Car Tech forum: Are you for or against GPS and cell phones in cars?

You've heard the old saying "Guns don't kill people - people kill people." The same holds true for Technology such as cell phones and GPS systems. In and of themselves they don't make driving unsafe whatsoever. Its how people use technology in their car that makes their driving less safe. A person using a GPS system should not be fiddling with it while driving. They should pull over to the side of the road or set their destination prior to starting out on a trip. As for cell phones, again its how people use them in their cars that makes driving less safe - not the cell phones themselves that made driving less safe. A person should use a little bit of common sense and not distract themselves with technology while driving. But common sense isn't so common.

Jim from New Jersey

dickgoodwin2003 this is great. I tried saying the same thing, but you said it so much better. We don't need another stupid law. Those gadgets have made things a lot easier. I'd like to see those complainers going back to the horse and buggy stage, but they'd find something else to complain about. But isn't this the American Way... blame somebody or something else for all your screw-ups, you are never responsible for your own schtuff.

I do a lot of driving all over the country and have seen some real careless drivers useing cell phones. I have an answer to this that most out there will hate me for. When the car is moving there should be an interference so that you can't use either the cell phone or the GPS. Anyone agree with me?

There should be a law against using cell phones in cars. Practically every time you see a car doing erratic, or unreasonable things, the driver is talking on a cell phone. Hands free cell phones would be an improvement, but the modern day population has become addicted to cell phone conversations. If I get a cell phone call while I am driving, I wait until I can pull off the road and return the call. I do not get "911" calls, so the caller can wait until I feel it is safe to talk.

I certainy like to use my GPS and will use it as long as it is not endangering my life and the lives of others on the road. If it needs readjusting, I will pull off he road to do so. I have looked at Mapquest for directions, but I preview it before the trip, know where I am likely to have problems, and lay it open to that place. AND I would never try to look at a paper map while driving.

As a transplanted New York State resident, one of my favorite lines when Mario Cuomo led our People's Republic was that if he had his way, the drinking age would be 55 and the speed limit 21. And why not? If speed is bad, if drinking is bad, then let's take it to a REALLY meaningful level of intrusion. And I'm sick and tired of legislators patting themselves on their backs every time they think they've solved a problem by passing a law banning that something or other. If that were the case, there would be no speeders, because there are laws prohibiting it; no murders, because there are laws prohibiting it; etc.

In April, I drove about 1000 miles in the UK, where drivers are much more courteous, the roads are not as good, and things just seem to go better. Now I navigated those roads with a rented GPS (or, as I told my wife, with TWO women telling me when to turn). Without the GPS, I would have become hopelessly lost, or become confused and made an inappropriate turn. We also would have missed out on some really cool things we saw on side roads that we were unafraid to take because of our faithful little GPS. It was one less thing I needed to think about while concentrating on driving on the wrong side of the road. (And I never became truly comfortable on the left side, especially with all the roundabouts.)

The fact is that virtually everything can be used for good or bad - it's all in the user's ability and intent. GPS and cells have undoubtedly saved far more time, pollution, accidents, injuries, and deaths than they have caused. In fact, there was a cause celebre in upstate New York this winter when two elderly motorists froze to death when their car went off I-87 in the Adirondack Park. They had a cell phone, but couldn't reach anyone because there were no cell towers because of concerns about the adverse impacts of cell towers on the park(!?) This was not the first fatality of its type on the extreme northern part of I-87, but it was the one that finally pushed everyone, from the carriers to the environmentalists, to move to a reasonable middle ground and install towers along the road.

I have two words for anyone truly serious about improving highway safety: mandatory relicensing.

I think you've missed my point. My point is that the state has a legitimate vital interest to protect the greater good - it either doesn't know how or has missed the mark horribly in the case of highway regulations, among many others. Read my last line - I'm a strong advocate of mandatory testing upon relicensing. That hardly qualifies as libertarian nonsense. And yes, there is libertarian nonsense, just as there is socialist/nanny state nonsense. For example, I favor mandatory motorcycle helmet laws, if for no other reason than the fact that some helmetless riders survive motorcycle accidents and too frequently impose tremendous costs upon society - usually taxpayers - to take care of them. Here's another: which is worse, the use of DDT or the one million new cases of malaria annually in Africa that would be prevented by the use of DDT? You're probably saying, "Ah, but that's a poor choice. The real problem is the indiscriminate/improper/irresponsible use of DDT." And if you were saying that, you would agree with my point. The keys are to encourage the proper behaviors so as to gain the maximum benefit from something, and to discourage improper behaviors. That is why speed limits and laws prohibiting murder and the like are again, legitimate roles of the state. All actions, either active or passive, have consequences. Some of the problems come in when the rules and regs are seen as arbitrary or improper - then, in that case, I agree that no law is better than bad law. For example, the 55 mph speed limit was so blatantly ignored because the roads were obviously designed to accommodate speeds of up to twice that. To me, the greater problem is out of touch legislators who fail to look at costs and benefits and decide that the best way to deal with a potential problem is to prohibit its occurrence. If the law passes the legitimacy test (often a fairly extreme assumption), all the benefits of that activity are also lost to society.

Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right, to use a powerful piece of equipment, and it should be a high bar that one must clear to get - and keep - a license. Outlawing GPS devices and cell phones is a poor excuse for addressing the underlying behaviors of a small minority of people who quite honestly lack the common sense to know any better.

And no, I'm hardly a libertarian, although you could have called me much worse. Now let me ask you a question: if drinking and driving kill, and speed kills, then, according to your logic, why SHOULDN'T the drinking age be 55 and the insterstate speed limit 21? Seems to me that a lot of lives could be saved. . . .

Noel Coward observed that two things are universal: hydrogen and stupidity, and the latter occurs in greater abundance. Don't consider that an attack upon you; it's just a general observation.

Exactly as my title says: I'm for GPS and cell phones in the car, but don't trust anybody holding a telephone in one of their hands while driving. I've seen too many uncontrolled moves by people doing that, sometimes aggravated by the fact that there are others in the car like a couple of kids. I believe that it is unwise and even dangerous and irresponsible and should be forbidden by law. By the way I have used a TomTom Navigation GPS system all over North America from New York to California on my travels to the States and use this system quite extensively in Europe where I reside. I have a blue tooth connection from my cellphone to the TomTom, which works just great. I can call people by just briefly touching the screen for the correct number and I only do that when traffic allows. This is different from using a handheld cellphone, because a call to or from someone will not stop when traffic does not allow for taking eyes of the road and hands of the wheel. On a long haule an occasional call on my (blue tooth) cellphone even helps me staying alert, while music from my stereo eventually might make me a bit drowsy. Also the lady inside my TomTom keeps me on the ball by now and then telling me where I am, what to expect, where I have to turn, etc. She is virtually indispensable.
Bottemline: GPS and Cellphones should not be any problem or may even be preferred as long as you can have your hands free at all times.

For it! Consider that you won't be searching for an address, but get actually directed to your target. Most of the GPS units for cars, have audible driving direction, so you don't even need to look at the unit. So, based upon setting the targeted address ahead of time, it's actually a lot safer.

I don't know why, but I do know for certain that cell phones are much more distracting than adjusting the stereo, conversing with passengers, eating or adjusting heat/ac controls. I find they compromise my driving considerably more than those other activities and that I have to make a concerted effort to stay safely focused on traffic and the road when using one. Consequently, I avoid using the cell whenever I am in heavy traffic.

Oh yeah, I think that cells are probably even more distracting than sexual activity in a car. They certainly can spoil the mood!

asc2078 ... well, I can understand your anger against cell phones, but I've had just as many close calls and actual accidents caused by people who are NOT on the phone or fiddling with other gadgets, they just simply didn't pay attention or misjudged their distance from me. So please don't blame all accidents on cell phones...it isn't the phone that is driving it's a fallible human driving. And once again WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE STUPID USELESS LAWS. All they are doing is taking just one more thread of freedom away from us. Each additional law controls the general public just one bit more. Where will it end?

Some people are capable of using cell phones responsibly, while others seem incapable of doing so without becoming a road menace. I witnessed a woman driving a Dodge Ram truck while on her cell phone only a couple of days ago, and she was all over the road. She's one of those who should not be on the phone while driving, while there are many others who can drive in a straight line in traffic without endangering those around them.

I use my phone very infrequently while driving, but I have used it on more than one occasion to call 911 and report dangerous drivers. It seems to me the act of advising the police about dangerous drivers has more value to society in than the incremental risk of making such a call - should that use be outlawed? I would say no.

Sure, cell phones and other devices can be a distraction, but what about people lighting up their cigarettes, reading, the dog on their lap or trying to control their kids fighting in the back seat? Are we going to legislate each one of these, or are we going to focus solely on particular devices and selectively ignore the others?

As soon as we focus on one (or more) particular distraction, we run the risk of excluding other, equally valid, distractions. Where I live, we have an offence titled "Driving without due care and attention", and it makes sense to use that offence in each and every situation where it applies, rather than legislation targeted at specific distractions.

Let's take action on stupid people, not make stupid laws.

The logical argument is to say that a driver is responsible for the vehicle and its passengers. The experience is that people simply don't care. Cell use, GPS use, combing hair & using the mirror to make up one's face, and substance abuse are common and rampant.
The new technology of autonomous computer navigation which is now being applied to experimental vehicles in off-road situations as well as urban driving may result in a termination of driving priviledges. Once this technology is sufficiently perfected both government and insurance companies (primarily the latter) will fasten on its utility and force every driver to use automatic driving. At first it will be welcome as a new toy and driving option, but at the point where we lose the ability to drive the car ourselves we will experience the loss of yet another liberty.
This is no pipe dream and no crack pot idea. It's happening now and being discussed now. Enjoy the freedom of personal driving while you can, its days are numbered.

GPS for mobile phones should be optional.
NOT forced as this is MORE gov't spying, imo.
Cell users should be able to turn GPS off or on, depending on preference.
If you don't want anyone to know where you are at a given time, it's YOUR privilege & should have the option.

Too many can barley drive now.Let alone paying more attention to there phone conversation than where they are going.

I'm very much for the talking GPS's in cars. I'm very much against not stopping when you have to reinter data unless you have a passenger that can use it.

I just bought a StreetPilot III after using one to travel to California from Texas. It allows you to find the kind of resutrants you want, places to stop and walk, state parks, and other roadside attractions as well as places to service your car.

It WAY beats looking at a map or directions while driving and adds saftey and convenience, especially for single, long-distance drivers.

I don't believe people should be dialing phones while driving and they really don't need to have any kind of intense talking as they do get very distracted. But having a cell phone in the car does give another layer of safety while traveling. And having voice dialing and no hands talking improves the safety some.

We were able to track down a motel, even though the towns were full of relatives waiting to greet troups returning from Iran, after we found Josuha Tree National Park was full, using both the Street Pilot and the cell phone.