Swagger you’re in a futile argument here. You won’t convince them that personal responsibility is important and you should not be having government control every tedious aspect of your life. Its the same argument these idiots can’t fathom when dealing with the idea of firearms in the hands of responsible citizens.
“OMG, you have a gun, you might shoot me!”
“OMG, you are driving while talking on the phone, you might run into me!”
They need mommy and daddy government to tell them how to live.
Do you talk to the passengers in your car? Better stop! You could cause an accident!
Again, I don’t see them as comparable enough. For instance, a person in the car is able to judge when the best time to speak to you is, and when to keep quiet. When on the phone there is also an unwritten rule that you give the person more attention. You also have to concentrate more on the phone because you don’t have visual, or anything other than verbal, cues to determine what the person means.
Here are two studies in the UK which are pretty clear.
The Direct Line research showed a clear trend for significantly poorer driving performance
(speed control, following distance and reaction times) when using a mobile phone in
comparison to the other conditions.
• The best performance was by those drivers who were driving under normal conditions
without the influence of alcohol or the distraction of a mobile phone.
• Driving performance under the influence of alcohol was significantly worse than normal
driving, yet significantly better than driving while using a mobile phone. Furthermore,
drivers reported that it was easier to drive drunk than to drive while using a phone.
• The results demonstrate that drivers’ reaction times were, on average, 30% slower when
talking on a hand-held mobile phone compared to being drunk and nearly 50% slower than
under normal driving conditions. According to the tests, drivers were less able to maintain
a constant speed and found it more difficult to keep a safe distance from the car in front.
• Using a hand-held mobile phone had the greatest impact on driving performance. On
average it took hand-held mobile phone users half a second longer to react than normal,
and a third of a second longer to react compared to when they were drunk. At 70 mph,
this half-second difference is equivalent to travelling an additional 46 feet (14m) before
reacting to a hazard on the road.
• In addition, drivers using either a hands-free or hand-held mobile phone significantly missed
more road warning signs than when drunk.
• Hands-free was safer than using hand-held mobile phones. However, the conversation itself
is a major distraction, with the use of hands-free phones carrying hidden dangers. As a
result of this finding, even the use of hands-free proved more dangerous than driving under
the influence of alcohol.
This study demonstrates beyond doubt that using a mobile phone when driving significantly
impairs the driver’s attention to potentially hazardous situations, more so than having a blood
alcohol level at the UK legal limit (80mg/100ml).
In attempting to perform multiple tasks simultaneously, drivers subject themselves and other
road-users to unacceptable dangers.
Conclusions on experimental evidence for effects on driving
5.208 There is strong experimental evidence that engaging in a mobile phone conversation impairs
drivers’ ability to react to potentially hazardous road situations. The impairment appears to be
greater than that associated with merely listening to a radio or engaging in a relatively
“automatic” task such as repeating back words heard over the phone; is evident during a
“casual” conversation; increases along with the mental workload imposed by the conversation;
is greater in elderly drivers; and is unaffected by mode of phone use (hand-held versus
hands-free). There is less evidence as to whether aspects of driving other than speed or accuracy
of reaction to changing road circumstances differ according to mode of phone operation.
Consistent with what might be expected on the basis of common experience, one study found that
placing a call on a hand-held set is associated with a transient impairment in the basic control of
the vehicle. The extent to which this “peripheral” effect adds to the risk posed by the more
sustained “central” effects that are shared by hand-held and hands-free operation appears to be
unknown at present. It should be noted that none of the studies reviewed above compared the
effects on driving performance of phone use to the effects caused by conversing with a passenger.
Thus it remains to be established whether an in-car conversation that places a cognitive load on
the driver equivalent to that imposed by a mobile phone call has similarly detrimental effects on
performance. There are, however, good reasons to suppose that the effects of an in-car
conversation will be less than those associated with the use of a phone. In contrast to the
individual on the other end of a phone call, a passenger can monitor the road situation and
“pace” the interaction according to circumstances (for example, suspending conversation during
an overtaking manoeuvre). In addition, a passenger can act as a second “pair of eyes”, alerting
the driver to potential hazards.
Conclusions on epidemiological evidence for effects on driving
5.214 Experimental studies provide compelling evidence that engaging in a mobile phone conversation
impairs driving performance. Consistent with this evidence, epidemiological research points to
an association between mobile phone use while driving and an increased risk of involvement in
an accident. Together, these two sources of evidence indicate that current concerns about the
impact of mobile phones on road safety are well founded. As already noted, however, current
experimental evidence suggests there is little or no justification for the assumption that the
detrimental effects of phone use on driving are ameliorated by hands-free operation, a
conclusion supported by the limited epidemiological evidence relevant to this question
(Redelmeir and Tibshirani, 1997). There is therefore no strong empirical justification at present
for the enactment of a policy or legislation that differentiates between the use of hand-held and
hands-free phone sets in motor vehicles. While an argument might be made for focussing
legislation on the more detectable of these two modes of use – it is of course much easier to
detect the use of a hand-held set than a hands-free set – such an approach runs the risk of
seeming to condone, or at least to tolerate, the use of hands-free phones.
So based on that, I should probably be against drivers using phones fullstop.
I don’t care if people who use phones hurt or kill themselves, I just don’t want them hurting or killing me.
Swagger you’re in a futile argument here. You won’t convince them that personal responsibility is important and you should not be having government control every tedious aspect of your life. Its the same argument these idiots can’t fathom when dealing with the idea of firearms in the hands of responsible citizens.
“OMG, you have a gun, you might shoot me!”
“OMG, you are driving while talking on the phone, you might run into me!”
They need mommy and daddy government to tell them how to live.
I believe that personal responsibility is very important. I just don’t trust that sufficient people agree, and think there are enough of them that give it such low priority that they pose a danger to me and those I care about.
Ten steps further up the ideologue ladder for you though.
BTW there is no law in my country which bans the use of handhelds in cars. I would support a ban but not to the point of actively doing anything about it.
I’m sure I could do all of these things but if the phone is in my right hand, I have to move my left hand all the way to the other side of the wheel to use my turn signals. Maybe that’s why…
Or you could set the phone down, as I said that I did when necessary. It’s not rocket science. Again, it comes down to responsibility, and if you can’t trust people to have enough responsibility to drive while using the phone, then you shouldn’t let them operate a motor vehicle at all.
When you drove a stick and used a cel phone, did you set your phone down every time you made a turn or shifted gears? (I mean a real turn, not when the road gently curves)
The myths about mobiles
At present, a majority of motorists accept the dangers of hand-held phones. A MORI survey
commissioned by Direct Line revealed that three quarters of drivers believed that talking on a
hand-held mobile phone was very distracting. 87% said the use of hand-held mobile phones by
drivers should be outlawed with 92% of drivers agreeing that people should pull over to a safe
place before making or receiving a call in the car.7
However, in recent years a number of popular myths have developed amongst the growing
minority of motorists who perceive the practice of making a call, or sending a text message
when driving as ‘safe’ and therefore socially acceptable.
Many people believe that a ‘quick call’ doesn’t matter – that it won’t impact on safety. Or that
it is the physical act of holding a phone that makes using a mobile phone unsafe, not the
conversation itself, leading many to conclude that the use of ‘hands-free’ phones provides the
motorist with a safe option. It is significant that only 27% of drivers thought that using handsfree
phones was very distracting.8
Another common myth is that all distractions are equally dangerous. Using a mobile phone is
viewed as being similar to listening to a radio and no more distracting than talking to a
passenger. Or that the distraction caused by using a mobile phone ends when the call ends.
These myths have developed despite a growing body of scientific evidence, backed up by the
findings in this report, which clearly state the dangers. Direct Line believes that these dangers are
grossly under-exposed in the media to date. According to RoSPA, 17 people have been killed on
Britain’s roads in accidents involving mobile phones, with many more deaths and serious injuries
wrongly attributed to other causes through inadequate methods of road accident investigation.
I would support a ban but not to the point of actively doing anything about it.
So why are you bitching about it in this thread, and going and digging up reports?
Oh, I get it. You want to win the argument with the American - you don’t really care about the topic.
Anyway, the debate about cellphones in cars is over in this thread. Anyone wishing to is free to start another thread about it, but there’s been enough discussion in this one, which is about the idiocy taking place in the 3rd largest state. We can all agree to disagree on the cellphone thing - time to move on.
I would support a ban but not to the point of actively doing anything about it.
So why are you bitching about it in this thread, and going and digging up reports?
Oh, I get it. You want to win the argument with the American - you don’t really care about the topic.
Anyway, the debate about cellphones in cars is over in this thread. Anyone wishing to is free to start another thread about it, but there’s been enough discussion in this one, which is about the idiocy taking place in the 3rd largest state. We can all agree to disagree on the cellphone thing - time to move on.
This is a discussion forum. A place to discuss things. I hardly think involving myself in a discussion is actively doing anything to encourage a ban in any country or state. What I mean is that I’m not protesting or writing letters or trying to get my local representatives to try and change the law here. However if someone in my family was killed by someone talking on a handheld, I’d likely become that ‘spokesperson’ you see on the news all the time, leading the charge.
I want to win the argument with the American? WTF are you talking about? What has ‘winning’ or being an American got to do with the price of fish?
Ok dude, it’s your thread. You can make the rules I guess. Essentially it’s just going to be a thread for your personal dislikes about California. No debate about whether it is idiocy or not shall or can be entered into. Ok then......
believe that personal responsibility is very important. I just don’t trust that sufficient people agree, and think there are enough of them that give it such low priority that they pose a danger to me and those I care about.
No you don’t. If you did you would be opposed to those laws that are removing personal responsibility. But here you are attempting to defend smoething which eliminates personal responsibility.
This is just another attempt by you to attempt to claim neutrality where you don’t actually have any. Talking out of both sides of your mouth again.
believe that personal responsibility is very important. I just don’t trust that sufficient people agree, and think there are enough of them that give it such low priority that they pose a danger to me and those I care about.
No you don’t. If you did you would be opposed to those laws that are removing personal responsibility. But here you are attempting to defend smoething which eliminates personal responsibility.
This is just another attempt by you to attempt to claim neutrality where you don’t actually have any. Talking out of both sides of your mouth again.
This is another prime example of how you are an ideologue - where the facts and details and even the subject itself don’t matter because the entire ‘debate’ is reduced to “nanny state”.
I actually do believe personal responsiblity to be very important. If you were able to step back from the corner you’ve seemingly perpetually jammed yourself into, it might make more sense.
believe that personal responsibility is very important. I just don’t trust that sufficient people agree, and think there are enough of them that give it such low priority that they pose a danger to me and those I care about.
No you don’t. If you did you would be opposed to those laws that are removing personal responsibility. But here you are attempting to defend smoething which eliminates personal responsibility.
Wow, you’ve changed my mind. I’ve come round to your way of thinking. While we’re on the driving subject, why don’t we get rid of those stupid laws about speed limits. Lets allow everybody to take personal responsibility for their speed, just drive as fast as you feel you can handle. That should work.
While we’re on the driving subject, why don’t we get rid of those stupid laws about speed limits. Lets allow everybody to take personal responsibility for their speed, just drive as fast as you feel you can handle. That should work.
I’ve noticed that the two main opponents of my point of view are (at least originally) from foreign nations. I guess there’s some things that need explaining (again?) with regard to the U.S. and how we feel about some things in this country.
In the United States, we’re proud of our freedoms and many of us will ferociously defend them when necessary. With the freedoms we enjoy, however, there are risks. The whole 2nd Amendment debate is a shining example of that concept.
The cellphone debate is, although less glamorous, another example of the government encroaching on my freedoms without just cause. They’re telling me what I can and can’t do because there are a few idiots out there who can’t handle even the simplest multitasking job. If we were to outlaw every action that could be dangerous to someone when an idiot performs it, we’d all be locked down in our homes.
Is it possible that using a handheld cellphone could create some form of perceived danger to others? Sure. I freely admit that there are idiots out there who can’t handle it. Am I willing to risk that one of those idiots could swerve into my lane at the exact time that I’m already occupying that space, so that I can continue to use my phone without the headset? Yes. That’s the price of freedom, and I’m willing to pay it.
To mitigate that risk, and all the others that one is faced with on the road, I drive defensively. I assume that everyone on the road is going to do something incredibly stupid and put my life in jeopardy (this is something you pick up when you ride a motorcycle). This state of mind has saved me from being involved in an accident - and maybe saved my life - many, many times, including once when Sarah Michelle Gellar almost ran me off the freeway in her Lincoln Navigator - while she was on the phone…
However if someone in my family was killed by someone talking on a handheld, I’d likely become that ‘spokesperson’ you see on the news all the time, leading the charge.
Would you be that same person “leading the charge” if your family member was killed by someone who was changing the radio station on their stereo? Would you then be promoting the ban of stereos in cars? Or navigation systems, if the other driver were plugging in an address at the time of the accident?
Life is risky, and shit can happen. Try to live with it without pushing more stupid nanny laws on me. This law is obviously more about generating revenue than anything else.
While we’re on the driving subject, why don’t we get rid of those stupid laws about speed limits. Lets allow everybody to take personal responsibility for their speed, just drive as fast as you feel you can handle. That should work.
Seems to work ok on a certain highway in Germany...
Yeah, but those pussies only did it on the autobahn, it’s still a nanny state on every other road.
I guess elsewhere Mutter und Vater government needs to tell them how fast to drive!
I’ve noticed that the two main opponents of my point of view are (at least originally) from foreign nations. I guess there’s some things that need explaining (again?) with regard to the U.S. and how we feel about some things in this country.
In the United States, we’re proud of our freedoms and many of us will ferociously defend them when necessary. With the freedoms we enjoy, however, there are risks. The whole 2nd Amendment debate is a shining example of that concept.
The cellphone debate is, although less glamorous, another example of the government encroaching on my freedoms without just cause. They’re telling me what I can and can’t do because there are a few idiots out there who can’t handle even the simplest multitasking job. If we were to outlaw every action that could be dangerous to someone when an idiot performs it, we’d all be locked down in our homes.
Is it possible that using a handheld cellphone could create some form of perceived danger to others? Sure. I freely admit that there are idiots out there who can’t handle it. Am I willing to risk that one of those idiots could swerve into my lane at the exact time that I’m already occupying that space, so that I can continue to use my phone without the headset? Yes. That’s the price of freedom, and I’m willing to pay it.
To mitigate that risk, and all the others that one is faced with on the road, I drive defensively. I assume that everyone on the road is going to do something incredibly stupid and put my life in jeopardy (this is something you pick up when you ride a motorcycle). This state of mind has saved me from being involved in an accident - and maybe saved my life - many, many times, including once when Sarah Michelle Gellar almost ran me off the freeway in her Lincoln Navigator - while she was on the phone…
However if someone in my family was killed by someone talking on a handheld, I’d likely become that ‘spokesperson’ you see on the news all the time, leading the charge.
Would you be that same person “leading the charge” if your family member was killed by someone who was changing the radio station on their stereo? Would you then be promoting the ban of stereos in cars? Or navigation systems, if the other driver were plugging in an address at the time of the accident?
Life is risky, and shit can happen. Try to live with it without pushing more stupid nanny laws on me. This law is obviously more about generating revenue than anything else.
I understand. My concern is not just the ‘idiots’, but the fact that studies have shown that most people feel that it impairs their driving. Personally, I pretty much avoid using handheld while driving entirely, because I know it diverts my concentration. I might not have an accident but I think it certainly increases the chances that I might. Or, another way of looking at it, is that it reduces my ability to drive defensively. And I consider myself to be a reasonable driver.
Life is risky enough as it is without people creating foreseeable harm to me or my loved ones.
As I set out in an earlier post, and as Tripper has just done, why are you ok with other road rules which infringe your freedoms (how fast and where you can drive)?
You say ‘without just cause’, but there are numerous studies that show impairment, or at least that people feel they are distracted to the point where their driving is not as good as it could be. Even to the point where it can have more of an effect than alcohol. Do you believe people should be able to drink and drive? If not, why not? Surely everyone’s limit is different and people can be responsible for ensuring they drink only to their own personal limit, so their driving is unaffected?
While we’re on the driving subject, why don’t we get rid of those stupid laws about speed limits. Lets allow everybody to take personal responsibility for their speed, just drive as fast as you feel you can handle. That should work.
Seems to work ok on a certain highway in Germany...
Yeah, but those pussies only did it on the autobahn, it’s still a nanny state on every other road.
I guess elsewhere Mutter und Vater government needs to tell them how fast to drive!
The Autobahn is the only place offering Krauts the illusion of being free and in charge of anything; its where they play the outlaw, or worse, just be themselves.
By Paul Rogers
Mercury News
Article Launched: 02/15/2008 01:42:53 AM PST
Reading, writing and . . . global warming?
A Silicon Valley lawmaker is gaining momentum with a bill that would require “climate change” to be among the science topics that all California public school students are taught.
The measure, by state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, also would mandate that future science textbooks approved for California public schools include climate change.
“You can’t have a science curriculum that is relevant and current if it doesn’t deal with the science behind climate change,” Simitian said. “This is a phenomenon of global importance and our kids ought to understand the science behind that phenomenon.”
The state Senate approved the bill, SB 908, Jan. 30 by a 26-13 vote. It heads now to the state Assembly. ...
Is it any wonder that my girlfriend chose to home school her kids? Public education is a joke.
The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother’s care, shall be in state institutions at state expense.”
– Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
We must turn children, who can be shaped like wax, into real, good Communists.... We must remove the children from the crude influence of their families. We must take them over and, to speak frankly, nationalize them. From the first days of their lives they will be under the healthy influence of Communist children’s nurseries and schools. There they will grow up to be real Communists.”
– Communist Party Education Workers Congress (1918)
Wrangling Californian neighbours have recently concluded a bitter six-year legal battle, as a judge ordered a treehugging couple’s lovingly-tended redwoods cut down in order to prevent them shading solar panels installed by the man next door.
...
Mark Vargas, whose $70,000 solar panels now operate at full efficiency, said that the tree-loving duo had been selfishly snaffling his sunlight.
“I think it’s unfair that a neighbor can take away this source of energy from another neighbor,” he told AP. Vargas added that it would take acres of trees to match his rooftop and back-garden solar panels in terms of carbon reductions. He also considered that he had out-greened Treanor and Bissett’s low-emissions Prius hybrid, having purchased a plug-in electric car.
After years of legal scuffling, a California judge ruled that Treanor and Bissett had violated the state’s Solar Shade Control Act, which says residents have to keep their plants from shading more than ten per cent of a neighbour’s solar panels between the hours of 10am and 2pm. The couple are the first to be convicted under the 30-year-old law.
Trees already in place when solar panels are set up don’t have to be cut down, but new growth causing shading is unlawful once the panels are in place. It seems that two of Treanor and Bissett’s redwoods grew in an illegal fashion and had to be chopped down.
“Out-greened”??
What kind of idiot puts solar panels right next to a bunch of redwoods and then complains about the shade? Poor planning being rewarded yet again. I love* California.
