Premier eyes cellphone ban

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

No, it isn't.

Another person in the car is also looking out of it, and noticing the same things the driver is: hazards, upcoming exits, etc. The person on the phone can't do that.

You are assuming your passenger is a cautious and aware adult... not a child, or even a pet.

I just don't think the government should be banning absolutely everything that could potentially be a risk. I just think driver training should be a lot more indepth and useful than it currently is... who really drives with their hands at 9 and 3 anyway? As well, there should be retests for everyone, every 5-10 years. I would even go so far as to test people on their responses to distracting stimuli... if you can't drive with a kid screaming in the back, and the radio playing, or drive past distracting advertisement, or you can't answer a cell phone and do so with the conversation as a secondary priority to what you are doing, you should not drive in any circumstance, cause you clearly aren't mentally disciplined enough.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

For F's sakes, I've lost count of how many things in this post annoy me ... where to start.

There have been dozens of studies that show that driving while on the phone is equivalent to being 1.5 to 2.0 times over the legal limit. Bluetooth is about 1.0 to 1.5. In all studies it shows that cell phones are different than passengers in terms of its impact to your driving because passengers react with what is going on, on the road. Be it pausing when needed or relevant inflictions in their voice that recognizes what is going on around the driver ... obviously on a phone that is impossible. Passengers are an extremely small distraction compared to being on the cell phone.

You ask why the government should regulate it, I can only assume you figure the gov't should care about human life and protecting dumb people from themselves, and if you do, at the very least thing of hte cost damages and the time of public resources, like the EMS folks who have to scrape these people, and their victims off the road.

First, you're assuming the passenger is another adult educated in the rules of the road, and not someone ignorant of such things, like a child. Especially if this conversation is taking place from a backseat (which is should be, since children are at a high risk of lethal injury in a frontseat).

Second, the studies I've read say it can be as bad as driving drunk, depending on the person and how they react. We're not talking alcohol where its pretty much a universal constant. With that, comparing it to driving drunk is pretty simplistic... alcohol impairs more than reaction time, it impairs judgment, mobility and coordination.

As for the why should governments regulate it? I guess we come from different sides of the coin here. I think overprotective governments make people stupid more often than not, just like spoiling one's kids make them lazy and directionless more often than not. Why think when someone else will do it for me? There are certain univeral things that governments need to enforce, but when it comes to some things, like driving and talking on a cellphone (let alone something as absolutely ######ed as texting and driving), something in people's heads really should say, "hmm... this isn't safe, unless I (insert intelligent thing to mitigate danger)." So, I guess, is not forcing people to make smart decisions for themselves the mark of a caring government? Its a sad state when you see people doing clearly stupid and dangerous things, and their excuse is, "if it was that bad, there would be a law against it."

As for the finance issue... the question is (and there isn't really an answer for this floating around to my knowledge) what is actually cheaper long term, enforcement of this rule (cost of officers, vehicles, equipment, loss of man hours in a different branch of law enforcement (ie: downtown/east village patrols to which the police already claim to be shorthanded on)) or the clean-up and healthcare cost of the occasional exclusively cellphone-related accident. (I know this sounds very cold and heartless but that's the rationale for the financial issue, versus a more humanist point of view)

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Dion

What about the person who takes zero responibility for his driving habits?

If people were responsible drivers we wouldn't be thinking of such a law.

The fact is someones irresponsibilty is causing accidents and taking lives.

Sure. And in regards to safety the government DOES have the right to step in.

But people should be more responsible.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

First, you're assuming the passenger is another adult educated in the rules of the road, and not someone ignorant of such things, like a child. Especially if this conversation is taking place from a backseat (which is should be, since children are at a high risk of lethal injury in a frontseat).

Second, the studies I've read say it can be as bad as driving drunk, depending on the person and how they react. We're not talking alcohol where its pretty much a universal constant. With that, comparing it to driving drunk is pretty simplistic... alcohol impairs more than reaction time, it impairs judgment, mobility and coordination.

As for the why should governments regulate it? I guess we come from different sides of the coin here. I think overprotective governments make people stupid more often than not, just like spoiling one's kids make them lazy and directionless more often than not. Why think when someone else will do it for me? There are certain univeral things that governments need to enforce, but when it comes to some things, like driving and talking on a cellphone (let alone something as absolutely ######ed as texting and driving), something in people's heads really should say, "hmm... this isn't safe, unless I (insert intelligent thing to mitigate danger)." So, I guess, is not forcing people to make smart decisions for themselves the mark of a caring government? Its a sad state when you see people doing clearly stupid and dangerous things, and their excuse is, "if it was that bad, there would be a law against it."

As for the finance issue... the question is (and there isn't really an answer for this floating around to my knowledge) what is actually cheaper long term, enforcement of this rule (cost of officers, vehicles, equipment, loss of man hours in a different branch of law enforcement (ie: downtown/east village patrols to which the police already claim to be shorthanded on)) or the clean-up and healthcare cost of the occasional exclusively cellphone-related accident. (I know this sounds very cold and heartless but that's the rationale for the financial issue, versus a more humanist point of view)

The masses are lazy, and frankly not very smart to begin with, might not be very nice, but the masses do need a little handholding.

By this rationale we should legalize drunk driving while we are at it.

We aren't talking about regulating every aspect of people's lives, it's ensuring that when people are controlling 100km/h missles we reduce the amount of distraction. Sure there may be other distractions like kids but why is that even relevant. If not talking on cell phones while driving is safer, then why not just do it?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

The masses are lazy, and frankly not very smart to begin with, might not be very nice, but the masses do need a little handholding.

By this rationale we should legalize drunk driving while we are at it.

We aren't talking about regulating every aspect of people's lives, it's ensuring that when people are controlling 100km/h missles we reduce the amount of distraction. Sure there may be other distractions like kids but why is that even relevant. If not talking on cell phones while driving is safer, then why not just do it?

Hahaha, you are part of the masses. I think you could be doing pretty well. We don't need the government to do a lot things for us, especially since the people in government respond to exactly the same incentives as the unwashed rest of us do.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Kryzsky

Maybe people will start signalling again.

Pretty had to signal when one hand is on the steering wheel and the other is holding the cellphone. Most times you see them with their left arm resting on the doorsill with cellphone in hand. Guess they'd have to let go of the steering wheel to reach that signal switch.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Azure

But people should be more responsible.

The chances of that happening are slim and none and slim just left town. One trip down the Deerfoot would tell you that

[Ford Prefect]

I have twice seen somebody T-Boned in an intersection because buddy-on-a-cell-phone didn't register the red light and went screaming into the intersection at full tilt. And I don't even live in Calgary, so I can only imagine how often people who drive in Calgary daily see stuff like this. It scared the crap out of me both times because it illustrated to me that driving in Calgary is getting to be like a game of Russian Roulette.

As I said before, this is not a lifestyle issue, it's a safety issue, so what's the problem with legislation to control it? IMO, it's willfully negligent, irresponsible behaviour that endangers the lives and safety of others, and in that regard it's not much different than impaired driving.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I have twice seen somebody T-Boned in an intersection because buddy-on-a-cell-phone didn't register the red light and went screaming into the intersection at full tilt. And I don't even live in Calgary, so I can only imagine how often people who drive in Calgary daily see stuff like this. It scared the crap out of me both times because it illustrated to me that driving in Calgary is getting to be like a game of Russian Roulette.

As I said before, this is not a lifestyle issue, it's a safety issue, so what's the problem with legislation to control it? IMO, it's willfully negligent, irresponsible behaviour that endangers the lives and safety of others, and in that regard it's not much different than impaired driving.

Thank you. I think it's a good idea that those who would take MY life in their hands could be punished for such actions.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by peter12

Hahaha, you are part of the masses. I think you could be doing pretty well. We don't need the government to do a lot things for us, especially since the people in government respond to exactly the same incentives as the unwashed rest of us do.

No, the government doesn't need to do alot of things, just the insanely obvious things.

I'd respond to the second half but I don't know what the unwashed are. But the government has very different incentives than individuals or masses.

[kipperfan]

I hate to sound harsh, but the bottom line is most people are fairly stupid and because of this fact the government had no choice but to step in and do something.

Could they ban other "distractions" as well? Yep. But cell phones are one of, if not the worst distraction and general populas is too dimwitted to realize it so I say its a great place to start.

[Ford Prefect]

Something else to think about ... how many people that are on the cell phone while driving have a few drinks under their belt as well? Maybe they just left the pub after a few beers with the co-workers and are calling home, or maybe they just left a liquid luncheon and are their way back to the office. Now you've got a double-impaired driver on the road.

[LouCypher]

Sounds like a great idea to me, to many people simply cannot put the phone down while driving, being served in a restaurant,standing in line and dealing with a cashier at any store. While obviously we may never see laws regulating the use of phones in every situation it is time soceity recognized that there is a time and a place to yap on the phone. It is not an activity that should adversely effect others, slow people down or distract in situations where a phone is not needed.

I have seen it far to often with drivers barely paying attention as their life is controled by their cell phone. In most situations it is not that hard to either pull over,tell the person you will call them back or just not answer and take a message. Rather then letting someone else who is not talking on the phone be affected by this and become victims it would be great to see a law strong enough to start detering this activity.

[Devils'Advocate]

BTW - Marketplace had a study on common distractions while driving. Cell phones were near the top of the list, but children were numero uno. I think they should ban them too.

[habernac]

My Mom and my sister both have lifelong back problems due to idiots on cell phones rear ending them. Terrific idea to ban these. And any morons out there who text and drive should have your license revoked. There was a recent case in Texas where a teenaged girl ran over a cyclist and killed him because she was busy texting. Unbeliveable.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by habernac

My Mom and my sister both have lifelong back problems due to idiots on cell phones rear ending them. Terrific idea to ban these. And any morons out there who text and drive should have your license revoked. There was a recent case in Texas where a teenaged girl ran over a cyclist and killed him because she was busy texting. Unbeliveable.

Who are you calling a moron

I know it is horrible and I actually have stopped doing it (minus sitting at red lights) because I have seen or heard of some horrible things because of cell phones and accidents.

Personally I think there are bigger problems on the road than people talking on their phones. I think people that are 65+ should have to get their eyes and reaction time tested every two years, it will not take a long time to test everyone on that kinda thing.

And people should be fined or dealt with the same way if they are driving and eatting/drinking.

People take driving for granted and considering the amount of traffic out there now it is crazy watching some people drive. I use to take 14th St from the SW to Airport because the brutal driving I would witness on the Deerfoot. You would think merging is the hardest task in the world...

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

No, the government doesn't need to do alot of things, just the insanely obvious things.

I'd respond to the second half but I don't know what the unwashed are. But the government has very different incentives than individuals or masses.

Individuals within government, ie. elected officials and bureaucrats, when you boil it down, have exactly the same incentives as the rest of the citizenry.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Who are you calling a moron

I know it is horrible and I actually have stopped doing it (minus sitting at red lights) because I have seen or heard of some horrible things because of cell phones and accidents.

Personally I think there are bigger problems on the road than people talking on their phones. I think people that are 65+ should have to get their eyes and reaction time tested every two years, it will not take a long time to test everyone on that kinda thing.

And people should be fined or dealt with the same way if they are driving and eatting/drinking.

People take driving for granted and considering the amount of traffic out there now it is crazy watching some people drive. I use to take 14th St from the SW to Airport because the brutal driving I would witness on the Deerfoot. You would think merging is the hardest task in the world...

This is true, but not relevant to the arguement. If talking on the cell phone while driving is brutal, outlaw it. Who cares if there are other things that are bad ... they should fix them as well ( I believe they have to test every 5 years until a higher age, then it is biannual.)

This arguement is the same as two people are speeding, one gets caught but they shouldn't get a ticket because dammit the other guy was speeding as well, and if you can't get them both, you should let them both off.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by peter12

Individuals within government, ie. elected officials and bureaucrats, when you boil it down, have exactly the same incentives as the rest of the citizenry.

But when they do their jobs, they are not individuals. They are civil servents who are tasked with managing a society. They could be extremely hands off, but that is just a society management tool that they think is best.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by HOOT

I know it is horrible and I actually have stopped doing it (minus sitting at red lights) because I have seen or heard of some horrible things because of cell phones and accidents.

Why do you think its acceptable at a red light? You are still driving, other cars are counting on you to be able to go when the light turns green, not the light turns green, you get a honk, look up, looks clear, oops- you didn't see those kids by the side of the road who suddenly darted out.

I can buy the arguement that there are safe ways of driving while talking on a cell phone. I do it from time to time, and take steps to reduce my risks. I cannot fathom how anybody can find it acceptable to text while driving.

Originally Posted by HOOT

And people should be fined or dealt with the same way if they are driving and eatting/drinking.

Yes, there are other distractions, and those are already covered with cell phones under the Highway Traffic Act. You aren't allowed to do anything that distracts your ability to drive. However that law relies on common sense, and from what I see in my travels not only is common sense apparently uncommon, but I've overheard people plan to talk to people once they get into the car.

Now here's the kicker; I am also opposed to them taking away my ability to drive and use a cell phone. But I'm one of the self proclaimed "smart ones." I only use it sparingly and often its a handy tool to help me find where I'm going. Like the first time going to my sister's cottage; I got turn by turn directions over the phone.

The problem is too many people cannot show the common sense that is required to know when it is and isn't safe to use the phone.