Advocacy & Safety - 2,600 dead and 330,000 injured

Hmmm, that seems like an acceptable cost for being able to jabber on the phone while driving, eh? I guess money is the ultimate king and determinate of our safety.

Since @ least 2,600 (THIS YEAR!) of us cannot ... I'd like to give 2 big thumbs up to the following:

-The cell phone industry
-Our government officials

Hey, 904 injuries and 7 deaths EACH DAY sounds like a bargain to me. ThanX again guys!

:mad:

Oppps - forgot to include the linx!!!!

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/news/1202/02cellphones.html

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/02/phone.driving.ap/index.html

Hardly surprising. Of course, if anyone believes any of the "research" from car/phone companies, they will say that blabbing on phones was totally irrelevant in all those deaths :rolleyes: . Personally I've never understood the obsession with the cell/mobile phone craze. I had one a few years ago and ended up getting rid of it because it was more trouble than it was worth, and ultimately nothing more than an annoyance.

Can't people just wait five minutes to carry on their conversation? Or are their deep and meaningful conversations (things like "yeah, I'm walkin' down the street) really the extent of their pathetic, miserable lives.

yeah, but nobody points out 9,000 people a year die of food poisoning.

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9605/24/food.poisoning/

shall we stop eating?

i talk and drive unfortunately a lot (sales rep) and its a necessary evil. i have had close calls and missed exits from it, so i admit it is distracting.

the number of deaths though in a car are 2x as high from people adjusting THE RADIO (about 5K a yr - from scare tactic memos from my company on accident stats...).

and number one? back seat distractions - soccer moms...

cell phone bans are just another inflated incorrect conspiracy theory designed to take some more of our freedom away.

remember, you have a better chance of dieing from that bad cheeseburger...

Originally posted by Airborne
i talk and drive unfortunately a lot (sales rep) and its a necessary evil.

Here in Queensland where talking on these things while driving is actually banned, many sales reps simply pull over to the side of the road for 2 minutes to have their conversations. It doesn't seem to have killed their careers just yet. At least, not as effectively as a cell-phone inspired crash would kill the career of someone who didn't comply.


Originally posted by Airborne

remember, you have a better chance of dieing from that bad cheeseburger...

The difference being that if I eat that bad cheeseburger, it is my choice and mine alone. If some **** blabbing on the phone runs me down, it wasn't my choice at all. Are we talking about freedom here?

Originally posted by Chris L


Here in Queensland where talking on these things while driving is actually banned, many sales reps simply pull over to the side of the road for 2 minutes to have their conversations. It doesn't seem to have killed their careers just yet. At least, not as effectively as a cell-phone inspired crash would kill the career of someone who didn't comply.



The difference being that if I eat that bad cheeseburger, it is my choice and mine alone. If some **** blabbing on the phone runs me down, it wasn't my choice at all. Are we talking about freedom here?

got me on the first point. thats my company's policy too (to pull over - i have limited my use recently to highways only...one step at a time... damn type A personality...

but bad cheesburgers? you have no choice there (!?!). when was the last time you spotted food poisoning? i think you MAY have a shot of a swerving motorist coming at you. you got NO CHANCE when it comes to poor food at a restaurant for example, and a 3x better shot of getting killed by it too. my point is, i think the powers that be are not keeping their eyes on the ball.

ok, about 5 years ago i had a one-hour car commute on the highway to work for 6 months! uh, that was miserable! anyway, i bought a cell phone for the explicit purpose of using it on the drive to make use of the time as well as quell the boredom, so i understand the mentality behind cell-phone usgae...

it has to do with attitude: if you blindly accept that massive auto usage is just a fact of life and you are willing to ignore/downplay the associated dangers and you are expecting to spend 2 or more hours per day in your car, then using a cell phone while driving fits in to the lifestyle: since i'm going to be in the car so often, why not?

anyway, i now believe that the risks are not worth the convenience and cell phones usage should not be allowed while driving -- i know from personal experience that it is a distraction and also, just because of ettiquette it is usually unacceptable to suddenly throw the phone down and quit talking if something needing your attention arrises - you wait and politely tell the person to hold on - but these 2-10 seconds can be VERY important in driving! -- thus it can be quite dangerous.

Originally posted by Airborne
the number of deaths though in a car are 2x as high from people adjusting THE RADIO (about 5K a yr - from scare tactic memos from my company on accident stats...).

and number one? back seat distractions - soccer moms...

cell phone bans are just another inflated incorrect conspiracy theory designed to take some more of our freedom away.

remember, you have a better chance of dieing from that bad cheeseburger...

My point is that "drivers" don't need yet another distraction on the road. As for your cheesburger issue - we all HAVE to eat. We all do not have to talk on the phone while driving a potentially lethal weapon.

Would your attitude change if your mother or brother were among the dead or seriously injured this year?

Originally posted by bac


Would your attitude change if your mother or brother were among the dead or seriously injured this year?

i'd still use my cell phone in the same fashion. sorry;)

People might die, but I absolutely must chat to my friend or conduct business. Business is more important than human life.

Give me a break!

Follow New York, ban cellphones in cars.

well, maybe not for the right reasons, but i do think the trend will continue and more states will ban conventional cell-phone usage while driving, but as in Europe, "hands-free" cell phone usgae will still be legal. i'm assuming that's the case in NY, but not sure.

many cell phone companies actually support this as they have another accessory to sell while simultaneously improving their image (not linked to being unsafe). and other groups like AAA and insurance companies will probably view the safety gained as worth the requirement that "real" users buy a hands-free unit.

Many studies have concluded that the danger does not come from the holding of the cellphone, but the act of talking on it. The addition of the hands-free unit only has a nominal safetly advantage. Somebody talking on the phone is distracted from the road (whether it is a hands-free or regular phone). The same is true talking to a person in the passenger seat, but the difference generally is that the person in the passenger seat is also watching the road to some extent.

Spire, i agree, but banning hand-hand cell phones is the most important step.

i did a quite search and yes, the NY ban is "to ban use of handheld cell phones while driving"


from http://www.womanmotorist.com/ftrs/ny-bans-cell-phones-2001.shtml
The law does permit drivers to use hands-free kits while talking on cell phones, which creates an opportunity for mobile electronics retailers, who tap into this new market.

and yes, as i guessed above, companies are already hot to tap the NEW market for hands-free car cell-phone usage:


from http://www.inetmi.com/whatsnew/pressrel/06-29-01.htm :: NEW YORK CELL-PHONE BAN NOT THE END OF COMMUNICATION IN CARS: Michigan-based Software Company Developing Solution for Reducing Driver Distraction
"Hands-free devices are only part of the solution," said Dr. Will Fitzgerald, I/NET chief technology officer. "As the number of in-car devices and off-board services available to drivers multiply, safe driving requires a system that can carry on a natural dialogue with a driver and that knows about what is going on in a car, including potential distractions. Even voice commands are distracting if you struggle to remember what the commands are."

i think within 5 years the majority of US states will have adopted a similar law if not the federal government. but the total outlaw of cell phone usage in cars is unlikely as the cell-phone and car companies have a lot of money to lobby with --- and Americans don't want to give up their convenience --- but buying an extra "hands-free" unit most of the die-hard cell phone users (like sales guys on the road) can live with

The problem as I see it, is that ultimately, everybody will be using hands-free units (which I see many off in Montreal). However, this won't reduce the number of cell-phone related accidents (as cited before). In addition to hands-free units there have to serious impositions on using these units so that only people who really need them. The amount that people use cell phones in cars (whether a real phone or otherwise) has to be reduced!

Maybe those accidents were caused by people who ate bad hamburgers, got sick while driving and tried to call an ambulance on their cell phone?

:D :D

Become vegetarian! No responses please, or we'll get off on another thread.

Digger

Originally posted by Spire
Many studies have concluded that the danger does not come from the holding of the cellphone, but the act of talking on it. The addition of the hands-free unit only has a nominal safetly advantage.

Yup, I've also read similar studies. However, it's nearly impossible to convince the bulk of the public that hand-held units are unsafe. Just try now to convince this same group that hands-free units are nearly as dangerous.

Couple that hurdle with the limitless money that the cell-phone industry has to hurl @ the decision makers (how many "studies" do you think that industry is going to create?), and this is turning into a battle that may not be winable.

However, every time some mindless "driver" almost wacks me due to his cell phone conversation, I'm reminded why this is a battle worth fighting. That is, unless I'm one of the 2,600 killed this year. Then, someone else will have to take up the fight. :mad:

I saw that story on the news, about cell phones and it surprises me not at all. I have seen people blabbing on phones and wobbling along the road, when I'm out on rides. Sometimes, I'll say loudly, if their car window is open, "Watch out! That idiot is talking on his cell phone!" I have heard stories of plenty of near misses with cell phone talkers. I am sure that 99 per cent of those conversations are unneccessary. I can see having a cell with you, in case of emergency, but I am sure that most of those people are just blabbing about nothing. I was just corresponding by email with another guy who just had a horrible accident. He was hit by a car by a teenager who was talking on her cell phone. He broke his leg, hip, angle, pelvis, and his bike and everything he was wearing were totally trashed. He went right into the windshield! Fortunately, he's going to be okay, but it'll be a while. Teenagers are already involved in enough accidents in cars as it is, they don't need more distractions. I think it should be banned if the casualties are that high.

Once again, public safety is reduced to an economic equation, which I suppose is fine as long as the victim is in SOMEONE ELSE's family. We have an involuntary transfer of wealth from a cell phone user to his/her victim.

If motorists want the freedom to distract themselves while driving, then they need to held strictly accountable for any motoring mayhem they may cause. Agreeing to settle within legally-mandated insurance policy limits (an anachronistic $35K in California) or pleading that "it was an accident" is NOT taking responsibility for one's actions.





--- As "Click" and "Clack" of CarTalk say, "Hang up and drive!"

Cell phones are just one of many distractions a driver willingly or otherwise contends with. I've seen a women motoring along at 80 km/h putting on mascara; drivers trying to grab at dogs or kids in the back seat; a car load of teens with the stereo so loud they can't hear themselves let alone an emergency vehicle; people eating; and yes, people talking on the cell phone.

Whenever I see someone driving dangerously while doing any of the above, I'm overcome with a desperate need to slap them upside the head.

Whatever happened to driving being a privilege and not a right? I think there ought to be a law against stupid drivers....period.

originally posted by rockymtn_girl
Whatever happened to driving being a privilege and not a right?

well that's exactly the problem. most people DO think that driving is a right and they can do whatever they want - "it's a free country, ya know?"

plus money and business being more important than people or community. if it generates a profit, it must be good. also applies in regards to the environment and many social issues.

these 2 attitudes that currently dominate US culture are very disturbing...

I'd rather have a drunk driver behind me than someone on a cell phone. At least most drunks are trying to pay attention lest they get pulled over. I had people with cell phones glued to the ear pass me and never know that I was there.

Dave

Originally posted by wabbit
He was hit by a car by a teenager who was talking on her cell phone. He broke his leg, hip, angle, pelvis, and his bike and everything he was wearing were totally trashed. He went right into the windshield!

That is a disturbing story, and I'd like to think that it's an isolated story. However, he was 1 of 904 people who get injured EVERY DAY in the country due to cell phone distracted "drivers". Luckily, he was not one of the 7 that are killed each and every day.

Knowing that simple fact, it's difficult for me to believe that people still chat on the phone while driving. The only encouraging news is knowing that some of the 330,000 people who are injured each year BY these selfish bone-heads - ARE the selfish bone-heads. Charles Darwin - you are my hero. :D

Originally posted by Airborne
yeah, but nobody points out 9,000 people a year die of food poisoning.

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9605/24/food.poisoning/

What about the 330,000 injuries/year? Remember, you could be the next victim.

I find it difficult to believe that if you were struck by a cell-phone driver, and rendered unable to work, BIKE or even feed yourself - that you would have the same attitude.

You wouldn't.

Originally posted by rockymtn_girl
Whatever happened to driving being a privilege and not a right? I think there ought to be a law against stupid drivers....period.

Agreed. I seriously believe we need to create a new offence on the roads called "basic stupidity". After some of the things I've seen drivers do around here (these include driving on the footpath!) I'd rather remove these idiots before they kill someone.

I have serious doubts about the methodology of these studies and i think its just a knee-jerk assumption that "cell phone user=rich guy=blame for all the worlds ills."

Talking on a cell phone is no more absorbing or distracting than listening/fiddling with the radio or dealing with a carful of spoiled, snotsucking sniveling urchins; and I don't see anyone blaming children or talk radio for auto crashes. I think the best solution is to go to voice dialed sets that are part of the automobile itself, and the problem (if there is one) would be solved.

roughstuff

I'm riding a few months ago, see this blue car off on the shoulder, driver talking on cell. I stop to thank her for not yakking and driving and it turns out she's a manger of one of the local school bus contractors--she'd happily push any cell-talking driver off the tallest building in town!

Originally posted by Feldman
I'm riding a few months ago, see this blue car off on the shoulder, driver talking on cell. I stop to thank her for not yakking and driving and it turns out she's a manger of one of the local school bus contractors--she'd happily push any cell-talking driver off the tallest building in town!

:beer:

The government over here looks set to finally ban them in cars, not before time in my view, but then I neither drive or own a mobile phone...

Richard

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Airborne
[B]yeah, but nobody points out 9,000 people a year die of food poisoning.

hmmm we have health laws ro help combat that in this state we don't seem to be able to do that when it comes to killing people while on the phone http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/95388_crash13.shtml

Though I do wonder if there would of been charges if it was the other way around Imigrant plows into local womans car while on cell phone or if she had plowed into a van full of children or up on a sidewalk into a crowd of senior citizens whatever it was I do know that they can charge her whith murder in this case if they tried hard. To clear things up they do know by phone records she was on the phone and this guy and several witnesess saw and heard the screams from his family while they burned up in their car.
10 years ago you would not have had a phone and some how you would still wake up tomorrow so the cell phone is not a necesity to making your car move forward.

I am a cell phone user who pulls over and stops or just doesn't answer it while driving

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ngateguy
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Airborne
[B]http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/95388_crash13.shtml

WTF is wrong with the King county prosecutor's office???? The "driver" in question must have some sort of political connection with the prosecutor's office. The statements made by the spokesman for the prosecutor's office are just ridiculous! Here is a bit of the report:

Despite a State Patrol recommendation, King County prosecutors have decided not to file criminal charges against a 25-year-old Bothell woman who caused a fiery crash that killed a family of four.

A State Patrol investigator said Sarah K. Potts, the wife of a Bothell police officer, appeared to have been talking on her cell phone when her 2002 Ford Explorer crashed into the family's Honda, which had stalled in the middle of Interstate 405 during Saturday afternoon traffic Aug. 10.

At the time, Potts was said to have been traveling above the 60-mph limit, possibly as high as 80 mph.

But she did nothing that could be construed as reckless or a disregard for the safety of others, according to the Prosecutor's Office.

"There was some information that she was on the phone," said Dan Donohoe, a spokesman for King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng.

"But there was no evidence of alcohol or drugs or any evidence of recklessness or disregard for the safety of others. She made no sudden move. There was nothing extreme, no aggression."

Even if Potts had been exceeding the speed limit, Donohoe said, she had merely been keeping up with traffic.

"Her speed was not beyond what the flow of traffic was at the time, even at 70 to 75," Donohoe said, and regarding the cell phone allegation "her inattention alone does not constitute disregard for the safety of others."

This is the sort of silly stuff that you would expect to hear from the "driver's" attorney - not the prosecutor's office.

How many more of us have to die??? :confused:

Originally posted by Airborne

my point is, i think the powers that be are not keeping their eyes on the ball.

My god you want "the powers that be" to get involved in you life more! Come on food will have no taste at all.

Joe

Any death is a tragedy, but this cell phone issue is a non issue invented by news programs to bost ratings, 2600 dead is .001 % of the US pop. (based on 250 million) and 330,000 injured is .13% of the US pop. If the government was to legislate on every issue that is tied to such a small % of deaths it would be crushed under its own weight. I think we need to look at this issue with some perspective. In 2000the flu and pneumenia killed 65313, alzheimers killed 49558, and Septicemia (Anyone know what this is?) killed 31224. You are probably more likley to just dissappear never to be seen again than to be killed by a cell phoning driver. If we are going to be so morbid and focus on such things shouldn't our focus be on things like aids (remember aids) mental illness, ****, murder, and the list goes on. There are a lot of ways to die in this world, but in the US we are safer than any population in the worlds history, but everything includes risk and we need to put those risks in perspective. I dont have time to look up the numbers but I wonder how many died in the kitchen or bathroom each year. I applaud discussions such as this, and any PUBLIC effort to make the world safer for us all, but please leave the gov out so they have time and $ to worry about things like terrorism, the environment, public education, and the maintaince of the road that we all share.

thanks

Originally posted by temp1
In 2000the flu and pneumenia killed 65313, alzheimers killed 49558, and Septicemia (Anyone know what this is?) killed 31224. ...

... but please leave the gov out so they have time and $ to worry about things like terrorism, the environment, public education, and the maintaince of the road that we all share.


The bottom line is that these 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries ARE EASILY PREVENTABLE. Simply put, IF YOU HAVE TO MAKE A CALL, DO THE RESPONSIBLE THING, AND PULL OVER. If you'd like to risk your own life, be my guest. However, do not put my life on the line so that you can chat with your girlfriend while you are supposed to be paying attenting to the act of driving.

In a perfect world, we could count on the general public to police itself. However, we do not live in a perfect world. We live in a world where 7 people die, and 904 get hurt EACH DAY due to the thoughtlessness, and irresponsible act of talking on the phone while attempting to drive.

I just don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. :confused:

Originally posted by bac

In a perfect world, we could count on the general public to police itself. However, we do not live in a perfect world. We live in a world where 7 people die, and 904 get hurt EACH DAY due to the thoughtlessness, and irresponsible act of talking on the phone while attempting to drive.

I just don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. :confused:

:beer:

I am just saying that it is a question of priorities, when you get the government involved there is a limited amount of resources. Given the numbers I would say it is pretty low on the totem pole. I get the concept, I am very good with concepts.

Devils advocate

Originally posted by temp1
Any death is a tragedy, but this cell phone issue is a non issue invented by news programs to bost ratings, 2600 dead is .001 % of the US pop. (based on 250 million) and 330,000 injured is .13% of the US pop. If the government was to legislate on every issue that is tied to such a small % of deaths it would be crushed under its own weight

Thank you for sharing this little tidbit of wisdom and I would suggest the following....

A letter to the family of the deceased.......

Dear loved ones of Joe P Biker,

We are sorry to hear of the recent tragic death of your loved one. It was unfortunate that an automobile struck your 12 year old son. Please understand that the driver really needed to find out what time the ball game started. They also knew that they had slept in too late so they simply could not pull over to make the call. We will note this distraction on our records for future use. Unfortunately the current statistics of death rate for accidents involving cellular phones is barely noticable in the grand scheme of things. In short, the death of your loved one was tragic, but insignificant. Please take comfort in the fact that you actually do live in a relatively safe environment.

Hope your next child fares better,
Uncle Sam and his statisticians.

Perhaps we should recommend this as a standard letter format for the families of victims of many tragic acts of irresponsibility. It would be less expensive and not as taxing as trying to pass a law that requires responsibility of automobile drivers.

All I have to say is that I could end up in prison if some dolt talking $hit or Business was to ever run over one of my loved ones. I would be hard pressed to restrain myself and probably would not even try.

All you chatting morons need to pull off the road and talk. If you are one of the very few elite drivers that actually can stay in control while chatting then I salute your powers of coordination.

The laws would be to curb those with no regard to anyone elses safety. Unfortunately we will never be able to depend on people to be responsible. This has been proven thousands of times over.

Originally posted by SamDaBikinMan
All you chatting morons need to pull off the road and talk. If you are one of the very few elite drivers that actually can stay in control while chatting then I salute your powers of coordination.

The laws would be to curb those with no regard to anyone elses safety. Unfortunately we will never be able to depend on people to be responsible. This has been proven thousands of times over.

Yup - I still cannot understand how anyone can make a valid case for cell phone usage while driving. However, there are countless "drivers" who do.

For the people who state that 904 people/day injured and 7/day dead is simply not enough of a statistic to worry about, I have a question. What is your cut off point? Where do you draw the line? 100 dead and 10,000 injured per day? 1000 dead and 100,000 injured per day? What is your number????

Originally posted by bac
For the people who state that 904 people/day injured and 7/day dead is simply not enough of a statistic to worry about

It makes me wonder what would happen to the bicycle commuter if they caused 904 injuries and 7 deaths a day? this cell phone issue just shows how spoiled and whinny people have become. They seem to think , here in the U.S., that the constitution gives them the right to do anything they want anytime they want with no responsibility for their actions. I don't know about you all but I must of read a different version of it when I was in school and mis interpreted what ole Thomas and his cronies were trying to do. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by ngateguy
It makes me wonder what would happen to the bicycle commuter if they caused 904 injuries and 7 deaths a day?


Bikes would almost certainly be outlawed.


Originally posted by ngateguy
They seem to think , here in the U.S., that the constitution gives them the right to do anything they want anytime they want with no responsibility for their actions. I don't know about you all but I must of read a different version of it when I was in school and mis interpreted what ole Thomas and his cronies were trying to do. :rolleyes:

OK, I'm not American, so I may be wrong. However I was led to believe that the US constitution did not say a word about automobiles or cell phones.

It's not people talking on mobiles that scare me, it's the teenage driver's trying to type an SMS/Text message while driving that scare me. These kids aren't even looking at the road, while driving one handed and trying to type a message with their thumb to their mates. Very scary.

I guess they figure that talking on a phone is illegal (here) but typing a message is not.

CHEERS.

Mark

How many laws do you guys want. Make the penetality for crashing into some sever and stop worry about how it happened. Then it covers cell phones knitting (I've seen it) and even me eating a sandwhich.
Joe
:crash:

In Canada, when somebody first gets their liscence (or gets it back after a suspension) they get a probationary liscence for 2 yeras. It has less points and a zero-tolerance on alcohal (yuou lose it if you hae any in your blood at all). It would make sense n my mind if they made it illegal to talk on cellphones if you have one of these probationary liscences rather than a full one. Just as a start, because presumeable, the people with these liscences are less able to drive a car already.

Originally posted by joeprim
How many laws do you guys want. Make the penetality for crashing into some sever and stop worry about how it happened. Then it covers cell phones knitting (I've seen it) and even me eating a sandwhich.
Joe
:crash:

It would be sweet in an utopian society not to have any laws, but alas we do not and when people increasingly show disregard to others laws are necesary at times to make them responsible for their actions if they are causing harm to others we need to act now. On the subject of laws if you are against them are you against the ones that do not cause harm to others? i.e if I decide to smoke a joint?, buy a hooker? gamble? to mention a few...

Originally posted by ngateguy


It would be sweet in an utopian society not to have any laws, but alas we do not and when people increasingly show disregard to others laws are necesary at times to make them responsible for their actions if they are causing harm to others we need to act now. On the subject of laws if you are against them are you against the ones that do not cause harm to others? i.e if I decide to smoke a joint?, buy a hooker? gamble? to mention a few...

Of course we need some laws. But, all laws are bad let's make sure that it is worth it to pass the law. It is and should be illeagle to hurt anyone. Ok so why do I car if it because you are drunk r talking on a cell phone. Same result same penulty. I don't oen a cell phone so it's not that I'm defending them I want minimum governmet in a socity where people take care of themselves. Laws agains gambling make no sense, but then neither does gamboling.

I've never tried drugs, but I believe we've lost the war on durgs - so give them away free or at cost to the government.

As to hooker ok you say you don't want that young lady to be one so the cure is to arrest her and give her a record so it's harder for her to get a decient job. No laws agains prostitution make no sense either. Instead of wasting the money to catch, arrest, and proscute maybe if we spent the extra on education or training she would be able to get a job.

We can never get to the utopian socity, but we should work that direction rather than expecting the government to cure things for us.

soap box modd off
Joe
:beer:

Originally posted by joeprim
. It is and should be illeagle to hurt anyone. Ok so why do I car if it because you are drunk r talking on a cell phone. Same result same penulty.

As for the first sentence that is not true I refer you to the link I posted earlier

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/95388_crash13.shtml

As for the second statement I do not care if you get drunk or if you talk on your cell phone as long as you do not kill or maim people in the process. That is why we need the laws cell phones are to much of a distraction (2 cell phone incidents on my commute home they just were not paying attention.) So if it is going to harm Innocent bystanders or poses a threat to the general public there use should and must be banned while driving. Again I say 10 years ago you would of probably not owned one and yet you made it through all your driving without one amazing isn't it. It would be nice if we didn't have to pass laws to this effect but alas people are not acting responsible in this matter and like a misbehaving child we must set guidelines and limits. Off my soap box now (maybe :D )

Originally posted by ngateguy


As for the first sentence that is not true I refer you to the link I posted earlier

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/95388_crash13.shtml

(maybe :D )

The campaign should be to get people that do that kind of thing proscutted, not worry about the cell phone caused it. I don't care what caused it you should be able to stop before you hit a stopped car. I suspect that being married to to a local cop may have been the key here.
Joe
:beer:

More people die every year from Heart disease than this (by grossly larger numbers) guess we better make it illegal to sell and eat any food not good for the heart. Also make it a law to do some cardio workout 5 times a week.

Far more people fell last year and died, guess we better make a law to pad the ground.

Far more people die from drowning, guess we better outlaw any piece of "body" of liquid more than 1/2" deep.

People die from accidental fireworks discharge, better outlaw those as well.

More people died in fires, better outlaw matches, lighters and anything else that can make a flame.

More people died from poisons, better outlaw all of those as well.

People die from falling off the couch, better outlaw sitting on the couch.

More people die from being murdered, better outlaw that...oh wait, it already is.

All of the above are all accidents with MUCH higher death rates, should we outlaw everything that can possibly kill somebody?

Andrew

Originally posted by Ajay213
More people die every year from Heart disease than this (by grossly larger numbers) guess we better make it illegal to sell and eat any food not good for the heart. Also make it a law to do some cardio workout 5 times a week.

Far more people fell last year and died, guess we better make a law to pad the ground.

Far more people die from drowning, guess we better outlaw any piece of "body" of liquid more than 1/2" deep.

People die from accidental fireworks discharge, better outlaw those as well.

More people died in fires, better outlaw matches, lighters and anything else that can make a flame.

More people died from poisons, better outlaw all of those as well.

People die from falling off the couch, better outlaw sitting on the couch.

More people die from being murdered, better outlaw that...oh wait, it already is.

All of the above are all accidents with MUCH higher death rates, should we outlaw everything that can possibly kill somebody?

Andrew

Shall we start by comparing apples to apples? First of all, BEING IRRESPONSIBLE BY NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO DRIVING; THEREFORE, CAUSING DEATH OR DISMEMBERMENT, IS NOT AN ACCIDENT! Accidents and health issues are one thing, as generally speaking, they cannot be avoided. However, WE CAN STOP 7 DEATHS AND OVER 900 INJURIES PER DAY by simply being responsible. Since, as a society, we will not be responsible without some sort of negative reinforcement - we need a law.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not for more laws. In fact, we could drop about 50% of the laws currently on the books, and IMHO, the world would be a better place. However, laws that prevent the irresponsible from killing or injuring others are the few laws that I support.

Making a choice to talk on the phone while driving a potentially lethal weapon is no accident. It is, in fact, no different than driving while intoxicated. Both the drunk and the cell phone user make a choice to drive impaired. Each should expect the same treatment from society and the law.

Shall we start by comparing apples to apples? First of all, BEING IRRESPONSIBLE BY NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO DRIVING; THEREFORE, CAUSING DEATH OR DISMEMBERMENT, IS NOT AN ACCIDENT!

And when somebody dies in a fire is it not usually caused by somebody not paying attention to what they are doing.

When somebody slips and falls into a body of water and then drowns, were they paying attention to what they were doing, or were they not paying attention?

Some 30+ people a day die from poison ingestion (non-suicidal related ingestion), these people weren't paying attention either.

What is the point here? If you want to define the word accident, that's fine. But my list still stands, all of those actions came as the result of somebody not paying attention to what they are doing or should be doing.


Accidents and health issues are one thing, as generally speaking, they cannot be avoided.

They can't? Neither can car accidents. The list I brought up were just a few of the things that have far greater numbers than the cell phone deal, yet nobody is up in arms about those deaths. The above list and the cell-phone thing can be dealt with, but a little perspective is in order.


However, WE CAN STOP 7 DEATHS AND OVER 900 INJURIES PER DAY by simply being responsible. Since, as a society, we will not be responsible without some sort of negative reinforcement - we need a law.

Almost 50 people PER DAY in the US are murdered. There is a law against murdering people.

Over 30 people PER DAY in the US die from some form of "accidental" poison ingestion.

8 people PER DAY die from complications from medical procedures.

4 people PER DAY die from exposures from nature (either hot or cold for the most part).

8 people PER DAY die from swallowing an object that blocks the airway.

Should we make laws for all of those as well? Do 30 people a day need to die from ingesting poison?


However, laws that prevent the irresponsible from killing or injuring others are the few laws that I support.

How about making it so the irresponsible can't drive a car? Wouldn't that be much better than creating millions of laws from protecting the stupid from themselves?

Andrew

I thought involuntary manslaughter was a nice catch all for these issues that cause such a small number of deaths, any lawyers out there that can varify this? Of course it doesnt work if you have a hook up in the legal system (cop hubby). Nice post Ajay213

I give up - please continue to irresponsibly blab on your phone while you are supposed to be paying attention to the road. I'm sure that your conversation is worth the risk that you pose toward others. However, if you injure or kill one of mine, don't expect me to write it off as an acceptable loss.