Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 13, 2008, 09:05:44 AM
In fact, I would submit that it's more dangerous than no law at all. At least other drivers are put on notice when they see some bozo driving while talking. You know to keep an eye on or move away from a talking driver. After the law, you'll have no idea who only looks like they're there but are actually in another time and place.
Now, if they want to pass a law that prohibits cell phone use altogether while driving, I'd be in favor of that. But this is only 'feelgood' b.s. IMO.
Check out the photo in this link. Looks like soccermom is about to get t-boned by the Von's truck:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24580099/
Post by: Manedwolf on May 13, 2008, 09:10:45 AM
Quote
Now, if they want to pass a law that prohibits cell phone use altogether while driving, I'd be in favor of that.
What is it with you and your love for nanny-state laws? Do you not even realize what you say?
And the reason for handsfree is simple.
You should have both hands on the wheel, not one holding a phone to your ear. If you're driving a manual, you need two hands for that, too, which means you're letting go of something, perhaps the wheel, to shift. And that's not okay, that's stupid.
Many people, myself included, can talk on a handsfree with both hands on the wheel and all attention on the road, talking just as if we were talking to someone in the car. You might be familiar with a long-predating-cellular concept of handsfree communication, since another group whose attention is even more focused on their immediate actions has had no problem with it.
You want to ban talking to your passenger, too, since it might be distracting? How about putting the driver in a soundproof bubble?
Post by: RoadKingLarry on May 13, 2008, 09:25:19 AM
As a motorcyclist with 30+ years on the road I'm all for making the highways safer. And I don't think it is particularly Nanny-ish. We kill more than 45,000 people a year (on average) in MV collisions ( I don't call them "accidents" for a reason.) with 100,000+ injured, maimed and crippled. Our culture is so screwed up when it comes to driving, Accidentally shoot your neighbors tree and you've got a pretty good chance of going to jail. Have an "accident" with your car and kill a family of four, and unless you were under the influence there is a good chance you will get the sympathy nod for having to live with that terrible tragedy
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 13, 2008, 09:26:10 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on May 13, 2008, 09:28:13 AM
It is a little unsettling but I agree with Paddy on this issue.
As a motorcyclist with 30+ years on the road I'm all for making the highways safer. And I don't think it is particularly Nanny-ish.
As a motorcyclist with 30+ years on the road I'm all for making the highways safer. And I don't think it is particularly Nanny-ish.
Yes, it is nanny-ish. You're asking for more laws, more Big Government to protect people from themselves by dictating their behavior.
But then, I live in a state that has no seatbelt or helmet laws, as it seems to regard adults as adults. Odd thing, that.
if you are gonna chose pilots as an example you might wanna remember that if there are 2 polots one handles the radios for a reason.
On a solo flight? That's a neat trick!
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 13, 2008, 09:28:38 AM
Quote
You should have both hands on the wheel, not one holding a phone to your ear. If you're driving a manual, you need two hands for that, too, which means you're letting go of something, perhaps the wheel, to shift. And that's not okay, that's stupid.
And that's where the 'handsfree' laws make no sense. If it's about driving with both hands, what about eating while driving, etc? Why only prohibit talking while driving?
Quote
Many people, myself included, can talk on a handsfree with both hands on the wheel and all attention on the road, talking just as if we were talking to someone in the car.
I can, too. But I keep any calls short and explain to the caller I'm on the road and will call back later (if it looks like the call will take more than a minute). Or, I'll ask the caller to hold while I exit from the freeway and park. Unfortunately, Manedwolf, there seem to be just enough dumbasses out there who can't drive and talk at the same time. Their little pea brains are only capable of one simple activity at a time. That's why it's necessary to pass laws to protect the rest of us from them.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 13, 2008, 09:29:50 AM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 13, 2008, 09:34:07 AM
See the diff?
Post by: AmbulanceDriver on May 13, 2008, 09:38:43 AM
That all being said, we make driving entirely too easy in this country. Personally, I feel that 16 is too young to be driving, and that what little training people get is usually just a parent teaching them the basic mechanics of how to operate a vehicle. Very few people get any actual training in how to handle a vehicle, and even less training in how to handle an emergency. And responsible vehicle operation? What's that? And yes, I know about driver's ed programs. And I also know that most of the kids aren't exactly paying attention to the instructor.
The problem isn't cell phones. The problem isn't a passenger. The problem isn't the radio, or the makeup application, or the fast food meal you just grabbed in the drive-through. All of those are a symptom of the problem. The problem is between the ears of the person operating the vehicle.
RKL, I tend to agree with you that we have a very skewed system in how we deal with "accidents". Frankly, I think that it would be appropriate to involve criminal charges when you do something stupid and it causes someone a loss. And I bet that if Suzy Soccermom knew she might get jail time if she rearended someone while yakking on her cell phone and slurping her soy-milk latte, it might make her think twice about what she was doing.
Post by: RoadKingLarry on May 13, 2008, 09:40:43 AM
It is a little unsettling but I agree with Paddy on this issue.
As a motorcyclist with 30+ years on the road I'm all for making the highways safer. And I don't think it is particularly Nanny-ish.
As a motorcyclist with 30+ years on the road I'm all for making the highways safer. And I don't think it is particularly Nanny-ish.
Yes, it is nanny-ish. You're asking for more laws, more Big Government to protect people from themselves by dictating their behavior.
But then, I live in a state that has no seatbelt or helmet laws, as it seems to regard adults as adults. Odd thing, that.
I disagree, it would be nanny-ish if it was protecting the user from himself (seatbelt laws, helmet laws). It protects me from the clueless dolt with the cell phone much like DUI laws. On the other hand, I'd be all for a law that really held drives responsible for their actions. Here in OK we have been working to get a law passed that would allow for a suspension of drivers license when the driver was found negligent in a court of law in the death of another road user. The response we get is that lawmakers don't want to take away somebodys ability to drive to work to make a living for their family. Never mind the fact that their negligence took away some one elses ability to live.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 13, 2008, 09:42:02 AM
The problem isn't cell phones. The problem isn't a passenger. The problem isn't the radio, or the makeup application, or the fast food meal you just grabbed in the drive-through. All of those are a symptom of the problem. The problem is between the ears of the person operating the vehicle.
There will always be people who will even admit that when faced with a likely accident, they'll scream and close their eyes, no longer in control of their vehicle, not even trying to evade.
The answer is not more big government, unless you want to mandate driving simulator tests with emergency response judgements, and actually ban probably 40% of the population from driving due to an inability to respond to the unexpected with decisive action behind the wheel.
Post by: RoadKingLarry on May 13, 2008, 09:45:06 AM
The answer is not more big government, unless you want to mandate driving simulator tests with emergency response judgements, and actually ban probably 40% of the population from driving due to an inability to respond to the unexpected with decisive action behind the wheel.
I have NO problem with that at all!
Post by: AmbulanceDriver on May 13, 2008, 09:51:41 AM
The answer is not more big government, unless you want to mandate driving simulator tests with emergency response judgements, and actually ban probably 40% of the population from driving due to an inability to respond to the unexpected with decisive action behind the wheel.
I have NO problem with that at all!
Heck, my wife falls into that 40%. When faced with a crisis situation, she freezes. But training CAN overcome that problem. When I first started my EMT training, I tended to freeze up during our practice sessions. But with training, I learned what I was supposed to do. Same thing with driving. Heck, I learned to maneuver a 10,000 lb ambulance through spots I wouldn't possibly have tried with my 3,000 lb Camry before the EVOC I did (Emergency Vehicle Operator's Course). You use the simulator to identify problems, and then you train to correct them. Once they have undergone the training necessary to exercise proper judgment and take correct action in emergencies, they get their license.
Post by: Leatherneck on May 13, 2008, 11:10:36 AM
Quote
The pilot's conversations all directly relate to the opeation of the aircraft. The radio conversations are not taking his brain away from flying. He's not arguing with his wife/girlfriend, making a sales call, lying to his boss, etc. et yada.
Not necessarily. Often there is a need to provide information that doesn't directly relate to the operation of the aircraft (i.e., "flying"). In those cases, i have no problem with "Stand by, Center.") And they won't press it.But I do believe that the average driver cannot afford the mental distraction from keeping position in most traffic situations. How many times have we witnessed delayed starts when a light turns green, wandering wheels in a multi-lane situation, etc etc, showing a distracted driver. How well will they be able to react to an emergency?
I support banning driver cell phone use at all unless stopped. It's me the idiots may hit.
TC
Post by: Tallpine on May 13, 2008, 11:24:19 AM
There are thousands of miles of roads out here where you hardly see another car. I don't see anything wrong with cell phones and driving under those conditions, though good luck getting service.
Hey, I have a novel idea ... why don't we punish people for actually causing an accident/harm, instead of for what they might do ?
Post by: Manedwolf on May 13, 2008, 11:27:12 AM
To make a call, I pat the earpiece and say "call" whomever. The phone asks for confirmation of the name, I say "yes" or "no", and then have a conversation as if the person was in the car. Eyes remain on the road the entire time.
I've also called highway patrol to report an accident and objects in the road while driving at speed.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 13, 2008, 12:42:41 PM
Post by: yesitsloaded on May 13, 2008, 12:49:38 PM
Post by: quiet on May 13, 2008, 12:52:42 PM
seem to be getting popular. CA has one in effect July 1, but I'm skeptical and don't think it will do much good. People will still be talking while driving, and the problem is not the one hand holding the phone. The problem is that the talking driver's mind is not on driving-it's completely involved with the subject of the conversation.
In fact, I would submit that it's more dangerous than no law at all. At least other drivers are put on notice when they see some bozo driving while talking. You know to keep an eye on or move away from a talking driver. After the law, you'll have no idea who only looks like they're there but are actually in another time and place.
Now, if they want to pass a law that prohibits cell phone use altogether while driving, I'd be in favor of that. But this is only 'feelgood' b.s. IMO.
Check out the photo in this link. Looks like soccermom is about to get t-boned by the Von's truck:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24580099/
The same CA law you are talking about bans people under 18 years old from driving and using a cell phone at the same time, even if the cell phone is being used with a hands free device.In fact, I would submit that it's more dangerous than no law at all. At least other drivers are put on notice when they see some bozo driving while talking. You know to keep an eye on or move away from a talking driver. After the law, you'll have no idea who only looks like they're there but are actually in another time and place.
Now, if they want to pass a law that prohibits cell phone use altogether while driving, I'd be in favor of that. But this is only 'feelgood' b.s. IMO.
Check out the photo in this link. Looks like soccermom is about to get t-boned by the Von's truck:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24580099/
Post by: Soybomb on May 13, 2008, 12:54:29 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 13, 2008, 12:54:38 PM
In case the sarcasm doesn't come through: a GPS unit is NOT in the budget anytime soon. But a simple phonecall IS, since I've already got the phone...
It can also be argued that paying attention to a GPS unit means not paying attention to the conditions of the road and the actions of the idiots. If I'm being "talked-in" by someone, I'm still paying attention to the road...
Post by: xavier fremboe on May 13, 2008, 12:59:28 PM
Hey, I have a novel idea ... why don't we punish people for actually causing an accident/harm, instead of for what they might do ?
Like DUI? Sorry, I'm with Paddy on this one. I've had to evade too chatty soccer moms drivers to think that operating a motor vehicle with a handheld cell phone is a right.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 13, 2008, 01:17:14 PM
For the record, I just started a new job that hasn't really gotten off the ground yet (working for a new magazine). That means money is tight, and even "under $300" is probably stiffer than I'm able to spend for something that, honestly, is just a convenience.
Ph yes... I DO indulge in smokes. And yes, I WOULD be healthier and wealthier, right up until I got my 20-life for strangling someone...
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 13, 2008, 01:26:00 PM
Post by: lupinus on May 13, 2008, 01:28:48 PM
Quote
Like DUI? Sorry, I'm with Paddy on this one. I've had to evade too chatty soccer moms drivers to think that operating a motor vehicle with a handheld cell phone is a right.
And a person stopped at a roadblock who was and would have continued driving perfectly safely, but is slightly over an imaginary line in the sand a lawmaker drew in the sand, is a win right?The point is I don't care why you drive like a moron. If you drive in an unsafe manner it doesn't matter why, what matters is that you did and did not control your vehicle properly. Hell I don't really care if you drive with your feet while you use both hands to hold a phone in each ear, if you pay attention to the road and drive safely there is no problem.
Why should I be subject to punishment for doing something I can safely do, just because someone else can not?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 13, 2008, 01:46:17 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 13, 2008, 02:19:01 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 13, 2008, 02:21:51 PM
Post by: Otherguy Overby on May 13, 2008, 03:41:24 PM
Post by: Boomhauer on May 13, 2008, 05:11:17 PM
When I see a pilot in a light plane flying with TWO hands, I see an inexperienced pilot. Trust me on this!
Yep. One hand on the yoke or stick, the other controlling the throttle, tuning radios, working the GPS, whatever. Anytime I would put both of my hands on the yoke, my instructor would yell at me.
Quote
The pilot's conversations all directly relate to the opeation of the aircraft. The radio conversations are not taking his brain away from flying. He's not arguing with his wife/girlfriend, making a sales call, lying to his boss, etc. et yada.
WRONG! I talk to my passengers. I talk to ATC on slow days.
Quote
if you are gonna chose pilots as an example you might wanna remember that if there are 2 polots one handles the radios for a reason.
Uh, I don't have a copilot. I can work the radios, use a chart, use the avionics, communicate with ATC, and fly the plane. And my plane doesn't even have an autopilot. The planes that have two pilots usually have an autopilot, too.
Not only do I use a cell phone while driving, and doing it safely, I also use a ham radio. With a microphone occupying one hand.
Post by: MillCreek on May 13, 2008, 05:51:23 PM
Post by: Boomhauer on May 13, 2008, 05:53:22 PM
I don't have a strong opinion either way on the handsfree cell phone issue, but in the bicycling community, I have read of several cyclist deaths caused by a driver drifting off the road while composing or reading a text message on their phone.
Yeah, texting while driving is extremely stupid. The people that do it are idiots.
Post by: freakazoid on May 13, 2008, 06:18:22 PM
Post by: LadySmith on May 14, 2008, 02:48:55 AM
So what about being able to dial 911 to report a drunk or otherwise unsafe driver, or to report that somebody is stopped along the road and needs help? (the latter for all the people who say they won't stop to help somebody but will just call the HP, etc ...)
The law says it's ok if you use a cell to call 911 the old-fashioned way.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/cellularphonelaws/index.htm
Post by: Jamisjockey on May 14, 2008, 03:41:51 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on May 14, 2008, 04:08:55 AM
Paddy, I'm looking forward to the day when old people are banned from driving beyond a certain age because you drive too slow in the fast lane with your blinker on.
YES THEY DO.
And for some reason, it's invariably a Buick.
(Let's see if he's in favor of banning this?)
Post by: xavier fremboe on May 14, 2008, 05:22:02 AM
What is the difference between talking on a cell phone and talking to the person sitting beside you, or better yet in the back seat? Also what is the difference between talking on a cell phone and a trucker talking on his CB?
You can talk to someone inside the car with your hands on the wheel. A trucker only has to hold the mike when talking. The rest of the audio comes through a speaker. Someone on a cell phone without a hands free has to hold the stupid thing to their ear.
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 14, 2008, 05:26:03 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on May 14, 2008, 05:36:14 AM
I chose that moment to load .410 shells into the Judge and pick that up instead.
Post by: xavier fremboe on May 14, 2008, 05:40:12 AM
Quote
Like DUI? Sorry, I'm with Paddy on this one. I've had to evade too chatty soccer moms drivers to think that operating a motor vehicle with a handheld cell phone is a right.
And a person stopped at a roadblock who was and would have continued driving perfectly safely, but is slightly over an imaginary line in the sand a lawmaker drew in the sand, is a win right?The point is I don't care why you drive like a moron. If you drive in an unsafe manner it doesn't matter why, what matters is that you did and did not control your vehicle properly. Hell I don't really care if you drive with your feet while you use both hands to hold a phone in each ear, if you pay attention to the road and drive safely there is no problem.
Why should I be subject to punishment for doing something I can safely do, just because someone else can not?
How many drunks have you had to persuade from driving home over their protests?
It's great that you can drive with your phone in one hand and the wheel in the other. I'm sure I've never had to avoid you or any of the other exceptional one handed drivers here on APS whilst driving home. I'm just sick of having to avoid the bad one handed drivers, the vast majority of whom will (IMHO) curtail their use after one or two citations. I know as a young pup two citations kept me and my 20/10 vision and lightning fast reflexes from exceeding the speed limit...
This thread seems to be taking on a "They can make me stop holding my cell phone when they pry it from my cold dead hand" vibe. This slope is not that slippery.
Post by: freakazoid on May 14, 2008, 05:42:58 AM
Quote
You can talk to someone inside the car with your hands on the wheel. A trucker only has to hold the mike when talking.
Therefore using only one hand. I drive with only one hand on the wheel. I talk on my cell phone while driving with one hand on the wheel and one hand on the phone. So what is the difference between driving with one hand on the wheel and talking on the phone and talking to someone in the car with one hand on the wheel?
Quote
I'm just sick of having to avoid the bad one handed drivers,
And anti-gunners are sick of having to avoid the bad gun owners.
Post by: xavier fremboe on May 14, 2008, 06:09:47 AM
Quote
You can talk to someone inside the car with your hands on the wheel. A trucker only has to hold the mike when talking.
Therefore using only one hand. I drive with only one hand on the wheel. I talk on my cell phone while driving with one hand on the wheel and one hand on the phone. So what is the difference between driving with one hand on the wheel and talking on the phone and talking to someone in the car with one hand on the wheel?
Quote
I'm just sick of having to avoid the bad one handed drivers,
And anti-gunners are sick of having to avoid the bad gun owners.
Anti-gun point: Huh? It's been my observation that anti-gunners are against all guns in general, not trying to keep the guns away from the bad guys. If I were advocating the confiscation of all cell phones, and if the right to use a cell phone was guaranteed by the constitution, you might have a point.
The point is simple, the proximate cause of many collisions is one-handed cell phone use.
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 14, 2008, 06:24:11 AM
Quote
The point is simple, the proximate cause of many collisions is one-handed cell phone use.
Then you should have both hands on the cell phone then.
Post by: freakazoid on May 14, 2008, 06:28:16 AM
Quote
Anti-gun point:...
It depends on what you mean by "anti-gun". There are those who wish all guns to be banned, it seems generally that they just don't have an understanding of why firearms are important. And there are those who feel it is unnecessary to have "assault weapons", some can be the same as above but it seems to be usually people who feel that the only purpose a person should have with one is if it is used only for hunting.
Quote
and if the right to use a cell phone was guaranteed by the constitution,
Some people feel that owning a firearms isn't a right guaranteed by the constitution.
Post by: xavier fremboe on May 14, 2008, 06:34:04 AM
Quote
The point is simple, the proximate cause of many collisions is one-handed cell phone use.
Then you should have both hands on the cell phone then.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 14, 2008, 06:35:03 AM
Paddy, I'm looking forward to the day when old people are banned from driving beyond a certain age because you drive too slow in the fast lane with your blinker on.
I agree. But 'a certain age' shouldn't be the criteria. Instead, begin requiring annual driving exams at 'a certain age'. When incompetence sets in (as it surely will), pull the driver's license.
Post by: cordex on May 14, 2008, 07:33:39 AM
I agree. But 'a certain age' shouldn't be the criteria. Instead, begin requiring annual driving exams at 'a certain age'. When incompetence sets in (as it surely will), pull the driver's license.
We don't have exams to test individual competence for DWIs, vehicular speed or cell phone usage. Why should we make an exception for dangerous elderly drivers?
Post by: Jamisjockey on May 14, 2008, 07:41:26 AM
Paddy, I'm looking forward to the day when old people are banned from driving beyond a certain age because you drive too slow in the fast lane with your blinker on.
I agree. But 'a certain age' shouldn't be the criteria. Instead, begin requiring annual driving exams at 'a certain age'. When incompetence sets in (as it surely will), pull the driver's license.
Why not? You've clearly decided that all cell phone users are dangerous? Why not all old people?
Post by: lupinus on May 14, 2008, 09:49:26 AM
The issue is your focus. If someones focus is on their conversation instead of the road it doesn't matter one hoot if they have one or two hands on the wheel. If someone is driving like an idiot, by all means, punish them for it. If someone is driving like an idiot due to their own introduction of something (cell phone, burger, etc) by all means up the punishment.
However, punishment on the grounds that they might be more dangerous is ridicules. Plenty of anti-gunners would love to ban your guns because you might shoot someone. For you smokers, many out there would love to ban your smokes cause they might give you or someone else cancer. Bad foods, cars that burn to much gas, etc etc etc. Plenty are more then willing to ban the things they see as bad whether they have basis for it or not because it makes them feel better. And it's the same premise used by a lot in this thread.
Post by: MillCreek on May 14, 2008, 10:10:29 AM
Here in Washington, the DOL may require you to be re-tested or have an independent medical examination before making a decision on your license. Age in and of itself is not cause for restrictions, but at the time of license renewal, the DOL examiner can decide whether to have you tested.
I was at a national legal convention a couple of years ago, and when I was talking to my colleagues from Arizona and Florida, they said that elderly drivers getting into accidents due to physical limitations was a big problem in those states. If I recall correctly, and I may not be, at least one of those states did have periodic re-testing after the driver reached a certain age.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 14, 2008, 10:26:19 AM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 14, 2008, 11:11:48 AM
Quote
Why not? You've clearly decided that all cell phone users are dangerous? Why not all old people?
Well, first, who's 'old'? I'm 62, the same age as Bush and 10 years younger than McCain. Am I too old to drive according to you? Then Bush and McCain are too old to be President. And Reagan was 79 when he left office. But we know Alzheimer's had taken over by then.
Or are you just yappin' to hear your jaws slam together?
Post by: lupinus on May 14, 2008, 11:16:38 AM
I know senile 65 year olds.
Your post demonstrates perfectly that there are variables to be considered. One persons age where they slip into being senile is not someone elses.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 14, 2008, 02:10:30 PM
And thanks for pointing out my typo, blackcash. In no way diminishes your (seeming) attitude...
Post by: Jamisjockey on May 14, 2008, 02:38:37 PM
Quote
Why not? You've clearly decided that all cell phone users are dangerous? Why not all old people?
Or are you just yappin' to hear your jaws slam together?
Hi, Kettle, this is Pot...did you call?
Post by: MechAg94 on May 15, 2008, 09:44:49 AM
When I used to commute in Houston, I pulled out the cell phone sometimes when I was sick of talk radio and just needed to pass the time to avoid going stir crazy in traffic. You just keep your speed down and keep up with those in front of you. If you have to make lane changes and such, you stop talking. It can be done responsibly.
The other thing to mention is that most all cities have intersections and sections of roads that are just plain dangerous to navigate even for experienced drivers. Hell, the road construction people sometimes set up some very dangerous situations when they lay out warnings and such for construction work.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 15, 2008, 09:45:45 AM
This lady is not in danger. She will already be through the intersection before that truck gets there.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 15, 2008, 09:52:23 AM
The other thing to mention is that most all cities have intersections and sections of roads that are just plain dangerous to navigate even for experienced drivers.
That would be the entire city of Boston.
Post by: roo_ster on May 15, 2008, 09:59:45 AM
And thanks for pointing out my typo, blackcash. In no way diminishes your (seeming) attitude...
Jes sayin'... Don't think you'll be too successful due to the industry and your apparent lack of ability with the English language.
Dude, get over yourself.
I earned a 3rd-sigma score* on the verbal portion of the SAT, have had articles published in magazines, and authored many a proposal section.
Yet, some of my thread postings contain spelling and/or grammatical errors.
Could it be that the norms surrounding spelling and grammar in thread posts are more relaxed than they are for published periodicals and that most post authors know this and post without referencing Strunk & White?
Perhaps knowing the venue, audience, & expectations is part & parcel of writing.
* To the right of the mean
Post by: Mabs2 on May 15, 2008, 10:12:35 AM
Wow, go get a gold star, put it on the fridge and go tell yo mamma. The point? Nobody cares.
Did someone run over your dog or something today?Read the URL of the website plz kthx.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 15, 2008, 10:18:45 AM
Post by: charby on May 15, 2008, 10:21:04 AM
Wow, go get a gold star, put it on the fridge and go tell yo mamma. The point? Nobody cares.
Chill dude!
Post by: Marnoot on May 15, 2008, 10:49:44 AM
oh no the college middle school kids are out again
Fixed that for you.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 15, 2008, 10:52:09 AM
Post by: Creeping Incrementalism on May 15, 2008, 10:54:29 AM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 15, 2008, 11:12:33 AM
Post by: Regolith on May 15, 2008, 02:05:56 PM
This lady is not in danger. She will already be through the intersection before that truck gets there.
That, and it appears that the semi is stopped at a stop sign, which means that she probably had the right-of-way.
Post by: Ben on May 15, 2008, 03:54:22 PM
Quote
Wow, go get a gold star, put it on the fridge and go tell yo mamma. The point? Nobody cares.
Reiterating what Charby said. WAY too new to cop an attitude. It's Armed POLITE Society.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 15, 2008, 04:10:49 PM
Quote
This lady is not in danger. She will already be through the intersection before that truck gets there. Smiley
That, and it appears that the semi is stopped at a stop sign, which means that she probably had the right-of-way.
That, and it appears that the semi is stopped at a stop sign, which means that she probably had the right-of-way.
And, because she's looking at the cellphone rather than the road, she's about to rear end the car in front of her.
Post by: freakazoid on May 15, 2008, 04:18:11 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 15, 2008, 04:26:52 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on May 15, 2008, 06:03:20 PM
I would have to point out that I am one who has actually done some reading while driving. At one time, I drove back and forth from Houston to Beaumont a few times a week. Sometimes, you just need a mental distraction to get your mind off how long and straight the road is and how tired I was. I might only read a couple pages over 10 minutes constantly looking at the road and the book.
It is enough to get the mind thinking and I believe I was more alert overall doing that than I would have been zoning out doing nothing. Books on tape are much better. I would never do it in city driving. Too many cars and too many turns and on/off ramps. Too much going on not to have your mind on driving. The main thing with reading, talk radio, music, phone calls, or whatever your distraction is, you have to recognize when you need to forget the distraction and put your mind on driving. You have to maintain a basic awareness of the road and other vehicles around you. If you are unable to do that, you really need to turn off the distractions.
Do we need to outlaw readings while driving?
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 15, 2008, 08:06:53 PM
Post by: 209 on May 15, 2008, 09:08:06 PM
At least it is here in CT. Hell, I see COPS talking on cell phones all the time.
At the risk of stirring the pot..... COPS (as you call them) in CT, , are exempt from the ban when engaged in LE communication.
.
.
.
.
Now, I'll pop some Orville Redenbacher's Popcorn and watch that tidbit of information float around....
Post by: Ex-MA Hole on May 16, 2008, 12:20:17 AM
Wow, go get a gold star, put it on the fridge and go tell yo mamma. The point? Nobody cares.
Just for the record, blackcash88 will be away for the duration of the internet, he is very busy shopping for refridgerators, and simply won't have time to post.
And yes, I'm sure he will not be on the phone, wearing a seatbelt, driving with two hands on the wheel, and not street racing through a school zone.
M
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 16, 2008, 05:14:15 AM
Quote
It actually looks like her eyes are on the road.
At the moment the photo was snapped. But she's holding the phone below eye/windshield level, which means she's probably alternating between looking at and concentrating on it, and the road. And she hasn't even started some distracting conversation yet. I wouldn't want her (probably behind the wheel of some 3 ton bigazz SUV) right behind me.
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 16, 2008, 05:15:37 AM
Maybe she is reading directions.
Post by: Tallpine on May 16, 2008, 07:13:16 AM
Post by: freakazoid on May 16, 2008, 07:44:48 AM
Quote
I would have to point out that I am one who has actually done some reading while driving.
The closest thing to reading I have done is looking at a map. But your point on needing to read to keep your mind alert is true. Sometimes I talk on the phone when it is lat to keep myself awake. I have heard once about a guy who was practicing his violin while driving, he got pulled over because apparently he was weaving back and forth a lot. I think he was on his way to a rehearsal or to an actual concert.
Quote
And she hasn't even started some distracting conversation yet. I wouldn't want her (probably behind the wheel of some 3 ton bigazz SUV) right behind me.
Wouldn't bother me. as long as she is staying the proper distance and paying attention to what is giong on why should I care?