Will Politicians Now Ban Walking While Talking On A Mobile Phone?

from the but-are-they-reasonable-risks? dept

Thu, Mar 6th 2008 3:23am — Mike Masnick

In the past we've seen stories about hikers not doing a very good job preparing for a hike, figuring that as long as they have a mobile phone with them, they can always call for help should things go wrong. Some recent studies are also now suggesting that students tend to take more risks when they have a mobile phone. Of course, by "risks" the studies uncover two things: the first is that students are more likely to walk through certain areas late at night if they have a mobile phone than without. Whether or not that's a reasonable risk is unclear. If someone were attacked, then they likely wouldn't be able to call for help, though if they're already on the phone it could be useful. Of course, the report also suggests that if they're chatting on the phone in such an area, they may not be paying careful attention to their surroundings, making them more vulnerable. The second finding (of a different study by the same researchers) found that people talking on mobile phones are much more likely to cross a busy road in front of traffic than those not on mobile phones.

If this sounds familiar, it might be because we've all seen plenty of studies that point out if you're driving while on a mobile phone, you're also more likely to be distracted and drive poorly. Yet, while there are all these new laws to ban driving while yakking on your mobile phone, will we now see legislation proposed to ban walking while yakking on your mobile phone as well? At some point, people need to learn to take responsibilities for their own actions -- and if they're making riskier decisions while talking on a phone, it's fine to educate them, but that doesn't mean we need to create a law to ban each and every activity.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: mobile phones, risky behavior, students

66 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2008 @ 3:50am

There's a big difference between the pedestrian and the driver. Drivers can kill other people, pedestrians are usually only responsible for their own safety. That's why it's still legal to walk home drunk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Adam, 6 Mar 2008 @ 4:33am
  
  Walking vs driving
  Faulty logic. If a pedestrian causes a driver to swerve to avoid them, they could be responsible for other lives. If a driver hits a pedestrian and loses control, people other than the ped can get killed.
  
  And finally even if the ped was the only one to get hurt, how would you feel if you were the driver?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2008 @ 7:13am
    
    Re: Walking vs driving
    It's why I said "usually." There are risks inherent in anything though.
    
    Oh, and swerving is a terrible driving strategy. No matter what, brake unless you are certain you won't hit something else.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2008 @ 5:00am
  
  Re: Ped v. Driver
  That's why it's still legal to walk home drunk
  
  Drunk in public is illegal in most states. In some parts of the nation it'll even get you tased, bro.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2008 @ 7:12am
    
    Re: Re: Ped v. Driver
    I'm not an american.
    
    Also, I was a researcher on a VR study relating to cell phone use. Talking on a cell phone was distracting, but no more so than talking to another person in the car. There were some advantages to having a passenger - they might react to something you haven't seen, etc. But there are disadvantages too - you don't feel the need to make eye contact with a person on a cell phone.
    
    As long as you are using a hands free headset the problem is greatly reduced.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2008 @ 9:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ped v. Driver
      Also, I was a researcher on a VR study relating to cell phone use. Talking on a cell phone was distracting, but no more so than talking to another person in the car.
      
      Sounds like it was a pretty crappy study. I don't blame you for not citing it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2008 @ 11:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Ped v. Driver
        It was a friend's PhD thesis. I haven't seen anything published from it, and I was just helping out running subjects.
        
        Given that I only posted results, not methodology, I can conclude that you think it was a crappy study because it didn't give you the results you liked.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2008 @ 4:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ped v. Driver
        Given that I only posted results, not methodology, I can conclude that you think it was a crappy study because it didn't give you the results you liked.
        
        You conclude incorrectly (not surprisingly). The fact that you "only posted results, not methodology" and failed to cite it made it appear to be crappy. No wonder it wasn't published.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mr Dress Up, 6 Mar 2008 @ 9:26am
    
    Re: Re: Ped v. Driver
    Ahhhhh, my younger days
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dennis, 6 Mar 2008 @ 6:40am
  
  Re:
  Although it may be legal to walk home drunk you can still be arrested for public drunkenness as others have stated
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- neil, 6 Mar 2008 @ 6:44am
  
  Re:
  lets say you are talking and walking. you walk out in front of my car. i hit you. you fly over my hood and through my windshield killing me from the impact. see you can hurt people.
  or we can look at it another way, same scenario only you die this time and i am phisicaly fine. but now scared for life because i killed some one. i attend therapy twice a week and i dont seem to be making any progress. also i have to deal with everyone trying to find a way to make me guilty for your death. i know it was an accident but was there something i could have done to prevent it.
  
  thanks for ruining my life by talking on your mobile and walking at the same time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2008 @ 5:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So what you are saying is, we should pass a law that “MAY” save the lives of a “FEW” people now and then, but will definitely lower the rights of millions of free people to live as they see fit. I get so frustrated at special interest groups and politicians that dream up, and try to intact laws intended to prevent some small tragedy without looking closely at the side effects such a law would have to the larger majority. “The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few”.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - known coward, 7 Mar 2008 @ 6:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      # 58 you mean a law like the patriot act ?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Apr 2008 @ 12:20am
  
  Re:
  Though I fully agree with your premise that a big difference exists between driving while on the cell phone and walking while using a cell phone (and, for the record, I'm all for outlawing the former while I vehemently oppose going down the road that banning the latter will take us), I respectfully disagree with your argument. Actually it is NOT LEGAL--for good reason--to walk home drunk in most states, counties and municipalities of which I am aware (and here I'm not talking about just having had a couple of beers.) The two most common penal codes applicable are public drunkenness, and (in more severe drunkenness cases) disorderly conduct.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2008 @ 4:09am

Oh wonderful, lawmakers trying to make the world a safer place one stupid law at a time. Maybe we should just stop talking all together unless sitting down at home, can't do it in a car cause it might be distracting....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Apr 2008 @ 12:40am
  
  Re:
  Right...precisely why I vehemently oppose even *considering* such laughable proposed rubbish as banning cell phone use while walking on the streets. The grave danger is once you start down this road, there won't be an end to the barrage of new laws our idiotic lawmakers are only happy to pass one after another, as a lawmaker's remedy to just about everything under the sun is a new law.
  
  What's next? Can't listen to music as a pedestrian? How about outlawing chewing gum or talking to a friend while walking as both may be distracting activities???
  
  You have no idea how saddened I am to see the pile of horse manure this country has been reduced to.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brian, 6 Mar 2008 @ 4:32am

Please tell me that this sounds as ridiculous to you as it does me.

Can't these people find something worthwhile to study? Common freaking sense is enough to deduce this drivel. Next suck-tastic study: "Breathing shown to be good for your health!" followed by: "Study overturned. Certain contaminants in air bad for you." Welcome to the 19th century. (Scientifically speaking.)

Seriously. People need to start bitch-slapping people who run these studies. They'd learn how to think properly if we beat them enough times. At the very least, they'd stop trying for fear of physical abuse.

Also, your satire is well noted Mike, but I have this annoying feeling in my gut that says someone, somewhere (probably even multiple people) would consider the idea of passing legislation which would ban "walking and talking" a pretty damn good idea.

Feh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Me, 6 Mar 2008 @ 6:36am
  
  Re:
  California will be the first to try it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim, 6 Mar 2008 @ 5:04am

Will Politicians Now Ban Walking While Talking On
Ambiguous, poorly written, laws are created by politicians simply to keep lawyers and judges employed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mr. Dress Up, 6 Mar 2008 @ 9:31am
  
  Re: Will Politicians Now Ban Walking While Talking
  Not to mention a vice like grip on your brain and actions...Control, control, control!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Apr 2008 @ 12:48am
  
  Re: Will Politicians Now Ban Walking While Talking On
  Don't forget that many politicians, particularly legislators, are themselves lawyers.
  
  But you hit the nail right on the head: the more laws we have, the higher the probability that lawyers and judges will have no shortage of clients and cases.
  
  And to that end, the more poorly written and ambiguous the laws are, the better.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haywood, 6 Mar 2008 @ 5:05am

I look at it like legalizing drugs
If suddenly heroin was flowing like water, the clumsy would go first, effectively eliminating their own problem.
So it is with the cell phone yacker. If they walk in front of a bus, likely they weren't the prize of the gene pool to begin with.
Driving cell phone yackers have a hard metal shell around them, so bottom of the gene pool or not, they mostly survive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OXman, 6 Mar 2008 @ 5:12am

Walkin Talkin
We are always punished due to the stupidity
of others...The no talking and walking rule is already in effect on some military bases....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2008 @ 7:05am
  
  Re: Walkin Talkin
  That is because of professional reasons, not because of safety.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- J Good, 6 Mar 2008 @ 10:35am
  
  Re: Walkin Talkin
  The rule is in effect on all military bases, not because it is dangerous to walk and talk, but because talking on a cell phone while trying to salute a passing officer doesn't constitute assuming the position of attention, which is against the regs.
  The military is a different animal all together, and even though some of the regs are dumb, they do have legitimate reasons for them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Glenn Charles, 8 Apr 2008 @ 11:03am
  
  Re: Walkin Talkin
  ...And unless things have changed drastically since I was a dependent and then a serviceman...there's an absolute ban by the military on...thinking and walking or talking.
  --Glenn
  8]
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bored now, 6 Mar 2008 @ 5:20am

On the contrary Mike, we need to abolish common law and move to a system where *nothing* is permitted without an expensive permit signed in triplicate by some petty bureaucrat.

Only then will the almighty gubmint be able to protect us feckless scum from ourselves!

/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2008 @ 5:42am

Retards.
If someone talking on a phone, not paying attention, walks out into oncoming traffic, then, thats what they deserve. Really, it is way past time to stop legislation of natural selection. Also, we should ban politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Derek (profile), 6 Mar 2008 @ 5:46am

iPod
What about iPods, are they as lethal to pedestrians as cell phones? Perhaps maybe we outlaw them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased), 6 Mar 2008 @ 6:12am

Dumb survey questions
I am guessing they also just asked students a question like, "Are you more likely to travel in a poorly lit area with a cell phone than without?" I was a student a few years ago and I remember everyone taking the shortest/quickest route possible, heck I still do it. Maybe not through a dark alley at 2am but definitely places where there could be rapists lurking in bushes. Of course, ask a person a question and they aren't going to say, "I am an idiot and like to walk where three people have been assaulted because my cell phone will save me?" Now if the survey actually monitored people walking through various parts of campus, some deemed more dangerous, and saw if they had a cell phone or not, well that would be some meaningful data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Danno, 6 Mar 2008 @ 6:12am

Hmm, all the phone/driving laws I know of just say you need to use a hands free headset if you're going to talk and drive.

I mean, that's reasonable to me. Physically interacting with the phone is usually the most distracting part.

Are there any laws which ban drivers from using cell phones entirely?

I wonder if the second part of the study cited also checked hands free headset usage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Auto-Answer, 6 Mar 2008 @ 7:40am
  
  Re:
  Your answer, Sir:
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080305104905.htm
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased), 6 Mar 2008 @ 6:26am

A side note...
in Iowa they just banned teenagers from using cell phones to talk or text message while driving. I am sorry, but if you ban, you must ban for all. I think a teenager is a lot more apt to using a cell phone driving than the 38 year-old soccer mom. These newfangled electronical doohickeys are like an appendage to kids nowadays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2008 @ 2:22pm
  
  Re: A side note...
  I am sorry, but if you ban, you must ban for all.
  
  You mean like for cops too? I can't count the number of times I've seen cops driving and using a cell phone or tapping away at their in-car computers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gman, 6 Mar 2008 @ 6:44am

Talking on cell versus to your passenger
If only someone could convince me that talking on a cell phone (while driving) is more dangerous than, say, a driver talking to (and frequently glancing over at) his/her best friend in the front passenger seat.

Common sense is apparently beyond the reach of many lawmakers, and has been for years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish, 6 Mar 2008 @ 6:46am

When you're involved in an automobile accident there's a good chance you'll hurt someone else. I've yet to see anyone walking and talking on their phone slam into a crowd of people killing half of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mobile, 6 Mar 2008 @ 6:49am

Driving while talking on a mobile phone.
I just want to reinforce how stupid it is to ban driving while talking on a mobile phone if it's not hands free and allow driving while on the phone if it is hands free.

The danger is the distraction the CONVERSATION causes. Not the fact you're using one hand to drive.

Such ridiculous laws need to be removed. Laws should reflect real dangers not imaginary and subjective ones.

You either ban driving while talking or don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2008 @ 2:25pm
  
  Re: Driving while talking on a mobile phone.
  You either ban driving while talking or don't.
  Scientists studying such things say that talking on a cell phone is different than talking to a passenger.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2008 @ 6:56am

What the hell ever happened to personal responsibility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2008 @ 6:59am

Talking on a cell phone while driving is a lot different than having a conversation with a person in the car. It is difficult to hear the person on the other end of the phone and you have to devote most of your attention to trying to hear what they are saying, and pay less attention to your driving. Yesterday I was behind a driver who was on his cell phone driving down a two-lane road. His truck crossed the double yellow line four times in the two or three minutes I was behind him until he turned off. And I mean crossed halfway over into the opposite lane. And this is not an uncommon occurance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pete, 6 Mar 2008 @ 7:02am

I just saw a video the other day of what England wants to do, put padding around posts along the street so people texting while walking will have something soft to walk into, the video was funny to watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- babybell, 6 Mar 2008 @ 3:42pm
  
  Re:
  Here's the "news" about Englad's padded lampposts. Pretty darn funny if you ask me.
  
  http://gizmodo.com/364254/british-protecting-local-textards-by-padding-lampposts
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2008 @ 4:42pm
  
  Re:
  I just saw a video the other day of what England wants to do, put padding around posts along the street so people texting while walking will have something soft to walk into, the video was funny to watch.
  
  It's some private group that came up with the idea, not the government. To say that "England wants to do" this is false.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 6 Mar 2008 @ 7:41am

Too late...
http://www.wnbc.com/news/10948106/detail.html

New York beat everyone to it over a year ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rip, 6 Mar 2008 @ 7:44am

They should just outlaw waking and chewing gum at the same time while their at it... That distracts me so much...

>_>

[ link to this | view in chronology ]
American#1335446785, 6 Mar 2008 @ 7:52am

You are all missing one piece of the argument against such laws. What rights does it violate? As Americans I was under the impression we had more rights than this.

Next up, A public ban on words of some politician's wim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justin, 6 Mar 2008 @ 8:00am

walking and driving
screw this. bring on your silly little laws.
if you actually think they're going to do anything but generate revenue for the judicial system you're delusional.

add it to the list of stupid crap we allow to exist in the name of "safety".
what else is on that list?
the war on drugs, the war on terror, wars in general, george bush and dick cheney, politicians in general, and oh yeah, law enforcement officials.

all of it is self-serving, and definitely not in OUR best interest.

stupid people need to be weeded out. we are continuously curbing natural selection until we end up in an Idiocracy.
I for one will not doom my children to a land of fucking retards. the u$a has little hope of climbing out of this hole, what with mediocrity being worshipped and all.

people are content to sit idly by and let the dumbest rules dictate their lives. have fun with that. the rest of us are evolving ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eNola, 6 Mar 2008 @ 8:14am

"The second finding (of a different study by the same researchers) found that people talking on mobile phones are much more likely to cross a busy road in front of traffic than those not on mobile phones."

So, I think we should just ban walking while talking, period. I mean, if you're walking next to your friend and you're talking to them, you're probably constantly turning your head to look at them. It's natural, really, because you want to see their facial expressions and watch their hand gestures. If you're doing that, though, not only are you distracted by the conversation you're having, but you're not even keeping your eyes focused on what's in front of you!

I'm glad that the people conducting these studies have finally realized what a problem this has been throughout the centuries and are willing to address it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2008 @ 2:31pm
  
  Re:
  So, I think we should just ban walking while talking, period.
  
  I guess you can think what you want, but talking on a cell phone is different from talking to someone there with you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
SRNissen, 6 Mar 2008 @ 8:19am

Even if a driver has a "hard metal shell" as one of the replies above put it, while a pedestrian does not, that doesn't really mean that much - a pedestrian walking into traffic while talking on his cell is still a danger to other people in traffic - notably, the pedestrian might walk in front of a car (hard metal shell, right?) and the driver of said vehicle might then, in a stressed and intensive situation, swerve wildly without considering the risks, thus setting off a separate accident.

As such, the cell-phone talking pedestrian has, effectively, caused an accident (unless you feel you could blame the driver in this situation, which frankly I don't.)

That said, I still don't think we should ban "talking on the phone while walking."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob, 6 Mar 2008 @ 8:49am

what about cops that talk on there radios... or truck drivers that yak to other truckers about meth deals??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wolf in Sheeps Clothing, 6 Mar 2008 @ 9:24am

Think For Yourself Sheep...Baaaah
Will people start thinking for themselves and stop letting politicians (who were once the youth of the country) run their s#!t!?!?!?........Justin has the right idea. But some fool with an infants brain and adult body will make a bold attmept to correct you in just a minute...Oh wait! They're too busy letting T.V dictate their lives to even consider reading a thread like this. What was I thinking!!?!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2008 @ 9:34am

I consider it cleansing the gene pool...it's a solution to the "survival of the fittest" that has been lost due to our medical improvements. In this case, the "common sense" factor comes into play (which is an oxymoron because it isn't very common any longer!)...those who lack it will be removed from the gene pool and not produce MORE brain dead idiots. We don't need laws to protect these people...let them self destruct before their stupid actions kill people who deserve to be here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doug, 6 Mar 2008 @ 9:49am

No.
Your whole last paragraph indicates you haven't truly thought about this issue. Idiots talking on cell phones while driving can kill OTHER PEOPLE due to inattentiveness. On my way to work today a lady barreled through a red light while talking on her cell phone, narrowly missing a car crossing the intersection from the left. Pedestrians can't kill other people due to their inattentiveness. The comparison simply isn't there. Please re-think your analogy.

Doug
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2008 @ 10:07am

Ha ha ha!

Still waiting for the Walking and Chewing Gum Law that the Blondes bring us...

Those Stupid Blondes.. Geez. They ruin it for everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tom, 6 Mar 2008 @ 10:50am

Banning phones in cars
Maybe the government in it's wisdom will ban talking in cars. I don't mean with cell phones, I mean just plain talking in cars....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aaron, 6 Mar 2008 @ 11:13am

Ban Walking and Talking?
Ban walking and talking on a cell phone? Ridiculous. Ban drving and talking, absolutely.

The human body is not a lethal weapon at walking speed, a car on the other hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cory, 6 Mar 2008 @ 12:17pm

its all about the benjamins
If you ask me, common sense, decent laws, public protection had nothing to do with the cell phone laws. How I see it, some corporate stooges from jabra, motorola, and wherever else go together in a room to decide how they could increase sales of hands free headsets. What's the best possible solution, make the one place that most people end up talking on their phones illegal to do unless using a hands free set. Yep, would be interesting to see who actually lobbied congress to ram yet another stupid law down our throats.

People are just naive, studies show that talking while driving is and can be distracting enough to make you possibly more dangerous on the road. I've yet to see a study which clearly shows that its the fact of having your phone to your head vs just talking via hands free is what makes the difference. The true difference is the distraction of TALKING, no matter the venue, if you are talking to someone in the car, or talking via hand held device, or talking through your car speakers, ...it doesn't matter, you are still being distracted.

And don't get me started on all the types of distractions that keep you from driving safely...playing with your gps, playing with your car radio, eating food, playing with the random gadgets in your car, etc... why haven't these things been outlawed? Simple, if you banned radios the after market would die, if you banned eating food, the fast food (and others) industry would take a huge hit, if you banned gps their sales would plummet. If you ban cell phones people would go bonkers, however, if you just make people purchase an semi expensive hands free set...you are creating a new market :).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Haywood, 6 Mar 2008 @ 12:52pm
  
  Re: its all about the benjamins
  Normally on nearly any other topic regarding laws and money, I'd agree, but if you think cell yacking isn't screwing up peoples driving, you are obviously too busy yacking when you drive to notice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2008 @ 4:50pm
  
  Re: its all about the benjamins
  The true difference is the distraction of TALKING, no matter the venue, if you are talking to someone in the car, or talking via hand held device, or talking through your car speakers, ...it doesn't matter, you are still being distracted.
  
  The difference is the degree of distraction. If you're saying that talking to a passenger is just as distracting as talking on a cell phone then you are ignoring the science and probably just trying to justify your own bad behavior.
  
  If you ban cell phones people would go bonkers,...
  
  Who's talking about banning cell phones? (other than your own straw man here that is) However, I could imagine someone like you "going bonkers" if they weren't allowed to use one while driving.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John (profile), 6 Mar 2008 @ 1:23pm

Ban cell phones
(sarcasm)

If driving while on a cell phone causes accidents and walking while talking on a cell phone causes accidents, then the government needs to take the logical step and ban cell phones. Why have separate laws for driving, walking, or any other activity when a single banning will do the job?

How many people have gotten into a car accident when using their home phone? None.
How many people have walked into a dangerous neighborhood when using their home phone? None.

I rest my case.

But in case you need more: suppose a driver is talking on a cell phone and hits a child. A child!
We need to ban cell phones to protect the children!

Did you know that radical Muslims use cell phones?
If you don't support the cell phone ban, then you must be supporting terrorism! Ban the cell phone before we see another 9/11!

(end sarcasm)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2008 @ 5:03pm
  
  Re: Ban cell phones
  If driving while drunk causes accidents and walking while drunk phone causes accidents, then the government needs to take the logical step and ban alcohol. Why have separate laws for driving, walking, or any other activity when a single banning will do the job?
  
  How many people have gotten into a car accident when drunk at home? None.
  How many people have walked into a dangerous neighborhood when drunk at home? None.
  
  I rest my case.
  
  But in case you need more: suppose a driver is drunk and hits a child. A child!
  We need to ban drunk driving to protect the children!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2008 @ 2:34pm

DUI
To everyone that that thinks driving while yakking (on a cell phone) should be legal,

Do you also thing think that drunk driving should be legalized?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
George Fragos, 7 Mar 2008 @ 10:59am

Cell phone as a distraction
When you do more than one thing at a time you aren't paying full and undivided attention to any particular thing -- Duh. We don't need a study to tell us that. Particularly when the study is designed to prove a point out of context. If talking on a cell is so distracting as to cause a danger, why don't we ban talking to passengers in a car? Perhaps the government should make a law that cars should only carry one passenger so that we will all be safe. Where will the stupidity stop?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2008 @ 3:27pm
  
  Re: Cell phone as a distraction
  If talking on a cell is so distracting as to cause a danger, why don't we ban talking to passengers in a car?
  
  Simple: Because it isn't as distracting and doesn't impair driving ability the way that using a cell phone does. Got any more stupid questions?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Cory, 10 Mar 2008 @ 8:14pm
    
    Re: Re: Cell phone as a distraction
    besides extremely lopsided and unfounded studies, where are you getting your information that talking on a cellphone is more or less distracting than talking to a passenger... And there is a tendency to look at the person you are talking with, or at least make eye contact every now and then. Anytime you do that with a passenger in your car you are taking your eyes off the road. While talking on a cellphone you can look strait forward and never take your eyes off the road. Sure you might be "more" distracted, however, this also might depend on the subject of your conversation. This would be true for any communication going on while driving. There is simply no real proof that talking on a cell phone while driving is more or less safe while using a hands free set. You are still talking, you are still using a cell phone and you are still being distracted. If you ban one use of cell phone you should ban the other. they are equally distracting. STOP blaming bad drivers on cell phones. There's simply a large group of the population that should never have been handed a license, pair those up with a cell phone and you now have a tragedy waiting to happen. as for the rest of us capable drivers who avoid accidents all the time...don't take away our rights.
    
    As with any new technology, once there is major acceptance (ie: everyone has a cell phone now) there are learning curves to acceptable behaviors and use. And there is always a tendency to blame new and old problems on such devices. Why not, they are an easy target. We'll we've had a steady increase of accidents over the last ten years...so then someone shows some random graph which pairs accidents and the number of people with cell phones (even though having a cell phone doesn't necessarily mean you are talking while driving) Some random interest group (made up of an extremely tiny portion of the population) lobbies some 100 year old life termed congress person into starting a bill to ban cell phones. This makes them look good because "all" the data shows that clearly cell phones are causing accidents to rise. The problem is that so many variables are left out of these slippery slop logic trails. How about the fact that more people own cars now, more people drive, more people are on the road, populations are growing at a much higher rate than they are able to maintain roads, speaking of maintenance the roads are in horrible condition all over the country, statistically potholes cause way more accidents than cell phones...but do you ever hear about that? NOPE, why? because no one is going to back that argument.
    
    #59 (re #58) I hope you were referring to patriot act 1 because it had alot of useful merit and kept with our privacy rights, etc. If you think Patriot Act 2 (the current standard) was good for freedom/rights/privacy/safety/etc you are sorely mistaken. It was essentially a free pass for the government to do whatever it wants and to hide under the guise of "war on terror" Wait till you say the wrong combination of words on your cellphone and get thrown in prison for 1/2 a year with no representation, no actual charges brought against you, and all your rights as an American citizen taken away from you. That's the love of Patriot Act 2.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]