NTSB released it's recommendation on cell phone use while driving today.

[DodgerKing]

In some form or fashion that's what safety regulatory laws do. I go on a case by case basis. Not all are good and not all are bad. We can agree to disgree.
DK, I thankyou for your honesty. I do enjoy many of your postings and threads. This one not so much. LOL I am done with this thread unless someone has a question or comment directed toward me.

Take Care,

Frank

Thank you.

I too appreciate your honesty and willingness to participate in a discussion and accept differing views without having to agree with them.

 

[yaz96]

I am talking about everyone's liberty.

Every thing affects more than just the indivual which is the justification that is used to limit the rights of others in the name of safety. For example, not allowing kids to eat peanuts at school whom are not allergic to peanuts limits the rights of those students in the name of safety for a small minority of students whom maybe allergic.
Why does it matter how long something has been around?

Regardless if something is new or been around 1,000 years, restriction is a limit of liberty.
All individual liberty affects others. It should not be a matter of how old a particular piece of technology is or how minor the law is. Any act that limits the rights of others in the name of protection is a matter of liberty vs safety. You may not think this is all that big of a deal, that is fine. But when you state that passing some new regulatory law saves lives and therefor you are all for it. You do need to ask yourself if this same view applies to everything. If not, where do you draw the line? Even though something may be minor all of these thousands of minor acts added together equals something big.

In civilized western society you will be burdened by regulation. In your case, it sounds like you need to find yourself a deserted island, where you can do whatever you like, whenever you like.

Unfortunately, you now live around other people, and some of those people are very dangerous by the acts they commit. One of those acts include using a cell phone and being too distracted to drive properly. It has been proven to be a hazard to others, thus a suggestion was given to remove that hazard from others. Again, you have a choice. You can always ignore such a regulation, a "rebel" as such, and chance the consequences, OR you can choose to follow the regulation and complain about this tremendous burden that has been put upon you.

And yes, how long something has been around is relevant. Was DDT deemed safe when it was being used, how about Agent Orange? Only after time, were these and many other things found to be dangerous to humans. Would you prefer that those things still be unregulated and rely on the goodness of others to not use these things around your house, or loved ones?

 

[DodgerKing]

In civilized western society you will be burdened by regulation. In your case, it sounds like you need to find yourself a deserted island, where you can do whatever you like, whenever you like.

Unfortunately, you now live around other people, and some of those people are very dangerous by the acts they commit. One of those acts include using a cell phone and being too distracted to drive properly. It has been proven to be a hazard to others, thus a suggestion was given to remove that hazard from others. Again, you have a choice. You can always ignore such a regulation, a "rebel" as such, and chance the consequences, OR you can choose to follow the regulation and complain about this tremendous burden that has been put upon you.

And yes, how long something has been around is relevant. Was DDT deemed safe when it was being used, how about Agent Orange? Only after time, were these and many other things found to be dangerous to humans. Would you prefer that those things still be unregulated and rely on the goodness of others to not use these things around your house, or loved ones?

Let me make it simple.

I realize that all of us are in favor of some regulation. We just differ on the amount we are willing to accept and where the draw the line. Some may not find this proposed law a very big issue. I understand that. For me any regulation has to be both Constitutional and preserve the sovereignty of one's own life, liberty, and freedom.

The other issue is which level of government is responsible for which aspects of regulations. When it comes to traffic laws this should be a states issue and left out of the feds all together, IMO. I would still be against it in my particular state however

 

[yaz96]

Let me make it simple.

I realize that all of us are in favor of some regulation. We just differ on the amount we are willing to accept and where the draw the line. Some may not find this proposed law a very big issue. I understand that. For me any regulation has to be both Constitutional and preserve the sovereignty of one's own life, liberty, and freedom.

The other issue is which level of government is responsible for which aspects of regulations. When it comes to traffic laws this should be a states issue and left out of the feds all together, IMO. I would still be against it in my particular state however

Just rolling your eyes?

Please answer the question regarding the poisons. Where do you draw the line?

Is chatting on the phone while driving that important to you? How did you survive before that was possible?

You also did not answer about the Patriot Act reducing ALL our liberties. What have you done regarding that? Now THAT is a serious issue, not just one of inconvenience.

 

[yaz96]

I applaud DodgerKing! Phones in cars have been around longer than 10 years! Does anyone remember the 1970s?? CB radio was very big then!Was there a big increase in auto accidents?? I didn't hear of any.Did anyone make a big issue of it? NOPE.Again!! i have no problem with safety but this country has gone safety nuts!!.If this trend continues then the day will come when your whole daily life will be controlled!All in the name of safety and protection.ID rather be free and deal with the daily risks we all encounter instead of haveing every thing i do being controlled and monitored.

CB's were not in every car, and you did not have long conversations on them. You also did not have to look at the CB, you picked up the mic, and pressed a button. It was very brief and not many had them. (My Dad had one for awhile.)

 

[DodgerKing]

Just rolling your eyes?

I was rolling my eyes at your desert island comment and your extreme interpretations of the points I made.

Please answer the question regarding the poisons. Where do you draw the line?

I already answered where I draw the line in countless posts.

Is chatting on the phone while driving that important to you? How did you survive before that was possible?

Personally? No. I seldom if ever talk on the phone in my car. I talk on the phone in the car probably for about 1 out of every 50 trips and each time for just a few seconds. I would personally not lose sleep or care if I could no longer talk on the phone in the car. In fact I only total about 5 minutes of talking on the phone in total for an entire billing cycle. I hate talking on the phone.

Again, like I said countless times. This isn't about me or what I like or dislike. It is about everyone's liberty.

You also did not answer about the Patriot Act reducing ALL our liberties. What have you done regarding that? Now THAT is a serious issue, not just one of inconvenience.

Actually I did as much as I could without leading this thread down a road of violating forum rules. And it is not the topic of the thread. If you want to discuss these different issue please post on SB and I will be glad to participate.

 

[stanleyjohn]

Who says you have a right to chat on the phone while driving?

If this cell phone issue becomes law then i wont have a right,but until that happens i see no law on the books in my state that says i cant use a hands free cell phone.

 

[DodgerKing]

CB's were not in every car, and you did not have long conversations on them. You also did not have to look at the CB, you picked up the mic, and pressed a button. It was very brief and not many had them. (My Dad had one for awhile.)

And you don't have to look at the phone to use a hands off device either. The few times I do talk on the phone in my car it is done through my car stereo and the phone is in my pocket. I never even touch or look at the phone.

I do look at the phone when I use it as my navigation system. Sort of funny that the Government will allow me to use the phone as a navigation device which involves me touching it and taking my eyes off the road, but not as a hands free audio only device. The former is much more distracting. This is part of my issue with the whole thing. The government is trying to determine what is best for me and others on the road and they take my freedom to chose which is safer as I as the driver actually do know what is safer in which situation.

Like I said in one of my first posts, we already have a law that forbids any distractions while driving. Anything one does distracting them from driving safely and risking hurting other drivers is already illegal. If one gets in an accident as a result, then they are at fault. They do not need to make a law to limit every single act of distraction.

 

[yaz96]

And you don't have to look at the phone to use a hands off device either. The few times I do talk on the phone in my car it is done through my car stereo and the phone is in my pocket. I never even touch or look at the phone.

I do look at the phone when I use it as my navigation system. Sort of funny that the Government will allow me to use the phone as a navigation device which involves me touching it and taking my eyes off the road, but not as a hands free audio only device. The former is much more distracting. This is part of my issue with the whole thing. The government is trying to determine what is best for me and others on the road and they take my freedom to chose which is safer as I as the driver actually do know what is safer in which situation.

Like I said in one of my first posts, we already have a law that forbids any distractions while driving. Anything one does distracting them from driving safely and risking hurting other drivers is already illegal. If one gets in an accident as a result, then they are at fault. They do not need to make a law to limit every single act of distraction.

And I have already stated I'm OK with hands free as long as it's all done with voice....

Now about the distractions law.....do you want cops using their own judgement as to what they feel is distracting or not, or who is risking others lives??? I mean while you are driving, NOT after someone has killed another person.

I didn't think so.

This is why we have laws defining what exactly, specifically is illegal, so there is no misinterpretation, or misuse and/or abuse of the law.


I've stated where I stand. I want my wife and kids safe, if this law helps protect them from distracted drivers, then I am all for it. I really have nothing more than that to say on the subject.

 

[DodgerKing]

And I have already stated I'm OK with hands free as long as it's all done with voice....

We are in agreement on this one

Now about the distractions law.....do you want cops using their own judgement as to what they feel is distracting or not, or who is risking others lives??? I mean while you are driving, NOT after someone has killed another person.

I didn't think so.

Good point. There would have to be standards they use, such as that with drunk driving.

This is why we have laws defining what exactly, specifically is illegal, so there is no misinterpretation, or misuse and/or abuse of the law.

I would argue that more laws lead to more abuse and excuses to pull people over

I've stated where I stand. I want my wife and kids safe, if this law helps protect them from distracted drivers, then I am all for it. I really have nothing more than that to say on the subject.

Not at the expense of the liberties of others, particularly when laws lead to more distraction. Several states that have passed phone bans have had an increase in accidents related to driver distraction by cell use because drivers are not only dividing their attention between the phone and the road, they are also trying to hide what they are doing.

 

[mperdue]

While you guys are waving the flag and talking about your rights you might want to consider that driving is not a right - it's a licensed activity that involves a set of rules that you must follow. Your driving privilege can be revoked for breaking the rules. Since it is a licensed activity the government can, in fact, set the rules. That means they can ban the use of portable electronic devices by the operator of a motor vehicle. You have a right to talk on your phone but you don't have a right to talk on the phone and drive because you don't have a right to drive.

 

[DodgerKing]

While you guys are waving the flag and talking about your rights you might want to consider that driving is not a right - it's a licensed activity that involves a set of rules that you must follow. Your driving privilege can be revoked for breaking the rules. Since it is a licensed activity the government can, in fact, set the rules. That means they can ban the use of portable electronic devices by the operator of a motor vehicle. You have a right to talk on your phone but you don't have a right to talk on the phone and drive because you don't have a right to drive.

Which level of the government is responsible for doing such?

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Guys, this is flirting with our rules. Lets try to tone down the ideological aspects, thanks.

I had not checked this thread in a few days, and did not realize it had exploded.

 

[Frank Jr.]

I would argue that more laws lead to more abuse and excuses to pull people over

In my 32 year career I didn't need an excuse to pull someone over, or abuse my authority. Me and the guys I had the honor and privilege to work with had more than enough on our plate without trying add to it. All we did was try to keep people like you safe. I tried to make peace you, but your constant dribble and issues you have with authority are really getting old. Go to Sonicbabble with that kind of mess.

:dead

 

[DodgerKing]

In my 32 year career I didn't need an excuse to pull someone over, or abuse my authority. Me and the guys I had the honor and privilege to work with had more than enough on our plate without trying add to it. All we did was try to keep people like you safe. I tried to make peace you, but your constant dribble and issues you have with authority are really getting old. Go to Sonicbabble with that kind of mess.

:dead

There is no reason to take it personally. If you know anything about me I am a huge supporter of those that serve and protect and will always give the benefit of the doubt to the officers when there is an issue that arises. I have cousins and close friends that are officers. If you should be upset you should direct it at the one who originally brought up the abuse of power argument. Mine was just a counter to that.

Let me put it this way. My argument is not directed at the officers who are enforcing the laws as I have a great deal of respect for them and the overwhelming majority do not abused their power at all. My beef is with the lawmakers that pass the laws which puts the burden on the officers.

What laws like this do is force law enforcement to deal in probabilities instead of direct actions. It is similar to arresting someone because they are likely to commit domestic violence instead of arresting them after the committed the actual crime. Because talking can increase the chance of an accident, even though it is very slight, law enforcement is now forced to patrol for increased probability risks instead of actual crimes, which takes away time for enforcing more serious crimes that actually deal with violating another persons rights. As a result there is going to be an increase in pulling people over, of which some officers will use as an excuse to look for other things (it does happen, even my cousins and friends tell me such).

Talking on the phone and driving will be made illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises dramatically when you talk. The government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something insurance companies deal in, not the government.

 

[Frank Jr.]

Guys, this is flirting with our rules. Lets try to tone down the ideological aspects, thanks.

I had not checked this thread in a few days, and did not realize it had exploded.

Well sorry about my part. I had my say. Go ahead and delete my posts if you deem it necessary.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Well sorry about my part. I had my say. Go ahead and delete my posts if you deem it necessary.

No, no need. Just asking folks to stay within the rules.

A report was issued calling for ending cell phone use; discussion of the things which are and are not appropriate for government is NOT within our rules. So Dodge, if you want, take it to Sonic.

I am sorry I was not following this thread - I would have reigned it in earlier.

 

[DodgerKing]

Well sorry about my part. I had my say. Go ahead and delete my posts if you deem it necessary.

Again...I am sorry. I have nothing against you. You are a well respected by many on this site, including myself. I think it was just a matter of clarity

Here is what yaz96 stated and my response. My reply was made in response to his post

This is why we have laws defining what exactly, specifically is illegal, so there is no misinterpretation, or misuse and/or abuse of the law.

I would argue that more laws lead to more abuse and excuses to pull people over

To be clear the abuse part was directed at the law makers, not the officers. The pulling people over part was directed at the officers. I should have used a different word other than excuse. I should have said, reason to pull someone over when they should be focused more on pulling people over whom are directly committing a crime.

To the Mods, this is all I have to say as well. I just had to post this for clarity so at least others may have a better understanding of what I meant, regardless if they agree or not.

 

[mcintire123]

This reminds me of something my brother told me about when he lived in Germany. Over there they consider the act of driving itself to be such a focused activity that you are discouraged from even drinking a beverage while driving let alone talking on a cell phone or the infamous putting on makeup while driving. (We all have seen someone doing that in the mirror while driving, scary isn't it?)

 

[dfergie]

If you are driving 80+ on the Autobahn you better be focused...