Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Banning cell phones in cars

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 20:06, 29 September 2008 (edit)
74.6.17.183 (Talk)

← Previous diff
Current revision (16:13, 27 October 2010) (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Yes)
 
Line 3: Line 3:
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style=""| |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style=""|
===Should all cell phone use in cars be banned? === ===Should all cell phone use in cars be banned? ===
-|} 
- 
-'''YOU''' CAN BECOME AN EDITOR OF THIS PAGE. DEBATEPEDIA IS A WIKI THAT ANYONE CAN EDIT! SEE THE [[Debatepedia:Getting started (tutorial)| GETTING STARTED TUTORIAL]]. 
- 
-'''[[Debatepedia:Editing tasks| Editing tasks]]''' 
-*This article has a pro/con resources section (bottom) with articles that have not been read and from which arguments and quotations have not yet been drawn. Help do this. Learn how in the [[Debatepedia:Getting started tutorial]]. 
- 
-{| style="width:100%; height:100px" border="0" align="center" 
-|__TOC__ 
|} |}
Line 17: Line 8:
|- |-
|bgcolor="#F9f9f9" colspan="2" style= "border:1px solid #BAC5FD"| |bgcolor="#F9f9f9" colspan="2" style= "border:1px solid #BAC5FD"|
-===Background and Context of Debate:===+===Background and context ===
- +[[Image:Cell phones in cars.JPG|right|150px]]
In little more than a decade, mobile phones have become widespread in developed countries, changing the way people communicate and interact. Concerns over their use have tended to centre upon possible radiation’s impact upon the brain, but more recently mobile phones have been blamed for causing a considerable number of road accidents. As a result, a number of countries are seriously considering a ban on using a mobile phone while driving, following the lead of Eire and the State of New York in the USA. In the UK the government issued a consultation paper in August 2002, indicating that legislation is likely in the next couple of years. In little more than a decade, mobile phones have become widespread in developed countries, changing the way people communicate and interact. Concerns over their use have tended to centre upon possible radiation’s impact upon the brain, but more recently mobile phones have been blamed for causing a considerable number of road accidents. As a result, a number of countries are seriously considering a ban on using a mobile phone while driving, following the lead of Eire and the State of New York in the USA. In the UK the government issued a consultation paper in August 2002, indicating that legislation is likely in the next couple of years.
 +|}
 +{| style="width:100%; height:100px" border="0" align="center"
 +|__TOC__
|} |}
 +
{| {|
|- |-
Line 39: Line 34:
*'''[[Argument: Using a cell phone in a car is like drunk driving| Using a cell phone in a car is like drunk driving]]''' [http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4580840a6483.html "Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008] - In Britain, a study a few years ago, using a driving simulator, found that motorists using hand-held phones took 30 per cent longer to react to hazards than motorists driving under the influence of alcohol and 50 per cent longer than drivers not under the influence. *'''[[Argument: Using a cell phone in a car is like drunk driving| Using a cell phone in a car is like drunk driving]]''' [http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4580840a6483.html "Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008] - In Britain, a study a few years ago, using a driving simulator, found that motorists using hand-held phones took 30 per cent longer to react to hazards than motorists driving under the influence of alcohol and 50 per cent longer than drivers not under the influence.
-*'''Fumbling for a ringing phone while driving is very dangerous.''' [http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4580840a6483.html "Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008] - "even more dangerous than talking on the phone while driving is fumbling in a pocket or handbag for a ringing phone while travelling at 100kmh on the motorway."+*'''[[Argument: Fumbling for ringing phone while driving is dangerous| Fumbling for ringing phone while driving is dangerous]]''' [http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4580840a6483.html "Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008] - "even more dangerous than talking on the phone while driving is fumbling in a pocket or handbag for a ringing phone while travelling at 100kmh on the motorway."
-*'''Society can't trust "judgement" of drivers with cell phones.''' [http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4580840a6483.html "Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008] - "Driving while using cellphones reduces safety margins. Those who assert they know the difference between safe and unsafe use of phones should ask themselves if they are equally confident that the testosterone-loaded 18-year-old rushing from football practice to meet his girlfriend will show the same good judgment when his phone beeps as he approaches in the opposite direction."+*'''[[Argument: Society can't "trust judgement" of drivers with cell phones| Society can't "trust judgement" of drivers with cell phones]]''' [http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4580840a6483.html "Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008] - "Driving while using cellphones reduces safety margins. Those who assert they know the difference between safe and unsafe use of phones should ask themselves if they are equally confident that the testosterone-loaded 18-year-old rushing from football practice to meet his girlfriend will show the same good judgment when his phone beeps as he approaches in the opposite direction."
*'''People should not explain in car on phone why they are running late.''' If one is late, there is little difference in apologizing while in their car over a cell phone and apologizing in front of their boss at the office. So, they should have the restraint to drive at the speed limit, arriving late, and being willing to apologize then; an apologetic cell phone call in a car to a boss shouldn't be the cause of one being able to then relax, slow-down, and drive the speed-limit. *'''People should not explain in car on phone why they are running late.''' If one is late, there is little difference in apologizing while in their car over a cell phone and apologizing in front of their boss at the office. So, they should have the restraint to drive at the speed limit, arriving late, and being willing to apologize then; an apologetic cell phone call in a car to a boss shouldn't be the cause of one being able to then relax, slow-down, and drive the speed-limit.
- 
-*'''Cell phone ban introduces new distraction of scanning for cops.''' [http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-cells30-2008jun30,0,3192911.story "Hands-free cellphone use while driving won't make the roads safer, studies show. Why? Brain overload." LA Times. 30 June 2008] - "Some researchers, in fact, fear that the new law may cause more traffic accidents, not fewer, because they envision more distractions for many motorists. When ring tones chime and drivers scramble to find their newly purchased headsets -- or, alternatively, scan the roadsides for police enforcing the new ban -- their attention, already stretched, will be further taxed."  
Line 63: Line 56:
*'''[[Argument: Banning cell phones is not the best way to save lives| Banning cell phones is not the best way to save lives]]''' [http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4414 Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. "Ban Cell Phones In Cars?". Cato.org. December 29, 2000] - "A prudent regard for safety doesn't imply cell phones should be banned. Americans are willing to tolerate some 41,000 annually deaths from car accidents. If we wish to decisively curtail automobile deaths, the national speed limit should be set at 10 miles per hour and vigorously enforced--yet we're not willing to do that, because that inconvenience outweighs the pleasure and efficiency of being able to get places quickly." *'''[[Argument: Banning cell phones is not the best way to save lives| Banning cell phones is not the best way to save lives]]''' [http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4414 Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. "Ban Cell Phones In Cars?". Cato.org. December 29, 2000] - "A prudent regard for safety doesn't imply cell phones should be banned. Americans are willing to tolerate some 41,000 annually deaths from car accidents. If we wish to decisively curtail automobile deaths, the national speed limit should be set at 10 miles per hour and vigorously enforced--yet we're not willing to do that, because that inconvenience outweighs the pleasure and efficiency of being able to get places quickly."
 +*'''[[Argument: Cell phone ban introduces new distraction of scanning for cops| Cell phone ban introduces new distraction of scanning for cops]]'''
|- |-
Line 72: Line 66:
====Yes==== ====Yes====
-*'''[[Argument: Cell phones in cars can be regulated, unlike other distractions| Cell phones in cars can be regulated, unlike other distractions]]''' [http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4580840a6483.html "Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008] - "Previous attempts to stop motorists using hand-held cellphones foundered in the face of arguments that cellphones are just one form of driver distraction.+*'''[[Argument: Cell phones in cars can be regulated, unlike other distractions| Cell phones in cars can be regulated, unlike other distractions]]''' [http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4580840a6483.html "Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008] - "Previous attempts to stop motorists using hand-held cellphones foundered in the face of arguments that cellphones are just one form of driver distraction. Eating, loading cassettes or CDs into car stereos, dropped cigarettes and even buzzing insects can be equally hazardous. But cellphone use, which contributed to 26 fatal crashes and 411 injury crashes between 2002 and 2007, is something the Government can do something about now."
- +
-:Eating, loading cassettes or CDs into car stereos, dropped cigarettes and even buzzing insects can be equally hazardous.+
- +
-:But cellphone use, which contributed to 26 fatal crashes and 411 injury crashes between 2002 and 2007, is something the Government can do something about now."+
*'''[[Argument: Passengers are less distracting than cell phones| Passengers are less distracting than cell phones]]''' ''University of South Carolina Psychology Professor Amit Almor'' said that cell phone conversations and conversations with a passenger are very different. - "When you have someone sitting next you you, that person can, in fact, function as an extra pair of eyes. That person can respond to the changing road conditions."[http://www.komonews.com/news/consumer/21619669.html] *'''[[Argument: Passengers are less distracting than cell phones| Passengers are less distracting than cell phones]]''' ''University of South Carolina Psychology Professor Amit Almor'' said that cell phone conversations and conversations with a passenger are very different. - "When you have someone sitting next you you, that person can, in fact, function as an extra pair of eyes. That person can respond to the changing road conditions."[http://www.komonews.com/news/consumer/21619669.html]
-'''People are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated at the legal blood-alcohol limit.''' +*'''Talking on phone equally impairing as drinking and driving.''' Utah Pscycologists warn against cell phone use while driving. Much in the same way that you put yourself and others at risk by driving drunk, the same occurs when driving while using a cell phone.[http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1]
-http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1+
-Utah Pscycologists warn against cell phone use while driving. Much in the same way that you put yourself and others at risk by driving drunk, the same occurs when driving while using a cell phone.+
- +
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
Line 90: Line 77:
*'''[[Argument: Many things in cars are just as distracting as cell phones| Many things in cars are just as distracting as cell phones]]''' These include eating, changing tapes, retuning the radio, arguing with your spouse about directions, trying to stop children squabbling, etc. We should not introduce a law that victimizes mobile phone users under all conditions, while completely ignoring many other causes of accidents. *'''[[Argument: Many things in cars are just as distracting as cell phones| Many things in cars are just as distracting as cell phones]]''' These include eating, changing tapes, retuning the radio, arguing with your spouse about directions, trying to stop children squabbling, etc. We should not introduce a law that victimizes mobile phone users under all conditions, while completely ignoring many other causes of accidents.
-'''Also, note that drunk and sleep deprived drivers are at least an equal distraction to drivers.''' +*'''If you can't ban sleep-driving, why ban talking on phone in car.''' There is no way that police can moniter the amount of sleep drivers have had before they drive. If driving and talking on the phone is to be banned, then driving while falling asleep ought to be banned as well. But of course, this doesn't make any sense, which is why banning talking on the phone and driving is also unreasonable.
-There is no way that police can moniter the amount of sleep drivers have had before they drive. ''Driving while falling asleep'' ought to be banned as well. Often, business people are using their phones to make important connections that cannot wait until they arrive at a stopping point. Cell phone banning singles out a particular group of people. +
-*'''Teach drivers to minimize distractions is better than banning phones.''' ''John Walls, a vice president at the industry group, the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association-The Wireless Association.'' - "We believe educating drivers on how to best handle all of the possible distractions when you're behind the wheel is the most effective means to make better drivers, and that legislation focusing on a specific behavior falls short of that well-intended goal and creates a false sense of security."[http://www.lifespan.org/healthnews/2006/06/29/article533489.html]+*'''[[Argument: Teaching drivers to minimize distractions better than phone ban| Teaching drivers to minimize distractions better than phone ban]]''' ''John Walls, a vice president at the industry group, the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association-The Wireless Association.'' - "We believe educating drivers on how to best handle all of the possible distractions when you're behind the wheel is the most effective means to make better drivers, and that legislation focusing on a specific behavior falls short of that well-intended goal and creates a false sense of security."[http://www.lifespan.org/healthnews/2006/06/29/article533489.html]
Line 105: Line 91:
====Yes==== ====Yes====
-*'''Drivers do not get better with practice at talking on cell phones.''' [http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-cells30-2008jun30,0,3192911.story "Hands-free cellphone use while driving won't make the roads safer, studies show." LA Times. 30 June 2008] - "'And you don't get any better with practice,' Strayer adds. In his lab, subjects who reported they use a cellphone a lot when driving 'show every bit as much impairment' than those who do so infrequently."+*'''[[Argument: Drivers don't get better with practice on cell phones| Drivers don't get better with practice on cell phones]]''' [http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-cells30-2008jun30,0,3192911.story "Hands-free cellphone use while driving won't make the roads safer, studies show." LA Times. 30 June 2008] - "'And you don't get any better with practice,' Strayer adds. In his lab, subjects who reported they use a cellphone a lot when driving 'show every bit as much impairment' than those who do so infrequently."
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
- 
====No==== ====No====
Line 124: Line 109:
*'''People should pull over to talk on their cell phones.''' The social benefits of cell phones are not significantly curtailed if people are required to pull over to talk on their phones. *'''People should pull over to talk on their cell phones.''' The social benefits of cell phones are not significantly curtailed if people are required to pull over to talk on their phones.
-*'''People will adjust to not using cell phones.''' [http://www.examiner.com/a-1470848~Cell_phone_law_worth_pain.html "Editorial: Cell phone law worth pain". Examiner. 3 July 2008] - "California’s brand-new automotive cell phone restrictions can be seen as a sequel to the earlier cold-turkey readjustment — “Seatbelt Withdrawal Pains II.” In other words, don’t worry. Even cell phone addicts will be able to successfully stop driving with phones held to their ears, and the changeover will be worthwhile."+*'''[[Argument: People will adjust to not using cell phones| People will adjust to not using cell phones]]''' [http://www.examiner.com/a-1470848~Cell_phone_law_worth_pain.html "Editorial: Cell phone law worth pain". Examiner. 3 July 2008] - "California’s brand-new automotive cell phone restrictions can be seen as a sequel to the earlier cold-turkey readjustment — “Seatbelt Withdrawal Pains II.” In other words, don’t worry. Even cell phone addicts will be able to successfully stop driving with phones held to their ears, and the changeover will be worthwhile."
-'''Cell phones should only be used while driving in the most dire situations.''' http://www.nhtsa.gov+*'''[[Argument: Cell phones should only be used while driving in dire situations| Cell phones should only be used while driving in dire situations]]''' [http://www.nhtsa.gov US National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration]: "Drivers should make every effort to pull over in a safe stopping point before using their telephones. In an emergency, drivers should use their best judgement about whether or not to use their telephones."
-Drivers should make every effort to pull over in a safe stopping point before using their telephones. In an emergency, drivers should use their best judgement about whether or not to use their telephones. +
Line 149: Line 133:
*'''[[Argument: Hands-free phones can cause drivers to scramble for head sets| Hands-free phones can cause drivers to scramble for head sets]]''' [http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-cells30-2008jun30,0,3192911.story "Hands-free cellphone use while driving won't make the roads safer, studies show. Why? Brain overload." LA Times. 30 June 2008] - "Some researchers, in fact, fear that the new law may cause more traffic accidents, not fewer, because they envision more distractions for many motorists. When ring tones chime and drivers scramble to find their newly purchased headsets -- or, alternatively, scan the roadsides for police enforcing the new ban -- their attention, already stretched, will be further taxed." *'''[[Argument: Hands-free phones can cause drivers to scramble for head sets| Hands-free phones can cause drivers to scramble for head sets]]''' [http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-cells30-2008jun30,0,3192911.story "Hands-free cellphone use while driving won't make the roads safer, studies show. Why? Brain overload." LA Times. 30 June 2008] - "Some researchers, in fact, fear that the new law may cause more traffic accidents, not fewer, because they envision more distractions for many motorists. When ring tones chime and drivers scramble to find their newly purchased headsets -- or, alternatively, scan the roadsides for police enforcing the new ban -- their attention, already stretched, will be further taxed."
- 
-'''Using hands-free devices while driving is not safe.''' Whether the device is hands free or hand-held it takes the same cognitive thought to use it.  
Line 158: Line 140:
*'''Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road.''' These allow drivers to communicate freely without taking their hands off the controls or their eyes off the road. Effectively there is no difference between talking to someone on a hands-free mobile, and holding a conversation with a passenger next to you; in fact, the latter is more dangerous as you may be tempted to turn your head to directly address the passenger. *'''Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road.''' These allow drivers to communicate freely without taking their hands off the controls or their eyes off the road. Effectively there is no difference between talking to someone on a hands-free mobile, and holding a conversation with a passenger next to you; in fact, the latter is more dangerous as you may be tempted to turn your head to directly address the passenger.
-*'''Ban on hands-free phones improves driving in bad conditions.''' ''Jed Kolko, a fellow at the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California'' - "Hands-free laws clearly reduce fatalities in bad weather and on wet roads."[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24580099/] +*'''[[Argument: Ban on hands-free phones improves driving in bad conditions| Ban on hands-free phones improves driving in bad conditions]]''' ''Jed Kolko, a fellow at the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California'' - "Hands-free laws clearly reduce fatalities in bad weather and on wet roads."[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24580099/]
-*'''It more difficult to enforce a hands-free cell phone ban.''' [http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/12/56733 Lauren Weinstein. "Cell-Phone Ban Not a Good Call". Wired. September 12th, 2002] - "Most politicians know that trying to ban hands-free cell-phone use would mean cops trying to pull over everyone they see mumbling to themselves."+*'''[[Argument: More difficult to enforce hands-free cell phone ban| More difficult to enforce hands-free cell phone ban]]''' [http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/12/56733 Lauren Weinstein. "Cell-Phone Ban Not a Good Call". Wired. September 12th, 2002] - "Most politicians know that trying to ban hands-free cell-phone use would mean cops trying to pull over everyone they see mumbling to themselves."
Line 189: Line 171:
|- |-
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
-===Economics: What are the economics of a cell phone ban? ===+===Enforcement: Would a cell phone ban be enforceable?===
|- |-
Line 195: Line 177:
====Yes==== ====Yes====
-*'''[[Argument: Savings from a vehicle cell phone ban would offset loses| Savings from a vehicle cell phone ban would offset loses]]''' [http://en.allexperts.com/q/Economics-2301/Telephone.htm Dr. Joseph de Beauchamp. Subject: The Telephone. All Experts.com. 27 Mar. 2005] - "Banning cell phone use on the road would save lives and the benefits to society would cancel out the costs of such a ban, according to a study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.+*'''New laws would be enforceable, as billing records will show whether a phone was in use at the time.''' Improving camera technology may also allow the automatic detection of drivers breaking laws against mobile phone use at the wheel. In any case, just because a law is not completely enforceable, it does not follow that it should be scrapped.
-:...That evaluation found that a ban would be worth about $43 billion a year, although the estimate is imprecise and researchers place the range of possible values anywhere from $9 to $193 billion. Those savings would be roughly offset by the economic impact of unmade calls, also estimated to be around $43 billion annually and to range from $17 to $151 billion." 
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
 +
====No==== ====No====
-*'''Cell phone bans result in costly court cases.''' [http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2008/06/21/lat_cells_in_cars_0620.ART_ART_06-21-08_A8_Q0AI46O.html?sid=101 Ralph Vartabedian. "California cell-phone ban could be costly in court". Los Angeles Times. 21 June 2008]+*'''[[Argument: Enforcing a vehicle cell phone ban is nearly impossible| Enforcing a vehicle cell phone ban is nearly impossible]]''' This is especially true of hands-free phones, where accused motorists could simply claim to be singing along to the radio or talking to themselves. In any case, the widespread introduction of speed cameras in many countries, and an increased public fear of violent crime have led to the redeployment of the traffic police who would be needed to enforce such laws.
-*'''Cell phone bans are harmful to employers.''' [http://www.swlaw.com/files/Publication/1895be3a-384e-46d8-8c96-211a12b398a4/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/709fd7a9-e172-4fb6-b4fb-24dd7484c9b3/June2008_New%20Hands-Free%20Cell%20Phone%20Law%20Affects%20Employers.pdf "New Hands-Free Cell Phone Law Affects Employers". Legal Alert. June 2008] 
|- |-
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
-===Enforcement: Would a cell phone ban be enforceable?===+===Economics: What are the economics of a cell phone ban? ===
|- |-
Line 217: Line 198:
====Yes==== ====Yes====
-*'''New laws would be enforceable, as billing records will show whether a phone was in use at the time.''' Improving camera technology may also allow the automatic detection of drivers breaking laws against mobile phone use at the wheel. In any case, just because a law is not completely enforceable, it does not follow that it should be scrapped.+*'''[[Argument: Savings from a vehicle cell phone ban would offset loses| Savings from a vehicle cell phone ban would offset loses]]''' [http://en.allexperts.com/q/Economics-2301/Telephone.htm Dr. Joseph de Beauchamp. Subject: The Telephone. All Experts.com. 27 Mar. 2005] - "Banning cell phone use on the road would save lives and the benefits to society would cancel out the costs of such a ban, according to a study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.
 +:...That evaluation found that a ban would be worth about $43 billion a year, although the estimate is imprecise and researchers place the range of possible values anywhere from $9 to $193 billion. Those savings would be roughly offset by the economic impact of unmade calls, also estimated to be around $43 billion annually and to range from $17 to $151 billion."
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
- 
====No==== ====No====
-*'''[[Argument: Enforcing a vehicle cell phone ban is nearly impossible| Enforcing a vehicle cell phone ban is nearly impossible]]''' This is especially true of hands-free phones, where accused motorists could simply claim to be singing along to the radio or talking to themselves. In any case, the widespread introduction of speed cameras in many countries, and an increased public fear of violent crime have led to the redeployment of the traffic police who would be needed to enforce such laws.+*'''[[Argument: Cell phone in cars ban result in costly court cases| Cell phone in cars ban results in costly court cases]]''' [http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2008/06/21/lat_cells_in_cars_0620.ART_ART_06-21-08_A8_Q0AI46O.html?sid=101 Ralph Vartabedian. "California cell-phone ban could be costly in court". Los Angeles Times. 21 June 2008]
 +*'''[[Argument: Cell phones in cars bans are harmful to employers| Cell phone in cars bans are harmful to employers]]''' [http://www.swlaw.com/files/Publication/1895be3a-384e-46d8-8c96-211a12b398a4/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/709fd7a9-e172-4fb6-b4fb-24dd7484c9b3/June2008_New%20Hands-Free%20Cell%20Phone%20Law%20Affects%20Employers.pdf "New Hands-Free Cell Phone Law Affects Employers". Legal Alert. June 2008]
Line 249: Line 231:
*'''Banning cell phones impedes on individual liberties.''' Mobile phones don’t kill people, bad driving does, and simply banning the use of phones will penalize the many good drivers without removing the dangerous ones. *'''Banning cell phones impedes on individual liberties.''' Mobile phones don’t kill people, bad driving does, and simply banning the use of phones will penalize the many good drivers without removing the dangerous ones.
-*'''Markets are better at regulating cell phone use in cars.''' [http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4414 Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. "Ban Cell Phones In Cars?". Cato.org. December 29, 2000] - Indeed, it is likely that the market will more effectively address cell phone risks than will government intervention. If the cell phone problem becomes serious enough, car insurance companies can classify drivers who use cell phones in higher-risk groups and charge them commensurately higher premiums. Because an insurance company bears the burden of reimbursing injured parties for their losses, a company may decide to charge drivers who use cell phones higher premiums, to compensate for the increased risk that cell phones force the company to assume.+*'''[[Argument: Markets are better at regulating cell phone use in cars| Markets are better at regulating cell phone use in cars]]''' [http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4414 Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. "Ban Cell Phones In Cars?". Cato.org. December 29, 2000] - "Indeed, it is likely that the market will more effectively address cell phone risks than will government intervention. If the cell phone problem becomes serious enough, car insurance companies can classify drivers who use cell phones in higher-risk groups and charge them commensurately higher premiums. Because an insurance company bears the burden of reimbursing injured parties for their losses, a company may decide to charge drivers who use cell phones higher premiums, to compensate for the increased risk that cell phones force the company to assume."
|- |-
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#f2f2f2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;"| |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#f2f2f2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;"|
- 
===Traffic: Can traffic be blamed on cell phone use? === ===Traffic: Can traffic be blamed on cell phone use? ===
Line 279: Line 260:
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
====No==== ====No====
-*'''In the modern world the ban would be ignored by everyone'''. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13781479 Craig Miller. "Laws Limiting Car-Phone Use Tough to Enforce". NPR. 21 Aug. 2007] - "'We might come out to the vehicle and find 11 or 12 phone calls we have to return,' [Tom] Sherman says. 'So we have to choose between either doing business or following the law, which is pretty much ignored by everybody else also. It's kind of looked at like a jaywalking law.'"+*'''[[Argument: Cell phone ban in cars would simply be ignored| Cell phone ban in cars would simply be ignored]]''' [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13781479 Craig Miller. "Laws Limiting Car-Phone Use Tough to Enforce". NPR. 21 Aug. 2007] - "'We might come out to the vehicle and find 11 or 12 phone calls we have to return,' [Tom] Sherman says. 'So we have to choose between either doing business or following the law, which is pretty much ignored by everybody else also. It's kind of looked at like a jaywalking law.'"
|- |-
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
Line 331: Line 312:
|- |-
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
- 
==See also== ==See also==
 +*[[Debate: Banning cell phones in restaurants]]
 +*[[Debate: Cell phone ban in crosswalks]]
 +*[[Debate: Banning cell phones in schools]]
 +*[[Debate: Ban on cell phones in hospitals]]
 +*[[Debate: Ban on texting while driving]]
 +*[[Debate: Ban on minors using cell phones while driving]]
-*[[Debate:Banning cell phones in schools| Banning cell phones in schools]]+==External links ==
-*[[Debate: Banning cell phones in restaurants| Banning cell phones in restaurants]]+
-*[[Debate:Banning cell phones in hospitals| Banning cell phones in hospitals]]+
-==Motions:==+
-* This House would ban drivers from using mobiles.+
-* This House would do more to promote road safety.+
-* This House would tame technology.+
- +
-==In legislation, policy, and the real world:==+
- +
- +
-==External links and resources;==+
* [http://www.nsc.ie/resources/resources_intro.html Eire’s National Safety Council advice paper] * [http://www.nsc.ie/resources/resources_intro.html Eire’s National Safety Council advice paper]
* [http://www.roads.dft.gov.uk/consult/mobiles/index.htm UK Government Consultation Paper] * [http://www.roads.dft.gov.uk/consult/mobiles/index.htm UK Government Consultation Paper]
Line 359: Line 334:
==Books:== ==Books:==
-* [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1851124616/interntionaldeba/104-5333130-0270319 Behavioural Research on Road Safety] <sup>Graham Grayson</sup>+* [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1851124616/interntionaldeba/104-5333130-0270319 Behavioural Research on Road Safety] : Graham Grayson
-* [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1851125272/interntionaldeba/104-5333130-0270319 Behavioural Research on Road Safety: Seminar Proceedings] <sup>UK Dept. of Transport</sup>+* [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1851125272/interntionaldeba/104-5333130-0270319 Behavioural Research on Road Safety: Seminar Proceedings] : UK Dept. of Transport
Line 369: Line 344:
[[Category:United States]] [[Category:United States]]
[[Category:Public safety]] [[Category:Public safety]]
 +[[Category:Safety]]
 +[[Category:Vehicles]]
 +[[Category:Driving safety]]
 +[[Category:Cell phones]]
 +[[Category:Technology]]
 +[[Category:Cities]]
 +[[Category:Bans]]
 +[[Category:Law]]
 +[[Category:United States]]
 +[[Category:Culture]]
 +[[Category:Society]]
 +[[Category:Individual rights]]
 +[[Category:Personal]]
 +[[Category:Individual responsibility]]

Current revision

[Digg]
[reddit]
[Delicious]
[Facebook]

Should all cell phone use in cars be banned?

Background and context

In little more than a decade, mobile phones have become widespread in developed countries, changing the way people communicate and interact. Concerns over their use have tended to centre upon possible radiation’s impact upon the brain, but more recently mobile phones have been blamed for causing a considerable number of road accidents. As a result, a number of countries are seriously considering a ban on using a mobile phone while driving, following the lead of Eire and the State of New York in the USA. In the UK the government issued a consultation paper in August 2002, indicating that legislation is likely in the next couple of years.

Contents

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]

Public safety: Is the use of cell-phones while driving a public hazard?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Cell phone use in cars impairs driving, causes accidents Physically holding a handset removes one hand from the controls, making accidents more likely, while dialling is even worse, as it also requires the user to divert their attention away from the road. Research shows that drivers speaking on a mobile phone have much slower reactions in braking tests than non-users, and are worse even than if they have been drinking.[1] Such cell phone use has led, according to some estimates, to the death of roughly 2,600 drivers annually.[2]
  • People should not explain in car on phone why they are running late. If one is late, there is little difference in apologizing while in their car over a cell phone and apologizing in front of their boss at the office. So, they should have the restraint to drive at the speed limit, arriving late, and being willing to apologize then; an apologetic cell phone call in a car to a boss shouldn't be the cause of one being able to then relax, slow-down, and drive the speed-limit.


[Add New]

No

  • Citizens' judgement should be trusted in using cell phones For example, it is responsible to use a cell phone while the car is at a standstill in gridlocked traffic, while waiting at traffic lights, or on a quiet road with good visibility ahead. The driver should be taught to use cell phones on the road with discretion, rather than rigidly banning their use all together.
  • Cell phone use in cars does not cause many accidents Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. "Ban Cell Phones In Cars?". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - "Cell phone subscribership in the United States has grown dramatically in recent years, from 92,000 people in 1985 to more than 77 million in 1999. A recent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration survey reports that 44 percent of drivers have a cell phone with them while driving, a number that will only increase with the proliferation of phone ownership. We calculated that car accidents associated with phone use account for about 300 deaths per year. While small in comparison to the 41,000 annual deaths from car accidents, these deaths raise the question whether cell phone use while driving is justifiable. We think a ban is unwise at this time because vehicular cell phone use provides substantial personal and societal benefits, but does not contribute to a large number of serious accidents."
  • Cell phone use in cars probably saves lives Using mobiles on the road could improve safety, for example, by allowing delayed employees to ring in to the office rather than drive recklessly in an effort to arrive more promptly. Drivers now often use mobile phones to report accidents to the emergency services, and alert the police to dangerous driving, stray animals, unsafe loads, etc.
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Other distractions: Is cell-phone use uniquely distracting?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Passengers are less distracting than cell phones University of South Carolina Psychology Professor Amit Almor said that cell phone conversations and conversations with a passenger are very different. - "When you have someone sitting next you you, that person can, in fact, function as an extra pair of eyes. That person can respond to the changing road conditions."[4]
  • Talking on phone equally impairing as drinking and driving. Utah Pscycologists warn against cell phone use while driving. Much in the same way that you put yourself and others at risk by driving drunk, the same occurs when driving while using a cell phone.[5]
[Add New]

No

  • Many things in cars are just as distracting as cell phones These include eating, changing tapes, retuning the radio, arguing with your spouse about directions, trying to stop children squabbling, etc. We should not introduce a law that victimizes mobile phone users under all conditions, while completely ignoring many other causes of accidents.
  • If you can't ban sleep-driving, why ban talking on phone in car. There is no way that police can moniter the amount of sleep drivers have had before they drive. If driving and talking on the phone is to be banned, then driving while falling asleep ought to be banned as well. But of course, this doesn't make any sense, which is why banning talking on the phone and driving is also unreasonable.
  • Teaching drivers to minimize distractions better than phone ban John Walls, a vice president at the industry group, the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association-The Wireless Association. - "We believe educating drivers on how to best handle all of the possible distractions when you're behind the wheel is the most effective means to make better drivers, and that legislation focusing on a specific behavior falls short of that well-intended goal and creates a false sense of security."[6]


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Practice: Do users of cell phones get better with practice?

[Add New]

Yes


[Add New]

No

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Importance: Is cell phone use in cars unimportant? Relative to risks?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Cell phone use in cars is unnecessary; people went without them before., and little else about life has changed radically enough to make them indispensable, so there is no real loss of personal liberty in having your ability to communicate restricted in this way. If there is a pressing need to make a call, then drivers can always pull over and dial from a parked vehicle. The ban will also protect drivers from pressure from bosses who call them while on the road, effectively requiring their employees to risk their lives for the company.
  • People should pull over to talk on their cell phones. The social benefits of cell phones are not significantly curtailed if people are required to pull over to talk on their phones.


[Add New]

No

  • Social benefits of cell phones in cars outweigh risks Patrick Dudley, who authored the report with Robert Hahn, American Enterprise Institution-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies. "The Disconnect Between Law and Policy Analysis: A Case Study of Drivers and Cell Phones." - "The public places a greater cost benefit on the convenience of using phones while driving than it does on safety...We're explaining why the case for a ban isn't there, looking at safety versus economic benefits."
One study conducted by Robert Hahn and John Hird estimated the costs of a ban at $25 billion, compared to the total economic losses, including deaths and injuries, of $4.6 billion.[7]
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Hands-free phones: Are hands-free mobile phones just as dangerous?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Hands-free cell phones are just as distracting to drivers Conversations of any kind (with or without the involvement of the hands) impairs concentration and reactions in braking tests.[8][studies?...] For some reason the brain treats a telephone conversation differently from talking to a passenger, perhaps because the passenger is also aware of possible road hazards in a way the telephone caller cannot be and so makes less demands upon the driver in terms of concentration at critical moments. In any case, voice activated technology is often unreliable, risking drivers trying to use it getting frustrated and losing concentration. It would be inconsistent to ban one sort of mobile phone while allowing the other sort, which can be just as lethal. Therefore, hands-free mobile phone use while driving should also be banned.


[Add New]

No

  • Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road. These allow drivers to communicate freely without taking their hands off the controls or their eyes off the road. Effectively there is no difference between talking to someone on a hands-free mobile, and holding a conversation with a passenger next to you; in fact, the latter is more dangerous as you may be tempted to turn your head to directly address the passenger.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Careless driving laws: Are careless driving laws insufficient?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Careless driving laws are inadequate; cell phone ban is necessary. driving without due care and attention is a limited charge that can be very difficult to prove. In any case, every time a driver of a moving vehicle uses a mobile phone a potentially dangerous situation is created, as they are much less able to react to events around them. This justifies a specific offence being introduced.



[Add New]

No

  • Cell phone ban is unnecessary; careless driving laws are sufficient This means that if someone is driving dangerously through inappropriate use of their mobile phone, then the police can already prosecute them. Rather than introduce a new law, the police should instead enforce the existing rules more thoroughly. This could be coupled with energetic advertising campaigns to warn people of a range of potentially dangerous driving habits.




[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Enforcement: Would a cell phone ban be enforceable?

[Add New]

Yes

  • New laws would be enforceable, as billing records will show whether a phone was in use at the time. Improving camera technology may also allow the automatic detection of drivers breaking laws against mobile phone use at the wheel. In any case, just because a law is not completely enforceable, it does not follow that it should be scrapped.



[Add New]

No

  • Enforcing a vehicle cell phone ban is nearly impossible This is especially true of hands-free phones, where accused motorists could simply claim to be singing along to the radio or talking to themselves. In any case, the widespread introduction of speed cameras in many countries, and an increased public fear of violent crime have led to the redeployment of the traffic police who would be needed to enforce such laws.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Economics: What are the economics of a cell phone ban?

[Add New]

Yes

...That evaluation found that a ban would be worth about $43 billion a year, although the estimate is imprecise and researchers place the range of possible values anywhere from $9 to $193 billion. Those savings would be roughly offset by the economic impact of unmade calls, also estimated to be around $43 billion annually and to range from $17 to $151 billion."


[Add New]

No


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

State authority? Does the state have the authority to limit the liberties of citizens?

[Add New]

Yes

  • State has authority to regulate actions of drivers (by cell phone ban)., for example, through speed limits, rules against drink driving, etc. Dangerous driving meets the classic liberal test by endangering not just the individual but others, including drivers, passengers and pedestrians, and so society has a right to intervene to protect the innocent. A new law signals social unacceptability, and will send a message to drivers; the New York ban has already been highly effective.


[Add New]

No

  • Banning cell phones impedes on individual liberties. Mobile phones don’t kill people, bad driving does, and simply banning the use of phones will penalize the many good drivers without removing the dangerous ones.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Traffic: Can traffic be blamed on cell phone use?

[Add New]

Yes


[Add New]

No

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Reality: Is it possible to communicate well without using cell phones in cars?

[Add New]

Yes

People survived before cell phones. Before cell phones, people lived a successful life without cell phones, and, as society has not changed much, that should still apply now.


[Add New]

No

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Pro/con videos

[Add New]

Yes

[Add New]

No

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section up]

Pro/con resources

[Add New]

Yes

[Add New]

No

See also

External links

Books:


Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.