Cell Phones in Vehicles

[Riverwind]

This is unlike drinking and driving. I've never seen a case of a drunk being able to operate a car as proficiently as sober.

A chronic alcoholic can operate a car as if they were perfectly sober with a blood alcohol content of over 0.08 yet they can be charged with impaired driving because the law does not make exceptions for people that can 'handle their booze'.

I'd rather see higher consequences for those that get into accidents while talking on the phone, rather than punishing or limiting everyone, where many can talk on the phone no problem while driving.

That is only because other drivers often see the idiot yacking on the phone and will compensate. Studies have shown that driving while talking on a cell phone reduces reactions times as much as alcohol. Other drivers don't know when a drunk is behind the wheel so they cannot compensate.

Again, what's the difference from talking on the phone with a handsfree to talking to the person in the passenger seat. Are we to enclose the driver in a sound proof bubble next?

There is a huge difference. The passenger in the car can see the road conditions and will not be bothered if the conversation stops suddenly while the driver deals with a complex traffic sitution. A boss or an important client on the other end of a cell phone connection will usually consider such interruptions rude.

[geoffrey]

This is unlike drinking and driving. I've never seen a case of a drunk being able to operate a car as proficiently as sober.

A chronic alcoholic can operate a car as if they were perfectly sober with a blood alcohol content of over 0.08 yet they can be charged with impaired driving because the law does not make exceptions for people that can 'handle their booze'.

Is this true, or would their blood alcohol simply be lower drinking the same amount? In that case, I don't think an impaired driving charge is warrented as they aren't impaired. The administrative aspect is impossible though.

I'd rather see higher consequences for those that get into accidents while talking on the phone, rather than punishing or limiting everyone, where many can talk on the phone no problem while driving.

That is only because other drivers often see the idiot yacking on the phone and will compensate. Studies have shown that driving while talking on a cell phone reduces reactions times as much as alcohol. Other drivers don't know when a drunk is behind the wheel so they cannot compensate.

I'm sure the studies go either way.

Again, what's the difference from talking on the phone with a handsfree to talking to the person in the passenger seat. Are we to enclose the driver in a sound proof bubble next?

There is a huge difference. The passenger in the car can see the road conditions and will not be bothered if the conversation stops suddenly while the driver deals with a complex traffic sitution. A boss or an important client on the other end of a cell phone connection will usually consider such interruptions rude.

I disagree. I have little problem with telling someone, "oh, I've got to merge up ahead, can you please hold for a second."

Again, it depends on the situation. Someone talking on the phone in rush hour traffic merging onto the Deerfoot from Memorial Drive in Calgary is one story, someone talking on the phone on highway 68 west of the city is not really an issue.

Driving drunk is equally dangerous (at least in the potential to cause some serious trouble) really no matter the situation (despite a big open uninhabited field). Driving on the phone is variable and not the same danger in both situations. Can you make a law that is permissive enough to allow me to talk when just crusing to Banff on highway 1 but cracks down on those that use a phone during merging on the Deerfoot (or the 401 for you Easterners)?

[Riverwind]

Is this true, or would their blood alcohol simply be lower drinking the same amount? In that case, I don't think an impaired driving charge is warranted as they aren't impaired. The administrative aspect is impossible though.

The 0.08 limit is an average that does not apply to everyone. Some people will be totally intoxicated at 0.04 others will be fine until 0.12. Once you get above 0.12 everyone is too drunk drive. The 0.08 limit exists because the statisticians know that a significant majority of people will be intoxicated at that level. The fact that the limit is unfair to some people is irrelevant when you consider the bigger picture.

The same argument can be made for cell phone use while driving. You may be able to make the case that you are capable of handling both tasks without impairment but the majority of people cannot. An outright ban is the only real option since it is impossible to objectively determine who can handle it and who cannot.

I'm sure the studies go either way.

Here is one saying they are unsafe: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=&no_ads=

Can you provide one that goes the other way? I have never heard of such a study.

I disagree. I have little problem with telling someone, "oh, I've got to merge up ahead, can you please hold for a second."

Laws are not made for what responsible people do. Laws are made to deal with what irresponsible people are likely to do.

Driving drunk is equally dangerous (at least in the potential to cause some serious trouble) really no matter the situation

What does dangerous mean? 1000 drunks might get behind the wheel yet only one of them will have an accident. Is it fair to ban drinking an driving because only 1 in 1000 actually cause an accident. Isn't that restricting the liberty of the the majority because of what happens to a tiny minority? All safety regulations are based on a statistical cost benefit analysis that will always leave some people thinking that the rules should not apply to them.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

The same argument can be made for cell phone use while driving. You may be able to make the case that you are capable of handling both tasks without impairment but the majority of people cannot. An outright ban is the only real option since it is impossible to objectively determine who can handle it and who cannot.

The problem is, and has been pointed out already, is where does it stop? Okay, make cell phone use while driving illegal as it's distracting. Also make eating while driving illegal. Also make drinking hot liquids while driving illegal because if you spill it on yourself that can be very distracting. They had also better ban women from dressing sexy or even just having nice asses - because Lord knows that can be distracting while driving down the road - how many rear end collisions have happened because of that? In fact, maybe we could argue that mandatory wearing of burqas would significantly reduce summer time rear-end collisions.

[Hydraboss]

At a Petroleum Services Alliance of Canada conference in June, I attended an impairment seminar. Amazingly enough, talking on a cell phone while driving came in at #6 on the top ten causes of vehicle accidents. Above that were eating while driving and applying makeup, among others. So why are we making a law about #6? Why not ban McDonald's while driving.

No McDriving. Call your MP.

[BZBee]

There was a horrible accident in Philadelphia involving a car and a fire truck. The driver of the car did not hear the fire truck’s sirens and decided to go through a light which had just turned red. The car’s driver was on his cell phone; his car was hit by the fire truck and the impact sent it into a nearby convenience store…the driver died on impact (I can’t imagine what the person on the other end heard).

Personal liberties drunk drivers or driver’s using cell phones be damned; I, and we all, have the right to live. However, I agree with mcqueen625 that using a hand’s free unit is no more dangerous than changing stations on your radio or having a conversation with the person sitting in the passenger’s seat; and we can’t outlaw everything. As a matter of fact, while on a cell phone you don’t tend to turn your head to look at the person you’re speaking with. I learned in driving school that both hands should be on the steering wheel at all times but, of course, many people do not practice this because we live in a world of multitasking. It is extremely dangerous to drive with one hand on the steering wheel while the other is holding a cell phone, coffee cup, etc. The other method…and I’ve seen this….is to have both hands on the steering wheel while you hold the cell phone between your head and your shoulder, do you want to be driving in close proximity to this person?

I use a Bluetooth headset (wireless hands-free) which requires just one push of a button on the headset to start and end a call and, even with this, I will not take a call if I am in heavy traffic or under any circumstance where I think the call may take away the attention needed for me to get to my destination safely.

Bottom line, cell phone usage in a moving vehicle should be banned throughout the US and Canada unless a hands-free unit is used and even hands-free should have limitations depending on driving conditions; sometimes we just need to pay 100% attention to our driving because we cannot foresee what the other guy is going to do. We cannot, however, customize laws for the “can do many” and the “only one thing at a time” groups. Who for instance is going to say “no” when asked “can you drive and have a conversation at the same time?” We are not alone on the road and it is quite possible that, although you may be capable of driving and taking the shopping list by cell phone, someone from the “only one thing at a time” group comes along and is distracted (not by a cell phone) and causes you to be in an accident and this now makes you a member of the “only one thing at a time” group. Many don’t know their limitations and those who do, very rarely admit to them.

This may be another forum topic but to be fair, excessively loud music in automobiles should be banned as well since this impairs your ability to hear warning horns and sirens. I’ve seen so many drivers here in the US on a cell phone with the music blaring…how in the world do they hear what is being said? Is it really necessary to have a car stereo that loud? Talk about distracted!!

[geoffrey]

Having cell-free roads or cell-free times (during times of congestion) make more sense to me. Banning me from chatting on the phone heading out to the mountains in zero traffic makes absolutely no sense.

[August1991]

Having cell-free roads or cell-free times (during times of congestion) make more sense to me. Banning me from chatting on the phone heading out to the mountains in zero traffic makes absolutely no sense.

That's an interesting solution. Cars could be designed to allow cell phone reception or not, depending on circumstances.

I have often thought the same should apply in cinemas or other public places.

Does practical reception blocking technology exist?

[geoffrey]

Does practical reception blocking technology exist?

I'm not sure, I can't find anything with a google search that seems reasonable.

That said, despite good coverage around the entire campus, there are alot of deadzones in U of C classrooms. Is that intentional? I have no idea, never thought about it before.

Obviously there are ways of doing it, I'm just not sure if it's been made reliable, and whether you can have it turn on and off.

[gc1765]

I'd rather see higher consequences for those that get into accidents while talking on the phone, rather than punishing or limiting everyone, where many can talk on the phone no problem while driving.

If that's the case, why not allow people to drive drunk and only punish the people who get into accidents while driving drunk? That wouldn't make much sense seeing as how the act of drinking & driving and drinking & driving & crashing are identical, it's just that in the former case the person was lucky enough not to hit anyone.

[gc1765]

Having cell-free roads or cell-free times (during times of congestion) make more sense to me. Banning me from chatting on the phone heading out to the mountains in zero traffic makes absolutely no sense.

If there is no one else on the road, then there is no one else on the road to enforce the law.

[geoffrey]

If that's the case, why not allow people to drive drunk and only punish the people who get into accidents while driving drunk? That wouldn't make much sense seeing as how the act of drinking & driving and drinking & driving & crashing are identical, it's just that in the former case the person was lucky enough not to hit anyone.

If we hanged people for DUI collisions of any sort, drinking and driving would go down. One has to realise from a theoretical perspective that someone driving under the influence isn't causing any harm until someone is in a collision. The crime is not drinking and driving, but putting others at risk of bodily harm from that viewpoint.

This leaves the big ethical question, is endangering someone harmful? Or is the harm from the danger the only real harm presented?

I'd like to hear Charles Anthony's view on DUI laws. With his private police and courts, he'd have to adopt something along the lines of this system.

This is all idealistic of course. Practically it has to be illegal for a myraid of reasons, one being that not all people always act rationally. Second being the crime is commited under a substance that is administered by the State... and the State makes a killing with the sales of the drug that causes such crimes to happen.

If there is no one else on the road, then there is no one else on the road to enforce the law.

I suppose your correct. But I'm convinced the danger of cellphones is limited to areas of congestion.

[Charles Anthony]

I'd like to hear Charles Anthony's view on DUI laws. With his private police and courts, he'd have to adopt something along the lines of this system.

Sure. The answer is simple: whoever owns the road can dictate anything he wants.

With a free market in property rights, the road owner can do exactly what we have now (i.e., let people use their cells and get into more accidents) or outlaw cell phone use entirely (i.e., catch people who use their cells) or develop a jamming technology. Whoever does not like the rules on a particular road, will not be forced to drive on it. Thus, my views really do not tell you much. The choice of a road owner will likely be a function of how bad the drivers seem to be. Ultimately, a road owner does not want a collision. Conversely, tow-truck companies and auto mechanics might want collisions -- statists should be very very scared of these latter two growing in size and subverting road safety. I would also say that individual automobile insurance companies do not want a collision either and thus, they will probably be the first ones to dictate cell phone use for their clients. The insurance companies may even team up with automobile manufacturers who can install jamming or monitoring technology in cars. The insurance company may only offer coverage for automobiles with specific added monitors.

With a coercively monopolized road service economy, it does not really matter since tax-payers foot most of the bill. The best solution will depend on how best each of the various agents (drivers, cleaners, police, insurance companies) can off-load their hidden costs onto somebody else.

[guyser]

One has to realise from a theoretical perspective that someone driving under the influence isn't causing any harm until someone is in a collision. The crime is not drinking and driving, but putting others at risk of bodily harm from that viewpoint.

This leaves the big ethical question, is endangering someone harmful? Or is the harm from the danger the only real harm presented?

Kind of like if one waved and fired a gun in the air on the corner of Younge and Dundas?

No one was shot, whats the fuss?

[geoffrey]

One has to realise from a theoretical perspective that someone driving under the influence isn't causing any harm until someone is in a collision. The crime is not drinking and driving, but putting others at risk of bodily harm from that viewpoint.

This leaves the big ethical question, is endangering someone harmful? Or is the harm from the danger the only real harm presented?

Kind of like if one waved and fired a gun in the air on the corner of Younge and Dundas?

No one was shot, whats the fuss?

Nah, that creates public disorder. If someone is over the legal limit, but no one ever knew, then really no one was harmed by the action. Firing the gun creates panic, which is harm.

[gc1765]

One has to realise from a theoretical perspective that someone driving under the influence isn't causing any harm until someone is in a collision. The crime is not drinking and driving, but putting others at risk of bodily harm from that viewpoint.

Consider two scenarios:

1. Someone gets drunk, gets in their car, drives recklessly, speeding down an empty street at 3am. Luckily, no one is actually on the street, so the person makes it home safe.

2. Someone gets drunk, gets in their car, drives recklessly, speeding down a street at 3 am, just as someone else is crossing the road. The driver hits that person and kills them.

Why should the person in scenario 2 be punished but not in 1? Their actions were identical, it's just that one was luckier than the other.

[Charles Anthony]

Why should the person in scenario 2 be punished but not in 1? Their actions were identical, it's just that one was luckier than the other.

Simple: in your scenario 2, there will develop the obvious reputation that this particular street is dangerous.

I have a follow-up question for you: why should your street be left unguarded or unattended at 3AM?

[gc1765]

I have a follow-up question for you: why should your street be left unguarded or unattended at 3AM?

I'm confused by your question. No one is guarding/attending most streets at 3am anyways. There aren't enough police/guardians/attendants to guard every street at every hour.

[guyser]

Sure. The answer is simple: whoever owns the road can dictate anything he wants.

I own it. So do you.

With a free market in property rights, the road owner can do exactly what we have now (i.e., let people use their cells and get into more accidents) or outlaw cell phone use entirely (i.e., catch people who use their cells) or develop a jamming technology. Whoever does not like the rules on a particular road, will not be forced to drive on it. Thus, my views really do not tell you much. The choice of a road owner will likely be a function of how bad the drivers seem to be. Ultimately, a road owner does not want a collision. Conversely, tow-truck companies and auto mechanics might want collisions -- statists should be very very scared of these latter two growing in size and subverting road safety.

Unworkable in any form.

[Charles Anthony]

I'm confused by your question. No one is guarding/attending most streets at 3am anyways.

Therein lies the problem.

There aren't enough police/guardians/attendants to guard every street at every hour.

Why not? Are there more important things upon which we should waste money?

I own it. So do you.

Dream on. Nightmare over.

[guyser]

Dream on. Nightmare over.

You have paid for those roads for years . You me and everyone else has some ownership in those roads.I know the govt owns them in a strict sense, so what is the dream on about?

You are always free market this and free market that, and I have asked for an explanation before because I just dont get where you want to go with this.

Since none forthcoming I can only guess it to mean that I have to canvass and survey all sources to purchase access to everything individually, be it roads, hospitals, town services, Police , so on and so forth.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to flip our entire economy over to achieve that.

I can only think of one "unusual" service that I pay for and that is the HWY 407. Because of the bureaucratic nightmare in dealing with the 407 people I just dont access it unless absolutely need to. So far this year, not once.

[gc1765]

I'm confused by your question. No one is guarding/attending most streets at 3am anyways.

Therein lies the problem.

Ok, why not have a policeman guarding every square foot of Canada (or the world)?

[Charles Anthony]

Ok, why not have a policeman guarding every square foot of Canada (or the world)?

-- because nobody can be held directly responsible for any of that land.

Furthermore, your question is circular. Tell me: to whom are you asking that question? Me? You? The owner of Canada? The politicians elected to govern over Canadians?

My point is that NOBODY can answer that question because NOBODY cares about the safety of that land.

You have paid for those roads for years . You me and everyone else has some ownership in those roads.I know the govt owns them in a strict sense, so what is the dream on about?

The dream is that you associate "ownership" to an object for which you have no control.

You can say that you and I "own" those roads but we do not. Neither of us have any semblance of control over the stewardship of that land.

You are always free market this and free market that, and I have asked for an explanation before because I just dont get where you want to go with this.

This is where I am getting at: you will never have a solution to this 3AM hit-and-run because it is cheaper for you and I and everybody else to hide the responsibility.

I challenge you to answer this question: if YOU owned that road, what would YOU do?

I will answer it:

I would make damn sure that it was safe.

Why? because I want to sell advertizing billboards along every block; I would want to be able to rent property along my road.

How? because people will wake up early every morning and jump into their car to be the first person on my street to beat the congestion on the socialist streets; they would have a better guarantee of safety because The Ch. A. Goon Squad arrests bad drivers and cell-phone operators; my street will have the reputation of clearing snow throughout the winter; there will be pretty women on every street corner handing out balloons; etc. etc. etc.

If very few people drive down my street, I will not be able to sell advertizing nor will I ever hope to be able to charge a toll in the future.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to flip our entire economy over to achieve that.

Fine. However, are you willing to support one small change at a time?

For example, promote selling off just one "public" street or park in your town to the highest bidder and see what happens.

I can only think of one "unusual" service that I pay for and that is the HWY 407. Because of the bureaucratic nightmare in dealing with the 407 people I just dont access it unless absolutely need to. So far this year, not once.

Are you sure that the 407 operates without any government privilege whatsoever? I am not.

[gc1765]

-- because nobody can be held directly responsible for any of that land.

Furthermore, your question is circular. Tell me: to whom are you asking that question? Me? You? The owner of Canada? The politicians elected to govern over Canadians?

My point is that NOBODY can answer that question because NOBODY cares about the safety of that land.

I suppose technically the government is responsible for that land, and it would be policed by police who are paid by the government. Whether or not they actually care about the safety of that land, they SHOULD care about it, as they are the ones responsible. Just like if it was privately owned, the owner should care about his/her land, but that won't necessarily be true in practice.

[August1991]

This leaves the big ethical question, is endangering someone harmful? Or is the harm from the danger the only real harm presented?

It's not a "big ethical" question at all. It's the same principle behind any precautionary activity. The benefit in reduced potential danger (ie. the chance of the danger) should be no greater than the cost of any activity to reduce risk.

This is indirectly known as the Learned Hand Rule or formula.

For the rest, Charles Anthony seems to have highjacked another interesting thread with badly made Libertarian arguments. As my mother used to say, if you kids want to make so much noise, go play outside. Charles, start another thread in Moral/Religion.