My apologies for the ApS-style of posting but there were so many posts to comment on, this was the easiest way to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by depasseg
Not quite all the tech is there yet. It's missing the 3D sonar to figure out if the person with the phone is located in the driver's seat or is only a passenger.
|
They could use a sensor in the seat. They already have them for the seat belt warning light/buzzer if there's a passenger seated and the seat belt isn't buckled.
Actually, I was thinking a cellphone signal jammer installed in cars would be good; it would activate when the engine is started and stays on until the engine is shut off. I'm guessing the hard part is keeping the jamming signal tight, to just the immediate area of the car it's installed in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeWood
It's a feel good law at best.
|
When it comes right down to it, aren't they all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter
After all, it's the live free or die state.
|
Especially when there's revenue to be had!
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Guy
We'll have customers come into the office discussing their accounts with us, suddenly they'll whip out their phone and starting thumbing away on it completely mid-sentence. "go ahead, I'm still listening"
|
That one's easy! When you hear that line, your reply should be, "I'll continue when you put your phone away."
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM
Agree about texting. There should be instant access to the phone by law enforcement and a serious fine but still think that banning cell phone use is a little over the top. Punching in a speed dial is actually less distracting than adjusting your heater or A/C, programming your GPS, messing with your radio or eating lunch at the wheel.
Just my $.02
|
Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more. Instant access to my personal effects by law enforcement is a violation of my rights and could lead us further down the slippery slope of losing our liberty.
From the Bill of Rights:
Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. |
So let's do this; currently, the police can stop you for suspicion of DWI, do a field sobriety test and if you fail that, ask you to do a breathalyzer test. As I understand it, IF YOU REFUSE the breathalyzer test, you lose your license automatically for a period of time (I'm not familiar with the specific length of time) even if you beat the DWI stop later on. Why couldn't they do the same thing for a suspicion of DWT (driving while texting)? If you refuse access to the phone, you lose your license automatically for a period of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeWood
Hand(s) (sic) off completely is the only real enforceable policy. That means I would only have to testify to seeing you handling the phone, which is much simpler. Again, these are feel good laws with no teeth.
|
Or we could do this; this is simple and easy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misty Blue
Another is that we already have a law that covers this, distracted driving. That law covers the gambit from texting to putting on make up at the wheel. I believe that our police officers can use their judgment on the dangers involved.
|
Agreed. I remember when that one was enacted, it was mentioned at the time that they could charge you if you're eating in your car while driving! I would think they could use that one as is or, if necessary, amend it as needed to the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot
Where have we heard these same aruments before about enforcing existing laws? !! Well said, Misty Blue. It's the same nanny state politicians that voted this law in as well. When are we going to wake up and get rid of these people?
|
Simple question then; what's your solution to this problem?