[bang]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090729/ap_on_go_co/us_driving_texting (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090729/ap_on_go_co/us_driving_texting)
[clap]
So you mean no more dumb douche bag swerving to to the left?
It won't make any difference, they have a similar law here in Australia, Talking or Texting while driving is Illegal, big fines and big points, people still keep doing it, they couldn't care less.
People seem to have an issue with patience when dealing with Mobile phones, if it rings, they must answer it, no matter how rude or inappropriate the time or place may be.
Some people are just so god damned rude when it comes to Mobile phone use, I just want to rip it from there hands, throw it to the ground and Stomp the make the beast with two backsing thing!
Then Horse whip the make the beast with two backsing owner. [evil]
There should be the technology to not allow cell phones to work in vehicles moving faster than 10 mph, with an exception for 911 calls.
I totally feel that something needs to be done but I don't know what. As nice as making laws is, the laws need to be enforced. It's like speeding. There aren't enough LEOs on the road to enforce speed limits so a lot of people ignore them and go as fast as they want unless they see an LEO. It'd be nice we had cell signal jammers in our cars that only operated while the car was running. Then nobody would be able to chat on the phone or text while driving and if they break down they can still call for help.
Quote from: redxblack on July 29, 2009, 04:17:05 PM
There should be the technology to not allow cell phones to work in vehicles moving faster than 10 mph, with an exception for 911 calls.
I'd like my passenger to be able to make a call. :P
Quote from: Holden on July 29, 2009, 04:36:33 PM
I'd like my passenger to be able to make a call. :P
Too bad? :P That's why I said I don't know. I've thought about it but haven't come up with a good solution for it yet. I guess the best solution would be to follow anyone you catch doing that stuff and shoot them once they get out of their car. Then once we kill all the stupid people the problem will be over. If that won't work, I've got nothin'. :-\
It is basically unenforceable.
Kinda like the girl I saw today driving, making a left in an intersection with her adorable little dog on her lap hanging his cute little paws out the window, while she held a water bottle in one hand, pouring it for the obviously very thirsty pup. [roll]
It's illegal here for a driver to text, or talk on a cell phone that isn't hands free, when driving.
The law doesn't mean shit. People still do it ALL the time. I'm sure they write an occasional ticket...but it doesn't stop anyone.
Quote from: redxblack on July 29, 2009, 04:17:05 PM
There should be the technology to not allow cell phones to work in vehicles moving faster than 10 mph, with an exception for 911 calls.
Most vehicles these days have switches in the seats and seltbelts for that make the beast with two backsing buzzer/chime. So we just add a cell phone detector, if the cars computer senses a single occupant and an active cell phone. A nice pleasant voice " Talk or drive you have 10 seconds" , after 10 seconds the computer goes into a limp-home mode ( 10 mph max ). To reset you have to shut off both the car and the cell phone, then re-start the car with the cell phone off.
If we can't have smart drivers then the car will to do the thinking.
That works for me. Alternately, a separate lane for phone calls would be okay. I'd prefer it was the berm with the car stopped.
As far as wanting passengers to be able to make calls, I don't have much empathy. Maybe life shouldn't be so convenient. If a passenger can make a call, so can a driver and we know how that works out. Treat cell phones like open liquor containers.
Quote from: sno_duc on July 29, 2009, 04:56:15 PM
If we can't have smart drivers then the car will to do the thinking.
:o
that's a frightening direction
how about just include cell phones into the DUII law?
same idea
you're impaired
It's too difficult to enforce. How can I distinguish, at a glance, if you are texting or dialing a number (which is legal)? It's also much harder to see a texter then a cell phone user as the texter holds the device almost in their lap most of the time.
Quote from: Eeyore on July 29, 2009, 05:09:38 PM
how about just include cell phones into the DUII law?
same idea
you're impaired
How would you prove the level of impairment? I think I could walk ten paces in a straight line and talk on the phone at the same time. Whatabout all the people so stupid that they can't drive well even when that is all they are doing? Can I arrest them too?
While I've personaly witnessed some stupid $hit by [moto]'s, it pales compared to some of the multi-tasking dolts you see every day. [moto] pretty much forces you to focus on the task at hand.
Unfortunately, we can't criminalize stupid so we seek to punish symptoms.
Quote from: hbliam on July 29, 2009, 05:11:47 PM
How would you prove the level of impairment? I think I could walk ten paces in a straight line and talk on the phone at the same time. Whatabout all the people so stupid that they can't drive well even when that is all they are doing? Can I arrest them too?
but I can do that drunk
;)
Cell phone records
if the record shows you had activity during the stop = impaired/distracted
on a personal level I feel that cell phones are no more a distraction than any other gadget in a vehicle
be it the moon roof controls or changing radio stations
but
I am comfortable multitasking whilst driving
others are not
so
the question is how does one blanket subjectivity?
Everyone on the road thinks everyone else can't drive.
Quote from: kopfjager on July 29, 2009, 06:34:33 PM
Everyone on the road thinks everyone else can't drive.
good thing for me it only matters to me what i think
;D
I'm gonna go off a bit here, so for those that don't want to hear it, don't make the beast with two backsing read it.
This world has become a pussy whipped version of what I've read it used to be. Think back, way back, to the western days. Did people rob others? You bet. When they got caught and shot down in the street, did anyone give a shit, no.
Now we are making laws to ban shit people shouldn't be doing ANYWAY. make the beast with two backs, what is worse, some dumb pregnant dog texting, or some fat bastard trying to eat a triple bacon heart attack burger while driving a smart car?
There is no more natural selection, because we as a society feel like laws should protect and govern the way idiots want to live.
If you ass is dumb enough to make the beast with two backsing play with a hair dryer while taking a bath....NO warning label for you, you SHOULD die. Less idiots would mean a lot less burden on those that arn't complete dumbasses, and hence we wouldn't need a stupid no-texting while driving law.
-End rant.
get off my lawn zipperhead
So, your saying the dumbasses would kill themselves off drying their hair in the tub, and we wouldn't have to worry about them texting on the highway? :D
ooh we could have a free hairdryer giveaway at all bath and bodyworks locations
Quote from: TAftonomos on July 29, 2009, 06:43:18 PM
Less idiots would mean a lot less burden on those that arn't complete dumbasses, and hence we wouldn't need a stupid no-texting while driving law.
-End rant.
The flaw in your logis is the idiot most likely runs into innocent non-idiot. If you could guarantee 100% idiot v idiot collisions, I'm all for it.
Quote from: hbliam on July 29, 2009, 07:08:10 PM
The flaw in your logis is the idiot most likely runs into innocent non-idiot. If you could guarantee 100% idiot v idiot collisions, I'm all for it.
exactly! and if such collisions could be guaranteed, we could charge admission to watch.
Easiest way to guarantee that is to make us all idiots. :D
(http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/usa/images-2/president-camancho-idiocracy.jpg)
Idiocracy!!! Great Movie!
Which reminds me, I have to get that back from someone.
Oh, and it's on Comedy Central this weekend.
Isn't being an idiot kind of subjective? We all look pretty dumb to Steven Hawking.
Quote from: Rufus120 on July 29, 2009, 09:55:44 PM
Isn't being an idiot kind of subjective? We all look pretty dumb to Steven Hawking.
Sure it's subjective, it's also not necessarily applicable. He's smarter than me. I'm probably better at driving, because you know, I can
move. I know no ends of incredibly intelligent people. They too, are idiots.
Quote from: Rufus120 on July 29, 2009, 09:55:44 PM
Isn't being an idiot kind of subjective? We all look pretty dumb to Steven Hawking.
yeah
well he talks funny so screw him
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences)
Just to answer hbliam's question about level of distraction versus a DUI - I know the university here and probably a lot more have run studies both on the road with instrumented cars & cameras and in there driving simulator that shows texting is as bad or worse than driving slightly over the BA limit. They have also done with same with sleep deprivation.
One answer to limit distractions could be to actually make driving more difficult. What if you needed both hands just to keep the car moving? Sort of like a mush mower with the safety interlock, or a tractor with stick control? What if all the roads had more curves and obstacles so if you ignore the road for 2 seconds, you will hit concrete and FU your car?
mitt
would that mean that non automatic cars would have to have paddle shifters in the wheel? sweet!
the only way it could be enforced would be if all cell phone use was illegal while the car is moving. cop sees you on the phone, you get a ticket. simple. cop sees you swerving all over the road, you get a ticket for reckless driving (as you should anyway) need to make or take a call while on the road? pull over.
the above is not necessarily my preference, just the only way i see to make such a ban enforceable.
the reality is that such a law will only make it easier to convict people (and for the ambulance chasers to sue) when they cause auto accidents, but only after the fact.
Quote from: mitt on July 30, 2009, 05:23:00 AMOne answer to limit distractions could be to actually make driving more difficult. What if you needed both hands just to keep the car moving? Sort of like a mush mower with the safety interlock, or a tractor with stick control? What if all the roads had more curves and obstacles so if you ignore the road for 2 seconds, you will hit concrete and FU your car?
This is one reason why I encourage all new drivers to learn with a manual transmission. It gives you lots more feedback if you're not driving well/attentively,
How bout a special license required to drive an automatic transmission? Doctor's approval type of thing (e.g. for those with a crippled right arm or left leg)... but I don't see why on earth a healthy teenager should require a slush box. [bang]
If you're too busy to shift, you're too busy to drive!
In what world do you people live in? Do we really need another unenforcible law? Why not just ban cars? That would solve all the issues.
we live in a world where morons who should be paying attention to the road are busy texting instead......and potentially causing accidents which might involve innocent bystanders/drivers/loved ones.
but you're right. its unenforceable. but no need to ban cars. better to just ban cell phones while driving all together
Quote from: redxblack on July 29, 2009, 04:17:05 PM
There should be the technology to not allow cell phones to work in vehicles moving faster than 10 mph, with an exception for 911 calls.
I like this idea. I would think it would be easy since most phones have some type of gps system built into them these days. I would think you could at least disable text or phone calls seperately if they wanted.
Then again this would probably lead to a bunch of a holes doing 9 mph down the highway.
Quote from: duccarlos on July 30, 2009, 09:28:07 AM
In what world do you people live in? Do we really need another unenforcible law? Why not just ban cars? That would solve all the issues.
That would work for me!
I have a neighbor who is a LEO. So far he has only written one cell phone ticket. That was to the dumb lady that ran into his stopped (on police business) patrol car with with the light bar in full display.
If you would let LEOs shoot these people on site, then this would not be a problem. But no. You continue to coddle them.
Just roll back the auto safety laws. No more seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, etc.
Start manufacturing the Pinto again even. [evil]
Maybe if people knew that being stupid and getting into an accident would kill them, they'd pay more attention...both to what they're doing, and what those around them are doing.
Automobile safety should be left to driver skill...just like it is on a motorcycle.
Nah...that wouldn't work either. :-\
Quote from: Scooter Montgomery on July 30, 2009, 09:54:15 AM
I like this idea. I would think it would be easy since most phones have some type of gps system built into them these days. I would think you could at least disable text or phone calls seperately if they wanted.
Then again this would probably lead to a bunch of a holes doing 9 mph down the highway.
How's your phone know you're not on a train or a bus? What if your kid disappeared and you couldn't find out if he was all right because he got a ride from someone else or went out on a bicycle? Well, I guess you'll never know that anyway. [cheeky]
But I'd like my phone to at least be able to ring while I'm driving to act as a pager.
brain fart edit:
Quote from: redxblack on July 30, 2009, 11:41:22 AM
cell phones already have GPS and GPS does not require their own network of sats. They triangulate position based on the location of known orbiting sats.
no way. ;D
cell phones already have GPS and GPS does not require their own network of sats. They triangulate position based on the location of known orbiting sats.
Without getting too into banned topics, this should NEVER EVER EVER EVER come from the Federal Government. It is a state right issue.
This is what ruined states to make their own laws:
"The legislation would require states to ban texting or e-mailing while operating a moving vehicle or lose 25 percent of their annual federal highway funding. It would be patterned after the way Congress required states to adopt a national drunken driving ban."
//done
Jesus-none of you can survive without a cell phone? What'd you do before them?
Am I the only one tired of being expected to be available 24-7?
I like this law now i know i can sue and win when that dip shit on the phone hits me. and trust me you can tell and when it comes to court you better believe that their cell phone records are coming out.
Quote from: Latinbalar on July 30, 2009, 11:51:04 AM
I like this law now i know i can sue and win when that dip shit on the phone hits me. and trust me you can tell and when it comes to court you better believe that their cell phone records are coming out.
They already do this in the UK.
I was talking to a guy in my company who is a britt and lives outside of London.
He pretty much said whenever there is a car accident the police call the mobile provider to see when the last text message was sent. It goes straight into the police report.
That is a little too big brotherish for me, though.
Quote from: MrIncredible on July 30, 2009, 11:48:07 AM
Am I the only one tired of being expected to be available 24-7?
No
i've said it before
I would love a cataclysm
roll tech right back to the days of jeremiah johnson
at least until I get sick or need surgery
then i wouldn't mind a time warp to about 500 years from now
Quote from: cyrus buelton on July 30, 2009, 11:53:37 AM
They already do this in the UK.
I was talking to a guy in my company who is a britt and lives outside of London.
He pretty much said whenever there is a car accident the police call the mobile provider to see when the last text message was sent. It goes straight into the police report.
That is a little too big brotherish for me, though.
[laugh]A cell phone at a car accident seems like finding a knife at a stabbing.....seems like a reasonable thing to check.
OK, now I get a bit more serious:
I get as pissed off as everyone else when an idiot almost runs me off the rode when they are preoccupied with (on the cell, texting, speaking to their passenger, changing their radio, READING A BOOK). Go ahead and fill in the blank. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all these are still legal in at least 48 states. The only reason why they still have not banned cell phones while driving in California is because, like hbliam mentioned, the level of impairment is not quantifiable. The best they could come up with was forcing people to use handfrees (bluetooth). Unless you're going to stock LEO's with x-ray vision to figure out why this particular driver keeps staring at their crotch, then this "law" would simply be a waste of various people's time. Not to mention our tax dollars.
I bet where I live this filthy rich police department will enact a "Text Messaging Task Force"
So their going to invest in the x-ray vision glasses?
Quote from: hbliam on July 29, 2009, 05:11:47 PM
How would you prove the level of impairment? I think I could walk ten paces in a straight line and talk on the phone at the same time. Whatabout all the people so stupid that they can't drive well even when that is all they are doing? Can I arrest them too?
I've been wishing
someone would do that!!! ;D
Quote from: redxblack on July 30, 2009, 11:41:22 AM
cell phones already have GPS and GPS does not require their own network of sats. They triangulate position based on the location of known orbiting sats.
uuuh.mmm
maybe i am misunderstanding you, but GPS (global positioning system)
IS a network of satellites. they do indeed triangulate your position based on the known position of orbiting satellites. managed by the DOD, and free to access (with proper equipment) so long as the DOD deems it to not be detrimental to national security
What I meant is they're not a separate network for that purpose.
uh, yeah...they are.
if you are referring to the global positioning satellites, which make up the system.
if you are referring to the "capability" that many (most) cell phones now have, then yes......they borrow the information from the GPS satellites.
sorry to be picky, but i am still not clear what you are saying.
Quote from: herm on July 30, 2009, 07:54:18 PM
uh, yeah...they are.
if you are referring to the global positioning satellites, which make up the system.
if you are referring to the "capability" that many (most) cell phones now have, then yes......they borrow the information from the GPS satellites.
sorry to be picky, but i am still not clear what you are saying.
He's saying more of you should insist of GPS, more satellites, and a raise for me, the builder of satellites.
Although if you do not really wish for additional satellites, but want me to have more money, you may send it to me directly.
I've gotten sick of my coworkers endangering my life as they take a call or send emails on their BB while driving, so I've taken to either confiscating the BB or the car. :P
Oh, and I've now also got them all trained not to expect me to answer the phone when I'm commuting on my bike. [thumbsup]
Quote from: herm on July 30, 2009, 07:54:18 PM
uh, yeah...they are.
if you are referring to the global positioning satellites, which make up the system.
if you are referring to the "capability" that many (most) cell phones now have, then yes......they borrow the information from the GPS satellites.
sorry to be picky, but i am still not clear what you are saying.
We're on the same page, but I'm not being clear. I meant AT&T wouldn't be launching additional GPS trackers, it's an existing network. It's not separate by carriers or receivers, unlike DirecTV, Dish Network, etc. It's not like they'd need more "bandwidth" and thus more trackers.
Relax, no one needs to worry. Nothing was said about banning texting on a motorcycle
Texting on a Motorcycle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K59eMpWsyNE#lq-hq-vhq)
if texting impairs you the same as DUI, then the punishment should be the same.
that might work ;D
Quote from: redxblack on July 30, 2009, 10:20:41 PM
We're on the same page, but I'm not being clear. I meant AT&T wouldn't be launching additional GPS trackers, it's an existing network. It's not separate by carriers or receivers, unlike DirecTV, Dish Network, etc. It's not like they'd need more "bandwidth" and thus more trackers.
QFT... my apologies for removing the incriminating text to which you had originally replied (and thereby all context). I must have been thinking about those TV satellites or something. [cheeky]
:o http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/31/texting-talking-ny-trucke_n_248378.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/31/texting-talking-ny-trucke_n_248378.html)
last statement in the video....
"he's doing it all wrong!"
LMAO
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/07/30/national/a115124D93.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/07/30/national/a115124D93.DTL)
Driver texts, talks, hits car, crashes into pool
(07-30) 11:57 PDT Lockport, N.Y. (AP) --
Police said a Buffalo-area tow truck driver was texting on one cell phone while talking on another when he slammed into a car and crashed into a swimming pool. Niagara County sheriff's deputies said 25-year-old Nicholas Sparks of Burt admitted he was texting and talking when his flatbed truck hit the car Wednesday morning in Lockport.
The truck then crashed through a fence and sideswiped a house before rolling front-end first into an in-ground pool.
The 68-year-old woman driving the car suffered head injuries and was in good condition. Her 8-year-old niece suffered minor injuries.
Sparks was charged with reckless driving, talking on a cell phone and following too closely. It couldn't be determined Thursday morning if he has a lawyer.
(http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/07/30/ba-texting_tow_t_0500432871.jpg)
Carpool lane is full.
Good to hear that the woman and child were not seriously hurt; must have been a sight to see tow truck towing a tow truck.