11
   

America Moves to Criminalize Cell Phones While Driving

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 09:12 pm
As a cyclist, I support this. The most distracted and dangerous assholes on the road are people who talk on their phone while driving. I see it a lot - people blowing stop signs or changing lanes without looking. My favorite are the people who try and hold their iphone a little lower and jack the volume up so nobody can see they are on the cell phone. Idiots.

In a question of rights and liberties, the operative query is 'who is harmed?' Who is harmed by people who are talking or texting while driving? Not just the driver, but many other people - often killed. This is the appropriate standard for judging the legality of an action.

And, I gotta tell ya. People who think that they personally are 'safe' while engaging in dangerous behaviors - as you appear to - are the worst. You aren't safe while engaging in this behavior and neither are those around you.

Re: the reality of this becoming law, I could see a compromise happening and only hands-free cel phones being allowed, which I think we can all agree is certainly better than the alternative.

Cycloptichorn
thack45
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 09:20 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
But do you feel you have rights to do whatever you want with them regardless of how it may impact the safety of others?


Obviously not, as I have said that the state could in theory have just cause to criminalize talking on the cell phone while driving. My position is that the state has not made its case, it does not have the evidence that rewriting the criminal code this way is justified. If it does so anyway then it is an immoral oppressor of the citizens.

There is something call proportion which the US Government consistently demonstrates that it does not understand, or more likely chooses to act like it does not understand as it continues to grab for more power.

Alright, so you're fine with a public safety law as long as everyone is in agreement, else the law is a typical form of draconian human manipulation. Got it.

Your position seems to be that you disagree with the case and recommendation the NTSB has made. From there you just extrapolated that information in to a 'the government is trying to destroy us' scenario...

Where the hell is the ragin' canajun?
thack45
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 09:25 pm
@thack45,
thack45 wrote:
Why would I even worry about people using cells while they drive when no one is doing a thing about people who can't drive while not using a phone?

All in all, I'm more concerned why the NTSB has no concern about that.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 09:38 pm
@thack45,
Why not be concerned about both?
thack45
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 09:51 pm
@msolga,
Because using that logic, before I knew it, I'd be concerned about everything that's worth being concerned about. I'd never get anything done.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 09:56 pm
@thack45,
I'm thinking that the cell phone issue would probably be easier to tackle, in the short-term, anyway.
As for the rest, you're referring to bad drivers & people breaking the road laws (thus endangering lives) mainly?
thack45
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 10:35 pm
@msolga,
No. Really I'm just busting hawk's chops a little while at the same time recognizing the relatively inconsequential impact of cellphone related accidents.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 10:38 pm
@thack45,
Quote:
Your position seems to be that you disagree with the case and recommendation the NTSB has made. From there you just extrapolated that information in to a 'the government is trying to destroy us' scenario.


I long ago became convinced that the individual is being abused at the hands of the state, and this call to criminalize cell phone use by drivers on the back of extremely flimsy justification for doing so is just one line with-in pages of evidence that I have accumulated over the years to support my thesis.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 11:03 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Re: the reality of this becoming law, I could see a compromise happening and only hands-free cel phones being allowed, which I think we can all agree is certainly better than the alternative.


According to America the definition of compromise is that it gets 90% of what it wants. It also takes the 10% that it does not get into account when it makes its opening demands.....Watch any DA for illustration of the point.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 11:40 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Most Americans — 88 percent according to one survey — acknowledge that cellphone use while driving is dangerous. But in the same survey by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 35 percent of drivers said they had read or sent a text message while driving in the past month. Sixty-seven percent said they had talked on a cellphone while driving in the past month, and almost a third said they do it regularly.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/commuting/ntsb-urges-nationwide-ban-on-cellphone-use-while-driving/2011/12/13/gIQAbuwHsO_story_1.html

I doubt that I know many people in the 33% who have not talked while driving in the last month......
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 11:48 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
It all depends upon how many Deaths and Injuries.....as I have said already in this thread I Dont think that the government has either sound enough numbers nor high enough numbers to win its case.

"if it saves just one life" is the motto of damn fools.

...said everyone who has ever driven while impaired.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2011 12:31 am
@DrewDad,
Quote:
..said everyone who has ever driven while impaired.


said everyone who has ever also proclaimed "the only people who object to the government rifling through their lives are the ones who have something to hide".....that these objections to government behavior are based upon principle is rejected as a possibility by these pompous asses.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2011 01:17 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:

I long ago became convinced that the individual is being abused at the hands of the state, and this call to criminalize cell phone use by drivers on the back of extremely flimsy justification for doing so is just one line with-in pages of evidence that I have accumulated over the years to support my thesis.


Who, except you, is talking about criminalizing anything?

Making something a traffic infraction, which is probably what this would be, is not turning anyone into a criminal. Stop being so overly dramatic.

This is in a class with seatbelt laws, and already existing traffic laws regarding cell phone use and texting while driving. Those are traffic infractions, not crimes.





0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2011 10:56 am
I have a simple solution to this. Change the cell phones so they disconnect if they are moving over 10 MPH.


Hawkeye - how do you feel about speed limits?



RexDraconis111
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2011 11:14 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
IRFRANK wrote:
Hawkeye - how do you feel about speed limits?


Or following too close for that matter?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2011 11:45 am
@IRFRANK,
Quote:
Hawkeye - how do you feel about speed limits?
I agree that the state has the right to set them and to enforce them so long as they are reasonable. I am increasingly seeing however speed limits set unreasonably low for SAFETY! which pisses me the **** off. For instance we have a church school near by on a very busy road, and a few years ago they got a school zone approved where this four line major road becomes 2omph when the lights are flashing, which is several hours a day during school days. Thing is this school has only about 150 students, the vast majority are pre-school and kindergarten and most of the rest dont even live in our city so I have never once seen one walking near this road as they all get pick up in cars. We now have vast amounts of time and gas wasted and car breaks used up for no damn reason at all other than a vanity project on the part of the church which the city complied with. This is upsetting, and is a deviation from the proper role of government. Had the city done their job they would have investigated how many kids are ever near the road, and when they found out that the number is around zero told the church to make other arrangements as their demand is unreasonable.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2011 01:36 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
We now have vast amounts of time and gas wasted and car breaks used up for no damn reason at all other than a vanity project on the part of the church which the city complied with.


Whoever tagged this thread 'whiner' has you pegged, Hawk.

You can't honestly believe that having a 20-mph school zone is a waste of time, gas or brakes.

- the zone is likely pretty small, it's causing people to add on entire seconds to that stretch of road. Big whoop.
- slower MPH doesn't waste gasoline, it saves gasoline. Study up on the internal combustion engine some, mkay?
- Slower MPH doesn't waste brakes b/c you don't have to hit your brakes - you just take your foot off of the gasoline instead. So, this is a ridiculous thing to say.

Are you aware of the fact that a large part of your persona revolves around complaining about things? That you could accurate be described as a complainer?

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2011 01:51 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
- slower MPH doesn't waste gasoline, it saves gasoline. Study up on the internal combustion engine some, mkay?


Did you not take any physics at all??? If you go from 45mph, slow to 20mph for a few hundred yards, and then speed back up to 45mph your energy use will be greatly less efficient than if you had maintained the 45mph speed. Most of the energy will be spent making heat in the brake pads..and will cause them to ware down.


Turn your brain on pal, you are talking like an imbecile.

Quote:
Are you aware of the fact that a large part of your persona revolves around complaining about things? That you could accurate be described as a complainer?
Just as the news focuses on what is wrong with the world and not on what is right I focus on things that need fixing. This is how we make the world better for our kids. If you have a problem with that then sue me.
IRFRANK
 
  4  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2011 02:03 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Did you not take any physics at all??? If you go from 45mph, slow to 20mph for a few hundred yards, and then speed back up to 45mph your energy use will be greatly less efficient than if you had maintained the 45mph speed. Most of the energy will be spent making heat in the brake pads..and will cause them to ware down.




I'm not so sure about that. Probably are a lot of important variables. I suggest we get Myth Busters to test this out. Probably depends a lot on how quickly you slow down and how quickly you speed up. Whether it's down hill or not, etc. If you stand on the brakes to slow down and floor it to speed up, you might be right. If you coast to slow down and slowly speed up you may be wrong. Most folks would do the latter.

Oh, - it's wear down.

I think also if you had kids going to this school you would have a different opinon.


Oh - and further more, if you want to compare how many physics courses we've taken, let me know.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2011 02:04 pm
For what it is worth in this discussion...
35 states + D.C. have laws against texting while driving and 9 states ban handheld cell phone use. 30 states don't handheld cell phone use by newly licensed drivers for some period of time.
Enforcement of the laws is virtually non-existent unless there is an accident.

The NTSB estimates that there were 3100 deaths attributable to a "distracted" driver. That category could also include screaming children in the car. On the other hand, the number could be low because the driver was killed or because the driver responsible didn't disclose texting or talking on the phone when the accident occurred. The report didn't, to my knowledge, mention the number of injuries or the amount of property damage.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.42 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 11:19:45