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.
I think what we want is a police state. If 70% of people in NY metro traffic are texting on their phones during rush hour, how are the police going to enforce that? Its absurd. What's next? Roadblocks ? Helicopters? Dogs? Geeeees. Nobody respects this law because it's too hard to catch offenders. Just make Bluetooth mandatory in all new cars and the problem is solved. Its cheap and it keeps eyes on the road.
New Yorkers are the worst victims of the "Nanny State" but the least aggressive in opposing it. Cognitive dissonance I suppose.
Last night I was coming home from Scarsdale to Rye Brook. I eased into moderately heavy traffic on the Hutchinson Parkway. I picked up my phone to change the song. Not to my ear, mind you. I jockeyed to the left lane to avoid traffic heading for an exit about 1/2 mile away. I noticed I was about to pass a police car going exactly 55 mph so I slowed down to that speed. He slowed down to 50 mph so I passed him and moved into the right lane. He put his lights on.
I moved onto the shoulder. He said to keep moving to the next exit, which I did. When he approached my car window I asked "what's this for" and he said "you were texting, I saw it." I offered him to look at my phone to see if there were any recent texts. He declined. When he came back with the ticket he said "I had been holding the phone." The law in question states:
To me, this is outrageous. The officer is targeting law abiding citizens and lawful activity in order to show that he was actively doing his job. I don't think there are "quotas" but I do believe that officers are under pressure to generate activity. My inclination is to fight this one on the merits. Thoughts?
HOWEVER, when your risky behavior is no longer limited to self-inflicted harm, instead risking innocent bystanders, I believe the punishment inflicted on you should be commensurate with the risk of harm you selfishly and callously exposed upon others.
Actually I do support "Evan's Law" and thank you for the link. I have no problem with penalizing actual distracted driving. Just as I'd have no problem asking two people in a car that were involved in an accident if they were having an argument.
Where I have a problem is treating all people as being equally competent behind the wheel. Some can handle changing a song. Some can't handle their husband or wife telling them they snored the night before or needed deodorant. The law should be against. bad driving, and not attempt to define every collateral activity that someone could undertake behind the wheel.
Could drinking a bottle of Poland Springs cause an accident? Sure. I suppose it would take some one-off accident to give fodder for such a law.
Anyone have any idea how many "Cell Phone Addicts" involved in a "Cell Phone Accident" have claimed prior to a major accident that they were fully capable of "multi-tasking" with a Cell Phone?
I have a feeling the ratio is way up there . . . possibly pushing 100%.
Exactly.
If morons didn't feel the need to dick around on their phones while driving we wouldn't need laws against it and cops wouldn't have to write these tickets.
The ticket thing is the annoying part. There should just be summary execution at the side of the road.
I think what we want is a police state. If 70% of people in NY metro traffic are texting on their phones during rush hour, how are the police going to enforce that? Its absurd. What's next? Roadblocks ? Helicopters? Dogs? Geeeees. Nobody respects this law because it's too hard to catch offenders. Just make Bluetooth mandatory in all new cars and the problem is solved. Its cheap and it keeps eyes on the road.
The problem isn't remotely solved if you do that bc
1)lots of people still wont have bluetooth in their cars
2) lots of people still won't use bluetooth even if they have it
Strict penalties are at least somewhat of a deterrent.I'm pretty anti gov't in general but I'm even more anti people doing idiotic **** while driving 3000 pound hunks of metal. The laws won't stop everyone but they'll stop some people. Honestly I wish they would stop with the speed trap nonsense, giving people tickets who are driving safely and focus more on the idiots who have to be on their phones while they drive and raise those tickets even higher.
In what way is a phone different than a bagel, or a radio button, or the windshield wiper controls?
All of those things are easily done with out taking my eyes off the road. Its not possible to pick up your phone, enter your password to unlock it, find your music app, and select the song you want with you taking your eyes off the road.
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.
