[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
The point of the safety issue is that there is a need to protect innocent bystanders (us) from being killed or maimed by folks like yourself who fail to accept the fact that cell phone use while driving impacts your ability to drive safely and therefore continue engaging in a dangerous practice.
This string is clear evidence of the current problem (denial).
As we all know driving safely requires split second reaction to variable and uncertain events in your path...there is no luxury to not pay attention if one is to drive safely. Many things can cause distraction but cell use is one that affects many drivers. A recent local survey showed appox 80% of drivers using phones while driving, and approx 65% admitted doing so...while recognizing that it was unsafe. (?!)
If this unsafe practice were to only affect "offenders" then nobody would care (by all means, if cell users want to kill themselves [and themselves only] I would be the first to give them the keys). The problem is that "offenders" endanger/damage property/kill others on the road because of their unsafe behaviors.
Recognition of the problem could perhaps avoid the need for regulation (i.e., self regulation by doing the right thing..yea I know, dreaming amidst today's "my way or the highway" ethics) but that hasn't worked because folks like yourself continue self-serving non-aguments to rationalize the unsafe behavior.
As a motocycle rider, I never had to worry about being plowed into at a stoplight -- from behind -- by an inattentive cell-phone user/driver...I know two people who died in the past year from that. What a waste. The SUV/cell user is the worst (*they're* safe...everybody else is NOT).
Rather than doing nothing and allow the practice to continue w/ no risk to the offenders, why not let the cell users put their money where their mouth is and let them drive and talk but levy heavy fines, loss of license, or jail time if they crash while using (if you are confident that you can drive safely then why not accept the risk of losing your license if you are wrong rather than shifting the risks from your behavior on the rest of us while you face the possibility of no consequences?). I think some equalization here is justfied.
We've all seen the driver who appears to be driving drunk and when we pass and they are gabbing away at the phone. It is really the ultimate disregard for fellow citizens particularly as we know from being forced to listen to the many loud public cell phone conversations that most of these people are not talking about anything important. So the minor inconvenience of limiting or avoiding cell use in the moving car vs the improvement in safety on the roads stongly favors limiting use.
While most would agree that nobody has the "right" to drink and drive, and, I'm certain that as the problem continues to get worse it will become increasingly difficult for the public and lawmakers to avoid addressing the distracted driving problem. This isn't about politics...because the politics are against doing anything about the problem (in my area almost everyone talks/drives including the politicians). What NTSB has done is to focus on the facts as they know them and do their job despite overwhelming politics against anybody doing anything about this. It's long overdue IMHO.
Pat
posted by 129.162....
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |