new laws?! ... wow - Page 2 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: new laws?! ... wow
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:54 PM on j-body.org
I have spoke with many officials and i vote on everything of interest, since the age of 18. I have even been to many town meetings. How many have you been to? The most memorable time was protesting a chemical plant being built in my neighborhood. Which was voted down btw. A n example of political corruption: im from a small town and after siding the crowd at a town meeting with me against that plant. the city officials had a police officer ask me to leave the meeting.

how did i prove you right? florida state said that older drivers are as bad or worse then teens. and if you added mileage then older drivers are far worse.

What?? your not talking about actual voters? what does eligible voters have to do with anything???

Your are just going around and around now that youve been proved wrong.

older drivers are worse and nothing is done because they make up the majority of the voters.

I believe i have done a good job proving this.

Re: new laws?! ... wow
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 2:53 PM on j-body.org
as of older i mean records say 65+. and thats a over generalization just as the teen and younger driver is.
Re: new laws?! ... wow
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 3:25 PM on j-body.org
Great, you were asked to leave a meeting, and you're 22... You had to know that most people would have been intrepid to say the least about the prospect of a chemical plant (realistically any chemical plant) now that there are far diminished environmental protections. Anyhow, congrats.

You proved me right the second you said "AS BAD." Thanks again, even though, you're actually wrong when you look at the totality of evidence. Realistically, How many seniors do you see yakking or texting on their cell phones or diddling with their Sat-radios? Not many I'm sure. I'm not saying there are not good drivers on either end of the spectrum, but kids are by far more easily distracted with: Friends, Cell phones, Radios, other junk. While Seniors may be slow drivers, they're generally just less able to react when something happens... inattention isn't usually the problem.

To show you for absolutely certain that Younger drivers are threat to YOU and EVERYONE else: LINK to CDC report on teen drivers.
To quote:
Quote:

Persons aged 15 to 24, who represent only 14% of the U.S. population, account for 30% ($19 billion) of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries among males and 28% ($7 billion) of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries among females (Finkelstein et al. 2006).

Teens are more likely than older drivers to underestimate hazardous situations or dangerous situations or not be able to recognize hazardous situations (Jonah 1987).

Teens are more likely than older drivers to speed and allow shorter headways (the distance from the front of one vehicle to the front of the next). The presence of male teenage passengers increases the likelihood of these risky driving behaviors among teen male drivers. (Simons-Morton 2005).
(Take note that the "Younger Driver" denotes drivers 15-24).

Seniors, however, are more of a danger to themselves, but don't take my word on it, Please: LINK to IIHS Q&A facts about older drivers. Of Particular interest is Questions #4 and #8, #4 has a chart that I'm not going to blind link to, you can visit it for yourself, but #8 is pretty interesting.
Quote:

Do older drivers constitute a substantial hazard to other road users?

In terms of fatalities, older drivers are a danger mostly to themselves and their passengers, who also typically are older and thus more vulnerable to injuries. One study found that per licensed driver, drivers 75 and older kill fewer pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and occupants in other vehicles compared with drivers ages 30-59.1 In the fatal crashes of drivers 75 and older, the drivers and their senior passengers were much more likely to be killed than were occupants in other vehicles. However, drivers 70 and older have higher insurance liability claims for damage to other vehicles per insured vehicle year than drivers ages 35-69.2
1-Braver, E.R. and Trempel, R.E. 2004. Are older drivers actually at higher risk of involvement in collisions resulting in deaths or non-fatal injuries among their passengers and other road users? Injury Prevention 10:27-32.

2-Highway Loss Data Institute. 2005. Insurance special report (A-70): Insurance losses by driver age. Arlington, VA.



Now, The state of Florida has stated that because of mileage, yes, Seniors that accrue the same annual mileage as teens may be more likely to have an accident, HOWEVER, they did also state that because Seniors drive mainly in-city, they are less likely to have a fatal accident.

Basically, they drive less, and they drive at lower speeds... How is it again that they're more dangerous? Before you answer, also consider, Florida has a disproportionate number of seniors (18% of the population) for about 6 months of the year because of snow-birds (swells to over 24% IIRC).

Now here's one other thing, The NHTSA in 1998 found that... well, I'll LINK To a Loyola University article and quote:
Quote:

On the other hand, there's cause for concern when elderly people do drive because they have higher rates of fatal crashes per mile driven, per 100,000 people, and per licensed driver than any other group except young drivers.


Interesting... Don't you think? Why not disallow drivers under the age of 25 and over 65 from getting their license if the current burden of evidence shows they're more likely to have accidents? Why? It's simple, because that's age-ism, and you oughtta go case by case. Personally, I'd like to see EVERYONE have to re-test (including both written and practical testing) every 5 years, and Graduated licensing for both new drivers, and those that have had their licenses suspended or revoked. I'd also require a full driving course with defencive driving portions in order to pass a test, and yes, make it 100% retroactive. I'm not a prick, I know that first-hand and foremost: people are not as good a driver as they think they are, and that the more distracted they are when driving the more likely they are to have an accident. If it means that you have to go through 45 minutes of bother every 5 years to help remind you of what you need to do while driving, that's fine by me. If an eye-test will help seniors, then it'll likely help everyone to have to really learn to drive.

But, that's just my opinion on the matter. I figure that if it works in Germany it may actually work over here (they have a far lower per capita accident occurrance, and many highways have no speed limit, or 200kmh limits, plus driving there, is just cool... most everyone is good at it and is courteous )


Now that that's done, a few words.
Before you conclude you've proved me wrong might I suggest the following:
1: Make sure you're NOT proving my point if you're deciding to make a differing argument that I am.
2: Cite your dejure facts, and sources. At least make footnotes.
3: Keep irrelevant personal anecdotes out: The bit about you having your glory in a town meeting was mildly interesting, but irrelevant to the topic at hand (driving and laws in general, well, it was partially applicable to the law section). When I asked if you had kept in touch with county, state, and federal representatives a simple "Yes, I do" would have sufficed. Turning it around on me also supposes that I don't, that's poor form and it makes it look like you're attempting to make me look bad instead of actually sticking to the topic at hand. If you want to make me look bad, at least do it with facts and not mud. (Lest it be missed, I have proved you wrong, with sources, and this latter bit is mere formality, because you're obviously new to the war forum.)
4: Lay off the insults. Your attempt was lame, first off it didn't make you any more right, and second it didn't make me any more wrong. It did however, succeed in making it look like you're grasping at straws. If you want to make a convincing argument, try following the steps above.

Step up your game, read previous posts in the WF, and make sure you can back up your stance... you haven't yet posted a link to substantiate any of the facts you quote in any of your posts. I don't care if YOU say it, link to an authoritative source that has studied the topic thoroughly, and make sure that they are able to cite their sources or methods for original research. And if I'm wrong on something, you haven't proved it yet, and if you've read other posts, you'll see I can concede a point when proved.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Tuesday, September 11, 2007 3:26 PM

Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: new laws?! ... wow
Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:09 AM on j-body.org
I have to say a few things here -

With regards to elderly drivers being >= teenage drivers in terms of accidents per mile driven... You can say this is ok simply because they don't drive so much? Then... is it ok for people to drive home from the bar drunk if they don't have to drive far?! I'd think not.

While I understand that this doesn't apply to all elderly people(some are still excellent and capable drivers while others are terrible), the basic reasons that they usually drive slow are really the same reasons that many drunk people tend to do the same. They don't all have the best vision/hearing/etc . They usually have slower reaction times(from reduced mental capacity and/or reduced physical mobility). In short - many of them are heavily impaired drivers - permanently impaired.

Believe me I previously worked at Walgreens enough to know that no matter if he/she cannot read the large-lettered label directly in front of their face without your help, or if they're too slow to avoid a car traveling at 3 MPH from 50 feet away, they ALL drove themselves to (formerly) my store... and that scares the hell out of me. We had a big handicap sign planted in a HUGE concrete block placed in our parking lot - that moved every day. I don't think most of them knew they where hitting and pushing it. We had other bent over signs at the end of the lot too. They LOVE to drive huge, heavy, v8 powered cars too. That is even scarier for anyone not driving such a vehicle. I've personally seen a several get confused and mash the gas by mistake instead of the brake.

Yes a teenager may be temporarily distracted, and a drunk person may be... well trashed, but many elderly drivers are impaired in ways that don't change and that even they themselves cannot change - all are unacceptable conditions for driving, but those permanently physically unable to drive should permanently loose the ability to do so.

However you start getting into another area - profiling. Yes on average senior citizens are dangerous on the road - but not all are and so those who can should still be allowed to(pending regular testing). Equally, most teenagers - but not all - are going to be too distracted to drive while talking on the phone. So... if you apply the same standards to teenagers as you (ideally) would senior citizens, then you realize that a blanket law prohibiting them all is overdoing it a bit - just as much as a law prohibiting all prohibiting all seniors from driving.




I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
Re: new laws?! ... wow
Thursday, September 13, 2007 8:24 AM on j-body.org
GAM: Why do you think i want to sprng for German driving school when I have the chance?

Anyhow, interesting thing of note from Slovakia (and i'm sure this applies to other European countries). To pass a driver's exam there, you need to not only demonstrate knowledge of the road, but also basic automotive maintenance: How to change a tire, change your oil, replace your headlight, etc.

If we applied this to the U.S...how many people wouldn't get/keep their licenses? It would be a great way to start cleaning up the roads.


Goodbye Callisto, Hello Skađi:
2008 Pontiac G6 GXP Street Edition Coupe

The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Re: new laws?! ... wow
Thursday, September 13, 2007 8:39 AM on j-body.org
BK 3K: Your last point is part of the reason I've been pushing for about the last 6-8 years for 5 year mandatory re-testing for all drivers.

It eliminates the descrimination element, and has the side benefit of mandating all people to get a state-administered eye-test, and a driving test. Some people need a kick in the ass every few years.

Keeper: You'd be surprised what a little self-reliance will breed. Personally, I'd rather see a more German type licensing structure here, because honestly, driving here is hit or miss (quite literally), and over there, it's very much a pleasure and a job to drive.

For instance, when I was 17 and spent 4 months in both Germany and France, I can honestly remember the differences between the 2 countries' driving styles: France, the bus driver was literally hanging out the window and shouting/shooting the bird/cursing at other drivers... after we hit the border, he closed the window and just drove. We made great time, and the drive was smooth as hell in Germany. In Canada/US, in my experience and depending on the area, the roads are shyte, or the other drivers are shyte, or both AND you have hiway patrollers trying to finance their homes on traffic tickets. Sounds precisely like France except you see people driving like their hair is on fire, but they take 2 hours to eat at a rest stop (that's a REAL rest stop)... This was in Florida.

Anyhow, if people gave enough of a damn about it, I'm pretty sure they'd use the German solution. Until then you just gotta keep your head up and both feet on the wheel.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: new laws?! ... wow
Saturday, September 15, 2007 4:38 PM on j-body.org
well i didnt read through the whole thread... but ill say this

i just turned 21, and i think driving while talking on ur cell is freaking stupid....
so are those loud ass aftermarket exhausts. exhausts are meant to improve airflow, not make noise. you can have a good free flowing aftermarket exhaust, yet keep the tone down with resonators...

so yes, i remember being a kid, since i was under age only 3 yrs ago...... and even when i was 16-18.. i drove responsibly and didnt cry about laws made to protect us.



Re: new laws?! ... wow
Saturday, September 15, 2007 4:57 PM on j-body.org
Heres my take on the cell phone and driving thing...

Go to an auto cross event with your car and without walking the corse ahead of time go take a lap while on your cell phone actually having a conversation... then try to tell everyone how good you are at talking on the phone while driving...

and granted your not gonna racing your car while on the phone on the streets but its no different then being on the phone and having a panic situation come up.



Re: new laws?! ... wow
Sunday, September 16, 2007 4:02 PM on j-body.org
I agree exactly Bastardking3000 and The cell phone law should apply to everyone. If there going to use the law then dont profile and make it apply to everyone.

Keeper I think you might on to something. a little knowledge of how everything works could equal to safer drivers on the road.

I know that back in the day alot of drivers courses would make teens learn to drive with a manual car. If you cant drive a stick then maybe you dont have the ability to drive at all. just a thought
Re: new laws?! ... wow
Monday, September 17, 2007 9:40 AM on j-body.org
In Chicago the cell phone law applies to everyone, at not time can you legally operate a car while on a phone (hands free is ok) inside the Chicago city limits and on Chicago highways.



Re: new laws?! ... wow
Monday, December 13, 2010 7:09 AM on j-body.org
Quote:

Basically:
Driving ain't a right.

Cell phones aren't a right.



How so? Don't I have the right to purchase a cell phone? Do I not, as a citizen, have the right to get a liscense and drive a car?

Walking barefoot on my neighbors lawn, is a privilege granted to me by the property owner. He can pick and choose who he lets walk, sans shoes, on his turf. If he doesn't like me, he can ban me from frolicking shoeless on his grass.

However, I can forfeit my right to drive, by demonstrating that I am a danger to society (reckless driving, DUI, etc)
Just like it is my right to purchase and own a handgun...unless I commit a felony, at which point, I have forfeited that right.

Drving, as a 17 year old, is a privilege, being that he is a minor.
Usage of a cellphone, is also a privilege, being that he is a minor.

There is a difference.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Re: new laws?! ... wow
Monday, December 13, 2010 7:39 AM on j-body.org
nick wrote:

I agree exactly Bastardking3000 and The cell phone law should apply to everyone. If there going to use the law then dont profile and make it apply to everyone.

Keeper I think you might on to something. a little knowledge of how everything works could equal to safer drivers on the road.

I know that back in the day alot of drivers courses would make teens learn to drive with a manual car. If you cant drive a stick then maybe you dont have the ability to drive at all. just a thought

Graduated laws (those based on driving privileges vs. age) are nothing new. They make sense and are are proven NOT to be "discrimanatory". They are not "profiling", per se, and do not fit the actual definition of same.

The only ones who will squawk about this cellphone law are:

1. The teens it impacts (and thankfully not all of them will whine about it).
2. Those who feel a compelling need to ring the bell loudly about "big government".

The rest of us (in other words, the majority) will breath a sigh of relief.





Re: new laws?! ... wow
Monday, December 13, 2010 6:33 PM on j-body.org
Greg=spammer


Old ass thread



Re: new laws?! ... wow
Monday, December 13, 2010 9:22 PM on j-body.org
Actually knoxfire(if thats correct) THEY do make a cb radio that your cell phone interlinks with so u can use the mic to talk to the person on your cell phone while using a earpiece or not.Several drivers I drive with use them to avoid holding a phone.Not that holding a cb mic is any safer but,the technology is already available.Phone plugs into cb(I believe) and u can hear the person thru the cb's spkr.Midland or cobra makes this option with the bluetooth feature.



Re: new laws?! ... wow
Tuesday, December 14, 2010 4:46 AM on j-body.org
Kevin Trudeau wrote:

Quote:

Basically:
Driving ain't a right.

Cell phones aren't a right.



How so? Don't I have the right to purchase a cell phone? Do I not, as a citizen, have the right to get a liscense and drive a car?

Walking barefoot on my neighbors lawn, is a privilege granted to me by the property owner. He can pick and choose who he lets walk, sans shoes, on his turf. If he doesn't like me, he can ban me from frolicking shoeless on his grass.

However, I can forfeit my right to drive, by demonstrating that I am a danger to society (reckless driving, DUI, etc)
Just like it is my right to purchase and own a handgun...unless I commit a felony, at which point, I have forfeited that right.

Drving, as a 17 year old, is a privilege, being that he is a minor.
Usage of a cellphone, is also a privilege, being that he is a minor.

There is a difference.

Only after showing proof you can actually drive without breaking laws or endangering other lives. Driving is a privelege NOT a right, you have the right to try to pass the test get your license. If you ask me driving tests should be much harder to pass and people should be retested every 5 -10yrs; however local, state & the federal goverments would lose out on fees & taxes since less people would be allowed to drive so that isn't likely to happen anytime soon unless they come up with more fees/taxes to cover the lost revenue.








Re: new laws?! ... wow
Tuesday, December 14, 2010 5:10 AM on j-body.org
Ron Love wrote:

Actually knoxfire(if thats correct) THEY do make a cb radio that your cell phone interlinks with so u can use the mic to talk to the person on your cell phone while using a earpiece or not.Several drivers I drive with use them to avoid holding a phone.Not that holding a cb mic is any safer but,the technology is already available.Phone plugs into cb(I believe) and u can hear the person thru the cb's spkr.Midland or cobra makes this option with the bluetooth feature.




don't most phones nowadays have something called hands free operation.......

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: new laws?! ... wow
Monday, February 07, 2011 1:31 AM on j-body.org
Darkstars wrote:

In Chicago the cell phone law applies to everyone, at not time can you legally operate a car while on a phone (hands free is ok) inside the Chicago city limits and on Chicago highways.


In all provinces in Canada from east to west ^^ this is what the law on cell phones + driving is, you may THINK your the best driver in the world still doesnt mean its SAFE to drive while talking on the cell phone. think of it this way. your driving along and you get a call you have to take your eyes off the road to look for and grab the cell phone . now for that time you took your eyes off the road something could have happened in front of you but you didnt see it because you were worried about the call eg: car slams on breaks in front of you BAM youve just rear ended them and its YOUR fault. heres another reason why its dangerous. you managed to get the phone to your ear and answered it. your talking about something and the person on the phone asks you a question but something happened in front of you how is the person on the other end of the phone supposed to know whats goin on in front of you in the car? if you dont answer there gonna be destracting you by saying hello over and over and your so worried about the person on the phone that you dont worry so much about everything else.

DRIVING WHILE TALKING ON YOUR CELL PHONE IS WORSE THAN DRIVING DRUNK! PLAIN AND SIMPLE.





Re: new laws?! ... wow
Monday, February 07, 2011 1:24 PM on j-body.org
Wonderhippi wrote:

Darkstars wrote:

In Chicago the cell phone law applies to everyone, at not time can you legally operate a car while on a phone (hands free is ok) inside the Chicago city limits and on Chicago highways.


In all provinces in Canada from east to west ^^ this is what the law on cell phones + driving is, you may THINK your the best driver in the world still doesnt mean its SAFE to drive while talking on the cell phone. think of it this way. your driving along and you get a call you have to take your eyes off the road to look for and grab the cell phone . now for that time you took your eyes off the road something could have happened in front of you but you didnt see it because you were worried about the call eg: car slams on breaks in front of you BAM youve just rear ended them and its YOUR fault. heres another reason why its dangerous. you managed to get the phone to your ear and answered it. your talking about something and the person on the phone asks you a question but something happened in front of you how is the person on the other end of the phone supposed to know whats goin on in front of you in the car? if you dont answer there gonna be destracting you by saying hello over and over and your so worried about the person on the phone that you dont worry so much about everything else.

DRIVING WHILE TALKING ON YOUR CELL PHONE IS WORSE THAN DRIVING DRUNK! PLAIN AND SIMPLE.



is it bad yes, is it worse then driing drunk, not a chance. i keep my phone in my center console. i can pick it up. hit the answer button and put it to my ear without ever taking my eyes off the road. the people who get distracted with there cell phones are the same people that get distracted putting on there makeup or distracted looking for something on the floor of there car. or texting friends. read a repot somewhere that is is 3x more distracting to eat food in the car then it is to talk on the cell phone.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: new laws?! ... wow
Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:19 AM on j-body.org
sndsgood wrote:

Wonderhippi wrote:

Darkstars wrote:

In Chicago the cell phone law applies to everyone, at not time can you legally operate a car while on a phone (hands free is ok) inside the Chicago city limits and on Chicago highways.


In all provinces in Canada from east to west ^^ this is what the law on cell phones + driving is, you may THINK your the best driver in the world still doesnt mean its SAFE to drive while talking on the cell phone. think of it this way. your driving along and you get a call you have to take your eyes off the road to look for and grab the cell phone . now for that time you took your eyes off the road something could have happened in front of you but you didnt see it because you were worried about the call eg: car slams on breaks in front of you BAM youve just rear ended them and its YOUR fault. heres another reason why its dangerous. you managed to get the phone to your ear and answered it. your talking about something and the person on the phone asks you a question but something happened in front of you how is the person on the other end of the phone supposed to know whats goin on in front of you in the car? if you dont answer there gonna be destracting you by saying hello over and over and your so worried about the person on the phone that you dont worry so much about everything else.

DRIVING WHILE TALKING ON YOUR CELL PHONE IS WORSE THAN DRIVING DRUNK! PLAIN AND SIMPLE.



is it bad yes, is it worse then driing drunk, not a chance. i keep my phone in my center console. i can pick it up. hit the answer button and put it to my ear without ever taking my eyes off the road. the people who get distracted with there cell phones are the same people that get distracted putting on there makeup or distracted looking for something on the floor of there car. or texting friends. read a repot somewhere that is is 3x more distracting to eat food in the car then it is to talk on the cell phone.







just because you dont have to take your eyes off the road doesnt mean nothing. look up as an example. mythbusters testing whether talking on cell phone is more dangerous than driving drunk. they proved it is. i dont feel like getting on a rant proving my point just look it up and you will see for yourself



Re: new laws?! ... wow
Wednesday, February 09, 2011 4:47 AM on j-body.org
how many people did mythbusters test with this theory? im going to probalby guess 2 people?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: new laws?! ... wow
Wednesday, February 09, 2011 6:23 AM on j-body.org
Well, no matter how many they've tested, it's more than you or I have tested. I agree with the findings...cell phone use while driving is a huge danger.

I'll always remember the day I was driving in my pickup, chatting away, and I pulled up to a red light and stopped. Dude pulls up next to me, and is SCREAMING at me for something I did. He was very agitated. Worst part? I had no idea what I'd done to him.

Since then, I limit my cell phone use to when I am on the open road, highways or interstates. Even then, if I get into traffic, I don't use it. This may seem hypocritical, to use it at all if I am opposed to its potential for danger, but to me, it's like any other potentially dangerous activity. You just don't do it where the odds of trouble are magnified greatly. Just like I do enjoy driving my car fast...I just don't do it on four-lane divided streets in busy shopping areas (a casual reference to a recent debate here about a certain Camaro, Mustang and Crown Vic pileup).






Re: new laws?! ... wow
Wednesday, February 09, 2011 9:54 AM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Well, no matter how many they've tested, it's more than you or I have tested. I agree with the findings...cell phone use while driving is a huge danger.

I'll always remember the day I was driving in my pickup, chatting away, and I pulled up to a red light and stopped. Dude pulls up next to me, and is SCREAMING at me for something I did. He was very agitated. Worst part? I had no idea what I'd done to him.

Since then, I limit my cell phone use to when I am on the open road, highways or interstates. Even then, if I get into traffic, I don't use it. This may seem hypocritical, to use it at all if I am opposed to its potential for danger, but to me, it's like any other potentially dangerous activity. You just don't do it where the odds of trouble are magnified greatly. Just like I do enjoy driving my car fast...I just don't do it on four-lane divided streets in busy shopping areas (a casual reference to a recent debate here about a certain Camaro, Mustang and Crown Vic pileup).





id still take talking on a phone to driving drunk any day. first thing that happens to me when i start drinking is i lose all balance and coordination.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: new laws?! ... wow
Wednesday, February 09, 2011 11:26 AM on j-body.org
sndsgood wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Well, no matter how many they've tested, it's more than you or I have tested. I agree with the findings...cell phone use while driving is a huge danger.

I'll always remember the day I was driving in my pickup, chatting away, and I pulled up to a red light and stopped. Dude pulls up next to me, and is SCREAMING at me for something I did. He was very agitated. Worst part? I had no idea what I'd done to him.

Since then, I limit my cell phone use to when I am on the open road, highways or interstates. Even then, if I get into traffic, I don't use it. This may seem hypocritical, to use it at all if I am opposed to its potential for danger, but to me, it's like any other potentially dangerous activity. You just don't do it where the odds of trouble are magnified greatly. Just like I do enjoy driving my car fast...I just don't do it on four-lane divided streets in busy shopping areas (a casual reference to a recent debate here about a certain Camaro, Mustang and Crown Vic pileup).


id still take talking on a phone to driving drunk any day. first thing that happens to me when i start drinking is i lose all balance and coordination.

I suppose it's hard to directly compare the two. How drunk? How engaging/distracting of a cell conversation? Sure, there are levels of extreme inebration that barely enable one to even get the key in the ignition, but I don't think that's the comparison being made.

I'd think they probably compared to the most likely state of drunkenness...a good buzz, if you will. A cell phone can completely block out certain types of input and rational thinking, preventing one from even knowing one is in danger, or about to put someone else in danger. A buzz dosn't block it out, it just affects your reactions in terms of speed and accuracy. In this comparison, I can see where the cell would be worse. The key here is attentiveness, awareness...not race-driver reflexes.

Let's face it, you may just be a cheap date, and good on you if that's the case, for it's likely to prevent you from ever doing any real drunk drving. But I don't think you are typical, and typical is what matters in such a comparison.





Re: new laws?! ... wow
Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:47 AM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

sndsgood wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Well, no matter how many they've tested, it's more than you or I have tested. I agree with the findings...cell phone use while driving is a huge danger.

I'll always remember the day I was driving in my pickup, chatting away, and I pulled up to a red light and stopped. Dude pulls up next to me, and is SCREAMING at me for something I did. He was very agitated. Worst part? I had no idea what I'd done to him.

Since then, I limit my cell phone use to when I am on the open road, highways or interstates. Even then, if I get into traffic, I don't use it. This may seem hypocritical, to use it at all if I am opposed to its potential for danger, but to me, it's like any other potentially dangerous activity. You just don't do it where the odds of trouble are magnified greatly. Just like I do enjoy driving my car fast...I just don't do it on four-lane divided streets in busy shopping areas (a casual reference to a recent debate here about a certain Camaro, Mustang and Crown Vic pileup).


id still take talking on a phone to driving drunk any day. first thing that happens to me when i start drinking is i lose all balance and coordination.

I suppose it's hard to directly compare the two. How drunk? How engaging/distracting of a cell conversation? Sure, there are levels of extreme inebration that barely enable one to even get the key in the ignition, but I don't think that's the comparison being made.

I'd think they probably compared to the most likely state of drunkenness...a good buzz, if you will. A cell phone can completely block out certain types of input and rational thinking, preventing one from even knowing one is in danger, or about to put someone else in danger. A buzz dosn't block it out, it just affects your reactions in terms of speed and accuracy. In this comparison, I can see where the cell would be worse. The key here is attentiveness, awareness...not race-driver reflexes.

Let's face it, you may just be a cheap date, and good on you if that's the case, for it's likely to prevent you from ever doing any real drunk drving. But I don't think you are typical, and typical is what matters in such a comparison.




im probalby not typical. but that was kinda what i was getting at with the mythbusters deal. they usually test just the one or two hosts on the show. so the comparison is based on 2 people. maybe these two people are the types that yack on the cell phone and lose all rational train of thought. when i talk on the cell phone the road comes first the cell phone comes second. hell i'll tell people to hold on when im turning. wonderhippi above said driving drunk, driving drunk and driving buzzed to me are two diffrent things.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: new laws?! ... wow
Thursday, February 10, 2011 1:33 PM on j-body.org
sndsgood wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

sndsgood wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Well, no matter how many they've tested, it's more than you or I have tested. I agree with the findings...cell phone use while driving is a huge danger.

I'll always remember the day I was driving in my pickup, chatting away, and I pulled up to a red light and stopped. Dude pulls up next to me, and is SCREAMING at me for something I did. He was very agitated. Worst part? I had no idea what I'd done to him.

Since then, I limit my cell phone use to when I am on the open road, highways or interstates. Even then, if I get into traffic, I don't use it. This may seem hypocritical, to use it at all if I am opposed to its potential for danger, but to me, it's like any other potentially dangerous activity. You just don't do it where the odds of trouble are magnified greatly. Just like I do enjoy driving my car fast...I just don't do it on four-lane divided streets in busy shopping areas (a casual reference to a recent debate here about a certain Camaro, Mustang and Crown Vic pileup).


id still take talking on a phone to driving drunk any day. first thing that happens to me when i start drinking is i lose all balance and coordination.

I suppose it's hard to directly compare the two. How drunk? How engaging/distracting of a cell conversation? Sure, there are levels of extreme inebration that barely enable one to even get the key in the ignition, but I don't think that's the comparison being made.

I'd think they probably compared to the most likely state of drunkenness...a good buzz, if you will. A cell phone can completely block out certain types of input and rational thinking, preventing one from even knowing one is in danger, or about to put someone else in danger. A buzz dosn't block it out, it just affects your reactions in terms of speed and accuracy. In this comparison, I can see where the cell would be worse. The key here is attentiveness, awareness...not race-driver reflexes.

Let's face it, you may just be a cheap date, and good on you if that's the case, for it's likely to prevent you from ever doing any real drunk drving. But I don't think you are typical, and typical is what matters in such a comparison.

im probalby not typical. but that was kinda what i was getting at with the mythbusters deal. they usually test just the one or two hosts on the show. so the comparison is based on 2 people. maybe these two people are the types that yack on the cell phone and lose all rational train of thought. when i talk on the cell phone the road comes first the cell phone comes second. hell i'll tell people to hold on when im turning. wonderhippi above said driving drunk, driving drunk and driving buzzed to me are two diffrent things.
If everyone was as attentive to their driving as you or I (think we are, lol!) when yakking on the phone, there'd likely be little controversy. But we aren't the average Joe or Jane in this regard. Like it or not, once again the losers lower the bar for everyone.

Before anyone thinks I am stating superiority to Joe Average, I'm not. Just saying that life is graded on a curve. Sure, even Jason or I can still drop the ball and get in a wreck when distracted by a phone. And in the hands of the masses, way too many will become complete asses with a phone in their face. If only we could effectively educate more people, and not force them via laws and the like to get their sh!t together about this. Unfortunately, that's just not going to happen.





Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search