New Cell Phone Law

[Gunner3456]

I thought they outlawed simply talking on a cell phone. No texting required to get busted?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I thought they outlawed simply talking on a cell phone. No texting required to get busted?

That is akin to the open container law. Texting was the primary reason for the new law but it was almost impossible to draw the separation and people could delete texts when they were pulled over so the officer would have no proof. Therefore they had to outlaw all hands-on use of cell phones. In fact, here is how the bill was written..."a text messaging device or a wireless, two-way communication device designed to receive and transmit voice or text communication."

Also, this could be looked at as a tax saver law. The revenue generated is suspected to help prevent the need to once again raise property tax rates.

 

[itgoesboom]

Flying is probably the most demanding of all things when it comes to multi-tasking....
<snip>
Once you have your first 1,000 hours of that down pat, driving a car which can't fall out of the sky from lack of speed and where the tires will keep it level, and talking on a phone seems pretty simple.

I do agree that many people can't do that.

$.02

Agreed, and the point I was trying to make, wasn't about bragging about what us pilots are capable of, but more of a point that not everyone has the same capabilities.

Unfortunately, we have just as many low-functioning people who can barely keep their wheels between the lines during the best conditions as we do high-functioning people who are able to handle the distraction.

The way I am looking at this is similar to the way that I look at the drunk driving laws:

It would be great if everyone was able to know what their own specific limit is, and where the line where their capabilities are impaired. If that was the case, there wouldn't need to be a black & white line established and enforced.

For example, I know that there is no way that if I drank two beers in an hour, that I would be at or above .08 BAC. But I know that two beers in an hour is beyond my personal limit, and I won't drive. In fact, my limit is one drink, and wait 1-hour after I have finished the drink if I am going to drive. While the effects of two drinks in an hour may be subtle, I can see/feel the effects, so I feel that there is some impairment there. I'm not going to risk it. Call me a lightweight, call me a wimp. I don't care.

Unfortunately, we know that a large portion of the population is not able to self enforce their behavior, and the evidence of that is around us everyday. Therefore, some black and white, indisputable line has to be created.

This seems to be the same type of thing to me. If people would act in a responsible manner on their own, than stupid laws like this wouldn't need to be made.

 

[Gunner3456]

That is akin to the open container law. Texting was the primary reason for the new law but it was almost impossible to draw the separation and people could delete texts when they were pulled over so the officer would have no proof. Therefore they had to outlaw all hands-on use of cell phones. In fact, here is how the bill was written..."a text messaging device or a wireless, two-way communication device designed to receive and transmit voice or text communication."

Also, this could be looked at as a tax saver law. The revenue generated is suspected to help prevent the need to once again raise property tax rates.

Don't we have a constitutional amendment against raising property taxes more than the rate of inflation or more than a certain percentage per year except by voter approval for school levies, etc?

How does transferring state income from one source to another "save" taxes? When did it become OK to use fines as a new source of "tax" revenue? Doesn't that invite abuse ala the small town speed trap?

For the record, I'm in favor of the cell phone law. I just like playing devil's advocate, and also don't want to see it abused.

 

[PrDubi]

The road to **** was paved with good intentions.

Remember that folks....

The UK's civil laws had good intentions also.....like there gun rights.

Boy we all know where that went after the Dunblane massacre.

 

[NWPilgrim]

Real estate agents, insurance salespersons, contractors - all sorts of people who's jobs require them to be out and about appear to be exempt from this law.

I think all drive-through food and coffee outlets should be outlawed as should be putting on makeup using a mirror, turning around to parent kids in the back seat, heating and air conditioning controls, glove boxes that can be opened while driving, rear view mirror adjusters, CD players with a collection of CD's, animals loose in the car, talkative passengers in the front or back seats, hair brushes and mirrors, Speedometers, good looking blonds driving next to you... Dang distractions anyway...

+1 Gunner

The law should be based driving behavior, not items. And the law should be applied consistently. I have seen people eat cereal and read the paper while driving to work.

BTW, the law is not just against TEXTING, it is any phone call held to your ear. But bananas are OK.

What is irritating to me is that it singles out one device and not irresponsible driving.

 

[PrDubi]

oh wow so that's spectacular, the laws gives special privileges to SPECIAL people.

we might as well start drafting the new firearms laws now.......only firearms for police and military....and those with the commie secret decoder ring and and and also those who voted for DA KENYAN....yeah.....

 

[NWPilgrim]

I would be more in favor or stricter licensing of drivers, and then when people's behavior results in accidents they pay very heavy fines.

Right now there seems to be relatively light penalty for driving damages compared to if you did the same damage by some other means. I think lots more people would be much more courteous and careful while driving if they knew they faced stiff fines, loss of license or vehicle, or jail time for what now are minor tickets.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I would be more in favor or stricter licensing of drivers, and then when people's behavior results in accidents they pay very heavy fines.

Right now there seems to be relatively light penalty for driving damages compared to if you did the same damage by some other means. I think lots more people would be much more courteous and careful while driving if they knew they faced stiff fines, loss of license or vehicle, or jail time for what now are minor tickets.

And when someone causes a collision (the are not called accidents anymore) through their own negligence that causes traffic delays they should be ticketed for that and heavily fined.

 

[sbryson21]

This is just another step of gov't being in every aspect of your life because they know what's best for you. We already have laws in place for people recklessly driving. With this mindset of outlawing driving while talking on the phone then the law should be followed by: 1. No radios in the car because changing the station is a distraction 2. No eating or drinking at all because you are distracted when you're looking down at your Big Mac to take a bite 3. Nobody allowed to ride with you in the vehicle because talking/looking over to talk is distracting 4. Both hands must at all times be on the wheel because apparenty driving with one hand at your ear is distracting. etc etc etc etc....

The whole "revenue from these tickets will stop property taxes from needing to be raised" is BS. That's what they say about every freaking new tax that will take the place of other taxes being raised. Guess what? The other taxes end up getting raised as well anyways! Gov't is ALWAYS looking for more taxes and NEVER looking to replace/lower taxes. How about this for an idea to not "have to" raise property taxes, CUT WASTEFUL, STUPID SPENDING. How about, "No we don't really need to spend money on that ski lift in the middle of town..." or (insert other stupid spending program here).... The point is you will never stop people from doing stupid things, but you CAN enforce laws already in place.

Finally, like was said earlier about getting away with texting, If I'm driving and talking on my cell I just keep a look out for the cops and if I see one I put my phone down. If I get pulled over I can delete my last call so there is zero evidence. You will never be able to stop people from doing stupid things even if they're illegal, so just focus on enforcing laws already in place. If someone is swerving in out of traffic THEY NEED TO BE PULLED OVER and ticketed. What we DON'T need is more gov't in our lives.

 

[Intervention]

You nanny state people have nothing but a hollow victory.

I ordered a $4.95 ear bud. If a call comes in or I need to place one when I'm driving, I have to uncase my phone, attach the ear bud cord, and put the speaker in my ear. Lots of steering with my knees and fumbling required.

Thank you so much, you just added to my distraction and took my eyes away from the road for a longer amount of time and well as both hands off the steering wheel.

I will be operating legally to all your new standards, but far more dangerously than before, thanks to you. I should be okay, but people that were borderline before will be driving into oncoming lanes of traffic now.

Don't forget your banana.

 

[Redcap]

I think nanny-laws suck. All of em.

I absolutely agree.

 

[John Gault]

I'm not a big fan of more laws but I'm a big fan of paying attention on the road. I was just dispatched to a code 3 (lights and siren) call and the lady jabbering on her cell phone ignored us completely! Shortly after that (with no lights or siren) an ATV (not street legal) pulled right onto the road in front of us "and then turned to see if the road was clear!" If I wasn't paying attention, Splat! Please people, common sense and consideration of others.

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

Here we have an accident caused by a hands free device:
<broken link removed>

 

[soberups]

You nanny state people have nothing but a hollow victory.

I ordered a $4.95 ear bud. If a call comes in or I need to place one when I'm driving, I have to uncase my phone, attach the ear bud cord, and put the speaker in my ear. Lots of steering with my knees and fumbling required.

Thank you so much, you just added to my distraction and took my eyes away from the road for a longer amount of time and well as both hands off the steering wheel.

I will be operating legally to all your new standards, but far more dangerously than before, thanks to you. I should be okay, but people that were borderline before will be driving into oncoming lanes of traffic now.

You dont "have" to do any of these things...you choose to.

The new law is not "making" you fumble or be distracted or more dangerous. These are all a result of choices you make around your use of a phone while driving.

It is your legal responsibility to operate your vehicle in a safe manner on a public road. If you are unable to use your $4.95 ear bud safely while driving, then you need to (a) get a better system or (b) pull over to take your call.

 

[Riot]

I think that it is funny that they made a clause to exclude LEOs in this law. Are they any safer than anyone else with the phone up to their ear? If it applies to a citizen, it should apply to LEOs as well.

Here we have an accident caused by a hands free device:
<broken link removed>

Yeah, the hands free is the cause....just like his gun he used is the cause of most crime.

You can't have your cake and eat it too...either he was a tard and caused the accident, blamming it on an object that cannot defend itself or the device caused the accident- like how firearms are the cause of deaths instead of people choosing to be stupid with guns.

FYI I also agree with suberups, no device or law made you do anything to be unsafe...your own actions did.

Place the blame where the blame is due...a stupid person flipped his car in the water.

 

[PMKN_PI]

I think nanny-laws suck. All of em.

I ignore the law altogether. Enough is enough. F them. I carry a cell phone for conveinience. It doesnt have bluetooth. I will not spend my money for one. If I cant use it while I drive, it isnt conveinient anymore. Sorry, Salem. Take another one of your laws and pound it colon-deep.

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

You dont "have" to do any of these things...you choose to.

The new law is not "making" you fumble or be distracted or more dangerous. These are all a result of choices you make around your use of a phone while driving.

It is your legal responsibility to operate your vehicle in a safe manner on a public road. If you are unable to use your $4.95 ear bud safely while driving, then you need to (a) get a better system or (b) pull over to take your call.

Ohh I'll be safe and legal with my earbud. I'll be slowing down while I'm installing the wiring and setting it up. It's hard to keep up the speed while steering with my knee and fumbling with plugs, wiring and switches with both hands.

 

[Intervention]

Just a heads up, I saw a guy on the news last night that got nailed for using his GPS on his phone.

I'll go ahead and put the disclaimer in right now, no I did not witness this and he might have been driving recklessly and warranted the citation.

 

[TAT2D]

About a month ago wife and I were driving up the road from Newport to Corvallis. (I'd meant to take the Alsea road as a scenic, but it's been 25 years since I went that route and picked up the wrong highway.)

As we're crossing the hills a car passes us. No biggie, I was going the speed-limit or a little more, not much more. Wife glances down into the car as it passes us. "Hmmm, driver is texting." And as the car continues on by we notice it's carrying US-Gov license plates.

And true to form, the driver is driving *very* erratically. In and out of his (? I'll write this as the driver was a he, but I don't know) lane half a car width to either side. Finally after quite some distance of weaving back and forth, the driver decides he needs to devote a little more attention to the task at hand and the weaving gets better. Apparently, I'm guessing, he didn't completely stop texting, tho', just put a few more brain cells into the driving task. Enough to square up in the lane, but not enough to realize that he'd neatly cored the oncoming traffic's passing lane. He held that lane for, oh, probably less than a quarter mile, but not much less. Heading around blind curves.

At that point I started fading back, not wanting to get caught up in what I feared was coming, but not fast enough in hindsight.

Finally the guy discovered his mistake and jerked back over to the lane designated for our direction and that was the end of that. No wild crash. No tearing metal, but it was a Saturday afternoon and it was only by fabulous luck that the driver didn't kill a couple people. (Like I said, I realized later that I was fading back, but in retrospect, not nearly fast enough if something was about to happen in front of us.)

Was a real eye-opener. True story.

MrB