Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Safety Council: Ban Cell Phones While Driving (Nationally)
www.wbbm780.com ^ | 1-11-2009 | Staff

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: auto; cellphone; nannystate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-138 next last
To: Red Badger

Let’s just ban driving altogether. Then highway fatalities would go to zero.


21 posted on 01/12/2009 8:50:42 AM PST by Hawthorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

Yes, the states can.


22 posted on 01/12/2009 8:50:51 AM PST by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TexasRepublic

In Florida, the law bans “distracted driving”. That covers CB’s, stereos, Cell phones, makeup application, shaving, eating and drinking .........


23 posted on 01/12/2009 8:52:53 AM PST by Red Badger (I was sad because I had no shoes to throw, until I met a reporter who had no feet.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

So pull over and answer it.

Just because I’m opposed to a LAW against it doesn’t mean I want you driving along yapping on a cell phone while you run over me on my motorcycle.


24 posted on 01/12/2009 8:53:29 AM PST by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

ESPN has a beer ad in every commercial break, hasn’t stopped drinking and driving from being illegal.

The hard part with cellphones is there are so many gadgets that make it hands free it’s pretty much undetectable at this point. Maybe they could cover it under the driving while impaired laws, if you’re weaving like a drunk they don’t need to figure out why, just give you a ticket for being unfit behind the wheel.


25 posted on 01/12/2009 8:53:40 AM PST by dilvish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Next they'll want to ban book reading while driving.
26 posted on 01/12/2009 8:54:33 AM PST by BallyBill (Serial Hit-N-Run poster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
If I am ever elected to Congress (or my State House of delegates) my position will be that in order for me to vote for passage of ANY new law (including budget packages) TWO existing laws must be repealed as part of its passage.

I love that idea!

27 posted on 01/12/2009 8:54:54 AM PST by Travis T. OJustice (Change is not a destination, just as hope is not a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Was driving on the Kennedy expressway in Chicago, and saw an black state police car pass me on the left. I watched it pass by, with the female cop talking on her phone, pressed to her ear. Being that it was rush hour, traffic was slow, and she was on the phone for at least 5 minutes.

I guess laws are only for the subjects.

28 posted on 01/12/2009 8:55:53 AM PST by mountn man (The pleasure you get from life, is equal to the attitude you put into it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dmz

Not really. Have you ever ridden in a car where the driver is on a freeway, moving at 70 miles an hour and can’t talk on the phone and drive at the same time? How many lives are at stake in a situation like this? I’ve been there and it ain’t no joy ride.


29 posted on 01/12/2009 8:55:59 AM PST by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: anoldafvet
Yup. But I still oppose a law against it. Now, I'm in favor of holding people personally responsible for the property they damage and people they kill while driving distracted, but far be it for me to intefere with their freedom.

Freedom with responsibility is what I like.

30 posted on 01/12/2009 8:56:44 AM PST by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: anoldafvet
Yup. But I still oppose a law against it. Now, I'm in favor of holding people personally responsible for the property they damage and people they kill while driving distracted, but far be it for me to intefere with their freedom.

Freedom with responsibility is what I like.

31 posted on 01/12/2009 8:56:46 AM PST by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Travis T. OJustice

“If I am ever elected to Congress (or my State House of delegates) my position will be that in order for me to vote for passage of ANY new law (including budget packages) TWO existing laws must be repealed as part of its passage.”

And EVERY law should have a sunset clause.


32 posted on 01/12/2009 8:56:50 AM PST by ScottinVA (All I needed to know about islam I learned on 9-11.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: anoldafvet
Yup. But I still oppose a law against it. Now, I'm in favor of holding people personally responsible for the property they damage and people they kill while driving distracted, but far be it for me to intefere with their freedom.

Freedom with responsibility is what I like.

33 posted on 01/12/2009 8:56:50 AM PST by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

I’m always amazed at how much support of the nanny state you find here at FreeRepublic.


34 posted on 01/12/2009 8:56:53 AM PST by zeugma (Will it be nukes or aliens? Time will tell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

Good idea!


35 posted on 01/12/2009 8:57:29 AM PST by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BallyBill

I saw a woman driving the other day while reading a magazine propped up on her steering wheel, we were doing about 45 mph........


36 posted on 01/12/2009 8:57:44 AM PST by Red Badger (I was sad because I had no shoes to throw, until I met a reporter who had no feet.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Children in a car are proven to be a greater hinderance to safe driving than cell phones. Should children be banned?


37 posted on 01/12/2009 8:58:28 AM PST by Travis T. OJustice (Change is not a destination, just as hope is not a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BallyBill

Well, they’ll have a serious fight on their hands from me on THAT one, I tell ya’!!!

;^)


38 posted on 01/12/2009 8:58:48 AM PST by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA
And EVERY law should have a sunset clause.

Except tax reductions. :)

39 posted on 01/12/2009 8:59:15 AM PST by Travis T. OJustice (Change is not a destination, just as hope is not a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Hawthorn
Let’s just ban driving altogether. Then highway fatalities would go to zero.

That, of course, is the socialists' ultimate goal. Rush (the rock band, not the talk show host) wrote a song about it: look up the lyrics to "Red Barchetta".

40 posted on 01/12/2009 8:59:57 AM PST by bassmaner (Hey commies: I am a white male, and I am guilty of NOTHING! Sell your 'white guilt' elsewhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-138 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson