|
|
|
Junior Member
 
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 9/23/2008 9:04:18 AM
Posts: 220,
Visits: 317
|
|
| There is currently a docket on the Washington State legislature's agenda dealing with cell phone usage during an unlawful motor vehicle operating infraction......the State wants to tack on an additional $101.00 on top of the vehicular penalty....... Is this appropriate ? Or enough ? I don't think so . Motormule XL1200C Seattle , Wa .
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 4:51:02 PM
Posts: 1,165,
Visits: 923
|
|
| It's just a money grab...they don't have the balls to add a tax....so these type things are becoming more common everywhere. I'd love to know how "they" came up with $101. Not 100, not 110, but 101! But really, using a cell phone while driving a CAR is absolutely distracting (once, I couldn't remember how I got 5 miles up the road) and can only guess that using a cell phone on a bike might be tantamount to suicide.....
|
|
|
|
|
Starting Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 3:17:00 PM
Posts: 10,
Visits: 45
|
|
What I want to know is why motorcyclists target cell phone users?
There are 101 distractions and it is the damned driver's responsibility to manage that.
I think much of the research on the dangers is exaggerated and not really based in good methodology. Like the MADD numbers on booze related crashes that are distorted to achieve outrage beyond the issue's true weight, so are the dangers of cell phone use.
In the 1920 & 30s there were cities that banned the use of a RADIO in the car because that was deemed too distracting to drivers. Gee doesn't that sound dumb today?
The Amber alert signs cause crashes and traffic jams.
Then there's my theory that people who can't afford the phones are the first to gripe. I have used a headset in my helmet, but too much noise. But if I rode a Wing or something I sure would use a phone on a bike.
What about bike to bike & operator to passenger communications systems? Is that not a distraction?
I have had a mobile phone since 1988 [$2700 Nokia Bag Phone at like 50 cents a minute. No memory, no battery life either] and currently I carry a left pocket cingular & a right pocket sprint. I never have to be in the office, but I'm always available. I would be far less productive without mobile technology.
Banning cell phones while driving will be just as effective as the 55MPH speed limit was. Another law to ignore
Reyn Mansson
M2 MotoMedia
motorsports marketing consultancy
producer,2XTREEM Motorcycle TV
newest bike 07 MV Agusta Brutale 910R
|
|
|
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 2:39:21 PM
Posts: 3,215,
Visits: 1,765
|
|
| Welcome to the forum Reyn. I too have a cell phone and I hate being tied to the office. The darn thing makes people think they can call me when ever they want. These people would never call my home phone but something about a cell phone makes it OK. So what I am about to say is not because I don't have or can't afford one. The reason I am down on cell phones is because most of my close calls is due to some moron on his/her phone. I can tell when someone is talking on their phone and driving even if I can't see their hand to their ear. But I would not be for banning them while driving on just my observations. There have been several studies now showing that cell phones are a dangerous distraction. They may not be the only distraction but if driving while drunk is illegal then so should having your ability impaired by a cell phone. Mythbusters recently did an episode when they tested driving with a cell phone against driving while impaired on alcohol. To their surprise they did worse while on the phone than after drinking. This legislation does seem to be more about increasing revenue than protecting people. If you want to protect people you will ban cell phone use all together while driving. Maybe this is just a first step for them and a ban is in the future plans?
Torqueman
Battle Creek, MI
V-Strom 06
Goldwing 03
|
|
|
|
|
Average Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11/14/2008 10:08:58 AM
Posts: 972,
Visits: 955
|
|
Another "money grab" gets right to the point!
As government gets bigger and bigger every year it needs more and more money to fund itself. There is no money in prosecuting real criminals - in fact it costs quite a bit of money with prosecutors, law enforcement officers and public defenders. Most criminals have no money so giving them fines is useless. Where the big bucks come from is the everyday working slobs with a job, mortgage, automobile, spouse and kids, etc. They can't afford not to pay fines for fear they will compromise the lives they have built for themselves and their families.
It is basically extortion, made to look like government really cares about our safety. Yes, using a cell phone while driving is distracting and dangerous, but so is using your CD changer, tape player, drinking coffee, eating food from drive-up windows, etc. Why haven't they been banned? Could it be some of these fast food franchises contribute to the politicians' "election funds"?
One of the best examples of how government panders to powerful (definition: contributes a lot of money) lobbyists while trying to preach safety to us happened a number of years ago in New England. A 12-year-old boy, using a "super soaker" water pistol (the ones that can shoot 20 feet or more) was shot and killed by an angry driver whose car the boy shot at. The state legislature, posturing right before election time as only politicians can posture, came up with this brilliant piece of law banning, yes, you guessed it - water pistols! (I guess the Super Soaker company didn't pad the politicians pockets quite as well as the NRA did).
I don't want to get scraped off the highway because of some idiot using a cell phone, but I also don't want to get scraped off because of someone dripping special sauce on their new shirt either.
Now, let me get this right - is it one down, four up?
|
|
|
|
|
Starting Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 10/22/2007 6:44:58 AM
Posts: 34,
Visits: 56
|
|
Rather than outlawing on-road cellphone usage, I would prefer they legalize the use of cellphone jammers!
Just imagine the sheer entertainment value of being able to ride around with a push-button jammer with a 100-foot range...
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 4:51:02 PM
Posts: 1,165,
Visits: 923
|
|
| "Amber alerts cause crashes...."????????? Any documentation on that? Wow..... As far as cell phone "jammers", I think you can google that. Couple of years ago, some British outfits were advertising just such a gadget, to be used in movie theaters. Had something like a 50 foot range...aim, push botton...end of inconsiderate anti-social stupid uncaring behavior. And...for your 10 bucks, you're absolutely entitled to watch a movie in peace. Of course, illegal here in the States (most common sense protect yourself from dumb stuff is) and the cost, if I recall correctly was like US$250. THAT is something I would have loved to use on a woman last year....driving erratically, talking on the cell phone, reading some document, writing on a notepad centerd on the steering wheel....all at 50 mph. Gotta love it. 
|
|
| |