Guess who got her first traffic ticket!

[Rorschach]

I see your point, Thorsman, but it's a sticky one.
Doing virtually anything other than driving in your car means that you're not giving it your full attention. The amount of times I've nearly crashed because I've been smoking with one hand and changing radio stations with the other...

[Deacon]

Lol indeed.

1) The "for the children" argument means you automatically lose.
2) At some point the fussy control-freak nanny types of the world will acknowledge that "safety" isn't the one and only priority in the world.

[Terrene]

GUYS YOU ARE WASTING YOUR BREATHS. Why do you think I just went "lol" and left it at that although I kind of wanted to ask Thorsman if he actually drives himself.

[Arc Orion]

He drives himself crazy!

[collegestudent22]

At some point the fussy control-freak nanny types of the world will acknowledge that "safety" isn't the one and only priority in the world.

Nonsense, Deacon. Those fussy control-freak nanny types won't stop until everyone is in sanitary bubbles inside padded rooms and never leaves.

[StruckingFuggle]

At some point the fussy control-freak nanny types of the world will acknowledge that "safety" isn't the one and only priority in the world.

Nonsense, Deacon. Those fussy control-freak nanny types won't stop until everyone is in sanitary bubbles inside padded rooms and never leaves.

Very well, then! Barbed wire wallpapers and no guardrails anywhere for everyone! Lets strew landmines around the workplace and encourage people to drive half-asleep, drunk, and blindfolded!

[Thorsman]

To clarify, yes I do drive. I was on a full driver's license in Arizona and I'm now going through lessons on a provisional UK license. I got the "four times more likely" statistic from my study materials provided by the British School of Motoring (you have to take your theory test before passing the actual driving test). It's got nothing to do with a "nanny state" and everything to do with reasonable and safe driving. Heck, I've seen idiots do all sorts (e.g. put makeup on) while driving. As for the radio argument, the radio is about all I'll use while driving, the difference being that the radio isn't something you have to interact with and think of responses to, as opposed to talking on a cell phone where you have to concentrate on the conversation. Even then the radio is something of a rarity while I'm driving.

[Rorschach]

You have a radio that switches itself on and off, and changes channels independently?
It wasn't an argument, Thorsman, more of an example of what a grey area this is. I can drive and speak at the same time. Hell, on a good day I can walk and chew gum at the same time. The problem is when I don't have both hands to do it. This is why hands-free conversations are legal.
As it happens, I grudgingly suppose that the line has to be drawn somewhere and while I'm sure I'd be bitching too if some policeman pulled me up for this, rather than catching criminals, I couldn't complain too vehemently.

Good luck with your test. Remember we drive on the left here.

[collegestudent22]

I got the "four times more likely" statistic from my study materials provided by the British School of Motoring

It's got nothing to do with a "nanny state"

Yes, let us all trust the government to not make up or fudge statistics to back up their laws.

[StruckingFuggle]

Yes, let us all trust the government to not make up or fudge statistics to back up their laws.

But let's trust you to do so, eh?

[collegestudent22]

Did I have a statistic here? No. I am just pointing out that statistics, even when not made up, are easily usable for your side and the other side. The same statistics. I don't believe the government is giving the whole picture. Arguing against the classification of your government as a "nanny state" by using your government's statistics? Not very solid.

[StruckingFuggle]

Nor is arguing a statistical argument with no statistics and even not much in the way of apparent thought in the matter and an obvious bias that you're seeming to be looking more to support than examine.

[Deacon]

I got the "four times more likely" statistic from my study materials provided by the British School of Motoring

Which is totally objective and unbiased, unlikely to take whatever the most alarming study it can find and applying the most alarming interpretation of it, as it's nothing to do with the same nanny that's sitting in the back seat telling you all the rules all the time.

It wasn't an argument, Thorsman, more of an example of what a grey area this is.

It's a grey area plagued by myths and misconceptions, and the state imposing such controls are based purely on this baseless conjecture.

The problem is when I don't have both hands to do it. This is why hands-free conversations are legal.

Actually, that's NOT the problem, as we've hashed repeatedly in SPPACE. IF someone is going to have significantly reduced reaction times while talking on the phone, it is because they are engrossed in the conversation, not because they've got only one hand on the steering wheel. The feet (gas and brake--and clutch, I guess, if you've got a manual, which is a tiny minority in the US while I know the opposite is true in Europe) do not care how many hands are on the wheel. Many people (especially those of us who are indeed used to driving cars with manual transmissions) drive with one hand on the wheel regardless. The one hand on the wheel argument is a fallacy, but people are willing to believe it, and municipalities are willing to legislate it, and THAT is why hands-free conversations are legal. It's ignorant bullshit, unfortunately.

[collegestudent22]

Nor is arguing a statistical argument

Since I wasn't arguing anything more than "That statistic isn't really valid." I don't see where I argued the point. The argument I was making was this..

Which is totally objective and unbiased, unlikely to take whatever the most alarming study it can find and applying the most alarming interpretation of it, as it's nothing to do with the same nanny that's sitting in the back seat telling you all the rules all the time.

[Rorschach]

The problem is when I don't have both hands to do it. This is why hands-free conversations are legal.

Actually, that's NOT the problem, as we've hashed repeatedly in SPPACE. IF someone is going to have significantly reduced reaction times while talking on the phone, it is because they are engrossed in the conversation, not because they've got only one hand on the steering wheel. The feet (gas and brake--and clutch, I guess, if you've got a manual, which is a tiny minority in the US while I know the opposite is true in Europe) do not care how many hands are on the wheel. Many people (especially those of us who are indeed used to driving cars with manual transmissions) drive with one hand on the wheel regardless. The one hand on the wheel argument is a fallacy, but people are willing to believe it, and municipalities are willing to legislate it, and THAT is why hands-free conversations are legal. It's ignorant bullshit, unfortunately.

Yes. I'd agree with that. I'm perfectly comfortable driving with one hand on the wheel. My concern was with what the other hand is doing. If I'm using it to fiddle with the radio, smoke, or do something that draws my eyes or attention from the road then I finds that more distracting than having a hands-free conversation, be that with a person in the car or on a hands-free set (which I don't have).