maxxdamigz

iTrader: (1)

Really, a lot of laws have an eye toward worst case scenarios. Talking on the phone is a distraction. But so is talking to other people, reading road signs, changing the station on the radio. There is a certain level of distraction that can't be avoided. I think, though, that once you get to cell phones, the distraction has escalated. The time it takes to scroll through a contact list, dial a number, or read the caller id is all time you're not looking at the road. Then, for the duration of the call, you have one hand that not only isn't on the wheel (I'd admit to typically driving with one hand) but has something in it as well. Once you get into texting, email, etc, the time your eyes are not on the road increases a lot. Most people don't realize how much time it takes to type a short text message or how far their car has moved while they were doing it.

Most of these rules are not written to penalize the best drivers. They are written to protect the best drivers from the worst. I can live with not using my phone while driving.

makristal

^^+1

Flashwing

http://www.webmd.com/balance/news/20...-big-road-risk

Radios present a different challenge that could be mitigated without totally banning them. Messing with the radio is not nearly as complex of an action as talking on the phone. The problem is people working the radio take their eyes off the road. Fiddling with CD's, changing stations, adjusting the volume all normally have people looking at the radio instead of in front of them.

Steering wheel controls allow you to make changes without removing your hands from the wheel and keep you focused ahead. Ipods or mp3 players allow people to change songs without swapping CD's.

In my own case, if traffic gets complex and I need to focus I'll turn my radio off. I like listening to the car anyway.

RedBeard

guys, if u look at this issue as a whole; who are the people who would actually have a dire need to talk or recieve an email on the road? someone in suit and tie type business or emergency personel, the rest of us don't have a dire need to be in constant communication with the rest of the world, we've just been spoiled into thinking that we do.

gldngrrl

I agree to a certain extent but it burned my butt that people got subsidies for frickin TV? Like it's some sort of vital utility?? Come on. What you are saying is "if you can afford a TV you can afford your own cable box too" but that's not what happened... so I think a subsidy to help cover the cost of a bluetooth device (just a cheapo earpiece or w/e) seems reasonable...

dannobre

iTrader: (3)

Personally people need to drive...and do nothing else to be truly safe...

Not sure why they picked Cell phones speciffically..guess it's an easy thing to pick...

I think Makeup , eating, and GPS devices are way up there as well......

And you can't legislate stupid...so we are stuck with what we get

Riding motorcycles on the road for close to 35 years has made a huge difference in my driving....not paying attention leads to Darwin type thinning of the stupid pool on a bike

makristal

^ +1

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

A 1 time expense of less than $100 and having to make another 1 time expense of something at least over $100 + an on-going monthly fee is quite a bit different than having a 1 time several hundred dollar expense with a monthly expense of just under $100 and having to make a $50 purchase.


I agree, I hated that subsidy for digital TV, but it isn't quite the same here. This suggestion was even worse.


If you can't afford a hands-free-bluetooth, leave the phone alone while driving. It's that simple.


Or are you suggesting the the government also provide a subsidy for the gas we burn, the food we eat, the beverages we drink? At what point does it end? I mean, if we were all taxed 100%, then sure, the government can pay for everything. But I'd prefer they keep their hands out of my pockets on taxes except for the items that are truly critical and needed government resources. Such as police, firefighters, EMTs, road repair, etc...


I don't want to pay for some retard's bluetooth....

pdxhak

iTrader: (2)

Pretty sure it is all 2way devices. Unless you operate a vehicle and part of the job requires you to communicate with a dispatch you can not use any 2way hand held device.

Bignatex

People suck at driving enough as it is. I'm
comfortable. With the law. But I
guilty as well

dondo

iTrader: (7)

this is the most important point.. there are enumerated powers/responsibilities that the government has and most of the new laws are just more instances of the nanny state trying to protect us from ourselves and have nothing to do with the true purpose of government.

cell phone usage is cars is not something the government should be regulating by any means.

RedBeard

so... what you're saying is that after 50 years of fighting the "Reds" we're now proving Karl Marx correct? OMG!!! sorry, had to drop that one

dondo

iTrader: (7)

no that's the opposite of what i'm saying

RedBeard

how so? we let the government overtax and add legislated oversight on our daily lives all in the promise of a better and safer life... i'm not saying i'm against this being a primary offense, but it really shouldn't have gotten to he point of having to make a new law for this, driving while distracted is reckless.... i think there is already a law against that... so why add another one to the books?

dannobre

iTrader: (3)

From a policing point of view...it's much easier to prove someone was talking/texting on a cell phone...than prove someone was distracted driving

RedBeard

police officers usually have dash cams now, if someone is unable to maintain speed, weaving across the lane all with a phone stuck to their head? doesn't seem too hard to prove, even if they claim it has nothing to do with the phone they still had some sort of impairment that should have kept them off the street.

gldngrrl

I can tell- you texted this reply while driving amirite?

TANKERG

So a politician can say they did something important in their reelection campaign.

dondo

iTrader: (7)

i think we misunderstood each other then.. the bolded part above is what i dont like. i dont need a minder to make sure i keep myself safe. i'd rather the gov stay out of it and stick to protecting us from enemies both domestic and foreign, enforcing our contracts, and upholding the rule of law

makristal

^Dondo +1, agree with that. If they have enough time to try to pry deeper into our lives and try to control more of what we're doing, then it appears that they aren't doing the job which we want them to be doing.

dondo

iTrader: (7)

and the worst part is we pay for it

makristal

I like it when you quote me, makes me feel important :-)

Yeah, but that's how it is with our armed forces as well. But that's a different matter all together.

WTBRotary!

iTrader: (6)

Not trying to be a hypocrite but more of the Devils advocate...

Honestly, how many people in here write paragraphs about how they should not text or talk on the phone while driving and do it? I think alot of people in here have been guilty of doing so, but more to my point...

Distractions have always been there, from rare cars, to radios, to
now iPods ( which are still hella hard to navigate through, browsing artists anyone with a scroll wheel?) to cell phones and GPS... The distraction is not merely having those objects in the car
but how they allow you to go off-task and sing to your favorite song or talk to your uncle Bob that you haven't talked to in God knows how many years.

Bluetooth is not the anwser for cell phones and talking while driving, granted if your in a manual car ( like me) it's already hard
to drive while holding a cell phone and talk unless your on the
highway; but it's the talking in general that gets your mind off the task of driving. With Bluetooth your still engaging with talking and having to anwser questions that consume some of your focus, just because your not holding the cell phone does not mean your any less distracted.

Now I do believe some people are better at talking/texting/ messing with iPods than others; for instance someone with ADD or ADHD would have a harder time concentrating on driving while on the phone or even talking to someone via Bluetooth than someone who isn't ADD/ADHD.

I find it very amusing that for 2010 over 100,000 news laws (i think that's the right number, it was a shitload I know that) went into effect as of January 1st, why you ask? Many people say it's so the government can control us, one of the laws being passed being you can't tan in a tanning bed without a parent until 18 without a
signature. I believe kids were fine without law but the government doesn't quite think so...

The other night I was sitting at my schools parking lot (yes I'm still in high school...) and a police officer drove by. There was noone but me and and 2 other friends and we were just bored not wanting to be at home doing nothing (its summer) . The officer see,ed to be a nice guy and I engaged in a conversation with him, he didn't care that we were on school property as long as we weren't doing donuts and making loud amounts of noise. So I start talking to him about what's illegal in terms of lights on the front and rear of a car, mostly because a few of the local 8's around my area have ultraviolet parking lights, and one of them printed out the Texas state law about lights to try and help him win his case if a cop ever pulled him over. The police officer went on to tell me that (as he pulled out his book of Texas State lawbook) even if in one section that law my friend printed out is true in another section of the book it protects itself stating otherwise. The officer said there was so many loopholes in how/ the way he could write a ticket to go around the one section that said it was alright, which brings me to my point...

At what moment does it go too far that the government is trying to control us and what we do? For them to pay this much attention on cell phones is stupid and redundant imo. Yes being distracted is one of the things that will happen, NO driver on the face of this earth has never not been distracted. Instead of focusing all their energy on cell phones their energy should be spent on driver education and learning how to control the car etc. Like some other members stated... Bluetooth is still distracting because your still talking... I think everyone as some point has needed to talk on their phones in the car while driving as some point in their lives, but with some education I think that would even be a problem (obviously there will be the ones out there that will die because their head is in the lap texting, but nothing will stop those types of people)...

Basically what I'm saying is, at what point/ length does the government have to go/do for the people to say it's too far and over the edge...The only way to get rid of all distractions, physically anyways, is to only allow a one person car. No radio, phones, buttons etc. And still there's the chance of becoming distracted by thinking in deep thought.

Distractions are everywhere, you can't eliminate distractions all together, they're something your going to have to live with...






I think I might have written a little too much lol but I believe most of my points are still valid.

makristal

Yes, I do believe you're right about this. I do think that the government should look into the safety of people, but like I said, what's next? It's unsafe for me to sneeze in the car, or it's unsafe for my windows to be rolled down. There's laws in the state of washington that try to mandate what exhaust people are allowed to have. I think that's bullshit. It's my car, my money, my exhaust, if I want to have a stock quiet exhaust, then woopdie do. If I want to have a 4 inch exhaust that sounds like a fart, then that's also my opinions. Getting above a certain decibel is one thing, but it's not fair to consumers to put restrictions on what I can and cannot have on MY car is ridiculous!

Personally, I think the government is getting WAY too deep into some of these laws. Focus on the broader picture, on the roles that Americans want them to assume. Politicians are making these laws to make themselves look good for re-election dates, am I gunna re-elect the shmuck that came up with this law, probably not. I may respect the law in the future, but right now I have a problem with how far the government is willing to go to make lives more ridiculous.

Flashwing

To a certain extent I'm more interested in seeing increases in licensing standards than I would be creating more driving laws. We're already way past the point of criminalizing everyone on the road. It's almost impossible to drive your car and not break a law. Not stopping completely for a stop sign, not signaling to change lanes, going 5 mph over the limit etc.

I'd like to see us adopt the kind of driving requirements that Finland has! The problem is the US has this sense of entitlement when it comes to cars and the act of getting your license is a right of passage.