What's new
DroidForums.net | Android Forum & News

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Federal Ban on All Cell Phone Use While Driving Proposed For US

For the record, being on the phone, whether with BT or not, you are 4x more likely to get in a wreck than a drunk driver.

I don't think the phone should be allowed to be powered on while driving.

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk 2
 
I love what technology has brought us with cell phones ...sadly people refuse to use them. First off the primary job of the driver is to operate the vehicle. I get tired of trying to merge on the highway where trucks and other vehicles are going 75mph + and being behind someone who is entering at 55mph cuz he/she is on the phone. I am more than tired of the people that rides the lanes so you cant merge and you pull up to see they are too distracted with their conversation. We use our vehicles a lot and time will have it that we need to use our phone every now and then. But is it too much to ask to get a bluetooth...heck you can get a cheap bluetooth in car speaker set up for 50. We have apps that allow you to keep your eyes on the road and it will trasnscribe and read texts to you. (https://play.google.com/store/apps/...wsMSwyLDEsImNvbS5ucC5zbXNQb3B1cFBsdXNmcmVlIl0.)

Now the above is for a quick response or to deal with important issues because there will be times where we may need to talk and drive and when that happens your attention needs to be on the road and make sure people are using bluetooth or some type of hands free system. We cant blame this new law on "big brother" this is a result of idiots and we all are tired of having to drive behind or around people who are so wrapped up in their conversation that they forget they are on the highway. Heck I even saw one guy nearly cause a pile up pulling into a merge lane and slowing down.... guess what he was doing. He had one hand behind his head cushion the other holding phone to his ear chatting it up while driving with his knees (must had cruise control set). :mad:
 
For the record, being on the phone, whether with BT or not, you are 4x more likely to get in a wreck than a drunk driver.

I don't think the phone should be allowed to be powered on while driving.

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk 2

I think hands free (including bluetooth) is no worse than having other people in the car talking to you really...and i think it should be a non-hands free talking/texting ban not a complete cell phone use ban since smartphones have essentially replaced gps navigation devices and mp3 players...
 
For the record, being on the phone, whether with BT or not, you are 4x more likely to get in a wreck than a drunk driver.

I don't think the phone should be allowed to be powered on while driving.

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk 2

You are right to a point...but I can argue so can listening to music and driving. Yeah I think long conversations should be avoided. If its more than "You need me to pick up what... ok bye" .. , "I am driving is it an emergency", or "Dont for get to pick up ______ from _____ its already 5 mins until (activity) is over".

So yes there are times when you need to talk and drive and it can be done with out the need to pull over. Now if you need to do a business deal or something drawn out then I agree pull over or tell the person you will call them back.
 
I think 75% of the people on the road can barely drive a car, let alone talk on the phone and drive. I am all for the ban of cell phones in vehicles. It will suck for everyone including myself but I think it will be best for everyone.
 
Disagree for only one reason: in Colorado, it's illegal to use your cell phone at all while driving if you're under the age of 18, and for anybody above the age of 18 its only legal to use your phone for calling people. You'll get ticketed for texting and driving here, I think that should be the law instead of taking a big leap like that.
 
I want texting while driving gone for sure. Even I hate being tempted to do it because when I type on an all touch-screen device it's nearly impossible to completely control the car. Typing on my D3 however is very easy as I can put that on my steering-wheel and text without looking. But even that poses more risk than not doing that at all. However, I do not want to eliminate use of GPS as I seriously need this.
 
So your driving, you see an accident happen and you want to call 911 so they get imediate help.. a tropper sees you dialing and talking, and pulls you over... what happens then? You get fined for being a good samaritan?

Also, what if you are using an ipod to change the song? The law needs to well defined and leave out no holes..

I know here in MA you cannot text and drive.. talking is ok (although MANY shouldnt) but, you CAN use an ipod because it is not "Digital Conversation" or however they word it
 
See this is going to far. Their shouldn't be a law for this type of thing. I live in Washington and we have a state law for this and it doesn't stop anyone from using their phone wile driving. You even see Police Officers on their cell phones wile driving not to mention their radio. It's the same thing as the seat belt law. Aren't we adults? Do we really need some one to tell us what to do and how to do it? I mean come on, their's laws on everything these days basically for more revenue from tickets, etc. What happened for one's own self being responsible and reliable for what they do and the consequences.:confused:
In our current entitlement society, the ideas of personal responsibility no longer exist for the current generation of people from teenagers up to people at least in their 30's. I usually oppose laws like this, but when traffic accidents (with some percentage of deaths) due to this one cause (cell phone use while driving, whether talking non-hands-free or texting, which by definition is non-hands-free) reaches epidemic proportions (as it has), government exists specifically to serve the common good, so I support such a law -- with stiff penalties. Causing an accident while texting should cost the perpetrator at least 10 times the amount of the penalty resulting from no accident, and even that should be high enough to discourage it. Better, yet, would be passing a law for providers to not allow texting from a phone which is moving, say, greater than 5 mph. If they can't text while driving, they'll quit trying. And I realize such a block would inhibit non-drivers in a car from being able to text, which arguably is a consideration, but really -- as you say, they can wait for that text message. The benefit to society is greater than the inconvenience! Saying that there shouldn't be such a law "because aren't we all adults?" is like saying we shouldn't have laws against DWI because, "aren't we all adults? Don't we all know better than to get behind the wheel drunk?" Um, evidently not!
 
[h=1]Mythbusters - Cell Phones Vs. Drunk Driving - 1 of 3 [/h]
[video=youtube;3vFcIpzF7pc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vFcIpzF7pc[/video]

[h=1]Mythbusters - Cell Phones Vs. Drunk Driving - 2 of 3 [/h]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGN1pLI4ZaM

[h=1]Mythbusters - Cell Phones Vs. Drunk Driving - 3 of 3 [/h]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8LuM92Twm8
 
Hands free should be the exception, specially talking, which I don't see the article saying. This isn't going to stop everyone from doing it, it's just going to give the gov't a way to punish you. In my state (MD) I believe the law is that being on the phone is a secondary offense; they can't just pull you over because they saw you on the phone, they have to first pull you over for speeding, or reckless, etc, first, then they can add the cell phone charge on top of that (I believe this is correct, last time I heard it was). Unlike NJ, where the cop sees you on the phone and pulls you over even if you're doing 45 in a 45.

I think car manufacturers and cell providers may be against this, because they're all up about Bluetooth and hands-free and sometimes even make it a selling point. They've all adapted to be safer, but if this law happens, and you're not a loud to talk in the car, whats the point in having BT in the car radio?

*Show this in school and no one will text and drive anymore
[video=youtube;R0LCmStIw9E]http://youtu.be/R0LCmStIw9E[/video]
 
[h=1]Mythbusters - Cell Phones Vs. Drunk Driving - 1 of 3 [/h] [video=youtube;3vFcIpzF7pc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vFcIpzF7pc[/video] [h=1]Mythbusters - Cell Phones Vs. Drunk Driving - 2 of 3 [/h]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGN1pLI4ZaM [h=1]Mythbusters - Cell Phones Vs. Drunk Driving - 3 of 3 [/h]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8LuM92Twm8
I wasn't comparing drunk driving to driving while texting. I was comparing the statement about "aren't we all adults" being used to argue against passing a law addressing behavior. When you think about it, most of the laws on the books wouldn't be necessary if we all ACTED "like adults" (and showed concern for others as well as ourselves -- living the "Golden Rule"). The very fact that we have laws regulating our behavior is evidence that "we all" are NOT acting "like adults"...
 
I am on the fence. On one hand I know some people should not have any distractions but to completely ban all use is too much. I personally will not use my phone if I am in a congested or high traffic area but if I am driving down an empty road, you better believe I have no issues texting or messing with my phone. If no-one else is around, it is my own safety I am "jeopardizing".

This is in line with seat belts. I disagree with seat belt laws whole heartedly. I don't need the government to tell me how to protect myself. I can jump out of a plane or go bungee jumping or any number of life threatening activities but I can't drive down the road without my seat belt?

Of course, my kids must wear one and any other passengers because I am responsible for them as the driver but if I don't want to wear a seatbelt myself x that should be my choice.

This goes for cell phone use, if I am driving down an empty road and am texting, I am responsible for my own safety.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Xparent Purple Tapatalk
 
I'm all for laws like this. Anything to make driving safer is a good thing. Too many people get complacent when driving & that's when accidents happen. I don't think it should apply to hands-free talk & mp3's though. Talking and/or listening to music is "normal" in a vehicle.

Tapped from a Galaxy Nexus using Xparent ICS
 
I am on the fence. On one hand I know some people should not have any distractions but to completely ban all use is too much. I personally will not use my phone if I am in a congested or high traffic area but if I am driving down an empty road, you better believe I have no issues texting or messing with my phone. If no-one else is around, it is my own safety I am "jeopardizing". This is in line with seat belts. I disagree with seat belt laws whole heartedly. I don't need the government to tell me how to protect myself. I can jump out of a plane or go bungee jumping or any number of life threatening activities but I can't drive down the road without my seat belt? Of course, my kids must wear one and any other passengers because I am responsible for them as the driver but if I don't want to wear a seatbelt myself x that should be my choice. This goes for cell phone use, if I am driving down an empty road and am texting, I am responsible for my own safety. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Xparent Purple Tapatalk
The "empty road" doesn't always STAY empty. I remember driving down a country road one night many years ago, late at night when you wouldn't expect anyone else around, and for a long time, there wasn't. At one point, I passed a junction and, just as I crossed it, some hooligans ran their stop sign and almost nailed me! Fortunately, because I wasn't distracted, I was able to react in a way which allowed me to avoid the collision, but just barely. If I'd been distracted WITH ANYTHING at that point, I'd have gotten nailed (and probably killed). I don't think your assumption is a safe one. Just something to think about...
 
Back
Top