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.
People will keep on claiming that they can do multi-task as they are INDEED very good with them. In fact if something bad (but not so serious) happens they will still keep on defending their amazing abilities and try to blame it on something else. Reason - Insurance is going to take care of everything. My insurance may go up but I can take care of that
Do this - Impose really high fines that will take at least a fraction of what they have in case something goes wrong and let me see how many are still confident about their multi-tasking and this will also show how confident they INDEED are.
The broader question here is one of criminalizing behavior instead of the actual harmful act. Drunk driving isn’t harmful until and unless it causes an accident, but there’s sufficiently persuasive evidence that the behavior – that is, the drunk driving – so greatly increases the odds of otherwise preventable accidents, that the behavior is criminalized. Exceeding the speed limit by itself injures no one, or causes property damage. But the behavior is criminalized, ostensibly from the belief that such behavior so greatly increases the odds of collisions, and makes the collisions so much worse. If a collision is proved to have been caused by recklessness, the perpetrator is charged for the recklessness in addition to being assigned fault for the collision. But mere recklessness, harming no one and done for instance on a deserted highway, is also criminalized.
The same is happening with cell phones. That some people are quite capable of speaking on the phone and driving safely, and that others are borderline incompetent even if concentrating intently on the road, is irrelevant. Assuming that the driver is properly licensed and has therefore met the state minimum standards, he/she would not be penalized for display of incompetence, unless he/she commits an offense against the law. A driver using a cell phone but obeying all of the other rules of highway usage and operating his/her machine skillfully would nevertheless be charged with an infraction, while one who misses shifts, brakes too early, can’t maintain speed in a turn, lugs the engine and takes turns too widely – in other words an unskilled operator of the machine – but who obeys the various laws, would never be charged with anything. Nobody has ever gotten meritorious marks on his/her license for displaying to an officer of the law the skill of heel-and-toe shifting or executing a proper parking-brake turn.
Sufficiently motivated people decide that a given behavior raises the danger of hypothetical collision, and band together to criminalize that behavior. Those who oppose such criminalization may be more numerous than those who support the ban, but are less vocal and less motivated. The motivated minority beats the listless and indifferent majority.
Every traffic death or injury is tragic, but I have this question to ask those who have lost a loved-one in a traffic accident perpetrated by a drunk driver or one otherwise incapacitated by some distraction, such as being tired on yakking on the cell phone: would it have been any easier to bear your loss if the perpetrator were sober, alert and in full command of his/her faculties?
Recently I lost a close acquaintance who was driving home on a rural road, late at night, in the rain. She careened off of the road and hit a tree. The police investigation concluded that there was no driver impairment or illegality. Sometimes freakishly tragic things just happen. It’s a gross mistake of hubris to conclude that merely by behaving well, we’ll insulate ourselves from deleterious consequences.
Does anybody think that talking to my wife on a cell phone is more distracting than talking to her when when she is in the passenger seat? How so? Is listening to someone tell me something on a cell phone more distracting than listening to somebody talking on the radio? How so?
As has been said many times in this thread, there are things that are already in use, in your phone, that already do this. You don't need to contact Intel. It will do nothing.
Also, if something like this does get implemented it will kill your battery. It will have to be on 24/7 to know when you are going to be moving. There is no feasible way for something like this to get implemented.
Besides your completely way too far out of right field suggestion of going back on 30+ years of innovation in cell phone technology and going against the hundreds of years of democratic progress and turning into a communist country and taking away cell phones that have nothing but numbers, a speak and mic in them, there is NO WAY to have a system in place that will disable phones in cars.
If you had read my entire proposal, you would see that the de-activating device (chip)would be installed in the mobile device, NOT the vehicle, so no battery would be going dead.
And once again, you and others mentioned "things" that are already incorporated into cell phones.
Well apparently they are not functioning, because people are still being run down, or killed in accidents because of people using cell phones.
If it isn't Intel, then it will be someone else, but one way or the other, I need to do all I can to see that this chip gets built, and installed. If people don't like controls on just how they use their phone, then that is tough sh..
This is something that NEEDS to be done if we are to get a grip on these irresponsible jerks using their cells while driving.
There is much that drivers need to concentrate on when behind the wheel, and one ,more distraction only ups the odds that someone is going to be killed, or maimed for life by a driver temporarily distracted by using the cell phone.
We all got use to having to buckle seat belts before driving, installing car seats for young ones, getting use to multiple air bags in our vehicles.
These are safety items to protect us while we are in vehicles, and a safety device that can not only protect we in the vehicles, but one that also gives a margin of safety to others beyond the confines of the vehicle , is just as important.
All the arguments I have read in this thread against my proposal are weak to say the least.
When we are talking human lives, that, above all should, and hopefully will, be the top priority in the decision to manufacturer, and install this chip in ALL future mobile communication devices.
One step at a time, and when this one is successfully completed, next on the list will be touch screens installed in vehicles.
This too is a MAJOR distraction, and needs to be abolished.
For way too long, automakers, and tech companies have peddled their unsafe wears, and it is high time someone took a good look at these products in terms of safety for the general public.
These are battles I can't possibly win alone, it is going to take a concentrated effort by many, but it has to start somewhere, and it has started here.
Obviously it is going to have to be approved by government,and that in itself will be a daunting task.
It is not insurmountable, but it will take commitment.
Now one of my biggest challenges will be to get others on board.
Bob.
Does anybody think that talking to my wife on a cell phone is more distracting than talking to her when when she is in the passenger seat?
Yeah. For one thing talking on the phone ties up a hand and often puts the driver in a head tilted "phone talking" posture rather than a driving posture. And it seems to me people talking to another person in the car are in driving mode but those talking on cell phones are in phone mode.
Maybe if talking to your wife while she's in the car is as distracting to you as talking to her on the phone you shouldn't talk to her in the car.
Does anybody think that talking to my wife on a cell phone is more distracting than talking to her when when she is in the passenger seat? How so? Is listening to someone tell me something on a cell phone more distracting than listening to somebody talking on the radio? How so?
Yes, someone does...here are a few of many...ask them how.
...
When we are talking human lives, that, above all should, and hopefully will, be the top priority....
I disagree completely. Quality of life is vastly more important than merely being alive. Complete and unexamined emphasis on keeping everyone alive means a total ban on all potentially dangerous behavior. The best way to take traffic fatalities to zero is to ban traffic. Is this wise?
In my view, the mere eventually of propitiating human lives is NOT the top priority. The top priority is progress, excellence and expansion of human knowledge. I'd gladly surrender my own life for that purpose.
It is great that you took the time to post those links.
Perhaps it might make some realize that there is indeed a problem, and that my proposal is not misguided after all.
It is a REAL problem, and Must be addressed.
Bob.
I like driving. I don't like taking on the phone, even at home much less while driving. I often wonder what these idiots talking on the phone while driving are talking about, the latest episode of "American Idol"? What's so God damned important?
I go by evidence I have personally observed: the people I know who have chosen to obey orders not to use cell phones (for talk or text) while driving (whether or not there were actual laws in place) have NOT had any accidents. People I know who DO still engage in this dangerous practice HAVE had accidents. None fatal, to date, thank heavens. But accidents, nevertheless.
I think there's a reason for this aside from the phones themselves causing the accidents. People who refuse to acknowledge the potential danger of themselves being distracted while driving are either: 1. practicing denial either permanently or occasionally; 2. in possession of defiant personalities, or 3. just stupid and/or ill-informed. People who respond to potential danger by improving their own behavior (not using the phone or switching to a blue tooth device if they believe they MUST talk) are sensible human beings concerned with safety, so they will get in fewer accidents under any circumstance.
I think eventually it will be insurance company policies that will lead to a change in our attitudes about phones and driving. If you think costs of insuring drivers under 25 are expensive now ... they will only get higher as the financial toll of young people texting while driving is totally revealed. Insurance companies are not going to front the expense of this careless behavior. They will make us reimburse them.
Last edited by Jukesgrrl; 08-16-2013 at 03:08 PM..
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.
