I really hope this passses as 90% of the idiots i see on the road doing stupid crap are on the phone. http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/us/ntsb-cell-phone-ban/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

i find it necessary to use my phone sometimes, but i move over to the slow lane and slow down at let everyone by. it is still very distracting while driving and dangerous. i ususally will not even answer my phone if i am intown. i agree with you on people using there phone and not paying attention. 99 out of 100 times i see someone doing something that does not make sense, they have a phone in their ear.

I'm thankful I live in a area where there is no cell phone coverage... We don't have these problems out here...

If it passes its not going to kill me i rarely even check my cell when driving. The thing is i see people bent over in the other seat looking for cds, women putting on make up, guys shaving, people with notebooks opened up balanced on the steering wheel and looking over or doing work, people messing with the radio, setting the a/c or head controls, etc etc etc. Cell phones are far from the only problem. You want people to be safe drivers theres going to need to be alot more laws than laws on cell phones alone. If this laws passes we woulnt see it anytime soon and if we do it will be be refined and changed alot from what it is now.-Jordan-

Valid point.

I have to agree with MarbleCrusher, if you ban cell phones, are you going to ban eating food, drinking coffee or soda, looking at the radio or having children in the vehicle also? I would rather have less government intrusion than more. Some people say that if it will save one life than it will be worth banning cell phone, I have to ask if you are worried about saving lives than get rid of things that can kill you including vehicles. I have heard that you can not legislate stupid, the best you do is try and stay away from them. I, like MoparMan, live where there is no cell service, even though I am a flat lander, I still have to worry about some stupid things people do.

With innovation comes risks. Wouldn't be so bad if we didn't have so many people on the road, though I know just 1 person in the middle of the road can kill another person, out on the open highway. People aren't going to stop doing it until they have killed that other person, and even then they might be at it again in a year. Since we can't stop that kind of thing (because let's face it, there aren't enough cops to stop every single person they see on their cell phone), we need to come up with something else. One viable solution is like I think audi or volvo or one of them does with the dinging and lights and stuff going off when it senses an accident is going to occur. Basically, if you're going to divert half your attention away from the road, something needs to replace that half, and that thing would be a good start. I have never been in one of those things to see if it actually works but I think it would be easy enough to sense things like a car directly in front of you. They could put more into these sensors, making them better. They could do other things like that as well. It is just like air bags. Why doesn't a horse and buggy need an airbag? People wanted to go faster, and since there is no way to get people to slow down, we implemented airbags as a necessary compromise between speed and safety. You won't die or be perfectly fine, its a compromise. The dinging sensors in the car when you are about to have an accident would possibly prevent a head on collision and be side swiped instead.

I have to agree with MarbleCrusher, if you ban cell phones, are you going to ban eating food, drinking coffee or soda, looking at the radio or having children in the vehicle also? I would rather have less government intrusion than more. Some people say that if it will save one life than it will be worth banning cell phone, I have to ask if you are worried about saving lives than get rid of things that can kill you including vehicles. I have heard that you can not legislate stupid, the best you do is try and stay away from them. I, like MoparMan, live where there is no cell service, even though I am a flat lander, I still have to worry about some stupid things people do.

here is my counter argument. As i agree with you to a point, the issue is that when using a cell phone your brain is engaged in the conversation on the phone, not the road. When people are fully ebedded in a phone call while driving, paying attention to driving becomes secondary. They actually did a scientific study about this long ago. However, eating for example, really isnt that hard. We play video games, drive, talk and all sorts of things whilst eating and still can concetrate on the task at hand. The act of eating doesnt take much concentration to perform, unless you spill sauce on your suit or dress then that is where is becomes the disrtaction. The main point is that being engaged in conversation on a cell phone takes your mind away from driving far more than anything else we do in the car. Thus why i think they should ban it. It is a known fact that the human mind cannot be fully engaged on more than one activity at a time when there needs to be concentration involved. If there were to be a compromise, they should just ticket people who start screwing up on the road while doing anything other than driving, this could cover everything and not focus on one thing.

Even if we just banned cars in general, we can still never be safe going back to using horses! Even worse thats a mounted officer

-Jordan-

With innovation comes risks. Wouldn't be so bad if we didn't have so many people on the road, though I know just 1 person in the middle of the road can kill another person, out on the open highway. People aren't going to stop doing it until they have killed that other person, and even then they might be at it again in a year. Since we can't stop that kind of thing (because let's face it, there aren't enough cops to stop every single person they see on their cell phone), we need to come up with something else.

One viable solution is like I think audi or volvo or one of them does with the dinging and lights and stuff going off when it senses an accident is going to occur. Basically, if you're going to divert half your attention away from the road, something needs to replace that half, and that thing would be a good start. I have never been in one of those things to see if it actually works but I think it would be easy enough to sense things like a car directly in front of you. They could put more into these sensors, making them better. They could do other things like that as well.

It is just like air bags. Why doesn't a horse and buggy need an airbag? People wanted to go faster, and since there is no way to get people to slow down, we implemented airbags as a necessary compromise between speed and safety. You won't die or be perfectly fine, its a compromise. The dinging sensors in the car when you are about to have an accident would possibly prevent a head on collision and be side swiped instead.

you have very valid points that something else needs to be done, i heard about vehicles being equipped with RF blockers/jammers that turn on when they sense an RF signal. But they shut off when the vehicle is stopped or something like that. Inhibiting the use of cellphones by active devices while driving is a good thing. But then it can be bypassed or disabled unless they integrate it into the ecm or something like the breathalyzer thing for dui people. If you tamper with it, you cant drive the car. they would have to figure out a way to allow for 911 calls while driving though.

--- Update to the previous post...

Even if we just banned cars in general, we can still never be safe going back to using horses! Even worse thats a mounted officer

-Jordan-

damn you stumped me! The horse is like "WTF GET OFF THE PHONE AND LETS RIDE!"

I had this conversation with someone just a day or two ago. My buddy had a new Charger and he could not mess with the navigation while the car was in gear. And I hate government intervention also. But make it where a cell phone wont work when the vehicle is in drive. Just my .

OK, if car manufactures make something that disables cell phones when the vehicle is in anything but park, what is my girlfriend going to do as we drive into town? She will not be able to talk on the cell since it is disabled. I believe that there are a lot of accidents due to cell phone use, but there are a lot of accidents due to other forms of distracted driving, should we also make those other forms illegal also? As you stated, eating my not distract the driver very much unless you spill something, which happens all too often, so since it is possible we should ban eating and driving? Don't get me wrong, something needs to be done, I am not smart enough to know what can be done, but my opposition is where does it stop. Today it is cell phones, what will be next? As an example, years ago people could smoke most anywhere. Then smoking in certain areas was banned, but that is as far as it would go, then somebody wanted to go just a little farther, next thing people can not even smoke in parks or in their vehicles. I like ISX's thing about smarter cars, but that will not help most people because it will only be on new vehicles and it will take years to implement. Hey, the horse is in the cross walk, riding horses for a living they are by far safer than a vehicle, I have been drunk and put my horse on auto pilot and he has gotten my home. Although the last time I was on a horse I did break my leg, but let me assure you he nor I was on a cell phone! In fact I wish I had cell phone service because then I would not have been left out over night with a broken femur. It has been just over three months as I hope to be back riding in a month or two, and I will try and not use any electronic device while riding.

I am having this discussion on another forum as well, and a good point was brought up. There are many causes of distraction that leads to accidents, and to help curb the accidents caused by cell phone use, a heavy fine should be given to ANY party involved in the accident whether at fault or not, if they were on a cell phone (which can be proven).first exampleperson #1 is on a phone and hits person #2, person #1 get cited for the accident and fined for being on the phone that distracted them causing the accident.person #2 hopefully lives.second exampleperson #1 hits person #2. person #1 was not on a phone and gets charged with the accident.Person #2 was on a phone and was hit by person #1. person #2 is FINED for being on the phone and distracted causing inability to avoid being hit (in some cases)third exampleBoth drivers are on phones, one causes the accident. Both get fined for being on phones and one get cited for the cause of the accident.the same can be done if proven a driver was clearly distracted by something else other than a cell phone.Thoughts?

It's just the fact that you will not get a cell phone out of a teenagers hands. When have you seen them ever give it up? They are the ones on the road thinking they are invincible and texting and doing all the other stuff. I am not saying that's bad, it's human nature, we were all like that. I realize my idea would only be on new cars, but eventually it would be on all cars, how many do you see on the road older than 10 years.. Starting now would be a lot better than never starting at all. Let me give you an idea about time. Wayyyyy back in the day, someone invented polarized windshields and headlights. This blocked light in such a way that bright lights hardly looked bright. This had no effect on anything but headlights that were polarized everything else looked exactly the same since it's not like a tree is polarized. You could leave your brights on and never have to worry because the oncoming driver just saw it as a dim headlight. They used the excuse that it would take years to be implemented, so they never did it. This was back in the 30's........imagine what it would be like to drive at night today if they had began implementing it then. I see cell phone ticketing like speeding, everyone does it, it's just far too easy to get away with. With everyone speeding, nobody is speeding in a sense.. With everyone on their phones (which they will always be on those phones), it will make the point neutral again. How will the cop know if the accident was caused by a cell phone or not. People will get around any system to disable their cell phone, they use it way too much. This is why I say they have to compromise with the fact that we aren't going to stop using them and provide us with a way to use them safely.

valid points, and good conversation. I like seeing everyones views as they have opened many doors to many things good and bad.It is a tough subject to manage, how to prevent so many accidents that are caused by these distractions.

Alot of valid points I think another thing is the fact that some people have a problem multitasking more that just being on the cell phone. A girl I used to date wrecked 4 cars by the time she was 21, none of them involved her being on the cell phone, twice she was reaching down to get something, once she had some friends in the car and was paying more attention to them than driving, and lastly what most women who get in a hurry are guilty of, trying to do their hair and make up while driving. Arlington, TX has already passed this law city wide so maybe this is a thing of the near future, we shall see.-Jordan-

Alllrighty, here I go. Coming from a place where there is in fact a cell phone ban I want to tell you some observations I see. So they say it was causing accidents driving while talking, or texting for that matter, yes, I'm sure it does. So they decided to ban it and now what do you have, you have a large number of people driving around talking, heads on a swivel looking for police so they don't get caught. You now have the texters out there that used to rest the phone on top of the steering wheel so they could (try to ) watch the road and text at the same time, now hiding their phone down in their lap as they drive looking down to text, worse then the situation it was. I know it happens because I see it all the time, like literally everyday. I'm not going to sit here and say it's not dangerous allowing it, but what's the difference between a person talking on a cell phone, or a trucker talking on a CB mic ? That's allowed here...a cop driving along talking on his cell phone...that's allowed here. They say it's part of their job so it's kind of a grey topic area! Does that being part of the job mean they can't get distracted?As for distractions, how is it not a distraction to have a person, or a car load of people in the car all talking to you at the same time while you drive? I would almost think that's worse because you now have the driver looking sideways to look at the person he's talking to, or better yet looking in the back at the people he's talking to. The stereo cranked up loud while your driving along eating a bag of chips and they are falling in your lap, so you looking down to pick them up. Kids in the back seat hollaring or argueing , all distractions. As for speeders like ISX said, the gov't doesn't want speeders to stop speeding, if they say they do their making a fool of themselves! They want speeding stopped, make car makers program a car that it can't go over 70 mph, period! Speeding causes tickets which in turn generates revenue for the gov't. People talking on cell phones causes tickets which again generates revenue. If they wanted it stopped, it would be stopped via programming like someone said earlier so the phone wont work when the car is running. They can do almost anything with a computer, so i'm sure they can do that. To me, texting while you drive..No ! but it's not the cell causing the accident while someone drives and talks on it, it's the person that can't hold concentraton to do two things at once. If they can't hold a device to their ear and talk into it without being preocupied, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to have anyone in the car speaking to them either. If it's a law for one it should be for all, that's what pi**es me off when I see a cop driving along talking on his, yet stops another person for doing the exact same thing and gives them a $250 fine

I don't text... don't know how & my fingers don't work well enough anyway. I have (rarely) made a call to find an address & being guided in... low speed only & no traffic. Traffic = stop. I don't "converse on the phone". Other than that, I will not initiate a will not initiate a call.I will take a call... and pull over... if the traffic is not bad. I hate driving in traffic. This is with my CAR. I would be even more cautious with the truck just because of the size. Towing? No way! Now when the wife & I are out together (rare in itself), wife likes to make calls while I drive.

I guess I'm very old fashion. When I took my first driving test, it stated: Driving on state and city highways is a privilege. You will abide by all of the Rules of The Road for the state and the states you are in. You will maintain your vehicle in a safe and proper condition. You will put the driving of your driving 'As Your Top Priority' while driving on the roads.Your driving a several thousand pound vehicle at varying speeds and in a split second, damage property or kill someone. So, you as an individual is so privileged that you are the only one out there and allowed to do anything you want at any time, no matter what ? Before I retired, I drove 100 miles each morning just to get to work. I have seen more idiots than I want. This is because, I believe, they know all and felt they can drive safe do any and all un-Godly things. But in all, I'm very surprised I didn't see more accidents and deaths than I did. I've seen enough I should have made notes and took pictures, then published a book, "Humans on the Road - Idiots At Large !'. (But then I would have been as much of an ___ as they were.)My last run home on my last day of work, a lady was ahead of me, on a cell phone, arms waving, appeared mad, (I slowed up) drifted off the road onto the gravel edge, jerked the wheel to get on the asphalt, slammed into a couple cars, killed a guy and two kids. In all, because of her, her need to be on the cell, uncontrolled temper ... the total time home was over 4 hours, and seeing the bodies removed, vehicles towed off and also an interview with the cop. Hell of a day.

I dont know this to be fact, but i am willing to bet that most states have some form of law to be able to fault or lay blame for an accident on any one who is driving while impaired or distracted. not sure about the distracted part, but my brother was cited for failing to avoid an accident when someone else ran a stop light in NC back in the 60's. i dont think they have removed the law off the books. I just dont think we need the government passing another intrusion into our lives if something else exists to deal with it. Start holding people accountable for they do and we can do alot of that by using existing laws. enforce thae laws we have and make people take responsibility for what they do. there is a sad lack of that in this country today. My parents raised me to be proud of my self and mey deeds, but when i was wrong, own up to it and deal with it.:smart:Boy the lawyers would have a hey day with me.

Laws ? There are so many laws on each state books, there is no way to know even 2% of them. I was raised in Ill, and before I left there in '67, I read some of the laws that were still active on the books. One said at the age of 16, every male HAD to have a weapon with him when outside, (or something similar to that), this was to protect you from indian attacks. And the law that got Al Capon, the state stamp tax on the bottom of every tobacco container was still in effect. Heck, in 1967, they had the stamp tax sticker on the bottom of the pack and no one cared or much less knew of it, and I seem no one with a weapon going to town, in fact, I didn't see any indian attacks either. But still on the books and active. We have laws, plenty of them with no end in sight.