|
Post by xtra on Jan 11, 2009 22:30:16 GMT -6
What's next in this nannyist empire? Helmets required in the bathtub
U.S. ban on cell phone use while driving sought
By Joan Lowy The Associated Press Posted: 01/11/2009 05:05:00 PM MST
WASHINGTON — A national safety group is advocating a total ban on cell phone use while driving, saying the practice is clearly dangerous and leads to fatalities.
States should ban drivers from using hand-held and hands-free cell phones, and businesses should prohibit employees from using cell phones while driving on the job, the congressionally chartered National Safety Council says, taking those positions for the first time.
The group's president and chief executive, Janet Froetscher, likened talking on cell phones to drunken driving, saying cell phone use increases the risk of a crash fourfold.
"When our friends have been drinking, we take the car keys away. It's time to take the cell phone away," Froetscher said in interview.
No state currently bans all cell phone use while driving. Six states — California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Utah and Washington — and the District of Columbia ban the use of hand-held cell phones behind the wheel, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Also, 17 states and the district restrict or ban cell phone use by novice drivers.
One study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis estimates 6 percent of vehicle crashes are attributable to cell phone use. Hands-free cell phones are just as risky as hand held phones, she added.
________________________________________________
That's exactly what we need - more laws, more laws, more laws! Any amount of risk is totally unacceptable. We need the gov't to remove any risk from our daily lives and save us from ourselves. The quickest way to solve any problem is to legislate it out of existence.
- Other passengers can cause distractions to the driver, so let's ban passengers. - Screaming kids can cause distractions, so let's ban kids in cars. - Messing with radios/cd players/ipods can cause distractions, so let's ban those. - Eating or drinking can cause distractions, so let's ban food and beverages in cars. - Reading the label on a new store purchase can be distracting, so let's ban merchandise in the car. - Reading anything in the car can be distracting, so let's ban everything that's readable (books, newspapers, owners manuals, etc) in the car. - A bee in car can be distracting, so let's make a law prohibiting the rolling down of windows so insects can't get in.
And let's face it, life would be so much better if we had MORE gov't intrusion in our everyday lives. Wouldn't it? Life would be so much simpler if we had the gov't making more and more laws to cover every little thing we do, and thus giving us fewer and fewer decisions that we have to make for ourselves.
Freedom of choice is so overrated.
|
|
|
Post by xtra on Jan 13, 2009 15:52:46 GMT -6
Notice that we demand this government to save us, yet they are exempt from their own idiot laws.
Lawmakers could require handsfree cell phones The Associated Press
Posted: 01/12/2009 05:53:40 PM MST Updated: 01/13/2009 12:06:44 PM MST
DENVER—State lawmakers will consider whether to require all adult drivers to use a handsfree device when talking on their cell phones.
The bill (House Bill 1094) was introduced Monday by state Rep. Claire Levy, a Democrat from Boulder. It also would ban teenagers and the drivers of school buses and taxis from using cell phones to talk or text while driving.
Violators would be fined $100.
Levy said she's noticed that drivers talking on cell phones don't always stop for pedestrians in crosswalks and seem unaware of their speed.
On-duty police officers, firefighters and the drivers of emergency vehicles would be exempt from her proposed ban.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 13, 2009 17:11:45 GMT -6
and then next they would ban CB radios.... then they will require the driver to sit in a different compartment from passengers... and finally they will hire people to do our driving for us.
my vote is to just give us more mass transit options.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Jan 13, 2009 19:12:07 GMT -6
Do you want mass transit for yourself, Agito, or for the other guy, like most Americans do?
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Jan 13, 2009 19:12:37 GMT -6
Do you want mass transit for yourself, Agito, or for the other guy, like most Americans do?
Most people want efficient personal transportation.
|
|
|
Post by xtra on Jan 13, 2009 19:39:12 GMT -6
Do you want mass transit for yourself, Agito, or for the other guy, like most Americans do? lol ;D
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 13, 2009 20:38:10 GMT -6
no- since moving to SF and riding both caltrain and bart- give me a job and a house within 9 blocks of a mass transit line- and i'm happy. Growing up in LA- fuck traffic- fuck driving my own car- and hell yeah to being able to read a book on my way to work.
and yes- i'll be making phone calls from time to time :-)
|
|
|
Post by xtra as guest on Jan 13, 2009 20:49:51 GMT -6
no- since moving to SF and riding both caltrain and bart- ohhh no, not BART On New Years morning a 22-year old man, the father of a four year old daughter, was shot and killed by Bart police in the Fruitvale BART station for nothing, execution style. Alex Jones reported that the cops took video cameras and cell phones from those that were filming the incident and destroyed the film on the subway cameras, however, at least 2 and maybe a third person had caught the murder on their cell phones and have put them up all over the net. www.prisonplanet.com/video-o...estigation.htmlwww.infowars.com/?p=7041
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 14, 2009 12:14:43 GMT -6
*rolls eyes*
|
|
|
Post by xtra on Jan 14, 2009 16:47:08 GMT -6
The State demands that we become safe and takes our FREEDOM away, but wont arrest and jail a cop who murdered someone over nothing. enjoy your safety Alex Jones reported that the cops took video cameras and cell phones from those that were filming the incident and destroyed the film on the subway cameras, however, at least 2 and maybe a third person had caught the murder on their cell phones and have put them up all over the net. On New Years morning a 22-year old man, the father of a four year old daughter, was shot and killed by Bart police in the Fruitvale BART station. He had two jobs and had turned his life around. He also had many friends. For any crime of this nature, committed by a civilian, a "police report" would be mandatory within hours of the event; especially when there were three videos of what happened. The officer's gun is in police custody, the officer is a FEDERAL police officer, as BART is a federal agency: So procedures should have been clearly followed immediately. Yet, it is now a week later and the officer has still not even been interviewed, according to the 'chief' of BART police. Yesterday he quit the force, so that he would not have to give his version of events: and this sparked the riots! Numerous "investigations" (whitewashes one and all, after all this time has passed) �_ but still the public gets no response from any of their so-called officials that were supposed to be on top of this from the beginning: especially since the victim was black. The 'rumor' is that the officer thought he was going to shoot the victim with his stun gun, instead of his police revolver �_ that "accident' is manslaughter which carries an automatic prison sentence, if he is convicted. It took the BART police five days to come up with that lame idea that the officer 'thought he was using his stun gun' instead of his service revolver, If this death was on purpose then it was murder plain and simple as the man was face-down on the platform with his hands behind his back, and he was not resisting the three ***-like individuals that were surrounding him; one was directly on top of him and the other two supporting whatever was going on. The bullet went through the victim entering through his lower back and ricocheting off the sidewalk back into his upper body and that killed him instantly. The "police" apparently are treating this as an accident and not as a death that needs to be dealt with, like it does with all those other black men that commit crimes in Oakland California. If a black man had shot an unresisting white man a police report would have been written by the following day, if not sooner: and the officer would have been grilled immediately. In this case the officer has still not given a statement as to what happened nor has he been arrested. Instead the BART Police Chief said "his privacy is being respected because he has been devastated by what happened." Wonderful �_ what about the nightmare that his actions caused for the man's loved ones and the community, nevermind the fact that he killed a man. Justic might be blind but she cannot be indifferent? The officer, Johannes Mehserle has been moved several times because his life has been threatened. However If. Mehserle was in jail; where he should be, he could be put under 24-hour guard and protected from death threats. But this was not done either.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 14, 2009 18:07:47 GMT -6
Here's another story on the subject: Sat Jan 3 2009 BART Police Murder Oscar Grant Early New Year's Day " In the early hours of January 1st, BART police shot and killed a 22 year old man, Oscar Grant, on the platform of the Fruitvale BART station in Oakland. Witnesses report that Grant was "lying on his stomach with his hands out in a non-threatening position when he was shot". Police have confirmed Grant was unarmed and have suggested the shooting was an accident. Grant lived in Hayward and leaves behind a 4-year-old daughter.
BART officials have not released the name of the officer who shot Grant. After the shooting, BART police seized several cell phones from people on the platform who said they had used the phones' cameras to record what happened. For the first two days BART officials told the mainstream media that surveillance cameras at the station do not record, but then corrected themselves Friday night saying the cameras did record but didn't show the incident...." Here's another link to a video of the event. www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/01/06/18559091.php
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 14, 2009 18:13:03 GMT -6
By the way, driving a car is a "privilege," not a right. This is stated clearly on the 1st page of the California vehicle code.
The state has every right, and every obligation, to restrict the privilege to drive when it is in the best interests of the public.
It is in the best interests of the public to completely ban cell phone use while driving a car.
Furthermore, I'll gladly "where a helmet while in the shower," if that's what it takes to get cell phones banned from cars.
|
|
|
Post by xtra on Jan 14, 2009 18:52:34 GMT -6
By the way, driving a car is a "privilege," not a right. This is stated clearly on the 1st page of the California vehicle code. The state has every right, and every obligation, to restrict the privilege to drive when it is in the best interests of the public. It is in the best interests of the public to completely ban cell phone use while driving a car. Furthermore, I'll gladly "where a helmet while in the shower," if that's what it takes to get cell phones banned from cars. You want a ban for only 6% of the accidents? Ok, then what about these - Other passengers can cause distractions to the driver, so let's ban passengers. - Screaming kids can cause distractions, so let's ban kids in cars. - Messing with radios/cd players/ipods can cause distractions, so let's ban those. - Eating or drinking can cause distractions, so let's ban food and beverages in cars. - Reading the label on a new store purchase can be distracting, so let's ban merchandise in the car. - Reading anything in the car can be distracting, so let's ban everything that's readable (books, newspapers, owners manuals, etc) in the car. - A bee in car can be distracting, so let's make a law prohibiting the rolling down of windows so insects can't get in. In the town where I live I would say that 80% of the people are driving and talking on there cell phones when I go out, including myself, yet the only accidents here are 98% illegals who are either underage, boozed up, on drugs, or driving broken down shitmobiles, all of which are already illegal....and nothing is done about them. My neighbors kid who was underage and is illegal (there whole family is illegal) caused a head on. The police and ambulance were there and she was walking home. I called the cops and told the dispatch that she was only 13 and illegal. they told me that they already knew that and to suck it up. common unlawful, your a smart guy this is grandstanding at its finest when ALL THE STATES REVENUES ARE IN THE TOILET THEY NEED THE MONEY FROM TICKETS. They don't give a hoot about your safety, and surly not for the unlucky 6% of us that get into an accident with one of them. shit, they don't even impound and posses the cars of illegals so they cant repeat, and there the ones causing most of the accidents. at least give it some thought unlawful..... cell phones have been around for over 17 years now, and only now they want to ban them? At a hundred bucks a pop, thats a hell of a lot of money that states desperately need, and politicians know that. there criminals....remember? and let me ask you this. If this government truly wanted safety for us fellow travelers, why haven't they put seat belts in ALL BUSES, INCLUDING SCHOOL BUSES? And why haven't they changed the seats in buses to face the back to lesson the chance of injuries? why? because, yes it would save lives and injuries....... BUT IT COST TO MUCH MONEY. ;D Its the same reason they don't put up lights and gates at ALL RAILROAD CROSSINGS. The railroads got all that land for pennies on the dollar and have made trillions of dollars yet this government wont force the RR companies to keep us safer.. In fact where I live, off the biggest 4 lane highway in the country I-70, they turned off most if not all of the highway lights at night. This happened when gas prices started to go up. I have lived here for over 20 years and this is the first time the highway lights are turned off. How could this be if this government wants to keep us safe? The highway has been lit for at least the 20 years I have been here. Are you trying to say that this government is failing to protect us here? lol They don't care about you or little Johnny's safety. Its just like the "red light" camera scam, you know, the one to keep us safe. Putting a Stop to Red Light Cameras Monday, January 12th, 2009 By Marc Kilmer Last year, Americans for Prosperity and COAST were part of a group of organizations that enacted a red-light camera ban in Cincinnati. Red light cameras’ effectiveness as a safety tool is questionable. In fact, there is strong evidence they actually make intersections less safe. It is not questionable, though, that they help enrich local governments, are ripe for abuse, and are a violation of citizens’ privacy. Now AFP and COAST are bringing their crusade to end this government abuse to Toledo: The groups will be hosting an organizing meeting for the 2009 campaign on Monday, January 12, 2009 at the Point Place Branch Library, 2727 117th St. Toledo 43611 at 7:00 PM. Members of the public are invited to join the assemblage to help place the initiative on the ballot. Red light cameras are one in a long-line of proposals that ostensibly advance safety at the expense of liberty. It’s good to see people out there who actually care about liberty battling the nanny state. The red lights just got busted in most states for shortening the length of the yellow light causing thousands of accidents nation wide, not to mention the problem that these companies that run the lights were getting cuts up to 50%+ off the take for the tickets. What a great scam, betcha it makes even the mafia blush. its easy to see the truth, if you just follow the money
|
|
|
Post by redwolf on Jan 15, 2009 18:49:53 GMT -6
It's funny which threads get the most responses sometimes. Personally, I stopped talking on my cell while driving after almost having a couple of accidents. I think most safety laws are written in blood. (I didn't say all of them.)
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 16, 2009 3:33:39 GMT -6
You want a ban for only 6% of the accidents? No, I want a ban for 100% of the cell phones used on California freeways. Freeway traffic would be cut in half if people didn't try to do their real estate scams, their office business, their extramarital affairs, or their love-lives on a cell phone on a California freeway. I don't care about the other distractions. None of them increase freeway traffic by 100-200% like cell phones do. The current fines are a joke at $25 each. They should at least be on the order as the fines for driving in the carpool lane, which were $573 a couple of years ago. Exactly. And 50% of those people wouldn't even be on the road if they couldn't jabber on their cell phone while they were driving. With freeways jammed almost 24/7, the last thing in the world we need to do is make it more "convenient" for people to carry on their business on the freeway while they add to LA traffic. Yes, we should be doing something about them too, especially since this is already illegal. Well, I do give a hoot about safety, and even more about the extra time I spend getting to-and-from work because every idiot with a cell phone in Southern California has gotten on the freeway and is carrying on his business in the car on his cell phone--business that he should be carrying on in his office (or in a motel room.) And, as I've said elsewhere, we should severely penalize those whose vehicles are spewing household appliances and furniture out onto the middle of the freeways. I'm sick of driving to work while dodging couches, chairs, mattresses, rims, car jacks, aluminum ladders, and unidentified pieces of metal. (The last object I hit is still in orbit as far as I know.)
|
|
|
Post by Mr Bubbles on Jan 16, 2009 12:26:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by xtra on Jan 16, 2009 12:56:37 GMT -6
And, as I've said elsewhere, we should severely penalize those whose vehicles are spewing household appliances and furniture out onto the middle of the freeways. I'm sick of driving to work while dodging couches, chairs, mattresses, rims, car jacks, aluminum ladders, and unidentified pieces of metal. (The last object I hit is still in orbit as far as I know.) LOL ;D
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 16, 2009 16:07:40 GMT -6
here's the reason i rolled my eyes. www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2004/html/chapter_02/transportation_fatality_rates.html "Air, rail, transit, water, and pipeline transportation result in comparatively few deaths per capita (see box 9-A). For instance, railroads contributed about 0.33 deaths per 100,000 residents in 2002." If you are going to bring death into the equation- then yes- your ass is better off in the train. (and perhaps the following quote will get people wondering if we should ban small trucks? ) "Highway fatalities declined 15 percent for occupants of passenger cars, but increased 34 percent for occupants of light trucks between 1992 and 2002 " but that just brings me back to the original point xtra was trying to make (ironically- i'm in agreement)- no matter how safe you want to try to make the roads- there is always some new "villian" that you will have to defeat- and yes it means the erosion of individual rights. The question though- how safe is safe enough? And i agree with xtra that the ban is unnecessary because what the evidence shows is that the roads are getting safer as it is: www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811017.PDF (although one astute observer mentioned that the lack of accidents could be due to people driving less because of the cost of gas)
|
|
|
Post by Joe 6pack on Feb 10, 2009 13:18:48 GMT -6
What's next in this nannyist empire? Helmets required in the bathtub U.S. ban on cell phone use while driving sought By Joan Lowy The Associated Press Posted: 01/11/2009 05:05:00 PM MST WASHINGTON — A national safety group is advocating a total ban on cell phone use while driving, saying the practice is clearly dangerous and leads to fatalities. States should ban drivers from using hand-held and hands-free cell phones, and businesses should prohibit employees from using cell phones while driving on the job, the congressionally chartered National Safety Council says, taking those positions for the first time. The group's president and chief executive, Janet Froetscher, likened talking on cell phones to drunken driving, saying cell phone use increases the risk of a crash fourfold. "When our friends have been drinking, we take the car keys away. It's time to take the cell phone away," Froetscher said in interview. No state currently bans all cell phone use while driving. Six states — California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Utah and Washington — and the District of Columbia ban the use of hand-held cell phones behind the wheel, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Also, 17 states and the district restrict or ban cell phone use by novice drivers. One study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis estimates 6 percent of vehicle crashes are attributable to cell phone use. Hands-free cell phones are just as risky as hand held phones, she added. ________________________________________________ That's exactly what we need - more laws, more laws, more laws! Any amount of risk is totally unacceptable. We need the gov't to remove any risk from our daily lives and save us from ourselves. The quickest way to solve any problem is to legislate it out of existence. - Other passengers can cause distractions to the driver, so let's ban passengers. - Screaming kids can cause distractions, so let's ban kids in cars. - Messing with radios/cd players/ipods can cause distractions, so let's ban those. - Eating or drinking can cause distractions, so let's ban food and beverages in cars. - Reading the label on a new store purchase can be distracting, so let's ban merchandise in the car. - Reading anything in the car can be distracting, so let's ban everything that's readable (books, newspapers, owners manuals, etc) in the car. - A bee in car can be distracting, so let's make a law prohibiting the rolling down of windows so insects can't get in. And let's face it, life would be so much better if we had MORE gov't intrusion in our everyday lives. Wouldn't it? Life would be so much simpler if we had the gov't making more and more laws to cover every little thing we do, and thus giving us fewer and fewer decisions that we have to make for ourselves. Freedom of choice is so overrated. I have noticed a disturbing trend of every fatal accident involved at least one person wearing shoes. I propose we put together a task force funded by public money to investigate footwears impact on driving related fatalities.
|
|
|
Post by xtra on Jun 19, 2009 10:03:59 GMT -6
an 18 year old can kill some innocent person in this fake war on terror, yet cant drink a beer or be without a helmet on his skateboard.... incredible www.aspentimes.com/article/20090619/NEWS/906199990/1001/NONE&parentprofile=1058Skater cited — 7:34 p.m. Monday, June 15 ASPEN — An 18-year-old man was ticketed by police officers for not wearing a helmet while skateboarding at Rio Grande Skateboard Park. One of the officers said he had previously warned Mark Sarver, of Aspen, to wear a helmet.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jun 19, 2009 12:17:56 GMT -6
i agree tickets are not the answer- i think every skateboarder without a helmet should have their head forced against the pavement at speed.... that'll learn em.
|
|
|
Post by xtra on Jun 19, 2009 13:05:03 GMT -6
i agree tickets are not the answer- i think every skateboarder without a helmet should have their head forced against the pavement at speed.... that'll learn em. How about we pay the cops to worry about more serious things? like, maybe getting the illegals who steal jobs, increase crime, fill our schools, hospitals and jails up and their families who cause stress on this countries infrastructure. Id bet if California took care of the illegals their state might be able to keep its head above water. but.....no, we want the cops to enforce these petty bullshit laws so we can all lick the boots of the Ninny State. fucking pathetic
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 21, 2009 10:28:51 GMT -6
U.S. ban on cell phone use while driving sought
By Joan Lowy The Associated Press Posted: 01/11/2009 05:05:00 PM MST
WASHINGTON — A national safety group is advocating a total ban on cell phone use while driving, saying the practice is clearly dangerous and leads to fatalities.
States should ban drivers from using hand-held and hands-free cell phones, and businesses should prohibit employees from using cell phones while driving on the job, the congressionally chartered National Safety Council says, taking those positions for the first time.
The group's president and chief executive, Janet Froetscher, likened talking on cell phones to drunken driving, saying cell phone use increases the risk of a crash 4-fold.
"When our friends have been drinking, we take the car keys away. It's time to take the cell phone away," Froetscher said in interview. Hooray for Froetscher! Froetscher for Governor! (or Governator) No, California's $25 fine for using a cell phone is not a ban. It's exactly the opposite. It's a permit to use a cell phone, since it ensures that the law will never be enforced—since no cop or highway patrolman is going to pull someone over for $25, especially in heavy traffic. In fact, a law mandating a $25 fine prevents the passage of a stronger law—one that carries a fine of $500 or $1,000. The $25 fine law was passed for the expressed purpose of PERMITTING cell phone use on freeways, by preventing the passage of a stronger law. It's not just about the measureable "risk." It's about how much it contributes to increasing traffic, slowing down traffic, and encouraging generally brain-damaged driving habits.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jun 21, 2009 13:43:09 GMT -6
you know what they should do? make it so that insurance companies have the right to raise your premium if you are given a cell-phone ticket. that will scare some people.
|
|
|
Post by xtra on Jun 21, 2009 22:40:44 GMT -6
What's next in this nannyist empire? Helmets required in the bathtub U.S. ban on cell phone use while driving sought By Joan Lowy The Associated Press Posted: 01/11/2009 05:05:00 PM MST WASHINGTON — A national safety group is advocating a total ban on cell phone use while driving, saying the practice is clearly dangerous and leads to fatalities. States should ban drivers from using hand-held and hands-free cell phones, and businesses should prohibit employees from using cell phones while driving on the job, the congressionally chartered National Safety Council says, taking those positions for the first time. The group's president and chief executive, Janet Froetscher, likened talking on cell phones to drunken driving, saying cell phone use increases the risk of a crash fourfold. "When our friends have been drinking, we take the car keys away. It's time to take the cell phone away," Froetscher said in interview. No state currently bans all cell phone use while driving. Six states — California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Utah and Washington — and the District of Columbia ban the use of hand-held cell phones behind the wheel, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Also, 17 states and the district restrict or ban cell phone use by novice drivers. One study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis estimates 6 percent of vehicle crashes are attributable to cell phone use. Hands-free cell phones are just as risky as hand held phones, she added. ________________________________________________ That's exactly what we need - more laws, more laws, more laws! Any amount of risk is totally unacceptable. We need the gov't to remove any risk from our daily lives and save us from ourselves. The quickest way to solve any problem is to legislate it out of existence. - Other passengers can cause distractions to the driver, so let's ban passengers. - Screaming kids can cause distractions, so let's ban kids in cars. - Messing with radios/cd players/ipods can cause distractions, so let's ban those. - Eating or drinking can cause distractions, so let's ban food and beverages in cars. - Reading the label on a new store purchase can be distracting, so let's ban merchandise in the car. - Reading anything in the car can be distracting, so let's ban everything that's readable (books, newspapers, owners manuals, etc) in the car. - A bee in car can be distracting, so let's make a law prohibiting the rolling down of windows so insects can't get in. And let's face it, life would be so much better if we had MORE gov't intrusion in our everyday lives. Wouldn't it? Life would be so much simpler if we had the gov't making more and more laws to cover every little thing we do, and thus giving us fewer and fewer decisions that we have to make for ourselves. Freedom of choice is so overrated. I have noticed a disturbing trend of every fatal accident involved at least one person wearing shoes. I propose we put together a task force funded by public money to investigate footwears impact on driving related fatalities. I think you should be quiet 6-pack, some here may just want such a panel.
|
|