Political : Bill of the week - For or Against ?

MeYatch · Post by **MeYatch** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:29 pm

I think thats true, but I don't think a cell phone creates any more of a distraction than talking to someone in the car, eating a sandwich, or searching your MP3 player for that really cool song you've just gotta hear.

Dumb people do dumb things.

Answering your cell phone is not as big a distraction as searching your phone for your ex girlfriend's grandma's number at 3:00 in the morning.

I think a ban of talking on a cell phone (without a hands free device) does not address the distraction issue, it just makes it more of a pain in the ass to talk on a cell phone while driving, which will cause some people to stop using them in the car, perhaps the ones that are causing a problem, but probably not.

I'd have to guess that the majority of bad cell phone drivers are the I-wish-I-could-have-my-cell-phone-permananly-implanted-in-my-brain types, and will find ways to get around the ban.

DirtySanchez · Post by **DirtySanchez** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:46 pm

MeYatch wrote:
Dumb people do dumb things.

Exactly, a traffic law will not stop this.
Stupid people: PLEASE STOP FUCKING!!! YOU'RE RETARDED OFFSPRING ARE KILLING EVERYBODY.

Thank You.

ToonaRockGuy · Post by **ToonaRockGuy** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:30 pm

bassist_25 wrote:It always comes back to the pastries. Is cake technically considered a pastry? Kevin, help us out here.

Paul,

Always willing to assist. (And note the new sig)

No, a cake is not a pastry. The primary component of a pastry is a dough primarily consisting of flour, water, and shortening, that is formed into the desired shape. (Donuts, Pies, Tarts, Donut Holes, etc.)

A cake is formed from a batter, not a dough, and therefore not considered a pastry.

To quote my dear friend (and missing in action compadre) Captain Grammar: You're Welcome.

witchhunt · Post by **witchhunt** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:42 pm

http://www.ochef.com/821.htm

It's all in the flour.

Bic & Que · Post by **Bic & Que** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:11 am

We're for this bill....

Que was already a victim....stupid woman was talking on cell phone & rear ended Que at red light.

She pulled over to side of road & other lady drove off!

Lesson learned.....immediately put car in park....get out....walk to back of other car.....write down license number before doing ANYTHING else.....

THEN....punch lady in mouth....rip cellphone from hands and stomp it into plastic mush....

MeYatch · Post by **MeYatch** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:21 am

I just came up behind a guy doing 35 MPH in a 55 MPH zone spotlighting out the window. You can't convince me the guy looking at dear out his window in the dark isn't more distracted than someone on their cell phone. Not to mention going 20 MPH under the limit in the dark....

Why don't they ban spotlights and tractors going 50 MPH below the speedlimit?

RobTheDrummer · Post by **RobTheDrummer** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:49 am

My whole smoking ban thing is the same principle. It's saying that smoke harms people, so we should ban it. Same as cell phones. You may harm someone while driving, so therefore we should protect people.

And drinking and driving is very dangerous, many people DO choose to do that. They aren't very responsible, so when the DUI comes around or they crash their car, it is their responsibility. If you get what I'm sayin.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 3:14 am

The Smoking ban bill will likely come up soon. I'll let you know when it does.

My opinion on that though is, If a place is a "public" place. What right does a smoker have to poison me ?

I think it (no smoking) just passed in Maryland. I've been to NYC and see no decline in attendance, only clean air.

RobTheDrummer · Post by **RobTheDrummer** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 4:55 am

Hawk wrote:The Smoking ban bill will likely come up soon. I'll let you know when it does.

My opinion on that though is, If a place is a "public" place. What right does a smoker have to poison me ?

I think it (no smoking) just passed in Maryland. I've been to NYC and see no decline in attendance, only clean air.

Well there is a difference in population in NYC and Central PA.

I do like the idea of clean air in bars though, since I am a big fat asthmatic fuck.

HurricaneBob · Post by **HurricaneBob** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 6:57 am

As a smoker i am looking forward to the ban, i smoke way too much when i play anyways and it will help me cut down.

Naga · Post by **Naga** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:55 am

Jumping the topic back on track... While I'm on the fence for the smoking ban, I stand for the ban on cell phones while driving. You can choose whether you want to go into a smoke-filled bar or not. You can't choose whether or not you want that idiot not paying attention to crash into you, possibly doing permenant injury, or maybe even death instantly. I'm heavy on anti-governmental policy, but there's a lot more to it than just that

While I do feel "Hey, F#$% off, big brother!" is always a good concept, I think there's actually a bit of seriousness in this bill that maybe we, assuming we all like living without accidents, could at least somewhat appreciate. You're all right in saying there are too many idiots out there. I think though, that we should take one thing away from those idiots that could cause a few more accidents, possibly even save some lives. And really, that's what this could come down to

I'll agree, there are PLENTY of things that distract people. Food, the radio, and cell phones are all distractions, yeah. But why not at least cut down one of these many things, maybe stop a few idiots from causing accidents and raising insurance bills? They're all on the road, they're all bad drivers for some reason and I'm sure they've got their reasons for their driving "skills". I don't see a major issue in taking off one of their reasons though, even at the price of a convenience. That's kinda what cell phones are anyway. I wouldn't want to be in an accident just because some b!tch wanted to tell her "bff" about how "cute" her dog looks, or some a$$hole wants to tell his friends about how he got laid. And really, if people have to make an ACTUAL emergency call, I'd be willing to bet with a ban that you'll still make that call. I know I would

Something else... The whole idea of wireless and Bluetooth headsets might not make a big difference in the argument to many, but I've got a couple theories to consider as well... For one thing, as Rob said, there are people who will TEXT people while driving. I actually feel unsafe on the occasion that I see this, even though little else shakes me. For another, there are people who will search their entire address list, person by person, to find one person and call them. Yes, I have seen that one

But then part of the beauty of modern cell phones is being able to just turn Voice Recognition on, and keep your eyes on the road. Will it still temporarily stop a little focus to talk while driving? Well, yeah... I'd think it just might, even if only slightly. But then being able to watch the road while saying 2 words to answer a phone is a LOOOT less distracting than reaching down, picking it up, looking it over, and then, while holding it mind you, clicking Send to take the call

I'm sure there will be violators. I'm sure that if the ban is passed, we'll hear about a few people still in accidents from cell phone usage. But what I ask myself is, "Will it cut into it enough to save a few lives?". I have my hopes that it will

Oh, and one more thing...

Dragan Kalasa wrote:1) people driving with their high beams at night (self-explanatory), 2) making a "minimum" speed limit for those people doing 35-40 in a 55 mph zone (they become the hazard and can cause other drivers to go into a rage, plus I've witnessed an accident stemming from that situation), 3) people who don't use their turn signals.

Actually, all of these are illegal. I don't remember the specific law for high beams, but the minimum speed limits law was posted, as was the Turn Signal law. Maybe I'll do some research someday soon to find out. However, ask your local bacon boy, he'll tell ya