Attention: Law Enforcement Officials

These threads are in Phil's wheelhouse.

luvmysuper said:

The Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few was actually a great sentiment, particularly for a Hollywood Blockbuster, but in practice it must be tempered with common sense.
In one aspect, we pride ourselves on looking out for the minority, the underdog, and the under privileged.
On the other hand, denying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the majority to avoid offending a few isn't justified either.

Click to expand...

I tend to think that we're heading down the path of talking tough about helping the minorities, underprivileged, and underdogs, while we tend to concentrate on taking away the freedoms that made us come to this country, in the first place.

Phil, do you text and drive?

I just don't want to be road pizza.

mretzloff said:

Phil, do you text and drive?

Click to expand...

No sir. Never. I don't make calls either. EVER.
I do have bluetooth, and can answer an incoming call from the steering wheel and do take incoming calls if the situation permits it. Traffic, road conditions, time of day etc play a part in my decision to accept or reject incoming calls.
I don't believe talking over bluetooth is any more distracting than listening to the radio, or carrying on a conversation with someone else in the car.
If there is traffic, or a bad road, or inclement weather, I don't do those activities either.
My wife is well aware that if the traffic is bad, we just drive in silence so I can focus.

luvmysuper said:

Are you actually suggesting that we punish and inconvenience the entire population to deal with a few miscreants?
Better yet, let's just eliminate the privilege of driving altogether. If people can't drive, there'd be no mishaps.
While we're at it, let's put video cameras and microphones in every house. Think of the crimes we could prevent.
If you don't have anything to hide, you've got nothing to worry about, right?

Click to expand...

Uh, didn't Snowden tell us we're already there?

luvmysuper said:

I don't believe talking over bluetooth is any more distracting than listening to the radio, or carrying on a conversation with someone else in the car.
[...]
My wife is well aware that if the traffic is bad, we just drive in silence so I can focus.

Click to expand...

Actually this has been looked at, and there is a risk elevation talking hands free over talking with a passenger. And you hit the nail on the head with the comment about your wife noticing the traffic. The person on the other end of the phone cannot notice the traffic and modulate the conversation.

Obviously you can tell them, but not everyone does. http://evidencebasedliving.human.co...-hands-free-cell-phone-devices-while-driving/

Listening to the radio or a book on tape proved to be the least distracting activities, while performing a verbal cognitive task involving math and word recall proved to be the most distracting. Talking on a hands-free celluar device ranked in the middle of the spectrum – more distracting than talking to a passenger and slightly less distracting than holding a phone up to your ear.

Click to expand...

I can live with that.

Okay so instead of making it impossible to use your cell while driving, what are your opinions about rewarding safe driving habits in regards to cell phone use? A little while ago the following made the rounds on Facebook. Here is a good video of a program that I am interested to see how it works out.
https://www.samsung.com.au/sdrive/

CanadianCowbell said:

Okay so instead of making it impossible to use your cell while driving, what are your opinions about rewarding safe driving habits in regards to cell phone use? A little while ago the following made the rounds on Facebook. Here is a good video of a program that I am interested to see how it works out.

https://www.samsung.com.au/sdrive/

Click to expand...

Incentives are a good thing.
I stop being enthusiastic when incentives stop being incentives and start becoming mandates.

I'm waiting for the car as smart as a mule.

mrb7 said:

I'm waiting for the car as smart as a mule.

Click to expand...

Or as stubborn?

As a 17 year law enforcement officer, I clearly understand Phil's point about the government regulating texting for all, instead of just the few who are guilty. I think a blanket law which includes everyone driving or not is a swallow a camel and strain out a gnat approach.


Technology created the potential for this to be a problem, so it will probably be up to future technology that will find the solution to get us out. Finding a modern answer to a modern problem is forward thinking. On the other hand, what will be the cost of apathy?

August West said:

Or as stubborn?

Click to expand...

I already have that one. Hasn't started in a couple of years now.

luvmysuper said:

Are you actually suggesting that we punish and inconvenience the entire population to deal with a few miscreants?
Better yet, let's just eliminate the privilege of driving altogether. If people can't drive, there'd be no mishaps.
While we're at it, let's put video cameras and microphones in every house. Think of the crimes we could prevent.
If you don't have anything to hide, you've got nothing to worry about, right?

Click to expand...

I'm simply saying the sensor I proposed would not have the ability to distinguish between the driver's cellphone and that of the passenger so with such a system you would have to pull over if you want to talk. I'm by no means a cellphone expert, but in a vehicle equipped with a cell signal shut off device like I mentioned there could possibly be a wired connection on the passenger side that will transmit the signal to the outside of the vehicle and bypass the signal sensor to allow the passenger to browse the internet, text, call. This wire would be too short to allow the driver to connect his cellphone. I don't know if either idea would work except in theory.

Punish people who break the law.

Am I the only one tired of living in a society with warning labels on hair dryers telling people not to use them in the shower?

luvmysuper said:

Punish people who break the law.

Am I the only one tired of living in a society with warning labels on hair dryers telling people not to use them in the shower?

Click to expand...

Com'on Phil. You know there was a great shortage of brains after 1970, so only 1 in 5 kids got any. And they're all here using soap and razors!!

mrb7 said:

Com'on Phil. You know there was a great shortage of brains after 1970, so only 1 in 5 kids got any. And they're all here using soap and razors!!

Click to expand...

It truly seems that way at times, doesn't it?

I kid you not...
I bought a 2x4 the other day that had a warning label on it that said;

The State of California has determined that dust from this product causes cancer. Avoid breathing wood dust.

Click to expand...

The manufacturer of this product had to get a label design and wording approved by a State Government Agency, have it shipped to them, and affix it to every single 2x4 they sell.
I bought this 2x4 in Wisconsin.
Of course, the cost of all of this came out of their profits, right?

Interesting conversation about an emerging problem .. Cell phones could be easily squelched by modern car technology, but then how would the entitled & self important continue to call their customers to sell toilet paper or crack, or order pizzas without having the severe inconvenience of pulling over for a minute?? The cell providers could also just block signals from phones traveling at or above a given speed - since they know exactly where you are .. but not likely as they make the money on the calls ..

I'd like to see driving with one in use be treated like DWI, which studies like the above have shown is somewhat analogous for causing injury to others. Make it a primary offense (can be easily proven by the cell provider's tower records). Text or call could be banned, unless the vehicle is stopped.

I don't accept at all that one's basic American rights are abridged by being legally required to avoid activities that endanger others, including driving drunk (not why I came to this country) or high, or looking down at a text. A quick review of the Constitution revealed no prohibition on the regulation of cell phones, texts, or for that matter automobiles .. so I'd say it is ok to restrain, legally, some fool who's behavior tends toward the injurious ..

Just my humble 2 cents, after another near miss today

garyg said:

I don't accept at all that one's basic American rights are abridged by being legally required to avoid activities that endanger others, including driving drunk (not why I came to this country) or high, or looking down at a text. A quick review of the Constitution revealed no prohibition on the regulation of cell phones, texts, or for that matter automobiles .. so I'd say it is ok to restrain, legally, some fool who's behavior tends toward the injurious ..

Click to expand...

So say many folks before they up and realize that the freedom THEY treasure is under attack.
Then it's a whole different story.