Do you need to talk and drive?

[jeepers]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/14/maria.shriver.cell.phone/index.html

We don't really think that hand-held bans have a whole lot of impact," said Jonathan Adkins, spokesman for the Governors Highway Safety Association in Washington. The association urges drivers not to use phones, including hands-free devices, while driving, but does not support laws banning them, he said.

The attention to Shriver "alludes to a bigger problem, and that's the fact that everybody does it," Adkins said. "Not only are public officials doing it, but we have to educate the highway safety community. ... Cops frequently are on their cell phones when they drive.
"The Shriver case really underscores the scope of the problem. We have a lot of educating to do."

Shriver's most recent alleged violations come on the heels of AAA Northern California's "Heads Up Driving Week," during which the auto club urged motorists to get in the habit of driving without distractions such as cell phones, fast food and tuning the stereo.

"We hope that by driving distraction-free for a week, people can pick up the habit for life," AAA spokesman Matt Skryja said in a news release.


To me, the crux of this issue really is the last sentence in this quote..."We hope that by driving distraction-free for a week, people can pick up the habit for life."

WHAT?

Okay for all of you young newbies out there ( and the author of this program has to be young himself). You HOPE? How about saying "everyone that is walking on the planet that hit adulthood before widespread cell phone use, already had a habit of driving without phones. Every single one. How on earth did we do it?

We just drove. :)) You get in the car, put on your seatbelt, put the key into the ignition...and DRIVE. It's ridiculous to treat this as some sort of an addiction. It's not too tempting to avoid, it's about being too lazy to stop and make that call. That's what everyone did before they were invented.

Now it woudl be even more convenient, you don't have to take your butt out of your car, you can just pull over. You don't have to hunt down a phone booth or stand in line for one, or fish for quarters, you can just pull over.

Is it just me or does it seem like once again, it's the juvenile-ification of America? Oh, it's just too tempting. NO, just pull it over Maynard and do the right thing.

[merickson]

One difference about the cell phone is that it rings inside the car.

Pre-cell phone, there was no need to pull over to find a phone. One made the call before getting in the car.

When the phone rings in the car, while I'm driving, my (pre-answering machine) training on how to operate a telephone urges me to answer it, if only just to say "I'm driving, I'll call you back." Some how, it just seems wrong or rude to deliberatly let a call go to voice mail.

[BillBrown]

I hate the damn things and my job used to be in the cell phone industry.

It isn't dangerous, but the most irritating thing I see are women (always a woman) pushing a cart around the grocery store with a cell phone glued to their ear. They don't pay attention and will ram right into you or they'll stop in the middle of an aisle and talk. You can't get around them.

I think the cell phone's days are numbered.
There is a new report, almost every month, linking them to brain cancer.
It's a huge industry, but it will eventually be shut down. It won't bother me a bit.

[Buffalo]

Golly gee another cell phone thread. I am against cell phone laws. Because the target indiscriminately. But alas, they are here. So yesterday, and I'm completely honest here, when I was driving to Best Buy, got stuck behind an old lady going 35 in a 45, then got cut off by a jeep wrangler who didn't stop at the end of the drive at Dunkin Donuts, neither of these drivers was using a cell phone. Oh yeah, I forgot about the pickup at lunch that blew through a red light when I was in the middle of the intersection waiting to turn left (and I waited through yellow, anticipating some ******* would do exactly what that ******* did.) That guy wasn't on a cell phone either.

Ticket bad ****ing drivers, cause I'm not one, even when I use my cell phone. And put all the BS studies you want up, I have not had an accident for 16 years, and avoided countless hundreds if not thousands, cause I pay extra attention on the road, cause *******s are allowed to drive. You really want to make driving safer, make driving tests harder. Half the people on the road today should not be allowed to operated giant metal boxes that can go faster than any living animal.

[jeepers]

One difference about the cell phone is that it rings inside the car.

Pre-cell phone, there was no need to pull over to find a phone. One made the call before getting in the car.

When the phone rings in the car, while I'm driving, my (pre-answering machine) training on how to operate a telephone urges me to answer it, if only just to say "I'm driving, I'll call you back." Some how, it just seems wrong or rude to deliberatly let a call go to voice mail.

You must be related to my mother. She'll stop everything to answer the phone. Will literally get out of the shower.

I don't think that it's rude not to answer, that's what voicemail is for. That is like saying "no matter what I'm doing, what you need from me is more important than what I'm doing".

At the risk of being really crass, I've tried to break that woman of this habit, even if it's me that is calling. I told her, if you're in the middle of a shower and I call, even to tell you that someone died, that person will still be dead by the time you get out of the shower. If it's that important, I'll wait a bit and then call again. If it's not that important, I can wait until you call me back'...

I had an incident that cured ME of that behavior. I carried a beeper and my family had the number. I was driving home from work, and just as I'm hitting a place on the freeway in the SF Bay Area where three of them intersected (880/580/80). It's called the maze. The maze is something that once you enter, you are committed. Many lanes are merging, people aren't always driving well, and you have no shoulders, let alone recourse until you get through it.

My beeper went off, I glanced saw that it was my sister. I kept driving. A few minutes later, it went off again. I kept driving but now I think that something is up. I'm now trying to figure out where to get off, where there might be a phone booth, and I'm near West Oakland which isn't always the best place to wander around like an idiot looking for a phone booth, and the thing goes off a third time.

Now I really think that something is up, something might be wrong. So I pull into a not great area, find a booth, call her and she says "whaddya doing?":eek: :wall:

She just wanted to chat.

That cured me of the emergency mindset and that was the last time I carried that beeper for anything other than work purposes.

[SFC(R)L]

I hate the damn things and my job used to be in the cell phone industry.

It isn't dangerous, but the most irritating thing I see are women (always a woman) pushing a cart around the grocery store with a cell phone glued to their ear. They don't pay attention and will ram right into you or they'll stop in the middle of an aisle and talk. You can't get around them.

I think the cell phone's days are numbered.
There is a new report, almost every month, linking them to brain cancer.
It's a huge industry, but it will eventually be shut down. It won't bother me a bit.

they drive the same way

[LouC]

...Some how, it just seems wrong or rude to deliberatly let a call go to voice mail.

You sound a little like my oldest.

She would crash through a brick wall to answer a ringing phone before it rang the third time.

It was insane.

She came to live with us to get her feet back on the ground and I would be doing dishes or cooking and the phone would ring and ring and ring again and she would come running in from her room screaming "Aren't you going to answer that?" to which I would reply I was busy and the answering machine will get it.

She would tell me I was crazy and rude for not answering the phone. :))

It got to be fun, and I would on occasion just sit there on the couch and let it ring to drive he nuts.

When I was up I would carry the wireless phone in my pocket, and when I was home I answered the phone or if my wife was home either she or I answered the phone.

I have no problem letting a call on my cell phone go to the voice mail.

Usually when I get in the car I turn it off just so it doesn't distract me.



She also would just freak when I would ignor people knocking at the door, or when I would just crack the door and say "No thanks" and close it quickly.

[sgdp]

You get in the car, put on your seatbelt, put the key into the ignition...and DRIVE.


Wrong.

You were distracted by:

Food
Drink
Kids
Radio
Road Rage
Attractive drivers
Daydreaming
Defroster controls
Billboards
Finding a pen
Make up
et cetera

The cell phone is just a profitable scape goat for years and years of distracted driving.

[NascarGirl2448]

How about the government just butt out?!! I am so sick and tired of the government sticking their noses where they do NOT belong. We already have enough laws on the books to cover people driving like idiots, no need to have more redundant nanny state laws.

[SFC(R)L]

stop using your cell phone when tooling down my roadway.

[Pudge]

I use my phone once in a while when I am driving, it's a necessity in my job. I am responsible about it, though- I only dial when I am stopped and I keep any conversations brief and to the point. So yes, there are times when I need to talk and drive, and I am quite capable of doing both simultaneously.

[wayoverthehill]

Well right now this a is very sore subject with me because I was rear-ended Monday morning by a stupid driver who somehow did not see a school bus with flashing lights picking up children, and 6 or 7 rows of cars across THREE lanes of traffic, all with their brake lights on.

I suspect she was texting. At any rate, she plowed into me going at least 25 miles an hour and in addition to destroying the entire back end of my car, pushed me five feet into the back of the car in front of me. Fortunately, since I had my foot on the brake, I did no major damage to the front end of my car or the back end of that lady in front of me. Thank goodness I did not see her coming or I would have tensed up and probably been hurt worse.

Then, to add insult to injury (albeit not serious injury) this bimbo cowered in her car the whole time, even after the police arrived. I guess she was worried that this gray haired old lady would yell at her or something.

Anyway, my car is in the shop, don't know if it can be saved and I am royally ticked. I had a minor accident in 1987 and that's it. I've never even had a ticket. At least HER insurance company is on the hook for everything. I hope she enjoys her raised premiums, if they don't drop her entirely. Would serve her right.

Now I'm spooked about driving at all because so many drivers are careless and especially with driving too fast for conditions.

I'm not feeling real charitable right now.

[Army Wife]

Hey I have to talk and drive...it's usually talking to myself and most days its the only intelligent conversation I have :))

[jimjames418]

I have no problem with not answering the phone. We have caller ID and any call with a "blocked number" is not answered, by anyone. If they can't let me know who is calling, I feed no obligation to talk with them. ;)

[SFC(R)L]

Hey I have to talk and drive...it's usually talking to myself and most days its the only intelligent conversation I have :))

are you on the phone with yourself?

And if you are, and you aren't home, is there a dial tone?

[Dragon1963]

are you on the phone with yourself?

And if you are, and you aren't home, is there a dial tone?

I pretend that I'm on the phone when I need to talk to myself makes me look cool. ;)

[Ninjacorpse]

I hear the same excuse, "I need to talk and drive for my job" What exactly are your jobs that you cannot pullover to answer your phone?

[MarkyS]

How about the government just butt out?!! I am so sick and tired of the government sticking their noses where they do NOT belong. We already have enough laws on the books to cover people driving like idiots, no need to have more redundant nanny state laws.


The primary purpose of the government is to protect you from me and me from you. As long as you are on the same road as I, I want them to make sure you drive safely, and unless you have a death wish, you want them to make sure I drive safely, too.

M

[MarkyS]

I use my phone once in a while when I am driving, it's a necessity in my job. I am responsible about it, though- I only dial when I am stopped and I keep any conversations brief and to the point. So yes, there are times when I need to talk and drive, and I am quite capable of doing both simultaneously.


I'm sure you think you can, but I doubt it - not safely, anyway. My job required that I have a cell phone LONG before even 5% of Americans had one, and despite 25 years of driving experience in every possible kind of bad weather situation, I knew immediately on the first call that I was distracted from driving to the best of my ability. It was so obvious that I stopped the car right away to complete the call. Of course, over time I got comfortable with it, but I know to this day that I am at best 8/10ths of where I should be when on the phone in the car.

Studies have shown that talking on the cell phone uses the same sections of the brain that are required for attentive driving, and that means that something has got to be compromised somewhere.

Whenever I encounter someone on the street driving appreciably below the speed limit almost INVARIABLY they are on a cell phone. They have slowed down - without even thinking to do so - because they INATELY experience the lack of focus to drive at the comfortable speed they were driving minutes before the call came through. They do not consciously slow down. They simply start driving at what is a comfortable limit - as all drivers do - and because of distraction, that comfort zone is SLOWER.

That tells me instantly that they are distracted, whether they know it or not. They believe they are doing just fine, but they are not, and everyone else around them knows the truth.

M

[Pudge]

I'm sure you think you can, but I doubt it - not safely, anyway.

Sure I can. I know when I am distracted and when I am not. I've been doing my job for years and I've never had an issue with using my phone while driving.

over time I got comfortable with it, but I know to this day that I am at best 8/10ths of where I should be when on the phone in the car.

That's why I take precautions and keep any converstations quick- but it's a necessity in my job, and sometimes I have to make a call en route to a drop.

Studies have shown that talking on the cell phone uses the same sections of the brain that are required for attentive driving, and that means that something has got to be compromised somewhere.

Studies, shmudies. I really don't see how something done in a controlled environment has anything to do with what unfolds in practical reality.

Whenever I encounter someone on the street driving appreciably below the speed limit almost INVARIABLY they are on a cell phone. They have slowed down - without even thinking to do so - because they INATELY experience the lack of focus to drive at the comfortable speed they were driving minutes before the call came through. They do not consciously slow down. They simply start driving at what is a comfortable limit - as all drivers do - and because of distraction, that comfort zone is SLOWER.

Really? I've seen that, but not as much as I've seen the oblivious cell-phone chatter zooming along with her car halfway across the median strip. Those people scare me lots more than the slowpokes.

And besides, as it's been said, there are plenty of other distractions when you're driving that aren't visible to others. The phone has become a scapegoat, but it's hardly the only distraction. I've had more near-misses changing the radio station and looking up to see a car stopped for no apparent reason, but I've had no such instances while I've been on the phone.

Texting, on the other hand, is really distracting, I don't see how anyone is capable of doing that since you have to take your eyes off the road completely.

[MarkyS]

Sure I can. I know when I am distracted and when I am not. I've been doing my job for years and I've never had an issue with using my phone while driving.

The trouble is I have been either inconvenienced by or downright imperilled by folks on the phone who were totally oblivious to my even being there, and if that's true for them, I just don't believe that it's not true for you. As I said, you may not have even been aware of the problems you caused. I contend it may have never been an issue with you, but it has very likely been an issue with the folks around you.



That's why I take precautions and keep any converstations quick- but it's a necessity in my job, and sometimes I have to make a call en route to a drop.

Using a cell phone is a necessity in my job too, but I either pull over or wait to use it. What in hell did the whole world do before cell phones - come to a screetching halt? The short delay of actual movement of the vehicle can be made up by scratching your butt only twice a day instead of thrice.

Studies, shmudies. I really don't see how something done in a controlled environment has anything to do with what unfolds in practical reality.

Then you nothing of how studies are conducted, many of which are done with complete passivity of the studied, and in the field - i.e cameras are hooked up to their environment over a great deal of time to capture what they do without any deliberate input from them, for instance.

Really? I've seen that, but not as much as I've seen the oblivious cell-phone chatter zooming along with her car halfway across the median strip. Those people scare me lots more than the slowpokes.

I never said that all cell-phone talkers slow down. I said the fact that they do slow down is an indication that they are inately aware of their lack of focus. They instinctively slow down, not consciously. Your examples simply prove my point - people on phones are either slowing down or oblivious to their surroundings, but they sure as hell aren't driving with the rest of us.

And besides, as it's been said, there are plenty of other distractions when you're driving that aren't visible to others. The phone has become a scapegoat, but it's hardly the only distraction. I've had more near-misses changing the radio station and looking up to see a car stopped for no apparent reason, but I've had no such instances while I've been on the phone.

I don't dispute that, but those are not the distraction du jour. We are discussing cell phones.

Texting, on the other hand, is really distracting, I don't see how anyone is capable of doing that since you have to take your eyes off the road completely.

We agree. Doesn't make cell phones safe, however.

M

[NascarGirl2448]

The primary purpose of the government is to protect you from me and me from you. As long as you are on the same road as I, I want them to make sure you drive safely, and unless you have a death wish, you want them to make sure I drive safely, too.

M

How about just enforcing the laws already on the books and STOP making more stupid laws just to appease the nanny state advocates? I am sick and tired of the government trying to be my parents!!!

[jeepers]

How about just enforcing the laws already on the books and STOP making more stupid laws just to appease the nanny state advocates? I am sick and tired of the government trying to be my parents!!!


I absolutely get that but when enough people get into enough accidents then it starts a push to inact more laws.

I have mixed feelings about this one. I, too, am sick of all of the laws. On the other hand, when I think about this subject, I think about the semi driver that was here locally and killed multiple people because he was on his phone and didn't see that the traffic had stopped... He literally ran his truck OVER cars. 10 vehicles involved. It was bad.

Or on a tinier scale, the teenager that was in front of me last fall on a two lane highway that was a bit curvy. I watched her go almost straight over a railing before she corrected at the last minute. She was on the cell. Her parents don't know how close she was to getting severely hurt or dead that day. I, however, would have been an eyewitness to it.

For those who drive and talk, please be good at it. I don't want to get dead and I certainly don't want to watch you get dead. :(

[NascarGirl2448]

I absolutely get that but when enough people get into enough accidents then it starts a push to inact more laws.

Obviously some people are too stupid to realize that enforcing the laws already on the books would take care of the real problems, instead of punishing those of us who CAN walk and chew gum at the same time.

I have mixed feelings about this one. I, too, am sick of all of the laws. On the other hand, when I think about this subject, I think about the semi driver that was here locally and killed multiple people because he was on his phone and didn't see that the traffic had stopped... He literally ran his truck OVER cars. 10 vehicles involved. It was bad.

I'm honestly surprised they didn't try and outlaw 18 wheelers. Personally I think we ought to use the railroads more often, but this isn't my grandfather's America we're dealing with here.

Or on a tinier scale, the teenager that was in front of me last fall on a two lane highway that was a bit curvy. I watched her go almost straight over a railing before she corrected at the last minute. She was on the cell. Her parents don't know how close she was to getting severely hurt or dead that day. I, however, would have been an eyewitness to it.

How high up was the road? Some roads I drive on (especially in the mountains) I don't even go the speed limit because either the hills are steep or the road is just plain too curvy.

For those who drive and talk, please be good at it. I don't want to get dead and I certainly don't want to watch you get dead. :(

If people used a little common sense, we wouldn't be worrying about much of anything. Although really if the police just enforced the laws already on the books (and how they keep up with all these nanny state laws is a mystery to me) we wouldn't have so many stupid laws in the first place.

[merickson]

You must be related to my mother. She'll stop everything to answer the phone. Will literally get out of the shower.

I don't think that it's rude not to answer, that's what voicemail is for. That is like saying "no matter what I'm doing, what you need from me is more important than what I'm doing".

At the risk of being really crass, I've tried to break that woman of this habit, even if it's me that is calling. I told her, if you're in the middle of a shower and I call, even to tell you that someone died, that person will still be dead by the time you get out of the shower. If it's that important, I'll wait a bit and then call again. If it's not that important, I can wait until you call me back'...

I had an incident that cured ME of that behavior. I carried a beeper and my family had the number. I was driving home from work, and just as I'm hitting a place on the freeway in the SF Bay Area where three of them intersected (880/580/80). It's called the maze. The maze is something that once you enter, you are committed. Many lanes are merging, people aren't always driving well, and you have no shoulders, let alone recourse until you get through it.

My beeper went off, I glanced saw that it was my sister. I kept driving. A few minutes later, it went off again. I kept driving but now I think that something is up. I'm now trying to figure out where to get off, where there might be a phone booth, and I'm near West Oakland which isn't always the best place to wander around like an idiot looking for a phone booth, and the thing goes off a third time.

Now I really think that something is up, something might be wrong. So I pull into a not great area, find a booth, call her and she says "whaddya doing?":eek: :wall:

She just wanted to chat.

That cured me of the emergency mindset and that was the last time I carried that beeper for anything other than work purposes.
I think it may be an age thing. What technology was around when I (and your mom) were growing up. One phone in the home, no answering machine. The phone was used (or kept free) for important (i.e. grownups) stuff.

[johnrocks]

I never answer the phone when I'm driving nor call, I'll pull into a parking lot to talk but I read that accidents have gone down since 1985 yet the use of cell phones has skyrocketed since 1985 so I'm not so sure there is a big correlation between the two even though I have witnesses people driving through red lights yapping on the phone.

[Vic Daring]

How about just enforcing the laws already on the books and STOP making more stupid laws just to appease the nanny state advocates? I am sick and tired of the government trying to be my parents!!!

You're right.

I can drive perfectly safely with at least a .12 BAC. Why won't the government just leave me alone?

We really have no more freedom in this country.

[NascarGirl2448]

You're right.

I can drive perfectly safely with at least a .12 BAC. Why won't the government just leave me alone?

We really have no more freedom in this country.

Driving drunk is a totally different animal than using a cell phone. Drunk driving has been proven to harm or kill people. Cell phones may have contributed to crashes, but personally I think they're a scapegoat for the nanny state advocates to create more stupid laws.

[NascarGirl2448]

You're right.

I can drive perfectly safely with at least a .12 BAC. Why won't the government just leave me alone?

We really have no more freedom in this country.

Driving drunk is a totally different animal than using a cell phone. Drunk driving has been proven to harm or kill people. Cell phones may have contributed to crashes, but personally I think they're a scapegoat for the nanny state advocates to create more stupid laws. People have been driving like idiots since before cell phones were invented.

[traditional_woman]

Heck I get distracted by my OWN thoughts sometimes. Just the other day I got honked at b/c the light turned green.

[DaGooseMon]

stop using your cell phone when tooling down my roadway.

No.

It's not "your" roadway.

If we can't be allowed to talk with a handsfree device, then they should outlaw conversations in cars, period. No talking to your wife. No talking to your kids. No singing along with the radio. No listening to Sean. No listening to Rush. No listening to local talk radio. No radios. No DVD players. In fact, why not make all cars one seaters so there is absolutely no possibility of anything in that car distracting you. No more Billboards either. Too distracting. Everyone should drive the same kind of car, so we don't get distracted by the tricked out 1972 Camaro that is driving along side you. Better outlaw the Tom Toms and the Garmin GPS units too. You can't watch the road if you're looking at that thing. Glove boxes, get rid of them. You may have an urge to look for something in there while driving. Drive thru windows too. Get rid of them. How can we be expected to eat and drive??? :((

Wake the **** up people. This is nothing more than a political football to kick around to make us think the useless politicians are actually accomplishing something.

For as long as there are humans driving cars, there are going to be accients. It's an assumed risk. Deal with it.

[DaGooseMon]

The primary purpose of the government is to protect you from me and me from you. As long as you are on the same road as I, I want them to make sure you drive safely, and unless you have a death wish, you want them to make sure I drive safely, too.

M

What the hell kinda crap is that? The primary purpose of government is to protect you from me?

See my previous post. But that's is the silliest damn post I've ever read on this board. I hope to God you're being sarcastic.

[Vic Daring]

No.

It's not "your" roadway.

If we can't be allowed to talk with a handsfree device, then they should outlaw conversations in cars, period. No talking to your wife. No talking to your kids. No singing along with the radio. No listening to Sean. No listening to Rush. No listening to local talk radio. No radios. No DVD players. In fact, why not make all cars one seaters so there is absolutely no possibility of anything in that car distracting you. No more Billboards either. Too distracting. Everyone should drive the same kind of car, so we don't get distracted by the tricked out 1972 Camaro that is driving along side you. Better outlaw the Tom Toms and the Garmin GPS units too. You can't watch the road if you're looking at that thing. Glove boxes, get rid of them. You may have an urge to look for something in there while driving. Drive thru windows too. Get rid of them. How can we be expected to eat and drive??? :((

Wake the **** up people. This is nothing more than a political football to kick around to make us think the useless politicians are actually accomplishing something.

For as long as there are humans driving cars, there are going to be accients. It's an assumed risk. Deal with it.

Wow Goose.

Nice 30-acre field of strawmen you've set up there.

But nobody's talking about any of those things. And nobody's suggesting that cell phone driving laws will eliminate accidents.

This is really pretty simple. You are not allowed to do stuff that makes you a danger to me and my family. If we have compelling evidence (and I think we do) that cell phone chatter - and TEXTING! for the luvagawd - make you more likely to kill or injure me and my family, then it is entirely reasonable and proper for government - yes..government - to pass a law making that action illegal.

[DaGooseMon]

Wow Vic, nice ******** you setup there.

Read any study and it will tell you it is the distraction that causes accidents. All of the things I've listed are distractions while driving.

All this debate is about is ONE specific distraction. But there have been accidents caused by OTHER specific distractions since driving began. If we're going to outlaw ONE specific distraction to save you and your family, we had better outlaw them all. Because guess what, me reaching for the pacifier my child dropped is a distraction that could kill you and your family. Or maybe, George Tekai is on Howard Stern and has me laughing so hard, I get distracted and kill you and your family.

This debate is absurd, and I'm aptly demonstrating that. If you refuse to see the absurdity of outlawing talking on a hands free device and not outlawing arguing with your wife in the car, then you're clearly ignoring logic based on an emotional fear of being in an accident. If you're that afraid of being killed by a distracted driver, you better stay off the road because just about every person on the road is distracted in some way.

[DaGooseMon]

And if I'm not allowed to do stuff that makes me a danger to you and your family, then NOBODY should be allowed to drive. Driving is dangerous. You're in a metal machine travelling at a high rate of speed. There is no way around that. You willingly assume some risk by getting in the car. Free will and all that.

But you know what, we better outlaw driving pronto! Only Vic is allowed to drive. Everyone else poses a risk to Vic.

This has to be the dumbest debate ever.

[johnrocks]

Heck I get distracted by my OWN thoughts sometimes. Just the other day I got honked at b/c the light turned green.

Now that's being a "traditional woman":mrgreen: *running off fast*:shifty:

[Vic Daring]

Wow Vic, nice ******** you setup there.

Read any study and it will tell you it is the distraction that causes accidents. All of the things I've listed are distractions while driving.

All this debate is about is ONE specific distraction. But there have been accidents caused by OTHER specific distractions since driving began. If we're going to outlaw ONE specific distraction to save you and your family, we had better outlaw them all. Because guess what, me reaching for the pacifier my child dropped is a distraction that could kill you and your family. Or maybe, George Tekai is on Howard Stern and has me laughing so hard, I get distracted and kill you and your family.

This debate is absurd, and I'm aptly demonstrating that. If you refuse to see the absurdity of outlawing talking on a hands free device and not outlawing arguing with your wife in the car, then you're clearly ignoring logic based on an emotional fear of being in an accident. If you're that afraid of being killed by a distracted driver, you better stay off the road because just about every person on the road is distracted in some way.

The only thing you're demonstrating is your own inability to grasp a pretty simple concept.

There are all sorts of laws that tell you what you can and can't do on the road. You have to stay between the lines, obey the speed limit, stop at stop signs and signals, turn your headlights on at night.

You could take any one of those, apply your own fallacy of the undistributed middle logic, and do away with all traffic laws.

Personally, I'd be okay with a law that allowed hands-free devices, but prohibited handset use and certainly texting.

[Vic Daring]

And if I'm not allowed to do stuff that makes me a danger to you and your family, then NOBODY should be allowed to drive. Driving is dangerous. You're in a metal machine travelling at a high rate of speed. There is no way around that. You willingly assume some risk by getting in the car. Free will and all that.

But you know what, we better outlaw driving pronto! Only Vic is allowed to drive. Everyone else poses a risk to Vic.

This has to be the dumbest debate ever.

You're right.

The speed limit should be 10 mph.

[SFC(R)L]

No.

It's not "your" roadway.

If we can't be allowed to talk with a handsfree device, then they should outlaw conversations in cars, period. No talking to your wife. No talking to your kids. No singing along with the radio. No listening to Sean. No listening to Rush. No listening to local talk radio. No radios. No DVD players. In fact, why not make all cars one seaters so there is absolutely no possibility of anything in that car distracting you. No more Billboards either. Too distracting. Everyone should drive the same kind of car, so we don't get distracted by the tricked out 1972 Camaro that is driving along side you. Better outlaw the Tom Toms and the Garmin GPS units too. You can't watch the road if you're looking at that thing. Glove boxes, get rid of them. You may have an urge to look for something in there while driving. Drive thru windows too. Get rid of them. How can we be expected to eat and drive??? :((

Wake the **** up people. This is nothing more than a political football to kick around to make us think the useless politicians are actually accomplishing something.

For as long as there are humans driving cars, there are going to be accients. It's an assumed risk. Deal with it.

My taxes built it, it's mine.

You're on it, with me, in violation of the rules.

If you don't like the rules, then run for office, get the rules changed, and then you can follow the rules you had put in place.

Until then, you are obliged to follow the rules of the road as they, not as you wish them to be.

if you cannot do that, then you need to get off my road until you can.

Or you can pay the penalty when you fail to follow the rules as they are posted. And that includes putting you afoot, and off my road.

I paid for it; it's mine.

Deal with it.

[DaGooseMon]

The only thing you're demonstrating is your own inability to grasp a pretty simple concept.

There are all sorts of laws that tell you what you can and can't do on the road. You have to stay between the lines, obey the speed limit, stop at stop signs and signals, turn your headlights on at night.

You could take any one of those, apply your own fallacy of the undistributed middle logic, and do away with all traffic laws.

Personally, I'd be okay with a law that allowed hands-free devices, but prohibited handset use and certainly texting.


I'm unable to grasp a simple concept?

Pot, meet Kettle. His name is Vic. :lol:

Dude, seriously. Think about what you're saying. Talking should be outlawed in a car. That's what you're saying. Talking should be outlawed.

How is talking to someone else in the car less distracting than talking to someone on the phone? I say talking to someone in a car is even more distracting because you would have a tendency to look at them while you're driving. It's a natural thing to establish eye contact with someone during the course of a conversation.

On a phone, there is none of that. NONE.

Eating while driving. Should we outlaw that? When I'm talking on my phone, I can have two hands on the wheel, never taking my eyes off the road. While you're eating, you're reaching for French Fries and dripping Ketchup on your shirt, then struggling to get a napkin to wipe it off before the stain sets.

Which is a bigger distraction?




Seriously people. It's common sense. It's not rocket science. We're talking about outlawing ONE distraction, when there are literally hundreds of other distractions that can have the exact same effect. Why this one? Why go after Cell phones and not Drive Thru windows?

[DaGooseMon]

My taxes built it, it's mine.

You're on it, with me, in violation of the rules.

If you don't like the rules, then run for office, get the rules changed, and then you can follow the rules you had put in place.

Until then, you are obliged to follow the rules of the road as they, not as you wish them to be.

if you cannot do that, then you need to get off my road until you can.

Or you can pay the penalty when you fail to follow the rules as they are posted. And that includes putting you afoot, and off my road.

I paid for it; it's mine.

Deal with it.

I guaren damn tee you haven't paid enough taxes in your life time to build one road. Not one. Therefore, it's OURS.

And where I live, it's not illegal to talk on the phone while driving. So I don't need to run for office.

And you're missing the bigger point, you "so-called conservative." Yeah, I'm questioning your conservatism. Abso freakin lutely.

The idea that is America is Freedom From Government. Not Freedom OF Government. We don't start bringing back some common sense to our Legislatures, little by little, each and every freedom we enjoy will vanish.

But you keep on agreeing with the power hungry freedom haters there SFC. Good for you...

[Vic Daring]

I'm unable to grasp a simple concept?

Pot, meet Kettle. His name is Vic. :lol:

Dude, seriously. Think about what you're saying. Talking should be outlawed in a car. That's what you're saying. Talking should be outlawed.

Nope. That's not what I'm saying. You keep saying, but you're the only one. It's not what we're discussing here. It's just not.


How is talking to someone else in the car less distracting than talking to someone on the phone? I say talking to someone in a car is even more distracting because you would have a tendency to look at them while you're driving. It's a natural thing to establish eye contact with someone during the course of a conversation.

On a phone, there is none of that. NONE.

Eating while driving. Should we outlaw that? When I'm talking on my phone, I can have two hands on the wheel, never taking my eyes off the road. While you're eating, you're reaching for French Fries and dripping Ketchup on your ****, then struggling to get a napkin to wipe it off before the stain sets.

Which is a bigger distraction?



Seriously people. It's common sense. It's not rocket science. We're talking about outlawing ONE distraction, when there are literally hundreds of other distractions that can have the exact same effect. Why this one? Why go after Cell phones and not Drive Thru windows?


One is a greater threat. That's how laws and rules and society pretty much always work. You can't eliminate all threats, so you target the most egregious. Hardly a new idea.

[DaGooseMon]

Nope. That's not what I'm saying. You keep saying, but you're the only one. It's not what we're discussing here. It's just not.




One is a greater threat. That's how laws and rules and society pretty much always work. You can't eliminate all threats, so you target the most egregious. Hardly a new idea.


How is talking on a phone more of a threat than talking to someone in the back seat? Please explain it.

[SFC(R)L]

I guaren damn tee you haven't paid enough taxes in your life time to build one road. Not one. Therefore, it's OURS.

And where I live, it's not illegal to talk on the phone while driving. So I don't need to run for office.

And you're missing the bigger point, you "so-called conservative." Yeah, I'm questioning your conservatism. Abso freakin lutely.

The idea that is America is Freedom From Government. Not Freedom OF Government. We don't start bringing back some common sense to our Legislatures, little by little, each and every freedom we enjoy will vanish.

But you keep on agreeing with the power hungry freedom haters there SFC. Good for you...


Beep Beep

pull over

get off my road

use your phone at home

and keep BOTH hands on the steering wheel while driving

and this ain't about your freedom

It's about your lack of accountability and responsibility to obey the law and care for the safety of others on the road

[Ninjacorpse]

I am not calling for laws against it, just for people to use common sense while driving and pay attention to the road. How hard is it to pullover to operate your phone, yell at your kids in the backseat or pound down that double cheeseburger and fries?

[DaGooseMon]

Beep Beep

pull over

get off my road

use your phone at home

and keep BOTH hands on the steering wheel while driving

and this ain't about your freedom

It's about your lack of accountability and responsibility to obey the law and care for the safety of others on the road

Why do you hate freedom?

And you're not answering the points I've made. So debate, or be gone.

And show me a state that REQUIRES by LAW that you use two hands while driving. Link please.

[DaGooseMon]

I am not calling for laws against it, just for people to use common sense while driving and pay attention to the road. How hard is it to pullover to operate your phone, yell at your kids in the backseat or pound down that double cheeseburger and fries?

There's no way to force people to do that without creating a law. So actually, yeah, you kinda are calling for laws against talking on a phone while driving.

[Vic Daring]

How is talking on a phone more of a threat than talking to someone in the back seat? Please explain it.

The truth is, the studies have suggested that your brain takes on an extra workload to hold a conversation with someone who is not in your physical presence.

There's some stuff linked at the bottom of the wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety

[johnrocks]

Here is a CATO study concerning this issue if interested.
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:cqmagcxq6GcJ:www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n3/hahn.pdf+talking+and+driving&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNFv2fM-1VafeUa-V67-hfFLEiNlTw

[Paul-w]

It's truly simple:

Some people can walk and chew gum at the same time, others cannot.

I for one, drive fine on the phone. Hell, I spend half the time while I'm on the phone cursing at other drivers who cannot obey safety/traffic laws.

I use my signal, go the speed limit, watch around me always, etc.. all while talking on the phone, it's not hard for me to do.

On the other hand, all people cannot do that. Some people HAVE TO concentrate on one thing at a time otherwise one will be distracting to the other and they'll not follow the appropriate rules.

That being said though, regardless if people are on their phones are not as someone mentioned earlier, the same violations take place.. Idiots don't use their signals, they don't pay attention, they run red lights, they hit you from behind...... Cell phone may or may not increase that depending. It will happen regardless though.

[DaGooseMon]

The truth is, the studies have suggested that your brain takes on an extra workload to hold a conversation with someone who is not in your physical presence.

There's some stuff linked at the bottom of the wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety


From your link:


The scientific literature is mixed on the dangers of talking on a cell phone versus those of talking with a passenger.


And you can quote all the experts you want. It's not going to change my mind on this issue. It's the distraction, not the phone that causes accidents. So until we outlaw distractions, you can pry my cell phone from my cold dead hands.

It's been more of a Godsend than a hinderance IMO. I drive many miles. Having the ability to carry on conversations has kept me awake and more alert than times when I've been unable to converse. That's just the reality.

But you people keep on being lead around by the nose and told what to think. It's only freedom that is taking the hits...

[Vic Daring]

From your link:



And you can quote all the experts you want. It's not going to change my mind on this issue. It's the distraction, not the phone that causes accidents. So until we outlaw distractions, you can pry my cell phone from my cold dead hands.

It's been more of a Godsend than a hinderance IMO. I drive many miles. Having the ability to carry on conversations has kept me awake and more alert than times when I've been unable to converse. That's just the reality.

But you people keep on being lead around by the nose and told what to think. It's only freedom that is taking the hits...

Yeah, I didn't figure I'd make you go all, "I am coverted! Cell phones are teh evul!"

Always interesting/entertaining to cross swords with you, though.

[Ninjacorpse]

There's no way to force people to do that without creating a law. So actually, yeah, you kinda are calling for laws against talking on a phone while driving.

How am I trying to force people to comply with my wishes? I am making a plea with people that should appreciate personal responsibility to be responsibility sorry that went over your head.

[DaGooseMon]

How am I trying to force people to comply with my wishes? I am making a plea with people that should appreciate personal responsibility to be responsibility sorry that went over your head.

Very well.

but no, I wasn't trying to "fabricate" anything about you there NC. (Yeah, I saw that before you evidently edited... ;) )

I said "kinda are calling for..." So calm down there chief. But like you said, you're calling for personal responsibility. On that, we are in complete agreement. Thanks for the clarification.

[Ninjacorpse]

Very well.

but no, I wasn't trying to "fabricate" anything about you there NC. (Yeah, I saw that before you evidently edited... ;) )

I said "kinda are calling for..." So calm down there chief. But like you said, you're calling for personal responsibility. On that, we are in complete agreement. Thanks for the clarification.

Well I have enough drama in my life and I do not feel like I should be forcing anyone to do anything, all I feel I should do is ask that they act in a manner that keeps them from hurting others (unless that is something all parties are after lol) that goes for about any activity they may choose to partake in. Their have only been a few times I have actually forced anyone to do anything and the best example was me literally dragging a friend to the hospital that was overdosing, I saved his life so I doubt anyone will hold that one against me ;)

[Pudge]

The trouble is I have been either inconvenienced by or downright imperilled by folks on the phone who were totally oblivious to my even being there, and if that's true for them, I just don't believe that it's not true for you. As I said, you may not have even been aware of the problems you caused. I contend it may have never been an issue with you, but it has very likely been an issue with the folks around you.

The people around here make those issues known with a blast of a horn. Stop trying to lump me in with the idiots who carry on long conversations and impede traffic, I am not one of them. I am a professional, I drive for a living, and I know what I am doing.

Using a cell phone is a necessity in my job too, but I either pull over or wait to use it.

Like I said, I dial when stopped, I keep the conversation quick, I hang up. Waiting is not an option, it puts me in danger sitting at my destination since I am carrying food and money. Makes me a target for a robbery. Pulling over increases my delivery time, and it's not so much due to the time of the call, but having to stop, call, converse, and re-enter traffic, it's just not necessary for a 10-second conversation.

What in hell did the whole world do before cell phones - come to a screetching halt? The short delay of actual movement of the vehicle can be made up by scratching your butt only twice a day instead of thrice.

I actually forgot my phone this morning, and I didn't need it because I wasn't that busy- but cell phones have made my job a lot less time-consuming and a lot safer. My first couple years I operated without a cell phone and it was pretty bad. I can't imagine working all the time without a phone now.

Then you nothing of how studies are conducted, many of which are done with complete passivity of the studied, and in the field - i.e cameras are hooked up to their environment over a great deal of time to capture what they do without any deliberate input from them, for instance.

And studies and the data they collect can be manipulated by people with an agenda, I don't put much stock in them. I trust myself and my judgment and not what someone with a steno pad writes down and assumes everyone else must do.

I never said that all cell-phone talkers slow down. I said the fact that they do slow down is an indication that they are inately aware of their lack of focus. They instinctively slow down, not consciously. Your examples simply prove my point - people on phones are either slowing down or oblivious to their surroundings, but they sure as hell aren't driving with the rest of us.

My point is that some drivers are oblivious or distracted, but not all. Like I said, I know when I am distracted and I pull over if that's the case. Usually I don't have to because I don't focus at all on the conversation, it's usually a confirmation of a location or telling someone in a secure building to let me in or meet me out front. Takes no concentration.

I don't dispute that, but those are not the distraction du jour. We are discussing cell phones.

And it isn't germane to bring up how they're pretty much the scapegoat of the day?

We agree. Doesn't make cell phones safe, however.

M

Cell phones aren't safe or unsafe, they're inanimate objects. Drivers are safe or unsafe. You are assuming that every driver on a phone is unsafe, or less safe than those who are not.

[MarkyS]

How about just enforcing the laws already on the books and STOP making more stupid laws just to appease the nanny state advocates? I am sick and tired of the government trying to be my parents!!!

They are not trying to protect you from yourself - being your parents. They are trying to protect me from you, and vice-versa, since we have to share the road.

M

[Army Wife]

are you on the phone with yourself?

And if you are, and you aren't home, is there a dial tone?

LOL!!! I love it...and sometimes I wonder to be honest. :cool:

[MarkyS]

Obviously some people are too stupid to realize that enforcing the laws already on the books would take care of the real problems, instead of punishing those of us who CAN walk and chew gum at the same time.

If we were talking about walking and chewing gum, nobody would care. We are talking about your distraction while piloting a 4,000 pound missile mear feet away from the rest of us. You only think you can drive and talk on the phone safely at the same time. Statistics show you to be wrong.

I'm honestly surprised they didn't try and outlaw 18 wheelers. Personally I think we ought to use the railroads more often, but this isn't my grandfather's America we're dealing with here.

The far greatest percentage of car-to-truck accidents are caused by the car - not the truck.

If people used a little common sense, we wouldn't be worrying about much of anything.

Time for a reality check. They make laws because of the abject failure of people to exhibit common sense.

Although really if the police just enforced the laws already on the books (and how they keep up with all these nanny state laws is a mystery to me) we wouldn't have so many stupid laws in the first place.

If you kill me because of your innatention due to distraction from your cell phone, there might be some law that would punish you in some way for doing that, but it doesn't do me a **** load of good, does it? The law has to protect me from you BEFORE you can do something stupid that will kill me. We share the road, and there are way too few police to be everywhere at once to make sure you're driving safely at all times. That's why we have traffic laws - to make you both aware of and responsible for your own restriction. And frankly, isn't that better than having a cop riding your ass twenty-four/seven to enforce the laws already on the books?

M

[Army Wife]

Now that's being a "traditional woman":mrgreen: *running off fast*:shifty:

:naughty:
You are SO DEAD if she catches you...

[MarkyS]

What the hell kinda crap is that? The primary purpose of government is to protect you from me?

See my previous post. But that's is the silliest damn post I've ever read on this board. I hope to God you're being sarcastic.

I'm not at all kidding.

I think we both agree that government should not be in the business of protecting me from myself. The primary function of government is the REGULATION of those instances where your actions can harm me and my actions can harm you.

That's why we have laws against killing each other, or stealing from each other. Government - we the people - enact those laws to protect us from one another. Otherwise, we would need no governance.

What other purpose is there for governance????

M

[MarkyS]

The people around here make those issues known with a blast of a horn. Stop trying to lump me in with the idiots who carry on long conversations and impede traffic, I am not one of them. I am a professional, I drive for a living, and I know what I am doing.

Great. You're perfect. Then let's write one law for you and all the other perfect people, and one for the rest of us.

Not possible. Not feasable. Not gonna happen. You might also make the case that you can handle you liquor better than most, but we don't make laws for the exceptions, especially due to the fact that you can never predict with certainty that you will always be 100% perfect. We know better.



Like I said, I dial when stopped, I keep the conversation quick, I hang up. Waiting is not an option, it puts me in danger sitting at my destination since I am carrying food and money. Makes me a target for a robbery. Pulling over increases my delivery time, and it's not so much due to the time of the call, but having to stop, call, converse, and re-enter traffic, it's just not necessary for a 10-second conversation.

But it's not always a ten-second conversation, and you know it. Regardless, they cannot write a law that says, "...as long as the conversation is ten seconds or less - hey go for it." That's like crafting one that allows for a certain amount of rolling at a stop sign.

I actually forgot my phone this morning, and I didn't need it because I wasn't that busy- but cell phones have made my job a lot less time-consuming and a lot safer. My first couple years I operated without a cell phone and it was pretty bad. I can't imagine working all the time without a phone now.

I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you not to use it while your 4,000+ pounds of potential missile is in motion next to me.

And studies and the data they collect can be manipulated by people with an agenda, I don't put much stock in them. I trust myself and my judgment and not what someone with a steno pad writes down and assumes everyone else must do.

Not one single study has ever come out to say that cell phones do not increase distraction - not even one funded by the cell phone manufactures. Know why? Because after decades of study it just cannot be disputed. It isn't a matter of if. It is only a matter of to what extent. There have literally been hundreds of studies done, and unlike global warming, there truly is a concensus on the fact that they cause distraction. Trying to demean studies which disprove your thesis is simply avoiding the truth.

My point is that some drivers are oblivious or distracted, but not all. Like I said, I know when I am distracted and I pull over if that's the case. Usually I don't have to because I don't focus at all on the conversation, it's usually a confirmation of a location or telling someone in a secure building to let me in or meet me out front. Takes no concentration.

Then your point is wrong. Whether they are slowing down instinctively or whether they are careening all over the road, or even if they manage to keep up with the flow of traffic - they are distracted from driving properly, to one extent or another, and depending on circumstances that extent can change dramaticly from second to second. Anyone who doesn't know this has not been driving very long.

And it isn't germane to bring up how they're pretty much the scapegoat of the day?

They are not a scapegoat for all distractions. They are one of many. Nobody disputes that. But they are involved in a much greater percentage of accidents than other distractions, and that's the NHTSA talking.

Cell phones aren't safe or unsafe, they're inanimate objects. Drivers are safe or unsafe. You are assuming that every driver on a phone is unsafe, or less safe than those who are not.

Yes cell phones are inanimate objects, but much like guns, they can become deadly depending on their use, as can almost anything. I am not asking for laws banning cell phones. I'm in favor of laws banning certain uses of them. Again, we have to craft the driving laws with the assumption that we will all be on the roads with the worst possible fellow drivers at times, not the best.

M

[Remus Lupin]

No.

It's not "your" roadway.

If we can't be allowed to talk with a handsfree device, then they should outlaw conversations in cars, period. No talking to your wife. No talking to your kids. No singing along with the radio. No listening to Sean. No listening to Rush. No listening to local talk radio. No radios. No DVD players. In fact, why not make all cars one seaters so there is absolutely no possibility of anything in that car distracting you. No more Billboards either. Too distracting. Everyone should drive the same kind of car, so we don't get distracted by the tricked out 1972 Camaro that is driving along side you. Better outlaw the Tom Toms and the Garmin GPS units too. You can't watch the road if you're looking at that thing. Glove boxes, get rid of them. You may have an urge to look for something in there while driving. Drive thru windows too. Get rid of them. How can we be expected to eat and drive??? :((

Wake the **** up people. This is nothing more than a political football to kick around to make us think the useless politicians are actually accomplishing something.

For as long as there are humans driving cars, there are going to be accients. It's an assumed risk. Deal with it.


Ok Goose, let's legalize drunk driving then.

[merickson]

My taxes built it, it's mine.
...
No, OUR taxes built it, it's OURS.

And the rules that apply when you or I drive on OUR roads are set by OUR government.

That doesn't address the question of whether a cell phone ban is a good rule, but the "my road..my judgement" claim is not true. The truth of the matter is "our road..our rules".

[Pudge]

Great. You're perfect. Then let's write one law for you and all the other perfect people, and one for the rest of us.

Snarky 'till the end, eh? I'm not perfect, but I am capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.

You might also make the case that you can handle you liquor better than most, but we don't make laws for the exceptions, especially due to the fact that you can never predict with certainty that you will always be 100% perfect. We know better.

Laws should not be based on the whims of angry sentiment, though. Why is it always assumed that, in an accident, the person on the phone is at fault? The lady who ran the stop sign and t-boned the guy on the phone might have been distracted by something other than a communication device, I'd say it's probably about 50/50. It's common knowledge that the NHTSA artificially inflates alcohol-related crashes to make the problem seem worse and thus justify more laws that give the police the power to stop, detain, and cite for everything under the sun.

But it's not always a ten-second conversation, and you know it.

Yeah, sometimes it's twelve seconds. Whatever, man, if it gets to be more than surface level, I pull to the side. Don't tell me what the details are, you don't know, I do.

Regardless, they cannot write a law that says, "...as long as the conversation is ten seconds or less - hey go for it." That's like crafting one that allows for a certain amount of rolling at a stop sign.

They shouldn't write any ban into law, period. It's a feel-good law that does nothing to increase safety, in essence it is yet another tax enacted by the state. New Jersey, right next to my state of PA, has a cell phone ban while driving. Guess what? I see dozens of people on their cells. I see POLICE OFFICERS driving and talking on their cells. It's one of those laws where 100% compliance is not expected, not even close, in fact, the state would love to have people not obey it because ticketing them is like shooting fish in a barrel.

I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you not to use it while your 4,000+ pounds of potential missile is in motion next to me.

My vehicle has a curb weight of roughly 2255 lbs. I don't drive a land tank. If anything, people who drive 4,000 pound yachts on wheels are more of a danger than me in my hatchback on a phone for 10 seconds.

Trying to demean studies which disprove your thesis is simply avoiding the truth.

Studies that prove that some people are easily distracted should not be a cause to screw with my routine.

They are not a scapegoat for all distractions. They are one of many. Nobody disputes that. But they are involved in a much greater percentage of accidents than other distractions, and that's the NHTSA talking.

Again, the NHTSA is full of crap on their alcohol-related crash data, why the hell would I trust them with the cell phone data?

Yes cell phones are inanimate objects, but much like guns, they can become deadly depending on their use, as can almost anything. I am not asking for laws banning cell phones. I'm in favor of laws banning certain uses of them. Again, we have to craft the driving laws with the assumption that we will all be on the roads with the worst possible fellow drivers at times, not the best.

I don't agree. Your premise is not unreasonable, the solution that states end up passing is, because:

1. They don't stop people from talking on phones while driving.
2. It is only one of many other distractions that are just as dangerous, from children to radios to eating and so on.
3. It will create more nanny-statism which is exactly what we don't need, as the current laws don't work, people will push for tougher laws and bring out the grief-stricken people who lost loved ones in accidents, just like MADD did in the 80's, and there will be more restrictive laws. It won't stop with a reasonable law.

It never does.

[MarkyS]

Snarky 'till the end, eh? I'm not perfect, but I am capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.

As I've already said to another poster who can walk and chew gum at the same time, NOBODY is worried about your gum-chewing ability. Driving a vehicle at freeway speeds with several other drivers next to you is NOT analagous to chewing gum.

Laws should not be based on the whims of angry sentiment, though. Why is it always assumed that, in an accident, the person on the phone is at fault? The lady who ran the stop sign and t-boned the guy on the phone might have been distracted by something other than a communication device, I'd say it's probably about 50/50. It's common knowledge that the NHTSA artificially inflates alcohol-related crashes to make the problem seem worse and thus justify more laws that give the police the power to stop, detain, and cite for everything under the sun.

Not angry sentiment - but how about YEARS of collected data indicating this is a major cause of accidents? NOTHING is assumed in an accident. It is all investigated, and fault is then assigned. The date indicates that cell-phone use has been the distraction often for the AT FAULT driver. Nobody cares what was going on with the not-at-fault driver - They didn't cause the accident! Common knowledge that NHTSA inflates statistics????? errr, you think the folks that provide those statistics - ALL of the states - are also a part of this conspiracy?

Please.

Yeah, sometimes it's twelve seconds. Whatever, man, if it gets to be more than surface level, I pull to the side. Don't tell me what the details are, you don't know, I do.

Human nature leads me to believe you obfuscate. I also use the phone for work, and my conversations are never that uniform. But hey, if you say so.......

They shouldn't write any ban into law, period. It's a feel-good law that does nothing to increase safety, in essence it is yet another tax enacted by the state. New Jersey, right next to my state of PA, has a cell phone ban while driving. Guess what? I see dozens of people on their cells. I see POLICE OFFICERS driving and talking on their cells. It's one of those laws where 100% compliance is not expected, not even close, in fact, the state would love to have people not obey it because ticketing them is like shooting fish in a barrel.

It cannot possibly DO NOTHING if indeed you are distracted at all when on a phone, and you know it. Please don't talk to me about what New Jersey law enforcement does or doesn't do. That's the problem for the people of New Jersey. That their police are apparently turds in no way negates the efficacy of the law.


My vehicle has a curb weight of roughly 2255 lbs. I don't drive a land tank. If anything, people who drive 4,000 pound yachts on wheels are more of a danger than me in my hatchback on a phone for 10 seconds.

Do I really need to explain the physics of taking 2,000 pounds from sixty miles per hour to zero miles per hour in the space of a few feet, and the destruction it will cause? Everything - including your own body - will experience tremendous g-forces that will destroy you and whatever you are in, whether Smart Car or Hummer.

Studies that prove that some people are easily distracted should not be a cause to screw with my routine.

As I said, we need to craft laws that apply to everyone, including the supernaturally gifted such as yourself. We cannot single you out despite your powers. The studies prove that EVERYONE is distracted, to one degree or another, and we cannot craft a law that takes into account the degree to which you are less distracted than the rest of us, and makes a special compensation for you.

Again, the NHTSA is full of crap on their alcohol-related crash data, why the hell would I trust them with the cell phone data?

Again, give some kind of proof of that statement. Otherwise, I have no reason to take it seriously.

I don't agree. Your premise is not unreasonable, the solution that states end up passing is, because:

1. They don't stop people from talking on phones while driving......

And speeding laws don't stop people from speeding all the time either. Are you advocating their repeal?

.......2. It is only one of many other distractions that are just as dangerous, from children to radios to eating and so on.......

No. Not just as dangerous, and not as common. Cell phones are the most common cause and are typically more distracting, because they involve parties and things not in the vehicle, and therefore not able to be accessed with the other senses, but only with hearing and with imagining, which literally takes part of your mind off your driving to more fully access the person you are talking to, and they are not passive, such as a radio is. They require active concentration and participation for the entire duration of the call - All from the NHTSA. Distraction is the major cause of accidents, and cell phones by their nature are very distracting. They literally take your mind out of the car to another place - at least enough to make it dangerous. Dangerous enough to be the distraction-equivalence of .08 alcohol consumption, or worse!

.....3. It will create more nanny-statism which is exactly what we don't need, as the current laws don't work, people will push for tougher laws and bring out the grief-stricken people who lost loved ones in accidents, just like MADD did in the 80's, and there will be more restrictive laws. It won't stop with a reasonable law.

It never does.

A nanny-state law is one that protects you from yourself, not one that protects me from you, and vice-versa. I wouldn't care how many brick walls you could run into in your car while talking on the phone, if that was all you could do. But, you can run into me.

Now, you can believe you are not distracted by them, even though every other human being is, to one degree or another, and you can dispute all the studies that prove them dangerous, though you seem to have ZERO proof that they have no validity, but the bottom line is that you're running counter to both logic, reason and all data, simply because you don't want to stop using your phone in the car, and despite the fact that 30 years ago the whole subject would have been academic, and you would have survived entirely without a cell phone at all in your life, much less in the car.

M

[NascarGirl2448]

If we were talking about walking and chewing gum, nobody would care. We are talking about your distraction while piloting a 4,000 pound missile mear feet away from the rest of us. You only think you can drive and talk on the phone safely at the same time. Statistics show you to be wrong.

As anyone who has taken a statistics class knows, they are not reliable. They can be easily manipulated (and are by those who obviously want a nanny state) to show anything whoever is doing the "study" wants them to.

The far greatest percentage of car-to-truck accidents are caused by the car - not the truck.

Oh so when the truck jackknifes its a car's fault? Come on now :rolleyes:

Time for a reality check. They make laws because of the abject failure of people to exhibit common sense.

Keep your nanny state away from me, got it?

If you kill me because of your innatention due to distraction from your cell phone, there might be some law that would punish you in some way for doing that, but it doesn't do me a **** load of good, does it? The law has to protect me from you BEFORE you can do something stupid that will kill me. We share the road, and there are way too few police to be everywhere at once to make sure you're driving safely at all times. That's why we have traffic laws - to make you both aware of and responsible for your own restriction. And frankly, isn't that better than having a cop riding your ass twenty-four/seven to enforce the laws already on the books?

If you're so sure the nanny state needs to outlaw cell phones (for everyone's "own good" :rolleyes: ) then what freedom do you want taken away next? Our right to talk to the people who are in our car with us? Uh oh, too heavy a conversation can get distracting! How about our car radios? Uh oh, someone might rearend someone because they were switching songs on a CD player!! Got kids? oops you know how they are, they get into arguments in the back seat! Only got time for the drive thru window? Oh no, eating requires you to take one had off the wheel!! Better outlaw it too! Looking for an exit? Uh oh, watching signs and the road is too difficult! See how STUPID the nanny state can become if you don't nip it in the bud RIGHT NOW?

[mdk190]

It seems today that actually driving has become the secondary task when in the car. Eating, drinking, reading, talking on the phone, and texting, are now the main concern when behind the wheel. Its maddening.

[NascarGirl2448]

They are not trying to protect you from yourself - being your parents. They are trying to protect me from you, and vice-versa, since we have to share the road.

Like I said, enforce the laws ALREADY on the books, instead of making more stupid laws that cover the same danged things!

[BillBrown]

If you're so sure the nanny state needs to outlaw cell phones (for everyone's "own good" :rolleyes: ) then what freedom do you want taken away next? Our right to talk to the people who are in our car with us? Uh oh, too heavy a conversation can get distracting! How about our car radios? Uh oh, someone might rearend someone because they were switching songs on a CD player!! Got kids? oops you know how they are, they get into arguments in the back seat! Only got time for the drive thru window? Oh no, eating requires you to take one had off the wheel!! Better outlaw it too! Looking for an exit? Uh oh, watching signs and the road is too difficult! See how STUPID the nanny state can become if you don't nip it in the bud RIGHT NOW?

I agree. Next they will want to take away our right to drive drunk.

There is even talk of taking away a blind man's right to drive.

I let my 4 year old nephew drive my car- soon that will be outlawed.

The nanny state is creeping up on us.

[NascarGirl2448]

I agree. Next they will want to take away our right to drive drunk.

Driving drunk is a totally different animal. Drunk driving has been proven to be harmful to society, therefore is outlawed for good reason.

There is even talk of taking away a blind man's right to drive.

Blind people can't even get a driver's license, so there goes that argument.

I let my 4 year old nephew drive my car- soon that will be outlawed.

My grandfather used to let me drive my mom's car up the driveway, and I was only 3 years old at the time.

The nanny state is creeping up on us.

Finally, something you say makes sense.

[BillBrown]

Driving drunk is a totally different animal. Drunk driving has been proven to be harmful to society, therefore is outlawed for good reason.



Blind people can't even get a driver's license, so there goes that argument.



My grandfather used to let me drive my mom's car up the driveway, and I was only 3 years old at the time.



Finally, something you say makes sense.

Drunk driving has been proven dangerous through statistics.
You're on record as saying statistics are meaningless.

Posted by you.
As anyone who has taken a statistics class knows, they are not reliable. They can be easily manipulated (and are by those who obviously want a nanny state) to show anything whoever is doing the "study" wants them to.


Why do you endorse the statistical case against drunk driving and reject the statistics against cell phone use?

[NascarGirl2448]

Drunk driving has been proven dangerous through statistics.
You're on record as saying statistics are meaningless.

You never took statistics in college did you?

Why do you endorse the statistical case against drunk driving and reject the statistics against cell phone use?

When the number of deaths caused by people talking on the phone come anywhere CLOSE to the number of deaths caused by drunk drivers, then you MIGHT have a point.

[BillBrown]

You never took statistics in college did you?



When the number of deaths caused by people talking on the phone come anywhere CLOSE to the number of deaths caused by drunk drivers, then you MIGHT have a point.

Why?

Let me remind you of your post.

As anyone who has taken a statistics class knows, they are not reliable. They can be easily manipulated (and are by those who obviously want a nanny state) to show anything whoever is doing the "study" wants them to.

You are claiming here that statistics are unreliable. A big statistical number would be just as unreliable as a small one, if they are being manipulated.

You never took a course in Logic, did you?

[NascarGirl2448]

Why?

Let me remind you of your post.

You are claiming here that statistics are unreliable. A big statistical number would be just as unreliable as a small one, if they are being manipulated.

You never took a course in Logic, did you?

Like I said, you never took a course in statistics did you? The only thing justifying "laws" against talking on the phone while driving are STATISTICS, yet laws against drunk driving, which is a LOT worse than being on the phone in the car, are being shown to be needed due to the actual risk drunk drivers pose to people on the road. That is reality, not made up, manipulated "statistics" to try and justify government intrusion into people's lives.

[MarkyS]

As anyone who has taken a statistics class knows, they are not reliable. They can be easily manipulated (and are by those who obviously want a nanny state) to show anything whoever is doing the "study" wants them to.

There have been hundreds of studies done on the effect of cell phone use, and those STUDIES didn't create statistics. They verified and gave reason for the EXISTING STATISTICS which point to cell phones being a major distraction. Are you, like Pudge, now going to tell me that:

A - All the 50 states gathering statistics are doing so to conspiratorially outlaw cell phones?
B - All the hundreds of studies done world-wide are also being deliberately manipulated in a massive conspiracy to undermine cell phone use?

WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT???? To make more work for all the police? To destroy the cell-phone industry? If the studies and statistics were indeed being manipulated, wouldn't it be by the people who stand to lose - the cell-phone industry, and wouldn't they therefore say exactly THE OPPOSITE in their results?????

You're not making any sense at all. Completely ass-backwards logic.



Oh so when the truck jackknifes its a car's fault? Come on now :rolleyes:

R.I.F. I said "The far greatest percentage of car-to-truck accidents are caused by the car - not the truck." Are you now disputing that?



Keep your nanny state away from me, got it?

Nanny state is one that protects you from yourself. This protects me from you and you from me, as almost all laws do.

If you're so sure the nanny state needs to outlaw cell phones (for everyone's "own good" :rolleyes: ) then what freedom do you want taken away next? Our right to talk to the people who are in our car with us? Uh oh, too heavy a conversation can get distracting! How about our car radios? Uh oh, someone might rearend someone because they were switching songs on a CD player!! Got kids? oops you know how they are, they get into arguments in the back seat! Only got time for the drive thru window? Oh no, eating requires you to take one had off the wheel!! Better outlaw it too! Looking for an exit? Uh oh, watching signs and the road is too difficult! See how STUPID the nanny state can become if you don't nip it in the bud RIGHT NOW?


Where did I say it was "...for everyone's own good?" You need to be careful with quotation marks. I never said this is for our own good - (nanny state.) I said that this is for the protection of everyone around us.

As to the other distractions in the car, of course they can and do cause accidents too, but in FAR LOWER percentages, and nobody is advocating a totally safe driving environment. Were we doing that, the laws would require a national top speed of 10 MPH. There has to be reasonable allowances, and in this case it is allowing those things that happen within the car. As I said in my last post to Pudge, studies have shown that the cell phone is a device that transports a portion of your thinking to another place outside the vehicle. Not so the radio, the kids or even the food in the car. You can still use all five senses to manipilate them along with the car. While you're talking on it, the cell phone restricts you to one sense - hearing - and then demands that your imagination aid you in completing the communication with the other guy. The other guy is not in the car with you to not only hear, but to see, to touch, and even to smell. That is where you leave much of your attention behind. It makes perfect sense, therefore, that the cell phone is at the top of the distraction list, statisticly.

Cell phones should have been restricted from cars at their inception, but they weren't because we didn't have the wealth of data we now have. But, if you are old enough, you can remember a time when we all drove around completely without a cell phone glued to our ears, and we managed to survive JUST FINE. In fact, MORE of us survived as a result of them not being there.

And that's just a fact, and you know it.

M

[MarkyS]

Like I said, enforce the laws ALREADY on the books, instead of making more stupid laws that cover the same danged things!


Again, until they craft one, there are no laws requiring that you don't talk on the phone while moving in the vehicle. There are laws that make you responsible for safely driving your vehicle, but all they would do is entitle the state to put you in jail for manslaughter, and help my heirs to sue you, should you kill me because you were on the phone. THAT DOES NOTHING to keep me alive, however, does it?????

The cell phone laws are being crafted to try to avoid the wreck in the first place - You know, like stop sign laws, speeding laws, lane-changing laws, safety-sticker laws......

M

[BillBrown]

Like I said, you never took a course in statistics did you? The only thing justifying "laws" against talking on the phone while driving are STATISTICS, yet laws against drunk driving, which is a LOT worse than being on the phone in the car, are being shown to be needed due to the actual risk drunk drivers pose to people on the road. That is reality, not made up, manipulated "statistics" to try and justify government intrusion into people's lives.

And how is that risk measured?
With statistics.
Statistics of the number of accidents caused by drunk drivers.
Statistics, which you claimed are meaningless.

[NascarGirl2448]

And how is that risk measured?
With statistics.
Statistics of the number of accidents caused by drunk drivers.
Statistics, which you claimed are meaningless.

Ever heard the saying "lies, damn lies, and statistics?" You know how it was coined, don't you? People started to realize that statistics were easily manipulated to show anything anyone wants them to. That's how cell phones got to be the scapegoat du jour of the insurance lobby. I'm still more worried about drunks on the road than I am anyone with a phone.

[NascarGirl2448]

Again, until they craft one, there are no laws requiring that you don't talk on the phone while moving in the vehicle. There are laws that make you responsible for safely driving your vehicle, but all they would do is entitle the state to put you in jail for manslaughter, and help my heirs to sue you, should you kill me because you were on the phone. THAT DOES NOTHING to keep me alive, however, does it?????

If the state can even get a manslaughter conviction in the first place. I know here in NC, unless you're drunk when you kill someone with your car, its a misdemeanor at best.

The cell phone laws are being crafted to try to avoid the wreck in the first place - You know, like stop sign laws, speeding laws, lane-changing laws, safety-sticker laws......

Stop signs are about the only laws that actually make sense. Speed limits are way too danged low on most roads (when was the last time anyone went 65 mph on the interstate?) then again they're too high on others. Also what the heck "safety sticker" are you talking about? I don't have one on my car. My state does that kind of thing electronically.

[NascarGirl2448]

There have been hundreds of studies done on the effect of cell phone use, and those STUDIES didn't create statistics. They verified and gave reason for the EXISTING STATISTICS which point to cell phones being a major distraction. Are you, like Pudge, now going to tell me that:

A - All the 50 states gathering statistics are doing so to conspiratorially outlaw cell phones?
B - All the hundreds of studies done world-wide are also being deliberately manipulated in a massive conspiracy to undermine cell phone use?

WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT???? To make more work for all the police? To destroy the cell-phone industry? If the studies and statistics were indeed being manipulated, wouldn't it be by the people who stand to lose - the cell-phone industry, and wouldn't they therefore say exactly THE OPPOSITE in their results?????

You're not making any sense at all. Completely ass-backwards logic.

Go ahead, live in a police state. I'll keep my freedom, thank you.

R.I.F. I said "The far greatest percentage of car-to-truck accidents are caused by the car - not the truck." Are you now disputing that?

From what I've seen on the highway, its probably 50-50 as to who's at fault in those things.

Nanny state is one that protects you from yourself. This protects me from you and you from me, as almost all laws do.

So you support redundant "laws" when there are already laws on the books covering people driving like idiots, whether they're on the phone, messing with the radio, or reading the damn newspaper? Yeah that's right, there are ALREADY laws on the books to cover that. More laws just get plain annoying!!!!

Where did I say it was "...for everyone's own good?" You need to be careful with quotation marks. I never said this is for our own good - (nanny state.) I said that this is for the protection of everyone around us.
As to the other distractions in the car, of course they can and do cause accidents too, but in FAR LOWER percentages, and nobody is advocating a totally safe driving environment. Were we doing that, the laws would require a national top speed of 10 MPH. There has to be reasonable allowances, and in this case it is allowing those things that happen within the car. As I said in my last post to Pudge, studies have shown that the cell phone is a device that transports a portion of your thinking to another place outside the vehicle. Not so the radio, the kids or even the food in the car. You can still use all five senses to manipilate them along with the car. While you're talking on it, the cell phone restricts you to one sense - hearing - and then demands that your imagination aid you in completing the communication with the other guy. The other guy is not in the car with you to not only hear, but to see, to touch, and even to smell. That is where you leave much of your attention behind. It makes perfect sense, therefore, that the cell phone is at the top of the distraction list, statistically.
Cell phones should have been restricted from cars at their inception, but they weren't because we didn't have the wealth of data we now have. But, if you are old enough, you can remember a time when we all drove around completely without a cell phone glued to our ears, and we managed to survive JUST FINE. In fact, MORE of us survived as a result of them not being there.

Point being, since you're missing it obviously, is that if give the government an inch, they're gonna take 10 miles!!! Starts with cell phones, then food, then music, then passengers, and then its whatever the government can get away with next. If we as Americans don't stand up NOW and tell the government ENOUGH, we're all screwed.

And yes I can remember before phones were in cars. I can remember being stranded on the side of the highway and having to HITCH HIKE to find a freaking pay phone because my dad's car broke down. I can remember before GPS devices were invented my mom and I stopping and asking a man for directions, only to have a gun pulled on us!!!! Face it, what the government says is "too distracting" can be a lifesaver when you're in those kind of situations.

[MarkyS]

Go ahead, live in a police state. I'll keep my freedom, thank you.

Unless and until your state adopts such a law. You can pray they don't. I pray they do.

From what I've seen on the highway, its probably 50-50 as to who's at fault in those things.

The cop's statistics - and they have no dog in the hunt - prove otherwise. BY FAR, most car/truck accidents are the fault of the car, usually because the car driver thinks the truck can react like the car, or has the same lines of sight as the car.

So you support redundant "laws" when there are already laws on the books covering people driving like idiots, whether they're on the phone, messing with the radio, or reading the damn newspaper? Yeah that's right, there are ALREADY laws on the books to cover that. More laws just get plain annoying!!!!

You're missing the point. We are removing an obvious cause of accidents. This is preventative, not punitive. Again, if you broke one of the current laws and caused a fatal accident with me, you may get a ticket for that, but I'm still dead. This is akin to removing the obvious accident-maker alcohol from the car.

Point being, since you're missing it obviously, is that if give the government an inch, they're gonna take 10 miles!!! Starts with cell phones, then food, then music, then passengers, and then its whatever the government can get away with next. If we as Americans don't stand up NOW and tell the government ENOUGH, we're all screwed.

Believe me, I understand your concern, and I don't want them inside my home or my car anymore than necessary, but this is such a high-volume problem, compared to the rest, that it isn't even worth debating. The proof of that is nobody has ever seriously considered removing radios, kids, food, or anything else from the car, but this has already passed as a law in several states.

I challenge you to make an effort to LOOK for the reason someone is either going appreciably slower than everyone around them, or the reason that someone is weaving around and having a series of small misses all over the road. Almost INVARIABLY you will see someone talking on the phone in the driver's seat, and if you are observant at all you know I'm right.

Try it sometime.

And yes I can remember before phones were in cars. I can remember being stranded on the side of the highway and having to HITCH HIKE to find a freaking pay phone because my dad's car broke down. I can remember before GPS devices were invented my mom and I stopping and asking a man for directions, only to have a gun pulled on us!!!! Face it, what the government says is "too distracting" can be a lifesaver when you're in those kind of situations.

I'm not advocating that you not be allowed to have a cell phone in your car. I'm advocating that you not be alllowed to use it when you're driving the car. I would not let the people in my family drive without a cell phone nearby in case of emergency, but when your dad's car broke down, you were stopped, were you not? Let's have some common sense.

M

[MarkyS]

If the state can even get a manslaughter conviction in the first place. I know here in NC, unless you're drunk when you kill someone with your car, its a misdemeanor at best.



Stop signs are about the only laws that actually make sense. Speed limits are way too danged low on most roads (when was the last time anyone went 65 mph on the interstate?) then again they're too high on others. Also what the heck "safety sticker" are you talking about? I don't have one on my car. My state does that kind of thing electronically.

You'd probably be interested to know that most speed limits are set using the 95th percentile rule. The way it works is they build a road, and then they see what average speed 95% of the divers using it - or one like it - drive at. They then set the limit at or close to that. The reason is that MOST drivers, MOST of the time, drive at what they feel is a safe speed over a given road.

I agree with you that it doesn't always work, but that's why you see limits adjusted every now and then, and it is typically not the way they set limits on interstates, BTW. (Used to be, but political criterea have crept in.)

A safety sticker is awarded when a car passes an annual safety check to make sure it is safe to drive among other cars. You have to have decent tires, brakes, windshield wipers, lights, horn, etcetera. It ensures that all the cars on the road meet a minimum level of safe equipment. Some states require one. Some don't. Many counties/states have now added an emissions check along with the safety features, because they are under a Federal Clean Air mandate for their area.

I guess your state doesn't require one.

M

[NascarGirl2448]

I challenge you to make an effort to LOOK for the reason someone is either going appreciably slower than everyone around them, or the reason that someone is weaving around and having a series of small misses all over the road. Almost INVARIABLY you will see someone talking on the phone in the driver's seat, and if you are observant at all you know I'm right.

Try it sometime.

In my neck of the woods, you would be wrong. The slowpokes I see on the road are NOT yapping on the phone. They're usually people who are too freaking old to be driving anyway, and just don't want to get the hell off the road. I always yell at them that if their car is too much for them I would be glad to take it off their hands! As for the weavers, they typically aren't on cell phones either. They just can't make up their mind about which lane they want to be in.

[NascarGirl2448]

You'd probably be interested to know that most speed limits are set using the 95th percentile rule. The way it works is they build a road, and then they see what average speed 95% of the divers using it - or one like it - drive at. They then set the limit at or close to that. The reason is that MOST drivers, MOST of the time, drive at what they feel is a safe speed over a given road.

If that were the case, the speed limit on the interstate in my neck of the woods would be 75 easy.

I agree with you that it doesn't always work, but that's why you see limits adjusted every now and then, and it is typically not the way they set limits on interstates, BTW. (Used to be, but political criterea have crept in.)

I can't remember the last time the speed limit was adjusted. It was years ago though.

A safety sticker is awarded when a car passes an annual safety check to make sure it is safe to drive among other cars. You have to have decent tires, brakes, windshield wipers, lights, horn, etcetera. It ensures that all the cars on the road meet a minimum level of safe equipment. Some states require one. Some don't. Many counties/states have now added an emissions check along with the safety features, because they are under a Federal Clean Air mandate for their area.

I guess your state doesn't require one.

We used to but they've gone to electronic "stickers" now. Its ok with me, honestly. Less crap on my windshield.

[MarkyS]

In my neck of the woods, you would be wrong. The slowpokes I see on the road are NOT yapping on the phone. They're usually people who are too freaking old to be driving anyway, and just don't want to get the hell off the road. I always yell at them that if their car is too much for them I would be glad to take it off their hands! As for the weavers, they typically aren't on cell phones either. They just can't make up their mind about which lane they want to be in.

Look again. But really look, and try to see why people are doing what they do. I think you'll find I'm right - especially on highways.

M

[NascarGirl2448]

Look again. But really look, and try to see why people are doing what they do. I think you'll find I'm right - especially on highways.

M

Come over here to NC sometime. You'll see I'm right, its the ones who are too freaking old to be driving and don't want to get the hell off the road they have no business driving on anymore that are the cause of the majority of traffic tie ups, especially on the freeway.

[Clintville]

but this isn't my grandfather's America we're dealing with here.

Thank god, or else we would be overrun with British people!

[Clintville]

In California we have cell phone laws. I would support them, not that anyone really pays attention to them.

[MarkyS]

If that were the case, the speed limit on the interstate in my neck of the woods would be 75 easy.

As I said, they don't use it on interstates as much anymore. They have other criterea - often politcal and has nothing to do with safety.

I can't remember the last time the speed limit was adjusted. It was years ago though.

Ours get adjusted frequently. Maybe you're the one who's out of the 95%. I'm jess sayin'.....

We used to but they've gone to electronic "stickers" now. Its ok with me, honestly. Less crap on my windshield.

But you still need to get the inspection, yes?

M

[MarkyS]

Come over here to NC sometime. You'll see I'm right, its the ones who are too freaking old to be driving and don't want to get the hell off the road they have no business driving on anymore that are the cause of the majority of traffic tie ups, especially on the freeway.


Okay, I'll take your word for it, but the next time you spot a slow guy and he's on the phone, you're going to say, "DAMN! That sumbitch MarkyS was right."

M

[NascarGirl2448]

Thank god, or else we would be overrun with British people!

:))

[NascarGirl2448]

Okay, I'll take your word for it, but the next time you spot a slow guy and he's on the phone, you're going to say, "DAMN! That sumbitch MarkyS was right."

M

And the next time you see people acting like they're too danged scared of how fast their car can actually go you'll realize cell phones are nothing more than the scapegoat du jour of the government.