Oregonian wants to "call off the cell phone ban"
Posted by Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) on February 19th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
[via Amanda Fritz's Blog]
The Oregonian penned an editorial yesterday that says currently proposed cell phone bans are nothing but "trendy" and "frivolous" pieces of legislation.
Currently being debated in Salem is a bill sponsored by Senator Ginny Burdick that would ban a whole list of "distracted driving" behaviors.
The Oregonian argues that existing careless driving laws suffice and that it's a "waste of time" to pursue a cell phone ban or any new distracted driver legislation.
Here's a stat they cite that I've never heard before:
"People using cell phones account for only one-half of 1 percent of Oregon's car accidents, according to the state Department of Transportation."
I'm no expert, but that seems low to me.
And this paragraph is just plain scary:
"The ability to talk on the phone while driving is a relatively new convenience, not a necessity. Still, considering the length of people's commutes, the complexity of their lives and the miles between loved ones, those drive-time conversations have fast become essential for staying in touch."
Should convenience have priority over safety? Why should my risk of being killed or injured go up, simply because someone trapped in traffic has no other time to talk with loved ones?
Four states, including New York and California, have already banned handheld cell phones.
Whether you're for more laws or not, I think cyclists should be concerned with this issue because it has a direct impact on our safety.
This morning I spoke with an AP reporter covering this legislation. Watch for that article in the next few days.
=======
UPDATE: The AP now reports that Burdick's bill has been softened. It does not call for a ban, but still gives cops the ability to ticket distracted drivers. From what I can tell, here is the most recent version of the bill.
Email This Post
Possibly related posts 
exactly: why should anyone's safety trump some yuppie's right to talk to his dog back home while he drives?
i say this as both a yuppie and cell phone lover, who's sick of seeing people killed by cell phone-using drivers.
RecommendedMan, if I had to drive to a job intense enough that there would be the possibility of receiving a crucial call during drive time that just couldn't be ignored for a bit, I'd probably welcome this sort of legislation with open arms. It'd be sweet to regain some of that work/home buffer again. Isn't being out on the road at all tough enough without having to do work-related tasks simultaneously?
Really, I'm surprised the Oregonian made an excuse as lame as this. Sure, I could've seen "Well, the trouble is, how do you enforce such a ban successfully?"...we had a ban like this go through when I lived in Chicago and last I heard, everbody thought it was a bad joke. But really: "You can't ban something because it stops people from working while driving?" You're BSing me.
RecommendedI can't expect the Oregonian to favor anything besides their right-wing, conservative agenda. I doubt there's a single person at the Oregonian that commutes by bike.
Recommended“People using cell phones account for only one-half of 1 percent of Oregon’s car accidents, according to the state Department of Transportation.”
That should be "...reportedly account for..." as in, how many people would fess up that they were on the phone when they wrecked and how likely is it they would be found out otherwise?
If people could be responsible, their behavior wouldn't have to be legislated to protect others. This would be just like any drunk-driving law. It's already illegal to crash into people and things, so why would it be necessary to legislate drunk driving, right? How many people would support repealing drunk driving laws?
Some interesting info on cell-phoning while driving, which some experiments have shown to be just as impairing or more so than driving drunk:
Applied Cognition Laboratory
http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab
Drivers on Cell Phones Are as Bad as Drunks (Jun 06)
http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1
Cell Phone Users Drive Like Old Folks (Feb 05)
Recommendedhttp://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=022106-52
I have heard of many studies that put the effect of driving while phoning at EQUAL to that of being legally drunk.
And here's the thing that backers of the law (which allows headsets) are blissfully ignoring. It does NOT matter whether you are using a hand phone or a headset, the statistical effect is the same. NO difference!
The law as stands is nothing more than window dressing. It will end the visage of driving while holding a phone to one's head, but won't end the problem.
I had an encounter on N. Williams with a woman driving a Cherokee while yaking on her phone. She passed me I was in the bike lane, then turned right, right in front of me. I hit the brakes, turned right with her and slammed my fist on the hood. We came to a halt with me straddling my bike in front of her car. We had a decidedly one way conversation about the right-of-way of those in a bike lanes and the importance of full-attention while driving. She was quite remorseful.
Ironically, I was on my way home to sign the release papers and get a check from the insurance company of a woman who ran a red light and hit me. No phone involved in that one.
Recommendedpdxrunner said:
Actually, I know lots of Oregonian staffers that love bikes and ride them all over the place.
RecommendedSo,
It is obvious to me that the sited percentage of wrecks that involve cell phones is skewed due to the fact that people will not admit to, and in the case of my car/ bike accident, lie about being on the cell phone during an accident.
Even though the phone records will show that they were on the phone, as it did in my case, it appears to not matter.
Neither does dark, hipster, not your prescription, but prescription sunglasses
for that matter.
On another note, a cell phone ban will entirely slow down, and decimate the daily habits and working ethic of the average bike messenger, a service which the whole city heavily relies on.
RecommendedIf we were not connected by ordinance to motor vehicles, this would not be a problem.
But, we are...
Lets be honest this is not just auto drivers. It makes me crazy to see how many bikers are on cell phones while riding. If you want to interupt your trip to answer while riding on any residential street (often see bikers yaking) it is easy to pull off to the curb and then answer. On trafficed streets (rarely see bikers yaking) you should be paying attention to the cage drivers not working your phone. My favorite bike phone safety hazard, that I have seen a number of times, is turning your handheld into a headset by wedging it in your helmet straps.
When I see an auto driver pass me while "talking to themselves" or holding a phone, my awarness triples and I make a point of knowing what that car is doing.
For full disclosure, I just got my first cell phone in July and have used it maybe a dozen times.
JayS.
RecommendedGreat point JayS,
I agree that cyclists are sometimes just as guilty. But just like the drunk driving issue and the stop sign issue...should we have different laws because our vehicles are so different?
That's the big question.
And Dabby, I hadn't thought of that but you're exactly right...if they extended this to bicycles, messengers would be through.
I wonder if bicycles have come under more scrutiny in the states where the cell phone ban has passed?
What's interesting about the Oregonian, is that back in October 2005 they published this very pro-bike editorial.
I don't think it's a matter of them not liking bikes. Maybe they just don't see the connection between distracted driving and the safety of cyclists.
RecommendedThe editorial writers just don't want to give up yakking on the phone while driving - same as most legislators.
Recommendedpdxrunner,
I hope you are joking about that comment on The O.
If not I fear for you.
PS. I'd estimate the number of people driving with cell phones to be somewhere between 5-10%. How are accidents less than that? How many times can you sit at a red light with five cars and none of them are on the phone? Never happens.
RecommendedRaspy7,
Recommended5-10 percent is a gross underestimate.
maybe 10 percent are actually on the phone at anyone time, but more like 45 to 50 percent of drivers nowadays would have cell phones in the car while driving.
Maybe even more.....
Here's the link that provided that original statistic:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/car/docs/2005_SummaryBook_opt.pdf
By their logic, alcohol-related accidents surely don't merit special laws, with only 2.5% of accidents...
RecommendedDabby just brought up a good point. As just basic observation can support, a good amount of drivers at any time are on the phone. My guess, like Dabby's, is around 10%.
If "cell phones account for only one-half of 1 percent of Oregon’s car accidents" is true, then you could easily argue that cell phones PREVENT car accidents because cell phone users are grossly under-represented.
Now we all know that that is just nonsense.
Nonsense folks! Woo hoo! Can't wait til these ribs heal so I can get out there and ride with all those cell phone users! Riding the MAX everyday is making me koo-koo!! Koo koo! Whooooo hooo!
RecommendedI know in Italy they already passed a "frivolous" law to restrict phone using while driving....sure the driving is a bit more advanced there but immagine when most people not only talk but test message with their cell phone, would it be Ok to do that while you drive? I think it would be a great move for Oregon to limit the use of cell phones while driving. You could still talk if you had a speaker phone and you are not calling out.
RecommendedCiao
Paolo
“I had an encounter on N. Williams with a woman driving a Cherokee while yaking on her phone. She passed me I was in the bike lane, then turned right, right in front of me. I hit the brakes, turned right with her and slammed my fist on the hood.”
This scenario takes place everyday! It's like a sitcom that's on perpetual re-run....Woman (occasionally man), SUV (always SUV), perfectly coiffed hair (trust me on this), attempting to turn right while discussing Extremely Important Matters on cellphone.....(the slamming fist on hood is optional, as is the throwing of 1% latte at passenger window if you're a pedestrian).
I officially support Burdick's frivolous bill (as do I also officially not support nearly every editorial the Oregonian has ever run). Go Ginny!
RecommendedOk -- so I was in the camp that thought that it would be cool to talk and drive -- I drive -- I can use the phone *and* pay attention to the road.
I have a preponderance of personal experience that proves I should be dead yesterday because someone was getting instuctions on the phone. Were I distracted, I would have died.
Despite an earlier belief that it could be done -- I now know it is an incredible hazard, to talk on the phone while driving.
RecommendedReally? People still read the Oregonian? That must be the worst daily newspapers in the country. I wouldn't wrap fish with it.
RecommendedSorry guys... I guess this just shows my 'conservative' views amongst this city of 'progressive' voices. Let the tomato throwing begin, because I think I'm with the writer of the editorial on this one.
The thing that often crosses my mind is what about talking to the passengers in the back seat of your car. It would seem to be a similar situation from the drivers perspective. There is no visual contact between conversationalists and the dialogue can be just as intense. Howe is this different from cell phone conversations? (both hands on the wheel notwhithstanding) Now, if you are going to get into the one hand off the wheel thing, then where do you draw the line. You logically would continue down the road of no reaching for a tissue, no putting on your makeup, not handing cheerios to the child in the back seat, perhaps only automatic cars should be allowed. (yes I am taking the argument into the rediculous realm and I realize that is not the point of the legislators.) All of these things that could take up extended amounts of time while behind the wheel. Would it be illegal to listen to the KBOO bike show while driving a car? Granted, it may be a one sided conversation coming out of your car radio, but it still may be just as engrossing as that cell phone conversation with an old friend from miles away.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that these are the safest activities to be engaged in while driving. I'm just bringing up the point. It is difficult to know where to draw the line when limiting this combination of activity.
With freedom comes responsibility. It is one of the things this country has been founded and built upon. The more freedom, the more responsibility. It would seem to me that the push should really be about creating more responsible drivers--rather than trying to legislate it.
As far as the O's commute conversations paragraph. I apparently thought Jonathan was saying it was scary for a completely different reason than the rest of you. I thought it was a scary commentary on our relationships these days that the only time we get to converse with those we love is through technological means while driving. I don't think it is about 'more convenience = less safety.' Perhaps it is the relationship between individual responsibility, responsibility to our fellow human beings and safety.
OK. I'm off my soapbox for now. I'm curious to hear the opinions in response.
Recommended[W]here do you draw the line[?]
I draw the line at a behavior that has been repeatedly proven to triple the collision rate. That seems like a clear and bright line to me.
RecommendedSometimes the "freedom" to have a cell phone becomes the "responsibility" to remain in touch 24/7, especially for those who work for businesses that must always be open, up and running.
My partner and I were given a cell phone (to share between us, a gift from a friend) last May. While it has come in handy for long-distance trips, I've seen little other reason to have it.
My partner insists that most days I be the one to carry it. "You're more mobile and harder to reach on a bike than I am in a car," she says. Wacky logic, yet she insists, and to humor her I carry it about one day out of four. Turned off, of course.
Interestingly, neither of us sees the logic in getting a second phone.
RecommendedScott,
There are studies that point out that for whatever reason, there IS a difference between talking to someone else in the car and talking on the phone. We can come up with our own theories as to why that it, but in this instance we are confronted with a large body of evidence that is rather consistent.
My own experience indicates that it takes more concentration to talk on the phone since there's less visual feedback both ways, and most importantly, with a the person in the car, both people can alter the pace of the conversation, pause when needed and it all seems fine. You don't even think about it. Talk on the phone and you try to keep a "normal" conversation cadence, etc.
The other thing is that each other person in the car comes with an added bonus, another set of eyes!
Recommendedtonyt, i've read that the reason a passenger is less distracting is that a passenger can also see road issues coming up and give the driver a break, whereas aunt millie is just gonna keep going on and on over the phone.
RecommendedSimple proof of cell use distraction: Can you watch and understand a movie on tv with a difficult and convoluted plot while talking on the phone?
I did not think so.
Don't you think your attention to driving should have at least as much respect as that tv movie?
RecommendedScott,
Without the hands-free device, most drivers are also distracted by only having one hand available to steer and shift while concerned about dropping their beloved cell phone.
When I listen to radio or converse with someone in the vehicle, I still have both hands available for an evasive manuver if needed. (Like, avoiding that cyclist who just rolled through the stop sign for example.)
RecommendedSorry, I hit submit too soon...
The makeup artist, child feeder, coffee drinker etc. are just as distracted and have their hands occupied. The use of cell phones is much more prevalent than those situations and makes logical sense.
In a civil proceeding for negligence, no jury would buy "I was giving Timmy his Cheerios because he was fussy and I didn't see the bike." as a plausible excuse but I fear that twelve normal folks sitting on a jury might buy "I HAVE to answer the phone or I'll get FIRED!" as an extenuating circumstance since we are all guilty of yakking on the phone whilst driving and we fear unemployment.
RecommendedHere's an idea for the Oregonian:
Go sit on the corner of NW Everett and 16th (?), the onramp to the 405 S. Watch how many cars:
1. Do not yield to bikes as the sign says
2. How many people turning in front of bicyclist are on their cell phone.
I ride this stretch almost every day, and almost everyday I am cut off. And many times the drivers are on their cell phones.
RecommendedIt's not the hands. The essential driving tool made unavailable by cell phone use is the brain.
And I agree with Jim in #18... fish deserve more respect than to be wrapped in the Oregonian.
RecommendedN Williams is definately up there with some of the most dangerous "vehicle turning while driver is on the phone" bike encounters. I have been through more brake gripping and skidding episodes than I can count. Most, I find, the drivers are turning and talking at the same time, so there's no free hand to hit their turn signal with. Add that to turning quick and tight in front of a bike, and there's really no bail out plan. Just straight ahead and hope the brakes are good and dry.
Recommendedpdxrunner said:
“I doubt there’s a single person at the Oregonian that commutes by bike.”
Jonathan Maus said:
"Actually, I know lots of Oregonian staffers that love bikes and ride them all over the place."
I would be one of them. Just looking around, I see at least three others within a few feet of me. My New Year's Resolution for 2007: Put more miles on my bike than on my old Volvo wagon. So far, so good.
Recommendedthe notion that many of the laws passed in salem are frivolous is hardly news at all.
I echo the sentiments here - it is dangerous to drive with any distraction and, all cyclists and pedestrians need to be fully aware of their surroundings and potential dangers to be safe. I am going to start dialing 911 instead of talking to the drivers - let the law sort them out.
Without enforcement(how many cars do we see parked in bike lanes, how many times have cars been cited for turning infront of cyclists - see post 27 for a great intersection which would provide all the tickets that ppb needs) then these laws are neither meaningful nor protective.
RecommendedScott,
Your freedom to phone while driving must be balanced with everyone else's freedom to a safe environment.
It seems logical to me that if studies prove that driving while on the phone is as or more dangerous than driving drunk, that it should not be permissible under the law.
From personal experience, I've had a couple too many bad experiences with yacking drivers, so I don't consider it safe.
RecommendedI'm not sure I would go so far as to agree with the Oregonian on this one, but I'm not sure that a ban on cell phone usage (with or without an exception for headsets) will accomplish the task that it has set out to do. It might just give the cops one more reason to pull over good folks and give them a ticket and another burden on their pocketbook.
I've been bicycling regularly since before I even thought about driving. I've been driving since I was old enough to get my license. And I've had a cell phone since '99 or so. It's safe to say that I've biked and driven while using the cell phone. Why? Many reasons. Reason #1 is that sometimes, a call comes in while I'm biking/driving, so if it appears to be safe to do so, and the cell phone is handy, I answer.
However, I also have relatives in southern Oregon, and I-5 between the northern and southern parts of the state is long, and sometimes rather flat and boring. Good time to make cell phone calls. Of course, these are the calls where it would be reasonable to put on a headset so as to not wear out the neck/arm holding the handset, so that may be a moot point with this particular proposed law.
So, where do I come down on this? Knock on wood, I have never (yet?) had an accident, either on a bike or in a car, in which I was on a cell phone. I've definitely seen a lot of other idiots who cause accidents while using their cell phones. But, I've also just seen a lot of other idiots on the road, period, with or without cell phones.
I would say that a better alternative would be to step up fines for failure to yield to a bicycle or pedestrian, failure to use a turn signal, and failure to yield to a traffic control device -- in conjunction with the law allowing bikes to treat stop signs as yield signs and stop lights as stop signs.
In this particular instance, I think it would be wise to treat the symptoms.
And maybe also start a "safe use of the cell phone" campaign, funded by the cell phone companies, involving simple cartoons to tell people when they should and should NOT be using a cell phone in conjunction with a vehicle.
My personal experience is that, sometimes it's safe, and sometimes you just have to let the call go to voicemail, or pull over and then pick it up. And you have to make that decision, not based on the importance of the call, but on the safety of the situation that you are in.
RecommendedLet's be honest here for a moment... I have to agree with Scott on some of the things that he said (just for the record).
RecommendedWe live in a state that has a poor funding for highway patrols. I regularly go to Eugene to visit my Mom, and only once (including Cival War weekends) have I seen more than one trooper out on the highway. 90% of the time I see none. So, how to you propose that we police this (assuming that it passes)? I for one will be pissed to get a ticket for driving safely if I'm on the cell when I regularly get passed by reckless speeding drivers on a daily basis (either while on the bike or driving to work).
Honestly, if we pass this legislation, it will most likely be one of those laws that we spent a lot of money getting to pass but rarely if ever enforce.
I think that if you do use a cell when driving it should be hands free, I doubt there are any stats on this but I would think it would make a difference.
I have a short commute (20 minutes by car 45 by bike), but there are days when I have conference calls that I need to be on. I can't always be in the office before they start, and I'd rather not be stuck in the office listening to someone bable late at night. Quite often I listen while I am on the road, yes it makes my life more convenient, I'm guilty as charged... but it's always hands free.
Crucify me if you want, but I think this legislation is a waste of taxpayers money. Maybe in the Portland Metro area it's different than on the highway, but again, I'd rather see the police protecting us from crime, drugs, etc. than out giving cyclists or responsible drivers on cell phones tickets.
I don't know much about what happens on the freeways, but in town I would slightly prefer to have people using handsets rather than headsets -- you can see they're on the phone, and stay the heck away from them. Though these are the folks who never signal, so it's still a toss-up.
This aside, it just seems downright crazy to me to use a cell phone while driving. At all. Your chances of ending up doing something you'll regret for the rest of your life increase exponentially, and how is that worthwhile?
Of course, I feel the same way about driving in general.
I'd rather see ten cell-phone using cyclists than one cell-phone using driver. It's not the safest way to bike, but we're going slower, we aren't going to crush anything, and we can actually see what's going on around us.
Recommendedok so we let folks yak on the phone and drive and we say we have to be responsible as humans for our actions; then we hit the ped or biker. if we follow Oregon logic responsible is 25.000 liability coverage. would any one here like to guess how long it takes for a hospital visit to spend that 25.000 doller's? hmm hmmm. well let me break it down to 1,800$ will get you from the accident to the hospital then 2.000$ will get you a nurse and then the real money gets spent on meds and dr.s and such in your first surgery your 25.000 is gone. then if its GICO you only get the 25.000$ cause they have no overage rider like other places. then you get to sue for the rest of the medical bills and if you dont have the cash for the lawyer in time they get rid of assets and you are left with a busted leg and a 200.000 dollar debt. maybe if you have a car you have insurance that will help cover or you suffer. figure it out folks the better attention a driver has to pay to the road the less likely you are to have to pay for the rest of your life. money you can pay back limbs take longer.
RecommendedJami's comments in #23 were right on. People talking the phone are in two different environments. Social instincts make it difficult for us to prioritize safe driving at the caller's expense. When you have a passenger, they understand when you need to take a moment to pay attention to traffic because they are part of that environment. When you are trying to gather your thoughts during a phone conversation, it is often difficult prioritize using blinker or checking your blind spot.
Having a headset is great because it frees up a hand but it doesn't solve the problem as stated above.
I acknowledge that if you are cruising down the freeway between cities (like Portland and Eugene) that you could probably talk on the phone safely, but that convenience still doesn't outweigh the dangers. For example, you could probably do that drive while sipping on your favorite malted beverage as well.
I doubt a cell phone ban would have an opportunity to be used as a revenue stream by police. If talking on the cell phone was illegal, I think there would be a social stigma attached to that behavior. Most people would not want to enable the phone driver by participating in a conversation with them. Drivers would simply pull over and callers would be more likely to accept being routed to voicemail.
I'm not a bike messenger and have little understanding about idea what the job entails, but could someone explain why a messenger can't pull over to answer their phone or let calls go to voicemail? Would text messaging be a safer way to communicate with a bike messenger?
Recommendedabout five years ago, my brother ran a red light babbling on his cellphone and was t-boned by someone. luckily they hit him in the forward part (engine area) of his car and just totalled it rather than killing him.
i'm sure he would have appreciated a cell phone ban back then.
RecommendedI haven't researched this and don't know the ins and outs, but I'll spout off like everyone else here.
First off, Dabby, I'll stop talking on my cell phone when you start wearing a helmet. (And I know the argument to that will be that you don't endanger anyone's life but your own with that, and yet, without health insurance, who will be paying the bill when you are sacked out for life with major brain injuries? And this is for a whole 'nother thread)
yes, it is about personal freedom AND personal responsibility. Because there ARE safe times to use a cell phone in a car. As has been pointed out, driving down the freeway in a straight line at a constant speed is no more dangerous than tuning the car radio. And no, I don't have statistics to support that, but I know when I'm being a crappy unaware driver, and I know when I am completely in control. (I try to avoid the former as much as possible, just so you know.)
I hate all the laws that overlegislate our lives. Yes, you should be allowed your fixie with no brake, I should be able to talk on my cell phone, and motorcyclists should get to feel the breeze in their hair on a sunny day. And we should all act responsibly when exercising our freedoms.
The more we are micromanaged in our daily lives, the less people think for themselves. You know the old adage - People act how they are treated. Give them respect, they act respectfully, give them responsibility, they act more responsibly, etc. The reverse is also true. Make all the decisions for everyone through legislation and the entire population is dumbed down.
I know there are a lot of stupid people out there, but in my idealism, I think if people were forced to suffer logical consequences of their actions and to have to think and act responsibly for the intrinsic value of being responsible (as opposed to extrinsically imposed laws) then we would have a better nation.
Recommendedjust another bit of 2nd-hand anecdotal evidence: so my daughter, who works up on Broadway by PSU, tells me - since she knows i'm interested in just about anything involving bikes - that she witnessed the immediate aftermath of a bike/SUV crash today. Young guy on a bike got hit by an SUV pulling out of a parking garage; up walking around afterward but in considerable pain, EMT's came & put him in an ambulance.
Female driver was on the phone when she got out of the car - safe to assume that she was on the phone at the time of the crash, i think.
Apparently didn't involve the bike lane, as it was on the east side of Broadway.
RecommendedI know there are a lot of stupid people out there, but in my idealism, I think if people were forced to suffer logical consequences of their actions and to have to think and act responsibly for the intrinsic value of being responsible (as opposed to extrinsically imposed laws) then we would have a better nation.
I'm with ya "an uninformed opinion." That makes sense.
Recommendedflag on the play the problem is we dont have to suffer to consequences.
Recommendedif we did folks that yak while they drive would have broken legs; folks who loose controll of there cars would spend a year in pain and on cruthces.
He Will Workforf Ood here with the answers,
If you want to talk on your cell phone will driving around completly oblivious to the outside world - you should.
The city of Los Angeles has the perfect infrastructure for such activitie- why you'll spend hours of everyday basking in the warmth of internal combustion in stand still traffic. LA is a film making mecca so you'll be close to the home of your favorite DVDs that you can watch on your way to Las Vegas where you can get married without taking the key out of the ignition.
So call a loved one and point your digital all real really great 4 in one dashboard canopener, compass, GPS party stopper, and laser light show towards the horizon - To Sunny Southern California - were the gridlock meets the sea.
Recommendedtrike, you don't think there are consequences for people who yak on their cell phones? Think big - think big picture. People who hit people with their cars are destroyed for life. I tend to believe that people do have consciences. We are all good people who do bad things sometimes, right? All of us? yes, we are. No one is pure evil (not even myex-shithead. ha ha.) there are much bigger/greater consequences than a ticket. And this whole business of telling people they can't EVER talk on their cell phones while driving? I would go so far to say as we are approaching fascism if that's the world we live in.
I bet you're pro-choice too. And I am not saying that to be a bitch, but just to point out that I imagine you are all about personal freedom when it's to your benefit.
RecommendedUOP
problem is there are a bunch of folks out in the world who will never go to the the potty by themselves again. folks have Carma but the really big picture that i see is if you are going to be in a 2000 lb killing machine you better be paying attention to the world around you; not in some other hood.
things to my personal benefit get examined to a much greater degree then you would ever suspect; for the most part you are incorrect.
I am a male and the whole pro choice issue is none of my business.
nor is it to my advantage to be pro choice; since i am white and male it is to my advantage to keep woman from voting or having any rights.
a pregnant woman takes allot of care in modern society so the more expectant moms the better the economic benefit for me. in fact as a white male it is to may advantage to encourage you to breed so i have a pool of young labor to draw from and we can have a small war every 5 years with a nice big war every twenty or so. that way we have a predictable boom and bust cycle that i can invest in. this not only allows me to gain more profit in the short term; the long term profits are realized as the pool of lower and middle class vets who will (as scheduled) require treatment driving medical stocks higher.
you want a big picture the more time you spend on your cell phone the more money i make on the market. so it is also not to my advantage to discourage you from your phone.
an even bigger picture is that it is also to my advantage to have cyclists in the hospital because it grantees that the debt will stay high and the market will remain stable as it bleeds the middle class dry and i can move now to the nikay index and make even more.
shall we go up another iteration?
the total market freedom and libertarian/republican plan for the US would be great for me because with all the lack of law i would be able to take the things i wanted and you could not defend like your house and land.
Recommendedbecause i have a gun and training the likely hood of my keeping control is greater. there for the likely hood of my attracting mates would be better and i could outbreed all the weaker males in the area.
thus providing better genetic stock for the next generation. then since i am by definition doing things to my advantage i could select for those traits that i find best in the human genome and only breed for those traits or manipulate the genome directly so that only those traits expressed and soon I could sire the master race.
ha ha ha..... the satire is so thick in here I can hardly breathe!
I still think an Uninformed Opinion is right and you are wrong.
To use your analogy: If people can't go to the potty by themselves, then they have to sit in their own wet, stinky, soiled underwear. If I happen to be sitting next door and have to smell it or feel the dampness, then maybe I should offer to get them a new pair of underwear...
RecommendedWhen did this get reduced to name-calling? I would never call someone I didn't know an idiot.
I stand by my argument. I am sick of this over-legislated sue-happy world. Sorry, but I am. I think that shit happens. We all try to be good people and I prefer educating people on the dangers over out and out bans. I think it is just a different philosophy on living. Yes, it's sad when people die, but no matter how many laws we pass, people will still die. We cannot protect ourselves from all the dangers in the universe.
If we follow your line of thinking, maybe we should outlaw a bunch of other things too. For instance, perhaps it should be illegal to listen to the radio in the car - plenty of accidents happen when people are changing stations, I'm sure. And nobody should be allowed to drive with toddlers in teh back seat - that is WAY more distracting than any cell phone conversation. And certainly eating while driving should be against the law - so let's eliminate all drive thrus. Hmmm... what else should we outlaw to make the world safer? It never ends Erin, do you see that it never ends? Have you had the privilege to travel in foreign countries? We consider ourselves to be the land of the free, but we aren't allowed to do sh*t compared to the rest of the world.
If you like fascism and rules Erin, I think you could apply to live in N. Korea.
RecommendedErin, you have seemed to be really into calling names the past couple of days. And daring people to "flame on"... not real productive dialogue.
I know Jonathan has generally avoided editing or deleting comments, but when we fail to act as responsible adults and resort to name-calling, but perhaps he should start.
As far as the issue at hand, I really doubt an all out ban will pass, for better or worse. A requirement for voice-activated hands-free devices seems a bit more realistic.
RecommendedEvery new thing she writes illustrates my point better than I ever could.
It is obvious that she has no idea what the definition of fascism is. You sound really silly when you use words like that improperly. Look up the definition why dontcha?
I also hope I am never on my bike anywhere near her while she is operating a car. "Shit" happens frequently because ignorant and idiotic people cause it to. People like you! It is not an "accident" when someone causes harm to others because they are preoccupied on the phone. It is self-absorbed recklessness. And it should be illegal.
And as to all the other distractions you referenced, studies have consistently shown that they are not the same level of distraction as the phone. Just because you are not capable of comprehending that FACT, does not change it.
By the way since you appear to be advocating anarchy, what is your address so I and some others can come help ourselves to all your stuff?
I have also started a petition for the removal of all traffic devices in the Portland area due to the fascist oppression inherent in stop signs and crosswalks.
Now excuse me I am going to have 7 or 8 shots of tequila then go for a drive while yapping on my cell phone, as I am verrry important and have no time to think about all of you!
RecommendedErin says: It is obvious that she has no idea what the definition of fascism is. You sound really silly when you use words like that improperly. Look up the definition why dontcha?
fas·cism (fāsh'ĭz'əm)
n. 1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
fascism. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved February 23, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism
Erin? It seems an uninformed opinion was using the word correctly. The definition speaks for itself.
Also, Erin, one of the earlier commentators kindly backed up their arguments with actual links to the studies cited. Can you please point the readers in the direction to the "studies [which] have consistently shown that [other distractions] are not the same level of distraction as the phone[?]"
Perhaps it is in the studies linked above, but I didn't see it at first glance. Since you have obviously seen this consistently in all of the studies you have reviewed, you should be able to quickly point me in the right direction.
Oh and The person driving a car while on the cellphone, who plows into a mom with a stroller, a family car full to the brim, the pedestrian, the cyclist, etc.. This is the person facing the consequences?
Yes, there are consequences for the person that commits this act. We have a justice system and current laws that already address such matters. True, the victims also have to pay the consequences of this persons actions, but the point still stands. YES, there are consequences for our actions!
RecommendedI agree that we live in a fascist country. I do not believe that laws regulating traffic have anything to do with fascism.
Who is exerting totalitarian control for their own benefit through traffic legislation? People who want to be safe? It makes no sense at all.
Look it up the studies yourself, you have google and several people have already cited some of the many studies.
She was implying that the consequences should not be prison or monetary, but that simply the regret over killing/maiming someone was a sufficient deterrent. I still think that is laughably absurd.
Think of DUI legislation. Most sane people now consider it to be morally correct to not drive drunk and to punish those that do. When those laws were made people had the same silly arguments against them that many people are espousing against cell bans.
These people are not concerned about fascism, safety or any other social concerns. Their only concern is their own lifestyle and personal convenience. Everyone else be damned. That sounds a bit like fascism to me. Especially since driving on the phone is the dominant paradigm.
Either way you look like an idiot driving a car. You look like an idiot using a cell phone. Put them together.... Yikes! Glad I am not you!
I understand your rush to defend, though you should read the previous posts in context instead of simply skimming over them. You entered mid argument with no attention to the lead up...
RecommendedErin, if you can't see the connection between our being micro-managed by laws for EVERY little thing and fascism, then I can't help you. It seems like you are a very judgmental person who likes to tell other people what to do - maybe you should start a cult or something. I've heard there's a lot of money in that.
Recommendedexcuse me.
Who here has hit someone or been hit by someone in a car?
who suffers in the collision?
who suffers longest?
can money buy back a leg? an arm?
10 years of training? 9 months of pain?
the remaining life span of pain?
the brain damage?
or the lost life?
do drivers get to feel the agony of torn flesh and crushed bone?
some do; but I'll lay odds not when they hit a bike or ped.
they pay a couple dollers more in insurance?
Am i to depend on the morality of a sociaty who pay for economic advantage in young lives.
or ask that they refraine from a simple thing like talking on a cell phone while driving?.
this culture as it currently stands has very little morality. It is a litigants world and as such feels that money can pay for anything; sorry it just ain't so.
there are some things money cannot buy; and broken lives are one of them.
RecommendedMy point has been completely missed. Yes, yes, yes. Obviously you are right that it is much worse to be hit by a car than to hit someone with a car. And I never stated otherwise. My point is more along the lines of can we protect ourselves from all the harm in the world and should that be our main goal? Do we want to be micro-managed to the point that there are no choices to be made and you are absolutely guaranteed safe passage? And, would the world where you are completely safe more closely resemble a padded room? I just don't think you guys are seeing the big picture. If you just stand back and look at the world over the past 20 years (because that's about as far back as I can remember) I see our freedoms being chipped away little by little one at a time. And I see a world where people are less and less willing to take personal responsibility for their actions - just my observation. And I ask you, is it a better world? I don't know the answer to that. Some people thought Mussolini was a hero because he made the trains run on time. But whatever, like I said all along, my opinion is just my opinion, and you can take it or leave it. Just don't call me an idiot because you don't even know me.
RecommendedErin, Trike, and 'auo',
Everyone else seems to have left the forum. When 'discussions' reach this point, I often wonder if we were all sitting in the same room, "would have reached the same 'non'-conclusion?" Would our discussion have continued in this manner?
We have people calling each other names, like idiot and fascist. We have others accusing people of not paying attention and only entering the argument midstream.
We have others that seem to be presenting a logical, unemotional argument, and yet people still respond with name calling and lines of reasoning that completely miss the point of the other people in the "room."
one person says:"Either way you look like an idiot driving a car. You look like an idiot using a cell phone. Put them together…. Yikes! Glad I am not you!"
This statement seems to have it all wrapped up in one neat package. This person is certainly entitled to express that opinion, but I don't think it is constructive for the discussion at hand.
Unfortunately, I believe the prevailing opinion in our country is that this statement would be more accurate if one substitutes the word 'bike' for 'car.' "[...]you look like an idiot driving a bike. [get on the sidewalk and off MY street!]" [regardless of the cell phone use issue currently at hand]
My point being this: Using emotional arguments and calling each other names gets us nowhere! YES, we are all looking out for our own interests! I don't think anyone is altruistic enough to say that we aren't. However, in a successful society, we must balance our own interests with the interests of those around us! It is called responsibility.
Case in point--I drove a car yesterday. I talked on a cell phone yesterday. I did both of those activities at the same time yesterday. Therefore, it is in my own interest to advocate that such activity not be made illegal.
Education, however, has the power to change peoples behavior. Because of this discussion we have been having, I thought twice about talking using a handset. I actually stopped my car and made a point to put on the headset and use that instead. I was also conscious of the the fact that my speech was delayed at certain times while I was trying to navigate traffic. I told my mom on the other end to hold on. She was perfectly willing to wait while I concentrated on the higher priority task.
The point is that driving with a cell phone is not and should not be a criminal activity, just as flying a plane, shooting a gun, or driving a boat are not criminal activities. However, there are definite times when it is not smart to do those things. If one kills another human life while doing one of these activities, we have laws and a legal system that prescribe consequences for that. Do they adequately make restitution for the loss of life, love, and relationship? NO! They most certainly do not! However, in this upside down, beautiful mess of a world we live in, it is the best that we can do.
There is a place for legislation, and there is a place for personal responsibility to govern our behavior, neither will prevent malignant actions 100% of the time. Applying a ban on using cell phones is NOT the right answer for addressing this problem. It would seem to me that education is the real issue. As I mentioned earlier--after reading the studies and opinions of those above, it already changed my behavior yesterday as I was driving my car.
Your responses are welcomed.
RecommendedI echo
"Erin G's" post #111 over on the other discussion topic:
"This website and related forums provide an excellent opportunity for people to exchange ideas and dialogues about important issues that impact our community (thanks, Jonathan!). I hope that folks start to primarily use this avenue for problem-solving, rather than as an outlet for slinging personal insults and accusations. As I look at responses to this and other serious topics, it is disheartening to see that oftentimes the potential for unifying, proactive discussion is overshadowed by angry rants that tend to veer from the very issue at hand."
RecommendedYou are right Scott. Thanks for the voice of reason. I have to say though, I don't use the term fascist as an insult. It's a legitimate form of government and if someone preferred fascism, I would try to talk them down, but would not disrespect them. And I was only trying to make my point that too many rules leads us towards a fascist government. On the other hand, calling someone an idiot can only be considered an insult. One that doesn't bother me because anyone who knows me knows it isn't true.
Recommended"[Fascism is] a legitimate form of government."
Here's the first entry for fascism in the Random House Dictionary:
"a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."
I think that says it all.
RecommendedI don't see what the problem is ... they are not OUTLAWING cell phones entirely, just mandating that you use them "hand's free". Is it really too much to ask drivers to use two hands to drive??
RecommendedI didn't say I liked it, but there are countries that have chosen it, hence, it is a legitimate form of government. And I've even met people right here in Portland who claim to prefer it. Maybe crazy people, but still, it is an actual opinion held by some.
RecommendedI guess it depends on what you mean by "legitimate." Apparently, *you* mean that somethings becomes legitimate simply by existing. And when you say that "countries ... have chosen it" I guess that begs the question of who precisely is doing the choosing -- the dictator and his army, or the people -- as well as whether choices made while looking down the barrel of a gun are really "choices."
But if, by "legitimate," you mean that something is justified or is in accord with established principles or standards (a paraphrase of the dictionary definition), then most Americans would probably say that fascism is not a legitimate form of government. That's because we Americans tend to believe it is a self-evident truth "that all Men [sic] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men [sic], deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Recommendeddon't run too far with this Attornatus. AUO is not advocating that facism is good. Your first paragraph had it right. Perhaps 'recognized' would have been a better word choice. I think that is all AUO meant. And AUO was not trying to be name calling. ...just help people visualize what ideology these types of ideas fall under.
Thanks for the brush up on our founding documents by the way. :-P
Recommendedwhats the problem: I think you missed half the argument above. Read the whole thing again and then see if you have the same question. Thanks.
RecommendedLegitimate. I guess it's all about perspective isn't it?
And Americans may "tend to believe" all those things, but are we actually upholding them? So if we dismiss forms of government that don't uphold them, pretending that we do, what does that make us? Hypocrites?
I love when people tell me how open-minded and liberal they are. They are sooo open-minded until someone expresses a different opinion. If you are truly open-minded, you have to be able to listen to even the opinions you find offensive and hear what those people have to say. And then, after you have listened, you can tell them why you think they are wrong. But hurling insults and calling someone an idiot just makes you sound, well, narrow.
Recommendedhmm let me explain this: I have been hit and am recovering from that hit. the folks who hit me have insurance but it does not pay for the whole lost time; medical, not working thing. I can sue but then the family who already has nothing will have nothing for allot longer or crash and be bankrupt. so i can be litigious or i can do this another way. I chose another way and we are working on it.
the folks who hit me will not ever be able to repay what i have lost and cannot do the right thing under this countries rules.
the whole point is that doing the right thing is a wash in today's society. either you make a law so you can enforce and make folks toe the line or you don't and they figure it is there right to be on the phone and drive.
we already live in a Representative republic; we already practice a form of fascism that is more than dishonest. unless the people act. and this like every law is a chance to act. it is not to my advantage to see this law in place. it is however; to my advantage to see people outraged and discomfited. uncomfortable people change things.
Recommended"doing the right thing is a wash in today's society"
Trike, I feel for you and your situation. I really do. That sucks. It's horrible that you had to suffer through that and sad that you aren't being appropriately compensated. If you were my friend I would feel outrage on your behalf. But it doesn't change my opinion on the whole thing. My whole point is just that passing laws to micromanage society will NOT make people feel more responsible towards their fellow man. It will have the reverse effect. And when people DO do the right thing, it will be for the wrong reasons. Again, I am truly sorry for all of your suffering and didn't in any way mean to belittle what people in your situation have been through.
Recommendeddon't micro manage; reinstate blood price and dueling. if you want civilization you will have to have a way to MAKE humans do the right thing.
either we have laws and fines or we return to social enforcement. how would you have it?
Somehow you have to teach humans right and wrong. Either you do so by punishment or you do so by reward. I dont know how to reward people for not useing a cell phone while driving; punishment is the way it will have to go.
as i said before if you are going to travel around in a 2000 lb machine you had better be paying attention.
Recommended