No Evidence Cell Phone Bans Reduce Crashes

[chanel]

A comprehensive study on distracted driving has found there is no conclusive evidence that hands-free cell phone use while driving is any less risky than hand-held cell phone use.

The study, which was commissioned by the non-profit Governors Highway Safety Association, and funded by State Farm Insurance, also found that there is no evidence that cell phone or texting bans have reduced crashes.

The findings come after nine states have imposed bans on hand-held cell phone use while driving, and 34 states have imposed texting bans for drivers behind the wheel. Despite the findings, The Governors Highway Safety Association does not recommend that restrictions on cell phone use or texting be lifted in any of the states where they presently exist.

But it does recommend that those 41 states which don't ban talking on a cell phone hold off on enacting new legislation.

Read more: Study: No Evidence Cell Phone Bans Reduce Crashes - FoxNews.com

Are you in one of those 41 states?

 

[George Costanza]

This was well known prior to the cell phone law going into effect in California.

I do agree with the no texting while driving law. That one is an obvious call. And even with the cell phone law, I do think that DIALING a cell phone while driving is potentially dangerous. But TALKING on the phone while driving? I don't think that is dangerous at all.

 

[martybegan]

This was well known prior to the cell phone law going into effect in California.

I do agree with the no texting while driving law. That one is an obvious call. And even with the cell phone law, I do think that DIALING a cell phone while driving is potentially dangerous. But TALKING on the phone while driving? I don't think that is dangerous at all.

Laws like these are always created based on the abilities of the stupidest/least coordinated members of our societies. I am perfectly capable of driving a car on a highway and dialing my phone. (as an aside, I do pull over on regular streets, intersections and stop signs/lights give more of a chance of an accident). However I cannot legally due to other people's inability to do both at the same time, and thier further inability to realize this and not do it.

This is the same with all safety related laws, such as fireworks bans. I can't use fireworks legally in NYC becasuse of the risk of some idiot looking into a dud mortar tube getting his face blown off.

 

[chanel]

This was well known prior to the cell phone law going into effect in California.

I do agree with the no texting while driving law. That one is an obvious call. And even with the cell phone law, I do think that DIALING a cell phone while driving is potentially dangerous. But TALKING on the phone while driving? I don't think that is dangerous at all.

I'm with ya George. I do believe that texting is very, very dangerous, but what I've seen in NJ since the cell phone ban, is that MORE people are texting because a cop can't see the phone on your lap. The ban on talking may have created an even more dangerous situation. Informal discussions with my students indicate that approximately 100% text while driving.

Some states are considering a ban on hands-free. For crying out loud, will they ban conversation with passengers as well?

 

[George Costanza]

I can't use fireworks legally in NYC becasuse of the risk of some idiot looking into a dud mortar tube getting his face blown off.

Fireworks are illegal in most parts of CA as well - although a "local option" allows them in a few cities. They are outlawed in the majority of cities, however.

But don't be so quick to poo-poo the firework laws. Once when I was a teenager, and fireworks (at least the "safe and sane" variety) were allowed anywhere, I was shooting off a particular type of firework that you are supposed to hold in your hand. It was a long tube that contained the powder. You were supposed to light it and then hold it up, at a 45 degree angle, and the glorious display was supposed to shoot out and up, cascading down for all to see. I think you get the idea.

Well, I lit the sucker, held it up and WHAM!!! - it went off in my hand. (Request to other posters: please do not snip the last six words of that sentence and then come back at me with them or attribute them to me out of context, OK??????)

It was very scary, very unexpected and very dangerous. I was in the U.S. Artillery during my stint in the army and spent a year on 105 Howitzers. There is a thing in the artillery called a "muzzzle blast." That is where the round goes off the instant it comes out of the muzzle, wiping out the crew. This was the "safe and sane" firework equivalent of a muzzle blast. I never again held one of those suckers in my hand.

We think we can handle fireworks, and we generally can - unless there is something defective about them and then, potential trouble.

 

[martybegan]

I can't use fireworks legally in NYC becasuse of the risk of some idiot looking into a dud mortar tube getting his face blown off.

Fireworks are illegal in most parts of CA as well - although a "local option" allows them in a few cities. They are outlawed in the majority of cities, however.

But don't be so quick to poo-poo the firework laws. Once when I was a teenager, and fireworks (at least the "safe and sane" variety) were allowed anywhere, I was shooting off a particuolar type of firework that you are supposed to hold in your hand. It was a long tube that contained the powder. You were supposed to light it and then hold it up, at a 45 degree angle, and the glorious display was supposed to shoot out and up, cascading down for all to see. I think you get the idea.

Well, I lit the sucker, held it up and WHAM!!! - it went off in my hand. (Request to other posters: please do not snip the last six words of that sentence and then come back at me with them or attribute them to me out of context, OK??????)

It was very scary, very unexpected and very dangerous. I was in the U.S. Artillery during my stint in the army and spent a year on 105 Howitzers. There is a thing in the artillery called a "muzzzle blast." That is where the round goes off the instant it comes out of the muzzle, wiping out the crew. This was the "safe and sane" firework equivalent of a muzzle blast. I never again held one of those suckers in my hand.

We think we can handle fireworks, and we generally can - unless there is something defective about them and then, potential trouble.

I would have no issue having to apply for a permit, taking a safety course, and purchasing only approved fireworks. My issue is the inhernent lazyness of a total ban that prevents me from doing something I enjoy, because other people can't handle said activity without an overt risk of injury.

Fireworks safety is a combination of firearm and explosive safety. Always assume the firework is "armed." Never hold in hand and light, and keep your face/body away from the big mortar opening when lighting.

 

[FA_Q2]

I can't use fireworks legally in NYC becasuse of the risk of some idiot looking into a dud mortar tube getting his face blown off.

Fireworks are illegal in most parts of CA as well - although a "local option" allows them in a few cities. They are outlawed in the majority of cities, however.

But don't be so quick to poo-poo the firework laws. Once when I was a teenager, and fireworks (at least the "safe and sane" variety) were allowed anywhere, I was shooting off a particuolar type of firework that you are supposed to hold in your hand. It was a long tube that contained the powder. You were supposed to light it and then hold it up, at a 45 degree angle, and the glorious display was supposed to shoot out and up, cascading down for all to see. I think you get the idea.

Well, I lit the sucker, held it up and WHAM!!! - it went off in my hand. (Request to other posters: please do not snip the last six words of that sentence and then come back at me with them or attribute them to me out of context, OK??????)

It was very scary, very unexpected and very dangerous. I was in the U.S. Artillery during my stint in the army and spent a year on 105 Howitzers. There is a thing in the artillery called a "muzzzle blast." That is where the round goes off the instant it comes out of the muzzle, wiping out the crew. This was the "safe and sane" firework equivalent of a muzzle blast. I never again held one of those suckers in my hand.

We think we can handle fireworks, and we generally can - unless there is something defective about them and then, potential trouble.

I would have no issue having to apply for a permit, taking a safety course, and purchasing only approved fireworks. My issue is the inhernent lazyness of a total ban that prevents me from doing something I enjoy, because other people can't handle said activity without an overt risk of injury.

Fireworks safety is a combination of firearm and explosive safety. Always assume the firework is "armed." Never hold in hand and light, and keep your face/body away from the big mortar opening when lighting.

These types of laws all fall under the 'protecting you from yourself' variety and should be uniformly destroyed. If you willingly partake in a dangerous activity then you are willingly dealing with the consequences and government has no right to interfere in that exchange. There does need to be regulation on the fireworks themselves to prevent the types of thing that happened to George, though completely eliminating that event is not possible.

That aside, many of the laws in CA actually have nothing to do with the safety of the firework in general. Much of that has come from the possibility of fires. As a former CA resident I can say that some of the places like Acton and Palmdale NEED those laws because of the situation that you are in. I don't care if Johnny blows his hand off because he is an idiot but if he burns MY house down that is a different story. In places like LA where fires are nigh impossible on a large scale it is a different story. Those laws are an exemplification of the problem and rot that is in our law system today. The purpose of law is not to protect you from yourself...

 

[FA_Q2]

A comprehensive study on distracted driving has found there is no conclusive evidence that hands-free cell phone use while driving is any less risky than hand-held cell phone use.

The study, which was commissioned by the non-profit Governors Highway Safety Association, and funded by State Farm Insurance, also found that there is no evidence that cell phone or texting bans have reduced crashes.

The findings come after nine states have imposed bans on hand-held cell phone use while driving, and 34 states have imposed texting bans for drivers behind the wheel. Despite the findings, The Governors Highway Safety Association does not recommend that restrictions on cell phone use or texting be lifted in any of the states where they presently exist.

But it does recommend that those 41 states which don't ban talking on a cell phone hold off on enacting new legislation.

Read more: Study: No Evidence Cell Phone Bans Reduce Crashes - FoxNews.com

Are you in one of those 41 states?

Yes I am and the laws are asinine. They should be eliminated immediately as there is PROOF that they are ineffective. Talking on the phone is no more distracting then talking to your passenger and hands free modes DO NOT help at all. It is a case of lawmakers jumping to asinine conclusions without regard for the truth.

Now, texting is another case altogether. THAT should be illegal but in many places talking on a cell phone is illegal and texting is not. Now that is asinine though it is just a matter of laws catching up. Up until last year, that was the case where I live but they have plugged that hole.


Of course, that brings up another point though. Here, in WA, a cop is allowed to sift through my phone when I get pulled over to see it I was texting while driving. Do you think that a cop should legally be allowed into your phone to look at anything he wants of you get pulled over? I am not really happy with the growing powers of 'search' that happen on a continual basis.

 

[FA_Q2]

I would have no issue having to apply for a permit, taking a safety course, and purchasing only approved fireworks.

Absolutely NOT. There is no need for such asinine laws...

 

[zzzz]

The reason why these laws don't work is not because they cannot be effective but because of enforcement. The only time anyone gets a ticket for these offenses are when they are in an accident. The police are not going to stop people for texting while driving because they will have a hard time proving they were texting and lets face it, they do not even stop speeders most of the time or tailgaters.

 

[FA_Q2]

The reason why these laws don't work is not because they cannot be effective but because of enforcement. The only time anyone gets a ticket for these offenses are when they are in an accident. The police are not going to stop people for texting while driving because they will have a hard time proving they were texting and lets face it, they do not even stop speeders most of the time or tailgaters.

Refer to my last post on that. They certainly do stop people and they certainly do give tickets for it.

 

[editec]

I fully support the ban on cell phone use while driving for the same reason I support laws against drunk driving.

Any truly thinking person ought to support those laws, too.

If one wants to risk one's own life, that's not the public's business.

But what happens on public roads most definitely is the public's business.

 

[martybegan]

Fireworks are illegal in most parts of CA as well - although a "local option" allows them in a few cities. They are outlawed in the majority of cities, however.

But don't be so quick to poo-poo the firework laws. Once when I was a teenager, and fireworks (at least the "safe and sane" variety) were allowed anywhere, I was shooting off a particuolar type of firework that you are supposed to hold in your hand. It was a long tube that contained the powder. You were supposed to light it and then hold it up, at a 45 degree angle, and the glorious display was supposed to shoot out and up, cascading down for all to see. I think you get the idea.

Well, I lit the sucker, held it up and WHAM!!! - it went off in my hand. (Request to other posters: please do not snip the last six words of that sentence and then come back at me with them or attribute them to me out of context, OK??????)

It was very scary, very unexpected and very dangerous. I was in the U.S. Artillery during my stint in the army and spent a year on 105 Howitzers. There is a thing in the artillery called a "muzzzle blast." That is where the round goes off the instant it comes out of the muzzle, wiping out the crew. This was the "safe and sane" firework equivalent of a muzzle blast. I never again held one of those suckers in my hand.

We think we can handle fireworks, and we generally can - unless there is something defective about them and then, potential trouble.

I would have no issue having to apply for a permit, taking a safety course, and purchasing only approved fireworks. My issue is the inhernent lazyness of a total ban that prevents me from doing something I enjoy, because other people can't handle said activity without an overt risk of injury.

Fireworks safety is a combination of firearm and explosive safety. Always assume the firework is "armed." Never hold in hand and light, and keep your face/body away from the big mortar opening when lighting.

These types of laws all fall under the 'protecting you from yourself' variety and should be uniformly destroyed. If you willingly partake in a dangerous activity then you are willingly dealing with the consequences and government has no right to interfere in that exchange. There does need to be regulation on the fireworks themselves to prevent the types of thing that happened to George, though completely eliminating that event is not possible.

That aside, many of the laws in CA actually have nothing to do with the safety of the firework in general. Much of that has come from the possibility of fires. As a former CA resident I can say that some of the places like Acton and Palmdale NEED those laws because of the situation that you are in. I don't care if Johnny blows his hand off because he is an idiot but if he burns MY house down that is a different story. In places like LA where fires are nigh impossible on a large scale it is a different story. Those laws are an exemplification of the problem and rot that is in our law system today. The purpose of law is not to protect you from yourself...

I have no issue when bans are required due to dry weather. Fire prevention is something that trumps my right to light a bottle rocket. However, there has to be cause to issue said ban, such as a dry spell.

I agree completely with all the bans that went out due to the dry weather throughout the midwest.

 

[martybegan]

I would have no issue having to apply for a permit, taking a safety course, and purchasing only approved fireworks.

Absolutely NOT. There is no need for such asinine laws...

While I agree there is no need, Here in NY thats probably the best we could hope for. The government has the right to regulate fireworks, as I see no consitutional ban on it. I just think that my current government in NY should overturn the ban, and a permitting system is the best way I see to get that to happen.

 

[chanel]

I fully support the ban on cell phone use while driving for the same reason I support laws against drunk driving.

Any truly thinking person ought to support those laws, too.

If one wants to risk one's own life, that's not the public's business.

But what happens on public roads most definitely is the public's business.

Editec -
a. There is EVIDENCE that drunk driving is deadly. The point of the article is that there is NO EVIDENCE that cell phone use causes accidents.
b. There is no COMPELLING REASON for someone to drink on their way to work. There may be a compelling reason to make a phone call.

Good intentions can make bad laws. We cannot, and should not, legislate every "good idea".

 

[theliq]

NO ONE WOULD BELIEVE THAT.......now would they,if they were of sound mind,that is....

A comprehensive study on distracted driving has found there is no conclusive evidence that hands-free cell phone use while driving is any less risky than hand-held cell phone use.

The study, which was commissioned by the non-profit Governors Highway Safety Association, and funded by State Farm Insurance, also found that there is no evidence that cell phone or texting bans have reduced crashes.

The findings come after nine states have imposed bans on hand-held cell phone use while driving, and 34 states have imposed texting bans for drivers behind the wheel. Despite the findings, The Governors Highway Safety Association does not recommend that restrictions on cell phone use or texting be lifted in any of the states where they presently exist.

But it does recommend that those 41 states which don't ban talking on a cell phone hold off on enacting new legislation.

Read more: Study: No Evidence Cell Phone Bans Reduce Crashes - FoxNews.com

Are you in one of those 41 states?