Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The next stupid CA law.Follow

#52 Sep 13 2006 at 9:13 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,128 posts
Smiley: king

Having sex while driving can kill you.

Edited, Sep 13th 2006 at 10:15am EDT by fhrugby
#53 Sep 13 2006 at 9:27 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Nizdaar wrote:
Now, as for those fecking bluetooth headsets... why do people feel the need to wear them at all times? Last time I was at the grocery store some dude who clearly has never worked a day in his life in a track suit, belly hanging out because he can't find a shirt to cover himeself up, poorly groomed dude had one on. Why do they all have flashing blue lights, too? I mean, who does he need to get in touch with right now?


Lol. Why does it bother you if someone else has a bluetooth headset? Not like you're the one walking around with it on. Do you get pissed at people who wear glasses? After all, that's sitting on both ears and wrapping over the nose and blocking your view of their face! A little thingie over one ear really isn't that big of a deal is it?

Heh. I do own one of those. But I only wear it when I'm actually driving. Partly because I feel like a dork walking around with it on my ear anywhere else, and partly because it's not like I can't answer the phone without it normally.

I will say that the headset is amazingly useful when driving. Depends on how decent of a phone you have, but I can make calls using the voice recognition system (and it's amazingly good), and it's irreplaceable for answering calls when driving. I don't place very many calls when driving, but it allows me to answer incomming calls, where normally I'd just ignore them until I got to where I'm going. Since I'm on call alot (and get a lot of calls from my customers even when I'm not), this is pretty darn useful.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#54 Sep 13 2006 at 9:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Why does it bother you if someone else has a bluetooth headset?
They don't "bother" me per se, but I think they look retarded. Therefore, I think some dink walking around wearing one like a fashion accessory looks retarded as well. It's like a kid trying to play Robocop or Star Trek.

I understand that you said YOU don't do this. Good on ya for it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#55 Sep 14 2006 at 1:34 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
BloodwolfeX wrote:
Beginning July 1, 2008 it will be unlawful to talk on a cell phone while driving unless using a headsat or speaker phone.

Article

The Terminator wrote:
I think that it is a subject that a lot of people talk about because cell phones have been a bigger cause for traffic accidents and death than drunk driving,


Consumer Affairs and other non-profit groups have done tests which show it was the focus on the conversation, instead of the the driving, that was the leading contributor to accidents.

Quote:
Supporters, including insurance companies and law enforcement groups, say the ban removes physical distractions, mainly when a driver has to use one hand to hold the phone to his or her ear.


Just cause you aren't holding the phone to your ear, doesn't mean your focused on driving.



Edited, Sep 12th 2006 at 3:11pm EDT by BloodwolfeX


There's some degree of correlation between talking on a regular cell-phone and accidents due to lack of physical control of the vehicle, of course. To that regard, the law is a step in the right direction. Though the real issue is the lack of mental attention paid to driving.

But, as Katie mentioned, this law has already been in effect in multiple states for probably a little over a year now. So old news, OP.

I'd be in favor of a law banning all phone conversation, (hands-free and regular) while driving, though.

Edited, Sep 14th 2006 at 2:35am EDT by Eske
#56 Sep 14 2006 at 1:39 AM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,143 posts
Eske wrote:
Though the real issue is the lack of mental attention paid to driving.


Smiley: nod

I thought I read something in the news about an increasing amount of the accidents where cellphones are involved were using headsets instead of the phone.

Edited, Sep 14th 2006 at 2:42am EDT by Paskil
#57 Sep 14 2006 at 1:50 AM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Paskil wrote:
Eske wrote:
Though the real issue is the lack of mental attention paid to driving.


I thought I read something in the news about an increasing amount of the accidents where cellphones are involved were using headsets instead of the phone.


Remember though that some of those news stories aren't really accurate (or aren't really measuring what you think they are).

An increased amount of accidents where cellphones are involved can simply be the result of more people talking on cellphones, even if the total number of accidents are identical. By itself that tells us nothing at all. It's kinda like if I'd taken a statistic in the 80s about the rate of cars equipped with airbags being involved in accidents. I could also incorrectly conclude that the airbags were causing accidents when in fact there were simply more cars equipped with airbags at the end of the decade then at the beginning.

What's relevant is if the rate of accidents by those using cellphones compared to those who don't, and whether using a headset changes that rate or not. While there have been tons of studies about cellphone use in general, I haven't seen one yet that specifically addressed the impact of headsets.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#58 Sep 14 2006 at 2:00 AM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,143 posts
You sound like a lawyer. Smiley: disappointed
#59 Sep 14 2006 at 3:20 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Paskil wrote:
You sound like a lawyer. Smiley: disappointed


He is correct, though (barring any citeable evidence that headset cellphone accidents have gone up disproportionately to regular cellphone accidents). Headset cellphone accidents have likely gone up, but a variety of factors must be evaluated before that fact can be evidence of anything (i.e. population growth, cellphone usage, and automobile manufacturing, just to name a few).

The bottom line is that while one may be worse than the other, both are a poor idea. While I'd like for the law to encompass both scenarios, it's a step in the right direction.
#60 Sep 14 2006 at 1:02 PM Rating: Default
I talk on the phone while driving everyday. I have no real intention of stopping, ever. I live in states with laws against it, and I pretty much say "F U!" every minute of my life to them. You want "safety" on the roads? Please...you might want to start elsewhere then.

How about working out the whole elderly driving problem? You know, like the lady who drove through a store window in my town recently because she thought her car was in reverse. Killed someone buying a lottery ticket (wasn't their lucky day! ba-dum-bum!). There's a place you could start.

Or how about the insane amount of people who use a giant on ramp to a high way as their "take in the scenery" time. You know, the people who seem to miss entirely the point of the ramp, cruising along at 35mph on their way to merging with traffic moving at 75mph.

Hey, how about women who put makeup on while driving? People playing with their cool digital dash with GPS up to wazooathon. Changing CD's, reaching under your seat to grab something you dropped, drinking/spilling coffee, eating food, etc. etc. etc.

Jack asses who don't use turn signals...ever...in their life. But no, you know-it-all's have to pick on cell phone users, because...well...who the hell knows? Maybe you're pissed because someone else has one, has a life, has a job, or just plain doesn't give a **** what you think.

OP, yeah...I think every study I've ever read on the subject has shown that holding the cell phone has absolutely nothing to do with the danger of using one while driving. It all relates to the distraction involved in the call, and in the one study I read it stated that actually visualizing things in your mind is the most dangerous. So actually "thinking" about how that meeting is going to come together, where you want to organize the chairs, put the projector, that kinda thing...kills people. So just ban thinking and we'll all be fine. Until then F U in the A.
#61 Sep 14 2006 at 1:16 PM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,293 posts
xtremereign wrote:
So just ban thinking and we'll all be fine.


Well it's clear that you'll be fine.
____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#62 Sep 14 2006 at 1:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
xtremereign wrote:
You want "safety" on the roads? Please...you might want to start elsewhere then.
[...]
the whole elderly driving problem?
[...]
the insane amount of people who use a giant on ramp to a high way as their "take in the scenery" time.
[...]
Hey, how about women who put makeup on while driving?
[...]
Jack asses who don't use turn signals.
Weak analogy
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#63 Sep 14 2006 at 1:43 PM Rating: Default
Tare wrote:
xtremereign wrote:
So just ban thinking and we'll all be fine.


Well it's clear that you'll be fine.


Wow, I feel smarter just having heard from you, and safer knowing brilliant minds like your own will save us all by banning cell-phone driving. Saving the world, one ******* whiny, complaint at a time.
#64 Sep 14 2006 at 1:45 PM Rating: Default
Jophiel wrote:
xtremereign wrote:
You want "safety" on the roads? Please...you might want to start elsewhere then.
[...]
the whole elderly driving problem?
[...]
the insane amount of people who use a giant on ramp to a high way as their "take in the scenery" time.
[...]
Hey, how about women who put makeup on while driving?
[...]
Jack asses who don't use turn signals.
Weak analogy


Umm how exactly is it a weak analogy? All the things I mentioned are dangers on the road, and we are talking about banning something that is "a danger on the road". Maybe I should have just said this:

And how about we ban those cell phone drivers? And man....what about getting rid of those people who talk on phones while driving? After that, we can deal with those stupid bastards who dial phones while driving.

"Strong" enough analogy for ya?
#65 Sep 14 2006 at 1:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Well, I'd start by saying that most of the things you listed are already covered by laws. You ARE supposed to use turn signals, for example. You ARE supposed to stop driving when physically or mentally unable to do so anymore.

It doesn't surprise me much that you'd be so defensive about your bad habits, though I could wish you'd put up a better fight.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#66 Sep 14 2006 at 1:51 PM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,293 posts
Samira, F U in the A. He's an anarchist!

____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#67 Sep 14 2006 at 1:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Tare wrote:
Samira, I wanna F U in the A.



Elderon? Dat you?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#68 Sep 14 2006 at 2:02 PM Rating: Default
Samira wrote:
Well, I'd start by saying that most of the things you listed are already covered by laws. You ARE supposed to use turn signals, for example. You ARE supposed to stop driving when physically or mentally unable to do so anymore.

It doesn't surprise me much that you'd be so defensive about your bad habits, though I could wish you'd put up a better fight.


Turn signals aside, saying "most" of the things I listed are already have associated laws is a bit disingenuous. One is hardly most, and while you are supposed to stop driving when you're "physically or mentally unable to do so", how many people do? Having a law in place is light years away from actual enforcement, and no politician, local or federal, wants to get anywhere near that deal.

But cell phones, now there's something you can pick on. People who don't have one, for whatever reason, will be naturally inclined to agree with your arguement sans proof. People who do have them but do not use them often will also see no problem with a law like this.

Like I said initially, I live in states with the law and honestly just don't care. Almost all the proof out there shows that the problems with the cell phones do not lie in whether or not you are holding your phone, and quite frankly I don't want to spend money on some government funded profit scheme. Yippee for all the hands-free device manufacturers, but the drivers aren't any safer.

There are particulars about using a cell phone while driving that bother me. For instance, people trying to dial their phone while negotiating a 90 degree turn, or changing lanes, things that generally require you to pay full attention and use both hands. I don't stop doing something like that to pick up a ringing phone either, but some people do and therein lies one of the other problems.

Instead of banning thinking, maybe we should just ban stupid uncoordinated people. *sigh*
#69 Sep 14 2006 at 2:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
More to the point, you're making a statement that "Because we haven't done A, there's no value in doing B" when A isn't really related to B at all, much less as a prerequisite.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#70 Sep 14 2006 at 2:04 PM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,293 posts
Samira wrote:
Tare wrote:
Samira, I wanna F U in the A.



Elderon? Dat you?


Quit it! Neph will get mad! Smiley: mad
____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#71 Sep 14 2006 at 2:30 PM Rating: Default
Jophiel wrote:
More to the point, you're making a statement that "Because we haven't done A, there's no value in doing B" when A isn't really related to B at all, much less as a prerequisite.


I think more of what I'm trying to say is:

"Since we've failed at accomplishing A-Y, why do anything but laugh at Z?"

Ok, so we're doing all right on N, drunk driving...but we really need to work on the rest of the alphabet.
#72 Sep 14 2006 at 2:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
xtremereign wrote:
"Since we've failed at accomplishing A-Y, why do anything but laugh at Z?"
Which is a fallacy in of itself. Z is worth doing or it isn't. A-Y have no bearing on it in this instance.

"People still get shot all the time so why have laws against carrying knives?"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#73 Sep 14 2006 at 2:44 PM Rating: Default
Jophiel wrote:
xtremereign wrote:
"Since we've failed at accomplishing A-Y, why do anything but laugh at Z?"
Which is a fallacy in of itself. Z is worth doing or it isn't. A-Y have no bearing on it in this instance.

"People still get shot all the time so why have laws against carrying knives?"


OK OK! I yield, but I'm still using my damn phone in the car. :)
#74 Sep 14 2006 at 3:18 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji wrote:
While there have been tons of studies about cellphone use in general, I haven't seen one yet that specifically addressed the impact of headsets.


A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver

Strayer, David L.; Drews, Frank A.; Crouch, Dennis J. wrote:
Results: When drivers were conversing on either a handheld or hands-free cell phone, their braking reactions were delayed and they were involved in more traffic accidents than when they were not conversing on a cell phone. By contrast, when drivers were intoxicated from ethanol they exhibited a more aggressive driving style, following closer to the vehicle immediately in front of them and applying more force while braking. Conclusion: When driving conditions and time on task were controlled for, the impairments associated with using a cell phone while driving can be as profound as those associated with driving while drunk. Application: This research may help to provide guidance for regulation addressing driver distraction caused by cell phone conversations.


You can pay the $18 for the full study if you want more specific data.


#75 Sep 14 2006 at 3:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
So, BW, based on that do you still consider the law stupid?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#76 Sep 14 2006 at 4:09 PM Rating: Decent
I wrote:
Consumer Affairs and other non-profit groups have done tests which show it was the focus on the conversation, instead of the the driving, that was the leading contributor to accidents.


Yes. It's stupid because its not addressing the problem. The problem is the phone conversations not holding the phone with one hand. It's just another token law to make the legislature look like its doing something and will really have no effect.

My friend and I got hit yesterday by a guy who was using his Bluetooth headset. He changed lanes at the last minute cause he was about to miss his exit. Jackass didn't even hang up his phone. He was complaining to whomever he was talking to that we didn't get out of his way. My friend asked him if the Bluetooth would still work after he shoved it up his ass. The situation went downhill from there. Thankfully we were in his car, not mine.



Edited, Sep 14th 2006 at 5:20pm EDT by BloodwolfeX
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 253 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (253)