1. I am "mechanical" and understand that if you are going 55 and take your eyes off the road for just a couple of seconds, the vehicle in front of you can suddenly stop and you will NOT be able to stop because every second counts at that speed.
And being "mechanical", I understand that a safe following distance is by watching the car in front of you, and when that car passes a sign, counting "one thousand one, one thousand two, one thousand three". Then at that time your car should be just getting to that sign. And I understand it takes time to react and distance to stop. The faster you are going, the more stopping distance required.
2. I know that other people are not "mechanical" and do not understand these things! They don't "get it"! Perhaps driving school and gory accident pictures should be required for these people?
All of life is politics.
Some here have suggested new laws to fix the problem.
Others have suggested technological solutions, like disabling phones whilst driving.
Of course the latter is useless without laws to enforce it. Oops back to politics.
I'm afraid it's hopeless. The death toll due to the free availability of guns in the States is far worse than any phone induced traffic accidents. But, hey, it's our right to bear arms, right.
I agree that driving while distracted is bad, but it shouldn't be made illegal. Drivers should have internal motivation to drive safely, and the tools to do that. Turning the country into a police state is not the solution.
"Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive." - Theodore Roosevelt
"Freedom is not constituted primarily of privileges but of responsibilities." - Albert Camus
"Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint." - Daniel Webster
"Liberty is the right to do what the law permits." - Charles De Montesquieu
"The essence of American liberty is to assure men the secured right to every activity which does not trespass the rights of others." - Herbert Hoover
"One's liberty should end when it becomes the curse of his neighbor." - Frederick Farrar
"Liberty must be limited in order to be possessed." - Edmund Burke
Great men. Great thoughts. None of them--not even the incredible Edmund Burke--wrote, helped write, or signed the Declaration or Constitution, which is the greatest document free men have ever known.
1And being "mechanical", I understand that a safe following distance is by watching the car in front of you, and when that car passes a sign, counting "one thousand one, one thousand two, one thousand three". Then at that time your car should be just getting to that sign. And I understand it takes time to react and distance to stop. The faster you are going, the more stopping distance required.
I was taught that the rule was "2 seconds, but you should use 3 to be safe." I don't think even 3 seconds is enough if you have something that is suddenly not moving forward in front of you (i.e., stopped or moving from the side).
We saw the pictures, too. I will never drive over rebar that's just lying there on the road.
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." - Benjamin Franklin
Franklin never said this, though he did quote himself using a different version that makes more sense when taken into context. In a famous use of the quote Franklin was actually calling for reconciliation with Britain just prior to the north engaging in war. Franklin was against the Boston tea raid, and felt the colonies should have made amends for the monetary damages, citing the act uncivil regardless of nation. (Other variations include "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power," which he wrote decades before. Franklin was fond of plagiarizing himself!)
All this being said, misquoting isn't nearly as bad as driving while distracted!
Bill and Schill,
Being "mechanical men" I would hope that you realise there is
no such rule. The safe stopping distance goes up at least with the square of the speed you are travelling at. I have no idea about the USA but when learning to drive in England you are expected to know that even if only by memorizing the few numbers in the back of the highway code. Of course road conditions like rain, snow and ice make stopping distances even bigger. Why on earth are you counting thousands when you should be thinking about what is going on around you?
Great men. Great thoughts. None of them--not even the incredible Edmund Burke--wrote, helped write, or signed the Declaration or Constitution, which is the greatest document free men have ever known.
Merry Christmas!
--Bill
I did not know that anyone who did not sign Declaration could have no valuable insight into liberty or freedom.
That certainly restricts the discussion of that topic.
Wow, this "discussion" kinda blew up out of proportion... I think that texting while driving should be discouraged(NOT outlawed). Commercial drivers should have rules in place to ban it, unless it is an emergency. People say that ones mans freedom to preform a action that could potentially harm another should be illegal? That logic could drive us to the point of insanity and the breakdown of society. Technically, getting in a car and driving it anywhere could put another's right to live in danger? Technically smoking in the same house as somebody else is putting their life in danger(From second hand smoke)? Technically holding a box cutter or a pair of scissors could endanger somebody Else's life? Technically cutting a tree down and having it land in a river could cause it to flood out and destroy property or kill somebody? Technically we could send a probe to a far way planet and have angry aliens destroy it and come to earth to exterminate humanity?
When making laws as restrictive as one like a texting ban would be, the authority figures must take into consideration ALL of the possible effects of the actions. Sort of like the SOPA debacle that we have in congress right now. They have little idea the kind of damage that law could cause. A governments job should be to provide the most freedoms possible, while protecting the most rights possible, all while maintaining a degree of order to thwart total anarchy.
Misquotes abound. My pastor's-daughter wife points out that the oft-used phrase "God helps those who help themselves", isn't from the bible, but another quote from Benjamin Franklin. Yet according to Wikipedia:
The poet George Herbert published a collection of proverbs, Jacula Prudentum (1651), which included "Help thyself, and God will help thee."[6] But it was the English political theorist Algernon Sidney who originated the now familiar version, "God helps those who help themselves",[7] apparently the first exact rendering of the phrase. Benjamin Franklin, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, used it in his almanac in 1736 and has been widely quoted.[8] As a deist, Franklin believed in God but that God did not intervene in earth's affairs, so all responsibility was incumbent upon people. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helps_those_who_help_themselves
Thus even old Benjie "borrowed" phrases. So speaking is like designing in that regard: Good designers borrow. Great designers steal.
Bill and Schill,
Being "mechanical men" I would hope that you realise there is
no such rule. The safe stopping distance goes up at least with the square of the speed you are travelling at. I have no idea about the USA but when learning to drive in England you are expected to know that even if only by memorizing the few numbers in the back of the highway code. Of course road conditions like rain, snow and ice make stopping distances even bigger. Why on earth are you counting thousands when you should be thinking about what is going on around you?
I was just pointing out the rule that I was taught in driver's ed. I never claimed to be "mechanical" by the way, "aeronautical" maybe (that's what my degrees are in ). I was not saying that it is THE rule to follow and everything will be ok.
I think there is a big problem in the US (and it seems especially around here) with people not keeping a safe distance. And with people not having a clue about the effects of weather. If it is raining or the road is wet because of rain, people have no problems doing 70+ mph on the highway (65 mph speed limit). But, if the road is dry and they see a single snowflake, then it's 40 mph.
If it is raining or the road is wet because of rain, people have no problems doing 70+ mph on the highway (65 mph speed limit). But, if the road is dry and they see a single snowflake, then it's 40 mph.
Texting. Twenty-nine states, Washington D.C., and Guam have banned text messaging for all drivers. In most of these states, you can be pulled over and cited for texting as a primary offense.
With over 50 web properties in the Nolo Network, we have one of the webs largest libraries of consumer friendly legal information all available for free. With oversight from Nolos editorial team, we strive to deliver free legal information of the highest quality. In addition to pages published by Nolo editors and authors, we also offer local lawyers the ability to contribute to the Nolo network. View a complete list of sites in the Nolo Network.
Legislators try again to ban texting while driving
Once again, lawmakers will consider a ban like those already enacted by 35 states. But some experts say it wouldnt make the roads any safer.
By KATIE SANDERS
Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau
TALLAHASSEE -- Florida remains one of 15 states without a ban on sending text messages while driving, even as more people admit to the habit while supporting a law to deter it.
Theres a chance a small one that state lawmakers will enact a ban during the 60-day legislative session that will start in January. Experts, though, are split on whether the bans make the roads safer.
A few state senators breathed life into the conversation last week when they approved a proposed (and pretty mild) ban on texting while driving at the measures first committee hearing.
The proposal, sponsored by Sen. Nancy Detert, R-Venice, would make texting while driving punishable as a secondary offense, meaning law enforcement could not pull over motorists simply if they see them texting. A citation could be issued only on top of some other offense, such as speeding, reckless driving or after a crash.
Bans have failed in Florida in recent years despite widespread public support for such a law. Defeat usually comes at the hands of Republicans who view the law as an intrusion on personal liberty. Sen. Ellyn Bogdanoff, R-Fort Lauderdale, famously blocked a proposed texting ban from being heard in her House committee in 2010, a move that killed the bill.
It is Deterts third time sponsoring what she called her no-brainer idea, SB416. She is also a proponent of small government, she said, but not when privacy overrides public safety.
I am a big fan of personal freedom, doing whatever you want in your own automobile, as long as youre not taking me out with you, she told the Senate Transportation Committee on Wednesday.
Members voted 10-0 to move her bill to its next stop. Sen. Jack Latvala, R-Clearwater, the committee chairman, said he originally planned to vote against it, but Deterts proposal won him over with its specificity.
I think its important we send this out of here with a loud message, so Im going to vote with you today, Latvala said.
Under Deterts bill, it would still be OK to text at a red light, or use GPS, talk on the phone or dial a number while driving. The ban would extend to composing emails and instant messages.
The first violation would result in a $30 fine. A second violation within five years of the first would cost $60 and three points added to a drivers license. Six points would be added if the use of a wireless communications device resulted in a crash.
Lobbyists from AAA, AT&T and AARP spoke in support of the measure.
Thirty-five states have introduced texting bans on all drivers. Other states have added restrictions for certain groups, such as teens and bus drivers. Florida has no such laws.
Its time that we caught up with the rest of the nation, said Sen. Arthenia Joyner, D-Tampa, during the committee meeting, because texting is addictive.
Drivers have conflicting views: Asked by pollsters, they overwhelmingly say texting while driving should be illegal. But more and more admit to sending text messages while at the wheel.
A national survey released by the federal government Thursday found that about 50 percent of U.S. drivers between the ages of 21 and 24 reported texting or emailing while driving. U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood called on Congress this week to enact a national ban on texting while driving.
About 95 percent of drivers agree sending emails or texts while on the road is unacceptable, and 87 percent favor laws against texting while driving, according to the AAA Foundations 2011 Traffic Safety Culture Index.
But two studies show traffic safety has not improved in states with bans on cellphone use and texting while driving, according to two studies from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which car insurance companies fund to research ways to reduce the number of traffic accidents.
Lawmakers should not expect a big safety payoff from these laws, said Russ Rader, the groups spokesman. Were just not seeing the effects we thought we would.
Some lawmakers are trying other ways to curb distracted driving. An idea (SB 122) from Sen. Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood, would require driver improvement and learners permit courses to include a segment on the hazards of using phones and other devices at the wheel. It passed its first committee hurdle Wednesday.
And Reps. Irv Slosberg, D-Boca Raton, and Sen. Thad Altman, R-Rockledge, have introduced a ban (HB 187/SB 930) on minors using cellphones on the road. Slosberg wants to include school bus drivers, as well.
While the full state Senate has been warm to the ban, having passed it in 2010, the House is another story.
Rep. Ray Pilon, R-Sarasota, is behind Deterts bill in the House. He has not yet persuaded his colleagues to bring it up.
Pilon, a former patrol officer and road supervisor, has tried winning over the chairman of the first House committee that will hear the proposal, Rep. Brad Drake, R-Eucheeanna. So far, no promises.
He said, Lets talk about it, Pilon said, so that was encouraging.
I did not know that anyone who did not sign Declaration could have no valuable insight into liberty or freedom.
That certainly restricts the discussion of that topic.
Happy New Year!
Many people who did not sign the Declaration (btw, the Lee brothers are relatives of mine via my grandfather's mother . . . but by this time they might be relatives of everyone ) have valuable insight into liberty and freedom. The men who wrote the Constitution possessed a time-tested wisdom incontestable by early and modern thinkers.
The fact that I cannot tolerate cell phone use in the car, either for texting or hand-held verbal conversations, has nothing to do with my hesitation to amend the greatest document produced by the hand of man for the freedom of man.
Merry Christmas! (I start saying that after Thanksgiving.)
I don't see much progress or creative thinking here. People are problem solvers. They made a range sensor for front bumpers though not in every vehicle yet.What can you think of.Realistically that would work, other than fines for cell phone use by the driver of a vehicle?
We can create a device with parallax that scramble the cellphone signal if the car is running..... Also can check if the s
Phone is on the pilot or copilot to let the copilot to text...... Now I think will be better just have a litter of common sense and do not text and drive.......
Comments
I never would have suspected that cell phones and texting would rank up there with Politics and Religion as forbidden topics
And being "mechanical", I understand that a safe following distance is by watching the car in front of you, and when that car passes a sign, counting "one thousand one, one thousand two, one thousand three". Then at that time your car should be just getting to that sign. And I understand it takes time to react and distance to stop. The faster you are going, the more stopping distance required.
2. I know that other people are not "mechanical" and do not understand these things! They don't "get it"! Perhaps driving school and gory accident pictures should be required for these people?
Some here have suggested new laws to fix the problem.
Others have suggested technological solutions, like disabling phones whilst driving.
Of course the latter is useless without laws to enforce it. Oops back to politics.
I'm afraid it's hopeless. The death toll due to the free availability of guns in the States is far worse than any phone induced traffic accidents. But, hey, it's our right to bear arms, right.
C.W.
Great men. Great thoughts. None of them--not even the incredible Edmund Burke--wrote, helped write, or signed the Declaration or Constitution, which is the greatest document free men have ever known.
Merry Christmas!
--Bill
I was taught that the rule was "2 seconds, but you should use 3 to be safe." I don't think even 3 seconds is enough if you have something that is suddenly not moving forward in front of you (i.e., stopped or moving from the side).
We saw the pictures, too. I will never drive over rebar that's just lying there on the road.
Franklin never said this, though he did quote himself using a different version that makes more sense when taken into context. In a famous use of the quote Franklin was actually calling for reconciliation with Britain just prior to the north engaging in war. Franklin was against the Boston tea raid, and felt the colonies should have made amends for the monetary damages, citing the act uncivil regardless of nation. (Other variations include "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power," which he wrote decades before. Franklin was fond of plagiarizing himself!)
All this being said, misquoting isn't nearly as bad as driving while distracted!
-- Gordon
Being "mechanical men" I would hope that you realise there is
no such rule. The safe stopping distance goes up at least with the square of the speed you are travelling at. I have no idea about the USA but when learning to drive in England you are expected to know that even if only by memorizing the few numbers in the back of the highway code. Of course road conditions like rain, snow and ice make stopping distances even bigger. Why on earth are you counting thousands when you should be thinking about what is going on around you?
I was wondering how long it would take.
According to Wikiquote he did say;
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I did not know that anyone who did not sign Declaration could have no valuable insight into liberty or freedom.
That certainly restricts the discussion of that topic.
Happy New Year!
When making laws as restrictive as one like a texting ban would be, the authority figures must take into consideration ALL of the possible effects of the actions. Sort of like the SOPA debacle that we have in congress right now. They have little idea the kind of damage that law could cause. A governments job should be to provide the most freedoms possible, while protecting the most rights possible, all while maintaining a degree of order to thwart total anarchy.
Monty Python team some time some where.
The poet George Herbert published a collection of proverbs, Jacula Prudentum (1651), which included "Help thyself, and God will help thee."[6] But it was the English political theorist Algernon Sidney who originated the now familiar version, "God helps those who help themselves",[7] apparently the first exact rendering of the phrase. Benjamin Franklin, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, used it in his almanac in 1736 and has been widely quoted.[8] As a deist, Franklin believed in God but that God did not intervene in earth's affairs, so all responsibility was incumbent upon people. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helps_those_who_help_themselves
Thus even old Benjie "borrowed" phrases. So speaking is like designing in that regard: Good designers borrow. Great designers steal.
I was just pointing out the rule that I was taught in driver's ed. I never claimed to be "mechanical" by the way, "aeronautical" maybe (that's what my degrees are in
I think there is a big problem in the US (and it seems especially around here) with people not keeping a safe distance. And with people not having a clue about the effects of weather. If it is raining or the road is wet because of rain, people have no problems doing 70+ mph on the highway (65 mph speed limit). But, if the road is dry and they see a single snowflake, then it's 40 mph.
judea
a.d.33
saturday afternoon
about tea time
You live near Seattle?
According to NOLO:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/cell-phones-texting-driving-state-laws-29774.html
Texting. Twenty-nine states, Washington D.C., and Guam have banned text messaging for all drivers. In most of these states, you can be pulled over and cited for texting as a primary offense.
EDIT: That may be old data - another source said only 15 states do not have a ban on texting...
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/11/2542286/legislators-try-to-ban-texting.html
Legislators try again to ban texting while driving
Once again, lawmakers will consider a ban like those already enacted by 35 states. But some experts say it wouldnt make the roads any safer.
By KATIE SANDERS
Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau
TALLAHASSEE -- Florida remains one of 15 states without a ban on sending text messages while driving, even as more people admit to the habit while supporting a law to deter it.
Theres a chance a small one that state lawmakers will enact a ban during the 60-day legislative session that will start in January. Experts, though, are split on whether the bans make the roads safer.
A few state senators breathed life into the conversation last week when they approved a proposed (and pretty mild) ban on texting while driving at the measures first committee hearing.
The proposal, sponsored by Sen. Nancy Detert, R-Venice, would make texting while driving punishable as a secondary offense, meaning law enforcement could not pull over motorists simply if they see them texting. A citation could be issued only on top of some other offense, such as speeding, reckless driving or after a crash.
Bans have failed in Florida in recent years despite widespread public support for such a law. Defeat usually comes at the hands of Republicans who view the law as an intrusion on personal liberty. Sen. Ellyn Bogdanoff, R-Fort Lauderdale, famously blocked a proposed texting ban from being heard in her House committee in 2010, a move that killed the bill.
It is Deterts third time sponsoring what she called her no-brainer idea, SB416. She is also a proponent of small government, she said, but not when privacy overrides public safety.
I am a big fan of personal freedom, doing whatever you want in your own automobile, as long as youre not taking me out with you, she told the Senate Transportation Committee on Wednesday.
Members voted 10-0 to move her bill to its next stop. Sen. Jack Latvala, R-Clearwater, the committee chairman, said he originally planned to vote against it, but Deterts proposal won him over with its specificity.
I think its important we send this out of here with a loud message, so Im going to vote with you today, Latvala said.
Under Deterts bill, it would still be OK to text at a red light, or use GPS, talk on the phone or dial a number while driving. The ban would extend to composing emails and instant messages.
The first violation would result in a $30 fine. A second violation within five years of the first would cost $60 and three points added to a drivers license. Six points would be added if the use of a wireless communications device resulted in a crash.
Lobbyists from AAA, AT&T and AARP spoke in support of the measure.
Thirty-five states have introduced texting bans on all drivers. Other states have added restrictions for certain groups, such as teens and bus drivers. Florida has no such laws.
Its time that we caught up with the rest of the nation, said Sen. Arthenia Joyner, D-Tampa, during the committee meeting, because texting is addictive.
Drivers have conflicting views: Asked by pollsters, they overwhelmingly say texting while driving should be illegal. But more and more admit to sending text messages while at the wheel.
A national survey released by the federal government Thursday found that about 50 percent of U.S. drivers between the ages of 21 and 24 reported texting or emailing while driving. U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood called on Congress this week to enact a national ban on texting while driving.
About 95 percent of drivers agree sending emails or texts while on the road is unacceptable, and 87 percent favor laws against texting while driving, according to the AAA Foundations 2011 Traffic Safety Culture Index.
But two studies show traffic safety has not improved in states with bans on cellphone use and texting while driving, according to two studies from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which car insurance companies fund to research ways to reduce the number of traffic accidents.
Lawmakers should not expect a big safety payoff from these laws, said Russ Rader, the groups spokesman. Were just not seeing the effects we thought we would.
Some lawmakers are trying other ways to curb distracted driving. An idea (SB 122) from Sen. Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood, would require driver improvement and learners permit courses to include a segment on the hazards of using phones and other devices at the wheel. It passed its first committee hurdle Wednesday.
And Reps. Irv Slosberg, D-Boca Raton, and Sen. Thad Altman, R-Rockledge, have introduced a ban (HB 187/SB 930) on minors using cellphones on the road. Slosberg wants to include school bus drivers, as well.
While the full state Senate has been warm to the ban, having passed it in 2010, the House is another story.
Rep. Ray Pilon, R-Sarasota, is behind Deterts bill in the House. He has not yet persuaded his colleagues to bring it up.
Pilon, a former patrol officer and road supervisor, has tried winning over the chairman of the first House committee that will hear the proposal, Rep. Brad Drake, R-Eucheeanna. So far, no promises.
He said, Lets talk about it, Pilon said, so that was encouraging.
The fact that I cannot tolerate cell phone use in the car, either for texting or hand-held verbal conversations, has nothing to do with my hesitation to amend the greatest document produced by the hand of man for the freedom of man.
Merry Christmas! (I start saying that after Thanksgiving.)
--Bill
We can create a device with parallax that scramble the cellphone signal if the car is running..... Also can check if the s
Phone is on the pilot or copilot to let the copilot to text...... Now I think will be better just have a litter of common sense and do not text and drive.......