Mobile devices and pet peeve - Page 2
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > The Club House > Mobile devices and pet peeve

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-18-2013, 10:00 AM   #11
Devil's Advocate and Provocateur
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TekGreg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cincinnati,OH
Posts: 1,965
Liked 1435 Times on 756 Posts
Likes Given: 626

Default

The one and only thing that Kommifornia got right was that they require a driver to use a headset if they want to use their phone in their car, period. If you are holding the phone and looking at it, texting on it, or in any way engaged with the phone OTHER than using your headset, it is a primary offense. The LEOs will pull you over and cite you and the fines are steep.

The best thing everyone can do is petition their lawmakers to pass similar laws and make LEOs enforce them. The only way anyone will change their behavior is if they are faced with monetary loss and the enforcement causes some drivers to pay e hefty fines. When people tell all their friends and relatives they had to pay a $400 ticket for not using a $30 headset, things will start to change.

Studies show that a driver talking on the phone is equivalent to someone that is illegally intoxicated, Blood Alcohol Content of .08. A person texting is equivalent to TWICE that level, .16. It's time to take this problem as seriously as drunk driving. Use of a headset has proven to alleviate a lot of the problems associated with driving and calling because the driver keeps his eyes looking forward and also keeps turning his head to look at traffic - something no one does with the phone held to the side of their head.
__________________
.
.
“Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." (I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.). Thomas Jefferson

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

-Edmund Burke, Loosely translated from Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discontents. (1770)

Last edited by TekGreg; 08-18-2013 at 10:04 AM.
TekGreg is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2013, 10:07 AM   #12
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 0
Liked 22239 Times on 12460 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TekGreg View Post
The one and only thing that Kommifornia got right was that they require a driver to use a headset if they want to use their phone in their car, period. If you are holding the phone and looking at it, texting on it, or in any way engaged with the phone OTHER than using your headset, it is a primary offense. The LEOs will pull you over and cite you and the fines are steep.

The best thing everyone can do is petition their lawmakers to pass similar laws and make LEOs enforce them. The only way anyone will change their behavior is if they are faced with monetary loss and the enforcement causes some drivers to pay e hefty fines. When people tell all their friends and relatives they had to pay a $400 ticket for not using a $30 headset, things will start to change.

Studies show that a driver talking on the phone is equivalent to someone that is illegally intoxicated, Blood Alcohol Content of .08. A person texting is equivalent to TWICE that level, .16. It's time to take this problem as seriously as drunk driving.
very well said!

for a long time i thought it was mainly the younger teenage drivers being the problem, but that's just not true. i am seeing people of all ages doing it, men and women alike.

it's a very serious problem that needs to be enforced. another sad thing i have seen is many LEO's doing it as well. how can they enforce laws that put lives in danger when they themselves are doing the same thing? it sets a bad example.

i do agree that hefty fines and taking away the privelage to drive would send a message that others might wake up and see that this is problem and they are endangering other peoples lives, not just their own.
Axxe55 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2013, 11:42 AM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Chainfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,876
Liked 1727 Times on 1029 Posts
Likes Given: 372

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axxe55 View Post
very well said!

for a long time i thought it was mainly the younger teenage drivers being the problem, but that's just not true. i am seeing people of all ages doing it, men and women alike.

it's a very serious problem that needs to be enforced. another sad thing i have seen is many LEO's doing it as well. how can they enforce laws that put lives in danger when they themselves are doing the same thing? it sets a bad example.

i do agree that hefty fines and taking away the privelage to drive would send a message that others might wake up and see that this is problem and they are endangering other peoples lives, not just their own.

Agreed.

A couple of weeks ago, on my regular commute to work on the interstate, I passed a middle aged man with a newspaper spread across his steering wheel reading to his hearts content, at 70 mph.
__________________
"It is better to be too skeptical then too credulous"

Carl Sagan
Chainfire is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2013, 01:40 PM   #14
Supporting Member
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
jgoertz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mandeville, LA
Posts: 491
Liked 265 Times on 175 Posts
Likes Given: 88

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainfire

Agreed.

A couple of weeks ago, on my regular commute to work on the interstate, I passed a middle aged man with a newspaper spread across his steering wheel reading to his hearts content, at 70 mph.
All the above is quite common on the Ponchartrain Causeway, a boring 24 mile straight bridge in New Orleans. Men and women reading material draped on the steering wheel, women doing make-up and doing the morning hair-do in the rear view mirror. There is a stiff fine for doing all that, and in the days before cell phones a lot of people would have CB's in their vehicles and call the cops who monitored channel 12. Alas, C.B. use has declined with the increase of cell phone use. It's not as convenient to call the cops now. It was nice to be able to pick up the handset and talk directly to the cops (their were always 2-3 on the bridge. I was considering painting "kill" markings on my vehicle for all the DUI's and other dangerous drivers I turned in.
__________________
May the Force be with you.
An armed society is a polite society - Robert Heinlein
A Gun-Free-Zone is nothing more than a hunting preserve for wackos.
jgoertz is offline  
Axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2013, 02:30 PM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Overkill0084's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Weber County, Utah
Posts: 4,685
Liked 3231 Times on 1621 Posts
Likes Given: 423

Default

Ride a motorcycle. People are scary enough without the added distraction of a phone.
IMHO, the scariest thing on the road is a woman in a Tahoe with the cutesy stick figure family decal on the back, blathering into her phone.

I hope no one minds if I piggy back on the original pet peave:
Most cars since around 2008 or so have Bluetooth built in. Would asking people to actually use it, be too much to ask?
The only time my phone leaves my pocket when I'm driving a cage is when it's plugged in to charge..inside the center console.
What's that you say? You don't have Bluetooth in your older car? Sorry, still no excuse.
A few years back I bought my wife a Bluetooth speaker similar to this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=854010&is=REG&Q=&A=details



They work great & they ain't that expensive.
Bonus: You can take it with you when you travel so you can still be safe in whatever rental car you get, without learning a new Bluetooth setup every time.
__________________
Cheers,
Greg
MSgt, USAF, Retired
NRA Life Member

The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see. - Ayn Rand

Last edited by Overkill0084; 08-19-2013 at 10:13 PM.
Overkill0084 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2013, 03:18 PM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: West Monroe,Louisiana
Posts: 418
Liked 305 Times on 168 Posts
Likes Given: 90

Default

I don't talk on my phone when driving, I just can't do it. I agree people on phones are dangerous drivers, but do we really need the gubment to legislate every behavior? Don't we already have laws about failure to maintain controll/reckless driving? And don't get me wrong, if you have a wreck because you were on a phone or distracted, you should be punished.

But, passing a law punishing someone for having the 'potential' to hurt or be a danger is not right. In a way, it is similar to some of the anti gun people. Need to get rid of guns because of the potential. And CCL will make the US like the Wild West, shootouts every day...

Don't mean to be argumentative, but you can't legislate common sense.
Fred_G is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2013, 03:36 PM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: West Monroe,Louisiana
Posts: 418
Liked 305 Times on 168 Posts
Likes Given: 90

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Overkill0084 View Post
Ride a motorcycle. People are scary enough without the added distraction of a phone.
IMHO, the scariest thing on the road is a woman in a Tahoe with the cutesy stick figure family decal on the back, blathering into her phone.

I hope no one minds if I piggy back on the original pet peave:
Most cars since around 2008 or so have Bluetooth built in. Would asking people to actually use it, be too much to ask?
The only time my phone leaves my pocket when I'm driving a cage is when it's plugged in to charge..inside the center console.
What's that you say? You don't have Bluetooth in your older car? Sorry, still no excuse.
A few years back I bought my wife a Bluetooth speaker similar to this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=854010&is=REG&Q=&A=details



They work great & they ain't that expensive.
Bonus: You can take it with you when you travel so you can still be safe in whatever rental car you get, without learning a new Bluetooth setup every time.
Pretty nifty device there. Will look into getting one of those. My car has blue toof, but that is not compatible with blue tooth.
Fred_G is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2013, 03:39 PM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
dragunovsks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: West of Louisville KY,Indiana
Posts: 2,310
Liked 201 Times on 138 Posts

Default

I use a bluetooth headset when driving. I see alot of idiots playing with thier phones while driving and the amount of closecalls I see is mindboggling.

Its now a requirement here in Indiana that if you are driving a tractor trailer you have to use a handsfree device. Fines for being caught on a phone without one are $2700 fine for the driver and up to a $10,000 fine for the company which they drive. Thats a first time offense.

Ive never heard of anyone getting caught and being fired that severly tho. We did have a driver at my company that received a $100 fine and was told if he bought a handsfree device and took it to court along with the receipt that they would dismiss his ticket.

Id also like to say I also see alot of stupid crap done by motorcyclists as well. When Im running 60 mph done the road in an 18-wheeler and a guy on a bike cuts in front of me so close I actually cant see the guy on the bike because of the hood of the truck, thats stupid. Thats a motorcyclist with a deathwish.
__________________
Century Arms AR-15A2, 5.56
1946 Mosin-Nagant M44, 7.62x54R
1978 YUGO SKS, 7.62x39
NEF Protector Pump, 12 gauge
Savage Model 64, .22LR
NEF Pardner Tracker II, 12 gauge
Rock Island Armory 1911A1, .45 ACP
Remington 870 'Express Magnum' 12 gauge
Bersa Thunder .380
dragunovsks is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2013, 04:02 PM   #19
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 0
Liked 22239 Times on 12460 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_G View Post
I don't talk on my phone when driving, I just can't do it. I agree people on phones are dangerous drivers, but do we really need the gubment to legislate every behavior? Don't we already have laws about failure to maintain controll/reckless driving? And don't get me wrong, if you have a wreck because you were on a phone or distracted, you should be punished.

But, passing a law punishing someone for having the 'potential' to hurt or be a danger is not right. In a way, it is similar to some of the anti gun people. Need to get rid of guns because of the potential. And CCL will make the US like the Wild West, shootouts every day...

Don't mean to be argumentative, but you can't legislate common sense.
what is so humorous about many states passing laws to punish drivers who either use their phone while driving or text while driving is that many states already had a law in place. anything that impedes your ability to safely operate a vehicle is illegal. this doesn't matter if it's alcohol, drugs, or kids being disciplined in the vehicle from the driver. if it disrupts your ability to operate a motor vehicle safely, it's illegal.

all they did was pass another law that is ineffective and won't be enforced any more than the ones they already have in place. so IMO, passing the new laws about cell phone usage while driving is nothing more than about making revenue for the states, and nothing about stopping a dangerous activity while driving.
Axxe55 is offline  
4
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2013, 09:01 PM   #20
Devil's Advocate and Provocateur
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TekGreg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cincinnati,OH
Posts: 1,965
Liked 1435 Times on 756 Posts
Likes Given: 626

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axxe55 View Post
what is so humorous about many states passing laws to punish drivers who either use their phone while driving or text while driving is that many states already had a law in place. anything that impedes your ability to safely operate a vehicle is illegal. this doesn't matter if it's alcohol, drugs, or kids being disciplined in the vehicle from the driver. if it disrupts your ability to operate a motor vehicle safely, it's illegal.

all they did was pass another law that is ineffective and won't be enforced any more than the ones they already have in place. so IMO, passing the new laws about cell phone usage while driving is nothing more than about making revenue for the states, and nothing about stopping a dangerous activity while driving.
Absolutely correct! The only credence I give to a new law is it takes the offense from the generic (unsafe operation of a vehicle) and specifies exactly what the offense is. This makes it harder for a good attorney to get it thrown out and also defines for LEOs EXACTLY what they are to look for and enforce. It also clarifies to the public the exact danger, offense, penalty and how to avoid being cited. The local news will often broadcast new laws being passed, but say nothing of a clarification or expansion of an existing law. "News at 5 - A new law will cost you $700 if you phone home!"

Being a safety issue, it is important to work with LEOs and tell those in charge what you expect as a citizen. Should that not be effective, a citizen can take their case to a higher authority. In California, it is illegal to transport a pet (mainly dog) in the bed of a pickup without a camper shell to protect it or being secured by a short lead. After this law was passed, the ASPCA monitored law enforcement by following and filming officers that were riding behind offenders and not enforcing it. The ASPCA asked local police chiefs to enforce the code multiple times to no avail. The ASPCA finally filed in court with almost three hundred film clips showing law enforcement not doing their job. The judge found the department guilty and slapped a huge fine on them, but suspended it for one year if the police would start enforcing the law. Police changed their attitude, started enforcing it and the city never wound up paying the fine.

This is the exact same scenario that would work for Bluetooth laws. Just setting up a camera on a corner could catch offenses like this and LEOs enforcing it. The ASPCA example was extreme in that there was NO enforcement, exactly 0%. As long as LEOs do their best when they can, word will get around even if they only stop 15% of what they see and more and more people will use Bluetooth, causing everyone to drive more safely. I hate making more and more laws, but sometimes it's necessary to emphasize and define it.
__________________
.
.
“Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." (I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.). Thomas Jefferson

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

-Edmund Burke, Loosely translated from Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discontents. (1770)
TekGreg is offline  
Axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
My pet Peeve: Whining cops Chainfire The Club House 13 07-28-2013 10:02 PM
What is your biggest GUN OWNER pet peeve? PrimePorkchop The Club House 576 08-13-2012 10:39 AM
My Pet Peeve gandog56 Curio & Relic Discussion 36 10-12-2010 04:50 AM
Home defense pet peeve. boatme98 The Club House 23 01-13-2010 12:51 AM



Newest Threads