dance my little puppet dance. ;)

Calling someone liberal and you driving around with a DEAN bumper sticker. :helpme

translation: I have no argument against the truth.

CD, not that you should be taking what the "insurance information institute" says as unbiased fact but from the same page you'll find this:
In the United States, some 134.5 million people used cell phones in 2002, compared with approximately 4.3 million in 1990, according to the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association.

If this number is factual, it makes the rest of the numbers suspect.

33 times the number of cellphones in use and yet auto accidents DROPPED.

Here's a theory:
the government never misses an opportunity to make money of the simple.
when the idiot does something on the road you notice he's an idiot. put a cell phone in the idiot's hand and you notice the phone, not the idiot.
Then the polotician says,"cellphones are dangerous" and the stupid say,"hey, he's right! I remember the guy with the cellphone cutting me off"

but hey, we live in a world of stupid people, thank god I can afford the ticket.:winkwink:

Some of these articles are saying that even the hands-free models are just as dangerous and should be banned, due to the "distraction factor". The thing there is, a lot of car companies offer built-in cellphones with speakerphone as an option to car buyers.

Ever see the movie "The Game"? I believe Michael Douglas had such an option in his rather plush automobile in that film. The phone's controls were right on the steering wheel where you'd find your cruise control and stereo controls.

If they intend to outlaw the hands-free phones too, this will bring up a whole other set of problems.

As someone already mentioned its already illegal here in NY.

I actually got pulled over the other day for it. Moving some furniture for my grandmother from one apt to the next and my phone rings on the 1/8th mile of road I needed to go. Just so happens a State Trooper is passing me at the same exact time as I answer it. Followed me right to the loading dock and gave me grief.

I think they use it more as an excuse to look for bigger problems as he did a good once over and let me go with a warning.

I do agree with the law though. To many idiots on there phones not paying attention to the road. As long as the LEO uses discretion I think it will work out fine.

I'm too lazy to research this further (might here in a bit), but I think it's fairly widely accepted that cell phone usage increase the pontential for accident, substantially.

I know when I use mine, I'm not as good of a driver. Most the stupidity I see on the roads is due to cell phone usage, eating, or just being old.

The question here is not whether it's safe or not (it clearly IS NOT), but why the government should enforce a law to manage personal responsibilities. I guarantee that looking on the floor for CDs or turning around to scold your kids is just as unsafe, but there will never be any laws against those actions.

While I am a firm believer that cell phone usage in cars is absolutely terrible (I've seen some people able to manage just fine), I believe it's the person's choice whether to talk on a phone in the car or not (even though, as proven, a lot of people are not fit to drive while talking).

It's a rough issue because it's clearly a law that'll effect people positively, but crosses over into taking away personal freedom and responsibility.

After reading your posts and opinions on trhis board for several years, I still can't decide whether you're the biggest troll here or you're just an idiot.

http://www.rospa.org.uk/pdfs/road/mobiles/report.pdf
http://www.cogs.sussex.ac.uk/psych/phone.pdf

It is very hard to envision someone driving along with one hand on the wheel and a phone stuck to the side of their head and not know that not only is that person in LESS control of their vehicle but that they are going to be slower to react in an emergency. Also, I don't know too many people that don't have a story or two about having a "near-miss" with an annoyingly obliviious phone-talking driver.

Fact is, there ARE a lot of idiots out there, along with a few responsible people. I find that these types of laws are often brought in because of the idiots, and not so much as to remove yet one more of your rights.

Another fact is, most of the idiots don't even know they're idiots because they are too obliviously engrossed in their conversations to realize they just cut somebody off or barely missed clipping someone etc etc. They only realize they're idiots after they kill someone.

Hey, if there was a way you could pass a test and obtain a permit to use the phone while driving, maybe get a sticker on your car to ward off the cops, that would be fine by me. Doubt that's likely to happen though.

This goes for all ages but this strongly applies to teenagers. I live near a mall and when I go down that strip to get wherever I see countless teenage girls on the phone chatting away oblivious to everything around them. They will run your ass over because there girlfriend on the other line just saw there boyfriend Tommy look at another girl.

These young drivers are inexperienced as it is. The radio alone is a distraction to them. Throw in a teenage dilema via a cell phone conversation and they are outright dangerous.

50 talking drivers

Official laws, maybe not. But I guarranty you, if you start rooting around the floor of your car for CD's and your car starts wavering around in your lane just as you pass a cop, that cop has every cause to pull you over and has the power to write you a ticket for it. It goes hand-in-hand with the "reckless endangerment" aspect of the law, which covers such things as, oh..... say you have a lot of poisonous cleaners and chemicals under your sink. No law against that is there? But if your kid gets into them and dies, can you get in some legal "deep shit" for it? Hell yes you can.

My point exactly. If a person is on their cell phone fucking around, swirving, cutting people off, etc...and a cop sees that person, they should get pulled over for "dangerous vehicle" or "reckless driving" or something along those lines...same as if they were looking for a CD and swirved.

There should not be a law against this (even though it's very dangerous). For those that do drive poorly while on cell phones, very stiff consequences and reprocutions should follow.

What this really is is an example of what happens when we try to treat everyone the same. People are not the same.

Some people are coordinated and can drive and talk and change radio stations and eat all at the same time without driving their SUVs into a pedestrian, and some pedestrians are so fucking spastic that they can't cross a god-damned four-lane road without almost tripping over their own shoe laces twice.

The drivers license test needs to be upgraded. There are too many elderly, uncoordinated, blind people driving. The driving test should test reflexes, coordination, vision, and the ability to multitask AS WELL AS the ability to parallel park, merge onto an expressway, and for the love of God, pull the fuck over out of the fast lane when someone wants to pass.

Love,
Buff

I believe the keyword in this point is the word "preventable". By outlawing hand-held phone use while driving I suppose the hope is to:

- reduce the number of cellphone-using drivers out there.
- reduce the # of cell-phone-related accidents
- make the streets a bit safer
- and of course remove yet another one of *your* rights.

Cops can't be everywhere, and cellphones are able to be banned. Yelling at kids or searching for stuff isn't.

This law has gone into effect because people talking on cell phones while driving endangers every other person on the road, not just the dope who's talking and driving. The government's job is to protect it's citizens, and by banning cell phone talking while driving they are doing so. As a whole, people are incredibly stupid and don't take responsibility for themselves, or do what is smart and safe. Therefore, the government sometimes has to make sure they do it by law. However, I suspect this is a lot like the seatbelt law, meaning it's not likely to be enforced much.

If you're so concerned, why not just get a hands free headset. It seems to me it would be easier to talk that way regardless of the law.

Yelling at kids or reaching for a CD sure is able to be banned. The government can ban whatever they'd like. Is it likely? Obviously not.

I agree it'll do all of the aforementioned things. Banning reaching for a CD while driving would also produce the same results. Handless headsets also provide a great distraction but will not be banned in the near future. So there's a difference between talking on a cell phone and holding it, and talking on a cell phone mounted somewhere (ignore the obvious difference)? Where do you draw the line between personal responsibility and government intervention? I guess that's why we have such a large beaurocracy.

Okay, banned yes, but not as enforcible as banning cell phone usage.

Look, I rallied back in the 80's against forced helmet laws man. The theme of our quite large groundswell of support was "Let those who ride decide"..... but beyond some rather cool t-shirts and a lot of great fundraising parties it went nowhere. Cellphone laws are a fact, no matter where you live you are in an area where they are either coming or are already in force. End of story. Reaching for other shit or yelling at kids isn't going to get an official law of it's own, but cellphones are something that can and will be readily banned.

How much plainer can I say it?

About 16.71% plainer, I think, before you've maxed out.

I like to look up mapquest on my hiptop to get directions while I'm on the freeway. Done it before, no problem.

I'm not oblivious to what's going on here. I understand the reality. I understand that they're going into effect and will be in effect here soon. Not much I can say will ever stop that. I'm not argueing against the inevitable. I'm discussing where the line SHOULD be drawn between government intervention and personal responsibility. I think this is taking it one step too far and crossing into the personal responsibility section (even though most people don't have the responsibility to handle talking on a phone while driving).

What's going to happen and what should happen are two totally different issues. I'm debating what should happen, not what's going to happen.

Thanks. Always nice to know one has a buffer zone Buff. :thumbsup

Uh, okay then.

"It kills people, but banning it is wrong"

Gotcha.

This is where you've obviously thrown in the towel and resorted to retardation. Great logic there...

Fast food kills people, but banning is wrong
Cigarettes kill people, but banning is wrong
Guns kill people, but banning is wrong
Alcohol kills people, but banning is wrong

At least you've conceeded your arguement; could've done so in a better way though.

Ace, it's a "for your own good" ban-able thing. People other than you want it banned. As far as I know there is no major public outcry to have alcohol or fast food banned. There is one for this. If you can't understand that, the last word you should be slinging at me is "retard" boyo.


Here, try using that new head strap thing that binds the phone to your head thus making it "hands free"......


<img SRC="http://members.shaw.ca/billy1-99/pics/drivesafe.jpg">


Looks like it was fucking made for you. :thumbsup

If you can do it hands free you know your a pro!

You should probably learn to spell Libertarian first.

As for your opinion, who cares. I have had numerous close calls due to idiots that can't carry on a phone call and drive at the same time.

Use a headset if you need to drive and talk at the same time.

maybe it went nowhere in Canada, but the laws were repealed in some states down here

My sincere appologies for flipping the E and R. I contemplated suicide at first but after a few hours with my therapist decided that I could press on in life.

Obviously you only read one or two of my post. If you read more, then I'm sorry for your illiteracy. I've already said that I am AGAINST PEOPLE USING PHONES WHILE DRIVING. I'm just trying to have a discussion (without interruption) about where the government should draw the line between intervention and trusting the citizen.

Most states have helmet laws to this day though. There were medical exemtions issued by certain doctors up here, but those that obtained them found that they were being pulled over more often than it was worth.

But damn I miss the days of cruising through city park on a hot sunday with the long hair flying in the breeze. Always wore a full-face on the highway though, as not much sucks worse than a bee in the forehead at 70 mph.

Since we've already established that citizens can't be trusted to do anything on their own responsibly be it helmets, seatbelts, or non-use of cellphones, I think that part of the discussion could very well be considered as "dealt with", no?

But if you'd like to continue filling your replies with little shots and inuendo like "retard" and snide sarcasm, I suppose I have a little more time to trade it with you.

Citizens can be trusted. Not all of them. Those that are not smart enough to wear a seatbelt or drive responsibly while talking on a phone will receive consequences.

As Ben Franklin said in the 1750's: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

hmmm, well since you can't spell apologies either, I suggest you rethink the decision you came to, and just go ahead and commit suicide.

You are right, I stopped reading your posts because I hate reading text that is laced with spelling errors. Besides, your opinion means nothing to me. Anyone that sides with the Libertarian way of thinking really has nothing to say that I will find of much importance.

Libertarians are one reason why the government has decided that the public can't be trusted to make intelligent decisions . . . after all, they voted them into office. How smart can they possibly be?

only 19 states have helmets required for all riders.

I intentionally got a ticket for riding with no helmet (took 4 months to get someone to cite me) and successfully beat it in the Appellate Courts (represented myself) and got it reduced to a fix-it ticket.

and a windshield works a lot better than a full faced helmet IMHO.

Let's try this then shall we? You make a country-wide announcement that people need to curb their tendency to use cellphones while driving and to use them more responsibly. No laws, just you asking the general public to be responsible.


do I need to describe how that would turn out? :1orglaugh



Sorry, but people <i>can't</i> be trusted.





Baddog.... Most states do have helmet laws of some sort though, but whatever. As for the windsheild, I'm 6'4".... a windshield that high looks retarded on a bike, in my very humble opinion. If I still rode I'd be going with the helmet.

At least I got a few years of good riding in, and got to enjoy a few pairs of ear-warmers before the damn brainbucket laws came in. :D

These are state laws... if there is a problem with cell phone drivers in your state, you are gonna get a law passed. If your state doesn't have a problem, then you won't.

I don't see the Fed. Gov't giving any "benefits" if the state enacts these laws, yet.

So write a letter, or make a call to your state legislators and governor if you want to drive with a cell phone held to your ear.

I think hand held phones should be banned, hands-free is fine with me on the road. Most of the real shitheads I encounter on the road here in Vegas have phones pressed to their head.

that law is in a shit load of states now..however you can use your ear piece and talk that way.

Now you'll just look like you're a crazy person talkin to yourself :thumbsup

I really like this law because it just might decrease # of accidents:thumbsup

They can get you for all that under the catchall "driving too fast for conditions"

you need a fixed handsfree car kit