DOT to ban phones in cars

[The Ween]

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."

But if it's disabled, how do you know you have a call or a text? That's the point I'm trying to make. If someone needed to get a hold of me, how could they with a diabled phone? Am I supposed to pull over to check my phone every 5 minutes just in case? Like I said, I have no problem pulling over to make a call, but I want someone to be able to get a hold of me in an emergency. If my phone is diabled, aka shut off, how can they?

 

[Kamandi]

You always need to consider the unintended consequences of new laws. Obvious problems with such a legally mandated system (aside from the civil liberties component):

* Cities will be prone to having "dead zones" near busy traffic areas where cell phones don't work anymore.

* Sooner or later this system will be directly responsible for a preventable death. In a multi-car accident how do we insure nobody's car is going to jam a call for help? Just wait until stories start appearing about people who had to crawl away from a car accident to call for help.

* Why just cell phones? What about WiFi and bluetooth? Disable phones and people might start buying up devices that can run Skype or some other workaround. So you really need to jam other means of communication as well.

* Allow government to flash update your car's firmware everytime there's a new law. This legislation is being debated as a kneejerk reaction to a problem, and when that's not enough there will be a new law and new requirements.
"Hey, why can't I drive faster than 45?"
"Your software update is complete"

* Why continue allowing radios and TVs and DVDs and dashboard computers and sunblinds with mirrors and cup holders and power mirror adjusters and power seat adjusters and climate control knobs and etc etc etc...

* Maybe it's time to make the driver put his/her head in a vice that forces them to only look at the road.

At what point does this finally become ridiculous enough for even the most braindead lemming to understand the futility?

Here's a better idea:
* Punish people who cause accidents instead of punishing everyone else with dumbass draconian laws that set us backwards from progress.

 

[ProgMatinee]

I never did understand why my speedometer on my car goes to 120.

 

[ProgMatinee]

But if it's disabled, how do you know you have a call or a text? That's the point I'm trying to make. If someone needed to get a hold of me, how could they with a diabled phone? Am I supposed to pull over to check my phone every 5 minutes just in case? Like I said, I have no problem pulling over to make a call, but I want someone to be able to get a hold of me in an emergency. If my phone is diabled, aka shut off, how can they?

How about if your phone gave out a beep or signal to say you got a message? That way you can pull over and get the message. If you're anything like the typical women I know, your cell phone is probably at the bottom of a 5 gallon purse which is located in the furthest back corner of the vehicle, anyway. It will take you a good 10 minutes to locate the phone anyway.

 

[Darth Cruel]

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.

Wow...we are going a long way into clarifying my original point. This is coming close to derailing the thread.

I do not see that the example of the responsibility of a pedestrian exactly translates to the responsibility of a driver. This example can serve no purpose but to muddy the waters of the discussion. But to address the idea as it is added to the discussion, the pedestrian window shopping in no way mitigates the driver's responsibility and if you want to kill the driver for his actions...fine. However, common sense dictates that if the pedestrian was perfectly aware of their surroundings, that, at the very least...they would have given themselves a better chance to avoid injury. Whether it is punishable by law is irrelevant as well beyond muddying the waters of the discussion. If you want to completely forgive the pedestrian for their microscopic portion of the blame...then that is all good as well...I know I would. But to say that 100% of the blame is the driver's is not accurate. Prosecute as much as you want for their part of the blame and forgive as much as you want for the victim's part. But to deny that either parties holds at least a small part of the blame is simply not true.

And the example of the rape victim is also irrelevant in this case as I am not talking about the idea of excusing the perpetrator for any amount of their part in the crime. I am simply talking about recognizing ones own part, however small it is, and taking responsibility for it.

And, by the way...I just want to re-rail the thread by re-emphasizing that taking responsibility for you own actions instead of having laws like the anti cell phone law passed is my whole point in this.

 

[ProgMatinee]

And, by the way...I just want to re-rail the thread by re-emphasizing that taking responsibility for you own actions instead of having laws like the anti cell phone law passed is my whole point in this.

My point is that the "responsibility" you're referring to and "legal responsibility" are different things.

What, I think, you are failing to realize is that its impossible for anyone to take adequate "responsibility" (the type of responsibility you are saying is necessary) to protect themselves from the failings of 400,000,000 other Americans. Short of keeping thyself locked away from the world. Thats just too much to ask. Therefore, the government institutes laws which establish a basis for "legal responsibility" so that an innocent person cam presume to lead a life with relative security (and be compensated when that security is burst by a perpetrator of the law).

 

[Darth Cruel]

My point is that the "responsibility" you're referring to and "legal responsibility" are different things.

What, I think, you are failing to realize is that its impossible for anyone to take adequate "responsibility" (the type of responsibility you are saying is necessary) to protect themselves from the failings of 400,000,000 other Americans. Short of keeping thyself locked away from the world. Thats just too much to ask. Therefore, the government institutes laws which establish a basis for "legal responsibility" so that an innocent person cam presume to lead a life with relative security.

I am not failing to realize that. In fact I have mentioned that a couple of times. I understand that there are laws that are necessary. But I believe that the Federal Government is making far too many laws and they are doing it with the open knowledge and intent to control the citizens. That is how the justify their existence. And I believe that this is accepted largely...not completely, but largely...out of weakness of character. And if the citizens of this country would stand in for themselves and not beg the Government for so much help, the Government would lose 75% of it's involvement with our day-to-day activities. And that line that Karamazov feels that I do not understand would be pushed back to a reasonable place. Not an extreme one...a reasonable one. And the nuances that Kara mentions would put that line in a reasonable place. It would not be a perfectly stable line due to Karas nuances. That grey area will exist as I have mentioned before. But if we fight against the grey area and do not let it become the driving idea...it will be limited to a tolerable annoyance. And taking responsibility for our actions is one of the very strongest weapons in fighting grey areas.

And further, I am not willing to surrender so many of my liberties so that weaker people than me can feel safe. I feel that passing these ridiculous laws that pander to the timid only encourages timidity. And that has the slow effect of weakening the overall character of this Nation.

 

[ProgMatinee]

Good points,well said, and I agree in pretty much all of it, but not on this particular issue.

 

[The Mike]

We are only five years from hoverboards, phoneglasses and dyhydrated pizza anyway so the DOT taking away our phones in cars is really a moot point.

 

[karamazov80]

We are only five years from hoverboards, phoneglasses and dyhydrated pizza anyway so the DOT taking away our phones in cars is really a moot point.

EPIC post!

 

[The Ween]

How about if your phone gave out a beep or signal to say you got a message? That way you can pull over and get the message. If you're anything like the typical women I know, your cell phone is probably at the bottom of a 5 gallon purse which is located in the furthest back corner of the vehicle, anyway. It will take you a good 10 minutes to locate the phone anyway.

If it's disabled, would it still do that?

I have a very small purse and my cellphone fits in a pocket on the outside of it and it sits beside me on the passenger seat.

 

[BadMoon]

EPIC post!

____ing EPIC!

 

[ProgMatinee]

If it's disabled, would it still do that?

I have a very small purse and my cellphone fits in a pocket on the outside of it and it sits beside me on the passenger seat.

EPIC PURSE

 

[The Ween]

file://<EMBED height=385 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=480 src=https://www.youtube.com/v/ERTT_sv8sV0?fs=1&hl=en_US allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>

 

[BadMoon]

____ing EPIC video! Literally!

 

[karamazov80]

Anyone else remember Gilgamesh? Epic Hero:

 

[BadMoon]

Anyone else remember Gilgamesh? Epic Hero:

I don't but I'm sure he was and is currently EPIC!

 

[316what]

yeah, men are always safe drivers.

I'm a safe driver. I even slow down at least 10 miles per hour when...



I'm receiving fellatio.

 

[316what]

What if you were at the store Prog? What if you were driving home? 40 minutes from the house? What if your car broke down? What if you got lost?

To prevent people from using Cell Phones in a vehical is the single worst idea in this stage in history. Stopping people from texting is one thing. You DONT need to text....but a cell phone is such an incredibly important tool in this day and age....

Prog would probably do what he did before he had a cell phone.

And a cellphone is more of a luxury than a tool.

 

[316what]

If someone needed to get a hold of me, how could they with a diabled phone?...., but I want someone to be able to get a hold of me in an emergency. If my phone is diabled, aka shut off, how can they?

How did they get a hold of you before you had a cell phone?