Yes
58% (1701 votes)
No
37% (1083 votes)
Undecided
5% (145 votes)
Total votes: 2929
|
“Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do You Approve of Laws Banning Cellphones While Driving?Yes 58% (1701 votes) No 37% (1083 votes) Undecided 5% (145 votes) Total votes: 2929 | |
Comments Policy
hands free okay?
March 1, 2008 - 17:04 ET by botghands free okay?
No Poofdas
A bluetooth
March 1, 2008 - 17:08 ET by BlondeIs a wonderful thing.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
yes indeed they are No
March 1, 2008 - 17:22 ET by botgyes indeed they are
No Poofdas
BUT
March 1, 2008 - 18:14 ET by sarcasmoStudies seem to show that almost any mental distraction can screw up driving (we're talking, after all, about the average voter, folks...). There's a stretch of I-95 between Blonde & downtown Miami, for example, where I'll even turn off the radio for fear of the lunatics...
I voted "undecided," because in a free marketplace the issue would be between a driver and his/her insurance company.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
I will never vote for a
March 1, 2008 - 23:20 ET by general companyI will never vote for a law?
Unless it includes a noise violation for those boom boom radios. Just went and talked to a neighbor about it. Killing my Linda Perry.
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
Handsfree devices are great!!!!!........
March 2, 2008 - 06:14 ET by FireDawg76They allow you to talk on the phone, eat, and drink your morning coffee all at the same time!
It's just another loss of
March 1, 2008 - 17:07 ET by robert108It's just another loss of personal freedom, and a big govt attempt to relieve us from the responsibility for our actions.
As usual, there will be no followup to see if the loss of personal freedom returned any gains in public safety.
I voted no - just like Seatbelt laws should be repealed
March 1, 2008 - 20:06 ET by PopularTechI am tired of all these nanny state laws. Just like stupid seat belt laws. Don't get me wrong I wear one but it should be up to me to wear it NOT the government.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Years ago...
March 1, 2008 - 22:30 ET by heldmyw...some state (I think it was Virginia) decided not to fight motorcyclists and the helmet "nanny state" laws.
They merely allowed insurance companies to cut claims by 50-70% if the insured got a head injury and was not using approved safety equipment.
Voila! Motorcyclists could be as foolhardy as they wished, and the public didn't get the ultimate bill for their stupi...er... 'freedom'.
I think that the same should apply to cellphone and seatbelts. You use/don't use? Fine.
Don't expect my rates to go up because you're smooshed across the turnpike.
Call it a "nitwit tax". Freedom isn't free.
Well now if we wanted to go
March 1, 2008 - 22:55 ET by bigtimerWell now if we wanted to go into insurance rates rising and laws...then we could maybe apply home owners insurance to this same scenario..people that choose to live in earthquake, tornado, hurricane, flood, mudslide areas ect... my rates go up every time there is a major natural disaster...should we outlaw them for living in the area they chose..
One law should apply..reckless driving..no matter the cause.
I could not agree more!
March 1, 2008 - 22:58 ET by PopularTechI am so tired of idiots building in these places and then complaining about not being able to get insurance - cry me a river I don't care.
People are free to live where they want, they are just required to be responsible for their own choice.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
That is how it works
March 1, 2008 - 22:56 ET by PopularTechHelmet laws, seatbelt laws and not even car insurance should be mandatory ala New Hampshire. The US has become one large nanny state and this needs to end. Anyone who lives in NJ knows exactly what I am talking about.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
I'll take it one step
March 2, 2008 - 02:28 ET by Conservative VoiceI'll take it one step further, I think there should be no speed limits either, other than the natural speed limit...ie when its foggy don't go fast, and when traffic allows it, go with the flow.
I voted no...I started to
March 1, 2008 - 17:13 ET by bigtimerI voted no...I started to really pay attention to politics and how laws are made beginning with the seatbelt laws...this is just another continuation of restrictions of our freedoms...and it is never going to end in the near future...there will be more to come on down the road.
Mischief Framed in a Law
March 1, 2008 - 17:29 ET by thoridflyMost laws are just another reason and means to strip taxpayers of their hard-earned income.
There's even a bible verse that addresses that issue ...
Psalms 94:20
Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, WHICH FRAMETH MISCHIEF BY A LAW?
And a quote ...
"Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny." - Sir Edmund Burke
Me too, bt. And then they
March 1, 2008 - 17:31 ET by motherbeltMe too, bt. And then they mandated air bags, which led to laws requiring children to be in the back seat (have they ever figured out how many accidents are caused by distracted mothers checking on the kid in the back seat?)
What's next....no fiddling with the radio? No conversations with someone else in the car? No coffee cups? No eating? Both hands visible at 10 and 2 on the wheel at all times?
Don't laugh...the anti-tobacco fanatics started with just wanting "no smoking" sections on airplanes! It's all incremental with these do-gooders!
The behavior nazis are the personification of the saying "Give them an inch..."
Ditto
March 1, 2008 - 20:13 ET by scamoramaFor what it's worth, on this point we agree absolutely. Anything I might add would be simply paraphrasing your comments.
I disagree
March 1, 2008 - 20:56 ET by PamThe kids have been in the backseat longer than the airbags have been standard equipment. There are all kinds of mirrors to put in the front so that you can keep an eye on the kids without needing to turn and check on them. One can easily eat or drink without taking their eyes off the road.
I have seen far too many near misses because some donkey is playing(texting) with their phone and not watching the road. Blue Tooth is wonderful, but all cars are not equipped. The hands free sets are nice and offer a solution for that idiot that doesn't understand that they are not the only person on the road.
Here is a link to a 2005 NTSB study on the subject..a little dated but food for thought..
It is sad that laws like this have to be enacted, but just remember, you are intelligent. There are 99 people behind you that are dumber than a rock! I mean that in all seriousness.
Pam i agree i think
March 1, 2008 - 21:03 ET by botgbut first is the rock igneous, metamorphic or sedimentary?
the metamophic tend to be harder and more dense so most people are smarter than these
No Poofdas
I voted no, too. If you're
March 1, 2008 - 18:16 ET by NewsbusterbrownI voted no, too. If you're conscious of the fact that driving the car is the number one priority and not the conversation, you can do both at the same time (same goes for eating, changing radio stations, etc.) Of course, I tend to pull over if someone calls me if I can and I never initiate a call while driving.
Sort of...
March 1, 2008 - 17:23 ET by BeresfordI approve of laws banning OTHER PEOPLE from using cell phones while driving.
Yes
March 2, 2008 - 05:34 ET by AnclersonI agree. I'm a conservative but not a libertarian (i.e. I do believe in certain limitations on freedoms).
Fact 1: Drivers who are talking on the phone are at much greater risk of getting in an accident.
Fact 2: Hands-free cell phone usage does not decrease the liklihood of getting in an accident while on the phone.
Fact 3: Laws that require people to buckle up or make cell phone use illegal while driving reduce accidents and traffic fatalities.
Just think about how much more dangerous the road would be if drinking and driving were legal. Well, cell phone use is the same situation just to a lesser degree.
Fines collected from people who break these simple laws increase gov't revenue = taxes can be reduced.
I'm for penalizing idiots who can not obide by simple laws that help protect others. I'm not for penalizing the hardworking and successful.
anclerson
March 2, 2008 - 11:28 ET by botgyour fact 2 is bunk
No Poofdas
and his last fact, traffic
March 2, 2008 - 14:26 ET by Conservative Voiceand his last fact, traffic fees do not lower taxes. They do provide more reason for cops to worry about traffic versus solving crimes.
Simple solution
March 1, 2008 - 17:25 ET by Mr. TerryBluetooth earpieces or earphones are easy to use and you don't have to redirect your view from the road. I like the bumper sticker that says, "hang up and drive".
“A nation that cannot secure its borders is not a nation.” Ronald Reagan
That solution has been put
March 1, 2008 - 17:38 ET by motherbeltThat solution has been put in place in a couple of states I think...only hands-free devices. But some say that the device and the conversation are still a distraction ( here and here), so there should be no phones at all.
So we're tiptoe-ing to the "slippery slope" already.
Bluetooth
March 1, 2008 - 17:42 ET by ChaitealoverI can't seem to get earpieces to work for me, but I found a Bluetooth device that clips to my visor and that does the trick. However, I think it's dangerous to drive while talking on the phone because it's distracting, so I don't use it very much. That doesn't mean, however that there should be a law about it - there's too much government control of our lives already.
Whatever happened to common sense?
Chai
“...Bury me on my face,” said Diogenes; and when he was asked why, he replied, “Because in a little while everything will be turned upside down.”
Common sense...you'd be
March 1, 2008 - 22:32 ET by BlackwaterCommon sense...you'd be suprised how few use that. I'm only 20 but I agree with this law. I go to school but deliver part time to make ends meet and trust me, I see so many bad drivers (though I do live in Jersey and we have aggressive drivers). Just the other day I saw a lady driving her car but looking down at the steering wheel to text on her phone. People just don't use common sense.
"Mass genocide is the most exhausting activity one can engage in, outside of
soccer." (Dogma)
do you eat and drive?
March 1, 2008 - 22:49 ET by Conservative Voicedo you eat and drive? listen to the radio? have passengers? ever not keep your hands at the right positions at all times? do you ever forget to check your mirrors religiously? then you drive just as reckless. ride the bus.
of course the real question
March 2, 2008 - 02:25 ET by Conservative Voiceof course the real question is, who was more distracted, you or the other driver?
government provided
March 1, 2008 - 17:41 ET by botgchauffeurs will solve this
No Poofdas
Don't we already have laws
March 1, 2008 - 17:55 ET by ckc1227Don't we already have laws against dangerous and reckless driving?
"Pig and elephant DNA just won't splice"
bang! Right-o
March 1, 2008 - 18:14 ET by Ryan Mc.bang! Right-o
Interesting question. Hey,
March 1, 2008 - 17:59 ET by Chris NormanInteresting question. Hey, did someone at NB get a ticket recently? I'm kind of okay with people using their cell phones while driving, as long as they're not simultaneously eating lunch, studying a map, and applying their makeup.
I actually saw a guy on I-
March 1, 2008 - 18:23 ET by motherbeltI actually saw a guy on I- 95 with an open book on the steering wheel!
mb...Wonder if it had
March 1, 2008 - 18:25 ET by bigtimermb...
Wonder if it had pictures...lol.
Hopefully is wasn't braille.
mb,There was a death
March 1, 2008 - 18:36 ET by Chris Normanmb,
There was a death here, in New Mexico, a few weeks ago, when a driver on I-40 rear ended a tractor trailer at 70 MPH while studying a fully opened map - at night! The NM legislature passed a law, banning cell phone use while driving (with the usual exemptions), meanwhile our drunk driving problem continues to be a deadly embarassment. However, our courts here are so corrupt and useless that we have drunk drivers killing people - after they've been arrested (and released )sometimes ten to twenty times. Still, government will always go for the easily enforceable laws - and the revenue from the tickets.
Still, government will
March 1, 2008 - 18:38 ET by bigtimerStill, government will always go for the easily enforceable laws - and the revenue from the tickets.
...and they always will.
What one doesn't think of the other leftist will.
BT, What really frosts me is
March 1, 2008 - 18:54 ET by Chris NormanBT, What really frosts me is the number of people who now regularly run red lights - especially in left hand turn lanes. Apparently, the new driving philosophy is, if the person in front of you makes it through the intersection, even if the light is yellow or red, then, by god, you should too. I watched the other morning as four, count 'em, four - cars in a turn lane went through the intersection after the light turned red. To me, one of the basic tenets of civilized life is the obedience of a red light, if we can't trust that basic law, then driving itself will become impossible.
I voted "no"
March 1, 2008 - 17:59 ET by anneftxanneftx I voted 'no' for the plain and simple reason that I
don't think Big Gummint should stick in its ignorant finger in every
darned pie. I raced SCCA cars in Upper Marlboro (whoops, yes;
that's where the cigarette got its name) in my late teens and wouldn't
think of doing so w/o a five point harness. I thought people who
did not use seat belts were ignorant of physics -- until I was told
that I MUST USE MY SEATBELT. I believe I'm emotionally immature
and stuck in a rebellious adolescent state at age approaching 60.
I sucked it up and continued to use my seatbelt. Common sense
sometimes trumps knee jerk defiance.
In re cell phones, I may the last person in the U.S. to not have
one and it makes me sad to watch people walking around our interesting
neighborhood with a cell phone glued to their ear. They are
unaware of their surroundings. I suspect this is so when they
drive. I do not understand this. When I'm in challenging
traffic (as opposed to cruising at 80 MPH on a west Texas highway), I
turn off the radio. If you've ever raced, you know the keen attention
that is required. If you've never raced, you know the keen
attention that is required to drive on highly populated streets and
highways.
I eagerly await bans on listening to radios/audios
while driving, or smoking, or eating or, heaven forfend putting on
makeup. As for kids watching videos while the world passes
by...well, I take a pass. Apparently it is no longer necessary to
find the next oak tree, or VW bug, or blue painted car to pass the time.
Ban cell phone use while driving? No. Deplore it? Yes.
That's one girl's opinion.
it is like cigarettes, I
March 1, 2008 - 18:13 ET by Ryan Mc.it is like cigarettes, I personally hate them and I hate idiots who can't drive and talk, but I'll be damned if I support "lowest common denominator" laws that punish everyone because of the idiocy of the few. I am a bit shocked so many here are anti freedom.
nanny state laws...
March 1, 2008 - 18:29 ET by VT Con Manthat is all this is. bunch of ninnies who have to tell us all what to do. maybe the law should be "if you are a liberal, and want your life controlled by the DC crowd, you may not phone while driving".
Assign responsibility
March 1, 2008 - 19:28 ET by MissileMan742I like the way the military encourages vehicle safety: go ahead and don't use your seat belt or helmet, but if you suffer an injuryin an accident that the safety device might have prevented or mitigated, YOU pay your medical care becouse YOU were WILLFULLY NEGLIGENT! Do the same for cell phones. Talk all you want, but if it results in an accident where you are at fault, it all comes out of YOUR pocket!
I got rear-ended leaving work by some clown that had his phone on his ear before he even pulled out of his slot. Only thing that kept things from getting messy was my Bronco's spare hung low over the bumper, and he hit the tire, not metal, and it was at fairly low speed. No damage, but I read him off in my best Drill Sergeant invective for ten minutes, and offered to use his picture phone for an on-the spot colonoscopy!
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!
What is next?
March 1, 2008 - 19:23 ET by DelsaWhat will be next?
A law preventing us from changing the channel on our car radios? A law preventing us from changing CD's?
A law preventing us from drinking our morning coffee or favorite soft drink?
A law preventing women from farding while driving? By the way, farded or farding is the application of make up!
Give me a break. I get annoyed at phone talking drivers like the next guy but I'll be dipped if I want another blank'n law telling me what I can and cannot do and in MY CAR no less!!!!
If there is an accident caused by a cell phone usnig driver, then charge the driver with reckless driving and be done with it.
Driving is a privilege, not
March 1, 2008 - 20:31 ET by balboaDriving is a privilege, not a right.
Driving is a privilege
March 1, 2008 - 20:49 ET by DelsaYour point being?
Is it do what we say or we are taking your car?
thus speaketh daddy balboa
March 1, 2008 - 20:52 ET by botgthus speaketh daddy balboa who is of course correct.
However in todays society and market economy it can be shown that driving is necessary for employment which makes it vital in the pursuits of happiness. I believe that the courts take that into account and precedent can be shown when the court restricts driving to and from work. (ie: the courts have dealt with it as a right)
No Poofdas
you're right bal
March 1, 2008 - 21:10 ET by candanceGoing to a restaurant is a priviledge. Being on an airplane is a priviledge. In fact, being in public altogether is a priviledge. So that means the government is justified in putting as many laws as possible onto our "priviledges."
It starts with public places like airplanes and shopping malls. Then it creeps into your car. It's only a matter of time before it creeps into your home.
Agree with you candance
March 1, 2008 - 21:24 ET by DelsaWhat about the new law (I forget where) to requirer resturants NOT to serve FAT people? Who will determine FAT.
And why is it anyones business?
The do gooders just say, "we know best".
Forget "father knows best" now it is the nanny state!
By the way, those who spend time looking into the rear view mirror checking on their kids, ARE NOT WATCHING THE ROAD!
Chances are they will hit someone who is talking on their cell phone.
Delsa, The highway department have portable scales.
March 1, 2008 - 22:50 ET by upcountrywaterHighway Crews drive around setting up a surprise locations to bust truckers hauling to much weight around on the highways.
Beaurcrats could establish. Public fat checkers, entering into restaurants, with their portable scales, busting and fining people while in the act of committing a crime, eating while fat. If they are more than 20 lbs. over weight, they get charged with reckless eating.
Iranian uranium; Iranian ICBM's; Iranian satellites..CHANGE is comming BELIEVE in that!
Going to a restaurant is a
March 1, 2008 - 23:37 ET by balboaGoing to a restaurant is a privilege? Really?
Well last time I checked,
March 2, 2008 - 02:23 ET by Conservative VoiceWell last time I checked, they were a private business, I know it gets confusing when we had the civil rights, but technically they are a private business, hence a privilege, they can sometimes kick you out.
Oh no. . .
March 2, 2008 - 02:32 ET by tracheostomyPlease don't bring Leon into this. =D
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
More Nanny Statism
March 1, 2008 - 19:28 ET by lprgcfrankThis is just another example of intrusive government. There are already plenty of ways to hold someone accountable for their actions without another 'feel good' law that further isolates individual responsibility and accountability.
I voted yes.
March 1, 2008 - 19:30 ET by R D HelmThough I am one of the few libertarians here, I still support a law against cell phone use while driving, even in the hands-free mode. If it were possible for people to use their phones while driving without endangering others, I would feel differently, but that just isn't going to work.
We have had several cases in the last few years here where pedestrians have been killed due to drivers being distracted by their phones. In one case, a mother and her infant were run down and killed by a 16yo girl.
I have nearly been hit several times by these people, and a couple of those times I wasn't even in a car.
Personally, I live for the day when some idiot phone yapper hits me in my car, as, not only will it total their car, it is going to be my ticket to early retirement.
And while I am sitting in the courtroom seperating this person from their, as well as their isurance company's, money, I will have a laptop sitting in front of me, using Autocad to design the eight-bedroom house I wll be dropping on the golf course of my choice.
Put that damn phone down and drive.
John McCain is a liberal. He said so himself.
R D
March 1, 2008 - 19:38 ET by DelsaBefore you get all excited about the guy with the cell phone hitting you and your ticket to getting richer, PRAY they are NOT illegal aliens, that they have a license, and that they have insurance.
Just a thought on your way to early retirement.
Gee, thanks, Delsa.
March 1, 2008 - 19:43 ET by R D HelmLOL-Of course, with the kind of week I have had, it probably would be an illegal alien, too.
John McCain is a liberal. He said so himself.
I voted yes.
March 1, 2008 - 19:43 ET by tracheostomyI was one of the first advocates in my county. This is clearly not a "nanny state" issue. You're operating large machinery in public that is potentially lethal or harmful to others; even at low speeds.
And yet some want to divide their attention and operate other devices at the same time. Yeah, whatever. Get off the road and do it.
If it can be proven (<--- key word now) that your attention was distracted doing anything behind the wheel (makeup, shaving, flossing, stereo, etcetera), I think you should be held responsible for it.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Spoken like a true tyrant.
March 1, 2008 - 20:19 ET by King of the BritonsI pray that I don't get neighbors like you and live in your county.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
I voted yes. Mainly because
March 1, 2008 - 19:47 ET by ricklailI voted yes. Mainly because I live right next to a high school. When school lets out it is like the start of World 600. The kids all have cell phones to their ears even though it is a law here in NC that bans teens from driving while talking unless it is to a parent or 911. Kinda dumb as to how to enforce it. So just ban it all. If you go onto any military installation in this country your better not get caught talking unless it is a hands free device.
If you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes.-Lewis Grizzard
Yes, We Need More Laws
March 1, 2008 - 20:00 ET by King of the BritonsI guess we should also ban eating, adjusting the radio, talking to someone in the car, or any activity that would take your eyes off of the road. While we are at it, we should lower the speed limit to 45 m.p.h., make everyone wear a helmet, and make a law that car makers can only make cars that go the speed limit.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
Scary how many people voted Yes
March 1, 2008 - 20:11 ET by PopularTechI take it many people want to reduce the freedoms of others. FYI, I only need one hand to drive an automatic.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
YES! I'm tired of almost
March 1, 2008 - 20:28 ET by balboaYES! I'm tired of almost getting run off the road by idiots who are paying more attention to their phone than their driving.
phone calls
March 1, 2008 - 20:50 ET by viluzionAll telephone calls are obscene.
wow
March 1, 2008 - 20:55 ET by botgyou must have quite the friends
No Poofdas
botg... LOL...yeah that
March 1, 2008 - 20:58 ET by bigtimerbotg...
LOL...yeah that post left me...well, postless.
Glad you found the words...
Self-employed
March 1, 2008 - 23:18 ET by viluzionIt's a self-employment thing. When the phone rings, somebody inevitably wants me to do something. I never answer the telephone unless I am busy.
If the idiots did not have a phone,
March 1, 2008 - 20:52 ET by DelsaIf the idiots did not have a phone, they'd be running you off the road for some other reason.
LIKE MAYBE THEY DO NOT PAY ATTENTION WHILE DRIVING ANYWAY??
Ban bad drivers because they won't drive well without cell phones either.
Tony
March 2, 2008 - 15:10 ET by WesenThe last time I pulled over to talk on my cell phone I was hit by a school bus. Because there were no witnesses and Tony the bus driver denied it, I was out of luck for a new side view mirror. You're my hero Tony and a real tribute to our children. Your supervisors are bums too for carrying your water.
Build more roads, so that there are less cars per mile.
March 1, 2008 - 21:18 ET by upcountrywaterThe Government has been blaming the driver, for all kinds of problems, so that they can continue their campain of obscurantism there by NEVER improving the highway system.
Iranian uranium; Iranian ICBM's; Iranian satellites..CHANGE is comming BELIEVE in that!
Very true. If they plan on
March 1, 2008 - 21:27 ET by Conservative VoiceVery true. If they plan on there will be drivers who don't pay 100% attention, then the roads themselves lend to safe driving. No driver is 100% attentive 100% of the time.
Then the majority of us who
March 1, 2008 - 21:29 ET by tracheostomyThen the majority of us who voted "yes" (myself being one of them) do not completely understand what constitutes reckless driving in my state.
I'm willing to admit that.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
If you are driving like a
March 1, 2008 - 21:39 ET by Conservative VoiceIf you are driving like a drunk, than you are driving recklessly. Talking on the cell phone is not the same as being legally drunk...and if it is for you, then make the personal decision and not do it...why do you need a nanny to hold your hand?
CV,
March 1, 2008 - 21:56 ET by tracheostomyThe comparison is not with example and another example.
NOT: "Talking on the cell phone is to driving buzzed is to eating a burrito."
No, the comparison is the definition of reckless driving in your state.
The way I see it, "reckless driving" hinges on proof you have divided or distracted attention. This isn't easy to do, and may make a new cell phone law redundant and useless (so I may want to amend my initial vote).
BUT. . .if cell phone use, doing makeup, and eating a burrito count as divided/distracted attention, then it should be added to the existing law.
Intoxication is much lower on the consciousness scale there the way I read it.
Remember, you weren't tested at the DMV while eating a burrito. You did it with the assessor at 10 and 2. Or wherever your hands are s'posed to be. =)
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
trach, but you are missing
March 1, 2008 - 22:19 ET by Conservative Voicetrach, but you are missing the point...what is considered distracting to be considered driving reckless? You may drive like a drunk when talking on your phone, so be an adult and don't talk and drive. But I can drive just fine.
driving reckless is more than just driving with distractions, because there are countless of distractions on the road...passengers, signs, other drivers, the radio, eating, drinking, that annoying itch on the nose...but don't scratch and get your picture taken, because the almighty government will use it to collect more fees from you because you are driving reckless.
I used the examples I gave because driving reckless is very serious...it doesn't mean a little bit dangerous, it means very dangerous.
Penalizes Skilled Drivers
March 1, 2008 - 23:04 ET by PopularTechI can drive anywhere for hours talking on my phone without any remote problem. The only time I put the phone down is when I pass police cars. Just because there are bad drivers out there who cannot do it should not penalize those of us who can. I agree ticket all those who drive recklessly.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
The other thing I hate,
March 1, 2008 - 23:34 ET by balboaThe other thing I hate, besides distracted drivers nearly running me off the road, is drivers who are so distracted, they don't see a green light, they don't signal a turn, they don't see a red light, they drive 5 miles an hour when some of us are trying to get on with our lives.
CV,
March 1, 2008 - 23:16 ET by tracheostomyThey've done scientific tests that prove that "multitasking" is a myth.
And I'm honest enough to admit it.
But here we have all these other posters here who think they're freakin' Michael Knight or something.
I totally get the point. We're all of us backseat drivers and lawyers to boot. We drive perfect on the exam at the DMV, and then hide the cell when we pass a cop.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
tell me how you can drive
March 2, 2008 - 02:21 ET by Conservative Voicetell me how you can drive and not be multi-tasking? Really if you can't drive, take the bus.
The act of driving as I was
March 2, 2008 - 02:42 ET by tracheostomyThe act of driving as I was taught in driving school (recently, as a matter of fact) is an action that demands all of your senses and reaction time. It is operating a piece of heavy machinery in public.
The "multitasking" needed to pass a driver's exam is considered one task, whereas the activities we add to driving a car later on are not necessary and/or distracting.
While I can drive (and have the licence to prove it), I am simply admitting that I cannot drive and pay attention to another person on a cell and/or text. I ask passengers to talk among themselves, but not to me.
One of my friends actually drives exactly as if he were taking a driver's test all the time.
Seriously. Never takes both hands off the wheel, drives the exact limit (cars pass him up all the time), no radio, no cell, kids in the back are quiet or else he pulls over and takes care of business. Real boring trip too.
Sorry, but the "everyone else is doing it" argument doesn't work, and multitasking is a myth.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
As for the booze comparison. . .
March 2, 2008 - 02:59 ET by tracheostomyAnd another thing.
I have three friends who have frequently driven under the influence for the past 10 + years and never got caught. Not once. One of them has a great joke and it goes something like. . .
"The real reason people get into drunk driving accidents, is because they haven't had enough practice driving while intoxicated."
Funny and horrifying, but true.
One of my other friends just got nailed on his first DUI after being pulled over for something minor, and he's been driving that way for years. The state trooper commended him for his skill behind the wheel after blowing above 0.18.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
which goes to show, one
March 2, 2008 - 03:25 ET by Conservative Voicewhich goes to show, one could drive under the influence of a cell phone, thanks for proving my point.
Not really CV. I am not
March 2, 2008 - 03:31 ET by tracheostomyNot really CV.
I am not stating that DUI laws should be repealed, am I?
No.
I am saying that the temptation of multitasking is just as seductive and just as insidious as driving while under the influence.
With practice, you think you're pretty good at it. . .and then that one split second you really need, at a critical moment for reaction time, is spent on the other thing you were doing instead of driving.
"But officer, I'm so very good at spinning plates while driving, watch! I've been doing this for years! This is the only time I've screwed up in years of this award-winning driving; plate-spinning circus act."
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
PJ, talking on the phone is
March 2, 2008 - 04:00 ET by Conservative VoicePJ, talking on the phone is not the same as driving drunk. The fact that your friends were able to drive drunk for such a long time, without any real problem, other than breaking the law, shows that we are capable of multi-tasking. Is it preferred that one pay attention when driving? Absolutely. Where I draw the line is personal responsibility. If you want to make it a law that says you are at fault if you were using the phone...I would be ok with that. But to make it illegal to use the phone, especially when distractions on the road are common, is crossing the line between personal responsibility and having the nanny state spell it out for us.
I used the phone on the road many times, without a problem. However, if traffic is somewhat intense, I don't use the phone. Why? Because I am a responsible adult, I don't need government to nanny me. Its like I don't need the government to tell me I better slow down below the speed limit when I see a bunch of brake lights, or a patch of fog. I see no difference between having a conversation with a passenger or with someone on the phone. Even with text messaging. My sister use to do ten key, at mach speeds, while talking to me, and not make a mistake. For some people, text messenging would be a mistake...like me, but for others it maybe as effortless as chewing gum and walking at the same time.
Oh man, you're so asking for it.
March 2, 2008 - 04:21 ET by tracheostomyCV: PJ, talking on the phone is not the same as driving drunk.
"Drunk" is super-vague and assumptive on your part.
1. How much does the individual weigh?
2. Male or female?
3. Level of alcohol tolerance and number of years consuming alcohol?
4. Blood alcohol level tested when compared to intoxication scale?
All decisive factors.
CV: The fact that your friends were able to drive drunk for such a long time, without any real problem, other than breaking the law, shows that we are capable of multi-tasking.
No, it only appears that way. That's my point!
Are all my friends gingerbread men, CV? Are they all clones or something? ? ? No!
CV: Is it preferred that one pay attention when driving? Absolutely. Where I draw the line is personal responsibility. If you want to make it a law that says you are at fault if you were using the phone...I would be ok with that. But to make it illegal to use the phone, especially when distractions on the road are common, is crossing the line between personal responsibility and having the nanny state spell it out for us.
Does your "personal responsibility" potentially endanger others? YES!
CV: I used the phone on the road many times, without a problem. However, if traffic is somewhat intense, I don't use the phone. Why? Because I am a responsible adult, I don't need government to nanny me.
You're a responsible adult driving, what? A 1+ ton piece of rolling machinery in public. And you say, "TRUST ME." Okay, but what about that one chick who almost