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.
I done it for years and had no issue, i see nothing dangerous about it.
You are probably oblivious to the slowing down, and veering out of your lane, that you're doing while you're talking on the phone. And the reason you'd be oblivious to it is because you're paying less attention to your driving while paying more attention to the conversation you're having on the phone.
You are probably oblivious to the slowing down, and veering out of your lane, that you're doing while you're talking on the phone. And the reason you'd be oblivious to it is because you're paying less attention to your driving while paying more attention to the conversation you're having on the phone.
I pay attention much more to my driving compare to the phone conversation. I am fully in control of my driving.
Drivers are constantly reminded not to use their phones while behind the wheel, but a new study reminds us just how dangerous it is.
The National Safety Council's annual injury and fatality report, "Injury Facts," found that the use of cellphones causes 26% of the nation's car accidents, a modest increase from the previous year. The 2014 edition of the report compares data from 2013 and earlier.
Only 5% of cellphone-related crashes occur because the driver is texting. The majority of the accidents involve drivers distracted while talking on handheld or hands-free cellphones.
I pay attention much more to my driving compare to the phone conversation. I am fully in control of my driving.
Not talking on the phone, you are paying 100% attention to your driving. Or at least close to it.
Even if your talking on the phone captures only 30% of your attention, that is 30% less attention you're paying to your driving, and your attention to driving has been reduced to only 70% of your attention. That is 30% fewer things around you on the road you will notice, 30% fewer things about your own driving you will notice, and so on.
I have driven behind so many people yakking on their phone and observed at how bad their driving becomes, that it is clear to me that anyone who thinks they can drive safely while yakking on their phone is fooling themselves. It is like driving behind an elderly person who probably shouldn't be on the road anymore.
As I said, if you think your driving is just fine while you're yakking on your phone, that is only because you are oblivious to how much your yakking has degraded your driving.
Apparently the rules never apply to elites the 1% including police officers. The ones that lobby for these rules and sign them into law.
Modern hands free devices including the built in car ones are actually very confusing to operate and take more attention. I would not be surprised people are have crashed after being frustrated with their on board cell phone system than with a handheld cell phone these days. Voice activited systems are horrible at comprehending what one says thus the user ends up having to navigate the screen which requires more attention off the road to do so. It isn't just cell phones these days those complicated infotainment systems must be navigated even to adjust the temperature and radios.
IF only five percent of accidents is result of texting it appears texting laws which is much more common (48 states) than general cell phone use laws (22 states) are kneejerk and a waste of legislator efforts that can be used for more useful issues.
Though the real question is not about cell phone driving itself but who controls the legislator and who lobbys laws.
Apparently while its extremely dangerous to hold a child on a plane its still legal because the lobbyists say so. Ironically while all carryon items including handbags are to be stowed for takeoff and landing a baby which can way as much as a carry on bag with wheels is allowed to be carried which is not just dangerous for the baby/toddler but for other passengers as well. The safest compromise is a child safety harness that can be attached to the mother and to the seatbelt the mother is wearing. It can also save lives in lower income communities and poor countries where full safety seats are out of reach for locals due to cost.
... I am most curious about the politics on this and how it suddenly changed just this past year...
It isn't politics. It's money IMHO.
I'd speculate that it is a combination of a reduction of state tax revenues caused by the COVID slowdowns and the increase (to partially cover the losses) in NHTSA Section 405 grants to states if a cell-phone ban is enacted.
So Thats why, because they are bribed to do so. While they used to say no and refuse the offer now they give in. Apparently I noticed how states were desperately trying to get meet their annual lawmaking quotas last March in the last few days before they had to lockdown their states or at least close their state capital chambers to avoid COVID19 spread which means they would not be able to vote on new laws for who knows how long.
While South Dakota was called a Libertarian "tax haven" not so long ago with very little interest to pass meddling laws,
though a few years ago they defeated the 1992 court ruling that states cannot collect "use" taxes on Interstate commerce. Though this doesn't just apply to South Dakota many other states including California and New York took advantage of this immediately. Essentially killing many online small businesses and making consumers pay likely billions more a year on online purchases. Though I was surprised of all states its South Dakota that challenged this.
New Hampshire was initially mad because they have no sales tax, however it appears New Hampshire had also been chipping away their "live free or die" mentality for quite a while now. South Dakota seems otherwise less meddling than New Hampshire in many respects. Though New Hampshire local governments have less power to do their own meddling ordinances than most states.
You grab money where it's dangling the lowest. It's no different in the private sector.
The Missouri DOT has been advocating (as much as it is allowed to by law) the state legislature to pass a primary seat belt law. Currently, it is only a secondary law. By making it a primary law the DOT would get millions of dollars to be used how it pleases. The legislature has resisted not because of ideological principles, but because it would not get the dollars... you know, out of spite.
Years ago I asked intel(the computer chip company) to design a chip for all cell phones, that would shut the phone down as soon as it detected movement.
That not only meant they wouldn't work in a vehicle, but also wouldn't work if people were walking while using a phone.
Many mis-fortunes have happened to people while walking, and talking on a phone.
Intel was polite enough to send me a reply, but it ended there.
I still believe this would be the best for all concerned.
I use my phone often as a GPS and I use by bluetooth headset while driving. In both cases my eyes are on the road. In fact the GPS instructions stream through my headset.
Besides people like myself people that drive for a living use these functions.
On top of that passengers use their phones while someone else is driving. Often on long trips. Why should their phones be disabled?
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.
