Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 155
  1. cmoneyct's Avatar
    Posts
    33 Posts
    Global Posts
    39 Global Posts
    #81  
    is 'fiddling' the term used in the 'full law'?

    Quote Originally Posted by NordicMan View Post
    No, the full law (here in Canada at least) defines it to be illegal to be fiddling with any handheld electronics while driving, it's not just a text messaging law. That means they could nail you even if you were changing songs on a portable MP3 player.. Heck they might be able to nail you if you're fiddling with a GPS navigator that's suction-cup attached to your windshield while you're driving.
  2. Quintus's Avatar
    Posts
    624 Posts
    Global Posts
    672 Global Posts
    #82  
    As I understand these laws (in Ontario anyways) is that the one touch button must be located on your BT or wired device not on the phone. So the one button speed dial on the Pre is not be permitted. Basically, you are not permitted to play with the phone at all while driving. Voice dialling absolutely needs to come to the Pre ASAP.
  3. #83  
    in support of hparsons, the autibahn was designed for constant input from the driver and better embankments on turns. Here aour roads are straight and lead to "highway drone" if I remember the term.

    Here is another way these "laws" can be used against you. Lets say cop does not like you and says you were texting. Well it's now his word against yours. And in some places you now have to pay to go to ciurt to fight these things.

    so I suggest you wise up and start realizing a government powerful enough to protect you can also destroy (through media, legal system, freeze your bank accounts etc). Texting while driving is annoying, but should only be punishable IF an accident was caused
  4. #84  
    This is a really good topic, but umm...

    http://m.forums.precentral.net/off-topic/

  5. Quintus's Avatar
    Posts
    624 Posts
    Global Posts
    672 Global Posts
    #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbd View Post
    This is a really good topic, but umm...

    [url]

    I don't agree. We have a top of the line phone yet, in its present configuration, is illegal to use in a car when initiating calls. This is not off-topic.

    I was thinking further about this. If I have the phone in a cradle and QuickDialer on the screen with NoDoze on, I could make a call with one-touch of the screen. I think this would be legal!
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobdude View Post
    in support of hparsons, the autibahn was designed for constant input from the driver and better embankments on turns. Here aour roads are straight and lead to "highway drone" if I remember the term.

    Here is another way these "laws" can be used against you. Lets say cop does not like you and says you were texting. Well it's now his word against yours. And in some places you now have to pay to go to ciurt to fight these things.

    so I suggest you wise up and start realizing a government powerful enough to protect you can also destroy (through media, legal system, freeze your bank accounts etc). Texting while driving is annoying, but should only be punishable IF an accident was caused
    As I said, this is the most ridiculous conversation I have read in a long time.

    (1) In any crime credibility plays an issue. If a cop or doctor lies they lie. Technically anything can happen but there are consequences and more important reasons why these rules are in place. Regarding the lies, they will also be nailed to the cross if they do. These days with cameras, etc. there is less lying about smaller issues and why would a copy lie about seeing you texting? So he can process one ticket against someone he doesn't know? This really isn't a problem with this crime, usually. It doesn't frequently just happen out of thin air. In addition, if you weren't texting, you may have a defense with no log and show the officer and bring it to court. But this isn't the real point. See number 2 regarding what is more important than cops potentially lying on small traffic tickets.

    (2) How about we don't have ANY laws unless someone commits a crime like gun laws or licensing? Everyone can buy a gun or alcohol and do whatever they want and get punished only... IF CAUGHT AND PROSECUTED WITH A CONVICTION?

    The point of many laws is that problems are created by a certain activity. We are hoping to prevent serious issues from occurring. Do you think that a person who dies in an auto accident gives a damn about your civil liberties because you decided to text or drink and drive? No. If you need to text, pull over to the side of the road. If you want to talk while driving get a hands free device. Until then, the law is in place to prevent people from dying unnecessarily at the hands of your stupidity, not to grant you the ultimate civil liberties so that you should not be punished unless caught and prosecuted and convicted with proof to the extent the law requires.
  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by Quintus View Post
    I don't agree. We have a top of the line phone yet, in its present configuration, is illegal to use in a car when initiating calls. This is not off-topic.
    I agree with you if the discussion is based on that. But this has veered into discussion about 'nanny-state laws', talking to passengers sitting next to you, open containers, drinking (anything) while driving, the Autobahn in Germany, cops that have a grudge or don't have a grudge and so on and so on.
    Like I said; real good discussion, but it's splintered into a whole bunch of other things that the OP wasn't talking about.
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by jye75 View Post
    All these laws do, is cheat Darwin.
    WOW!!
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbd View Post
    I agree with you if the discussion is based on that. But this has veered into discussion about 'nanny-state laws', talking to passengers sitting next to you, open containers, drinking (anything) while driving, the Autobahn in Germany, cops that have a grudge or don't have a grudge and so on and so on.
    Like I said; real good discussion, but it's splintered into a whole bunch of other things that the OP wasn't talking about.
    As silly as it is, it's quite relevant. The OP implies that the only stupid thing is that the Pre is still unequipped to deal with this law while every other phone is equipped. I agree with this sentiment as to many others. Hopefully in the course of discussion some people will stop defending the pre and their own texting while driving. We're talking about the Pre's problem with the law, not a college football quarterback.
  10. #90  
    The legal and moral aspects of cell phone usage while driving is "Cross Platform Chat" material at best. Strategies on how to use your Pre compliant to any laws and how to otherwise minimize it from distracting you while driving are very clearly on-topic.

    It would really be great if the Pre could "know" out of the box that you are driving, and simply let you to tap anywhere on the screen to open an incoming call to speakerphone. (It could use a simple heuristic such as if the phone is charging and moving (or has recently been moving) at highway or stop and go traffic speeds to automatically go into such a mode. We could probably write an app combined with maybe a patch or two to accomplish this.

    I'm not going to get into the debate here about the best way to initiate outgoing calls hands-free. Voice dialing is one (but not the only possible answer) for that side. Pulling over in a rest stop to make the calls and enjoy a cup of coffee is another.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  11. #91  
    The tags here are getting funny again.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    ...
    We are hoping to prevent serious issues from occurring. Do you think that a person who dies in an auto accident gives a damn about your civil liberties because you decided to text or drink and drive? No. If you need to text, pull over to the side of the road. If you want to talk while driving get a hands free device. Until then, the law is in place to prevent people from dying unnecessarily at the hands of your stupidity, not to grant you the ultimate civil liberties so that you should not be punished unless caught and prosecuted and convicted with proof to the extent the law requires.
    The same type of argument can be made about any of the other distractions. Do you think the person that dies in a wreck gives a rip that you have always been able to eat and drink without causing a wreck, and this one time spilling something distracted you enough to cause a wreck? Do you think the person who dies gives a rip that you had to get to gramma's house for Christmas, and fell asleep.

    Using your logic, why not laws against eating and drinking while driving. Why not laws against driving continually more than 2 hours without stopping?

    For that matter, if everyone dropped the hypocrisy, we could simply make the laws we have against DUI have more teeth (and better enforced), since about 60% - 80% of the fatal wrecks on our roads involve driniking and driving.

    And please, stop with the "stupidity" nonsense. If you can't make your case without the random name-calling, you don't have much of one to begin with.
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbd View Post
    I agree with you if the discussion is based on that. But this has veered into discussion about 'nanny-state laws', talking to passengers sitting next to you, open containers, drinking (anything) while driving, the Autobahn in Germany, cops that have a grudge or don't have a grudge and so on and so on.
    Like I said; real good discussion, but it's splintered into a whole bunch of other things that the OP wasn't talking about.
    That's probably because there's really not much more to discuss on the original topic. As a matter of fact, there wasn't really anything to discuss. The OP was telling Palm to get with it and give us voice-dialing. No one has really identified themselves as a Palm representative on this thread, so I don't think it's working.

    The responses are suggested workarounds, and about those types of laws. Even the OP said that MA is only one out of 19 that have similar laws, and has been pointed out, the Pre already fits within the legal requirements of many of them, and (as some of the posts have alluded to) is able to be used within the practical limitations of enforcability of virtually all of them.

    I'm wondering if the advocates of such a law that have a Pre already have it as hands free as it can possibly be, or do their demands for safety simply apply to "everyone else"?
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    As silly as it is, it's quite relevant. The OP implies that the only stupid thing is that the Pre is still unequipped to deal with this law while every other phone is equipped. I agree with this sentiment as to many others. Hopefully in the course of discussion some people will stop defending the pre and their own texting while driving. We're talking about the Pre's problem with the law, not a college football quarterback.
    Actually, much of the "debate" about this (including the OP) is being carried on without knowing whether the Pre already fits within the Massachusets law. It does already fit within may of the the other existing laws. I know, I know, the article quoted talked about voice activated dialing, but that was that articles "spin" on it. Another article says this:

    The bill would fine drivers who use the devices $100 for the first offense, $250 for the second, and $500 for subsequent offenses. Drivers under 18 also could face license suspension.

    The legislation would also ban drivers from using pagers, PDAs, and laptops. Hands-free technology would still be allowed, so drivers could talk on cell phones if they used earpieces.
    Massachusetts lawmakers to debate cell phone/driving ban today | NetworkWorld.com Community

    Anyone have a link to the actual amendment?

    Edit - Small update. It's not even a law yet. It hasn't been approved by the State senate according to this report - http://handsfreeinfo.com/massachuset...ws-legislation

    So, Palm is "supposed" to modify their device to comply with a law that hasn't even been passed yet, and very well may fail to get the needed votes.

    Personally, I hope they're working on getting SlingPlayer to work instead, then I can get ride of the TV on my dash.
  15. #95  
    OK, here you go. This is the actual bill:

    http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/hous...03/ht03259.htm

    1. It's not likely to pass.
    2. Even if it does pass, the Pre likely already fits the requirements.


    The law as written talks about being designed or adapted to use headgear. The Pre already has that capability. The law doesn't specifically require voice activated dialing. It does say you cannot "hold" the device, which would seem to imply that you cannot dial a phone number. However, look at #3, where it says while sending, reading, or writing a text message. A person shall not send, read, or write a text message when selecting or entering a phone number or name in a wireless communication device for the purpose of making a phone call.

    That's part of the same law. It pretty clearly implies that you can select, or even enter, a phone number or name, as long as you're not reading a text message at the time.

    The way this law reads, even if it is passed, if you have a Touchstone in your car, and leave the Pre on the TS while using a BlueTooth or a wired headset, you fit within the requirements.
  16. #96  
    A couple more notes on this law (which also frequently apply to similar laws). If the law being considered is really about preventing people from dying, and the risk is so great, and the actions of the drivers using a non-handsfree phone while driving are so obviously "stupid"; why does the law (section f) specifically make it a non-moving violation that won't affect insurance rates?

    And finally, the ultimate hypocrisy - see subsection 3. Those passing the law are exempt from it.

    Welcome to the nanny-state.
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbd View Post
    I agree with you if the discussion is based on that. But this has veered into discussion about 'nanny-state laws', talking to passengers sitting next to you, open containers, drinking (anything) while driving, the Autobahn in Germany, cops that have a grudge or don't have a grudge and so on and so on.
    Like I said; real good discussion, but it's splintered into a whole bunch of other things that the OP wasn't talking about.
    Whew! Thank goodness your here dbd. It was really getting outta hand. Nice ride, you should paint a Precentral logo on it or something.... Maybe then they will respect your AUTHORITAH!

    "When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth"


    PM me your questions, If I cant find an answer, I'll show you who can.
  18. equus's Avatar
    Posts
    20 Posts
    Global Posts
    194 Global Posts
    #98  
    Call me cynical here........I read the tone of the OP as if they were looking for some support from this forum to file a "**********" suit against Palm JUST because it does NOT have Voice Dialing linked to BT so it can be called Hands Free Dialing..........
    You know what, people need to come OFF that mindset of " lets sue someone cause I can"........or "lets stir up the pot just to see what I hear is what I WANT to hear"......
    I am happy with the way my Pre works and I KNEW GOING IN the pros and cons of the Pre. YES, the state I live in also mandates handsfree mobile phones and NO texting-while-driving. I have a wonderful app that Palm introduced a while back I am trying to think what it was called......dang old age is pitiful.......




























    Oh its called Voice Mail and seems to be a free app too!!!.
  19. #99  
    thanks hparsons for posting the bill. (Even as a Massachusetts resident, I didn't feel like searching for it.) Placing the phone in a stationary spot will be a big help from what I do now. I plug a Sprint USB charger in and usually leave the phone somewhere on a center console or cup holder of whatever vehicle I'm driving. Usually this means fumbling with the phone in the event that I call comes in that I feel I need to answer. Aside from the initial fumbling, I see little risk (beyond other "normal" distractions a driver faces) once the call is answered. Having the phone in a known spot where you can operate it allows at least the other hand to hold the steering wheel. Radio Shack used to sell a goosneck that suction cups to the window and pretty much clamps any phone (treo 300 required removing some of the foam side padding) in place. This $14 suction cup device in each car would be enough to comply with the law as long as the phone has a good speakerphone (which the Pre does). Mostly everyone could afford this minimal barrier to entry.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  20. #100  
    It's actually a PEOPLE limitation and not a hardware problem. Case in point was a study I was when Florida was proposing the same legislation a few years back that listed the cars involved in 'distracted' accidents. Many of the cars were higher-end (Merc, BMW, Jag, etc) that come FULLY equipped with in dash hands free calling but the drivers crashed anyway. The point, some people DO suck at multitasking and it's always apparent.

    Do you work with a team in your office? Notice there are people who are "less efficient" than others. Those "less efficient" people have more limited cognitive function (not necessarily a bad thing) and are the same people that are unable to drive and do much anything else. As for myself I do possess a higher level of cognitive function (upper percentile) than most people and at work in the tech lead, I talk on the phone, while writing documentation & emails, and even pointing directions.

    As for in the car, does driving 75-80mph, eating breakfast, and holding a conference call on my Pre (through the car audio) count as multitasking?
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions