Political : Bill of the week - For or Against ?

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 2:14 pm

PA House Bill 1827

The bill would ban the use of cell phones while driving on PA public roads (with the exception of those who fear for their safety, to report an accident or call 911). It would allow the use of hands - free devices.

I'm against it.

ToonaRockGuy · Post by **ToonaRockGuy** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 2:28 pm

I'm for it. It's a no-brainer. Cell phone use (distracted driving) while driving is just as deadly as driving drunk. (Source: "Mythbusters" TV Program 2 nights ago.) I do everything I can to pull off the road if I have to make or recieve a call. I need one of those Bluetooth thingies.

jbphotos · Post by **jbphotos** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 2:35 pm

If they start down this road what is next? If you eat, adjust your radio, or even talk to someone else in the car you are also "driving distracted". Yes we all have seen a few idiots that are talking on a cell and not paying attention, but I have also seen women apply makeup, commuters reading a paper or book, or whatever else. Government needs to learn they are not and never will be the cure to every problem. This topic just gets me going as much as the seat belt vs. motorcycle helmet law. How can we have one and not the other in this state. It is just nuts.

Bag · Post by **Bag** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 2:37 pm

Hmmmm, being a professional truck driver and a motorcyclist, you would think I'd be all for this. I've seen lots of people do stupid shit with a phone held up to their ear, and EATING while driving is as bad, if not worse.

But I'm not crazy about the government controlling what I can or cannot do. (And I admit, I do both

) What's next, no smoking while driving? No road head?

Some people can handle it, some cant.

I'm against it.

bassist_25 · Post by **bassist_25** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 3:19 pm

I'm not a a fan of the government micromanging and regulating every little detail of people's lives, but I'm with Kevin on this one. Like it or not, cell phone usage does create a distraction for drivers (Steven, Cole, & Stanny, 2007; Strayer & Drews, 2007; Beede & Kass, 2006).

I'm guilty of talking on a cell while driving, and I've always found it to be a distraction. I actually ended up driving onto a median in Tyrone a month or so ago because I was texting while driving. It's bikers' business if they don't want to a wear a helmet. When it comes to preventing drivers from doing stuff that endagers me and the people I care about, then I'm for it.

References

Beede, K. E., & Kass, S. J. (2006). Engrossed in conversation: The impact of cell phones on simulated driving performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38, 415 - 421.

Kass, S. J., Cole, K. S., & Stanny, C. J. (2007). Effects of distraction and experience on situation awareness and simulated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 10, 321 - 329.

Strayer, D. L, & Drews, F. A. (2007). Cell-phone-induced driver distraction. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(3), 128 - 131.

Hawk wrote: It would allow the use of hands - free devices.

Many of the studies I cited were performed using hands-free devices. While I didn't do a real deep lit review, I suspect that the reason that cell-usage is distracting is because short-term/working memory is limited in capacity. It's not an issue of dialing a number; it's an an issue of attention being limited to a certain set of stimuli. Vidulich and Wickens did some research about limited attention when presented with varying types of stimuli (visual, manual, etc.), and found that certain stimuli conflicted more for attention than others.

metalchurch · Post by **metalchurch** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:12 pm

That's funny you mention about eating while driving.
I saw this thing on TV about German cars not having cup holders in them because of the concentration that you would have to have on the Autobahn.

I just thought that was interesting.

I'm all for that law.

And I never wear seatbelts either. I figure that if it's legal to Ride without helmets, then I'll be damned if I wear a seatbelt.
I never did and I never will, just my choice.

I heard that the Helmet law is going to change also.

It will be interesting to see the police try and enforce the no cell phone law, damn are they gonna be busy or what?!

metalchurch · Post by **metalchurch** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:15 pm

Bag wrote "no road head" That's awesome I was gonna say that!

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:15 pm

I'm with Hawk on this one. How much more of the nanny state interference in our lives do we need?

Before cell phones, the leading cause of accidents occured while the driver was looking at the radio or cd player. Are they going to ban them next. Will we have to drive around in a totally silent car. Will we be allowed to have a conversation with our passengers?

Stop the big government nanny state.

metal_junky · Post by **metal_junky** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:39 am

ToonaRockGuy wrote: I need one of those Bluetooth thingies.

I had too go and buy one as soon as I saw them. I hated recieving and making calls while I was driving although there was times that I did it anyways.....

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:52 am

I am against this bill because it allows hands free devices. They should be banned too. The issue isn't about driving one-handed, its about driving while distracted for long periods of time. I don't see any difference between driving while distracted and driving while intoxicated--driving ability is always impaired by both and is a threat to the public at large.

Unlike free speech, driving is a privilege, not a right, and it is the government's responsibility to regulate it vigorously. Since a large number of people do not behave responsibly behind the wheel, the state must act when new dangers appear to the public. This is an obvious danger to the public.

By the same token, not using seatbelts or helmets does not a pose a danger to the public and there is no reason why they should be forced on us.

bassist4life2004 · Post by **bassist4life2004** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:37 am

Being a salesman for AT&T, and hearing the statistics, and not only that but almost being the victim of a few idiots with cell phones in their hands and no attention paid to the road, im all for it.

It is statistically worse to drive and talk on a cell phone than it is to drink and drive.

I sell these things every day, and i hear about cell phone related accidents on the road all the time, that is why we push bluetooth headsets so hard. They do make a difference, basically because you can have both hands on the wheel and still make conversation. They make driving and talking a lot safer.

When it comes down to it, we can sell a lot more stuff if our customers are alive. hahaha

HarleyRo1 · Post by **HarleyRo1** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:03 am

I am all for the bill and I am as guiltly as the next person for dialing up while driving (without a head set). There is nothing safe about taking on the phone and driving. One of the major rules that I laid down with my daughter - who just got her license - absolutely no talking on the cell phone when she is driving.

Dragan Kalasa · Post by **Dragan Kalasa** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:19 am

I blame Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, and Britney Spears for this bill, lol. I understand the reasoning for the bill, but I don't think if it goes through that anyone would be like, "OMG it's against the law now" and put it down. I mean, look at the construction laws. Headlights have to be on. Double fines in an active work areas. I've seen and been guilty of breaking those laws time and time again. If they pass this bill, they might as well look into making a bill dealing with 1) people driving with their high beams at night (self-explanatory), 2) making a "minimum" speed limit for those people doing 35-40 in a 55 mph zone (they become the hazard and can cause other drivers to go into a rage, plus I've witnessed an accident stemming from that situation), 3) people who don't use their turn signals.

I know they mean well and probably will scare some people into doing it...but if I'm not mistaken, isn't it also illegal to hang things, like air freheners, on your rear view mirror for the same reason...it's a distraction? Why waste the tax payers money on bills that, in my opinion, no one enforces when they're laws?

BTW, I have a cell phone and if I have to make a call while driving I put it on speaker, throw it on the passenger seat and continue driving while talking.

Just out of curiosity though...would that bill effect the use of CB's in vehicles? Because I don't really see the difference in using a cell phone or CB.

RobTheDrummer · Post by **RobTheDrummer** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:52 am

I'm against it. I'm sick of the government trying to tell people what they can and can't do. Like mentioned above, what will be next if this passes?

Anyways, driving is a privilege and it's up to the driver to be responsible for any accident. If a cell phone is involved, the insurance shouldn't have to pay for damages to that person's vehicle.

I see really bad drivers all the time when I'm working. Most aren't on the phone. What about old people? They are the worst.

Now what about police? If they wanna pull someone over, they can say they saw someone on the phone. More laws=more bullshit. Over regulation is not a good thing.

One more thing, if you are for this law, then you are for the smoking ban in bars. It's the same principle behind it.

ToonaRockGuy · Post by **ToonaRockGuy** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:12 pm

Dragan Kalasa wrote:If they pass this bill, they might as well look into making a bill dealing with 1) people driving with their high beams at night (self-explanatory), 2) making a "minimum" speed limit for those people doing 35-40 in a 55 mph zone (they become the hazard and can cause other drivers to go into a rage, plus I've witnessed an accident stemming from that situation), 3) people who don't use their turn signals.

There are laws against 2 out of those 3, Dragon. #2 is called Impeding The Flow Of Traffic (and yes, you can and will get pulled over and get a ticket for it), and #3 is Failure To Properly Signal.

One more thing, if you are for this law, then you are for the smoking ban in bars. It's the same principle behind it.

No Rob, you're wrong there. I don't support a smoking ban in bars. For the simple reason that there's no law that says that you or any other non-smoker can't open a non-smoking bar, and as a non-smoker, you don't have to go to a bar that allows smoking.

But let's not hijack the original thread.

bassist_25 · Post by **bassist_25** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:17 pm

RobTheDrummer wrote:Like mentioned above, what will be next if this passes?

I really don't think that the slippery-slope arguments that I'm seeing here really have any weight behind them. I forget if it was one of the studies that I cited or something else I came across in my lit review, but in-car conversations were measured along with cell-phone conversations, and driver error was not apparent with in-car conversations as compared to cell phone conversations.

Anyways, driving is a privilege and it's up to the driver to be responsible for any accident.

So it's cool to slam down a case of beer and drive, so as long as you know that if you take out a family of four, it will be you're responsibility?

I see really bad drivers all the time when I'm working. Most aren't on the phone. What about old people? They are the worst.

Bad drivers should be administered the necessary infranctions, regardless of the reason of their poor driving. I don't see the point of this argument and how it pertains to cell phone usage while driving.

Now what about police? If they wanna pull someone over, they can say they saw someone on the phone. More laws=more bullshit. Over regulation is not a good thing.

That I agree with. Many of our local authorities *coughtheplcbcough* have shown that they can become drunk with power.

One more thing, if you are for this law, then you are for the smoking ban in bars. It's the same principle behind it.

1. Nobody is forced to go to a bar. To get by in modern society, most people have to eventually drive or ride on the highway.

2. Research on second-hand smoke has been inconclusive. Refer to the studies I cited (and a myriad of others) that have found supporting evidence that cell phone usage creates a cognitive distraction.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 2:22 pm

Piblic hearing in Harrisburg Oct 15th.
http://www.palegislature.us/WU01/LI/CO/HM/COHM.HTM

Your house rep :
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/leg ... _alpha.cfm

BDR · Post by **BDR** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 2:34 pm

First off, texting while driving is quite possibly the STUPIDEST THING I've ever heard of anyone doing. Ever. How the EFF can you do that without risking the safety of others? It's impossible. I can't even text and walk at the same time without losing my balance.

However, I'm on the fence on the phone call thing. As it's been said, some can handle it, some can't. The vehicle is the most common place where I'll place or accept a cell phone call. Otherwise, I'm usually not in a position to answer the damn thing (I hate talking on phones, BTW).

But I, like most, have seen my share of idiots who have enough trouble driving with no distraction, and once these pinheads get a phone call, it's all over. Painted lines and road signs mean nothing at that point.

Hmmm, this is a head scratcher. I mean, weren't they originally called, "car phones?"

PS: Until they make Bluetooth devices that don't make you look like a Borg, I will not own one. I personally think people who parade around with them in look pretentious and retarded. They are the same people who leave their phones on when they go to a restaurant, then proceed to answer the loud, annoying ring tone and start talking as loudly as possible so the whole dining area can hear him.

Yes, we get it, you have a cell phone. You're important. You're fancy. Whooptey—effing—do.

r:>)

BDR · Post by **BDR** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 2:38 pm

RobTheDrummer wrote:One more thing, if you are for this law, then you are for the smoking ban in bars. It's the same principle behind it.

Wow, that statement came out of left field.

See, now I'm all confused because I'm vehemently against a smoking ban in bars but I'm kinda leaning toward supporting the cell phone ban (for the greater good, even though I'll more than likely break that law). You damn conservatives with your rules about how to think.

I must be crazy but I thought as free-thinking American citizens, we had the right to indiscriminately support or reject whichever measures we choose.

I didn't know support of cell phone usage legislation required equal support of something that has absolutely nothing to do with it. Kinda like saying you love chocolate cake, but, in order to love the cake, you must also enjoy brussel sprouts. Me, I love the chocolate cake (especially with peanut butter icing) but you can have the sprouts. I will not eat them, no matter how much you tell me I like them.

r:>)

bassist_25 · Post by **bassist_25** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:32 pm

[quote="BadDazeRob]I didn't know support of cell phone usage legislation required equal support of something that has absolutely nothing to do with it. Kinda like saying you love chocolate cake, but, in order to love the cake, you must also enjoy brussel sprouts. Me, I love the chocolate cake (especially with peanut butter icing) but you can have the sprouts. I will not eat them, no matter how much you tell me I like them.

r:>)[/quote]

It always comes back to the pastries. Is cake technically considered a pastry? Kevin, help us out here.

Post by **Jim Price** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:47 pm

Like a few other posters have said, I'm torn on this question. I too don't like the idea of government as big brother and controlling another aspect of our lives.

But at the same time, it is a public safety issue. I too have seen numerous abuses of cell phones on the road. I'd say that at least 50% of the time when I see somebody doing something stupid on the road, from not using turn signals to running a red light to going slow in the passing lane, they usually have a cell phone pressed up against their ear. I liken the cell phone legislation issue to drunk driving laws and checkpoints; I don't like DUI checkpoints, but as long as people insist on getting behind the wheel after tying one on, those crackdowns are going to continue to exist to reduce the problem and protect public safety. When cell phone usage behind the wheel endangers others, lawmakers are going to pass laws to curtail the problem.

Personally, I refuse to answer or call anybody on my cell phone when I'm driving. If it is an urgent matter, I'll pull off the road first. No call is so important that it needs to distract from my driving. Plus, I refuse to be a slave to the cell phone; there are just some situations in life where I don't want to be bothered or reached, so the cell phone is either turned off or stays in the car.

bassist_25 · Post by **bassist_25** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:56 pm

Jim Price wrote: Plus, I refuse to be a slave to the cell phone; there
are just some situations in life where I don't want to be bothered or reached, so the cell phone is either turned off or stays in the car.

Word. I'm the self-proclaimed "least tied to my cell phone cell phone owner on the planet," much to the chargrin of everyone I know who is trying to reach me. LOL

MeYatch · Post by **MeYatch** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:05 pm

Jim Price wrote:But at the same time, it is a public safety issue. I too have seen numerous abuses of cell phones on the road. I'd say that at least 50% of the time when I see somebody doing something stupid on the road, from not using turn signals to running a red light to going slow in the passing lane

I'd say 50% of drivers I see that do something stupid are women, maybe we should ban women from driving.

sorry, I don't really think we should ban women from driving, I'm just saying that since around 50% of drivers are women, logically 50% of the stupid ones are women.

This goes back to my causal relationship Vs correlative relationship diatribe from a few months ago.

if drivers that do something stupid are on the phone, that is not the same thing as drivers on the phone doing something stupid.

Personally, I wish there were bigger penalties for doing something wrong, and less penalties for doing something likely to increase your odds of doing something wrong.

Most people don't drive drunk because they are afraid of getting in an accident and hurting someong, they don't drive drunk because they are afraid of getting pulled over and getting fined and having their license taken away.

Bad drivers are bad drivers, talking on a cell phone might increase the problem, but they are probably still bad drivers, and they will likely find some other way to distract themselves while driving. I'd say that most people that can't handle talking on a cell phone and driving probably can't handle changing the radio station or eating one of those sheetz hoagies that they put way too fucking much lettuce on and it gets all over the damn place.

re: mythbusters
Didn't their test drivers fail (or at least do pretty poorly) on their test even with no distractions?

I'm against a cell phone ban. Personally I wish you had to take a new driving test every 5 years or so. I see so many old people that should NOT be on the road, and I'd bet a significant portion of bad cell phone drivers would probably answer their cell phone even with an instructor in the car and do something stupid.

MeYatch · Post by **MeYatch** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:12 pm

P.S.
I fail to see the difference in distraction between talking on a cell phone in your hand, and a hands free device, unless you are driving a stick shift.

bassist_25 · Post by **bassist_25** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:20 pm

MeYatch wrote:if drivers that do something stupid are on the phone, that is not the same thing as drivers on the phone doing something stupid.

But I think that the issue isn't so much that people make dumb decisions, but rather, there is supporting evidence that using a cell phone creates a distraction - which could be explained with Kahnerman's Simple Resource Theory, the before mentioned Multiple Resource Theory of Wickens and Vidulich, Broadbent's Filter Theory, or a whole other host of cognitive psychological theories dealing with attention - regardless of whether the person in question is actually lacking in common sense or not. Cognitive processes are generally universal, despite how "dumb" somebody really is. The research doesn't state the hypothesis "Careless people are more likely to use cell phones while driving." Instead, it says "A random sample of people will have more errors when driving and using a cell phone."

For the record, I honestly don't think that a law banning cell usage while operating a vehicle will do very much, for many of the reasons you mentioned. I don't think people should talk on phones when driving. On one hand, I'm not going to go march in the street to get this bill passed, but on the other hand, I'm not going to lose sleep if it does make it through legislature.