DISQUS

Snake · 4 years ago

Can any organization with a name like the "Insurance Institute for Highway Safety" be at all impartial or objective? Sounds like the same nannies that brought us mandatory seat belt laws and .08 DUI criteria (soon headed to .04 BAC is suspect).

sikozu · 4 years ago

Just as your right to wave your fist stops at my nose, your right to chat while driving stops at my bumper.

That's all well and good except that what you are advocating for is a law that prevents me from talking on the phone in my car regardless of my proximity to your bumper. Perhaps a better solution (if there just has to be one) would be to impose a penalty if it can be proved that cell phone use contributed to a collision.

There are any number of things that cause inattention to driving... why stop at cell phone use? Why not include talking with a passenger or eating food or listening to the radio? This sounds like a slippery slope.

idiot · 3 years ago

i am an idiot and i am lead by richard simmons

o.o. · 3 years ago

every year 2,300 people die and 300,000 people are injured aas the result of accidents cause by driveres talking on cell phones.

87% of cell phone users who drive talk on their phone occasionally while driveing
27% talk on their cell phones on over helf their trips

in the united kingdom and germany if you cause an accident as the result of talking on a cell phone while driving your lisense is taken away and you pay a fine.

legislation similar would solve the problem of cell phones in cars in the u.s. because it doesnt completely outlaw cell phones in cars it just encourages people to not talk on them.

cars are meant to get from point a to point b in, cells phones in cars only increase the chances of things going wrong during this simple task, why would we want to complicate things?