Jump to content

Banning the Operation of GPS Devices in Cars?


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

More laws that can't be enforced....YAY!!!

Might as well outlaw drinking, smoking, cell phones, hands-free, talking, radios/CDs, A/C and vent controls, cruise controls, wiper controls, etc.

Where does it end?

Outlaw cars? Certainly would reduce the carbon footprint. But there might be unintended consequences somewhere down the road. :o

Link to comment

What is really stupid is that the Cell phone started out as a car accessory. Now they are getting banned all over the place (unless you use a handsfree device which is utter BS).

GPSs have gotten their boost out of obscurity because of their value in cars and now they are getting banned in places. Some cars even come with them preinstalled. What then?

 

Stupid laws to give police any reason to pull you over so the jurisdiction can collect their extortion money.

Link to comment

What is really stupid is that the Cell phone started out as a car accessory. Now they are getting banned all over the place (unless you use a handsfree device which is utter BS).

GPSs have gotten their boost out of obscurity because of their value in cars and now they are getting banned in places. Some cars even come with them preinstalled. What then?

 

Stupid laws to give police any reason to pull you over so the jurisdiction can collect their extortion money.

Don't hold back. What do you really think?

Link to comment

What is really stupid is that the Cell phone started out as a car accessory. Now they are getting banned all over the place (unless you use a handsfree device which is utter BS).

GPSs have gotten their boost out of obscurity because of their value in cars and now they are getting banned in places. Some cars even come with them preinstalled. What then?

 

Stupid laws to give police any reason to pull you over so the jurisdiction can collect their extortion money.

Don't hold back. What do you really think?

 

~LOL~

 

That was holding back because this is a family friendly forum.

Link to comment

My father told me that the original car radios caused a similar controversy. But as I pointed out early on... this bill (IF it gets anywhere, which I doubt) refers to manual operation. Voice recognition, while an inexact science even today , is certainly a possibility. Of course... not with MY Nuvi.

Link to comment

My father told me that the original car radios caused a similar controversy. But as I pointed out early on... this bill (IF it gets anywhere, which I doubt) refers to manual operation. Voice recognition, while an inexact science even today , is certainly a possibility. Of course... not with MY Nuvi.

 

My point on the voice is that it doesn't matter if you hold a phone to your head or the phone is handsfree, the same distraction applies.

I would argue the same with the voice activated GPS unit as well. It's not the hand operation but the concentration on the operation that makes it "dangerous".

 

The laws are stupid, plain and simple.

Link to comment

My father told me that the original car radios caused a similar controversy. But as I pointed out early on... this bill (IF it gets anywhere, which I doubt) refers to manual operation. Voice recognition, while an inexact science even today , is certainly a possibility. Of course... not with MY Nuvi.

 

My point on the voice is that it doesn't matter if you hold a phone to your head or the phone is handsfree, the same distraction applies.

I would argue the same with the voice activated GPS unit as well. It's not the hand operation but the concentration on the operation that makes it "dangerous".

 

The laws are stupid, plain and simple.

 

If you can't manage to reply in a family friendly manner in these here parts then I would think you need to take a time out! :o

 

Please don't move to my area any time soon. I believe your opinion about cell phone use is just a bit over the top and way too much of a Big Brother attitude. The "studies" that I have seen so far have been incredibly biased. If you don't feel comfortable using a cell phone while driving then I would encourage you not to use one. I haven't managed to get a ticket yet in the past 15 or so years that I have been using a cell phone while driving. Maybe I am just exceptioanl. :)

Link to comment

My father told me that the original car radios caused a similar controversy. But as I pointed out early on... this bill (IF it gets anywhere, which I doubt) refers to manual operation. Voice recognition, while an inexact science even today , is certainly a possibility. Of course... not with MY Nuvi.

 

My point on the voice is that it doesn't matter if you hold a phone to your head or the phone is handsfree, the same distraction applies.

I would argue the same with the voice activated GPS unit as well. It's not the hand operation but the concentration on the operation that makes it "dangerous".

 

The laws are stupid, plain and simple.

 

A little tougher, though, for the LEO's to pull you over for talking to your GPS than for punching the touch screen.

 

The laws are stupid, plain and simple.

 

We're talking about a propose law. And not all that stupid. It is very distracting to be punching in coordinates or searching POIs while driving. I do it, but I know that I shouldn't. And I've been behind or next to enough people on the highways that are driving like idiots because they're talking on their cellphones.

 

ON THE OTHER HAND.... talking to arguing children in the backseat, reading billboards that are zooming past, and finding a better station on the radio can all be just as distracting, if not more. Not to mention being pis*ed at the driver next to you that is obviously trying to program his GPSr.

Link to comment

My father told me that the original car radios caused a similar controversy. But as I pointed out early on... this bill (IF it gets anywhere, which I doubt) refers to manual operation. Voice recognition, while an inexact science even today , is certainly a possibility. Of course... not with MY Nuvi.

 

My point on the voice is that it doesn't matter if you hold a phone to your head or the phone is handsfree, the same distraction applies.

I would argue the same with the voice activated GPS unit as well. It's not the hand operation but the concentration on the operation that makes it "dangerous".

 

The laws are stupid, plain and simple.

 

A little tougher, though, for the LEO's to pull you over for talking to your GPS than for punching the touch screen.

 

The laws are stupid, plain and simple.

 

We're talking about a propose law. And not all that stupid. It is very distracting to be punching in coordinates or searching POIs while driving. I do it, but I know that I shouldn't. And I've been behind or next to enough people on the highways that are driving like idiots because they're talking on their cellphones.

 

ON THE OTHER HAND.... talking to arguing children in the backseat, reading billboards that are zooming past, and finding a better station on the radio can all be just as distracting, if not more. Not to mention being pis*ed at the driver next to you that is obviously trying to program his GPSr.

 

You forgot lighting a cigarette, eating a Big Mac, Putting on Makeup and so many others that are distracting.

I have decided that when I see a police officer behind me I will turn off my cell phone, put my phone to my head and wait to get pulled over. The law says you can't talk on the cell phone. I won't be talking and I will have my cell phone bill presented in court as evidence. Yeah, I know its a hassle for me but the time I will take from the courts will be about the cost of two tickets so it will be a negative revenue flow for that one citation.

 

I can't think of something more distracting than talking to your GPS unit and getting frustrated because it doesn't listen very well. That would be very "distracting".

Link to comment

Please don't move to my area any time soon. I believe your opinion about cell phone use is just a bit over the top and way too much of a Big Brother attitude. The "studies" that I have seen so far have been incredibly biased. If you don't feel comfortable using a cell phone while driving then I would encourage you not to use one. I haven't managed to get a ticket yet in the past 15 or so years that I have been using a cell phone while driving. Maybe I am just exceptioanl. :o

 

That wasn't directed at me, was it? I think the cell phone laws are stupid.

If someone is on their cell phone and driving in a distracted manner, pull them over for driving as distracted. If they are on their phone and driving responsibly, then why pull them over?

 

Its a stupid law and guaranteed to draw a TON of revenue.

Link to comment

 

You forgot lighting a cigarette, eating a Big Mac, Putting on Makeup and so many others that are distracting.

I have decided that when I see a police officer behind me I will turn off my cell phone, put my phone to my head and wait to get pulled over. The law says you can't talk on the cell phone. I won't be talking and I will have my cell phone bill presented in court as evidence. Yeah, I know its a hassle for me but the time I will take from the courts will be about the cost of two tickets so it will be a negative revenue flow for that one citation.

 

I can't think of something more distracting than talking to your GPS unit and getting frustrated because it doesn't listen very well. That would be very "distracting".

 

Sounds brilliant... make sure you let us know how it turns out!

 

(bolding mine)

Link to comment

Personally, I'm for a law for targeting distracting drivers. Yeah, I'm a cop, so what, I've been for such a law for longer than I've been a cop.

 

One may note that the NJ law was proposed for programming the GPS while in motion. Makes sense. In fact, some GPSs have a feature that will not allow you to fool with them while in motion. Of course, you can turn those features off. I'd say it would be a good law.

 

Anytime I pull someone over for a moving violation I ask if there was a reason they were doing what they were doing. 90% of the time the excuse boiled down to distraction. They claimed to not know they were in violation. I personally believe that is only valid for about 30% of the drivers, if that. The other 10% of excuses was impatience. I think it's much more impatience than anything else. Folks just don't want to do the speed limit, give adequate following distance, come to a complete stop, or wait until there enough room to merge. Then I have to work their collisions.

 

As a motorcyclist I've long watched peoples' heads, what for their intent. I'd say a vast majority of cellphone users don't use their turn signals. A lot don't turn their heads to check a blind spot. Folks seem to think they can't take the cellphone from their ear to drive. I think it simply never dawns on them to say, "hold up a second," do what they have to do and then resume the conversation. My wife does it all the time. If she's in town or has to make a turn, she puts the phone down.

 

Here's the thing, when you're behind the wheel your first priority is piloting that vehicle. That doesn't simply mean adjusting where it is pointing. You're a driver. You're responsible for you, your passengers, and everyone around you. Those folks outside your car are counting on you to do the right thing, otherwise, they might get hurt. Any action or thing that puts driving at number 2 on your priority list or lower is a bad thing. One day it might catch to you. It might not even be completely your fault, but you weren't able to detect another bad driver in time to avoid that collision simply because you were talking on the phone, eating, whatever...or programming your GPS...while driving.

Link to comment

Well said CR. Most times I'm behind someone on a cell phone, they don't use signals, don't seem to be aware of what's around them and gradually get slower and slower. With a hands free device it's much easier (but not a guarantee) and more natural to retain good driving habits (signal, turn to look for cars, etc.).

I say let's ban the application of makeup or shaving while driving! :o

Link to comment
I have decided that when I see a police officer behind me I will turn off my cell phone, put my phone to my head and wait to get pulled over. The law says you can't talk on the cell phone. I won't be talking and I will have my cell phone bill presented in court as evidence. Yeah, I know its a hassle for me but the time I will take from the courts will be about the cost of two tickets so it will be a negative revenue flow for that one citation.

The first word that comes to mind is "clueless."

 

One, a lot of modern cruisers have digital cameras. Once activated they record the previous 30 to 60 seconds. Video evidence could be presented at court. You would then be left with explaining what you were doing with something to your head.

 

Two, most cops have set court dates. They write a number of tickets for that date. They're there already. You want a continuance. No big deal, there would be no big "Duh-duh-DUUUHHH", Perry Mason moment where everyone thinks you've got something sneaky going on. Most likely you'll get a few eye rolls just like the guy who pleads not guilty to driving under suspension, 5th count, or requests a jury trail. The only thing you'll be seen doing to prolonging the inevitable.

 

Three, a police officer couldn't testify to you talking on a phone to begin with. They don't know what you were doing. What they would be testifying to is you being observed with an electronic devise held to your ear while you were operating a vehicle. You object, "but, Your Honor, here's my bill, I wasn't on the phone!" "Then what were you doing?" Then you try to make the officer look like a liar and depending on the officer's past cases you would be the one the judge thinks is lying. He wouldn't know what you were doing. He might even ask, "So, just whose phone were you using?" Now, answer that one.

 

Yeah, I see all that going exactly like you planned it.

Link to comment

What is really stupid is that the Cell phone started out as a car accessory. Now they are getting banned all over the place (unless you use a handsfree device which is utter BS).

GPSs have gotten their boost out of obscurity because of their value in cars and now they are getting banned in places. Some cars even come with them preinstalled. What then?

 

Stupid laws to give police any reason to pull you over so the jurisdiction can collect their extortion money.

Don't hold back. What do you really think?

 

~LOL~

 

That was holding back because this is a family friendly forum.

 

I thought that exact same this, ole bittsen was holding back. He was even kinda mellow!

Link to comment
Here's the thing, when you're behind the wheel your first priority is piloting that vehicle. That doesn't simply mean adjusting where it is pointing. You're a driver. You're responsible for you, your passengers, and everyone around you. Those folks outside your car are counting on you to do the right thing, otherwise, they might get hurt. Any action or thing that puts driving at number 2 on your priority list or lower is a bad thing. One day it might catch to you. It might not even be completely your fault, but you weren't able to detect another bad driver in time to avoid that collision simply because you were talking on the phone, eating, whatever...or programming your GPS...while driving.

 

Very well said.

 

I drive as part of my job. I see people doing all sorts of extremely stupid and careless things while they are driving. 9 times out of 10 when I see someone narrowly escape an accident, they are talking on a cell phone.

 

Someone else's vanity and their inability to go 10 minutes without yacking to someone on their phone isn't worth the risk they pose to everyone else on the road IMO.

Link to comment

My father told me that the original car radios caused a similar controversy. But as I pointed out early on... this bill (IF it gets anywhere, which I doubt) refers to manual operation. Voice recognition, while an inexact science even today , is certainly a possibility. Of course... not with MY Nuvi.

 

My point on the voice is that it doesn't matter if you hold a phone to your head or the phone is handsfree, the same distraction applies.

I would argue the same with the voice activated GPS unit as well. It's not the hand operation but the concentration on the operation that makes it "dangerous".

 

The laws are stupid, plain and simple.

This is completely untrue. It IS the hand operation that makes it dangerous, because there is a HUGE difference in available control between one hand on the wheel and two hands (or, for those who drive stick, one hand on the wheel and one on the shifter vs. something critical to driving is getting ignored because you need two hands and only have one free.)

 

People also tend to tilt their head somewhat when handholding a phone to their head, and it's a lot harder to move your head when you're holding a phone to it. Handsfree headsets (especially Bluetooth wireless ones) permit far more head movement (for checking blind spots and such).

 

Yes, driving while talking is not as good as driving while not doing anything, but there's a massive difference in driving ability between talking with both hands free and talking while trying to keep the phone near your head with one hand.

Link to comment
What is really stupid is that the Cell phone started out as a car accessory. Now they are getting banned all over the place (unless you use a handsfree device which is utter BS).

In CT, they are considering a flat out ban on any cell phone use, even with a headset/hands free device.

 

A bill like that probably wouldn't have passed the first time through, but if they do it in stages, change it a little here then a little more later, people are less likely to notice because it's not so extreme.

Link to comment

 

In CT, they are considering a flat out ban on any cell phone use, even with a headset/hands free device.

 

A bill like that probably wouldn't have passed the first time through, but if they do it in stages, change it a little here then a little more later, people are less likely to notice because it's not so extreme.

 

Exactly. Thats how we ended up with the taxes we have and the laws we have and the loss of personal rights and liberties we once enjoyed.

Link to comment

If there were such a thing as common sense, and it ruled folk's behavior, I would object to this... but since folks in large numbers do all sorts of crazy stuff while driving these kinds of laws are required... if for no other reason than to establish liability when they crash into someone while texting or using their GPS.

 

As far as the hands-free issue, can you speak and control a device without looking at it? Having your hands free is no help if your eyes and attention are on some device inside the car!

Link to comment

If there were such a thing as common sense, and it ruled folk's behavior, I would object to this... but since folks in large numbers do all sorts of crazy stuff while driving these kinds of laws are required... if for no other reason than to establish liability when they crash into someone while texting or using their GPS.

 

As far as the hands-free issue, can you speak and control a device without looking at it? Having your hands free is no help if your eyes and attention are on some device inside the car!

 

My objection is only because only SOME people are distracted while using their devices, others are very competent.

It's akin (IMHO) to outlawing peanuts because some people are allergic to them.

Link to comment

My objection is only because only SOME people are distracted while using their devices, others are very competent.

It's akin (IMHO) to outlawing peanuts because some people are allergic to them.

No relationship whatsoever between the two.

 

Like drunks who swear they are okay to drive, practically no one can take their eyes and attention off of the road to make a cell phone call or program a GPS without swerving from a straight path, often into other lanes. Maybe you can... I can't, and I have never seen anyone who can on any kind of reliable basis.

Link to comment

No relationship whatsoever between the two.

 

Like drunks who swear they are okay to drive, practically no one can take their eyes and attention off of the road to make a cell phone call or program a GPS without swerving from a straight path, often into other lanes. Maybe you can... I can't, and I have never seen anyone who can on any kind of reliable basis.

 

And yet the laws exempt law enforcement officers and other emergency response drivers.

 

I would think they were the ones who needed the most attention on the road.

Link to comment

No relationship whatsoever between the two.

 

Like drunks who swear they are okay to drive, practically no one can take their eyes and attention off of the road to make a cell phone call or program a GPS without swerving from a straight path, often into other lanes. Maybe you can... I can't, and I have never seen anyone who can on any kind of reliable basis.

 

And yet the laws exempt law enforcement officers and other emergency response drivers.

 

I would think they were the ones who needed the most attention on the road.

 

One word. TRAINING.

 

Dude, the internet tough guy routine is getting tired.

Link to comment

If there were such a thing as common sense, and it ruled folk's behavior, I would object to this... but since folks in large numbers do all sorts of crazy stuff while driving these kinds of laws are required... if for no other reason than to establish liability when they crash into someone while texting or using their GPS.

 

As far as the hands-free issue, can you speak and control a device without looking at it? Having your hands free is no help if your eyes and attention are on some device inside the car!

 

My objection is only because only SOME people are distracted while using their devices, others are very competent.

...

 

All people are distracted. That's simple, objective fact. You are only qualifying it with "Yeah but some aren't as distracted as others".

 

To answer TAR's question. No voice activated devices are good enough yet to just talk to like you would a passenger. I have one of the better Voice Activated GPSs. I tie my wife up in stiches she laughs so hard at my trying to get it to do things.

Link to comment

No relationship whatsoever between the two.

 

Like drunks who swear they are okay to drive, practically no one can take their eyes and attention off of the road to make a cell phone call or program a GPS without swerving from a straight path, often into other lanes. Maybe you can... I can't, and I have never seen anyone who can on any kind of reliable basis.

 

And yet the laws exempt law enforcement officers and other emergency response drivers.

 

I would think they were the ones who needed the most attention on the road.

 

It's a stab at heading off unintended consequences and the reality that some folks need the tools to better do their job.

 

One they likely didn't think up. Home health nurses who have to be able to find their patience. Not everone calls the Ambulance when they have a problem. What about SAR? Highway crews responding to an emergency? Etc.

Link to comment
Personally, I'm for a law for targeting distracting drivers. Yeah, I'm a cop, so what, I've been for such a law for longer than I've been a cop.

The "cell phone law" in CT got a lot of press because it was the 2nd or 3rd law in the nation to ban cell phone use without a hands free device, but the law was actually much broader than that and was actually a "distracted driving" law.

 

Pretty much anything that distracts a driver, including drinking a soda or eating a burger is covered under the law.

 

That said, I have some friends who are cops, and they said that before the law went into effect, they could still pull people over for talking on the phone or for anything else if someone was driving erratically or unsafely.

 

Even with the law, there are hundreds (thousands) who still drive and talk without a hands free device, or they put on makeup or shave. I saw one guy with a notebook leaned up against his wheel, and he was writing things down after looking down at an open book that was on the passenger seat.

Link to comment

Two things I would like to add......

 

With any communication device, be it cell phone, CB radio, or whatever, a conversation with another person who is not in the vehicle with you is INHERENTLY more dangerous than talking with a passenger in a vehicle. The reason is the passenger is probably aware of the surroundings as a second pair of eyes, and can react to and direct the attention of the driver to any problems. A person out side the vehicle, many miles away in most cases, has no idea what you are facing as the pilot of the vehicle, and cannot react to any immediate dangers that may arise. It is because of this I will not use a cell phone while driving. There is not a conversation more important to me than the lives of my passengers and the other people around me. I do not answer calls while driving, I hand my phone to a passenger in the vehicle or not answer at all.

 

Second, the program Myth Busters did a segment were they took on whether or not talking on a cell phone was safer than driving while legally intoxicated. They found that a person talking on a cell phone has about the same reaction time as someone with a BAC of .08%, legally drunk. It does not matter how much training, experience, or what ever excuse you can up with, it is still going to be a distraction.

 

I am not a police officer, never have been. However, I do follow the rules of the road the best I can, I do my best to stay AT OR BELOW posted speed limits, (there is no "grace", you are exceeding the speed limit if you go 1mph over, it is still breaking the law!) obey traffic signals, and give rightaway to anyone who seems to think they're current objective is more important to anyone else on the road. A car is a mode of transportation. The laws are there to protect everyone and assign blame when things go wrong. If you are doing ANYTHING that does not contribute to the safe piloting of the vehicle, do not do it. You are only risking the lives and well being of everyone around you.

Edited by RS67Man
Link to comment

Since this thread hasn't already been locked for going off-topic let me add a few unscientific observations regarding the introduction of the hands-free only cell-phone law in California:

 

The dumb:

- a lot of people started holding their cell phones in their right hands instead of their left hands since it makes them less visible to a police officer driving up beside them

- a lot of people start holding their phones down at chest-level using speaker phone. They seem to believe that as long as you're not holding it to your ear, you can't get a ticket. That's wrong:- you still get a ticket.

 

An unexpected result:

- I can't prove this statistically but I believe a lot of law-abiding people have stopped using cell phones in the car as much. If it's not built into the car, having a hands-free device avavilable and charged to receive and make calls adds an extra level of complexity to the process which results in people not being able/willing to use their cell phones while driving.

 

A lot of people are still using hand-held cell phones and are risking getting a ticket. Obviously the threat of a ticket and the cost of a ticket is not sufficient to discourage a quite a large segment of the population.

Link to comment
Pretty much anything that distracts a driver, including drinking a soda or eating a burger is covered under the law.
Does that include billboards?

Actually, yes. Well, not officially in this law, but the Governor has spoken out about about the new LED (or whatever light types they are) billboards because they are so bright, and the constant changing of them is very distracting.

 

It was sort of ironic because as I was listening to the news story on the radio, I drove past a billboard, and a message from a state agency popped up on one of them.

 

I'm not sure what became of it, but last I heard they were still trying to get them banned. I know VT doesn't have any billboards anywhere.

Link to comment

The problem with these types of laws (gross over-generalization here) is that they are reactionary.

 

They aim to stop a real problem without actually addressing the cause.

 

In my opinion, education (such as a previous post by CoyoteRed) is much more effective at preventing these issues than scare tactics.

 

But then, we live in a world where it is necessary to label a snow blower as not for use on a standard residential roof.

 

Common sense, well, isn't. Not anymore. No amount of legislation is going to change that.

Link to comment

An unexpected result:

- I can't prove this statistically but I believe a lot of law-abiding people have stopped using cell phones in the car as much. If it's not built into the car, having a hands-free device avavilable and charged to receive and make calls adds an extra level of complexity to the process which results in people not being able/willing to use their cell phones while driving.

 

A lot of people are still using hand-held cell phones and are risking getting a ticket. Obviously the threat of a ticket and the cost of a ticket is not sufficient to discourage a quite a large segment of the population.

 

Yup, add me to that list. I just use my cell phone less and I use it normally when I can't avoid it.

 

The reason why I hate the anti cell-phone like laws is that they are trying to legislate behavior. It's my own safety (financial & personal) at risk if I do something stupid.

 

*grumbles about a society that has forgotten personal responsibility*

 

GET OFF MY LAWN! :o

Link to comment

Common sense, well, isn't. Not anymore. No amount of legislation is going to change that.

 

Actually, legislation makes it worse. No need to think any more if Uncle Sam is going to take care of you. ("Well, this rat poison doesn't say toxic, so I guess it's OK to put in the crib...")

Link to comment

The reason why I hate the anti cell-phone like laws is that they are trying to legislate behavior.

Exactly my earlier point... since folks won't do the right thing by choice laws have to be enacted to make them do it or hold them responsible if they don't.

 

It's my own safety (financial & personal) at risk if I do something stupid.

No, it's the safety of others that's the focus here. If distracted drivers only hurt themselves that would be one thing, but allowing them to hurt innocent victims is another.

 

You can choose what level of risk is comfortable to you, set your own acceptable price you are willing to pay for your risky behavior, you cannot however allow your risky behavior to affect others.

 

I saw this just last month, a driver ahead of me let his car drift left across the lane divider on the interstate, not far and not for long... just long and far enough that a passing car in the left lane had to hit her brakes hard, swerved left to avoid a collision, skidded into the median and went sailing through the grass spinning like a top. The driver who started it apparently never saw her and continued on as if nothing had happened. Was he programming his GPS? Dialing his cell phone? I don't know, but his little jaunt across lanes had consequences he wasn't even aware of.

Link to comment

 

The reason why I hate the anti cell-phone like laws is that they are trying to legislate behavior. It's my own safety (financial & personal) at risk if I do something stupid.

 

 

If you want to jump off of a second story roof into a 8ft pool, it is your own safety at risk. If you want to skateboard down a railing along a set of steps, it is your own safetey at risk. If you want to rock climb up a steep rock face, it is your own safety at risk.

 

If you drink & drive, are distracted by being on your cell phone/ arguing with the kids in the back seat/ adjusting the GPS/ etc., it is your own safety AS WELL AS those driving/ walking around you. I hope you can see that.

Link to comment
It's my own safety (financial & personal) at risk if I do something stupid.

No, it's the safety of others that's the focus here. If distracted drivers only hurt themselves that would be one thing, but allowing them to hurt innocent victims is another.

 

You can choose what level of risk is comfortable to you, set your own acceptable price you are willing to pay for your risky behavior, you cannot however allow your risky behavior to affect others.

 

That's what I'm talking about. If I engage in risky behavior then I'm responsible for the consequences of my actions. That already existed in the law and that's how it should be. At best it's a waste of police time for minimal gain and at worst its an attack on individual freedoms. I lump it in there with seat belt laws, helmet laws, anti-smoking laws, gun control, etc ,etc, etc.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...