arrested for drunk driving save lives. So does a designated driver. The latter is far more effective than some law which may or may not get enforced. There are always alternative solutions that do not require laws.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I disagree and think that there needs to be consequences to ones actions. The designated driver came from people not wanting to be jailed for drunk driving. I doubt it would have come about just from people not wanting to drive drunk - they wanted to not lose their license, and pay hefty fines, from drunk driving.

I think cell phones are just as dangerous as drunk driving, and a law restricting their usage on the roads is welcome to me. I really don't want any of my loved ones to be killed by a drunk driver or a distracted cell phone driver.