Exactly. It's all about the level of distraction/inattentiveness. For some, conversing with passenger(s) can be just as much of an impairment as holding the phone to their ear. I've ridden with and observed quite a few drivers who, in my opinion, were at a higher risk of causing an accident simply because they were giving their conversation much more attention than their driving. While I agree cell phones provide a higher potential for distraction, I'm not convinced "hands free" laws are the panacea everyone is expecting. (I do support anti-texting laws as the visual distraction of texting is just too much to overcome while driving, no matter who you are). Hands-free laws can limit the increased potential for distraction but do not remove it entirely. Add to that the point brought up previously regarding the changes from knobs/buttons to touch screens in newer vehicles and we're losing the battle for skilled and attentive drivers on our public roads.

Commercial truck drivers cannot talk on the phone unless using a hands-free device, even at a stoplight.

If you get a ticket for cell phone use as a commercial driver, it will cost you AND your company. There is also a new program which adds points to your CDL for infractions of any kind. Get enough and you won't be driving for anyone.

Off the subject a bit- my company is instituting mandatory termination of any driver convicted of non-seatbelt use in a company vehicle. Apparently, we have some real dumba$$es across the US that don't get it. There is a reason our seatbelts are freakin' day-glo orange.:rolleyes:

OK, so let those risk takers do what they think they can do.

Got your pigstie SUV with fifteen cupholders full, 6 flat panel screens, GPS, 4 climate controls, 24 speaker quad sub, super buzz audio MP1000 blaring, qwerting your privates, talking to google navi to find fatso donut drive thru, and flap jawing to your divorce lawyer, left lane driving brake checker, early morning sun glare eastbound on the Ike heading into Chicago. Oh no... forgot to curl my eyelids... honey, you need to flip open that cosmetic mirror!

Cause an accident due to ones lack of multitasking... short jail terms, $10k fine. Drivers car is impounded, communication device is extracted for evidence. Sorry no breaks, no arguments, no lawyers.

Everybody happy? No longer a nanny state and I would think that would get everyones attention.

Oops - forgot that all the illegals running rampant without insurance don't know how to read english and the laws, so they would be excempt and sent back out there. Seriously, thats what they do in Illinois.

hahahaha!!!

What? Killed a kid, injured a mother because she was texting while driving and only have 120 days jail? She should be in there 120 lives.

So, in order words, we should endanger other people on the road just so some self important schmuck can be more productive ?

Yes, that's exactly what I said. :rolleyes: Go back and reread my FULL post.

Thats exactly what i got out of it. ( not pickin on you).

What did you mean then?

I believe that people (regarding DWI) have only responded to legislation and not to common sense. If you ask a drinker if he/she is afraid of getting killed or getting stopped for DWI, they will not say that they are concerned for their own safety, especially after they have had a few drinks. They are clearly much more concerned about being stopped, charged, fined and lose of driving privilege as well as the embarrassment. None of them think they will be killed or kill someone else.

It would be nice if common sense played a more sig role but it doesn't, that's just wishful thinking.

That's probably true, but DUI laws have become political instead of common sensical. The fact that the majority of drivers are on the phone while behind the wheel and do so with impunity, while we have grossly unconstitutional sobriety checkpoints and ridiculous penalties for DUI proves it. I don't really worry about my driving skills after a few beers. I might be .08, but I'm extremely careful when driving if I think I could be at or over the limit (I'm talking many years ago, actually. I don't do this anymore). No one is at all careful when they're on their phone. I saw it again last night, a woman swerving over the lane lines while texting. Totally legal because it was due to her using her phone. Had she been drinking, she'd be facing mandatory jail time and a life-changing array of fines and other penalties.

I was responding to the age old question "good heavens, whatever did we do before xxx was invented?" which is usually posed in a "world going to hell in a handbasket" sense. But the answer is that we were less productive, less safe, less healthy, less happy, less wealthy, less peaceful, lived shorter lives, etc etc etc before "xxx" was invented. We adapt to new technologies to make them safe, if they are inherently unsafe. But it's common sense and an appreciation of a certain inherent danger in an object or activity that will allow us to adapt, not legislation, particularly poorly-targeted, misdirected, revenue generating legislation.

btw, apologies are in order: when I said reread my entire post, I forgot that the post you quoted was separate from another one I was thinking of.

I can only speak for myself and people I know, but amongst our friends, safety is the over-riding concern for not driving drunk, not police. I wouldn't do it because I truly believe that it's unsafe. I'm not worried about getting ticketed etc for DWI, because I wouldn't ever be doing it. Just like I'm not really worried about dying from pointing a loaded gun at my own face, because it's unsafe and I'd never do it.

No prob! http://forums.pelicanparts.com/suppo...s/beerchug.gif

I understand what you mean and i do agree. But sometimes technology puts us in more danger because it takes away our common sense.