Cagers don't drive anymore.

[Silver Surfer/AKAButters]

Used to be that you had to worry about cagers not seeing you due to the fact that they weren't looking for bikes. Now their talking on their phones, drinking coffee, messing with the kids, applying make-up, smoking, whatever. I am stunned by the number of folks actually driving with no hands. People driving while not on a cell phone nowadays are the exception. Last week I was behind a woman in an intersection, who stopped right in the middle to have an argment with someone on the phone totally oblivious to where she was or what she was doing at the time. Cars were coming at her from literaly every direction and she just sat their totally engaged in her phone call blocking traffic in every direction for a full 30 seconds. I am also amzed at the number of times someone in the right lane will try and merge on me with a cell phone stuck in their left ear. Yes blocking your peripheral vision does impact your abilty to see others dear. Almost everytime I see a vehicle do something unusual or unexpected, the perp will be on a cell phone.

This revelation has made me a better driver in that I have absolutely no confidence that anyone is paying any attention at all to driving. Forget bikes. These people don't see anything except the 10 or 12 ft in front of them. I am long past getting angry about what is now clearly a cultural shift in commuting habits. Cell phones need to be outlawed or car manufacturers need to design vehicles that seemlessly integrate cell phones to the driving experience. I think that traffic would move much better, especialy through town, if folks weren't so distracted by their cell phones.

 

If in fact talking on a cell phone is the equivalent to some level of intoxication. IMO they are taking far to long to legislate some controls. I know some states already have laws regarding cell phones, I think it's time the rest catch up.

[dhanson]

Most of the legislaters are on the cell phone, therefore will not get rid of them. Cell phone is wonderful invention, but very misused by immature non-responsible folks.

 

Faced the destruction of my favorite hunting woods several years ago with the intrusion of ATVs. Used to be able to sneak in there with tennis shoes on little dim trails. Now everyone has ATVs (not me) and all the little trails are huge muddy bogs for miles. You must wear knee boots for any walking, water stands forever in the ruts.

[John, Northeast Florida]

This could rapidly change into a big-time bitch session, deservedly! Cell phones, ATV, guns, no-guns, welfare, etc. etc.

 

But, the cell phone issue could at least be somewhat diminished by hands-free devices: E.g. The Jawbone one of the best, but [relatively] expensive, others work fine.

[dhanson]

Probably be headsup display next 10 years, course GM will not have it! Oops, another bitch session.

[tallman]

You should only be allowed to use a cell phone in a vehicle if you are talking to a gunsmith.

 

 

How about a cell phone ignition interlock?

Cell phone on, you have 30 seconds to park the beast.

Otherwise

[Agent_Orange]

Cell phone jammers can be had for about $200.

 

 

Specifications:

 

Effective range: XT5000 up to 30 metres radius, XT6000 up to 40 metres depending on the strength and type of cellular system.

Input power: In-built 6.0v Ni MH battery pack

 

Output signal strength: XT5000: 900mW, XT6000: 1,400mW

 

System: AMPS, TACS, NMT, GSM, DCS, CDMA, PDC, TDMA, PHS, IDEN, W-CDMA, UMTS, 3G - 800-964 MHz 890-964 MHz 1.700-2.200 MHz

 

Signal source: Synthesized

 

Operation temperature: -10c to +50c

 

Humidity: 5% to 80%

 

Size: L 110 x W 62 x H 30 mm

 

Weight: 280gm

 

 

[SageRider]

Cell phone jammers can be had for about $200.

So now you add the distraction caused by the call dropping to the already overly distrated driver that never saw you in the first place. (or for that matter, never saw you at all as he/she/it was looking at the darn phone trying to figure out what happened...)

 

[Silver Surfer/AKAButters]

Still sounds like fun though.

 

Rich

[Ken H.]

But, the cell phone issue could at least be somewhat diminished by hands-free devices: E.g. The Jawbone one of the best, but [relatively] expensive, others work fine.

Actually... most studies say no. Hands-free is no better than holding. It’s the mental distraction of the conversation (on the phone) that is the issue, not the mechanism of how the phone is being operated.

[Jeepster]

Here in Kalifornia C-phones have been banned while driving (except hands free) for about a year. And this thursday, texting will be also.

Now if the LEO's in this area would just hang up THEIR phones and start writing citations maybe we could start balancing our budget.

[Silver Surfer/AKAButters]

texting will be also.

 

Oh yeah, texting. I forgot about that one. That ought to be a felony.

Unbelievable!

[David]

Shouldn't we be directing equal ire at all of us on this site who do the same thing we're screaming at cagers about? Not just when WE are driving, but when we're RIDING, too.

[onmyrt]

Driving requires your 'FULL ATTENTION', and if driving while on the phone even comes close to being as distracting as being intoxicated,

then the penalty should be the same as a DUI. That should get peoples attention.

 

I've always liked the idea of using technology, when possible, to resolve issues like this one, like using triangulation to monitor the movement of cell phone signals and then dropping them if their moving at a rate greater than say 10 mph.

If you MUST use your phone, then you must STOP moving.

 

Imagine if there were a simliar type of solution that would prevent drunk driving, it would be a crime NOT to implement it.

[Silver Surfer/AKAButters]

Yes, I agree. I don't talk on my phone while I drive, and I don't remember the last time I rode with someone talking on a phone.

 

Rich

[Lets_Play_Two]

I don't think cell phones per se are the problem. I agree that there has been a cultural shift that started with what was called the "Me" generation. People don't give a rat's @#$ about anyone else and this leads to doing what they want, when they want. Whether its talking on a cell phone in the car, or in the grocery store or in the movie theatre or while crossing the street. Yesterday I saw people on cell phones while jogging, riding bicycles, pushing a baby stroller, walking out of the house to get in the car, etc. But it isn't just cell phones, it's running red lights, not stopping for stop signs, ignoring speed limits, driving on the shoulder of the road to get around traffic or racing ahead of a line of cars to cut in front of someone. We've gotten to be a society of jerks.

[Mister Tee]

I agree that eating, drinking, texting, putting on makeup, touching yourself and staring at a GPS is distracting and people generally shouldn't do those things, but the LAST thing I want is to legislate out all of those things. It seems to me we already have laws against driving distracted, and against driving unsafe. We don't need more laws, we just need the appropriate enforcement of those laws that are existing.

 

Mark my words - a year from now it will be illegal to fart while driving.

[Jeepster]

I don't think cell phones per se are the problem. I agree that there has been a cultural shift that started with what was called the "Me" generation. People don't give a rat's @#$ about anyone else and this leads to doing what they want, when they want. Whether its talking on a cell phone in the car, or in the grocery store or in the movie theatre or while crossing the street. Yesterday I saw people on cell phones while jogging, riding bicycles, pushing a baby stroller, walking out of the house to get in the car, etc. But it isn't just cell phones, it's running red lights, not stopping for stop signs, ignoring speed limits, driving on the shoulder of the road to get around traffic or racing ahead of a line of cars to cut in front of someone. We've gotten to be a society of jerks.

Let's not forget my pet peeve, not using turn signals. Seems like 95% of the drivers on the road have forgotten that little lever on the steering column

[onmyrt]

Let's not forget my pet peeve, not using turn signals. Seems like 95% of the drivers on the road have forgotten that little lever on the steering column

 

Yup, that's definitly one of my pet peeves too. Even cops don't signal around here.

 

I think it comes from watching too much NASCAR!, they never signal.

 

But, if a cop is in a bad mood, he'll stick you (but not himself) for $160 per offence, so watch out.

 

 

[upflying]

Here in Kalifornia C-phones have been banned while driving (except hands free) for about a year. And this thursday, texting will be also.

Now if the LEO's in this area would just hang up THEIR phones and start writing citations maybe we could start balancing our budget.

LEO's are exempt from the cell phone law. BTW, I stop and write every cell user I see. Excuses range from flat out denial, to "I wasn't talking on it, "it wasn't on", "iit wasn't up to my ear", "I was using the speaker function", "My brother is in the hospital" and my favorite, "I was just scratching my ear"..

Most have learned to use their right ear for talking because it's more difficult for LEO's to see. Lot's of cars in Cali also have illegally tinted front side windows making it difficult to see inside.

I believe FL and AZ have legal front side window tint laws. Cell fone laws in those states would be impossible to enforce.

[Lets_Play_Two]

"I believe FL and AZ have legal front side window tint laws."

 

The legal tint in Florida is easy to see through....the many illegally tinted ones, not so easy.

[Penforhire]

It might be a stereotype but 9 of 10 drivers I have to evade because they infringed on my space are women with cell phones stuck to their ear. 8 of those 9 are in SUV's.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

People don't give a rat's @#$ about anyone else and this leads to doing what they want, when they want.

 

If nothing else, don't these people have any sense of self-preservation???? I want to avoid injuring other folks or damaging their property, sure, but my main reason for driving attentively is to avoid injuring myself or damaging my vehicle.

 

Being discourteous in general fits with your quote, but being a danger to one's self is altogether different, and points more to a gross lack of awareness of the hazards one is facing: I think people simply don't comprehend the violence of a traffic crash, the fragility of their bodies, or the amount of pain they could suffer.

 

Just for example, I'm regularly amazed by pedestrians who walk on the right shoulder of the road, at night, wearing black - or sidewalk pedestrians who don't look over their shoulder before crossing a driveway/street. Sure, a crash would legally be my fault, but they'll be the one with amputated legs or a shattered spine. You would think they might be concerned about their own safety, but I guess not...

 

FWIW, I just finished reading Traffic. It was pretty good; I recommend it.

[Lets_Play_Two]

 

If nothing else, don't these people have any sense of self-preservation????

 

Being discourteous in general fits with your quote, but being a danger to one's self is altogether different, and points more to a gross lack of awareness of the hazards one is facing: I think people simply don't comprehend the violence of a traffic crash, the fragility of their bodies, or the amount of pain they could suffer.

 

I think these attitudes go hand-in-hand. Whether it is selfishness or self-importance, it has to do with total disregard for the fact we inhabit a planet with a lot of other people and our well-being does have a connection with the well-being of others.

[DaveTheAffable]

Cell phone jammers can be had for about $200.

 

 

Potentially 1 year in prison for possession:

 

"The operation of transmitters designed to jam or block wireless communications is a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). See 47 U.S.C. Sections 301, 302a, 333. The Act prohibits any person from willfully or maliciously interfering with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S. government. 47 U.S.C. Section 333. The manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless transmissions is prohibited. 47 U.S.C. Section 302a(b). Parties in violation of these provisions may be subject to the penalties set out in 47 U.S.C. Sections 501-510. Fines for a first offense can range as high as $11,000 for each violation or imprisonment for up to one year, and the device used may also be seized and forfeited to the U.S. government."

 

 

In addition, they can block signals from lawful, and needed, public safety dewvices. We all KNOW you weren't offering to sell or advertise.

 

"Buyer beware...."

 

 

 

[upflying]

Agree about the ped unawareness. How does this happen? In many but not all circumstances, the ped normally has the right of way when crossing the road. Right of way or not, the ped has a personal responsibility of self-preservation when sharing the road with the momentum of 5,000lb objects. It's been my experience that many peds walk around in a daze or trance, day dreaming away while listening to an ipod or cell fone while strolling in public. Besides being easy targets for cars, they are easy marks for criminals grabbing purses and wallets. We all have a responsibility to ourselves to always be in condition yellow while in public, ready for the unexpected.

I've pulled people over who appear to be just awaken from a nap. Their eyes are open but their sub-conscious is somehow driving the car for them on "auto-pilot". Many accidents are avoidable by simply paying attention. Unfortunately paying attention while driving or walking isn't required by law.

Who has a responsibility to teach "paying attention"? Such virtues are taught by parents. Oopps I forgot, parents are no longer required to raise children. We have a massive social welfare system to do that job for us.

It's expensive cops, expensive ambulance rides, expensive health care system, expensive insurance and our expensive legal tort system that suffers/gains from the stupidity of others.

Pet Peeve: People who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. If in doubt about what you did, lie.

[Agent_Orange]

Dave, for you............$199. But wait, for just shipping and handling, we will double your order. That's right. If you call in the next 30 seconds you can get your name in glitter on both units. Now, what this stuff about the FCC? :rofl:

[russell_bynum]

Shouldn't we be directing equal ire at all of us on this site who do the same thing we're screaming at cagers about? Not just when WE are driving, but when we're RIDING, too.

 

The difference is that we, as BMW riders, tend to be much more skilled and safety conscious than the average Joe.

[John in VA]

But, the cell phone issue could at least be somewhat diminished by hands-free devices: E.g. The Jawbone one of the best, but [relatively] expensive, others work fine.

Actually... most studies say no. Hands-free is no better than holding. It’s the mental distraction of the conversation (on the phone) that is the issue, not the mechanism of how the phone is being operated.

 

Too true. And talking on a cell phone handsfree or otherwise is far more distracting than talking to someone else riding in the same car because when talking on the phone you're focused "somewhere else", not on driving the car you're sitting in or your immediate surroundings. Plus you have to concentrate harder on the conversation due to technical glitches like static and the other person talking over you.

 

Sit in a restaurant or store or any other public place and notice how obnoxiously LOUDLY people talk on their cell phones compared to if that person was having the same conversation with someone across a table. Regardless of the inanity of the content of a typical overheard cell phone conversation ("WASSUP"?)("SHE SAID WHAT?? WAIT TELL ME AGAIN YOU'RE BREAKING UP..."), you can notice that most cell phone users are spaced out and practically oblivious to their surroundings.

[russell_bynum]

But, the cell phone issue could at least be somewhat diminished by hands-free devices: E.g. The Jawbone one of the best, but [relatively] expensive, others work fine.

Actually... most studies say no. Hands-free is no better than holding. It’s the mental distraction of the conversation (on the phone) that is the issue, not the mechanism of how the phone is being operated.

 

Too true. And talking on a cell phone handsfree or otherwise is far more distracting than talking to someone else riding in the same car because when talking on the phone you're focused "somewhere else", not on driving the car you're sitting in or your immediate surroundings. Plus you have to concentrate harder on the conversation due to technical glitches like static and the other person talking over you.

 

Sit in a restaurant or store or any other public place and notice how obnoxiously LOUDLY people talk on their cell phones compared to if that person was having the same conversation with someone across a table. Regardless of the inanity of the content of a typical overheard cell phone conversation ("WASSUP"?)("SHE SAID WHAT?? WAIT TELL ME AGAIN YOU'RE BREAKING UP..."), you can notice that most cell phone users are spaced out and practically oblivious to their surroundings.

 

Correction: Most PEOPLE are spaced out and practically oblivious to their surroundings.

[gottabmw]

But, the cell phone issue could at least be somewhat diminished by hands-free devices: E.g. The Jawbone one of the best, but [relatively] expensive, others work fine.

Actually... most studies say no. Hands-free is no better than holding. It’s the mental distraction of the conversation (on the phone) that is the issue, not the mechanism of how the phone is being operated.

Then I guess the issue of cell phones being a distraction is overblown. It is, in my opinion. Would people want conversations between people in the car outlawed? Absolutely not. From the OP: "...drinking coffee, messing with the kids, applying make-up, smoking, whatever." these things have gone on forever. I talk on my cell phone when driving my automatic transmission cage and I'm no more distracted than if I were talking to someone sitting next to me. I agree with those saying the problem is the increasingly discourteous people on the roadways.

[Twisties]

...and worse, plenty of people are talking on their cell phones on their motorcycles too now.

[Silver Surfer/AKAButters]

...drinking coffee, messing with the kids, applying make-up, smoking, whatever." these things have gone on forever. I talk on my cell phone when driving my automatic transmission cage and I'm no more distracted than if I were talking to someone sitting next to me. I agree with those saying the problem is the increasingly discourteous people on the roadways.

 

I agree. Now throw the cell phone into the mix and you have an environment that makes it impossible to have any regard for citenzenry external to your cage.

 

I've talked to plenty of folks who claim they are not distracted while on the phone, and plenty of folks who only had a couple of drinks, all very special folks who are exceptions to the criteria. Fortunately for those that drink and drive, many eventually have some LEO point out to them that they aren't so special and hopefully before they have negatively impacted someone elses life.

[Paul Mihalka]

Just a thought. We have seat belt and air bag and helmet laws, that really only protect the people who use it. As there are cell phone jammers, it would be easy to install in each car a short range jammer that works only when the car is rolling. No surprise, as people know the phone won't work. This might protect other people besides the ones sitting in a car. Yes, I know, another law. There are some laws we do need.

[Twisties]

Just a thought. We have seat belt and air bag and helmet laws, that really only protect the people who use it. As there are cell phone jammers, it would be easy to install in each car a short range jammer that works only when the car is rolling. No surprise, as people know the phone won't work. This might protect other people besides the ones sitting in a car. Yes, I know, another law. There are some laws we do need.

 

The problem being emergency use. Suppose you are being followed by an irate driver. How could you dial 911. The law yes, the jammer not so much.

[Boone60]

I think the best place for an education on road safety is a auto junkyard, because our society cleans up the mess much to fast. Spending some time pulling parts out of a car that has dried blood and pieces of hair stuck in the windshield had a big impact on me.

[russell_bynum]

Just a thought. We have seat belt and air bag and helmet laws, that really only protect the people who use it. As there are cell phone jammers, it would be easy to install in each car a short range jammer that works only when the car is rolling. No surprise, as people know the phone won't work. This might protect other people besides the ones sitting in a car. Yes, I know, another law. There are some laws we do need.

 

The problem being emergency use. Suppose you are being followed by an irate driver. How could you dial 911. The law yes, the jammer not so much.

 

Or if you're a passenger. Or if you're on the open interstate in very light (or no) traffic so that a little distraction isn't likely to be life-threatening.

 

Don't we already have laws against all of the symptoms of cell phone drivers (cutting people off, unsignaled lane changes, tailgating, drifting into other lanes, etc)?

 

Why not just work on enforcing those instead of trying to come up with laws that cover every permutation and combination of things that could potentially, maybe, cause problems?

[Jeepster]

Why not just work on enforcing those instead of trying to come up with laws that cover every permutation and combination of things that could potentially, maybe, cause problems?

Most of the necessary laws were on the books about one hundred years ago. But if that got out, what would we do with all the politicians.

[Twisties]

Just a thought. We have seat belt and air bag and helmet laws, that really only protect the people who use it. As there are cell phone jammers, it would be easy to install in each car a short range jammer that works only when the car is rolling. No surprise, as people know the phone won't work. This might protect other people besides the ones sitting in a car. Yes, I know, another law. There are some laws we do need.

 

The problem being emergency use. Suppose you are being followed by an irate driver. How could you dial 911. The law yes, the jammer not so much.

 

Or if you're a passenger. Or if you're on the open interstate in very light (or no) traffic so that a little distraction isn't likely to be life-threatening.

 

Don't we already have laws against all of the symptoms of cell phone drivers (cutting people off, unsignaled lane changes, tailgating, drifting into other lanes, etc)?

 

Why not just work on enforcing those instead of trying to come up with laws that cover every permutation and combination of things that could potentially, maybe, cause problems?

 

Those don't work until after a dangerous situation occurs. A law against driving while phoning helps prevent those situations and is most desperately needed in jurisdictions that have not yet passed bans.

[russell_bynum]

Just a thought. We have seat belt and air bag and helmet laws, that really only protect the people who use it. As there are cell phone jammers, it would be easy to install in each car a short range jammer that works only when the car is rolling. No surprise, as people know the phone won't work. This might protect other people besides the ones sitting in a car. Yes, I know, another law. There are some laws we do need.

 

The problem being emergency use. Suppose you are being followed by an irate driver. How could you dial 911. The law yes, the jammer not so much.

 

Or if you're a passenger. Or if you're on the open interstate in very light (or no) traffic so that a little distraction isn't likely to be life-threatening.

 

Don't we already have laws against all of the symptoms of cell phone drivers (cutting people off, unsignaled lane changes, tailgating, drifting into other lanes, etc)?

 

Why not just work on enforcing those instead of trying to come up with laws that cover every permutation and combination of things that could potentially, maybe, cause problems?

 

Those don't work until after a dangerous situation occurs. A law against driving while phoning helps prevent those situations and is most desperately needed in jurisdictions that have not yet passed bans.

 

Most (all?) of our traffic laws are like that. Why would this need to be any different?

[russell_bynum]

But if that got out, what would we do with all the politicians.

 

I've got some ideas...most of them involving handcuffs, cinder blocks, and sufficiently deep water.

[Twisties]

Just a thought. We have seat belt and air bag and helmet laws, that really only protect the people who use it. As there are cell phone jammers, it would be easy to install in each car a short range jammer that works only when the car is rolling. No surprise, as people know the phone won't work. This might protect other people besides the ones sitting in a car. Yes, I know, another law. There are some laws we do need.

 

The problem being emergency use. Suppose you are being followed by an irate driver. How could you dial 911. The law yes, the jammer not so much.

 

Or if you're a passenger. Or if you're on the open interstate in very light (or no) traffic so that a little distraction isn't likely to be life-threatening.

 

Don't we already have laws against all of the symptoms of cell phone drivers (cutting people off, unsignaled lane changes, tailgating, drifting into other lanes, etc)?

 

Why not just work on enforcing those instead of trying to come up with laws that cover every permutation and combination of things that could potentially, maybe, cause problems?

 

Those don't work until after a dangerous situation occurs. A law against driving while phoning helps prevent those situations and is most desperately needed in jurisdictions that have not yet passed bans.

 

Most (all?) of our traffic laws are like that. Why would this need to be any different?

 

So repeal drunk driving laws, is that what you are saying?

[russell_bynum]

Just a thought. We have seat belt and air bag and helmet laws, that really only protect the people who use it. As there are cell phone jammers, it would be easy to install in each car a short range jammer that works only when the car is rolling. No surprise, as people know the phone won't work. This might protect other people besides the ones sitting in a car. Yes, I know, another law. There are some laws we do need.

 

The problem being emergency use. Suppose you are being followed by an irate driver. How could you dial 911. The law yes, the jammer not so much.

 

Or if you're a passenger. Or if you're on the open interstate in very light (or no) traffic so that a little distraction isn't likely to be life-threatening.

 

Don't we already have laws against all of the symptoms of cell phone drivers (cutting people off, unsignaled lane changes, tailgating, drifting into other lanes, etc)?

 

Why not just work on enforcing those instead of trying to come up with laws that cover every permutation and combination of things that could potentially, maybe, cause problems?

 

Those don't work until after a dangerous situation occurs. A law against driving while phoning helps prevent those situations and is most desperately needed in jurisdictions that have not yet passed bans.

 

Most (all?) of our traffic laws are like that. Why would this need to be any different?

 

So repeal drunk driving laws, is that what you are saying?

 

Nice try.

 

The difference there is that when you're drunk, you can't choose to stop being drunk because traffic is bunching up, or you have a difficult corner to negotiate, etc.

 

You can choose not to talk on the phone, adjust the radio, eat, drink a soda, etc when the situation warrants more of your attention.

[Bullett]

But, the cell phone issue could at least be somewhat diminished by hands-free devices: E.g. The Jawbone one of the best, but [relatively] expensive, others work fine.

Actually... most studies say no. Hands-free is no better than holding. It’s the mental distraction of the conversation (on the phone) that is the issue, not the mechanism of how the phone is being operated.

Then I guess the issue of cell phones being a distraction is overblown. It is, in my opinion. Would people want conversations between people in the car outlawed? Absolutely not. From the OP: "...drinking coffee, messing with the kids, applying make-up, smoking, whatever." these things have gone on forever. I talk on my cell phone when driving my automatic transmission cage and I'm no more distracted than if I were talking to someone sitting next to me. I agree with those saying the problem is the increasingly discourteous people on the roadways.

 

A professor at the U of Utah has done several studies on this. He posits that the passenger in the car "helps" the driver by pointing out potential dangers. And you thought your wife screaming at you to slow down, watch out for that pedestrian [car, what ever] was just a distraction.

[Silver Surfer/AKAButters]

And you thought your wife screaming at you to slow down, watch out for that pedestrian [car, what ever] was just a distraction.

 

I ain't buying.

[DaveTheAffable]

Dave, for you............$199. But wait, for just shipping and handling, we will double your order. That's right. If you call in the next 30 seconds you can get your name in glitter on both units. Now, what this stuff about the FCC? :rofl:

 

But wait! There's more....

 

Only if you include the Ginsu Knives with the BMW roundel on them!

[Twisties]

Just a thought. We have seat belt and air bag and helmet laws, that really only protect the people who use it. As there are cell phone jammers, it would be easy to install in each car a short range jammer that works only when the car is rolling. No surprise, as people know the phone won't work. This might protect other people besides the ones sitting in a car. Yes, I know, another law. There are some laws we do need.

 

The problem being emergency use. Suppose you are being followed by an irate driver. How could you dial 911. The law yes, the jammer not so much.

 

Or if you're a passenger. Or if you're on the open interstate in very light (or no) traffic so that a little distraction isn't likely to be life-threatening.

 

Don't we already have laws against all of the symptoms of cell phone drivers (cutting people off, unsignaled lane changes, tailgating, drifting into other lanes, etc)?

 

Why not just work on enforcing those instead of trying to come up with laws that cover every permutation and combination of things that could potentially, maybe, cause problems?

 

Those don't work until after a dangerous situation occurs. A law against driving while phoning helps prevent those situations and is most desperately needed in jurisdictions that have not yet passed bans.

 

Most (all?) of our traffic laws are like that. Why would this need to be any different?

 

So repeal drunk driving laws, is that what you are saying?

 

Nice try.

 

The difference there is that when you're drunk, you can't choose to stop being drunk because traffic is bunching up, or you have a difficult corner to negotiate, etc.

 

You can choose not to talk on the phone, adjust the radio, eat, drink a soda, etc when the situation warrants more of your attention.

 

...and you can't do that on a cell phone either, because you don't notice it's happening. Sorry, no difference at between drunk driving and driving while talking.

[Bullett]

Aw, c'mon Butters . . . here's the link to an article about the study. Just sayin' your spouse is there to help you drive.

 

RMN Article

 

(and check out the related stories link and local news, mountain lion snags terrier?)

[Silver Surfer/AKAButters]

Aw, c'mon Butters . . . here's the link to an article about the study. Just sayin' your spouse is there to help you drive.

 

RMN Article

 

(and check out the related stories link and local news, mountain lion snags terrier?)

 

Actually, I believe you, but you don't know my X. She never pointed out anything that I wasn't already aware of.

[AnRSguy]

Consequences, it used to be that if you did something stupid in your car, you either died or were horribly mamed. It thinned the gene pool of lousy drivers. Now, the airbag deploys, the seatbelts lock, the crumple zone disapates the energy of the impact and many idiots walk away from accidents to be distracted another day. Technology sucks.

[Deek]

I don't think cell phones per se are the problem. ............ We've gotten to be a society of jerks.

 

 

You are wise beyond your years. Pretty danged sad, isn't it?