Whats good for the goose.....
Posted on 01/12/2009 8:23:13 AM PST by Red Badger
A national safety group is advocating a total ban on cell phone use while driving, saying the practice is clearly dangerous and leads to fatalities.
States should ban drivers from using hand-held and hands-free cell phones, and businesses should prohibit employees from using cell phones while driving on the job, the congressionally chartered National Safety Council says, taking those positions for the first time.
The group's president and chief executive, Janet Froetscher, likened talking on cell phones to drunken driving, saying cell phone use increases the risk of a crash fourfold.
``When our friends have been drinking, we take the car keys away. It's time to take the cell phone away,'' Froetscher said in interview.
No state currently bans all cell phone use while driving. Six states - California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Utah and Washington - and the District of Columbia ban the use of hand-held cell phones behind the wheel, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Also, 17 states and the district restrict or ban cell phone use by novice drivers.
Council officials acknowledged a total ban could take years.
``Public awareness and the laws haven't caught up with what the scientists are telling us,'' Froetscher said. ``There is no dispute that driving while talking on your cell phone, or texting while driving, is dangerous.''
Froetscher said the council examined more than 50 scientific studies before reaching its decision. One was a study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis that estimates 6 percent of vehicle crashes, causing about 2,600 deaths and 12,000 serious injuries a year, are attributable to cell phone use. Hands-free cell phones are just as risky as hand held phones, she added.
``It's not just what you're doing with your hands - it's that your head is in the conversation and so your eyes are not on the road,'' Froetscher said.
John Walls, vice president of CTIA-The Wireless Association, a cell phone trade group, objected to a complete ban. He said there are many instances where the ability to make a phone call while driving helps protect safety.
``We think that you can sensibly and safely use a cell phone to make a brief call,'' Walls said.
What makes cell phone use distinct from other risky driving behaviors, Froetscher said, is the magnitude - there are 270 million cell phone users in the U.S. and 80 percent of them talk on the phone while driving.
Froetscher said the council is the first major national safety group to call for a total cell phone ban for drivers. The National Transportation Safety Board has been urging states since 2003 to ban the use of cell phones or any wireless device by inexperienced drivers who have learner's permits or intermediate licenses. Last year, at least 23 states considered some form of legislation to restrict the use of cell phones or wireless devices, according to the board.
Council officials said they will press Congress to address the issue when it takes up a highway construction bill this year, possibly by offering incentives to states that enact cell phone laws.
The Governors Highway Safety Association agreed that cell phone use while driving is dangerous, but said it would be difficult to enforce a ban. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which is funded by auto insurers, said banning all cell phone use ``makes sense based on the research,'' but agreed that enforcement will be difficult.
If driving an automobile is a “right” then where is my free automobile to exercise my right? If my “right” requires you or the government to do something for me, it is not a “right”. I can travel as freely as I wish by foot, animal or bicycle. I can hire a conveyance. I can hire a truck to move my goods. I can purchase an automobile and hire someone to drive it for me. I can do all these things without interference from the government.........
My logic is failing?
Driving drunk is a threat to all people, be they in cars or pedestrians. Numerous studies have shown that talking on a cell phone can actually be more dangerous that driving drunk.
Please show me where my logic is “failing”
That's the catch all in Florida, "Distracted Driving"...........
YOU’RE the one who brought safety into the equation. I disagree that safety is the “only reason” anarchy is bad on our highways. In my view, efficient us of taxpayer funds is FAR more important than nanny-state safety regulations.
Providing for taxpayer-funded roads to be used at their maximum efficiency is the reason I am willing to live with some BASIC rules of the road. Right of way determination, traffic control at intersections and which side of the road we drive on SHOULD be the limit of government interference on our highways.
I’m perfectly fine with everyone having the Freedom to use the roads in as unsafe a manner as they wish, as long as they’re willing to be held personally responsible for any damage or carnage they cause my irresponsible exercising of that freedom.
Freedom with Responsibililty. That’s what I like!!!
...BY THE irresponsible exercising...
Sheesh!!
It's for the children...
Then why do motor bank ATM's have Braille characters, huh, smarty pants? LOL!
It really made me think the first time I saw that.
What about “if you know how to drive safely while drinking, who is anyone else to make a criminal out of you?” or “if you know how to drive safely while going 95 mph, who is anyone else to make a criminal out of you?”
That argument doesn’t make much sense....
Whats good for the goose.....
Now, book reading while driving could be dangerous. I'm a little more cautious. I just read the newspaper when I'm driving...just to be on the safe side.
Typical nanny state response. You have no right for someone to provide you with a means of conveyance.
Try again.
That's what I said............
Freedom with Responsibililty. That’s what I like!!!
Yup. well said.
No. It's not what you said.
You said: If driving an automobile is a “right” then where is my free automobile to exercise my right
Just because I have a first amenment right, does not mean nanny has to provide me with a printing press. Just because I have a 2nd amendment right, it doesn't mean I have a right to an AR-15. (though the latter is definitely something I'd turn down! :-) )
It means I have the right to acquire one, if it is within my means to do so.
I was being sarcastic, to prove a point.............
And yet, it proved nothing.
I vaguely remember having this same argument with someone a year or two back.......Deja vu all over again.......and it went nowhere then, too, as I recall....................
There have been a number of occasions recently when I have had to take quick evasive action because another driver did not seem to notice that I was in their path. As they got closer I would notice that the other driver was a woman yakking on her cell phone and ignoring her driving, even when she was about to hit me. For some reason these women were all driving big SUVs.
Ya. That's the main reason I rarely take the time. You can lead a horse to water, but can't make him understand the difference between being a citizen and a subject.
The practical upshot of the state's constant beating the drum that driving is a 'privilege' is that if you don't play their game, men with guns are perfectly willing to enforce their will anyway, and kill you if that is required. That's true of many things these days and we've become used to being treated as chattel. Doesn't mean we have to like it, or not be aware of what is being done to us.
If the licensing procedure was done away with, any person blind as a bat or illiterate as a rock could get behind the wheel and drive legally, no age limits, no nothing. There are some things government must do and this is one of them. As libertarian as I am, you cannot dissuade me from this position.........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.