Hello. My name is Christine, and I am attempting to get some real opinions from people regarding cell phone usage while driving and the laws that are being put in to place regarding it. This includes both talking on a cell phone and texting. This isn't an attempt to change anyones mind about their opinion, and I do not hope to start any arguments regarding this topic, I just want to know if you are for or against the laws and why. The purpose of this is research, not for any government or media interest, but for my Writing 123 class. This is a topic that interests me, so I would really appriciate your feedback. Thank you.
Current Laws:
Alaska: All drivers are banned from text messaging
Arizona- School bus drivers are banned from talking on cell phones
Arkansas- School bus drivers are banned from talking and texting on their cell phones
California- All drivers are banned from using a hand held device to talk on their cell phone, all drivers are banned from text messaging, school bus drivers and drivers <18 are banned from talking on cell phones
Colorado- Drivers with their learners permit are banned from talking on their cell phone
Connecticut- All drivers are banned from using handheld devices and text messaging, all school bus drivers and persons with their learners permit and are <18 are banned from all cell phone usage
Delaware- School bus drivers and GDL (Graduated Drivers License) drivers are banned from talking on cell phones, GDL drivers are banned from text messaging.
D.C.- Hand held ban, texting ban, school bus drivers and persons with learners permit banned from cell phones
Georgia- School bus drivers banned from talking on cell phones
Illinois- Hand held ban by jurisdiction, school bus drivers and persons <19 banned from talking on cell phones
Kentucky- School bus drivers banned from talking on cell phones
Louisiana- 3 different laws prohibiting cell phone use but it is unclear if hand held is prohibited on cell phone use in general is, texting is prohibited, school bus drivers are prohibited from calls
Maine- <18 prohibited from calling and texting
Maryland- <18 w/ learner or provisional license prohibited from calling and texting
Massachusetts- hand held prohibited by jurisdiction, school bus drivers prohibited from calls
Michigan- hand held prohibited by jurisdiction, teens with probationary licenses whose cell phone usage contributes to a traffic crash or ticket may not use a cell phone while driving
Minnesota- School bus drivers are prohibited from talking and texting, novice drivers are prohibited from talking and texting for the first 12 months
Nebraska- <19 w/ learners permit or provisional license are prohibited from talking and texting
New Jersey- hand held ban, school bus drivers and <21 w/ GDL or provisional license prohibited from calls, texting ban
New York- Hand held ban
North Carolina- School bus drivers and <18 prohibited from calls and texting
Ohio- Hand held ban by jurisdiction
Oregon- <18 w/ learners permit or provisional banned from talking and texting
Pennsylvania- Hand held ban by jurisdiction
Rhode Island- School bus drivers and <18 banned from calls
Tennesse- School bus drivers and learners permit or intermediate licence prohibited from calls
Texas- School bus drivers with passengers <17 and intermediate drivers in their first 6 months prohibited from calls and texting
Virgin Islands- Hand Held ban
West Virginia- Persons in the learner or intermediate stage prohibited from calls and texting.
Cell Phone Laws
-
ammit82379
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 9:45 pm
Cell Phone Laws
Which are the laws that are being put in to place regarding it?
If we're to know what we're discussing I think we need links from you to all the proposed legislation so that we can read and compare and discuss.
I'll bring the UK legislation for an international perspective, you can bring the different States. Which ones do you know already?
If we're to know what we're discussing I think we need links from you to all the proposed legislation so that we can read and compare and discuss.
I'll bring the UK legislation for an international perspective, you can bring the different States. Which ones do you know already?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Cell Phone Laws
Here's the current UK law26 Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones etc.
Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended by the Road Safety Act 2006) Section 41D Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones etc., A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a construction and use requirement -(b) as to not driving or supervising the driving of a motor vehicle while using a hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held interactive communication device, or not causing or permitting the driving of a motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or other device,is guilty of an offence.What's under discussion at the moment is extending that ban to hands-free systems as well. The evidence available indicates that just talking on a hands-free system is as mentally distracting as talking on a hand-held and that there's a correlation between traffic accidents and legal hands-free cellphone use at the time.
Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended by the Road Safety Act 2006) Section 41D Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones etc., A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a construction and use requirement -(b) as to not driving or supervising the driving of a motor vehicle while using a hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held interactive communication device, or not causing or permitting the driving of a motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or other device,is guilty of an offence.What's under discussion at the moment is extending that ban to hands-free systems as well. The evidence available indicates that just talking on a hands-free system is as mentally distracting as talking on a hand-held and that there's a correlation between traffic accidents and legal hands-free cellphone use at the time.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
Cell Phone Laws
spot;1040370 wrote: Here's the current UK law26 Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones etc.
Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended by the Road Safety Act 2006) Section 41D Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones etc., A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a construction and use requirement -(b) as to not driving or supervising the driving of a motor vehicle while using a hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held interactive communication device, or not causing or permitting the driving of a motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or other device,is guilty of an offence.What's under discussion at the moment is extending that ban to hands-free systems as well. The evidence available indicates that just talking on a hands-free system is as mentally distracting as talking on a hand-held and that there's a correlation between traffic accidents and legal hands-free cellphone use at the time.
I think they are going too far with restricting hands free usage while driving. I dont think it is more of a distraction than listening to the radio or talking to a passenger. Certainly it is not more of a distraction than having kids or a dog in the car. Driving while stressed out is also distraction. Driving while sick....also.
Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended by the Road Safety Act 2006) Section 41D Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones etc., A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a construction and use requirement -(b) as to not driving or supervising the driving of a motor vehicle while using a hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held interactive communication device, or not causing or permitting the driving of a motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or other device,is guilty of an offence.What's under discussion at the moment is extending that ban to hands-free systems as well. The evidence available indicates that just talking on a hands-free system is as mentally distracting as talking on a hand-held and that there's a correlation between traffic accidents and legal hands-free cellphone use at the time.
I think they are going too far with restricting hands free usage while driving. I dont think it is more of a distraction than listening to the radio or talking to a passenger. Certainly it is not more of a distraction than having kids or a dog in the car. Driving while stressed out is also distraction. Driving while sick....also.
Cell Phone Laws
wildhorses;1040374 wrote: I think they are going too far with restricting hands free usage while driving. I dont think it is more of a distraction than listening to the radio or talking to a passenger. Certainly it is not more of a distraction than having kids or a dog in the car. Driving while stressed out is also distraction. Driving while sick....also.
Perhaps I can offer views to the contrary? This is part of the 17 Oct 2005 debate in the House of Lords on the Road Safety Bill which I quoted from, in which the evidence I offered to find about hands-free systems is referenced, The bolding is mine.Viscount Simon: I am delighted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, just said. He stated that using a hand-held mobile phone is dangerous. The same applies to hands-free mobile phones. The person at the other end of the phone does not know what one's driving conditions are or what else is happening on the road and therefore one's concentration can be badly affected. Transport Research Laboratory research has shown that reaction times for drivers using mobile phones—both hands-free and hand-held—are worse than those for drivers over the blood alcohol limit. That leads to increased likelihood and severity of collision.
A considerable body of research indicates that the impairment caused by hands-free mobile phones is as significant as that caused by hand-held mobile phones. The impairment occurs primarily through distraction from the conversation and not from taking a hand off the wheel. Therefore we go back to the distraction of the person at the other end of the phone. Continuing to allow hands-free mobile phone use may give the mistaken impression that that is safe driving behaviour. It is not. An evidence-led policy on mobile phones would suggest that both types of phones should be banned.
It is sometimes argued that banning the use of hands-free mobiles would be unenforceable. However, even if the ban on the use of hands-free mobiles were not in force, it would still be possible for police crash investigators to determine afterwards if the driver had been engaged on a mobile phone conversation at the time. A case has already come to court following a fatal collision last year. The driver would by definition be guilty of an offence and any injured parties would automatically be able to initiate a damage claim without having to wait for the courts to decide whether the driving amounted to careless, dangerous or some other form of bad driving offence.
A ban would also prevent manufacturers from promoting hands-free mobiles as being recognised in law as safe for use in cars, contrary to the evidence.
Lord Bradshaw: I back up what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said. I fear that the reason people use hands-free equipment is that it is known that there is no way of enforcing the law or prohibiting the use of hands-free equipment, because any policeman or other enforcement agency cannot see it. However, it leads to a serious situation in that people promote hands-free phones as safe. They are safe only from anybody detecting their use; they are certainly not safe in respect of other road users and other drivers. When the Minister sums up I would like him to underline the message that the Government are not in the business of promoting unenforceable laws, but nonetheless should deprecate any organisation that promotes things it says are safe but that it really means are undetectable.
Lord Berkeley: I agree with what my noble friend Lord Simon said about hands-free phones, in which he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. There is a new type of hands-free phone. It clips around one's ear and has a spike that goes toward one's mouth, which hears what one says. I bought one a few months ago, not so that I could break the law if it is amended by Amendments Nos. 96 and 97, but so that I could use it on my bicycle. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, about using a mobile phone on a bicycle are right. It is dangerous to cycle along the road with one hand on the handlebar and holding the other hand to one's ear.
I bought one of these things that clips on to one's ear, and it works fine if you are stationary. However, once you are moving the wind is blowing past you and whereas you can hear what the other person is saying, they cannot hear what you are saying because it is like the noise of a mighty rushing wind. They are useless when going along on a bicycle and, I presume, on a motorbike. My son has had the same experience. To the question of bicycles and mobile phones the answer is to stop. It is the only solution, if you want to be on the phone, much as you want to keep going. The noble Lord has a point, but it should apply both to traditional mobile phones and the ones that are hands-free, because the latter do not work anyway.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 96 and 97. I do not think the fact that police cannot detect them should be a reason for not including hands-free mobiles in the definition of a mobile phone. If you have one of the things clipped to your ear the policeman can see that—if he happens to be around, which is probably unlikely, but he might be. It is possible to check through the mobile phone companies whether someone was using a mobile phone if there has been an accident. If you are on a bicycle you tend to get run into by cars just as frequently when people are using a hands-free mobile phone as when they are using an ordinary mobile phone while driving, because they are not concentrating. I support all the amendments.
Perhaps I can offer views to the contrary? This is part of the 17 Oct 2005 debate in the House of Lords on the Road Safety Bill which I quoted from, in which the evidence I offered to find about hands-free systems is referenced, The bolding is mine.Viscount Simon: I am delighted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, just said. He stated that using a hand-held mobile phone is dangerous. The same applies to hands-free mobile phones. The person at the other end of the phone does not know what one's driving conditions are or what else is happening on the road and therefore one's concentration can be badly affected. Transport Research Laboratory research has shown that reaction times for drivers using mobile phones—both hands-free and hand-held—are worse than those for drivers over the blood alcohol limit. That leads to increased likelihood and severity of collision.
A considerable body of research indicates that the impairment caused by hands-free mobile phones is as significant as that caused by hand-held mobile phones. The impairment occurs primarily through distraction from the conversation and not from taking a hand off the wheel. Therefore we go back to the distraction of the person at the other end of the phone. Continuing to allow hands-free mobile phone use may give the mistaken impression that that is safe driving behaviour. It is not. An evidence-led policy on mobile phones would suggest that both types of phones should be banned.
It is sometimes argued that banning the use of hands-free mobiles would be unenforceable. However, even if the ban on the use of hands-free mobiles were not in force, it would still be possible for police crash investigators to determine afterwards if the driver had been engaged on a mobile phone conversation at the time. A case has already come to court following a fatal collision last year. The driver would by definition be guilty of an offence and any injured parties would automatically be able to initiate a damage claim without having to wait for the courts to decide whether the driving amounted to careless, dangerous or some other form of bad driving offence.
A ban would also prevent manufacturers from promoting hands-free mobiles as being recognised in law as safe for use in cars, contrary to the evidence.
Lord Bradshaw: I back up what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said. I fear that the reason people use hands-free equipment is that it is known that there is no way of enforcing the law or prohibiting the use of hands-free equipment, because any policeman or other enforcement agency cannot see it. However, it leads to a serious situation in that people promote hands-free phones as safe. They are safe only from anybody detecting their use; they are certainly not safe in respect of other road users and other drivers. When the Minister sums up I would like him to underline the message that the Government are not in the business of promoting unenforceable laws, but nonetheless should deprecate any organisation that promotes things it says are safe but that it really means are undetectable.
Lord Berkeley: I agree with what my noble friend Lord Simon said about hands-free phones, in which he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. There is a new type of hands-free phone. It clips around one's ear and has a spike that goes toward one's mouth, which hears what one says. I bought one a few months ago, not so that I could break the law if it is amended by Amendments Nos. 96 and 97, but so that I could use it on my bicycle. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, about using a mobile phone on a bicycle are right. It is dangerous to cycle along the road with one hand on the handlebar and holding the other hand to one's ear.
I bought one of these things that clips on to one's ear, and it works fine if you are stationary. However, once you are moving the wind is blowing past you and whereas you can hear what the other person is saying, they cannot hear what you are saying because it is like the noise of a mighty rushing wind. They are useless when going along on a bicycle and, I presume, on a motorbike. My son has had the same experience. To the question of bicycles and mobile phones the answer is to stop. It is the only solution, if you want to be on the phone, much as you want to keep going. The noble Lord has a point, but it should apply both to traditional mobile phones and the ones that are hands-free, because the latter do not work anyway.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 96 and 97. I do not think the fact that police cannot detect them should be a reason for not including hands-free mobiles in the definition of a mobile phone. If you have one of the things clipped to your ear the policeman can see that—if he happens to be around, which is probably unlikely, but he might be. It is possible to check through the mobile phone companies whether someone was using a mobile phone if there has been an accident. If you are on a bicycle you tend to get run into by cars just as frequently when people are using a hands-free mobile phone as when they are using an ordinary mobile phone while driving, because they are not concentrating. I support all the amendments.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Cell Phone Laws
our Canadian laws:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Phones and Driving: Questions and Answers
A person using a cell phoneYou'll survive a missed phone call;
you might not survive a collision!
1. Is it illegal to use a cell phone while driving anywhere in Canada?
2. Which level of government is responsible for laws dealing with cell phones?
3. Are hands-free devices safe?
4. What about other distractions such as adjusting the radio, eating a snack or the other things drivers do while driving?
5. Don’t cell phones actually contribute to highway safety?
Safety Tips >>
Questions and Answers
1. Is it illegal to use a cell phone while driving anywhere in Canada?
Yes. It is currently illegal to use a handheld cell phone while driving in 3 provinces: Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Quebec. Other jurisdictions are considering similar legislation. Cell phones are banned in many jurisdictions worldwide.
A driver who causes a collision or who is observed driving unsafely while using a cell phone can be charged under a number of provincial, territorial or federal laws including but not limited to, those related to dangerous driving, careless driving and criminal negligence causing death or injury.
Newfoundland & Labrador: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/ ... 220n03.htm
Nova Scotia: http://www.gov.ns.ca/tran/cellphone.asp
Quebec: http://www.saaq.gouv.qc.ca/en/accident_ ... /index.php
2. Which level of government is responsible for laws dealing with cell phones?
Use of cell phones by drivers comes under provincial and territorial regulation.
All levels of government are concerned about the increased risk posed by the use of cell phones (and related devices) while driving. A number of provincial and territorial governments have conducted research and are monitoring the situation. Transport Canada has conducted research on this issue and continues to monitor public attitudes. Recent surveys indicate that many drivers recognize the danger associated with using cell phones while driving and that a large proportion of the public supports some restriction on their use.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/tp2436/rs200802/menu.htm
3. Are hands-free devices safe?
No. Research indicates that there is an increased risk of collision when using a cell phone, even if it is hands-free. Distraction that arises from the need to think about the conversation is still present. Hands-free phones reduce only the requirement to physically operate the phone.
4. What about other distractions such as adjusting the radio, eating a snack or the other things drivers do while driving?
A driver’s primary responsibility is the safe operation of their vehicle. A driver may be charged if erratic driving or a crash results from inattention, regardless of the cause.
5. Don’t cell phones actually contribute to highway safety?
A cell phone can be a valuable tool for highway safety, enabling you to rapidly report collisions, for example. The safety value, however, lies in having the phone available to make an outgoing call, not in having the phone turned on while you are driving. When reporting an emergency situation, pull over safely so that your vehicle isn’t posing a risk to others and that you can adequately report the details and answer any questions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Phones and Driving: Questions and Answers
A person using a cell phoneYou'll survive a missed phone call;
you might not survive a collision!
1. Is it illegal to use a cell phone while driving anywhere in Canada?
2. Which level of government is responsible for laws dealing with cell phones?
3. Are hands-free devices safe?
4. What about other distractions such as adjusting the radio, eating a snack or the other things drivers do while driving?
5. Don’t cell phones actually contribute to highway safety?
Safety Tips >>
Questions and Answers
1. Is it illegal to use a cell phone while driving anywhere in Canada?
Yes. It is currently illegal to use a handheld cell phone while driving in 3 provinces: Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Quebec. Other jurisdictions are considering similar legislation. Cell phones are banned in many jurisdictions worldwide.
A driver who causes a collision or who is observed driving unsafely while using a cell phone can be charged under a number of provincial, territorial or federal laws including but not limited to, those related to dangerous driving, careless driving and criminal negligence causing death or injury.
Newfoundland & Labrador: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/ ... 220n03.htm
Nova Scotia: http://www.gov.ns.ca/tran/cellphone.asp
Quebec: http://www.saaq.gouv.qc.ca/en/accident_ ... /index.php
2. Which level of government is responsible for laws dealing with cell phones?
Use of cell phones by drivers comes under provincial and territorial regulation.
All levels of government are concerned about the increased risk posed by the use of cell phones (and related devices) while driving. A number of provincial and territorial governments have conducted research and are monitoring the situation. Transport Canada has conducted research on this issue and continues to monitor public attitudes. Recent surveys indicate that many drivers recognize the danger associated with using cell phones while driving and that a large proportion of the public supports some restriction on their use.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/tp2436/rs200802/menu.htm
3. Are hands-free devices safe?
No. Research indicates that there is an increased risk of collision when using a cell phone, even if it is hands-free. Distraction that arises from the need to think about the conversation is still present. Hands-free phones reduce only the requirement to physically operate the phone.
4. What about other distractions such as adjusting the radio, eating a snack or the other things drivers do while driving?
A driver’s primary responsibility is the safe operation of their vehicle. A driver may be charged if erratic driving or a crash results from inattention, regardless of the cause.
5. Don’t cell phones actually contribute to highway safety?
A cell phone can be a valuable tool for highway safety, enabling you to rapidly report collisions, for example. The safety value, however, lies in having the phone available to make an outgoing call, not in having the phone turned on while you are driving. When reporting an emergency situation, pull over safely so that your vehicle isn’t posing a risk to others and that you can adequately report the details and answer any questions.
Life is just to short for drama.
Cell Phone Laws
wildhorses;1040374 wrote: I dont think it is more of a distraction than listening to the radio or talking to a passengerThis is the abstract from the UK's Transport Research Laboratory report "Conversations in cars: the relative hazards of mobile phones" on this specific issue.The aim of this study was to benchmark the distraction caused by hands-free mobile phone conversations in relation to other conventional in-car tasks, and to similar conversations held with a front seat passenger.
Thirty experienced drivers aged between 21 and 64 years drove a 17 km route in the TRL driving simulator for each experimental condition. The results showed a complex but consistent picture of distraction. Measures of car following ability and general measures of speed control showed that all additional conversation and in-vehicle tasks produced more variable performance consistent with the additional load imposed. Self report subjective workload measures showed that both in-vehicle and passenger conversation tasks were rated equally more difficult than baseline driving. Handsfree conversations were rated yet more difficult. This pattern was repeated in results of choice reaction time tasks.
When drivers were required to respond selectively to road signs, it was shown that the best performance was achieved in the driving baseline condition, with a significant deterioration to in-vehicle and passenger conversation conditions, and yet further deterioration in the handsfree conversation drive. The act of driving was shown to have a distinct effect on the quality and character of a conversation. The rate of talking, the number of pauses, number of errors and performance on verbal and numerical reasoning tasks all deteriorated when driving at the same time.
Comparison was made between the conversations held over the carphone and with the front seat passenger. There was a clear difference on all conversation measures showing that performance was worse when the response was via the handsfree carphone. It is concluded that hands-free phone conversations impair driving performance more than these other common in-vehicle distractions.
Thirty experienced drivers aged between 21 and 64 years drove a 17 km route in the TRL driving simulator for each experimental condition. The results showed a complex but consistent picture of distraction. Measures of car following ability and general measures of speed control showed that all additional conversation and in-vehicle tasks produced more variable performance consistent with the additional load imposed. Self report subjective workload measures showed that both in-vehicle and passenger conversation tasks were rated equally more difficult than baseline driving. Handsfree conversations were rated yet more difficult. This pattern was repeated in results of choice reaction time tasks.
When drivers were required to respond selectively to road signs, it was shown that the best performance was achieved in the driving baseline condition, with a significant deterioration to in-vehicle and passenger conversation conditions, and yet further deterioration in the handsfree conversation drive. The act of driving was shown to have a distinct effect on the quality and character of a conversation. The rate of talking, the number of pauses, number of errors and performance on verbal and numerical reasoning tasks all deteriorated when driving at the same time.
Comparison was made between the conversations held over the carphone and with the front seat passenger. There was a clear difference on all conversation measures showing that performance was worse when the response was via the handsfree carphone. It is concluded that hands-free phone conversations impair driving performance more than these other common in-vehicle distractions.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
Cell Phone Laws
spot;1040387 wrote: This is the abstract from the UK's Transport Research Laboratory report "Conversations in cars: the relative hazards of mobile phones" on this specific issue.The aim of this study was to benchmark the distraction caused by hands-free mobile phone conversations in relation to other conventional in-car tasks, and to similar conversations held with a front seat passenger.
Thirty experienced drivers aged between 21 and 64 years drove a 17 km route in the TRL driving simulator for each experimental condition. The results showed a complex but consistent picture of distraction. Measures of car following ability and general measures of speed control showed that all additional conversation and in-vehicle tasks produced more variable performance consistent with the additional load imposed. Self report subjective workload measures showed that both in-vehicle and passenger conversation tasks were rated equally more difficult than baseline driving. Handsfree conversations were rated yet more difficult. This pattern was repeated in results of choice reaction time tasks.
When drivers were required to respond selectively to road signs, it was shown that the best performance was achieved in the driving baseline condition, with a significant deterioration to in-vehicle and passenger conversation conditions, and yet further deterioration in the handsfree conversation drive. The act of driving was shown to have a distinct effect on the quality and character of a conversation. The rate of talking, the number of pauses, number of errors and performance on verbal and numerical reasoning tasks all deteriorated when driving at the same time.
Comparison was made between the conversations held over the carphone and with the front seat passenger. There was a clear difference on all conversation measures showing that performance was worse when the response was via the handsfree carphone. It is concluded that hands-free phone conversations impair driving performance more than these other common in-vehicle distractions.
Yes I know about all the studies done. But it makes no sense at all. How can a conversation on a hands free phone be more distracting than a passenger conversation? If you are having a conversation with a passenger....say you were having the exact same conversation with the exact same person on a hands free phone. You are still engaged in the conversation if the person is sitting there or not. How would the person sitting there be less of a distraction? The study is flawed. I work in the research industry and I am sometimes appalled at how some studies are done. The flaws are apparent from the beginning and so of course the study results don't make sense. Then everyone says "oh but a study was done". However, when the results dont make sense, it should occur to someone to analyze how the study was done.
Thirty experienced drivers aged between 21 and 64 years drove a 17 km route in the TRL driving simulator for each experimental condition. The results showed a complex but consistent picture of distraction. Measures of car following ability and general measures of speed control showed that all additional conversation and in-vehicle tasks produced more variable performance consistent with the additional load imposed. Self report subjective workload measures showed that both in-vehicle and passenger conversation tasks were rated equally more difficult than baseline driving. Handsfree conversations were rated yet more difficult. This pattern was repeated in results of choice reaction time tasks.
When drivers were required to respond selectively to road signs, it was shown that the best performance was achieved in the driving baseline condition, with a significant deterioration to in-vehicle and passenger conversation conditions, and yet further deterioration in the handsfree conversation drive. The act of driving was shown to have a distinct effect on the quality and character of a conversation. The rate of talking, the number of pauses, number of errors and performance on verbal and numerical reasoning tasks all deteriorated when driving at the same time.
Comparison was made between the conversations held over the carphone and with the front seat passenger. There was a clear difference on all conversation measures showing that performance was worse when the response was via the handsfree carphone. It is concluded that hands-free phone conversations impair driving performance more than these other common in-vehicle distractions.
Yes I know about all the studies done. But it makes no sense at all. How can a conversation on a hands free phone be more distracting than a passenger conversation? If you are having a conversation with a passenger....say you were having the exact same conversation with the exact same person on a hands free phone. You are still engaged in the conversation if the person is sitting there or not. How would the person sitting there be less of a distraction? The study is flawed. I work in the research industry and I am sometimes appalled at how some studies are done. The flaws are apparent from the beginning and so of course the study results don't make sense. Then everyone says "oh but a study was done". However, when the results dont make sense, it should occur to someone to analyze how the study was done.
Cell Phone Laws
wildhorses;1040389 wrote: Yes I know about all the studies done. But it makes no sense at all. There's the difference between an evidence-led policy on mobile phones and one which relies on opinion. You're setting your opinion up against the UK's national traffic research unit. The national traffic research unit relies on peer review for its reputation. if it had no reputation it would be dead in the water and nobody would pay its bills much less quote its results.
If you can produce any evidence which contradicts their findings then great, that would be perfect, I'd be delighted. Fire away. That's all we need, a way of assessing the reputation of the people making the statements.
If I may summarise Christine's added list from her first post of the thread, there's a currently a ban on hand-held cellphone use in vehicles with the engine running in six states, California, Connecticut, D.C., New Jersey, New York and the Virgin Islands. Jurisdictions are allowed to impose bands on hand-held use in a further five states, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The other thirty nine states allow the driver to hold mobile phone voice calls, hand-held and hands-free, while the vehicle's engine is running and even if the vehicle's in motion.
Nobody anywhere has a ban on hands-free systems. In my opinion the reason for that is an inability to stop people and book them for doing it because it's undetectable at the time they're doing it. In the UK, if someone's been in a lethal crash and the phone company records show the surviving driver was on his hands-free phone at the time, I guarantee they'll go to jail for it because the crash is going to be put forward as evidence of their dangerous behaviour. People here are in jail just for changing radio stations while crashing.
If you can produce any evidence which contradicts their findings then great, that would be perfect, I'd be delighted. Fire away. That's all we need, a way of assessing the reputation of the people making the statements.
If I may summarise Christine's added list from her first post of the thread, there's a currently a ban on hand-held cellphone use in vehicles with the engine running in six states, California, Connecticut, D.C., New Jersey, New York and the Virgin Islands. Jurisdictions are allowed to impose bands on hand-held use in a further five states, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The other thirty nine states allow the driver to hold mobile phone voice calls, hand-held and hands-free, while the vehicle's engine is running and even if the vehicle's in motion.
Nobody anywhere has a ban on hands-free systems. In my opinion the reason for that is an inability to stop people and book them for doing it because it's undetectable at the time they're doing it. In the UK, if someone's been in a lethal crash and the phone company records show the surviving driver was on his hands-free phone at the time, I guarantee they'll go to jail for it because the crash is going to be put forward as evidence of their dangerous behaviour. People here are in jail just for changing radio stations while crashing.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
Cell Phone Laws
spot;1040392 wrote: There's the difference between an evidence-led policy on mobile phones and one which relies on opinion. You're setting your opinion up against the UK's national traffic research unit. The national traffic research unit relies on peer review for its reputation. if it had no reputation it would be dead in the water and nobody would pay its bills much less quote its results.
If you can produce any evidence which contradicts their findings then great, that would be perfect, I'd be delighted. Fire away. That's all we need, a way of assessing the reputation of the people making the statements.
If I may summarise Christine's added list from her first post of the thread, there's a currently a ban on hand-held cellphone use in vehicles with the engine running in six states, California, Connecticut, D.C., New Jersey, New York and the Virgin Islands. Jurisdictions are allowed to impose bands on hand-held use in a further five states, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The other thirty nine states allow the driver to hold mobile phone voice calls, hand-held and hands-free, while the vehicle's engine is running and even if the vehicle's in motion.
Nobody anywhere has a ban on hands-free systems. In my opinion the reason for that is an inability to stop people and book them for doing it because it's undetectable at the time they're doing it. In the UK, if someone's been in a lethal crash and the phone company records show the surviving driver was on his hands-free phone at the time, I guarantee they'll go to jail for it because the crash is going to be put forward as evidence of their dangerous behaviour. People here are in jail just for changing radio stations while crashing.
Do you just eat up any information just because it is a "study"? Tell me how the results of this study makes sense. Have you ever seen a study that gives certain results and then a later study gives the complete opposite? This happens more often than anyone wants to admit.
Remember that respected scholars once thought the world was flat. But actually if you look at the faroff horizon you can see a curve....so it doesnt take much for someone to see that their insistence that it was flat should have been questioned.
It makes no sense that a conversation on a hands free cell phone would be more of a distraction than the exact same conversation with a passenger. You are talking and listening. The only difference is that the other end of the conversation is coming from a bud in your ear as opposed to from another passenger. You are still going to use the same amount of attention to engage in the conversation.
If you can produce any evidence which contradicts their findings then great, that would be perfect, I'd be delighted. Fire away. That's all we need, a way of assessing the reputation of the people making the statements.
If I may summarise Christine's added list from her first post of the thread, there's a currently a ban on hand-held cellphone use in vehicles with the engine running in six states, California, Connecticut, D.C., New Jersey, New York and the Virgin Islands. Jurisdictions are allowed to impose bands on hand-held use in a further five states, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The other thirty nine states allow the driver to hold mobile phone voice calls, hand-held and hands-free, while the vehicle's engine is running and even if the vehicle's in motion.
Nobody anywhere has a ban on hands-free systems. In my opinion the reason for that is an inability to stop people and book them for doing it because it's undetectable at the time they're doing it. In the UK, if someone's been in a lethal crash and the phone company records show the surviving driver was on his hands-free phone at the time, I guarantee they'll go to jail for it because the crash is going to be put forward as evidence of their dangerous behaviour. People here are in jail just for changing radio stations while crashing.
Do you just eat up any information just because it is a "study"? Tell me how the results of this study makes sense. Have you ever seen a study that gives certain results and then a later study gives the complete opposite? This happens more often than anyone wants to admit.
Remember that respected scholars once thought the world was flat. But actually if you look at the faroff horizon you can see a curve....so it doesnt take much for someone to see that their insistence that it was flat should have been questioned.
It makes no sense that a conversation on a hands free cell phone would be more of a distraction than the exact same conversation with a passenger. You are talking and listening. The only difference is that the other end of the conversation is coming from a bud in your ear as opposed to from another passenger. You are still going to use the same amount of attention to engage in the conversation.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
Cell Phone Laws
spot;1040392 wrote: There's the difference between an evidence-led policy on mobile phones and one which relies on opinion. You're setting your opinion up against the UK's national traffic research unit. The national traffic research unit relies on peer review for its reputation. if it had no reputation it would be dead in the water and nobody would pay its bills much less quote its results.
If you can produce any evidence which contradicts their findings then great, that would be perfect, I'd be delighted. Fire away. That's all we need, a way of assessing the reputation of the people making the statements.
If I may summarise Christine's added list from her first post of the thread, there's a currently a ban on hand-held cellphone use in vehicles with the engine running in six states, California, Connecticut, D.C., New Jersey, New York and the Virgin Islands. Jurisdictions are allowed to impose bands on hand-held use in a further five states, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The other thirty nine states allow the driver to hold mobile phone voice calls, hand-held and hands-free, while the vehicle's engine is running and even if the vehicle's in motion.
Nobody anywhere has a ban on hands-free systems. In my opinion the reason for that is an inability to stop people and book them for doing it because it's undetectable at the time they're doing it. In the UK, if someone's been in a lethal crash and the phone company records show the surviving driver was on his hands-free phone at the time, I guarantee they'll go to jail for it because the crash is going to be put forward as evidence of their dangerous behaviour. People here are in jail just for changing radio stations while crashing.
How in the hec would they know if someone was trying to change the radio station when they crashed? LOL. What do they use for evidence in court?
If you can produce any evidence which contradicts their findings then great, that would be perfect, I'd be delighted. Fire away. That's all we need, a way of assessing the reputation of the people making the statements.
If I may summarise Christine's added list from her first post of the thread, there's a currently a ban on hand-held cellphone use in vehicles with the engine running in six states, California, Connecticut, D.C., New Jersey, New York and the Virgin Islands. Jurisdictions are allowed to impose bands on hand-held use in a further five states, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The other thirty nine states allow the driver to hold mobile phone voice calls, hand-held and hands-free, while the vehicle's engine is running and even if the vehicle's in motion.
Nobody anywhere has a ban on hands-free systems. In my opinion the reason for that is an inability to stop people and book them for doing it because it's undetectable at the time they're doing it. In the UK, if someone's been in a lethal crash and the phone company records show the surviving driver was on his hands-free phone at the time, I guarantee they'll go to jail for it because the crash is going to be put forward as evidence of their dangerous behaviour. People here are in jail just for changing radio stations while crashing.
How in the hec would they know if someone was trying to change the radio station when they crashed? LOL. What do they use for evidence in court?
Cell Phone Laws
wildhorses;1040410 wrote: Remember that respected scholars once thought the world was flat.Name one? I think that's untrue but I'm quite prepared to be shown I'm wrong.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Cell Phone Laws
wildhorses;1040410 wrote: It makes no sense that a conversation on a hands free cell phone would be more of a distraction than the exact same conversation with a passenger. You are talking and listening. The only difference is that the other end of the conversation is coming from a bud in your ear as opposed to from another passenger. You are still going to use the same amount of attention to engage in the conversation.
You may be perfectly correct. All I asked from you was a publication I could read that agrees with you. That way I can test your opinion. The people who conducted the tests I referred to wrote their conclusions on the basis of experiment, not logic. They described what they observed.
You may be perfectly correct. All I asked from you was a publication I could read that agrees with you. That way I can test your opinion. The people who conducted the tests I referred to wrote their conclusions on the basis of experiment, not logic. They described what they observed.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
Cell Phone Laws
spot;1040414 wrote: You may be perfectly correct. All I asked from you was a publication I could read that agrees with you. That way I can test your opinion. The people who conducted the tests I referred to wrote their conclusions on the basis of experiment, not logic. They described what they observed.
Look. Saying that a conversation coming from an ear bud is more distracting that one coming from a person is the same as saying a 5 gallon barrel can catch more rain water than a 5 gallon tub. You need a study to figure that one out? And to answer your previous post....ALL scholars thought the earth was flat. All of them, pick one.
Look. Saying that a conversation coming from an ear bud is more distracting that one coming from a person is the same as saying a 5 gallon barrel can catch more rain water than a 5 gallon tub. You need a study to figure that one out? And to answer your previous post....ALL scholars thought the earth was flat. All of them, pick one.
Cell Phone Laws
wildhorses;1040412 wrote:
How in the hec would they know if someone was trying to change the radio station when they crashed? LOL. What do they use for evidence in court?
Here's the story I had in mind. The man jailed was reaching for a mint from his pocket, not changing the radio channel, my memory of what he did wasn't perfect. I'd read about it a long time ago in the context of distracted behaviour while driving.DRIVERS who eat and drink at the wheel are twice as likely to have a crash, a study has indicated. They try to compensate for the distractions of eating and drinking by driving more slowly and carefully, but they are often unable to brake in time to avoid a collision. The risk is similar to using a handheld mobile phone while driving
[...] The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents said it advised people to stop in a safe place if they wanted a snack. The dangers had been demonstrated by two fatal crashes in recent years caused by drivers eating or drinking, it said. In 2001 Thomas Munch-Petersen, a lecturer at University College London, was jailed for 90 days for killing three people on the M1 after swerving while searching for a mint in his jacket pocket. In 2003 Andrew Suffolk was jailed for 30 months for killing a pregnant woman in a crash on the M1. He admitted taking his eyes off the road for a moment to drink some water.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article612647.ece
How in the hec would they know if someone was trying to change the radio station when they crashed? LOL. What do they use for evidence in court?
Here's the story I had in mind. The man jailed was reaching for a mint from his pocket, not changing the radio channel, my memory of what he did wasn't perfect. I'd read about it a long time ago in the context of distracted behaviour while driving.DRIVERS who eat and drink at the wheel are twice as likely to have a crash, a study has indicated. They try to compensate for the distractions of eating and drinking by driving more slowly and carefully, but they are often unable to brake in time to avoid a collision. The risk is similar to using a handheld mobile phone while driving
[...] The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents said it advised people to stop in a safe place if they wanted a snack. The dangers had been demonstrated by two fatal crashes in recent years caused by drivers eating or drinking, it said. In 2001 Thomas Munch-Petersen, a lecturer at University College London, was jailed for 90 days for killing three people on the M1 after swerving while searching for a mint in his jacket pocket. In 2003 Andrew Suffolk was jailed for 30 months for killing a pregnant woman in a crash on the M1. He admitted taking his eyes off the road for a moment to drink some water.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article612647.ece
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
Cell Phone Laws
spot;1040419 wrote: Here's the story I had in mind. The man jailed was reaching for a mint from his pocket, not changing the radio channel, my memory of what he did wasn't perfect. I'd read about it a long time ago in the context of distracted behaviour while driving.DRIVERS who eat and drink at the wheel are twice as likely to have a crash, a study has indicated. They try to compensate for the distractions of eating and drinking by driving more slowly and carefully, but they are often unable to brake in time to avoid a collision. The risk is similar to using a handheld mobile phone while driving
[...] The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents said it advised people to stop in a safe place if they wanted a snack. The dangers had been demonstrated by two fatal crashes in recent years caused by drivers eating or drinking, it said. In 2001 Thomas Munch-Petersen, a lecturer at University College London, was jailed for 90 days for killing three people on the M1 after swerving while searching for a mint in his jacket pocket. In 2003 Andrew Suffolk was jailed for 30 months for killing a pregnant woman in a crash on the M1. He admitted taking his eyes off the road for a moment to drink some water.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article612647.ece
Now...this makes sense. Anytime you take one hand off the wheel you will not be able to control the car as effectively as with both hands. To make matters worse most people are right handed and they tend to use their dominant hand to reach or eat....using their left hand to control the car....LOL. I am not sure it is a matter of being distracted, but using one hand to control the car. In an emergency or urgent need to change lanes or stop, they just wont be able to control the vehicle as effectively.
[...] The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents said it advised people to stop in a safe place if they wanted a snack. The dangers had been demonstrated by two fatal crashes in recent years caused by drivers eating or drinking, it said. In 2001 Thomas Munch-Petersen, a lecturer at University College London, was jailed for 90 days for killing three people on the M1 after swerving while searching for a mint in his jacket pocket. In 2003 Andrew Suffolk was jailed for 30 months for killing a pregnant woman in a crash on the M1. He admitted taking his eyes off the road for a moment to drink some water.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article612647.ece
Now...this makes sense. Anytime you take one hand off the wheel you will not be able to control the car as effectively as with both hands. To make matters worse most people are right handed and they tend to use their dominant hand to reach or eat....using their left hand to control the car....LOL. I am not sure it is a matter of being distracted, but using one hand to control the car. In an emergency or urgent need to change lanes or stop, they just wont be able to control the vehicle as effectively.
Cell Phone Laws
wildhorses;1040416 wrote: Look. Saying that a conversation coming from an ear bud is more distracting that one coming from a person is the same as saying a 5 gallon barrel can catch more rain water than a 5 gallon tub. You need a study to figure that one out? And to answer your previous post....ALL scholars thought the earth was flat. All of them, pick one.
You do come out with some strange ideas. Look, every pope since Christianity took over the Roman Empire in 310AD has been handed an Orb to represent his governorship of the Earth. It's a ball, not a plate. It's spherical, not flat. Even back in 300AD no intelligent person thought the planet was anything but spherical.
Have a quick look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of “flat earth darkness” among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology." David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers also write: "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference."
In 1945 the Historical Association listed "Columbus and the Flat Earth Conception" second of twenty in its first-published pamphlet on common errors in history.
I'm not arguing one way or the other about the logic of your earbud, I'm not in a position to. I haven't experimented. For one thing I don't have a car, I don't drive. What I do ask is that you produce even a single respectable study that agrees with what you're telling me is a fact. It's all down to experiment, someone has to have gone and checked. Logic just isn't sufficient. I don't have an opinion about this. I only have an opinion about things I've read about or experienced and even then it's only ever a provisional opinion. I definitely don't have any fixed opinions, they're a sign of senility.
You do come out with some strange ideas. Look, every pope since Christianity took over the Roman Empire in 310AD has been handed an Orb to represent his governorship of the Earth. It's a ball, not a plate. It's spherical, not flat. Even back in 300AD no intelligent person thought the planet was anything but spherical.
Have a quick look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of “flat earth darkness” among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology." David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers also write: "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference."
In 1945 the Historical Association listed "Columbus and the Flat Earth Conception" second of twenty in its first-published pamphlet on common errors in history.
I'm not arguing one way or the other about the logic of your earbud, I'm not in a position to. I haven't experimented. For one thing I don't have a car, I don't drive. What I do ask is that you produce even a single respectable study that agrees with what you're telling me is a fact. It's all down to experiment, someone has to have gone and checked. Logic just isn't sufficient. I don't have an opinion about this. I only have an opinion about things I've read about or experienced and even then it's only ever a provisional opinion. I definitely don't have any fixed opinions, they're a sign of senility.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Cell Phone Laws
wildhorses;1040421 wrote: Now...this makes sense. Anytime you take one hand off the wheel you will not be able to control the car as effectively as with both hands. To make matters worse most people are right handed and they tend to use their dominant hand to reach or eat....using their left hand to control the car....LOL. I am not sure it is a matter of being distracted, but using one hand to control the car. In an emergency or urgent need to change lanes or stop, they just wont be able to control the vehicle as effectively.
It makes sense if it's driving one-handed while getting a mint from a pocket but not if driving one-handed while changing a radio channel? Ah. I get it. You're thinking of steering wheels that have radio channel changers built in and I'm thinking of radios you reach out to twist the frequency dial on.
The LOL's finally penetrated my mind - you're the one from the other day insistently trying to win points rather than intelligently trying to hold a conversation. I'd forgotten the username. What's wrong with just trying to uncover the facts rather than optimistically shouting your claim to be alpha-male?
It makes sense if it's driving one-handed while getting a mint from a pocket but not if driving one-handed while changing a radio channel? Ah. I get it. You're thinking of steering wheels that have radio channel changers built in and I'm thinking of radios you reach out to twist the frequency dial on.
The LOL's finally penetrated my mind - you're the one from the other day insistently trying to win points rather than intelligently trying to hold a conversation. I'd forgotten the username. What's wrong with just trying to uncover the facts rather than optimistically shouting your claim to be alpha-male?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
Cell Phone Laws
spot;1040422 wrote: You do come out with some strange ideas. Look, every pope since they took over the Roman Empire in 300AD has been handed an Orb to represent his governorship of the Earth. It's a ball, not a plate. It's spherical, not flat. Even back in 300AD no intelligent person thought the planet was anything but spherical.
Have a quick look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of “flat earth darkness†among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology." David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers also write: "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference."
In 1945 the Historical Association listed "Columbus and the Flat Earth Conception" second of twenty in its first-published pamphlet on common errors in history.
I'm not arguing one way or the other about the logic of your earbud, I'm not in a position to. I haven't experimented. For one thing I don't have a car, I don't drive. What I do ask is that you produce even a single respectable study that agrees with what you're telling me is a fact. It's all down to experiment, someone has to have gone and checked. Logic just isn't sufficient.
Ah yes...they do a pretty good job of rewriting history when it suits them. Now there was no "Flat Earth" era. So where did the "flat earth" era concept come from? A scholar? A study? Has a study been done on the flat earth concept? How could they do that? Could they interview the scholars of that time? If scholars did not believe in "flat earth" as you suggest...then where did the concept come from? Now it was the "public" that believed in flat earth...not scholars? LOL. They just want to save face...because the fact is that their current "studies" mean nothing if their past "studies" were so flawed. So how did the public get the idea that the world was flat? From scholars thats where. They would like to camoflage this major error that THEY made.
Have a quick look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of “flat earth darkness†among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology." David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers also write: "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference."
In 1945 the Historical Association listed "Columbus and the Flat Earth Conception" second of twenty in its first-published pamphlet on common errors in history.
I'm not arguing one way or the other about the logic of your earbud, I'm not in a position to. I haven't experimented. For one thing I don't have a car, I don't drive. What I do ask is that you produce even a single respectable study that agrees with what you're telling me is a fact. It's all down to experiment, someone has to have gone and checked. Logic just isn't sufficient.
Ah yes...they do a pretty good job of rewriting history when it suits them. Now there was no "Flat Earth" era. So where did the "flat earth" era concept come from? A scholar? A study? Has a study been done on the flat earth concept? How could they do that? Could they interview the scholars of that time? If scholars did not believe in "flat earth" as you suggest...then where did the concept come from? Now it was the "public" that believed in flat earth...not scholars? LOL. They just want to save face...because the fact is that their current "studies" mean nothing if their past "studies" were so flawed. So how did the public get the idea that the world was flat? From scholars thats where. They would like to camoflage this major error that THEY made.
Cell Phone Laws
Go and look at the Orbs a bit, and consider what they imply and how widespread their use has been, and then come back and tell me what you make of them.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
Cell Phone Laws
spot;1040423 wrote: It makes sense if it's driving one-handed while getting a mint from a pocket but not if driving one-handed while changing a radio channel? Ah. I get it. You're thinking of steering wheels that have radio channel changers built in and I'm thinking of radios you reach out to twist the frequency dial on.
The LOL's finally penetrated my mind - you're the one from the other day insistently trying to win points rather than intelligently trying to hold a conversation. I'd forgotten the username. What's wrong with just trying to uncover the facts rather than optimistically shouting your claim to be alpha-male?
One thing I have learned about you, Spot, is that you love to convolute the debate. It's a game for you. I never said that reaching for the radio would not be a distraction. I said that using an ear bud would not be MORE of a distraction. And I know you know that. he he.
The LOL's finally penetrated my mind - you're the one from the other day insistently trying to win points rather than intelligently trying to hold a conversation. I'd forgotten the username. What's wrong with just trying to uncover the facts rather than optimistically shouting your claim to be alpha-male?
One thing I have learned about you, Spot, is that you love to convolute the debate. It's a game for you. I never said that reaching for the radio would not be a distraction. I said that using an ear bud would not be MORE of a distraction. And I know you know that. he he.
Cell Phone Laws
wildhorses;1040455 wrote: One thing I have learned about you, Spot, is that you love to convolute the debate. It's a game for you. I never said that reaching for the radio would not be a distraction. I said that using an ear bud would not be MORE of a distraction. And I know you know that. he he.
What you actually said was "How in the hec would they know if someone was trying to change the radio station when they crashed? LOL. What do they use for evidence in court?"
What they actually use are the words of the defendant in the dock. It's far more important to tell the truth in a matter like this than to walk free having lied. How would anyone live with themselves afterwards if they did that, having caused deaths on the road?
What you actually said was "How in the hec would they know if someone was trying to change the radio station when they crashed? LOL. What do they use for evidence in court?"
What they actually use are the words of the defendant in the dock. It's far more important to tell the truth in a matter like this than to walk free having lied. How would anyone live with themselves afterwards if they did that, having caused deaths on the road?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
Cell Phone Laws
spot;1040467 wrote: What you actually said was "How in the hec would they know if someone was trying to change the radio station when they crashed? LOL. What do they use for evidence in court?"
What they actually use are the words of the defendant in the dock. It's far more important to tell the truth in a matter like this than to walk free having lied. How would anyone live with themselves afterwards if they did that, having caused deaths on the road?
First....that was later in the conversation. To begin with I said that using ear buds would not be more of a distraction.
How would anyone live with themselves after? Whether or not he goes to jail has nothing to do with the people who died. He has to live with it either way. Going to jail does not relieve him of that guilt.
It was an accident ...its important to remember that. He was just changing the radio station...its not as if he were falling down drunk. It was just an accident. Still going to jail does not relieve him of the guilt.
Since he had no intention of killing anyone that day...and since the action that caused the accident was not some gross irresponsibility, then he should have said nothing. I am sure he is a good person. He made a mistake. He wont do it again thats for sure. I would have no problem if he said nothing.
Btw, he would not walk free because he has to live with the fact that his action did kill somone. And I am sure he is of the type of person that that alone would be punishment enough.
What they actually use are the words of the defendant in the dock. It's far more important to tell the truth in a matter like this than to walk free having lied. How would anyone live with themselves afterwards if they did that, having caused deaths on the road?
First....that was later in the conversation. To begin with I said that using ear buds would not be more of a distraction.
How would anyone live with themselves after? Whether or not he goes to jail has nothing to do with the people who died. He has to live with it either way. Going to jail does not relieve him of that guilt.
It was an accident ...its important to remember that. He was just changing the radio station...its not as if he were falling down drunk. It was just an accident. Still going to jail does not relieve him of the guilt.
Since he had no intention of killing anyone that day...and since the action that caused the accident was not some gross irresponsibility, then he should have said nothing. I am sure he is a good person. He made a mistake. He wont do it again thats for sure. I would have no problem if he said nothing.
Btw, he would not walk free because he has to live with the fact that his action did kill somone. And I am sure he is of the type of person that that alone would be punishment enough.
Cell Phone Laws
wildhorses wrote: To begin with I said that using ear buds would not be more of a distraction. What I brought on that topic wasThere was a clear difference on all conversation measures showing that performance was worse when the response was via the handsfree carphone. It is concluded that hands-free phone conversations impair driving performance more than these other common in-vehicle distractions.That's what a professional team of investigators with expertise in this field determined through experiment. I really don't have anything to add to it. You've said you have no respect for a professional team of investigators, what am I meant to respond that's polite? All I got in exchange was an unsubstantiated opinion, I've still to see any more than that. I'm not holding my breath. May I try to explain this thing about opinions since it keeps getting in the way? Just in a sentence? It's that I'm baffled why anyone should either want to know mine or tell me theirs. Of what interest is it? It's an opinion. It's a bit like one of us opening our handkerchief and showing each other what we blew. Short of holding a snot contest it's unedifying.
I suspect that handing the question of guilt or innocence to a court in a matter like this does carry a considerable sense of absolution with it. One would need to ask the man involved why he gave honest answers from the dock but, besides normal respectable innate honesty which one can assume, it's that serving a punitive period in jail would be far better for the soul than weaseling out of all penalty. And no, it's not an accident, at best it's careless driving.
I suspect that handing the question of guilt or innocence to a court in a matter like this does carry a considerable sense of absolution with it. One would need to ask the man involved why he gave honest answers from the dock but, besides normal respectable innate honesty which one can assume, it's that serving a punitive period in jail would be far better for the soul than weaseling out of all penalty. And no, it's not an accident, at best it's careless driving.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Cell Phone Laws
Hands free is just as distracting-it's not just the act of holding the phone it's the concentration level needed to take in a conversation on a phone-particularly a complex one. How often have you been driving along when the guy in front of you slows for no apparent reason and on passing you realise he has started using a phone hand held or hands free. I've had umpteen near misses with people going round bends and losing control when using a hand held phone-you still get them but nine times out of ten on a motorway if someone slows for no apparent reason he's answered the phone. Your first instinct is to slow down as you start getting deeply involved in a phone conversation-on the outside lane of a motorway that's dangerous it's just as bad if they're on the inside as you suddenly get lorries jamming on their brakes or pulling out. I nearly got hit by a van driver n Monday-coming towards me he moved to the middle of the road I was almost at full stop hand on horn lights blazing before his attention switched back to what he was doing.
Ban them completely IMO at least in the UK that's a possibility. Someone's freedom to be an idiot stops when they start putting lives at risk.
Ban them completely IMO at least in the UK that's a possibility. Someone's freedom to be an idiot stops when they start putting lives at risk.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
Cell Phone Laws
spot;1040481 wrote: To begin with you gave me an unsubstantiated opinion, I've still to see any more than that. I'm not holding my breath. May I try to explain this thing about opinions since it keeps getting in the way? Just in a sentence? It's that I'm baffled why anyone should either want to know mine or tell me theirs. Of what interest is it? It's an opinion. It's a bit like one of us opening our handkerchief and showing each other what we blew. Short of holding a snot contest it's unedifying.
I suspect that handing the question of guilt or innocence to a court in a matter like this does carry a considerable sense of absolution with it. One would need to ask the man involved why he gave honest answers from the dock but, besides normal respectable innate honesty which one can assume, it's that serving a punitive period in jail would be far better for the soul than weaseling out of all penalty. And no, it's not an accident, at best it's careless driving.
Anything anyone writes...or any study result is basically opinion. One uses the information they have and they form an opinion based on that. The issue is so basic. Having a conversation is having a conversation. It does not matter where the sound waves come from. Both hands are on the wheel in each case. They are the same situation. The components are exactly the same. So the results are the same. Any study that shows the results of two situations with exactly the same components to have different results...is a flawed study. That is what my study results show. I don't need to get out on the road and test it out. If the components are the same there is no need to test it. It is only if you want to test one component, or set of components, against another that you need to test for the results. It amazes me that they even did the study in the first place. It defies logic to do so.
And dont forget that the man did not, and can not, weasel out of all penalty. The penalty is a life penalty. The deaths occurred and that can't be changed. This he will live with for life. That is the penalty. The days he spent in jail ....they really mean nothing. Only a person with no conscience would experience no penalty.
I suspect that handing the question of guilt or innocence to a court in a matter like this does carry a considerable sense of absolution with it. One would need to ask the man involved why he gave honest answers from the dock but, besides normal respectable innate honesty which one can assume, it's that serving a punitive period in jail would be far better for the soul than weaseling out of all penalty. And no, it's not an accident, at best it's careless driving.
Anything anyone writes...or any study result is basically opinion. One uses the information they have and they form an opinion based on that. The issue is so basic. Having a conversation is having a conversation. It does not matter where the sound waves come from. Both hands are on the wheel in each case. They are the same situation. The components are exactly the same. So the results are the same. Any study that shows the results of two situations with exactly the same components to have different results...is a flawed study. That is what my study results show. I don't need to get out on the road and test it out. If the components are the same there is no need to test it. It is only if you want to test one component, or set of components, against another that you need to test for the results. It amazes me that they even did the study in the first place. It defies logic to do so.
And dont forget that the man did not, and can not, weasel out of all penalty. The penalty is a life penalty. The deaths occurred and that can't be changed. This he will live with for life. That is the penalty. The days he spent in jail ....they really mean nothing. Only a person with no conscience would experience no penalty.
Cell Phone Laws
My take on this is there should be NO Phones, hands free devices, texting allowed while driving a CAR.:driving:
I witness accidents almost daily at intersections, stop signs on the freeway involving people who are texting, or using their hands free deivces. They DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO DRIVING and slam into a wall, back of another car or just get in my lane because they are waving their hands back and forth talking on the PHONE.
When did the Automobile become a rolling office?? Driving is DANGEROUS even in the best conditions and requires 100% concentration. Does fooling around with your CD playing or radio when driving cause accidents, sure it does its a distraction. The second you take your eyes off the road your prime for an accident.
As I have always said and mean if you survive and harms, or kills a member of my family in an accident because YOU were talking, texting, or using a hands free device in their CAR I will beat you to death with that Phone or hands free device for a senseless, selfish act that could have been 100% avoided if you would have just pulled over to take the call. The idea of talking on the phone and driving is INSANE and needs to be enforced to the maximum. It is as dangerous as drinking and driving and in some instances worse because its allowed and more people do it.
Do you want to get home to your family safe ??? Then stop talking on the phone in the CAR you will eventually get in an accident. Nothing is that important ever.
I witness accidents almost daily at intersections, stop signs on the freeway involving people who are texting, or using their hands free deivces. They DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO DRIVING and slam into a wall, back of another car or just get in my lane because they are waving their hands back and forth talking on the PHONE.
When did the Automobile become a rolling office?? Driving is DANGEROUS even in the best conditions and requires 100% concentration. Does fooling around with your CD playing or radio when driving cause accidents, sure it does its a distraction. The second you take your eyes off the road your prime for an accident.
As I have always said and mean if you survive and harms, or kills a member of my family in an accident because YOU were talking, texting, or using a hands free device in their CAR I will beat you to death with that Phone or hands free device for a senseless, selfish act that could have been 100% avoided if you would have just pulled over to take the call. The idea of talking on the phone and driving is INSANE and needs to be enforced to the maximum. It is as dangerous as drinking and driving and in some instances worse because its allowed and more people do it.
Do you want to get home to your family safe ??? Then stop talking on the phone in the CAR you will eventually get in an accident. Nothing is that important ever.
ALOHA!!
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
Cell Phone Laws
ORIGINAL POST BY CHRISTINE.....
"Hello. My name is Christine, and I am attempting to get some real opinions from people regarding cell phone usage while driving and the laws that are being put in to place regarding it. This includes both talking on a cell phone and texting. This isn't an attempt to change anyones mind about their opinion, and I do not hope to start any arguments regarding this topic, I just want to know if you are for or against the laws and why. The purpose of this is research, not for any government or media interest, but for my Writing 123 class. This is a topic that interests me, so I would really appriciate your feedback. Thank you."
Hey Spot and Wildhorses....do you think that you derailed this thread
:wah: Poor Christine hasn't returned
"Hello. My name is Christine, and I am attempting to get some real opinions from people regarding cell phone usage while driving and the laws that are being put in to place regarding it. This includes both talking on a cell phone and texting. This isn't an attempt to change anyones mind about their opinion, and I do not hope to start any arguments regarding this topic, I just want to know if you are for or against the laws and why. The purpose of this is research, not for any government or media interest, but for my Writing 123 class. This is a topic that interests me, so I would really appriciate your feedback. Thank you."
Hey Spot and Wildhorses....do you think that you derailed this thread
:wah: Poor Christine hasn't returned
Cell Phone Laws
She did come back, she added all the States' details after I asked for them but she added them as an edit, not as a new post. If she wants to discuss matters I'm sure she'll carry on, it's her thread.
I hadn't the slightest desire to argue any point with wildhorses. He/she has taken to following me around ForumGarden trying to score points in whatever this undeclared contest is - I've not been told the rules yet or why it's happening. I did what I could to stay on topic.
I hadn't the slightest desire to argue any point with wildhorses. He/she has taken to following me around ForumGarden trying to score points in whatever this undeclared contest is - I've not been told the rules yet or why it's happening. I did what I could to stay on topic.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
Cell Phone Laws
spot;1041159 wrote: She did come back, she added all the States' details after I asked for them but she added them as an edit, not as a new post. If she wants to discuss matters I'm sure she'll carry on, it's her thread.
I hadn't the slightest desire to argue any point with wildhorses. He/she has taken to following me around ForumGarden trying to score points in whatever this undeclared contest is - I've not been told the rules yet or why it's happening. I did what I could to stay on topic.
:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl Spot, you are the funniest man here...I lubs ya:p
The poor girl didn't have a chance....You and Wildhorses can't scare the young ones away that fast...They'll never return:-3:rolleyes:
I hadn't the slightest desire to argue any point with wildhorses. He/she has taken to following me around ForumGarden trying to score points in whatever this undeclared contest is - I've not been told the rules yet or why it's happening. I did what I could to stay on topic.
:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl Spot, you are the funniest man here...I lubs ya:p
The poor girl didn't have a chance....You and Wildhorses can't scare the young ones away that fast...They'll never return:-3:rolleyes:
Cell Phone Laws
If you're telling me that my mite of information was uncalled for I'll put my head in a bucket of water and scream. I looked that up specially to be useful.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
Cell Phone Laws
DO IT...DO IT...DO IT NOW Spot:-6:D
Cell Phone Laws
You're not kind. Bah.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
Cell Phone Laws
spot;1041188 wrote: You're not kind. Bah.
ahhhhhh.....Damn Spot...would this make you feel better... a new Blackberry phone with all the bells and whistles ok...I'll send it on...what color?????
ahhhhhh.....Damn Spot...would this make you feel better... a new Blackberry phone with all the bells and whistles
ok...I'll send it on...what color?????Cell Phone Laws
You're very kind Kathy but whenever I need another cellphone I stick to the same Builder's model from 2002, the one with the bouncy rubber case. I seem to have three of them at the moment, one's mine, one's Felicity's and one's to give to anyone I need to talk to during the day. It took me months to learn how to use it, I'm not going to do that all over again.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Cell Phone Laws
Hoss;1041217 wrote: I'm against a ban on cell phones usage in the car. I think talking or texting should be allowed. I think that there should be an added fine if the activity of being 'distracted' by anything is found to be a cause in an accident.
An added fine? You'd not go for the death penalty for this sort of avoidable killing?
How on earth can a driver of a moving vehicle text safely?
An added fine? You'd not go for the death penalty for this sort of avoidable killing?
How on earth can a driver of a moving vehicle text safely?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Cell Phone Laws
Hoss, what about the Metrorail crash, because the engineer was texting on his cell phone?
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
Cell Phone Laws
Hoss;1041217 wrote: I'm in CA.
I'm against a ban on cell phones usage in the car. I think talking or texting should be allowed. I think that there should be an added fine if the activity of being 'distracted' by anything is found to be a cause in an accident.
Hoss, I'm not sure if I understand you. Do you think it's ok for the driver of the car to be texting and or talking on the cell phone while they're driving? Is that what you mean?
I'm against a ban on cell phones usage in the car. I think talking or texting should be allowed. I think that there should be an added fine if the activity of being 'distracted' by anything is found to be a cause in an accident.
Hoss, I'm not sure if I understand you. Do you think it's ok for the driver of the car to be texting and or talking on the cell phone while they're driving? Is that what you mean?
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
Cell Phone Laws
spot;1041216 wrote: You're very kind Kathy but whenever I need another cellphone I stick to the same Builder's model from 2002, the one with the bouncy rubber case. I seem to have three of them at the moment, one's mine, one's Felicity's and one's to give to anyone I need to talk to during the day. It took me months to learn how to use it, I'm not going to do that all over again.
Ahhhh Spot...I hear ya...My contract with AT&T has finally ended...hooray...and now I'm finally going to buy a Verizon phone.
I'm dreading learing how to use it also...I don't want all the bells and whistles...I want to use the phone for emergencies...like calling for a pizza:wah:
I'm so afraid to make the wrong decisions. I can't even begin to tell you the problems that I had with AT&T. I don't want to go through that again.
Anyway...I'm going to "brave it" it with Verizon and hope it works...
Ahhhh Spot...I hear ya...My contract with AT&T has finally ended...hooray...and now I'm finally going to buy a Verizon phone.
I'm dreading learing how to use it also...I don't want all the bells and whistles...I want to use the phone for emergencies...like calling for a pizza:wah:
I'm so afraid to make the wrong decisions. I can't even begin to tell you the problems that I had with AT&T. I don't want to go through that again.
Anyway...I'm going to "brave it" it with Verizon and hope it works...
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
Cell Phone Laws
Hoss;1041242 wrote: There are too many laws being made. We should make penalties dependent on outcome and make them severe, so people think about what they do instead of doing it.
I think your kidding about the death penalty aren't you?
I think the Rail Road line is responsible for the actions of the engineer; the Rail road should have rules in place for passenger safety.
This law is much like the helmet law. I'm against it. As a general rule I don’t text while driving, and I don’t answer my cell phone or make calls while driving. But that should be up to me.
Hello Hoss:-6 You really need to quote who you're posting to....I thought you were talking to me there:wah:
I think your kidding about the death penalty aren't you?
I think the Rail Road line is responsible for the actions of the engineer; the Rail road should have rules in place for passenger safety.
This law is much like the helmet law. I'm against it. As a general rule I don’t text while driving, and I don’t answer my cell phone or make calls while driving. But that should be up to me.
Hello Hoss:-6 You really need to quote who you're posting to....I thought you were talking to me there:wah:
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
Cell Phone Laws
spot;1041216 wrote: You're very kind Kathy but whenever I need another cellphone I stick to the same Builder's model from 2002, the one with the bouncy rubber case. I seem to have three of them at the moment, one's mine, one's Felicity's and one's to give to anyone I need to talk to during the day. It took me months to learn how to use it, I'm not going to do that all over again.
Hummmmm....Felicity has a cell phone?....geeze Spot...Your wee one is not only beautiful and adorable.....but she's also teckno savvy:D You are a good poppy:-6
Hummmmm....Felicity has a cell phone?....geeze Spot...Your wee one is not only beautiful and adorable.....but she's also teckno savvy:D You are a good poppy:-6
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
Cell Phone Laws
Hoss;1041217 wrote: I'm in CA.
I'm against a ban on cell phones usage in the car. I think talking or texting should be allowed. I think that there should be an added fine if the activity of being 'distracted' by anything is found to be a cause in an accident.
Hoss, I need to ask you if you're serious here. Maybe I'm not understanding what you feel.
Do you think it's ok to talk on your cell phone and or text while driving a car?
I'm against a ban on cell phones usage in the car. I think talking or texting should be allowed. I think that there should be an added fine if the activity of being 'distracted' by anything is found to be a cause in an accident.
Hoss, I need to ask you if you're serious here. Maybe I'm not understanding what you feel.
Do you think it's ok to talk on your cell phone and or text while driving a car?
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
Cell Phone Laws
spot;1041159 wrote: She did come back, she added all the States' details after I asked for them but she added them as an edit, not as a new post. If she wants to discuss matters I'm sure she'll carry on, it's her thread.
I hadn't the slightest desire to argue any point with wildhorses. He/she has taken to following me around ForumGarden trying to score points in whatever this undeclared contest is - I've not been told the rules yet or why it's happening. I did what I could to stay on topic.
I am not following you around ...lol. I am just posting on different threads like everyone else. There is no contest, so no rules are needed. On this particular thread I posted before you and you picked up the thread later. You are the one following me...lol. Dont give me that bs that you have no desire to argue. You love to argue!!!
And I am SHE ....just so you know.
I hadn't the slightest desire to argue any point with wildhorses. He/she has taken to following me around ForumGarden trying to score points in whatever this undeclared contest is - I've not been told the rules yet or why it's happening. I did what I could to stay on topic.
I am not following you around ...lol. I am just posting on different threads like everyone else. There is no contest, so no rules are needed. On this particular thread I posted before you and you picked up the thread later. You are the one following me...lol. Dont give me that bs that you have no desire to argue. You love to argue!!!
And I am SHE ....just so you know.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
Cell Phone Laws
Kathy Ellen;1041144 wrote: ORIGINAL POST BY CHRISTINE.....
"Hello. My name is Christine, and I am attempting to get some real opinions from people regarding cell phone usage while driving and the laws that are being put in to place regarding it. This includes both talking on a cell phone and texting. This isn't an attempt to change anyones mind about their opinion, and I do not hope to start any arguments regarding this topic, I just want to know if you are for or against the laws and why. The purpose of this is research, not for any government or media interest, but for my Writing 123 class. This is a topic that interests me, so I would really appriciate your feedback. Thank you."
Hey Spot and Wildhorses....do you think that you derailed this thread:wah: Poor Christine hasn't returned
OMG. We sure did. Well she sure got an ear full didnt she? She even says she hoped not to start any arguments. And then we promptly started to argue...lol. Have to stay on track better in the future.
"Hello. My name is Christine, and I am attempting to get some real opinions from people regarding cell phone usage while driving and the laws that are being put in to place regarding it. This includes both talking on a cell phone and texting. This isn't an attempt to change anyones mind about their opinion, and I do not hope to start any arguments regarding this topic, I just want to know if you are for or against the laws and why. The purpose of this is research, not for any government or media interest, but for my Writing 123 class. This is a topic that interests me, so I would really appriciate your feedback. Thank you."
Hey Spot and Wildhorses....do you think that you derailed this thread
:wah: Poor Christine hasn't returnedOMG. We sure did. Well she sure got an ear full didnt she? She even says she hoped not to start any arguments. And then we promptly started to argue...lol. Have to stay on track better in the future.
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
Cell Phone Laws
wildhorses;1041283 wrote: I am not following you around ...lol. I am just posting on different threads like everyone else. There is no contest, so no rules are needed. On this particular thread I posted before you and you picked up the thread later. You are the one following me...lol. Dont give me that bs that you have no desire to argue. You love to argue!!!
Hello Wildhorses:-6
Our Spot is such a tosser.....You really need to keep amusing and baiting him:-6. He loves the attention:guitarist
Hello Wildhorses:-6
Our Spot is such a tosser.....You really need to keep amusing and baiting him:-6. He loves the attention:guitarist
Cell Phone Laws
I'll attempt to get it back on track here for Christine's sake. Hubs got caught this summer driving in Noo Joisey chatting away. The fine was $140.00 hence he pleaded guilty.:wah:
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
Cell Phone Laws
Kathy Ellen;1041302 wrote: Hello Wildhorses:-6
Our Spot is such a tosser.....You really need to keep amusing and baiting him:-6. He loves the attention:guitarist
Hi Kathy: Ya I see right through him. He loves a good spar. Well he'll get it from me that's for sure!!!
Sorry we took the thread so far off base, but it was the middle of the night....we were having fun.... and I guess I lost track of the original post.
Our Spot is such a tosser.....You really need to keep amusing and baiting him:-6. He loves the attention:guitarist
Hi Kathy: Ya I see right through him. He loves a good spar. Well he'll get it from me that's for sure!!!
Sorry we took the thread so far off base, but it was the middle of the night....we were having fun.... and I guess I lost track of the original post.