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.
Not so. The human race survived for centuries without the cell phone everywhere 24/7/365. It will again.
I also hold the opinion that any car accident that is found to be caused by cell phone use is classed as a......Felony.
Yes,a felony since it's crime with a lethal weapon....an outta control vehicle!
The human race survived for centuries without cars, bikes, electricity, indoor plumbing, TV, computers, and any number of things we take for granted today, so that's pisspoor reasoning for implementing overreaching solutions.
When they came for the Jews, I said nothing, for I am not a Jew...
Really? You are likening cell phone bans to the Holocaust? You just lost all credibility. Could have figured you would be a follower of Godwin's Law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbbd
Maybe if the brakes were in proper working condition nobody would have been killed or injured and it would have just been an "accident" between the tractor truck and pickup. It seems to me the texting driver provides a scapegoat and a diversion from what really killed two people and injured 38 others.
Actually the NTSB report starts out with the following taken directly from the findings report. Indicating that the brakes of the busses were NOT a factor in the accident, but that driver inattention of the Pick-up driver, and the first bus driver. The second bus driver was following the first bus too closely which was another cause of the accident. Not the brakes on either bus.
1. The following were not factors in this accident: (1) weather; (2) driver qualifications or familiarity with the accident location; (3) alcohol or illicit drug use by any of the four drivers; (4) mechanical condition of the Volvo tractor, the GMC pickup, or either of the two school buses; (5) emergency response; or (6) highway design, work-zone signage, or work-zone policies.
4. The absence of a timely brake application, the cellular provider records indicating frequent texting while driving, the temporal proximity of the last incoming text message to the collision, and the witness statement regarding the driver's actions indicate that the GMC pickup driver was most likely distracted from the driving task by a text messaging conversation at or near the time of the accident.
That's trite. To equate people being murdered for their ethnicity by a totalitarian state with people being ticketed for willfully disobeying a traffic law passed by a freely elected representative government is worthy of mockery.
And mockery is the only thing I have received in this thread. Not a single person, including you, has attempted to make the case using actual data. Perhaps that's because a data based case can't be made?
The human race survived for centuries without cars, bikes, electricity, indoor plumbing, TV, computers, and any number of things we take for granted today, so that's pisspoor reasoning for implementing overreaching solutions.
"overreaching solutions" ? What planet are you on?
We're talking the public good here. There is no difference between a distracted driver on a cell phone and a shooter taking random shots at passing cars.
[quote=DentalFloss;22108714]The Courts of the United States disagree with you. And the state chairman of the Libertarian Party of Florida did, some months back, publically revoke his drivers license, and has since made many efforts to get arrested by informing law enforcement where and when he'd be driving, and to my knowledge, has not yet been.
Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22 ("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)
Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579. It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:
Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.[/quote
I researched a couple of the cases you quoted, and what they apply to is, being able to travel between the states, meaning one can not be refused to travel between states.
No where did it state in any of the cases I looked at, that driving was a right.
It isn't as I stated earlier, it is a privledge,
What you have quoted here is people have the right to travel, and that right is to travel between states.
Nothing about driving between states, it just states, the people shall have the right of free travel.
Free travel could be a bus, train, plane, boat, bicycle etc..
Bob.
And mockery is the only thing I have received in this thread. Not a single person, including you, has attempted to make the case using actual data. Perhaps that's because a data based case can't be made?
Demands for data would be appropriate if it were some esoteric topic for which data is not readily available. That not being the case here, it stands to reason that someone who couldn't bother to do 90 seconds worth of Google searching for readily available information isn't actually interested in what that information has to say. Said party likening traffic safety recommendations with the Holocaust reaffirms that suspicion.
"overreaching solutions" ? What planet are you on?
We're talking the public good here. There is no difference between a distracted driver on a cell phone and a shooter taking random shots at passing cars.
A solution that impacts everyone and not just the driver is, in fact, overreaching. So get a grip on your emoticons and hyperbolic "what planet are you on" exasperations and discuss the topic like an adult.
Here in LA, it isn't that ppl on cellphones/smartphones are weaving & driving erratically. No, it's that they drive way too slowly & leave 3 or 4 car lengths ahead in rush-hour traffic, creating a log-jam behind them & forcing ppl to maneuver around & pass. It's even more annoying when these inconsiderate m0rons are checking messages/texting at protected left turn lights and don't go when the light turns green. You could easily get another 3 cars thru the light if they had paid attention. That alone adds another 5 minutes to my commute! ugggh
Actually the NTSB report starts out with the following taken directly from the findings report. Indicating that the brakes of the busses were NOT a factor in the accident, but that driver inattention of the Pick-up driver, and the first bus driver. The second bus driver was following the first bus too closely which was another cause of the accident. Not the brakes on either bus.
Admittedly, I didn't read the actual report myself; only the referenced article...I'll go find it. However, I find it hard to believe they can discount the brakes on the bus when a 3rd bus crashed in the hospital parking lot due to brake failure.
OK, now we're getting somewhere. Actual studies, and data. I haven't read them all, the following is based upon only the VT study, chosen at random.
Quote:
Risk Estimates
A snapshot of risk estimates from these studies includes the following:
For light vehicles or cars
Dialing a cell phone made the risk of crash or near-crash event 2.8 times as high as non-distracted driving;
Talking or listening to a cell phone made the risk of crash or near-crash event 1.3 times as high as non-distracted driving; and
Reaching for an object such as an electronic device made the risk of crash or near-crash event 1.4 times as high as non-distracted driving.
The first thing that strikes me is "the risk of crash or near-crash". A "near-crash" is a non-event. I'd be much more interested in actual crash data. Secondly, 1.3x more likely to have a "crash or near-crash" is stastically hardly relevant. Thirdly, does "an object" include such things as a CD, hamburger, sunglasses, or coffee? Are you prepared to make eating hamburgers while driving illegal? Changing the radio?
Though, I will concede this... under the "heavy truck" category, texting while driving (though not phone calls) was shown as 23x more likely to cause a "crash or near-crash". Notwithstanding my previous objections to "crash or near-crash", that deserves some looking into, though the fact they didn't list a similar category for cars does raise an eyebrow.
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.
What planet are you on? 
