HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't care about privacy issues, if you did you wouldn't use a cell phone at all!!

Gee I can remember for years and years we rode around as passengers in cars, buses, trains, planes etc without cell phones. What our society needs to do is to slow down, it's stressing people out, they have to work even while commuting, it's nuts.

And the proof of the dangers of using cell phones while driving was more then amply pointed out in an earlier post that makes your arguments entirely baseless and idiotic.

Apparently 600,000 drivers at any given moment disagree.

I've thought about the passengers thing, and my conclusion is: "oh well". Motorists have proven they can't handle the responsibility of not talking/texting while driving, collectively, so I'd consider that collateral damage. If people don't like that, they should complain to all the motorists who couldn't handle being responsible adults when given the freedom to do so. It wouldn't be the end of he world...people got along fine without mobile devices connected to the network before they were invented. Although technology could also help there, by using GPS to identify the phone's location and avoid disabling it on trains or away from roads. It would also technically be possible to use GPS-like technology embedded into cars to identify exactly whose hands the phone is in before disabling it. But I suspect that wouldn't go over well, because your misguided attitude is way too common.

As for privacy issues: hahahaha. You already have zero privacy as far as location when you are using a mobile device. The network knows where you are at all times, and the authorities have access to that often. Get over it or don't use a cell phone if you are so worried. It's not a stretch to say that this information can and should be used for law enforcement, nor is it an infringement on our liberties. You don't have privacy of location in public anyway, and you choose to give it up even in private by using a mobile device.

And there is plenty of evidence. You just refuse to accept it because it doesn't satisfy you. Fortunately, there are experts who know better than you.

Great minds think alike, I guess.

Here we go again, Angio. You need to reread post #5. Your position has been proven false by the overwhelming literature on this topic. It is, as they say, a 'no-brainer'. Let me know if you'd like more sources. Don't let ITLB's Opium Teapot cloud your thinking, read the articles for yourself.

I take comfort knowing that both fatalities and accidents are way down in America despite increased cell phone usage.

Freedom and liberty comes with side effects and one of those might be a slight increased risk posed by drivers and cell phones.

My solution is not to criminalize and extort money from drivers who cause no harm with their cell phones, but rather to punish more severly drivers who DO cause harm while using a cell phone while driving.

I also believe America could reduce a much more significant amount of injuries and death by cracking down more on drunk drivers. However, people like their alcohol too much to actually punish drunk drivers enough to deter further drunk drivers.

Drunk drivers cause far more accidents than cell phone users. Go after them first and reduce more accidents that way.

You must be kidding.

That means you are OK with people driving drunk too. I bet there are many more speeders at any given moment.

(It's also ironic that you used a well-known logical fallacy.)

"Practical" might be a better word than "rational" to use.

What practical reason is there to allow it? That people want-to isn't a practical/rational reason (people want to do all sorts of things).

In deciding whether to allow/disallow something, you list the cons and the pros and allow something when the cons don't outweigh the pros. Since aren't really any practical pros for using cell-phones while driving, it means the question is really only decided by any real cons you can find.

Drinking (alcohol) and driving is the same sort of situation. There isn't any pro to doing that and lots of cons.

GPS usage is not the same situation because (one could argue) that knowing where you are going reduces accidents and that pro outweighs the cons (the distraction they cause when driving). A GPS has a practical/rational positive contribution to driving.

And all those things you list are obviously distractions too and (almost certainly) have been the cause of some accidents.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures...cts/ffdl28.htm
https://www.distraction.gov/content/g...tatistics.html


Anyway, there is a fair amount of research (see earlier posts) that cell-phone use (especially texting) is a large distraction, on the order of driving drunk (something you forgot to include in your list).

Avoiding harm is vastely more useful than punishing people after the fact (unless you like punishng people).

You really don't know this. The number of accidents caused by drunk drivers have declined over the years. Cell-phone use has exploded in recent years (and the unknown number of collisions caused by them is likely increasing at a similar rate). It's possible that the rates will cross.

This is another thing you don't know.

It is clear that the "freedom and liberty" of people injured by other people doesn't matter to you.

Angio hasn't reread post #5, looked up the sources,or READ the sources. Not sure any of his comments from this point on are worth a reply!

Sorry pal, a logical failure in your argument. I noted that 600,000 people at any moment may feel it is rational to use their phone when and where they are using it. That doesn't mean you can assume ANYTHING about what I mean, or think is OK, about drunk drivers or speeders or cell phone users for that matter.

You don't really know that the number of accident caused by cell phone use is "likely" to increase at any any specific rate, if at all.

More logical fallacy. No, that they do something doesn't mean there's any rational driving-related reason behind it. That they "may feel" it's rational/practical doesn't mean it is in fact. And, of course, you don't know what they "feel".

People drive just fine with out using cell-phones (there's a lot of evidence that cell-phones cause problems: see all those links posted earlier you keep ignoring).

What driving related practical/rational purpose do all these 600,000 have for that cell-phone use? No one has managed to suggest what it could be!

(To be clear, there might be rare "emergency" related cell-phone use but we aren't really talking about that.)

You are using the "argument from popularity" fallacy. You don't provide any other reason. Thus, I can know exactly that you approve of drunk driving and speeding (which are "popular" things too done by who "may feel" it's rational to do those things).



If x% of accidents are cause by cell-phone use (and there is ample support that they are responsible for some accidents), then a y-fold increase in cell-phone usage would reasonably be expected (predicted) to cause y*x% accidents.

And, if you decrease the cell-phone usage rate to zero, then accidents caused by cell-phone use would also go to zero (that's going to be obvious for most people).

It's a prediction and a reasonable one (especially given what we currently know).

Keep digging!

Who claimed that anyone uses their cell phone to accomplish some driving purpose? If someone calls on a cell phone they have a reason that is suitable enough for them to take that action, whether you approve of it or not.

The number of accidents caused by cell phones "X" is unknown, you are predicting this unknown number will increase; maybe.
Maybe this unknown "X" will go down as people get more used to using them; maybe.
Maybe people will get over the presumption that if a cell phone was in use prior to a collision, the collision cause must be the cell phone and that will drive down the number "X."

I always love it when the A&S debates descend into arguments about logical fallacies and semantics while leaving behind the meat of the debate.

Perhaps A&S needs a "Roberts rules of Order-like" sticky thread, so we can debate the rules of logic, semantics and statistics... and leave behind the stuff related to cycling.

Go out and ride folks... have a nice day. (oh and watch out for the cell phone using drunk driver speeding by...)

This is the "meat" of the debate. You as the OP were ranting about why more tickets aren't being givenout because so many people appear to be using cell phones while driving. No one is arguing that there are not a lot of people using cell phones while driving.

The meat of the argument is "so what?" Does this "distraction" cause all the accidents that the emotional posters fear/claim, or does it not? Or is it a "distraction" that can be handled quite well by all but maybe a few Klutzes who may not be able to handle smoking a cigarette, sipping a soda pop, tuning the radio or any of a number of other "distractions" that doesn't raise the hackles of emotional ranters.

I was not the OP... I started in on post 11.

Is this a "so what" issue...? I don't believe so, as texting people have walked into fountains and off piers they are so distracted. But bottom line, in your opinion, is that since we can't prove it (as no one is studying it) we should just ignore it.

Just go put your head back in the sand... I am sure there are lots of things that you can ignore if you don't know about them.

Sorry, I get my posters, who are so wrapped up on the evils of drivers in general, and cell phone use in specific, confused.

see... if you'd just keep your head in the sand, you wouldn't have such problems...

I don't have my head in the sand. I see lots of motorists. Most drive just fine, some don't. I see lots of drivers using cell phones. I don't see poor driving having any relationship to cell phone use. I don't have a conniption every time I see a driver holding a cell phone to his/her ear.

I do read on BF a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth from posters who see a cell phone and assume the driver is not aware and is more likely to harm cyclists but little to no evidence of accidents caused by such use.

I put most of this hue and cry not to legitimate worry about bicycling safety but much more to another emotional car/motorist bashing exercise that passes for bicycling advocacy on this list.

I see a lot of drivers doing OK. I also see a fair amount of drivers not doing OK... at any particular time I see cars acting in an odd manner relative to the rest of traffic and generally I find that the motorist is distracted in some manner... often by cell phone.

Why do I take it personally... because I have had close calls with motorists that were on cell phones... and only extraordinary moves on my part prevented damage and injury to myself. (and frankly my reaction times are NOT getting better).

Now no doubt our views vary... we live in different areas. I live in an area where the local roads are all high speed arterial roads... where a moments distraction by a motorist can cause me damage. Perhaps if I lived in a more rural or residential area or a smaller town... I wouldn't have issues with so many distracted motorists. I'll try to retire far away from the big city.

But in the mean time... too many close calls by cell phone using drivers is what I see. And I can't see the cell phones until the idiots get too close and do that "OMG" bright eyes thing as they just miss me. (perhaps if cell phone drivers had a big balloon over their cars I could more easily avoid them...)

Were you being serious when you posted that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vFcIpzF7pc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DebhWD6ljZs

My gawd man, reread it, it was all tongue in cheek.

I watched all 3 of the videos, the last one is exactly why I think the legal limit should be lowered to .05 instead of the current .08.

I ran across this today - https://www.nsc.org/safety_road/Distr...sking-Lie.aspx

Nice! Would be nice if they linked to the studies that their numbers come from for the doubters, but it's a good, simple format.