flylikabird

Mass. House Votes Ban Cellphone While Driving

Rate this topic

139 posts in this topic

I've lived in a couple of States with the law.  I like it.  It makes a great excuse for not answering the phone.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a great idea to me. Half the idiots I see on my commute are either texting, holding their phone in their hand while using at as a GPS or my favorite holding their phone in front of their mouth and talking on it like an old walkie talkie. Most of these people are driving new cars that definitely have blue tooth. I guess they are just too dumb to set it up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 mins ago, Slacker said:

I've lived in a couple of States with the law.  I like it.  It makes a great excuse for not answering the phone.  

I have zero problem with this, it's the fact that police are gonna target anyone they want no matter what color they are, for what ever reason they create to pull humans over.   They will eff with you at their convince.   

You could be traveling to your next fishing trip and they see you looking at a phone for directions and they don't like your hair cut then BANG!   

You lost a half hour and your late for the captain  or you're possibly in jail.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 mins ago, flylikabird said:

I have zero problem with this, it's the fact that police are gonna target anyone they want no matter what color they are, for what ever reason they create to pull humans over.   They will eff with you at their convince.   

You could be traveling to your next fishing trip and they see you looking at a phone for directions and they don't like your hair cut then BANG!   

You lost a half hour and your late for the captain  or you're possibly in jail.    

Paranoid much?  Where are these cops that are pulling over people just to eff with them? I think the police have bigger issues to worry about than that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steve in Mass said:

While the spirit of the law is certainly worthwhile, the government should not be involved. There are other free market ways to deal with this problem ten times more effectively at at a lower cost, and preserve liberty and freedom as well.

What would those solutions be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

14 hours ago, Eagles Dare said:

Taking away their phones and their menthol ciggs.

 

Gonna be some nervous shaky drivers out there.

 

All kidding aside no one needs to be holding their phone while driving. Lots of cheap handsfree options out there.  

 

this, plus most new vehicles have media units for hands free pairing of cell phones, and voice texting

Edited by capequahog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, z-man said:

Paranoid much?  Where are these cops that are pulling over people just to eff with them? I think the police have bigger issues to worry about than that. 

I would say your statement about bigger issues would be more accurate for State Police more so than local police force.

Who said that? 

Must be my paranoia?   :kook:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Governor signed the bill yesterday and it become effective in a month or so .

We need it to save lives on the road that already has to many being killed now on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, K Foley said:

You are trolling I hope or you don't understand the situation. My wife and I have both been rear ended driving with  somebody texting. 10 times more effective? You are in denial! Your post is absurd!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not a troll at all. Government is not the answer to everything, and more times than not, their "answers" are ineffective and costly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gotcow? said:

What would those solutions be?

First off, with the new law, the fines are much too low. Do you really think that someone irresponsible enough to be texting/surfing/talking while driving is gonna give a **** about $100 fine? even $500 and the insurance surcharge is not enough of a deterrent.

 

The place to start (this is only a blueprint, but should be considered, vetted an explored, and improved upon) is with the insurance companies. They can offer you the option of being a hands free driver or not. When you apply for your insurance, you have to state which you would prefer to be. Of course, you insurance premium will reflect your choice. (And you would be surprised how quickly actuaries can, with the assistance of the free marketplace, be able to calculate the proper cost involved.)

 

So, if you choose to be hands on, along with your policy, you get a sticker that you must attach to your license plate signaling to the police that you are a hands on driver. It has to be this way, as if it were the other way around, people would just not attach the tag. The default position has to be hands-free.

 

Now, if you do not have a tag, you can be cited if caught, and it is the INSURANCE COMPANY that levies the "fine." And I am talking something like $10,000, not the measily hundred bucks, plus 10 years worth of sharply increased premiums.

 

Also, if you are hands free and are involved in an accident while being on the phone, the insurance company would be able to not pay any damage that you as the policy holder suffer (they would still be obligated to the not-at-fault driver.)

 

This approach would be much more effective, and keep the government (other than the police enforcement) out of it, and therefore cost the taxpayers much less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, FizzyFish said:

Source: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812700

 

Distracted Driving in Fatal Crashes, 2017

 

Fatalities in Distraction-Affected Crashes

In 2017, there were 34,247 fatal crashes in the United States involving 52,274 drivers. As a result of those fatal crashes, 37,133 people were killed.

There were 2,935 fatal crashes that occurred on U.S. roadways in 2017 that involved distraction (9% of all fatal crashes). These crashes involved 2,994 distracted drivers, since some crashes involved more than one distracted driver. Distraction was reported for 6 percent (2,994 of 52,274) of the drivers involved in fatal crashes. In these distraction-affected crashes, 3,166 fatalities (9% of overall fatalities) occurred. Table 1 provides information on crashes, drivers, and fatalities involved in fatal distraction-affected crashes in 2017.

Much attention across the country has been focused on the dangers of using cell phones and other electronic devices while driving. In 2017 there were 401 fatal crashes reported to have involved cell phone use as a distraction (14% of all fatal distraction-affected crashes). For these distraction-affected crashes, the police crash report stated that the driver was talking on, listening to, or engaged in some other cell phone activity at the time of the crash. A total of 434 people died in fatal crashes that involved cell-phone-related activities as distractions.

Because this article doesn’t align with my own opinion, I’m going to go ahead and call it fake news and question the author’s credibility.
 

Maybe I’ll even have a good friend write an article that argues multitasking while driving is a good thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 mins ago, Pescador710 said:

Because this article doesn’t align with my own opinion, I’m going to go ahead and call it fake news and question the author’s credibility.
 

Maybe I’ll even have a good friend write an article that argues multitasking while driving is a good thing...

Call it what you like, plenty of information online, with sources, that back up the article.

 

Does everything that  doesn't "align " with your opinion become  "Fake news"  ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it might not come through online but this was a joke and a commentary on how we view “truth” in present times.

 

I was really surprised so many people have serious objections to this law. Crazy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.