UPDATED: Hurst to consider banning phones in school zones, banning them real good

chretienne says:

The bluetooth headset manufacturers are loving this. And they're about the only ones who will benefit.

jtmbls says:

Yay! One more for my team! Come on suckas...bring it!

jtmbls says:

well chretienne, we just had this argument the other day...

http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2008/...

so I guess those with the opposing viewpoint are still licking their wounds from the last beat down.

rhia says:

Eh, just agreed to disagree on finer points. I do agree that more hot air spouted by congressional-type critters resulting in yet another completely new law is pretty much feel-good governmental time wasting.

That said, driving is not a right, it is a privilege. I believe the research that shows that, when driving, talking on the phone is as impairing to our ability to focus as being intoxicated. Mainly, though, I believe firmly in Hang Up and DRIVE.

Hey, if cellular yakkers only affected themselves, let Darwinism handle them. But they don't. They create numerous hazardous situations for everyone else on the road, and most times are completely oblivious to the danger their actions cause.

When did we become so omphaloskeptical that we simply HAVE to be on the phone while weaving a ton+ of steel among a whole herd of moving metal beasts? How ever did we manage to survive before we could have a phone plastered to our ear 24/7?

So, don't create yet another new law, just increase the 'Influence' part of Driving Under the Influence to include cellular yapping behind the wheel. Shoot, if you want you can throw in laptop use, applying makeup, and eating behind the wheel as well. Call it, lessee, driving under the influence of self-importance and poor time management? <g> Oooohh, and that may even make public transit more appealing.....</g>

Clay213 says:

I rarely talk on the phone when driving on local roads-- but personally I fail to see how it is any different than any of the other activities people do while driving.

I have also never understand, why cell phones raise such ire, but conversing with someone else doesn't?

Is talking on a cell phone somehow more distracting than the screaming child in the back seat?

rhia says:

According to quite a few studies, yes, it is. Well, unless somehow the argument is that driving while intoxicated is no more distracting than driving with a screaming baby in the back.

http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCogn... Why do cell phone conversations interfere with driving?

http://www.ergoweb.com/news/detail.cf... New Research Shows Why Cell Phones and Driving a Dangerous Mix

Even the MythBuster's had a go at it in episode 33. Myth statement: "Driving while talking on a cell phone is just as dangerous as driving while intoxicated." Result: Confirmed. (Ok, they're not the epitome of rigorous scientific testing, but at least the hands-on was fun to watch.)

Clay213 says:

Studies or not, I'd say real world evidence doesn't support the conclusion

Clay213 says:

And a quick search turns up that 'driver distractions' are the top cause of accidents..

jtmbls says:

omphaloskeptical - I'm going to have to look that one up. I love fancy new words! Let's break it down. Clearly, skeptical being the root word. Unless you were thrown off, like me for a moment, by the phalos portion (which should not be in any way confused with phallus - of course!) So, something about the navel of suspicion??

DC says:

Great, some town I'm going to have to use Mapquest to find passes some thing. Wave of indifference RISING.....

jtmbls says:

Well, that was very nearly poetic.

Omphaloskepsis - The contemplation of one's navel as an aid to meditation. It is well known in the usually jocular phrase directed towards self-absorbed pursuits: "contemplating one's navel" or "navel-gazers".

Me likey!