America Moves to Criminalize Cell Phones While Driving

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.

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.

Enforcement of the laws is virtually non-existent unless there is an accident.

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.

. Hawkeye wants us to consider the cost in drivers' time and gas money of having to slow down in a school zone

I don't know personally anyone who has been charged with distracted driving, but the laws where I live are pretty rigid and the consequences serious.

And to firefly - if you are charged with vehicular manslaughter or other related charges, you can go to jail

If some idiot is texting/talking on his cell, playing with his GPS, reading a map, or fiddling with his radio and he kills someone or renders them paralyzed, he deserves to do jail time. He needs to have his license revoked and his car impounded.

Editor's note: Henry Alford writes for Vanity Fair and The New York Times. He is the author of the upcoming "Would It Kill You To Stop Doing That? A Modern Guide to Manners."
(CNN) -- On Tuesday, citing safety concerns, the National Transportation Safety Board called for a ban on all cell phone use by drivers. It's the most far-reaching recommendation of its kind to date, and it extends to wireless headsets.
What will the fallout of the ban be? It's likely to cut down on sightings of drivers who appear to be having spirited conversations with their car's leather interior. But mightn't it also lead to other similar bans? So here's a speculative look at eight of the more questionable and dangerous activities that federal law might see fit to clamp down on.
Skiing or snowboarding while listening to an iPod. In the same way that a preoccupied driver is a menace on the road, so, too, is a hearing-deprived skier or snowboarder a terror on the slopes. When an athlete cuts off a source of outside stimuli thusly, he deprives himself of a valuable auditory cue: bloodcurdling screams. When people near him scream out "Runaway ski!" he thinks they're simply singing along. A federal ban of iPods on the slopes would be easy to institute; its violators would be subject to lift-ticket revocation and reduced hot cocoa.
Applying eyeliner while riding public transportation. Not only are the practitioners of this activity in danger of impairing their vision, but they are causing undue levels of stress to the people who can't stop watching them. These public users of beauty products prove yet again that the word "wand," particularly in close proximity to the word "mascara," can be as destructive as it is magic. A federal statute, perhaps called the Maybelline Clause, would bring relief to millions of commuters.


Lighting an oven by means other than a pilot light. Though very difficult to enforce without surveillance cameras, a policing of kitchen stove-lighting mechanisms would save many lives, not to mention eyebrows. Who among us has not turned our stove's gas on, only to find that the pilot light has blown out, whereupon we wander off to find matches, thus allowing gas to seep into the kitchen? An overhaul of this fraught activity could result in far fewer instances of fire or explosion. And many more evenings where people send out for pizza.
Peering over the balcony of a skyscraper. Ah, the view, the view. The view is ... dangerous. It's a human impulse to get closer to something you're looking at -- even if that something is the Chicago skyline. Modern man has been very creative when it comes to keeping pigeons off of balconies -- witness the shards of glass embedded in concrete, witness plastic owls -- so it's easy to imagine the government taking a similarly original tack when it comes to repelling humans from peering over precipices. Am I talking touch-activated sprinklers that gush lukewarm strawberry soda onto overly curious sightseers? Yes, I'm talking touch-activated sprinklers that gush lukewarm strawberry soda onto overly curious sightseers.
Sticking your head out the roof of a fast-moving limo. Largely the province of prom-goers and bachelor-partiers, this dangerous activity is of no service to anyone. It is interesting only to its participants, much like televised fishing. The practice could be easily curbed through a sliding scale of fees, based on duration of head-out-of-window exposure and level of inebriation; but it might be easier for limo companies simply to buy some glue.
Thanking the doctor who performed open-heart surgery on you by sending her an e-mail that reads, simply, "thx." This unseemly activity is, admittedly, not dangerous, except in the way it devalues human discourse and causes at least one member of a profession necessary to our survival on the planet to question his life's purpose. A "thx" ban could be enforced either through the creation of a Big Brother-like scanning system or a complaints bureau. Violators would be forced to type what they had previously neglected to type -- "thank you very much" -- 5,000 times a day for two weeks.
Using a paper shredder or fax machine while wearing a necktie. The male equivalent to the eyeliner-on-a-moving-vehicle scenario, this imperiling activity is seen daily in offices nationwide. Yet no one talks about it. That we live in a country whose restaurants regularly bear informational posters about the Heimlich maneuver only underscores the casual disregard we have for potential necktie-related mayhem. Offenders of this ban might be forced to wear their tattered neckties to work, or to do volunteer work at a local Kinko's.
Calling someone "honey" if you are not Southern or a waitress. Instant or feigned intimacy is too much for some people to bear, and may result in friction or even violence. The issuing of a DYHM (Don't you honey ME!) ticket might do much to cool the fires of sudden or false ardor. Repeat offenders would be sent to work at large, nameless corporations, or be required to move to Tupelo.

If it didn't have the CNN link, I'd have thought it was a Cracked article.

It's definitely written tongue-in-cheek. I think your sense of humour is different from ours.

CNN does not normally run a humor section, and it is not clear that this is intended to be humor.

Henry Alford has written for the New York Times, and Vanity Fair for over a decade. He has also written for the New Yorker. It is entirely possible that you have heard him on National Public Radio.

He is the author of a humor collection, Municipal Bondage, and of an account of his attempts to become a working actor, Big Kiss, which won a Thurber Prize. His last book was How to Live: A Search for Wisdom from Old People (While They are Still on This Earth), which was named a Best Book of the Year by Publishers Weekly. In January, 2012, Twelve Books will publish his book about manners, Would It Kill You To Stop Doing That?
http://henryalford.com/?page_id=193

Re: RexDraconis111 (Post 4825960)
RexDraconis111 wrote:


If it didn't have the CNN link, I'd have thought it was a Cracked article.



Maybe it was intended by the author to be that but the CNN editors misunderstood? Confused