Comments on: The Other Shoe Drops: Town In US Completely Bans Cell Phone Use While Driving

By: NC resident

NC resident — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 13:29:00 +0000

I hear that Chapel Hill is going to ban passengers next. After all, the driver can talk to them. And radios are distracting as well. When NC was talking about building a state zoo, the late Senator Jesse Helms said we had a zoo. Just put a fence around Chapel Hill and charge admission.

By: DJnRF

DJnRF — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 07:32:00 +0000

For the past twenty-five years I have been writing letters, and talking to as many as possible on this. You see, I found that we all have three eyes in our heads. We have the right eye, the left eye, and the mind’s eye. While both the left and right eye focus on a subject together, and at the same time, the mind’s eye does not. It tends to focus most on whatever the mind may be thinking about at the moment. It also dedicates much of our body into that focus at times. Unfortunately, while talking on a telephone most of that focus is dedicated entirely to the phone conversation, and nothing else. The telephone isn’t like a 2-way radio. With the radio our mind and body remain focused on what we are
doing, and not the radio. It just isn’t the same with the telephone.

Early on in my writing letters I received many in return thanking me for my concern, but most all telling me that where my idea had merit, there just had not been any studies to support it. However, over the years there have been studies for as long as twenty years that do prove the mind’s eye to be focused on the telephone conversation, and not on driving. This causes many accidents, injuries, and death.

Therefore, when driving a car a person should have three commandments:
1. Never make, or answer a call while driving.
2. Pull off the road and stop to make, or receive a call.
3. If a call is missed by not being able to stop at the moment, find a place to park and
return the call if it is important.

By: Robhp

Robhp — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 04:16:00 +0000

I am annoyed that (in Aust) all the discussions on this topic, bundle texting and talking on a phone, in the same category.
I have no problem with banning a driver for life, if they text whilst driving (in fact I would vote for that law).

However using a hands free phone, or even a phone with it’s speakerphone on, is 50 times less dangerous than texting.

I guarantee that talking on a phone (not in your hand), is less dangerous than using a navigation device.
So before you ban me talking on a phone, ban use of all navigation devices.

Rob (Down Under)

By: Rich

Rich — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:14:00 +0000

That can be overcome by creating zones through the use of short-range beacons directly installed inside buses and trains. If a phone “sees” a beacon, it allows use even when in motion. Wherever the beacon goes, any phone near it is allowed in-motion use. The technology is essentially the same as one of those auto-pay toll booth cards (sorta/kinda used in reverse but you get the idea).

By: David

David — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:05:00 +0000

That would work too, but rules out use on most forms of public transportation. Not that that would be all bad either…

By: Rich

Rich — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:09:00 +0000

I seriously doubt a jamming device will ever come to be in any car, but I can totally see motion-sensitive cell phones roughly doing the same thing. I can see a future where if the phone detects you’re traveling over 7mph (average jogging speed), it will not allow a call to be placed or received (save for 911 calls). The speed can be easily known by existing technology that’s already in every phone – GPS (even if the phone doesn’t have a GPS feature, GPS is there via E911). This means you can walk and talk, but not drive and talk. Problem solved. States mandated well over a decade ago that every new mobile phone sold must have E911 (the only ones that didn’t were “bag phones”, more less), and the motion-sensitive mobile phone would essentially be put into effect the same way. In less than 5 years, nearly all mobile phone users would be on a motion-sensitive phone.

By: David

David — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:56:00 +0000

A warning label wouldn’t have made any difference, because the mindset of people + cell phones just isn’t the same as, say, smoking (even though it’s apparently just as addicting). Even when presented with the evidence, many still don’t believe it’s dangerous, or at least, not when _they_ do it.

Also, FWIW, the Chapel Hill ban is a secondary violation. I.e., you only get a ticket if you were driving poorly for some other reason while using your cellphone. You won’t get pulled just for using the phone. Which all sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

I personally think it’s inevitable that cars will be required to be equipped with jamming equipment activated when the car is in gear.

By: Kirk Hall

Kirk Hall — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 18:55:00 +0000

It seems to me that trying to prove someone was actually talking on the phone by accessing their records will cost more than the actual fine…but that’s not the point with these types of laws.

“[..]Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a
nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon,
that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.” (‘Atlas Shrugged’ 1957)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:58:00 +0000

How about a minimum $200 fine to the first mofo caught on a phone or texting!? If you’re too stupid not to realize that it’s dangerous, you’re too stupid to read a warning label.