Bad324 Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 I saw a study, I think it was on Nat Geo. It was about the brain (may have been on Brain Games). One guy declared him self a great multi tasker like some here. So they put him behind the wheel and had him make a call. They asked him simple math questions and had him drive. He failed uber bad at both even tho he proclaimed greatness at driving and carrying on a conversion.I know they had a segment on one of those 60 minute type shows where they had people drive through a cone road course while on a phone as well and all but 1 failed miserably Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 Its the men I see on laptops. Either way both are guilty of driving while being distracted.So true!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crb Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/us/ntsb-cell-phone-ban/index.html?hpt=hp_t1About time.Which of the 18 enumerated powers will give the federal government the power to do this? I believe the 10th amendment gives the power to the individual states.The accident they are referring to was in Missouri, which has a law against texting while driving for persons under 21 years old. The guy in the pickup truck that initiated the accident was 19 years old so he was already violating state law. I doubt that a federal law would have stopped him. I don't believe the fatalities are his fault either, the 2 school bus drivers were not paying attention or following too close, either way he didn't cause the girl to die. The bus driver is at fault for the girl's death and possibly his. This law would be difficult to enforce, and should only be levied at the state level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 one time, i took my left glove off, tucked it into my tank bag, pulled out my phone, and sent a txt....while riding down the road on the vmax....good thing i didnt wreck, i would have had horrible road rash on my left hand no more hanky panky with myself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadyone Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 You can't either......what reality are you trying to live in? Your right about people having a choice, isn't everything pretty much about choice? I will bet that 3/4 of phone conversations while driving is about stupid shit and gossiping, and that can wait until out of the car. People are bored while driving, people are rude as hell when driving, many people care only about themselves when driving. It is not a person's right to drive, it is a luxury. It is abused to no end, and many folks become instant assholes behind the wheel. If phone records prove that a call or text was occuring during an accident, then I am all for punishing to the full extent of the law.You better bet your ass that if I got into an accident while using my phone I would hide that shit and if phone records ever came into play all I would have to say is that someone else had it at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted December 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 Holy 14 pages of DUI/Text/OMGWTFBBQ bitchfest. I shouldn't have waited so long to follow this.The only real solution to this "problem". Assuming you think it truly is a rampant problem is: make vehicles 100% driverless (hattip to Google).Therefore no distraction issue, no DUI, no worries. Requires a mandate from the gov't + another gov't agency ensure compliance of all new vehicles (review electromechanical systems, algorithm source code, etc. almost like an extension of CARB now). Prices skyrocket for new vehicles.If a ban was imposed, I am disappointed with the supposed "Constitutionalists", that want this to be at the federal level rather than the state level.I'm also disappointed with the "follow the money"-club that didn't point out in the OP's article that:It would apply to hands-free as well as hand-held devices, but devices installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer would be allowed, the NTSB said...could possibly just be a money grab from Automotive OEs and Tier 1 Infotainment suppliers. Lobby for this mandate + higher consumer cost = profit. OnStar + OE bluetooth in my truck, FTW!Some of the other good points were already raised by various people. I just find it interesting that an article/debate such as thing brings out a lot of inconsistencies in people's views regarding the gov't as a "nanny state" vs. freedom "at a cost"./rant--------------------Ohh, and interesting anecdote: I work with the guy sent to inspect the brakes on that bus in Missouri (I'm pretty sure he said he did this one). He does a lot of accident investigations and has a lot of gory stories he can tell - like, most of the time, they don't clean the vehicles so they can be inspected "as-is", so there are still blood/guts on the seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 Wanna do away with the laws against murder?oh man, i got my hit list ready! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadyone Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 Good points Scruit... guess I wasn't thinking worse case scenario.I think the one thing I hate worse than texting is smoking while driving. I can smell people smoking before i even see them most the time. pisses me off that I have to smell the stink and watch them suck their mini dick. then see them throw their cigarette butts one the ground. BTW thats littering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapphy Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 Wanna do away with the laws against murder?it is not even the same thing. There are already enough laws that say we are not allowed to cause accidents. To follow your point, do we really need a sperate laws for killing with gun, killing with knife, killing with sword, killing with tank? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 killing with sword, killing with tankscore! /newbucketlistidea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moto-Brian Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 6pt ticket, license suspension, huge fines, jail time.....for answering a phone call? really? whats next, felony charges for changing a radio station while driving? (for people without steering wheel controls)....there are plenty of things more distracting than answering a phone call, a DUI is from the second you get in the car to when you exit the car, very different than taking 30 seconds to answer a phone call.....and who is to judge if its an emergency? what if your wife calls you - you wont answer because its illegal, what if she needs help? or got injured or something? wouldnt you want to know right away....then if you answer to check, what if she is calling to ask what you want for dinner? you answered thinking it could be an emergency, when actually it isnt...now you deserve DUI type fines?theres way too much gray area in this law to enforce such strict penaltiesThis.I think I agree on one hand and argue on the other. I work via my phone and drive about 3 times the miles of an average person does. Sure, I make mistakes, but it isn't something I think deserves the same penalty as a DUI.The other thing is that we are going to be judged with assumption. The assumption is we cannot do it and drive. All the while, people are putting on make up, reading the paper, reading notes, watching their Garmens, changing the radio stations, grabbing something to eat while driving with their knees...The point is that there are a TON of things that fall into this category. The problem is that young kids that are fresh at driving are doing this and the accident rates are high. Thus, a focus...What about speeding? Should it be assumed we all don't know how to drive and the assumption be that we'd kill someone if we speed? What about the fact that a lot of people don't even pay attention when driving and AREN'T even using or doing anything I listed? Sitting in the fast lane zoned out and when you flash them to alert them to move over, they snap and brake check you and cause a dangerous situation?I think it is stupid and basically just another way to generate revenue.Make it make sense. Allow for cell use only with a headset device. Handsfree... We all have phones, we all drive. Hands at 10 and 2 are fine and should be allowed. If they get distracted at talking and driving, they certainly shouldn't be allowed to listen to the radio, have a Garmen or do anything outside drive. Those things are next I bet and then it will be a deal where they put cameras in our cars to police what we are doing when the ignition is on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moto-Brian Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 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?Dude, you have serious issues...If I am a better motorcycle rider than you, should my insurance be lower than yours and should I be allowed to do things that you shouldn't like speed at a certain raised limit, etc?The fact is that there are plenty of people that can drive and talk and use cells while driving and you'd never know it or it doesn't cause a bit of an issue. Why penalize those that can multi task and understand they need to focus while doing both?Really... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 Dude, you have serious issues...we usually shrug it off....he IS british afterall 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 Why penalize those that can multi task and understand they need to focus while doing both?Really...why should i get penalized for getting drunk and driving home? i understand i need to focus more. in fact, you'd never know that i just polished off a 12 pack... i drive fine when im drunk.IMO you may THINK that you drive fine when you're texting, just like you THINK you're driving fine when you're drunk. you aren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snot Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 A distraction is a distraction doesn't matter what it is. If you drive impaired, reckless, or distracted you can cause an accident and if you do your punishment should match the severity of the accident. Like I said before if I am inconsiderate of others by doing my nails and driving and I cause a accident I should be punished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuelit Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 This is the best thing that our lazy assed bickering government has done since signing the decleration of independance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 Wow, I am only around post #70. I'm not reading all these.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyler524 Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 Someone show me how or why this falls under federal jurisdiction. This is a state issue. This is just another income generator. I am baffled by all here who are all for the constitution yet think people should be arrested and their phone records subpoenad because a cop wants to. This is only one step closer to a police state. There are already consequences for causing an accident distracted or not. Maybe you should focus on the current penalties for causing a crash instead of inviting the government and police into just another aspect of our lives. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 ^ this guy makes mucho sense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyler524 Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 You want to ban this, then you still have stupid drivers. Oh wait, I know a solution, ban the next thing. Then you can support a van of the next and the next and the next. You still are not going to ban stupid drivers. Next thing you know, we will all have cameras in our cars and gps locators that alert the police anytime you do anything what so ever that is deemed as being distracted. Maybe then you can feel safe when the government has absolute say and control. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 You want to ban this, then you still have stupid drivers. Oh wait, I know a solution, ban the next thing. Then you can support a van of the next and the next and the next. You still are not going to ban stupid drivers. Next thing you know, we will all have cameras in our cars and gps locators that alert the police anytime you do anything what so ever that is deemed as being distracted. Maybe then you can feel safe when the government has absolute say and control.+1apparently I cannot rep you 2 posts in a row Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 +1apparently I cannot rep you 2 posts in a row got it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted December 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 If I am a better motorcycle rider than you, should my insurance be lower than yours? 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted December 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 You want to ban this, then you still have stupid drivers. Oh wait, I know a solution, ban the next thing. Then you can support a van of the next and the next and the next. You still are not going to ban stupid drivers. Next thing you know, we will all have cameras in our cars and gps locators that alert the police anytime you do anything what so ever that is deemed as being distracted. Maybe then you can feel safe when the government has absolute say and control.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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.