Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 155
  1. #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbd View Post
    Umm Sudoer-
    You have my DBD thingy with iamsedated's quote.
    Please!!!! Sudoer, leave his DBD thingy alone. We dont' need any of that going on around here...
  2. #122  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    The [proposed Massachusetts] law had no such requirement. Other talked about voice activation. The law had no such requirement. Palm needs do nothing to make the Pre [conform] to the law (if it passes). All a user needs to do is get a headset, and some sort of car mount.
    I'm not a lawyer, but one lives across the street from me and I say "hi" to him every once in a while, but ...

    ... my interpretation of the bill is that either/or a headset or a stationary mounting of the phone (and implied by this, either a speakerphone or a headset) is all that would be required to make the Pre compliant with the proposed law.

    I can assure you that the Boston Police would likely not cite you for talking while driving provided your driving or other behavior did not otherwise alert them to a danger. There are some "pass through" towns (like Sudbury, MA) where the police want to know everything about everyone who drives through their town. I'm pretty sure they would pull you over (if a law gave them an excuse) even if they saw you just holding a phone while driving. They also often hand tickets to out of town-ers.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  3. #123  
    I've never texted while driving, but this is ridiculous. I use a headset in my car for when I receive a call, but if I positively, absolutely need to make a call while driving, I've always had enough time to wait for the next red traffic light to type in three letters of recipient's name and click on a number. Seriously. I'm not Jack Bauer who needs to talk to the President RIGHT NOW THIS INSTANT so the agency can send a DNA sample to his telephone or something. And if I'm stopped at a red light, I should be allowed to do whatever I want with my hands, including doing stuff with my phone.

    What's more, I think if we're going to be stuck with voice dialing in every phone, it should be a felony to use it outside your car or your home. People with no fingers and / or hands are exempt of course. I can't stand it when I'm eating somewhere and someone musingly pulls out their phone, holds it screen-down to say "Call. Beth Robson. Hi, I... Oh! Uh... Is... Is that Bert Johnson from advertising? Oh, hi Bert, how's the wife!? Good... Good... Yeah, Bert, listen, sorry for having bothered you, I really meant to call someone else. Yeah, you know how it happens. Yeah, you too, see you around." -manipulates phone for a while, then turns it around again- "Call. Beth Robson." (true story with all names changed for privacy and cultural pertinence; I'm from Germany and everybody involved was German. You get the idea though. He'd have been done so much quicker had he just used his hands. Which he simply didn't seem to be wanting to do.) And even if it DOES work... it's just stupid.

    [rant] And just as an aside, if the official stance is that manipulating things while you're driving is dangerous and forbidden (which is actually sensible), then why is smoking at the wheel allowed? That's even gonna pop your airbag in case you hit something after you lit your cigarette on the highway. What about eating and drinking? Because I've seen so, so many people eating Burgers, Döners and whatnot at the wheel, and that uses one of their hands just as much as holding a phone does. The double standard is that we've always had food and people have always eaten food while driving so it's OK, but technology is new, new things are evil, and if people do new stuff while driving it's gonna make them worse drivers than doing old stuff did. Talking on the phone will distract you. Talking to your shotgun won't. [/rant]
  4. #124  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbd View Post
    Umm Sudoer-
    You have my DBD thingy with iamsedated's quote.
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Please!!!! Sudoer, leave his DBD thingy alone. We dont' need any of that going on around here...
    Dbd is causing me all sort of grief these days. First he tries to hook me up with a new user in Wisconsin, and now I'm doing stuff with his "thingy". No good can come from any of this!
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  5. #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by GodShapedHole View Post
    And if I'm stopped at a red light, I should be allowed to do whatever I want with my hands, including doing stuff with my phone.
    I don't blame you for being mad. I've done the same thing and ONLY when I'm at a stop. But what I've been painfully aware of (especially if you know personal injury lawyers) is that too many people who do this will also take additional liberties. If you live in the big city and have a life, you see examples of this all too often.

    why is smoking at the wheel allowed? That's even gonna pop your airbag in case you hit something after you lit your cigarette on the highway. What about eating and drinking? Because I've seen so, so many people eating Burgers, Döners and whatnot at the wheel, and that uses one of their hands just as much as holding a phone does.
    Not quite - in addition to holding the phone, the driver also needs to concentrate on the conversation they are having, unlike smoking. There are additional distractions. It's not just about driving with one hand. The comment about popping the airbag with the cigarette is totally ridiculous. Regarding drinking, it should be illegal without a beverage holder.

    The double standard is that we've always had food and people have always eaten food while driving so it's OK, but technology is new, new things are evil, and if people do new stuff while driving it's gonna make them worse drivers than doing old stuff did. Talking on the phone will distract you. Talking to your shotgun won't.
    And denying the fact that there are other evils that the law hasn't dealt with is also a ridiculous argument. All of you here are laughing until someone close to you gets hurt and then you shut up really quickly.

    Personally I think DUI/DWI laws are a complete joke and are even more important than any of the other things mentioned, including cell phone laws. Yes it makes me sick that our politicians are probably motivated to pass a cell phone law before dealing with alcohol issues is their priority so they can get press and votes and because they don't want to deal with the alcohol lobby. But that doesn't change the fact that a law to prevent the growing number of reckless drivers using phones is a good idea. I'm just not comparing where on the ladder it is with regard to laws we need passed.

    And regarding HParsons' comment, Palm needs to get with the times. You can buy whatever you want for your Treo but if its standard on other phones, people won't stand for Palm not just doing it.
  6. #126  
    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    ...
    And regarding HParsons' comment, Palm needs to get with the times. You can buy whatever you want for your Treo but if its standard on other phones, people won't stand for Palm not just doing it.
    And what you're ignoring is that it is standard on some equipment, but not on all. Not even on most. As a matter of fact, we haven't even yet determined what "it" really is.

    Built in voice dialing? Nope, most phones don't have it.

    Support for BT dialing, some do, some don't, including many brand new smartphones.

    But the most important thing you are ignoring is that, in spite of your keen business observations and Palm's lack of same, people are indeed "standing for Palm not just doing it". By hundreds of thousands.
  7. #127  
    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    ...
    And denying the fact that there are other evils that the law hasn't dealt with is also a ridiculous argument. All of you here are laughing until someone close to you gets hurt and then you shut up really quickly.
    ...
    I find this interesting. So, you know this much about all of us? Personally, I'm not "laughing", I'm frustrated. Frustrated that there are people like you that somehow think that laws that impose pointless restrictions on the many will properly influence the behavior of the few.

    Anyone, and I'll repeat, anyone that is stupid enough to text message while driving will find another equally dangerous distraction if/when all of us have to get rid of our phones. Shall we ban books? (I've seen people reading books while driving). Makeup? Food, non-alcoholic drinks, the list goes on.

    What you are failing to understand is that a law like this is simply not effective. My point all along has been that we should pass, and enforce, laws holding people responsible for their actions, and the results.

    And, spare me the nonsense about how arresting someone is little comfort to the family who looses someone in a car accident. I can make the same statement about the $100 or $250 fine for texting that you seem to feel is the answer for the issue. As DUI laws have shown us over and over, small monetary fines will not dissuade folks from doing what they feel they can do safely, and somehow have a "right" to do.
  8. buyrihn's Avatar
    Posts
    449 Posts
    Global Posts
    453 Global Posts
    #128  
    Quote Originally Posted by NordicMan View Post
    It should be illegal in EVERY State/province to TEXT MESSAGE WHILE DRIVING. *** are people complaining about?? Geez
    No, no it shouldn't—it should be common sense. The reality is that all things besides concentrating on driving are distractions, and it becomes a slippery slope, when you attempt to regulate common sense. 1st, you can't talk on cell phones, then you can't text. Then what? Eating? Changing the radio station? So yeah, people are complaining about it.
  9. #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    ...
    Regarding drinking, it should be illegal without a beverage holder.
    ...
    What would be the point of allowing it with a beverage holder? You still must take a hand off the wheel to take a sip, intefere with your vision while you tip it up, and temporarily take your eyes off the road to put it back in the beverage holder. None of that is much different than what it takes me to call my wife with my cell phone on a blue tooth.

    Maybe there should be a law that requires a drink holder that will properly secure the drink with a clamp, that cannot be removed while driving, with a long enough straw to reach the driver.

    Oh yeah, and when that becomes so popular by cutting down on the number of accidents, we can then require Depends for all drivers, so they wont' have to be distracted by discomfort of needing "to go", and accompanying dangerous squirming that comes with that discomfort.

    I'll agree with you on one thing, the discussion is pretty ridiculous. We'll just disagree on the source of the stupidity.
  10. #130  
    Here's the ultimate bad boy texter:



    However, folks will look at this and talk about how ridiculously dangerous this dude is (and mind you, I feel he is), but ignore some other things.

    Right at the begining of the clip, the silver car cuts off the folks videotaping the guy. And they did it without signalling.

    Then, the same car later passed him while "lane sharing", a big safety no no when sharing the road with bikers.

    Then there's the real safety faux-pas, the biker/texter is riding wearing sandals. I've been on bikes for almost 40 years. That should be against the law!!!
  11. #131  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    I find this interesting. So, you know this much about all of us? Personally, I'm not "laughing", I'm frustrated. Frustrated that there are people like you that somehow think that laws that impose pointless restrictions on the many will properly influence the behavior of the few.
    It's easy to determine that you'll rationalize almost anything. If it doesn't solve the entire problem then it's pointless. I hate to break it to you, but a minimum of 23% of the people doing something that has a good chance of resulting in a serious injury or death is not "a few." Considering the consequences and the relatively small restriction, it's absurd you're up in arms about this. Speaking of arms, your line of thinking is that people kill people, not guns, so we might as well not have any gun laws if they are not stringent enough...

    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Anyone, and I'll repeat, anyone that is stupid enough to text message while driving will find another equally dangerous distraction if/when all of us have to get rid of our phones. Shall we ban books? (I've seen people reading books while driving). Makeup? Food, non-alcoholic drinks, the list goes on.
    Being able to read doesn't mean you can pass the comprehension portion. Perhaps you're just not capable. As I said... and I'll repeat for you... just because there is a law created that deals with an item lower on the pecking order doesn't mean that the law itself is "pointless." And your solution to dealing with the unfortunate irresponsibility that governs too many members of our society is... to do nothing. Regarding books... it's common sense and a prosecutable offense (recklessness.) The cell phone law deals with the gray area.

    What you are failing to understand is that a law like this is simply not effective. My point all along has been that we should pass, and enforce, laws holding people responsible for their actions, and the results. And, spare me the nonsense about how arresting someone is little comfort to the family who looses someone in a car accident. I can make the same statement about the $100 or $250 fine for texting that you seem to feel is the answer for the issue. As DUI laws have shown us over and over, small monetary fines will not dissuade folks from doing what they feel they can do safely, and somehow have a "right" to do.
    You haven't explained in any way how the law is not effective. All you have done is listed numerous are other activities you think are more egregious than texting are going unpunished.

    With regard to the $100 or $250 fine, it's at least something, especially to those that can't afford it and hear about the city enforcing the law strictly in this regard. Even if it isn't as effective as it should be, it doesn't mean that passing NO law at all is the better solution. In many states gun and DUI laws are far too lenient but better to have something than nothing.

    And the real problem is that you and numerous other people think they can multitask safely... and then you realize you can't. Drunk drivers say the same thing about their tolerance. If you need to contact someone while driving, get a headset and voice dialing and problem solved. Is that such an overwhelming burden on your liberties?
    Last edited by iamsedated; 02/06/2010 at 07:51 PM.
  12. #132  
    Quote Originally Posted by buyrihn View Post
    No, no it shouldn't—it should be common sense. The reality is that all things besides concentrating on driving are distractions, and it becomes a slippery slope, when you attempt to regulate common sense. 1st, you can't talk on cell phones, then you can't text. Then what? Eating? Changing the radio station? So yeah, people are complaining about it.
    This is all very true. Not texting or dialing while moving should be common sense... but it isn't on more occasions than believed. There are jokes about people driving their car with their knees in this thread - wanna bet there are plenty of people who'll finish a short text or find a number to dial while doing the same?

    Yes, the cell phone laws and the gamut is a slippery slope. Some of the early cell phone laws went overboard and banned everything. Now they are trying to find the common ground. With regard to hands free requirements, I don't think that this is unwarranted and seems to approach a reasonable compromise.

    Occasionally reaching over to put a cup in the cup holder can be done without losing sight of the road. It's a difficult liberty to ban. Radio is a little more dangerous, especially if you're looking at the radio. But that has been handled by technology as many new cars have these things built into the steering wheels in order to combat these issues.

    The issue with cell phones is that just talking on the phone is a distraction itself, trying to concentrate on the road and processing what someone is saying or trying to locate the information for the person you're dialing and losing sight of the road. If you're going to do that then the trick is trying to find the safest way to perform that activity while causing minimal barriers to compliance.
  13. #133  
    Talking on your cellphone whether hands-free or not should be illegal. It's not the lack of hands on the wheel that is the issue, it's where the attention is being paid.

    Think about it. How often do you drive with one hand on the wheel? I do it all the time and it doesn't affect how I drive. So, holding a phone to your head doesn't deteriorate from your ability to concentrate on the task at hand. However, carrying on a conversation does.

    Hands-free or not... talking and driving still kills.
  14. #134  
    Quote Originally Posted by ageyoung24 View Post
    Think about it. How often do you drive with one hand on the wheel? I do it all the time and it doesn't affect how I drive. So, holding a phone to your head doesn't deteriorate from your ability to concentrate on the task at hand. However, carrying on a conversation does.
    This is a crock and don't need to explain the additional risks of losing grip on the phone, fumbling with buttons, etc. The more variables you add, the greater the danger. And if you're saying that carrying on a conversation is dangerous enough by itself than what in the world are you doing carrying on a conversation AND holding the phone in one hand?

    This is what I'm talking about. What you do on a baseball field or in your home or something solitary is your business. But if you're driving a car at 50MPH with numerous other people around, you have a duty to everyone else to minimize the risk of accidents. Laws fining you for reaching for your phone when it rings, fumbling around looking for it, finding the answer button, making sure you have a good grip on the phone... instead of just hitting the answer button on your ear is the only way you'll learn.

    Right at the begining of the clip, the silver car cuts off the folks videotaping the guy. And they did it without signalling. Then, the same car later passed him while "lane sharing", a big safety no no when sharing the road with bikers. Then there's the real safety faux-pas, the biker/texter is riding wearing sandals. I've been on bikes for almost 40 years. That should be against the law!!!
    Case in point. They are all idiots. Unfortunately the law prevents many of us who have common sense because society is full of brainless buffoons. Regarding car safety and other actions that could have serious consequences, unfortunately we need to place some barriers for the better good. Yes, I agree with you that these laws SHOULD have more teeth and there might be other actions which SHOULD have laws enacted as well.
    Last edited by iamsedated; 02/06/2010 at 07:54 PM.
  15. #135  
    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    This is a crock and don't need to explain the additional risks of losing grip on the phone, fumbling with buttons, etc. The more variables you add, the greater the danger. And if you're saying that carrying on a conversation is dangerous enough by itself than what in the world are you doing carrying on a conversation AND holding the phone in one hand?

    This is what I'm talking about. What you do on a baseball field is your business. But if you're driving a car at 50MPH with numerous other people around, you have a duty to everyone else to minimize the risk of accidents. Laws fining you for reaching for your phone when it rings, fumbling around looking for it, finding the answer button... instead of just hitting the answer button on your ear is the only way you'll learn.
    Maybe you misunderstood me or maybe not.

    Do an experiment for me. Go driving with one hand and see how you do. Just fine, I'm assuming. Now go driving with your phone held up to your ear but not actually talking to someone on said phone. There's no difference. You're still concentrating on the road, unless you have motor skill deficiencies and have trouble completing such a task.

    The difference is made when you add in the distraction of a conversation. If you normally drive one handed while not talking on a bluetooth device, then how are you going to drive while doing so? Exactly the same way, my friend.

    It's up to the driver to take responsibility. Again, hands-free doesn't change a thing.
  16. #136  
    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    ...
    I hate to break it to you, but a minimum of 23% of the people doing something that has a good chance of resulting in a serious injury or death is not "a few."
    Except you've shown absoutely nothing of the sort. I feel that texting and driving is dangerous, but I've seen enough people doing it without causing a wreck that I know that your asserting that is "has a good chance of resulting in a serious injury or death" is nonsense. Prove me wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    ...Considering the consequences and the relatively small restriction, it's absurd you're up in arms about this.
    Except that it's not a "small restriction". You are talking literally millions of dollars to make all of the cell phones used in cars compliant.

    BTW, it's not the law I'm "up in arms" about (I don't even live in Massachusetss) it's the ignorance and blindness of your arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    Speaking of arms, your line of thinking is that people kill people, not guns, so we might as well not have any gun laws if they are not stringent enough...
    Nah, not so much. Well, not so much on the last part, but yeah on the first part. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I can prove it. You can put a gun in a crowd of peope, and it won't harm any of them, unless someone interferes with it.

    I'm not against "all" gun laws, just most of those that we have today. But, at least I'm not alone in my thoughts. See if these words strike a memory with you: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    ...
    And your solution to dealing with the unfortunate irresponsibility that governs too many members of our society is... to do nothing.
    You misrepresent both my beliefs, and what I've said. Go back and reread. Unless, of course, you believe that a differing opinion from yours amounts to "doing nothing". Quite an ego you've got there...

    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    You haven't explained in any way how the law is not effective. All you have done is listed numerous are other activities you think are more egregious than texting are going unpunished.
    Not true. There have been numerous links in this thread pointing out the studies that show that these laws do not diminsh automobile accidents. In addition, the nature of the law makes it mostly unenforcable, except for the most egregious and obvious violators (the guy on the bike might would get caught). What they do accomplish is force responsible people (who likely aren't texting and driving anyway) to spend money to stay compliant.

    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    With regard to the $100 or $250 fine, it's at least something, especially to those that can't afford it and hear about the city enforcing the law strictly in this regard. Even if it isn't as effective as it should be, it doesn't mean that passing NO law at all is the better solution. In many states gun and DUI laws are far too lenient but better to have something than nothing.
    No it's not. Most of the people involved pay close to that amount monthly just to have the phone. If they want to get serious about it, let it blow up the person's insurance rates. Or, even better yet, (as I've said before, but you choose to ignore) have the first accident cause the driver to lose their license for a year, and the second for 5 years, or even permenent.

    But, dont' restrict it to texting, restrict it to all accidents that aren't mechanical failure.

    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    And the real problem is that you and numerous other people think they can multitask safely... and then you realize you can't. Drunk drivers say the same thing about their tolerance
    Really? So, go back for me Mr IKnowEverythingAboutEveryone, and show the post where I said anything about my abilities to multitask.

    Frankly, I'm of the opinion that most people cannot multitask. It's know an opinion I hold of myself, it's a fact I know about myself. I cannot not. That's why I don't text and drive. But then, what do I know about my beliefs or knowledge of myself. Guess I should have checked with you first.

    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    ...
    If you need to contact someone while driving, get a headset and voice dialing and problem solved. Is that such an overwhelming burden on your liberties?
    Yes, as a matter of fact it is (or would be, if it were a law that affected me). Yes, it's a tremendous infringement on my personal liberties if/when a politician tells me that I can no longer use the phone I paid $200 for and sign 2 year contract that commits me to thousands of dollars because he believes that I cannont discern when to operate that phone "with due regard to the safety of others" while he arrogantly believes that he and his fellow "public officials" can. That is a perfect example of tyranny.
    BTW, I've got a headset. There's no voice dialling option for the phone I own, but I probably won't use one when there is (except on the bike). I find holding the speed dial button for the few numbers I dial to be much faster, and more effective, and ultimately less distracting.
  17. #137  
    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    ...
    Laws fining you for reaching for your phone when it rings, fumbling around looking for it, finding the answer button, making sure you have a good grip on the phone... instead of just hitting the answer button on your ear is the only way you'll learn.
    If that's what it takes you to answer a phone, then yes indeed, you need help. Or better yet, leave your phone at home. That's not how I answer mine, and it is a Palm Pre.
  18. #138  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    I feel that texting and driving is dangerous, but I've seen enough people doing it without causing a wreck that I know that your asserting that is "has a good chance of resulting in a serious injury or death" is nonsense. Prove me wrong.
    Do I need to prove that an accident while driving a car is probably much more severe than, oh I don't know, being distracting while you're vacuuming the living room?

    And if you feel that an activity is dangerous, how does seeing other people ostensibly doing it without incident make the activity any more safe?
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Frankly, I'm of the opinion that most people cannot multitask. It's know an opinion I hold of myself, it's a fact I know about myself. I cannot not. That's why I don't text and drive. But then, what do I know about my beliefs or knowledge of myself. Guess I should have checked with you first.
    If you really believe people cannot multitask, then you should be embracing every single law that restricts people from multitasking while driving. The fact that we can't get laws passed that tackle them all or that are tough enough doesn't mean the law itself is worthless. It seems you like to argue for the sake of arguing.

    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Yes, as a matter of fact it is (or would be, if it were a law that affected me). Yes, it's a tremendous infringement on my personal liberties if/when a politician tells me that I can no longer use the phone I paid $200 for and sign 2 year contract that commits me to thousands of dollars because he believes that I cannont discern when to operate that phone "with due regard to the safety of others" while he arrogantly believes that he and his fellow "public officials" can. That is a perfect example of tyranny....
    It's called "stupidity" when you know that the phone model you bought doesn't comply with local laws when there are plenty of others that do. There are plenty of options except neither you nor the lone manufacturer think they should play by the same rules as everyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    If that's what it takes you to answer a phone, then yes indeed, you need help. Or better yet, leave your phone at home. That's not how I answer mine, and it is a Palm Pre.
    And you admit you use a headset. The poster before you - if you can read and comprehend at the same time without that being too much multitasking - insists that having a headset is NOT any big deal. With his Pre he'll be subject to all of those issues and potentially dropping the phone too while driving. Everything you're saying supports the fact that having a headset or some safety requirements of hands free operation is a GOOD idea.

    Thanks for the entertainment. Gotta run... will leave the rest of ya to comment here. Fun evening planned!
  19. #139  
    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    Do I need to prove that an accident while driving a car is probably much more severe than, oh I don't know, being distracting while you're vacuuming the living room?
    You misunderstand the meaning of words. I can't help you with that.

    And if you feel that an activity is dangerous, how does seeing other people ostensibly doing it without incident make the activity any more safe?

    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    ...
    If you really believe people cannot multitask, then you should be embracing every single law that restricts people from multitasking while driving. The fact that we can't get laws passed that tackle them all or that are tough enough doesn't mean the law itself is worthless. It seems you like to argue for the sake of arguing.
    Wrong, on all points. There are a lot of things that I think are foolish that I think would be equally foolish to pass laws over - for instance, I think putting substances, drugs or alcohol, in your body that cause diminished self-control are foolish, but I don't want laws banning them. I want laws holding people responsible when those actions cause injury to others or damage to their property. If a person never hurts anyone with their drinking, I don't care. If they **** on my lawn as a result, I want them in jail. Get it. Requiring responsibility for actions is the answer, not controlling the actions.

    It seems like you can't accept the outrageous notion that someone sees some thing differently than you.


    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    It's called "stupidity" when you know that the phone model you bought doesn't comply with local laws when there are plenty of others that do. There are plenty of options except neither you nor the lone manufacturer think they should play by the same rules as everyone else.
    What do you call it when the phone model you bought does comply with local laws, then they change the local laws? And the "lone manufacuturer" stuff is nonsense. There are many phones that do not have voice dialing. You're making this stuff up as you go. Much like that the name-calling, that lends less credibility to your arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    And you admit you use a headset. The poster before you - if you can read and comprehend at the same time without that being too much multitasking - insists that having a headset is NOT any big deal. With his Pre he'll be subject to all of those issues and potentially dropping the phone too while driving. Everything you're saying supports the fact that having a headset or some safety requirements of hands free operation is a GOOD idea.

    Thanks for the entertainment. Gotta run... will leave the rest of ya to comment here. Fun evening planned!
    Yes, it supports that idea, for me. I stopped holding a phone to my ear a long time ago when I noticed that I was hesitant to turn my head to look over my shoulder when changing lanes. Most people don't drive that way. I made the decision for me about what works for me. I'm not arrogant enough to tell others that they must do it the same as I, or else they are somehow dangerous.

    I'm especially not arrogant enough to tell them they must conform to some rule, but that I can handle the same actions fine by exercising "due dilligance". What a crock that is.
  20. #140  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    ...
    Frankly, I'm of the opinion that most people cannot multitask. It's know an opinion I hold of myself, it's a fact I know about myself. I cannot not. That's why I don't text and drive. But then, what do I know about my beliefs or knowledge of myself. Guess I should have checked with you first....
    That post really proves my point. I was trying to listen to Sarah Palin at the same time I was posting that. Wow, came out really poorly formed.

    Should have said:
    Frankly, I'm of the opinion that most people cannot multitask. It's not an opinion I hold of myself, it's a fact I know about myself. I cannot. That's why I don't text and drive. But then, what do I know about my beliefs or knowledge of myself. Guess I should have checked with you first
    Next time I need to listen to Sarah and post on a forum at the same time, guess I'll pull over
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions