jst3p: Kahabut: Weaver95: Bathia_Mapes: No, they want to make it illegal in all states to use an electronic device to talk/text while driving. I have no problem with this.

so how would you go about making sure nobody drives and talks on a cell phone? keep in mind that you cannot violate their 4th or 5th amendment rights nor can you simply jamm cell phone frequencies around highways.

By having the FCC institute a rule that requires all handsets manufactured after X date must include the following:
At GPS speeds of greater than 15, all cellular phone functions stop working and ONLY navigation is available.

DONE.

So passengers in a car, train, bus or other vehicle can't ever use a phone? That seems pretty stupid.

You asked (or someone did) how it would be possible. I gave you a very simple (and already suggested (to the FCC) answer). If you don't like it, don't blame me. I'm not the one failing to operate my motor vehicle in a safe and responsible way.

>600horse power
0-120mph in 12 seconds
0 accidents

What the fark is wrong with the rest of you? Your 4 cyl mini van just too much for you to handle?

jst3p: There are few times when Farkers embarrass me. This is one of them.

God forbid any of you ever have to live through something of this nature. I hope you never have to answer the phone and hear your inconsolably weeping wife, who just miscarried after being hit by a punk texting and driving, on the other end of the line as she mutters the only words she is able to muster "They can't find a heartbeat".

Anyone who does the "welcome to fark" meme can DIAF.

[img31.mediafire.com image 640x478]
This is Quinn's remains. He sits atop my piano.

I saw the thread you got that from and really wish I'd been there in time to join in all the fun and games. That shiat is meme-worthy!

thisisyourbrainonFark: Keizer_Ghidorah: jst3p: There are few times when Farkers embarrass me. This is one of them.

God forbid any of you ever have to live through something of this nature. I hope you never have to answer the phone and hear your inconsolably weeping wife, who just miscarried after being hit by a punk texting and driving, on the other end of the line as she mutters the only words she is able to muster "They can't find a heartbeat".

Anyone who does the "welcome to fark" meme can DIAF.

[img31.mediafire.com image 640x478]
This is Quinn's remains. He sits atop my piano.

Isn't this same picture in the Most Dangerous Toys thread?

[files.sharenator.com image 240x320]

Thought so.

jst3p, try tugging the heartstrings with original material.

jst3p: This is Quinn's remains. He sits atop my piano.

fark, I'd pay drivers to drink: zombie Quinn must be stopped.

BSABSVR: Atomic Spunk: What is all this nonsense about "The cops are going to use this law to pull people over without probable cause!" Don't you people know that it's already done thousands of times every single day? Here is a very abbreviated list of "probable cause" items that cops use to pull over anyone they damn well want:

1. I smelled the odor of marijuana emanating from the car.
2. The driver was driving erratically (if the cop has a dash-cam, they could just claim they witnessed it out of range of the camera)
3. I saw litter being thrown from the car
4. The driver was drinking what appeared to be a can of beer
5. The car's brake light wasn't working properly

You really think the cops need yet another excuse to pull you over if they please? They already have a bunch of excuses ready to go!

I completely support a total ban on drivers using electronic devices.

So if the cops are crooked, then the best thing to do is to give them more power to be crooked? At what point is it acceptable to decide, "hey the system isn't working, so let's just use it to piss off the sub groups that I hate"?

A ban on electronic devices won't effectively increase the police's power because it won't enable the police to do anything more than they already can. Police ALWAYS have an excuse to pull over ANY driver. If they want to pull you over, they will make sure to note a traffic law that you've violated. A cop will admit that they do this too -- I've heard multiple cops and lawyers state this.

saturn badger: megalynn44: TwistedIvory: Bathia_Mapes: No, they want to make it illegal in all states to use an electronic device to talk/text while driving. I have no problem with this.

+1. . . or a thousand.

Gig103: And just like the speed limit law, it's going to be ignored and do nothing to solve the problem. The real intent is to give cops new probable cause to pull someone over.


So don't do anything?

I don't see us banning fast food drive thrus or radios. Texting is one thing, but talking on the phone is another. Driving is one of the few times I have to talk to people anymore. 3000 deaths a year is what percentage of total vehicle deaths exactly?

If it is your loved one it is 100%.

Only if you loved all 3000 people.

Lt. Col. Angus: My car, circa 2006 after narrowly missing a head-on collision @ 50ish MPH. Some 18 year old c*nt, was to busy texting to be bothered with turning in a curve.

Two things probably kept me from being in SERIOUS trouble that day. The size of the two cars involved, and my ability to jerk the wheel straight toward the ditch at the last second, to avoid going grill to grill.

My foot was the primary damage, and it's 95% fine now..... but I was also damn lucky.

I am (obviously) 100% in support of this. *I* am responsible enough to have ONE beer in my car on the way to a ball game. But do I trust all of the other idiots to not chug from a vodka bottle while they drive? Hell no.

So, ban the farking phones, because people have proven too stupid to use them safely.

/CSB
//Don't like it?
///GoooooooooooooooFY


Would you be less injured if she had been looking at the radio or putting on makeup?

Beowoolfie: *Those who actually read what the NTSB says will find they recommend adding safety equipment to new cell phones that will keep them from working (except emergency numbers) while in a vehicle in-motion. Considering they already all have GPS chips in them, all that requires will be a software change.

Bunch of shiat. Why should passengers in cars and busses be prohibited from making calls?

osafer: Lyllydd: One question. Will the ban on cell phone use while driving apply to police as well as civilians? Illinois doesn't seem to think it should.
You have no idea how many cops I see every day on cell phones while driving.
Can someone please do a study on crashes caused by police talking or texting while driving?

Emergency responders generally get a pass on these type of laws.

tsb

Horrific head on accident between two Hummer H2's on a rural highway causing two dead H2 owners. Two weeks later they pulled the Hummers apart and found a Smart car had been crushed between them and the driver was still in there. Dead. It was found he was simultaneously texting while talking and had caused the two H2 guys to become distracted by trying to get his attention to "get off the damn phone" resulting in the deadly accident.

More to your emergency responder pass..... I am sure Mr. Oliver would like a word with you.

Link (new window)

So, out of the 3000 deaths attributed to distracted driving, how many of those are due to cell phone use? I keep seeing that 3000 thrown around, but feel that's rather disingenuous.

And as has been pointed out multiple times, there are already laws for distracted driving. Making redundant laws will improve things?

And the new tech for shutting down a device while it's in motion? Stupid beyond stupid. Because, of course the ONLY time anyone will be going faster than 20 mph is if they're driving a car.

Reactionary stupidity is reactionary.

The test I use is who the victims may be. That's why I can't support a personal seat belt law, but I sure as hell support this one.

dustygrimp: The test I use is who the victims may be. That's why I can't support a personal seat belt law, but I sure as hell support this one.

interesting. so... parents who don't safely belt their children.... is that okay, by your standards?

phillistine: osafer: Lyllydd: One question. Will the ban on cell phone use while driving apply to police as well as civilians? Illinois doesn't seem to think it should.
You have no idea how many cops I see every day on cell phones while driving.
Can someone please do a study on crashes caused by police talking or texting while driving?

Emergency responders generally get a pass on these type of laws.

tsb

Horrific head on accident between two Hummer H2's on a rural highway causing two dead H2 owners. Two weeks later they pulled the Hummers apart and found a Smart car had been crushed between them and the driver was still in there. Dead. It was found he was simultaneously texting while talking and had caused the two H2 guys to become distracted by trying to get his attention to "get off the damn phone" resulting in the deadly accident.

Yeah, that totally sounds like the smart car driver's fault and not at all the drivers of the two land behemoths that crushed him between them while "trying to get his attention." Perhaps if the H2 drivers would have put their attention on the road instead of worrying about what the other guy was supposedly doing, all 3 would be alive now. Or in the words of some great man at some point in history "mind your own farking business and I'll mind mine."

He was probably phoning the police about the psychos in giant trucks that were swerving and tailgating his puny little wheeled Mt. Dew can.

Bathia_Mapes: No, they want to make it illegal in all states to use an electronic device to talk/text while driving. I have no problem with this.

Agreed. 9 times out of 10 when I see someone dangerously driving (e.g. drifting into another lane, going much slower than surrounding traffic, running stop sign, braking at last minute, etc) they're on a cell phone.

People don't notice that they're doing it, and that's why everyone thinks *they* can safely drive and talk and everyone else is the problem.

thornhill: Bathia_Mapes: No, they want to make it illegal in all states to use an electronic device to talk/text while driving. I have no problem with this.

Agreed. 9 times out of 10 when I see someone dangerously driving (e.g. drifting into another lane, going much slower than surrounding traffic, running stop sign, braking at last minute, etc) they're on a cell phone.

People don't notice that they're doing it, and that's why everyone thinks *they* can safely drive and talk and everyone else is the problem.

there's even evidence people can't walk and text safely. a guy at Harvard (I think) named Hausdorff has done a bunch of studies showing that even healthy, sober, college-aged kids show significant impairment in a number of different gait measurements (variability of inter-stride interval, variability of stride length, force differences on the outside and inside of the feet, etc) while doing tasks like mental arithmetic and spoken conversation. There's even an item on some questionnaires that is a really good predictor of falls in the elderly: "stops walking while talking" -- you just ask the person a question while they're walking, and if they stop, that's a risk factor for the future.

Point is? We don't multitask the way people think we do. About one person in a thousand doesn't show impairment in cell phone / driving simulation tests, and I haven't heard a logical explanation for why.

SweetSilverBlues: So, out of the 3000 deaths attributed to distracted driving, how many of those are due to cell phone use? I keep seeing that 3000 thrown around, but feel that's rather disingenuous.

And as has been pointed out multiple times, there are already laws for distracted driving. Making redundant laws will improve things?

And the new tech for shutting down a device while it's in motion? Stupid beyond stupid. Because, of course the ONLY time anyone will be going faster than 20 mph is if they're driving a car.

Reactionary stupidity is reactionary.

Well if its anything like drunk driving you see, the NHTSB counts any passenger of any vehicle (including pedestrians as vehicles) involved in a crash who use a cell phone in the previous 8 hours as "distracted drivers".

Im surprised they stopped at 3,000, and didn't do the ol "half of all accidents", but they probably realized all their boogeymen combined would have added up to multiple times the accident rate.

Not sure why anyone would believe the shiat they say

CapnBlues: dustygrimp: The test I use is who the victims may be. That's why I can't support a personal seat belt law, but I sure as hell support this one.

interesting. so... parents who don't safely belt their children.... is that okay, by your standards?

Are the parents or children on state sponsored health care? No Don't care. Yes BUCKLE UP.

You know why there is a helmet law for motorcycles? Because back in the day, insurance companies got fed up paying for life support for people that had cracked their brains riding a bike. So they lobbied to get helmets as required safety gear. Thereby reducing their outlay costs for healthcare. Actually, pretty much the exact same for seatbelts and airbags.

Capitalism runs this country, but people forget they are the product more often than not.

Kahabut: CapnBlues: dustygrimp: The test I use is who the victims may be. That's why I can't support a personal seat belt law, but I sure as hell support this one.

interesting. so... parents who don't safely belt their children.... is that okay, by your standards?

Are the parents or children on state sponsored health care? No Don't care. Yes BUCKLE UP.

You know why there is a helmet law for motorcycles? Because back in the day, insurance companies got fed up paying for life support for people that had cracked their brains riding a bike. So they lobbied to get helmets as required safety gear. Thereby reducing their outlay costs for healthcare. Actually, pretty much the exact same for seatbelts and airbags.

Capitalism runs this country, but people forget they are the product more often than not.

That doesn't really hold together, though. If the parents aren't on state-sponsored healthcare, but they're on the same healthcare system as you, your premiums are going to go up. But beyond that, are you really saying you don't give a shiat if children die in a car accident because of their negligent parents? Really? You want to go there? You want to be that person? Unless you're trolling. In which case, you may be giving bad ideas to some sick people.

What this will come down to, in my opinion, is that if you submit an insurance claim, they'll pull your cell phone records and check them against your car's black box data.

If your phone is active when you crash, you're farked.

Spaced Cowboy: phillistine: osafer: Lyllydd: One question. Will the ban on cell phone use while driving apply to police as well as civilians? Illinois doesn't seem to think it should.
You have no idea how many cops I see every day on cell phones while driving.
Can someone please do a study on crashes caused by police talking or texting while driving?

Emergency responders generally get a pass on these type of laws.

tsb

Horrific head on accident between two Hummer H2's on a rural highway causing two dead H2 owners. Two weeks later they pulled the Hummers apart and found a Smart car had been crushed between them and the driver was still in there. Dead. It was found he was simultaneously texting while talking and had caused the two H2 guys to become distracted by trying to get his attention to "get off the damn phone" resulting in the deadly accident.

Yeah, that totally sounds like the smart car driver's fault and not at all the drivers of the two land behemoths that crushed him between them while "trying to get his attention." Perhaps if the H2 drivers would have put their attention on the road instead of worrying about what the other guy was supposedly doing, all 3 would be alive now. Or in the words of some great man at some point in history "mind your own farking business and I'll mind mine."

He was probably phoning the police about the psychos in giant trucks that were swerving and tailgating his puny little wheeled Mt. Dew can.

Your argument is a logical phallicy. How can psychos in giant trucks be tailgating Mt. Dew can yet end up in a head on with non-psycho / enlightened Smart for Two green hero? That's some Keanu Reeves shiate circa 1999.

Beowoolfie: science

You make Baby Jesus cry.

And while I'm sitting there not texting or using my cell phone, some bastard is watching tv.

Good, I'm tired of people driving like morons because they think that they are the exception to all those people who can't drive while conducting a text-based business meeting at the same time.

FTFA:

"The NTSB has been investigating a deadly crash in Gray Summit, Missouri last year. A 19-year-old pickup driver sent 11 texts in the 11 minutes before before the accident"

"We will never know whether the driver was typing, reaching for the phone, or reading a text when his pickup ran into the truck in front of him without warning,"

No. You just know his phone received or sent 11 text messages in the 11 minutes before the accident. In no way does that conclusively show that the accident was caused by texting while driving. This sort of shiat happens with gun legislation too: someone gets killed so the situation is seized on by special interest groups (usually idiotic mothers that like to legislate based on emotion or to give little bobby's senseless death meaning). That said, we all know that 19-year-olds are farking retarded. He could have indeed been texting at the time of the accident. He also could have been fiddling with his radio or messing with his hair. There is no way to know. Perhaps we should ban car radios and hair brushing while driving too?

I am 30 years old. I text during my hour-each-way commute *ALL THE TIME* (for the past 11 years). I've never been in an accident and never even had a near miss. This is because I understand the concept of "attention delegation". See, I understand that not paying attention to your driving can be a fatal mistake (for you and others on the road). This means that I am using the phone only when the situation permits, and never taking my eyes off the road except for, at most, a fraction of a second at a time and only in situations where an accident is physically impossible (such as if I'm on a straight stretch of road with no cars in front of me). If I need to change lanes, turn, or adjust my speed or heading due to the action of other cars, my phone is on the back-burner getting no attention from me. When I'm actually *talking* on the phone, I've been known to ask people to hold so that I can put my phone down whilst I change lanes, etc.

This is literally an issue of being retarded or not being retarded. I am living proof that a reasonable person with a fully-functional brain can accomplish the mind-blowing feat of multi-tasking in a safe manner. shiat, I'm extremely myopic too!

Unfortunately, since most people don't seem to behave in this manner (I'll admit, I've personally had to dodge swerving cars being driven by talking or texting drivers), the national ban will most likely go through. I guess I can accept this. After all, I'm not going to get into a cell-related accident and they certainly won't catch me while I'm breaking said ban (it's not even really enforceable). Such a ban would only affect matters AFTER the fact (when someone has already killed someone with their car as a result of not paying attention to the road; probably in the form of stiffer sentences for morons who can't prioritize their actions in the interest of general safety).

I have known people who were relatively idiotic and got in accidents because they were fiddling with their stereo. Why do cars still have stereos? Because idiots will distract themselves and crash, no matter what the legislature. My problem with cell phones is that they take one hand off the steering wheel for an extended period of time, which makes them less in control of the vehicle if they have to make a quick adjustment.

TwistedIvory:

Sorry to say this, but you're not entitled to special treatment because you made the decision to employ a much more dangerous mode of transport than most everyone else. You bought the crotch-rocket as opposed to the protective metal box. Not anyone else's problem.

AbortionsForAll: FTFA:

"The NTSB has been investigating a deadly crash in Gray Summit, Missouri last year. A 19-year-old pickup driver sent 11 texts in the 11 minutes before before the accident"

"We will never know whether the driver was typing, reaching for the phone, or reading a text when his pickup ran into the truck in front of him without warning,"

No. You just know his phone received or sent 11 text messages in the 11 minutes before the accident. In no way does that conclusively show that the accident was caused by texting while driving. This sort of shiat happens with gun legislation too: someone gets killed so the situation is seized on by special interest groups (usually idiotic mothers that like to legislate based on emotion or to give little bobby's senseless death meaning). That said, we all know that 19-year-olds are farking retarded. He could have indeed been texting at the time of the accident. He also could have been fiddling with his radio or messing with his hair. There is no way to know. Perhaps we should ban car radios and hair brushing while driving too?

I am 30 years old. I text during my hour-each-way commute *ALL THE TIME* (for the past 11 years). I've never been in an accident and never even had a near miss. This is because I understand the concept of "attention delegation". See, I understand that not paying attention to your driving can be a fatal mistake (for you and others on the road). This means that I am using the phone only when the situation permits, and never taking my eyes off the road except for, at most, a fraction of a second at a time and only in situations where an accident is physically impossible (such as if I'm on a straight stretch of road with no cars in front of me). If I need to change lanes, turn, or adjust my speed or heading due to the action of other cars, my phone is on the back-burner getting no attention from me. When I'm actually *talking* on the phone, I've been known to ask people to hold so that I can put my phone down w ...

You're guiding more than a ton of steel, aluminum, and plastic powered by thousands of tiny explosions made by the volatile liquid within down a giant slab of concrete... how about you just pretend that it's worthy of your *undivided* attention.

AbortionsForAll: I am living proof that a reasonable person with a fully-functional brain can accomplish the mind-blowing feat of multi-tasking in a safe manner. shiat, I'm extremely myopic too!

This just in: Risky behavior sometimes requires a long timeline to manifest its consequences. Just because you haven't caused anyone's death through your obstinately and deliberately risky behavior so far doesn't mean you won't. There is a wealth of research on this, and a similar wealth on the poor correlation between a person's PERCEPTION of their own performance during distracted driving and their ACTUAL performance. I know you think you're not putting anyone at risk, because you think you're just such a good and safe driver, but what you're doing is similar to saying "I can drive drunk as long as it's an easy drive" or "as long as I go slow, it's okay if i get high on heroin and drive." Just because you put your phone down when you change lanes doesn't mean you're vigilant for hazards while you're still conversing.

I'm not telling you what to do -- drive however you like, but just accept that you may be responsible for someone's death because you don't want to pull over to talk or wait until you get to your destination to talk. Accept it, admit it, and move on with your life.

I drive 30000+ miles a year so I'm all against this law. This is a law made by people who work a 9-5 and for people who can't drive well anyways. I live on the road. I keep in touch with family and friends while I drive, it helps the time go faster and is no more distracting than the head-banger blairing his radio next to me.

Requiring bluetooths is fine. No texting while driving is good too. But please, remember there are people who live on the road too, and like to use their phone.

/driven 100,000 miles in last 30 months. No accidents. I talk on my bluetooth all the time.

Did you two even read the entirety of my post? I bet 2 dollars that neither of you did. I explained in great detail how texting/talking while driving does not need to affect your attention to driving.

Moonfisher: I have known people who were relatively idiotic and got in accidents because they were fiddling with their stereo. Why do cars still have stereos? Because idiots will distract themselves and crash, no matter what the legislature. My problem with cell phones is that they take one hand off the steering wheel for an extended period of time, which makes them less in control of the vehicle if they have to make a quick adjustment.

There's also an issue for the length of time you're distracted. Fiddling with the stereo is unsafe, but for how many minutes in an hour do you actually do it, where as a phone call can easily last 5 or 10 minutes.

Nofun: I drive 30000+ miles a year so I'm all against this law. This is a law made by people who work a 9-5 and for people who can't drive well anyways. I live on the road. I keep in touch with family and friends while I drive, it helps the time go faster and is no more distracting than the head-banger blairing his radio next to me.

Requiring bluetooths is fine. No texting while driving is good too. But please, remember there are people who live on the road too, and like to use their phone.

/driven 100,000 miles in last 30 months. No accidents. I talk on my bluetooth all the time.

Well Nofun, don't you think that if people are killing themselves through their own negligence, laws should be passed which affect everyone in the interest in saving them?

Nofun: I drive 30000+ miles a year so I'm all against this law. This is a law made by people who work a 9-5 and for people who can't drive well anyways. I live on the road. I keep in touch with family and friends while I drive, it helps the time go faster and is no more distracting than the head-banger blairing his radio next to me.

Requiring bluetooths is fine. No texting while driving is good too. But please, remember there are people who live on the road too, and like to use their phone.

/driven 100,000 miles in last 30 months. No accidents. I talk on my bluetooth all the time.

What if someone monitored you while you drove and talked on the phone, and found that you were less aware of your surroundings and your reaction time was reduced. Would you still feel the same way?

They don't need to legislate this. There's already laws on the books for this.

Reckless driving.

Because yeah, driving distracted is pretty damn reckless.

Joey JoJo Junior Shabadoo: They don't need to legislate this. There's already laws on the books for this.

Reckless driving.

Because yeah, driving distracted is pretty damn reckless.

THIS.

The issue is that "distractions" are chosen arbitrarily without respect to actual human capability. Not only that, but I'm also inclined to believe that many people out there who have been in automotive accidents report to the inquiring police officer that they were 'distracted by their phone' as a knee-jerk way of attempting to avoid embarrassment for simply being a run-of-the-mill idiot.

al's hat: AbortionsForAll: TwistedIvory:

Sorry to say this, but you're not entitled to special treatment because you made the decision to employ a much more dangerous mode of transport than most everyone else. You bought the crotch-rocket as opposed to the protective metal box. Not anyone else's problem.

Ahh, so the bicyclists and pedestrians can go fark themselves as well? Cagers need to realize that the roads aren't all theirs and just because you're enclosed in a relatively safer protective metal box that doesn't mean you can ignore the safety of others. You aren't entitled to be reckless just because you employ safer mode of transport. Distracted driving regardless of the distraction is reckless.

This is exactly my point in what I was saying to TwistedIvory. You are fixated on the idea that since you are not in a car, you are somehow deserving of extra-special consideration. Kinda like how new mothers run around acting as though everyone should yield to their newly productive uteruses (uterii??). I am not saying that since I am in a car and you are not, i can run you over with impunity. I am saying that your decision to ride a powered bicycle amongst speeding metal death machines is your decision to make (despite any unfavorable repercussions to your life and limb) and has no bearing whatsoever on the rest of us.

Rule in Australia is no texting or talking on a phone while driving.
Hands free/blue tooth is fine, though some people want to stop that too. As a few studies have apparently shown how dangerous that is.

I'm ok with it.

phillistine: Horrific head on accident between two Hummer H2's on a rural highway causing two dead H2 owners. Two weeks later they pulled the Hummers apart and found a Smart car had been crushed between them and the driver was still in there. Dead. It was found he was simultaneously texting while talking and had caused the two H2 guys to become distracted by trying to get his attention to "get off the damn phone" resulting in the deadly accident.

I can see this as being entirely possible if the tailgater were road raging to the point of being oblivious to his surroundings, including opposing traffic, while the Smart car driver was distracted by farking around with a cellphone, if he had swerved into an opposing lane and the tailgater followed him (as in "pissed off enough to run him off the road"), such a head-on collision would inevitably ensue.

Only sympathy due is for the unlucky guy getting hit by two morons too distracted to be on the road in the first place, though it's eminently possible that even he may have been distracted enough to not react to oncoming opposing traffic in his lane by swerving out of the way.

al's hat: AbortionsForAll: al's hat: AbortionsForAll: TwistedIvory:

Sorry to say this, but you're not entitled to special treatment because you made the decision to employ a much more dangerous mode of transport than most everyone else. You bought the crotch-rocket as opposed to the protective metal box. Not anyone else's problem.

Ahh, so the bicyclists and pedestrians can go fark themselves as well? Cagers need to realize that the roads aren't all theirs and just because you're enclosed in a relatively safer protective metal box that doesn't mean you can ignore the safety of others. You aren't entitled to be reckless just because you employ safer mode of transport. Distracted driving regardless of the distraction is reckless.

This is exactly my point in what I was saying to TwistedIvory. You are fixated on the idea that since you are not in a car, you are somehow deserving of extra-special consideration. Kinda like how new mothers run around acting as though everyone should yield to their newly productive uteruses (uterii??). I am not saying that since I am in a car and you are not, i can run you over with impunity. I am saying that your decision to ride a powered bicycle amongst speeding metal death machines is your decision to make (despite any unfavorable repercussions to your life and limb) and has no bearing whatsoever on the rest of us.

I don't want any special consideration. I want people to put their freakin' phones, food, cosmetics, and other shiat away and pay attention to their driving. The mode of transport DOESN'T MATTER! If you're driving, riding a bicycle, riding a motorcycle, walking, or moon-walking where others are also sharing the road then pay attention to where you're going and where everyone else is going. The fact is that if you're talking on the phone you are not paying full attention where full attention is needed in order to keep yourself and others from harm.

So I assume that when you're driving a car, you refrain from talking to your passengers then? Or are you suggesting that there's some inherent difference in talking on the phone and talking to someone who's directly next to you? You could argue that using a phone requires the use of your off-hand, but then people use bluetooth for that (and most people routinely drive with one hand anyway). Seriously, I've love to hear the distinction between talking on the phone and talking to someone in the passenger seat. Hell, why don't we just outlaw all cars with more than one seat? Or maybe we can cordon off every car into one-person sound-proof sections?