PineRidge
Super Member
OJ said he didn't do the deed. Now who are you going to believe? /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Should all cities ban cell phones while driving?
- Thread starter JohnBoy45
- Start date
- Views: 5841
Soundguy
Old Timer
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2002
- Messages
- 51,575
- Location
- Central florida
- Tractor
- RK 55HC,ym1700, NH7610S, Ford 8N, 2N, NAA, 660, 850 x2, 541, 950, 941D, 951, 2000, 3000, 4000, 4600, 5000, 740, IH 'C' 'H', CUB, John Deere 'B', allis 'G', case VAC
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Sounds to me like rich people can have drive/talk on cell phones but poor people can't afford a special car kit for handsfree service. )</font>
That's ridiculess... If they have paid the expense for a cell phone.. they can pay the expense for hands free.. or else they just don't use it.
Besides.. many new phones have handsfree 'built in' My new nokia 6030 has a loudspeaker function.. you set it on the dash.. etc, and can hear the other person.. and they can hear you. I got it for 19$ when i renewed my cingular plan. I also have an lg phone from altell.. same deal.. has speaker phone and a visor clip/belt clip... works fine... phone was free with my 1 year signup. ( this was the 'basic' free phone they gave out... )
So.. people don't have to have expensive phones or kits.. and as I pointed out.. even the el-cheapo phones can do it.
Soundguy
That's ridiculess... If they have paid the expense for a cell phone.. they can pay the expense for hands free.. or else they just don't use it.
Besides.. many new phones have handsfree 'built in' My new nokia 6030 has a loudspeaker function.. you set it on the dash.. etc, and can hear the other person.. and they can hear you. I got it for 19$ when i renewed my cingular plan. I also have an lg phone from altell.. same deal.. has speaker phone and a visor clip/belt clip... works fine... phone was free with my 1 year signup. ( this was the 'basic' free phone they gave out... )
So.. people don't have to have expensive phones or kits.. and as I pointed out.. even the el-cheapo phones can do it.
Soundguy
Soundguy
Old Timer
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2002
- Messages
- 51,575
- Location
- Central florida
- Tractor
- RK 55HC,ym1700, NH7610S, Ford 8N, 2N, NAA, 660, 850 x2, 541, 950, 941D, 951, 2000, 3000, 4000, 4600, 5000, 740, IH 'C' 'H', CUB, John Deere 'B', allis 'G', case VAC
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( They still have to answer the phone which some of you have said is the most common time for an accident.
)</font>
At least since the early 90's.. auto answer has been an option for many ( most? ) cell phones. Every one i have ever owned has had the option.. including the big 'brick' motorola jobs that looke dlike military walkie talkies..
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( What difference does it make to a person who's talking on the phone and totally distracted to the point of not knowing what's going on around them )</font>
Talking while driving? What difference does it make if it is a passanger or an invisible 'handsfree' person a mile away... This is a 'ban on talking' thet is hiding in the shadows... I.E. a band on passangers. Maybee the radio next? huh?
If talking to another person over a radio signal were so bad and distracting.. i don't think astronauts.. or airline pilots should be allowed to do it either ?? right... i mean.. if the pilot ( driver ).. can wear a headset and constantly talk to the tower or another flight crew member while thousands of feet up.. going hundreds of miles per hour..carrying dozens and dozens of people... then... where do you make the cutoff?
Does talking to another person only distract while on the ground? /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Soundguy
)</font>
At least since the early 90's.. auto answer has been an option for many ( most? ) cell phones. Every one i have ever owned has had the option.. including the big 'brick' motorola jobs that looke dlike military walkie talkies..
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( What difference does it make to a person who's talking on the phone and totally distracted to the point of not knowing what's going on around them )</font>
Talking while driving? What difference does it make if it is a passanger or an invisible 'handsfree' person a mile away... This is a 'ban on talking' thet is hiding in the shadows... I.E. a band on passangers. Maybee the radio next? huh?
If talking to another person over a radio signal were so bad and distracting.. i don't think astronauts.. or airline pilots should be allowed to do it either ?? right... i mean.. if the pilot ( driver ).. can wear a headset and constantly talk to the tower or another flight crew member while thousands of feet up.. going hundreds of miles per hour..carrying dozens and dozens of people... then... where do you make the cutoff?
Does talking to another person only distract while on the ground? /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Soundguy
EddieWalker
Epic Contributor
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( ( What difference does it make to a person who's talking on the phone and totally distracted to the point of not knowing what's going on around them )</font>
Talking while driving? What difference does it make if it is a passanger or an invisible 'handsfree' person a mile away... This is a 'ban on talking' thet is hiding in the shadows... I.E. a band on passangers. Maybee the radio next? huh?
)</font>
Soundguy,
I'm sure you must recognize there is a huge difference betweent talking to a passenger and staying allert compared to those people on the phone who zone out to there surroundings. They have tunnel vission while talking on the phone without any knowledge of their speed or other vehicles around them.
It's a very common occurance that I find very difficult to understand why your defending.
If you're on the freeway and there is a car in front of you driveing well below the speed limit, it's almost guranteed the person is on the phone and oblivious to their surroundings. It doesn't matter if it's a hands free unit or hand held. They are engrossed in conversation and have passed over into that mindset with the actual driving now a secondary task.
I see this on a daily basis. It was true when I lived in Californa, and it's true here in Texas.
I've never seen it with two people carrying on a conversation in a car, listening to the radio, talking on a CB, eating or smoking. The only exceptions are the very old who just drive slow no matter what, and those who are trying to do other chores while driving. Things like put on makeup and read the newspaper.
Obviously it's not everyone and I'm also not endorsing another law be passed. Those people should be pulled over for impeding traffic. Use the laws we already have to address the problem.
Eddie
Talking while driving? What difference does it make if it is a passanger or an invisible 'handsfree' person a mile away... This is a 'ban on talking' thet is hiding in the shadows... I.E. a band on passangers. Maybee the radio next? huh?
)</font>
Soundguy,
I'm sure you must recognize there is a huge difference betweent talking to a passenger and staying allert compared to those people on the phone who zone out to there surroundings. They have tunnel vission while talking on the phone without any knowledge of their speed or other vehicles around them.
It's a very common occurance that I find very difficult to understand why your defending.
If you're on the freeway and there is a car in front of you driveing well below the speed limit, it's almost guranteed the person is on the phone and oblivious to their surroundings. It doesn't matter if it's a hands free unit or hand held. They are engrossed in conversation and have passed over into that mindset with the actual driving now a secondary task.
I see this on a daily basis. It was true when I lived in Californa, and it's true here in Texas.
I've never seen it with two people carrying on a conversation in a car, listening to the radio, talking on a CB, eating or smoking. The only exceptions are the very old who just drive slow no matter what, and those who are trying to do other chores while driving. Things like put on makeup and read the newspaper.
Obviously it's not everyone and I'm also not endorsing another law be passed. Those people should be pulled over for impeding traffic. Use the laws we already have to address the problem.
Eddie
flwiii
Gold Member
I should rephrase the statement I made. Not all electronic things can track you. If it doesn't interact with a public network you should be safe; (IE tire gauges, alarm clocks etc.) That is as long as these precious devices haven't been tampered with.
Really though, OJ has probably found the killer. He sleeps with him every night.
The ability to evesdrop on conversation with a properly aimed laser now days makes it possible for "Big Brother" to listen to our conversations even within our cars, homes, businesses etc.
The only thing protecting us from all these techy toys is the fact that the judicial system (which is somewhat slow) has to approve the use of them on people within our borders.
<font color="blue">I'll wager the insurance companies would like to get their hands on all that very personal data. </font>
We never know, they may already have it. Just haven't figured a legal way to use it against us yet.
Really though, OJ has probably found the killer. He sleeps with him every night.
The ability to evesdrop on conversation with a properly aimed laser now days makes it possible for "Big Brother" to listen to our conversations even within our cars, homes, businesses etc.
The only thing protecting us from all these techy toys is the fact that the judicial system (which is somewhat slow) has to approve the use of them on people within our borders.
<font color="blue">I'll wager the insurance companies would like to get their hands on all that very personal data. </font>
We never know, they may already have it. Just haven't figured a legal way to use it against us yet.
flwiii
Gold Member
I don't think SoundGuy is defending the "inept" cell phone users as much as he is worried that a new law could be abused by others to include more than the laws intent. Something on the order of letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. Loopholes happen because of people ignoring the spirit of the law and twisting the letter of the law.
A good example of law abuse is the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). After reading some of the absurd applications some have made with this law, I can understand SoundGuy's position.
I also think that SoundGuy is in agreement with you. We don't need another law. We need to, as you have said, enforce the ones we already have.
A good example of law abuse is the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). After reading some of the absurd applications some have made with this law, I can understand SoundGuy's position.
I also think that SoundGuy is in agreement with you. We don't need another law. We need to, as you have said, enforce the ones we already have.
dooleysm
Platinum Member
Euchre is a big game around southern Indiana. Whenever I play it's typical for the dealer to offer a cut, which I never do. It's not that I'm an oaverly trusting person, it's just that I don't think most people I play cards with are slick enough to pull off stacking the deck.
How is this relatable? I work for the government. I've seen the inner workings of 'Big Brother'. Big Brother is an idiot. Do not worry about him.
It is the slick dealers you need to worry about, and insurance companies are as slick as they come. Worry about private industry, they are profit motivated. Big Brother is highly unmotivated, as it's made up of millions of minions with no clear goal.
How is this relatable? I work for the government. I've seen the inner workings of 'Big Brother'. Big Brother is an idiot. Do not worry about him.
It is the slick dealers you need to worry about, and insurance companies are as slick as they come. Worry about private industry, they are profit motivated. Big Brother is highly unmotivated, as it's made up of millions of minions with no clear goal.
Soundguy
Old Timer
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2002
- Messages
- 51,575
- Location
- Central florida
- Tractor
- RK 55HC,ym1700, NH7610S, Ford 8N, 2N, NAA, 660, 850 x2, 541, 950, 941D, 951, 2000, 3000, 4000, 4600, 5000, 740, IH 'C' 'H', CUB, John Deere 'B', allis 'G', case VAC
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I'm sure you must recognize there is a huge difference betweent talking to a passenger and staying allert compared to those people on the phone )</font>
I guess I obviously don't see a huge difference to talking to someone on a handsfree cell phone vs talking to a passanger.. or i wouldn't be arguing the point. IMHO... If I had a passanger.. i think i may be more inclined to make eye contact with him/her, and thus be -more- distracted while driving.. vs a hands free link.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I find very difficult to understand why your defending )</font>
Obviously I'm defending the point because i don't see a black / white distinction. I see the makings of a very bad law.. this is haow they begin.. very innocently.. and then get blanket application when it comes down to the brass tacks. I'm a gun owner.. I've seen laws ( for gun control ) work this way for a couple decades. I've learned you can never give a lawmaker an 'inch'.. as.. by the time it makes it thru both houses.. it will have been amended enough, and have enough junk tacked on to it to be a 'mile'.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I've never seen it with two people carrying on a conversation in a car, listening to the radio, talking on a CB, eating or smoking. )</font>
Actually.. the last 2 times I've bene run off the road, one was by a smoker ( woman ) and the other was buy a younger kid eating ( drinking coffee )... Have yet yo have been run off the road by a person talking to themselves ( handsfree ).
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( The only exceptions are the very old who just drive slow no matter what )</font>
Alot of that here in florida. There are 3 retirment communities within a few hundred yards to a few thousand yards from my farm. one of them is 'the fastest growing development' int he united states as of 2005 #'s.. so yes.. 95% of the ime I'm driving there is someone in front of me with white haie and oversized big black sunglasses driving a 2007 yacht down the road, slower that the posted speed limit.
Then.. the smoker lady, and the kid drinking coffe run me off the road so they can get to work stocking shelves, waiting tables and washing dishes at the stores that serve that huge aging population that is driving in front of me... so uh.. yeah.. I can kinda relate to the driving situation...
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Use the laws we already have to address the problem.
)</font>
Same with gun laws... we don't need any more to control criminals.. we just need to prosecute with the laws we already have on the books.
Soundguy
I guess I obviously don't see a huge difference to talking to someone on a handsfree cell phone vs talking to a passanger.. or i wouldn't be arguing the point. IMHO... If I had a passanger.. i think i may be more inclined to make eye contact with him/her, and thus be -more- distracted while driving.. vs a hands free link.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I find very difficult to understand why your defending )</font>
Obviously I'm defending the point because i don't see a black / white distinction. I see the makings of a very bad law.. this is haow they begin.. very innocently.. and then get blanket application when it comes down to the brass tacks. I'm a gun owner.. I've seen laws ( for gun control ) work this way for a couple decades. I've learned you can never give a lawmaker an 'inch'.. as.. by the time it makes it thru both houses.. it will have been amended enough, and have enough junk tacked on to it to be a 'mile'.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I've never seen it with two people carrying on a conversation in a car, listening to the radio, talking on a CB, eating or smoking. )</font>
Actually.. the last 2 times I've bene run off the road, one was by a smoker ( woman ) and the other was buy a younger kid eating ( drinking coffee )... Have yet yo have been run off the road by a person talking to themselves ( handsfree ).
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( The only exceptions are the very old who just drive slow no matter what )</font>
Alot of that here in florida. There are 3 retirment communities within a few hundred yards to a few thousand yards from my farm. one of them is 'the fastest growing development' int he united states as of 2005 #'s.. so yes.. 95% of the ime I'm driving there is someone in front of me with white haie and oversized big black sunglasses driving a 2007 yacht down the road, slower that the posted speed limit.
Then.. the smoker lady, and the kid drinking coffe run me off the road so they can get to work stocking shelves, waiting tables and washing dishes at the stores that serve that huge aging population that is driving in front of me... so uh.. yeah.. I can kinda relate to the driving situation...
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Use the laws we already have to address the problem.
)</font>
Same with gun laws... we don't need any more to control criminals.. we just need to prosecute with the laws we already have on the books.
Soundguy
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( <font color="blue">I'll wager the insurance companies would like to get their hands on all that very personal data. </font>
We never know, they may already have it. Just haven't figured a legal way to use it against us yet. )</font>
I wouldnt rely to heavily on that data not being available or used.. Todays vehicles have the capability of recording exactly what happened durring an accident.. They can monitor throttle position, rate of accel, brake peddal possition, rate of decel, evasive manuvers, and even indicate weather conditions from the barometric calculations.. The insurance industry can surely tap into this info and use it against someone for falsifying a claim.. And, I ask, whats so wrong with that? It proves honesty.. If its abused on the other hand, technology can be counter productive and negative, but, if things like this make my insurance rates go down because some Joe isnt able to cheat the insurance agency, then go for it.. I dont intend to get caught doing something wrong, so why do I care? It seems to me that the people most nervous of technology are the ones trying to get away with something... I'm not really implying anything against anyone here, just dont understand the adamance of how making it illeagal for someone to use a cel phone w/o a hands free unit while driving can negativly effect any of our lives?? Again, the point was never to ban all cell phone use while driving.. The article clearly states the contrary.. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
We never know, they may already have it. Just haven't figured a legal way to use it against us yet. )</font>
I wouldnt rely to heavily on that data not being available or used.. Todays vehicles have the capability of recording exactly what happened durring an accident.. They can monitor throttle position, rate of accel, brake peddal possition, rate of decel, evasive manuvers, and even indicate weather conditions from the barometric calculations.. The insurance industry can surely tap into this info and use it against someone for falsifying a claim.. And, I ask, whats so wrong with that? It proves honesty.. If its abused on the other hand, technology can be counter productive and negative, but, if things like this make my insurance rates go down because some Joe isnt able to cheat the insurance agency, then go for it.. I dont intend to get caught doing something wrong, so why do I care? It seems to me that the people most nervous of technology are the ones trying to get away with something... I'm not really implying anything against anyone here, just dont understand the adamance of how making it illeagal for someone to use a cel phone w/o a hands free unit while driving can negativly effect any of our lives?? Again, the point was never to ban all cell phone use while driving.. The article clearly states the contrary.. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
