Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: NTSB wants to ban talking on cellphones while driving

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    U.S. Penal Colony Georgia
    Posts
    175

    NTSB wants to ban talking on cellphones while driving

    They say the research shows that when you talk on your phone then your mind is distracted that it poses a safety risk. Ok then they will also have to ban talking to other passengers while driving.

    They'll also have to ban listening to the radio which distracts your mind and reading billboards.

    They'll also have to ban cops from talking on their radios, and typing on their laptops.

    Your mind is distracted! What a crock of shit. It's called thinking! Hell, most of us zone out anyway while driving, especially on the interstate for long periods of time.



  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,071
    In most of Europe using other than hands-free phones while driving is banned.

    Talking on a phone is, I think, different to listening to the radio or talking to passengers. The radio doesn't require a response from you & passengers can see what's going on around you so they can judge whether or not to engage in conversation.

  3. #3
    Administrator Ken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lincolnshire, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Brand View Post
    In most of Europe using other than hands-free phones while driving is banned.

    Talking on a phone is, I think, different to listening to the radio or talking to passengers. The radio doesn't require a response from you & passengers can see what's going on around you so they can judge whether or not to engage in conversation.
    I agree, Dave. Once I start to get over fifty or so, or whenever there is traffic around my passengers know better than to try to talk to me. Phones, even handsfree, are a no-no and the only time the radio goes on is when I am after a traffic update. I don't care what others do, that is the way I drive. Hands, feet, eyes, ears and brain fully occupied.

    Ken.
    Die dulci fruimini!
    Ken.
    Wolds Bikers, Lincolnshire, England.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    U.S. Penal Colony Georgia
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Brand View Post
    In most of Europe using other than hands-free phones while driving is banned.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Brand View Post


    Talking on a phone is, I think, different to listening to the radio or talking to passengers. The radio doesn't require a response from you & passengers can see what's going on around you so they can judge whether or not to engage in conversation.

    Europe has nothing to do with the U.S. We don't take our marching orders from the E.U.

    Regardless of what you or anyone else "thinks", neither you nor anyone else has any right, legal or moral, to tell me what I can and cannot do in my own car. Are you going to feel better about your loved one being killed by someone that was tired rather than someone who was talking on their phone? Of course not. What difference does it make what irresponsible decision someone made, they are responsible for their actions regardless.

    Nor will such laws deter people from talking on their phones. It'll just make people try to find dangerous new ways to talk on their phones and not get caught. Ah, the moral hazard of gov't regulations.

    I guess we'll need to rule out yelling at the kids in the car too huh? Just how ludicrous does it have to get before you realize how ludicrous it is?

    To even entertain such an idea, and try to justify it, means you have been marinated in the public school education and are ripe for gov't slaughter.

    Mind the electrified fence on your way down the chute.

  5. #5
    Administrator Ken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lincolnshire, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by doncoo View Post
    Europe has nothing to do with the U.S. We don't take our marching orders from the E.U.




    Regardless of what you or anyone else "thinks", neither you nor anyone else has any right, legal or moral, to tell me what I can and cannot do in my own car. Are you going to feel better about your loved one being killed by someone that was tired rather than someone who was talking on their phone? Of course not. What difference does it make what irresponsible decision someone made, they are responsible for their actions regardless.



    Nor will such laws deter people from talking on their phones. It'll just make people try to find dangerous new ways to talk on their phones and not get caught. Ah, the moral hazard of gov't regulations.



    I guess we'll need to rule out yelling at the kids in the car too huh? Just how ludicrous does it have to get before you realize how ludicrous it is?



    To even entertain such an idea, and try to justify it, means you have been marinated in the public school education and are ripe for gov't slaughter.



    Mind the electrified fence on your way down the chute.
    OK, here is a real life example from just a few months back. Approaching a 90 left, at a reasonable speed, I was confronted by a female in a 4X4, on her cell phone, driving one handed, head turned to the back of the car presumably shouting at/talking to the kids who were in the back, right over my side of the road. Luckily I was awake, but even luckier I was on the Honda otherwise it would have been a head-on as I had about three feet of road, maybe less, available. Don't talk to me about f*****g lunatics using cell-phones whilst driving.

    I think, looking at collision reports in the NP over the last few weeks, that Cell-phone users are killing more people over here than drink drivers.

    Ken.
    Die dulci fruimini!
    Ken.
    Wolds Bikers, Lincolnshire, England.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    U.S. Penal Colony Georgia
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken View Post
    OK, here is a real life example from just a few months back. Approaching a 90 left, at a reasonable speed, I was confronted by a female in a 4X4, on her cell phone, driving one handed, head turned to the back of the car presumably shouting at/talking to the kids who were in the back, right over my side of the road. Luckily I was awake, but even luckier I was on the Honda otherwise it would have been a head-on as I had about three feet of road, maybe less, available. Don't talk to me about f*****g lunatics using cell-phones whilst driving.

    I think, looking at collision reports in the NP over the last few weeks, that Cell-phone users are killing more people over here than drink drivers.

    Ken.
    Ok Ken so let's get aged drivers off the road as well because my 84-year-old father couldn't turn his neck far enough to check his blind spot if his life depended on it, and it does. Old people also have very slow reaction times. So, I say anything over 65-years-old. How's that arbitrary number sound to you Ken. Ooops, you're off the road buddy, sorry but we can't have older people threatening to cause accidents.

    We also need to get people without absolutely, uncorrected, perfect eyesight off the road, as well as people with only one eye and people with low IQ's because they'll make bad driving decisions for sure. We need to get deaf people off the road, handicapped people off the road, we also need to raise the legal driving age to 30 so we don't have testosterone filled young boys behind the wheel of a car.

    We need to outlaw eating or drinking anything while driving so there goes the drive-through business down the shitter, but hey the economy's doing alright as it is.

    We need to outlaw, getting in the glove-box while driving, putting CD's in and out of the radio, driving with one hand for any reason, what else so Ken will be safe? Because we want you to feel safe Ken. That's our number one priority. Regardless of the cost to everyone else.

    We basically need to give the geniuses in the gov't all the authority and money they need to come up with any and all potentially dangerous things one could do while driving and outlaw them. Then we'll be safe for sure. Then, Ken, you won't have to take any more responsibility for your own safety. The gov't will do that for you. And the fewer people on the road, the better for Ken right? Because, let's face it: you really think the road belongs to you anyway don't you?

  7. #7
    Administrator Ken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lincolnshire, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by doncoo View Post
    Ok Ken so let's get aged drivers off the road as well because my 84-year-old father couldn't turn his neck far enough to check his blind spot if his life depended on it, and it does. Old people also have very slow reaction times. So, I say anything over 65-years-old. How's that arbitrary number sound to you Ken. Ooops, you're off the road buddy, sorry but we can't have older people threatening to cause accidents.
    I don't know about over your side but, over here, we have to re-certify medical fitness, including eyesight, every three years once the age of 70 has been reached. Any doctor can revoke a drivers licence, by reference to the DVLA should he think it necessary. This is not prohibitive legislation, it is common sense. If your father cannot check his blind spot then, as far as I am concerned, he is a risk on the road, still that will not matter until he kills someone will it?

    We also need to get people without absolutely, uncorrected, perfect eyesight off the road, as well as people with only one eye and people with low IQ's because they'll make bad driving decisions for sure. We need to get deaf people off the road, handicapped people off the road, we also need to raise the legal driving age to 30 so we don't have testosterone filled young boys behind the wheel of a car.
    Our driving test and re-certification covers most of the points you raise. Disabled people have to take a special series of tests to prove their abilty to drive responsibly and safely - maybe we take it more seriously than you do. Raise the minimum age for holding a driving licence? - well the under twenty fives have the highest accident rates, this is reflected in the cost of their insurance. (My nephew's quote was around £3600/$5400 per annum after he had passed his driving test and obtained a full licence.) The alternate approach is to try and educate them into acceptance of their responsibilities when they get behind a wheel.

    We need to outlaw eating or drinking anything while driving so there goes the drive-through business down the shitter, but hey the economy's doing alright as it is.
    This was quite obviously a joke or just plain BS. Any way - once again, over here eating or drinking whilst driving a vehicle is a criminal offence.

    We need to outlaw, getting in the glove-box while driving, putting CD's in and out of the radio, driving with one hand for any reason, what else so Ken will be safe? Because we want you to feel safe Ken. That's our number one priority. Regardless of the cost to everyone else.
    What's with the 'so Ken will feel safe'? On the road I make my own safety by using all my senses and it has saved my bacon on quite a few occasions. I am well aware that stupid, irresponsible, unthinking people will always do all the things you are outlining above because they have no awareness of the potential outcome of their actions, no sense of responsibility and feel no moral obligations to anyone except themselves. Sorry dude, you are just full of bullshit.

    We basically need to give the geniuses in the gov't all the authority and money they need to come up with any and all potentially dangerous things one could do while driving and outlaw them. Then we'll be safe for sure. Then, Ken, you won't have to take any more responsibility for your own safety. The gov't will do that for you. And the fewer people on the road, the better for Ken right? Because, let's face it: you really think the road belongs to you anyway don't you?
    We have a very simple set of rules in the UK, it is called the Highway Code. It is 136 pages in total. It covers acceptable practice for all road users from pedestrians, through cyclists, horse riders, motorcyclists, car, tractor and HGV drivers. It is not 'law' it is advisory and based on common sense and consideration to other road users. So far, in a couple of million miles in cars, vans, and on bikes it has served me well.

    The roads do not belong to me, they are there for me to use as and when I need or wish.

    With respect, If you had as much common sense as hot air you would be a much wiser person.

    Ken.
    Die dulci fruimini!
    Ken.
    Wolds Bikers, Lincolnshire, England.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken View Post
    With respect, If you had as much common sense as hot air you would be a much wiser person.

    Ken.
    With respect, if he's anything like me and it seems he is, then you have to allow for the fact that our extreme libertarianism makes us pissed at rules issued by the government even if they make sense and would be enforced by a private road authority.

    It's just how people like us are. If a government agent told me not to stick a fork in my eye I'd get annoyed and might do it just to spite the prick.

  9. #9
    Administrator Ken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lincolnshire, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    With respect, if he's anything like me and it seems he is, then you have to allow for the fact that our extreme libertarianism makes us pissed at rules issued by the government even if they make sense and would be enforced by a private road authority.

    It's just how people like us are. If a government agent told me not to stick a fork in my eye I'd get annoyed and might do it just to spite the prick.
    Strange - I thought that one of the prime elements of Libertarianism was the freedom to do as one wished so long as one was not hurting others or putting others in danger. Maybe it is not such an enlightened/idealistic outlook as I thought and I should stop thinking of myself as a Libertarian.

    À Chacun son goût, I guess.

    Ken.
    Last edited by Ken; 12-15-2011 at 05:44 PM.
    Die dulci fruimini!
    Ken.
    Wolds Bikers, Lincolnshire, England.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,071
    Quote Originally Posted by doncoo View Post
    Europe has nothing to do with the U.S. We don't take our marching orders from the E.U.

    Regardless of what you or anyone else "thinks", neither you nor anyone else has any right, legal or moral, to tell me what I can and cannot do in my own car. Are you going to feel better about your loved one being killed by someone that was tired rather than someone who was talking on their phone? Of course not. What difference does it make what irresponsible decision someone made, they are responsible for their actions regardless.

    I was just stating a fact, not "telling you what you can & can't do".

  11. #11
    Staff
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,126
    This cellphone ban proposal has absolutely nothing to do with "distracted driving" or highway safety or anything of the sort. Debates on these issues are missing the point. It doesn't even have anything to do with a federal ban. That may or may not pass congress. There is a much more sinister motive and method involved.

    Currently, a few police departments have devices that can read the information off of your cellphone by connecting to it. If the feds persuade enough states to pass a cellphone ban, the federal government will grant states (through NHTSA or even the NTSB) money to purchase these expensive devices to see who and what phone calls or texts you were receiving prior to your traffic stop.

    http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3458.asp

    It is already happening in MI without a cellphone ban. Imagine if even they pass a harmless "text while drive" ban. People will be giving up their phones left and right. The only way I see to get around this is to give the cop a throwaway cellphone and hope that the uniformed thug doesn't get a computerized warrant so that his fat steroid jacked buzzed cut ass can go through the rest of your car.

    It is all about giving police more authority to go through your contact lists, your messages, and your phone calls. That's what it is about. Not distracted driving. Not teen texting or other such nonsense. That is s sideshow. Make no mistake about it.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken View Post
    Strange - I thought that one of the prime elements of Libertarianism was the freedom to do as one wished so long as one was not hurting others or putting others in danger.
    That's often how it's phrased, but it's also often accompanied by a massive hostility toward the government no matter what it does. And as with any political ideology you get degrees; there are plent of libertarians who have no problem wit government roads, and many who want them all privatized. Likewise there are some who think potentially risky or reckless behavior is a proper are for legislation, and others who think any action that isn't per se harmful isn't the government's business. Those types would certainly oppose such a ban because texting, while risky, doesn't per se lead to harm in and of itself in all situations, and would argue cops would be better off going after people who show signs of impaired driving whatever the cause than trying to sift out every possible thing that could lead to impaired driving and making each and every one illegal.

    Maybe it is not such an enlightened/idealistic outlook as I thought and I should stop thinking of myself as a Libertarian.
    No, just realize it's a big crowd with varying degrees of commitment, as with all political ideologies. Personally I'm with the extreme crowd; if it isn't per se harmful, leave it alone. If it leads to harm and a judge wants to treat certain behavior as an aggravating factor, they can do that at trial and start forming case law on the subject which will be just as much a deterrant and also likely more fairly administered.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    U.S. Penal Colony Georgia
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    That's often how it's phrased, but it's also often accompanied by a massive hostility toward the government no matter what it does. And as with any political ideology you get degrees; there are plent of libertarians who have no problem wit government roads, and many who want them all privatized. Likewise there are some who think potentially risky or reckless behavior is a proper are for legislation, and others who think any action that isn't per se harmful isn't the government's business. Those types would certainly oppose such a ban because texting, while risky, doesn't per se lead to harm in and of itself in all situations, and would argue cops would be better off going after people who show signs of impaired driving whatever the cause than trying to sift out every possible thing that could lead to impaired driving and making each and every one illegal.



    No, just realize it's a big crowd with varying degrees of commitment, as with all political ideologies. Personally I'm with the extreme crowd; if it isn't per se harmful, leave it alone. If it leads to harm and a judge wants to treat certain behavior as an aggravating factor, they can do that at trial and start forming case law on the subject which will be just as much a deterrant and also likely more fairly administered.
    I hate labels like "Libertarian". They're meaningless. How about just intelligent and reasonable? I simply respect other people's rights, which is a lot more than I can say for the law.

    My ire is towards anyone, private or public, who tries to violate my rights like talking on my cellphone in my car. I do have a lot of ire towards the gov't because everything they do is a violation of my rights.

    Everything they do involves taxation (legalized theft) and mandates (involuntary servitude).

    I'm finding more and more that the real problem in America is that people do not know the difference between right and wrong. The PC thought police have taken over and convinced everyone that the "law is the law" and it will define for you what is right and what is wrong. That's pathetic. Grown people not able to discern such a fundamental concept in a society.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by doncoo View Post
    I hate labels like "Libertarian". They're meaningless. How about just intelligent and reasonable? I simply respect other people's rights, which is a lot more than I can say for the law.
    Labels just point people in a direction, as long as they don't take the label as the totality of the individual, no biggie.

    My ire is towards anyone, private or public, who tries to violate my rights like talking on my cellphone in my car. I do have a lot of ire towards the gov't because everything they do is a violation of my rights.
    Generally I think the same way, however to moderate myself I always ask myself whether it would make me equally mad if a private property owner applied the same restriction. It's a standard that helps me focus my hate.

    I'm finding more and more that the real problem in America is that people do not know the difference between right and wrong. The PC thought police have taken over and convinced everyone that the "law is the law" and it will define for you what is right and what is wrong. That's pathetic. Grown people not able to discern such a fundamental concept in a society.
    I agree, many people have substituted an extreme positivism for actual judgement when it comes to these issues. But then that's what you get after so many decades of public schooling: lots of people who can't or don't want to think for themselves.

  15. #15
    Administrator Ken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lincolnshire, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    That's often how it's phrased, but it's also often accompanied by a massive hostility toward the government no matter what it does.
    Illogical but it is an accepted fact.

    ........ Likewise there are some who think potentially risky or reckless behavior is a proper are for legislation, and others who think any action that isn't per se harmful isn't the government's business.
    To me the key word there is 'potentially'. In our case legislation was introduced because of the number of instances of unaceptable standards of driving, (hitting the vehicle in front, failing to give way at junctions, running lights, wandering from lane to lane, etc.) and the number of deaths caused by people eating/drinking, using handheld mobile phones and even texting. I accept, others may not, that proven repetitive instances of deaths, serious injury and injury, are reasonable cause for introducing legislation to enforce the advice contained within the highway code..

    Those types would certainly oppose such a ban because texting, while risky, doesn't per se lead to harm in and of itself in all situations, and would argue cops would be better off going after people who show signs of impaired driving whatever the cause than trying to sift out every possible thing that could lead to impaired driving and making each and every one illegal.
    Our traffic LEO's (not that there are all that many of them) do stop and question/breathalyze any driver they see whose standard of driving (see above) is unacceptable, as well as those they see using mobile phones, eating, drinking, reading maps, etc. Despite this, and despite the steadily increasing number of collisions and subsequent prosecutions and convictions that resulted it was still necessary to turn into law what was previously gentle guidance.

    No, just realize it's a big crowd with varying degrees of commitment, as with all political ideologies. Personally I'm with the extreme crowd; if it isn't per se harmful, leave it alone. If it leads to harm and a judge wants to treat certain behavior as an aggravating factor, they can do that at trial and start forming case law on the subject which will be just as much a deterrant and also likely more fairly administered.
    Potentiality for harm is a large variant. Having driven in CA, FL and TX I remember that many of your minor roads are as wide as some of our motorways. I have only once encountered what I would call heavy traffic in the USA and that was between JFK and La Guardia in the rush hour (I268?) and I was glad that I was in a cab and not the one who was driving. That traffic was about the same density (wall to wall) as the usual daily traffic level in London or some of our other big cities.

    Ken.
    Last edited by Ken; 12-16-2011 at 01:34 PM. Reason: Typo.
    Die dulci fruimini!
    Ken.
    Wolds Bikers, Lincolnshire, England.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken View Post
    To me the key word there is 'potentially'. In our case legislation was introduced because of the number of instances of unaceptable standards of driving, (hitting the vehicle in front, failing to give way at junctions, running lights, wandering from lane to lane, etc.) and the number of deaths caused by people eating/drinking, using handheld mobile phones and even texting. I accept, others may not, that proven repetitive instances of deaths, serious injury and injury, are reasonable cause for introducing legislation to enforce the advice contained within the highway code..
    I'd present the counter argument: if texting in and of itself doesn't always lead to accidents, and given limited resources for law enforcement, every enforcement of the arbitrary ban is time/resources taken away from potentially more effective enforcement methods.

    Our traffic LEO's (not that there are all that many of them) do stop and question/breathalyze any driver they see whose standard of driving (see above) is unacceptable, as well as those they see using mobile phones, eating, drinking, reading maps, etc. Despite this, and despite the steadily increasing number of collisions and subsequent prosecutions and convictions that resulted it was still necessary to turn into law what was previously gentle guidance.
    I think judgement on that has to wait for the results.

    Potentiality for harm is a large variant. Having driven in CA, FL and TX I remember that many of your minor roads are as wide as some of our motorways. I have only once encountered what I would call heavy traffic in the USA and that was between JFK and La Guardia in the rush hour (I268?) and I was glad that I was in a cab and not the one who was driving. That traffic was about the same density (wall to wall) as the usual daily traffic level in London or some of our other big cities.

    Ken.
    I commute 120+ miles a day in that traffic in NY.

    Sounds like you were on the Clearview expressway, as a rule of thumb I always fly in and out of Laguardia or Newark if possible. JFK is just sitting on the south shore of the island with the Van Wyk as the only real way in and out, and is almost universally jammed at all times of day. And, once you get off of that your choices are The Belt parkway (4 wheeling anyone?) or the LIE, properly called the longest parking lot on the planet. All jammed with some of the most aggresive and incompetent drivers you're ever likely to encounter, and the LIE in the top 10 worst commutes in the country for eastbound traffic at the end of the day.

    I guess living in a relative Mad Max like zone can skew one's view of driving and potential traffic laws.

  17. #17
    Administrator Ken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lincolnshire, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    I'd present the counter argument: if texting in and of itself doesn't always lead to accidents, and given limited resources for law enforcement, every enforcement of the arbitrary ban is time/resources taken away from potentially more effective enforcement methods.
    Against that counter argument, may I present my counter-counter argument that 'there is no reduction in enforcement' as traffic surveillance is the full time job of the traffic police so they are there all the time anyway. With other police elements it is part of their normal brief.


    I think judgement on that has to wait for the results.
    So far the statistics indicate that the change in law has had no effect and the incidence of stop/fine or prosecution is still on the increase. Oh, and people are still being killed. In fact one of my long distance independent lorry driving friends, a short while ago, cancelled a contract with one company because their transport manager kept calling him whilst he was driving, this despite said transport manager being told that the phone was switched on for emergency use only when he was on the road.

    I commute 120+ miles a day in that traffic in NY.
    Ouch!

    Sounds like you were on the Clearview expressway, as a rule of thumb I always fly in and out of Laguardia or Newark if possible. JFK is just sitting on the south shore of the island with the Van Wyk as the only real way in and out, and is almost universally jammed at all times of day. And, once you get off of that your choices are The Belt parkway (4 wheeling anyone?) or the LIE, properly called the longest parking lot on the planet. All jammed with some of the most aggresive and incompetent drivers you're ever likely to encounter, and the LIE in the top 10 worst commutes in the country for eastbound traffic at the end of the day.

    I guess living in a relative Mad Max like zone can skew one's view of driving and potential traffic laws.
    It was the one and only time I had flown into JFK. It took me four and a half hours to get through immigration even with a B1/B2 visa against my usual half hour at Miami. My link flight left three hours before I was clear. To get to my meeting I had to get a 'black' cab to La Guardia (The legal cab queue was a good hundred, hundred fifty yards long.) to try and catch an onward flight that Pan Am had managed to book for me. I guess the Customer Service guy at Pan Am may have something to do with that, he told me where to wait, what to do and what the driver who would approach me would say. I think I had one hour or less before my flight left. The guy picked me up on cue and just flew, he could read the traffic like a well read book, he saw openings before they appeared and made some that didn't appear but, best of all, he got me there in time. I got to the ticket desk at La Guardia with a couple of minutes to spare to be greeted with 'I'm very sorry sir but your flight has been delayed one and one half hours'. I got to my hotel at gone four a.m. with my first meeting with the DoD starting at eight a.m.

    A most valid point!

    Ken.
    Last edited by Ken; 12-19-2011 at 12:43 PM. Reason: Typo & added info.
    Die dulci fruimini!
    Ken.
    Wolds Bikers, Lincolnshire, England.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken View Post
    Against that counter argument, may I present my counter-counter argument that 'there is no reduction in enforcement' as traffic surveillance is the full time job of the traffic police so they are there all the time anyway. With other police elements it is part of their normal brief.
    That's where I think you're wrong though. I'm at my job full time too, but that still means around 8 hours spent on various projects, not 8 hours spent on all of them. Every unproductive hour in a cop's shift comes at a price then. They may be out there full time, however if they're tasked with enforcing laws that are less than effective, that means less time spent enforcing the more effective ones.

    So far the statistics indicate that the change in law has had no effect and the incidence of stop/fine or prosecution is still on the increase. Oh, and people are still being killed. In fact one of my long distance independent lorry driving friends, a short while ago, cancelled a contract with one company because their transport manager kept calling him whilst he was driving, this despite said transport manager being told that the phone was switched on for emergency use only when he was on the road.
    Too early to tell is my thinking.

    It was the one and only time I had flown into JFK. It took me four and a half hours to get through immigration even with a B1/B2 visa against my usual half hour at Miami. My link flight left three hours before I was clear. To get to my meeting I had to get a 'black' cab to La Guardia (The legal cab queue was a good hundred, hundred fifty yards long.) to try and catch an onward flight that Pan Am had managed to book for me. I guess the Customer Service guy at Pan Am may have something to do with that, he told me where to wait, what to do and what the driver who would approach me would say. I think I had one hour or less before my flight left. The guy picked me up on cue and just flew, he could read the traffic like a well read book, he saw openings before they appeared and made some that didn't appear but, best of all, he got me there in time. I got to the ticket desk at La Guardia with a couple of minutes to spare to be greeted with 'I'm very sorry sir but your flight has been delayed one and one half hours'. I got to my hotel at gone four a.m. with my first meeting with the DoD starting at eight a.m.
    Sounds like a typical day traveling in and out of New York City.

    A most valid point!
    I have to say, though, the training is worth it. I've seen out of state people lock up when trying to drive in NY state, much less in the city. I remember once when I worked in an auto parts store this French guy came in, he had tried to merge onto the LIE and someone took his rear view off as they passed. He was visibly shaken, and not happy with the news that he wasn't the first person that's happened to by far.

    He was happy the rental insurance covered it though.

  19. #19
    Administrator Ken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lincolnshire, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    That's where I think you're wrong though. I'm at my job full time too, but that still means around 8 hours spent on various projects, not 8 hours spent on all of them. Every unproductive hour in a cop's shift comes at a price then. They may be out there full time, however if they're tasked with enforcing laws that are less than effective, that means less time spent enforcing the more effective ones.
    Not quite my erudite friend. On the basis of your argument, if a LEO fulfills a full shift without observing and dealing with any misdemeanour he is non-productive. Does the fact, for example, that his mere presence may have prevented a crime count for nothing?

    The function of our beat and traffic police is to patrol, observe and deal with any infringement of any law that they observe being broken and provide aid and assistance at any emergency they encounter. They are therefore fully occupied in doing their job (when not picking up veggy burgers and decaffeinated coffee from a fast food establishment) whether merely observing or actually dealing with any infringement.

    Ken.
    Last edited by Ken; 12-20-2011 at 10:12 AM. Reason: Grammatical error.
    Die dulci fruimini!
    Ken.
    Wolds Bikers, Lincolnshire, England.

  20. #20
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken View Post
    I don't know about over your side but, over here, we have to re-certify medical fitness, including eyesight, every three years once the age of 70 has been reached. Any doctor can revoke a drivers licence, by reference to the DVLA should he think it necessary. This is not prohibitive legislation, it is common sense.
    The heck it isn't. If a 70-year-old or even older has a clean driving record, no accidents, and isn't observed by loved ones or others doing weird gomer things while behind the wheel, why should he come under any kind of recertification?

    This is pure Statist-think. Some bureaucrat decided that 70 is the cutoff for expectations of safe driving and bam, they fall into this need-to-recertify category, no matter their record heretofore. Over here the clovers would be creaming themselves over this. The Government Has Spoken! Seventy it is!

Similar Threads

  1. Man attacked by cop for talking on phone
    By Eric in forum Fight Traffic Tickets/Driving Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-15-2010, 02:24 AM
  2. Driving while Talking vs. Drinking and Driving
    By Eric in forum Fight Traffic Tickets/Driving Issues
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06-26-2010, 06:00 AM
  3. Talking to the cops
    By chiph in forum Fight Traffic Tickets/Driving Issues
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-06-2008, 07:59 AM
  4. Replies: 40
    Last Post: 02-24-2008, 12:29 AM
  5. We were talking about small highways...
    By mrblanche in forum Motor Mouth
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-15-2007, 02:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •