Talking While Driving? Not any more... - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

woj · 01-15-2004, 09:28 AM

50 talking drivers

CDSmith · 01-15-2004, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ace-Ace
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.

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.

Ace-Ace · 01-15-2004, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CDSmith
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.

Buff · 01-15-2004, 09:34 AM

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

CDSmith · 01-15-2004, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ace-Ace
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.

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.

BobChezule · 01-15-2004, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ace-Ace
This law is absolutely ridiculous. This goes to show how much the government trusts the people, and how much personal responsibility the government will give the people. While I agree that cell phones are a terrible distraction to drivers, this should not be enforced by law. What about eating? Putting your make up on? Checking the floor for a CD? Scolding your children behind you? Looking for the button to roll your window down? All of these things distract from driving, should they be banned via legislation as well?

Absolutely ridiculous.

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.

Ace-Ace · 01-15-2004, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CDSmith
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.

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.

CDSmith · 01-15-2004, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ace-Ace
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.

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?

Buff · 01-15-2004, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CDSmith
How much plainer can I say it?

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

cluck · 01-15-2004, 10:12 AM

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

Ace-Ace · 01-15-2004, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CDSmith
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?

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.

CDSmith · 01-15-2004, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Buff
About 16.71% plainer, I think, before you've maxed out.

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

CDSmith · 01-15-2004, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ace-Ace
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).

Uh, okay then.

"It kills people, but banning it is wrong"

Gotcha.

Ace-Ace · 01-15-2004, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CDSmith
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.

CDSmith · 01-15-2004, 11:48 AM

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.

xxxoutsourcing · 01-15-2004, 12:04 PM

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

baddog · 01-15-2004, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ace-Ace

If you've read my posts regarding the war against terrorism, you'd probably assume that I am a hardcore right wing republican. This is not true at all. If I have any political affiliation at all, it is with the libretarian party.

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.

baddog · 01-15-2004, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CDSmith

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.

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

Ace-Ace · 01-15-2004, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by baddog

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.

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.

CDSmith · 01-15-2004, 12:22 PM

Quote:

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

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.

CDSmith · 01-15-2004, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ace-Ace
... where the government should draw the line between intervention and trusting the citizen.

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.

Ace-Ace · 01-15-2004, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CDSmith
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"

baddog · 01-15-2004, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ace-Ace
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.

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?

baddog · 01-15-2004, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CDSmith
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.

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.

CDSmith · 01-15-2004, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ace-Ace
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"

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?

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

SexxxyChat-T · 01-15-2004, 02:26 PM

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.

Babagirls · 01-15-2004, 04:06 PM

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

axelcat · 01-15-2004, 04:11 PM

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

ModelPerfect · 01-15-2004, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ace-Ace
WASHINGTON ? Hand-held cell phone use while driving will be illegal in the nation's capital starting on July 1 and a ban is soon to be signed into law in New Jersey.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108409,00.html

If you've read my posts regarding the war against terrorism, you'd probably assume that I am a hardcore right wing republican. This is not true at all. If I have any political affiliation at all, it is with the libretarian party.

This law is absolutely ridiculous. This goes to show how much the government trusts the people, and how much personal responsibility the government will give the people. While I agree that cell phones are a terrible distraction to drivers, this should not be enforced by law. What about eating? Putting your make up on? Checking the floor for a CD? Scolding your children behind you? Looking for the button to roll your window down? All of these things distract from driving, should they be banned via legislation as well?

Absolutely ridiculous.

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

Tom H · 01-15-2004, 04:22 PM

you need a fixed handsfree car kit

ModelPerfect · 01-15-2004, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Babagirls
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

I love doing that in grocery stores with a very inconspiculous earpiece. The looks you get are priceless.

Rich · 01-15-2004, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ace-Ace
A Nazi Party member coming to the US in the 40's would most likely be in shock regarding freedom of speech as well, eh?

No, I think they'd be impressed with your lack of free speech and use of mass media propaganda. Every single person outside the USA will agree with me, as will most inside the US.

Rich · 01-15-2004, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich

No, I think they'd be impressed with your lack of free speech and use of mass media propaganda. Every single person outside the USA will agree with me, as will most inside the US.

I read your post wrong, thought you said "from the 40's" not "in the 40's". A nazi soldier coming to 2004 America would feel right at home.

myjah · 01-15-2004, 06:11 PM

good idea. i myself can barely drive and talk at the same time. and when i'm on the phone i frequently miss exits or turns altogether.

chodadog · 01-15-2004, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

Choda, you've reached the wrong conclusion from what you saw.
If they taped 100s of people yapping away yet didn't film any accidents at this "intersection of two high traffic roads" the conclusion you should have reached is that the practice is safe.

for the amount of people using cell phones while driving, the increase in traffic accidents is non-existent. So is the need for these idiot laws.

Most drunk drivers don't have accidents either. They're just a hell of a lot more likely to. Studies have been done. The results are in, and have been, for a long time.

http://cartalk.cars.com/About/Drive-Now/trl-study.pdf
The Transport Research Laboratory of England concluded that driving while having a conversation on the phone impairs one's driving more than having a blood alcohol level above the legal limit.

http://cartalk.cars.com/About/Drive-...v-release.html
Montreal, February 7, 2001 -- Researchers at the Transportation Safety Laboratory of Universite de Montreal today presented the results of a major epidemiological study on the risks of road accidents and the use of wireless telephones.

Overall, the study shows that both male and female wireless telephone users have a 38% higher risk of accident compared with the nonusers of the same gender. Relative risk increases with frequency of cell phone use; the risk of accident for heavy users (more than 135 calls made per month) is about twice the risk for light users (fewer than 10 calls made per month). These results take into account other accident risk factors, including driver age and the year of the accident, and driving habits, such as kilometers driven annually and night driving.

http://www.apa.org/journals/xap/xap6131.html
For a really wordy and in depth study from the American Psychological Association.

http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCog...PS-Reprint.pdf
Dual-task studies assessed the effects of cellular-phone conversations on performance of a simulted driving task. Performance was not disrupted by listening to radio broadcasts or listening to a book on tape. Nor was it disrupted by a continuous shadowing task using a handheld phone, ruling out, in this case, dual-task interpretations assosciated with holding the phone, listening, or speaking. However, significant interference was observed in a word-generation variant of the shadowing task, and this deficit increased with the difficulty of driving. Moreover, unconstrained conversations using either a handheld or a hands-free cell phone resulted in a twofold increase in the failure to detect simulated traffic signals and slower reactions to those signals that were detected. We suggest that cellular-phone use disrupts performance by diverting attention to an engaging cognitive contexty other than the one immediately associated with driving.

Plenty more of this stuff available if you're only prepared to look for it.

01-15-2004, 09:28 AM	#51
woj <&(©¿©)&> Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 47,882	50 talking drivers __________________ Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000 Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager

01-15-2004, 09:34 AM	#54
Buff GFY Assassin Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,993	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 Last edited by Buff; 01-15-2004 at 09:45 AM..

01-15-2004, 10:12 AM	#60
cluck Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,248	I like to look up mapquest on my hiptop to get directions while I'm on the freeway. Done it before, no problem. __________________ icq 279990726 www.mcdonalds.com <- great money making opportunity

01-15-2004, 11:48 AM	#65
CDSmith Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am I located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :) Posts: 51,460	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. __________________ *Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!* ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!! Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

01-15-2004, 12:04 PM	#66
xxxoutsourcing Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 3,888	If you can do it hands free you know your a pro! __________________ xxxoutsourcing.com ICQ:119936 \| Aim:xxxoutsourcing \| MSN:msn@ xxxoutsourcing.com \| Yahoo:xxxoutsourcing Submitters, Designers, Programmers, Cartoonist, Creative Writers, Video & Photo Editors Convert your Paysite into a cartoon site convert2toons.com

01-15-2004, 02:26 PM	#76
SexxxyChat-T Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 697	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. __________________ Need more cowbell? Then offer SexxxyChat live webcam feeds to your customers! Make up to 35% of all sales, $30 on first purchase, or $10 per signup

01-15-2004, 04:06 PM	#77
Babagirls Text Writer Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 18,812	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 __________________ Need a Text Writer? Blogs\|Reviews\|Descriptions\|Paysites\|TGP's\|Stories ICQ: 397892500

01-15-2004, 04:11 PM	#78
axelcat Adult Locals Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: West Coast Posts: 25,450	I really like this law because it just might decrease # of accidents

01-15-2004, 04:22 PM	#80
Tom H Registered User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: UK Posts: 33	you need a fixed handsfree car kit __________________ Are you a playa....? Click here to get pimpin gear! Click here to get informed!

01-15-2004, 06:11 PM	#84
myjah Back in the harbor Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 11,482	good idea. i myself can barely drive and talk at the same time. and when i'm on the phone i frequently miss exits or turns altogether. __________________ VP of Marketing AVN Media Network Skype: AVNJill [email protected]