Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Studies show that the distraction of maintaining a conversation are more impairing than mild intoxication. It was even covered on Mythbusters back in 2006, if that's more your thing. Worth watching the clip.
Thus the data suggests your hard-line stance against alcohol can't be reconciled with your view that banning cell phones is silly. You can pick one or the other, but it's hard to scientifically argue both simultaneously.
Personally I favor a system of tiered consequences. It's not like there's 0 risk at .079% and crazy risk at .08%. So why have a major penalty suddenly kick in?
Of course, that's harder to implement with cell phones since the police generally only catch a snapshot (unless of course the NSA can give them your call and text logs ).
Who is the victim when you're driving home from dinner after two glasses of wine and you get pulled over for an expired inspection sticker and the LEO decides to charge you with OUI because you blew .04?
So following your logic, unless you cause property damage or injure or kill someone you should be allowed to drive drunk to your hearts content? There doesn't need to be a victim, there is however the theoretical victim that might have existed if you continued to drive over the legal limit.
Studies show that the distraction of maintaining a conversation are more impairing than mild intoxication. It was even covered on Mythbusters back in 2006, if that's more your thing. Worth watching the clip.
Thus the data suggests your hard-line stance against alcohol can't be reconciled with your view that banning cell phones is silly. You can pick one or the other, but it's hard to scientifically argue both simultaneously.
Personally I favor a system of tiered consequences. It's not like there's 0 risk at .079% and crazy risk at .08%. So why have a major penalty suddenly kick in?
Of course, that's harder to implement with cell phones since the police generally only catch a snapshot (unless of course the NSA can give them your call and text logs ).
you are quite correct driving distracted is dangerous..now define distracted. One person can be distracted by a young lady in a bikini and almost lose control while being fixated on her uh ..assets ( my friend Dominic for example who almost crashed his bike, another can enjoy the view yet still be in complete control and have no problems at all ( me for example..and yes this is a true scenario..Hampton Beach late nineties )
Personally I think using just blood/alcohol level is archaic.. as people do vary so I would have no opposition to that factor being ruled out as the determining factor but it should be part of the whole. You say I can pick on or the other..incorrect, cellphone use in of itself is not distracting ..drunk is drunk..period.
Has any of you ever driven in a car with a kid? Or a crying infant? How about 3 kids? I can ASSURE you that they are A LOT more distracting than any phone conversation you could ever have.
Has any of you ever driven in a car with a kid? Or a crying infant? How about 3 kids? I can ASSURE you that they are A LOT more distracting than any phone conversation you could ever have.
I say let's outlaw driving in cars with kids!!!
sooner or later they just want to outlaw driving altogether
Who is the victim when you're driving home from dinner after two glasses of wine and you get pulled over for an expired inspection sticker and the LEO decides to charge you with OUI because you blew .04?
Did you hit someone? Did you do property damage? Who is the victim of this crime of drinking two glasses of wine at dinner? Because the King says if his henchmen decide you're impaired they can deem you too intoxicated to drive? .04 BAC or .08 will affect every single person reading this post differently. I've watched sober people fail field sobriety tests for a number of reasons.
I'm not for people driving drunk by any means but I have a hard time with Crimes that don't involve a victim.
If states and municipalities wanted to be fair about fines and tickets, the funds collected would be placed into an account and a check would be cut at the end of the year and mailed to every citizen, since they were potentially harmed by the dangerous behavior. Those who had good behavior on a whole would receive more compensation than those who behaved poorly.
Obviously this is silly, but it makes a LOT more sense than paying the government when you do something wrong. You don't harm the government when you speed or text, so why do they have a right to be compensated?
Has any of you ever driven in a car with a kid? Or a crying infant? How about 3 kids? I can ASSURE you that they are A LOT more distracting than any phone conversation you could ever have.
I say let's outlaw driving in cars with kids!!!
Sorry, this is about technology specifically - cell phones.
It's not about people in wheel chairs, kids, dogs, or anything else.
I limit my cell phone use while driving to answering the thing. Initiating a call takes too much attention. If I want to call or text someone I'll stop in a safe place.
I sincerely believe i will be involved in an accident or near miss on my motorcycle because of some texting or cell phone talking idiot. Ive seen too many distracted idiots on phones while driving. The UK had it right by banning hand held phone use.
Dave, I would think as a motorcycle rider you would be in favor of a ban.
Life=risk everybody. How much you risk is totally up to you.
Your decision to ride a motorcycle puts you at a far greater risk of serious injury & death, fact (and that is your choice). Distracted driving only amplifies this risk. Not defending distracted driving in any way. However, it is all around us. I have over a million miles on the road in NH, ME, and MA. I am very familiar with the risk and the results. Defensive driving on the individuals part is the most important element, ESPECIALLY for this who choose to take the significantly heightened risk of riding a motorcycle.
We cannot continue to expect to legislate our way to a utopia of zero risk living. How far do we take all of these laws & bans on our every day lives. MANY MANY factors go into how people get hurt & killed. Continually creating new laws (to stack on top of the crushing weight of all the current laws) to give you a false sense of security it completely absurd.
In the end it comes down to individual responsibility, something that so few take seriously (hence why so many folks crying for more laws all the time). People think a law will make them safe. Why would that work when people are murdered every day and it has always been against the law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
