# Stupidity of cellphone users on the road + sidewalk...



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

I was driving up Yonge Street a few days ago, and eventually came behind this older car in the right lane, which was the same lane I was in. The car was going probably around 35-40 Km/hr., (give or take a few), and because I average 55 Km/hr., throughout the city if possible, I decided to pass him. I signal left, and move over. Then, before I accelerate any further to pass him, he moves to the left lane in front of me. I near immediately label him a jackass. Not only does he cut in front of me without looking, but he doesn't increase his incredibly slow speed, either. I calm down, then see we're approaching an intersection without lights -- I give him pre-credit that he wants to turn left, hence moving to the left lane. The intersection comes and goes, and he continues straight. Now I'm really becoming peeved. No passing on the right, right? Screw it. I signal right, but before moving over, this clear and present moron MOVES OVER RIGHT at the same time I signal. WTF! Finally, I cancel the signal and speed past him on the left, but look over as I do so -- yap, yap, yap, on the cellphone. Jeez, I shouldn't be surprised. Cellphone drivers are some of the biggest morons I've ever come across, and this isn't the first time I've encountered such stupid driving skills by a cellphone driver.

Then, earlier in the week, walking home, not driving, I tried to pass a pedestrian on the sidewalk, swaying left and right all over the sidewalk, while yapping on the phone. Seriously.. how do you not walk straight while talking? Is the attention span required to talk really that large in size that you can't do other basic functions at the same time?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Welcome to the big city, Lars.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Sonal said:


> Welcome to the big city, Lars.


Thanks. 

I love Toronto in any case!


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

It's not just Toronto, Dude.
I am shocked at the number of times I see a doofus-driving-move, and then see that they're on a phone. 

Half the time they aren't even aware that they've done something really dangerous. Those are probably the ones who say "But _I'm_ really careful when I drive and talk on _my_ phone".

Latest Episode: Driver on phone pulls across two lanes and then turns back across the two lanes to pull into a laneway. He cuts me and the cars behind me off twice. I'm not fast enough on the horn and he has no idea what he did. His passenger has a big, fur-lined hood that he's wearing up (inside the car), so the driver's vision out the passenger side window and mirror are already limited. And because he's on the cel, he's not moving his head to see into his blind spots, and he's distracted by his "important" conversation.
The problem with these cel-phone-using drivers exiting the gene pool is that they'll likely take a few undeserving souls with them. 

A ban can't come soon enough.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Lars said:


> Seriously.. how do you not walk straight while talking? Is the attention span required to talk really that large in size that you can't do other basic functions at the same time?


Reminds me of President Ford. He literally couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time. It was all the joke back then. I was but a tot...


----------



## Jason H (Feb 1, 2004)

Lars, you must be new to Toronto....

Pass him (in any lane possible, sidewalk if needed) and then lock it up infront of him! 

Its in the Toronto drivers handbook.


For Shame


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

I seriously don't get what's so freakin hard about using the phone and driving at the same time. I think the majority of these people are idiots to begin with. I've NEVER done anything so stupid like these morons I come across every day while driving in this city. It's my job to drive around all day, and yes I take calls when driving, but I don't become so completely involved in the conversation that it makes me drive like a F***ING A**HOLE. I keep the call short, limited to few words/thinking, and it hasn't caused any problems for me or others on the road.

While banning cell phones use *might* make the morons drive _slightly_ better, it's not going to eliminate the bigger issue, and that is there are WAY too many IDIOTS driving on our roads.


----------



## rondini (Dec 6, 2001)

Ironically, studies have shown that the biggest accident causing distraction in a car is a passenger.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

kloan said:


> I seriously don't get what's so freakin hard about using the phone and driving at the same time. I think the majority of these people are idiots to begin with. I've NEVER done anything so stupid like these morons I come across every day while driving in this city.


Oddly enough, it is drivers with this kind of attitude that are at greater risk than any other, simply because they obviously do not know they are at risk in the first place.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

nah.. but i do! that's why i pay more attention to the road than the person talking to me... which usually ends with me saying i'll call them back when i'm not driving... so i guess i'm not your typical cell phone talking driver that's oblivious to everyone and everything else on the road...


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

kloan said:


> I think the majority of these people are idiots to begin with.



truer words were never spoken.



kloan said:


> While banning cell phones use *might* make the morons drive _slightly_ better, it's not going to eliminate the bigger issue, and that is there are WAY too many IDIOTS driving on our roads.


If i had my way, i'll ban all Idiots. We could ship them off to ......................?


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

gastonbuffet said:


> ... If I had my way, I'll ban all Idiots. We could ship them off to ...................... ?


CallCentre Island

We've had laws prohibiting the use of mobile phones in the UK for a few years now. I'm staggered by the number of people that still, despite the legislation, drive while using them. However, new regs come into place this month, upgrading the penalty regime.

http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/mobilephones/mobilephones.htm

I'd humiliate the buggers as well - confiscate the phones, and only hand them back after the perps have sat in a police cell writing out a thousand lines: "I must not use my phone while driving."


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

kloan said:


> I seriously don't get what's so freakin hard about using the phone and driving at the same time. ....


I would bet dollars to doughnuts ( mmmm, doughnuts!... ) that that is exactly what the cel-phone-using menaces are thinking.

I think it's time to stop calling the cel-phone drivers _idiots_, and realise that they are just regular people who are no more able to multi-task than anyone else, but they don't know it.

I wonder if you share the same opinion of your cel-phone-driving skills as the people in the cars and bicycles behind you.  

You will never know, until *CRASH*. And then you will think it was just that one time, or the fault of "the stupid guy behind me".


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

This is all reminiscent of the rows that erupted around the times that (a) the maximum speed limit was set at 70 mph (motorways/dual carriageways only though), (b) seat belt legislation was finally brought in* and (c) it became compulsory for motorcyclists to wear crash helmets.

The common denominator thought-set of the antis was equivalent to "How dare you impugn my ability as a driver. I never have accidents because I'm so brilliant at it, so these laws are pointless. Oh, and they infringe my civil liberties."

* Seat belt laws came in two waves (a) driver + front seat passenger only need to wear them followed eventually by (b) rear seat passengers added, required also to wear them.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

rondini said:


> Ironically, studies have shown that the biggest accident causing distraction in a car is a passenger.


As well as radios, refreshments, reading, appling makeup etc. etc. etc.

People develop an unrealistic zone of comfort when they get behind the wheel.

IMO, road ragers are more dangerous than cell phone users. The fact that people are aghast or personally insulted that someone cuts them off...


----------



## moonsocket (Apr 1, 2002)

Hey Lars

The same thing just happened to me here in Fredericton on Brunswick St. This person came close to getting creamed and still didnt notice. Why? THEY WERE ON A CELLPHONE!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Speaking of which:

http://www.break.com/pictures/feb14gal12.html

:lmao:


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

lol...


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

*relevant article...*

Hey Friends, since cel phones in cars don't seem to be going away any time soon, I'll revive this thread with an article I found in today's Citizen:
( http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=5704c457-0e82-488a-bd48-cdf30e2ee29f )

"...Cellphone users, however, often elevate the absurdities to startling levels. Cars swerve into adjacent lanes or snake along at a fraction of the speed limit or brake when they're not supposed to. For everyone, the roads become more hazardous...."

"...A Ryerson University assistant professor of psychology, Frank Russo, was recently interviewed about multi-tasking for The Walrus magazine. He stated that epidemiological studies indicate "drivers talking on cellphones are four times more likely to be involved in an accident." This is no measly statistic. ..."

"...Cellphone use, or misuse, drives the police goofy, too. Ottawa Police Staff Sergeant Rick Lavigne, who heads the collision investigation unit, admits the situation is difficult.
"No doubt about it," he states, "we're at our wit's end with them. The general feeling we're getting from officers is the cellphones are adding to situations.
"We've certainly seen a huge increase in problems. Some of that may be because there are more of them. But they do seem to cause road rage and what we call a lack of situational awareness."
I love euphemisms. He means the erratic driving caused by cellphone usage kills brain synapses both in the perpetrators and those who adversely react to them. Or more succinctly, people are being plain stupid. ..."

Please see: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=5704c457-0e82-488a-bd48-cdf30e2ee29f


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

rondini said:


> Ironically, studies have shown that the biggest accident causing distraction in a car is a passenger.


I wonder how easy it is to hide a cellphone versus a passenger after an accident.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I saw a schoolbus driver talking on his cellphone and driving yesterday,
He was all over the road, Even drove up onto the sidewalk twice as he drove down our street.

And I thought cabbies were bad drivers.

Dave


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

dolawren said:


> I saw a schoolbus driver talking on his cellphone and driving yesterday,
> He was all over the road, Even drove up onto the sidewalk twice as he drove down our street.
> 
> And I thought cabbies were bad drivers.
> ...


Yikes! Were there kids on the bus? You should have reported him.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Except despite almost vertical growth in cell phone use....accident rates are down.
Small problem with the theory.
We'll never know how many accidents are prevented by drivers reporting conditions.

Overall it's training in equipment use, good equipment and common sense - little of which can be legislated.

Only handsfree could be legislated and that I'd support.

There are always distractions and some distractions are actually good in keeping drivers alert.
Driving becomes as reflexive as walking and occupies little conscious awareness.
Your conscious brain is elsewhere most of the time driving.
Having to "think about it" is actually difficult and one reason new drivers have difficulties..they do have to "think about it".

I see the insurance companies have some sort of "drive distraction hotline" to report in on. Wonder what that is about??


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Yikes! Were there kids on the bus? You should have reported him.


The schoolbus was loaded to the rafters, Reporting doesn't do anything.
Schoolbus drivers are above the law, Just look at the way they speed down the side streets.

Many a day I've seen them doing 50 or 60 km/ph in a 40 km/ph zone, Even around schools.

You want to speed in Toronto? Drive a schoolbus.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I must admit D I've thought the same thing at times with school bus drivers tho the boards put them through hell on their contracts.
Kids bounce well luckily. 
School buses really should have hands free communication for a whole variety of reasons so that dispatch can be spoken to or heard from very quickly and changes in routes, weather or on bus emergencies can be dealt with.

Training and equipment.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Except despite almost vertical growth in cell phone use....accident rates are down.
> Small problem with the theory.
> We'll never know how many accidents are prevented by drivers reporting conditions.
> 
> Overall it's training in equipment use, good equipment and common sense - little of which can be legislated.


Not really a problem with theory (shock minus control differences) and the red herring of "accidents prevented" does not mean much (distraction tactic to downplay the problem). Pull over and report an accident. The evidence about the danger of the distraction is clear (aside from the deniers). That there are other distractions puts it into perspective on magnitude and enforceability (with cellphone records, very enforceable). But there being other factors and people not using common sense does not reduce the clear distraction. 

If we depended on training and common sense, we'd still allow drunk driving.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Except despite almost vertical growth in cell phone use....accident rates are down.


After hearing you try to tie together the most obscure bits of questionable scientific data to create a supposedly believable theory of climate change, we're supposed to take a casual data relationship like the one above seriously?

I guess you have two levels of data acceptability, depending on the issue.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MF I can back up my assertion about cell phone use rising with a downward trend in accidents ( I have elsewhere ).- Something you do not and cannot in your denier universe......big difference.

I find it amusing that the passenger correlation DOES show up apparently.

Training, equipment, common sense.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> MF I can back up my assertion about cell phone use rising with a downward trend in accidents ( I have elsewhere ).- Something you do not and cannot in your denier universe......big difference.
> 
> I find it amusing that the passenger correlation DOES show up apparently.
> 
> Training, equipment, common sense.


That does not look at where it would have been otherwise (+ most accident data is based on reported injuries and fatalities). So it does not back up your claim.

What there is the labratory studies demonstrating severely diminished capability (the theory is sound) and, now, studies of accident records corroborating the lab tests in different countries. The theories and observational data say the same thing and it's really obvious why. 

Common sense: ok for drunk driving too? No, there is a clear risk to the public and people, due to their own over-estimation of their abilities, are putting others at risk. This one can be verified with phone records (enforceability).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> MF I can back up my assertion about cell phone use rising with a downward trend in accidents ( I have elsewhere ).- Something you do not and cannot in your denier universe......big difference.
> 
> I find it amusing that the passenger correlation DOES show up apparently.
> 
> Training, equipment, common sense.


Ahem . . .

BY KAREN LUNDEGAARD AND JESSE DRUCKER STAFF REPORTERS OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

“Drivers using cellphones are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves than if they didn't talk on the phone, according to a new study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Using data from actual crashes and cellphone records, the study also found that so-called hands-free phones are no safer than hand-held ones. New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington, D.C., have laws banning hand-held phones for drivers, as do a number of European countries, despite repeated research that shows hands-free phones aren't safer.”

http://users2.wsj.com/lmda/do/check...809382851.html?mod=todays_us_personal_journal


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc is a "cellphone-while-driving accident denier."


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Statement 1: "drivers talking on cellphones are four times more likely to be involved in an accident."

Statement 2: the overall accident rate is declining.

There is nothing contradictory about those statements. Even if the overall risks associated with driving are declining, there appears to be no escaping the conclusion that talking on the phone while driving is hazardous to yourself and others. 

I see people doing all kinds of idiotic things daily. Granted, not all of them are gabbing on the phone, but it seems more than a fair share are (especially when running red lights or blowing stop signs), and it seems they're oblivious to the world around them and to common sense. No doubt the great majority believe driving and gabbing is only stupid and dangerous when other people do it.

My longstanding peeve: drivers who cut in front of a bus to make a right turn. (I.e. the bus is stopped at a green light, loading and unloading passengers.) Legions of *complete morons* appear to be oblivious to the fact that bus stopped at green light = high probability of pedestrians in front of the bus, who can't be seen until the last second if you insist on being an impatient pr!ck and whipping around in front of the bus.

Lately, the cell phone appears to be a favourite accessory of these nitwits. I count myself very fortunate that I've yet to witness or be involved in a serious accident, though I've seen a couple of very close shaves in the last week alone.

As for pedestrians on cells, I agree it's distracting and potentially dangerous to walk and talk on the phone at the same time. I still do it once in a while, but generally cut the talk short and call back from a quiet place. Crossing a busy intersection, even when you have the right of way, is not a smart thing to do while talking on the phone. So many drivers "cheat" on lights and turns, you need to give your undivided attention to traffic when crossing the street.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MF: Structure of proof to deny
Life expectancy went up while junk food consumption grew. 
Clearly junk food is ok.

In fact, I'm sure all sorts of nasty stuff increased while life expectancy went up. They're all ok.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Don't worry about reporting this!

If there's an accident, since none of the kids are wearing seatbelts, they'll be thrown forward into the driver--right through that little wall behind him. And if the impact isn't that hard, then it's just _their _cellphones that will be thrown forward, careening into the driver.




dolawren said:


> The schoolbus was loaded to the rafters, Reporting doesn't do anything.
> Schoolbus drivers are above the law, Just look at the way they speed down the side streets.
> 
> Many a day I've seen them doing 50 or 60 km/ph in a 40 km/ph zone, Even around schools.
> ...


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Yeah, I'm still harping on this stuff...

*Hang Up and Drive:*

*Is Cell Phone Use While Driving the Next Frontier of Employer Liability? *
Is the next frontier of employee vicarious liability for dangerous acts committed while using the company car the use of the cell phone? Perhaps. ...

...There are enough studies, both nationally and internationally that have concluded that the use of a cell phone while driving impairs a driver’s ability to drive carefully and cautiously, and reduces reaction time in the event of an unforeseen problem. This is certainly the case when handheld cell phones are in use, and increasingly these studies are concluding that the level of distraction for the driver is really no different even if a hands-free device is being used....

Full story, please see: She said, "Drive".


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

All of you complaining about cellphone use while driving:

Do you own an iPod? Do you mess with it while driving?
How about a GPS?
Blackberry?
Tube of lipstick?

I'm really sick of being over-legislated "for my own safety".

Two things will happen if we ban cellphone use in cars. 1) People will pull over abruptly to take calls. Unsafe lane changes, traffic chaos ensues. 2) People will text and drive. Heads down, pecking away.

Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

hhk said:


> All of you complaining about cellphone use while driving:
> 
> I'm really sick of being over-legislated "for my own safety".
> 
> Two things will happen if we ban cellphone use in cars. 1) People will pull over abruptly to take calls. Unsafe lane changes, traffic chaos ensues. 2) People will text and drive. Heads down, pecking away.


It's very simple - do like they have in the UK and ban cell phone use AND the use of handheld items like the Blackberry while driving. 

As for being sick of being over-legislated "for my own safety", then please think of the safety of others, as we are forced to perform crazy maneuvers to avoid YOU when you're driving while distracted! 

I've witnessed countless incidents of completely distracted drivers, yakking away and driving all over the place - we all have. Someone driving way too slow in the 3rd lane where the 401 is 4 lanes? Yup...talking on his/her cell phone. Weaving side to side in the lane? Yup, talking on his cell phone. Turning left and suddenly jamming on the brakes to avoid pedestrian...yup, talking on his cell phone. And it just goes on and on.

I cannot drive and talk on the phone - not safely, not with my attention on the road where it should be. I know that, so I don't do it. The level of distraction with a cell phone is far greater than it is with a passenger; one has no visual cues to help convey meaning, so one tends to concentrate harder when talking on the phone. (Try having a conversation with someone in the back seat and see if you aren't more distracted than you are when the person is in the front - think you'll find yourself glancing in the mirror to try to see them, and yes, not paying as much attention to the road...) This is why hands-free is not any/much better - the concentration level required isn't any different.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

hhk said:


> All of you complaining about cellphone use while driving:
> 
> Do you own an iPod? Do you mess with it while driving?
> How about a GPS?
> ...


This is just so lame:

1. My iPod is set to play music before I ever start the car. It has no more bearing on my driving than having the radio on.

2. Ditto the GPS. My Garmin has warnings right on the start screen NOT to operate it while driving. I set it and follow the voice commands. I don't even take my eyes off the road to look at it anymore.

3. Last time I checked, a Blackberry WAS a cell phone and should be treated as such. Turned off.

4. As for the tube of lipstick, you might have a minor point there.

5. Anyone who pulls over abruptly causing chaos is in need of a driver training course. Besides what in hell call is that important? Anyone with this attitude is full of themselves.

6. No sane person will text while driving. That's a wild grab at thin air.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

That is why they put horns on cars. I use mine quite often. I love to get up beside some cell phone luser and stand on the horn. Sometimes they get the message. And if the horn doesn't work - get a BIGGER HORN!!! (That is what I am going to do this spring, because the Matrix is nice but the horn is pretty much gorbachev for The Hammer). The best horns I had were on my Buick, but then, I did add four "extras" because I was driving in Toronto a lot in those days...


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

SINC said:


> This is just so lame:
> 
> 1. My iPod is set to play music before I ever start the car. It has no more bearing on my driving than having the radio on.
> 
> ...


Who's lame?

1. So, you never change playlists or use the wheel. And I guess this holds true for all iPod users.

2. It takes about two seconds to switch off Garmin's "safety mode". And a warning? Oh my God, a *warning*.

3. A Blackberry was an dedicated email device before they ever combined it with a cellphone.

5.,6. You give drivers too much credit. What sane driver would read a book at 120 km/h on the 401? What sane driver would shave while driving? What sane driver would eat a burger and fries? All witnessed by me. And I'm sure others have seen worse.

My point, which you seem to have missed - there are loads and loads of distractions available to today's driver. Legislating away one of them is going to have zero effect on road safety. I'd rather have the cops out there looking for reckless drivers regardless of reason instead of wasting their time looking for cellphones.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

hhk said:


> All of you complaining about cellphone use while driving:
> 
> Do you own an iPod? Do you mess with it while driving?
> How about a GPS?
> ...


Yes, I own an iPod. I don't use it when I drive.
Don't have a GPS.
No Blackberry.
I don't wear lipstick.

And it's not for YOUR safety, it's for the safety of others. As a pedestrian, almost a week doesn't go by where either I witness a near accident or I'm almost hit by someone because they're on a cell phone.

Making lame excuses doesn't prove your point. People will NOT "abruptly" pull over to make calls--most roads don't allow for it, save for highways and certain areas.

Quit making lame excuses and get off the [email protected]' phone.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I hope it does get legislated and I hope they nail just as many people as the street racing law here in Ontario. I heard on the weekend it's been on average of 22 drivers per day since coming into effect. Ka-ching, $2000 a pop, better than taxing us to death. 

As there is no reason to go 50kmh over the speed limit, there is no reason for people to be chit chatting on the cell phone. Sure there are other distractions, but cell phones take a lot of concentration away from driving. Plus they're as easy to spot as someone not wearing a seat belt, which makes for better enforcement.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> Yes, I own an iPod. I don't use it when I drive.
> Don't have a GPS.
> No Blackberry.
> I don't wear lipstick.
> ...


Because I am against a cell phone ban, I must be *for* driving distracted. Is that the logic that is going on in your mind?

We have enough questionable safety laws on the books. 

The bike helmet law is a good example. Instead of sticking a helmet on everyone's noggin and saying "Here, this will keep you safe.", why not teach better road manners - to cyclists and motorists? If the government wanted to keep us cyclists safe, why not spend money on proper bike lanes?

Perhaps the most comparable "safety" law is the pit bull ban, aka breed specific legislation. Toronto legislates against a certain breed of dog because there is the perception that that breed is dangerous. Never mind the facts, that poodles inflict more damage than pit bulls. Never mind that it's the owner that is the problem, not the dog. Never mind that irresponsible owners will simply turn to another breed. 

Are you seeing the parallels? And by the way, I don't own a pit bull.


----------



## StageDive (Feb 8, 2008)

When I'm driving, I make sure to have my cell phone on me, but it's set up to relay unimportant calls directly to voicemail, while calls from emergency numbers, (my parents, that kind of thing,) actually get through and ring my cell. I also have it set to speakerphone, so i'm not cradling the damn thing with my shoulder, and paying as much attention to the road as I can. About 99% of the times my phone rings in the car, whoever's in the passenger seat will pick it up, and then open up the clamshell, so i can answer the call. the other 1% of the time, I'm alone in the car, and i simply check whose calling on caller id, and then answer accordingly, still on speakerphone. it's less of a distraction and helps keep me, and everyone around me safe.


Wish i could say the same for the jackass in front of me who's shaving, eating a burger, talking on his cellphone, and driving his wife to the hospital.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

hhk said:


> We have enough questionable safety laws on the books.
> 
> The bike helmet law is a good example. Instead of sticking a helmet on everyone's noggin and saying "Here, this will keep you safe."


Yes this is as questionable as our seatbelt laws. 



hhk said:


> why not teach better road manners - to cyclists and motorists?


Road manners 101, this will be as effective as the "G" series of licensing, which is supposed to teach this. Average age of the over 50kmh club, 22, all of which has gone through the "G" process. So much for that idea. If you want to start paying your own medical bills, have fun without your helmet. Until then the gov't has every right to look out for the safety of every Canadian.

BTW, I've owned 3 poodles, none of which were violent. Love to see a link to that study. I'm surprised I haven't seen any poodle maulings in the headlines, that would make for one hell of a story.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

hhk said:


> Because I am against a cell phone ban, I must be *for* driving distracted. Is that the logic that is going on in your mind?
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


Try as you might, you're still not making a better argument as to why we should allow people to drive whilst using a cell phone. By all means, continue citing in more unrelated topics. If that doesn't work, try putting words into my mouth. 

Laws for safety are not equal, and nor can be applied equally for every situation and scenario.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

hhk said:


> 2. It takes about two seconds to switch off Garmin's "safety mode". And a warning? Oh my God, a *warning*.


The Garmin "warning" (really a Disclaimer - Garmin doesn't actually give a s!ht what you do as long as they don't get sued!!!!! - let's be real about this) goes away by itself in a few seconds. The irony of it is that the very next screen REQUIRES interaction!! You can't get anything out of it until you touch the 2 line menu!!!

There are studies that suggest that the biggest distractor in the car is the radio/stereo....

When I used to go into the city every day for work, I'd come across certain regulars. There was the guy who drove while reading the newspaper and drinking coffee - actually several of them. By far my favourite was the woman driving with a cup of coffee in one hand, yammering animatedly on a cellphone held by her shoulder while looking in the mirror, which was NOT aimed at the road behind and putting on mascara with one of those spear-like brushes! One bump the wrong way and the thing would have been stuck through here eyeball!!! And she did it every day - and I tried to stay as far away from her as possible. Another good reason to (semi-)retire...


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

I think there should be 'cell-phone users only' lanes.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> I think there should be 'cell-phone users only' lanes.


Sure, but there'd have to be a guardrail on each side to contain the destruction!


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Yeah. I no problem letting Darwin take care of the problem. The human herd needs a serious culling anyway. It is the collateral damage I object to. My last accident was being rear-ended by some butt hole talking on a cell.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Rubber safety walls, and mandatory extra-large rubber bumpers/fenders!


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> I think there should be 'cell-phone users only' lanes.


That would imply that a cell phone user actually stays in their own lane instead of going over the lines and into other lanes while talking on their cell phones.

Are cell phones a distraction while driving? YES!

A perfect example I witnessed on the 401 was a lady driving between 100km/hr to 120km/hr in the left lane while holding up traffic due to talking on the cell phone. She held up traffic for no reason. Two O.P.P. police cruisers with lights and sirens pulled up behind her as they were off to an emergency, and because she was talking on her cell phone and so lost in the conversation, she didn't even notice the two O.P.P. cruisers with lights and sirens on. These by the way were the NEW cruises with the brighter lights. The one cruiser decided to try and pass her on the shoulder, until she actually drove over into the shoulder at the same time as she could hardly stay in one lane as it was due to her so very important phone call. I pulled back in the middle lane to let the O.P.P. pass and go around her, or so I thought that's what they were going to do. One cruiser pulled up beside the lady talking on the cell phone and the other got in front of her. At this point, the lady finally noticed the police!!! Guess what happened next? Both cruisers pulled the lady over. I have no idea what happened afterwards as the lady was still talking on the phone after being pulled over, and two new O.P.P. cruisers got on the 401 and took over the initial call. 

That's just one example of how someone on a cell phone can not drive and talk at the same time. Someone's life could have been at risk at a car accident and the O.P.P. could not get to them in time due to a cell phone user and driving by not paying attention to the road. 

I have seen it all:

1. Drivers talking on cell phones while entering the 401 and cutting you off or forcing you over to the next lane or worse shoulder because they didn't do a SHOULDER CHECK. I don't want my vehicle smashed thank you! Plus that's not very safe as the lane beside me is not always FREE to move over in a second.

2. Drivers talking on a cell phone who go through a RED light without even being aware of the intersection that has been RED for quite some time. Or being aware that they just went through a red light and an intersection.

3. Drivers on a cell phone who run stop signs while talking on the phone

Here is a good one. Drivers on a cell phone who don't notice a transport truck with its 4 ways on and parked on the side of the road and the driver due to talking and not paying attention RAMS their vehicle into the back of the transport truck full speed.

5. Drivers on a cell phone who don't give the right away to ALL pedestrians who wait for the cross walk sign and who don't even notice that you're there crossing.

6. Drivers on cell phone who sit parked taking up a gas tank space at a gas station while done pumping gas to talk on their phone instead of driving away or moving up to allow the next person to fill up.

I could go on, but you get the point. This happens every day, every minute, every second out there on our roads and highways. Cell phones while driving is a distraction no matter how you use them.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Rubber safety walls, and mandatory extra-large rubber bumpers/fenders!


Nope - cement barriers and pot-holes and let Darwin sort it out... :clap:


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

rgray said:


> Nope - cement barriers and pot-holes and let Darwin sort it out... :clap:


I see we're thinking along the same lines.

Actually, there is a set of really hard-hitting TV commercials over here that dramatise incidents involving car accidents and cell-phone use. They're pretty shocking. They follow the same sort of dram-doc, educational style that the earlier drink-driving ads did. "Cell-phone use while driving is dangerous" seems to be the sort of message that needs to be dinned into the nation's consciousness over and over again for years, until it becomes accepted as socially unacceptable. The so-called hard-core perpetual offenders will have to take what they get as a result of their behaviour.

Did I write 'dram-doc'? They were the anti drink-drive ads . I meant drama-doc.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

hhk said:


> Because I am against a cell phone ban, I must be *for* driving distracted. Is that the logic that is going on in your mind?
> 
> We have enough questionable safety laws on the books.
> 
> ...


I am in favour of a cell phone ban because there is no way to use one in a motor vehicle without compromising your attention to driving. Granted some people get better at it if they do it a lot, and some people have a nervous system better suited to multi-tasking. But there still is a loss of attention. Even the best multi-taskers can't actually focus on more than one thing at a time, nobody can. Good multi-taskers just switch their focus between things quicker than bad multi-taskers. But as we all know, things can happen on the road within a tiny fraction of a second, so even the best multi-tasker can have their reaction time compromised.

My basic opinion is that when you're driving you shouldn't be doing anything other than focusing on your driving. All the other distractions that you mention are also bad, but cell phone use while driving seems to be a very ubiquitous thing that many drivers don't seem to be able to handle very well. Engaging in any other activity than driving while operating a motor vehicle is driving without due care and attention.

All those other distractions fall under the category of driving without due care and attention as well. I imagine if there was some way to prove that a driver got into an accident while devouring a burger and fries, that could be a cause for bringing charges against the driver and making them at fault.

If we bring in a ban against cell phones while driving, I would also suggest beefing up the legislation to cover other distractions, by name if necessary. I would also suggest that the cell phone bans include the power to demand cell phone records can be pulled in the event of an accident. I believe some of the laws already in place include this.

I have little concern for the "rights" of the cell phone using drivers. I don't believe that the cell phone yapping guy who blew his SUV through a red light at full speed coming within inches of t-boning my car a few years ago, had much concern for anyone else's right to remain alive.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I imagine if there was some way to prove that a driver got into an accident while devouring a burger and fries, that could be a cause for bringing charges against the driver and making them at fault.


There have been similar cases here. I recall a news item concerning a young woman who was fined and had penalty points put on her licence - her offence involved eating some sort of chocolate bar while driving.

As you say: "without due care and attention". Arguably, the slightest distraction can mean that the vehicle is moving at speed, for however short a time, without a driver, since the driver's attention is no longer focussed on the car.

Here, penalties for using cell phones while driving are getting harsher, and quite rightly so, I think.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You cannot legislate common sense

You can legislate no handheld which makes all sorts of sense.

You're SOL on the outright ban.
No numbers support it.
Cell phone use has skyrocketed - accident rates are down.

People will be stupid about, food, shaving, music, kids, tuning the radio, DUI the list is endless and cells alert many drivers via the OPP and radio reports to dangerous conditions, accidents, debris on the road etc.

Driving is largely autonomous and no amount of "concentrating" changes that.
It's like telling people to "concentrate" on walking.



> Drivers need a break every 80 minutes
> 
> * 15 March 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I still maintain that the best way of dealing with it is to let a general "driving while distracted" clause cover all unacceptable behaviour, rather than spelling out specifically which distracting behaviours are legal or illegal. Too many louts eating candy as well, as Snapple Quaffer points out.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I still maintain that the best way of dealing with it is to let a general "driving while distracted" clause cover all unacceptable behaviour, rather than spelling out specifically which distracting behaviours are legal or illegal. Too many louts eating candy as well, as Snapple Quaffer points out.


I totally agree, but I still think targeting cell phones in particular would be easier to enforce for police.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Jumbo: You could list cellphones as a specific hazard, but I think it's a mistake to become overly prescriptive, so that the law begins to differentiate between heands-free and other phone systems, and exactly how people are to use them.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

Cellphones = menace. Let's ban them.

It's that sort of simplistic thinking that politicians count on to keep the masses in line. 

Do a little digging under the surface and the causal relationships blur quickly. 



> According to a study commissioned in May 2001 by TheSteelAlliance and Canada Safety Council, fully 75 per cent of those surveyed admitted to performing personal or work-related tasks while driving.
> 
> In a study released last summer, five years of US crash data (1995-1999) were analyzed by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. That study estimated that about 13 per cent of all collisions involved driver distraction. Only 1.5 per cent of these distraction-related collisions involved cell phones. Other distractions were far more common, including the car radio or CD player (11.4 per cent), and other passengers (10.9 per cent).
> 
> Drivers who pay more attention to the phone than the traffic create a hazard to other drivers. However, a cell phone ban would be counterproductive, irresponsible and unenforceable. There are far more effective measures to save lives and enhance traffic safety.


Cell phone ban? February 6, 2002


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You would also have to make it illegal to read while driving, eat while driving, pick your nose while driving. I'd leave it up to police to decide when the driver is distracted.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

hhk said:


> Cellphones = menace. Let's ban them.
> 
> It's that sort of simplistic thinking that politicians count on to keep the masses in line.
> 
> ...


This is like quoting a story on internet users from 95-99, usage has exploded in the past few years, do a little more digging, it's an addiction for most. Nomophobia


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Macfury said:


> so that the law begins to differentiate between heands-free and other phone systems, and exactly how people are to use them.


F that, ban them too, especially in public, people walking around looking like douchbags, talking like they're taking orders at a drive-thru. Makes me want to do this PhoneBashing.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> I totally agree, but I still think targeting cell phones in particular would be easier to enforce for police.


I think targeting cell phones is especially easier because call records are available. If someone hits me and I suspect they were distracted on the phone, I would like the police or insurance to be able to requisition the records.

While it's not specifically illegal as far as I know to indulge in other distracting behaviour, I think if mentioning them in legislation helps to curb those activities then we should do so too. Ultimately you can't separate cell phones out of the general driver distraction issue, it's just a pernicious example of it.

As far as driving being "autonomic" as MD mentions, I would agree that to drive well, you have internalized a lot of the actions so you can perform them quickly and automatically. But it isn't completely autonomic and various levels of conscious focus are required, especially if sudden hazards arise. If you are distracted, even as a top-notch multi-tasker by, for instance, checking your call display on your hands free unit for a fraction of a second, you might miss the person suddenly stepping onto the road, or a thousand other hazards that can occur.

You can't legislate common sense, agreed, but you can restrict dumb distractions that people with no common sense will glom onto because they are easily bored while driving and who minimize the responsibility of operating a vehicle in public. Again the issue is larger, I am fully in support of driver testing throughout a driver's career and the barrier to getting a driver's license being much higher than it currently is. Driving is the most dangerous thing that almost all of us ever do, yet many think that playing with toys while engaging in that activity is somehow OK.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

The bottom line is that cell phones CAN change your focus, which CAN be deadly in a moving vehicle. Of course, the same can be said for a nice car radio, or the iPod mount, or that kid in the back.

You can't ban all of these things. But you CAN and SHOULD ban handsets in the driver's hand. This not only distracts the driver but HANDICAPS them. Hands-free phone setups are the most reasonable compromise between reality and safety.

I wish everyone would pay more attention to the road, INCLUDING MYSELF. You get me driving past some beautiful vista or awesome architecture and I'm just as much of a menace as Cell Phone Guy. At least I _know_ this. Luckily my wife keeps me in line when that happens.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

JumboJones said:


> This is like quoting a story on internet users from 95-99, usage has exploded in the past few years, do a little more digging, it's an addiction for most. Nomophobia


How is quoting a study on cellphone use from 2002 like quoting an Internet story form 1995? Your logic baffles me. Must be from all the poodle bites.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

When I am driving, nothing distracts me from the task at hand. I learned that early on in life operating a 3 ton grain truck picking up grain out of the combine auger on the move. Pay attention or loss precious grain.

When I am wheeling my motor home and towing my Suzuki 4 x 4 down the highway, I am herding 21,000 pounds and 56 feet of rig.

That calls for all my attention and skill and a constant monitoring of the mirrors and cameras. I leave the cell phone and GPS unit for my wife to monitor.

As for scenic vistas, I rarely catch them unless they are dead ahead down the road. We pull off to admire the scenery.


----------



## Darien Red Sox (Oct 24, 2006)

MasterBlaster said:


> I am fully in favor of anti cell phone while driving laws.


They don't work, we have one hear in CT. It is amazing how many people still use there cell phones dispite the $120 Fine. I even see on duty law inforcement officals using their phones when driving and to top that they ofthn ignore others who use phones when driving and don't pull them over.

Also in New York there have been several deths due to people using their phones when walking including some when they were unable to talk on the phone and step off the train at the same time without falling in the gap.

But cell phones are not the only problem in the car, anither clasic is the people who put on their makeup when they drive, read the paper, eat breakfast or finish up work on their laptop.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

hhk said:


> How is quoting a study on cellphone use from 2002 like quoting an Internet story form 1995? Your logic baffles me. Must be from all the poodle bites.


Read the article, the study was released in 2002, the data was from 1995-1999. Your ineptness baffles me. It must be the brain tumor from all your cell phone use.



> In a study released last summer, five years of US crash data (1995-1999) were analyzed


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

chas_m said:


> The bottom line is that cell phones CAN change your focus, which CAN be deadly in a moving vehicle. Of course, the same can be said for a nice car radio, or the iPod mount, or that kid in the back.
> 
> You can't ban all of these things. But you CAN and SHOULD ban handsets in the driver's hand. This not only distracts the driver but HANDICAPS them. Hands-free phone setups are the most reasonable compromise between reality and safety.
> 
> I wish everyone would pay more attention to the road, INCLUDING MYSELF. You get me driving past some beautiful vista or awesome architecture and I'm just as much of a menace as Cell Phone Guy. At least I _know_ this. Luckily my wife keeps me in line when that happens.


I'm not in favour of a handset only ban. Several studies have shown that there is no appreciable difference in the distraction levels of using a handset or handsfree. The distraction doesn't come from having one hand holding the phone.

I'm admittedly a terrible multi-tasker, although I have the ability to apply a lot of focus to single tasks. I've only once used a cell phone while driving and that was enough for me. I was calling 911 to alert someone to a potentially dangerous road hazard on a bridge. By the time I got finished I had crossed the bridge and driven 20 or so blocks. What surprised me is I had no memory of passing through several major intersections on Knight St. in Vancouver, some of the most dangerous ones in the region that I usually pay a lot of attention to. 

Now if something had occurred, I may have had an even slower response because I would have to drop the phone to grab the wheel, but the inattention came from a the way our brains project part of our attention out of our immediate surrounding when one uses a telephone. This effect is magnified by phone conversations of greater emotional intensity or that require more abstract thought, like doing calculations. 

This effect does not happen with other distractions, other than a driver getting lost in thought and to a lesser degree having a conversation with a passenger. The difference with in car conversation is the passenger is also aware of the immediate surroundings and if they have any brains will not push a conversation while the driver is involved in something that requires more attention. The conversation will ebb and flow around the driver's first requirement, paying attention to driving. Sometimes the passenger's extra set of eyes comes in very handy as well and can provide additional safety (if they're not too much of a "backseat driver"  ). The passenger also has a big investment in the safety of the voyage that a caller on the other end of phone does not.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> What surprised me is I had no memory of passing through several major intersections on Knight St. in Vancouver, some of the most dangerous ones in the region that I usually pay a lot of attention to.


Because it's mostly autonomous and maybe you THINK you pay attention but you really don't. You and 90% of the drivers around you are on automatic.

Typical distractions that cause accidents are trying to find an address or an exit, trying to read directions from a hand written map....not casual chatting.
If anything chatting with passenger or on a headset serves to keep you awake. as without any stimulation the mind wanders and miles go by with no awareness.

Does not mean your brain is not alert to what is going on ......you perform thousands of complex actions without full awareness.
Many young drivers have problems BECAUSE their autonomous skills are not developed and they have to think about braking.

There is no spike in accidents despite cell phone use skyrocketing because it's just one more item in things people do while driving....

Handheld IS problematic as it in itself a major hindrance to driving....just trying to keep the often very directional speaker centred to audible is a total pain.

If you know yourself to be a poor multi-tasker then the responsible thing to do is to not use a cell of any nature while driving.
Thousands of professionals of all types undertake complex instructions wearing headsets every hour of every day.

No pilot would dream of landing with one hand on the yoke....same applies to vehicles.

Next time someone feels inclined to use a handheld just recall how ludicrous it would be to see an ambulance driver swinging through an intersection with one hand on the wheel.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

> Driving while using a hands-free device is not safer than driving while using a hand-held phone, as concluded by case-crossover studies.


Mobile phone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> There is no spike in accidents despite cell phone use skyrocketing because it's just one more item in things people do while driving....


Every single one of these studies disputes your statement:

Three years after the preliminary results first were presented at a scientific meeting and drew wide attention, University of Utah psychologists have published a study showing that motorists who talk on handheld or hands-free cellular phones are as impaired as drunken drivers.
"We found that people are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated at the legal blood-alcohol limit" of 0.08 percent, which is the minimum level that defines illegal drunken driving in most U.S. states, says study co-author Frank Drews, an assistant professor of psychology. "If legislators really want to address driver distraction, then they should consider outlawing cell phone use while driving."
Psychology Professor David Strayer, the study's lead author, adds: "Just like you put yourself and other people at risk when you drive drunk, you put yourself and others at risk when you use a cell phone and drive. The level of impairment is very similar."
"Clearly the safest course of action is to not use a cell phone while driving," concludes the study by Strayer, Drews and Dennis Crouch, a research associate professor of pharmacology and toxicology. The study was set for publication June 29 in the summer 2006 issue of Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
*The study reinforced earlier research by Strayer and Drews showing that hands-free cell phones are just as distracting as handheld cell phones because the conversation itself – not just manipulation of a handheld phone – distracts drivers from road conditions.*

Drivers on cell phones are as bad as drunks

Motorists who use cell phones while driving are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves, according to a study of drivers in Perth, Australia, conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. *The results, published in July 2005, suggest that banning hand-held phone use won't necessarily improve safety if drivers simply switch to hand-free phones. The study found that injury crash risk didn't vary with type of phone.*

III - Cell Phones and Driving


*A study published by Suzanne McEvoy in the British Medical Journal concludes that drivers who use hands free cell phones are equally likely to get into car accidents as are drivers who do not.* According to a CBSNews.com report about the study, the "researchers used cell phone records to compare phone use within 10 minutes before an actual crash with cell use by the same driver during the previous week." According to the abstract of the report, "Driver’s use of a mobile phone up to 10 minutes before a crash was associated with a fourfold increased likelihood of crashing." The abstact goes onto say that the "risk was raised irrespective of whether or not a hands-free device was used" and that the increased risk was similar in men and women and was not age specific.

Accident rate the same with/without hands-free phones | Between the Lines | ZDNet.com

Finally, empirical proof you can blame chatty 20-somethings for stop-and-go traffic on the way to work.
A new study confirms that the reaction time of cell phone users slows dramatically, increasing the risk of accidents and tying up traffic in general, and when young adults use cell phones while driving, they're as bad as sleepy septuagenarians.
"If you put a 20-year-old driver behind the wheel with a cell phone, their reaction times are the same as a 70-year-old driver who is not using a cell phone," said University of Utah psychology professor David Strayer. "It's like instantly aging a large number of drivers."
The study was announced today and is detailed in winter issue of the quarterly journal Human Factors.
*Cell phone distraction causes 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries in the United States every year, according to the journal's publisher, the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.*

Drivers on Cell Phones Kill Thousands, Snarl Traffic | LiveScience

Although driver inattention has always been a traffic safety concern, state lawmaker interest in distracted driving has increased dramatically in recent years.* Since 1999, every state has considered legislation related to driver distraction.* In 2004, legislatures in 33 states considered bills, and legislators in at least 39 states had proposed driver distraction legislation as of June 2005.

A virtually limitless number of events, activities and objects, both inside and outside the motor vehicle, have the potential to divert a driver from his or her main task—the safe operation of the vehicle.* Distraction can come from kids and pets in the back seat, the radio, a billboard or a cup of coffee.* It could come from a newspaper, a lawn decoration, a person walking along the road or from a driver's own abstract thoughts.* *Although opinions differ over which distractions cause the most crashes, most experts agree that, during the last decade, the rapid growth of new wireless technologies in the driving environment—most notably cell phones—is most responsible for the resurgence in driver distraction legislation.*

Cell Phones and Highway Safety: 2005 Legislative Update


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

You know he'll post studies to contradict those to justify his own actions.


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

*Big City Blues*



Sonal said:


> Welcome to the big city, Lars.


It's not just in the Big City.

My favourite are the ones who drive their shopping cart while talking on a cell phone. Damn near had a 10 cart pile up at the store the other week.

James


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

JumboJones said:


> Read the article, the study was released in 2002, the data was from 1995-1999. Your ineptness baffles me. It must be the brain tumor from all your cell phone use.


Does it matter? We haven't drastically changed the way we use cellphones since 1999. Nor have we changed the way we drive cars. The data is still relevant.

You want to ban cellphone use because people look like "douchbags<sp>? Good reasoning. And you want to grab and smash their phones? Anger problem?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

hhk said:


> Does it matter? We haven't drastically changed the way we use cellphones since 1999. Nor have we changed the way we drive cars. The data is still relevant.


We haven't? What rock have you been living under? Text messaging, emails, internet and music, the way we use our cell phones since 1999 has changed drastically. Not only that 1 in 5 people now have a cell phone and for most it's the only phone they have. So if we have 1 in 5 drivers yapping on their phone while driving, we're going to have a problem. The data is not relevant because we live in a very different world than 9-14 years ago.



hhk said:


> You want to ban cellphone use because people look like "douchbags<sp>? Good reasoning.


Partly, but mostly because it is still distracting while driving.



hhk said:


> And you want to grab and smash their phones?


When I'm trying to enjoy my day and someone is having an overly loud conversation, yes sometimes I wish I could just grab their phones and smash them.



hhk said:


> Anger problem?


Probably, but the first douchebag on a cell phone that rearends my car will find out the full extent of my anger problem. I have little tolerance for those who like to take my life in their hands because they think they are or their "business" is more important than I am.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Jumbo, SINC: MacDoc's devotion to driving while using a cell phone is the stuff of legend. Only _his_ links have the power of truth.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> We haven't? What rock have you been living under? Text messaging, emails, internet and music, the way we use our cell phones since 1999 has changed drastically. Not only that 1 in 5 people now have a cell phone and for most it's the only phone they have. So if we have 1 in 5 drivers yapping on their phone while driving, we're going to have a problem. The data is not relevant because we live in a very different world than 9-14 years ago.
> 
> Partly, but mostly because it is still distracting while driving.
> 
> ...


Wow. Give me inconsiderate and potentially distracted cellphone users over an angry name calling phone smasher any day. There are pills for what ails you.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Wow. Give me inconsiderate and potentially distracted cellphone users over an angry name calling phone smasher any day. There are pills for what ails you.


Sure you say that now, how about when that inconsiderate and potentially distracted cellphone user cuts you off into a transport? All because they couldn't wait to take a phone call, or read an email, or respond to a text. Driving is a serious task with lives other than your own to consider, time people started treating it as such.

But I can see how you would take your $100 cell phone and not being called a name over your life or a loved ones life.  Sticks and stones mrjimmy.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Sure you say that now, how about when that inconsiderate and potentially distracted cellphone user cuts you off into a transport? All because they couldn't wait to take a phone call, or read an email, or respond to a text. Driving is a serious task with lives other than your own to consider, time people started treating it as such.
> 
> But I can see how you would take your $100 cell phone and not being called a name over your life or a loved ones life.  Sticks and stones mrjimmy.


Cell phone use while driving and road rage seem pretty equal in my eyes... 

Oh and btw, sticks and stones? I'm not the name caller here.

Deep breath. Ahhh....


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Oh and btw, sticks and stones? I'm not the name caller here.


I know, but you were getting your back up about potentially being called a name, I was just reminding you of the old saying. Being called something is not as bad as being in an accident with a careless driver.

I think having road rage on a careless driver is completely acceptable. "You almost killed me, but don't worry about it, some stitches and months of rehab and I'll be as good as new" isn't really a sane persons response.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> I know, but you were getting your back up about potentially being called a name, I was just reminding you of the old saying. Being called something is not as bad as being in an accident with a careless driver.


I was? I actually was pointing out how name calling is unacceptable anytime. It makes one look desperate and not in control. 



JumboJones said:


> I think having road rage on a careless driver is completely acceptable. "You almost killed me, but don't worry about it, some stitches and months of rehab and I'll be as good as new" isn't really a sane persons response.


Tell it to the judge.

A sane person's response is to have road rage? There's some interesting logic. Good luck with that.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> I was? I actually was pointing out how name calling is unacceptable anytime. It makes one look desperate and not in control.


They brain washed you well in grade school, I'm sure you've never called anyone or group of people a name. 



mrjimmy said:


> Tell it to the judge.


There's sympathy for victims of other peoples stupidity all the time.



mrjimmy said:


> A sane person's response is to have road rage? There's some interesting logic. Good luck with that.


I'm sure you would remain cool as a cucumber when someone smacked into you while yapping on their phone. But IMO a sane person would certainly be angry and might resort to yelling at the idiot.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> They brain washed you well in grade school, I'm sure you've never called anyone or group of people a name.


Perhaps _in grade school, _but not since.

You want to put an end to driving and cell phone use? Use the system to your advantage. Make yourself heard. I'm sure you will get many sympathetic ears.

Getting angry and calling name does nothing but discredit you. I don't want to have _my life endangered_ by some angry guy waggling his fist and foaming at the mouth chasing after someone chatting on their cell phone. 

Two wrongs....


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Perhaps _in grade school, _but not since.





mrjimmy said:


> Over Flag waver? The heartland took a break from making out with their cousins to vote I guess.


Yes and this is sooo much better than just coming out and saying that people from the "heartland" are a bunch of inbred hicks.  

I'm sorry, but if your stupidity causes me grief, your going to get it back at you. If you don't like it don't be stupid plain and simple.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Yes and this is sooo much better than just coming out and saying that people from the "heartland" are a bunch of inbred hicks.
> 
> I'm sorry, but if your stupidity causes me grief, your going to get it back at you. If you don't like it don't be stupid plain and simple.


Oooh you got me! Thanks for the laugh.

Seriously, get some help with your anger issues. You and those around you will be happier in the long run.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Oooh you got me! Thanks for the laugh.


Ya real funny. I still love the political correctness of around here of beating up on those who have faith. I'm sure those from the "heartland" have their own stereotypes of the flag wavers from the COTU.



mrjimmy said:


> Seriously, get some help with your anger issues. You and those around you will be happier in the long run.


So far you're the only one concerned, thanks, but no thanks.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> So far you're the only one concerned, thanks, but no thanks.


You're right. What was I thinking. You obviously have it all under control.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

'Brother, you can believe in stones if you like. Just don't throw them at me.' - Wafa Sultan

YouTube - Wafa Sultan-Terrorism and Islam (New)

This "professor" never knew what hit him. :lmao:


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

JumboJones said:


> Ya real funny. I still love the political correctness of around here of beating up on those who have faith. I'm sure those from the "heartland" have their own stereotypes of the flag wavers from the COTU.
> 
> So far you're the only one concerned, thanks, but no thanks.


I'm sorry but are you saying you "have faith", as in _Christian_ faith? And you want to hurt people over cellphone use?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

hhk said:


> I'm sorry but are you saying you "have faith", as in _Christian_ faith?


 No, I am not a Christian, what makes you think that? It was just a general comment about the posting practices of some around here. It seems perfectly fine to bash people of faith left right and center, just because you don't agree with them, it doesn't give you the right to ridicule.



hhk said:


> And you want to hurt people over cellphone use?


No not over cell phone use, for disregarding my safety while driving. I honestly can't say what I would do if the situation ever arose. All I know is that my family is all I have, and if some arrogant prick took them away because they needed to take a call, answer an email or read a text message while driving, I wouldn't be a happy camper.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

JumboJones said:


> just because you don't agree with them, it doesn't give you the right to ridicule.


Umm... you really should review your postings in this thread before calling the kettle black.

Why do you assume that cellphone use equals "arrogrant prick" or self-importance? 

Am I an arrogrant prick because I call home when I am stuck in traffic to let my family know I am going to be late? Is my wife an arrogrant prick if the daycare calls her because my daughter is ill?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

hhk said:


> Why do you assume that cellphone use equals "arrogrant prick" or self-importance?


Because, do you consider other people before you answer you "important" phone call? If you do you either don't answer it or pull over to take the call.



hhk said:


> Am I an arrogrant prick because I call home when I am stuck in traffic to let my family know I am going to be late? Is my wife an arrogrant prick if the daycare calls her because my daughter is ill?


If you're stuck in traffic you can easily pull off to the side of the road and make your phone call. And again, if your wife is going to get news from your daycare that is important, is it that hard to pull off to the side of the road? Finding out your child is ill while driving *is exactly the kind of news that would distract a driver from driving*.

These excuses are starting to sound a lot like DUI excuses, but officer I only had one drink. But officer I was only on the phone for 1 second.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

JumboJones said:


> Because, do you consider other people before you answer you "important" phone call? If you do you either don't answer it or pull over to take the call.
> 
> If you're stuck in traffic you can easily pull off to the side of the road and make your phone call. And again, if your wife is going to get news from your daycare that is important, is it that hard to pull off to the side of the road? Finding out your child is ill while driving *is exactly the kind of news that would distract a driver from driving*.
> 
> These excuses are starting to sound a lot like DUI excuses, but officer I only had one drink. But officer I was only on the phone for 1 second.


So far, you have:

- Compared cellphone use to DUI. 
- Equated cellphone use to some sort of treacherous, life-threatening situation. 
- Threatened to send cellphone users to the hospital. 
- Expressed your desire to grab phones and smash them.
- Called cellphone users stupid, arrogant pricks. 

Your bitterness and anger are truly sad.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

hhk said:


> So far, you have:
> 
> - Compared cellphone use to DUI.
> - Equated cellphone use to some sort of treacherous, life-threatening situation.





> cell phones cause over 200 deaths and half a million injuries each year


Because it isn't. 
Cell Phone Car Accidents: Driver Distraction, Auto Driving, Photos, Pictures: Cell Phone User Car Crashes from Car-Accidents.com


hhk said:


> - Threatened to send cellphone users to the hospital.


Only if their blatant disregard for my safety causes myself or family harm, maybe.


hhk said:


> - Expressed your desire to grab phones and smash them.


So? Ever watch Office Space? People want to smash things all the time. Wanting to do it and doing it are two different things.


hhk said:


> - Called cellphone users stupid, arrogant pricks.


No I called people who use them while driving stupid, arrogant pricks.



hhk said:


> Your bitterness and anger are truly sad.


If you think so, you are not going to make me feel guilty about how I feel about the situation. If you want to talk on the cell phone and get into an accident be my guest, just know that the person you hit might not be happy about it. And may even be worse than me.


----------

