OFF TOPIC CONTENT - communication devices while driving - Closed

[Monk]

On the news tonight. There is a big push to outlaw "ALL" communication devices including blue-tooth talkies. The only exception is going to be GPS's.

That's all States !

More to come..... We'll see.........

[Guest]

I am really good with all cell phone use being banned.

But here in the mountains we use our Chatterboxes as a safety tool.

It is really nice to be able to warn the group of obsticals in the road.

Or Cops! Cops! Cops!

[Dmitry]

They are gonna have hard time enforcing it, will have to rip out all the built in BlueTooth gadgets that come with new cars, like the ones able to read you a text message you just received. How can they even prove that you are on the phone when you are having a conversation with your car?

I think they are trying to ask for more but in the end will settle for less and just ban all hand-held devices on federal level? We can still use cell phones here in RI and Mass has partial ban, they are not allowing teens to make calls but they can receive them... some bullshit compromise.

[Earthshake]

It would be great, but I don't believe it will ever happen on a national basis. It's a recommendation from the NTSB and they don't have regulatory authority. If it happens it will probably be a local ordinance, for instance, it is already illegal to text and drive in Clemson, SC.

[Guest]

I like having the Bluetooth headset to talk to my wife while riding. That would be a bummer if they outlaw it...But, flip side I will not hear her say SLOWDOWN! all the time. Doh!

It's a nice tool. Overall. but not a necessity.

[Rice]

A destructed person will be destructed by anything. There are plenty of destructions when behind the wheel other than talking on the phone. Like talking to someone in the car. Is that going to be outlawed as well?

Come to think of it, driving in itself is dangerous for the driver and for innocent bystanders around. Let's outlaw driving all together.

Next step - Walking. You know what can happen if you are destructed while walking?

I just love it every time someone decides to protect me from myself.

[smoothsailin]

I feel the only way the govenment would be able to put a stop to (most) cell phone, texting, and computer use while driving would be to force electronics manufacturers to engineer a speed-related shutoff into the equipment. Of course, even if that happens people will discover ways around it.

Otherwise, I can't see how police will be able to reliably enforce laws put in place to prevent such activity.

What about GPS use or conversations between the driver and passengers? To me either can be just as distracting as talking on a cell phone (hands-free or otherwise).

All the teens and young adults I see texting while driving really does give me pause though. Something really does need to be done to stop this practice.

[smoothsailin]

I just love it every time someone decides to protect me from myself.

I also have a problem with the government passing laws which seem to primarily be designed to protect ME from MYSELF. Helmet and seatbelt laws, laws designed to penalize citizens who don't have medical insurance are a few that come to mind. I would still wear my helmet, seatbelt and would pay for medical insurance, but I don't agree w/the government passing laws requiring me to do so.

On the other hand, driving distracted represents a danger to not only the distracted driver, but also to anyone who may be on or near the road. So in this case I don't have problem with the passage of laws to protect innocent bystanders from the careless actions of distracted drivers.

[Monk]

A destructed person will be destructed by anything. There are plenty of destructions when behind the wheel other than talking on the phone. Like talking to someone in the car. Is that going to be outlawed as well?

Come to think of it, driving in itself is dangerous for the driver and for innocent bystanders around. Let's outlaw driving all together.

Next step - Walking. You know what can happen if you are destructed while walking?

I just love it every time someone decides to protect me from myself.

Peeps that are distracted are for sure destuctive......... There has already been a study on peeps talking face to face in a car vs's one talking to someone on the cell....... The end result is that the peep not in the car destracts the driver during an emer' and the driver can't/won't just drop the phone(stop talking and felt compelled to take the time to explain emerg') ..... Like lost time not covering the brake lever while riding.

[Monk]

I feel the only way the govenment would be able to put a stop to (most) cell phone, texting, and computer use while driving would be to force electronics manufacturers to engineer a speed-related shutoff into the equipment. Of course, even if that happens people will discover ways around it.

Otherwise, I can't see how police will be able to reliably enforce laws put in place to prevent such activity.

What about GPS use or conversations between the driver and passengers? To me either can be just as distracting as talking on a cell phone (hands-free or otherwise).

All the teens and young adults I see texting while driving really does give me pause though. Something really does need to be done to stop this practice.

Actually, that is part of the plan, is to make it so the phones won't work while in motion. The company I retired from had that in place already, the truck moves and the computer blacks out.(but that was a direct electric connection before cells, but they had already seen the distraction problems).

[Monk]

A destructed person will be destructed by anything. There are plenty of destructions when behind the wheel other than talking on the phone. Like talking to someone in the car. Is that going to be outlawed as well? Come to think of it, driving in itself is dangerous for the driver and for innocent bystanders around. Let's outlaw driving all together. Next step - Walking. You know what can happen if you are destructed while walking? I just love it every time someone decides to protect me from myself.

Rice ..... I've always been an advocate for the government not controlling our basic rights like helmets, seat belts, etc. I've changed when it comes to peeps endangering "my" life, In this case they aren't protecting us from ourselves, they're protecting us road users from "other" distracted users.

Every day I see some fonking lumacks driving out of control of their cars, I can't even put a count on how often I've had to do some kind of counter measure to avoid them(due to them messing with a cell phone from what I can tell)..

Next they need to control the deer from crossing our roads.

[Rice]

The reason why the "nanny" bothers me so much is because it trains people to not take responsibility for their own actions.

If you come up to the edge of the Grand Canyon, there is a fence and a plethora of signs explaining that coming too close to the edge may result in falling and consequently, injury or death. This is perfectly normal and accepted here, in the US. But if you visit a similar sight elsewhere in the world, you won't see quite so many warnings and signs and legal disclaimers. In many cases you won't even see a fence. The funny thing is though that folks don't seem to fall off in those places any more often than they do at the Grand Canyon - Probably less, if I had to guess.

My point is that such nannying breeds a nation of people who have no concept of personal responsibility. And this isn't good.

There is also a much more controversial matter of natural controls that must exert pressure on the population in order to keep the gene pool from degrading over time.

[Monk]

The reason why the "nanny" bothers me so much is because it trains people to not take responsibility for their own actions.

If you come up to the edge of the Grand Canyon, there is a fence and a plethora of signs explaining that coming too close to the edge may result in falling and consequently, injury or death. This is perfectly normal and accepted here, in the US. But if you visit a similar sight elsewhere in the world, you won't see quite so many warnings and signs and legal disclaimers. In many cases you won't even see a fence. The funny thing is though that folks don't seem to fall off in those places any more often than they do at the Grand Canyon - Probably less, if I had to guess.

My point is that such nannying breeds a nation of people who have no concept of personal responsibility. And this isn't good.

There is also a much more controversial matter of natural controls that must exert pressure on the population in order to keep the gene pool from degrading over time.

I totally agree with you on "Nanning"..... I think Darwin covered it best......... Most of this comes from lawyers/insurance, and is starting to spread to the other Countries as well.

[Knife]

Life is a risk. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. That's how I like it. I don't want big brother telling me what I can and can't eat, wear, listen to, or whatever. I'd rather take my chances. We have more than enough laws now. There are already laws on the books that cover careless and reckless driving; just expand those to include intentional distractions as a contributing factor. Also, why put many of the people in these industries out of work? Isn't unemployment already way too high? Besides, the federal, state, and local governments don't really care about you. They are solely in the business of finding more and more ways to increase revenues by stealling more and more of your money through taxation.

Rant over.

[Knife]

Next they need to control the deer from crossing our roads.

That's an easy one. It's called year-round open season deer hunting. Sure could feed a lot of people while at the same time save some lives.

Deer are so thick where I live that you can't drive even a few miles without seeing one on or near the road. Hell, they're often in my driveway when I leave in the morning. I live in a residential development surrounded by many other residential developments, 30 miles outside of Philadelphia. I'm not out in the boondocks. These animals are splattered all over the place! A huge waste of quality protein, to say nothing of the vehicular damages, injuries, and even deaths.

I'm not a hunter myself, but I support those who do hunt. Time to cull the herds.

[Knife]

A destructed person will be destructed by anything. There are plenty of destructions when behind the wheel other than talking on the phone. Like talking to someone in the car. Is that going to be outlawed as well? Come to think of it, driving in itself is dangerous for the driver and for innocent bystanders around. Let's outlaw driving all together. Next step - Walking. You know what can happen if you are destructed while walking? I just love it every time someone decides to protect me from myself.

Yeah! Let's just outlaw motorized vehicles altogether so we can all be "safe" in the controlling hands of our dear leaders.

[Tamworth]

This law, and the ones locally in place have nothing to do with generating money or protect people from themselves. This is about protecting innocent people from careless and distracted drivers. it's not created with the intention of ticketing every person breaking the law, it's meant to forcefully raise awareness in a group of people who still don't get it.

[bayarearider]

good luck getting that genie back in the bottle...

:lurk:

[Rice]

This law, and the ones locally in place have nothing to do with generating money or protect people from themselves. This is about protecting innocent people from careless and distracted drivers. it's not created with the intention of ticketing every person breaking the law, it's meant to forcefully raise awareness in a group of people who still don't get it.

I understand the intent.

However I do take exception to this method of raising awareness. This is really what is at issue here.

[Monk]

The problem is that when people can't take it upon theirselves to do the right thing, then part of the community will start complaining, and when it gets enough attention than the gov/lawyers/insur/etc. get involved, and to quell the outcry they make a law directly related to the outcry. So instead of blaming them we should blame ourselves for not being responsible enough to stop the problem ourselves "as individuals".

Of course this won't happen, hence the laws.

That's like blaming the government for allowing other countries to sell their products in America...... When all we have to do is just buy American made products. (not that I think that's the way to go, I think we need international commerce, it's just an example).

[Tamworth]

This law, and the ones locally in place have nothing to do with generating money or protect people from themselves. This is about protecting innocent people from careless and distracted drivers. it's not created with the intention of ticketing every person breaking the law, it's meant to forcefully raise awareness in a group of people who still don't get it.

I understand the intent.

However I do take exception to this method of raising awareness. This is really what is at issue here.

Making it a law is the only way to change the behavior.

[Rice]

This law, and the ones locally in place have nothing to do with generating money or protect people from themselves. This is about protecting innocent people from careless and distracted drivers. it's not created with the intention of ticketing every person breaking the law, it's meant to forcefully raise awareness in a group of people who still don't get it.

I understand the intent.

However I do take exception to this method of raising awareness. This is really what is at issue here.

Making it a law is the only way to change the behavior.

Education is another way. Much more effective in many ways than one.

[texasvfr]

Gee, how did anyone exist in a vehicle before cell phones, bluetooth and email. Where are mad mothers against text messages ?

Talking to someone in a car is just as distracting as texting ? No way. How many wrecks have been chalked up to talking to a passenger compared to playing a game or texting or staring at a gps ?

I know that the nanny state would like to outlaw bikes to start with.But, I remember when Ford introduced a safer car in 1957;padded dash,recessed switches,a steering column that had a crush factor,seat belts,safety glass(!) -it did not sell as it added to the cost of the car. Now, big red offers an air-bag on Goldwings.

Google has just announced that its test fleet of computer controlled cars have traveled 200k miles without a shunt-text all you want then.

Do not get me wrong freedom lovers ,I will always be on a bike ! I can not wait until that idiot who is not paying attention does not have to. Until then, I treat every other vehicle on the road as my enemy who wants to do me harm. 10X when they are on the computer,email,text,games,gps; so sue me if I say that they should be disarmed when the vehicle starts moving. Do you remember what that last ten seconds of road contained when your gps rerouted the trip-whew just missed that pothole did you.

[Guest]

I don't really look at it as the government protecting me from me, as I rarely will answer a call while I am driving.

I do have my phone programmed to my radio.

I do like the law that arrests the aholes who are trying to kill me while I am trying to go to work.

If I die, I want to die on a motorcycle with a smile on my face.

Not pushed under a semi because the chick in the other lane was repling to an LOL.

[Rice]

I don't really look at it as the government protecting me from me, as I rarely will answer a call while I am driving.

I do have my phone programmed to my radio.

I do like the law that arrests the aholes who are trying to kill me while I am trying to go to work.

If I die, I want to die on a motorcycle with a smile on my face.

Not pushed under a semi because the chick in the other lane was repling to an LOL.

Whoever is talking on the phone or texting will just as well be doing something else, like bird watching. It is not the WHAT. It's the WHO.

Take away the phones and aholes will find some other means of spoiling your commute.