http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ng_cell_phones
Damn right. Mammy state has my full support in this. Put the phone down and drive. Quit yapping for 5 to 10 minutes!Beginning Monday, Colorado is banning young drivers from talking on cellular phones while they're behind the wheel — a small step more states are taking in hopes of promoting safety without upsetting voters who can't live without the convenience.
The Colorado law affects teens with restricted licenses — brand-new drivers who must have an adult drive with them for a year. Police can issue a citation only if the driver is stopped for another violation.
This year, 38 states tried to pass legislation restricting cell phones, most focusing on younger drivers and driving while distracted. Bills were passed or are still being considered in 22 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver.
So far, only New York, New Jersey, the District of Columbia and Connecticut prohibit the use of hand-held phones while driving, though other states have adopted limited restrictions for young drivers or school bus drivers.
Huh. I wonder why they're specifically targeting teenagers. I guess it's because they don't vote and thus are a safe group to legislate against. From personal experience, the majority of the people I encounter on the roads driving erratically with a cel phone are my age - mid 30s.
Cell phone ban in CT was legislated this summer. Complete ban on all ages
I figured the focus on young drivers was because they have less experience and are statistically much more likely to get in an accident than other demographics. Therefore, ban something that provides a distraction.Originally Posted by noun
My personal observation of ages of those who use cell phones (irresponsibly, because I usually don't remember them if they *aren't* driving like a dink) is somewhat wider than yours -- maybe mid-20s to early-50s. I don't see a lot of teens using them.
They're illegal up here in NYC and I still see drivers holding them to their ears, often.
They need to ban shitty drivers before they start banning cell phones.
Thing is, seems like 50% of the shitty drivers are on cell phones. Going on my purely antecdotal completely unscientific experience anyway.
And I'm still not sold on the idea that teenagers cause the most accidents. Anecdotally speaking, most of the accidents I encounter occurred during rush hour, of which teenage drivers constitute a very small percentage of drivers on the road. I'm not arguing that teenagers are better drivers, I'm just saying that, given the wide variety of ages behind the wheel, to say that the relatively small group of drivers aged 16-19 are responsible for the majority of accidents just rings false to me.
I dunno. My sister had 2 accidents before she was 19.
Eh, I didn't think there was any doubt on this topic. The insurance companies have lots and lots of hard facts and statistics showing that teens are more accident prone.
We let teenagers drive at a young age for a lot of reasons. Economic necessity might be one such reason. Individual freedom might be another.
I used to work in insurance, for a very short time. In that time, something became obvious to me. If we legislated according to the plain facts regarding statistical risk, no one under 25 or over 65 would be allowed anywhere near a car. Banning them from driving would make the roads almost as safe as trains and air travel.
I don't think we should, though. I'm happy with the idea that society generally increases its aggregate risk for the sake of freedom and growth.
I also wonder if "new drivers" at 25 would be any less dangerous than new drivers at 15. Are teens intrinstically less risk-averse? Or does it just take a decade, and maybe a crash or two, to learn to drive properly?
Also, another interesting thing about insurance: Risk is King. It doesn't matter how something looks, or how something appears to be. The numbers rule. It is Dickensian "Facts! Facts! Facts!" at play, an almost brutal adherence to hard science in even the most unscientific circumstances. I think it's great.
One good example: we are often told to take defensive driving classes to improve our driving. Don't. Someone who has taken such a course is at greater statistical risk of having an accident, and might be reflected in premiums depending on your driving history.
Maybe it's because a lot of people are ordered to take a DD course as a result of their crap driving. Maybe it's because people who graduate from them think of themselves as "defensive" and therefore become overconfident. Whatever, people who have taken DD courses are more likely to show up in the citation reports for shitty driving of one kind or another.
Quite possibly, yes.
"A National Institutes of Health study suggests that the region of the brain that inhibits risky behavior is not fully formed until age 25"Quite possibly, yes.
Fascinating how age 25 in this study corresponds exactly with the age insurance agencies have, for many years, determined as especially significant for calculating risk in vehicle accidents!
This isn't at all near to Ig-Nobel Prize standards, but it's in that direction: Did we really need a study to tell us that adolescents act like they think they're immortal?"A National Institutes of Health study suggests that the region of the brain that inhibits risky behavior is not fully formed until age 25"
I'm assuming its a combination of teenage overconfidence and lack of experience. A good friend of mine didnt learn to drive until she was over 41, and she had a couple of crashes within the first two years. Mainly due to lack of experience (aquaplaning on a wet road was the first). Put a teenager into the exact same circumstances and I'd bet they would have made the same mistake but been driving faster.
Yeah, everyone already knows it's because their dorsal-lateral prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed. Like we need research for that. Idiots.
They targeted youth because they can. Non-voters. Although, something comes across wrong to me where using a cell phone while in the driving is illegal. Isn't that the point of having a cell phone?
No, the point of cell phones is to leave them turned on while watching a film at the local cinema.
Am I the only person in the universe who pulls over to answer the cell phone if it rings while driving?
Yes.
I dunno. I just let it ring. It's a cell phone. I can call them back in 5 minutes.
I'm so antisocial I leave the damn thing off unless I want to place an outbound call. Perfect.
My girlfriend hates this attitude, but I feel no need to answer my cellphone whenever it rings. I pay the goddamn bill, it's not rude to let it go to voicemail. You want me to use a phone for your convience you can give Verizon $40 a month.
Oh yes.
I wonder if I have too much of an emotional tether on me with my cellphone because I get a slight perverse joy of thinking "HA, I'M NOT ANSWERING YOU, you're not important enough" sometimes when clicking the 'goto voicemail' button on my cellphone for those I know.
It's as if we've been conditioned to answer the cellphone regardless of circumstance or situation. Of course the same thing could be said of text messaging as well.
I'd almost like to give up the convience of a cellphone to be able to not have to talk to people when I'm out of the home/office. Almost.
Sidenote: This is exactly the opposite feeling I have when I drop a call in the middle of something important. That feeling has distinct resemblence to chucking the fucking phone out the window in a juvenile fit of rage. Well, if the window wasn't up I could have ...
I'm even more antisocial,I refuse to own one of the damn things!!! 8)
I've never bought one either; I think I'm better off for it. I'm in college and as soon as any class ends, about half of the students instantly pull out their cell phones. I'm walking along the street and I see a lot of people in self-contained conversation worlds with their friends. Kind of takes the excitement out of just being.
But mostly I just hate all the constant yakking; it distracts me very easily. I think it's pretty funny how the second a plane touches down, tons of people yank out their phones to give a second-by-second status report of where they are.
"Yeah, hi, honey, we just landed! Call you in a bit. Bye."
"The plane is taxiing now. See you soon!"
"The plane stopped moving. We're about to exit."
"OK, I'm off the plane! I'm walking toward you!"
"I'm ten feet in front of you! Now five! Now you can smell my BO from that long hot ride!"
It's something of an Olympic sporting event to see people talking on the phone while simultaneously trying to bring down their carry-on luggage and if possible jostle through the line to get off the plane.
But also, what I hate most, is during movies, the Pink Floyd laser shows you get.
(pixx courtesy of edprats.blogspot.com)
I have one but I've only used it while moving. Cellphones make you permanently available to callers, and as Johannes Gross said, only serfs are obliged to be permanently available.
that's not necessarily true. You can turn it off if you want to. You can also choose not to answer it, as most of the phones have a kind of built in caller id (at least with people you have in your own phone book).
Brian
Yeah, but it's a matter of principle. :P
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
