Schwarzenegger signs bill banning texting by motorists

I will grant you that texting is beyond retarded to attempt. Since my phone is not specially designed for it, it takes me a lot of time and concentration just to text someone a short question...
 
Watermark said:
It's actually more dangerous to use the cell phone, as you won't be paying attention for the whole duration of the conversation and you're going to be talking longer than eating. Talking requires concetration, drinking coke does not. Driving while talking is as bad as driving while drinking.
Click to expand...

HaHa, I can see Watermark's family driving together. Ms. WM says 'be quiet little WM your father is driving and you know we don't talk in the car while someone is driving as it's dangerous".
 
cawacko said:
HaHa, I can see Watermark's family driving together. Ms. WM says 'be quiet little WM your father is driving and you know we don't talk in the car while someone is driving as it's dangerous".
Click to expand...

We don't drive together. When we drive together we never talk to each other because none of us have anything in common.
 
Threedee said:
I will grant you that texting is beyond retarded to attempt. Since my phone is not specially designed for it, it takes me a lot of time and concentration just to text someone a short question...
Click to expand...

Several research studies have shown that even the hands-free cellphones are at least as dangerous (I believe it was even more so) than driving while under the influence of alcohol. The explanation given was that, first, the driver is distracted from his/her first responsibility: to the road and other drivers, and second, the person at the other end of the conversation, one who is not in the vehicle, can't see what's going on and doesn't pause in conversation the way that another passenger would do. That contributes to the continued distraction.

I learned to drive in Toronto. I believe that the laws in Ontario (probably most of Canada) are still the same, in that you may not eat or drink anything while you are driving, or do anything else that might distract your attention, however briefly, from the road. Having worked in auto insurance (my first job) I saw the devastating effects of even a momentary distraction if the person is in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If you have a handheld cellphone, you're doubly impaired. If you have only one arm, you're required by law to have your vehicle specially equipped. If you're holding a cellphone up to your ear, you in fact have the use of only one arm. In addition to that, you're probably cutting off some of your vision and are more awkward with respect to turns, etc., and also are unable to see vehicles coming up beside you on your "blind" side. (I say this from experience as the "other" driver :( ). Luckily, a big part of my driving education included defensive driving, so I've been able to avoid accidents so far. I don't talk or text in my vehicle. (or eat or anything else).
 
Vehicles need a built in short range cell jamming device that is on while the engine is running that covers the driver seat only.
 
uscitizen said:
Vehicles need a built in short range cell jamming device that is on while the engine is running that covers the driver seat only.
Click to expand...
Nah, there would be addicts leaning over to text their friends, even worse than doing it directly.
 
Damocles said:
Nah, there would be addicts leaning over to text their friends, even worse than doing it directly.
Click to expand...

Hmm myabe directional active cell phone detectors built into "radar" guns. if only one person in the vehicel and an active transmission ? there must be some way to automate this.

We need to start up local MATD chapters.
 
Watermark said:
It's actually more dangerous to use the cell phone, as you won't be paying attention for the whole duration of the conversation and you're going to be talking longer than eating. Talking requires concetration, drinking coke does not. Driving while talking is as bad as driving while drinking.
Click to expand...

Haha, I didn't catch the fact that you edited my post earlier. Its pop you dumbass!!!
 
Desh said:
People always forget that driving is a priviledge and not a right.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. That terminology is just a vehicle for the DMV to bypass due process. They can use it to hose you and hose me. Fuck em.


bGak!
 
Watermark, serious question, do you even drive?

Statistically adjusting the radio causes more accidents then talking on the phone, that may not be per incident, but overall that is a fact. So I think it should be allowed.
The problem with these dumb bans is they don't take into account common sense, plenty of people eat, talk and text in heavy slow traffic jams, it's not a big deal, accidents are rare and minor. Has anyone ever seen anyone texting away while they are ripping down a highway? Who does that, almost no one and almost certainly no one who would bother to give a shit about this law anyway.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Watermark, serious question, do you even drive?

Statistically adjusting the radio causes more accidents then talking on the phone, that may not be per incident, but overall that is a fact. So I think it should be allowed.
Click to expand...

A lot more people adjust their radio than talk all the time while they are driving.

Statistically I guess drinking and driving isn't that bad either, so let's legalize that. That's just liberals trying to keep us down. It is a violation of freedom. The next step, clearly, is fascism.
 
KingCondanomation said:
The problem with these dumb bans is they don't take into account common sense, plenty of people eat, talk and text in heavy slow traffic jams, it's not a big deal, accidents are rare and minor. Has anyone ever seen anyone texting away while they are ripping down a highway? Who does that, almost no one and almost certainly no one who would bother to give a shit about this law anyway.
Click to expand...

I'd like to point this out as an excellent example of inductive reasoning. If there were an uber-BS award, Dano would win every year.
 
Watermark said:
I'd like to point this out as an excellent example of inductive reasoning. If there were an uber-BS award, Dano would win every year.
Click to expand...

And I'd like to point this out as an excellent example of why Water gets burned making up his BS stats, while Dano takes the time to research and actually see stats before jumping on popular left-wing instinctual distrustful emotions on new gadgetry (they were also against computers 20 years ago when they would eliminate new jobs, against newer SUVs but not sports cars which have been around longer when it comes to railing against high gas mileage)


"The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles and Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond conducted a study about the cause of traffic accidents. More than 2,700 crash scenes and 4,500 drivers were studied in what may be the most comprehensive looked at what causes vehicle accidents and their disastrous effects.

The study found that it's not cell phones that cause us to become so distracted while driving that we have a crash. Rather, it's old-fashioned rubbernecking that is our top driving distraction. In fact, cell phones aren't even in the top five.


Fully 62 percent of the crashes involving driver distraction occurred in rural areas.
Top distractions in rural areas were driver fatigue, insects, animals and unrestrained pets.
Top distractions in urban areas were rubbernecking, traffic, other vehicles and cell phones.
The main cause of accidents was looking at a previous crash, vehicle, roadside incident or traffic -- accounting for 16 percent of accidents. Driver fatigue accounted for 12 percent while looking at scenery or landmarks accounted for 10 percent.

Another problem was passenger distraction (9 percent) including that caused by children. Adjusting radio or changing CD or tape caused 7 percent while cell phone only caused 5 percent. Other causes were the usual: including eyes not on the road (4.5 percent), not paying attention, daydreaming (4 percent), eating or drinking (4 percent), adjusting vehicle controls (4 percent). "
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/reg/2003/pd032503e.html


Also, I'll take that as a big fat "NO" that you do not even drive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top