quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
Wow! Everybody pushing back against a suggestion for one little law.

Libertarians. Sheesh.

Actually, I would not have a problem with that, if the jammy thingy were smart enough to distinguish between driver and passengers, and maybe allowed some specified phone use even for the driver, such as GPS routing, 911 calls, etc.

The GPS routing and 911 calls would not be hard to implement, but (retired) software engineer that I am, I don't see a clean way of differentiating between driver and passenger for things like calls, texting, web browsing, etc., all of which should be perfectly legit for passengers.

Most places have passed no cell usage laws and even before then, there's usually a Full-Time Attention law.

It's going to be up to the local police to enforce these things, most are probably too busy.

more 'common sense' laws that inhibit responsible, law abiding people are never the answer

Gus, Im not saying you should have hit them, but if it was a nicer newer car, I'd have not moved. And you if drive a nicer newer car, you should be safe. Let them feel the full effect of a lawsuit. That is much more effective.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
Actually, I would not have a problem with that, if the jammy thingy were smart enough to distinguish between driver and passengers, and maybe allowed some specified phone use even for the driver, such as GPS routing, 911 calls, etc.

The GPS routing and 911 calls would not be hard to implement, but (retired) software engineer that I am, I don't see a clean way of differentiating between driver and passenger for things like calls, texting, web browsing, etc., all of which should be perfectly legit for passengers.

One way I see is to require a phone to dock with the car, acting as a key of sorts. Then the vehicle could interact with the device and limit what could be done on the docked phone, allowing only essential services like mapping, voice calls, and emergency services. All other phones in the vehicle would be free and fully enabled. Of course, this could be circumvented by having multiple devices, but that is a small minority of drivers.

Don't have a phone but need to drive somewhere? Then perhaps a regular key or code would start the car, but the vehicle would enable full blocking of all cell signals. No phone = total communications block. Can you make a car act like a faraday cage to block signals, without blocking signals from the car in the adjacent lane? I don't know.

This problem will ultimately be solved like DUI. Never fully solved, but made to be very serious and a bit of a social stigma where it is considered anti-social to do it, so the impact of distracted driving diminishes. Ultimately, I suppose, autonomous vehicles will be the solution.

I am no less angry about distracted drivers. However...in my (and likely yours too) many years of driving we have always seen distracted drivers. Spilled sodas, dropped cigarettes, changing 8-tracks or cassettes, it does not seem to matter. Many are just not able to respect driving enough to chew gum at the same time. Can't fix this kind of stupid with an additional law.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
Try as I might, I'll be damned if I can find any Constitutional protections for cell phones.

Apple. Oranges.

The First?

But think of the safety of our children ...

quote:

Originally posted by fatmanspencer:
Gus, Im not saying you should have hit them, but if it was a nicer newer car, I'd have not moved. And you if drive a nicer newer car, you should be safe. Let them feel the full effect of a lawsuit. That is much more effective.

The thought has crossed my mind once or twice, but having somewhat recently been fubared in an MVA I'm not all that anxious to get into a crash again anytime soon, even at 35MPH. A new truck would be nice though.

quote:

more 'common sense' laws that inhibit responsible, law abiding people are never the answer

It wouldn't inhibit anything. If you'd like to make a call or a text, you are fully able to do so. Simply pull over and turn off the ignition. Voila! Your cell phone works again.

Some (most) of you guys just baffle me. Being against something like this is no different than being against DUI laws. What you are saying is akin to "it's perfectly OK to drive drunk until you get into an accident or injure or kill someone else", and "if you don't like the fact that I'm driving drunk and weaving all over the road, then just stay home and off the roads".

See, this is why I can't stand libertarians. It's all about ME, MY RIGHTS, and NO MORE GOVERNMENT. Well, I hate to break to some of you but sometimes you need government, and your rights (even though driving, be it drunk, distracted, or otherwise, is not a right) end where mine begin. This is a concept that libertarians can't seem to grasp.

You missed the mark pretty wide there.

You don’t want DUI style laws. You want to ban alcohol altogether. Nobody here is promoting distracted driving just like nobody would promote drunk driving. What you seemingly fail to understand is that using a phone in a car doesn’t always mean the driver is distracted. I use a hands free device and often use my phone as my GPS. I’m not looking st my phone and I’m not distracted. I also use it to make phone calls and again I’m not looking at the phone. I don’t even look at it to dial. I support laws against distracted driving and states already have some form of those. Just like I support laws against driving drunk. What I don’t support is archaic, irrational “ban them all!” laws like what you want.

If you are incapable of using a phone in any manner without being distracted then that’s where personal responsibility kicks in. Be an adult and don’t. But don’t punish me for it.

Freedom is dangerous. If that scares you stay home.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by fatmanspencer:
Gus, Im not saying you should have hit them, but if it was a nicer newer car, I'd have not moved. And you if drive a nicer newer car, you should be safe. Let them feel the full effect of a lawsuit. That is much more effective.

The thought has crossed my mind once or twice, but having somewhat recently been fubared in an MVA I'm not all that anxious to get into a crash again anytime soon, even at 35MPH. A new truck would be nice though.

quote:

more 'common sense' laws that inhibit responsible, law abiding people are never the answer

It wouldn't inhibit anything. If you'd like to make a call or a text, you are fully able to do so. Simply pull over and turn off the ignition. Voila! Your cell phone works again.

Some (most) of you guys just baffle me. Being against something like this is no different than being against DUI laws. What you are saying is akin to "it's perfectly OK to drive drunk until you get into an accident or injure or kill someone else", and "if you don't like the fact that I'm driving drunk and weaving all over the road, then just stay home and off the roads".

See, this is why I can't stand libertarians. It's all about ME, MY RIGHTS, and NO MORE GOVERNMENT. Well, I hate to break to some of you but sometimes you need government, and your rights (even though driving, be it drunk, distracted, or otherwise, is not a right) end where mine begin. This is a concept that libertarians can't seem to grasp.

Passengers shouldn't be able to make a call?


"Some (most) of you guys just baffle me. Being against something like this is no different than being against DUI laws. What you are saying is akin to "it's perfectly OK to drive drunk until you get into an accident or injure or kill someone else","

Way off base.

I could support an ap that would not allow the screen to function while in motion. Text by voice would work, voice directions, phone functions, music streaming, all would function as normal.

If you need to use your devices in a moving car the ap could be disabled through a very complicated process involving personal liability insurance, an 8 hour classroom experience and a driving while distracted course put on by a professional driving school.

Alternatives might include a self driving car, this would of course mean development of such a device.

quote:

Originally posted by reflex/deflex 64:
I could support an ap that would not allow the screen to function while in motion.

I do not agree with full disabling of screen.

I do not have one of those fancy-schmancy new cars with a built-in GPS. I use my iPhone with Google Maps to get me where I'm going. That's actually safer than an in-dash GPS, as I can position the iPhone so that I don't have to move my eyes as much as I would with a built-in unit, to check for the next turn. Not as good as an expensive HUD (Heads Up Display), but way better than shifting vision away from the windshield to look at a unit in the dashboard radio position.

Same way I fly: I hold checklists, approach charts, whatever I need, up close to the windshield to minimize eye movement and head turning.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
Some (most) of you guys just baffle me. Being against something like this is no different than being against DUI laws. What you are saying is akin to "it's perfectly OK to drive drunk until you get into an accident or injure or kill someone else", and "if you don't like the fact that I'm driving drunk and weaving all over the road, then just stay home and off the roads".

See, this is why I can't stand libertarians. It's all about ME, MY RIGHTS, and NO MORE GOVERNMENT. Well, I hate to break to some of you but sometimes you need government, and your rights (even though driving, be it drunk, distracted, or otherwise, is not a right) end where mine begin. This is a concept that libertarians can't seem to grasp.

The problem is this.

You are making the same arguments that the gun grabbers are on why we don't NEED this or that. The laws you are proposing are not going to stop a single fatality, they aren't going to stop people from the behavior that you want stopped. And, I mean no disrespect, but you are a fool if you think that people that are currently breaking a bunch of laws are going to follow.....more laws. It never works that way. Ever. And that is the insanity behind why the gun control crowd is so rabid. They, much like you, think that if we ban an inanimate object, strengthen up the rules, blah, blah that somehow the problem is going to go away. If you honestly believe that prosecutors would prosecute such a law of disabling a phone blocker as a felony charge, well, I am not sure what to tell you. They'll never get a conviction in front of a jury, so you can kiss that good bye, no matter what the law reads. You would be extremely lucky to get a conviction as a violation, not even a misdemeanor. That is reality talking, not the fantasy "Oh, let's ban....." talking.

So, what is next? You pass a new law that makes it a felony not to prosecute your last new law? Is that a road that you really want to go down? Slippery slope and whatnot?

I am not a libertarian, and I'm sorry that you hate them so bad. Government to some level is necessary. At times, new laws are necessary. But, a new law on this won't change a thing. Tech to stop it won't change a thing, but people will find ways to exploit the tech designed to stop it. The only ones it will affect are the ones that would likely abide by the law in the first place. The ones who chronically break the law won't follow 46 new laws to make things safer.

I think that is where you are running afoul in your logic.

You never cut down on DUIs by making cars harder to drive by sober people. You don't cut down on violent crimes by banning guns. And certainly, you aren't going to cut down on phone/texting/facespace by what you are proposing. It simply won't happen. Why do I say that? Because it is already illegal, and they are not following the law now. That in the detective world is what we call a clue.

Problem solving just never works based upon emotion alone. Want to beef up/step up/enforcement and lobby for stiffer penalties of the laws on the books? Have at it, and I don't blame you for wanting it. Distracted driving is a definite problem that needs attention. But, new laws fix nothing.

Mr. Jones --

Your response, just above, seems indicate that you're missing what Gustofer said in the original post.

He is not asking for legislation; he is proposing an engineering solution to the problem. He wants to make it impossible to use cell phones in a moving vehicle. Impossible, as opposed to illegal.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
Mr. Jones --

Your response, just above, seems indicate that you're missing what Gustofer said in the original post.

He is not asking for legislation; he is proposing an engineering solution to the problem. He wants to make it impossible to use cell phones in a moving vehicle. Impossible, as opposed to illegal.

Uh, the title of the post is "We need a new motor vehicle law ".

quote:

I propose a new mandate that all vehicles manufactured in the US and those imported have installed in them a cell phone blocker that activates when the ignition is turned on. Any previously domestically manufactured or imported vehicles must have an after-market cell phone blocker installed prior to being registered for the next year. This law will go into effect immediately.

Anyone found disabling or removing said blockers shall be punished by conviction of a felony and five years in prison .

It definitely sounds like he is asking for legislation.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If he was not asking for a new law, he definitely should work on his delivery in the English language. Because as pointed out above, the title was "we need a new law" and he wants people to be punished to the same level as shooting at someone and missing them.

I'd venture to say I didn't miss a thing. He wants a new law, and criminals do not follow laws, and they won't follow the laws he proposes.

Yeah. I read the original post, zoomed in on the cell phone blocker, overlooked that the blocker would be mandated by law, over looked the word "law" in the thread title. The proposed law would require a hardware solution. I guess you could read it either way. Not worth arguing about.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
Twice in the past week I have been nearly run off the road (today, my passenger side tires were in the ditch to avoid a head-on collision) by distracted drivers.

I propose a new mandate that all vehicles manufactured in the US and those imported have installed in them a cell phone blocker that activates when the ignition is turned on. Any previously domestically manufactured or imported vehicles must have an after-market cell phone blocker installed prior to being registered for the next year. This law will go into effect immediately.

Anyone found disabling or removing said blockers shall be punished by conviction of a felony and five years in prison.

No exceptions. No excuses.

Yes, I predict we'll hear the whining, crying, and gnashing of teeth, and the inevitable, "but, but, but...what if I have an emergency!?"

My response? "I don't care!"

I'm done. I'm sick of this shit. I hate cell phones and what they do to people with a frickin' passion.

While I can fully support you in regards to texting and driving, an offense I feel should carry the same burden as a DWI, I cannot support your idea of a cell phone blocker.

In one example how could I report someone texting and driving using my hand free, voice activated phone. Yeah I have done that and I didn't report them to the the police, I reported them to their employer. That is one truck driver who won't have a job. BTW, I waited until a stop light to dial the number. Handy things stop lights, makes it possible to see the reason for the complete lack of lane control AND the trucking firms telephone number.

In another example if I am taking a trip to see my sister 600 miles distant it makes it very easy to just tell the phone to dial my sister and let her know I am running late due to an accident probably caused by a texting driver.

Finally there is the matter of Music. I have about 150 albums recorded on my cell phone and playlists that span up to 7 hours. Means I don't have to listen to any advertising that irritates me or any idiot disk jockey yacking it up over a good song.

BTW, don't trust airbags so I have two vehicles that pre-date airbags. IMO it is just wonderful that Panasonic makes an excellent in dash radio that features both hands free operation of a common smart phone and BT Audio to cut the boredom of a long drive.