Scruit

There are already laws against getting into accidents. So why do we need a seperate law against DUI? Why not just repeal it. If a DUI driver causes an accident then it will be by violating a traffic law, so just ticket for that traffic law. Or, do you agree that DUI laws should stick around because they help reduce DUI accidents?

Yes. And it is. If I get a bunch of tickets for riding like a dumbass and/or getting into accidents then your insurance will be cheaper than mine.

Depending on the severity of the accident, you may or may not have the opportunity to hide it. There may or may not be witenesses that describe you using a phone. The nature of the accident may prove distraction (hitting that hack of a stationary car without slowing down - distracted by something). The content of your texts may or may not become available to the prosecutor. It would be hard for a guy to argue that someone else had his phone saying "I'll be home from work in 30 minutes, just left the office, love you" to HIS wife - and then wrecks 5 minutes from HIS office. (example) DUI laws don't prevent someone fleeing the scene and then staying gone until sober, or drinking between the accident and the cops showing up. Or even better, have a business card with all the required details - give that to the other guy in the accident then make your way to a bar and start pounding shots. You won't get a hit=skip because your provided the required info. You won't get a DUI because (unless it's a (possible) fatality and they do an expensive foresenic BAC test) you have a legal explanation for the drink. Even better, order 6 shots and only actually drink two. That way when you blow a .183 and claim "6 double whiskeys" you'll be more believable than if you blow a .183 and claim you just had "one double-whiskey" at the bar. Or, maybe you could murder someone and use 5 layers of latex gloves, an unregistered revolver (don't drop cartidges) and then bore out the barrell with a drill press before you dispose of the gun in a river. Melt down the casings with an oxy torch. Dispose of all remains of the gloves in seperate locations around the city after melhing them. The forensics team won't be able to match the bullet to the gun even if they find the gun and the casings won't exist. GSR won't work through 5 layers of gloves (epsecially if the outer layer is a gauntlet) and the gloves won't be testable. Just because I can think of a way around the law doens't mean the law is useless. Just because not EVERYONE complies with a law doesn't mean the law is useless. People still get murdered. Wanna do away with the laws against murder?

You want the operator to get all flustered too? She's just keeping him calm.

In the UK you cannot interact with any handheld electronic device while driving. Ipod, ipad, phone, GPS or anything that requires you to devote a hand to it's use. You can't program GPS while driving. You can't update your FB status complaining about other cars driving like idiots, while driving. You CAN answer or make phone calls as long you are not interacting with a handheld device. So cars with integrated bluetooths or visor/dash/ear-mountedhandsree devices are all good. Voice dialling is ok, dialling by hand is not. So if you're worried about an emergency that can't wait until you pull over, buy a handsfree device. My only beef with that is that I think you SHOULD be able to interact with an electronic device while stopped at a red light or waiting for a train, etc. Current law requires you pull out of the traffic flow.

If you can rattle out a whole text medssage in the time it takes someone to pick up a bottle cap then you are some kind of teenager's texting hero. Takes me longer than that. I've watched people texting and they use a bottle-cap's amount of time for each letter. Aso, if that guy killed someone in that accident then would $100 be appropriate? Heck, for most people $100 is just gonna be considered texting tax. Won't stop them. DUI-level penaties would do a much better job of deterring it.

If you got that from my response then I would question your powers of comprehension... What part of my post made you think "guilty until proven innocent"? This requires the misconception that an arrest is predicated on guilt. It is not - it is on probable cause or a warrant. I said the police officer should be able to arrest based upon probable cause. This is how it always is. There are many questions to answer - like GPS features, as phone become more multifunctional devices. In the UK you simply cannot touch your phone while driving for any reason. But if you mount it to your dash and use a handfree and dial by voice (or dial by hand when not in traffic) then you are good to go. You can answer the phhone too - you just have to use a handsfree.

If you want to answer the phone then pull over. If it's an emergency, that person will call back 2 or 3 times and you'll know you have to pull over. There is no reason, excuse or need to talk WHILE driving that trumps the need for the rest of us to be safe from someone who is distracted. Just pull over. When someone calls me I look at the screen to see who it is. I'll either take the call on my handsfree or pull over and take the call if needed. I realize that you are only dangerous WHILE texting (or talking on the phone) versus a DUI who is always dangerous (or in some cases can be legally sober leaving the bar and become legally drunk as his body processes the alcohol while he's driving). But that excuse doesn't do it for me... "I only stabbed him for a few seconds, not all night..."

If it requires you to dedicate one hand to the conversation, they should.

I'm all for that level of punishment. The level of risk created is the same as DUI. I've seen far too many people driving past me on the bike staring at their crotches while driving. I've had to swerve away from one too many texting teenager to be happy with the satus quo. The issues become proving that they were SENDING a text, or READING a tex. RECEIVING a text is not enough. We would need to empower the police officer to choose to arrest if he/she feels there's probable cause to believe the cellphone was being used illegally. But also we need to provide an easy mechanism for a prosecutor to subpoena an abstract of cellphone usage for the 5 surrounding the alleged offense. Any calls (that were not on handsfree) and any SENT text would be proof enough for conviction.

There isn't a statewide ban, is there? I thought it was just a few cities?

Yes - it needs to be like DUI. It impairs the average person's driving to the same extent. Strang that you would argue that you can drive just fine while talking on the phone... Two retorts... 1) How does the police office tell who is ok to drive while on the phone and who is not? He must observe evidence of distration? That's what we have now, and it doesn't work. 2) There are forums full of people who will argue that THEY are ok to drive drunk because they are SO GOOD at driving sober that all they need to do is "be aware that they are drunk" and be extra carful when driving drunk. That's a bucket of Horse Piss, quite frankly.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/us/ntsb-cell-phone-ban/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 About time.

I don't have a single Facebook "friend " that I didn't meet in person. Most are in England - family and friends who I can''t talk to in person. We can stay connected as a family despite me being 4,000 miles away.

Scumbag Brain.

The only offenses I've heard of being ticketed on private property would be DUI, Reckless Op (donuts!) and Hit-skip. Possibly running the stop sign at the exit of a private subdivision, becuase ORC specifically allows the owner of said property to have police enforce it. A friend of mine told me his wife was hit by someone who ran a stop sign at Easton Mall but the officer refused to cite and gave them a private property accident form. Told her the road was private, not public therefore no cite.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilian (My emphasis) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civilian http://www.answers.com/topic/civilian http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian (definition 2)

It is a public road leading up the 4way in one direction only. Other 3 are private roads. Clears things up, no? Stop signs on private roads are generally not cited for, but one of them is public.

Original vid: If it's a "WORKING" v12 engine then it's dieseling, but I see no throttle control.

Coolant, it said.

I'd hate to buy a new gun and have to send it back for warranty work after only a couple hundred rounds.

Found this: http://www.workzonesafety.org/node/6373 Currently no flagger training or certification appears to be required in the state - although ODOT does train its own flaggers.

Massachusetts specifically states that civilian construction crew flaggers must be obeyed, but gives them no power to write tickets or force compliance. If seen disobeying the flagger then a cop could presumably ticket you for that.

Understood. I have directed traffic at accident scenes before. Most recently when a car hit a deer outside my house at night - I directed traffic past the disable car for 30 minutes until the trooper showed up. Once he got there I left it to him. He never said anything good or bad about it. Given the circumstances I believe it was the right thing to do. I have also directed traffic at a serious accident where 3 people wound up being transported by EMS. Nobody had a problem with it and the police thanked me in that case. But those were accidents. At work it's just a public event so there is no danger being averted. They just don't want the public to mistakenly drive up to the main building on the campus - they want them to go to the convention center instead.

Very similar. The difference is that when this person waves you out you HAVE to go. Or do you? Discuss....