General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
|
Notice how none of the studies cited mention any special inability by teens to use hands-free cell phones while driving.
Do they have any reasonable reason to put stricter restrictions on teens then everyone else? Probably not. They probably just knew they could get away with it, so why not? And it is ageism, not agism. And you're right. It is. |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
|
That isn't entirely true. Teens on a cell phone are distracted, yes, and their focus on the road dips to be equal to that of someone over 65 not on a cell phone. To outright ban teens on phones is as justified as banning all drivers over 65.
Furthermore, graduated driver's licenses don't really work. In California at least they haven't had much effect on driving except making teens a bit safer and making those just out of their teens more dangerous. It hasn't prepared people for driving, just delayed their learning curve. But even if teens have a generally higher accident rate, there doesn't appear to be anything specific about teens having a bigger problem with cell phones (and hands free phones no less) than other drivers. |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
|
Originally posted by OzzyKP
To outright ban teens on phones is as justified as banning all drivers over 65. ![]() You are a silly man. |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
|
Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
![]() ![]() Hottie: "Get away from me, you pervert!" Zribbler: "No, I have to give you mouth to mouth, or else you'll die!" |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|