[coastie65]

Under ordinary circumstances, I would be prone to agree with you. This is a real problem, and if the States drag their feet on passing a comprehensive law dealing with it, then the Federal Government should step in. coastie

[number6]

It's not the Federal Government's jurisdiction. The Federal Government's purpose is set forth in Aticle 1 Section 8. It's irrelevent how fast States pass legislation.

[VanGo]

Comparing cell phone usage to our constitutional rights is absolutely ridiculous. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Driving while on the phone even hands free has been shown to be equivalent to DUI. Does anyone want to dispute that intoxicated drivers should be on the road? http://www.nytimes.c...ml?ref=research

[number6]

We have every right to do anything we want. The government should only has power that we give them. When they over step their bounds, we need to correct them. Driving is not a privilage given to us by government. They have simply decided that they want to have a monopoly on the road industry and regulate every part of it. We should stop them.

[VanGo]

And what you propose is anarchy. Good luck with that.

[mdg1019]

thewazak said:

Fumbling around with a small device and driving with only one hand (with the other not immediately available if needed) does indeed create a significant hazard. It should be illegal worldwide imho.
However, using "hands free" does not create a larger hazard than talking to a passenger. It boils down to driving skills: some people simply cannot multi-task!
Emergency service drivers, taxi's and Radio Hams have used mobile communications for years - without any problems. Maybe it's the simply the "phone-stuck-to-their-ear" generation that simply can't drive period!

Actually, you're totally wrong in assuming that hands-free cellphone use is no more dangerous as talking to a passenger. When I was taking a cognitive psychology class two years ago, my professor made us study the research that has been done on this subject. The leading study found that hands-free use is just as dangerous as using your cellphone without a hands-free device. The added danger due to the physical act of holding and manipulating a cellphone while driving was statistically insignificant.

It is far safer to be talking to a passenger, because the passenger is aware of traffic conditions and the conversation naturally ebbs and flows with the rate of traffic. When talking on a cellphone, the other party is not aware of traffic conditions and this is what causes drivers to become distracted at times when they shouldn't be.

Basically, there's little danger in talking on a cellphone on a deserted highway under good driving conditions, but that's an unrealistic situation that is rarely the case.

Hands-free or not. If you talk on a cellphone while driving, you a no better than a drunk driver and I for one hope motor vehicle laws are changed to make cellphone usage while driving just as serious a violation. You not only put yourself at risk, but everybody else in your vehicle and everybody else around you on the road.

[number6]

VanGo said:

And what you propose is anarchy. Good luck with that.

Of course, we need government; but it needs to be restrained.

[VanGo]

Well why do we need government if as you say "We have every right to do anything we want". It's a contradiction in principles.

[cameljockey]

I call for an immediate ban of the national safey council. They are far left loons who use public transportation.

[cambridgeron]

I am so sick of the argument that any restriction on drivers is an assault on basic rights. You can earn the privilege of driving a vehicle on public roads when you reach the right age and pass the test. It's this way because controlling a vehicle can be a life and death situation. You are born with the right to drive a car on private property. If it's asking too much to devote your attention to driving then go slam yourself into a tree on your own private property. Otherwise you are subject to some regulations to prevent you from mowing me down.

[number6]

We have governments to protect our rights. When someone violates someone else's right, that's what government is for. When the government violates our rights, they need to be corrected.

[mdg1019]

number6 said:

We have every right to do anything we want. The government should only has power that we give them. When they over step their bounds, we need to correct them. Driving is not a privilage given to us by government. They have simply decided that they want to have a monopoly on the road industry and regulate every part of it. We should stop them.

Ok, we should start a revolution so that you can keep your right to endanger others by using a cellphone while driving. Yeah, right. :(

I've never understood why it's so much trouble for people to pull off the road to make calls.

Government exists for the common good. We may not always agree with the decisions our goverment makes, but usually a majority do agree. Our Constitution has many protections against what Madison called the "Tyranny of the Majority". However, I don't believe that Madison would think that regulating the use of motor vehicles would come under the heading of tyranny.

[chuckm1a]

CatsAreGods you use the example of the commercial airline pilot who is talking to the tower and navigating in three dimensions as your justification for your irresponsible cell phone use while you drive. You have taken an example that you obviously know nothing about and used it as your rationale in trying to support an unsupportable position. The commercial airline pilot is assisted by the copilot and navigator. None of them are talking to 5 different people at one time. Only on ATC facility at a time has authority to change flight parameters. On inbound the primary communication is with RAPCON (Radio Approach Control) upon landing they are turned over to ground control. Three people in the cockpit one to two independent communications occurring at a time, this leaves one person free to devote their undivided attention to flying the aircraft. You must also take into consideration the training and testing the individual crewmembers have undergone to be certified to perform their jobs.

What training have you had? A high school driver’s education course that was probably taught by a football coach who needed one course per year to maintain his teacher’s certificate. Did your driver’s ed class have a specific part of the curriculum devoted to communications procedures while in route? Did you practice these procedures under stress? Your airline pilot has had the training and practice prior to sitting in the cockpit.

Vioarr, you compare the consequences of your choice in dietary habits with the results of a cell phone user causing a wreck while not paying attention to the road. Are you a total idiot? In what universe does one have anything to do with the other? I personally don’t care if you eat yourself to death; maybe you should. It would remove you from the gene pool. I won’t waste any more time with an answer to you. You wouldn’t understand it anyway.

All of you in favor of the use of cell phones think that it is your right to use your phones whenever and wherever you choose. You need to research the difference between rights and privileges. You do not have the right to endanger the lives of others while you inattentively cruise down the road blathering on a cell phone. You have been granted the privilege of using your cell phone and like all privileges it is subject to restrictions if deemed necessary. You have the right of free speech but are legally responsible for the consequences of you misuse of this right.

But I feel this to be a waste of time; those of you who have written your unreasoned diatribes in response to this article don’t want to be educated. You would rather remain ignorant and form your opinions based on emotion. After all ignorance is bliss.

[Vioarr]

To CaptainAdam - Obviously you've been out of the U.S. for quite sometime (or have never been) However in this country we now indulge fat people by allowing them to use power chairs instead of walking off their tonnage. I'm sure somewhere there has been a kid mowed down may a fat person in a power chair; count on it. And yet if you attempt to stop these fat people from using their chairs they claim discrimination. By the way "Adam" I was using that as a metaphor for our disappearing freedoms. A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a term or
phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable
in order to suggest a resemblance (in case you don't get the concept).

[mphenterprises]

Okay, before this gets way out of hand, please keep all responses in line with the article and the Discussion title. Personal attacks will not be tolerated and any personal attack posts will be edited or removed. If you have any questions, please feel free to review the {document:id=1000} or contact any one of the Member Moderators.

[Vioarr]

MY opinion is that they shouldn't outlaw it; I'm sick of the many paying for the mistakes of the few all while watching our inherent freedoms disappear. You are of the opposite opinion; and that is your right because you have the FREEDOM to do so without being murdered for it. However in the past and even in many countries today people are murdered for their opinion because they had that freedom taken away. You see if the trend continues eventually all you will see before you is a police state in which the choice you make are predetermined for you. I believe that it is my right to use a cell phone while I drive if I so choose. People make choices all the time and those choices have consequences good or bad.
*Also please actually read all comments posted by me before responding, I was speaking of the eating habits of others; not myself.
-Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici
Message was edited by: AuroraDizon - removed personal attacks, personal attacks are not permitted on the forum.