Disagree for only one reason: in Colorado, it's illegal to use your cell phone at all while driving if you're under the age of 18, and for anybody above the age of 18 its only legal to use your phone for calling people. You'll get ticketed for texting and driving here, I think that should be the law instead of taking a big leap like that.
I want texting while driving gone for sure. Even I hate being tempted to do it because when I type on an all touch-screen device it's nearly impossible to completely control the car. Typing on my D3 however is very easy as I can put that on my steering-wheel and text without looking. But even that poses more risk than not doing that at all. However, I do not want to eliminate use of GPS as I seriously need this.
So your driving, you see an accident happen and you want to call 911 so they get imediate help.. a tropper sees you dialing and talking, and pulls you over... what happens then? You get fined for being a good samaritan?
Also, what if you are using an ipod to change the song? The law needs to well defined and leave out no holes..
I know here in MA you cannot text and drive.. talking is ok (although MANY shouldnt) but, you CAN use an ipod because it is not "Digital Conversation" or however they word it
In our current entitlement society, the ideas of personal responsibility no longer exist for the current generation of people from teenagers up to people at least in their 30's. I usually oppose laws like this, but when traffic accidents (with some percentage of deaths) due to this one cause (cell phone use while driving, whether talking non-hands-free or texting, which by definition is non-hands-free) reaches epidemic proportions (as it has), government exists specifically to serve the common good, so I support such a law -- with stiff penalties. Causing an accident while texting should cost the perpetrator at least 10 times the amount of the penalty resulting from no accident, and even that should be high enough to discourage it. Better, yet, would be passing a law for providers to not allow texting from a phone which is moving, say, greater than 5 mph. If they can't text while driving, they'll quit trying. And I realize such a block would inhibit non-drivers in a car from being able to text, which arguably is a consideration, but really -- as you say, they can wait for that text message. The benefit to society is greater than the inconvenience! Saying that there shouldn't be such a law "because aren't we all adults?" is like saying we shouldn't have laws against DWI because, "aren't we all adults? Don't we all know better than to get behind the wheel drunk?" Um, evidently not!
Originally Posted by eaks14
Mythbusters - Cell Phones Vs. Drunk Driving - 1 of 3
Mythbusters - Cell Phones Vs. Drunk Driving - 2 of 3
Mythbusters - Cell Phones Vs. Drunk Driving - 3 of 3
Hands free should be the exception, specially talking, which I don't see the article saying. This isn't going to stop everyone from doing it, it's just going to give the gov't a way to punish you. In my state (MD) I believe the law is that being on the phone is a secondary offense; they can't just pull you over because they saw you on the phone, they have to first pull you over for speeding, or reckless, etc, first, then they can add the cell phone charge on top of that (I believe this is correct, last time I heard it was). Unlike NJ, where the cop sees you on the phone and pulls you over even if you're doing 45 in a 45.
I think car manufacturers and cell providers may be against this, because they're all up about Bluetooth and hands-free and sometimes even make it a selling point. They've all adapted to be safer, but if this law happens, and you're not a loud to talk in the car, whats the point in having BT in the car radio?
*Show this in school and no one will text and drive anymore
I wasn't comparing drunk driving to driving while texting. I was comparing the statement about "aren't we all adults" being used to argue against passing a law addressing behavior. When you think about it, most of the laws on the books wouldn't be necessary if we all ACTED "like adults" (and showed concern for others as well as ourselves -- living the "Golden Rule"). The very fact that we have laws regulating our behavior is evidence that "we all" are NOT acting "like adults"...
Originally Posted by NeXtras
I am on the fence. On one hand I know some people should not have any distractions but to completely ban all use is too much. I personally will not use my phone if I am in a congested or high traffic area but if I am driving down an empty road, you better believe I have no issues texting or messing with my phone. If no-one else is around, it is my own safety I am "jeopardizing".
This is in line with seat belts. I disagree with seat belt laws whole heartedly. I don't need the government to tell me how to protect myself. I can jump out of a plane or go bungee jumping or any number of life threatening activities but I can't drive down the road without my seat belt?
Of course, my kids must wear one and any other passengers because I am responsible for them as the driver but if I don't want to wear a seatbelt myself x that should be my choice.
This goes for cell phone use, if I am driving down an empty road and am texting, I am responsible for my own safety.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Xparent Purple Tapatalk
I'm all for laws like this. Anything to make driving safer is a good thing. Too many people get complacent when driving & that's when accidents happen. I don't think it should apply to hands-free talk & mp3's though. Talking and/or listening to music is "normal" in a vehicle.
Tapped from a Galaxy Nexus using Xparent ICS
The "empty road" doesn't always STAY empty. I remember driving down a country road one night many years ago, late at night when you wouldn't expect anyone else around, and for a long time, there wasn't. At one point, I passed a junction and, just as I crossed it, some hooligans ran their stop sign and almost nailed me! Fortunately, because I wasn't distracted, I was able to react in a way which allowed me to avoid the collision, but just barely. If I'd been distracted WITH ANYTHING at that point, I'd have gotten nailed (and probably killed). I don't think your assumption is a safe one. Just something to think about...
Originally Posted by Jungle King 76