Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678
Results 141 to 155 of 155
  1. #141  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Please!!!! Sudoer, leave his DBD thingy alone. We dont' need any of that going on around here...
    LOL
  2. #142  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    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!
    OMG i can't stop laughing....
  3. #143  
    Quote Originally Posted by NordicMan View Post
    ..you're first post and this is it? Cough <troll> cough



    It should be illegal in EVERY State/province to TEXT MESSAGE WHILE DRIVING. *** are people complaining about?? Geez

    We also just got this handsfree only law here in Canada (Ontario at least) and I'm fine with it.

    You can still RECEIVE calls with your bluetooth, but BOO-HOO you can't place calls while driving.. geez can't anything wait till you arrive to your destination?


    You are more of a troll than he is. All he is doing is informing the community. Leave your garbage elsewhere. We don't want it.
  4. #144  
    Texting is one thing, but there is no evidence to show changing to handsfree phone helps reduce accidents. Currently, given BC's new law like Ontario's, I am trying to get TOMTOM's handsfree working, it is far more distracting to press buttons on the gps than to use speeddial on the pre.

    For me speeddial is the least distracting.
  5. #145  
    Quote Originally Posted by funpig View Post
    As I understand the new hands-free law here in B.C., only one touch hands-free use is allowed. You can take a call if all you have to do is push one button and you can make a call if all you have to do is push one button. If you need to fiddle with more than one button or need to hold the device in your hand, it is illegal. Taking a call with a bluetooth is easy. Making one is more difficult unless you have the ability to voice dial built into the phone or handsfree unit. . .
    The Pre has speed dialing which is one button. Admittedly it's not as convenient as voice dialing that allows any number and any person in your contact list, but it is one button. I use it for the numbers I call on a regular basis.
  6. #146  
    Quote Originally Posted by aharmsworth View Post
    Texting is one thing, but there is no evidence to show changing to handsfree phone helps reduce accidents. Currently, given BC's new law like Ontario's, I am trying to get TOMTOM's handsfree working, it is far more distracting to press buttons on the gps than to use speeddial on the pre. For me speeddial is the least distracting.
    Why are you pressing the buttons on the GPS while driving? You're right - having your eyes on the GPS and trying to locate buttons is distracting and dangerous. My understanding is that a route can be set in the GPS system before you start driving and you listen to the directions to reach your destination. If you need to reprogram it, pull over to the side of the road. Another wrong doesn't make using/dialing the phone a good idea!

    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    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.
    When it comes to what god to pray to, what fashion to wear or what people do in their own bedroom, I'm not one to tell others what to do. But when it comes to an area where their actions could easily affect the safety of myself and my family, I wouldn't hesitate to "tell" people given the gravity of the situation. That's not arrogance. As you can see from our economy, unfortunately most people will push beyond limits and are unable to have adequate self-control.

    One of my friends died in a motorcycle accident a few years back thanks to an old man (82) who pulled out of a driveway without looking or seeing him. What boggles my mind is that in this country you can't buy a pair of contact lenses without an annual $100+ prescription from an optometrist but once you get your drivers license, you are not required to get an eye exam for many, many years. The number of stupid auto accidents that happen each week is astounding, many involving soft tissue damage that won't heal for many years if at all.

    Yes, the country is rife with inane priorities. Changing the law to deal with the above is probably much higher on the pecking order than cell phone laws. But like it or not, cell phone preoccupation is become a problem and you see it every day, such as numerous people crossing streets still glued to email or driving while trying to locate/dial/regrip the phone in the other hand with varying degrees of success. Like yourself, I'm concerned that the law isn't overbroad but I don't think that requiring a hands free device is a problem. With regard to voice dialing, that's a little more challenging but if there is some correlation to use of a phone and people dialing while driving, I'm much more inclined to be receptive of such a law and the connection isn't such a stretch... And as pitiful as DUI/DWI laws are at present, I'd hate to think how many more accidents and fatalities there would be if none existed and we left it to people to decide for themselves when they "felt" drunk or impaired.

    On that note, happy Super Bowl to everyone and make sure you wait at least a good, extended period of time before driving after finishing that six pack.
  7. #147  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Why "should" we? Because you want it? Believe me, if/when the demand is there, the addons will come.

    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.
    First off thanks for picking me out of the crowd again. Also, down in that same comment I also said it will come. And, the demand for many things has been there since launch. I also do find you very egocentric, as you always find it a must to overide anyones opinion with your own, in a way that you feel your opinion is fact for some reason. When in reality it doesn't matter wether you think video recording is a gimmick or not, because you are in the minority of users that agree with that. And the fact that phone video has been available in america since 2002, means it should of been intergrated by now. I also had it on my treo, and found no trouble using it, sorry that you did.
    I know you love palm with all your heart, and you argue for arguments sake alone, which imo is pathetic and sad. And then to say your not quite that egocentric, only shows that you actually are that egocentric, which is why many of us here, really dont care for you, which is evident through many threads here. The only gimmick I see, is many of your senseless arguments. But, your opinion is yours, and mine is mine. Good luck to ya though.
    Last edited by redninja; 02/07/2010 at 02:00 PM.
  8. #148  
    Actually, I dont see a problem dialing a phone while driving. But let me say this in response to all this multitasking debate. I'm 34, I got my first motorcycle at 14, thats 20 years. Up until my mid 20's close calls weren't very often, and were usually just the left turner you had to look out for. The last 5-6 years, I've had many many close calls, and I would say almost always the person is fooling with a phone, ALMOST ALWAYS. I've been next to people that are talking or looking down, take a quick glance and just swing on over into my lane. The examples could go on for awhile.

    These studies aren't goin to yield correct data. Because most people probably aren't goin to admit playing on their phones prior to a wreck, unless the victim brings it up. I know many of you are arguing about it, but I dont think anyone can honestly think they pay as much attention to the road while texting or even talking. In fact I wouldn't mind an age poll here, to see who thinks what. I imagine it's younger people arguing they can do both with no problem. And dont get me wrong, I text alot and I text and talk while driving, but not in traffic. You see a different view from a bike, I think anyone here that rides would agree with that. And the view I see, is that texting and talking and putting on makeup, playing with the radio, even have seen people reading books while driving, all these things effect our attention to the road, and many times a second or 2 is all it takes to kill someone. I think many of us can be responsible about phone use, but many of us can't. If we all were, then it wouldn't even be a discussion right now. But it is for a reason.
  9. #149  
    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    First off thanks for picking me out of the crowd again. Also, down in that same comment I also said it will come.
    I really didn't "pick you out of the crowd". If you'll stop concentrating on yourself so much, you'll notice there were many more comments to others on this thread from me, than just those I sent to you. That's that egocentric thing kicking in.

    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    I also do find you very egocentric, as you always find it a must to overide anyones opinion with your own, in a way that you feel your opinion is fact for some reason. When in reality it doesn't matter wether you think video recording is a gimmick or not, because you are in the minority of users that agree with that.
    I hope you see the difference between me saying that I personally think vidoe is less important than voice recording, and you saying what you want is what they "should" have done. Nah, never mind. You probably don't see the difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    And the fact that phone video has been available in america since 2002, means it should of been intergrated by now. I also had it on my treo, and found no trouble using it, sorry that you did.
    Seriously, what did you use to play back the videos? I don't mean on the Treo, but off of it? What were you able to use to tie the short videos together into something more interesting?

    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    I know you love palm with all your heart, and you argue for arguments sake alone, which imo is pathetic and sad. And then to say your not quite that egocentric, only shows that you actually are that egocentric, which is why many of us here, really dont care for you, which is evident through many threads here. The only gimmick I see, is many of your senseless arguments. But, your opinion is yours, and mine is mine. Good luck to ya though.
    Actually, it has nothing to do with "love". I happen to like the device, but it's funny, you make a stupid statement like that, but ignore the fact that in the same post, I was criticizing them for working on video. The difference between us is that I recoginze that just because Palm isn't doing what I want them to do, doesn't mean they aren't doing what they should be doing. That's the egocentric thing I was talking about. Sorry, it's not syncing in... maybe I should use smaller words?
  10. #150  
    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    ...
    You see a different view from a bike, I think anyone here that rides would agree with that. And the view I see, is that texting and talking and putting on makeup, playing with the radio, even have seen people reading books while driving, all these things effect our attention to the road, and many times a second or 2 is all it takes to kill someone. I think many of us can be responsible about phone use, but many of us can't. If we all were, then it wouldn't even be a discussion right now. But it is for a reason.
    The problem is that you cannot legeslate all the different ways a person can distract themselves while driving. Because for every distraction you pass a law against, someone will find a new one to replace it.

    What you can legeslate is responsibility for the results of people's actions. If, instead of passing silly laws that the irresponsible are going to ignore anyway, we passed laws that made people pay consequences for their decisions, then folks would think longer and harder about the decisions they made.
  11. #151  
    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    I know you love palm with all your heart, and you argue for arguments sake alone, which imo is pathetic and sad. And then to say your not quite that egocentric, only shows that you actually are that egocentric, which is why many of us here, really dont care for you, which is evident through many threads here. The only gimmick I see, is many of your senseless arguments.
    Perfectly stated.

    Quote Originally Posted by redninja View Post
    Up until my mid 20's close calls weren't very often, and were usually just the left turner you had to look out for. The last 5-6 years, I've had many many close calls, and I would say almost always the person is fooling with a phone, ALMOST ALWAYS. I've been next to people that are talking or looking down, take a quick glance and just swing on over into my lane. The examples could go on for awhile. These studies aren't goin to yield correct data. Because most people probably aren't goin to admit playing on their phones prior to a wreck, unless the victim brings it up.
    Again, perfectly stated. I've had the same experience and given the obsession with mobile phones and texting, it's not a stretch to understand why this is the case.
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    The problem is that you cannot legeslate all the different ways a person can distract themselves while driving. Because for every distraction you pass a law against, someone will find a new one to replace it.

    What you can legeslate is responsibility for the results of people's actions. If, instead of passing silly laws that the irresponsible are going to ignore anyway, we passed laws that made people pay consequences for their decisions, then folks would think longer and harder about the decisions they made.
    ????????? This is arguing for the sake of arguing because you can't be wrong so you'll throw a bunch of words together. Yes you can to paragraph one and no you cannot for paragraph 2. This will be my last post on this thread if you can't figure it out because watching you squirm brings me no joy beyond the giggle it did originally.

    1) People aren't trying to find ways to distract themselves while driving - wth are you babbling about???? So if there is a texting law then next they are going to have pillow fights while driving? By the nature of life and evolution over time, we get busy with other things and try to do too much and we encounter most common problems. Driving and then driving, eating while driving, talking on the phone/directions, etc. Negligence laws deal with "etc." Over time, life evolves and new problems come to the horizon - mobile phones/devices/toys are a new phenomenon and the latest distraction of the generation. Prior it could have been radios with manual tuning.

    The more serious problems require harsher restrictions that may impede on the liberties of those with common sense, unfortunately as barriers to the abuse. Every law requires (a) a guilty act, and (b) a guilty state of mind (not always required and wont get into this.) As problems crop up, the law defines the act and the state of mind one has in order to set up the law, e.g. anyone who speeds above 65MPH is guilty of speeding. Laws deal with problems that crop up.

    2) How can you pass laws to deal with conclusions? WTH are you babbling about. Do you even listen to yourself? So what does that mean? That if the other driver dies the first one is responsible? What if the first driver wasn't negligent? No, what you're trying to say but fumbling to show face is that you want more stringent laws that have bite and punish instead of being laughed at and not being as effective as they should and can be.

    Yes, we all agree that having a $100 or $200 fine might be too lenient. So are DUI/DWI laws where there is no jail time with the first offense. Does that mean we have NO law at all? Ridiculous. We take what we've got and keep pushing for something more stringent.

    There you go. I hope this makes sense to you. Now lets move on and have a discussion worth bantying around an idea.
  12. #152  
    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    ...
    1) People aren't trying to find ways to distract themselves while driving - wth are you babbling about???? So if there is a texting law then next they are going to have pillow fights while driving? By the nature of life and evolution over time, we get busy with other things and try to do too much and we encounter most common problems. Driving and then driving, eating while driving, talking on the phone/directions, etc. Negligence laws deal with "etc." Over time, life evolves and new problems come to the horizon - mobile phones/devices/toys are a new phenomenon and the latest distraction of the generation. Prior it could have been radios with manual tuning.
    It's only "babble" because you're so sure of your self that no one with a differing view can possibly make sense.
    No, they're not "looking for distractions", but they are finding them. Stereos don't fit in the "try to do too much" theory, nor do books, chatting with passengers, or sightseeing. Those are all things people do because driving is boring. Yes, you outlaw all of those things, and they will find something else to occupy the boredom.

    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    ...
    2) How can you pass laws to deal with conclusions? WTH are you babbling about. Do you even listen to yourself? So what does that mean? That if the other driver dies the first one is responsible? What if the first driver wasn't negligent? No, what you're trying to say but fumbling to show face is that you want more stringent laws that have bite and punish instead of being laughed at and not being as effective as they should and can be.
    Again with the "babbling", simply because someone disagrees with you.

    You ask if I "even listen" to myself, the real question(s) should be, do you even bother reading or comprehending what's written? I never said anyting about "laws to deal with conclusions", I said the results. Those mean two different things.

    I'll give you a simple example. It would be foolish to pass a law that says that people cannot swing their fists. It's perfectly reasonable to pass a law that says you can't assult another person. It's not the swinging of the fist that's the crime, it's the assualt.

    Same with driving. You don't fine someone for dialing a phone number, or pushing a button the radio. You write them a ticket for swerving into another lane (if that's the result), regardless of the actions that caused it.

    If their actions cause an accident, you take away their license. If they drive without a license, you put them in jail.

    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    There you go. I hope this makes sense to you. Now lets move on and have a discussion worth bantying around an idea.
    Interesting concept. You impart us with your "wisdom", then declare the discussion worthless. Don't think it's going to fly.

    I would be curious as to your rationalization for a law that limits personal freedoms, but doesn't apply to those that passed the law?

    Maybe you'd like to explain what magical attributes civil servants have that make them able to exercise "due dilagence" for the safety of others while driving that mere citizenry does not possess.

    That's the hypcrisy of this particular law. The law itself recognizes that the act can be done safely, but forbids citizens from doing so.
  13. #153  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    No, they're not "looking for distractions", but they are finding them. Stereos don't fit in the "try to do too much" theory, nor do books, chatting with passengers, or sightseeing. Those are all things people do because driving is boring. Yes, you outlaw all of those things, and they will find something else to occupy the boredom.
    ROFLMAO. I'm sorry. I really thought it was done but this last post was SO DARN hilariously entertaining. So the problem with cell phone usage in cars is because it's to fill up the boredom. It's not to (a) use as a GPS, (b) call someone for directions or tell them you're late, (c) take calls because heaven forbid they don't want to miss a call, (d) texting to get back to people, (e) checking email ravenously like people do on a "Crackberry." No, it's just that they are bored. So according to you, if we ban cell phone usage, then people WILL STILL find someone else to occupy the boredom of driving like... well... pillowfights, a Playstation Plus mounted on the dash... SOMETHING... because the radio isn't good enough to entertain their dullard minds... seriously, this argument is darn funny.

    You ask if I "even listen" to myself, the real question(s) should be, do you even bother reading or comprehending what's written? I never said anyting about "laws to deal with conclusions", I said the results. Those mean two different things.
    You sound like that golfer that claimed he didn't call Tiger Woods a cheater - he just said that Tiger Woods cheated. WTH are you babbling about? Results is a synonym for the conclusions of something, in this case an action.

    I'll give you a simple example. It would be foolish to pass a law that says that people cannot swing their fists. It's perfectly reasonable to pass a law that says you can't assult another person. It's not the swinging of the fist that's the crime, it's the assualt. Same with driving. You don't fine someone for dialing a phone number, or pushing a button the radio. You write them a ticket for swerving into another lane (if that's the result), regardless of the actions that caused it. If their actions cause an accident, you take away their license. If they drive without a license, you put them in jail.
    I got it. So you don't write a ticket for someone who has 17 beers, 12 martinis and 4 shots of vodka (or just 5 shots of vodka but he THINKS he's sober) and then proceeds to drive down Main Street without incident. The ONLY crime should be if this drunken buffoon actually hurts someone else and then you punish him severely. But if he miraculously made it home without incident, it's not a punishable offense.

    I got it. A law that should deter people from even getting into their car intoxicated isn't a good idea the same way a law requiring all people to obey a set of rules if they intend to use a mobile phone when driving isn't a good idea too. You should only be guilty of a crime if your texting your ***** friends with the other hand on the wheel actually "results" in killing someone - it's not a crime your brainless action places a grave and unnecessary risk to numerous other drivers on the road.

    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Interesting concept. You impart us with your "wisdom", then declare the discussion worthless. Don't think it's going to fly. I would be curious as to your rationalization for a law that limits personal freedoms, but doesn't apply to those that passed the law
    No - I've declared your pitiful attempt to show face worthless. Try spinning the above once more and tell us all what you really meant this time.

    I'm sorry to inform you but the gun laws and DUI/DWI laws, as weak as they are, have been passed and do infringe upon your holy Constitutional rights. They are there to protect the rest of us from the unfortunately large number of people who fail to possess what many call - not wisdom - but common sense.

    OK. This really is my last post. It's really funny but a time waster. See you all on other threads.
  14. #154  
    Quote Originally Posted by iamsedated View Post
    ...So the problem with cell phone usage in cars is because it's to fill up the boredom. ...WILL STILL find someone else to occupy the boredom of driving like... well... pillowfights, a Playstation Plus mounted on the dash... SOMETHING... because the radio isn't good enough to entertain their dullard minds... seriously, this argument is darn funny.
    I think you're the only one that keeps coming up with "pillow fights". As to the Playstation, yes, there are vehicles that have those installed. Y


    Quote Originally Posted by fritomisto View Post
    You sound like that golfer that claimed he didn't call Tiger Woods a cheater - he just said that Tiger Woods cheated. WTH are you babbling about? Results is a synonym for the conclusions of something, in this case an action.
    No, results and conclusions are not synonyms. Your ignorance is revealing though.


    Quote Originally Posted by fritomisto View Post
    I got it. So you don't write a ticket for someone who has 17 beers, 12 martinis and 4 shots of vodka (or just 5 shots of vodka but he THINKS he's sober) and then proceeds to drive down Main Street without incident.
    The ONLY crime should be if this drunken buffoon actually hurts someone else and then you punish him severely. But if he miraculously made it home without incident, it's not a punishable offense.
    Find where I said that. We were talking about cell phone use.


    Quote Originally Posted by fritomisto View Post
    I'm sorry to inform you but the gun laws and DUI/DWI laws, as weak as they are, have been passed and do infringe upon your holy Constitutional rights.
    You're the one that keeps bringing the constitution into this. But since you have, the laws that are passed that are unconsititutional should be struck down. It's a shame you don't understand that.
    Quote Originally Posted by fritomisto View Post
    They are there to protect the rest of us from the unfortunately large number of people who fail to possess what many call - not wisdom - but common sense.
    Yet, in spite of the thousands of ridiculous laws passed, we're not protected from those that fail to possess common sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by fritomisto View Post
    OK. This really is my last post. It's really funny but a time waster. See you all on other threads.
    I doubt it.
  15. #155  
    Quote Originally Posted by jye75 View Post
    What's next? Ban in-car eating and putting on make-up, changing CD's, picking your nose and looking at the results?
    While it is rarely enforced, all of these things, AND talking on a cell phone, AND texting, AND dialing by hand are already illegal in almost every state in the country, and have been for decades.

    Almost every state in the union has a law against "drving while encumbered." What that means, is that if you have anything in your hands at all besides a steering wheel, you can be pulled over and given a ticket.

    When my ex-wife was a baby, my ex-mother-in-law was given a ticket for driving while encumbered because she was changing a diaper while driving. (Take from that what you will)



    At the start of this year, texting or talking on the phone without a hands-free unit were made illegal here in Oregon, and to the surprise of nobody, the fine is exactly the same as the fine for driving while encumbered.

    These are non-sense laws that simply repeat what another law says because cops in many areas simply will not enforce what's already on the books, and when they try, ***** judges throw the tickets out.
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions