I recall listening to an NPR program on a study about this and the researcher noted that in-person conversations have different demands on people’s attention than cell phone conversations. When the person is sitting beside you they have the same physical context and can moderate their conversation but the cell phone person can’t.

Still, I don’t disagree with your main point.

Jim Bobby wrote
“if I wanna cost the universal healthcare system millions to treat my unnecessary spinal or head injuries, that’s my business. Ain’t it?”
If it ain’t then I think it’s a bad argument JB. Taken to its logical conclusion any potentially dangerous activity should be forbidden. Is that the kind of state you want to live in?
It seems to me that the application of common sense while driving is what is missing. If you call me on my cell phone when I’m driving in traffic, I won’t answer. If you’re yammering at me from the back seat in the same circumstances I will ask you to save it for later.
This subject represents many of the things I find wrong with our society and the creation of laws to govern us. Some boneheads can’t be trusted to look after themselves or those around them so instead of doing something about the boneheads, laws are passed to restrict everyone’s activity and justified by reference to social program costs. It’s one of the the downsides of trying to ensure equal outcomes. If you want to save our healthcare system a bundle make sure that potential drivers actually know how to drive before they are licensed.

First off headlight usage and speed restrictions are “public safety” issues, seat belts and helmets are “personal safety” issues - lets talk apples and apples instead of apples and airport runways.

My answer to your question actually depends on your answer to this one:

If you’re in a vehicle accident that turns out to be the result of a personal driving decision that you made, is that your business - or are you gonna be OK with the government taking money off my pay cheque to fund that cost of that decision for ya?

I carry enough motorcycle and private personal accident and injury and health insurance, to cover the cost of a multi-year recovery process should the worst happen. I do not trust the state to look after me if I get hurt in an accident so whether I’m wearing a nanny state government mandated lid or not your tax dollars ain’t involved.

You are saying that my decision not to wear a helmet is going to cost the universal health care system money that you (I am assuming) apparently are not willing to pay - yet you are (apparently) willing to pay for, and willing to have me me to pay for, the personal decisions of others that cause bodily injury.

If you crash your bike and need an ambulance, the public ambulance service doesn’t check to see if you have special insurance and then call some your insurer’s ambulance to come and take you to the hospital.

No, but my assumption is that this cost will be recovered by the state from my private insurance. But even if it is not why is that an issue if the rest of Canada is allowed to cause cost to the system through their personal driving choices but I am not?

Does your insurer pay for private healthcare? How?

Yes, you are right JB, it doesn’t pay for everything (a tad over exuberant there wasn’t I?)…. but hey, even if I had no additional health care or accident insurance or injury insurance - what’s the big deal? Anybody else has an accident resulting from a personal driving decision the state picks it up OK and I don’t hear people complaining much about that, heck, those folk can even sit and draw EI while they’re recovering from the accident and draw even further draw on the public purse and I don’t see people bitching them out for placing an unnecessary burden on the system because of their decisions.

We regulate all sorts of garbage that we do not need to regulate, I can agree with regulating “public safety” issues, but personal safety issues are just that, personal. What will your position be on driving and drinking coffee when that proves “dangerous”?

I think they call that anarchy.

All in favour say aye —- AYE!!!!!

Hi Jim Bobby
I think that reducing healthcare costs by legislating against driving while carrying a cell phone is a fundamentally wrong approach that rates right up there with banning handguns as a workable solution to solving a gang shooting problem.
I suggest that if we
1. As stageleft suggests, enforced the existing laws against careless driving we would probably cover most of the add ons like cell phones, personal grooming, dining, drinking, smoking, map reading, tete a tete conversations, having sex, all these - in one fell swoop. No need for more laws, maybe tweak the existing one.
2. Make sure that licensed drivers actually are competent to handle the 4 wheeled weapon we have given them to operate on our highways and byways.

I don’t advocate anarchy. I think it could only be a temporary condition.
The other extreme however leads to too many laws that are eventually simplified into everything that is not expressly permitted is forbidden.

…enforced the existing laws against careless driving

That would be great wouldn’t it. But I guess the rebuttal would be that the police force’s in most jurisdiction’s are stretched as they are. Saying that, banning anything while driving would be subject to the same problems - who enforces it. I was in England last summer where you are not allowed to hold a cell phone and talk into it while driving - the solution for most drivers is to simply cover their phone so it looks like they are ear-muffing their ears.

Make sure that licensed drivers actually are competent to handle the 4 wheeled weapon we have given them to operate on our highways and byways.

Here, here. Passing a test ONCE and then getting the right to drive for life is absurd. Make people take the test every 3 to 4 years. Senior citizens every year. Teenagers, every six weeks.

That would be great wouldn’t it. But I guess the rebuttal would be that the police force’s in most jurisdiction’s are stretched as they are.

So adding one more law to the list of things they are supposed to enforce is going to help —- how?

Hi Peter D
I was thinking of more comprehensive initial testing rather than more frequent occurrences at the existing level, but whatever deals effectively with the apparent lack of personal responsibility that some folks show when operating a motor vehicle on public roads. I think it stems from not understanding how little control is provided by a few square centimeters of rubber against the road or how nasty a rapid deceleration from 100 kph can be.
Seniors or more accurately senior-seniors are currently required to take annual tests, in Ontario anyway. My family and I have just recently taken our mother’s car away from her even though she has passed the annual test for some years now.

She passed her tests and you did what?

Why?

Is there an 8×10 with a door that locks from the outside waiting for her somewhere as well?

My frustration comes from several close encounters with idiots on cell phones.

And to the best of my recollection I have never had a close encounter with someone on a cell phone, not walking, not riding my pedal bike, and not on my motorbike. The includes on roads everywhere from Ottawa to Brampton as well as in the province of Quebec…. that is not to say I haven’t had a couple of close calls with idiots in cars, but none that I could attribute to cell phone use.

I can say that I saw a woman almost run down while crossing the street, yammering away on her cell phone and started right across Metcalfe on a green…. maybe we should make cell phone use anywhere near a road illegal?

Having been witness to a major accident several years ago in the U.S. that caused several people to die, one right in front of my eyes,

Caused by cell phone use?

I want to make the roads as safe as possible.

Then let’s go back to solid rubber tires, I kid you not, I fear a piece of rubber flying off a blown tire on the freeway at 100km/h far more than I do someone on a cell phone. And lets build fences along the side of every road to keep the critters off them, I’ve seen more accidents and damage caused by wildlife running into traffic than I’ve seen accidents resulting from cell phone use.

The point being that there are a great many risks associated with driving aren’t there? And we already have laws in place for people who are driving unsafely

Careless driving

130. Every person is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle or street car on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her licence or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than two years. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 130.

What more do we need? Shall we have separate laws for undue care and attention resulting from MP3 players? Portable DVD players? Loud music? Cranky kids in the back seat? Young women in skimpy bikinis running up the side of the road in Jasper Ontario? (As I’ve said before, I darned near missed the turn I did… OI!!)

Why should anyone have to pay the ultimate price for their inability to do two things at once.

Any two things?

Is there any particular reason why I should have yet another facet of my life regulated and restricted because of what “someone else” has, or may, do?

…bi-annual road tests to make sure we actually follow the rules of the road.

Oh goodie, something else the government will force me to pay for.

Here’s an idea, why not enforce the laws that are actually on the books instead of pulling me over for looking at what time it is — did I mention I don’t wear a watch? I use my cell phone as a time piece so under the new laws I could well be pulled over and fined for checking the time.

I agree Kevin, were my kids to try and pull such a stunt they would find me living in another town really darned fast, and find themselves unwelcome in my new digs.

And to the best of my recollection I have never had a close encounter with someone on a cell phone, not walking, not riding my pedal bike, and not on my motorbike.

And that’s fine. That doesn’t make my experiences any less valid.

Caused by cell phone use?

No, caused by Cooper Tires that exploded. My point wasn’t that the accident was caused by a cell phone, but that I have seen the tragic results of what can happen while driving, whatever the cause. That accident ruined two families lives. It shook me to the core. Point being, whatever we can do to make the roads safer and which results in less people dying or being maimed, we need to do.

The point being that there are a great many risks associated with driving aren’t there? And we already have laws in place for people who are driving unsafely.

Which by all accounts, aren’t being enforced. I’m fine with this legislation and agree, we need no more. But let’s enforce it. The question is, how?

Any two things?
Is there any particular reason why I should have yet another facet of my life regulated and restricted because of what “someone else” has, or may, do?

Yes Stage Left. Because your right to use your cell phone while driving, or eating while driving, or masturbating while driving, or whatever while driving supersedes someone else’s right to life. Collisions happen because people speed and because they aren’t paying attention. So let’s get people to slow down and pay attention. If that means enforcing existing legislation - let’s do so. If it requires new legislation, let’s do so. I could honestly care less whether or not you still have your right to use your cell phone. Is it THAT HARD to pull over and use it? Or plop .25 cents in a pay phone?

If someone is driving unsafely because of using their cell phone, drinking their coffee, eating their Egg McMuffin, pulling their pud, or smoking their cigarette, then by all means pull them over and give them a ticket, hell Peter, I don’t really give a rats ass if they lose their license over it.

Good, then we agree on that. I do give exemptions for people engaging in any kind of mutual sexual activity however :)

You may be happy living in a society that legislates for all based on the stupidity and/or irresponsibility of some - I am not.

I don’t think I’m happy about it, I see it more as a necessity. I guess the question for me comes down to this. If you or anyone else losses the right to use their phone in the car and it saves one life, isn’t it worth it?

But we agree that there is a law on the books to deal with people like this. The question is, how do we get those in power to begin to legislate it. And can we, rather than simply giving people tickets, start to simply revoke people’s licenses for repeated transgressions.

If you or anyone else losses the right to use their phone in the car and it saves one life, isn’t it worth it?

This line of reasoning drives me around the bend. Really. You should see my face right now it’s all purple and blotchy.

You can justify any intervention with this argument. If one traffic crossing guard is saved because they weren’t guiding little kids across the street wouldn’t that make mandatory distance learning programs worth it? If one child is saved from choking to death wouldn’t that justify banning Lego? If one unborn child’s heath is protected shouldn’t we ban pregnant women from drinking coffee and tea?

Individual freedoms have value. If the only thing you place a value on is eliminating risk in society then the balance will always tip that way — no matter how modest the justification.