BadMoon
Demi G0D Overseer
Devil that was an "EPIC" use of the multiquote feature.
DOT to ban phones in cars
- Thread starter hairlesswookiee
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
Shropt
Super Freak
You are all still wrong.
hairlesswookiee
PALPATINE CRUSADER!!!!
What if you actually read the article in the first post?? Did you seriously read it?? I'm guessing not because it clearly states it only shuts off the phone when the vehicle is in motion. When they are stopped the driver has full function of their phone. You said it yourself in an earlier post that you pull over to read your text messages. Why is it impossible to do this with phone calls in emergencies?
"While the specifics differ, the general idea is the same. When a cell phone or a vehicle exceeds a certain speed, determined by the car and transmitted via Bluetooth or by the speed of the cell phone itself as measured by cell phone towers, the phone is automatically disabled."
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
Under this scenario, all you would have had to do was pull over and stop moving and the cell phone would work.
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
I personally have 2 seperate issues. 1)Cell phones are damn annoying and people that use them are damn annoying. 2)The use of a cell phone while driving is dangerous.
My opinion on 1 is pretty irrelevant, but I like to let it be known.
Personally I don't think all the good uses of a cell phone really ever make up for all the obnoxious ways people use them and let them dictate their lives. How many people here advocating how great their cell phone is, is actually addicted to it? You know, checking it every 5 minutes? Pavlov's dog syndrom of picking it up the second it rings? You complain about being controlled by the government, but I propose you're a slave to Verizon or whatever. As well as a slave to "immediacy" of information. To me, getting a cell phone and tapping into the connectivity of everyone where they buzz me every 10 minutes to see what I'm doing or telling me what their doing...its too much like being watched or followed or bothered.
Issue number 2, affects more than just my pet peeves. Its a real safety issue. People let their compulsion for texting or talking distract them to the point they are a real danger to others. Should the government regulate it? I don't know. But if they did, I wouldn't complain 1 bit. In reality, it should be the cellphone companies building this feature in themselves because its the right thing to do.
I really don't understand the need to build something into a vehicle though. The cell phones are the culprit and thus the phones should be what they correct.
My opinion on 1 is pretty irrelevant, but I like to let it be known.
Personally I don't think all the good uses of a cell phone really ever make up for all the obnoxious ways people use them and let them dictate their lives. How many people here advocating how great their cell phone is, is actually addicted to it? You know, checking it every 5 minutes? Pavlov's dog syndrom of picking it up the second it rings? You complain about being controlled by the government, but I propose you're a slave to Verizon or whatever. As well as a slave to "immediacy" of information. To me, getting a cell phone and tapping into the connectivity of everyone where they buzz me every 10 minutes to see what I'm doing or telling me what their doing...its too much like being watched or followed or bothered.Issue number 2, affects more than just my pet peeves. Its a real safety issue. People let their compulsion for texting or talking distract them to the point they are a real danger to others. Should the government regulate it? I don't know. But if they did, I wouldn't complain 1 bit. In reality, it should be the cellphone companies building this feature in themselves because its the right thing to do.
I really don't understand the need to build something into a vehicle though. The cell phones are the culprit and thus the phones should be what they correct.
Last edited:
BadMoon
Demi G0D Overseer
I personally have 2 seperate issues. 1)Cell phones are damn annoying and people that use them are damn annoying. 2)The use of a cell phone while driving is dangerous.
My opinion on 1 is pretty irrelevant, but I like to let it be known.
Issue number 2, affects more than just my pet peeves. Its a real safety issue. People let their compulsion for texting or talking distract them to the point they are a real danger to others. Should the government regulate it? I don't know. But if they did, I wouldn't complain 1 bit. In reality, it should be the cellphone companies building this feature in themselves because its the right thing to do.
I agree with everything your saying. However, where do you draw the line with government control?
I take issue with this proposal. Why? There are also tons of other things people do in the car that are dangerous. I have stated them before. Eating, drinking, ect.. Would you take issue if the government told you that you can no longer drink in your car? I don't mean alchohol. Seriously all of the multitasking people do is the real danger. Not cell phones. This is an issue of government involvement going too far IMO.
Pretty soon they will try to tell us when to go to the bathroom.
hairlesswookiee
PALPATINE CRUSADER!!!!
Pretty soon they will try to tell us when to go to the bathroom.
Some people might need this. Does Onstar cover this??
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
I agree with everything your saying. However, where do you draw the line with government control?
I take issue with this proposal. Why? There are also tons of other things people do in the car that are dangerous. I have stated them before. Eating, drinking, ect.. Would you take issue if the government told you that you can no longer drink in your car? I don't mean alchohol. Seriously all of the multitasking people do is the real danger. Not cell phones. This is an issue of government involvement going too far IMO.
Pretty soon they will try to tell us when to go to the bathroom.
Its a valid point, and I don't know the answer. A simple answer (though not the right philosophical answer) is that cell phones have the technology and capability to have the preventative measure built in. You can't build in technology to stop someone from drinking a can of pop in the car, or putting on makeup.
I will say, IMO, if a cop saw someone driving distracted, say they kept turning around to yell at the kids, or they were putting on makeup, or had their head down looking for a cd...(I don't mean a split second thing, but really a prolonged distraction) then I would think its the duty of the cop to tell that person to pay attention to the road. ticket that person? I'm not sure, but at the least they need a warning. I would say most people don't realize how stupid they are being until someone in authority tells them, unfortunately.
Indeed! I wish I had the energy to read it
DinoLast
Super Freak
If you mean Alcohol as in Drink and drive, then I have this to say
It's nice to know you play Russian Roulette with peoples lives like the Thousands of other people you have mentioned. I guess the guy who crashed into me thought like you before the accident. I think he felt differently when he saw my passenger's face covered in blood.
I really hope that when you drink and drive, or text for that matter, you get home safely, because I would never wish for you to learn the hard way.
Darth Cruel
Super Freak
Let me ask you a question. Do you take any responsibility for this accident? If not, why don't you?
hairlesswookiee
PALPATINE CRUSADER!!!!
Why should he take responsibility for being hit by someone else that was drinking and driving??
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
Assuming that when DinoLast says, "the guy who crashed into me" that it means the other driver initiated or caused the accident, why on Earth would DinoLast need to take responsibility?
Darth Cruel
Super Freak
Why should he take responsibility for being hit by someone else that was drinking and driving??
Taking responsibility for youself is why. It is so easy for us to pawn off the blame onto other people. It has nearly become a way of life here. And there are easily other possibilities that could have contributed to the crash such as the possibility that he was not paying attention. Personally, I feel that most accidents can be avoided by an attentive and prepared driver. And whether the driver who caused the accident carries some (or most) of the blame, I feel that the "victim" driver normally...not always...but normally should take some blame for not being properly prepared to avoid an accident.
Prog touches on my point. Based on what was posted, there is an assumption that the other driver was at fault...BUT, could it have been avoided with the proper attention to avoidance. What is it about this accident that absolves the "victim" driver of any responsibility?
hairlesswookiee
PALPATINE CRUSADER!!!!
Sorry, but this is B.S. I will not take responsibility for someone else's drinking and driving.
agen_kolar
Super Freak
devilof76 has hit the nail on the head, as per usual.
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
Thats certainly is contrary to your "there is no gray area" stance. In legal terms we find people responsible or not responsible. there is no "the perp is responsible, but if the victim had looked to the left it would have been avoided." Would you put that in affect on other crimes? "You know, if you just didn't wear that dress, you wouldn't have been raped." Or "if you didn't carry $50 in your wallet you wouldn't have been robbed".
That would be absolutely ridiculous.
hairlesswookiee
PALPATINE CRUSADER!!!!
Thanks for saying what I was having problems properly describing.Darth Cruel
Super Freak
Who said anything about taking responsibility for the drunks' actions? Read the posts before you react...you do that a lot. But the drunk driver is not the only person responsible for the safety of the person in the other car. The person in the other car is as well.
I strongly disagree. The grey area is the small part where my lack of attention is added to the drunk driver's stupidity. If it is determined that I was inattentive and could have avoided the drunk driver, then taking responsibility for that removes the cloud caused by the grey area, and the basic, accurate truth is revealed.
I have seen situations where accidents are 100% the fault of a single driver. But I have also seen accidents that could have been avoided by the driver who was on the recieving end of the collision if they had been attentive. And I am not willing to allow a person to pass off their responsibility to other people. It disappoints me that our society makes it so easy for people to that.
If somebody collides a vehicle with me that I could have avoided by being attentive, I am going to hold myself partially responsible. If the police don't see it that way I will consider myself to be lucky. But I will take responsibility for my actions myself, anyway. And I find anyone who wouldn't to be treading in the grey area. There is the argument that voluntarily taking on that blame is stupid...and I won't argue that. That is a separate issue. But it is undeniable that a person who could have avoided a collision, had they been attentive, holds a little of the blame. That is the basic truth after all of the grey area is removed.
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
Lets say someone is walking on the sidewalk northbound along a shopping mall. A northbound car runs off the parking lot and onto the sidewalk, striking the pedestrian. It is realised that the pedestrian, though walking on a sidewalk, was simultaneously looking in a shop window as well as speaking with the person standing next to them.
According to you, the fact that the driver of the car ran off the road and broke the law is (partially) mitigated by the fact that the pedestrian was not watching or listening to all the vehicles on the road. Do you also blame them for not having ninja-like reflexes to jump over the car as it approached?
"Taking on blame" or regret for being in the wrong place or wrong time is a mental side effect of being a victim. Rape or abuse victims do it to themselves all the time. It doesn't mean that the victim was in any way at fault and ABSOLUTELY is not punishable by law. The law is clear that the person who BROKE the law is punishable. Not the person who didn't have the foresight or reflexes or physical strength to avoid a crime.
According to you, the fact that the driver of the car ran off the road and broke the law is (partially) mitigated by the fact that the pedestrian was not watching or listening to all the vehicles on the road. Do you also blame them for not having ninja-like reflexes to jump over the car as it approached?
"Taking on blame" or regret for being in the wrong place or wrong time is a mental side effect of being a victim. Rape or abuse victims do it to themselves all the time. It doesn't mean that the victim was in any way at fault and ABSOLUTELY is not punishable by law. The law is clear that the person who BROKE the law is punishable. Not the person who didn't have the foresight or reflexes or physical strength to avoid a crime.
Similar threads
