How would they know I'm texting?

[sgdp]

Okay. I get it. Texting and driving is dangerous. Ditto for eating, drinking, changing the radio station, screaming kids in the back, etc.

Now, for a moment, let's consider that there is a law banning texting while operating a motor vehicle.

"I wasn't texting, Officer. I was checking the time."

"I wasn't texting, Officer. I was putting my phone on silent so it wouldn't be a distraction."

"I wasn't texting, Officer. I was simply reading my e-mail."

You could just as easily be reading a take-out menu or an important paper.

Where does it stop if there's a law on "texting while driving"? My state does not have this. I think some do, but I'm not sure which.

Does anyone know what the limitations are on this? If a cop so much as sees you glancing at your phone, would you get a ticket?

[pattyk]

I think if they see you texting, or get into a wreck, they can probably check with your phone provider to see what time your last text was.

just thinkin'

[MrShotShot]

If the officer feels you were texting, you will be issued a ticket.

It is then up to you through phone records to prove that you weren't.

Not exactly "innocent until proven guilty," but there's really no other way to enforce it.

BTW, Patterson just signed the no-texting law in NYS.

[malnila]

We have the no texting law here in California and there was just an incident of a guy texting for approx. 1/2 hour until he mowed down a woman in a crosswalk. He claims he wasn't texting and didn't see her in the crosswalk but yes, the phone provider can track that down. Too many teens have died here texting on the freeway and driving like bats outta hell. It's even dangerous using a bluetooth unless you have the voice activated kind so you don't have to look to find the number you want to dial.

[SFC(R)L]

People who drive while on the phone, texting, reading, processing email, applying makeup, coiffing hair, or constantly turning their head and eyes from the road as they are engaged in a fascinating conversation with their passenger while sightseeing in the left lane should be pulled over, removed from their vehicle and beaten senseless with a sharp stick.

The vehicle should have its tires removed and left on the ground, and the offending driver should be made to watch as their license is snipped into little pieces right there.

Not that I'm bitter.

[Greyclouds]

People who drive while on the phone, texting, reading, processing email, applying makeup, coiffing hair, or constantly turning their head and eyes from the road as they are engaged in a fascinating conversation with their passenger while sightseeing in the left lane should be pulled over, removed from their vehicle and beaten senseless with a sharp stick.

The vehicle should have its tires removed and left on the ground, and the offending driver should be made to watch as their license is snipped into little pieces right there.

Not that I'm bitter.

Letting them off with a slap on the wrist, eh? :lol:

[VCaddy05]

Okay. I get it. Texting and driving is dangerous. Ditto for eating, drinking, changing the radio station, screaming kids in the back, etc.

Now, for a moment, let's consider that there is a law banning texting while operating a motor vehicle.

"I wasn't texting, Officer. I was checking the time."

"I wasn't texting, Officer. I was putting my phone on silent so it wouldn't be a distraction."

"I wasn't texting, Officer. I was simply reading my e-mail."

You could just as easily be reading a take-out menu or an important paper.

Where does it stop if there's a law on "texting while driving"? My state does not have this. I think some do, but I'm not sure which.

Does anyone know what the limitations are on this? If a cop so much as sees you glancing at your phone, would you get a ticket?

Its all an obnoxious revenue maker IMO, there are far too many distractions to try and enforce this one. Just more BS by the do gooders IMO

[SFC(R)L]

Letting them off with a slap on the wrist, eh? :lol:

Well, you have to be law enforcement to get the death laser feature installed on your ranch hand from Cabela's.

[SFC(R)L]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/28/AR2009092802136_pf.html

[Samm]

Okay. I get it. Texting and driving is dangerous. Ditto for eating, drinking, changing the radio station, screaming kids in the back, etc.

Now, for a moment, let's consider that there is a law banning texting while operating a motor vehicle.

"I wasn't texting, Officer. I was checking the time."

"I wasn't texting, Officer. I was putting my phone on silent so it wouldn't be a distraction."

"I wasn't texting, Officer. I was simply reading my e-mail."

You could just as easily be reading a take-out menu or an important paper.

Where does it stop if there's a law on "texting while driving"? My state does not have this. I think some do, but I'm not sure which.

Does anyone know what the limitations are on this? If a cop so much as sees you glancing at your phone, would you get a ticket?

After he shoots you he can check your phone to see what mode it was in...

[VCaddy05]

After he shoots you he can check your phone to see what mode it was in...
:))

[sgdp]

Y'all are too much. :lol: Really.

[sgdp]

I was driving and my Facebook alert went off. Well, that's not a text message. That's Facebook. If I respond, I'm commenting not texting... ;)

I hope they don't make this a national law. :(

[Samm]

I was driving and my Facebook alert went off. Well, that's not a text message. That's Facebook. If I respond, I'm commenting not texting... ;)

I hope they don't make this a national law. :(

I hope they make it a Capital offense... you guys are freaking dangerous.

[sgdp]

I hope they make it a Capital offense... you guys are freaking dangerous.

I don't respond. I just read it. Sometimes it's important.

[BrittleBullet]

Just ban all phone use while driving.

[Samm]

I don't respond. I just read it. Sometimes it's important.

Your eyes belong on the road, not on some dinky phone screen. Nothing is more important than keeping your attention on what your ton and a half missile traveling at 50 -100 feet per second on a public road is doing.

[sgdp]

Your eyes belong on the road, not on some dinky phone screen. Nothing is more important than keeping your attention on what your ton and a half missile traveling at 50 -100 feet per second on a public road is doing.

No, what will kill me and the people around me is changing the radio station because that annoying commercial "1877 Kars 4 Kids" comes on.

What will kill me will be trying to remember where I was going or trying to read street names.

What will kill me is staring at the cute guy next to me.

What will kill me is the bright, blinky, quickly changing billboards.

What will kill me is going the speed limit on the interstate in the construction zone, because I'm the only one who does 55.

I mean, really. There are SO many distractions. Me glancing at a screen is the least of my worries.

[Samm]

No, what will kill me and the people around me is changing the radio station because that annoying commercial "1877 Kars 4 Kids" comes on.

What will kill me will be trying to remember where I was going or trying to read street names.

What will kill me is staring at the cute guy next to me.

What will kill me is the bright, blinky, quickly changing billboards.

What will kill me is going the speed limit on the interstate in the construction zone, because I'm the only one who does 55.

I mean, really. There are SO many distractions. Me glancing at a screen is the least of my worries.
No... what will kill you (and probably somebody else as well) is not having your eyes on the road when one of those idiots around you does something stupid. The answer to others being stupid is not to be stupid too; the key to survival on the roads is defensive driving and you cannot do that with your eyes on your phone.

[sgdp]

No... what will kill you (and probably somebody else as well) is not having your eyes on the road when one of those idiots around you does something stupid. The answer to others being stupid is not to be stupid too; the key to survival on the roads is defensive driving and you cannot do that with your eyes on your phone.

No skin off my nose. :cool:

[malnila]

Its all an obnoxious revenue maker IMO, there are far too many distractions to try and enforce this one. Just more BS by the do gooders IMO

Really??? I will pray that one of these who "shouldn't be required to stop texting while driving" does not take you or a loved one out while being selfish by not following the law. People ARE dying here in California because someone thinks it's more important to read a text message and respond while doing 65 on the freeway. Wouldn't be any skin off my nose if they only take themselves out but more times than not, they are mowing over pedestrians in crosswalks while running a red light they "didn't see...."

[drylok]

I don't care for nanny state laws myself and I don't mind when people die, it's part of life. Besides I never did understand how a law the prohibits someone from doing something actually saves lives.
It would be interesting to know how many millions of people texted while driving today and didn't have the slightest finder binder

[FidelisAdMortem]

You read your email while you're driving?

[sgdp]

You read your email while you're driving?

If it's important, yes.

[natalie addict]

People who drive while on the phone, texting, reading, processing email, applying makeup, coiffing hair, or constantly turning their head and eyes from the road as they are engaged in a fascinating conversation with their passenger while sightseeing in the left lane should be pulled over, removed from their vehicle and beaten senseless with a sharp stick.

The vehicle should have its tires removed and left on the ground, and the offending driver should be made to watch as their license is snipped into little pieces right there.

Not that I'm bitter.

I seem to recall that for the longest time BMW didn't have cupholders in their cars because when you're doing 120mph plus on the Autobahn you got no time for reaching for a sippy cup.

I've done 100mph+ a couple of times in my BMW's and its just amazing how fast you come up behind on stuff.

[FidelisAdMortem]

If it's important, yes.

Thats very hazardous.

[MrShotShot]

No skin off my nose. :cool:

Given your avatar, I find your choice of words very funny.

[merickson]

If it's important, yes.
A) please define "important":

- "Your daughter was in a big accident, bring your kidney to the hospital."
- "You forgot your briefcase."
- "What's the estimate on the Smith contract?"
- "Add milk to the shopping list."
- "When will you get here, Pookie?"

B) How do you determine if its important before reading?

C) How do you respond?

Question C is the key question. Responding to an important message would involve pulling over, why not pull over to start with.

[NCRedState]

No skin off my nose. :cool:

The cause of these "nanny state" laws.

[Samm]

If it's important, yes.

So tell me... how do you determine if it is important (important enough to risk both your life and my life) before you read it?

NOTHING is more important than keeping your attention on your driving and the driving of others around you. PERIOD!

[Samm]

No skin off my nose. :cool:

Don't be too sure:

Nearly 42 percent of the female drivers in the sample sustained facial injuries from a deploying air bag, compared with about 24 percent of the men.

http://www.ur.umich.edu/9697/Apr01_97/artcl05.htm

[KEK]

A man who works for my husband enjoyed bringing his newborn son into the world with his wife. He was understandably proud. She was in labor a long time, both were tired, so she rested. He decided to drive home. While driving home, he decided to send photos of his newborn son he took with his camera to some relatives via his phone...all while driving. Pretty stupid, huh?

From the time the accident occurred, and the cel phone records, they could tell he had just sent the photos via email. He must have looked up just in time to see a tractor trailer truck in front of his windshield. He died instantly. His son couldn't be but an hour old. Now left fatherless.

Text while driving? No. Send photos while driving? No. Read emails, no matter how "Important"? No.

Your life must be worth more!

KEK

[sgdp]

A) please define "important":

- "Your daughter was in a big accident, bring your kidney to the hospital."
- "You forgot your briefcase."
- "What's the estimate on the Smith contract?"
- "Add milk to the shopping list."
- "When will you get here, Pookie?"

B) How do you determine if its important before reading?

C) How do you respond?

Question C is the key question. Responding to an important message would involve pulling over, why not pull over to start with.

It involves my job or my mother's health. I know, then, based on who is contacting me.

[sgdp]

So tell me... how do you determine if it is important (important enough to risk both your life and my life) before you read it?

NOTHING is more important than keeping your attention on your driving and the driving of others around you. PERIOD!

No more dangerous than looking at a tree. Not my fault the young generation is better at multitasking. ;)

[Ninjacorpse]

Guess I am oldschool, but i think you should probably try to keep your eyes on the road when you are driving.

[KEK]

What a good thought!

[khigh]

I text while driving, but I can text without looking at my phone. It takes 2 seconds to read a text (only at a stop light for me) and then I don't have to look at my phone again.

I'm more distracted watching the buffalo out at the refuge while driving. Or changing radio stations. Not distracted while texting.

[sgdp]

I text while driving, but I can text without looking at my phone. It takes 2 seconds to read a text (only at a stop light for me) and then I don't have to look at my phone again.

I'm more distracted watching the buffalo out at the refuge while driving. Or changing radio stations. Not distracted while texting.

I suck at texting. But I recognize my faults, and I don't reply to things.

[SFC(R)L]

I text while driving, but I can text without looking at my phone. It takes 2 seconds to read a text (only at a stop light for me) and then I don't have to look at my phone again.

I'm more distracted watching the buffalo out at the refuge while driving. Or changing radio stations. Not distracted while texting.

See the guy behind you..in the Silverado....beeping, flashing his lights and waving his arm at you?

That's me.....because you're texting while driving.

[Greyclouds]

See the guy behind you..in the Silverado....beeping, flashing his lights and waving his arm at you?

That's me.....because you're texting while driving.

That was you??

Why'd you have to tailgate me as I was trying to get off the exit!? Almost caused an accident!

:lol:

I agree with SFC about any distraction while driving as being a potentially fatal mistake. I'm not going to offer scary anecdotes because they won't work, but just consider how much money you have to spend to completely replace your vehicle. Count it up.

If you have that money to spend, AND you can replace my vehicle/pay for my medical care in an accident, then text away!

[sgdp]

^ Everyone gets distracted, just by different things. Looking at your exit sign is you not looking at the road.

I highly doubt anyone in this thread, or anyone on the road, can honestly say they keep their eyes on the road 100% of the time. In this day and age, we just have different kinds of distractions. They're no better, no worse.

[Greyclouds]

^ Everyone gets distracted, just by different things. Looking at your exit sign is you not looking at the road.

I highly doubt anyone in this thread, or anyone on the road, can honestly say they keep their eyes on the road 100% of the time. In this day and age, we just have different kinds of distractions. They're no better, no worse.

True. There is no ivory tower situation where every driving session goes 100% undistracted. Having said that, there are several problematic behaviors that are more likely to lead to accidents.

I'm just saying, without judging anyone or any situation, that if you engage in these behaviors while driving, you should be prepared for the worst of any consequences.

[sironin]

This is why we don't have flying cars. Few enough people can barely manage to properly drive the non-flying variety without hitting things.

[Greyclouds]

This is why we don't have flying cars. Few enough people can barely manage to properly drive the non-flying variety without hitting things.

The number of car accidents leads me to believe that the logical next step in our transportation system would be to automate driving. Similar to what Spielberg portrayed in his movie, Minority Report.

I'd imagine there being quite a bit of opposition to such a move, but I believe that making such travel automated, but directed by the user, would be the best way to minimize deaths while in transit.

[sgdp]

Hm. Piqued my interested:

http://in.reuters.com/article/health/idINTRE58T4P620090930

Safety officials and advocates have focused on cell phone use, texting, eating, talking to passengers and manipulating radio or vehicle controls as leading causes of distracted driving crashes.

Ban radios and passengers, too?

80% of automobile crashes and 65% of close calls involved distracted drivers in the midst of activity like eating, drinking, smoking, and using electronic devices.

We should ban eating, drinking and smoking, too.

http://www.anythingaboutcars.com/distracted-driving.html

IMHO, the "electronic devices" are just a scapegoat. Mighty good money-maker, too...

[sgdp]

Hm, this, too:

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/04/21/004600.html

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Virginia Tech Transportation Institute shows distractions and sleepiness contribute to eight out of every 10 crashes, reported The Detroit Free Press.

We should ban sleepiness! Why? It'd make us feel safer, and it'd get us money, too. :mrgreen:

[Ninjacorpse]

^ Everyone gets distracted, just by different things. Looking at your exit sign is you not looking at the road.

I highly doubt anyone in this thread, or anyone on the road, can honestly say they keep their eyes on the road 100% of the time. In this day and age, we just have different kinds of distractions. They're no better, no worse.

That is the thing about road signs you should be able to read them without taking your eyes off the road. Of course no one keeps their eyes on the road 100% of the time, you should be watching your rear view mirror to watch for traffic coming behind you and watching all your mirrors when you change lanes etc.. Their is a difference between that and texting, reading texts, going through a sack of fast food to find a hamburger or fries, or changing a cd etc..

[Ninjacorpse]

Hm, this, too:

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/04/21/004600.html



We should ban sleepiness! Why? It'd make us feel safer, and it'd get us money, too. :mrgreen:

Yeah you should not drive when you are sleep deprived, its personal responsibility, you hurt somebody you should be liable.

[SFC(R)L]

That was you??

Why'd you have to tailgate me as I was trying to get off the exit!? Almost caused an accident!

:lol:

I agree with SFC about any distraction while driving as being a potentially fatal mistake. I'm not going to offer scary anecdotes because they won't work, but just consider how much money you have to spend to completely replace your vehicle. Count it up.

If you have that money to spend, AND you can replace my vehicle/pay for my medical care in an accident, then text away!

I was trying to push you into the ditch.

I am constantly aware of other drivers on the road, and the most dangerous are these women driving SUVs and trucks. I watch closely for the inevitable weaving in the lane indicating that the driver is impaired or distracted. First weave indicates routine distraction, but heightens my vigilance. Second weave results in heightened vigilance and immediate escape by passing the weaving vehicle. Third weave results in immediate pass by any means, sometimes.

The majority of these drivers are on the phone or engaged in some other activity while driving and are incapable of doing both at the same time. The other morning this one pulled in front of me, without signaling, and started with the brake lights. Apparently, every time she had to turn and look at her dog, in the front seat there, this required a braking operation. This is typical behavior that creates a hazard to lawful navigation, and can end tragically.

[SFC(R)L]

Hm, this, too:

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/04/21/004600.html



We should ban sleepiness! Why? It'd make us feel safer, and it'd get us money, too. :mrgreen:

It's all very funny until you or your spouse are permanently injured in a vehicle accident caused by an impaired driver.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

I hate to beat a dead horse here, but doesn't reckless/careless driving cover this sufficiently? If law enforcement would simply enforce those laws, we wouldn't need EXTRA laws to cover cell phone use, texting, or even drinking while driving.

And I even say that despite losing two cousins to drunk drivers.

[sgdp]

It's all very funny until you or your spouse are permanently injured in a vehicle accident caused by an impaired driver.

I don't have a spouse. :eh:

[sgdp]

I hate to beat a dead horse here, but doesn't reckless/careless driving cover this sufficiently? If law enforcement would simply enforce those laws, we wouldn't need EXTRA laws to cover cell phone use, texting, or even drinking while driving.

And I even say that despite losing two cousins to drunk drivers.

Somebody gets it! :mrgreen:

[Vaard]

thankfully, getting oral sex while driving is still legal........


that happens to me more than texting does........

[Ninjacorpse]

:lol: where is your cellphone when this is going on and is it set to vibrate?

[Dr. Funkenstein]

:lol: where is your cellphone when this is going on and is it set to vibrate?
<doing best Harry Kalas imitation>

Swing and a long drive! Watch THAT baby!

[JeffR]

MD has a no texting law going into effect tomorrow.

Personally, I believe if you think you can text while driving, you are not smart enough to be operating a motor vehicle.

[sgdp]

^With or without texting, 90% of people aren't smart enough to drive.

[Vaard]

:lol: where is your cellphone when this is going on and is it set to vibrate?

at that point, i could not care less where my cell phone is......

[historynut]

I text while driving, but I can text without looking at my phone. It takes 2 seconds to read a text (only at a stop light for me) and then I don't have to look at my phone again.

I'm more distracted watching the buffalo out at the refuge while driving. Or changing radio stations. Not distracted while texting.

I remember you, I was in one of the cars behind you honking because the light had turned green twice and you still hadn't moved.

I have hands free so I can get calls but the only time I make calls when moving is to call 911.

[sgdp]

I remember you, I was in one of the cars behind you honking because the light had turned green twice and you still hadn't moved.

I have hands free so I can get calls but the only time I make calls when moving is to call 911.

Studies show handsfree can be just as dangerous as handheld.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jan/13/1n13cell001922-hands-free-phones-not-safe-road-stu/?uniontrib

[SFC(R)L]

I don't have a spouse. :eh:

I do, and that's what happened.

[sgdp]

I do, and that's what happened.

I'm sorry.

But accidents happen all the time. My mother fell asleep (side-effect from a new medicine, apparently) and ran into someone else. One of my best friends, who I think of as a father, was hit by a drunk driver. My brother was hit by a girl applying mascara. (She lost an eye.)

I nearly ran into an idiot in some sort of industrial truck who stupidly thought he had enough time to pull out in front of me. I came close to losing my life there.

And so on and so on.

But the problem is stupid drivers. You can't legislate to get rid of stupid people. It's just easiest to pick on people who use cell phones. Scapegoat for the real problem. It's a "feel good" solution that does nothing more than rake in money.

[historynut]

Studies show handsfree can be just as dangerous as handheld.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jan/13/1n13cell001922-hands-free-phones-not-safe-road-stu/?uniontrib

The only ones that have that cell number is family and they know not to call unless it's important.

The only time I make calls when moving is to call 911. But if that upsets you when I see your car go off the side on the road on fire I'll call when I get to work. I'm sure another 15 - 20 minutes will not make a difference.

[SFC(R)L]

I'm sorry.

But accidents happen all the time. My mother fell asleep (side-effect from a new medicine, apparently) and ran into someone else. One of my best friends, who I think of as a father, was hit by a drunk driver. My brother was hit by a girl applying mascara. (She lost an eye.)

I nearly ran into an idiot in some sort of industrial truck who stupidly thought he had enough time to pull out in front of me. I came close to losing my life there.

And so on and so on.

But the problem is stupid drivers. You can't legislate to get rid of stupid people. It's just easiest to pick on people who use cell phones. Scapegoat for the real problem. It's a "feel good" solution that does nothing more than rake in money.

You have to codify the stupid behavior in order to properly charge it.

[sgdp]

The only ones that have that cell number is family and they know not to call unless it's important.

The only time I make calls when moving is to call 911. But if that upsets you when I see your car go off the side on the road on fire I'll call when I get to work. I'm sure another 15 - 20 minutes will not make a difference.

I'm not sure you understand my position on the argument. :eh:

[sgdp]

You have to codify the stupid behavior in order to properly charge it.

Laws against being stupid? Hm.

[bella-day]

No more dangerous than looking at a tree. Not my fault the young generation is better at multitasking. ;)

According to the accident statistics...you aren't.

Maybe you do not feel it's a danger to you personally; surely you realize you aren't the only person on the road.

Do us all a favor...pull over before you answer some stupid poll or tell someone you have crops to harvest on FB.

I'm sure the people who are unfortunate enough to share the road with you would prefer that you see their life and safety as a bit more important and any stupid statement someone scrawled on your wall.

Priorities, they are a great thing to have.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

According to the accident statistics...you aren't.

Maybe you do not feel it's a danger to you personally; surely you realize you aren't the only person on the road.

Do us all a favor...pull over before you answer some stupid poll or tell someone you have crops to harvest on FB.

I'm sure the people who are unfortunate enough to share the road with you would prefer that you see their life and safety as a bit more important and any stupid statement someone scrawled on your wall.

Priorities, they are a great thing to have.
We shouldn't be legislating common sense.

[SFC(R)L]

Laws against being stupid? Hm.

that's one way to put it.

What exactly is careless driving?

Or reckless driving?

It has to be codified in order to enforce it.

[sgdp]

According to the accident statistics...you aren't.

Maybe you do not feel it's a danger to you personally; surely you realize you aren't the only person on the road.

Do us all a favor...pull over before you answer some stupid poll or tell someone you have crops to harvest on FB.

I'm sure the people who are unfortunate enough to share the road with you would prefer that you see their life and safety as a bit more important and any stupid statement someone scrawled on your wall.

Priorities, they are a great thing to have.

Perhaps you missed the part about "It involves my job or my mother's health."

[sgdp]

:)) Just heard Shepard Smith say, "You can't even pick a pickle off your burger."

[sgdp]

that's one way to put it.

What exactly is careless driving?

Or reckless driving?

It has to be codified in order to enforce it.

That's a good question:

My state seems to define it as actually breaking a law. If I'm driving the speed limit, stopping at all stop signs, and staying in my lane, I'm cool, regardless of phone usage.

How do you propose we "codify" it? Because we have to tread lightly on this slippery slope...

[sgdp]

This was interesting:

http://criminal.lawyers.com/traffic-violations/Reckless-Driving.html

Among the specific acts or types of conduct that have been found by courts as insufficient in themselves to establish reckless driving are:

The commission of mere traffic violations or infractions, such as running a red light
The sudden application of brakes on a wet road, followed by skidding
Making a U-turn without using turn signals
Driving without headlights
Speeding
Being involved in a traffic accident
Inattentive driving
Driving after drinking alcohol
While any one of these acts, standing alone, usually won't support a conviction for reckless driving, a combination of more than one of these acts could.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

This was interesting:

http://criminal.lawyers.com/traffic-violations/Reckless-Driving.html
That makes sense. I always forget to include inattentive driving when I say we already have laws that cover this and don't need new ones.

[NascarGirl2448]

See the guy behind you..in the Silverado....beeping, flashing his lights and waving his arm at you?

The only thing that type of behavior makes me do is slow down more. That kind of behavior is one of my pet peeves.

[sgdp]

The only thing that type of behavior makes me do is slow down more. That kind of behavior is one of my pet peeves.

Yes!

In fact, I think that's breaking a law known as "aggressive driving." :think:

[Dr. Funkenstein]

See the guy behind you..in the Silverado....beeping, flashing his lights and waving his arm at you?

That's me.....because you're texting while driving.
Oh, please, please, PLEASE do that to me on a two-lane road with no passing allowed.

I'm BEGGING you.

You want to drive at or below the speed limit for five miles? Go ahead and test me.

[NascarGirl2448]

Oh, please, please, PLEASE do that to me on a two-lane road with no passing allowed.

I'm BEGGING you.

You want to drive at or below the speed limit for five miles? Go ahead and test me.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way. You want to be aggressive, go ahead. Don't expect me to move just because you have no patience. :)

[NascarGirl2448]

That makes sense. I always forget to include inattentive driving when I say we already have laws that cover this and don't need new ones.

Now tell that to the turkeys who run our government.

[sgdp]

Oh, please, please, PLEASE do that to me on a two-lane road with no passing allowed.

I'm BEGGING you.

You want to drive at or below the speed limit for five miles? Go ahead and test me.

Oh, they'll pass anyway. And they'll nearly get wiped out in a head on collision. That happens to me all the time, because I go the speed limit.

Know where it happens most? The 20 mph school zone.

[Vaard]

I do, and that's what happened.

and if your spouse had been hit y someone that was choking on french fry they tried to eat while driving, would you be calling for a ban on eating while driving and not be worried about texting while driving?

[gdoane]

Don't be too sure:



http://www.ur.umich.edu/9697/Apr01_97/artcl05.htm

That's a matter of height, and the legroom creating a larger distance. I've had an airbag go off on me and the sodium azide burned the hair clean off the back of my hands and arms in what I thought was a minor collision. My truck was still driveable. Can't say the same for the poor little Mitsu that hit me. Ford truck vs. Mitsu subcompact... we know who wins that one.

I stared at the wheel and the deployed airbag and wondered why THAT little dinky collision set it off. It didn't even spill my soda pop out of my cup holder. Totalled the Mitsu, its plastic little front bumper was where the radio used to be and they pulled the driver out of the trunk but that's typical stuff for a crepe' paper rice burning piece of junk subcompact hitting Detroit steel.

The airbag going off was the worst part of the crash. Well, that and the paramedics asking me how many fingers they were holding up and me arguing that a thumb does not count as a finger. It's really simple. If I give you a thumb, that's cool. If I give you the finger, that's not so cool.

That said, if I'd have been texting at the time of impact, my cell phone would have been blown clean through my head by that airbag deployment. The air bag never hit my face but it blew my hands clean off the wheel and burned every hair off my arm clear up to my elbows. It's an amazing amount of force. If anything at all is between you and the airbag when it blows... you're going to be eating it.

[bella-day]

Perhaps you missed the part about "It involves my job or my mother's health."


Perhaps you missed the question...how do you know it's about your job or your mother's health?:rolleyes:

Pull over and check you email to your heart's delight...text until your fingers fall off...I really do not care.

The lives of the people who are unfortunate enough to have to share the road with people who think their FB messages and silly emails are more important than either of those things.

Hint darlin'...most of us have jobs and mothers as well...but then most of us are bright enough to know that it isn't a good idea to read emails or text while driving.

[bella-day]

We shouldn't be legislating common sense.


Common sense? Yeah, I suppose that is a term that could be used here.

But considering what the OP is trying to claim...maybe it's the kind of sense that just isn't common enough.

[VCaddy05]

Perhaps you missed the question...how do you know it's about your job or your mother's health?:rolleyes:

Pull over and check you email to your heart's delight...text until your fingers fall off...I really do not care.

The lives of the people who are unfortunate enough to have to share the road with people who think their FB messages and silly emails are more important than either of those things.

Hint darlin'...most of us have jobs and mothers as well...but then most of us are bright enough to know that it isn't a good idea to read emails or text while driving.

well then dont do it! still doent mean time for more laws, and its no more distraction than the hundred other ways you can get distracted behind the wheel of a car.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

That's a matter of height, and the legroom creating a larger distance. I've had an airbag go off on me and the sodium azide burned the hair clean off the back of my hands and arms in what I thought was a minor collision. My truck was still driveable. Can't say the same for the poor little Mitsu that hit me. Ford truck vs. Mitsu subcompact... we know who wins that one.

I stared at the wheel and the deployed airbag and wondered why THAT little dinky collision set it off. It didn't even spill my soda pop out of my cup holder. Totalled the Mitsu, its plastic little front bumper was where the radio used to be and they pulled the driver out of the trunk but that's typical stuff for a crepe' paper rice burning piece of junk subcompact hitting Detroit steel.

The airbag going off was the worst part of the crash. Well, that and the paramedics asking me how many fingers they were holding up and me arguing that a thumb does not count as a finger. It's really simple. If I give you a thumb, that's cool. If I give you the finger, that's not so cool.

That said, if I'd have been texting at the time of impact, my cell phone would have been blown clean through my head by that airbag deployment. The air bag never hit my face but it blew my hands clean off the wheel and burned every hair off my arm clear up to my elbows. It's an amazing amount of force. If anything at all is between you and the airbag when it blows... you're going to be eating it.

Gene always has the best story tangents...

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Common sense? Yeah, I suppose that is a term that could be used here.

But considering what the OP is trying to claim...maybe it's the kind of sense that just isn't common enough.
My only problem is what distraction will be next? Banning eating in cars? Non-alcoholic beverages? Kids?

[Samm]

^ Everyone gets distracted, just by different things. Looking at your exit sign is you not looking at the road.

I highly doubt anyone in this thread, or anyone on the road, can honestly say they keep their eyes on the road 100% of the time. In this day and age, we just have different kinds of distractions. They're no better, no worse.

Keeping your eyes on the road means keeping them looking outside of the car. You can detect where you are on the roadway and other vehicles etc. just fine with your peripheral vision. But if you are focused on your phone, you are not seeing anything outside of the vehicle. Yes, everyone has taken their eyes off the road now and then and gotten away with it, but a significant number of people do not get a way with it every day.

Your argument is specious sgdp... just because you have not crashed while reading one of your "important" e-mails or text messages does not mean it is safe to do. What it means is that you have been lucky.

[Samm]

I hate to beat a dead horse here, but doesn't reckless/careless driving cover this sufficiently? If law enforcement would simply enforce those laws, we wouldn't need EXTRA laws to cover cell phone use, texting, or even drinking while driving.

And I even say that despite losing two cousins to drunk drivers.

That would be fine as long as use of a cell phone while driving was designated by the law as a reckless/careless behavior.

[bella-day]

My only problem is what distraction will be next? Banning eating in cars? Non-alcoholic beverages? Kids?

I guess someone probably tried the same argument regarding the 25 mph speed limit in residential zones at some point in time huh? The old slippery slope argument is not a one size fits all thing you know.;)

I'm sorry, you are going to have to do better than that.

If you are unable to watch the road while talking to someone who is in the car with you...don't do it.

Eating in cars is something I do not do personally. I can't stand the stale food smell in a car.

Texting while driving? Reading while driving? Neither is a consideration for someone that has the sense that expands beyond that of the common housefly.

For the others, they have enacted laws. It is the way it is.

What I find amusing is the arguments that are being used in this thread regarding the subject are the same ones a particular pro drunk driving poster used to make about drinking and driving.

He hasn't been around in a while. He must have started his sentence.

[Samm]

thankfully, getting oral sex while driving is still legal........


that happens to me more than texting does........

Isn't it kind of hard to drive with your head in your lap? :eh:



:razz:

[Dr. Funkenstein]

I guess someone probably tried the same argument regarding the 25 mph speed limit in residential zones at some point in time huh? The old slippery slope argument is not a one size fits all thing you know.;)

I'm sorry, you are going to have to do better than that.

If you are unable to watch the road while talking to someone who is in the car with you...don't do it.

Eating in cars is something I do not do personally. I can't stand the stale food smell in a car.

Texting while driving? Reading while driving? Neither is a consideration for someone that has the sense that expands beyond that of the common housefly.

For the others, they have enacted laws. It is the way it is.

What I find amusing is the arguments that are being used in this thread regarding the subject are the same ones a particular pro drunk driving poster used to make about drinking and driving.

He hasn't been around in a while. He must have started his sentence.

My entire point is that we don't need EXTRA laws to cover inattentive/careless/reckless driving. We already have those three in place in most states.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Isn't it kind of hard to drive with your head in your lap? :eh:



:razz:
You can break your neck doing that kind of thing...:naughty:

[bella-day]

That would be fine as long as use of a cell phone while driving was designated by the law as a reckless/careless behavior.

Agreed. Otherwise some dweeb is going to claim...oh judge...it doesn't affect my driving one little bit.;)

[Ninjacorpse]

and if your spouse had been hit y someone that was choking on french fry they tried to eat while driving, would you be calling for a ban on eating while driving and not be worried about texting while driving?

What if scenarios :lol: How would you feel if you and your spouse were uhm doing what you describing earlier and you had to slam on your breaks because someone was texting and not paying attention in front of you and this resulted in dismemberment of something very close to you?

[Ninjacorpse]

Isn't it kind of hard to drive with your head in your lap? :eh:



:razz:

What happens when you slam on the breaks and she hits her head on the stearing wheel and bites down? :eek:

[Samm]

But the problem is stupid drivers. You can't legislate to get rid of stupid people. It's just easiest to pick on people who use cell phones. Scapegoat for the real problem. It's a "feel good" solution that does nothing more than rake in money.

All the more reason to not be stupid yourself... you need all your wits to avoid the stupid people driving the cars all around you. And like SFC(R)L said, if it takes codification of stupid behavior to stop stupid people from doing stupid things while driving then that is what needs to be done. It has nothing to do with "feeling good" unless of course you mean that not getting wrecked by an idiot feels good.

[Ninjacorpse]

All the more reason to not be stupid yourself... you need all your wits to avoid the stupid people driving the cars all around you. And like SFC(R)L said, if it takes codification of stupid behavior to stop stupid people from doing stupid things while driving then that is what needs to be done. It has nothing to do with "feeling good" unless of course you mean that not getting wrecked by an idiot feels good.

I do not know about banning things other than driving under the influence, that does not mean i have to think that not paying attention while driving is no big deal.

[Samm]

That's a matter of height, and the legroom creating a larger distance. I've had an airbag go off on me and the sodium azide burned the hair clean off the back of my hands and arms in what I thought was a minor collision. My truck was still driveable. Can't say the same for the poor little Mitsu that hit me. Ford truck vs. Mitsu subcompact... we know who wins that one.

I stared at the wheel and the deployed airbag and wondered why THAT little dinky collision set it off. It didn't even spill my soda pop out of my cup holder. Totalled the Mitsu, its plastic little front bumper was where the radio used to be and they pulled the driver out of the trunk but that's typical stuff for a crepe' paper rice burning piece of junk subcompact hitting Detroit steel.

The airbag going off was the worst part of the crash. Well, that and the paramedics asking me how many fingers they were holding up and me arguing that a thumb does not count as a finger. It's really simple. If I give you a thumb, that's cool. If I give you the finger, that's not so cool.

That said, if I'd have been texting at the time of impact, my cell phone would have been blown clean through my head by that airbag deployment. The air bag never hit my face but it blew my hands clean off the wheel and burned every hair off my arm clear up to my elbows. It's an amazing amount of force. If anything at all is between you and the airbag when it blows... you're going to be eating it.

Thus (as I was saying to sgdp) it was "skin off your nose" ... figuratively.

[Samm]

My entire point is that we don't need EXTRA laws to cover inattentive/careless/reckless driving. We already have those three in place in most states.

As long as we have lawyers who will argue in court that "inattentive/careless/reckless" is subjective, we will need laws to specify what constitutes "inattentive/careless/reckless."

[Samm]

What happens when you slam on the breaks and she hits her head on the stearing wheel and bites down? :eek:

There was no "she" involved in that scenario... :cool:

[Samm]

I do not know about banning things other than driving under the influence, that does not mean i have to think that not paying attention while driving is no big deal.

I'm not talking about banning anything... I am talking about codification of specific behavior so as to have grounds to cite someone for "inattentive/careless/reckless" driving.

[sgdp]

Perhaps you missed the question...how do you know it's about your job or your mother's health?:rolleyes:

Pull over and check you email to your heart's delight...text until your fingers fall off...I really do not care.

The lives of the people who are unfortunate enough to have to share the road with people who think their FB messages and silly emails are more important than either of those things.

Hint darlin'...most of us have jobs and mothers as well...but then most of us are bright enough to know that it isn't a good idea to read emails or text while driving.

Specialized ringtones. At any rate, as quickly as someone looks at the clock on their dash, I can read the first sentence of an e-mail and know what's going on.

Insinuating that I ain't bright shows more on your character than mine.

[sgdp]

All the more reason to not be stupid yourself... you need all your wits to avoid the stupid people driving the cars all around you. And like SFC(R)L said, if it takes codification of stupid behavior to stop stupid people from doing stupid things while driving then that is what needs to be done. It has nothing to do with "feeling good" unless of course you mean that not getting wrecked by an idiot feels good.

Most laws like this are just "feel good" laws. People "feel" safer thinking others shouldn't be doing something that's illegal.

[sgdp]

Keeping your eyes on the road means keeping them looking outside of the car. You can detect where you are on the roadway and other vehicles etc. just fine with your peripheral vision. But if you are focused on your phone, you are not seeing anything outside of the vehicle. Yes, everyone has taken their eyes off the road now and then and gotten away with it, but a significant number of people do not get a way with it every day.

Your argument is specious sgdp... just because you have not crashed while reading one of your "important" e-mails or text messages does not mean it is safe to do. What it means is that you have been lucky.

Good! We've established the usefulness of peripheral vision. When I hold my phone up near the top of my steering wheel, I employ "peripheral vision."

[Ninjacorpse]

Good! We've established the usefulness of peripheral vision. When I hold my phone up near the top of my steering wheel, I employ "peripheral vision."

Oh so now your taking your hands off the wheel now. :snooty:

[sgdp]

Oh so now your taking your hands off the wheel now. :snooty:

Sometimes.

I know.. 10 and 2...10 and 2... :))

[gdoane]

As long as we have lawyers who will argue in court that "inattentive/careless/reckless" is subjective, we will need laws to specify what constitutes "inattentive/careless/reckless."

How can you define that? I'm not looking at the keyboard, at all, as I type this response. I can touch type no problemo and my cell phone is a QWERTY setup too so I don't have to look or be distracted.

Kind of freaky actually because I'm not usually a touch typist. I "can" do it but usually I watch the keys for apparently no good reason.

So why would I be distracted by texting when I know the placement of the keys so well that I don't even need to look at where they are and my cell phone has the same QWERTY setup?

I could probably text on my cell phone with one hand and never take my eyes off the road. Not that I would, but it's definitely in my abilities.

[FidelisAdMortem]

You are 8x more likely to be involved in a vehicle accident while texing, than driving drunk.

[sgdp]

You are 8x more likely to be involved in a vehicle accident while texing, than driving drunk.

http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/30/study-driving-while-texting-riskier-than-dui/

Looks like it's about twice.

And who knows what kind of texter they used in the study. Some people just suck at it. My brother can text with his hand in his pocket.

[FidelisAdMortem]

If I had my way you would be suspended right now from driving. You're a disaster waiting to happen.

[Ninjacorpse]

Sometimes.

I know.. 10 and 2...10 and 2... :))

Well, still probably safer than whatever circus vaard has going in his car.:razz:

[sgdp]

I'm flattered, Fidelis. :)

[sgdp]

Well, still probably safer than whatever circus vaard has going in his car.:razz:

:eek: I had JUST gotten rid of that mental image. :( Thanks a lot!

[KEK]

I'm not looking at the keyboard, at all, as I type this response. I can touch type no problemo and my cell phone is a QWERTY setup too so I don't have to look or be distracted.

Kind of freaky actually because I'm not usually a touch typist. I "can" do it but usually I watch the keys for apparently no good reason.

So why would I be distracted by texting when I know the placement of the keys so well that I don't even need to look at where they are and my cell phone has the same QWERTY setup?

I could probably text on my cell phone with one hand and never take my eyes off the road. Not that I would, but it's definitely in my abilities.


Sounds like you're bragging over something that could kill another. Real smart.

[Samm]

Most laws like this are just "feel good" laws. People "feel" safer thinking others shouldn't be doing something that's illegal.

This has nothing to do with "feeling" safer because some people shouldn't be doing something... it is about being safer because people are not doing something. Using your phone while your are driving... even to read messages... makes you more dangerous behind the wheel than if you kept the damn thing in your pocket. Period.

If it takes a law to make you more responsible and safer... both to yourself and to everyone else on the roads... then so be it. I don't care if you get ticketed, fined, thrown in jail... I just want you (and every body else) to stop using your damn phone when you drive.

[Samm]

Good! We've established the usefulness of peripheral vision. When I hold my phone up near the top of my steering wheel, I employ "peripheral vision."

It's not the same thing at all. When you are looking at a road sign or the cows in the field you are focused outside your car at a distance approaching infinity as far as the focal ability of your eyes is concerned. When you focus on your phone inches from your face, your peripheral vision is worthless outside your car.

[Samm]

How can you define that? I'm not looking at the keyboard, at all, as I type this response. I can touch type no problemo and my cell phone is a QWERTY setup too so I don't have to look or be distracted.

Kind of freaky actually because I'm not usually a touch typist. I "can" do it but usually I watch the keys for apparently no good reason.

So why would I be distracted by texting when I know the placement of the keys so well that I don't even need to look at where they are and my cell phone has the same QWERTY setup?

I could probably text on my cell phone with one hand and never take my eyes off the road. Not that I would, but it's definitely in my abilities.

QUERTY keyboard or not, you are using a significant portion of your brain that should have it's attention on driving your car. Even talking on a hands off phone has been proven to distract drivers... much more so than talking to a passenger in the car. It may be within your ability to multi-task when thing are going normally, but accidents occur most often when things are not going normally. Why would you want to increase your chances of wrecking during one of those occasions? It just makes no sense.

[sgdp]

QUERTY keyboard or not, you are using a significant portion of your brain that should have it's attention on driving your car. Even talking on a hands off phone has been proven to distract drivers... much more so than talking to a passenger in the car. It may be within your ability to multi-task when thing are going normally, but accidents occur most often when things are not going normally. Why would you want to increase your chances of wrecking during one of those occasions? It just makes no sense.

Life sucks. There are distractions. We can't ban distractions. We can make them "illegal" and make money of it, though. But illegal or not, people are going to do what they want, be it cell phone, eating, drinking, or even spacing out while thinking. You must be able to admit you aren't focused on the road 100% of the time. Nobody is. Your vice might just be different from mine.

At any rate, it's illegal to talk on a cell phone in Chicago limits. Know how many people do that still? **** ton. A lot. A law won't do a damned thing.

[sgdp]

It's not the same thing at all. When you are looking at a road sign or the cows in the field you are focused outside your car at a distance approaching infinity as far as the focal ability of your eyes is concerned. When you focus on your phone inches from your face, your peripheral vision is worthless outside your car.

Not really.

[Samm]

Life sucks. There are distractions. We can't ban distractions. We can make them "illegal" and make money of it, though. But illegal or not, people are going to do what they want, be it cell phone, eating, drinking, or even spacing out while thinking. You must be able to admit you aren't focused on the road 100% of the time. Nobody is. Your vice might just be different from mine.

At any rate, it's illegal to talk on a cell phone in Chicago limits. Know how many people do that still? **** ton. A lot. A law won't do a damned thing.

So your entire argument is that life is full of distractions so there is no point in trying to limit them while we are driving our ton and a half vehicle down the highway at 100 feet per second with a bunch of other distracted idiots. WOW! :eek:

[Samm]

Not really.

Yes really... that is how simple lenses work. Focus them afar and most of the field of view is relatively in focus; focus them close and only close things are in focus. Your peripheral vision while you are looking at your phone inches from your face is limited to the inside of your car.

[sgdp]

This has nothing to do with "feeling" safer because some people shouldn't be doing something... it is about being safer because people are not doing something. Using your phone while your are driving... even to read messages... makes you more dangerous behind the wheel than if you kept the damn thing in your pocket. Period.

If it takes a law to make you more responsible and safer... both to yourself and to everyone else on the roads... then so be it. I don't care if you get ticketed, fined, thrown in jail... I just want you (and every body else) to stop using your damn phone when you drive.

I'm dangerous for reading a sentence. The dude next to me is dangerous for staring at me. The dude in front of me is dangerous, because he is slowing down trying to read street signs. The chick behind me is putting on make up; she's dangerous.

The guy behind her is spacing out and stressing about being late for work. The lady behind him just spilled hot coffee all over her freshly starched white shirt. Next to her, a kid is trying to study for his test. Behind him, a CEO is rehearsing his big speech.

Next to him, the girl who overslept and missed breakfast is scarfing down her Egg McMuffin. Behind her, a woman who can't find a pencil...but she knows it's somewhere in the bottom of her bag.

Next to her, a guy is taking his dog to the vet; the crazy animal just won't sit still, jumping from the back seat to the front. Behind him, a lady has minivan loaded up with screaming 6-year-olds who really aren't that into soccer.

Beside her, a guy's foot starts to itch. He's bending down to scratch it, but he realizes he'll probably have to take his shoe off... Oh, his it's right foot, by the by. Just a second or two off the accelerator won't hurt...

Next to that guy, a couple are fighting over the radio controls. He wants the news. She wants music. Behind them, a woman desperately tries to find the controls for her defroster.

Meanwhile, the guy in the car next to her just tried to extinguish his cigarette by tossing it out the window. Only...the window caught it and it flew into the back of his shirt. Ow.

Then there's the girl who just saw a billboard. "Attorney? I need an attorney. What's that number? I can't quite see it... Just need to be a little closer... Coming into focus now..."

Now, there's a bumblebee in her car! Ahh! Hit the bumblebee a'fore it stings ya! What do you have to hit it with? A newspaper? Hm. What's in your back seat? Surely you have something. No? Too clean... Take off your shoe! Get that son of a bitch!

The guy beside her just saw a car he thought he recognized going the opposite way. He starts to turn his head to make sure. "I think her license plate was... no. No, I don't think that's her."

OH MY GOD. I love this song! :dance::dance::dance:

[PeterGriffin]

A special flower where the laws of probability don't apply to them, because they can handle it, unlike the not so special flowers out there.

There was a thread on here a while back with some guy talking about he could drive drunk just fine and did it almost every day. This is basically the same thing.

[sgdp]

Yes really... that is how simple lenses work. Focus them afar and most of the field of view is relatively in focus; focus them close and only close things are in focus. Your peripheral vision while you are looking at your phone inches from your face is limited to the inside of your car.

It doesn't mean the world outside those inches goes black... I can still see the car in front of me very well.

[sgdp]

So your entire argument is that life is full of distractions so there is no point in trying to limit them while we are driving our ton and a half vehicle down the highway at 100 feet per second with a bunch of other distracted idiots. WOW! :eek:

My point is you're singling out ONE kind of distraction. Why stop there? See my post two above. There are a lot more things we need to outlaw so people can feel "safe". :rolleyes:

[Ninjacorpse]

A special flower where the laws of probability don't apply to them, because they can handle it, unlike the not so special flowers out there.

There was a thread on here a while back with some guy talking about he could drive drunk just fine and did it almost every day. This is basically the same thing.

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1250621&highlight=incorrect&page=29
That one?

[Lima India Bravo]

People who drive while on the phone, texting, reading, processing email, applying makeup, coiffing hair, or constantly turning their head and eyes from the road as they are engaged in a fascinating conversation with their passenger while sightseeing in the left lane should be pulled over, removed from their vehicle and beaten senseless with a sharp stick.

The vehicle should have its tires removed and left on the ground, and the offending driver should be made to watch as their license is snipped into little pieces right there.

Not that I'm bitter.

Note this as a rare event. I agree wholeheartedly with you.

[Lima India Bravo]

Perhaps you missed the part about "It involves my job or my mother's health."

And just how did you handle situations of that sort when you were driving before you had a cell phone?

[PeterGriffin]

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1250621&highlight=incorrect&page=29
That one?

Ayup, although on a reread it wasn't almost every day.

[Ninjacorpse]

Ayup, although on a reread it wasn't almost every day.

Either way not something to be proud of or gloat about.

[sgdp]

And just how did you handle situations of that sort when you were driving before you had a cell phone?

I had a cell phone long before I was driving.

[Lima India Bravo]

I certain the bus driver thought he was in control too. And not at all distracted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2D3hB278Gc&feature=related

[sgdp]

I certain the bus driver thought he was in control too. And not at all distracted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2D3hB278Gc&feature=related

The shock and horror! A distracted driver! Only cell phones do that. Damned cell phones. :naughty:

[Samm]

I'm dangerous for reading a sentence. The dude next to me is dangerous for staring at me. The dude in front of me is dangerous, because he is slowing down trying to read street signs. The chick behind me is putting on make up; she's dangerous.

The guy behind her is spacing out and stressing about being late for work. The lady behind him just spilled hot coffee all over her freshly starched white shirt. Next to her, a kid is trying to study for his test. Behind him, a CEO is rehearsing his big speech.

Next to him, the girl who overslept and missed breakfast is scarfing down her Egg McMuffin. Behind her, a woman who can't find a pencil...but she knows it's somewhere in the bottom of her bag.

Next to her, a guy is taking his dog to the vet; the crazy animal just won't sit still, jumping from the back seat to the front. Behind him, a lady has minivan loaded up with screaming 6-year-olds who really aren't that into soccer.

Beside her, a guy's foot starts to itch. He's bending down to scratch it, but he realizes he'll probably have to take his shoe off... Oh, his it's right foot, by the by. Just a second or two off the accelerator won't hurt...

Next to that guy, a couple are fighting over the radio controls. He wants the news. She wants music. Behind them, a woman desperately tries to find the controls for her defroster.

Meanwhile, the guy in the car next to her just tried to extinguish his cigarette by tossing it out the window. Only...the window caught it and it flew into the back of his shirt. Ow.

Then there's the girl who just saw a billboard. "Attorney? I need an attorney. What's that number? I can't quite see it... Just need to be a little closer... Coming into focus now..."

Now, there's a bumblebee in her car! Ahh! Hit the bumblebee a'fore it stings ya! What do you have to hit it with? A newspaper? Hm. What's in your back seat? Surely you have something. No? Too clean... Take off your shoe! Get that son of a bitch!

The guy beside her just saw a car he thought he recognized going the opposite way. He starts to turn his head to make sure. "I think her license plate was... no. No, I don't think that's her."

OH MY GOD. I love this song! :dance::dance::dance:

You sound like you are proud to be counted among the inattentive dangerous drivers. :rolleyes:

[Samm]

It doesn't mean the world outside those inches goes black... I can still see the car in front of me very well.

No you can't ... not until you change your focus.

[Samm]

I had a cell phone long before I was driving.

Well that explains it... you are too young to know better. Perhaps when you grow up you might listen to reason... if you live long enough.

[gdoane]

QUERTY keyboard or not, you are using a significant portion of your brain that should have it's attention on driving your car.

Driving a car is multitasking. Your hands are on the wheel, your feet are on the pedals, and your eyes are on the road and on the instruments, so you are multitasking when you drive.

I agree that you have a lot of demands on your attention when you are driving your car. Literally from head to toe, really.

So given the fact that driving is multitasking, what's one more task? The average person can read 200 words per minute. That's 1000 characters per minute or 17 characters per second. A text message is limited to 160 characters, which would take less than 10 seconds to read. I've never seen a stop light so short as to be only 10 seconds long.

Even talking on a hands off phone has been proven to distract drivers... much more so than talking to a passenger in the car. It may be within your ability to multi-task when thing are going normally, but accidents occur most often when things are not going normally. Why would you want to increase your chances of wrecking during one of those occasions? It just makes no sense.

It does make sense when you realize that you want cell phones on the road.

There's no question in my mind that cell phones save lives. It's not like the old days when a traffic accident happened and a bystander had to go 15 miles to find a phone booth.

I've called to report drunk drivers and get them off the road. I've called in car accidents to get police and fire rolling. Cell phones on the road make the roads safer and I think they do more good than harm.

Sure, you hear the stories about the teen kid who died while texting and his last words were "ROFLMAO" but what isn't taken into account is that rescuers get to the wreck in minutes instead of hours because somebody on the road has a cell phone.

I want cell phones on the road. If they do some harm, they also do some good. You can't have roses without thorns.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

As long as we have lawyers who will argue in court that "inattentive/careless/reckless" is subjective, we will need laws to specify what constitutes "inattentive/careless/reckless."
You can more specifically define what constitutes inattentive/careless/reckless driving, but you don't need an extra law to cover texting, or using a cell phone, or anything...

[sironin]

The number of car accidents leads me to believe that the logical next step in our transportation system would be to automate driving. Similar to what Spielberg portrayed in his movie, Minority Report.

I'd imagine there being quite a bit of opposition to such a move, but I believe that making such travel automated, but directed by the user, would be the best way to minimize deaths while in transit.

Logical, sure. We've even got new methods to ensure 100% reliability of a software program, so there aren't too many remaining technological stumbling blocks left. It's mostly just a matter of being able to sell infrastructure investment on a wide scale.

[Ninjacorpse]

Driving a car is multitasking. Your hands are on the wheel, your feet are on the pedals, and your eyes are on the road and on the instruments, so you are multitasking when you drive.

I agree that you have a lot of demands on your attention when you are driving your car. Literally from head to toe, really.

So given the fact that driving is multitasking, what's one more task? The average person can read 200 words per minute. That's 1000 characters per minute or 17 characters per second. A text message is limited to 160 characters, which would take less than 10 seconds to read. I've never seen a stop light so short as to be only 10 seconds long.



It does make sense when you realize that you want cell phones on the road.

There's no question in my mind that cell phones save lives. It's not like the old days when a traffic accident happened and a bystander had to go 15 miles to find a phone booth.

I've called to report drunk drivers and get them off the road. I've called in car accidents to get police and fire rolling. Cell phones on the road make the roads safer and I think they do more good than harm.

Sure, you hear the stories about the teen kid who died while texting and his last words were "ROFLMAO" but what isn't taken into account is that rescuers get to the wreck in minutes instead of hours because somebody on the road has a cell phone.

I want cell phones on the road. If they do some harm, they also do some good. You can't have roses without thorns.

Keep a cellphone in your glove box and do not use it while driving, how hard is that?

[sgdp]

No you can't ... not until you change your focus.

My eye doctor says I'm normal, but maybe I have superpowers...

It's called "Depth of field." And not everything goes so out of focus that you can't see the car in front of you.

If you can't, you might want to see an eye doctor. :eek:

[sgdp]

You sound like you are proud to be counted among the inattentive dangerous drivers. :rolleyes:

You sound ignorant of the fact that distracted driving can be caused by many things.

If you support banning cell phones, do you support banning all those other distractions? Why or why not?

[sgdp]

Well that explains it... you are too young to know better. Perhaps when you grow up you might listen to reason... if you live long enough.

Awww. How cute. Just give me a little pat on the head to make these warm, fuzzy feelings complete, my elder.

[stodr]

My eye doctor says I'm normal, but maybe I have superpowers...

It's called "Depth of field." And not everything goes so out of focus that you can't see the car in front of you.

If you can't, you might want to see an eye doctor. :eek:

Okay you can see the car ahead of you. Can you see the bike rider on the side of the road? Can you see the car pulling out at the intersection?

When you were almost killed by the truck pulling out in front of you, would you have seen it soon enough if you would been heads down reading a email?

By your reasoning I should be able to drive what ever speed I want. I can handle it. next time you are in an airline do you want the pilot to be texting when he is landing?

As a Flight instructor the hardest thing to teach people is being able to fly and talk and listen to the radio at the same time. IT is one of the most common things people get washed out of training for. But they think they can drive and talk and text just fine.

[Greyclouds]

Logical, sure. We've even got new methods to ensure 100% reliability of a software program, so there aren't too many remaining technological stumbling blocks left. It's mostly just a matter of being able to sell infrastructure investment on a wide scale.

You're correct; infrastructure investment is a very tough sell in modern political thought.

Also, I believe the social barriers would be immense here in America.

[sgdp]

Okay you can see the car ahead of you. Can you see the bike rider on the side of the road? Can you see the car pulling out at the intersection?

When you were almost killed by the truck pulling out in front of you, would you have seen it soon enough if you would been heads down reading a email?

By your reasoning I should be able to drive what ever speed I want. I can handle it. next time you are in an airline do you want the pilot to be texting when he is landing?

As a Flight instructor the hardest thing to teach people is being able to fly and talk and listen to the radio at the same time. IT is one of the most common things people get washed out of training for. But they think they can drive and talk and text just fine.

Yes, I would have seen the truck as a big grey box in my path. I can also see when the car in front of me is stopping. Can I see the mysterious hidden biker? Depends. But even when people have the eyes on the road, **** happens.

But hey, try it next time. When you all are driving, look about 6 inches above your ring finger on your right hand. That is where my phone is. Still see what's going on? If you can't, get to an eye doctor right quick.

And I don't think you understand my reasoning at all, because that analogy makes no sense. Driving over the speed limit has nothing to do with "I can handle it." You physically have less time to stop.

My reasoning is simply that everyone has their vices, their road distractions. We just have different options for things to distract us. Mine is a phone. His is a coffee. Hers is makeup.

Nobody here is foolish enough to admit they're perfect, that they have no distractions. Yet people whose devices happen to be cell phones are chided as the scapegoat to save all humanity. It's a crock. A money-making crock.

[SFC(R)L]

Yes, I would have seen the truck as a big grey box in my path. I can also see when the car in front of me is stopping. Can I see the mysterious hidden biker? Depends. But even when people have the eyes on the road, **** happens.

But hey, try it next time. When you all are driving, look about 6 inches above your ring finger on your right hand. That is where my phone is. Still see what's going on? If you can't, get to an eye doctor right quick.

And I don't think you understand my reasoning at all, because that analogy makes no sense. Driving over the speed limit has nothing to do with "I can handle it." You physically have less time to stop.

My reasoning is simply that everyone has their vices, their road distractions. We just have different options for things to distract us. Mine is a phone. His is a coffee. Hers is makeup.

Nobody here is foolish enough to admit they're perfect, that they have no distractions. Yet people whose devices happen to be cell phones are chided as the scapegoat to save all humanity. It's a crock. A money-making crock.

Actually, an internal review reveals that I am a perfect driver.

Except for when I pass a distracted driver looking at his ring finger instead of the road. I pass on the right and swoop REAL CLOSE to the nose of the car as I pass, then I see all sorts of fingers.

[stodr]

Yes, I would have seen the truck as a big grey box in my path. I can also see when the car in front of me is stopping. Can I see the mysterious hidden biker? Depends. But even when people have the eyes on the road, **** happens.

Then why did it almost kill you if you could see it so well. they don't just pull out from blind spots.

But hey, try it next time. When you all are driving, look about 6 inches above your ring finger on your right hand. That is where my phone is. Still see what's going on? If you can't, get to an eye doctor right quick.

I fly fighters for a living I quarentee you my eyesite is better then yours and I know more about what does and what does not affect it. Our insturments are set a certian distance in front of us to keep from getting tunnel vision from trying to read something really close.

And I don't think you understand my reasoning at all, because that analogy makes no sense. Driving over the speed limit has nothing to do with "I can handle it." You physically have less time to stop.

it makes perfect sense. If you are reading a email for 2 seconds that is 2 seconds less you have to react to a car that does something unexpected outside your immediate vision.

My reasoning is simply that everyone has their vices, their road distractions. We just have different options for things to distract us. Mine is a phone. His is a coffee. Hers is makeup.

And that persons might be drunk driving.

Nobody here is foolish enough to admit they're perfect, that they have no distractions.

yet you believe adding one more is no big deal.

[sgdp]

Then why did it almost kill you if you could see it so well. they don't just pull out from blind spots.

:)) What kind of question is that? Is the only answer that I didn't see it? Sometimes they do pull out of blind spots, by the way.

I'll tell you how I almost got killed. I'm going southbound, 40 mph (the speed limit), the guy in huge (tow?) truck was pulling from the west to turn onto the street I was on, heading northbound.

Only, he didn't know how much of an engine pick up he'd need. The timing would have been fine, but he stalled in the middle of the road not able to pick up enough speed. He was at fault for not knowing how to drive a large mass vehicle, because he did not understand how much time it took to turn and get that thing up to speed. And so he was fined. He wasn't even distracted, he was looking at the road. He was just an idiot.

We can't ban idiocy, though. Damn.


I fly fighters for a living I quarentee you my eyesite is better then yours and I know more about what does and what does not affect it. Our insturments are set a certian distance in front of us to keep from getting tunnel vision from trying to read something really close.



it makes perfect sense. If you are reading a email for 2 seconds that is 2 seconds less you have to react to a car that does something unexpected outside your immediate vision.

Yeah, and the phone isn't that close to my face. It would be about the same distance as your instruments would be. I've been in planes like that. In some planes I've been in, the instrument panel is quite wide. You'd have to take your eyes off the ..air.. to look all the way to the right.

And I've said before it's a distraction. It's my vice. What's yours? Why shouldn't we ban every thing that is a potential distraction? I get more distracted with my radio than with my phone, admittedly. The po-po out here should just rip that thing outta my dash, because my wrath comes through in a fury when a song I don't like comes on.



And that persons might be drunk driving.



yet you believe adding one more is no big deal.

I think you're still missing the point. Where do you stop with this banning?

[gdoane]

Keep a cellphone in your glove box and do not use it while driving, how hard is that?

I don't pay Alltel $130 per month to get cell phone service for my glove compartment.

I wouldn't mind a compromise with a driver's license endorsement. I've already got a motorcycle endorsement on my license, so a cell phone endorsement wouldn't be any harder to get.

My cell phone isn't that hard to use on the road. I punch the middle button of my Motorola H700 bluetooth wireless mic and the Motorola Q says "Say a command". I say "Dial ###-####" and guess what it does? Exactly what I tell it to.

Expensive? You betcha, and that's the real reason cell phone haters don't like seeing the conspicuous consumption going on.

Sure, I have a smart phone with unlimited texting, internet, GPS and every other thing you could possibly imagine a mobile phone having. I EARNED IT. I PAY FOR IT. Get over it and cry over your pathetic little prepaid trac-fone for the 15 minutes you get a month.

I *like* seeing drivers with cell phones on the road and do you wanna know why? Because those drivers have money and they've probably got car insurance. They're not the drivers I have to worry about. It's the dumbass illegal alien in the 40-year-old Ford Fiesta wagon with 15 passengers who DOESN'T have a cell phone that I worry about on the road.

The war on cell phones is nothing but bashing the rich, typical pinko lib class warfare crap all over again.

My cell phone doesn't distract me from driving. I don't even have to LOOK at my cell phone to use it. I've operated my cell phone from literally 50 feet away because it is, after all, a wireless device.

To claim that it incapacitates drivers is baloney. I see handicapped parking spaces in parking lots everywhere because we allow drivers to drive around missing arms and legs and gall bladders and God knows what else got cut off so if we respect handicapped drivers then it's ridiculous to say that cell phones are just too much of a disability to be allowed on the road.

[historynut]

Yes, I would have seen the truck as a big grey box in my path. I can also see when the car in front of me is stopping. Can I see the mysterious hidden biker? Depends. But even when people have the eyes on the road, **** happens.

But hey, try it next time. When you all are driving, look about 6 inches above your ring finger on your right hand. That is where my phone is. Still see what's going on? If you can't, get to an eye doctor right quick.

And I don't think you understand my reasoning at all, because that analogy makes no sense. Driving over the speed limit has nothing to do with "I can handle it." You physically have less time to stop.

My reasoning is simply that everyone has their vices, their road distractions. We just have different options for things to distract us. Mine is a phone. His is a coffee. Hers is makeup.

Nobody here is foolish enough to admit they're perfect, that they have no distractions. Yet people whose devices happen to be cell phones are chided as the scapegoat to save all humanity. It's a crock. A money-making crock.

There are distractions like eating (pick hotdog up, bit, put hotdog down) when you don't need to take your eyes off the road and there are distractions like txting where you do take your eyes off the road. Your a lot more likely to kill someone doing the second.

If you don't think txting is a distraction try doing it rideing a motorcycle. You say you only need one hand to txt. Unless your stopping or changeing gears you can ride a motorcycle with one hand.

But you will seldom see motorcycle riders riding with one hand when there are cars around, the people in the cars are so busy txting they don't see you when they change lanes.

[SFC(R)L]

There are distractions like eating (pick hotdog up, bit, put hotdog down) when you don't need to take your eyes off the road and there are distractions like txting where you do take your eyes off the road. Your a lot more likely to kill someone doing the second.

If you don't think txting is a distraction try doing it rideing a motorcycle. You say you only need one hand to txt. Unless your stopping or changeing gears you can ride a motorcycle with one hand.

But you will seldom see motorcycle riders riding with one hand when there are cars around, the people in the cars are so busy txting they don't see you when they change lanes.

Leaving work last night, after reading this thread, I closed in on a dude in a pickup, as he was traveling at 60-65 MPH in a 70 MPH zone in the laft hand lane.

I flashed my lights (the international signal to yield the road),........nuthin.

Switched to the center lane to pass.

The jackass was driving while trying to dial/text on his phone. His eyes were on the device and not focused on the task at hand, which transformed him into a threat to safety, a hazard to lawful navigation on public roadways, and a public nuisance.

I showed him the tailights.

And I had to chuckle.

[historynut]

To claim that it incapacitates drivers is baloney. I see handicapped parking spaces in parking lots everywhere because we allow drivers to drive around missing arms and legs and gall bladders and God knows what else got cut off so if we respect handicapped drivers then it's ridiculous to say that cell phones are just too much of a disability to be allowed on the road.

What do gall bladders have to do with your eyes?

So if your missing an arm or leg that means you can't see the road.

I will explain slowly. I have two (2) eyes, I use both eyes to look at where I am going and to see what other drivers are doing.

I keep my eyes on the road and don't txt while driving.

Most cars I know of have only one steering wheel, one gas pedal and one brake pedal.

Please list the cars where you need to turn 2 steering wheels at the same time, push 2 gas pedals at the same time or push 2 brake pedals at the same time?

The handicapped parking spaces in parking lots are for people that can not walk long distances (missing a leg maybe) and a lot of the time it's not the handicapped person driving.

Is it possible you were txting and did not notice that the handicapped person got out of the right side of the car and not the left (drivers) side?

Why does being handicapped mean you can't drive?

[gdoane]

What do gall bladders have to do with your eyes?

The human body is an integrated system and all parts work together.

So if your missing an arm or leg that means you can't see the road.

That means you shouldn't BE on the road because you can't render aid in an accident so you're worse than useless. A hazard to navigation.

I fully believe that about half of the licensed drivers on the road should have their licenses taken away. A real driver's test would require changing a tire, recovering from a full sideways skid, ten laps on a NASCAR certified track with an average speed in excess of 120 MPH while in full control of the vehicle (and if the car can't do 120 MPH it shouldn't be on the road anyway) AND be able to identify the four types of fires (A,B, C and D) as well as the recommended methods of extinguishing them.

Cars are chariots of fire. Flames ignite, pistons burn and it takes a physically fit person to harness such power responsibly.


I will explain slowly. I have two (2) eyes, I use both eyes to look at where I am going and to see what other drivers are doing.


I use a lot more than that. I have a sixth sense that tells me where the idiots are and usually that sense is right on the money. I don't know if it's psychic or subtle clues like a lane change that didn't look right, but my ability to spot stupid drivers is uncanny. I use all of my senses while driving, not just vision but my ears are on alert, I'm checking for smells and feeling the road, knowing the vehicle and all it's telling me.
I keep my eyes on the road and don't txt while driving.

Most cars I know of have only one steering wheel, one gas pedal and one brake pedal.

Every car I've ever had consisted of a LOT more than a wheel, pedal and brakes. The Ford F-150 in my garage weighs 4,600 pounds and I'm pretty sure that's not all wheel, pedal and brakes. If you don't know how to take care of a vehicle then you shouldn't have one. That means checking the air pressure in your tires, checking your oil and keeping the windows clean and the mirrors properly adjusted. A vehicle is a complex machine consisting of multiple systems all working together and you cannot simplify it to be just a wheel, pedal and brakes.

Please list the cars where you need to turn 2 steering wheels at the same time, push 2 gas pedals at the same time or push 2 brake pedals at the same time?

You've never driven a stick shift, have ya? I like manual transmissions, they make me feel closer to the road. Driving a stick shift makes you understand the vehicle and what it's doing for you. Yah, you'll need both feet and both hands to drive a real manly-man vehicle with a manual transmission all right.

The handicapped parking spaces in parking lots are for people that can not walk long distances (missing a leg maybe) and a lot of the time it's not the handicapped person driving.

Well, if the handicapped guy ain't driving then the perfectly capable person driving should show some caring and consideration by some simple curbside service. What the heck difference does it make walking 20 yards or 100 yards when you're going shopping in Wal*Mart anyway? The store is bigger than the damned parking lot! You can't park INSIDE so how many steps are you saving for the handicapped fatass anyway? I don't think I've EVER seen anybody park in handicapped parking space that clocked in under 300 freaking pounds. They can't walk because they can't see their FEET. They don't need a handicapped parking card, they need a Jenny Craig membership.

Is it possible you were txting and did not notice that the handicapped person got out of the right side of the car and not the left (drivers) side?

If the driver is able-bodied and is parking in handicapped places he's a crook. He doesn't need the perk.

Heck, most handicapped parkers should be on the FAR END of the lot because they could use the exercise. Walk some of that lard off.

Why does being handicapped mean you can't drive?

Well, this answer requires that I be very blunt.

If you can't put out a fire then you shouldn't be starting one. The key to a car is called "ignition" for a really basic reason... you are starting a fire. If you can't stop what you start, then you shouldn't start. Driving is literally playing with fire.

I've fought car fires a couple of times. NOT FUN. Dangerous as all Hell actually and if you don't have a fire extinguisher in your vehicle my only question to you is WHY NOT? You're driving a car with 20+ gallons of gasoline, oil and flammable materials. GET A FIRE EXTINGUISHER.

Ever had a tire blow out on you in a car fire? BLAST FURNACE. Oxygen, molten rubber, steel belts blasting under pressure and you think handicapped guys should be driving why? Because they won't ever have to deal with this? EVERY driver has to be prepared for this.

If you can't stop a fire then you should not be starting one. Starting a car is starting a fire. Ignition without ability to extinguish is flat out irresponsible.

[Samm]

Driving a car is multitasking. Your hands are on the wheel, your feet are on the pedals, and your eyes are on the road and on the instruments, so you are multitasking when you drive.

I agree that you have a lot of demands on your attention when you are driving your car. Literally from head to toe, really.

So given the fact that driving is multitasking, what's one more task? The average person can read 200 words per minute. That's 1000 characters per minute or 17 characters per second. A text message is limited to 160 characters, which would take less than 10 seconds to read. I've never seen a stop light so short as to be only 10 seconds long.
Ever hear about the straw that broke the camels back? Sure you may be able to easily handle the additional task of talking or texting on your phone when things are going along normally. But what if suddenly events unfold on the roadway unexpectedly while your attention is primarily on the phone? That is the primary cause of the accidents; unanticipated circumstances that demand your complete attention instantly.

Accepting for sake of discussion that everybody can read a text message in 10 seconds, I have no problem if someone utilized a red light to read such. But the problem is that the majority of cell phone users don't so limit themselves. This is like any other problem that spurs demand from the public for a solution from government... the abuse by some impinges on the free use by all. If nobody ever stole anything or nobody ever killed any body, there would be no laws against robbery or murder. Most laws regulating personal behavior exist because there was a problem, not because a few people sat around thinking of what else they could make illegal to make our lives miserable.

It does make sense when you realize that you want cell phones on the road.

There's no question in my mind that cell phones save lives. It's not like the old days when a traffic accident happened and a bystander had to go 15 miles to find a phone booth.

I've called to report drunk drivers and get them off the road. I've called in car accidents to get police and fire rolling. Cell phones on the road make the roads safer and I think they do more good than harm.

Sure, you hear the stories about the teen kid who died while texting and his last words were "ROFLMAO" but what isn't taken into account is that rescuers get to the wreck in minutes instead of hours because somebody on the road has a cell phone.

I want cell phones on the road. If they do some harm, they also do some good. You can't have roses without thorns.

I agree... having a cell phone in your vehicle at all times is a very good thing. In fact, the only reason I got cell phones in the first place is so that we (my family) could communicate with each other and with emergency services in the event of an emergency. We had not had the phones more than 3 months when my wife called one Saturday morning to tell me the clutch had just gone out at an intersection a few blocks away... please come help. And after I pushed the car (with the help of stranger) we called a tow truck from the roadway. I am a big believer in having a cell phone in the car.

But on the other hand (referring to your anecdote) a couple of years ago here in Fairbanks a teenage boy died in a head-on collision when he answered his cell phone when his mother called him to find out what he was doing. I cannot imaging the torture that lady must be going through to this day.

We can have the roses without thorns... use the phone when it is necessary; don't use the phone while operating the vehicle. (And yes... there are plausible scenarios where using the phone while driving may be prudent in spite of the risk.) No casual use of a phone is worth the risk that it most certainly entails.

[Samm]

You can more specifically define what constitutes inattentive/careless/reckless driving, but you don't need an extra law to cover texting, or using a cell phone, or anything...

Who cares? What is the difference? Define inattentive/careless/reckless to include cell phone use or have a separate law to accomplish the same thing? Either way it makes the behavior an offense.

[Samm]

My eye doctor says I'm normal, but maybe I have superpowers...

It's called "Depth of field." And not everything goes so out of focus that you can't see the car in front of you.

If you can't, you might want to see an eye doctor. :eek:

That is exactly what I am talking about... depth of field. When you focus afar your depth of field takes in pretty much everything outside your car, but when you focus close... inches in from your eyes... the depth of field does not extend more than a few feet further. Yes, you may be aware there is a car in front of you, but you will not be able to determin whether it (or the car in front of it) is slowing down and that corrective action on your part is required without looking at it. Even your eye doctor knows that...

[Samm]

You sound ignorant of the fact that distracted driving can be caused by many things.

If you support banning cell phones, do you support banning all those other distractions? Why or why not?

You sound ignorant of the fact that eliminating distractions that can be eliminated will reduce the number of accidents caused by distractions. Your position seems to be that since all distractions cannot be eliminated, all distractions should be allowed. With that sort of logic watching TV while texing and driving would be OK. Why not add playing solitaire on your laptop as you text and watch TV as you putt down the road at 70 mph? Put on some lipstick and mascara while you are at it... It's just one more little distraction... right? :rolleyes:


Your position is completely untenable... unfortunately there is an ever increasing number of people just like you lurking out there on the highways waiting for their opportunity to make the 6 o'clock news. I wouldn't mind so much, except they are playing with my life and the lives of my family as well as their own. :neutral:

[Ninjacorpse]

I don't pay Alltel $130 per month to get cell phone service for my glove compartment.

I wouldn't mind a compromise with a driver's license endorsement. I've already got a motorcycle endorsement on my license, so a cell phone endorsement wouldn't be any harder to get.

My cell phone isn't that hard to use on the road. I punch the middle button of my Motorola H700 bluetooth wireless mic and the Motorola Q says "Say a command". I say "Dial ###-####" and guess what it does? Exactly what I tell it to.

Expensive? You betcha, and that's the real reason cell phone haters don't like seeing the conspicuous consumption going on.

Sure, I have a smart phone with unlimited texting, internet, GPS and every other thing you could possibly imagine a mobile phone having. I EARNED IT. I PAY FOR IT. Get over it and cry over your pathetic little prepaid trac-fone for the 15 minutes you get a month.

I *like* seeing drivers with cell phones on the road and do you wanna know why? Because those drivers have money and they've probably got car insurance. They're not the drivers I have to worry about. It's the dumbass illegal alien in the 40-year-old Ford Fiesta wagon with 15 passengers who DOESN'T have a cell phone that I worry about on the road.

The war on cell phones is nothing but bashing the rich, typical pinko lib class warfare crap all over again.

My cell phone doesn't distract me from driving. I don't even have to LOOK at my cell phone to use it. I've operated my cell phone from literally 50 feet away because it is, after all, a wireless device.

To claim that it incapacitates drivers is baloney. I see handicapped parking spaces in parking lots everywhere because we allow drivers to drive around missing arms and legs and gall bladders and God knows what else got cut off so if we respect handicapped drivers then it's ridiculous to say that cell phones are just too much of a disability to be allowed on the road.

All I am asking is that people be responsible and pull over to use their cell phones, just like i ask people who drink or get high to not drive while under the influence. I am confused that i have to have this argument with people that you would think would understand personal responsibility. I have not been calling for a ban, but that does not mean i think that putting other peoples lives at risk is ok or something to gloat about.

[Samm]

Awww. How cute. Just give me a little pat on the head to make these warm, fuzzy feelings complete, my elder.

It is not your head that needs a pat.

[Ninjacorpse]

It is not your head that needs a pat.

Stop flirting she is too young for you .:snooty: :razz:

[VCaddy05]

You sound ignorant of the fact that eliminating distractions that can be eliminated will reduce the number of accidents caused by distractions. Your position seems to be that since all distractions cannot be eliminated, all distractions should be allowed. With that sort of logic watching TV while texing and driving would be OK. Why not add playing solitaire on your laptop as you text and watch TV as you putt down the road at 70 mph? Put on some lipstick and mascara while you are at it... It's just one more little distraction... right? :rolleyes:


Your position is completely untenable... unfortunately there is an ever increasing number of people just like you lurking out there on the highways waiting for their opportunity to make the 6 o'clock news. I wouldn't mind so much, except they are playing with my life and the lives of my family as well as their own. :neutral:

well, my cadillac can play dvd's from the dash board! LOL and thats from the factory, hell its a 425 horsepower movie theater!! Talk about distractions! :dance:

[VCaddy05]

And what about GPS systems, they im sure can be very distracting lookign that the system trying to see where you are going.

[historynut]

Originally Posted by historynut
What do gall bladders have to do with your eyes?

The human body is an integrated system and all parts work together.


Except doctors have shown that the gall bladders has no useful fuction and you don't need it.

Originally Posted by historynut
So if your missing an arm or leg that means you can't see the road.

That means you shouldn't BE on the road because you can't render aid in an accident so you're worse than useless. A hazard to navigation.

Why can't I render aid in an accident. I may not be the first one there. You can do CPR with one arm (I have 2) and I know (and have used) some first aid.


I fully believe that about half of the licensed drivers on the road should have their licenses taken away. A real driver's test would require changing a tire, recovering from a full sideways skid, ten laps on a NASCAR certified track with an average speed in excess of 120 MPH while in full control of the vehicle (and if the car can't do 120 MPH it shouldn't be on the road anyway) AND be able to identify the four types of fires (A,B, C and D) as well as the recommended methods of extinguishing them.

Cars are chariots of fire. Flames ignite, pistons burn and it takes a physically fit person to harness such power responsibly.

While I havn't done it in a car I have done over 100mph on a race track on a motorcycle (in full control).

Originally Posted by historynut
I will explain slowly. I have two (2) eyes, I use both eyes to look at where I am going and to see what other drivers are doing.

I use a lot more than that. I have a sixth sense that tells me where the idiots are and usually that sense is right on the money. I don't know if it's psychic or subtle clues like a lane change that didn't look right, but my ability to spot stupid drivers is uncanny. I use all of my senses while driving, not just vision but my ears are on alert, I'm checking for smells and feeling the road, knowing the vehicle and all it's telling me. I keep my eyes on the road and don't txt while driving.

Good for you.

Originally Posted by historynut
Most cars I know of have only one steering wheel, one gas pedal and one brake pedal. .


Every car I've ever had consisted of a LOT more than a wheel, pedal and brakes. The Ford F-150 in my garage weighs 4,600 pounds and I'm pretty sure that's not all wheel, pedal and brakes. If you don't know how to take care of a vehicle then you shouldn't have one. That means checking the air pressure in your tires, checking your oil and keeping the windows clean and the mirrors properly adjusted. A vehicle is a complex machine consisting of multiple systems all working together and you cannot simplify it to be just a wheel, pedal and brakes.

Try driving a Semi. You know those big trucks where you can look down and see the little Ford F-150's.

Originally Posted by historynut
Please list the cars where you need to turn 2 steering wheels at the same time, push 2 gas pedals at the same time or push 2 brake pedals at the same time?

You've never driven a stick shift, have ya? I like manual transmissions, they make me feel closer to the road. Driving a stick shift makes you understand the vehicle and what it's doing for you. Yah, you'll need both feet and both hands to drive a real manly-man vehicle with a manual transmission all right.

I drove a strick shift for years (semi's, cars and on a few old motorcycles). If you want to feel manly try raceing a motorcycle at over 100mph.


Well, if the handicapped guy ain't driving then the perfectly capable person driving should show some caring and consideration by some simple curbside service. What the heck difference does it make walking 20 yards or 100 yards when you're going shopping in Wal*Mart anyway?

When your breaking in a new leg you take it easy at first so you don't get sores and bleed all over the floor. Plus it is a little painful.

The store is bigger than the damned parking lot! You can't park INSIDE so how many steps are you saving for the handicapped fatass anyway? I don't think I've EVER seen anybody park in handicapped parking space that clocked in under 300 freaking pounds. They can't walk because they can't see their FEET. They don't need a handicapped parking card, they need a Jenny Craig membership.


Next time you go to Wal*Mart stop txting and you will notice they have wheelchairs inside the door.

I'm over 6 ft and just over 200 lbs, maybe you should look more.


If the driver is able-bodied and is parking in handicapped places he's a crook. He doesn't need the perk.

Correct

Heck, most handicapped parkers should be on the FAR END of the lot because they could use the exercise. Walk some of that lard off.

Yes there are some fat people that park in handicapped spaces. There are some skinny ones too.
Most handicapped parkers are only handicapped parkers for a short time. They are mostly young and have hurt there hip, leg or ankle (sking, running etc) and can not walk long distances.


Originally Posted by historynut
Why does being handicapped mean you can't drive?


Well, this answer requires that I be very blunt.

If you can't put out a fire then you shouldn't be starting one. The key to a car is called "ignition" for a really basic reason... you are starting a fire. If you can't stop what you start, then you shouldn't start. Driving is literally playing with fire.

I've fought car fires a couple of times. NOT FUN. Dangerous as all Hell actually and if you don't have a fire extinguisher in your vehicle my only question to you is WHY NOT? You're driving a car with 20+ gallons of gasoline, oil and flammable materials. GET A FIRE EXTINGUISHER.

Ever had a tire blow out on you in a car fire? BLAST FURNACE. Oxygen, molten rubber, steel belts blasting under pressure and you think handicapped guys should be driving why? Because they won't ever have to deal with this? EVERY driver has to be prepared for this.

If you can't stop a fire then you should not be starting one. Starting a car is starting a fire. Ignition without ability to extinguish is flat out irresponsible.

While I have not fought anything as small as a car fires I have fought fires start at 1,500 gallons of flammable oil both before and after I was handicapped.

99% of the non-handicapped drivers do not know how to put out a car fire.

So everyone that is handicapped should just stay home.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next time you see someone doing something so dangerous that you would never do it wave if it's me I'll wave back.

Here are a few websites to look at:

Extreme Wheelchair Racing and Jumping

http://www.apparelyzed.com/support/sport/xtreme_wheelchair_sports.html

Handicapped rock climbing

http://www.dsusa.org/ChallMagarchive/Fall06/challmag-fall06-FeatArtRockClimbing.html

[Samm]

Stop flirting she is too young for you .:snooty: :razz:

Heck, she sounds too young to be using the computer without parental supervision. :D

[sgdp]

That is exactly what I am talking about... depth of field. When you focus afar your depth of field takes in pretty much everything outside your car, but when you focus close... inches in from your eyes... the depth of field does not extend more than a few feet further. Yes, you may be aware there is a car in front of you, but you will not be able to determin whether it (or the car in front of it) is slowing down and that corrective action on your part is required without looking at it. Even your eye doctor knows that...

Wrong. It happens quite often, actually, that I see the car in front of me slowing down. How do I tell? Well, the bright red brake lights help!

[sgdp]

You sound ignorant of the fact that eliminating distractions that can be eliminated will reduce the number of accidents caused by distractions. Your position seems to be that since all distractions cannot be eliminated, all distractions should be allowed. With that sort of logic watching TV while texing and driving would be OK. Why not add playing solitaire on your laptop as you text and watch TV as you putt down the road at 70 mph? Put on some lipstick and mascara while you are at it... It's just one more little distraction... right? :rolleyes:


Your position is completely untenable... unfortunately there is an ever increasing number of people just like you lurking out there on the highways waiting for their opportunity to make the 6 o'clock news. I wouldn't mind so much, except they are playing with my life and the lives of my family as well as their own. :neutral:


I can only say it so many times. Reread my posts, because you still don't get what I'm after. *Shrug*

Nobody was up in arms about banning food or drink, banning screaming kids, or makeup application. The cell phone is just the scape goat for years and years of humans distracting themselves while driving. Arguably, cell phones are less distracting than some other age-old car activities.

Yet, everyone jumps on this ban-the-cell bandwagon because it makes them feel good. Akin to hearing more of plane crashes, people hear all these horror stories about cell phone usage and just go way too far.

Fine. Ban cell phones. Then what? Why STOP there? Why stop there? Why not ban all the other distractions?

The more I think of it, the more I begin to believe the hysteria is just a fear of technology.

[sgdp]

Heck, she sounds too young to be using the computer without parental supervision. :D

I'm old enough to pay for it though. :shifty:

[DLaw911]

Okay. I get it. Texting and driving is dangerous. Ditto for eating, drinking, changing the radio station, screaming kids in the back, etc.

Now, for a moment, let's consider that there is a law banning texting while operating a motor vehicle.

"I wasn't texting, Officer. I was checking the time."

"I wasn't texting, Officer. I was putting my phone on silent so it wouldn't be a distraction."

"I wasn't texting, Officer. I was simply reading my e-mail."

You could just as easily be reading a take-out menu or an important paper.

Where does it stop if there's a law on "texting while driving"? My state does not have this. I think some do, but I'm not sure which.

Does anyone know what the limitations are on this? If a cop so much as sees you glancing at your phone, would you get a ticket?The what if's are only an issue if you go to court and fight your ticket. For most people a trip to traffic court is the worst experience of their lives. In Los Angeles Court, for example, you first wait 2 hours in line just to get into the building. Then you wait 2-3 horus to get to the window to get a court date. On THAT date you return and after waiting 2 hours in line to get into the building, you see the judge and demand a trial. He tells you to post bail. You then wait 1-2 hours in line for the clerk to process your case so you can post bail.

Then when you return again for trial you tell your story to the judge and good luck!

If one is verse in the law there are pretrial challenges, including demurrer. For example, the law (in CA) allows one to DIAL a phone number on their cell phone so long as they use a hands free device to talk. That is not considered texting.

[DLaw911]

......Fine. Ban cell phones. Then what? Why STOP there? Why stop there? Why not ban all the other distractions?There is nothing that compares with using a cell phone while driving EXCEPT turing your head 180 to your read to scream at your mother in law. Cell phone use is the ultimate distraction. How many times do you see people talking on cell phones while driving while making gestures with both hands off the steering wheel. Reality is suspended by cell phone users. They are selfish human beings who have no regard for others on the road. They tend to be so self-absorbed in their conversations that they will go 30 in a 65 where traffic is actually going 80. They will drift out of their lanes, turn without signaling, and otherwise be totally oblivious to the rest of the world.

Cars were designed to easy operation of such interior conveniences as radios, CD players, windshield wipers, turn signals. At worst they require taking your eyes off the road for seconds. NOT SO with a cell phone. Even the fastest dialer will take his or her eyes off the road for 15 seconds or more. And very few people possess he skill to dial one handed without looking at their phone.

[gdoane]

There is nothing that compares with using a cell phone while driving EXCEPT turing your head 180 to your read to scream at your mother in law. Cell phone use is the ultimate distraction.

I don't even look at my cell phone to use it. It's two rooms away and I could make a phone call on it right now.

How many times do you see people talking on cell phones while driving while making gestures with both hands off the steering wheel. Reality is suspended by cell phone users. They are selfish human beings who have no regard for others on the road.

They are the ones you go running to when you have a car accident because they're the ones who can dial 911 or get you a tow truck or a pizza delivered.


They tend to be so self-absorbed in their conversations that they will go 30 in a 65 where traffic is actually going 80. They will drift out of their lanes, turn without signaling, and otherwise be totally oblivious to the rest of the world.

Traffic doesn't go 80 in California. The reason the Escondido Freeway is named I-15 is because 15 MPH is about as fast as it gets. Any slower and it would be an Interstate Crosswalk.

Cars were designed to easy operation of such interior conveniences as radios, CD players, windshield wipers, turn signals. At worst they require taking your eyes off the road for seconds. NOT SO with a cell phone. Even the fastest dialer will take his or her eyes off the road for 15 seconds or more. And very few people possess he skill to dial one handed without looking at their phone.

What kind of junk phone do you have that you can't talk to it? My phone is 4 years old, discontinued, piece of junk and I can dial it from a hundred feet away.

[BrokenEntity]

I've never felt that distracted if I pick up a call while on the road. I don't need to look at the phone to do so. Texting, on the other hand, ought to be banned. Reminds me of a woman I saw driving a few years back. A cigarette in one hand, a baby in the backseat, and an open folder (I guess for work) held up against the steering wheel while she drove, and her eyes weren't exactly on the road.

[Samm]

Wrong. It happens quite often, actually, that I see the car in front of me slowing down. How do I tell? Well, the bright red brake lights help!

A car does not need to have breaks applied to slow down. There is another pedal down there on the floorboards that affects the speed of the car too. A slowing car can close the distance between you and it imperceptibly if you are looking at your phone instead of it, until the flash of brake lights is the last thing you see with your fuzzy out-of-focus peripheral vision before you run into them because you no longer have time to react.

Your argument is becoming more pathetic with each post... :neutral:

[Samm]

I can only say it so many times. Reread my posts, because you still don't get what I'm after. *Shrug*

Nobody was up in arms about banning food or drink, banning screaming kids, or makeup application. The cell phone is just the scape goat for years and years of humans distracting themselves while driving. Arguably, cell phones are less distracting than some other age-old car activities.

Yet, everyone jumps on this ban-the-cell bandwagon because it makes them feel good. Akin to hearing more of plane crashes, people hear all these horror stories about cell phone usage and just go way too far.

Fine. Ban cell phones. Then what? Why STOP there? Why stop there? Why not ban all the other distractions?

The more I think of it, the more I begin to believe the hysteria is just a fear of technology.

Right... your point is consistent... you think cell phone use should not be banned because some other distractions that are not the focus of attention are allegedly worse. And just to drive your point home, you proudly announce that you use your cell phone when you drive, as though it was a badge of honor. Well, the same could be said about drunk driving... why should it be illegal when there are other factors that cause accidents too?

The real point is... that any factor that can clearly be identified and dealt with, like being drunk and/or using cell phones while driving, should be made illegal to do whatever can reasonably be done to make the roads safer for everybody on them, not just the people acting irresponsibly behind the wheel. Fear of technology is a ridiculous assertion, unless you are referring to that ton and a half missile hurtling down the road while you are paying attention to your "important" messages. :rolleyes:

[Samm]

I'm old enough to pay for it though. :shifty:

Don't let your mother see that post... she will cut off your allowance. :razz:

[DLaw911]

I don't even look at my cell phone to use it. It's two rooms away and I could make a phone call on it right now. I've always been a big admirer of telekinesis. Good for you!! :)
Traffic doesn't go 80 in California. The reason the Escondido Freeway is named I-15 is because 15 MPH is about as fast as it gets. Any slower and it would be an Interstate Crosswalk.You have been away WAY too long. I am on freeways daily and on some in Orange and Riverside County if you DON'T do at least 80 in the slow lane you get tail gated and flipped off. Cops pass cars going 80 to stop cars going 90-100.
What kind of junk phone do you have that you can't talk to it? My phone is 4 years old, discontinued, piece of junk and I can dial it from a hundred feet away.My phone has voice recognition. I don't dial while driving. I have hands free Bluetooth interface on my dashboard (although the quality could be a lot better).

[sgdp]

A car does not need to have breaks applied to slow down. There is another pedal down there on the floorboards that affects the speed of the car too. A slowing car can close the distance between you and it imperceptibly if you are looking at your phone instead of it, until the flash of brake lights is the last thing you see with your fuzzy out-of-focus peripheral vision before you run into them because you no longer have time to react.

Your argument is becoming more pathetic with each post... :neutral:

I was going to put "Or the car gets bigger" but I figured you would flip out.

Who cares if my argument is "pathetic"? You don't get the argument, clearly.

But for the sake of it, I'll remind you that looking at a sentence on my phone takes as long as looking at your speedometer, and it's the same distance. Actually, the phone is up higher, so it's safer than checking my speed. And I go back and forth as needed.

Now, care to explain where you expect we should stop banning things? Should we ban food and drink in the car? Let's start there, since you ignore all the other questions.

[sgdp]

Don't let your mother see that post... she will cut off your allowance. :razz:

If only you know who pays the allowance around here. :rolleyes:

[sgdp]

I've always been a big admirer of telekinesis. Good for you!! :)
You have been away WAY too long. I am on freeways daily and on some in Orange and Riverside County if you DON'T do at least 80 in the slow lane you get tail gated and flipped off. Cops pass cars going 80 to stop cars going 90-100.
My phone has voice recognition. I don't dial while driving. I have hands free Bluetooth interface on my dashboard (although the quality could be a lot better).

Studies say handsfree is just as dangerous. :naughty:

[DLaw911]

Studies say handsfree is just as dangerous. :naughty:Depends on whether you're talking to you're best friend or the IRS.

[gdoane]

I've always been a big admirer of telekinesis. Good for you!! :)

It's not TK, I trained the little thing to recognize my voice commands.

You have been away WAY too long. I am on freeways daily and on some in Orange and Riverside County if you DON'T do at least 80 in the slow lane you get tail gated and flipped off. Cops pass cars going 80 to stop cars going 90-100.

I didn't think California cars with all that smog junk could do 90.

My phone has voice recognition. I don't dial while driving. I have hands free Bluetooth interface on my dashboard (although the quality could be a lot better).

I don't know about California, but Arizona has a 511 road condition service which I use all the time. California probably has the same thing and I think it's extraordinarily useful. It identifies road closures, congestion, accidents and such on the freeway so that I can plan my route, real-time to avoid such hazards.

My job requires a lot of driving. I work on radio comm networks that cover literally over 10,000 square miles and that means loads of windshield time for me. It's not even remotely unusual for me to drive 300 miles in one day. It's a lifesaver, timesaver and increases my safety as well as keeps cars avoiding congested areas which has got to make things safer for everybody, not just me but the lowered congestion as drivers in the know avoid the trouble spot.

The Arizona 511 system is run by AZ DPS, Department of Public Safety, basically what we call the "Highway Patrol" around these parts. The 511 system is completely voice driven (pun not intended) and you can talk to it to ask for road conditions via a voice menu, so if I want to know what's going on with I-10, I-17, I-60 or any of the other freeways I just say the name of the freeway. No pushing buttons, no distractions, and valuable information.

The cell phone is doing more good than harm. An informed driver is almost certainly a safer driver and of course detouring around road closures, avoiding congestion and steering clear of accidents or even knowing that there is an accident ahead makes for a smoother trip.

Does the cell phone do harm? Sure. But so do vehicles and nobody is calling to ban cars (well, except for some lunatic greenie freaks) because the cars do more good than harm. I see cell phones in the same light. They do some bad but they do lots of good.

[DLaw911]

......Does the cell phone do harm? Sure. But so do vehicles and nobody is calling to ban cars (well, except for some lunatic greenie freaks) because the cars do more good than harm. I see cell phones in the same light. They do some bad but they do lots of good.I just think we have a lot more primadonas here in SoCal than you do in AZ who spend their entire time in the car talking, texting and sending email (between filpping off other drivers).

[Hoobeedoo Bejesus]

I use my cell phone on my motorcycle all the time.

[sgdp]

I use my cell phone on my motorcycle all the time.

Your avatar isn't scaring me.

I'm concerned.

You ok?

[VCaddy05]

Your avatar isn't scaring me.

I'm concerned.

You ok?

LOL! i was just thinking that, hoobeedoo lost some surious poundage! LOL

[AutoRacer55]

I fully believe that about half of the licensed drivers on the road should have their licenses taken away. A real driver's test would require changing a tire, recovering from a full sideways skid, ten laps on a NASCAR certified track with an average speed in excess of 120 MPH while in full control of the vehicle (and if the car can't do 120 MPH it shouldn't be on the road anyway) AND be able to identify the four types of fires (A,B, C and D) as well as the recommended methods of extinguishing them.

If that standard were applied, it'd be more than half, closer to 3/4ths I'm sure, and the taxi industry would spring up like wildfire, thus causing more people to spend more money in this economy, which most are hesitant to do. Not to mention, you'd have a lot less women driving then men because many (not using a majority pronoun here, get off my back any radical feminists) haven't changed a tire before.

As for cars that can't do 120 mph, how would you replace them? Give those with the "slow" cars some new cars? Hell I don't think my 2002 Chevrolet Cavalier can do 120. I've done 100 in it, but I don't think I'm gonna try 120. If you think I shouldn't be driving it, then you should have prevented its sale to my grandmother when she bought it 2 years before she died.

Besides, NASCAR? Seriously? I'd rather go to Road America in Wisconsin to drive than Atlanta Motor Speedway.

[gdoane]

If that standard were applied, it'd be more than half, closer to 3/4ths I'm sure, and the taxi industry would spring up like wildfire, thus causing more people to spend more money in this economy, which most are hesitant to do. Not to mention, you'd have a lot less women driving then men because many (not using a majority pronoun here, get off my back any radical feminists) haven't changed a tire before.

As I said, I don't think most drivers belong on the road. I see cars with flat tires left on the side of the road because the crummy driver can't change a tire and I see that as a gross hazard to navigation. People who can't handle each and every task involved in driving a vehicle should NOT be driving a vehicle.

Driving is not a right. It's about being able to handle a very big, very dangerous machine safely without endangering people around you. That's why it's licensed.

As for cars that can't do 120 mph, how would you replace them?

I wouldn't replace them. I'd junk them and get them off the road. That's kind of the point.

Give those with the "slow" cars some new cars? Hell I don't think my 2002 Chevrolet Cavalier can do 120. I've done 100 in it, but I don't think I'm gonna try 120. If you think I shouldn't be driving it, then you should have prevented its sale to my grandmother when she bought it 2 years before she died.

The last time I met up with a Chevy Cavalier driven by a little old lady it was a taco on the front of my 2004 3/4 ton pickup truck because the woman driving it ran a stop sign right in front of me. My winch wound up in her cassette deck. She was 70 years old, totally disoriented and should not have had a valid driver's license. She nearly got herself killed and didn't do me any favors with her incompetence behind the wheel either.

Besides, NASCAR? Seriously? I'd rather go to Road America in Wisconsin to drive than Atlanta Motor Speedway.

Quarter-mile speedways don't get up enough speed. Talladega or Daytona are a lot faster tracks.

[AutoRacer55]

As I said, I don't think most drivers belong on the road. I see cars with flat tires left on the side of the road because the crummy driver can't change a tire and I see that as a gross hazard to navigation. People who can't handle each and every task involved in driving a vehicle should NOT be driving a vehicle.

I'm guessing you're for closing the 10 minute oil change places then? Since people would rather pay someone else to change the oil than do it themselves? (Never have and never will, btw)


Driving is not a right. It's about being able to handle a very big, very dangerous machine safely without endangering people around you. That's why it's licensed.

And it was the first thing my dad told me when I got my license.



I wouldn't replace them. I'd junk them and get them off the road. That's kind of the point.
The second them being the drivers? If so, thanks for telling me I can't drive home from college any more.


The last time I met up with a Chevy Cavalier driven by a little old lady it was a taco on the front of my 2004 3/4 ton pickup truck because the woman driving it ran a stop sign right in front of me. My winch wound up in her cassette deck. She was 70 years old, totally disoriented and should not have had a valid driver's license. She nearly got herself killed and didn't do me any favors with her incompetence behind the wheel either.

Well, do you propose more laws to get rid of older drivers? The woman that had the half million mile car for 45 years, I'm sure her reaction times aren't as good as a 20 year old's.



Quarter-mile speedways don't get up enough speed. Talladega or Daytona are a lot faster tracks.

Neither track are quarter mile tracks. Atlanta's a 1.5 mile speedway, Road America's a 4 mile road course.

[gdoane]

I'm guessing you're for closing the 10 minute oil change places then? Since people would rather pay someone else to change the oil than do it themselves? (Never have and never will, btw)

You're crazy if you don't at least check their work. Happened to my Dad, the "technician" who replaced the oil filter used a chain wrench and put a pin-hole sized puncture in the can. Sprayed oil all over the engine and one thing about vaporized oil is it catches on fire really easily. Car-B-Q is what you get if you don't know how its done and don't check the work done.

And it was the first thing my dad told me when I got my license.

First thing my dad made me do when I learned to drive was rotate the tires. Half my driver's ed involved a Chilton's manual and learning to drive a stick shift (1966 Ford Mustang Fastback).

The second them being the drivers? If so, thanks for telling me I can't drive home from college any more.

I didn't say that. I suggested a bit more qualifying. People who can't make the grade shouldn't be on the road.

Well, do you propose more laws to get rid of older drivers? The woman that had the half million mile car for 45 years, I'm sure her reaction times aren't as good as a 20 year old's.

Well, here's my take on that: 16 years old is pretty much the minimum age for driving even though I'm sure that some 14-year-olds could do fine but there's a limitation for minimum age for a good reason.

Why shouldn't there be a maximum age? I'd say anybody old enough to apply for Social Security is claiming they're too old to work and a person unfit for work is definitely unfit to drive. I'd start by revoking the licenses of everybody who claims Social Security benefits. It's not like they need to drive to work.

Neither track are quarter mile tracks. Atlanta's a 1.5 mile speedway, Road America's a 4 mile road course.

I wouldn't call Atlanta a speedway because it's assymetrical and of course a road course isn't a speedway.

[sgdp]

"Grey Dawn"

Gdoane, I think you'd much enjoy that South Park episode. :))

[gdoane]

"Grey Dawn"

Gdoane, I think you'd much enjoy that South Park episode. :))

My big turnoff of South Park is the guttermouths on the kids. I don't think it's cute or funny to have "Lord of the Flies" turned into a half-hour comedy. I don't like Beavis and Butthead for the same reason.

I read the synopsis of the episode and it's typically nasty warped humor. It sounds like it was making fun of the disaster in a farmer's market.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/20/national/main2200813.shtml

2003, George Russel Weller drove his 1992 Buick LeSabre through not one, not two, but THREE blocks of shoppers, killed ten people, and claimed that his age was an excuse which the judge bought, because the guy wasn't sentenced to any jail time.

If the age is an excuse then it's a reason to deny the license.

Most impaired drivers who kill ten people would go to jail, I'd think. I mean, that's a reasonable assumption but age-impaired is an excuse? WHY? Get impaired drivers off the road. Don't care why they're impaired, they don't belong behind the wheel.

[Samm]

Your avatar isn't scaring me.

I'm concerned.

You ok?

LOL! i was just thinking that, hoobeedoo lost some surious poundage! LOL

And some serious years too... ;)

[Lima India Bravo]

<<snip>>I didn't think California cars with all that smog junk could do 90.
<<snip>>

That's where you're wrong, Gene. I've got one that can do that plus about 2/3 more, and I just put a deposit on one that's going do just shy of twice that. (Although I never would, that's against the law! ) :naughty:

[AutoRacer55]

You're crazy if you don't at least check their work. Happened to my Dad, the "technician" who replaced the oil filter used a chain wrench and put a pin-hole sized puncture in the can. Sprayed oil all over the engine and one thing about vaporized oil is it catches on fire really easily. Car-B-Q is what you get if you don't know how its done and don't check the work done.

Like I said, we don't go to those places, although I'd love to see those places take off the oil filter on my car in the first place. We didn't know until 7 years later, but apparently the engine in my car is a 2001 engine in a 2002 model car. To take the oil filter off the car, you have to take off the right front tire and wedge your hand between the suspension bits to get to it. Then taking it off, hot oil drips right onto the exhaust pipe. Brilliant work, GM!


First thing my dad made me do when I learned to drive was rotate the tires. Half my driver's ed involved a Chilton's manual and learning to drive a stick shift (1966 Ford Mustang Fastback).

My dad took me to the elementary school parking lot the day I found out I got a perfect score on my first driver's ed written test. I've been doing brakes and changing the oil etc. etc. since I was about 5-6 years old.


I didn't say that. I suggested a bit more qualifying. People who can't make the grade shouldn't be on the road.

How would you implement that? Make new laws so there'd have to be even more enforcement? How would you take every driver on the road and make them do that? What systems would you have in place to handle the sheer volume of people driving getting themselves "re-qualified"?



Well, here's my take on that: 16 years old is pretty much the minimum age for driving even though I'm sure that some 14-year-olds could do fine but there's a limitation for minimum age for a good reason.

Looking back, I'm glad I wasn't driving at 14. Especially around New Orleans.


Why shouldn't there be a maximum age? I'd say anybody old enough to apply for Social Security is claiming they're too old to work and a person unfit for work is definitely unfit to drive. I'd start by revoking the licenses of everybody who claims Social Security benefits. It's not like they need to drive to work.

So any trips they'd have to make to the supermarket to buy groceries, they'd have to call their offspring to come in and drive them instead of going themselves? Talk about an inconvenience. And if they can't call them in, the store doesn't get their business, so they'd call in a taxi costing them even more money when they could just drive to the supermarket and back and be on the road a total of 15 minutes.


I wouldn't call Atlanta a speedway because it's assymetrical and of course a road course isn't a speedway.

Road courses take more skill to drive than speedways. That's why speedways shouldn't be used if you were to try that plan.

[khigh]

You're crazy if you don't at least check their work. Happened to my Dad, the "technician" who replaced the oil filter used a chain wrench and put a pin-hole sized puncture in the can. Sprayed oil all over the engine and one thing about vaporized oil is it catches on fire really easily. Car-B-Q is what you get if you don't know how its done and don't check the work done.

And, that's why I do my own basic maintenance work. Well, that, and the fact that no one in this town knows how to work on a full size Bronco without messing it up.



First thing my dad made me do when I learned to drive was rotate the tires. Half my driver's ed involved a Chilton's manual and learning to drive a stick shift (1966 Ford Mustang Fastback).I learned how to change a tire first. When I was working at the bank, I came outside and had a flat. I was sitting there in high heels and a long skirt changing the tire on my Cavalier. I don't even need help with the tires on the Bronco even though the tire and myself weigh the same.



I didn't say that. I suggested a bit more qualifying. People who can't make the grade shouldn't be on the road. My baby can't make it up to 120 MPH. But, she is road worthy.



Well, here's my take on that: 16 years old is pretty much the minimum age for driving even though I'm sure that some 14-year-olds could do fine but there's a limitation for minimum age for a good reason.

Why shouldn't there be a maximum age? I'd say anybody old enough to apply for Social Security is claiming they're too old to work and a person unfit for work is definitely unfit to drive. I'd start by revoking the licenses of everybody who claims Social Security benefits. It's not like they need to drive to work.



I wouldn't call Atlanta a speedway because it's assymetrical and of course a road course isn't a speedway.So, my 85 year old grandfather shouldn't be driving? Heck, he will still handle a small prop plane when it comes time to fertilize the crops. I think after a certain age, however, you should have to retake the driver's test.

[DougBH]

Okay. I get it. Texting and driving is dangerous. Ditto for eating, drinking, changing the radio station, screaming kids in the back, etc.

Now, for a moment, let's consider that there is a law banning texting while operating a motor vehicle.

"I wasn't texting, Officer. I was checking the time."

"I wasn't texting, Officer. I was putting my phone on silent so it wouldn't be a distraction."

"I wasn't texting, Officer. I was simply reading my e-mail."

You could just as easily be reading a take-out menu or an important paper.

Where does it stop if there's a law on "texting while driving"? My state does not have this. I think some do, but I'm not sure which.

Does anyone know what the limitations are on this? If a cop so much as sees you glancing at your phone, would you get a ticket?

I wasn't texting officer, I was taking a bath.
I wasn't texting officer, Iwas reading the newspaper.

There are some actions that are reckless in themselves while driving, and texting and talking on the phone are two of them.

[gdoane]

And, that's why I do my own basic maintenance work. Well, that, and the fact that no one in this town knows how to work on a full size Bronco without messing it up.

I think it's as simple as knowing what you're paying for. It's okay to have somebody else change the oil but like Ronald Reagan said, "It's play, but cut the cards. It's trust, but verify."

You betcha I'm gonna be sniffing the dipstick after an oil change. It ain't gonna be Mr. Goodwrench stranded on the side of the road waiting for a tow truck if the job was screwed up. The driver of the vehicle is like the Captain of the Ship and he's ultimately responsible for everything.

I learned how to change a tire first. When I was working at the bank, I came outside and had a flat. I was sitting there in high heels and a long skirt changing the tire on my Cavalier. I don't even need help with the tires on the Bronco even though the tire and myself weigh the same.

I find high profile vehicles a lot easier to change tires on. They give you something to put the jack under.

Last time I changed a tire, I drove on the rims for about a quarter mile because I was coming down off a mountain, extremely rugged terrain and a rock took out the passenger side front. I stopped and got out to check it and there was a rattlesnake about ten feet away, coiled and ready to go. I decided that it wasn't really a good place to change a tire even though I'm pretty sure I could have won the fight with a couple of rocks and a tire iron. So I drove on a flat, SUV's can do that. Cars don't have the clearance for it. I changed the tire a quarter-mile away, didn't have to kill the snake and didn't get bit and poisoned or die because the vehicle was capable of doing the job.

My baby can't make it up to 120 MPH. But, she is road worthy.

The minimum speed rating on tires sold on consumer vehicles is the S speed rating, 112 MPH. You ALWAYS overrate your equipment because of expecting the unexpected. It has to be more than road worthy, it has to be 200% road worthy.

So, my 85 year old grandfather shouldn't be driving? Heck, he will still handle a small prop plane when it comes time to fertilize the crops. I think after a certain age, however, you should have to retake the driver's test.


Well, here's my take on driving and maybe it's affected by the fact that I live in a State with long dark desert highways, but I think drivers should be both willing and able bodied to render aid in a crash or accident or other roadside emergency.

Leaving the scene of an accident is a crime (a felony, actually if injuries are involved) because there is an expectation to render aid. An 85-year-old guy isn't going to be much help on the road.

Last month, I was driving up Salome Highway, about as middle of nowhere as you can get and still be on dry land, and a couple had broken down. Their cell phone didn't work (not surprising, being in a valley and about 40 miles from civilization) and they flagged me down. They wanted water and help. I used a police band radio to summon help (I've got an FCC license, I work on police radios, I can do that) and I gave them a couple of quarts of water because I'm not dumb enough to drive into the desert with no water on me. If I'm going to die, it's not going to be from perfectly foreseeable circumstances like dehydration in the desert.

Rendering aid on the road happens a lot and drivers can be prosecuted for not doing it. Which means they should be fit and able. If I'd have just drove on by the couple on Salome Highway and they wound up dead, I'd feel guilty as Hell. Even if you couldn't name the exact crime, failure to render aid resulting in death would bug my conscience.

Driving is more of a responsibility than it is a right. People who have excuses like I'm too old or I'm too weak or I'm wearing a long skirt in high heels... should not driving.

[khigh]

I think it's as simple as knowing what you're paying for. It's okay to have somebody else change the oil but like Ronald Reagan said, "It's play, but cut the cards. It's trust, but verify."

You betcha I'm gonna be sniffing the dipstick after an oil change. It ain't gonna be Mr. Goodwrench stranded on the side of the road waiting for a tow truck if the job was screwed up. The driver of the vehicle is like the Captain of the Ship and he's ultimately responsible for everything.

Can't argue with that. That's why my father in law and I did the rear Master Cylinder ourselves. That is also why I am replacing the whole fuel system myself. At least then I know the work was done right.



I find high profile vehicles a lot easier to change tires on. They give you something to put the jack under.

Last time I changed a tire, I drove on the rims for about a quarter mile because I was coming down off a mountain, extremely rugged terrain and a rock took out the passenger side front. I stopped and got out to check it and there was a rattlesnake about ten feet away, coiled and ready to go. I decided that it wasn't really a good place to change a tire even though I'm pretty sure I could have won the fight with a couple of rocks and a tire iron. So I drove on a flat, SUV's can do that. Cars don't have the clearance for it. I changed the tire a quarter-mile away, didn't have to kill the snake and didn't get bit and poisoned or die because the vehicle was capable of doing the job.

The only thing that makes changing a tire on my truck is the weight of it. I'm only 102 pounds, but if I really need to, I'll do it.



The minimum speed rating on tires sold on consumer vehicles is the S speed rating, 112 MPH. You ALWAYS overrate your equipment because of expecting the unexpected. It has to be more than road worthy, it has to be 200% road worthy.

Maybe once I fix the fuel system (stupid Ford) she will be more road worthy. But, I still won't trust anything else on a back country road.




Well, here's my take on driving and maybe it's affected by the fact that I live in a State with long dark desert highways, but I think drivers should be both willing and able bodied to render aid in a crash or accident or other roadside emergency.

Leaving the scene of an accident is a crime (a felony, actually if injuries are involved) because there is an expectation to render aid. An 85-year-old guy isn't going to be much help on the road.

Last month, I was driving up Salome Highway, about as middle of nowhere as you can get and still be on dry land, and a couple had broken down. Their cell phone didn't work (not surprising, being in a valley and about 40 miles from civilization) and they flagged me down. They wanted water and help. I used a police band radio to summon help (I've got an FCC license, I work on police radios, I can do that) and I gave them a couple of quarts of water because I'm not dumb enough to drive into the desert with no water on me. If I'm going to die, it's not going to be from perfectly foreseeable circumstances like dehydration in the desert.

Rendering aid on the road happens a lot and drivers can be prosecuted for not doing it. Which means they should be fit and able. If I'd have just drove on by the couple on Salome Highway and they wound up dead, I'd feel guilty as Hell. Even if you couldn't name the exact crime, failure to render aid resulting in death would bug my conscience.

Driving is more of a responsibility than it is a right. People who have excuses like I'm too old or I'm too weak or I'm wearing a long skirt in high heels... should not driving.

You see the old guy on the horse when you are driving down the road? That's my grandpa. Never stopped working a day in his life. He would be able to take on anything that you throw out on the side of the road. The only time he wasn't working the field was during WWII and Korea- there he was a fighter pilot.

Now, he works on the farm everyday, bringing the cattle in for the winter now. His brother died last year at the ripe old age of 96- they found him dead, slumped over his tractor in the field.

It's not age- it's ability. There are 20 something soldiers here who need assistance changing a tire.

[historynut]

First thing my dad made me do when I learned to drive was rotate the tires. Half my driver's ed involved a Chilton's manual and learning to drive a stick shift (1966 Ford Mustang Fastback).
First thing my Dad did was teach me to do high speed stops (wet and dry) under control.

Why shouldn't there be a maximum age? I'd say anybody old enough to apply for Social Security is claiming they're too old to work and a person unfit for work is definitely unfit to drive. I'd start by revoking the licenses of everybody who claims Social Security benefits. It's not like they need to drive to work.

Maybe they think they have done there share of the work and have a right to some free time.

My uncle did get a second license after he retired, it was an amateur road license. Maybe he should have just stayed home going by your rules he was unfit to drive.[/QUOTE]

[historynut]

Well, here's my take on driving and maybe it's affected by the fact that I live in a State with long dark desert highways, but I think drivers should be both willing and able bodied to render aid in a crash or accident or other roadside emergency.

I am not able bodied but I am willing and have rendered aid in a crash or accident or other roadside emergency.

Since I am not able bodied does that mean I should not have helped?

The able bodied gentlemen standing around seem to either not know how to help or were unwilling to help.


Leaving the scene of an accident is a crime (a felony, actually if injuries are involved) because there is an expectation to render aid. An 85-year-old guy isn't going to be much help on the road.

Depends on the 85-year-old guy. You don't just fall apart after you pass 65.


Last month, I was driving up Salome Highway, about as middle of nowhere as you can get and still be on dry land, and a couple had broken down. Their cell phone didn't work (not surprising, being in a valley and about 40 miles from civilization) and they flagged me down. They wanted water and help. I used a police band radio to summon help (I've got an FCC license, I work on police radios, I can do that) and I gave them a couple of quarts of water because I'm not dumb enough to drive into the desert with no water on me. If I'm going to die, it's not going to be from perfectly foreseeable circumstances like dehydration in the desert.

I always have water in my car. Also food, blankets, first aid kit etc.

I have been broken down beside the road. 4 flat tires, 1 spare tire. Nails on the road.


Rendering aid on the road happens a lot and drivers can be prosecuted for not doing it. Which means they should be fit and able. If I'd have just drove on by the couple on Salome Highway and they wound up dead, I'd feel guilty as Hell. Even if you couldn't name the exact crime, failure to render aid resulting in death would bug my conscience.

Would bug my conscience too. Too bad there are so many able bodied gentlemen that just drive by and don't help.


Driving is more of a responsibility than it is a right. People who have excuses like I'm too old or I'm too weak or I'm wearing a long skirt in high heels... should not driving.

I've know a number of girl's in long skirt & high heels with most of them it wasn't that they couldn't do it they just didn't want to get dirty. When I was wearing a rented tux I didn't want to get dirty either.


I've heard that able bodied thing for years. Mostly from people that because I couldn't say change a tire there way they were thinking I couldn't do it at all. The fact that I could change it faster my way didn't matter.

I had a very hot, dirty job for years, never had to worry about getting overtime. Half the people wouldn't do the job (too hot) and the other half say they couldn't do it (some even had note's from there doctor). There were a number of the one's that either would not or could not do the job that would always tell me I should retire and let an able bodied person take the job. I told them that if they would take the job I would retire, never got anyone tp take the offer.

To me it should be the other way. If your too scared to do the things I've done you should get off the road. When I try to help at an accident I don't want you in my way because you too scared to move or have you dropping because you can't take the heat.

Or have someone get injured because you will not listen to me because you would not listen to a cripple. When the cripple tells you not to do something that way should ask how he knows you can't do it that way.