Speaking from the perspective of a driving instructor, this is one hot topic for me. I emphasize safety first to all my students — with qualifiers.

You can play around with your own safety as much as you want. And if you kill or maim yourself, you can blame only yourself. Have at it. Leave your motorcycle helmet at home.

But when you put the safety of others at risk, you are stepping over the line of acceptable practise. Wear that seat belt.

Driving is a never-ending series of decisions that you must always make on the spot, and without too much analysis. Anything that distracts you from that task increases the risk that you will put other people in danger. If a driver kills himself, people call him stupid. But if a driver kills someone else, they call him a criminal.

Ultimately, I believe in the right of the individual to do whatever he wants, so long as he’s willing to pay whatever price for his mistakes. So…what would be a price on which we can agree if a driver kills someone because he’s distracted by a call on his cellphone?

I did say this was a hot topic, didn’t I? I wasn’t kidding. It’s also one that isn’t easily answered simply by debate. Practical demonstrations of some of the principles behind the need for such an intrusive law is advised. And yes, it’s intrusive. Sorry about that.

But the same part of your brain that is used when driving is also the part of the brain that’s used when having a conversation with someone, whether they’re on the phone or sitting in the seat next to you. So if you’re engaged in a conversation that is unrelated to the task of driving, you are dividing your focus and giving full attention to neither. Failing to give full attention to a conversation might result in missed understanding. Failing to pay attention while driving could result in something far more tragic. As of right now, you have the option of deciding if you want to take that chance.

Can we pass laws forbidding conversation with a passenger? No. For one thing, it would be unenforceable, and lawmakers know that, so they don’t even try. Safety experts, though, look for the day when someone will build a vehicle that will completely isolate the driver from everyone else in the car, much like a commercial pilot is isolated from his passengers. Professional chauffeurs don’t make conversation with their passengers, either, and it’s not because they’re anti-social.

Background noise (kids, music, etc) is engaged by a different part of the brain, and it can be filtered and ignored.

I don’t know if we’ll ever have laws that forbid cellphones completely in cars (although I’d back one that forbade them in restaurants and theatres :D ), but I do wonder what we did before they became available, and how we coped without them. I can only govern myself at this point, and I have always refused to use the phone while driving. No phone call is more important than my safely reaching my destination.

Your argument appears to be the “where do we draw the line?” one.

Yup

Do you think mandatory seat belts are an infringement on your right to endanger yourself?

Personal safety issue, personal decisions should apply.

Headlights?

Now you’re just being silly

Working breaks?

See above

Why don’t we just get rid of licensing all together?

There was a day, but see above.

Setting up absurd and ridiculous arguments is not the way to debate this 300baud, give me something with meat on it. Give me a study that shows that the majority of people who use cell phones while driving have or cause accidents. Better still, give me a reason why a person driving dangerously because of cell phone use cannot be charged under existing laws pertaining to dangerous driving?

I notice people who do often forget and take for granted that they enjoy more privileges than the rest of us.

A pretty wide sweeping statement, but if your point is that there are a lot of irresponsible drivers on the road you have my agreement - remember, I’m a cyclist and a motorcyclist and have seen great stupidity on the part of my four wheeled brethren.

I bet we agree on helmet laws, tho.

Given what your position seems to be on other things I somehow doubt it.

Whether you agree with the legislative interference or not, it’s clear to me that non-hands-free cellphones are a vast distraction to most drivers. If I am behind a cell phone user who takes a call, almost without exception I observe the driver’s ability to centre in his lane is temporarily lost and speed slows by about 10% (and typically stays there). Those are similar to the distractions of changing a tape or CD. Furthermore, a driver with a non-hands-free cell phone can not safely operate anything other than a vehicle with an automatic transmission in ideal conditions.

“Give me a study that shows that the majority of people who use cell phones while driving have or cause accidents.”

I disagree with your test. I only need to show that people who use cell phones cause more lossage than would be incurred from lost productivity if they were not able to talk and drive at the same time. Or, you need to show that they don’t. You’re the one with the fancy blog. ;-)

I mean, the requirement you state is insane. If I understand it, you think more than half the talking drivers on the road have to have an accident before something can be done? Where do you get that 50% number from? It seems, from thin air.

How is mandatory use of headlights silly? Why is it not germane? It is a restriction on how you may operate a car, which is enforced for the general good more so than for the operator of the vehicle (who also benefits).

I’m not sure, but I think your position on seatbelt laws is that we should not be under such requirements. But your position on using headlights is, we should be under such requirements. Presumably because your wearing or not wearing a seatbelt does not affect anyone else on the road. But submitting yourself to increased distraction does. I don’t see your “personal safety” exception applying to driving while connected.

I am not setting up absurd arguments. I am finding absurd arguments that follow from (my best interpretation of) your position. They are not my arguments or my position. I think we should have licensing, for example. I agree that issues of personal safety should tend to be left to personal digression. I do not think it just that a driver can be punished because a legally adult passenger refused to buckle up. I also do not think that safety gear should be legally mandated for an adult performing an unlicensed activity.

I simply do not agree that voluntary distractions are a matter of personal safety when driving a vehicle.

You did not comment on my direct criticism of your argument. I called it an emotional argument. Where I come from, those are fighting words. Are you just going to take that? I also suggested what a rational argument would look like. You responded with your own 50% figure, but did not address my cost analysis approach, which I reiterated above.

My test is not a test, it’s a request to show that talking on a cell phone is dangerous and/or a significant factor in accidents. More dangerous for example, than driving with one hand while drinking a cup of coffee and talking politics with the ride side seat. Show me with objective data that it presents a significant danger to the driving public and maybe I’ll be willing to shift my position - anythings possible ;-)

I mean, the requirement you state is insane. If I understand it, you think more than half the talking drivers on the road have to have an accident before something can be done? Where do you get that 50% number from? It seems, from thin air.

What’s your objective number? 40% 25% 10% What is a fair number to pick?

How is mandatory use of headlights silly?

Because it’s a demonstratively public safety hazard to drive down a country road at 100km/h in the dark.

I’m not sure, but I think your position on seatbelt laws is that we should not be under such requirements.

That is correct, seat belts (and motorcycle helmets) are personal safety issues, not general public safety issues.

But your position on using headlights is, we should be under such requirements.

Yup, see above

Presumably because your wearing or not wearing a seatbelt does not affect anyone else on the road.

Exactly

But submitting yourself to increased distraction does. I don’t see your “personal safety” exception applying to driving while connected.

One handed driving, hot coffee, and talking to the right seat is a distraction. Highway advertising is a distraction. That girl running towards me in a really skimpy bikini in Jasper last summer was a heck of a distraction (almost missed a turn over that). Loud music is a distraction. Cranky kids in the back seat are a distraction. Lighting your cigarette with a Zippo at night is a distraction. How shall we deal with people who “submit themselves” to those distractions?

I am not setting up absurd arguments. I am finding absurd arguments that follow from (my best interpretation of) your position. They are not my arguments or my position.

Then you do not understand my position. It is simply that we have laws in place to deal with dangerous, hazardous, or unsafe, driving. Reread what I said about my cell phone use when behind the wheel - is it more or less dangerous, hazardous, or unsafe, than drinking coffee and talking to the passenger in the right seat?

If you think my cell phone usage is more dangerous, hazardous, or unsafe than that explain to me why.

If you think my cell phone usage is not more dangerous, hazardous, or unsafe than that explain to me why I should be prohibited from my usage because others do not use their cell phones responsibly.

I simply do not agree that voluntary distractions are a matter of personal safety when driving a vehicle.

Any and all distractions that may cause a drivers attention to waver?

You did not comment on my direct criticism of your argument. I called it an emotional argument. Where I come from, those are fighting words. Are you just going to take that?

Well, I don’t know where you are, but here in the bunker the whole “calling out” gig is generally viewed as a distraction, usually minor - we got really thick skins.

In actual fact it is not an “emotional argument”, it is a logical question - why should I be prohibited from engaging in an activity simply because others are not able to engage in that activity safely? Shall we tune into the Discovery Channel to see who “Canada’s Worst Driver” is this season and construct our driving laws and regulations based on that persons ability? That would probably cover just about any possible activity that might harm others wouldn’t it? I mean, if safety is the issue…………

I also suggested what a rational argument would look like.

I didn’t consider that to be a rational argument.

A rational argument would be presenting me with some hard objective data showing me that my using a cell phone, in the manner which I have described, is so much more dangerous than other (at least hitherto) legal activities that it requires it’s very own law to stamp it out.

As I have said before, there are already laws on the books that could easily cover hazardous driving because of cell phone use without prohibiting cell phone use. Convince me that they are not sufficient, and remember while doing so that you’re talking to an individual who does not believe that his, or anyone else’s, life should be regulated by the stupidity of others - so you’ve got a (really) long row to hoe if you’re gonna try and convince me that it should.

Chimera: So can driving with hot coffee…. it’s good to have the comment preview back ain’t it?

“And I have never heard of a driver sliding out of a seat due to lack of a seatbelt, except during the sudden changes of momentum when an accident is already in progress.”

Oh, I have.

Try imagining (do NOT try a practical demonstration unless you are on a test course, and properly protected!) what happens to a driver who is confronted with a sudden change of direction for any number of reasons — suddenly slippery surface causing a wild spin, for example. Centrifugal force will yank that driver out of position, making it necessary for him to fight the centrifugal tendency and taking both his energy and his attention away from steering. He can loose or skew the steering wheel, and lose the pedals. No controls = no control.

;D Not necessarily.

Such a situation has the potential to be recoverable, and the accident prevented, if the driver does not have to fight to regain the controls he lost by not being belted in…

I had some practical experience with this when the Vancouver Police designed a skill development course based on police driving training, and they used the instructors at my training school as guineau pigs to test it. What fun! Twenty-four hours on unused runways at an abandoned airport, and not just permission, but encouragement to push your driving skills ‘way beyond the limit!

Sadly, the course never got offered to the public. The cops figured out that they weren’t just teaching us how to upgrade our skills — they were also teaching us how to outrun any cop car that might give chase if we decided to commit a crime and make a run for it.

Mistrustful buggers, they were…lol.