| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 03:37:25 AM
Study Weighs Car Phone Risks
by Nedra Pickler, .c The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (Dec. 2) - Researchers say increased cell phone use has led to more crashes caused by drivers on the phone, but the value people place on being able to call from the road roughly equals the accidents' cost.
Opponents of banning cell phone usage by drivers have cited studies that showed the benefit of car calls outweighed the toll from such accidents - medical bills and property damage, for example.
Harvard researchers, drawing on previous research involving cell phones and government figures for auto accidents, says in a study there is a growing public health risk from the reliance on cell phones in cars. The number of cell phone subscribers has grown from 94 million in 2000 to more than 128 million.
Data on the number of crashes caused by cell phones is incomplete, said the study being released Monday by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. But it suggested that drivers talking on their phones are responsible for about 6 percent of U.S. auto accidents each year, killing an estimated 2,600 people and injuring 330,000 others.
The figure was reached using current cell phone usage estimates to update a 1997 study. That study looked at phone records of Canadian drivers involved in crashes to see if they were making calls at the time.
The cell phone industry found fault with the projections and their connection to wireless phones.
``It's sort of assumptions built on assumptions,'' said Kimberly Kuo, spokeswoman for the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association. ``There are not a lot of substantial findings that allow us to make policy conclusions.''
The Harvard researchers also updated previous studies on the economic costs associated with accidents caused by cell phones, such as medical bills and loss of life. The costs added up to an estimated $43 billion a year - about the same as the researchers arrived at for the value that cell phone owners put on their phones.
Joshua Cohen, lead author of the study, said an individual has a small risk of being in an accident caused by a driver who is talking on the phone, but an overall public health issue exists nonetheless. At the same time, he urged careful consideration when deciding whether to ban cell phone usage.
``People place a value on these calls, so just wiping out the phone calls and saying we are going to ban them, that's not something that should be taken lightly,'' he said.
Cell phone owners cited benefits such as security and peace of mind for instant communication, increased productivity, privacy and quicker crime and accident reporting.
New York state banned driver cell phone use for drivers use in June 2001. Six other states have some regulation of in-vehicle use of cell phones, ranging from a one-hand-on-the-steering-wheel rule to prohibiting school bus drivers from using a phone.
Felix Ortiz, a New York assemblyman who fought for six years to pass the ban, is helping lawmakers elsewhere write similar legislation.
``Whether they say I'm crazy or they harass me, you know what? I think I am doing the right thing for the public safety and for the quality of life,'' he said.
The Harvard study found that a cell phone user has about a 13 chances in 1 million of being killed in an accident while making a call; that compares with 49 in 1 million for someone driving without a seat belt.
Other drivers and pedestrians have about four chances in 1 million of dying in an accident caused by a cell phone user, according to the study. Their chance of being killed by a drunken driver is more than four times as high - 18 in a million.
The statistics are based on an average cell phone owner using 600 minutes a year.
Harvard's statistics update a center study released two years ago that estimated the chance of being killed while driving and talking on a cell phone were about six in a million and 1.5 in a million for other people on the road.
The original study was financed by the center and a grant from AT&T. The second phase was paid for solely by the center, which is supported by money from government, academia and individuals and private companies, including some automakers and insurers.
The original study found that the costs saved by a cell phone ban would be $2 billion, compared with about $25 billion in benefits lost, meaning a cell phone ban would have a loss to society of about $23 billion.
Cohen said the figures changed because more people are using cell phones, and they have better estimates of accidents caused by cell phone use, including those not reported to authorities.
12/02/02 00:20 EST
Copyright 2002 The Associated Press.
BAN CELL PHONES IN MOVING VEHICLES!!!! |
| 51 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/14/2006 : 3:55:07 PM
June 6th, 2006...Sears Tower. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 05/14/2006 : 10:18:20 AM
Government + Big Business = Fascismo!
Hmm...AT&T, Verizon and Bell South all in bed with the gov't for "anti-terrorism" purposes...and the sheeple need their cell phones in case of another 9/11 attack...MIND CONTROL |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 05/13/2006 : 10:06:38 PM
New York's School Cell Phone Ban Causes Uproar
By NAHAL TOOSI, AP
NEW YORK (May 12) - A ban on cell phones in the nation's biggest school system is creating an uproar among parents and students alike, with teenagers smuggling their phones inside their lunches and under their clothes, and grown-ups insisting they need to stay in touch with their children in case of another crisis like Sept. 11.
Parents have written angry letters and e-mails, staged rallies and news conferences, and threatened to sue. Some City Council members are introducing legislation on their behalf.
But Mayor Michael Bloomberg and schools Chancellor Joel Klein have staunchly refused to drop the ban. They insist cell phones are a distraction and are used to cheat, take inappropriate photos in bathrooms, and organize gang rendezvous. They are also a top stolen item.
Students have refused to give up their phones, saying the devices have become too vital to their daily existence and to their parents' peace of mind.
"My mother, she needs me to have the cell to call me and check up on me," said Steven Cao, 16, a sophomore who lives in Staten Island and attends Stuyvesant High School in Manhattan. He called the ban stupid.
Some parents would prefer a policy that lets students have cell phones but prohibits their use in classes.
New York's 1.1-million-student school system has banned beepers and other communication devices since the late 1980s. But schools have long used an "out-of-sight, out-of-trouble" approach. Then, late last month, city officials began sending portable metal detectors every day to a random but small set of schools to keep out weapons. And the detectors have led to the confiscation of hundreds of cell phones.
New York has one of the country's toughest policies on student cell phones, and also bans other electronic devices such as iPods.
Detroit bans cell phones, and a two-time violator will not get the phone back. Boston relied on a school-by-school approach until recently, when it changed the policy to let students have a phone, but only if it is turned off and out of sight. Los Angeles lets kids have cell phones, but they can use them only during lunch and breaks.
Kenneth Trump, president of Ohio-based National School Safety and Security Services, said his research indicates most schools ban the phones. Others require students to turn off the devices during school hours.
New York principals said the ban is tough to enforce, especially in large schools without metal detectors.
"Every kid today does carry a cell phone," said Howard Lucks, principal of New Utrecht High in Brooklyn. "The kids keep them in their backpacks, their pockets. As soon as they see an administrator or teacher, they put it away very quickly."
Elizabeth Casanola sneaks her cell phone past the metal detectors at her high school by slipping it down her pants, just below the waistband, where she knows she won't be patted down.
Even at schools with permanent metal detectors, students find ways to sneak the phones inside. Casanola sometimes smuggles her phone in in pieces, with the battery separate from the main body.
Once inside the school, another tactic is to hide the phone in a sandwich roll, according to one principal. Some students leave phones at nearby stores that charge small holding fees.
Yen Ramirez, a junior at Manhattan's Washington Irving High, said students need their phones for emergencies. The ban is a problem "because you never know what could happen."
Students insist that most classmates use their cell phones responsibly, and they brush off criticism that previous generations got along fine without them.
"It's kind of ridiculous that we think we can't survive without a cell phone when people did it for thousands of years," said Elisa Muyl, 14, a freshman at Stuyvesant High. "But now that they have this invention, we should use it."
05/12/06 16:09 EDT
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 08:11:12 AM
Because a rail system doesn't use as much OIL. |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/19/2006 : 08:10:00 AM
quote:
Originally posted by enthuTIMsiast
Well it'd be easier if we just had an encompassing rail system so fewer people had to drive.
Then this would be a moot point. Talk on the phone while getting there, pick your nose, your butt, smoke a cigarette, etc... doesn't matter, you'd still be a passenger.
I wish we had half the rail system other countries have. :( I'd love to be able to hop a trail (conveniently) and go to anywhere in the US or North America.
I totally agree. The rail system over here rocks. Especially Deutsch Bahn. They even have "quiet cars" for those who don't want to be bothered by cell phones. |
| Robin |
Posted - 04/18/2006 : 10:56:41 PM
In December my car rear-ended by a woman who was too distracted by her phone.Luckily it was a slow enough speed that I was o.k. and so was my car, but she was Like "OH I'm so sorry I didn't see you. Well yeah you were on the PHONE!!!I have noticed that I have to driev way more defensivley than I ever have. I almost got run off the road by some guy in his gigantic gas guzzler he was yakkin' away. Didn't even notice! I'm with Fluffy,ban them while driving since people seem to not be able to be responsible. Peace, Robin |
| dan p. |
Posted - 04/18/2006 : 3:56:26 PM
i don't understand why people get in accidents because they're only their cell phones. can these people talk and drive at the same time. it's not hard. |
| enthuTIMsiast |
Posted - 04/17/2006 : 7:44:24 PM
Well it'd be easier if we just had an encompassing rail system so fewer people had to drive.
Then this would be a moot point. Talk on the phone while getting there, pick your nose, your butt, smoke a cigarette, etc... doesn't matter, you'd still be a passenger.
I wish we had half the rail system other countries have. :( I'd love to be able to hop a trail (conveniently) and go to anywhere in the US or North America. |
| PJK |
Posted - 04/17/2006 : 5:11:17 PM
Hey Fluffy, funny you should bring this thread back. I was thinking about it so many times recently. I remember when you first started it I thought you were being a bit over-reactive, but now I think quite the opposite. I'm with you, I hate cell phone use while driving! It seems you can't go a mile in any direction around here without seeing someone doing something stupid while driving with a cell phone. Just yesterday this girl swerved in front of me then went way over to the far right hand lane only to cut to the far left lane, going about 70 mph while holding her cell phone up to her ear!
WHAT THE HELL IS SO IMPORTANT PEOPLE NEED TO BE ON THE PHONE WHILE THEY ARE DRIVING??????
What I envision for the future is cars with cell phone docks or cell phones built right in the car that would ring using your radio and have built in receivers etc. Maybe even amlifiers built into the head rests of the drivers and passenger seats.
Personally, I never use my phone while I am driving. If I need to call I do it before I drive.
(OH and I had to laugh re-reading this thread, I wrote Noah Chumsky instead of Noam Chumpsky! I never realized I did that, LOL) |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 04/17/2006 : 3:32:49 PM
Updated: 01:24 PM EDT
Restrictions on Cellphone Use While Driving Gain Traction
State, Local Officials Push For Tough Laws, Penalties; Enforcement Tactics Differ
By SHEARON ROBERTS, The Wall Street Journal
(April 17) - Addressing what safety experts say can be a deadly distraction, states are scrambling to impose restrictions on cellphone use by drivers.
Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia have written legislation on the issue, mostly since 2003. This year, other legislatures are tackling the subject, and two states have passed laws on it.
The move toward legislation reflects the proliferation of cellphones and rising concern the devices and other distractions are contributing to auto crashes. "Ten years ago hardly anybody had cellphones," says Matt Sundeen, who tracks the issue for the National Conference of State Legislatures. Today, with the numbers soaring, "there's been a greater push in the state legislatures on this issue."
In March, West Virginia barred hands-free or hand-held cellphone use by teenage drivers or anyone with a learner's permit who doesn't yet have a driver's license. Such prohibitions affecting novice drivers are often a first step state lawmakers consider, experts say. The subject is being considered by Utah legislators, who last month passed a law prohibiting municipalities from setting regulations. Utah's action, Mr. Sundeen said, reflects legislators' goal of pre-empting a patchwork of rules across the state.
In states without laws, a number of municipalities have passed their own local restrictions. For example, Shelby Township in Michigan has an ordinance that makes it a civil violation to drive and use a cellphone. Now, after a fatal car crash in Macomb County in February, the state legislature is considering a law.
In the accident, the 20-year-old driver fell asleep while talking on the phone, crossed three lanes of traffic and hit a car driven by a 55-year-old woman, who later died. Authorities lodged what they thought was Michigan's first cellphone-related negligent-homicide charge. Later, they added drug charges, after a medical exam allegedly turned up illegal drugs in the driver's system.
"The cellphone, like eating a hamburger, putting on makeup or talking to your friend in the back seat is a distraction," says William Cataldo, Macomb County chief of homicide and assistant prosecutor, who is handling the case.
While no state has banned talking on a cellphone while driving, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Washington, D.C., have the most restrictive laws: Except in emergencies, motorists in those states can use cellphones only with hands-free devices, such as earpieces. Restrictions vary across other states. Some prohibit teenagers, bus drivers and drivers with learning permits from using cellphones -- even with earpieces, Mr. Sundeen says.
More than a dozen states have laws that aren't specific to cellphone use but target behaviors that can distract drivers, such as reading, grooming or talking on the telephone. Under these laws, drivers face a misdemeanor charge and possible fines up to $1,000 if cellphone use is a factor in an accident.
Enforcement approaches also differ among states. In some, improper cellphone use is a primary offense, meaning that police officers spotting a potential violation have the authority to stop and ticket drivers. In others, such as New Jersey, it is a secondary offense; police officers can fine drivers for improper cellphone use only if they are pulled over for another traffic violation, like speeding. New Jersey lawmakers are moving this year to make cellphone violations a primary offense, Mr. Sundeen said.
Enforcing the laws remains a challenge, in part because police don't always spot drivers using cellphones.
"People sometimes say they see people on the phone and the police are not stopping them," said New York State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, the legislator behind the New York law. Police tried checkpoints to enforce the law in 2002. Last year, the number of tickets increased to 244,700 from 212,000 in 2004.
In the District of Columbia, where a tough cellphone law went into effect in 2004, police issued 6,018 tickets last year. District officials say that shows police are enforcing the new law.
Penalties differ as well. In New York, drivers caught using phones without hands-free devices may be fined as much as $100. In New Jersey, violators face fines of as much as $250.
Proponents of laws restricting cellphone use by drivers say the devices increasingly pose a safety threat. In 2004, Michigan recorded 1,021 crashes -- including five fatal accidents -- in which cellphone use was cited as a factor, according to the State Police's Office of Highway Safety Planning. A year earlier, there were 879 cellphone-related crashes, three of which were fatal.
Data from other states suggest cellphone laws aren't a silver bullet at reducing car crashes. In New York, which in 2001 was the first state to pass a cellphone law, the overall number of cellphone-related crashes has climbed since 2002. However, the number of crashes involving drivers using earpieces or other forms of hands-free cellphones went down. In Texas, where teens are barred from using cellphones while driving, the number of crashes in which cellphones was a factor increased from 716 in 2000 to 1,032 in 2002, the year for which the most recent figures are available.
Some law-enforcement experts say it isn't clear that restrictions on cellphones are having an effect on the number of accidents; others say it is hard to enforce the restrictions.
Safety researchers advise lawmakers to give guarded credence to data on the role of cellphone use in crashes, since they say many drivers are unwilling to admit that they were on the cellphone before a crash, for fear of being fined or charged with a violation.
The crash data are taken "right off the police report," says Lisa Block, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Public Safety. But, she says, people don't always own up to the fact "that they were talking on the cellphone. They're not always truthful about that."
April 17, 2006
Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
http://articles.news.aol.com/business/article.adp?id=20060417090309990007&ncid=NWS00010000000001 |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 01/03/2003 : 03:38:02 AM
Kevin commented:ROAD HEAD?
Since I don't believe that it really happens and know it certainly will never happen to me, I think I can safely say that it is OK, since it NEVER happens. It's kind of like asking "How about building a skyscraper while I am driving? Is that dangerous?" It just ain't gonna happen. If it were to happen, enjoy the moment, but get off the road as quickly as possible and enjoy. Or if you must have it while driving, find a deserted road and have at it. Don't jeopardize anyone elses safety for your orgasm. Plus when you wreck, there will be fewer people around to laugh at your preDICKament. |
| PJK |
Posted - 12/27/2002 : 6:13:04 PM
Woman on the Verge of A Nervous Breakdown????? I feel so Movie illiterate! What's that about, is it a comedy??? Sounds like something I'd like....do you think Hollywood Video would have it? If so maybe I'll rent it....and I must rent the World According To Garp as well! I haven't seen that movie in years! |
| tericee |
Posted - 12/27/2002 : 5:56:32 PM
I love that movie. I should probably buy the DVD at some point. I had a chance the other day, but bought something different instead.
I got a Wherehouse Gift Card for Christmas from my roomie, so I bought Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown and The Stand on DVD.
I also bought a couple of Christmas CDs. I love Christmas songs... |
| PJK |
Posted - 12/27/2002 : 4:55:34 PM
HAHAHAHA....now that just brought back memories,hehehehe |
| tericee |
Posted - 12/27/2002 : 2:11:55 PM
How about driveway head? Anybody else ever seen The World According to Garp?
Roberta: "...bitten off in a Buick."
To hear the line, click here...
http://www.pcontrol.org/movies/worldaccordingtogarp/garpbittenoff.wav |
| PJK |
Posted - 12/26/2002 : 10:35:45 PM
HAHAHA...but it would really "suck" to be on the other end and be in an accident...like being caught between a steering wheel and a "hard place" hehehehe
Can't wait to hear Fluffy's response.....hehehe.....I'm guessing he'd say "pull over to the side of the road"  |
| pcbTIM |
Posted - 12/26/2002 : 7:36:08 PM
As long as I'm the one receiving it, then it's all good. |
| KevinLesko |
Posted - 12/26/2002 : 4:14:45 PM
ok, well what about the tough questions??? Perhaps THE most dangerous, yet heavenly of all.... where do you stand on......
ROAD HEAD? |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 12/26/2002 : 02:20:01 AM
TTT for enthuTIMsiast!! |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 12/24/2002 : 12:09:27 AM
Congrats pcbTIM, I am proud of you. I did the same thing while on tour once. I was driving the tour van from San Francisco to Oakland to check out my old stomping grounds and the cell rang, I pulled over and answered it. It was my dad, he was so proud I had pulled over. I refuse to be a hypocrite. |
| pcbTIM |
Posted - 12/24/2002 : 12:06:03 AM
I'm sorry to say that I've been guilty of this for the last couple of days (driving while talking on cell phones, not smoking crack). I've been delivering Christmas presents to my parents' clients and running many errands, and since I didn't know where all the places were......I needed help. A lot of this stuff required me to drive all over L.A. I went to places like Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, and Malibu (in case any of you wanted to know  ). But to make Fluffy feel better, I only talked on the cell phone while pulled over or in heavy traffic.  The smiley face is for the safety precautions, not the traffic. For that, I give an unhappy face.  |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 12/23/2002 : 9:40:26 PM
To make my above statement clear:
Smoking cigarettes while driving: OK
Smoking crack while driving: NOT OK |
| PJK |
Posted - 12/23/2002 : 9:31:13 PM
Apparently smoking and driving can be deadly.(although not tobacco) On our evening news tonight they said a nun was killed because a car hit her. The driver was smoking crack instead of steering the car????
Honest! It was on the evening news!!! Ofcourse my first reaction was to laugh....horrible but I couldn't help myself....it just "cracked" me up...bad pun I know. hehehehe |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 12/20/2002 : 05:18:14 AM
6 posts back I posted this message to enthuTIMsiast:
Sorry about that enthuTIMsiast, I hadn't noticed the question before. I was not ignoring you, just missed the question. So for enthuTIMsiast, here is MY answer:
Well smoking is a difficult one, but I would have to say smoking does not fall into the same category as cell phones. Yes there are inherent dangers in smoking and driving, but I don't see smoking from distracting you from the task at hand. Of course if you drop your cigarette, that might cause you to cause an accident, but I don't see the actual smoking as deterent from paying attention the way that a conversation on a cell phone is. From your question I don't know if you are for or against it, but if you are against it, I would love to hear your arguments. I don't see it as a distraction from driving ability the way I see cell phone usage as a distraction from your attention.
DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU HAD SEEN MY ANSWER.
and PJK, I asked my dad about Ron Paul, he is indeed a good friend of my fathers and someone he admires quite a bit, but he is not the one who published Teri. I have forgotten the name of the guy already who published Teri, but I am sure she can tell you. I think my dad said his name was Lincoln something or other. Ask Teri, she can fill you in. |
| enthuTIMsiast |
Posted - 12/18/2002 : 5:05:54 PM
TTT for sPam for Fluffy for ... oh wait... |
| PJK |
Posted - 12/18/2002 : 4:40:50 PM
TTT for Fluffy for enthuTIMsiast...  |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 12/18/2002 : 04:52:57 AM
TTT for enthuTIMsiast |
| PJK |
Posted - 12/07/2002 : 11:50:48 AM
Damn,I did it again, forget the above post.....back to the topic of cell phones..... |
| PJK |
Posted - 12/07/2002 : 08:06:37 AM
Interesting, I will ask Teri. I'd love to get my hands on his magazine. I have a great deal of respect for people who do what they feel is right and not just follow what everyone else is doing.
I was a bit confused on his Iraq war view. I think he was saying that if we go into Iraq we should declare war, not just call it fighting terrorism???? I didn't really understand his views on the situation. Got to go back and read more today!!!! |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 12/07/2002 : 05:23:40 AM
Sorry about that enthuTIMsiast, I hadn't noticed the question before. I was not ignoring you, just missed the question. So for enthuTIMsiast, here is MY answer:
Well smoking is a difficult one, but I would have to say smoking does not fall into the same category as cell phones. Yes there are inherent dangers in smoking and driving, but I don't see smoking from distracting you from the task at hand. Of course if you drop your cigarette, that might cause you to cause an accident, but I don't see the actual smoking as deterent from paying attention the way that a conversation on a cell phone is. From your question I don't know if you are for or against it, but if you are against it, I would love to hear your arguments. I don't see it as a distraction from driving ability the way I see cell phone usage as a distraction from your attention.
PJK said: quote:
I found the info on US Rep. Ron Paul particularly interesting.
He is a very good friend of my family's, or should say my dad. Nice guy, very, very smart. I think Teri knows him better than I do. If I am not mistaken, Ron has a magazine that Teri was published in. You will have to ask her about that to be sure. |
| pcbTIM |
Posted - 12/06/2002 : 10:23:05 PM
You seem really hung up on this smoking thing.......do you smoke a lot while driving? |
| enthuTIMsiast |
Posted - 12/06/2002 : 10:20:39 PM
Fluffy, your thoughts on smoking while driving? I didn't catch those.. |
| PJK |
Posted - 12/06/2002 : 9:46:11 PM
Geeze Fluffy, I think I fried my brain on the Libertarian site....so much info. Like reading Noah Chomsky....I found the info on US Rep. Ron Paul particularly interesting. Again thanks....really!
|
| PJK |
Posted - 12/06/2002 : 07:32:06 AM
One step ahead of you. I went into the site right after I wrote that one. Must go back into it because I didn't get to read all that was there.
I'm from good old PA (ancestors bought land from William Penn...a little "pam trivia")
I am very interested because I don't feel I fit into either Republican ( of which I am registered) or Democrat. I kind of feel I am just out there! Don't know why I never looked into this before. Oh well better late than never!
Thanks for the info! |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 12/06/2002 : 03:25:25 AM
Here you go PJK, this is a great place to get started and to get all your questions answered.
Welcome to the Official Web Site of the
The Libertarian Party
The Libertarian Party is committed to America's heritage of freedom:
individual liberty and personal responsibility
a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity
a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade.
We welcome your participation and support.
http://www.lp.org/
I would also suggest doing a search on Libertarian Party and the state you live in. It seems every state has there own Libertarian website with answers to particular questions about voting in each state. I couldn't remember what state you lived in, so I left it for you to research. The above link is a great place to get started. I hope you find the Libertarian Party is for you. It is growing everyday. As it gets larger, they will have to recognize it as an equal party to the others in this country. |
| PJK |
Posted - 12/05/2002 : 10:32:12 PM
Fluffy, just a question, how do you go about registering as a Libertarian? I guess you can only vote in the general elections and not in the Primaries unless there is a Libertarian candidate? I don't remember seeing any Libertarians listed except for the Presidential elections. I'd be interested in any info. because I am not real thrilled with either of the two parties. Actually I think I will do a search on line, I am sure I will be able to find some info. there. |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 12/05/2002 : 05:50:11 AM
I must admit, I did not know that about Clint, but it does my heart good. I was encouraged by discussions with my dad when I was in high school that because of my political beliefs I should maybe go ahead and register to vote as a libertarian. Subsequently, it was a big bruhaha, as I was the first REGISTERED libertarian in Charles County MD. I guess they must have thought, Anarchy comes to Southern MD. HEHE(and it had) |
| Bustoff |
Posted - 12/05/2002 : 01:50:39 AM
I totally agree with everything Fluffy said. A friend of mine got his car totalled by a lady who was talking on a cell phone. It was at night and his car was parked on the side of a very wide street. I happened to be the only witness at the time, I just happened to be outside getting some things out of another friend's car. I heard a CRUNCH and this car drove past me with the right front fender smashed up and hanging down. I looked back and saw what happened, then I realized that she was going to take off! I ran up and got her license number. When she saw me do this, she stopped. It's a good thing for her. I would have turned her in and she would have gotten NAILED hehe. So we called the cops. My friend, whose car was hit, was irate and yelled at her and made her cry, but they ended up hugging at the end and everything was ok. awwww
Also, Fluffy - i dig libertarians. I'm an independent, but I definitely see where you guys come from. One of my friends is a libertarian. Also - did you know that Clint Eastwood is a libertarian? Go Ahead. Make my day. |
| PJK |
Posted - 12/04/2002 : 5:54:47 PM
Patrick...funny you should mention manual transmission. My husband tried to teach me that one time and we were driving along and I said "why isn't this shifting right, and he yelled "you have to put the clutch in" and I said, "oh, I didn't do that the last time!"Needless to say I never mastered the "stick". |
| enthuTIMsiast |
Posted - 12/04/2002 : 4:15:37 PM
I'd have to say you couldn't include manual transmissions simply because in focusing on that, you would inherently be focusing on [/i]driving[/i].
But I want to hear Fluffy's opinion about smoking while driving. |
| pcbTIM |
Posted - 12/04/2002 : 1:10:08 PM
.......and manual transmition.......I tried to drive one once, and........let's just say I'm not allowed to drive my dad's car anymore.
But on the up side, L.A. probably won't have to enforce the law because everyone who would be breaking the law would be going 10 mph tops. |
| enthuTIMsiast |
Posted - 12/04/2002 : 08:37:05 AM
Ah Fluffy, and what about smoking while driving? |
| PJK |
Posted - 12/04/2002 : 06:22:45 AM
I know where you are coming from Fluffy but honestly it will have the same effect as putting the "embezzeling" clause on the tax forms, or the "no drugs" signs around school yards. It won't prevent people from using them, only help to convict them if there is an accident because someone used one. I guess that could be a start though.
Don't mean to be negative about a very serious topic, but I see too many people who can't seem to stay off of their phones even when they're walking and I just don't see them caring if there is a law or not. People like me who rarely use them would be the one's following the law. Again maybe that is not a good reason not to have a law. |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 12/04/2002 : 04:01:41 AM
NOOOOO, of course not, that would be just ridiculous. They may transport them by strapping them to the roof where they will be less distracting for the mothers.(In federally approved safety seats of course, wouldn't want the little tykes getting hurt) |
| enthuTIMsiast |
Posted - 12/04/2002 : 12:42:24 AM
Should you therefore also ban the ability of mothers to transport their children in their automobiles? Because I think anyone would willingly admit that kids in cars are very distracting. |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 12/04/2002 : 12:38:35 AM
I say ban them all!! Especially the nosepicking, because that's just plain gross!! HEHE I realize it isn't a perfect world but cell phones are hindering not helping our safety in automobiles. I believe when you are driving you should be driving. Is that so ridiculous? People just seem to take for granted they are behind the wheel of a killing machine. If they can't recognize the danger and the responsibility that has been intrusted to them by recieving license, then yes, take away their right to use the phone while driving. It should be a wise decision not to use the phone while driving, but since so many cannot seem to make this wise choice, they may need a little help. HEHE |
| enthuTIMsiast |
Posted - 12/04/2002 : 12:17:20 AM
I have thought about it and I understand your opinion.
But should we also ban the great American pasttime of nosepicking while driving? I should hope not. There are obvious differences, but the similarites are striking.
And there are plenty of other activities that people do while driving that are banned. But people that are easily distracted are the ones that do these things anyway.
Ah, I've realized I'm rambling. |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 11:50:53 PM
PJK commented: quote:
I know cell phones are dangerous, at least the stupid people who use them and try to drive are, but I still have feelings about taking away my rights to use one while driving.
You must understand, as a libertarian, I am really against losing any more rights than we have already lost. The govt acts as our protector in far to many, what I consider, personal choices. Unfortunately, to me, cell phones while driving are a safety factor. The libertarian creed is, "the only legitimate purpose of a govt is to protect you from me and vice versa". In this case I would welcome the govt's intervention as people can't seem to act responsibly. I can see the need for an emergency call from the car, but why can't you pull over. I have problem with the use of cell phones behind the wheel. It is a safety factor. If you want to talk about a ridiculous waste of govt intervention, seat belt laws! There is one where it should be a personal choice, because your decision does not affect someone elses safety. Child seat belt laws excluded of course. If you want to be a dumbass and not wear a seat belt that is your choice. Same with helmet laws for motorcycles. Personal choice. It serves no purpose to "protect you from me". I have to hold my ground on this issue as I feel most people cannot act responsibly with cell phone usage and I would welcome the govt telling people they are protecting Fluffy when they say you can't use your cell phone WHILE driving.
PJK stated: quote:
I don't hold long conversations on mine, nor do I make a habit of using them when I drive, but there have been some times that people had to reach me and I was on the road.
And those are the TIMes you should pull over and take the call. I do not begrudge you having the phone in your car. Just don't use it while you are driving a heavy piece of machinery. You cannot concentrate on the road and conditions that can change at the drop of a hat and require immediate responses for safety sake while talking on the phone.
dirtysloth said: quote:
Yeah, and it never will be. Who is going to say, "yeah, I was talking on my cell phone". If no one saw it, there's no way to prove it, unlike drunk driving.
I don't know if you noticed in the article I posted but they have ways of checking your phone record to see if you were talking at the TIMe of an accident. Anyway, if usage behind the wheel was banned, it wouldn't be an issue. They do have ways of finding out, if you suspect it, you should report it. If you are ever involved in such a situation, heaven forbid.
dirtysloth also wrote: quote:
I personally think holding the telephone while you are driving should be banned. I think that the hands free method of hooking it up to your car stereo is ok, but not the headset.
I think this is better, but it still doesn't do anything from keeping you from being distracted by the conversation. Yes at least you won't be looking away from the road while you are trying to make a call or figure out who is calling you, but which is more important? The 2000 lbs of steel you are about to run over someone with or the argument you are having with your boyfriend/girlfriend etc etc etc. Before you ask, YES, I am also against people eating while driving, putting on makeup while driving, reading while driving(I have seen this) etc etc etc
Believe it or not, I think you should be driving while you are driving, not doing something else. If you think back a few years, the world actually functioned without a phone to your ear 24/7. That's what answering machines, voice mail and the lot are for. Let me remind you, if you want a cell phone great. If you can't function without it for a few minutes while you drive, pull off the road and take the call. I will not begrudge you that, but don't risk my life because you felt it necessary to discuss some big business merger or the concert you went to last night. A little consideration for someone besides your own important self. We have to share this world together and I wouldn't jeopardize your life, don't jeopardize mine.
enthuTIMsiast wrote: quote:
I'll admit it, I talk on the cell phone while driving. And not using one of the hands free things either. I won't even try to defend myself, but to be honest, I have to say that I do.
I commend you on your honesty. It sounds like you know its a bad idea so just try and CURB IT. HEHE get it. CURB IT? Pull over to the curb when you need to talk on the phone. Imagine something horrible happened and you did kill someone with your car while talking on the cell phone. Might it not have happened if you hadn't been talking on the phone. I can't guarantee that answer, but I can guarantee you less attentive to the road when you are talking on the phone. Less likely to notice something detrimental and slower to respond in TIMe to maybe save a life. Think about it, that's all I ask. |
| enthuTIMsiast |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 5:47:12 PM
I'll admit it, I talk on the cell phone while driving. And not using one of the hands free things either. I won't even try to defend myself, but to be honest, I have to say that I do.
|
| pcbTIM |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 12:44:56 PM
I just don't have one. |
| PJK |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 07:09:12 AM
I know cell phones are dangerous, at least the stupid people who use them and try to drive are, but I still have feelings about taking away my rights to use one while driving.
I don't hold long conversations on mine, nor do I make a habit of using them when I drive, but there have been some times that people had to reach me and I was on the road.
I really have mixed feelings about this. |
|
|
