Advocacy & Safety - Complete cell phone ban?

What are the chances this will ever end up as law? I wonder how enforcement would work...

Here is the article (http://www.informationweek.com/news/telecom/regulation/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212800149&subSection=News)

-D

At the federal level I think it's very unlikely. At the state level: If you live in a state that's not backwards it might happen soon.

Every time I see inexplicable driver behavior, I suspect cellphone use. There is some strange stuff going on out there.

Every time I see inexplicable driver behavior, I suspect cellphone use. There is some strange stuff going on out there.

Does that mean something about cell phone use, or your own willingness to jump to conclusions?

...all have laws that make it a crime to use a phone without a hands-free device while driving. The NSC's proposal would eliminate even the hands-free clause.

They should ban talking to passengers while they're at it.

They should ban talking to passengers while they're at it.

Controlled quantitative studies have verified that talking to the passenger does not tend to compromise the driver's attentiveness, and the extra pair of eyes can actually enhance safety. In contrast, any type of telephone conversation evidently distracts the driver to the competence level of someone with a BAC of about 0.08%, which is the legal DUI cutoff in most of the US (Western Europe uses 0.05%).

I strongly favor a major public safety/education campaign on the dangers and immorality of careless, aggressive, and/or distracted driving, including operating a motor vehicle when too tired to do so. As long as judges and juries sympathize with the perpetrators of crashes on the basis of "I could have been the defendant," or "aw, shucks, accidents do happen," we are not going to make any real progress.

I happened to see an editorial today that suggested that perhaps the fines are too low. Raise the fine to $500 for first offense, $1000 for second offense and cash strapped cities will encourage law enforcement to catch offenders.

They should ban talking to passengers while they're at it.

Yup, and changing the radio station, fiddling with a GPS, eating a cheeseburger, driving too long, looking at the scenery. . .


The problem with many of these studies (at least the three or four that I've read) is that they set up a very controlled situation comparing just-driving-and-nothing-else to driving-while-talking-on-a-cell-phone. They see that attention is divided and driving ability suffers, and they claim a blanket "talking on the cell phone leads to poor driving".

I have yet to see a study which compares the impairment created by a cell phone against any of the things I or degnaw mentioned (well, not quite true, they've shown talking on a cell phone causes a slightly greater impairment than listening to the radio; they didn't look at changing the station though). I don't see why talking on a cell phone should be more impairing than talking to a passenger. I suppose it's possible, but it appears as though no one's done a study yet.


How about we stop worrying about people talking on the phone and start worrying about people driving poorly? Seems to me that enforcing the law and penalizing poor driving (whether the driver is on a cell phone or not) would be a better solution. Crazy talk, I know...:rolleyes:

I strongly favor a major public safety/education campaign on the dangers and immorality of careless, aggressive, and/or distracted driving, including operating a motor vehicle when too tired to do so. As long as judges and juries sympathize with the perpetrators of crashes on the basis of "I could have been the defendant," or "aw, shucks, accidents do happen," we are not going to make any real progress.

I strongly agree... and in this vein I think a year long mandatory class in high school that teaches both drivers ed and the ethics of driving would be an ideal situation. At lower level grades schools could teach cycling... as it is done in Copenhagen... where they have traffic situations painted on the school playgrounds and they instruct children how to handle these situations.

For the life of me I never have figured out why we need several semesters of history and english et. al., yet only 6 weeks of driving education... driving is a lifelong activity and should be treated just like the other subjects in school.

Cars should incorporate a cell phone jammer activated when the engine is running and transmission is in drive. The controls of radios, gps, CD players etc should be locked at the same time - OK to listen to music or GPS instructions while driving, but resetting the controls is a NO-NO.

Cars should incorporate a cell phone jammer activated when the engine is running and transmission is in drive. The controls of radios, gps, CD players etc should be locked at the same time - OK to listen to music or GPS instructions while driving, but resetting the controls is a NO-NO.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090119/ap_on_bi_ge/tec_cell_phones_driving

Technology to block phones in cars isn't foolproof... read the article.

How about we stop worrying about people talking on the phone and start worrying about people driving poorly? Seems to me that enforcing the law and penalizing poor driving (whether the driver is on a cell phone or not) would be a better solution. Crazy talk, I know...:rolleyes:


Using this logic we should also stop worrying about people drinking while driving. Just punish those who drove poorly or caused a wreck while under the influence, right?

If California's recent hand held ban is any indication, lack of enforcement would render it meaningless.

Jeff, still fat

Every time I see inexplicable driver behavior, I suspect cellphone use. There is some strange stuff going on out there.

Speaking of strange stuff about suspicious cell phone use.

The local paper reports the conviction of a pickup truck driver for hitting and killing a 21 year old bicyclist. The police report and witnesses stated that the driver made no attempt to use the adjacent empty traffic lane. The victim went airborne and landed 114 feet from the point of impact. His bicycle was dragged by the truck and was found 209 feet from where he first was hit.

One of the motorist's lame excuses was that he suspected the victim may have been using a cell phone, but he didn't actually see the bicyclist using it. The driver had the sun in his eyes, was driving too fast for conditions, was distracted and/or was just plain reckless and stupid; but figured tossing in a bogus cell phone alibi/excuse was his get out of jail free card.

On line, this week only at: http://www.thehawkeye.com/Story/Guilty-011809

Note: I pass this spot everyday on my commute but can't see the family's roadside memorial because my commute is in darkness early in the morning. The road is as straight as an arrow at this location, with no roadside or intersection obstructions.

Does that mean something about cell phone use, or your own willingness to jump to conclusions?that's a good question. Oftentimes it's easy to observe that the driver is using a cellphone. Other times it would be more dangerous for me to figure it out than it is worth. From what I have seen cellphone using drivers do, cellphone use is incredibly dangerous, at least for some people.


Back in the '70s and '80s the reason for most bike/car accidents from inattentive drivers was that the driver was changing music tapes. This doesn't seem to be something people do any more. Changing the radio doesn't seem as likely to involve taking your eyes off the road for so long. Messing with the IPOD does though.

Speaking of strange stuff about suspicious cell phone use.

The local paper reports the conviction of a pickup truck driver for hitting and killing a 21 year old bicyclist. The police report and witnesses stated that the driver made no attempt to use the adjacent empty traffic lane. The victim went airborne and landed 114 feet from the point of impact. His bicycle was dragged by the truck and was found 209 feet from where he first was hit.

One of the motorist's lame excuses was that he suspected the victim may have been using a cell phone, but he didn't actually see the bicyclist using it. The driver had the sun in his eyes, was driving too fast for conditions, was distracted and/or was just plain reckless and stupid; but figured tossing in a bogus cell phone alibi/excuse was his get out of jail free card.

On line, this week only at: http://www.thehawkeye.com/Story/Guilty-011809

Note: I pass this spot everyday on my commute but can't see the family's roadside memorial because my commute is in darkness early in the morning. The road is as straight as an arrow at this location, with no roadside or intersection obstructions.

Regardless of the alleged use of a cell phone by the victim, the overtaking motorist still had a moral and legal responsibility to avoid hitting another road user.

What about a cop who talks on the radio? When they ban that, then they can ban cellphones.

What about a cop who talks on the radio? When they ban that, then they can ban cellphones.

How about when you get the training a cop has, you can drive with a cell phone.

Regardless of the alleged use of a cell phone by the victim, the overtaking motorist still had a moral and legal responsibility to avoid hitting another road user.

You don't get the point. Ranting about suspicions that significant numbers of accidents are caused by cell phone use may be comforting to the ranters, but unsubstantiated suspicions are not facts, and don't make the cell phone boogyman out to be the public menace as portrayed in Conventional Wisdom Chatter.

In recent memory, I almost got hit head-on by a Lexus driver while on the bike downtown. He was making a left at an intersection, I was headed straight through and moving pretty quick. He looked at (through) me, and punched the accelerator. Luckily he clicked-to and stepped on the brakes. There was a cellphone glued to his suprised-looking face. :notamused:

Similarly, I was overtaking a Mercedes on the interstate, and he suddenly swerved into my lane. While my front wheel was parallel to his rear wheel. Swerved to the shoulder, then sped back up, got along side him again to look through the window, and a cellphone was glued to his face. :notamused: Never saw or heard me (or just didn't care).

Drivers on the phone are dangerous to everyone.

Cars should incorporate a cell phone jammer activated when the engine is running and transmission is in drive. The controls of radios, gps, CD players etc should be locked at the same time - OK to listen to music or GPS instructions while driving, but resetting the controls is a NO-NO.

and when your trapped in your car and must call 911?:rolleyes:

Chad

The only time I've been hit [actually run over the rear of the bike] was by a cliche of cell-phoness; a soccer mom in a Volvo wagon talking away trying to multi-task the kids. With eye contact I enetered the intersection [I had the signal] and as I passed her she turned right laying me down and drove over the rear traingle and wheel. She didn't stop.

Tons of motorists stopped to help, getting aid and such, while one guy chased her down to at least get a plate number. Catching up with her several blocks down she was indignate that she couldn't have hit anyone [she was still talking on her phone] I had on a bright pink Terry jacket and weighing in at 195# I'm not exactly invisible. This was in Washington State where we have a new hands free law. Now you can't even tell by the gestures if they have a phone on.... .

I read an article in a motorcycle magazine recently about playing the "paranoia" game. It involves delibrately training yourself to forsee every bad outcome from the people we share the road with.

Since we are a like minded community [mostly] we don't think from the other point of view.

This months UK edition of Esquire magazines number one thing that makes them happy is seeing a cyclist get a police citation. Here is a link about an La doctor causing cyclist's accidents because he was tired of seeing them on his streets.http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/01/a-brentwood-phy.html Keep your eyes open after that it's just riding the bike.

You don't get the point. Ranting about suspicions that significant numbers of accidents are caused by cell phone use may be comforting to the ranters, but unsubstantiated suspicions are not facts, and don't make the cell phone boogyman out to be the public menace as portrayed in Conventional Wisdom Chatter.

Sorry, on this I disagree with you... I have even seen folks drive right off the road as they were chatting on cell phones... I have plenty of reason to believe that this goes well beyond "suspicions."

Using this logic we should also stop worrying about people drinking while driving. Just punish those who drove poorly or caused a wreck while under the influence, right?

If someone is driving safely, who cares what they ate or drank before they got behind the wheel?

By your logic, should we let someone swerve, change lanes erratically, tailgate, and run people off of the road as long as they're sober?

Of course not.


For some reason, our society has gone beyond punishing people who DO harm into punishing people who MIGHT do harm.

Every time I see inexplicable driver behavior, I suspect cellphone use. There is some strange stuff going on out there.

10 years ago I would assume the driver was drunk. Now I don't have to assume. I can see the phone. Does not mean they are not drunk too (at least where I live).

As long as judges and juries sympathize with the perpetrators of crashes on the basis of "I could have been the defendant," or "aw, shucks, accidents do happen," we are not going to make any real progress.

Maybe not so much. I think it will change because of insurance companies and their lawyers. If it becomes legal everywhere for your car insurance company to access your phone records at the time of an accident, and prove that somebody was using your phone at the time, they might see fit to raise your rates for 3 years just like when you get too many moving violations. Phone use while driving is costing insurance companies, and the insured, tons of extra dough right now. My car insurance co. sends me a note BEGGING me not to phone-and-drive. Soon I fear, they won't have to beg any more. They will make phone users pay a high risk premium.

That's how it's going to happen IF it ever does. It won't be done by legislators because they want to yack incessantly about nothing while driving too.

and when your trapped in your car and must call 911?:rolleyes:

Chad

Turn off the engine or put the transmission in P.

If someone is driving safely, who cares what they ate or drank before they got behind the wheel?

By your logic, should we let someone swerve, change lanes erratically, tailgate, and run people off of the road as long as they're sober?

Of course not.


For some reason, our society has gone beyond punishing people who DO harm into punishing people who MIGHT do harm.

So you're sticking to the "who cares what they do as long as they don't cause a wreck" theory? In that case we don't need any laws!

The whole reason there are laws and restrictions that "punish people who might do harm" is because it helps reduce the amount of actual harm caused by careless drivers before the fact.

What about a cop who talks on the radio? When they ban that, then they can ban cellphones.

And along with the police we have emergency responders who use their radios while driving. Actually making sure driving while using a cell phone bans don't include radio use is part of my agenda (as well as making cycling safer) as I'm also a amateur radio (HAM) operator and use my radio while driving.

Education is the best solution. Part of the problem is that driving has become a necessity and is not longer really a privilege and as a result licenses are way too easy to get. While I will use my cell phone while driving (It's not illegal here yet) I keep my calls short and don't use my phone in situations where my attention needs to be on the road as in heavy traffic or on local streets.

Unfortunately there are no easy solutions or quick fixes. Some people just don't belong behind the wheel.

Ban private cars. No more speeding deaths. No more illegal racing. No more distracted drivers talking on cell phones and crashing into people and things. No more pollution. No more car-related noise pollution. No more road rage. Sounds like the only way to deal with it.

They should ban talking to passengers while they're at it.

I think talking on the phone is different than talking to somebody near by in person. When talking in person we all get feedback from that person, eye contact, body language, facial expressions etc. We do not get that when speaking on the phone. I think our brains try to search and place that input but cannot.

It is that that makes this different and most distractive.

It is very difficult to change this law because so many people would rather not be inconvenienced by not being able to use the phone while driving. And as long as nobody close to them is killed or injured, it is not on their radar screen.

In Wisconsin we tried to set up a system that would gather stats on cell phone use prior to accidents. The industry, that has millions in potential losses watered it down.

Only when the body bags can be counted, will the public begin to change.

What are the chances of a complete cell phone ban? Well, when hell freezes over, there are still going to be people in hell with cell phones glued to their ears, so...

Sorry, on this I disagree with you... I have even seen folks drive right off the road as they were chatting on cell phones... I have plenty of reason to believe that this goes well beyond "suspicions."

And plenty of people see accidents caused by folks who have different gender or skin color than themselves too; lots of stereotypes to castigate. Plenty of accidents happen while people wear hats, (especially backwards!) or are wearing sunglasses; and plenty of accidents occur while people are using cell phones which only makes sense in that plenty of people are using cell phones, just like plenty of accidents occur while people wear sunglasses.

Deducing that cell phone usage has significantly effected accident rates based on an anecdote or three, or more to the BF point, actually increases the risk to bicyclists is repeating an Urban Legend based on suspicions of those looking for an easy scapegoat or stereotype to blame.

You would do just as well, if not better, to blame accidents on all those women drivers, teenagers, fat SUV drivers, sunglass wearing suburban Moms, or any other gosh darn (take your pick of minorities/scapegoats/stereotypes.)

Deducing that cell phone usage has significantly effected accident rates based on an anecdote or three, or more to the BF point, actually increases the risk to bicyclists is repeating an Urban Legend based on suspicions of those looking for an easy scapegoat or stereotype to blame.

Do you believe that driving drunk should be legalized? Is there an urban legend involved in that perceived risk? Some very well done studies show, without a doubt, that yakking or texting has the same consequences on reaction time as being moderately drunk. Yakking=Drunk.

Granted there are a lot of things people do behind the wheel that causes problems. When they become statistically significant action will be taken, either by government or business (insurance companies).

Do you believe that driving drunk should be legalized? Is there an urban legend involved in that perceived risk? Some very well done studies show, without a doubt, that yakking or texting has the same consequences on reaction time as being moderately drunk. Yakking=Drunk.

Granted there are a lot of things people do behind the wheel that causes problems. When they become statistically significant action will be taken, either by government or business (insurance companies).

Are you sure you haven't been drinking before posting? Or maybe too much Yakking, since you can't seem to discern the difference.

Who is discussing texting? And your allegedly "well designed tests" are NOT evidence of ANY statistically significant cell phone involvement as a contributing cause of car accidents.

And plenty of people see accidents caused by folks who have different gender or skin color than themselves too; lots of stereotypes to castigate. Plenty of accidents happen while people wear hats, (especially backwards!) or are wearing sunglasses; and plenty of accidents occur while people are using cell phones which only makes sense in that plenty of people are using cell phones, just like plenty of accidents occur while people wear sunglasses.

Deducing that cell phone usage has significantly effected accident rates based on an anecdote or three, or more to the BF point, actually increases the risk to bicyclists is repeating an Urban Legend based on suspicions of those looking for an easy scapegoat or stereotype to blame.

You would do just as well, if not better, to blame accidents on all those women drivers, teenagers, fat SUV drivers, sunglass wearing suburban Moms, or any other gosh darn (take your pick of minorities/scapegoats/stereotypes.)

I would buy that Urban Legend thing if the cell phone distraction tests had not been done by multiple agencies in multiple countries... all with similar results. Since there is enough data to support this, I have little doubt in accepting the claims of even anecdotal evidence offered here on BF.

No doubt anything that can be a distraction can lead to accidents... be it a bee in the car or a well endowed lady walking the street. But the fact is that under lab conditions, the distraction of cell phones was found to be greater than that assumed by the users. That is basically the issue... it may be no more of a distraction than dozens of other things drivers might do, but with cell phones one may be deluding one's self about how well they are driving while chatting.

Frankly with the evidence at hand, I am surprised insurance companies have NOT taken up this issue.

Admittedly the NHTSA has done a survey and did NOT come to any sort of sweeping conclusion, but merely suggested that cell phones can be a distraction.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2005/809967.pdf
And here is another link to the NHTSA
Research shows that driving while using a cell phone can pose a serious cognitive distraction and degrade driver performance. The data are insufficient to quantify crashes caused by cell phone use specifically, but NHTSA estimates that driver distraction from all sources contributes to 25 percent of all police-reported traffic crashes.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.416f74e8613992381601031046108a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=4427b997caacf504a8bdba101891ef9a_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_4427b997caacf504a8bdba101891ef9a_viewID=detail_view&itemID=d01bab6383f62010VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD&viewType=standard&detailViewURL=/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.416f74e8613992381601031046108a0c/!708636066!-2022025523?javax.portlet.tpst=4427b997caacf504a8bdba101891ef9a_ws_MX

So it appears that the NHTSA is agreeing somewhat with you... that there is just not enough conclusive data to determine if cell phones are a primary cause for accidents... in spite of the acknowledgment of the issue of "serious cognitive distraction."

And your allegedly "well designed tests" are NOT evidence of ANY statistically significant cell phone involvement as a contributing cause of car accidents.

So you dispute the relevance of the studies. Fair enough.

Soon, because all cell phones are basically tracking devices nowadays, REAL statistics will come to light regarding what percentage of vehicle accidents happened while drivers were yakking.

Then, if there is any significant number, insurance companies, at the very least, will amend policies. Like when you apply for health insurance and they ask you if you smoke. Maybe no one will pass laws, but the insurance industry is not designed to lose money. They will take action, and it won't be pretty.

Currently, my health insurance is void if I get hurt while drunk, committing a felony, or engaged in other illegal activities. Cell phone use during an accident may fall under those guidelines someday too.

Making it illegal is one thing. Enforcement is another.

Cell phone use in cars has been illegal in Australia for at least a decade. Most drivers still use them.

The police will have the occassional blitz in central business district and downtown locations, and maybe book a few hundred people in a single day, but these are few and far between.

At any given time, for every drunk driver on the road there would easily be a hundred people talking on their phones.

I do not personally know anybody who has been booked for using a phone in the car, whereas I know a few people who have been arrested for drunk driving.

The really big problem at the moment seems to be people sending SMS on their phone while driving. Crazy.

So you're sticking to the "who cares what they do as long as they don't cause a wreck" theory? In that case we don't need any laws!

The whole reason there are laws and restrictions that "punish people who might do harm" is because it helps reduce the amount of actual harm caused by careless drivers before the fact.


No, the laws are needed so that those who DO drive recklessly (change lanes erratically, swerve within their lanes, tailgate, push other drivers off of the road, contribute to or cause accidents) can be punished.


Have you never driven tired? When really sick? After taking medication? While hyped up on caffeine? Have you never checked a girl out while you were driving, or tried to read store hours while behind the wheel?


I don't think cell phones are a problem. I think the problem lies in poor driving and attention skills.

Here in Mchigan the powers that be in all there wisdon DID BAN texting while driving BUT couldn't pass the no talking on the cell phone while driving ban . Everytime I have almost been hit the idiot has had a cell phone in there ear. Iam for a total ban on using a phone while driving except in the case of an emerency . my 2 cents .

No, the laws are needed so that those who DO drive recklessly (change lanes erratically, swerve within their lanes, tailgate, push other drivers off of the road, contribute to or cause accidents) can be punished.


Have you never driven tired? When really sick? After taking medication? While hyped up on caffeine? Have you never checked a girl out while you were driving, or tried to read store hours while behind the wheel?


I don't think cell phones are a problem. I think the problem lies in poor driving and attention skills.

I agree, laws are needed to punish drivers who cause or contribute to crashes, and just like Joey's insurance company, I include cell phone use while driving to be a contributing factor. Two hands on the steering wheel will always offer better control of the vehicle than one. A mind focused on the road will always be more prepared to avoid making a mistake (or avoid the mistakes of others) than one concentrating on a distant conversation. If your child/loved one inadvertantly stepped out in front a moving motor vehicle, would you still not think it a problem for the driver of that vehicle to be yakking away?

I think the problem lies in poor driving and attention skills.

Compounded by distracting new technology that most people own and abuse behind the wheel.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. It is THE most dangerous activity that most people engage in regularly. Driving a motor vehicle is not something to have a cavalier attitude about.

Cell phone use is an addiction. It should be handled like one. Cause an accident while yakking - lose your license for 6 months with rehab with a year's probation.

Those who deny the added dangers are fooling themselves, just messing with the rest of us, blind, or just don't get out much.

Have you never driven tired? When really sick? After taking medication? While hyped up on caffeine? Have you never checked a girl out while you were driving, or tried to read store hours while behind the wheel?

Now try any one of those WHILE yakking on the phone too. See.

Off topic - caffeine actually heightens ones awareness while operating machinery. But I get your point.

Now try any one of those WHILE yakking on the phone too. See.

Off topic - caffeine actually heightens ones awareness while operating machinery. But I get your point.

Good point, 'cause in the real world that's what happens.

What are the chances this will ever end up as law? I wonder how enforcement would work...

Here is the article (http://www.informationweek.com/news/telecom/regulation/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212800149&subSection=News)

-D

I'd say the chances are good. The Federal Government will refuse funds to the states unless they pass this into law. This is how they get laws passed, the seat belt law is a good example of that. While I agree with laws like the seat belt law and a law to totally bann all forms of cell phone use while driving I do not like the methods used to get it passed.

As far as enforcement goes it will likely be similar to the seat belt law. Simply put if a law enforcement officer sees someone driving while on a cell phone they will be pulled over and issued a citation for it. And yes in most of not all states a motorist can be pulled over just for not wearing a seat belt. There does not have to be some other reason to be pulled over first, then the seat belt violation is one more thing, when discovered, a person can be cited for.

What I'd like to know is will the law also include passengers? With the seat belt law even passangers can be cited for not wearing one. If the passenger is an adult they get the ticket, if a minor up to a certain age the driver does. I also wonder what will happen with habitual or constant repeat offenders? Will the person cell phone be confiscated? I wonder how many of us can survive with out one? I know I can.

Folks this is not a bad thing. I think it will help keep the roadways safer. Another side effect it will have is it will force people to disconnect and unplug. Something everyone should do at least once a day and I don't mean when you go to bed.

I don't consider cell phones/8 track tapes/radios/GPS/ other in-car distracting conveniences to be separate from the larger issue of developing smart cars which remove SOME, but not ALL, of the decisionmaking by the driver. There is a big article on this issue in a recent copy of the Economist.

roughstuff

How about when you get the training a cop has, you can drive with a cell phone.

I have seen far tooooooo many cops stareing at the floor (computer?) while their car crossed lines on the road, when they should have been paying attention to their driving. Even in school zones!

Maybe they all missed the training class you referred to!

Being a cop doesn't rule out stupidity!

I have seen far tooooooo many cops stareing at the floor (computer?) while their car crossed lines on the road, when they should have been paying attention to their driving. Even in school zones!

Maybe they all missed the training class you referred to!

Being a cop doesn't rule out stupidity!

Certainly not... but how many ordinary motorists think they have superior driving skills and are then distracted by some device in their cars.

Certainly cops are only human too.

The one difference is that conversations on the cop broadcast radios tend to be short and to the point... not so when some soccer mom is telling her best friend about some thing her little Johnny did. That distraction can last all the way across town... where as Adam-12 took his call and is rolling on it.

How about when you get the training a cop has, you can drive with a cell phone.Cops get special training on using their radios while they drive? And here I thought they learned how to use a gun, some martial arts, how to deal with people, certain aspects of the law, how to drive aggressively, etc.

If so, the ham radio operators seem to think they've gotten the same training. Though I certainly haven't gotten it (AD5RH)!

You want to rile up some ham radio operators? Suggest that the proposed ban on cell phones, the one that also seems to ban mobile ham radios as it's written, actually should ban ham radios, for the same reasons it bans cell phones! They freak out! :)

Two hands on the steering wheel will always offer better control of the vehicle than one.
This is one thing a lot of people say which just isn't true. You don't need two hands to steer unless you don't have power steering or something. Maybe I'm a product of my environment, but having driven thousands of miles on dirt paths and stuff like that, I've usually have one hand on the wheel and the other on gearshift or e-brake. I can hold a slide easily, and this often means going full opposite lock with one hand. You don't need two for that, and you don't need two for anything else either.


A mind focused on the road will always be more prepared to avoid making a mistake (or avoid the mistakes of others) than one concentrating on a distant conversation.
I'll agree here. I'm a firm believer that cell phone use while driving is equivalent to being drunk. So many accidents have been attributed to it, various studies have suggested it, and there are thousands of anecdotes to back it up. Hang up and drive, people.