2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Bob88salem:

So, rather than just speak into a headset in compliance with a new law (which other states have similarly adapted as a safe alternative to handheld devices), you suggest either a special permit ($) or a cell phone tax ($)? I don't think that people who use hands-free cell phone devices would be too thrilled about paying a tax to support people unwilling to go with the flow.

Adding another 100 pages to the Oregon DMV Code of Regulations Book for a section on "Handheld Cell Phone Device Permits" and developing a "quiz" for dissenters of the proposed law don't sound like realistic endeavors. There might be other unintended consequences: Would the addition to the DMV protocol tend to change the DMV employee customer service speed from molasses-in-the-winter-time-slow to completely inert?

posted 4 years ago
view in context

Bob88salem:

Transaction costs will prevent your "special permit" scheme from bearing fruit. 

The ban is a smart idea as it will, inter alia, likely provide incentives that increase overall social welfare:

• If people are required to purchase devices that comply with the new law, they will likely have incentive to maintain such devices and put them to good use;
• People may be inclined to use public transportation more frequently in order to free up their yapper or to avoid dealing with the new law.

These are just a couple of possibilities, but their respective benefits are readily apparent. In addition, people may become more vigilant when driving because the device into which they speak doesn't require the use of fine motor skills, detracting from their ability to physically act/respond to occurrences on the road. The only movement required by the new law would be that of the temporal mandibular joint. 

posted 4 years ago
view in context

While I am no authority on the subject, talking on a cell phone or texting while driving are activities that seemingly result in an impairment. My primary mode of transportation is a bicycle and I am noticing a lot more people using bicycles to get around these days. Personally, I have had some very close calls with people driving erratically while talking on their cell phone.

Without empirical data, it's difficult to determine whether it is the physical act of holding the phone or simply carrying on a conversation that causes the impairment in judgment while driving. Whatever the case may be, a driver with both hands free to operate the vehicle is a reassuring image to a daily bicycle commuter. To my way of thinking, the H.B. 2377 ban on handheld cell phone usage while driving is simply a call to common sense. 

posted 4 years ago
view in context