Cell Phone Laws

[wildhorses]

Originally Posted by spot

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.

[spot]

Originally Posted by wildhorses

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?

[wildhorses]

Originally Posted by spot

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.

[spot]

Originally Posted by wildhorses

To begin with I said that using ear buds would not be more of a distraction.

What I brought on that topic was

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.

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.

[gmc]

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.

[wildhorses]

Originally Posted by spot

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.

[CARLA]

My take on this is there should be NO Phones, hands free devices, texting allowed while driving a CAR.

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.

[Kathy Ellen]

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 Poor Christine hasn't returned

[spot]

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.

[Kathy Ellen]

Originally Posted by spot

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.

Spot, you are the funniest man here...I lubs ya


The poor girl didn't have a chance....You and Wildhorses can't scare the young ones away that fast...They'll never return