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.
With a little luck the presiding officer of the Arizona Senate will be involved in a head on collision with a vehicle driven by a driver using his cell phone, smart phone or iPad. The collision will be a firery one killing all involved and the people Arizona will have a new presiding officer for its Senate.
I wouldn't go that far, maybe someone in his circle effected by an accident involving a cell phone using driver but non-life-threatening injury. I may not agree with Andy Biggs but I don't want to wish death to him or even his circle.
10. Smoking
9. Moving objects
8. Using non-integral controls (navigation, adjusting seat, rearview mirror, etc)
7. Adjusting radio or AC
6. Eating or drinking
5. Reaching for a device.
4. Talking to other passengers
3. Distracted by outside stimulus (looking at a wreck)
2. Cell phone use
1. Lost in thought
When do you want a law passed against talking to other passengers in the car? Please tell me that you are not ok with people being killed just so you can discuss American Idol.
10. Smoking
9. Moving objects
8. Using non-integral controls (navigation, adjusting seat, rearview mirror, etc) 7. Adjusting radio or AC
6. Eating or drinking
5. Reaching for a device.
4. Talking to other passengers
3. Distracted by outside stimulus (looking at a wreck) 2. Cell phone use
1. Lost in thought
When do you want a law passed against talking to other passengers in the car? Please tell me that you are not ok with people being killed just so you can discuss American Idol.
Those four are the ones that Arizona found the most common and can be distractions to driving under the existing law. Another is the distraction by other stimuli but that isn't exactly included under the law. I am not denying that talking or being lost in thought can't be distractive but it is hard to pin down. Even eating/drinking or changing non-intergal controls (I'd include radio in AC in there IMO as those are redundant) is hard to know if they were truly distracted. Cell phone use however is and sadly because there isn't an outright ban just if you are "distracted by it" you COULD be pulled over, it's hard to crackdown on.
Let's say a person is looking down at their phone by their console reading an inbound text without deviating from their lane and with 15 car lengths in front of them. Should that person receive a ticket?
Let's say a person is looking down by their console to see if they remembered to bring their reading glasses without deviating from their lane and with 15 car lengths in front of them. Should that person receive a ticket?
Let's say a person is looking down at their phone by their console reading an inbound text without deviating from their lane and with 15 car lengths in front of them. Should that person receive a ticket?
Let's say a person is looking down by their console to see if they remembered to bring their reading glasses without deviating from their lane and with 15 car lengths in front of them. Should that person receive a ticket?
If the law doesn't include either action, no. As I've said with the existing law in particular with cell phone use, the wording is too vague and opens the doors for issues enforcing laws. A separate law for cell phones would clarify the law and make it easier to enforce. By that study, you'd agree that cell phone use is a problem when it comes to driving whether it is texting, reading a text or being on the phone. The law as it stands baring in several cities aren't enough of a deterrent for a social menace that causes healthcare costs to rise based on sheer numbers of accidents caused by cell phone use.
There are plenty of laws where there is no victim and all of them should be abolished.
I agree, decriminalizing marijuana should be one of them. If it's not legal in the state or in the privacy of an allowed location, make it a fine. Operating a vehicle while under the influence (like cell phone use) however isn't victimless.
I agree, decriminalizing marijuana should be one of them. If it's not legal in the state or in the privacy of an allowed location, make it a fine. Operating a vehicle while under the influence (like cell phone use) however isn't victimless.
Who is the victim if a driver is talking on a cell phone while driving?
Well receving oral while driving is another issue altogether because it can also be indecent exposure and put you on the sex offender registry. The others are covered and wouldn't. What I see is the problem is how much more a problem phone use while driving is. At least twice a week we see stories of people dying whether they are the driver, a passenger or collided into because of phone use while driving.
And how is this new law going to save them in a way that existing driving safety laws already don't address?
Do cops today lack the authority to pull over distracted or unsafe drivers?
If anything, why not amend existing laws if they need more specificity and penalties around this new type of distraction?
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.
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.
