 brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Miami, FL | bah there should be no bans like this | |
|  | Blackened
Your Freedom Fries Are Stale
join:2003-09-29
| Re: bah Disagree. A few things:
∙ This is only for drivers, nobody else.
∙ Drivers can still use their phone with a hands-free device
∙ There has been way too many accidents in California, never mind my town alone thanks to people texting while driving. People should be watching the road, not their cell phone.
This is reminiscent to law about having a TV in the face of a driver, since they're such a distraction. Makes perfect sense in both circumstances too. | |
| | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T Southwest
| Re: bah Lawyers are catching on too. In a civil case, they find out if the defendant has a phone. Then they ask for the phone records... and if the records show the defendant was using a phone at the time of the accident, well, the case against them gets a lot stronger.
It's only a matter of time till insurance companies start doing this; If you are involved an an accident and you were using the phone the insurance company will declare you negligent and refuse to pay for your damage and injuries and only pay your victim.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | 
toadlife
Premium
join:2004-05-03
Coalinga, CA
·AT&T Yahoo
| said by Blackened  :∙ Drivers can still use their phone with a hands-free device Studies have shown that it's the conversation, not holding the phone, that causes the accidents, so a hands free device doesn't help much, if at all. | |
| | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| said by brianiscool :there should be no bans like this Maybe we ought to change the law to allow shooting cell phone users who cause accidents? But that might overload the morgues.
I saw one occur several days ago, she had the cell in her ear and made a left turn against traffic. She got hit and yes, I did see the cell phone as I was stopped at the cross street when she turned in front of me. Fortunately the other driver was not a stupid cell phone using idiot, so he managed to almost stop in time. No one hurt and they were able to drive off to a parking lot.
Stupidity happens in driving, it is part of being human, but the cell phone compounds that many fold, comparable to being drunk according to some recent studies. Yesterday I saw a driver almost hit another car, he did not want to put down the phone while turning into a parking lot and lost control, he did drop the phone then! In the same parking lot another driver almost hit pedestrians crossing the cross walk from the store entrance, again, she was on the phone and not driving. Friday on the way home from work, the idiot in front of me apparently had his phone go off, it looked like he reached down for it on the other seat and weaved back and forth over the bike lane (luckily no bicycles!), then slowly dropped from doing the speed limit to 10 MPH under. Finally honked at him a couple of times, and it woke him up and he took off at more than the speed limit.
And my wife says I am not very observant, so I wonder how many near accidents that I miss seeing (and I have posted a few others I have seen on other threads on this same subject)?
Yeah, we do not need any cell phone bans while driving, who cares about accidents happening because of idiots and their phones?
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | 
dv
What was that?
Premium
join:2005-04-19
Goleta, CA | Re: bah you know, i have not seen an accident in the last 2 years, who the hell are you and why do you attract such bad luck? I swear, you must have so much time on your hands to just sit and imagine what people are doing with their phones. | |
| | | | | | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: bah said by dv :you know, i have not seen an accident in the last 2 years, who the hell are you and why do you attract such bad luck? I swear, you must have so much time on your hands to just sit and imagine what people are doing with their phones. Hmm..I like that, call me a liar to prove what a studly girl you are.
No, I get out and do things like go to work, go to the store, take kids places, do volunteer work, all things that add up the mileage driven and the time on the road to see idiots on cell phones trying to drive.
I do not understand why you think mentioning one accident is to be considered attracting such bad luck, or maybe I do considering your post. Other than that, I suppose that having to drive a lot may have something to do with seeing fools on the cell phone more than someone who stays in one place would.
My brother-in-law is a truck driver, he and a few of his co-workers were telling me a lot more stories about idiots trying to drive and talk on the cell a couple of weeks ago when we visited them. So it is not just me making up stories, it is also people who professionally drive a lot more than I do.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | | |
dv
What was that?
Premium
join:2005-04-19
Goleta, CA
| Re: bah understood, i was under the impression you witnessed all of those situations, i used to drive over 200 miles a day as a courier so i know what driving with a cellphone can do, but there are people who know how to get around the common mistakes, even with a headset or handsfree device, its human nature to speed up while you are talking and slow down while listening, when you get mad on the phone or with someone else in the car, again, its human nature to go faster as the endorphins start spreading through your system and your heart rate increases..
cell phone usage in the car wont stop, i make a point to use a bluetooth headset, when I'm on the freeway I keep an active look at how fast i am going and don't piss off the people behind me.
no need to throw insults, I came across as rude, emoticons would have helped (i was saying who the hell are you as a joke) | |
| | | | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: bah said by dv :understood, i was under the impression you witnessed all of those situations, i used to drive over 200 miles a day as a courier so i know what driving with a cellphone can do, ........ no need to throw insults, I came across as rude, emoticons would have helped (i was saying who the hell are you as a joke) Oh, but I did see the two near accidents and the aforesaid cell phones in use and the cell phone idiot in front of me all in two days, and as I think about it, the accident was two weeks ago, it was my first or second day going home from work after our trip. I did not post the stories from the truck drivers because 1. I do not remember them well enough, and 2. I did not witness them.
As far as insults, you called me a liar saying I was making up stories and implied I was lazy with too much time on my hands and that to me is not a joke, emoticons would not really mitigate that sentence either. So certain things about a person who makes a snap judgment like that, mostly not publishable and in this case related to companies who make a living selling cell phone equipment and services and can not take any criticism of their product, are made. If you meant it as a joke and are apologizing, then I accept it, but you do need to realize that contrary to what the media and Hollywood seem to be pushing, some people mean what they say and expect the same in response.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | op3l
join:2005-08-26
US
| I'm all for this ban on cell phones. I hate driving home from work and being stuck in traffic cause some one is driving their car while talking on the cell phone.
These people are usually the ones that presses on the brakes for no reason and thus slowing everyone down. Not to mention I've been run out of my lane for no reason sometimes and whenever I see who did the lane change, it's always some one that's talking on the phone.
I'm not saying I don't make mistakes when I'm on the phone, but I rarely use the phone while driving. The few times I did use the phone while driving, I have noticed I'll get lazy and not look before making a lane change or something equally stupid. Now if I was using a hands-free device, I drive normally because I'm not holding onto something. | |
| | 
huh
@qwest.net
| i think, that until you have passed a basic computer literacy test where you actually have to concentrate on what you are looking at, not to mention your surroundings, nobody should operate a vehicle whether it has wheels or not, afterall, someone has to drive the mouse without crashing...
shut up, hang up & drive cause accidents are just not cool... | |
| | |
BUYaCLUE
@comcast.net | Cellphones should be BANNED from any automotive vehicle Most people can't walk and chew gum so it's pretty obvious that cellphones should be banned for use by any driver in an auto that is in operation. | |
| | 
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA
1 edit | About time Make it 50 states already, please. I was rear-ended while STOPPED at a toll booth this week by some soccer mom who was more concerned with her cell phone than the safety of those around her. Even better, being a no-fault state like Commie-chusetts, I won't see a penny more than it takes to fix my car (and my back). Awesome.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? | |
| | 
wilbilt
Pronto Resurrected
Premium
join:2004-01-11
Oroville, CA | Re: About time Agreed.
Nearly every time I see someone driving like an idiot, they have a cellphone in their hand.
--
We were taking a vote when the ground came up and hit us. | |
| | | | | 
steve1515
Premium
join:2000-08-07
Peabody, MA
·Speakeasy
| said by Cabal :...Even better, being a no-fault state like Commie-chusetts, I won't see a penny more than it takes to fix my car (and my back)... What do you you mean by no-fault state? I thought insurance in other states was similar to MA. | |
| | | dcurrey
join:2004-06-29 | Re: About time If that would happen in a non no-fault state, the soccer moms insurance would have to pay for his car and his medical expense. | |
| | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
 ·Packet8
| said by Cabal :Even better, being a no-fault state like Commie-chusetts, I won't see a penny more than it takes to fix my car (and my back). Awesome. Sorry, and what's wrong with that? You've got your car repaired and your medical costs covered. Anything more would be frivilous - ie pain and suffering compensation - and will only result in higher rates for everyone. If you had lost wages due to the accident, that should have been covered too. If not, you take the other motorist to civil court.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | 
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| Re: About time said by bmn :Sorry, and what's wrong with that? You've got your car repaired and your medical costs covered. Anything more would be frivilous Spoken by someone who obviously has never been injured/crippled by an idiot driver.
--
The Toll
| |
| | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
| Re: About time said by major marco :said by bmn :Sorry, and what's wrong with that? You've got your car repaired and your medical costs covered. Anything more would be frivilous Spoken by someone who obviously has never been injured/crippled by an idiot driver. No, someone who is sick of people causing rates to go up by getting ridiculously inflated rewards from lawsuits that the insurance company ends up paying out and in turn, passing on that expense to everyone.
If you want money beyond medical costs, lost wages and auto repairs, take the person to civil court. I'm tired of paying insane insurance rates because people think they deserve huge pain and suffering awards that are paid by the insurance companies.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | | |
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| Re: About time said by bmn :No, someone who is sick of people causing rates to go up [...] So you have been injured and/or crippled by another driver? I seriously doubt it. Not with your mentality. If you were sitting here in a chair knowing you'll never walk again because of an idiot driver you put you there permanently, you wouldn't be blithely complaining about your rates.
And BTW, 99% of all insurance claims are civil matters unless the driver was DWI or some other criminal liability. Whether the case is civil or criminal is largely irrelevant to your rates.
Don't preach to someone who has been permanently injured by someone else's negligence behind the wheel. As someone who was crippled for two years by an idiot driver and twelve years later, crippled again for another year by another idiot driver, I don't give two shits what your rates are.
--
The Toll
| |
| | | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
| Re: About time said by major marco :And BTW, 99% of all insurance claims are civil matters unless the driver was DWI or some other criminal liability. Whether the case is civil or criminal is largely irrelevant to your rates. As the little teenage brats say, "No duh"... But how much the payout is in all of those cases IS what affects your rates. The more grossly inflated awards that are given, the more rates for up everyone. A lot of the court cases out there are totally fraudulent too - malingerers look to get some cash (I know, as we did several studies on it).
Don't preach to someone who has been permanently injured by someone else's negligence behind the wheel. As someone who was crippled for two years by an idiot driver and twelve years later, crippled again for another year by another idiot driver, I don't give two shits what your rates are. And don't preach to me... I give a shit about my rates since its my damn money, not yours. I'm tired of paying out of the ass to cover the overinflated claims that are out there.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | | | | | Markus
join:2005-05-27
Middlesboro, KY
| Re: About time Well said, badmagicnumber; I completely agree with all you've said here.
These days, people can't seem to accept that "shit happens". When some ill befalls a person these days, they immediately look for ways to exploit it beyond all bounds instead of taking care of it in a reasonable manner and moving on with their lives.
--
SpaceBuffs.com | |
| | | | | | |
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| said by bmn : I give a shit about my rates since its my damn money, not yours. I'm tired of paying out of the ass to cover the overinflated claims that are out there. I still don't give a shit about your rates. Idiot drivers who cripple other drivers through negligence should be sued until their assholes bleed.
--
The Toll
| |
| | | | | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
| Re: About time said by major marco :I still don't give a shit about your rates. Idiot drivers who cripple other drivers through negligence should be sued until their assholes bleed. Then take the driver to court and sue him, not his insurance company the case doesn't fuck everyone else's rates over. Damn, how hard is that to understand. 
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | | | | | | |
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| Re: About time said by bmn :Then take the driver to court and sue him, not his insurance company the case doesn't fuck everyone else's rates over. Damn, how hard is that to understand. It's not hard to understand at all. What you aren't understanding is that drivers who are negligent and cripple other drivers usually don't make enough $$$$$ to cover the cost of a single day's stay in the hospital, nevermind cover 2 wks in the hospital, a 5 hr surgery to put back together a shattered tibia, and 2 yrs of PT after the fact. The idiot's insurance company, however, does.
--
The Toll
| |
| | | | | | | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
2 edits | Re: About time Actually forget it... The fact that you were a victim of an accident that left you severely injured makes it impossible to discuss this rationally. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
RangerTX
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
| said by bmn :said by major marco :I still don't give a shit about your rates. Idiot drivers who cripple other drivers through negligence should be sued until their assholes bleed. Then take the driver to court and sue him, not his insurance company the case doesn't fuck everyone else's rates over. Damn, how hard is that to understand. You suing him=using his insurance company. His insurance company will defend him and if he is found at fault(guilty) then insurance company will pay out max under his policy and rest will be his responsibility. For example on my business vehicle i got 3 million insurance coverage. That means my insurance will pay up to 3 mil and anything beyond that is my responsibility
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on tv | |
| | | | |
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA
| said by bmn :If you want money beyond medical costs, lost wages and auto repairs, take the person to civil court. You can't. That's how no-fault states work.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? | |
| | | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
| Re: About time said by Cabal :said by bmn :If you want money beyond medical costs, lost wages and auto repairs, take the person to civil court. You can't. That's how no-fault states work. As no-fault was proposed when it was discussed in this state, if fault was assigned by a citation, you could not get from insurance company anything more than actual damages. If you wanted to sue for anything in addition to actual losses - pain and suffering, etc. - you would have to take the person to court on their own without their insurance company being involved. That way, the person responsible would be liable for any judgment and any court costs, not the insurance company who was not the one at fault.
Clearly this proposal was unique then... However, there must still be some way to sue the individual if you really need to.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | | 
iMonkey
join:2006-04-25
Fallbrook, CA
| said by major marco :said by bmn :Sorry, and what's wrong with that? You've got your car repaired and your medical costs covered. Anything more would be frivilous Spoken by someone who obviously has never been injured/crippled by an idiot driver. yeah really, better yet, probably said by someone who has had to pay out for "frivilous payments" to a motorist he hit before.
hmm | |
| | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
| Re: About time said by iMonkey :yeah really, better yet, probably said by someone who has had to pay out for "frivilous payments" to a motorist he hit before. More along the lines of someone who did work on improving techniques for catching people faking injuries from car accidents, at work or in non-automotive accidents in order to get some ambulance chaser to sue someone for an inflated award or to increase their workers comp claim. These types of fraudulent claims affect everyone's rates.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| The main problem with no-fault insurance is that if someone hits you, your insurance has to pay for the damages that said person did to your car. So your premiums go up even though you had nothing to do with the accident.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
| Re: About time said by pnh102 :The main problem with no-fault insurance is that if someone hits you, your insurance has to pay for the damages that said person did to your car. Right, but it eliminates the problem of the other person having no or insufficient insurance. If either of those is the case in an accident, no-fault insurance can save your ass short term while you take them to civil court.
So your premiums go up even though you had nothing to do with the accident. That maybe the case... But having to drive in a state where there are so many uninsured and underinsured drivers, no-fault would actually work in favor of those who are insured properly. You wouldn't have to worry about having to take the other person to court to recoup the costs of medical bills and auto repairs.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: About time said by bmn :Right, but it eliminates the problem of the other person having no or insufficient insurance. If either of those is the case in an accident, no-fault insurance can save your ass short term while you take them to civil court. What if either of the people involved do not carry enough coverage under a no-fault policy? Simply having a no-fault clause in an insurance policy doesn't raise the amount of coverage provided by the policy.
said by bmn :That maybe the case... But having to drive in a state where there are so many uninsured and underinsured drivers, no-fault would actually work in favor of those who are insured properly. But if the drivers are uninsured, then they won't have any policy, either no-fault or otherwise. These situations occur when people who drive illegally are not suitably punished for doing so.
said by bmn :You wouldn't have to worry about having to take the other person to court to recoup the costs of medical bills and auto repairs. When the situation gets this bad, then everyone's premiums just get to be higher than they should be.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
| Re: About time said by pnh102 :What if either of the people involved do not carry enough coverage under a no-fault policy? Simply having a no-fault clause in an insurance policy doesn't raise the amount of coverage provided by the policy. Then both of them are stuck up Shit Creek with no paddle. All no-fault would do is protect a properly insured person when an improperly insured person hits them. For example, if I am hit by an uninsured or underinsured person, I get nothing to help fix my car or to cover my bills. Under no-fault, I am guaranteed payment for my expenses.
But if the drivers are uninsured, then they won't have any policy, either no-fault or otherwise. These situations occur when people who drive illegally are not suitably punished for doing so.
Yes they are. They end up suitably screwed. No car, medical bills and no way to pay for it. Additionally, they face criminal punishment - fines, etc.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | | | MJRudzik
join:2002-01-13
Independence, MO
| said by bmn :said by pnh102 : Right, but it eliminates the problem of the other person having no or insufficient insurance. If either of those is the case in an accident, no-fault insurance can save your ass short term while you take them to civil court. That maybe the case... But having to drive in a state where there are so many uninsured and underinsured drivers, no-fault would actually work in favor of those who are insured properly. No fault only benefits the insurance company. they get to double dip by raising the rates of both drivers after an accident regardless of fault. No fault Certainly does not work in the favor of drivers. You mention properly insured drivers. Well those are the drivers that add the "Uninsured Motorist" rider to their policy. The Fee for this additional coverage is small especially compared to the compound loss of discounts and accident charges applied by most insurance companies after a chargeable accident, which in a no fault state is every accident you're in whether at fault or not. In Missouri there are certain things that are your fault period. Rear ending another car for example is your fault no ifs ands or buts. And that's as it should be. You are responsible for know the physical distance your car will require to stop and follow at a distance that is appropriate. Becasuse the law assigns fault to the driver that rear ended me my isnurance company is precluded from raising my rates when I make a claim under the unisured motorist rider. | |
| | 
roc5955
Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| I think that even in no-fault states you can get back your deductible if the other driver is found to be at fault.
I know that NY is also a no-fault state, and I just got back my deductible from someone who nearly t-boned me, because he didn't look. He said that my lights weren't on, and I have automatic headlights!
Check with the insurance company... You might be able to get back your deductible, and your insurance company will take that accident off of your record, because you can prove that the other driver was at fault, beyond a reasonable doubt. | |
| | dda
Premium
join:2003-12-29
Bolton, MA
| said by Cabal : a no-fault state like Commie-chusetts Excuse me, that is the Glorious People's Republic of Massachusetts.  | |
|
PunishThem
@comcast.net
thumbs down from:
KevNYC
| They should impose a $100,000 fine on any driver caught... ...using their cellphone while driving - in every state not just CA. In addition any driver talking on a cellphone who is involved in an accident should lose their license for a year and do six or more months jail time, depending on the severity of the accident. The only deterrent to crime and stupidity is suitable punishment and full enforcement of laws without exception. | |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | Misguided, but it's a start Hands free is only a slight improvement... The actual conversation draws concentration away from driving and even talking on your hands free bluetooth phone still impairs your driving ability... even WORSE is people who are texting messages while driving! Basically the law should ban using a phone while driving, period (except in emergencies).... But that would be very difficult to enforce.
So these laws will go into effect instead. Well, it's an improvement, as hopefully the people who don't have to hold their phones and so on will be a little less distracted. | |
| | | | 
magicjimmy
join:2006-03-23
Tucson, AZ
·Cox HSI
| said by KrK :Hands free is only a slight improvement... The actual conversation draws concentration away from driving and even talking on your hands free bluetooth phone still impairs your driving ability... DING DING DING DING!!!
You win the bonus round for being the first to correctly state the facts!!
P.S. Extra points for proper spelling and grammar.
--
...I'll go back in my cave now... | |
| 
SYNACK
Just Firewall It
Premium,Mod
join:2001-03-05
Venice, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
Host:
Networking
Virtual Private Ne..
Netgear
ZyXEL
| Scientific evidence There is plenty of scientific evidence that drivers on cell phones are worse than drivers at the legal alcohol limit (0.08%).
(e.g. »www.hfes.org/Web/PubPages/celldrunk.pdf)
Hopefully, we'll see a reduction in car insurance rates as traffic becomes safer once the law is in effect. I fully support the ban. Unsafe drivers on cell phones have become a daily observation. It makes excellent drivers well below average and already bad drivers even worse. | |
| 
PhoenixAZ
Joshua
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Phoenix, AZ
·Cox HSI
2 edits | Handsfree device It is not hard to use a handsfree device while driving, infact, makes it easier too. Stop complaining and just get a bluetooth headset.. it's not hard. And if you need to dial out, read the damn manual that came with your phone and learn how to use VoiceCommand. I use VoiceCommand over my bluetooth headset to make calls all the time, and it works almost flawlessly, and its perfect for driving.
--
Joshua| About Me | |
| | 
RickNY
Premium
join:2000-11-02
New York
·Optimum Online
| The laws are largely ignored anyway Since NY was the first state to enact legislation banning the act of using a cell phone without a handsfree device in 2001, many of us have adapted quite easily to the requirement.. IMO, using a bluetooth headset is just easier to do, more convenient, and safer than holding a phone up to your ear and yapping while driving.
The problem is -- at any given moment, look around at any car around you, and you'll see chances are, someone is holding a cell phone up to their ear still.. And since 2001, the number of new cell phone users has grown tremendously.
Theres almost always one surefire way to see someone that is ignoring the law, and I see it almost on a daily basis.. The all too familiar look of a bumper seemingly 5 inches from the rear of my car.. Whenever I see someone tailgating me, its almost a given that if I look in the mirror at the person driving, they have the phone up to their ear.. The human body just loses its ability to properly gauge a safe following distance while holding a phone to their ear.
Anyway, while the idea of laws to require the use of handsfree deivces are somewhat of a good idea -- what really needs to happen here is more people need to do this stuff on their own.
Rick | |
| |
roc5955
Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: The laws are largely ignored anyway I hear ya Rick, and I see it all of the time. I also notice that poor driving can be attributed to people who are just talking to one another. If the driver doesn't concentrate on the act of driving, they will eventually have an accident.
Cell phones add to the diversions, but are, by far, not the only diversions that people do while driving.
I have seen people putting on makeup, reading the paper, fumbling with their food/drink, and other things, and driving poorly.
I think that there needs to be more driver education, as to the problem of distraction while driving. Cell phones are only one diversion. | |
|
RangerTX
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA | Will continue talking and driving I will continue talking and driving as this law is stupid
On side note, nextel direct connect and other type of devices do not get banned till 2011
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on tv | |
| | |
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs: | Bah It's too bad it's just a rumor. Yakking while driving should be banned in this state. There are way too many asshats on the freeway not paying attn to anything but their precious cell phones. | |
| | greenjeens
join:2006-08-05
San Leandro, CA
| Re: Bah Thanks for putting a human face on the damage that can be done from another driver who is not paying attention. I wonder why those that forgot driving is a privilege and not a right cannot put themselves into your shoes for just a moment and imagine how their lives could dramatically change from an accident caused by someone who's attention is impaired by talking of a cell phone?
I guess one needs to see a certain amount of tragedy to love ones or close up and personal to understand how tragedy, pain and loss could just as easily have unexpectedly change their life, in a heartbeat.
But for the grace of god go I
Perhaps those that think a BAN on cell phone calls while driving is unfair or stupid might have a superior ability to multi-task? It's obvious to anyone who has driven that cellphone users have less attention left to deal with driving. Less attention increases accidents and injury.
Such great numbers of drivers are talking and driving that the net amount of attention has gone down noticebly on our roadways. While many can more safely drive than others, the basic fact is each individual is responsible for their actions and the attentiveness they bring to the PRIVILEGE of driving, to insure their safety and those of their fellow motorists.
There are many to blame for the state of lack of attention and the increased risks to the life liberty and pursuit of happiness, not to mention life and limb, to other motorists. The evidence is pretty clear that talking in any form on a cell phone is an impairment equal to driving drunk. Conversely, much of the research and simple tracking of cellphone related accidents goes unreported. Obviously the lawmakers allow a state of suppression of information with a hands off approach of Cellcos, that has been paid for by deep pocket lobbying of the lawmakers by a powerful Cellular Industry. Cellcos, who have clearly puts profits ahead of public safety, have almost always, actively opposed by any means available to a multi-billion industry, any legislation that would limit minutes of use.
The one time Verizon, watching the outright ban in European countries of cellular phones while driving, broke ranks with a united US Cellular Industry and agreed on hands-free devices (in NY?). This surprised the rest of the carriers and made VZW look like the good guy, but in fact was a calculated move to appear to support safety measures from a flawed reasoning that it was HOLDING THE CELL PHONE THAT CAUSED DRIVER DISTRACTION [sic] while minimally effecting peak auto usage minutes. Now with the hands-free laws that VZW could actively support and have centered the debate and laws around, soon the rest of the Cellular Industry/CTIA has followed, successfully avoiding regulatory focus by misdirection to a debate on hands-free, from the real cause of driver distraction, which is the conversation itself. The Cellular Industry has bought more time, and more lawmakers at the expense of those that are maimed and injured, when drivers talk, even legally.
I think the only players that might be able to effect the balance of power, which seems to favor the Cellcos, is the insurance industry and private business, which may find it paying the tab for drivers who cause injuries while driving.
Private industry, which finds itself legally responsible in a deep pockets way, for workers who talk while driving on company time/phones will carefully plan a policy for employees to not drive and talk.
I'm afraid that most groups will merely find ways to protect themselves from the monetary responsibility from distracted cellular drivers, like the Cellcos have, rather than change the behavoirs or laws.
Lots of business gets done on cellphones, but business has always calculated for an acceptable amount of death and damages, versus the cost to change business practices or materials. The only way to address the mass driver inattentiveness created from a large percentages of drivers on the roads at once, is through a combination of fed up fellow drivers who find they have to expend more of their own energy and blood to drive defensively. And deep pocket lawsuits and civil suits that clearly makes those who create harm from selfish inattentiveness, while talking on a cell phone financially responsible. Perhaps some one or a group will start counting the deaths and injuries, AFAIK know one is even counting the toll of distracted drivers. Funny, distractedrivers.org website was shut down and turned into a porn site so quickly? How'd that happen? MADD and the price to society that drunk drivers were creating came to light eventually , but how long did that take along with fighting the alcoholic beverage industry. Or the tobacco lobby? Someday cell phone driving attitudes may come into line with a more accurate picture of costs to the society, but for now it's like were sitting in smokey cafe in the 50's.
Although I encourage personal responsibility I'm afraid the Cellular industry doesn't have such compunctions and has bought itself immunity and ways of creating wealth by promoting a lack of responsibility of it's users to other drivers, focusing on a hands-free law sham.
The cellular system itself was set up to do soft hand-offs as users moved from one cell tower connection to another. I doubt early engineers ever stopped to think how a large percentage of drivers talking would change the driving experience.
It would likely be simple to set up some rules of the cell system in combination, with the GPS sub system, to keep quick moving phones from handing off. Of course, I don't think the Cellcos would be eager to interfere with revenue stream from the 40% [guessing here] of peak airtime revenue calling, generated from moving vehicles.
One only needs to look at the cellular laws throughout the industrialized nations to see how much the US industry has gained, at the expense of the motoring public's increased inattentiveness, stress and safety.
-
Greenjeens
| |
| bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
| Can't wait for this to arrive in my state... I can't tell you HOW many times I have seen near accidents on the interstates around here from people talking on cellphones.
I've watched people make lane changes inches from my bumper and other peoples' bumpers. I've seen people on their cellphones almost pass up their exit, so they cut across three lanes of traffic. I've seen them stop up a whole lane of interstate traffic as they try to cut in line at a congested exit (of course, even people not on cell phones do it too). Saw one guy almost eat the rear end of an 18 wheeler one night. Or my favorite, people who are talking and driving 10 under the limit causing all kinds of congestion.
Granted, I make a call when I'm driving, but typically it is under 20 seconds and is basically to tell someone that I'm my way or stuck in traffic. But conversations... That is what speaker phone or a headset is for...
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| |
RangerTX
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: Can't wait for this to arrive in my state... you can pass thousands of laws but will they be enforced. Personally will violate the law when it takes effect and once I get ticket will consult with lawyer to see about challenging it
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on tv | |
| | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
| Re: Can't wait for this to arrive in my state... said by RangerTX :you can pass thousands of laws but will they be enforced. Personally will violate the law when it takes effect and once I get ticket will consult with lawyer to see about challenging it You know, it would be way simpler to just buy a damn headset... The path you've chosen will end up costing you more than a bluetooth headset.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
| | | | MrBentor
join:2003-02-18
Seattle, WA
·Comcast
| Just past in Washington State - Effective Jan 1, 2008 This did however just pass in Washington State. The law takes effect January 1st, 2008. It prohibits hand held-sets. Phone users must use some sort of hands-free headset and microphone. Text messaging will also be banned.
This will be a "secondary" offense meaning they can't just pull you over for using a cellphone, they must see you doing something else first, like speeding, or forgetting to signal lane change. The ticket will be starting at $101.
P.S. If you get caught throwing a lit cigarette out your window, the fine is $1024.00 plus other fees. | |
| | 
Boricua65
Oye, chico
join:2002-01-26
Puerto Rico
| Re: Just past in Washington State - Effective Jan 1, 2008 said by MrBentor :This will be a "secondary" offense meaning they can't just pull you over for using a cellphone, they must see you doing something else first, like speeding, or forgetting to signal lane change. The ticket will be starting at $101. Give it time, that will definitely change. Our seatbelt law originally was secondary, as you mentioned the cop has to see you do something else (like speeding) to give you a ticket for not wearing your seatbelt. Now it's primary and an instant ticket. There are freeway signs that says Click It or Ticket.
said by MrBentor :P.S. If you get caught throwing a lit cigarette out your window, the fine is $1024.00 plus other fees. If only, if only!!! You don't know how many people I've seen who would throw a lit cigarette out the window. Never ceases to amazing me when they (CHP, cops) are never around for that. | |
| | | 
MisterMarcus
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| Re: Just past in Washington State - Effective Jan 1, 2008 More to the point this is California. It's a well known fact that our laws are significantly more severe and restrictive than most other states.
When the cell law passes, guaranteed...it'll be just like the seatbelts. If an officer sees you on the phone, you'll get pulled over. And our fines won't be a Benjamin, either. Count on at least $200 infractions.
That takes care of two of the five most egregious violations that California drivers are guilty of. The other two...I'm sure won't ever get any airplay. Those being-
1: People who don't signal when turning, switching lanes, or exiting freeways. I'm sorry but this irritates me, especially when it's some foreigner who drives jerkily. These cause accidents, because unless you can predict what someone is going to do, you could run into the back of them if you're behind them or get boxed in and hit if you're beside them.
2: the "California Stop". Irritating. Yes, my tires come to a complete stop when I'm a stop sign, too many people do the "California Stop" and I've seen too many near misses because of it.
3: The Yellow Light Speedup. This really bothers me IF it's a busy intersection. If it's a little side street or something with little car flow I could care less. It's when it's on a major thoroughfare that I really get bothered - because you never know who will end up running the red light and causing an accident. | |
| | | | 
Lil Jon
Premium
join:2006-06-26
Lawrenceville, GA | Re: Just past in Washington State - Effective Jan 1, 2008 good news.... | |
| 
Defiance82
Computer Elite
Premium
join:2002-09-11
Reeds Spring, MO
clubs:
| lawl Well then they should ban cops from using police radios while driving, maybe even ban their use of in car PCs when they run License plate checks. That could be a safty risk. Dogs should also be banned from cars. I can't count the times I've seen a dog in the drivers lap with it's head out the window.. Oh wait.. what about smoking? Don't you have to take a hand off the wheel to light it and then hold it lol? Cell phone bans are lame if anything. I know one time Chicago protested it since a lot of the cops use them while in their squad cars..
--
Programming is like sex. One mistake - endless support. | |
| |
I agree
@pacbell.net
| I agree I agree, it should be a common sense issue. If you know that you are distracted while talking on the phone, avoid it or keep it to a minimum. Eating while driving is horribly distracting (I know because sometime I have to do it), but I manage to make driving the priority (and I've never even had a traffic ticket). I don't want to live in a world that is so paranoid that we have to have government intervention for everything that annoys us. Smoking, eating, talking, etc. are obviously going to distract you from paying complete attention to the road and I would like to trust that other people can exercise their own common sense. Furthermore, if you're using a hands free device I can't imagine how in the world talking on the phone could be THAT different from talking to a passenger, which people have been doing since the invention of the T. Model Ford, but whatever. | |
| | RDINDY
join:2006-05-09
Fishers, IN
| Cell Phone Driving I have to agree with most of the comments addressed here.
My friend, when I told him about this seems to think it's no different than listening to the radio/CD's or talking to a passenger in your car. He seems to think it's still engaging in a conversation from keeping your focus on the road. I don't know what to think.
Yes! I use a cell-phone but if it rings I have a call-log that tells me who called and I don't need to answer it..NOW. If I need to talk and it's important, I'll find a parking-lot of some type and stop there.
I don't even like using it on the road when no-one is around. I've been threw a couple of wrecks and I need my rates to start going down. It takes 3yrs for this stuff to get off your record.
Just for the record I was not on my phone when I had the wrecks. I do not use my phone when I drive. I do not trust myself using my phone.
I "always" see someone passing me on the road, speeding threw a 35mph zone doing 60, tailgating and changing lanes without a signal. A couple of weeks ago I had a lady make a right-hand turn in front of me from the left lane. I was first in line in the right-hand lane and wanting to turn right. She couldn't wait and turned.
I just try to stay out of there way. Let them hit someone else becuase you can drive so much better than me. | |
| | | |
|
|
CA Driving Cell Phone Ban Only A Rumor
·
