Conclusion: Anecodotes/personal experience trumps numerous studies/actual statistics. Laws are passed by nanny state undemocratically and for PC reasons, not based on any data.
You’re learning....
Yes, I weigh personal experience - that takes place over a decade and a half - much higher than I will just about any study. You’re free to disagree with me, which you clearly do, but the simple fact remains that I’ve never had a problem with driving and talking on the phone. Nor has anybody I know. In fact, I don’t know a SINGLE person who’s life has been affected by someone talking on the phone while driving. NOT ONE. I can’t say the same thing about alcohol. What about you? Do you know anyone who’s been involved in an accident or lost a loved one due to someone who was talking on a cellphone, headset or not? Now what about alcohol - do you know anyone who’s been involved in an accident or lost a loved one due to someone who was under the influence?
Yes, I absolutely believe that the risk is very strongly exaggerated by those who stand to gain from these laws. Tell me something - who funded the studies you quoted? It probably wasn’t the cellphone companies. I’d bet that in most cases, it’s the government. Who stands to gain the most (monetarily) from these laws? Oh yeah, the government.
Label me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but it’s crystal clear to me that these laws exist primarily for one reason - the bottom line. Any safety benefit gained is negligible and incidental.
I would like to add that headphones while driving and driving with one (except for operation of the vehicle) hand are illegal in Wisconsin. I also see many people doing it, so I assume these laws are not really enforced.
Conclusion: Anecodotes/personal experience trumps numerous studies/actual statistics. Laws are passed by nanny state undemocratically and for PC reasons, not based on any data.
You’re learning....
Yes, I weigh personal experience - that takes place over a decade and a half - much higher than I will just about any study. You’re free to disagree with me, which you clearly do, but the simple fact remains that I’ve never had a problem with driving and talking on the phone. Nor has anybody I know. In fact, I don’t know a SINGLE person who’s life has been affected by someone talking on the phone while driving. NOT ONE. I can’t say the same thing about alcohol. What about you? Do you know anyone who’s been involved in an accident or lost a loved one due to someone who was talking on a cellphone, headset or not? Now what about alcohol - do you know anyone who’s been involved in an accident or lost a loved one due to someone who was under the influence?
Yes, I absolutely believe that the risk is very strongly exaggerated by those who stand to gain from these laws. Tell me something - who funded the studies you quoted? It probably wasn’t the cellphone companies. I’d bet that in most cases, it’s the government. Who stands to gain the most (monetarily) from these laws? Oh yeah, the government.
Label me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but it’s crystal clear to me that these laws exist primarily for one reason - the bottom line. Any safety benefit gained is negligible and incidental.
I don’t know of anyone personally injured or killed by either. Although I hardly think that means they potentially or actually have the same effect.
One is from Direct Line, an insurance company:
Direct Line commissioned the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) to undertake extensive
research on the dangers of using a mobile phone when driving. This study was designed to
quantify the impairment from hands-free and hand-held mobile phone conversations in relation
to the decline in driving performance caused by alcohol impairment.
They quite clearly don’t want to be paying out for the accidents caused by in-car hand-held phones, in the same way they don’t want to pay out for accidents caused by people that are drunk.
The other is the Stewart Report, a wide-ranging report on mobile phones and potential health effects in general. The report was government funded but the work was carried out by the Independent Expert Group:
http://www.iegmp.org.uk/members/index.htm
But that’s hilarious if you are trying to dismiss these and loads of other studies simply because of who they may be funded by. I thought we were a little beyond that around here. You actually have to attack the methodology for criticism to carry any weight.
Any safety benefit gained is negligible and incidental
That sounds very much like you are putting that forward as fact, as opposed to opinion. Which is why I’m asking you to back it up. Can you find any studies which contradict the ones I’ve found?
As some of you may remember, I stopped working for the national rental outfit as a General Manager, and now sell compact construction equipment. My truck is my office. My phone is my path to gold. Outlawing my usage while driving would ruin me. My customers have come to expect an immediate response to their needs.
Also, I’m tired of the government telling me what I can and can’t do. Pretty soon we’ll be using terms like “comrade”.
SAN FRANCISCO: The conceit in the 1960s show “The Outer Limits” was that outside forces had taken control of your television set.
Next year in California, state regulators are likely to have the emergency power to control individual thermostats, sending temperatures up or down through a radio-controlled device that will be required in new or substantially modified houses and buildings to manage electricity shortages.
As some of you may remember, I stopped working for the national rental outfit as a General Manager, and now sell compact construction equipment. My truck is my office. My phone is my path to gold. Outlawing my usage while driving would ruin me. My customers have come to expect an immediate response to their needs.
Also, I’m tired of the government telling me what I can and can’t do. Pretty soon we’ll be using terms like “comrade”.
Why can’t you install hands-free? That would at least free up both hands.
The government tells you to drive no faster than a certain speed, and to stay within certain lines and not park in certain places - why are they not problems?
You better check under your bed, there’s probably a communist hiding under there!
As some of you may remember, I stopped working for the national rental outfit as a General Manager, and now sell compact construction equipment. My truck is my office. My phone is my path to gold. Outlawing my usage while driving would ruin me. My customers have come to expect an immediate response to their needs.
Also, I’m tired of the government telling me what I can and can’t do. Pretty soon we’ll be using terms like “comrade”.
Why can’t you install hands-free? That would at least free up both hands.
The government tells you to drive no faster than a certain speed, and to stay within certain lines and not park in certain places - why are they not problems?
You better check under your bed, there’s probably a communist hiding under there!
He’s on my computer! ;)
I did have a bluetooth, but the damn thing broke after three months. As for the speed, lines, parking issue, that’s a moot point. Those are considered to be the rules of the road that keep the flow going. Pretty soon, police will not need a viable reason to pull you over. He can say that you were looking at your phone, he couldn’t see your seatbelt, and other endless excuses to violate your rights.
As some of you may remember, I stopped working for the national rental outfit as a General Manager, and now sell compact construction equipment. My truck is my office. My phone is my path to gold. Outlawing my usage while driving would ruin me. My customers have come to expect an immediate response to their needs.
Also, I’m tired of the government telling me what I can and can’t do. Pretty soon we’ll be using terms like “comrade”.
Why can’t you install hands-free? That would at least free up both hands.
The government tells you to drive no faster than a certain speed, and to stay within certain lines and not park in certain places - why are they not problems?
You better check under your bed, there’s probably a communist hiding under there!
He’s on my computer! ;)
I did have a bluetooth, but the damn thing broke after three months. As for the speed, lines, parking issue, that’s a moot point. Those are considered to be the rules of the road that keep the flow going. Pretty soon, police will not need a viable reason to pull you over. He can say that you were looking at your phone, he couldn’t see your seatbelt, and other endless excuses to violate your rights.
I’m still yet to a decent argument about where the clear line is between ‘acceptable’ rules and where they are ‘ridiculous’. Like swagger, you suggest that the line is really obvious.
Once rules have been in force for a certain length of time, so they become ‘rules of the road that keep the flow going’?
Not having people talking on their handheld phone can certainly be considered part of the ‘keeping the flow going’.
Why is your version of what is ‘viable’ more sensible or ‘right’ than the the actual laws?
As some of you may remember, I stopped working for the national rental outfit as a General Manager, and now sell compact construction equipment. My truck is my office. My phone is my path to gold. Outlawing my usage while driving would ruin me.
First, I’m going to call bullshit. A lot of people think that, but that’s just a lame excuse. You CAN work a different way, even if you work out of your truck and are mobile. Since obviously they expect a call and not a personal visit you can simply pull over and return their call. Simple.
My customers have come to expect an immediate response to their needs.
Work smarter. You have to train your customers. They apparently run your life and you let them. That’s a way to get burned out quickly, to get needy customers, and to work too hard for too little return. You should read “The 4-Hour Workweek” to get some good advice on how to work smarter.
Also, I’m tired of the government telling me what I can and can’t do. Pretty soon we’ll be using terms like “comrade”.
I am no fan of the gov’t telling me what I can and can’t do either. BUT, if your actions put others in danger there should be a law against it. IF talking on a phone can be determined to be a danger to others there should be a law against it.
As some of you may remember, I stopped working for the national rental outfit as a General Manager, and now sell compact construction equipment. My truck is my office. My phone is my path to gold. Outlawing my usage while driving would ruin me.
First, I’m going to call bullshit. A lot of people think that, but that’s just a lame excuse. You CAN work a different way, even if you work out of your truck and are mobile. Since obviously they expect a call and not a personal visit you can simply pull over and return their call. Simple.
My customers have come to expect an immediate response to their needs.
Work smarter. You have to train your customers. They apparently run your life and you let them. That’s a way to get burned out quickly, to get needy customers, and to work too hard for too little return. You should read “The 4-Hour Workweek” to get some good advice on how to work smarter.
Also, I’m tired of the government telling me what I can and can’t do. Pretty soon we’ll be using terms like “comrade”.
I am no fan of the gov’t telling me what I can and can’t do either. BUT, if your actions put others in danger there should be a law against it. IF talking on a phone can be determined to be a danger to others there should be a law against it.
Soooo… by your aruguement one could apply it to hunting. It is a potentially dangerous thing to do, and unfortunately there are chuckleheads out there that can’t do it safely, so let’s ban shooting guns outside of a range.
169.471 TELEVISION; HEADPHONES.
Subdivision 1. Television screen in vehicle. No television screen shall be installed or used in
any motor vehicle where it is visible to the driver while operating the motor vehicle except:
(1) video screens installed in law enforcement vehicles;
(2) closed-circuit video systems used exclusively to aid the driver’s visibility to the rear
or sides of the vehicle; and
(3) video screens installed as part of a vehicle control system or used in intelligent vehicle
highway applications.
Subd. 2. Use of headphones in vehicle. (a) No person, while operating a motor vehicle, shall
wear headphones or earphones that are used in both ears simultaneously for purposes of receiving
or listening to broadcasts or reproductions from radios, tape decks, or other sound-producing or
transmitting devices.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not prohibit:
(1) the use of a hearing aid device by a person who needs the device; or
(2) the use of a communication headset by a firefighter while operating a fire department
emergency vehicle in response to an emergency.
169.471 TELEVISION; HEADPHONES.
Subdivision 1. Television screen in vehicle. No television screen shall be installed or used in
any motor vehicle where it is visible to the driver while operating the motor vehicle except:
(1) video screens installed in law enforcement vehicles;
(2) closed-circuit video systems used exclusively to aid the driver’s visibility to the rear
or sides of the vehicle; and
(3) video screens installed as part of a vehicle control system or used in intelligent vehicle
highway applications.
Subd. 2. Use of headphones in vehicle. (a) No person, while operating a motor vehicle, shall
wear headphones or earphones that are used in both ears simultaneously for purposes of receiving
or listening to broadcasts or reproductions from radios, tape decks, or other sound-producing or
transmitting devices.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not prohibit:
(1) the use of a hearing aid device by a person who needs the device; or
(2) the use of a communication headset by a firefighter while operating a fire department
emergency vehicle in response to an emergency.
Sensible.
I agree with not wearing headphones, but let’s look at the justification for it. 1) Can’t hear emergency vehicles. 2) Can’t hear horns of other vehicles.
BUT, by that arguement, the totally deaf should not be allowed to drive, and those that hear with an aide, should have a notation on their license like diabetics.
You see, it’s a slippery slope when you try to be a do gooder. If I am not allowed to impair my hearing by using headphones, then nobody should be allowed to be hearing impaired. Simple!
If I use my phone, then…
1) I don’t have the use of one hand. By this reason, one armed people can’t drive.
2) I impair one ear from ambient noise. By this reason, people deaf in one ear can’t drive.
3) I become distracted by conversation. By this reason, it should be illegal to talk to passengers while driving.
4) I block periphial vision of one eye. By this reason, someone with one eye should not be allowed to drive.
You see, anytime you seek to ban something, you have to consider who may be affected by it. Is it right that some are exempt from the reasoning of the law?
Soooo… by your aruguement one could apply it to hunting. It is a potentially dangerous thing to do, and unfortunately there are chuckleheads out there that can’t do it safely, so let’s ban shooting guns outside of a range.
Well, no, not at all. Hunting is dangerous to the prey, but not generally to others. Can you cite a single story of a random, non-hunter getting injured by a hunter?
Well, no, not at all. Hunting is dangerous to the prey, but not generally to others. Can you cite a single story of a random, non-hunter getting injured by a hunter?
Why limit it to non-hunters? Do drivers not get hurt in car accidents? Oh, because it’s damaging to your argument since there are numerous cases of hunting accidents involving hunters.
Soooo… by your aruguement one could apply it to hunting. It is a potentially dangerous thing to do, and unfortunately there are chuckleheads out there that can’t do it safely, so let’s ban shooting guns outside of a range.
Well, no, not at all. Hunting is dangerous to the prey, but not generally to others. Can you cite a single story of a random, non-hunter getting injured by a hunter?
Hunter S. Thompson accidentally shot his female “non-hunter” assistant while shooting at a bear.
If you go back to my original statement, I said that hunter’s can’t do it safely… stay on point. I don’t have time to sift through the endless stories about hunter accidents to find ones with non-hunters to satisfy your off point request.
Please address my point, and how it ties into the phone debate.
Soooo… by your aruguement one could apply it to hunting. It is a potentially dangerous thing to do, and unfortunately there are chuckleheads out there that can’t do it safely, so let’s ban shooting guns outside of a range.
Well, no, not at all. Hunting is dangerous to the prey, but not generally to others. Can you cite a single story of a random, non-hunter getting injured by a hunter?
BUT, by that arguement, the totally deaf should not be allowed to drive, and those that hear with an aide, should have a notation on their license like diabetics.
You see, it’s a slippery slope when you try to be a do gooder. If I am not allowed to impair my hearing by using headphones, then nobody should be allowed to be hearing impaired. Simple!
If I use my phone, then…
1) I don’t have the use of one hand. By this reason, one armed people can’t drive.
2) I impair one ear from ambient noise. By this reason, people deaf in one ear can’t drive.
3) I become distracted by conversation. By this reason, it should be illegal to talk to passengers while driving.
4) I block periphial vision of one eye. By this reason, someone with one eye should not be allowed to drive.
You see, anytime you seek to ban something, you have to consider who may be affected by it. Is it right that some are exempt from the reasoning of the law?
We’ve already discussed the deaf thing earlier in the thread. The same reasoning would apply. If someone with a disability can operate a vehicle safely, then they should be able to get a licence. But if you temporarily choose to impair your ability to use all your senses (upon which gaining your licence was based) then that is entirely different.
Soooo… by your aruguement one could apply it to hunting. It is a potentially dangerous thing to do, and unfortunately there are chuckleheads out there that can’t do it safely, so let’s ban shooting guns outside of a range.
Well, no, not at all. Hunting is dangerous to the prey, but not generally to others. Can you cite a single story of a random, non-hunter getting injured by a hunter?
But if you read the story, you’ll see that the hunter violated the most basic of gun safety rules. Hunting, like driving, is never going to be 100% safe because you’ll always have someone doing something idiotic. But hunting, like driving, has rules and laws to make it as safe as possible.
BUT, by that arguement, the totally deaf should not be allowed to drive, and those that hear with an aide, should have a notation on their license like diabetics.
