|
The Ontario Ban-wagon... where can i get off? (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
what happens when they move to ban hands free sets since studies find that those devices are a distraction as well?
And how do you know that the conversation that a person is having on their phone isn't a "necessary" one? Sure most people just talk about bull gossip stuff; but other times there are important phone calls. Eg. business-related. |
I would not support a ban of hands-free units and we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It should have *no* bearing on the topic of banning hand held devices from being used while driving.
I am a logical person who can draw a reasonable line instead of crying that every ban is a slippery slope to *everything* being banned.
how do I know the conversations aren't necessary? because of the sheer number of people I see *every day* talking on their cell phone while driving.
let's not confuse "convenience" with anything remotely approaching "necessity".
for the SMALL % of people who are regularly in their car and regularly NEED the phone for business purposes...get a hands free unit or head set. cab drivers do it. couriers do it.
I'm all for hearing suggestions on how to combat those who habitually talk on their phone, at length, when it's not remotely necessary...without punishing those who answered/called for a brief moment for a legit purpose that couldn't wait. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
re-read your own quote. your slant is clearly against pedestrians. yes, I agree that everyone should face the consequences of their own negligent behaviour.
sure, there are careless pedestrians...but if they get hit (due to their own negligence, distraction, whatever), that will be their problem. they are not 'endangering' anyone but themselves with their negligence. if a car hits them because they're not paying attention, who 'wins'? the car.
if a driver is negligent and hits a pedestrian, who wins? the car (again).
therefore, there needs to be more regulation with regard to negligent drivers (who can harm others) than negligent pedestrians (who harm only themselves). |
my apologies... i guess you know better than i do about what i am trying to convey |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
I meant as a pedestrian. |
Then um... don't walk in traffic!?
Is anyone here seriously suggesting that pedestrians are at risk from drivers yakking on cell phones?
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
my answer for apartment dwellers is to ONLY recycle the sure things such as cans and bottles and chuck the rest into the general apartment garbage shute |
Exactly what I do, minus the bottles which are still a net loss to recycle. I will continue to support recycling of aluminum for as long as it's still economically sound and doesn't produce more pollution than it saves, but so far I haven't seen evidence that any other materials are worth recycling.
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
If a driver is careless and hits a pedestrian, the walker gets owned, while the driver is ok. |
Once again, the number of incidents of pedestrians being hit due to drivers on cell phones is vanishingly small. This is not what the ban is intended to address.
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
if a driver is negligent and hits a pedestrian, who wins? the car (again).
therefore, there needs to be more regulation with regard to negligent drivers (who can harm others) than negligent pedestrians (who harm only themselves). |
Wow, what is up with this line of reasoning in this thread? It's almost like mass and momentum welfare. Everybody has the SAME responsibility to obey the rules of the road and be careful - it matters not who is most likely to get hurt.
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I'm all for hearing suggestions on how to combat those who habitually talk on their phone, at length, when it's not remotely necessary...without punishing those who answered/called for a brief moment for a legit purpose that couldn't wait. |
ENFORCE CARELESS DRIVING LAWS!
| quote: | | ...let's not confuse "convenience" with anything remotely approaching "necessity". |
I agree. Let's also not confuse "stupid" with "criminal". |
|
|
| Intangible |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I would not support a ban of hands-free units and we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It should have *no* bearing on the topic of banning hand held devices from being used while driving.
I am a logical person who can draw a reasonable line instead of crying that every ban is a slippery slope to *everything* being banned.
how do I know the conversations aren't necessary? because of the sheer number of people I see *every day* talking on their cell phone while driving.
let's not confuse "convenience" with anything remotely approaching "necessity".
for the SMALL % of people who are regularly in their car and regularly NEED the phone for business purposes...get a hands free unit or head set. cab drivers do it. couriers do it.
I'm all for hearing suggestions on how to combat those who habitually talk on their phone, at length, when it's not remotely necessary...without punishing those who answered/called for a brief moment for a legit purpose that couldn't wait. |
I could not agree more
There's a note in our building today making is VERY CLEAR that we are not to put garbage in the recycling or the building will get fined.
I'm all for the fines, but I'll admit that if I have to pay some fine because of some idiot I will be super pissed. Im an excellent recycler. |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Intangible
Im an excellent recycler. |
lol
you should make that your new custom status, barrie. "excellent recycler" hahaha :haha: |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Excellent.
|
|
|
| VERTiG0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Excellent.
|
This was the best ing episode ever. |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
|
 |
|
|
| gummybear |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
sure, there are careless pedestrians...but if they get hit (due to their own negligence, distraction, whatever), that will be their problem. they are not 'endangering' anyone but themselves with their negligence. if a car hits them because they're not paying attention, who 'wins'? the car.
if a driver is negligent and hits a pedestrian, who wins? the car (again).
therefore, there needs to be more regulation with regard to negligent drivers (who can harm others) than negligent pedestrians (who harm only themselves). |
I don't necessarily agree with this....negligent pedestrians may only harm themselves in the physical sense.....but the emotional and mental trauma someone would have to endure due to hitting and possibly killing some idiot could be just as detrimental..
Also, I'd like to see some stats on whether or not banning these devices reduces traffic accidents and/or pedestrian fatalities due to driver negligence....
I would actually like to see stats on every freakin thing that the government bans..or tells us we can't do..or use..or whatever....I wish people would embrace self regulation rather than letting the government treat us like a bunch of children.. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Is anyone here seriously suggesting that pedestrians are at risk from drivers yakking on cell phones? |
um, yes! I have PERSONALLY almost been hit crossing the street (on a green for me) by a driver yapping on their phone while looking the other way, trying to turn.
was the phone the main cause of them not bothering to look for pedestrians? impossible to say. I'll wager that it contributed to it.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I agree. Let's also not confuse "stupid" with "criminal". |
explain why it is criminal, and not merely stupid, to drink and drive and you'll follow my logic.
if there's an argument to be made, it could be that it's too early to ban cell phone use in cars because of a lack of formal studies to back up the claim that it compromises driving ability. if that is the case (I don't know), then fine...let's do the studies because I'm confident they WILL back up this not-so-farfetched claim.
if it has been (or will be) demonstrated to compromise driving ability...then why is it just "stupid" and not "criminal" in the same way as being impaired?
(and no, I'm not equating DUI with talking on a cell phone, so everyone can skip that lame retort, lol...it's an intentionally extreme example to illustrate my point).
btw...I'd be reasonably satisfied to see an additional negligence charge be *strictly* enforced rather than an outright ban on cell phone use.
i.e. you cause or contribute to an accident, and it can be reasonably demonstrated that you were talking on your cell phone (phone logs, witnesses, etc), then you face the additional negligence charge which carries a mandatory penalty. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
um, yes! I have PERSONALLY almost been hit crossing the street (on a green for me) by a driver yapping on their phone while looking the other way, trying to turn.
was the phone the main cause of them not bothering to look for pedestrians? impossible to say. I'll wager that it contributed to it. |
Speculation, speculation, speculation. Very often what looks like a near miss to pedestrians or even passengers was completely under control by the driver. I obviously don't know the details of what happened in your case, but whatever it was is hardly a legitimate basis for a province-wide ban. If there is an actual demonstrable correlation between cell phone use and pedestrian injuries/deaths, that would be another story.
| quote: | | explain why it is criminal, and not merely stupid, to drink and drive and you'll follow my logic. |
Cell phones impair driving almost as much as alcohol, there's no doubt about it. Drunk driving is criminal, however, because it impairs judgment (drivers aren't aware of their impairment) and also because it can't be turned off in a potentially dangerous situation.
It's entirely possible that some people don't realize what their cell phones do to their driving, or simply don't turn them off when they know they should, but in that case, those people are probably bad drivers in many other respects, and if they're driving carelessly then they should be busted for careless driving.
| quote: | | btw...I'd be reasonably satisfied to see an additional negligence charge be *strictly* enforced rather than an outright ban on cell phone use. |
That's a little more reasonable, and I think it's a bit of beating a dead horse, but at least it's unlikely to make responsible drivers suffer on account of the careless ones. However, I still think we'd get better results by enforcing the careless driving laws. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
... However, I still think we'd get better results by enforcing the careless driving laws. |
I agree that we have existing laws to cover most of the new fluff that gets considered (like the stupid street racing laws). There should be no problem charging street racers under existing speeding laws, careless driving, etc., for example.
The problem is getting those charges to stick. Traffic court is *notorious* for plea bargains. I'm not sure if it's a problem with the courts being too lenient, courts being overloaded, underzealous crowns, legislation that isn't specific enough...?
This, like many other propositions, is a classic case of pre-emptive action that restricts personal freedom vs. laissez-faire until there are consequences. it's not an easy argument.
I'm normally all for personal freedom, *when the only person at risk is the individual themselves*. when others are potentially impacted, unlimited freedom simply can't exist...and certainly not here. Is it a few who ruin it for the majority? maybe. but until we can *effectively* weed out those few, what do we do? |
|
|
|
|
