[veggiedude]

"hands-free devices ARE inherently more safe, regardless of this study's findings, because Bluetooth headsets allow both hands to be on the wheel."

And why would that mean safer driving? If the mind is else where, it doesn't matter if you could have ten hands on the wheel.

[Bassphil]

Bad drivers are bad drivers. If it's not the phone, then it's something else. They should just cut to the chase and ban driving- bring the trains back in this country!
To put it in computer terms, I end up not hearing the person on the other end of the phone because I'm assigning more system memory to driving.
Of course, that's just me :-)

[BadDude]

I totally agree with these posts. Driving with or without a phone is dangerous and could get someone killed. Cars should be banned for sure. And we can't use horses, because they might buck or kick someone. Way too dangerous. And people definitely can't walk, because they might trip and fall down on the hard pavement and break a bone. Probably what the government should do is insist that everyone crawl everywhere that they want to go. There is way too much danger otherwise.

[heimdall]

Ah, the trolls have arrived.

[ericole]

actually, several of the things you list should probably be on that list (1, 2, 5, 6 8 & 9). but your argument is flawed for the others. The number of people gabbing incessently on cellphones far outnumbers those other things. Most people ignore billboards - so that's not a concern. MANY radios now have finger controls on the steering wheel allowing you to click w/o ever taking your eyes off the road, or hands off the wheel. Children, under a certain age (by law) are to be strapped in. The only distraction they could be would be their yelling. Parents quickly learn to distinguish between yells of their children such that it doesn't distract them and won't cause them to drive erratically.

[Alan]

Timrowledge

"Please add to the list"? Sure - I was once passed (on 101 near SFO) by a porsche. There was a young lady bouncing up and down on the lap of the driver. I'll let you imagine reasons why she might be doing that and why the driver didn't seem to be paying much attention.

I'll just let the rest of your comment slide by since it must clearly be tongue in cheek. No one could seriously be that dim.

This is supposed to be the end of the quote from Timrowledge but I haven' figured out quoting yet

My ex was involved in that same sort of activity many years ago. We or should I say I had to be towed out of the snowdrift on the side of the hwy after that. We used to laugh about that.

Newfoundland and Labrador banned cellphone usage and although I have used one many times, it is dangerous.
A friend of mine drives a train. He told me of the time he hit a van. The driver was yakking away and when the train finally stopped (takes them quite awhile) the front of the train was plastered with bandages, antiseptics, you name it, as the strik-ee was a vet.
I read about a woman who was reported weaving back and forth on a main hwy around Toronto. When the Police caught up with her, she was reading a book.

[doglesby]

These discussions alway devolve into everything else that people do. The point of the study is that talking on a cell phone is more dangerous than people think.
No a ban is not necessary, education is what we need. As long as we understand that talking on the phone is risky, we can all make an informed decision as to whether we really need to make or take that call right now. When you get into an accident because you were distracted for any reason, you are at fault. No new law is necessary.
As a friend of mine put it once, "I don't want to listen to you get into an accident. Don't call me while you're driving." (No, he wasn't talking to me).

[moose_n_squirrel]

jdb8167 said:

We won't be safe until we ban all distractions while driving. I think it is obvious. Let's start a list of other things that must be banned because they could cause a distraction...The government must protect all citizens from any risk. Isn't that the government's job?

These troll posts are completely out of hand. The point of the article is to assign a relative risk level to cell phone driving so that it can be prioritized accordingly, so that we don't have to worry about everything equally. But the trolls want to go the opposite, unproductive way, and a) make a list that pretends all risks are equal, which gets in the way of prioritizing, helping no one, and b) turn it all into a rant against "da gubmint." All of that just does not help.

The point of the article is not to lead to equal regulation of everything under the sun, but to help separate the high risks from the low risks that are not worthy of our time. We don't make cars illegal, we make certain extremely dangerous uses of cars illegal...same goes for cell phones.

[mournac]

doglesby said:

No a ban is not necessary, education is what we need. As long as we understand that talking on the phone is risky, we can all make an informed decision as to whether we really need to make or take that call right now.

Well, it sure would be nice if education was all that was needed. We wouldn't need any more cops, or even a justice system. Sadly, as you might have observed, in the real world it just doesn't work that way.

doglesby said:

When you get into an accident because you were distracted for any reason, you are at fault. No new law is necessary.

Damn straight you'd be at fault, but that doesn't do any good to the people you hit with your car, and that might get killed as a result.

[doglesby]

[quote name='mournac']
>

doglesby said:

> No a ban is not necessary, education is what we need. As long as we understand that talking on the phone is risky, we can all make an informed decision as to whether we really need to make or take that call right now.

Well, it sure would be nice if education was all that was needed. We wouldn't need any more cops, or even a justice system. Sadly, as you might have observed, in the real world it just doesn't work that way.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Of course we need cops. The cop would be the one, under existing laws, to determine who's at fault. A new law would only allow a cop to pull you over if s/he thinks you're on the phone. How would you like to be pulled over because you were singing along with the radio? How would a trooper/cop know the difference?
[quote]

>

doglesby said:

> When you get into an accident because you were distracted for any reason, you are at fault. No new law is necessary.

Damn straight you'd be at fault, but that doesn't do any good to the people you hit with your car, and that might get killed as a result.

That's a load of crap. When an officer of the law says the other guy's a fault, that can really help you and your insurance company. If you want to avoid all accidents, the only solution is to get people out from behind the wheel. A ban on cellphones won't do that.