Sorry, but I gotta ask:
"What's the big deal?"
Talking on a mobile phone whilst driving has been illegal in Australia since forever (although people do it). It really isn't that hard to just pull over.

It's probably more of a DUI thing anyways. You know, whereby it is just used for finding cause of an accident. Taking a call whilst driving probably wont get you a ticket (almost never see police) but if you crash whilst talking on the phone you can't expect police to blame the other party. Same as drink driving. Most of the time you'll get away with it. But if you crash DUI you'll be slapped with the blame. I wont say it is the right or just thing to do.. but rather that there are more important battles out there than talking on a phone whilst driving.

Actually it brings to mind my shock when seeing the movie 'Reality Bytes' or something. This guy crashes into a woman whilst merging on his phone. He later says to her in his office that "oh never mind, probably my fault anyways". I'm just sitting there thinking: "Well no fucking shit dude". Banning it just makes it more definite.

My contention is that the government has no right to tell me when and where I may use my phone. I have no choice in the matter, even though it's my property and my life. It's always the case where some "pity me" story in the news arises and BINGO! calls for more laws erupt.

No thought or care is given to those hundreds of thousands of people who responsibly use their phones while driving every day. It's just another way for vote-eyeing politicians to look noble and appear like they are "doing something" about this obvious field of unregulated death on the highway. Illiberal NGO's, unthinking "common man" commentators, and those too scared to take their own life in their own hands push for this legislative masturbation all the time.

I'm pissed because when a cell phone law is passed, when I get a $120 ticket for not updating the info on my driver's license (which I don't believe I should even NEED to drive a car), when I hear about widely-accepted proposals to tax us further in order to pay for a prescription drug benefit (http://www.msnbc.com/news/854285.asp), absolutely nothing is said (except among the second- and third-tier commentary and the occasional right-wing newspaper) about a different way of doing things...one that doesn't blatantly insult the oft-spoken freedom Americans enjoy and doesn't steal from citizens to pay for itself.

What info dya have to update on your license? Im surprised you don't think people even need a license. Texas sure sounds like an interesting place.

The license I was using was issued back before I moved out of my parent's house to go to college...something like four years ago. By the time I got my ticket, I had moved three times and grown older than the alcohol age limit.

My address information was outdated...and I'm sure I put on a few pounds since the last picture. *laughs*

No, I don't believe I need to be licensed to be allowed to drive a car. Some arguement may be made that I can drive a car on private property, but should be licensed by the state to drive on state-owned (public) roads, but it would take too long to get into that now.

Texas is a wacky place, mano. A first for me, I'm going to the initial Travis County Libertarian Party meeting of the year tonight. Hopefully it'll be interesting.

My girls were only four years younger than you. Yes, it was a "shame". It was a shame that somebody felt that the phone call he had to make was more important than keeping his eyes on the road for a total of TWENTY seconds. That's the estimated time his attention was diverted before he smashed into my children and destroyed dozens of lives.

You have a lot of growing up to do. You speak of individual rights. When you mature, you will understand that we are not only a society of individuals, but a society of individuals that have to make sacrifices and concessions for each other. When we have to share common resources such as highways, there NEED to be rules to follow.

You sound like a very intelligent young man. Why don't you spend some time researching this issue and then decide prior to forming your opinion. Since you went to college, I assume you will respect the findings of the universities across the nation and in other parts of the world. They all conclude the same thing. Trying to drive and carry on a phone conversation is an impairment and causes the driver to be a danger to himself and others.

If you want to live in this society, there are rules to follow. Grow up and quit whining about not being able to do every stupid thing you want to do regardless of who it hurts.

Can you rise to the challenge? Can you truly educate yourself on this issue? Do you have sisters? Brothers? Imagine if it had been your mother lying there in a hospital bed, blood oozing out of her ears, her eyes, her mouth. Imagine for just a minute that you're being told the doctors can't even close her up after the operation because she's not strong enough to survive it? Imagine for a moment being told she's gone. She's breathing because of the machines, but she isn't there. There's no blood flow to her brain, and her brain is dead. Imagine yourself standing beside her casket at the funeral and saying goodby. Now imagine being told that the cause was another individual exercising his so-called "right" to engage in a scientifically proven dangerous behavior. He had to make a sales call so he could make some money. Ahhh, the value of the almighty dollar is worth so much more than the value of two lovely girls who gave so much to those around them and loved everyone they met.

Are you even able to feel empathy for other human beings? What did your parents teach you? To only think of yourself and what is right for you as an individual? How sad. How very, very sad for you.

Mrs. Seager,

My birthday is in a few hours and I will be 23 years old. I have two fraternal twin sisters who turned 19 ten days ago. I know what it's like to have family I care about. I've also lost a fairly close uncle a few years back; I know what it's like to lose a loved one. Don't you dare assume anything about me. If you want callous, I can give you callous.

I was being 100% honest when I wrote those words in January. You wish to use the tragic death of your daughters to restrict my freedom, when it wasn't me, my cell phone, or my car that did that to your family. Where is the justice there? Are all drivers who use cell phones responsible for the actions of one person? Unfair doesn't even come close to describing what that is.

I respect findings of fact. However, I don't respect Appeals to Authority; it doesn't matter one bit if the Pope, all nine Supreme Court Justices, and 87% of the American public declare automotive cell phone use to be a sin and immoral. If something is wrong, it is wrong independant of the number and quality of people who believe in it. I acknowledge that driving while talking on the phone has a negative affect on driving performance...*on average.* The vast majority of people who do, interestingly enough, survive on a daily or even hourly basis don't matter to those who call for bans, though. Screw freedom: we need safety...right?

You can also Appeal to Emotion all you want and temp me with imagery of dead and maimed loved ones, but I don't blame innocents across the state for things that they had nothing to do with. Can it be proven the driver *tried* to kill yor daughters? Or is it the case it was an accident? If it was an accident, then why the uproar? Should every form of accident which may have been preventable ("if we had JUST THIS ONE MORE LAW!") be outlawed? Do you understand where your philosophy would take this country??? "[S]cientifically proven dangerous behavior" should be illegal? Wipe your tears away and think about how that legal rationale could justify frightening intrusions into rights, as if they aren't bad enough already!

Your emotional attachment to this means you are a caring and loving mother. But it is also clouding your judgement and tempting you to control the lives of others who have done nothing to you.

Your bitterness is also attempting to ascribe to him some sort of malignant neglect, whereas he almost *wanted* to kill yor girls because he was too blinded by avarice. Get a GRIP. Where's YOUR empathy for the hundreds of people who you would deny the freedom to make imporant (ya know, like calling in CAR ACCIDENTS) phone calls...and who decide not to because there's a fucking law against it?

You claim to be concerned more about the welfare of others, of individual strangers whom you've never met and wish only to live without the fear of a random and bloody and unnecessary death at the hands of someone who wasn't paying attention to the road.

I say you don't honestly care about others, because you would deny others freedom. Freedom to take risks and to understand that the world is dangerous because people are dangerous. The freedom to my one's choices for one's self and to take the responsibility for those choices. Your daughters didn't kill themselves: they were killed by the negligence of another driver. Punish HIM for that: negligent homicide. Don't punish US for that.

I apologize for snapping at you like this. I am grateful you stopped by to post your opinion. But don't lecture me in that tone and expect me to accept your premises.

Not meaning to be mean, but 'Mrs Seager' mightn't be the mother of those poor girls. Truely a terrible tragedy and I hope the man who made such a gross error in judgement atones for what he has done.

I believe a lot in what Drizzten says however. Months ago I did not, but I've begun to understand. Often our hearts and our hopes are used as tools for furthering a political agenda. I fear that mobile phone use could become just another revenue gathering method for government agencies. Laws are to be taken seriously, as they are backed by guns. When we people are so 'small' compared to the government, we must avoid letting the government have too much power at all costs. It certainly shouldn't be deciding what my morals should be, not when it is so obviously shady.

It is of course entirely possible "Mrs. Seager" isn't the one referenced in the (now link-rotten) article. (BTW, another one can be read here http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/state/4869603.htm though I cannot be sure it is the same wire story I linked to in January) Her IP address matches that of a visitor who Googled for Amy's name...

Even if it isn't her, if the real mother had responded the same way, I wouldn't have changed a thing about how I responded.

Yes, it was truly me, (Mrs. Seager) who was chastising you for being the selfish brat you are. I'm sure I'm not the first. A brat is someone who throws a fit when he doesn't like to be told he can or cannot do something. You're a brat. That is the bottom line.

I will say again, we are a society of individuals who need to live, work, and play together. That means rules, kid. Rules so that people don't get hurt unnecessarily. Get used to it.

Thinking of others does not mean worrying that "others" (translated me, myself and I) can't do whatever they darn well please. It means not engaging in careless acts that have been proven to be dangerous to others. It means striving to pass laws so that selfish individuals such as yourself can't drive around recklessly, injure or kill others, and get away with it under the guise of "individual rights".
Did you have rules in your household about not running with scissors? Did you have rules at your elementary school such as "no running in the halls"? The answer is probably "yes". Weren't your "rights" being violated? You probably didn't understand why the rules were in place at the time, but being 23, one can only hope you understand now. The concept here is exactly the same no matter how philosophical you want to get. It isn't rocket science.

Trying to appeal to your emotions was my attempt to try and find the human being under all those layers of "me, me, me" crap you've encased yourself in. There are those people who do not understand the numbers (1.5 million crashes, 573,000 injuries, and 2700 deaths each year)but need their emotions jarred in order to get the point that this is happening to REAL people.
Just because you have twin sisters, and lost an uncle (who hasn't?) does not mean you have one inkling of understanding about how wide, deep, and high is the pain that this event has caused.
My children have been brought up to think of others FIRST. They are all well loved by others in return. When you love others first, love follows. If all you are concerned about is "me, me, me, and my rights", love does not follow. When you love others first, you do not think of engaging in dangerous behavior simply because it is your "right". If you are fully aware that carrying on a phone conversation while driving will cause you to miss twice as many traffic signals (hence the reason why drivers on phones are always running stop signs and red lights), thereby greatly increasing your chances of injuring or killing someone, yet you continue to do it, you are not walking in love. You are loving yourself above all others.

As for the bitterness, you're way off mark. I have no bitterness towards the young man who caused the crash. He did a really stupid thing. And who hasn't? He did his jail time, and now it's over for him.

It would be MUCH easier for me to curl up and feel sorry for myself and allow the world to continue as it has. But something has happened to me that causes me to want to prevent it from happening to others. You're a little mixed up. That's called UNSELFISHNESS. If I were selfish, I'd say "oh, well, I'm in too much pain myself to help anyone else" and ignore the injustice.

That injustice is the fact that the cell phone industry has done everything in it's power to keep crash risk data out of the hands of the public. Speaking of "rights", I feel that the public has a right to this information, yet they (the industry) have spent MILLIONS on lobbyists and ad campaigns to keep this information from YOU, me, and others like the young man who caused the crash. Your indignation regarding "rights" is aimed at the wrong people, kid. They want you to keep talking on your phone using a head set even though they know full well that head sets have been PROVEN to have no safety advantage. Why? Because half their revenue is generated by drivers on phones. They stand to lose billions if any legislation is passed.

Did you bother to accept my challenge of reading the science before you responded to my post? I'm thinking probably not. Too much trouble for you, huh? You'd rather stay on your soap box and yak instead of taking the time to do some actual research.

As to your comments about all the drivers who talk and drive without causing crashes, that's faulty logic. I personally know of several alcoholics who drink and drive on a regular basis. They have not caused a single crash. Under that argument, would you say that our drunk driving laws are unjust? Hmmm. After reading your posts, I feel the answer might be yes to that question. Especially if you drink and drive. One individual that I know of has driven drunk for 40 years and never had an accident. Why penalize him because others have caused appx. 5,000 innocent deaths a year from drunk driving? Ridiculous logic. Just because one person out of thousands may be able to control their vehicle at speeds of 100 mph on the freeway you would abolish the speed limits? Or maybe you would.

I don't know why I'm bothering with you. I guess it's the mother in me. It's also the mother in me that wants to tell you not to apologize for something you feel no remorse for. You apoligized to me for "snapping", yet in the same breath wrote that if I am who I say I am, you would write the very same things.

Apology not accepted on the basis that it was false.

Mrs. Seager

Mrs. Seager,

I see you have resorted to ad hominem attacks. I had hoped for a more mature reply. If you decide to reply to this, keep in mind calling me "selfish" as a perjorative accomplishes nothing. My life is governed by my self-interest. I do not consider it an insult.

Indeed, we are a society composed of individuals and there are rules which a civil society's individuals should follow. For example, rules against murder, theft, assualt, and fraud. Those rules punish those people who are proven to have caused harm to others. That is the standard to follow: rules which punish those who cause harm. However, your rule doesn't do that. It punishes EVERYONE who engages in that behavior, whether they've caused harm or not. If you cannot see the blatant injustice in that, then we've got a long way to go before an understanding can be reached.

Not once have my comments suggested a state of anarchy, as you imply they do. An individual's right to his life trumpts an individual's right to drive a car recklessly...AS LONG AS that second person is responsible for the death of that first person. Cause and effect: the *individual* responsible deserves the punishment, not the *society*. Yet you refuse to address this vital concept.

Your analogy to running in the halls at school while carrying scissors doesn't apply, for technical reasons. The schools I went to (with one exception) were public schools, therefore I had no choice but to go to them and adhere to their rules, usually due to truancy laws and such. As you mention, I was too young during part of my school years to understand the need to follow rules to protect myself from my actions. Of course, I am old enough now to more effectively grasp the possible outcomes of my choices. That's what school is for in large part. But you would have us remain in school, to never actually PUT TO USE the very concepts we are supposed to learn: using our minds to decide if our actions are safe enough for us. You'd take away that and substitute it with a law. Were my rights violated with rules such as those? In part yes, because they prohibited actions before a negative consequence could occur, resulting in collective punishment without proof of harm. In part no, because such a life as I propose to be the best requires rational actors who are aware of reality and can think...children are empirically worse at this the younger they get. Thus the idea of a legal guardian making choices for them and taking responsibility for their actions in some cases.

You entirely miss the point of my comment about emotions. It is an invalid arguement to say something is wrong merely because it has negative consequences. I didn't miss your point about using emotional arguements to bring attention to behavior that does take many lives every year. Yes, I am unable to truely "feel your pain" for obvious reasons. I'm not you. But you tried to say I am heartless and unable to feel anguish, which is flat bullshit since you aren't me and cannot "feel my pain" either.

You are entirely correct that I place myself and the things I value above others. I expect no less from anyone else. A quote worth noting from Ayn Rand: "To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say 'I'." A person who places others above him- or herself and wishes others to do the same necessitates a result where everyone wants to be worthless; it's a process of trying to be more selfless than the next person. Selflessness demands sacrifice without reason. Why should my life (and yours) be below anyone else's? Or perhaps below a group of people? You want to save lives but in the process you would reduce them to slaves.

The cell phone industry is not blameless. They don't want to lose sales, so they do what they can to keep laws like these off the books. So they aren't forthright and completely open about the dangers their products represent. This is bad buisness, perhaps even immoral. But anyone who has any functioning brain in them knows how distracting oneself from driving a car is a terribly dangerous thing. Just as with smoking, those who are truely ignorant of the dangers do not require laws that punish everyone from that activity in order to save them. You'd cut the chain of responsibility and assume the right to decide how people measure risk and benefit.

As I said before, the evidence of the dangers of cell phone use while driving is IRRELEVANT. By your rationale, smoking, drinking, driving, working out, staying up late, listening to very loud music, and an infinite other number of things should be restricted because there is demonstrated harm to some of the people who engage in those activities. Evidence of potential negative outcomes does not mean something should be banned. Such a position demands the government to step in and manage our lives for us. Even worse, such a rationale means that people other than you get to choose what's too dangerous for us to do. Would you sit quiet and accept an edict from your neighbor telling you from now on, you cannot take medication by yourself since the risk for messing up the dosage is too high? And don't try an escape from this question by saying such a rule is stupid: it's a difference of opinion between those in power and the rest of us and you know damn well how stupid some people are. Better to just not even get involved in the process in the first place and let people accept responsibility for their actions and choose the best way to live their lives.

You are correct: I consider drunk driving laws and speed limits to be wrong because they punish someone who hasn't done anything wrong...they've just choosen a more statistically dangerous method of driving. A crime requires a vicitm and if I get pulled over for doing 95 in a 70, there is no victim except for me. The crime becomes the force used to change my behavior.

How is it faulty to say it is wrong to punish someone who has done nothing to anyone else? Why is it OK to arrest me or fine me for talking on a cell phone while driving, speeding, or driving drunk when I haven't hit someone or their property? What is the crime? That I engaged in dangerous behavior? Well, you must want a society numb with risklessness and devoid of dangerous activity.

My apology was based on my tone towards whomever posted that comment. I could have replied nicer, but it didn't come out that way. It still stands.

Mrs. Seager:

The first issue that should be addressed is your inability to prove a point without resorting to personal attacks and pandering solely to people's emotions to win them over, whether your stance is right or wrong.

I also noticed that you referred to Charles as "kid" several times, most obviously in an attempt to elevate yourself as having more "life experience," thereby making you wiser, and giving you the permission to talk down to him as though he were a child just beginning to take in the world.

Individuals don't NEED to live, work, and play together. Mrs. Seager, are you even aware of WHY we function as a society? We do it because it serves our best interests. Without the division of labor, recreation, and companions that we like, life would be much harder for us. Society is perhaps man's most beautifully selfish achievement, yet the concept has been turned against him by various altruists and collectivists who advocate what's "best for society as a whole," forgetting that society is not a whole, but a given group of individuals that function together.

Your argument about running in the school halls is entirely flawed. Of course it was a violation of his rights. He was given no choice but to go to school, under threat of force. This is coercion, before you even get to the school's rules. If he had voluntarily decided to go to school, and could leave whenever he pleased, then there would be no problem with the rules against running.

I would agree with a ban on cell phones while driving under one condition; the roads must be privatized. If someone owns the road I'm driving on, and makes a rule against speeding, cell phone use, drunk driving, etc., I'd be more than happy to comply, because it's his property. However, the roads aren't a particular person's property. Some would say that they're everyone's property, meaning that they are no one's property. Ultimately, argument with you on the banning of cell phones wouldn't be necessary if you also believed that it's only perfectly acceptable if the owner of the roads bans them.

You explicitly assume in your argument that because Charles is the most important person in his life, that he has no compassion for anyone else, and is in fact, not a person. I'd like to point out that it's you who have renounced your status as a person. You clearly have no sense of self, or self-importance. All you care about is others. Or am I wrong? Upon further reflection, I remembered that someone is pushing for laws based on the pain they felt. Isn't this selfish, Mrs. Seager?

You continue to speak of his "me me me" attitude, misrepresenting his position as caring specifically and only about HIS right to use his cell phone in the car, when that's not true. He's defending EVERYONE's right to do what they want to do with their life, as long as they don't try to violate the rights of others. He's arguing for the safety of everyone from the desires of others. Do you know why killing is wrong? Because it violates the victim's right to his own life. Do you know why stealing is wrong? Because it violates the victim's right to his own property. All of the immoral acts in the world are immoral because someone intentionally violates someone else's right to life.

Accidents happen. There are plenty of dangerous things in the world, and you can't ban them all. For some people who are allergic to sunlight, being exposed to the sun or other bright lights is dangerous. Should we ban the sun for a few people, so they may also enjoy going outside to play? Driving even while perfectly focused is dangerous. Danger is in the nature of driving. Should we ban driving? Maybe we should ban breathing, since germs in the air can lead to sickness and death. In fact, let's all just kill ourselves right now so we don't have to worry about dying.

Ditch the sickeningly altruistic mentality. Putting others ahead of yourself can't be defended consistently. If selflessness is the ultimate virtue, then virtue exists to do nothing but create vice. After all, every selfless act I do for someone else leads to them being selfish by being on the receiving end. Unless, of course, you propose that we should be selfless in turn, and not accept acts of selflessness from others, so we can all be selfless. In this case, I'd like to ask what the point in being selfless is. I'd like you to explain to me why so much pointless sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice is a virtue. After all, if no one is able to accept the fruits that selflessness has produced, why can't we all just be selfish and make them ourselves?

My life belongs to me, and no one else.

I think cell phones are very dangerous while driving it's only a big distraction many people have died from using cell phones while driving i dont think it should be legal to many people die from cell phones because their paying more attention to the conversation than to the road. This situation with driving whinle using a cell phone is very dangerous I think the should make it illegal in the USA.

Wayne, you must have ignored what Erik and I wrote. Making something illegal on the fact that it increases the danger to yourself and others would smother our society.

Try again, Sir. And use more punctuation in your next reply, please.

I'm sorry I didn't read the whole thing but the fact that those two people died from the reason from using a cell phone while driving and don't forget I get my own opinion so I have the right to say they should make it illegal, but I understand that it would smother our society. We should actually finish this conversation another time or email me at wbell@netaddress.com

I'm sorry for the last comment if I sounded rude

You didn't sound rude. I'll e-mail a response tonight.

I'm sorry but for som reason I'm having difficulty loging in on my email that I gave you and if it's not to much to ask can you please email me at crueldemonteaser@aol.com thankyou

I'm so sorry for being a pest but I haven't got any emails discussing this matter unless noone talks about or visits this site any more, because I want to talk about the subject I have brought up once before well thankyou for your time

E-mail's on the way, Wayne. :)

Thankyou so much Drizz I will read the email and I will get back toy uo when I get the chance.

if you have a cell phone in school take it out for your own health

u all rock with cell phones becuase i bring 28 cell phones every day to my school