Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(1)Now I see car companies are going to put these crash avoidance systems on cars so that you don't rear end someone while looking at your phone. Hell, now you can watch movies while you drive.
(2)Why don't they use that technology to just disable all functions of the phone except the voice phone part while the ignition is on?
(1) The technology has been available in cars for nearly a decade. One of my cars is a 2005 Toyota Sienna XLE with 360 sonar. If I inadvertently get too close to a car I get a warning sound. If I get too close to the car in front of me at highway speeds it slows me down to further my distance from the car in front of me by applying the brakes.
(2) With my Samsung S3, it requires two hands to initially swipe it while the car is motion. But in Bluetooth all functions are available at highway speed by just talking to it.
The technology already exists for court ordered installation for DUI offenders where a breathalyzer is required in order to start a car.
I'm aware of that. The other poster wants to restrict everyone in every car because of the actions of a very small number of people. By his logic, alcohol lockouts should have been put on every vehicle years ago, because, again, of the actions of a tiny few.
I'm aware of that. The other poster wants to restrict everyone in every car because of the actions of a very small number of people. By his logic, alcohol lockouts should have been put on every vehicle years ago, because, again, of the actions of a tiny few.
What law is not based on a small percentage of the population that are offenders? They are based on the large percentage of the population who are on the receiving end of their actions.
Just so you know... for such a fine, they will have to prove without doubt that they were texting. Some cop "suspecting" a person texting will not hold in court. They will need substantial evidence. I don't know their laws up there but I feel like they would need some sort of a transcript from the accused' service provider. Seems like they are just asking for trouble, DWI's in most states don't even cost that much after all of the fines, program and lawyer fees.
It's my understanding that Law Enforcement/DA's are already subpoenaing phone records for severe accidents caused by texting. The records shows to the second what the person in question was doing on their phone.
Legislation does not rid the world of evil, as you liberals believe.
Do you think this has anything to do with safety? No, it is a money grab.
You want to bring Politics into this??
VA is a Conservative state yet has the highest first offense speeding tickets and still has a ban on radar detectors. People in VA people think the I95 sign is a speed sign to be exceeded (and many try).
VA is a Conservative state yet has the highest first offense speeding tickets and still has a ban on radar detectors. People in VA people think the I95 sign is a speed sign to be exceeded (and many try).
What law is not based on a small percentage of the population that are offenders? They are based on the large percentage of the population who are on the receiving end of their actions.
Telling the bulk of the population that they cannot kill or rob is one thing. That action doesn't affect any law abiding people. Disabling a useful device for every person in every car because a few people aren't smart enough to use it sensibly is an unwarranted action. No one is on the receiving end of a passenger checking his email.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.