California drivers may not send, write or read messages

Message

mattbiernat · #31 Post by **mattbiernat** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:27 pm

when im stuck on a 4 lane street or a 6 lane freeway i really don't see pedestrians crossing the street/freeway. this is when i pull out my cell phone most of the time and mostly due to simple boredom. ehhh whatever... let them ban cell phones, im gonna get xbox installed in my car

qviri · #32 Post by **qviri** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:30 am

bonestonne wrote:i dunno about all of you, but people at my house drive manual trans, i wouldn't even dream of having my phone on while the car is running.

Most of the guys that drive manual are Europeans and French guys, true story.

beGi · #33 Post by **beGi** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:28 am

qviri wrote:Most of the guys that drive manual are Europeans and French guys, true story.

LOL, Europeans and French guys, can you explain that? I mean, what is the difference?

I would say that more than 90% of Europeans drives car with manual trans...

If you ask me, it is the only way to really drive a car...

ajkula66 · #34 Post by **ajkula66** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 11:09 am

Being originally from Canada, I assume qviri meant French Canadian...

Agreed with beGi's comment on manual transmissions...but then again, I'm a transplanted European...

qviri · #35 Post by **qviri** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:56 pm

Ah, my bad. It did refer to French Canadians. Context: http://origin.www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2 ... 40212.html.

(Technically, I am "originally from" Europe, "currently from" Canada, and "temporarily in" California... if that makes any difference these days.)

Purcy · #36 Post by **Purcy** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:59 pm

qviri wrote:
Most of the guys that drive manual are Europeans and French guys, true story.

I drive a manual transmission, always have from age 18. My dad felt they were better built; and I am American

#37 Post by **rkawakami** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:23 pm

Getting slightly OT for a second...

Since I drive a manual transmission car I've been using these for many years (way before CA went hands-free):

http://www.proclipusa.com

Have these clip-on dashboard holders for my cell phone, Palm Zire (operating as a GPS) and handheld amateur radio/scanner. They are very pricey considering that all they are are molded plastic but you are paying for their R&D and your safety (more or less

). You select a mounting bracket for the vehicle and location (dash, center console, etc.) and also pick out a holder for your particular piece of equipment (cell phone, PDA, etc.). I've constructed a general-purpose metal bracket which fits the clips on my phones or cases, instead of using one sold by ProClip. I did have to buy the cradle for the Palm ($40), to go with one of the three mounts ($35 each) on the dashboard.

#38 Post by **GomJabbar** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:58 pm

Another stick guy here. When I met my wife to be, she was driving a stick-shift Toyota Corolla. I made all my daughters learn how to drive on a stick-shift automobile. It has served us well. We have mix of stick and non-stick autos at our house.

beGi · #39 Post by **beGi** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:28 pm

@qviri

Just to make things clear, lol part wasn't about that you don't know where France is...

I was expecting a joke

I hope that French guys in EU or overthere won't offend...

#40 Post by **RealBlackStuff** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 7:04 pm

I am a European also, but I changed from manual to automatic about 20 years ago.
I was driving ca. 120.000KM (75.000M) per year, and it's just no fun with a stick shift, especially in town in rush hour traffic.
I still drive 'em occasionally for fun, but using a clutch is just too much of a waste of time IMHO.

mgo · #41 Post by **mgo** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:16 pm

mattbiernat wrote:California drivers may not send, write or read messages on electronic devices.
http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-me ... 2911.story

my question is how are they going to enforce it? i see two possible answers.
1. not enforce it
2. give everyone a ticket who is holding a cell phone.
option two will be taken by abusive cops. for example i will be typing a number on my cell phone and i will get a ticket for texting by a cop who just wants to meet his ticket quota.

What else are they going to do? Ban using GPS/map quest directions while driving? Ban eating hamburger while driving? Ban scratching my head while driving?

Now that it has been revealed that the train engineer in LA indeed murdered killed 25 people with his cell phone:

"Reuters - 2 hours ago
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The train driver blamed for the worst US train crash in 15 years was sending and receiving text messages seconds before his crowded commuter train skipped a red light and collided head-on with a freight train...."

we all need to remember that doing this stuff while driving is stupid, dangerous and sometimes even catastrophic.

mattbiernat · #42 Post by **mattbiernat** » Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:41 pm

mgo wrote: we all need to remember that doing this stuff while driving is stupid, dangerous and sometimes even catastrophic.

there is a difference between a train engineer and driving on a 6-7 lane freeway at 5-20 miles per hour.

ajkula66 · #43 Post by **ajkula66** » Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:50 pm

mattbiernat wrote:

there is a difference between a train engineer and driving on a 6-7 lane freeway at 5-20 miles per hour.

Definitely. But even if you hit a person (pedestrian/cyclist/biker) at 5mph and they do no more than just take you to court for scratches and broozes and fear and lost time/pay and what not, I bet that you won't be using the cell phone while driving any more...

Tõnis · #44 Post by **Tõnis** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:41 pm

Hello TP Enthusiasts,

This is my first post on this exciting forum, and I hope no one will harbor ill will towards me because of it.

I wanted to share a pic of the mobile set-up I have in my van. Click on this link to see what it looks like:

http://i961.photobucket.com/albums/ae96 ... PX0207.jpg

I like to be online a lot, so I got the set-up from a place that outfits police cruisers and utility vehicles. When I'm out of the home, I use a Sprint Novatel U727 EVDO modem, and last October, I even drove from Rhode Island to Florida and back with my 3000N100 (since retired to the home) continuously on-line (no accidents

), with streaming internet radio and IM video calls, utilizing Bluetooth headsets. I experienced only occasional, spotty service below the Mason-Dixon line. For AC power, I was using an AC Delco inverter, plugged into the cigarette lighter, but I have since ordered and started using Lenovo's 90W AC-DC travel adapter. One of the many things I love about my R61 is that I'm able to turn off the monitor (if I should want it off at night) by pressing Fn+F3. (The 3000N100 did not have that feature, rather I had to set the timer in power settings to shut off the monitor after one minute.)

While some may conclude that I have been merely lucky not having been involved in an accident as a result of the computer, I assert that it is possible to drive safely with mobile electronics in use. And though irresponsibility is a societal problem, enacting more laws and regulations (which inevitably result in the loss of liberty for responsible citizens) while attempting to idiot-proof any activity is not the answer to that problem. Furthermore, if government implements such rules, it should also check itself: I regularly witness police driving while using the computer and (constantly) on the phone. Again, I don't think that's bad (unless done uncarefully), but nothing irritates me more than police/government arrogance. Some of the worst auto offenses I see during all my time spent on the road are commited by the police. Why should the police be allowed to break the rules of the road whenever it suits them? Is it because there's no one who can issue citations to them? But okay, enough ranted about that!

Anyway, I'm learning a lot on this forum, and I have some good questions to which I hope I can get answers. I hope I can offer some answers too, though I'm somewhat inexperienced.

Tony

mattbiernat · #45 Post by **mattbiernat** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:07 pm

ajkula66 wrote:
Definitely. But even if you hit a person (pedestrian/cyclist/biker)

as far as i know it is illegal for pedestrians/bikers to enter freeways in California. as far as motorcyclist those guys drive in between cars...

ajkula66 · #46 Post by **ajkula66** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:55 pm

mattbiernat wrote:

as far as i know it is illegal for pedestrians/bikers to enter freeways in California. as far as motorcyclist those guys drive in between cars...

If you think that a fact that walking/biking is illegal on a freeway would stop someone from taking you to court (and winning) after you've hit them, you must be living in a parallel universe....

As for the bikers, hit a moving bike with a small car at 5-10mph and you'll be supporting that person's grandchildren.

mattbiernat · #47 Post by **mattbiernat** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:23 pm

11 years in California and I haven't seen a single bike/pedestrian on a freeway

ajkula66 · #48 Post by **ajkula66** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:16 pm

mattbiernat wrote:

11 years in California and I haven't seen a single bike/pedestrian on a freeway

I believe that. Based on Murphy's law, however, the first one you get to see will be the one that you just hit.

mattbiernat wrote:

as far as motorcyclist those guys drive in between cars...

And that's exactly why hitting them at any speed can be deadly for them, and costly for you.

Dimitri_P · #49 Post by **Dimitri_P** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:33 am

for those who think that it is perfectly fine for their "government" to tell what they can/cannot do inside their own private car, driving on their own road (yeah, research on that) - carry on with your lives

others, who think there is something wrong with that - ticketslayer.com

~~~

You know the whole traffic court is big circus? you call it a fair trial when judge is a judge and a prosecutor?

ajkula66 · #50 Post by **ajkula66** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:01 pm

Dimitri_P wrote:

for those who think that it is perfectly fine for their "government" to tell what they can/cannot do inside their own private car, driving on their own road (yeah, research on that) - carry on with your lives

others, who think there is something wrong with that - ticketslayer.com

I can understand and appreciate where you're coming from, but my concern personally would not be whether I'm getting a ticket, but whether I'm endangering someone else's life and well-being. Some people may be guided by fear of getting pulled over. I'm guided by common sense and experience of decades spent on the roads in a variety of countries.

Having said that, we can open the Pandora's Box and start discussing what government can/can't and/or should/shouldn't do...but that's a pretty good way of getting the whole thread deleted sooner or later. And it's been an entertaining one this far IMO...

Dimitri_P · #51 Post by **Dimitri_P** » Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:14 am

I'm not in favor of pre-emptive strikes...

leoblob · #52 Post by **leoblob** » Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:05 pm

Dimitri_P wrote:for those who think that it is perfectly fine for their "government" to tell what they can/cannot do inside their own private car, driving on their own road (yeah, research on that) - carry on with your lives...

Considering that it is the government who gives you the permission to use the road (via a driver's license), I don't see what the problem is. If you don't like their rules, then turn in your driver's license and take some other form of transportation where a cell phone is allowed (such as the bus). You can't have it both ways.

Dimitri_P · #53 Post by **Dimitri_P** » Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:50 pm

leoblob wrote:Considering that it is the government who gives you the permission to use the road (via a driver's license), I don't see what the problem is. If you don't like their rules, then turn in your driver's license and take some other form of transportation where a cell phone is allowed (such as the bus). You can't have it both ways.

who owns the roads - people or government?

if you research the topic of driver's licensing, you will find out that it began with driving licenses for chauffeurs and other commercial activity, which is perfectly fine, like any other professional license (barber, cosmetician comes first to mind)

Of course I don't like the rules, because they are phony rules to begin with

Oh and by the way, what about the right to travel? I know it is not explicitly written on bill of rights, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The founding fathers didn't even think about it at a time. Numerous court decisions ruled in favor of it as an inalienable right

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No-Drivers-License/

qviri · #54 Post by **qviri** » Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:49 pm

Dimitri_P wrote:who owns the roads - people or government?

The government acts on behalf of the people and institutes laws as people as a whole see fit.

Dimitri_P · #55 Post by **Dimitri_P** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:48 am

qviri wrote:The government acts on behalf of the people and institutes laws as people as a whole see fit.

sounds beautiful on paper, not in practice and most would agree

qviri · #56 Post by **qviri** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 1:31 am

If we were to hold a referendum tomorrow, would the requirement of holding a valid government-issued driver's license in order to drive on public roads be upheld or defeated, and why?

Dimitri_P · #57 Post by **Dimitri_P** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 1:58 am

depends on how you pitch it to the public

Tõnis · #58 Post by **Tõnis** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:30 am

Dimitri_P wrote:
qviri wrote:The government acts on behalf of the people and institutes laws as people as a whole see fit.
sounds beautiful on paper, not in practice and most would agree

Fellas,

The right to travel and licensing is a complex subject that one could study and discuss in great detail. Some contend that applying for a license is akin to asking the government for permission to do that which is a natural right. Let's, for example, take the marriage license. Where did that begin? It's my understanding, that it started when it was illegal for a white person to marry a black person; they needed a "license" if they wanted to marry. Ridiculous! (It is possible for one to be married in the eyes of God and not have the blessing of the government.) Others will insist that government has a right to regulate activities. They usually point to the "general welfare" clause in the Constitution. And though (IMO) the general welfare clause should be observed when someone or something is trashing the country as a whole (like when the free-traitor globalists implemented NAFTA/CAFTA), the general welfare clause is vague and should be invoked with care. After all, it could conceivably be applied to anything by those who would curtail liberty. (For example, let's make a law that one cannot wear purple on Mondays: it's for the general welfare!

)

Above all, when discussing America, let's not forget that America was not set up as an all out democracy. Democracy=mob rules. America was set up as a constitutional republic. All laws (and regulations, written, with legislative authority, by the executive branch) must be in compliance with the supreme law of the land -- the federal Constitution and the individual states' constitutions. In a constitutional republic, no amount of people can lawfully "vote away" the rights of one individual (unless, of course, the Constitution is just a "gosh-darn piece of paper").

Peace,

Tony

#59 Post by **GomJabbar** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:18 am

Why does this thread remind me of the following scene?

[Harvey has challenged Butch to fight for control of the Hole-in-the-Wall gang]
Butch Cassidy: No, no, not yet. Not until me and Harvey get the rules straightened out.
Harvey Logan: Rules? In a knife fight? No rules.
[Butch immediately kicks Harvey in the groin]
Butch Cassidy: Well, if there aint' going to be any rules, let's get the fight started. Someone count. 1,2,3 go.
Sundance Kid: [quickly] 1,2,3, go.
[Butch knocks Harvey out]

Personally I dislike this one-size-fits-all mentality. IMO, we are ending up with too many rules. There are times when a cell phone could be used relatively safely by many people. Then there are some people that could never use a cell phone safely anytime while driving. If it was up to me - which of course it never is, I would propose an increase in penalty (or a specific penalty) if a cell phone was in use at the time of an accident and suspected of being a causal factor. Otherwise I think cell phones should not be outrightly banned while driving.

Dimitri_P · #60 Post by **Dimitri_P** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:17 pm

Support Tonis/Tony point of view

GomJabbar wrote:If it was up to me - which of course it never is, I would propose an increase in penalty (or a specific penalty) if a cell phone was in use at the time of an accident and suspected of being a causal factor. Otherwise I think cell phones should not be outrightly banned while driving.

That clearly states the the cellphone was in use and distracted the driver. Which is fine.

What I'm not in favor of is a blanket ban of cell phone or any device use as a preventive measure.

California drivers may not send, write or read messages

Re: California drivers may not send, write or read messages

Re: California drivers may not send, write or read messages

Who is online