Cell phone/driving: an officer's view

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: whip

Imagine that, a person living in a free country wanting people to have free will.


One person's free will ends when it becomes a danger to others...

But you only apply this logic selectively. There are things you do that many would say are dangerous to others, and you still do them. Why do you hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself?
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: whip
Thankfully, narrow minded people like you and Grampi aren't in charge.

I don't like land lines, either. I have no cell phone, and I'm still alive.

Does this somehow make you a better person?
 
Originally Posted By: grampi


It needs to be regulated when unnecessary things that are done are dangerous to themselves and others...


But it is like the tree falling in the forest. If one is on a remote stretch of road, there is no other motorists around, how is using the cell phone dangerous? Not any more so than sucking down a hamburger while driving. So, do we have provisional things about the regs? I am also reminded of an intersection on a gravel road that has a stop sign. You can see over a 1/4 mile in either direction on the adjacent road before you ever arrive at the intersection. Many just slow and look and don't fully stop. Of course, Barney has noticed this, even though there is very little traffic on these roads, He will sit to the side in hiding and wait for someone to "run" the stop sign. He is going to see that justice is done and the law is obeyed!

And some wonder why a lot of folks start to have disdain for all the regulations that get thrown out there like a shotgun blast. Because in the end, it is just piling on the laws with no real change in things. We have laws against murder, but murder goes on like there are no laws against it. We can pile on the cell phone laws and regulate the snot out the practice, but it will go on like not one law has been written. When it comes down to it, it is only yet another fine or penalty we can throw onto someone after any accident. You are not going to stop the practice with another regulation.

It will just allow some politician to come back to the district and spout out about how he is doing something about the problem, now vote for me.
 
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: whip
Originally Posted By: grampi

Again I ask, why is it necessary for even a passenger to use a cell phone in a moving vehicle?...

If it's not necessary it needs to be regulated? Are sports cars necessary? What about motorcycles? Smoking and drinking? Where does your desire to regulate unnecessary thing stops?


It needs to be regulated when unnecessary things that are done are dangerous to themselves and others...


You are in favor of banning motorcycles, then?
 
Originally Posted By: whip
Does this somehow make you a better person?

No, that means we have to be a little more clear as to what's a luxury and what's a necessity.

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
But it is like the tree falling in the forest. If one is on a remote stretch of road, there is no other motorists around, how is using the cell phone dangerous?

If there's no other motorist around, the odds of getting a ticket are nil, since a ticketing officer would have to be a motorist as well.
 
Originally Posted By: whip
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: whip

Imagine that, a person living in a free country wanting people to have free will.


One person's free will ends when it becomes a danger to others...

But you only apply this logic selectively. There are things you do that many would say are dangerous to others, and you still do them. Why do you hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself?


You're just being ridiculous now...I'm guessing your probably one of many drivers who thinks it's time to get on the phone when your driving...
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: grampi


It needs to be regulated when unnecessary things that are done are dangerous to themselves and others...


But it is like the tree falling in the forest. If one is on a remote stretch of road, there is no other motorists around, how is using the cell phone dangerous? Not any more so than sucking down a hamburger while driving. So, do we have provisional things about the regs? I am also reminded of an intersection on a gravel road that has a stop sign. You can see over a 1/4 mile in either direction on the adjacent road before you ever arrive at the intersection. Many just slow and look and don't fully stop. Of course, Barney has noticed this, even though there is very little traffic on these roads, He will sit to the side in hiding and wait for someone to "run" the stop sign. He is going to see that justice is done and the law is obeyed!

And some wonder why a lot of folks start to have disdain for all the regulations that get thrown out there like a shotgun blast. Because in the end, it is just piling on the laws with no real change in things. We have laws against murder, but murder goes on like there are no laws against it. We can pile on the cell phone laws and regulate the snot out the practice, but it will go on like not one law has been written. When it comes down to it, it is only yet another fine or penalty we can throw onto someone after any accident. You are not going to stop the practice with another regulation.

It will just allow some politician to come back to the district and spout out about how he is doing something about the problem, now vote for me.


Fine, don't make any more laws against cell phone use while driving, just make phones so they won't work in a vehicle with the ignition on then...problem solved...unless you've got another idea...
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: whip
Originally Posted By: grampi

Again I ask, why is it necessary for even a passenger to use a cell phone in a moving vehicle?...

If it's not necessary it needs to be regulated? Are sports cars necessary? What about motorcycles? Smoking and drinking? Where does your desire to regulate unnecessary thing stops?


It needs to be regulated when unnecessary things that are done are dangerous to themselves and others...


You are in favor of banning motorcycles, then?


More ridiculousness...how many people die on motorcycles each year and how many people die due to cell phone use while driving each year...enough said on that...
 
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: grampi


It needs to be regulated when unnecessary things that are done are dangerous to themselves and others...


But it is like the tree falling in the forest. If one is on a remote stretch of road, there is no other motorists around, how is using the cell phone dangerous? Not any more so than sucking down a hamburger while driving. So, do we have provisional things about the regs? I am also reminded of an intersection on a gravel road that has a stop sign. You can see over a 1/4 mile in either direction on the adjacent road before you ever arrive at the intersection. Many just slow and look and don't fully stop. Of course, Barney has noticed this, even though there is very little traffic on these roads, He will sit to the side in hiding and wait for someone to "run" the stop sign. He is going to see that justice is done and the law is obeyed!

And some wonder why a lot of folks start to have disdain for all the regulations that get thrown out there like a shotgun blast. Because in the end, it is just piling on the laws with no real change in things. We have laws against murder, but murder goes on like there are no laws against it. We can pile on the cell phone laws and regulate the snot out the practice, but it will go on like not one law has been written. When it comes down to it, it is only yet another fine or penalty we can throw onto someone after any accident. You are not going to stop the practice with another regulation.

It will just allow some politician to come back to the district and spout out about how he is doing something about the problem, now vote for me.


Fine, don't make any more laws against cell phone use while driving, just make phones so they won't work in a vehicle with the ignition on then...problem solved...unless you've got another idea...


And I addressed that idea a few posts back. It is asinine to require cell phones be shut off or not work when the ignition starts. That puts people's lives in jeopardy just as much as any perceived threat by using cell phones. Go back and read it. I take it a step further here. Anyone that would even suggest your idea should give up their citizenship right away, for they are not worthy of being American and espousing the ideals of Americanism. Because what you suggest, falls under Facist or Communist ideology. One of the reasons, some days, that I think my 7 years in the military was a total waste of time.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: grampi


It needs to be regulated when unnecessary things that are done are dangerous to themselves and others...


But it is like the tree falling in the forest. If one is on a remote stretch of road, there is no other motorists around, how is using the cell phone dangerous? Not any more so than sucking down a hamburger while driving. So, do we have provisional things about the regs? I am also reminded of an intersection on a gravel road that has a stop sign. You can see over a 1/4 mile in either direction on the adjacent road before you ever arrive at the intersection. Many just slow and look and don't fully stop. Of course, Barney has noticed this, even though there is very little traffic on these roads, He will sit to the side in hiding and wait for someone to "run" the stop sign. He is going to see that justice is done and the law is obeyed!

And some wonder why a lot of folks start to have disdain for all the regulations that get thrown out there like a shotgun blast. Because in the end, it is just piling on the laws with no real change in things. We have laws against murder, but murder goes on like there are no laws against it. We can pile on the cell phone laws and regulate the snot out the practice, but it will go on like not one law has been written. When it comes down to it, it is only yet another fine or penalty we can throw onto someone after any accident. You are not going to stop the practice with another regulation.

It will just allow some politician to come back to the district and spout out about how he is doing something about the problem, now vote for me.


Fine, don't make any more laws against cell phone use while driving, just make phones so they won't work in a vehicle with the ignition on then...problem solved...unless you've got another idea...


And I addressed that idea a few posts back. It is asinine to require cell phones be shut off or not work when the ignition starts. That puts people's lives in jeopardy just as much as any perceived threat by using cell phones. Go back and read it. I take it a step further here. Anyone that would even suggest your idea should give up their citizenship right away, for they are not worthy of being American and espousing the ideals of Americanism. Because what you suggest, falls under Facist or Communist ideology. One of the reasons, some days, that I think my 7 years in the military was a total waste of time.


Doing absolutely nothing is not the answer either, which is what you seem to be suggesting...and how does not having a cell phone that can be used when the ignition is on put lives in jeopardy? You mean all those years before cell phones were around were risky ones because there were no cell phones? Lol!
 
Ok. The pass a law to jam cell phones when the car is started. I will contact one of the hackers over at the University to put a patch in the cell phone so that it doesn't jam when the car starts. This should be an easy work around. Oh, and that would be against the law? So is deleting EGR, SCR, DPF stuff from diesel engines, but it gets done all the time.

Also, I can just use a CB or FM carrier 2 way radio like in the past. So much for hands free like I could do with a cell phone. So, the law will do nothing. Absolutely nothing. When you place a restriction, folks will find a way to circumvent it. Only those that have no tech background can't see that it is a exercise in futility to mandate that some jammer type of feature be used on cell phones.

Ok, Mr. LOL. All those years before cell phones, those years weren't riskier? For whom? How about the patient that died because someone could not contact the doctor who was driving on his way home? How about, in my previous example, I couldn't get a call from the wife that cattle got out, and since there was no way for me to know that cattle had gotten onto the road, a motorist caps the hill and puts an 800 lb steer thru their windshield. Sure there were beepers and such for someone like the doctor, but he still had to locate a pay phone (remember those) and call in. And minutes count when it comes to life or death. If he was on a rural road, it might be some time before he could get to a phone.

So, thing weren't riskier? Maybe in your sanitized tight nit world. There are myriads of examples where cell phones have saved lives that would have been lost in the years we didn't have them. Just being able to call, while driving, about the drunk driver weaving in the lane in front of you, putting people in danger. How about seeing someone across the road go into the ditch, but it is unsafe, due to traffic for you to stop right then and call, so you call on the cell phone while you are still moving. I have done that one frequently during the winter months while driving my semi. Kinda hard to just stop 80,000 lb of truck on ice without endangering others, but I can at least put a call in to the local cop shop and let them know.

I realize that folks under 30 have a hard time grasping what things were like before cell phones, laptop computers, and other tech marvels. But those that are not suffering from Mad Cow and can still remember the "good 'ol days", if they put things in perspective, they would realize that we are much better off, in general, having this technology available. And with anything, there comes personal responsibility. But this mindset that we must have the government protect us from ourselves, I have a real hard time understanding it.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
So, the law will do nothing. Absolutely nothing. When you place a restriction, folks will find a way to circumvent it.

Just ask all of the illegal pot smokers. Right, Grampi!

This is the point where Grampi calls you ridiculous and refuses to address the legitimate points you've brought up because he has no answer for them.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Ok. The pass a law to jam cell phones when the car is started. I will contact one of the hackers over at the University to put a patch in the cell phone so that it doesn't jam when the car starts. This should be an easy work around. Oh, and that would be against the law? So is deleting EGR, SCR, DPF stuff from diesel engines, but it gets done all the time.

Also, I can just use a CB or FM carrier 2 way radio like in the past. So much for hands free like I could do with a cell phone. So, the law will do nothing. Absolutely nothing. When you place a restriction, folks will find a way to circumvent it. Only those that have no tech background can't see that it is a exercise in futility to mandate that some jammer type of feature be used on cell phones.

Ok, Mr. LOL. All those years before cell phones, those years weren't riskier? For whom? How about the patient that died because someone could not contact the doctor who was driving on his way home? How about, in my previous example, I couldn't get a call from the wife that cattle got out, and since there was no way for me to know that cattle had gotten onto the road, a motorist caps the hill and puts an 800 lb steer thru their windshield. Sure there were beepers and such for someone like the doctor, but he still had to locate a pay phone (remember those) and call in. And minutes count when it comes to life or death. If he was on a rural road, it might be some time before he could get to a phone.

So, thing weren't riskier? Maybe in your sanitized tight nit world. There are myriads of examples where cell phones have saved lives that would have been lost in the years we didn't have them. Just being able to call, while driving, about the drunk driver weaving in the lane in front of you, putting people in danger. How about seeing someone across the road go into the ditch, but it is unsafe, due to traffic for you to stop right then and call, so you call on the cell phone while you are still moving. I have done that one frequently during the winter months while driving my semi. Kinda hard to just stop 80,000 lb of truck on ice without endangering others, but I can at least put a call in to the local cop shop and let them know.

I realize that folks under 30 have a hard time grasping what things were like before cell phones, laptop computers, and other tech marvels. But those that are not suffering from Mad Cow and can still remember the "good 'ol days", if they put things in perspective, they would realize that we are much better off, in general, having this technology available. And with anything, there comes personal responsibility. But this mindset that we must have the government protect us from ourselves, I have a real hard time understanding it.


In all of your examples, a cell phone with a jammer could've been used by simply stopping the vehicle and turning off the ignition...there would never be a circumstance where this couldn't be done, so again I will ask, why is it necessary to use a cell phone WHILE YOU'RE DRIVING?
 
Originally Posted By: whip
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
So, the law will do nothing. Absolutely nothing. When you place a restriction, folks will find a way to circumvent it.

Just ask all of the illegal pot smokers. Right, Grampi!

This is the point where Grampi calls you ridiculous and refuses to address the legitimate points you've brought up because he has no answer for them.


Why don't you just go back under your bridge?...you never have anything constructive to say anyway...
 
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: whip
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
So, the law will do nothing. Absolutely nothing. When you place a restriction, folks will find a way to circumvent it.

Just ask all of the illegal pot smokers. Right, Grampi!

This is the point where Grampi calls you ridiculous and refuses to address the legitimate points you've brought up because he has no answer for them.


Why don't you just go back under your bridge?...you never have anything constructive to say anyway...

Not true. I've brought up numerous valid points to discuss, and you've ignored most of them. Just because we see things differently, doesn't mean it's not constructive.
 
Originally Posted By: grampi
In all of your examples, a cell phone with a jammer could've been used by simply stopping the vehicle and turning off the ignition...there would never be a circumstance where this couldn't be done, so again I will ask, why is it necessary to use a cell phone WHILE YOU'RE DRIVING?

What are people supposed to do for incoming calls? The cattle situation that was brought up, how would people get a hold of him if he doesn't pull over and check his phone?

What about people riding in a bus? They wouldn't be able to make calls with your jammer theory.
 
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle

You are in favor of banning motorcycles, then?


More ridiculousness...how many people die on motorcycles each year and how many people die due to cell phone use while driving each year...enough said on that...

Motorcycle deaths for 2011 were 4612.

Cell phone related auto accident deaths. 3285

Alcohol related deaths are over 75,000.

Who's being ridiculous?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: whip
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
So, the law will do nothing. Absolutely nothing. When you place a restriction, folks will find a way to circumvent it.

Just ask all of the illegal pot smokers. Right, Grampi!

This is the point where Grampi calls you ridiculous and refuses to address the legitimate points you've brought up because he has no answer for them.


Even Grampi would have to admit he responded EXACTLY as you said! Hilarious...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top