I may be the only here to find this amusing

[Il Duce]

and if so then sobeit

IIHS news release

[Chucktshoes]

So the ban doesn't stop the behavior, it just causes people engaging in it to do so in a manner that in its attempts to be hidden results in it being more dangerous. Hmm...so what they are saying is prohibition doesn't work?

[Il Duce]

yeah like how red light and speed cameras decrease accidents

[strickj]

yeah like how red light and speed cameras decrease accidents

They do decrease accidents.

The increase in rear-end collisions is caused by following too closely.

[Mike.357]

people do what they want inside their cars it seems. Having laws making it illegal does not make much difference.

You can't legislate common sense.

[vontar]

BTW, believe it or not, I have TEXT disabled on our phones by the carrier.

We all know the saying. Some people just can't walk, talk and chew bubble gum at the same time. Some people are just naturally more coordinated. I will talk hands free while driving, but texting and other takes a persons eyes away from the road which is a major problem. Also, i limit phone calls to those have to calls, I don't get on the phone just to be on the phone while driving.

In my like of work, doing tech support, me and another co worker have dealt with the same person, who insists on doing his trouble shooting his air card while driving down the road.

He tells us, it is OK, he is in a rural area, no traffic. The way we figured it out was his cell phone kept dropping. Of course we tried to encourage him to either pull over or get to where he was going and call back. Told him we where available 24/7, but he was in a hurry to guess what, get his email.

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

What I see here is between 6 and 8 percent accidents due to texting...

The highest is 10, and that's in MN and IA, not great states for driving anyways...

6% Damn... That's dangerous

[Guest Caveman]

yeah like how red light and speed cameras decrease accidents

The claim that those cameras decrease accidents is ridiculous and pisses me off. They do NOT decrease accidents, they only serve to generate revenue. I'm so tired of all these laws being made to help "protect" me. Back off me with your laws and I will protect myself. They can take their laws and shove them.

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

The claim that those cameras decrease accidents is ridiculous and pisses me off. They do NOT decrease accidents, they only serve to generate revenue. I'm so tired of all these laws being made to help "protect" me. Back off me with your laws and I will protect myself. They can take their laws and shove them.

+3

[vontar]

The claim that those cameras decrease accidents is ridiculous and pisses me off. They do NOT decrease accidents, they only serve to generate revenue. I'm so tired of all these laws being made to help "protect" me. Back off me with your laws and I will protect myself. They can take their laws and shove them.

+4

[Garufa]

The claim that those cameras decrease accidents is ridiculous and pisses me off. They do NOT decrease accidents, they only serve to generate revenue. I'm so tired of all these laws being made to help "protect" me. Back off me with your laws and I will protect myself. They can take their laws and shove them.

But, but in Knoxville it decreases accidents. The city has stats to prove it that their cameras work to make us all safe.

[LagerHead]

They do decrease accidents.

The increase in rear-end collisions is caused by following too closely.

The claim that those cameras decrease accidents is ridiculous and pisses me off. They do NOT decrease accidents, they only serve to generate revenue. I'm so tired of all these laws being made to help "protect" me. Back off me with your laws and I will protect myself. They can take their laws and shove them.

Amen. The same way gun free zones don't decrease mass shootings.

[Guest mustangdave]

I smell a revenue stream in the making