dslreports logo
 story category
New DOT Guidelines Prohibit Most In-Vehicle Communications
Pay Attention to the Road, Numbskull
As more and more auto-makers begin to incorporate broadband-tied services into vehicles, the U.S. Department of Transportation has proposed new guidelines that would ban the manual use (dialing, sending texts, entering GPS addresses) while a vehicle is in motion. "We recognize that vehicle manufacturers want to build vehicles that include the tools and conveniences expected by today’s American drivers," said NHTSA Administrator David Strickland in a statement. "The guidelines we’re proposing would offer real-world guidance to automakers to help them develop electronic devices that provide features consumers want—without disrupting a driver’s attention or sacrificing safety."
view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · next
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

1 recommendation

moonpuppy (banned)

Member

Stupid laws strike once again....

Again, if people can't pay attention to what they are doing, then they need to be off the road.

Otherwise, we should ban police officers and firefighters from using their 2 way radios in the vehicles. They can be distracted just as much.

And, as I posted somewhere else, we need to ban texting and walking.

»laughingsquid.com/textin ··· neistat/

88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: Stupid laws strike once again....

It's stupid to ban texting and driving?

fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium Member
join:2005-07-01
Palm Springs, CA

fuziwuzi to moonpuppy

Premium Member

to moonpuppy
When you're hit head on by some bimbo too busy texting to pay attention to driving and your family is killed, may we remind you that you advocated for the bimbo's right to do that?
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

moonpuppy (banned)

Member

Re: Stupid laws strike once again....

said by fuziwuzi:

When you're hit head on by some bimbo too busy texting to pay attention to driving and your family is killed, may we remind you that you advocated for the bimbo's right to do that?

It's called distracted driving and laws have been on the books for years before cell phones were even around.

In my day, they told you to be careful when changing a radio station or grabbing a cassette tape in the car.

And where are the laws that ban the following while driving:

- applying makeup (seen this many times)
- shaving (even see this in commercials)
- reading a newspaper (still see this)
- using a laptop (BMW doing 70+ nearly ran me off the road on the way to BWI airport)
- changing clothes
- eating and/or drinking (maybe we need to ban drive-thrus just in case.)

Emiya
join:2006-03-30
Southington, OH

Emiya

Member

Re: Stupid laws strike once again....

said by moonpuppy:

said by fuziwuzi:

When you're hit head on by some bimbo too busy texting to pay attention to driving and your family is killed, may we remind you that you advocated for the bimbo's right to do that?

It's called distracted driving and laws have been on the books for years before cell phones were even around.

In my day, they told you to be careful when changing a radio station or grabbing a cassette tape in the car.

And where are the laws that ban the following while driving:

- applying makeup (seen this many times)
- shaving (even see this in commercials)
- reading a newspaper (still see this)
- using a laptop (BMW doing 70+ nearly ran me off the road on the way to BWI airport)
- changing clothes
- eating and/or drinking (maybe we need to ban drive-thrus just in case.)


You forgot passengers.

n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

1 recommendation

n2jtx

Member

Re: Stupid laws strike once again....

said by Emiya:

said by moonpuppy:

said by fuziwuzi:

When you're hit head on by some bimbo too busy texting to pay attention to driving and your family is killed, may we remind you that you advocated for the bimbo's right to do that?

It's called distracted driving and laws have been on the books for years before cell phones were even around.

In my day, they told you to be careful when changing a radio station or grabbing a cassette tape in the car.

And where are the laws that ban the following while driving:

- applying makeup (seen this many times)
- shaving (even see this in commercials)
- reading a newspaper (still see this)
- using a laptop (BMW doing 70+ nearly ran me off the road on the way to BWI airport)
- changing clothes
- eating and/or drinking (maybe we need to ban drive-thrus just in case.)


You forgot passengers.

I would add a special category for "Children". Perhaps we should ban them as passengers. I know they can be more distracting than any electronic device yet created. And you cannot turn them off!
flashcore
join:2007-01-23
united state

flashcore

Member

Re: Stupid laws strike once again....

said by n2jtx:

I would add a special category for "Children". Perhaps we should ban them as passengers. I know they can be more distracting than any electronic device yet created. And you cannot turn them off!

Dam right we should ban Children too, then I would not have been hit by a bimbo doing 50 failing to see the 4 cars at the red light in front of them.

All that we really need to do is to take away the licenses of the morons who cant multitask then people like me who can talk on the phone and drive without causing accidents would be able to get to work in 20 minutes instead of 40-80. (30 years on the road, only 1 accident that was not my fault, see above)

Oh_No
Trogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL

Oh_No

Member

Re: Stupid laws strike once again....

Agreed,
It would be nice if they actually took away driver licenses and required strict driving tests w/ written testing every few years. So many people would fail the written test like:
1) Turn signals are requided when changing lanes - T or F
2) The left lane should only be used for passing - T or F
3) It is unsafe to merge onto the interstate going 20 mph below the speed of the flow of traffic - T or F
4) On an interstate, if you cant merge from the left lane to the right lane to reach your intended exit in time, it is acceptable to slow or stop in the left lanes until you can merge to the exit? Yes - You can stop the traffic in the left lanes to wait and merge or No - you need to take the next exit and do a u-turn as you cant reach your exit going the speed limit

Hell it would be nice if they took it away after so many accidents or DUIs. There are people with 5+ dui's that still have a license.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

BiggA

Premium Member

Re: Stupid laws strike once again....

Agreed. The initial driver training should be much more intensive too, and should involve handling and hazard avoidance and such on a closed track. There are a lot of people out there who are terrible drivers.
old_wiz_60
join:2005-06-03
Bedford, MA

old_wiz_60 to Emiya

Member

to Emiya
And laws prohibiting passengers from distracting drivers by ......
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA

Premium Member

Re: Stupid laws strike once again....

Passengers are fundamentally different from devices. Everyone who has any figment of a brain agrees that there should be strict bans on texting and driving, the question really is whether hands-free talking on the phone, and voice command infotainment systems are OK.

I'd say it's better not to be on the phone while driving.

Although really, the whole issue will be moot in a few years when cars drive themselves.

cableties
Premium Member
join:2005-01-27

cableties to moonpuppy

Premium Member

to moonpuppy
I read someone that glass containers like soda bottles (pop for y'll west of the mississippi), are illegal in cars because they can become a projectile at speed...

So can that suction cup GPS, SATradio,... or fall off during heating of interior and cause distraction to driver... OH SH-T!...

jtudor
MVM
join:2002-12-07
Morganton, NC

jtudor to moonpuppy

MVM

to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy:

And where are the laws that ban the following while driving:
- eating and/or drinking (maybe we need to ban drive-thrus just in case.)

Don't joke about that too much, I have actually heard some politicians discuss banning eating of anything and drinking anything while driving, and they were VERY Serious about it!

fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium Member
join:2005-07-01
Palm Springs, CA
Hitron EN2251
Nest H2D

1 recommendation

fuziwuzi

Premium Member

Re: Stupid laws strike once again....

said by jtudor:

said by moonpuppy:

And where are the laws that ban the following while driving:
- eating and/or drinking (maybe we need to ban drive-thrus just in case.)

Don't joke about that too much, I have actually heard some politicians discuss banning eating of anything and drinking anything while driving, and they were VERY Serious about it!

You're piloting a 2 ton projectile at 60+ mph, is it too much to ask that you NOT be shoving a Big Mac down your throat at the same time?

jtudor
MVM
join:2002-12-07
Morganton, NC

jtudor

MVM

Re: Stupid laws strike once again....

said by fuziwuzi:

said by jtudor:

said by moonpuppy:

And where are the laws that ban the following while driving:
- eating and/or drinking (maybe we need to ban drive-thrus just in case.)

Don't joke about that too much, I have actually heard some politicians discuss banning eating of anything and drinking anything while driving, and they were VERY Serious about it!

You're piloting a 2 ton projectile at 60+ mph, is it too much to ask that you NOT be shoving a Big Mac down your throat at the same time?

I am not referring to a Big Mac, I am referring to even small bite size foods,like French Fries, or a Lance Cracker. Hamburgers may not be a good idea, but we already have way too much GovCo interference in our lives, we don't need any more.

mikedz4
join:2003-04-14
Weirton, WV

mikedz4 to moonpuppy

Member

to moonpuppy
exactly pretty soon they will ban radios in cars because people are looking at what song or station they are listening to or for a cd instead of the road.

MemphisPCGuy
Taking Care Business
Premium Member
join:2004-05-09
Memphis, TN

MemphisPCGuy

Premium Member

Re: Stupid laws strike once again....

As long as cars have had radios I assume the statistics point to them not being a big issue. Insurance typically legislatates what is and isnt dangerous over a given time. Obviously GPS and CELL PHONEs are spiking a chart somewhere.

fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium Member
join:2005-07-01
Palm Springs, CA
Hitron EN2251
Nest H2D

fuziwuzi to moonpuppy

Premium Member

to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy:

said by fuziwuzi:

When you're hit head on by some bimbo too busy texting to pay attention to driving and your family is killed, may we remind you that you advocated for the bimbo's right to do that?

It's called distracted driving and laws have been on the books for years before cell phones were even around.

In my day, they told you to be careful when changing a radio station or grabbing a cassette tape in the car.

And where are the laws that ban the following while driving:

- applying makeup (seen this many times)
- shaving (even see this in commercials)
- reading a newspaper (still see this)
- using a laptop (BMW doing 70+ nearly ran me off the road on the way to BWI airport)
- changing clothes
- eating and/or drinking (maybe we need to ban drive-thrus just in case.)


All of those are also against the law in many locales. The issue, however, is that texting has become so commonplace and it is a large factor already in accidents. Laws can be a good incentive for people to pay attention. Just telling someone "don't do that, it isn't safe" is typically ignored. But saying, "don't do that, you could be fined $150", they are more apt to pay attention. Just look at seat belt laws, they've slowly but surely had an effect of increasing seat belt usage.

Why the resistance to make an attempt to make driving safer for everybody? Is that text really more important than yours or someone else's life?
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

1 recommendation

moonpuppy (banned)

Member

Re: Stupid laws strike once again....

said by fuziwuzi:

All of those are also against the law in many locales. The issue, however, is that texting has become so commonplace and it is a large factor already in accidents. Laws can be a good incentive for people to pay attention. Just telling someone "don't do that, it isn't safe" is typically ignored. But saying, "don't do that, you could be fined $150", they are more apt to pay attention. Just look at seat belt laws, they've slowly but surely had an effect of increasing seat belt usage.

Why the resistance to make an attempt to make driving safer for everybody? Is that text really more important than yours or someone else's life?

And guess what...those are still being done today despite law after law being passed.

Here is a thought; maybe if we just enforced the the current distracted driving laws we have on the books, we wouldn't need yet another law that is not only being broken every single day but not even enforced.

And the seat belt law is apple to oranges. If was legal not to use them at one time. They went to a secondary offence (meaning you had to do something else to get cited for it) to a primary offence. There was no other law that encompassed that rule. Texting while driving falls under distracted driving.


fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium Member
join:2005-07-01
Palm Springs, CA
Hitron EN2251
Nest H2D

fuziwuzi

Premium Member

Re: Stupid laws strike once again....

said by moonpuppy:

said by fuziwuzi:

All of those are also against the law in many locales. The issue, however, is that texting has become so commonplace and it is a large factor already in accidents. Laws can be a good incentive for people to pay attention. Just telling someone "don't do that, it isn't safe" is typically ignored. But saying, "don't do that, you could be fined $150", they are more apt to pay attention. Just look at seat belt laws, they've slowly but surely had an effect of increasing seat belt usage.

Why the resistance to make an attempt to make driving safer for everybody? Is that text really more important than yours or someone else's life?

And guess what...those are still being done today despite law after law being passed.

Here is a thought; maybe if we just enforced the the current distracted driving laws we have on the books, we wouldn't need yet another law that is not only being broken every single day but not even enforced.

And the seat belt law is apple to oranges. If was legal not to use them at one time. They went to a secondary offence (meaning you had to do something else to get cited for it) to a primary offence. There was no other law that encompassed that rule. Texting while driving falls under distracted driving.


You purposely missed my point. Seat belt laws were ignored by a big number of people at first, but compliance has gradually increased over the years. By increasing the penalties for non-compliance and a massive educational campaign, many thousands of lives have been saved. The same could be done for use of cellphones without some sort of handsfree operation.

I've already lost one friend because of someone texting while driving and have also been in an accident where my car was totaled because the other driver was texting. You could always pull many other examples of distraction out of your a** but they have not had the impact (pun intended) in many years that texting has already had in a very short amount of time. To deny that texting is a serious driving problem is absurd.

Is your life so cheap that a text message is worth more?
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

moonpuppy (banned)

Member

Re: Stupid laws strike once again....

said by fuziwuzi:

You purposely missed my point. Seat belt laws were ignored by a big number of people at first, but compliance has gradually increased over the years. By increasing the penalties for non-compliance and a massive educational campaign, many thousands of lives have been saved. The same could be done for use of cellphones without some sort of handsfree operation.

I've already lost one friend because of someone texting while driving and have also been in an accident where my car was totaled because the other driver was texting. You could always pull many other examples of distraction out of your a** but they have not had the impact (pun intended) in many years that texting has already had in a very short amount of time. To deny that texting is a serious driving problem is absurd.

Is your life so cheap that a text message is worth more?

And because you lost a friend to someone distracted while driving, you are a bigger authority? I had someone hit my while distracted so I know what I am talking about. And this was before cell phones were texting and the person that caused the accident didn't even have one.

And where did I say it was not a serious problem. I'll wait.

Again, there are already laws against distracted driving and these guidelines do nothing about other forms of distracted driving that cause accidents as well.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2 to fuziwuzi

Premium Member

to fuziwuzi
Then stay off the road.

Until people can 100% say how a law is going to stop families from being killed, then I'll buy the argument that we need more laws. We already have laws.

Government is inefficient there is no doubt. If one believes any different - well, look around you.. the world is currently in a downward spiral.. the best days of our society are behind us.

You can't show me where a law and enforcement will change the fact that you're going to make it to your destination alive when you're on the road.. it only takes one person, and you, to be in the right place together to prove you wrong. Even the government gets this, don't they don't live by it. Remember 9/11?? .. they always said "we have to be right 100% of the time, and they have to be right only once"... amazing how they can't understand that everywhere else in life.

So long as you have people willing to break these ridiculous laws, you have the risk that you will die in an accident because of a texter. I'm pretty sure that drunk driving laws have been on the books for quite some time now, yet people still die everyday from drunk driving.. and we still have repeat offenders too.

The moral is that if you think a law will make us safer, you're living under false hope.

Again, this is a place for industry and innovators to thrive.. I see nothing wrong with having these systems placed in cars so long as they are well thought out and work. I've been using voice activated systems for quite sometime now and they're wonderful. If someone can't handle talking to their car, then they should not have passengers riding with them either.
fiberguy2

fiberguy2 to moonpuppy

Premium Member

to moonpuppy
Minnesota already has this... they look at all of what you said as "distracted driving".. so basically they leave it up to the discretion of law enforcement to pull people over for any of the above things you mentioned. They made a point of this with campaigns lately warning people to think twice before putting that burger in your mouth on your way home.
itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA

itguy05 to fuziwuzi

Member

to fuziwuzi
said by fuziwuzi:

When you're hit head on by some bimbo too busy texting to pay attention to driving and your family is killed, may we remind you that you advocated for the bimbo's right to do that?

I have been rear ended by the guy playing with his car stereo. So shouldn't we outlaw radios in the car too?

I believe the government should keep a relatively hands off approach to things.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

2 recommendations

fiberguy2 to fuziwuzi

Premium Member

to fuziwuzi
I absolutely support that bimbo's right to text for the fact that there does not need to be a law stating that. If it's not texting, it's going to be something else. There are far too many laws on the books as it is and the laws don't change anything.. as a matter of fact the laws only make things worse.

When it was "legal" to text while driving (basically not ILLEGAL) people would largely hold their phones up in sight of the road.. now people keep doing it and bury their heads in their laps. WORSE!

You can have a LAW "banning" something (remember, government in our country does NOT "grant" us rights.. they can restrict, to a degree) but it will NOT save your family when someone breaks the law.

All these laws do is raise income levels for the bureaucracy that has to be created to handle said laws. It does help raise awareness of a matter but doesn't change behavior. Smart people will not text and drive... dumb people will continue to do so and hide it.

Red light cams anyone?? Not only area many states ruling them unconstitutional, for many reasons, many studies have come out showing they've done NOTHING to curb accidents from running red lights.. but they have shown that the government gets richer is all.

Anytime you get on the road you risk the fact that you may not reach your destination for any number of reasons. For that, you can't protect everyone from everything. THE MARKET PLACE is where this would be corrected by the market INNOVATING and finding new ways to allow for certain activities to occur in a safer way than we have now. It not only makes things safer for us all, but it also helps move along the economy as well.

ANYTIME a congresscritter enacts a new law or rule all it does is creates more problems, confusion, and tears down society more. We're a land of freedoms, and every day we get a new law another freedom is taken away.. most don't get that though.

In case anyone hasn't noticed, society is breaking down as we speak, yet many people are in denial. It's largely due to the fact that people place too much responsibility in places or people that can't handle it, and corruption. In this case, this is another example where both come to play. The government is not the answer for everything.. including this. I'm still trying to figure out how the seat belt law has benefited society because a law protecting me isn't for the good of everyone and I certainly don't want the government telling me what to do.

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

FFH5 to moonpuppy

Premium Member

to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy:

Again, if people can't pay attention to what they are doing, then they need to be off the road.

These DOT/NHTSA guidelines are voluntary, at least until states pass new laws to incorporate them in to their states' traffic laws.

Distracted driving laws in every state already address all these suggested guidelines. We don't need more detailed laws. We only need enforcement of existing laws instead of having the police used as revenue enhancements for state and local budget issues. Police are used to make money and not to create a safe driving environment.

»www.detroitnews.com/arti ··· ractions

The department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will hold public hearings next month to solicit industry and consumer reactions to the guidelines, which are voluntary.


jtudor
MVM
join:2002-12-07
Morganton, NC

1 edit

jtudor

MVM

Re: Guidelines are VOLUNTARY & not prohibitions or laws

said by FFH5:

These DOT/NHTSA guidelines are voluntary, at least until states pass new laws to incorporate them in to their states' traffic laws.

They will not be voluntary it auto manufacturers put in mechanisms to disable devices when the car is in motion. At that point, the government has once again become a NANNY state, unless the auto manufacturers give you a way to disable the disable.... LOL

And to add to it, Ray LaHood was on CBS this morning talking about this, and he said that among other things GPS should be disabled because it is distracting. He did not say that text entry to GPS should be disabled, he wanted GPS itself disabled.

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

1 recommendation

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Guidelines are VOLUNTARY & not prohibitions or laws

said by jtudor:

And to add to it, Ray LaHood was on CBS this morning talking about this, and he said that among other things GPS should be disabled because it is distracting. He did not say that text entry to GPS should be disabled, he wanted GPS itself disabled.

Yes, reading paper maps while driving is definitely a safer solution. LaHood is a moron.
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

moonpuppy (banned) to jtudor

Member

to jtudor
said by jtudor:

said by moonpuppy :

These DOT/NHTSA guidelines are voluntary, at least until states pass new laws to incorporate them in to their states' traffic laws.

They will not be voluntary it auto manufacturers put in mechanisms to disable devices when the car is in motion. At that point, the government has once again become a NANNY state, unless the auto manufacturers give you a way to disable the disable.... LOL

And to add to it, Ray LaHood was on CBS this morning talking about this, and he said that among other things GPS should be disabled because it is distracting. He did not say that text entry to GPS should be disabled, he wanted GPS itself disabled.

Please fix your post as that is NOT my quote.

And I agree that what is voluntary now might not be later.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer to jtudor

Premium Member

to jtudor
Well, hell... maybe the Lightsquared deal should go through after all!!

fatness
subtle

join:2000-11-17
fishing

fatness to FFH5

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

Distracted driving laws in every state already address all these suggested guidelines.

No, they don't. Distracted driving laws are aimed at drivers. The guidelines in this article are for manufacturers, not for drivers.
quote:
The proposed Phase I distraction guidelines include recommendations to:

* Reduce complexity and task length required by the device;
* Limit device operation to one hand only (leaving the other hand to remain on the steering wheel to control the vehicle);
* Limit individual off-road glances required for device operation to no more than two seconds in duration;
* Limit unnecessary visual information in the driver’s field of view;
* Limit the amount of manual inputs required for device operation.

The proposed guidelines would also recommend the disabling of the following operations by in-vehicle electronic devices while driving, unless the devices are intended for use by passengers and cannot reasonably be accessed or seen by the driver, or unless the vehicle is stopped and the transmission shift lever is in park.

* Visual-manual text messaging;
* Visual-manual internet browsing;
* Visual-manual social media browsing;
* Visual-manual navigation system destination entry by address;
* Visual-manual 10-digit phone dialing;
* Displaying to the driver more than 30 characters of text unrelated to the driving task.


••••••••
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 recommendation

fiberguy2 to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
ABSOLUTELY dead on correct!

... anyone that's been in law enforcement knows their part in revenue.

I HATE to think of a President Rick Perry, but I love his idea of a part time congress. These rule makers, regulators, etc. all spend far too much time trying to write new laws.. I'm guessing it's so they can say "see? Look what I did!!" - Maybe they can spend more time removing outdated laws and doing some clean up instead.

But, while you're right, guidelines are voluntary, for now at least.. speed limits were once a guideline too.. then it became extortion where it was "if you want some of your tax money back in the form of road funding, you'll do what we said, or else"..

fatness
subtle

join:2000-11-17
fishing

1 recommendation

fatness

Re: Guidelines are VOLUNTARY & not prohibitions or laws

Yeah, they took away our god-given right to drive 75 mph by schools.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Guidelines are VOLUNTARY & not prohibitions or laws

said by fatness:

Yeah, they took away our god-given right to drive 75 mph by schools.

You're being ridiculous... don't get me started. Try thinking outside your narrow focus. There are states like Texas and North Dakota.. freeways far away from crowded areas where speed limits could be increased.

It's the fact that some study, some piece of paper somewhere said that... or forget it.. remember, 55 saves fuel. What ever.

Government can't apply logic with out doing it across the board.. they're not capable of seeing dynamics. If that doesn't make sense to you then you've never run a business, nor have you ever studied law very much.

N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs

N3OGH to moonpuppy

Premium Member

to moonpuppy
Ugh.

How long before someone hoists the "Don't Tread on Me" banner?

First off, their GUIDELINES, not laws. From what I read after the jump the PROPOSED guidelines make sense.

Second, it's a bit of a stretch from 16 yr old Sally telling her BBF she's on the way over to pick her up to a first responder using a 2 way radio.

Texting requires much more manual dexterity, much more concentration, and a portion of your observational resources to accomplish.

Using a 2 way radio requires the use of the coarsest muscle group of the hand (using the thumb to depress the PTT button), and ZERO observational skills.

I've been in several 100+ MPH situations where I had to call out a direction change, or a landmark and had zero issue with it. The mic is mounted in the same place every time, and the button is in the same place every time. the entire task is accomplished with muscle memory.

I will admit to texting and driving a few times. What a disaster. I won't do it again.

I've been talking on radios and driving since I had a CB in my 1987 Cavalier Z-24 (Hey, it was BAD ASS in 1992, OK?) with an illegal 10 meter linear amp shaped like a brick and a Wilson 1000, but I digress.

Using a 2 way radio while driving is no where NEAR being close to texting & driving.

•••••••

mod_wastrel
anonome
join:2008-03-28

mod_wastrel to moonpuppy

Member

to moonpuppy
Stupid drivers bring about "stupid" laws. (Of course, stupid laws--just about anyone who can read, turn a key, and push a pedal can get a license--bring about stupid drivers. What symmetry!!)

Oinktastic
Let them use fibre
join:2005-08-24
Scarborough

Oinktastic to moonpuppy

Member

to moonpuppy
I agree that there are a lot of activities that one shouldn't engage in while driving. Whether or not the law should cover all of them, I'm not convinced either way yet.

The thing that gets me is that police patrol cars around here are equipped with laptops that swing out over the passenger seat on an arm. And all too frequently when I see a patrol car with a single officer in it, they're watching the screen when they're stopped for any reason and sometimes even while driving. I guess they're checking license plate numbers or something, I don't know.

It really bothers me when I see that. They're officers of the law... they're supposed to be upholding the law, not breaking it. How are they to set a good example for us citizens by blatantly and openly doing the things for which they, themselves, give out tickets?

Plus, they're distracted, so they see much less of what goes on around them, potentially making their presence much less useful. If they need to check license plates, why don't they get automated system with a camera to do that?
flashcore
join:2007-01-23
united state

flashcore

Member

Re: Stupid laws strike once again....

said by Oinktastic:

If they need to check license plates, why don't they get automated system with a camera to do that?

They have automated systems here but they only work upto ~25MPH and only on stopped vehicles. The cameras are mounted on the trunk of the car and feed into the laptops. What they don't do however is announce that a car is stolen/expired plates or whatever else, the cop has to look at the screen to see it causing a major distraction and accidents when they run into someone pulling out of a space.

workablob
join:2004-06-09
Houston, TX

workablob to moonpuppy

Member

to moonpuppy
Nowhere in that article is the word law mentioned.

They are just proposing guidelines based on their expertise to assist automakers in voluntarily working to make their vehicles safer.

Dave

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

1 recommendation

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Stupid laws strike once again....

said by workablob:

Nowhere in that article is the word law mentioned.

They are just proposing guidelines based on their expertise to assist automakers in voluntarily working to make their vehicles safer.

Dave

You are right. They are just guidelines - for now. But bet your life some idiot legislators in California will pass a law making most of it mandatory on all cars sold in Calif, which will automatically turn in to law in the 15 or so states that slavishly follow Calif in all things automotive. And then auto makers, not wanting to make different cars for different states will be forced to follow Calif laws.

fatness
subtle

join:2000-11-17
fishing

fatness

Re: Stupid laws strike once again....

said by FFH5:

You are right. They are just guidelines - for now. But bet your life some idiot legislators in California will pass a law making most of it mandatory on all cars sold in Calif, which will automatically turn in to law in the 15 or so states that slavishly follow Calif in all things automotive. And then auto makers, not wanting to make different cars for different states will be forced to follow Calif laws.

So are you objecting to states deciding to raise their own safety standards? Or are you objecting to the auto companies deciding how to build cars?

FutureMon
Dude Whats mine say?

join:2000-10-05
Marina, CA

FutureMon to moonpuppy

to moonpuppy
Some devices already comply (for the most part) with this.

The bluetooth in my car radio will not allow me to pair my phone to it (for the first time) unless the car is in Park.

- FM

Boricua
Premium Member
join:2002-01-26
Sacramuerto

Boricua to moonpuppy

Premium Member

to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy:

Again, if people can't pay attention to what they are doing, then they need to be off the road.

Otherwise, we should ban police officers and firefighters from using their 2 way radios in the vehicles. They can be distracted just as much.

And, as I posted somewhere else, we need to ban texting and walking.

»laughingsquid.com/textin ··· neistat/


Maybe this commercial from the U.K. would put things into perspective for you .

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· CmStIw9E
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

moonpuppy (banned)

Member

Re: Stupid laws strike once again....

said by Boricua:

Maybe this commercial from the U.K. would put things into perspective for you .

(youtube clip)

Nothing but taking the drunk driving teens going to the prom PSAs we had at my school in my youth. Some schools had the crashed car on their front lawns.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2 to Boricua

Premium Member

to Boricua
Shock commercials should work better than any law, that's for sure.

HAVING a law doesn't change behavior.. people break laws all the time. Many laws have the economic study in place prior to the law being enacted - and many laws are enacted based on the economic impact over the intended outcome. It's about money in many cases and how much the government can profit from it.

Meanwhile, enact all the laws you want.. and use shock commercials and PSAs as well, the problem is that the target audience is too busy with their face in facebook and twitter and making comments that "any message that takes more than 140 characters is just a waste"... does that not mean anything where the heads of kids are?

We can't always cure certain diseases so we look to prevent the spread so eventually we eliminate it that way. This approach is often the one we need to look towards to breed out bad behavior.. but it starts at home and with good education.. not with laws and fines.

I believe that the shock PSA's actually serve better purpose than laws.

fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium Member
join:2005-07-01
Palm Springs, CA
Hitron EN2251
Nest H2D

fuziwuzi to moonpuppy

Premium Member

to moonpuppy
I have told ALL of my friends and family that should I be riding with them and they start texting, I will immediately ask them to pull over and let me out. I am NOT going to accept that behavior and I will confront them. I've already done that with one friend. He got pissed off at me but my life is worth more than his damn text message.

DrStrangLov
@12.189.32.x

DrStrangLov to moonpuppy

Anon

to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy:

And, as I posted somewhere else, we need to ban texting and walking.

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· OlQqDPzQ

OneEye
join:2006-04-15
Peachtree City, GA

1 edit

OneEye

Member

About Time.

It's the humane thing to do.

Drive your car and save lives.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

what's next? Banning sleeping and driving?

Damn government. It's my Consitutional right to be totally distracted while operating a 1+ ton vehicle traveling at high rates of speed.

OneEye
join:2006-04-15
Peachtree City, GA

OneEye

Member

It's about time.

It's the humane thing to do.

Drive your car in a safe manner and save lives.
OneEye

OneEye

Member

DOT - It's about time.

It's the humane thing to do.

Drive your car in a safe manner.

•••

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

get a robo car, and leave the driving to....

...android??
»www.engadget.com/2012/02 ··· ulation/

mod_wastrel
anonome
join:2008-03-28

mod_wastrel

Member

Re: get a robo car, and leave the driving to....

...KITT?

celeritypc
For Lucky Best Wash, Use Mr. Sparkle
Premium Member
join:2004-05-15
Caldwell, NJ

celeritypc

Premium Member

Distractions in General

I almost got hit by a bimbo talking to her front-seat passenger. Do we ban passengers next?
WernerSchutz
join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

WernerSchutz

Member

Re: Distractions in General

said by celeritypc:

I almost got hit by a bimbo talking to her front-seat passenger. Do we ban passengers next?

No just talking bimbos. They should keep quiet.

NetFixer
From My Cold Dead Hands
Premium Member
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Netgear CM500
Pace 5268AC
TRENDnet TEW-829DRU

NetFixer to celeritypc

Premium Member

to celeritypc
said by celeritypc:

I almost got hit by a bimbo talking to her front-seat passenger. Do we ban passengers next?

Or perhaps at least passengers with short shorts or mini skirts?

I don't find talking to be distracting, but...

Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
Premium Member
join:2003-09-16
Columbus, OH

Vchat20

Premium Member

Funny thing

Pretty much every car on the market with extensive infotainment devices from the factory default to disabling most distracting functions while in motion anyways. Useless law much?
Seaboogers
join:2004-11-01
Sarasota, FL

Seaboogers

Member

Ban multipassenger vehicles

Might as well make every vehicle a single person one.

Anything in a vehicle can be a distraction. Passengers, the radio, GPS, eating, drinking, watching the speedometer, etc.

Technically, how could that police officer pull you over for texting? He obviously wasn't watching the road, he was watching you...hence putting others in danger.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't condone texting while driving. It's just a needless and stupid set of additional laws.

OneEye
join:2006-04-15
Peachtree City, GA

OneEye

Member

Re: Ban multipassenger vehicles

My Dad always said that I was just being a kid and kids do stupid things. That was 55 years ago.

But why are we having this discussion about driver distraction?

In the end, the cell phone manufacturers and the wireless companies will pay out enough money to the Congress to override the DOT and we'll still be talking about dead kids in smashed up cars.
axiomatic
join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX

axiomatic

Member

Auto makers pay attention

This is a real opportunity for automobile makers. If a system is developed where a cellphone detects via GPS that it is moving in a car then it forces the text messaging to be routed through a text to speech mechanism built in to new cars (or retrofitted to an old car too?) that can be used with spoken voice by the driver. Not only would this make things safer for all of us but it would sell cars and electronics too. Both industries win.

BTW my daughter, when she was 16, was grounded twice from her car when I checked the txt times on my wireless bills with the times I knew she was driving. More parents need to get involved like this. Kids are stupid, they do stupid shit. I know I did when I was a teen.

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

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: Auto makers pay attention

or, not give a cell phone to a teenager.
flashcore
join:2007-01-23
united state

flashcore to axiomatic

Member

to axiomatic
said by axiomatic:

This is a real opportunity for automobile makers. If a system is developed where a cellphone detects via GPS that it is moving in a car then it forces the text messaging to be routed through a text to speech mechanism built in to new cars (or retrofitted to an old car too?) that can be used with spoken voice by the driver. Not only would this make things safer for all of us but it would sell cars and electronics too. Both industries win.

This whole detecting motion and disabling a cell phone is never going to work. There is NO way to detect if the person is a passenger or a driver and then there is the whole issue of people using mass transit, why should someone not be allowed to use my phone while riding a train or taking a bus somewhere.
40757180 (banned)
join:2009-11-01

40757180 (banned)

Member

Easy way around that

There is easy way around that, just do it on the phone.
bikti
join:2010-10-26
Glendora, CA

bikti

Member

You can't drive when distracted

To all that think they can drive while using electronics

YOU CAN'T .. period !

To all that dislike the laws (or argue with it)

We won't stop using electronics on our own .... period

Frank

My bumper sticker reads
Hang up and drive b**ch!

tmh
@tmodns.net

tmh

Anon

just ban stupid people

Add learning to to text to driver's Ed. If you fail the texting while driving test, you don't get your driver's license.

Stupid people who can't walk and chew gum at the same time shouldn't be driving.

NO to ESPN
@sbcglobal.net

NO to ESPN

Anon

Ban Laptops in Police Cars

As long as laptops are banned in police cars I have no problem with the proposal. My car was almost sideswiped several years ago by a Texas DPS officer while he was using his laptop while driving. After that I am of the opinion that everyone has to follow the same rules and laws.

Goose-Gander solves a lot of problems as everyone is equal.

jtudor
MVM
join:2002-12-07
Morganton, NC

jtudor

MVM

Re: Ban Laptops in Police Cars

said by NO to ESPN :

As long as laptops are banned in police cars I have no problem with the proposal. My car was almost sideswiped several years ago by a Texas DPS officer while he was using his laptop while driving. After that I am of the opinion that everyone has to follow the same rules and laws.

But they don't obey the laws in place now anyway. How many times have you been passed on the interstate by a law enforcement officer doing 10 or more miles over the posted speed limit?? Do you ever see one law enforcement officer writing a speeding ticket to another one? NO and you probably never will either.

And please don't try to tell me they are responding to a call. Here in NC the law requires law enforcement officers to obey posted speed limits unless they are responding to a call that requires the use of light and siren, if they are not running light and siren, they are NOT supposed to be going over the speed limit just like the rest of us.

joako
Premium Member
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null

joako

Premium Member

Re: Ban Laptops in Police Cars

1)

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· sscJcZdA


2) The speed limits are too low to begin with.
negativeduck
Premium Member
join:2002-02-14
Centreville, VA

negativeduck

Premium Member

I wouldn't object if....

The functions were reasonable which is arguable in itself. But protecting a moron often trumps logical considerations. A Nisan today provides the functions for screen entry and or even watching a video on the front screen. Both of these functions are disabled when the vehicle is in motion and without some hefty lifting in modern day can't be disabled.

Now because of knuckleheads I get to deal with a Customer Service IVR entering an address. Did you mean Bassmasters when i say Baltimore. All of this while I have a perfectly capable passenger who could simply type in the address safely while driving.

Ofcourse this comes from //Nanny// state as others have said && the children the nanny state is protecting. If the children had common sense this wouldn't be an issue. If the Children wouldn't sue Nissan for a payday because some idiot hit them while entering information into their car and *WIN* this wouldn't be an issue.

crazediamond
Maybe you shouldn't be so proud?
Premium Member
join:2002-01-19
Brooklyn, NY

crazediamond

Premium Member

Re: I wouldn't object if....

I'm pretty happy with the "nanny" state protecting ME from idiots who text and drive. I fall somewhere between not caring- to actively cheering- for those people to miss a turn and hit a tree. I am, however, not a fan of them missing a stop sign and hitting my car or me when I'm in a cross walk with a walk sign flashing at me.

joako
Premium Member
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null

joako

Premium Member

Great

Not saying it's a bad thing, but this is going to prompt more nazi-ness from the carmakers. Like those GPS that you can't input while the car is driving... because there is no such thing as a passenger that can do it.

•••
NefCanuck
join:2007-06-26
Mississauga, ON

NefCanuck

Member

Having to legislate common sense

This always rankles me, why do people think that it is safe in any situation to text while driving?

To text without taking ones eyes off the road requires, at the bare minimum, one hand, a device that the driver can operate by feel alone (IE: phone with a physical keyboard) and the ability to type a coherent message while watching the road for morons who think the rules of the road don't apply to them.

How many people here can say that they can accomplish all that?

I know I can't and I wouldn't even try...

As to the issue WRT to GPS, I don't know about your GPS, but mine locks out all but the most basic functions while the car is in motion (I have a voice activated GPS anyways though)

As to phone calls, BT headsets are cheap enough but really, unless the call is an emergency that's what voice mail is for.

Remember folks you are driving 2,000+ pounds of glass, steel and plastics that can kill others, not to mention yourselves...

NefCanuck

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

Having been involved in such an accident

In March of 2011, I had my car totaled on I-95 in New Hampshire by a driver who was intoxicated and was reaching for a cell phone. My car spun out, the drunk driver's car rolled and I think someone was killed because I drove by the scene of the crash and there was a memorial about a month later.

Getting into ANY accident, regardless of severity or fault, is NO FUN AT ALL!

I personally think that texting and driving is just as (if not more) dangerous as Drunk Driving and it is my opinion that drivers caught texting and driving should be arrested on the spot, license suspended, and face jail time like they do with drunk drivers.

This is coming from someone who was in a major accident where cell phones AND alcohol were a factor.
18172841 (banned)
join:2001-10-06
Lagrangeville, NY

18172841 (banned)

Member

About damn time

They love to mandate what has to be in car, they should start to mandate what can not or can not be in use.

Look you people who want to talk on your cell phone and drive, go check out mythbusters... talking on the cell phone was as bad a driving with a .08 BAC! So maybe we should remove drunk driving laws eh? Hell with a CDL your limited to .03 (rofl) should really remove that right? When you get plowed into by a 80,000 lb truck o well sucks to be you.

You do *NOT* need to be on the phone, texting, entering GPS crap or anything while driving. For YEARS we did not have cell phones, pull the F over into a parking lot or GTFO the road. Plain and simple.

TBH I wish they would go even further, if you have an accident and you were alone in the car and your phone was in service you are 100% at fault, you lose your license, and must repay insurance 100%. Man you would see rates go down, and you would see people drive much better (both due to cost and bad drivers being off the road) and yes someone will point out people will drive with no license... and no insurance... we have 50cent bullets for that (one can wish it would become law)

Also lol @ the plate systems only working till 25mph on stopped cars... omg try at speed from up to a mile away.

tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Gulfport, MS

tc1uscg

Member

Cars getting Smarter?

Cars just keep getting smarter while it's operators keep getting dumber.
page: 1 · 2 · next