Another new law

[+Arrow42]

To the half dozen or so people here who are not worried about the direction of governemnt in the US and UK, please read Animal Farm, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Fahrenheit 451. All of these books were written 50+ years ago and all are turning out to be prophetic.

[+KBI]

Also, yours is about headsets, not passengers.

It covered both. Didn't you read it?

 

I see your 2001 U of Utah study and raise you a 2004 U of Utah study.

One tidbit from the study you linked:

On the practical side, the findings allow predictions about how contexts can negatively affect dual-task performance. On one hand, passengers not engaged in the driving task either because they are not able to direct the attention of the driver toward traffic, or do not know how to identify important events in the driving environment (e.g., children in the vehicle) have a potentially negative impact on driving performance. On the other hand, it is possible that overengagement can also have a potentially negative impact. For example a passenger who is too "supportive" by constantly commenting and directing attention in an overcontrolling fashion has a potentially negative impact on performance.

There are a lot of details in there. I can pick the parts that come off in support my position, and you can pick the parts that seem to challenge my position.

 

Ultimately however, both studies, the one you linked AND the one I linked (plus a few others I scanned) all consistently agree that conversation with a passenger is distracting to a driver. The only disagreement among those academics is in the degree of the distraction.

 

I fly airliners for a living. We get lots and lots of training and education and rules on this very subject. Human factors, Situational Awareness, Crew Resource Management, critical-phase-of-flight conversation restrictions ... it’s all intended to keep the pilot alert, aware, informed, and undistracted (and the airplane out of the trees). And it works. Millions of dollars and man-hours have gone into studying how pilots should interact with others during flight. I am required to wear a headset. I am required to conduct information-laden radio conversations, even during critical phases. There are very specific and strict restrictions on when and how I can talk to my copilot, but far fewer restrictions on when I can converse with the guy in the tower. Compare that to passenger vs cell phone, and I think you will catch my drift.

 

And no, we don’t textmessage, read, write, Game-Boy, tie shoes or play with a Garmin during approach and landing. That would be insane. And driving an automobile down any highway is statistically FAR more dangerous than landing an airliner, despite what some folks' intuition may tell them otherwise. Doing any of those things while driving a car would be even more insane.

 

As a distraction, chatting on a cell phone IS meaningfully analogous to chatting with a passenger. Not equal maybe, but similar enough. That was my point. Any distraction can be unacceptably risky, depending on the situation. Judgment must be applied, and you can’t legislate judgment.

 

And I stand by that point: If governments are going to ban cell phone use, then they must also ban passengers if they are to be consistent. Otherwise the legislation is based on intuition and politics instead of facts and research. But then what else is new?

Edited July 20, 2009 by KBI

[+KBI]

To the half dozen or so people here who are not worried about the direction of governemnt in the US and UK, please read Animal Farm, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Fahrenheit 451. All of these books were written 50+ years ago and all are turning out to be prophetic.

You forgot Atlas Shrugged. That one is playing out now as well.

[+Arrow42]

To the half dozen or so people here who are not worried about the direction of governemnt in the US and UK, please read Animal Farm, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Fahrenheit 451. All of these books were written 50+ years ago and all are turning out to be prophetic.

You forgot Atlas Shrugged. That one is playing out now as well.

 

I really should read that one...

[+KBI]

To the half dozen or so people here who are not worried about the direction of governemnt in the US and UK, please read Animal Farm, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Fahrenheit 451. All of these books were written 50+ years ago and all are turning out to be prophetic.

You forgot Atlas Shrugged. That one is playing out now as well.

I really should read that one...

Not if you value your peace of mind.

[+Arrow42]

To the half dozen or so people here who are not worried about the direction of governemnt in the US and UK, please read Animal Farm, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Fahrenheit 451. All of these books were written 50+ years ago and all are turning out to be prophetic.

You forgot Atlas Shrugged. That one is playing out now as well.

I really should read that one...

Not if you value your peace of mind.

 

Anyone who has peace of mind isn't paying close enough attention.

[+Rockin Roddy]

btw, I said nothing about hands-free...

Yes, you did. That may not be what you meant, but it’s what you typed. You quoted my entire post, then responded to it by saying:

 

"Completely false, but thanks for chiming in! It is, in fact, quite the opposite." (Bolding mine.)

 

If you didn’t mean it the way it sounded, then maybe you should choose your words more carefully.

 

One of the major differences with talking on a cellphone and talking to a passenger is a passenger is more likely to be paying attention to the roads like the driver is supposed to ...

It is clear from this comment that you did not read the documents I linked.

 

That’s fine. Believe whatever you like. I’m just linking what I found on the first page of my Google search results. You are not arguing with me; you are instead butting heads with academic researchers who have been putting heavy science into this stuff.

 

But I’m sure your intuition beats their science.

 

First, NO I DIDN'T...I commented to this: "Driving while chatting on a cell phone is mildly distracting, but no more distracting that driving while chatting with a passenger. If driving with a cell phone is to be banned, then driving with passengers should be banned as well". Now, can you please show me where handheld is mentioned in this? I didn't see it either... This IS, btw, completely false as Flask has pointed out in one of her posts. And, it is in fact, quite the opposite since chatting with a passenger is no where near as taxing on the brain as using a cell phone. I don't believe you need to search out the passenger, I doubt you'll need to check to see who is calling with a passenger and I doubt seriously that a passenger will be stuck to your head like it's the most important thing on earth...for starters.

 

Second, I know you feel you're right, good on you, but believe me when I tell you I have read MUCH more than what was on the first page of a google search since BIKE SAFETY is a major issue for me. Somewhere in my readings (and I believe it to have been in the MSF site I linked to for you to read) tells much of what Flask commented on where the brain is engaged more when on a cell phone than when talking to a passenger.

 

And last...INTUITION? OK, I guess it only counts if it's a study YOU'VE read? I guess the MSF folks are merely making things up as they go? I don't understand how you say I'm basing this on "intuition", but...

 

I hope you'll take the opportunity to read past the first lines of a google search so you can be more informed about something as important as safe driving, especially if you're going to base your argument on it. Oh, and I believe Dinoprophet added a few links, did you read those?

Edited July 20, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[+Rockin Roddy]

Also, yours is about headsets, not passengers.

It covered both. Didn't you read it?

 

I see your 2001 U of Utah study and raise you a 2004 U of Utah study.

One tidbit from the study you linked:

On the practical side, the findings allow predictions about how contexts can negatively affect dual-task performance. On one hand, passengers not engaged in the driving task either because they are not able to direct the attention of the driver toward traffic, or do not know how to identify important events in the driving environment (e.g., children in the vehicle) have a potentially negative impact on driving performance. On the other hand, it is possible that overengagement can also have a potentially negative impact. For example a passenger who is too "supportive" by constantly commenting and directing attention in an overcontrolling fashion has a potentially negative impact on performance.

There are a lot of details in there. I can pick the parts that come off in support my position, and you can pick the parts that seem to challenge my position.

 

Ultimately however, both studies, the one you linked AND the one I linked (plus a few others I scanned) all consistently agree that conversation with a passenger is distracting to a driver. The only disagreement among those academics is in the degree of the distraction.

 

I fly airliners for a living. We get lots and lots of training and education and rules on this very subject. Human factors, Situational Awareness, Crew Resource Management, critical-phase-of-flight conversation restrictions ... it’s all intended to keep the pilot alert, aware, informed, and undistracted (and the airplane out of the trees). And it works. Millions of dollars and man-hours have gone into studying how pilots should interact with others during flight. I am required to wear a headset. I am required to conduct information-laden radio conversations, even during critical phases. There are very specific and strict restrictions on when and how I can talk to my copilot, but far fewer restrictions on when I can converse with the guy in the tower. Compare that to passenger vs cell phone, and I think you will catch my drift.

 

And no, we don’t textmessage, read, write, Game-Boy, tie shoes or play with a Garmin during approach and landing. That would be insane. And driving an automobile down any highway is statistically FAR more dangerous than landing an airliner, despite what some folks' intuition may tell them otherwise. Doing any of those things while driving a car would be even more insane.

 

As a distraction, chatting on a cell phone IS meaningfully analogous to chatting with a passenger. Not equal maybe, but similar enough. That was my point. Any distraction can be unacceptably risky, depending on the situation. Judgment must be applied, and you can’t legislate judgment.

 

And I stand by that point: If governments are going to ban cell phone use, then they must also ban passengers if they are to be consistent. Otherwise the legislation is based on intuition and politics instead of facts and research. But then what else is new?

 

You are all over the place, but it seems we agree that talking on the phone is dangerous when driving...the rest, well, it's your argument, go with it as you feel. And, if you truly believe all you're saying, I expect you'll never carry a passenger with you again while driving? I mean, you DO believe what you've stated, right?

 

Back on intuition huh...not bad for someone who admittedly browsed a few googled lines on the subject...wonder who's really going on intuition? I, on the other hand, have read countless safety studies from several sources, I've even written a good amount on this subject, granted it's from info I "intuitively" found in the studies... If you'd like to read anything about what I've read and learned, try finding my Todie's Wild Ride group on FaceBook or just read as much as you will in the Todie's Wild Ride thread in the coin forums. I have done far more than a google search, my friend! As for listing links, sorry, I have read too much to remember where to go back and find the info for you, you'll either have to do that research on your own or just dismiss my comments as "intuition"...way too funny!

Edited July 20, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[Dinoprophet]

Also, yours is about headsets, not passengers.

It covered both. Didn't you read it?

Oops, you're right, it does:

The new study sought to analzye why drivers who use hands-free cell phone headsets are less attentive to traffic signals compared to drivers who converse with passengers or who listen to the radio or a book on tape. Four separate experiments, involving 110 students, found that drivers who were conversing on cell phones needed more time to react to changing traffic patterns and were less able to recall roadside images.

 

Yes, we can cherry-pick sentences, but I've been specifically noting the studies' conclusions.

 

And I stand by that point: If governments are going to ban cell phone use, then they must also ban passengers if they are to be consistent. Otherwise the legislation is based on intuition and politics instead of facts and research. But then what else is new?

Driving would be next to useless if you couldn't have passengers. There has to be some degree of acceptable risk for driving at all to make any sense.

 

I'm not sure usage should be banned. But I have no problem with adding punishment if your usage can be shown to have caused the accident you were in.

[+KBI]

And, if you truly believe all you're saying, I expect you'll never carry a passenger with you again while driving?

Nope, that's not what I said at all. Where did you get that? I thought my meaning was very clear.

 

If that's what you got from my posts, then there is no reason for me to continue this discussion with you.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Also, yours is about headsets, not passengers.

It covered both. Didn't you read it?

Oops, you're right, it does:

The new study sought to analzye why drivers who use hands-free cell phone headsets are less attentive to traffic signals compared to drivers who converse with passengers or who listen to the radio or a book on tape. Four separate experiments, involving 110 students, found that drivers who were conversing on cell phones needed more time to react to changing traffic patterns and were less able to recall roadside images.

 

Yes, we can cherry-pick sentences, but I've been specifically noting the studies' conclusions.

 

And I stand by that point: If governments are going to ban cell phone use, then they must also ban passengers if they are to be consistent. Otherwise the legislation is based on intuition and politics instead of facts and research. But then what else is new?

Driving would be next to useless if you couldn't have passengers. There has to be some degree of acceptable risk for driving at all to make any sense.

 

I'm not sure usage should be banned. But I have no problem with adding punishment if your usage can be shown to have caused the accident you were in.

 

I wish we didn't have to make laws such as banning usage, but it's obvious that something must be done since most can't use common sense. Punishment being doubled or severely multiplied when it's proven the accident was caused by usage would be OK, but I fear it's not enough.

[+Rockin Roddy]

And, if you truly believe all you're saying, I expect you'll never carry a passenger with you again while driving?

Nope, that's not what I said at all. Where did you get that? I thought my meaning was very clear.

 

If that's what you got from my posts, then there is no reason for me to continue this discussion with you.

 

OH, so you don't believe talking with a passenger is dangerous? You DID state you thought it must be banned as well, didn't you? So, do you or do you NOT believe this to be true? Will you or will you NOT be carrying passengers?

 

And, please, if this isn't what you stated (look back if you need a reminder), please post what you really meant!

 

I'm off for work...late as all get-out! Forgot to dry my work clothes...D'OH!

[+KBI]

Driving would be next to useless if you couldn't have passengers. There has to be some degree of acceptable risk for driving at all to make any sense.

My point exactly. Thank you.

 

I'm not sure usage should be banned. But I have no problem with adding punishment if your usage can be shown to have caused the accident you were in.

And that's the second half of my point. When a driver causes an accident, given what is known, how can the government punish the driver when cell phone usage is a factor yet NOT issue the same punishment when in-car passenger conversation is a factor? It’s inconsistent.

 

I’m not saying I’m surprised. I’ve come to expect unjust inconsistencies from government. I’m just pointing out that it’s wrong.

[+Unkle Fester]

Good - Considering that it's literally more dangerous than driving drunk, hopefully they'll consider jail time for second offenses. I'm sick of having to dodge lunatics on the road only to look and see them with their noses buried in a cellphone.

Actually, Insurance companies have proven that driving while on a cell phone is more dangerous than driving drunk. I'm waiting for the person to challenge DUI based on this premis.

[Dinoprophet]

Driving would be next to useless if you couldn't have passengers. There has to be some degree of acceptable risk for driving at all to make any sense.

My point exactly. Thank you.

 

I'm not sure usage should be banned. But I have no problem with adding punishment if your usage can be shown to have caused the accident you were in.

And that's the second half of my point. When a driver causes an accident, given what is known, how can the government punish the driver when cell phone usage is a factor yet NOT issue the same punishment when in-car passenger conversation is a factor? It’s inconsistent.

 

I’m not saying I’m surprised. I’ve come to expect unjust inconsistencies from government. I’m just pointing out that it’s wrong.

I disagree that it's inconsistent based on the studies posted by both of us and by the fact that passengers are a part of driving whereas phone use is not. But even if they made passenger conversation illegal, good luck proving a violation. It's all but unenforceable.

[+sbell111]

When I work an accident it almost always boils down to either inattention or impatience as the cause of the accident. I'd rather write you a ticket for [insert violation] than work your accident." (The others are impaired or complete disregard to common sense, but are much fewer in frequency.)

 

I wanted to ask you something on the previous thread about this but it got too hot for me. I drive a darling little roadster.

 

 

I am a very careful driver. (Especially careful since my beloved says that immediately after I get my first ticket we will be exchanging cars.) Nonetheless, I often find SUVs driving into me and I have to quickly get out of their way. It doesn't happen with normal cars or trucks. It doesn't happen with tractor trailers. It doesn't happen with motorcycles. Only SUVs.

 

It doesn't seem to make a difference where I am in relation to them. It is as if their blind spot with regard to me extends all along the side and back of the vehicle and sometimes in front as well.

 

What is going on with this? Do they have bad visibility? Is it that the drivers are often distracted by children? Or the inset TVs? Is it that my profile (low to the ground) is impossible to see from their height?

 

Carolyn

My wife's play car is a Smart fortwo. Mine is this Cadillac:

 

I suspect that the reason that people try to kill us while we are driving our little cars is not because they want to see us dead, but rather because people are generally lazy. They tend not to take a full look at the lane that they are about to move into. Instead, they take a quick glance at their mirrors and head on over. Our little cars don't take as much room in their mirrors, so they don't take notice of them (even though they are red). I really feel bad for motorcyclists. They must spend a large part of their commute just dodging traffic.

 

Honestly, these people's behavior tends to make me much more of a defensive driver (perhaps to the point of being offensive). I tend to charge down the interstate powering past these people who concentrate on their cel phone or cigarettes rather than their driving. I tend to assume that these clowns are going to wander into my lane at any point. Luckily, my car has plenty of horsepower and handling ability to get out of most jams that people try to put it in.

 

I wonder if people who always drive an SUV are better drivers than those who trade off with a smaller car. It seems that those that don't typically drive a specific vehicle may not truly appreciate it's blind spots.

 

To the law and a similar one that was just implemented in Tennessee, I am all for it.

[CoyoteRed]

It's a revenue generator. Sit on a city council sometime when they are brainstorming about how to generate revenue and your eyes may be opened.

The words that come to mind when I read this were synonyms to "malarkey."

 

Actually, it didn't even make any sense. First, it has been pointed out that cops don't enforce all the laws on the books now. I know I don't. Someone makes a good faith effort to slow down and give a really good look at a stop sign, no problem. I could have pulled them for failing to come to a complete stop. Someone doesn't turn on their turn signal until 50' before their turn, no problem. I could have pulled them for failing to signal 100' before the turn. Tire touches the line? 5 miles over? 2 second following distance? Etc. Etc. Etc. No problem. I could spend my whole shift writing citations. If city council wanted more funds for the city they could ask for more patrol officers be switched to the traffic unit. I mean, regular patrol only costs money while the traffic unit generates money and they're not tied up answering calls like those revenue-sucking husband beating wife calls. Right? Just tell those lazy cops to start enforcing the law! Hey, it's just a memo--job done. Path of least resistance. Right?

 

Second, the OP mentions a state law. No city council involved.

 

Third, did I say "malarkey?"

[+Castle Mischief]

To the half dozen or so people here who are not worried about the direction of governemnt in the US and UK, please read Animal Farm, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Fahrenheit 451. All of these books were written 50+ years ago and all are turning out to be prophetic.

 

You're just bitter because you had a bad seat at this morning's two-minute hate.

[+Frank Broughton]

Say what you will, the motive is money for laws such as these. Safety is an excuse. I know I live here, the government unions do not give a rip about the state financial mess, so the people must pay up, and this is just one more way they do it.

 

I repeat this as I believe is applies (IN PRINCIPLE):

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

[+Arrow42]

Say what you will, the motive is money for laws such as these. Safety is an excuse. I know I live here, the government unions do not give a rip about the state financial mess, so the people must pay up, and this is just one more way they do it.

 

I repeat this as I believe is applies (IN PRINCIPLE):

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

 

“You can protect your liberties in this world only by protecting the other man's freedom. You can be free only if I am free.”

 

Clarence Darrow

[+Arrow42]

To the half dozen or so people here who are not worried about the direction of governemnt in the US and UK, please read Animal Farm, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Fahrenheit 451. All of these books were written 50+ years ago and all are turning out to be prophetic.

 

You're just bitter because you had a bad seat at this morning's two-minute hate.

 

The pigs always get the best seats.

[+Renegade Knight]

...What is going on with this? ...

 

Perhaps the unwritten rule of the road. The bigger rig has the right of way.

[Dinoprophet]

To the half dozen or so people here who are not worried about the direction of governemnt in the US and UK, please read Animal Farm, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Fahrenheit 451. All of these books were written 50+ years ago and all are turning out to be prophetic.

Animal Farm, where the leader of a revolution proves to be just as corrupt as the overthown? Maybe. 1984 is working in reverse -- it's Little Brother that's watching (though Big Brother is certainly still trying). Fahrenheit 451 -- that one I just don't see at all, not today.

 

I speak as a resident of the US, mind. I know the story isn't the same all around the world.

[+bittsen]

It's a revenue generator. Sit on a city council sometime when they are brainstorming about how to generate revenue and your eyes may be opened.

The words that come to mind when I read this were synonyms to "malarkey."

 

Actually, it didn't even make any sense. First, it has been pointed out that cops don't enforce all the laws on the books now. I know I don't. Someone makes a good faith effort to slow down and give a really good look at a stop sign, no problem. I could have pulled them for failing to come to a complete stop. Someone doesn't turn on their turn signal until 50' before their turn, no problem. I could have pulled them for failing to signal 100' before the turn. Tire touches the line? 5 miles over? 2 second following distance? Etc. Etc. Etc. No problem. I could spend my whole shift writing citations. If city council wanted more funds for the city they could ask for more patrol officers be switched to the traffic unit. I mean, regular patrol only costs money while the traffic unit generates money and they're not tied up answering calls like those revenue-sucking husband beating wife calls. Right? Just tell those lazy cops to start enforcing the law! Hey, it's just a memo--job done. Path of least resistance. Right?

 

Second, the OP mentions a state law. No city council involved.

 

Third, did I say "malarkey?"

 

Think so?

 

The city council reference was regarding clever ways to generate revenue. I haven't attended any state legislative sessions so I couldn't use that as an example.

One example of a city council meeting was the Speeding cameras and the red light cameras. The discussion around the entire argument for the cost was that it wouldgenerate sustainable revenue after a certain period of time. And, in fact, there was an article published in the local newspaper not too long after the cameras were initialized that claimed that the cameras had paid for themselves already and the rest was gravy (paraphrasing). The article further indicated that other nearby cities were considering the cameras for the same reasons. They aren't even ashamed, in Oregon, anymore to say the laws will generate revenue.

 

Best that you speak on things you have experience with...

 

A quick page to look at regarding the revenue in Beaverton Oregon. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/00/2.asp

Edited July 20, 2009 by bittsen

[+flask]

you know, i have no problem at all with laws that promote safety also providing revenue. i wish for people to obey most* of my local traffiic laws, and i also wish for my local government to have enough funds to continue to provide services.

 

*most- there are, of course a few stop signs and some speed limits that are overkill for those of us who know the road and its conditions. still, when i choose to roll through the stop sign downtown just like everyone else does, i'm taking my chances and i know that. everybody's up for grabs.

[+sbell111]

Say what you will, the motive is money for laws such as these. Safety is an excuse. I know I live here, the government unions do not give a rip about the state financial mess, so the people must pay up, and this is just one more way they do it.

I see no reason why both safety and revenue generation can't be motivators.

I repeat this as I believe is applies (IN PRINCIPLE):

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

I just took a closer look at the Constitution. I couldn't find "Freedom to Text While Driving" anywhere in there.

[+bittsen]

Say what you will, the motive is money for laws such as these. Safety is an excuse. I know I live here, the government unions do not give a rip about the state financial mess, so the people must pay up, and this is just one more way they do it.

I see no reason why both safety and revenue generation can't be motivators.

I repeat this as I believe is applies (IN PRINCIPLE):

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

I just took a closer look at the Constitution. I couldn't find "Freedom to Text While Driving" anywhere in there.

 

You will also not find the governments right to interfere in peoples personal lives.

[Dinoprophet]

Say what you will, the motive is money for laws such as these. Safety is an excuse. I know I live here, the government unions do not give a rip about the state financial mess, so the people must pay up, and this is just one more way they do it.

I see no reason why both safety and revenue generation can't be motivators.

I repeat this as I believe is applies (IN PRINCIPLE):

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

I just took a closer look at the Constitution. I couldn't find "Freedom to Text While Driving" anywhere in there.

 

You will also not find the governments right to interfere in peoples personal lives.

Is this a federal law now?

[+Arrow42]

I just took a closer look at the Constitution. I couldn't find "Freedom to Text While Driving" anywhere in there.

 

Perhaps next you read it you should pay closer attention to the 10th amendment. You could also make the argument that traffic enforcement is in contravention of the 5th amendment guarantee of due process. If the law's main purpous is to raise funds then it clearly falls unto the 8th amendment's prohibition of excessive fines. The 9th amendment reads "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - this means that just because it's not mentioned doesn't mean it's not a right.

 

Is this a federal law now?

 

I know you weren't talking to me, but I'm going to respond as if you were since the question can apply to me as well.

 

I'm simply replying to the comment that texting while driving is not in the constitution. While it's not specifically, it is covered by various sections of the bill of rights.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Arrow42

[+Renegade Knight]

To the half dozen or so people here who are not worried about the direction of governemnt in the US and UK, please read Animal Farm, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Fahrenheit 451. All of these books were written 50+ years ago and all are turning out to be prophetic.

You forgot Atlas Shrugged. That one is playing out now as well.

 

I really should read that one...

 

The Fountainhead is far better. It's a good read, and though the end falls apart, it doesn't do so enough to ruin the story, and the philospy.

 

Atlas Shrugged is carefully staged and contrived in a way that doesn't work. I always found that when I take my ball and go home, someone else with a ball comes along and now I have a ball and nowhere to play. In Atlas shrugged since I'd be the only one smart enough to have a ball, everone else would just sit down and cry, and that would be the end of ever playing that game agian.

[+bflentje]

Something I repeat almost everyday I work, "Driving is your first priority while behind the wheel. You are responsible not only for yourself, but your passengers and everyone around you. When I work an accident it almost always boils down to either inattention or impatience as the cause of the accident. I'd rather write you a ticket for [insert violation] than work your accident." (The others are impaired or complete disregard to common sense, but are much fewer in frequency.)

 

If folks won't use common sense and keep their first priority on driving, then I do think it's time for a new law.

 

Thanks mom.

[+bflentje]

When I work an accident it almost always boils down to either inattention or impatience as the cause of the accident. I'd rather write you a ticket for [insert violation] than work your accident." (The others are impaired or complete disregard to common sense, but are much fewer in frequency.)

 

I wanted to ask you something on the previous thread about this but it got too hot for me. I drive a darling little roadster.

 

 

I am a very careful driver. (Especially careful since my beloved says that immediately after I get my first ticket we will be exchanging cars.) Nonetheless, I often find SUVs driving into me and I have to quickly get out of their way. It doesn't happen with normal cars or trucks. It doesn't happen with tractor trailers. It doesn't happen with motorcycles. Only SUVs.

 

It doesn't seem to make a difference where I am in relation to them. It is as if their blind spot with regard to me extends all along the side and back of the vehicle and sometimes in front as well.

 

What is going on with this? Do they have bad visibility? Is it that the drivers are often distracted by children? Or the inset TVs? Is it that my profile (low to the ground) is impossible to see from their height?

 

Carolyn

 

"come in, over...come in, red alert....we got a stage 5 car bragger here....come in over"

 

Yeah, but it's a Saturn. POS

[+bflentje]

Not sure where you're from or how those laws there work, but failure to signal, following too close, driving to slow in the speed lane...all illegal here and enforced somewhat! I also didn't know putting on a shield and gun made people perfect?

I see at least 3 police officers a week who are speaking on their cell phones without a hands-free set while driving - despite the fact that it's illegal in this state.

 

It's also illegal for a police officer to speed without his lights/sirens going, but I see that daily.

 

I don't expect them to be perfect, but police officers should be leading by example. Not giving each other free passes.

 

I did a VERY informal study last summer during my MN state park geocaching runs.. NINE OUT OF TEN law enforcement vehicles on the road in motion, where I could visibly see the driver, were on a phone talking. My sample size was in excess of 50 sightings. Now, I don't know if was business or not. Regardless, a bit on the not leading by example side.

 

And BTW, I don't condone ANY inattentive driving. I FIRMLY believe the laws are revenue generators. Otherwise, the existing laws would work just fine.

[+sbell111]

I just took a closer look at the Constitution. I couldn't find "Freedom to Text While Driving" anywhere in there.

Perhaps next you read it you should pay closer attention to the 10th amendment.

The tenth amendment clearly makes the case that states are free to make laws such as this one.

You could also make the argument that traffic enforcement is in contravention of the 5th amendment guarantee of due process.

Since everyone has the right to go to court for these traffic infractions, the right to due process (as guaranteed by the 5th amendment) has not been violated.

If the law's main purpous is to raise funds then it clearly falls unto the 8th amendment's prohibition of excessive fines.

First, while you and others argue that the purpose of these laws is to generate revenue, that hasn't been established. Second, it would have to be proven that the fines are, indeed, 'excessive'.

The 9th amendment reads "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - this means that just because it's not mentioned doesn't mean it's not a right.

True, but the opposite is not true. Just because something is not specifically addressed in the Constitution does not mean it is a 'right'.

[+Rockin Roddy]

OH MY, mean old gobment peoples are trying to make my life safer...shame on them for making a penny or two in the process...BROTHER!

 

You conspiracy throrists sure do make it fun to read these threads though, THANKS!!

 

As for the law against programming a GPS or using a cell phone while driving...BRAVO! As I rode into work this morning, I was met with irresposible driver after another, all using the cell phone. One was even coming out of her residential driveway...can't make that oh so important call before getting behind the wheel?

 

Those who say they shouldn't be pulled over if they're driving safely, BULL. We should just wait until you DO cause an accident? PLEASE!

 

I'm still wondering if KBI has made his mind up about passengers yet?

[+Arrow42]

The tenth amendment clearly makes the case that states are free to make laws such as this one.

 

Yes, but the point I was responding to was that "texting while driving isn't in the constitution. I think I've demonstrated that it is covered.

 

Since everyone has the right to go to court for these traffic infractions, the right to due process (as guaranteed by the 5th amendment) has not been violated.

 

That would be true if the courts didn't try you with the presumption of guilt.

 

First, while you and others argue that the purpose of these laws is to generate revenue, that hasn't been established. Second, it would have to be proven that the fines are, indeed, 'excessive'.

 

Fair enough on the first point. On the second point - the fines are by default excessive if the first point is true.

 

True, but the opposite is not true. Just because something is not specifically addressed in the Constitution does not mean it is a 'right'.

 

Again, I am just pointing out that there are sections of the constitution that relate to texting while driving.

 

You claimed to have looked at the constitution, but it's clear to me you were using rhetoric and haven't really done so.

 

If your going to keep arguing against points I haven't made this conversation is going to be ridiculously convoluted.

[+Inmountains]

I am always torn when it comes to the government making laws that supposedly "protect us." While it is smart to require every auto on the road to carry a spare tire, is it smart to require everyone to wear a seatbelt? As for me, the day I got my learner's permit, in 1975, I wear a seatbelt if I am driving more then 20 feet (if I pull the car from the driveway into the garage, I usually don't buckle up). I got my last moving violation in 1981. I have received 2 parking tickets since then though.

 

I do believe that the government has WAY overstepped it's role. In the US. National Defense, Interstate Commerce, International Trade, and a few other things are the perview of the government. It is NOT the governments job to take care of you, to make sure you get an education, to make sure you have a job or that you even eat. It is the government's job to make sure you can EARN these things.

 

One of the problems I see with the government giving itself more and more power is that the government becomes more and more corrupt. The most corrupt people in the US are Police Officers, Lawyers and Politicians. Why? Look at the power they have! I have friends who are Police Officers and they BRAG that they LIVE for the fight, for the "take down", for the 'arse kicking' they can give that day.

 

So my belief is that you CANNOT govern away stupidity any more than you can govern away immorality. The fewer the laws, the better. Yes, to a point, you need civilized society, but NOT controlled society. We believe in FREEDOM!

Edited July 20, 2009 by Inmountains

[+Arrow42]

You conspiracy throrists sure do make it fun to read these threads though, THANKS!!

 

Insulting me and calling me names doesn't change the facts and the logic presented here. You can try to scream and yell and stamp your feet, but doesn't change anything.

 

As for the law against programming a GPS or using a cell phone while driving...BRAVO! As I rode into work this morning, I was met with irresposible driver after another, all using the cell phone. One was even coming out of her residential driveway...can't make that oh so important call before getting behind the wheel?

 

So your admitting the law is completely ineffective? I don't see how that supports your point at all. Aside from that, your arguing against a point that no one is trying to make.

 

Those who say they shouldn't be pulled over if they're driving safely, BULL. We should just wait until you DO cause an accident? PLEASE!

 

There are are already laws on the books that cover reckless driving. In many states where cell-phone/texting laws have passed, there already existed "distracted driving" laws.

 

In a free society we don't punish people for what they might do.

[+Castle Mischief]

I seem to have wandered into the constitutional law debate forum. Can somebody point me towards the geocaching forum...?

[+Rockin Roddy]

The tenth amendment clearly makes the case that states are free to make laws such as this one.

 

Yes, but the point I was responding to was that "texting while driving isn't in the constitution. I think I've demonstrated that it is covered.

 

Since everyone has the right to go to court for these traffic infractions, the right to due process (as guaranteed by the 5th amendment) has not been violated.

 

That would be true if the courts didn't try you with the presumption of guilt.

 

First, while you and others argue that the purpose of these laws is to generate revenue, that hasn't been established. Second, it would have to be proven that the fines are, indeed, 'excessive'.

 

Fair enough on the first point. On the second point - the fines are by default excessive if the first point is true.

 

True, but the opposite is not true. Just because something is not specifically addressed in the Constitution does not mean it is a 'right'.

 

Again, I am just pointing out that there are sections of the constitution that relate to texting while driving.

 

You claimed to have looked at the constitution, but it's clear to me you were using rhetoric and haven't really done so.

 

If your going to keep arguing against points I haven't made this conversation is going to be ridiculously convoluted.

 

Yep, darned gobment peoples, I bet ol Ben Franklin was worried about our rights to text and drive when that constitution was thought up too...

 

When your ignorance trumps my right to safely live, I believe your ignorance should be put down as fast as possible! If you can't be asked politlely (how many of you would listen to the common motorist if we asked you??), I guess there's only so many other ways to get the point across...right? I mean, they could simply ban cell phones altogether...right? Ignorance is not a right given by the constitution...not when it endangers others!

[+Rockin Roddy]

I seem to have wandered into the constitutional law debate forum. Can somebody point me towards the geocaching forum...?

 

I think it's more like the conspiracy theorists forums...

Edited July 20, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[+Rockin Roddy]

You conspiracy throrists sure do make it fun to read these threads though, THANKS!!

 

Insulting me and calling me names doesn't change the facts and the logic presented here. You can try to scream and yell and stamp your feet, but doesn't change anything.

 

As for the law against programming a GPS or using a cell phone while driving...BRAVO! As I rode into work this morning, I was met with irresposible driver after another, all using the cell phone. One was even coming out of her residential driveway...can't make that oh so important call before getting behind the wheel?

 

So your admitting the law is completely ineffective? I don't see how that supports your point at all. Aside from that, your arguing against a point that no one is trying to make.

 

Those who say they shouldn't be pulled over if they're driving safely, BULL. We should just wait until you DO cause an accident? PLEASE!

 

There are are already laws on the books that cover reckless driving. In many states where cell-phone/texting laws have passed, there already existed "distracted driving" laws.

 

In a free society we don't punish people for what they might do.

 

I don't recall seeing an LEO letting those phone users go...and I don't think it's a law here, so what's your point? And, I am right on target, or did I mistake all the screaming about their rights being squashed as complaining about the law against the use of phones/GPS units?? You guys who feel mean ol gobment peoples are stomping you down ARE crying foul about the law I am defending...right?

 

As for name calling, too funny. If you're insulted by my calling it as I see it, maybe you should re-think your attitude because OBVIOUSLY, you don't like being looked upon as you are acting!

 

As for the laws already on the books....if you don't like the laws, please feel free to go through the proper channels and make your voices heard...or is screaming about rights infringement in a forums about caching your answer?

[+Rockin Roddy]

I would also point out that the laws are made after COMPLAINTS are made. I would have to assume an awful lot of complaints were made about cell phone usage before anyone ever decided to persue a law. I guess the people have spoken?

[+bittsen]

When I work an accident it almost always boils down to either inattention or impatience as the cause of the accident. I'd rather write you a ticket for [insert violation] than work your accident." (The others are impaired or complete disregard to common sense, but are much fewer in frequency.)

 

I wanted to ask you something on the previous thread about this but it got too hot for me. I drive a darling little roadster.

 

 

I am a very careful driver. (Especially careful since my beloved says that immediately after I get my first ticket we will be exchanging cars.) Nonetheless, I often find SUVs driving into me and I have to quickly get out of their way. It doesn't happen with normal cars or trucks. It doesn't happen with tractor trailers. It doesn't happen with motorcycles. Only SUVs.

 

It doesn't seem to make a difference where I am in relation to them. It is as if their blind spot with regard to me extends all along the side and back of the vehicle and sometimes in front as well.

 

What is going on with this? Do they have bad visibility? Is it that the drivers are often distracted by children? Or the inset TVs? Is it that my profile (low to the ground) is impossible to see from their height?

 

Carolyn

 

"come in, over...come in, red alert....we got a stage 5 car bragger here....come in over"

 

Yeah, but it's a Saturn. POS

 

No No No.... It's an Opel GT with a saturn label.

[+bittsen]

OH MY, mean old gobment peoples are trying to make my life safer...shame on them for making a penny or two in the process...BROTHER!

 

You conspiracy throrists sure do make it fun to read these threads though, THANKS!!

 

As for the law against programming a GPS or using a cell phone while driving...BRAVO! As I rode into work this morning, I was met with irresposible driver after another, all using the cell phone. One was even coming out of her residential driveway...can't make that oh so important call before getting behind the wheel?

 

Those who say they shouldn't be pulled over if they're driving safely, BULL. We should just wait until you DO cause an accident? PLEASE!

 

I'm still wondering if KBI has made his mind up about passengers yet?

 

You will care when they come to the conclusion that motorcycle riders are reckless and ban the dangerous death coasters for the bane on society they are.

[+Inmountains]

"mean ole gobment people". That saying really makes me LAUGH. I would prefer "stupid, ignorant, clueless, mean government employees." Last year, a "mean ole gobment person", aka La Plata County Sheriff, killed 3 teenagers who were sitting in a PARKED CAR, because the Sheriff was too lazy and stupid to park his car correctly.

 

Mean? I know a person who had an IRS audit. They found he had underpaid his Federal Income Taxes by $9,000. His final bill? $45,000.00!!! Hardly a conspiracy!

 

"MEAN" doesn't even BEGIN to describe the US Government. I think "COMPLETELY CORRUPT", "INEPT" and "UNINTELLIGENT" need to be added.

 

As for looking at a GPS while driving, I believe this would fall under "Reckless" or "Careless" driving in most states. Why do we need to narrow it down? Cell Phone-Drinking Coffee/Soda-Eating French Fries-Changing the Radio, etc.... can all cause reckless or careless driving. If the government would try to list every single thing a person does that distracts them while driving, they would have a 1,000 page NOVEL to cover 'distracted driving', when all we need are the laws we have now against reckless or careless driving. Maybe I can talk on the cell phone and drive BETTER than most folks can who have both hands on the wheel and staring straight ahead. Maybe the same thing with a GPS unit!

 

That government is best that governs least! Henry David Thoreau (but not sure if he said it first)

[+sbell111]

The tenth amendment clearly makes the case that states are free to make laws such as this one.

 

Yes, but the point I was responding to was that "texting while driving isn't in the constitution. I think I've demonstrated that it is covered. ...

No, you haven't.

[+Team Four Paw]

I seem to have wandered into the constitutional law debate forum. Can somebody point me towards the geocaching forum...?

 

I think it's more like the conspiracy theorists forums...

 

Yes, all of us conspiracy theorists are just a bunch of blind ignorant fools who have a complete lack of foresight.

 

Maybe some day we'll be as smart as you.

 

Fortunately at your age you'll probably be gone before you get to witness the dissolution of your freedoms.

 

So why stress over this thread? Move on and enjoy your life while you still have it.

[+bittsen]

 

Yes, all of us conspiracy theorists are just a bunch of blind ignorant fools who have a complete lack of foresight.

 

Maybe some day we'll be as smart as you.

 

Fortunately at your age you'll probably be gone before you get to witness the dissolution of your freedoms.

 

So why stress over this thread? Move on and enjoy your life while you still have it.

 

Don't you mean "final" dissolution of our freedoms?

 

Lets face it. When they said we couldn't cache in National parks that WE OWN, we lost some of our constitutional freedoms.

[+sbell111]

... I do believe that the government has WAY overstepped it's role. In the US. National Defense, Interstate Commerce, International Trade, and a few other things are the perview of the government. It is NOT the governments job to take care of you, to make sure you get an education, to make sure you have a job or that you even eat. It is the government's job to make sure you can EARN these things.

Interesting things you have listed there. From that list, it's a wonder that we have state or local government, at all.

 

... As for looking at a GPS while driving, I believe this would fall under "Reckless" or "Careless" driving in most states. Why do we need to narrow it down? Cell Phone-Drinking Coffee/Soda-Eating French Fries-Changing the Radio, etc.... can all cause reckless or careless driving. ...

Simple. It allows them to ignore the subjective 'reckless' standard in favor of a simple black-and-white regulation. A driver was either using the device or not.