I can see the agonized rants now: "Obama bans cell phones"....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
Damocles said:
The recommendation is that all states adopt this law. Are you always deliberately obtuse or are you giving it special attention today?
Click to expand...

You said the recommendation would "make all states have a law".
 
\(())/ said:
You said the recommendation would "make all states have a law".
Click to expand...

Yes, the recommendation is to make all the states have this law. The same agency which "recommended" that "all states adopt 21 as the legal drinking age".

What happens is the Federal government then passes laws that say, "You don't get this highway funding, unless you pass this law."

It is pretense to pretend that was has happened in the past after such recommendations is some sort of impossibility, or that we should ignore what happened in the past from such recommendations because Rootbeer wants to pretend they have some point.

Now, are you going to get to the point where you start posting links to all the "agonized rants" you predicted?
 
I routinely use a bluetooth headset while driving. In fact I use it in the office. Its much less distractive then using a hand held, similar to having a conversation with someone sitting beside you, and slightly less distractive then listening to Mark Levin. Shall we ban talk and talk radio while driving, too?
 
Damocles said:
Yes, the recommendation is to make all the states have this law. The same agency which "recommended" that "all states adopt 21 as the legal drinking age". What happens is the Federal government then passes laws that say, "You don't get this highway funding, unless you pass this law." It is pretense to pretend that was has happened in the past after such recommendations is some sort of impossibility, or that we should ignore what happened in the past from such recommendations because Rootbeer wants to pretend they have some point.Now, are you going to get to the point where you start posting links to all the "agonized rants" you predicted?
Click to expand...

What "law"?

Can you cite the language in the recommendation that says the federal government will "make all the states" do anything?

Your psychic abilities seem akin to SmarterThanFew's. He claims to "know" what Congress is going to do, too.

As for your last question, already done:

\(())/ said:
...Obama Nanny State Crap--National Cell Phone Ban Coming for Drivers


http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=3680040;



http://waznmentobe.com/uncategorized/obama-regimes-ntb-wants-a-nationwide-cellphone-ban.html


http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?p=7620515
Click to expand...

I can find more if you'd like.
 
\(())/ said:
It is not "now a law",
Click to expand...
excuse the typo. typing too fast.


\(())/ said:
and please cite the source of your information regarding future Congressional action to potentially deny funding to states that allow distracted driving. Are you psychic?
Click to expand...
I cite history as an example, drinking age limits, safety belt requirements, insurance requirements, all came about because of congress's threat to withhold federal highway funding for any state that didn't bow to it's recommendation.

\(())/ said:
If a texting/cellphone using distracted driver causes a crash that destroys property and/or maims or kills others, is there no "victim"?
Click to expand...
yes, but a driver texting or talking on a cellphone NOT causing a crash produces no victim. see the difference?

\(())/ said:
I don't know "damn well" there will be exemptions for anyone, and if you do, cite your source. In fact, federal employees are already prohibited from using cell phones while driving.
Click to expand...
cite your source? because i've many times on here shown numerous examples of breaks given to law enforcement and high level federal employees.


\(())/ said:
Ashamed of something?
Click to expand...
that doesn't answer my question.
 
WinterBorn said:
The laws requiring hands-free only use of cell phones was a waste of paper. The act of holding the cell phone is not the danger. The attention granted to t he call is what is the danger.
Click to expand...

Explain to me what's the difference between talking to another occupant in a car and talking on a hands-free mobile phone? Are they going to ban talking in a car as well?
 
WinterBorn said:
The laws requiring hands-free only use of cell phones was a waste of paper. The act of holding the cell phone is not the danger. The attention granted to t he call is what is the danger.
Click to expand...

Which, over time, like the radios will become normal. The law specifically exempts phone usage that can be utilized through the car itself. Basically pushing a button and saying "call mom" is safer than messing with your phone.

I can imagine it is more dangerous to mess with a transistor radio than it is to push a pre-select button on your radio.

Over time people will get as used to this, and ways will be found to make it safe, as we are with radios.

Talking on a CB radio isn't "dangerous", it is the attention to the phone, etc. that makes cell phones dangerous.
 
Damocles said:
Which, over time, like the radios will become normal. The law specifically exempts phone usage that can be utilized through the car itself. Basically pushing a button and saying "call mom" is safer than messing with your phone.

I can imagine it is more dangerous to mess with a transistor radio than it is to push a pre-select button on your radio.

Over time people will get as used to this, and ways will be found to make it safe, as we are with radios.

Talking on a CB radio isn't "dangerous", it is the attention to the phone, etc. that makes cell phones dangerous.
Click to expand...

If they ban hands free phones then they will have to ban taxis with two way radios as well.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
If they ban hands free phones then they will have to ban taxis with two way radios as well.
Click to expand...

Big trucks use them here all the time. Almost everybody in my area has a CB in their car/truck. It's more reliable than cell service in our area. It isn't the conversation that causes the problem.

Cops use them all the time, taxis, deliverymen, on and on...
 
Damocles said:
Big trucks use them here all the time. Almost everybody in my area has a CB in their car/truck. It's more reliable than cell service in our area. It isn't the conversation that causes the problem.

Cops use them all the time, taxis, deliverymen, on and on...
Click to expand...

When this hoary old chestnut is discussed over here, they will wheel some "experts" that state that it is the conversation that is the problem. Which is why you have to ask the question why not lorries, taxis and parcel companies as well? Perhaps they should ban passengers from cars just in case they speak to the driver.

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2009/03/hands-free-mobiles-just-as-dangerous-for-drivers-169738
 
They need to ban the I-drive thing on my wife's new car, and the huge screen on the dash. And all the buttons on my truck dash and steering wheel.
 
\(())/ said:
For the benefit of dumbass knee-jerk righties with reading and comprehension issues:


Tuesday's recommendation, if adopted by states, would outlaw non-emergency phone calls and texting by operators of every vehicle on the road.


http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/us/ntsb-cell-phone-ban/index.html
Click to expand...



Thats is exactly what the op said......WheTF did have to repeat it and add your idiotic opinion ?

I guess you'll always be an AssWipe......:palm:
 
SmarterThanYou said:
...I cite history as an example, drinking age limits, safety belt requirements, insurance requirements, all came about because of congress's threat to withhold federal highway funding for any state that didn't bow to it's recommendation.
Click to expand...

Suspicion on your part does not equal evidence. Non sequitur.

SmarterThanYou said:
...yes, but a driver texting or talking on a cellphone NOT causing a crash produces no victim...
Click to expand...

If a drunk driver doesn't cause a crash no victim is produced. Is he/she innocent of an infraction?

SmarterThanYou said:
...cite your source? because i've many times on here shown numerous examples of breaks given to law enforcement and high level federal employees.
Click to expand...

Yet you cannot state that this would be the case if the recommendation is followed, and as I proved, federal employees are prohibited from using cellphones while driving already. If you have a source that contradicts that fact, post a link.

SmarterThanYou said:
...that doesn't answer my question.
Click to expand...

True.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top