dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
796

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

RE:US calls for near total in-car phone ban, even hands free

Nanny government at work once again. There is absolutely no lengths the gov't won't go to to save "JUST ONE LIFE". Of course the insurance industry is a big driver of this attitude. But there will always be a government bureaucrat or elected nonentity that will be willing to remove our freedoms to save that 1 life.
quote:
"No call, no text, no update, is worth a human life," Deborah Hersman, chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board, said at a news conference in Washington.

Besides calling for government action, the NTSB also urged consumer electronics manufacturers to figure out a way to "disable the functions of portable electronic devices within reach of the driver when a vehicle is in motion" while at the same time being able to turn themselves back on in an emergency.
And what drove this NTSB recommendation? 2 dead.:
quote:
The recommendation comes following the NTSB's investigation of an August 2010 accident in Gray Summit, Mo., involving a pickup truck, two school buses and several other vehicles.

Driving and texting: msnbc.com cartoonists weigh in
The accident was blamed on the 19-year-old driver of the pickup, who sent or received 11 texts in the 11 minutes before the pileup, which killed two people and injured 38 others.
Other studies question the NTSB study and recommendation:
quote:
But similar studies linking cellphone use to poor driving have been challenged, most recently by researchers at Wayne State University in Detroit, who concluded last month that some earlier studies were seriously flawed.

The report, published in the journal Epidemiology, examined to earlier studies that examined crashes in which cellphone records showed that the driver had used a cellphone. Those studies "likely overestimated the relative risk for cellphone conversations," the researchers said, because they improperly assumed that the drivers were actually in motion when they were on the phone — in other words, they didn't factor in such so-called part-time driving.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

said by FFH5:

Nanny government at work once again. There is absolutely no lengths the gov't won't go to to save "JUST ONE LIFE". Of course the insurance industry is a big driver of this attitude. But there will always be a government bureaucrat or elected nonentity that will be willing to remove our freedoms to save that 1 life.

So I guess you're mad there are drunk driving laws too then? You do NOT have the freedom to text and drive. Driving by the way is a PRIVELIDGE not a RIGHT.

What you think people should just do whatever they want and ANY laws are bad? That's anarchy. And sorry anarchy is not freedom. I'm sorry but even in a free society there are rules and laws that must be adhered too. If you do not wish to be "ruled" then LEAVE and find a secluded island somewhere..
Wilsdom
join:2009-08-06

1 recommendation

Wilsdom to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
Writing new laws is what legislatures do, freedom or sanity be damned. A kid somehow drowns in MA and his guilt-ridden father gets a law passed to get kids to "swim" in life-vests at camps.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to 88615298

Premium Member

to 88615298
said by 88615298:

said by FFH5:

Nanny government at work once again. There is absolutely no lengths the gov't won't go to to save "JUST ONE LIFE". Of course the insurance industry is a big driver of this attitude. But there will always be a government bureaucrat or elected nonentity that will be willing to remove our freedoms to save that 1 life.

So I guess you're mad there are drunk driving laws too then? You do NOT have the freedom to text and drive. Driving by the way is a PRIVELIDGE{SIC} not a RIGHT.

I didn't say anything about drunk driving laws at all. But even there the idiots in government take things too far. First it was .10% BAC, then .08% BAC; and in some states even lower than that. The idiots want to take it to a point that you couldn't wash your mouth out with an alcohol containing mouthwash or you would be prevented from even starting your car by an interlock system.

Hands free cell call is not causing accidents any more than arguing with a passenger would(some studies agree; some don't). So, where does it end? I'll tell you - the Google dream of a machine driven car with ZERO human control after plugging in the destination. And all in the name of trying to remove ANY human risks at all from life. Like I said - oppressive nanny government run by those who want to control your every waking moment.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

said by FFH5:

I didn't say anything about drunk driving laws at all.

Basically you did. You said any laws are just the naanny state taking away your freedom. The fact is texting an drive is as bad or worse than drunk driving. There is PROOF of that. Thuis is drunk driving is illegal and you're ok with that then you shouldn't have an issue with a ban on texting. If you do you are either obtuse or a hypocrite. Not trying to offend you but logically you'd have to be one of the two is you're for one law and not the other.
88615298

88615298 (banned) to Wilsdom

Member

to Wilsdom
said by Wilsdom:

Writing new laws is what legislatures do, freedom or sanity be damned. A kid somehow drowns in MA and his guilt-ridden father gets a law passed to get kids to "swim" in life-vests at camps.

So texting and driving are cool with you. Like getting high or drunk and driving are cool with you too?
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to 88615298

Premium Member

to 88615298
said by 88615298:

said by FFH5:

Nanny government at work once again. There is absolutely no lengths the gov't won't go to to save "JUST ONE LIFE". Of course the insurance industry is a big driver of this attitude. But there will always be a government bureaucrat or elected nonentity that will be willing to remove our freedoms to save that 1 life.

So I guess you're mad there are drunk driving laws too then? You do NOT have the freedom to text and drive. Driving by the way is a PRIVELIDGE not a RIGHT.

What you think people should just do whatever they want and ANY laws are bad? That's anarchy. And sorry anarchy is not freedom. I'm sorry but even in a free society there are rules and laws that must be adhered too. If you do not wish to be "ruled" then LEAVE and find a secluded island somewhere..

now remember he does not support no laws at all. he does seem to back up draconian anti-piracy laws that support the MAFIAA.

somehow ICE being allowed to steal domains illegally without a court order or any body of proof a site is in the wrong is not taking away rights, but banning driver usage of a cell phone is taking away rights.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

I didn't say anything about drunk driving laws at all. But even there the idiots in government take things too far. First it was .10% BAC, then .08% BAC; and in some states even lower than that.

They made it illegal to drink & drive with .1% BAC or higher. That apparently was not low enough. Driving is not a right, nor should it be. Driving is dangerous and as such we need to have laws to minimize any unnecessary risks that happen behind the wheel. How anyone would be against this is truly mind boggling. What good reason does a person have to drive and not concentrate completely on the road? If you can come up with one, you shouldn't be driving in the first place.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 edit

FFH5 to 88615298

Premium Member

to 88615298
said by 88615298:

said by FFH5:

I didn't say anything about drunk driving laws at all.

Basically you did. You said any laws are just the naanny state taking away your freedom.

Prove it. Show where I said that. I didn't.
FFH5

FFH5 to Kearnstd

Premium Member

to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd:

said by 88615298:

said by FFH5:

Nanny government at work once again. There is absolutely no lengths the gov't won't go to to save "JUST ONE LIFE". Of course the insurance industry is a big driver of this attitude. But there will always be a government bureaucrat or elected nonentity that will be willing to remove our freedoms to save that 1 life.

So I guess you're mad there are drunk driving laws too then? You do NOT have the freedom to text and drive. Driving by the way is a PRIVELIDGE not a RIGHT.

What you think people should just do whatever they want and ANY laws are bad? That's anarchy. And sorry anarchy is not freedom. I'm sorry but even in a free society there are rules and laws that must be adhered too. If you do not wish to be "ruled" then LEAVE and find a secluded island somewhere..

now remember he does not support no laws at all. he does seem to back up draconian anti-piracy laws that support the MAFIAA.

somehow ICE being allowed to steal domains illegally without a court order or any body of proof a site is in the wrong is not taking away rights, but banning driver usage of a cell phone is taking away rights.

Off topic rant. please stay on topic.
puck0114
join:2005-12-24
Portland, OR

puck0114 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
A nanny state wouldn't be necessary if Americans weren't so stupid in the first place.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

said by puck0114:

A nanny state wouldn't be necessary if Americans weren't so stupid in the first place.

that is truth, I mean we need warning labels to tell people not to use a blow dryer in a bath tub, or that a jar of Planeters Honey roasted Peanuts contains Peanuts.

And the simple fact we have to have a law to fasten seatbelts when it should be common sense.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to Wilsdom

Premium Member

to Wilsdom
said by Wilsdom:

Writing new laws is what legislatures do, freedom or sanity be damned. A kid somehow drowns in MA and his guilt-ridden father gets a law passed to get kids to "swim" in life-vests at camps.

Looks like despite the NTSB recommendation, little chance most states will actually ban hands free cellphone use in cars. Texting is a different matter.

»news.yahoo.com/why-cell- ··· 867.html

But Americans tolerate all kinds of danger, death and even mayhem in the name of personal freedom. We insist on it, in fact, and policymakers listen. The U.S. political system routinely prioritizes freedom over safety.

It would take a stoic governor out of touch with voter preferences and unconcerned about re-election to sign an actual cell-phone ban into law

But the cell phone has practically become standard equipment in most American cars, and there's virtually no chance the government will pry it out of there.

I hope this writer is correct.
FFH5

FFH5

Premium Member

said by FFH5:

So, where does it end? I'll tell you - the Google dream of a machine driven car with ZERO human control after plugging in the destination. And all in the name of trying to remove ANY human risks at all from life.

And Google Moves right in to the Nanny Gov't plans with the driverless car patent:
»www.techradar.com/news/w ··· -1048313

Google has been granted a patent for driverless car technology, which can fully take over the control of a vehicle from a human driver.

This full-fat version of cruise control uses web functionality to trigger the automated driving tech, with one of the images which goes alongside the patent showcasing what seems to be a massive QR code embedded into a road.

It seems that once a driver of one of Google's automatic cars drives over the QR code – or reference indicator, as it is called in the patent – the car then takes over the controls.

Google has been looking into the idea of driverless cars for a while now and even outlined its proposal for an automatic car in its last Zeitgeist, where Larry Page explained: "It's an area that I've had some interest in since I was a grad student. It seemed pretty practical actually, I mean you think that driving a car is hard but it is not actually that hard for a computer if [it] has good data about what's about it."