If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Obama's NTSB wants to take your cell phone away   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 509
    More: Obvious, National Transportation Safety Board, cell phones, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Governors Highway Safety Association, Transportation Safety Board, 35th state, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration  
•       •       •

12369 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Dec 2011 at 7:19 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



509 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-12-13 07:57:23 PM
I wonder if this proposal also includes banning police/fire/paramedics from talking on handheld devices or operating in-car computers while driving.

Talking/texting is supposed to be distracting, dangerous, and/or the like driving with a .08 BAC. Along come bans that have exceptions for police, firefighters, etc. while on duty. Either talking on a phone while driving is a dangerous, distracting behavior or it isn't.

Imagine a law that bans anyone from driving with a BAC over .08 that then has exemptions for police on duty. It would be absurd, and the exemption would completely undermine the initial justification for the ban.
 
2011-12-13 07:57:38 PM
Ohhhh and I forgot to mention in my soapbox display of intellectuallity that since the fine is bigger for commercial drivers than it is for for you four wheeler drivers...that just means that as a commercial driver we will be under EVEN more scrutiny since we all know that ALL accidents are caused by big trucks and you innocent auto drivers cannot be held accountable when your texting your wife or your friends girlfriend.
 
2011-12-13 07:57:48 PM
The NTSB's recommendations urge all 50 states and the District "to ban the nonemergency use of portable electronic devices (other than those designed to support the driving task)."

My cell phone has GPS/mapping/direction software on it. So is that a "yay" or "nay"?

/mental note to always keep map app running in case I get pulled over for texting
 
2011-12-13 07:58:03 PM
This proves my belief in the theory that technology reached it's peak with the Model A and has grown steadily more decadent ever since. (A virtual cookie to anyone who can tell me where I got that from)
 
2011-12-13 07:58:18 PM

heinekenftw: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Just shoot everyone with a cell phone.

/did I do that right?

Works for me.

If you can't be bothered to put the cellphone down while you're driving, you're asking for a crash. Besides, shooting people without common sense would force evolution to cull out the genetic traits that don't lead to common sense.*

Which is good for humanity.*

*this isn't a serious statement


Most of em are up to no good anyway. If you hit the 80% mark, that is efficient government at work.
 
2011-12-13 07:58:19 PM
Using hands free devices doesn't bother me, but I'm okay with making folks put the texts on hold.

As Morrison said, Keep your eyes on the road and your hands on the wheel.Of course, it was a bad idea to let him drive at any time.
 
2011-12-13 07:58:41 PM
I'm definitely for a ban on texting, emailing, etc, although enforcing it is difficult. However I'm not sold on banning all use of cell phones, that seems a bit extreme at first glance.

I suppose I could support a fine for poor driving that is caused by the use of a cell phone, but I believe we already have some laws that could cover that.

I'd rather they spend money on education and reminders about the dangers of using a cell phone while driving, or distractions in general. But that won't increase revenues :-)
 
2011-12-13 07:59:33 PM

Gyrfalcon: So...you're all okay with crazy people driving at high speeds on the freeway while not looking down at their laps and trying to read and write on a tiny screen? You have no problems with that?


That's already illegal.
 
2011-12-13 07:59:54 PM

RexTalionis: Personally, I always wondered why manufacturers never got behind the idea of projected HUD displays on the windshield, or a transparent display overlay. You get your information and your eyes stay on the road.


Some have for years in a limited form. But it goes back to cost, as I understand it to be an expensive option. Co-worker had a Pontiac that had the speed visible on the windshield. Not sure what other info was there. And that was 10 yrs ago. On a friggen Pontiac.
 
2011-12-13 08:00:50 PM

MrSid: This proves my belief in the theory that technology reached it's peak with the Model A and has grown steadily more decadent ever since. (A virtual cookie to anyone who can tell me where I got that from)


Just a guess, but this kind of cognizant assholery sounds like Hunter S Thompson
 
2011-12-13 08:01:59 PM

Nabb1: The NTSB took my cellphone away-ay
They took it away, away from me-e
The NTSB took my cellphone away-ay
They took it away. They took it away from me.


www.cellphoneaccents.com
 
2011-12-13 08:03:25 PM
This is a slippery slope. From the article "ban the nonemergency use of portable electronic devices (other than those designed to support the driving task)". So, ipods, radios, and almost any other entertainment devices. I use stitcher internet radio and it uses a data signal from the cellular network to stream podcasts to my phone which is linked by bluetooth to my car stereo, no worse than any other radio, but mostly likely banned under this proposal. I imagine police officers would start using some kind of cell phone signal detector to help catch all the new law breakers.

I am all for stopping distracted driving, but lets not give up everything in the process. Liberties are so easy to loose but nearly impossible to regain. Don't be fooled into thinking the authorities are trying to do what is in our best interests. They will just spend more tax money we don't have in making our lives ever more miserable. Why don't they outlaw fapping and driving while they are at it? Now, get back in line citizen.
 
2011-12-13 08:03:38 PM
to bring this discussion back to reality - how about this: instead of making yet another stupid and unenforceable traffic law (that will only be abused/misused anyway), we take this another direction. lets make driver's education mandatory...you don't get a driver's license without going through a driver's ed course.

during this course, you put a section in there about the dangers of driving while distracted. also - make sure to stress the importance of learning how to merge with oncoming traffic (i'm looking at YOU mr. late model honda 'I don't have to use traffic signals' who was on rt. 81 this afternoon). But I digress....teaching people HOW to drive is more productive than punishing them with vague laws that can't be enforced.

incidentally, I also think drivers over the age of 65 should have a mandatory driver's retest at age 65 and then again once every three years. you want to remove a menace from the roads? there ya go. lets retest the blue hairs and start culling the older drivers who have no bidness being behind a wheel.
 
2011-12-13 08:03:44 PM

labman: There are already laws about driving while distracted. Use those to prosecute assholes on cell phones. The solution isn't more laws. We have enough of those already.


SO MUCH THIS
 
2011-12-13 08:03:52 PM
What is all this nonsense about "The cops are going to use this law to pull people over without probable cause!" Don't you people know that it's already done thousands of times every single day? Here is a very abbreviated list of "probable cause" items that cops use to pull over anyone they damn well want:

1. I smelled the odor of marijuana emanating from the car.
2. The driver was driving erratically (if the cop has a dash-cam, they could just claim they witnessed it out of range of the camera)
3. I saw litter being thrown from the car
4. The driver was drinking what appeared to be a can of beer
5. The car's brake light wasn't working properly

You really think the cops need yet another excuse to pull you over if they please? They already have a bunch of excuses ready to go!

I completely support a total ban on drivers using electronic devices.
 
2011-12-13 08:04:33 PM

ultraholland: wingnutx: This is a state issue.

so is the drinking age


It sure is.
 
2011-12-13 08:05:07 PM

MrSid: This proves my belief in the theory that technology reached it's peak with the Model A and has grown steadily more decadent ever since. (A virtual cookie to anyone who can tell me where I got that from)


Steve Gutenberg?
 
2011-12-13 08:05:22 PM

stoli n coke: Using hands free devices doesn't bother me, but I'm okay with making folks put the texts on hold.


Study: Distractions, not phones, cause car crashes
Study: Cell phone bans don't reduce accidents
Study Finds Hands-Free Laws Not Reducing Crashes
The likelihood of being in an accident remains even when hands-free headsets are used
Recent study concludes California [hands-free] law had no measurable impact on crash incidence in that state

(link)
 
2011-12-13 08:05:56 PM

Weaver95: unenforceable


How is it unenforceable?
 
2011-12-13 08:06:53 PM

Atomic Spunk: What is all this nonsense about "The cops are going to use this law to pull people over without probable cause!" Don't you people know that it's already done thousands of times every single day? Here is a very abbreviated list of "probable cause" items that cops use to pull over anyone they damn well want:

1. I smelled the odor of marijuana emanating from the car.
2. The driver was driving erratically (if the cop has a dash-cam, they could just claim they witnessed it out of range of the camera)
3. I saw litter being thrown from the car
4. The driver was drinking what appeared to be a can of beer
5. The car's brake light wasn't working properly

You really think the cops need yet another excuse to pull you over if they please? They already have a bunch of excuses ready to go!

I completely support a total ban on drivers using electronic devices.


6) That there feller's squintin', he must be one of them Chinamen.

/One of the reasons why I probably won't drive if I ever go to California.
 
2011-12-13 08:08:11 PM

Atomic Spunk: What is all this nonsense about "The cops are going to use this law to pull people over without probable cause!" Don't you people know that it's already done thousands of times every single day? Here is a very abbreviated list of "probable cause" items that cops use to pull over anyone they damn well want:

1. I smelled the odor of marijuana emanating from the car.
2. The driver was driving erratically (if the cop has a dash-cam, they could just claim they witnessed it out of range of the camera)
3. I saw litter being thrown from the car
4. The driver was drinking what appeared to be a can of beer
5. The car's brake light wasn't working properly

You really think the cops need yet another excuse to pull you over if they please? They already have a bunch of excuses ready to go!

I completely support a total ban on drivers using electronic devices.


So if the cops are crooked, then the best thing to do is to give them more power to be crooked? At what point is it acceptable to decide, "hey the system isn't working, so let's just use it to piss off the sub groups that I hate"?
 
2011-12-13 08:08:22 PM

ArcadianRefugee: stoli n coke: Using hands free devices doesn't bother me, but I'm okay with making folks put the texts on hold.

Study: Distractions, not phones, cause car crashes
Study: Cell phone bans don't reduce accidents
Study Finds Hands-Free Laws Not Reducing Crashes
The likelihood of being in an accident remains even when hands-free headsets are used
Recent study concludes California [hands-free] law had no measurable impact on crash incidence in that state

(link)


Cyclone83: I'm definitely for a ban on texting, emailing, etc, although enforcing it is difficult. However I'm not sold on banning all use of cell phones, that seems a bit extreme at first glance.

I suppose I could support a fine for poor driving that is caused by the use of a cell phone, but I believe we already have some laws that could cover that.

I'd rather they spend money on education and reminders about the dangers of using a cell phone while driving, or distractions in general. But that won't increase revenues :-)


/thread
 
2011-12-13 08:08:23 PM
Jesus Christ. Just hand out one of these to everybody and shut the farking government down.

images.travelpod.com
 
2011-12-13 08:08:40 PM

MurphyMurphy: want to bet cops will still drive around talking on their cell phones all they want?


cops don't drive around while talking on their cell phones.

They drive around looking at their laptops.
 
2011-12-13 08:09:31 PM

R.A.Danny: Easy answer. Freedom


Well then, perhaps we should support Freedom abroad and simply let Iran have nukes...
 
2011-12-13 08:10:12 PM
Gig103: Bathia_Mapes: No, they want to make it illegal in all states to use an electronic device to talk/text while driving. I have no problem with this.

And just like the speed limit law, it's going to be ignored and do nothing to solve the problem. The real intent is to give cops new probable cause to pull someone over.

"What was your reason for pulling over this man who had 1 kilo of cocaine in the car?"
"He looked like he was on his cell phone"


Thats the #1 method of arresting people with warrants out for their arrest. So yeah, I'm OK with that.

Dumb criminals tend to be dumb criminals, so they never sweat the "little laws" like speeding, stop signs, running red lights, and using electronics while driving. That tends to make them much more susceptible to traffic stops. You'd be amused at the correlation.

Honestly, how many people are pulled over for speeding when they're not? HONESTLY. Not many at all.
 
2011-12-13 08:11:28 PM
i44.tinypic.com
 
2011-12-13 08:12:01 PM

vernonFL: In Maryland it is illegal to text or talk or otherwise use a handheld phone / device while driving.


THAT I am fine with, but I really don't see how a hands-free device is any more distracting than having one or more people in the car. Hell, it's probably LESS distracting.

Some of us have long, boring commutes and it's nice to put in the ear piece and have some company.
 
2011-12-13 08:12:54 PM

casual disregard: R.A.Danny: casual disregard: Common sense is a misnomer. If it were truly so common, we wouldn't have any problems at all.

That may be why many are so loath to give up the last vestiges of un-legislated silliness they may have.

I don't get it.

A. Pass a new law which restricts the usage of cell phones while driving.
B. Roll back all restrictions against all contrary behaviors because Freedom.

A = fewer deaths from distracted driving.
B = increased deaths from legal drunk driving.

Instead of doing B, why don't we just randomly strafe congested roads during rush hour?


I don't know, why AREN'T we randomly strafing congested roads during rush hour?!?!?! You soft on traffic jams, you pinko commie?
 
2011-12-13 08:12:59 PM

ThisNameSux: Weaver95: And yet, people still drink and drive even without a license. how's that working out for you? oooo! I know! pass more laws! yeah...magical thinking like yours will save us from ourselves for sure this time....

So do away with all laws and let people police themselves, right?


So legislate everything and require a permit to breathe, right?
 
2011-12-13 08:13:49 PM

ThisNameSux: Weaver95: unenforceable

How is it unenforceable?


in the same way that DUI laws are unenforceable. or did you really believe that nobody drinks and drives anymore...?
 
2011-12-13 08:14:50 PM

ArcadianRefugee: stoli n coke: Using hands free devices doesn't bother me, but I'm okay with making folks put the texts on hold.

Study: Distractions, not phones, cause car crashes
Study: Cell phone bans don't reduce accidents
Study Finds Hands-Free Laws Not Reducing Crashes
The likelihood of being in an accident remains even when hands-free headsets are used
Recent study concludes California [hands-free] law had no measurable impact on crash incidence in that state

(link)


Does texting take your eyes off the road? Yes.
Does holding a cell phone up to your ear reduce your hearing of things around you? Yes.

Like I said, hands free doesn't bother me, becase it is no more distracting than listening to the radio, but how is
banning cell phones being up to your ear any different than the laws already on the books that say you can't wear headphones while driving?
 
2011-12-13 08:14:53 PM

ThisNameSux: Weaver95: unenforceable

How is it unenforceable?


Sorry, I think he meant it was enforceable as it requires no proof on behalf of the officer other than saying, he had his cell phone out. Pay us $250.
 
2011-12-13 08:15:17 PM
i40.tinypic.com
 
2011-12-13 08:15:25 PM
So..what about the new 4s. You can listen to texts, talk to text. Should that be banned too?
 
2011-12-13 08:16:14 PM

brainiac-dumdum: R.A.Danny: casual disregard: Simple decency wishes humans would not intentionally distract themselves while operating heavy machinery. Who has a problem with this? It is absurd.

Some may argue that legislating common sense can be used as a tool to subjugate the unwashed masses.

Yup, it is common sense to not use your phone while driving, but, as cell phones are ubiquitous nowa days, it is an "in" police could use to harass drivers.


Pretty much my point. While I'm all for safety, these laws are never really thought through.
 
2011-12-13 08:16:46 PM

DysphoricMania: RexTalionis: Personally, I always wondered why manufacturers never got behind the idea of projected HUD displays on the windshield, or a transparent display overlay. You get your information and your eyes stay on the road.

Some have for years in a limited form. But it goes back to cost, as I understand it to be an expensive option. Co-worker had a Pontiac that had the speed visible on the windshield. Not sure what other info was there. And that was 10 yrs ago. On a friggen Pontiac.


Wouldn't that be incredibly distracting? I don't like it when I have a smudge on my windshield from something, I can't imagine having data that changed up there. I feel like I'd always be taking note of it instead of focusing on the road.

I imagine it like when you're watching a TV show and they put one of those annoying, obtrusive ads in the corner. Instinctively, your eyes go to what's moving down there.
 
2011-12-13 08:16:55 PM

Weaver95: louiedog: They should just start making texts, which cost virtually nothing to the carriers, something stupid like 20 cents a piece. That would get people to stop doing it so much.

yes! crush technological innovation completely! muhahahahahaha! that'll show 'em!


what?
 
2011-12-13 08:17:48 PM

kim jong-un: ThisNameSux: Weaver95: unenforceable

How is it unenforceable?

Sorry, I think he meant it was enforceable as it requires no proof on behalf of the officer other than saying, he had his cell phone out. Pay us $250.


Officer: 'he had his cell phone out!'
lawyer: 'prove it.'
Officer: 'um...can I have warrant?'
Judge: 'no.'
Officer:'because I said so, that's why!'
Judge: 'case dismissed.'
lawyer: 'well that was easy...'
Officer: 'f*ck'.
 
2011-12-13 08:17:53 PM
Around the nation we have police using things like jaywalking as an excuse to hassle people, and not in ways you might expect. Yes, police will use a jaywalking "offense" as an excuse to question a person. However, they will also use a person not jaywalking as an excuse to initiate contact, the rationale being that "excess deference" is in itself suspicious.

NYPD, always creative when it comes to ways to wiggle around Constitutional protections, is not allowed to arrest a person for small amounts of herb unless it is in public view. So, what do they do? They ask a person to empty their pockets. When the herb is out of the pocket, boom, public view, book 'em. In September police were "reminded" that policy is that small amounts of marijuana are not an arrestable offense, unless, of course, it's in public view. Will arrests go down after this "clarification"? We will se, I'm not confident they will.

In a perfect nation, driving while using a cell phone should be illegal, but, alas, we live in a nation that has steadily and significantly increased police power over the years. It is something that has had a huge impact in our nation, monetarily and socially.
 
2011-12-13 08:18:11 PM

ArcadianRefugee: The NTSB's recommendations urge all 50 states and the District "to ban the nonemergency use of portable electronic devices (other than those designed to support the driving task)."

My cell phone has GPS/mapping/direction software on it. So is that a "yay" or "nay"?

/mental note to always keep map app running in case I get pulled over for texting


This law will allow police to demand your text records. Note that only a timestamp of your text record would be necessary, but lets be honest, they are going to request the content as well just to make sure there is nothing illegal going on there either.

I'd say they could get a warrant for those records, but we also know that it's just going to be Verizon/ATT setting up a 'police agency' portal that allows them to request the data for a $25 fee.
 
2011-12-13 08:18:25 PM

TwistedIvory: Bathia_Mapes: No, they want to make it illegal in all states to use an electronic device to talk/text while driving. I have no problem with this.

+1. . . or a thousand.

Gig103: And just like the speed limit law, it's going to be ignored and do nothing to solve the problem. The real intent is to give cops new probable cause to pull someone over.


So don't do anything?


I don't see us banning fast food drive thrus or radios. Texting is one thing, but talking on the phone is another. Driving is one of the few times I have to talk to people anymore. 3000 deaths a year is what percentage of total vehicle deaths exactly?
 
2011-12-13 08:19:27 PM
Lemme see if i have this straight...

The headline coulda read, "Lifelong Republican politician wants to take your cell phone away" (new window), but you hadda go the other way...

Fail, subbie.
/never, NEVER go FULL RETARD...
 
2011-12-13 08:19:55 PM

RexTalionis:
6) That there feller's squintin', he must be one of them Chinamen.

/One of the reasons why I probably won't drive if I ever go to California.


You missed the similarity between the items listed. Items 1 through 5 are legitimate reasons that a cop has to pull someone over, but difficult for the driver to prove if they claim the cop didn't have probable cause. Your item 6 is not a legitimate reason to pull someone over.

Let's look at it another way. Let's say a toddler had a priceless Ming vase in front of him. In addition, the toddler had a hammer and a rock. Someone comes along and places a metal bar in front of the toddler, and the mom screams, "Don't give that to him! He might use it to break the vase!"

My point is that it's ridiculous to say that cops will use this law as an excuse to pull someone over without probable cause because they already have a shiatload of excuses already.
 
2011-12-13 08:20:55 PM

serpent_sky: DysphoricMania: RexTalionis: Personally, I always wondered why manufacturers never got behind the idea of projected HUD displays on the windshield, or a transparent display overlay. You get your information and your eyes stay on the road.

Some have for years in a limited form. But it goes back to cost, as I understand it to be an expensive option. Co-worker had a Pontiac that had the speed visible on the windshield. Not sure what other info was there. And that was 10 yrs ago. On a friggen Pontiac.

Wouldn't that be incredibly distracting? I don't like it when I have a smudge on my windshield from something, I can't imagine having data that changed up there. I feel like I'd always be taking note of it instead of focusing on the road.

I imagine it like when you're watching a TV show and they put one of those annoying, obtrusive ads in the corner. Instinctively, your eyes go to what's moving down there.


Unlike them putting something in the corner of your vision like your dashboard that already displays that information?

That's why it's called a Heads-Up Display. It lets you keep your head up and not forcing you to literally look away from what you SHOULD be looking at.
 
2011-12-13 08:21:22 PM

Weaver95: in the same way that DUI laws are unenforceable.


See a person talking on the phone, pull them over, issue a ticket.
See a car violating a traffic law, pull them over, administer tests, arrest for DUI.

What the fark are you talking about?
 
2011-12-13 08:21:46 PM
I'm torn on this one,,,,,

While I am tired of them passing laws that give the cops one more excuse to pull you over and shake you down, I have also been on the receiving end of a cel phone using sixteen year old missing my motorcycle by six inches while doing 50 mph back last summer .

My wife was on her motorcycle staggered back to my right, if she had been even with me, Id've taken us both down trying to avoid the little twat.

Hmmmmmm.....gonna have to give this one further thought.

This ones' gonna get abused by cops though,,,,,,,no bones about it.
 
2011-12-13 08:22:50 PM

glassgnost: R.A.Danny: Easy answer. Freedom

Well then, perhaps we should support Freedom abroad and simply let Iran have nukes...


Or maybe just stop them from stoning women because they had the audacity to get themselves raped
 
2011-12-13 08:22:52 PM
Yeah, there are still major flaws in this proposed law. What difference does it make if someone is driving and using a bluetooth while fighting with their spouse versus the spouse being in the car? Blue tooth talkling with kids versus those farkers throwing their farking happy meal on my clean carpets? Pretty sure I am more distracted with them sitting next to me.
The problem is distracted drivers, period; this law focuses on one of the infinite possible distractions (road head, eating cake, women putting on their makeup, etc.etc)
I say make getting your drivers license a lot harder; with these things in mind. Maybe that would take some of these god forsaken people of these already congested LA roads!
 
2011-12-13 08:22:54 PM

serpent_sky: Wouldn't that be incredibly distracting? I don't like it when I have a smudge on my windshield from something, I can't imagine having data that changed up there. I feel like I'd always be taking note of it instead of focusing on the road.


I assume one gets used to it over time. Not a fighter pilot, nor a Pontiac driver so I do not know. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once...
 
Displayed 50 of 509 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report