Sorry my friend I don't work for any of these companies and I didn't
do any of the studies. So if there's any stereotyping going on then it's
the people who wrote these articles who are guilty of it.

I believe the main thrust of all the information is that as far
as using communication devices in a vehicle weather it's up side
your head or bluetooth it is a distraction.

A distraction means exactly that. It means a person is "NOT"
giving the task of driving their complete attention and if a person
is "NOT" giving the task of driving their complete attention
(capable or not). logically then that person who's doing the
driving is less safe.

The distraction conclusion can be drawn from a lot of things we do while driving but for the sake of this discussion I believe we are talking about communication devices. Thats why laws have been passed which eliminates
the process of personal opinion both yours and mine.

And on that note I believe I'll move on.....

The policy was enacted January 1st, 2007. I don't have accident statistics for 2006. Driver distraction was considered to be an area that the company could improve in.

Safety statistics have generally improved year over year for 10 or so years.

I think that industry statistics, with a broader sampling base, are probably more relevant than figures from a single company, even one with 4000 drivers impacted by the policy. The link I provided has more complete statistics. Here is the industry group link:

Coalition for Cellphone-Free Driving

The Research Collection tab on this link has a lot of material.

Until (and unless) your government blocks cell phones from working on your nation's highways. And with that, we are back on topic, as that was the proposal discussed in the first post :thumbup:

"No matter how much research and proof that will be given. People will always think they are the 2.5%."

Did you write that or did you crib it from one of the studies?

It sure looks like you wrote it, and if you took it from one of the studies, you should have attributed it to the article so that people don't draw an incorrect conclusion. My money is on you writing it, which is stereotyping everyone. The prosecution rests.

:popcorn:

So basically, there is no solid evidence that the policy at your company had any effect on safety due to cell phone use or non-use. Which is not to undermine the intent of "we're doing everything we can to be more safe". I work for a company that manufactures retail products and safety is always #1 in the plants.

My point is that the government is once again over stepping their authority and inconveniencing the majority because the minority is a bunch of idiots who put their and others lives in danger by texting or not using a hands free phone. Make the fine astronomical for people texting or not using a hands free phone, don't ban the use for the rest of us, it's ridiculous.

It will never happen. The cell phone towers are primarily around the nations highways and serve the surrounding communities.

What happens when someone is in an accident and the phone doesn't work because the government blocked the tower access and someone dies? or someone whose house is served by a tower close to the highway can't call for emergency assistance in their own house because of bleed over "cell tower blocking"? Not to mention the money it would cost to repoint the towers.

Now this I can absolutely agree with...im tired of blanket changes that affect everyone instead of only punishing the actual people doing the wrongs.

I believe there is evidence, but that it is a small sample and therefore not as strong as the figures cited in broader studies. The first link used a figure of 5500 killed per year in the US, and a half million injured, and another study suggested those figures are low.

My point in referencing my experience with my employer was not to provide a statistically relevant study, or to sell the concept for other companies, but to give firsthand experience of the world not ending under such a policy. Life doesn't depend on making cell phone calls from moving vehicles.

I agree with that point and that punishment concept completely. The problem we face now though is that the minority of idiots have become the majority.

Sorry, my bad. 'On your nations highways' was phrasing I used to describe 'in moving vehicles'. The article discussed in-vehicle solutions, and technology solutions with the carriers that blocked calls from moving locations such as cars. Not sure how it would work with trains. There wasn't a suggestion to deploy jammers alongside highways.