Who else is not looking forward to self driving cars...I've seen windows crash way to many times to trust it at 70mph.
Same as when gun grabbers are clamoring for new laws that, if passed, would surely end "gun violence"...enforce the laws already on the books. If an officer sees someone running a red light or weaving over a yellow line, does it really matter why? Ticket them and keep ticketing them until they decide it'd be cheaper to leave that phone in their pockets. If they're not going to write tickets for that stuff, why would the now all of a sudden start writing tickets with some new law?Yes it does.
So in light of the damage done by distracted driving what do we do. I really see no issues with the blue tooth thing but BBI is correct. Phone use is not the same as FTF conversation in the vehicle.
What do we do. I am really tired of all the idiocy that ties to these devices.
I will not text while rolling. I am smart enough to know I am not that good at it.
A distraction is a distraction.
That's like saying there's no difference in eating one Oreo vs eating a bag of Oreos. We draw lines on where's too far in our daily activities all the time, and while we may not agree on the exact place the line is drawn it's kind of silly to play all or nothing.
Functional MRI and eye movement tracking has pretty conclusively shown that distractions are not all the same, particularly in driving. The car radio =/= the same level of distraction as a cell phone conversation.
Same as when gun grabbers are clamoring for new laws that, if passed, would surely end "gun violence"...enforce the laws already on the books. If an officer sees someone running a red light or weaving over a yellow line, does it really matter why? Ticket them and keep ticketing them until they decide it'd be cheaper to leave that phone in their pockets. If they're not going to write tickets for that stuff, why would the now all of a sudden start writing tickets with some new law?
This is just absolutely silly. Not only is the definition expanded so vaguely as to include playing music from a cell phone, it is automatically classified as a level 5 felony, which is more a severe penalty than operating while intoxicated in the absence of other factors (e.g. causing serious bodily injury with previous OWI conviction or passenger under 18). Even in those cases, it is merely equivalent which appears to be a large disconnect between severity of violation and prescribed penalty.
That portion of the definition for telecommunications device did not change. I would assume that it would be counted as "a communications system installed in a commercial motor vehicle weighing more than ten thousand (10,000) pounds."CB would be illegal in commercial vehicles over 10,000#, but not considered a hazard in personal vehicles? A large commercial vehicle is the only place I've ever had need/desire for a CB's use to maintain awareness of impending traffic conditions and road hazards....Clearly Ron Grooms has not thought this through. Is the man that desperate to get his name on a piece of legislation?
Kind of makes me wonder if he's serious or if it's a publicity thing. Legislators do sometimes advance bills they know have zero chance of passing just to get attention or awareness.
Stupidity at that level needs to be fatal!I propose making it a level 4 felony to be a f***ing moron like Grooms.
Stupidity at that level needs to be fatal!
And what about the hundreds of thousands of billboards and advertisements plastered near every major roadway? Ban those?
Most newer cars have big gaudy Sat. Nav. screens. Ban those?
Eating a triple-chalupa-burrito-nacho has to be majorly distracting. Ban all drive thru’s?
If you’re going to ban hands free blue tooth than there’s no logical reason to not also ban any conversation of any kind.
A distraction is a distraction. If it saves one child.....