I don't think you understand what correlation and causation mean. In every study ever done on cell phone use while driving, the results show a significant decrease in ability to watch the road and control the vehicle. The chances of someone getting into an accident while being on the phone and it NOT being the fault of playing with the phone are incredibly low.

Don't bother coming to WA; they don't need to drive around looking for smoke, the democrats next door call the police when you light the first match.

Mythbusters did a test on this. They tested talking on a cell phone, which IMO is even less distracting than texting. They found that it impaired driving about as much as being drunk and driving. That's pretty bad.

Wait wait wait wait wait

Wood is carbon neutral and renewable

If you can't burn wood for heat then you'll be using a non-renewable resource instead.

D:

Who the **** made that law?

My car only has an analog clock in it. So what if I was feeling particularly dumb and forgot how to read an analog clock, so I checked my phone?

My '00 Trans Am has a common problem where solder joints fail on the display board, basically due to cracks from changes in temperature. Anyway, occasionally the display will freeze or become garbled and look like it's Aurebesh. When that happens I tend to look at my cell phone to get the time.

The scary thing is that it is reasonable to infer that those who make the "point" that nobody needs to look at their cell phone to get the time must consider it reasonable to punish people that do.

I do understand what it means. Just because the person is driving bad and they are on the phone does not mean the cause of their bad driving was the phone. Are you refuting this?

I don't doubt that you can show phone use causes a distraction. We've always had distractions and banning cell phone use is completely arbitrary and has NOT decreased accidents. The ban is useless. Keep the texting ban (good luck enforcing it) but let me hold a phone to my ear if I choose.



I really don't see how this can be shown...

It is most likely the cause. If the claim that being on the phone causes a distraction equivalent to intoxication, it's unlikely that any other distraction caused the problem. What you're saying basically amounts to, "hey, that guy is covered in blue paint. But just because he was holding a bucket of blue paint over his head 30 seconds ago DOESN'T MEAN that's where the paint came from!"


I've no idea if it does or not, but you seem certain, so how about some kind of citation for this?

I wouldn't say it's "most likely" the cause. Possibly the cause, of course. But there are way to many incidents that don't involve cell phones to immediately attribute the cell phone as the cause of all incidents that do involve a person looking at a phone or holding it to the side of their head.

You give people way too much credit.

edit: nm