Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 155
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by graffix31 View Post
    Seriously who cares anyway. people are going to do what they want to do in thier cars law or no law. I usuallyput my phone down when i see a cop anyway living in mass. I dont trust and cop not to be a jerk so i dont take any chances. like if you get pulled over with a headset on he is going to say son can you please show me how you voice dialed that phone or i am going to give a ticket. come on. it a waste of time. why are people so insistant to make laws about common sence things. you either get it or you dont and that is how it will always be. not everything needs to be a law. another unenforcable law. lets keep them going. what next? Just another way for Taxaxhusetts to squeeze a little more from the people any chance they get. Y dont they focus on the stupid bully laws that are so important now a days. dont even get me going on that.

    I think it's stupid too, but laws do work to a certain extent. I'd drive at 100+ on highways without speed limit laws.
  2. jye75's Avatar
    Posts
    107 Posts
    Global Posts
    108 Global Posts
    #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    The problem is that people take laws like cell phone bans as seriously as they take DWI and DUI. There is a very good reason for these laws and hopefully they will be enforced rigorously.
    You are seriously comparing a cellphone hands-free law to a DUI/DWI law? Get real. DUI/DWI is inherently dangerous, so yeah, there is sense in the law. Using a cellphone is not inherently dangerous. Have some common sense.

    While they're at it, why not set an age to revoke the driver's license of the elderly? Old, senile, slow, oblivious drivers can be more dangerous simply for the fact that they are so numerous.
  3. #43  
    The dude turned woman in Boston who was texting his GF before crashing into another trolly was not drunk. Each activity is dangerous in different ways and both are more irresponsible than those engaging in these activities care to admit.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  4. jye75's Avatar
    Posts
    107 Posts
    Global Posts
    108 Global Posts
    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    The dude turned woman in Boston who was texting his GF before crashing into another trolly was not drunk. Each activity is dangerous in different ways and both are more irresponsible than those engaging in these activities care to admit.
    Walking though a parking lot is dangerous too, doesn't mean it's irresponsible. One simply has to be sensible about it. Same thing in your example. The driver texting wasn't being responsible, he was focused solely on his phone. That's what's great about most people, we have the ability to multitask and prioritize the tasks at hand. So because there are a few who cannot do more than one thing at a time, we all must suffer ridiculous laws put into place to keep *******es safe?
  5. #45  
    Actually, humans suck at multitasking. The more crap you try to do, the more likely you'll screw up.
  6. jye75's Avatar
    Posts
    107 Posts
    Global Posts
    108 Global Posts
    #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by GenericMusings View Post
    Actually, humans suck at multitasking. The more crap you try to do, the more likely you'll screw up.
    Really? So you cannot eat and walk at the same time? What about watch television and drink a beer? You multitask everyday and don't even know it.


    Your reference article speaks about being able to do multiple things that require the use of the same part of the brain, i.e. e-mailing and talking. (which both require speech thought processes.) Not doing multiple tasks unrelated to one another.

    Now, yes, if you try to drive downtown, talking on a phone, while drinking a coffee and fiddling with your briefcase, sure the likelihood of you screwing something up is increased. But let's call it what it is... a possibility, only.
    Last edited by jye75; 02/05/2010 at 01:26 PM.
  7. #47  
    We don't multitask. We switch our attention from task A to task B to task C very quickly. Multitasking is a delusion. Get over it.
  8. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by freeridstylee View Post
    I think it's stupid too, but laws do work to a certain extent. I'd drive at 100+ on highways without speed limit laws.
    some ppl do that WITH speed limit laws.
    Motorola i710 > Motorola i760 > Samsung M520 > Palm Pre
  9. jye75's Avatar
    Posts
    107 Posts
    Global Posts
    108 Global Posts
    #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by GenericMusings View Post
    We don't multitask. We switch our attention from task A to task B to task C very quickly. Multitasking is a delusion. Get over it.
    Okay smartass, it's not true multitasking, it's a technicality. You get over it.

    Multitasking's a delusion because a couple of scientists say it is? Hmmm... and they really don't know the true intricacies of the brain yet... whatever. How many times has scientific theory been proven wrong, and they rewrite their books?
  10. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by jye75 View Post
    Walking though a parking lot is dangerous too, doesn't mean it's irresponsible. One simply has to be sensible about it. Same thing in your example. The driver texting wasn't being responsible, he was focused solely on his phone. That's what's great about most people, we have the ability to multitask and prioritize the tasks at hand. So because there are a few who cannot do more than one thing at a time, we all must suffer ridiculous laws put into place to keep *******es safe?
    Exactly, you either have common sence or you dont. you either know how to prioritize driving over texting or darwin takes over. plain and simple. you werent meant to make it.
  11. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by jye75 View Post
    Walking though a parking lot is dangerous too, doesn't mean it's irresponsible. One simply has to be sensible about it. Same thing in your example. The driver texting wasn't being responsible, he was focused solely on his phone. That's what's great about most people, we have the ability to multitask and prioritize the tasks at hand. So because there are a few who cannot do more than one thing at a time, we all must suffer ridiculous laws put into place to keep *******es safe?
    I hear ya. At the same time, we can't predict what might happen in the second or two that we take our eyes off the road. Some people mibinize and mitigate these risks but most drivers don't realize that their driving is being impacted. Case in point is that it is very easy to spot drivers using cell phones even before you can see the driver in the car.
  12. jye75's Avatar
    Posts
    107 Posts
    Global Posts
    108 Global Posts
    #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    I hear ya. At the same time, we can't predict what might happen in the second or two that we take our eyes off the road. Some people mibinize and mitigate these risks but most drivers don't realize that their driving is being impacted. Case in point is that it is very easy to spot drivers using cell phones even before you can see the driver in the car.
    Yes, we cannot predict what will happen in a second or two when we take our eyes off the road for ANYTHING. And yes, it is easy to say that when you see a vehicle that is slower, swerving, etc, it is probably a driver on their phone. But you cannot take into account the number of drivers that you DO NOT notice, who are driving just fine, who ARE ALSO on their phones.

    It boils down to responsibility and prioritization of tasks. Most have it, some don't.
  13. Helidos's Avatar
    Posts
    791 Posts
    Global Posts
    810 Global Posts
    #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by GenericMusings View Post
    We don't multitask. We switch our attention from task A to task B to task C very quickly. Multitasking is a delusion. Get over it.
    Then by that definition nothing on earth can multitask.
  14. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by jye75 View Post
    ... But you cannot take into account the number of drivers that you DO NOT notice, who are driving just fine, who ARE ALSO on their phones.
    I never notice all you good talkers because I'm distracted on my cell phone and you notice me first!

    Quote Originally Posted by jye75 View Post
    It boils down to responsibility and prioritization of tasks. Most have it, some don't.
    I agree except I think a significant portion perhaps 1/3 of drivers using cell phones are clearly distracted. I'd say that I notice about one in 10 cars on an average where the driver is on a cell phone and about 2/3 of those the phone is impacting their driving. I think there is a sweet spot of better drivers between 25-35 that can handle this without problems. I think truckers and professional drivers are also very good at handling this without problems. Any law really should be about distracted driving, and I believe such laws are already on the books everywhere.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  15. edlex's Avatar
    Posts
    657 Posts
    Global Posts
    660 Global Posts
    #56  
    Not to get too far off topic, but the one thing I've noticed whenever anyone brings up the "I want voice dial" issue is how people literally attack you for wanting it. Of all the topics out there of what people want or want better on the phone it's one of the few that people go crazy out of there way to tell you that either it's completely unnecessary, try and give you work arounds (which none compare to the actual thing btw), or just flat out call you an ***** for wanting it. I, for one, want it. Not because I don't want to break the law or crash my car, I just want it because I like it period. It's not like it's gonna take away from any other future feature of the phone. So for all of you who think voice dial is stupid, those of us who do want don't care. We will always want it, and don't have to defend what we want to anyone. Ok, rant over, topic continue.
  16. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    The troll comment was unnecessary, you palm brats kill me. The simple fact of the matter is, we should have voice controls by now.
    Why "should" we? Because you want it? Believe me, if/when the demand is there, the addons will come.
    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    And I imagine like other things it will come. Like the long overdue video recorded we're getting, another ancient feature just being added.
    Personally, I don't think the video is "long overdue", I think it's a gimmick feature. I had it on my Treo, and tried using it, only to find it really wasn't worth the trouble. Personally, I would have much rather Palm had spent the efforts on voice dialing and recording instead... but to say they "should have". Nah, I'm not quite that egocentric.
  17. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by tripsbacks View Post
    On a side note, when I bought my new car I told the kids absolutley no food or eating in the car. Of coure, after several months that rule kind of fell off. So now I have a new one, absolutley no deep frying in the car.
    Yeah, and before you know it, the kids will be sneaking in a cig lighter powered Fry Baby, and you'll let it slide once you smell those mini funnelcakes cookin' up.

    Pushover.
  18. #59  
    can we oulaw rain? More accidents happen then. Or how about deer. Those seem to do quite a bit of damage.

    maybe what they should do is have auto manufactures require hand free as standard equipment. And vouchers for older cars to get up yo speed. That would be our tax payers dollars at work
  19. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    The problem is that people take laws like cell phone bans as seriously as they take DWI and DUI. There is a very good reason for these laws and hopefully they will be enforced rigorously.

    If you want your kids not to eat food in the car, cut their allowance. Or maybe they will learn if they were arrested, although your comparison of food in the car with accidents that can occur due to cell phone use while driving is absurd. I've almost been hit too many times by idiots driving with one hand holding the phone.
    Actually, it's not absurd at all. You'll find varying statistics, but almost all of them will list eating as a major contributor. Here's an example:

    Auto Accident Statistics - Online Lawyer Source

    Accidents caused by "distractions"
    • Talking with other passengers: 81%
    • Playing with the radio or CD: 66%
    • Eating or drinking: 49%
    • Using a cell phone: 25%


    So, following the nanny-state logic, in addition to requiring hands-free cell phones, we should also ban eating and drinking in the car, forcfully remove all card radios/cd/mpe players, and, most importantly, convert them all to single passenger vehicles.
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions