It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NTSB Recommends Ban On Driver Cell Phone Use

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I'm all for the law. Arguing that there shouldn't be a law because people will ignore it is naive. Of course some people will ignore it. There isn't a law out there that someone doesn't ignore.

I honestly think that if they would make dangerous driving practices as serious as drunk driving, it would help. Don't mess around with weak fines. If they endanger people's lives, put some teeth into the laws. Maybe go easy for a first or second offense, but then put some hefty fines, actual jail time, take away the car (NOT just the license - lots of people drive without a license. Not many people drive without a car).

As for the fear of being tracked - if you're worried about that, pull the battery out of the phone when you're not using it, or when you don't want to be followed. Or put it into a metal box like a cash box or something. There are ways of defeating that sort of thing.

I'd be way more worried about unknown tracking devices in the cars, built into the electrical system or whatever. That would be easy and cheap, kind of like a lo-jack (or tagging pets, I guess). Not much you could do about that, unless you could find the device. Then maybe stick it onto a police car or something...




posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Great more gooberment riding shot gun next to me telling me how to live



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 



This is as well I believe a push towards those cars, through one small political push, with the sync up of your cell phone, so that we have our every movement tracked by not only OnStar, but cell phone towers, in order to triangulate our whereabouts.


Yup, most likely. That reason alone is why i haven't personally owned a mobile phone in the past 4-5 years. I wouldn't call it paranoia, but rather "playing it safe". I contact most people i know via relay-chat or email from a desktop computer anyway.

I think its funny. Alot of people use phones for facebook... wherever they are. Some people i know use facebook on their phone but don't actually ever "phone" anyone. Well if they ban all forms of communication (hands-free aswell)... how are the bookfacesheeples going to update their status to tell the government which lane they are driving through?



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


same thing could be said of murder. Plenty of murders can be justified, but they ban murder because of one or two crazy people.

See how that's not a valid reason to not ban something?



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ga-`tv-gi
Great more gooberment riding shot gun next to me telling me how to live



You are right of course. You should be allowed to drive while one hand is holding a phone that in no way makes it easier for you to drive properly and with due care. Crazy rules also say you shouldn't drive while drunk or stoned - don't you just hate those rules? Hey, why have the need for a driving license and limit the age when people can drive?

Sheesh, think about the greater good sometimes why don't ya



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

Sheesh, think about the greater good sometimes why don't ya


So why isnt this concern for the greater good in any way consistent?

My hand cant be on a cell phone but it can be on a CB, HAM, FM radio, tuning stations, changing CD's, skipping tracks, drinking coffee, eating a sandwich, and on and on....

Concern for the greater good as justification for a phone ban dictates at least 8 more laws need to be passed based on my list.

And there's reading maps or otherwise, putting on make-up, shaving........

Perhaps we need 50 complete volumes of laws banning each individual action that can be made behind a wheel?

Lord knows currently existing distracted driver and reckless endangerment laws apparently arent enough.

Tell me, please, when concern for the greater good jumps past legislative call to action and crosses into absurdity and if time permits explain to me why one is not the other.

Top 5 causes of car accidents: 1) phones, 2)changing cd's, stations and otherwise fiddling with the radio, 3)eating, 4)Intoxication, 5)speeding link Yet only the 4th and 5th are specifically illegal. Interesting.

Given the stats on young drivers, 16-20, and their accident/death rates something tells me that to ban young drivers (who seem to be the largest phone and drive offenders) would do more for road safety than going after the phones. Especially since these young drivers will ignore any such legislation anyway.

The old folks are right. Damn kids making the world a dangerous place.

Since I'm on old people now should such a phone law pass then we should in turn ban anyone 70 or older from operating a motor vehicle:

Talking on a cell phone while driving can make a young driver’s reaction time as slow as that of a 70-year-old.


Consistency. For the common good.
edit on 14-12-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by something wicked

Sheesh, think about the greater good sometimes why don't ya


So why isnt this concern for the greater good in any way consistent?

My hand cant be on a cell phone but it can be on a CB, HAM, FM radio, tuning stations, changing CD's, skipping tracks, drinking coffee, eating a sandwich, and on and on....

Concern for the greater good as justification for a phone ban dictates at least 8 more laws need to be passed based on my list.

And there's reading maps or otherwise, putting on make-up, shaving........

Perhaps we need 50 complete volumes of laws banning each individual action that can be made behind a wheel?

Lord knows currently existing distracted driver and reckless endangerment laws apparently arent enough.

Tell me, please, when concern for the greater good jumps past legislative call to action and crosses into absurdity and if time permits explain to me why one is not the other.

Top 5 causes of car accidents: 1) phones, 2)changing cd's, stations and otherwise fiddling with the radio, 3)eating, 4)Intoxication, 5)speeding link Yet only the 4th and 5th are specifically illegal. Interesting.

Given the stats on young drivers, 16-20, and their accident/death rates something tells me that to ban young drivers (who seem to be the largest phone and drive offenders) would do more for road safety than going after the phones. Especially since these young drivers will ignore any such legislation anyway.

The old folks are right. Damn kids making the world a dangerous place.
edit on 14-12-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)


'sigh' ok, and changing the radio station is something that takes more than a few seconds to do and is more likely to be actually viewed and therefore something that would be monitored. Doesn't reduce a split second risk though. Please, don't be argumentative for the sake of it.
edit on 14-12-2011 by something wicked because: because



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked
'sigh' ok, and changing the radio station is something that takes more than a few seconds to do and is more likely to be actually viewed and therefore something that would be monitored. Doesn't reduce a split second risk though. Please, don't be argumentative for the sake of it.
edit on 14-12-2011 by something wicked because: because


Im not. This is valid and important to getting at the root of why somebody would support a measure like this. You pick out changing a radio station and ignore plenty of other distractions that are just as visible as using a phone.

Dont dismiss something in kind simply because it breaks apart your world view.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by something wicked
'sigh' ok, and changing the radio station is something that takes more than a few seconds to do and is more likely to be actually viewed and therefore something that would be monitored. Doesn't reduce a split second risk though. Please, don't be argumentative for the sake of it.
edit on 14-12-2011 by something wicked because: because


Im not. This is valid and important to getting at the root of why somebody would support a measure like this. You pick out changing a radio station and ignore plenty of other distractions that are just as visible as using a phone.

Dont dismiss something in kind simply because it breaks apart your world view.


Nice ad-hom in the last sentence, people using a phone, certainly not hands free, risk lives. End of. Nothing wrong with my world view thank you but yours seems to be a little grumpy.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

Nice ad-hom in the last sentence, people using a phone, certainly not hands free, risk lives. End of. Nothing wrong with my world view thank you but yours seems to be a little grumpy.


Can you blame me when the world is run by irrational wildly inconsistent mob-rule?

You havent yet attempted to explain to me why my list differs in any way from the NTSB's.

Or are you for legislation covering every and all distractions?

Because if you are that legislation already exists. So what's the point of stacking redundant legislation?



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by something wicked

Nice ad-hom in the last sentence, people using a phone, certainly not hands free, risk lives. End of. Nothing wrong with my world view thank you but yours seems to be a little grumpy.


Can you blame me when the world is run by irrational wildly inconsistent mob-rule?

You havent yet attempted to explain to me why my list differs in any way from the NTSB's.

Or are you for legislation covering every and all distractions?

Because if you are that legislation already exists. So what's the point of stacking redundant legislation?


It's quite simple really, I'm sure you already know this but you are looking to argue. Using a handheld phone while driving is a risk to others. This would make it an offense. Sorry if I'm not going to debate more but you are either missing that point or frankly just being anal - you decide. Please stick to the point of the OP's thread which is specific to this point.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Once all the states are hooked on federal highway money, as they all are, they can pull the strings of federal power at a whim by simply threatening to pull funding. The tentacles of the federal govt. into the states rights are because the states surrendered those rights for the sake of $$$.

Now that all the states are hurting financially, what better time to launch an attack and flex the federal muscle than now. It's called kicking you when your down and weak.

Just because a particular action or inaction is not specifically mentioned in the constitution as not allowed does not mean it is a constitutional authorization to engage in that action or inaction.
edit on 14-12-2011 by tkwasny because: Typo fix



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by 74Templar
 


I've said several times and backed it up with years of stats that this law does and will do nothing to make the roads safer for anyone.

What I honestly believe would make the roads safer for everyone is making people ride either motorcycles, bicycles, scooters or any other two wheeled vehicle everyday for a month or two.

Getting people out of their comfortable steel cages and showing them just how vulnerable they are and how dangerous road travel is for everyone would do much more for instilling alert driving habits than some text in a book and a threat of a fine.

Drivers don't often consider consequences. The ultimate consequence of driving is death and a driving related death is far more likely than a gun, terrorist, airplane, assault or many other commonly feared deaths yet people drive as if it were a distant and unlikely rarity.

Take a bad driver and put them on a bike. Make them see what it's like to rely on leather a helmet and the ability of their fellow motorists to pay attention. I can guarantee this will make them better drivers.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Absolutely agree, 100%. The same could be said for truck drivers, people should sit in the passenger seat of a 40 ton semi as people in cars cut you off and cut in front of you as though you were just another motorist, it's ignorance at it's highest level.
I guess I have a vested passion for people who are distracted while driving, mobile phones just top that list for the above posts reason. I had a friend go down recently due to the careless driving of a motorist, and when he kicked her door in in frustration she acted as though he had no reason to be angry, even though he was the one bleeding on the ground and his bike was trashed.
People are far too "me-me-me" in their cars these days, like they own the road.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked
It's quite simple really, I'm sure you already know this but you are looking to argue. Using a handheld phone while driving is a risk to others. This would make it an offense. Sorry if I'm not going to debate more but you are either missing that point or frankly just being anal - you decide. Please stick to the point of the OP's thread which is specific to this point.


And eating a sandwich, drinking coffee, changing CD's, reading a map, putting on make-up all require no hands are are not distracting to drivers leading to a risk for others, is that what you're saying?

I'm really interested in this. To see if you're intentionally blocking the logic or if you really cannot grasp it.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by something wicked
It's quite simple really, I'm sure you already know this but you are looking to argue. Using a handheld phone while driving is a risk to others. This would make it an offense. Sorry if I'm not going to debate more but you are either missing that point or frankly just being anal - you decide. Please stick to the point of the OP's thread which is specific to this point.


And eating a sandwich, drinking coffee, changing CD's, reading a map, putting on make-up all require no hands are are not distracting to drivers leading to a risk for others, is that what you're saying?

I'm really interested in this. To see if you're intentionally blocking the logic or if you really cannot grasp it.


Which, sorry to say, are all stupid things to do while driving. You are in the car to drive, not to eat, play with phones, change CDs, etc. It's just exercising common sense and planning the trip out before you start with your journey. Funny thing is, most people drive little more than 20 minutes a day, their car sits idle for most of it, so why is it people can't just leave things alone and focus on the task at hand for that short amount of time? I'm pretty sure the world's not gonna end if you don't update that facebook status, get that call from your mum, or skip past that crappy song on the radio in that short amount of time is it? Driving is 10% focusing on the up to 3 ton metal missile you are in control of, and 90% worrying about what all the other morons on the road are doing at the same time. Any more into this equation, and you are just a statistic waiting to happen.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by ga-`tv-gi
Great more gooberment riding shot gun next to me telling me how to live



You are right of course. You should be allowed to drive while one hand is holding a phone that in no way makes it easier for you to drive properly and with due care. Crazy rules also say you shouldn't drive while drunk or stoned - don't you just hate those rules? Hey, why have the need for a driving license and limit the age when people can drive?

Sheesh, think about the greater good sometimes why don't ya




Its funny I do none of those. Its not the point of rules its the point of being responsible for ones actions. Not letting the government tell me what my list of options are in a peace of property I own and pay taxes on.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 




eating a sandwich

Im not sure about other states but its a "NO GO" in Georgia



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 74Templar
Which, sorry to say, are all stupid things to do while driving. You are in the car to drive, not to eat, play with phones, change CDs, etc. It's just exercising common sense and planning the trip out before you start with your journey. Funny thing is, most people drive little more than 20 minutes a day, their car sits idle for most of it, so why is it people can't just leave things alone and focus on the task at hand for that short amount of time? I'm pretty sure the world's not gonna end if you don't update that facebook status, get that call from your mum, or skip past that crappy song on the radio in that short amount of time is it? Driving is 10% focusing on the up to 3 ton metal missile you are in control of, and 90% worrying about what all the other morons on the road are doing at the same time. Any more into this equation, and you are just a statistic waiting to happen.


It's horrifying the things people do when they should be focused on the task at hand. I've been hit several times while cycling by people who think it's perfectly acceptable to look one way while accelerating another. Nothing to distract them but their own stupidity.

Im just trying to point out the foolishness of this phone specific law for those who honestly believe it would be effective or that there arent already numerous laws on the books which would not only make a phone specific law redundant but serve to grossly point out the inconsistencies and "pop-culture" mentality of our hopelessly juvenile justice system.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ga-`tv-gi
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 




eating a sandwich

Im not sure about other states but its a "NO GO" in Georgia


As it is everywhere covered by a number of distraction and recklessness laws. Making a sandwich specific law is pointless. Why not a tuna or ham specific law? Maybe salami is the most distracting of all?

Such is the absurd pointlessness of a phone specific law.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ga-`tv-gi

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by ga-`tv-gi
Great more gooberment riding shot gun next to me telling me how to live



You are right of course. You should be allowed to drive while one hand is holding a phone that in no way makes it easier for you to drive properly and with due care. Crazy rules also say you shouldn't drive while drunk or stoned - don't you just hate those rules? Hey, why have the need for a driving license and limit the age when people can drive?

Sheesh, think about the greater good sometimes why don't ya




Its funny I do none of those. Its not the point of rules its the point of being responsible for ones actions. Not letting the government tell me what my list of options are in a peace of property I own and pay taxes on.


Which you then drive on government funded roads, which gives them back the power. It's a real catch 22 hey? I agree we shouldn't be micro-managed like sheep for some things, but when you are in control of what is essentially a killing machine, it is just common sense to focus on driving that machine and nothing else. More than anything, it's just about planning, like anything else you do in life.
Good to hear you don't do anything stupid behind the wheel either



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join