|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin
Joined: 5/19/2006
Posts: 495
Points: 0
Location: Banker's Hill, San Diego
|
July 1; No longer can you drive in california with a phone handset in your hand. You must either have a automated speakerphone or bluetooth ear bud (god that term sounds so ghey....). in 2005, there was a carnegie-mellon university study that displayed that its the distraction of the conversation, not of holding something to your head, that causes safety issues. despite this, they insist that this law is for out own safety. If we spend tax payer dollars to find shit out, why don't our politicians use that information? this bill was presented by a representative from palo alto and signed into law by the governator. without any vote by the public. none.
How the shit could this happen? We no longer have a say on our own safety and are forced to purchase superfluous gadgets that are proven to have no bearing on that safety whatsoever. It is entirely a money grab law, signed in by the man who was supposed to revive us from grey davis' dismal economy and bring california out of the ashes. Instead, he's increased our debt and has bent over and grabbed his ankles for the hippy treehuggers in norcal. Interestingly, he ran as a "Reagan Republican" but was recently voted to be the 11th most influential liberal in the world (yes the WORLD) by british newsjournal. And instead of sticking to the ideals that we voted him upon, that were supposed to get us out of the shit hole, he blows 12million dollars on "flex fuel" vehicles for all of the gov't agencies in california, despite california having only TWO ethanol fueling stations. He speaks at a global warming summit, the next day a FREE dodge charger SRT (13 mpg) shows up on his doorstep and he spends the rest of the day burning gas in it. WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS GUYS DEAL. and now, we are forced to buy these earbuds or else we will face tickets up to 100 dollars a pop.
It will cost me 100 dollars if i am caught using the phone i purchased and paid for even though it has been proven in gov't sponsored studies to be just as safe as using handsfree devices. They want our money. Plain and simple. They have no way to pay for the bloated gov't they created and now they want to fall back onto its citizens who are paying 469 a gallon for gas to generate the cash. THIS STATE IS THE WORST! they are so out of touch with reality. Theyre two faced assholes who waste our money, shrug when its gone, and demand more.
OH! and our great governor says no oil from california. it would hurt our tourism. IT WOULD SAVE OUR ECONOMY but it would hurt our tourism. The oil platforms off the coast would be an eyesore and no one would come to california if we drilled offshore. I know he's been to santa barbara... i know he knows there are rigs there and in huntington beach... tourism THRIVES there. the beaches are always loaded. he panders to the fucking environmentalists like theyre the only people here. FUCK HIM!
thats my rant. don't come to cali. stay in nevada.
|
|
|
Rank: Taco Technician
Groups: Registered User, {pDs} Member
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 3,948
Points: 3,636
Location: Hi-Five City
|
We got that in Washington, too. I don't think the bluetooth ear buds are too bad, it's kinda like having a cybernetic ear.
|
|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!
Groups: Ogamer, Registered User
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 1,666
Points: 2,478
Location: La Habra, Orange, CA
|
I'd like to put a stop to this "GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF YOUR FRONT SEAT" argument bull shit once and for all. I'll start by reminding people that when you take your car out on the road, this is not an activity *entirely* without the potential for endangerment - both for you *and* everyone else. Cell phone use has grown exponentially, every goddamn month, until it hit insane heights, years ago. Since then, drivers on the road (especially we road-ragers in CA) have just simply DEALT with the issue. There will ALWAYS be that fucking idiot bitch on her phone that can't pay attention blah blah blah blah blah. You know the story. Here's the sad truth - that idiot bitch? She's not an idiot. Just a bitch. The act of physically holding the cell phone is, in fact, more draining on your attention-concentration processes, then the act of merely talking. This is why we can talk to someone next to us with the same ease of using bluetooth (with the added effect of not having to turn our heads every so often to acknowledge the other person.) Holding the phone to your ear, getting that small speaker lined up with your ear drum, keeping it steady using just your shoulder and cheek -- these are ALL ways in which we use cell phones that distracts from our concentration process. Now let's pan the camera out a little further. We're no longer single individual beings that can't drive in the carpool lane because we don't have hybrid vehicles (again... GG CA.) We are now individual single beings... amidst hundreds of thousands of other individual beings. Beings that are on bicycles, that are on skateboards, mopeds, motorcycles. Fucking pedestrians. Beings that don't have the luxury of having YOU hit THEM because YOU decide to get on the phone and listen to your girlfriend for 2 hours babble on and on while you're in rush hour. Or make that 5 minute pizza delivery call. Or sit on hold and silently rage, paying 50% attention to the elevator music and 40% attention to the road, the other 10% caught in limbo. No more amount of visual imagery will help get this point across; if at this point you're still raging against the law, we're at an impasse. I can only hope to impress upon your mind, the arguer, that the phone itself is a complete detraction when operating a moving vehicle, a vehicle which can kill as easily as a gun, often with less intention and forethought. It should have been everyone's choice to begin with to buy the damned bluetooth - for one only the extremely cheap ones are uncomfortable, and for two, they're still dropping in price. Also, fucking everything has a bluetooth connection these days so it has multiple applications. And for those who rage because they rarely speak on the phone on the road in the first place, so why should they have to buy this piece of equipment? You don't. You don't have to. Just turn that "rarely" into "never" and problem solved. EDIT:::: Oh, and screw the Carnegie Mellon institutes research. I understand they're brilliant scientists and everything, but do your own experiments. I did. I used to drive up to three hours a day... in fucking high school and freshman year in college, so I had the time. It's not that difficult. silverwasp wrote:Be careful what you wish for... I have 10 younger siblings and I am only 20....
Yes.... Same parents WarMachine wrote:meh...maybe if he hadn't been handed a burning house he could have done great things, but right now he has won the Prize for what? Damage Control?
|
|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin
Joined: 5/19/2006
Posts: 495
Points: 0
Location: Banker's Hill, San Diego
|
My issues isn't with the fact that talking on a cell phone is a distraction, of course it is as it involves being in conversation with another party. the fact that they have something next to their ear is a non issue. If this is the case, no one should be able to hold coffee and talk or eat a burger and talk or anything else while driving. Nor should they be allowed to transport passengers because a conversation with people in your car is much more distracting than those over the phone; handheld, bluetooth or speakerphone.
The issue isn't about safety, it's about money. They have none and need fresh new ways of getting it and because they already have our taxes at record highs they can't get it that way. This Morning, spokes-hole for the Chula Vista PD, San Diego County's deepest-in-debt city, had a press conference to tell us why they had 56% of the WHOLE COUNTYS first issuances of the cell-phone infraction. They're answer, "Our citizens enact laws to keep their streets and their kids safe." Your citizens had no say in the law. A few elitist in sac-town had all the say.
A few more issues with this debacle. CHP makes radio commercials to get the word out that july 1, handsfree cellphones only or you face a fine of $26.00 for the first infraction. Yesterday, news sources pointed out that all the while we were hearing these commercials, the fine really is $70 for the first infraction and $100 for the 2nd.
San Diego City Attorney, Mike Aguirre went on Chip Franklin's radio show on the morning of Friday June 27th to discuss the issue that blue tooth queer buds are selling out all over the county and because of this, the county (who decided to tack on an extra 20 to its fines to make it 90 and 110 for first and seconds infractions) would provide drivers a 31-day grace period in which drivers wouldn't be stopped until august 1st for having a phone in their hand (because text messaging no phone in hand at all, even if it doesn't have a battery). The total number of tickets written in san diego county on the first day of the grace period; 116.
More studies to prove that handsfree and bluetooth driving are equally distracting
University of Utah, 2006
Harvard, 2003
More bad news... The infraction is not supposed to generate a point on your DMV record. They don't add the point but they do make note that you were pulled over for talking on a non-handsfree cell phone and send that information to your insurance company. They can remove your good driver status for this. This means good drivers who have been obeying all the laws in the world now become criminalized for doing something one way thats been proven to be as safe as the other accepted ways by major gov't funded studies. And not only this but they have to pay higher insurance premiums and higher TAXES on the insurance premium.
They say that we could get out of this piss-poor economy if we just started to by more stuff like the old days. How do they expect us to do this when, at every step, the state takes our money and throws it into the big money pit that is Sacramento. We can't afford to get to work, and they tell us to drive hybrids. We can't go out to eat anymore and they suggest we by carbon credits to offset the guilt we have for "warming" our climate that has fallen by .4 degrees celsius in the last decade. They look to the icecaps in the north as the sole judge of how the earths climate is doing, all the while a massive chain of unprecidented volitility has sprung up below the polar ice cap in the past 15 years that is not only subtling warming the polar waters but is also cause a lot of siesmic activity that radiates out through the water and breaks up polar cap ice allowing for dark patches of water to appear within the massive expanse of the white ice cap. This dark water (like a black shirt) captures the suns heat instead of reflecting it. More heat. Warmer waters. Ice breaks up more, caused more dark patches, causes more warm water. Its a cycle that we have no bearing on. If the whole world is gone to shit, why is antarctica's snow base increasing. Shouldn't it be melting too? Sorry to go off topic but all this feel good, everything must be safe and friendly at the cost of personal liberties and freedoms is bullshit. Everyone is too soft... Bad shit happens. Its life. But using this excuse of safety to generate monies for the state is just plain wrong. Play on our fears to make us pay up. Its a watered down form of terrorism. Terrorize the masses into doing what you say until you have all the control and they have to pander to your every whim ensuring you will have a job and a pension until you die. Its a fucked up system and no one really stops to think about it.
The next saftey issue... Banning Mylar Balloons (the shiney ones for bdays) as they can fly into powerlines and cause blackouts that could kill old people living in the desert who would have to go without air conditioning. WHAT?!?!?! according to state records, there have NEVER been any incidents in which this happened. Not one powerline has ever been adversely affected by a mylar balloon getting caught in them. Yet the bill to ban all helium filled mylar balloons is on its way to the governator's desk and no doubt, he will sign it without batting an eyelash or giving the citizens a vote on it. Anything against rubber balloons? Nope. They can't get caught in powerlines i guess.
and yes, get the gov't out of our front seats. get the gov't out of everything. Anyone who stays in the gov't sector long enough to get any sort of power shouldnt have that power. If theyre worth anything, the private sector would have picked them and paid them what they deserve a long time ago. The gov't doesn't pay well, esp as you get near the top. Only people who can't get that sort of work elsewhere cuz they don't have what it takes, stays in the gov't sector along with all the other people who can't hack it in the private sector. It's like, the gov't is the B team and everyone wants to make it the A team. They're not geniuses. They can't even pay attention to the studies they pay for. Why should they have so much power in my life? its bullshit. and it seems like i'm the only person who feels this way.
|
|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!
Groups: Ogamer, Registered User
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 1,666
Points: 2,478
Location: La Habra, Orange, CA
|
Where the hell do I begin? Gnar wrote:
My issues isn't with the fact that talking on a cell phone is a distraction, of course it is as it involves being in conversation with another party. the fact that they have something next to their ear is a non issue. If this is the case, no one should be able to hold coffee and talk or eat a burger and talk or anything else while driving. Gnar wrote:Nor should they be allowed to transport passengers because a conversation with people in your car is much more distracting than those over the phone; handheld, bluetooth or speakerphone.
Did you even read what I wrote? HolyJaw wrote:The act of physically holding the cell phone is, in fact, more draining on your attention-concentration processes, then the act of merely talking. This is why we can talk to someone next to us with the same ease of using bluetooth (with the added effect of not having to turn our heads every so often to acknowledge the other person.) Holding the phone to your ear, getting that small speaker lined up with your ear drum, keeping it steady using just your shoulder and cheek -- these are ALL ways in which we use cell phones that distracts from our concentration process. Next...
Gnar wrote:The issue isn't about safety, it's about money. They have none and need fresh new ways of getting it and because they already have our taxes at record highs they can't get it that way. This Morning, spokes-hole for the Chula Vista PD, San Diego County's deepest-in-debt city, had a press conference to tell us why they had 56% of the WHOLE COUNTYS first issuances of the cell-phone infraction. They're answer, "Our citizens enact laws to keep their streets and their kids safe." Your citizens had no say in the law. A few elitist in sac-town had all the say.
....
They say that we could get out of this piss-poor economy if we just started to by more stuff like the old days. How do they expect us to do this when, at every step, the state takes our money and throws it into the big money pit that is Sacramento. We can't afford to get to work, and they tell us to drive hybrids. We can't go out to eat anymore and they suggest we by carbon credits to offset the guilt we have for "warming" our climate that has fallen by .4 degrees celsius in the last decade. They look to the icecaps in the north as the sole judge of how the earths climate is doing, all the while a massive chain of unprecidented volitility has sprung up below the polar ice cap in the past 15 years that is not only subtling warming the polar waters but is also cause a lot of siesmic activity that radiates out through the water and breaks up polar cap ice allowing for dark patches of water to appear within the massive expanse of the white ice cap. This dark water (like a black shirt) captures the suns heat instead of reflecting it. More heat. Warmer waters. Ice breaks up more, caused more dark patches, causes more warm water. Its a cycle that we have no bearing on. If the whole world is gone to shit, why is antarctica's snow base increasing. Shouldn't it be melting too? Sorry to go off topic but all this feel good, everything must be safe and friendly at the cost of personal liberties and freedoms is bullshit. Everyone is too soft... Bad shit happens. Its life. But using this excuse of safety to generate monies for the state is just plain wrong. Play on our fears to make us pay up. Its a watered down form of terrorism. Terrorize the masses into doing what you say until you have all the control and they have to pander to your every whim ensuring you will have a job and a pension until you die. Its a fucked up system and no one really stops to think about it. I don't really know at which point you connected meting polar ice caps to Sacramento using too much money, but good job on doing it. It takes truly a remarkable man to connect those two ideas in even a semi-coherent fashion. To address the issue, though, first I'll state that Sacramento, in fact, is not spending any money on the polar ice caps. Sacramento is, however, attempting to juggle a misguided state budget because Arnold Schwarzenegger came in to office as a powerhouse, but then was rapidly beat down by lobbyists and other know-all legislators that pushed him to the edge. He couldn't tell them to fuck off, because he relies on them to pass anything he needs. So he compromised. Sure, the end result was not exemplary, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Sacramento is a "big money pit." I mean really, I can't remember the last time my state or federal government has told me to "buy a hybrid." Because they haven't. In fact, as far as my federal government is concerned, I can keep buying Hummers and SUVs because my federal government loves oil. My state government doesn't really care as long as I don't use too much electricity at my house so we can avoid another summer of rolling blackouts. SEE: Enron and Enron Loophole. Now, to get to it and address your actual point, that Sacramento is either 1) out of money or 2) wants more money, so they enacted this law, either case may be true but there are also altruistic reasons behind the law, reasons that I already outlined in my previous post. It's just safer. Now don't go on a rant and tell me that the government has no place in this world telling me how to be safe, because you're right, they don't have a place telling you how to be safe. But they're stopping you from killing everyone else. Or at the very least causing bumper-to-bumper accidents. Gnar wrote:A few more issues with this debacle. CHP makes radio commercials to get the word out that july 1, handsfree cellphones only or you face a fine of $26.00 for the first infraction. Yesterday, news sources pointed out that all the while we were hearing these commercials, the fine really is $70 for the first infraction and $100 for the 2nd.
San Diego City Attorney, Mike Aguirre went on Chip Franklin's radio show on the morning of Friday June 27th to discuss the issue that blue tooth queer buds are selling out all over the county and because of this, the county (who decided to tack on an extra 20 to its fines to make it 90 and 110 for first and seconds infractions) would provide drivers a 31-day grace period in which drivers wouldn't be stopped until august 1st for having a phone in their hand (because text messaging no phone in hand at all, even if it doesn't have a battery). The total number of tickets written in san diego county on the first day of the grace period; 116.
Well I take a look at paragraph one and paragraph two, and i notice that it seems that each county seems to have at least the power to change the monetary penalty for each infringement. So, I daresay that CHP radio commercial may be right, in some counties, possibly in the county that commercial was primarily aimed for (most likely L.A.) holds true. Gnar wrote:
More studies to prove that handsfree and bluetooth driving are equally distracting
University of Utah, 2006
Harvard, 2003
Please provide a link. I would love to actually see thees studies, the methods and results produced. Gnar wrote:More bad news... The infraction is not supposed to generate a point on your DMV record. They don't add the point but they do make note that you were pulled over for talking on a non-handsfree cell phone and send that information to your insurance company. They can remove your good driver status for this. This means good drivers who have been obeying all the laws in the world now become criminalized for doing something one way thats been proven to be as safe as the other accepted ways by major gov't funded studies. And not only this but they have to pay higher insurance premiums and higher TAXES on the insurance premium.
Then don't talk on the phone while driving. You're distracting yourself, just as much as a woman putting on make-up, but to a much smaller extent. Gnar wrote:The next saftey issue... Banning Mylar Balloons (the shiney ones for bdays) as they can fly into powerlines and cause blackouts that could kill old people living in the desert who would have to go without air conditioning. WHAT?!?!?! according to state records, there have NEVER been any incidents in which this happened. Not one powerline has ever been adversely affected by a mylar balloon getting caught in them. Yet the bill to ban all helium filled mylar balloons is on its way to the governator's desk and no doubt, he will sign it without batting an eyelash or giving the citizens a vote on it. Anything against rubber balloons? Nope. They can't get caught in powerlines i guess.
Alright, I'm glad you listen to KFI. And Jon and Ken are very interesting hosts, but I don't think that mentioning the Mylar Balloon law (in two topics nonethless) has any bearing on the topic at discussion. The law passed was a CITY-WIDE-ORDINANCE (possibly county, but who cares.) If you're that worried about it (and I'm not, because it doesn't involve me) then join the movement against it. There is, at the very least, probably a petition or something. Get out there and do your research. It's not enough to sit down and write about it to dissent, because that's called being a lazy idiot. You seem to not be that to me, so you should get out there and make your voice heard. Being a citizen doesn't just mean having your government not disturb your ideas of limitations on governmental power, it means fighting back when the government oversteps its boundaries.
Gnar wrote:
and yes, get the gov't out of our front seats. get the gov't out of everything. Anyone who stays in the gov't sector long enough to get any sort of power shouldnt have that power. If theyre worth anything, the private sector would have picked them and paid them what they deserve a long time ago. The gov't doesn't pay well, esp as you get near the top. Only people who can't get that sort of work elsewhere cuz they don't have what it takes, stays in the gov't sector along with all the other people who can't hack it in the private sector. It's like, the gov't is the B team and everyone wants to make it the A team. They're not geniuses. They can't even pay attention to the studies they pay for. Why should they have so much power in my life? its bullshit. and it seems like i'm the only person who feels this way.
OK, here I have absolutely no clue what the fuck you're talking about. Sorry for my french. It seems to me you're reccomending throwing all the important decisions into "the private sector" which is scary because the private sector is not "Of the people, by the people, and for the people." Proposing this kind of takes away any sort of credence your arguments had. Please explain this further. I think the larger font and bold letters took away the intelligence from the rest of your post. silverwasp wrote:Be careful what you wish for... I have 10 younger siblings and I am only 20....
Yes.... Same parents WarMachine wrote:meh...maybe if he hadn't been handed a burning house he could have done great things, but right now he has won the Prize for what? Damage Control?
|
|
|
Rank: Dutchess of Doodoo
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin, WDFNews.com Official Mapper
Joined: 6/3/2006
Posts: 2,239
Points: 330
Location: $L
|
Gnar wrote:
July 1; No longer can you drive in california with a phone handset in your hand. You must either have a automated speakerphone or bluetooth ear bud (god that term sounds so ghey....). in 2005, there was a carnegie-mellon university study that displayed that its the distraction of the conversation, not of holding something to your head, that causes safety issues. despite this, they insist that this law is for out own safety. If we spend tax payer dollars to find shit out, why don't our politicians use that information? this bill was presented by a representative from palo alto and signed into law by the governator. without any vote by the public. none.
How the shit could this happen? We no longer have a say on our own safety and are forced to purchase superfluous gadgets that are proven to have no bearing on that safety whatsoever. It is entirely a money grab law, signed in by the man who was supposed to revive us from grey davis' dismal economy and bring california out of the ashes. Instead, he's increased our debt and has bent over and grabbed his ankles for the hippy treehuggers in norcal. Interestingly, he ran as a "Reagan Republican" but was recently voted to be the 11th most influential liberal in the world (yes the WORLD) by british newsjournal. And instead of sticking to the ideals that we voted him upon, that were supposed to get us out of the shit hole, he blows 12million dollars on "flex fuel" vehicles for all of the gov't agencies in california, despite california having only TWO ethanol fueling stations. He speaks at a global warming summit, the next day a FREE dodge charger SRT (13 mpg) shows up on his doorstep and he spends the rest of the day burning gas in it. WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS GUYS DEAL. and now, we are forced to buy these earbuds or else we will face tickets up to 100 dollars a pop.
It will cost me 100 dollars if i am caught using the phone i purchased and paid for even though it has been proven in gov't sponsored studies to be just as safe as using handsfree devices. They want our money. Plain and simple. They have no way to pay for the bloated gov't they created and now they want to fall back onto its citizens who are paying 469 a gallon for gas to generate the cash. THIS STATE IS THE WORST! they are so out of touch with reality. Theyre two faced assholes who waste our money, shrug when its gone, and demand more.
OH! and our great governor says no oil from california. it would hurt our tourism. IT WOULD SAVE OUR ECONOMY but it would hurt our tourism. The oil platforms off the coast would be an eyesore and no one would come to california if we drilled offshore. I know he's been to santa barbara... i know he knows there are rigs there and in huntington beach... tourism THRIVES there. the beaches are always loaded. he panders to the fucking environmentalists like theyre the only people here. FUCK HIM!
thats my rant. don't come to cali. stay in nevada.
Sounds like your best move is to write and complain to your local government. Glad I don't live in Cali though. You wanna take this to Fuck Town?
Oh gadzooks, yes!
|
|
|
Rank: Fuckstick
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 1/2/2008
Posts: 750
Points: 66
Location: Olympia, WA
|
HolyJaw, despite what you say about actually holding the phone being an issue; put yourself in my shoes for a minute.
I can trust the "brilliant scientists", or I can trust you.
If you find more evidence for your arguement, it would be more compelling to me. Until then, my perspective is that cell phones are really not needed in cars. At all.
I have a car, and I have a cell phone. I can always call people back about things if needed. Talking the moment you get the call is convenient, but If it has the potential to take anyones life or well being, I will refrain.
I like the way the law is set up in Washington though. From my point of view, this is not something that law enforcement needs to be focusing on. You cannot get pulled over for talking on a cell phone, but if you are pulled over and you are using one, you can get extra fines. TEAM APARTMENT: No one rocks quite as hard as we do. Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:the flying spaghetti monster skullfucked Bob's corpse. Lead Salad wrote:My ePenis is 10 feet long! WDF wrote:A pair in douchbaggery.
|
|
|
Rank: Fuckstick
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 12/20/2007
Posts: 681
Points: 6
Location: San Antonio, TX
|
delta62 wrote:
HolyJaw, despite what you say about actually holding the phone being an issue; put yourself in my shoes for a minute.
I can trust the "brilliant scientists", or I can trust you.
If you find more evidence for your arguement, it would be more compelling to me. Until then, my perspective is that cell phones are really not needed in cars. At all.
I have a car, and I have a cell phone. I can always call people back about things if needed. Talking the moment you get the call is convenient, but If it has the potential to take anyones life or well being, I will refrain.
I like the way the law is set up in Washington though. From my point of view, this is not something that law enforcement needs to be focusing on. You cannot get pulled over for talking on a cell phone, but if you are pulled over and you are using one, you can get extra fines.
Ding, ding, ding!!! Should we waste money legislating common sense? NO! - people should follow common sense YES! - people are idiots and do not heed common sense The only change you can make or control is what you do. Do not be a douche bag and take senseless risks. How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
|
|
|
Rank: Pooter Scooter
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin
Joined: 11/8/2006
Posts: 2,468
Points: 2,103
Location: San Antonio, Texas
|
tl;dr In an hour of Darkness a blind man is the best guide. In an age of Insanity look to the madman to lead the way. 
|
|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!
Groups: Ogamer, Registered User
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 1,666
Points: 2,478
Location: La Habra, Orange, CA
|
delta62 wrote:
HolyJaw, despite what you say about actually holding the phone being an issue; put yourself in my shoes for a minute.
I can trust the "brilliant scientists", or I can trust you.
If you find more evidence for your arguement, it would be more compelling to me. Until then, my perspective is that cell phones are really not needed in cars. At all.
I have a car, and I have a cell phone. I can always call people back about things if needed. Talking the moment you get the call is convenient, but If it has the potential to take anyones life or well being, I will refrain.
I like the way the law is set up in Washington though. From my point of view, this is not something that law enforcement needs to be focusing on. You cannot get pulled over for talking on a cell phone, but if you are pulled over and you are using one, you can get extra fines.
This has nothing to do with the argument at hand. I appreciate your point of view, and I even touched upon it above. I agree wholeheartedly that if you can't / won't wear a bluetooth, then don't talk on the phone while driving. silverwasp wrote:Be careful what you wish for... I have 10 younger siblings and I am only 20....
Yes.... Same parents WarMachine wrote:meh...maybe if he hadn't been handed a burning house he could have done great things, but right now he has won the Prize for what? Damage Control?
|
|
|
Rank: Jimmy Hat Jester
Groups: {pDs} Member, Newsie, Server Admin
Joined: 5/16/2006
Posts: 1,796
Points: 81
Location: Dallas
|
words... California is following the steps taken by other states like New York which banned cell phones while driving long ago. As for the gas, California has more expensive gas than anywhere else because they use specially formulated gas that burns cleaner..something other states don't have. The result is reduced pollution. You might hate the strict emission controls, but being a Californian living on the east coast (right now), you quickly learn to appreciate not having every other car billowing smoke and sore throat making pollution. On a side note, I fly home to SFO tomorrow. Woot. get your ass to mars
|
|
|
Rank: Fuckstick
Groups: Registered User
Joined: 10/22/2006
Posts: 908
Points: 21
Location: GTFO stalker!!!!!!!
|
HolyJaw wrote:She's not an idiot. Just a bitch. Of course she's an idiot. She's human.  TripleBam wrote:I was about to correct something but....no...it's all there.
Cantrip wrote:Holy fuck. J-Town is a genius! Brosnan wrote:Whole lotta words that add up to "hey everyone I'm a giant faggot" TripleBam wrote:I just remember chewing it for 5 minutes before giving up. I tried to fit the whole slab into my mouth and some of it started sliding down to where I started to gag on it. I ended up pulling the whole 7" piece by the very tail end from my esophagus before stuffing it under my seat cushion.
|
|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: {pDs} Member, WDFNews.com Official Mapper
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 613
Points: 396
|
J-Town wrote:HolyJaw wrote:She's not an idiot. Just a bitch. Of course she's an idiot. She's a woman.
I 2nd this. WDF?: I found a hot girl WDF?: Who lets me WDF?: Drink WDF?: Smoke WDF?: And play video games WDF?: ALL DAY shignog: and in the back door? WDF?: She's back door compatible WDF?: And it comes enabled by default WDF?: I need to teach sirus a lesson WDF?: Oh wait WDF?: That's called gay shignog: if there is a girl there its bi WDF?: lol WDF?: ok shignog: so its not so gay WDF?: Good enough
|
|
|
Rank: Taco Technician
Groups: Registered User, {pDs} Member
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 3,948
Points: 3,636
Location: Hi-Five City
|
haha exactly. So much text for a piece of legislation I absolutely fail to care about. Whenever I see this thread title it looks like 'bluetooth earthlings'
|
|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!
Groups: Ogamer, Registered User
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 1,666
Points: 2,478
Location: La Habra, Orange, CA
|
Lead Salad wrote:haha exactly. So much text for a piece of legislation I absolutely fail to care about. Whenever I see this thread title it looks like 'bluetooth earthlings' lol @ lazy stoner being lazy. Again. Back on topic please. silverwasp wrote:Be careful what you wish for... I have 10 younger siblings and I am only 20....
Yes.... Same parents WarMachine wrote:meh...maybe if he hadn't been handed a burning house he could have done great things, but right now he has won the Prize for what? Damage Control?
|
|
|
| Users browsing this topic |
|
Guest
|