Your objections to these laws seem to infer that you should not be subject to them.
Or, you're a lawyer.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Cop's new "cell-phone use" sting
- Thread starter iJohnHenry
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Your objections to these laws seem to infer that you should not be subject to them.
Or, you're a lawyer.
Your objections to these laws seem to infer that you should not be subject to them.
Or, you're a lawyer.
I don't see that at all.
I objected to:
* An overly broad law that is extremely citizen-unfriendly in my view. Make specific laws on certain behaviors if you want.
* Extreme life-damaging penalties for talking on a cell phone. Penalties? Sure. Criminal record, jail time, and nearly a decade of insurance costs? Come on.
I admit that I tend to think like a lawyer.
Last edited:
I'm amazed at some of the attitudes here toward DUI. At the same time, I'm not so amazed. Many people still take it too lightly.
I have a friend who was ALMOST denied employment recently, because of a DUI. His job required a background check. There is usually some questionaire for a background check. They want to make sure that your background matches what you SAY your background is.
One is the questions was "have you ever been convicted of a crime". He aswered "no".
His application was held up. Initially they made excuses that security checks were "backed up". Finally, they asked him if there was anything he didn't disclose. He said he had a DUI. His background check was then approved.
If you search for "should I disclose a DUI on my employment application", you will find a very good discussion on LinkedIn amoung personnel directors. It seems they have to give some leeway, because so much of the public doesn't understand that a DUI is a crime. The participants were split, but I think tipped in favor of denying employment to somebody who doesn't disclose.
Even if the non-disclosure was unintentional - because the applicant was unaware that a DUI is a crime - the majority seemed to feel that the applicant would be demonstrating that they aren't on top of things, and so wouldn't make a good employee. A DUI is a major event in a person's life, and they should be aware of what it means. In the U.S., people convicted of a DUI have to attend classes. Among the things taught in the classes is the law. Anyone who goes through these classes and doesn't know that a DUI is a misdomener (felongy, in some cases) crime was not paying attention.
In all but a handful of U.S. states, a first DUI is a misdomener. Typically, some larger number of DUIs is a felony. (In California, it is typically 3.) Either one is a crime.
Many people incorrectly believe that it is an "infraction" or a "traffic offense". (Something that doesn't exist in most states.)
Still, after this, my friends insists he will never reveal his DUI on an employment application...
Back to the subject - there is no excuse for hand-held use of a cell phone in a car. Your phone probably came with a wired headset, and Bluetooth headsets and visor-mount speaker phones can be bought inexpensively. I see people driving down the street "hiding" their cell phone, and it is a joke. They are compounding the problem by driving in very odd, contorted positions.
I have a friend who was ALMOST denied employment recently, because of a DUI. His job required a background check. There is usually some questionaire for a background check. They want to make sure that your background matches what you SAY your background is.
One is the questions was "have you ever been convicted of a crime". He aswered "no".
His application was held up. Initially they made excuses that security checks were "backed up". Finally, they asked him if there was anything he didn't disclose. He said he had a DUI. His background check was then approved.
If you search for "should I disclose a DUI on my employment application", you will find a very good discussion on LinkedIn amoung personnel directors. It seems they have to give some leeway, because so much of the public doesn't understand that a DUI is a crime. The participants were split, but I think tipped in favor of denying employment to somebody who doesn't disclose.
Even if the non-disclosure was unintentional - because the applicant was unaware that a DUI is a crime - the majority seemed to feel that the applicant would be demonstrating that they aren't on top of things, and so wouldn't make a good employee. A DUI is a major event in a person's life, and they should be aware of what it means. In the U.S., people convicted of a DUI have to attend classes. Among the things taught in the classes is the law. Anyone who goes through these classes and doesn't know that a DUI is a misdomener (felongy, in some cases) crime was not paying attention.
In all but a handful of U.S. states, a first DUI is a misdomener. Typically, some larger number of DUIs is a felony. (In California, it is typically 3.) Either one is a crime.
Many people incorrectly believe that it is an "infraction" or a "traffic offense". (Something that doesn't exist in most states.)
Still, after this, my friends insists he will never reveal his DUI on an employment application...
Back to the subject - there is no excuse for hand-held use of a cell phone in a car. Your phone probably came with a wired headset, and Bluetooth headsets and visor-mount speaker phones can be bought inexpensively. I see people driving down the street "hiding" their cell phone, and it is a joke. They are compounding the problem by driving in very odd, contorted positions.
The thought of getting a DUI horrifies me. It's life altering. When I was on a ketogenic diet I was nervous to be a designated driver just because of some reports that ketones on the breath can trigger breathalizers due to a similar chemical makeup.
The punishments on a DUI are incredibly severe, and that's why I'm reacting so negatively to the thought of equating cell phones to DUI in punishment. Does someone really deserve to potentially have their life ruined because they took a call?
The punishments on a DUI are incredibly severe, and that's why I'm reacting so negatively to the thought of equating cell phones to DUI in punishment. Does someone really deserve to potentially have their life ruined because they took a call?
I suppose I'm the only one without a clue as to how cops holding cardboard signs is supposed to be a sting operation.
I suspect it has to do with human nature in a big city. Most people would be otherwise vigilant about getting caught, yet ignore beggars, which allows these cops dressed as beggars to witness offending drivers.
Considering the impairment that talking on the phone has on one's ability to drive, the question should really be if someone else deserve to potentially have their life taken away from them just because someone wanted to take a call.
Airplanes are super safe and there are two pilots, would you feel it was okay to fly with a pilot that was drunk? Or that was talking on the phone whilst landing or taking off?
Sadly, it's happened with busses. A friend of mine is a supervisor for a bus company, and they take it quite seriously. You don't use a cell phone while driving a bus. Yet there are idiots that do. Part of my friend's job is to hide-out near a stop and watch the drivers.
Nobody is saying you can't take your call. Just invest a few dollars in the technology to let you do it (more) safely. Some people are just stubborn - the same ones that won't wear motorcycle helmets. At least the motorcycle drivers are endangering only themselves (unless they don't wear the helmet so that they can talk on the cell phone...).
Going by that logic why do we let cops have computers and radios and speed down the highway with all of those distractions?
- There are usually two cops
- They are trained in how to use them as safely as possible. You aren't.
- They are on "speaker phone"
- Ever see a cop speeding down the road holding a cell phone to his ear? Maybe if they re-did Andy of Mayberry in the 80's. Don Knotts would be tooling down the road, siren-blaring, with a huge 80's brick to his ear, screaming "Sorry, Sarah, did you say the bank, or take the left flank?"
This is a poor argument, however. The potential danger has to be weighed against consequences. You cannot regulate every aspect of someone's life; there is a certain level of personal responsibility involved.
The risk/punishment levels here are just not justifiable. Talking on a phone while driving does not result in the same incidence-to-death ratio as drunk drivers do. Putting life-ruining consequences on it will not curb usage; all it will do is result in a ton of unnecessary criminal convictions and ruin otherwise upstanding citizen's records and lives.
I've seen a cop using a laptop while driving. Last week, in fact.
The drivers are not using the computer when driving, and the radio is mainly being used by the other police officer in the car. Plus, the radio is necessary for them in order to do their job.
But if you were serious with your question, I guess this will go over your head.
----------
Of course. For instance, I'm against a law forcing motorcyclists wearing helmets or adults in cars to wear belts (but not kids, they should wear them). But I'm for a law that requires drivers to have a valid driver's license and forbid them from driving when impaired (like when being under the influence or talking on the phone). The actual punishment is another story, I feel there should be a hefty fine for these kinds of things and that the rest that you've been talking about shouldn't be applicable until the third or fourth offense.
Say the legal limit is .5, and it turns out that talking on the phone impairs you as if you would have .7. Would you want to ban talking on the phone, or increase the legal limit to .7?
So?
So I was curious to post this. Know I'm gonna get trashed for it.
For the record, I hate what I am about to say too.
I am a Supertasker.
I say I hate that I am about to say this because, as correctly noted in this article, almost everyone wants to think they are, and most who do are not.
I have both incredible vision (20/10) and peripheral vision. Juggling digital tasks is second nature- I can type on my iPhone without looking at the screen, I can type at ~100 WPM while carrying on a conversation (clocked at 120 WPM without errors). I am also nationally ranked at a certain competitive game. I am incredibly adept at tracking my environment and can write texts only looking at my phone with my peripherals primarily.
I am also horrified every time I watch a family member drive with a cell phone, because they are very clearly impaired.
I text while I drive frequently. I occasionally read books on my Kindle while I drive and have completed novels in this manner. I have a completely clean driving record at this point (and am an adult with over a decade of driving experience) with fantastic insurance rates due to no tickets/accidents/anything.
My roommate and I carpool often. He went from being initially nervous to actually preferring I text. He notices significant impairment (not immediately noticing people who want to change lanes for example) when I converse as I tend to make eye contact with him when I talk. But he has seen me stop for squirrels that jumped in front of my car in the middle of the night while texting and now is unphased by it.
I've tested watching movies, but it requires too much eye focus (I can scan a page without focusing directly on it) and so I don't.
I don't like phone calls, but have taken them while driving. My brain prioritizes the driving and sometimes I'll phase out on what is being said. I've tried bluetooth headsets, but always lose them.
In person, I discourage people to text while driving. I see massive impairment in the vast majority of the population. I don't oppose fines on cell phone use. I'm posting this anonymously on the internet.
I don't know why I'm posting this; I'm not advocating that people should in any way, shape, or form. I'm curious to see a discussion ensue, but I'm expecting to receive a lecture. Have at it.
For the record, I hate what I am about to say too.
I am a Supertasker.
I say I hate that I am about to say this because, as correctly noted in this article, almost everyone wants to think they are, and most who do are not.
I have both incredible vision (20/10) and peripheral vision. Juggling digital tasks is second nature- I can type on my iPhone without looking at the screen, I can type at ~100 WPM while carrying on a conversation (clocked at 120 WPM without errors). I am also nationally ranked at a certain competitive game. I am incredibly adept at tracking my environment and can write texts only looking at my phone with my peripherals primarily.
I am also horrified every time I watch a family member drive with a cell phone, because they are very clearly impaired.
I text while I drive frequently. I occasionally read books on my Kindle while I drive and have completed novels in this manner. I have a completely clean driving record at this point (and am an adult with over a decade of driving experience) with fantastic insurance rates due to no tickets/accidents/anything.
My roommate and I carpool often. He went from being initially nervous to actually preferring I text. He notices significant impairment (not immediately noticing people who want to change lanes for example) when I converse as I tend to make eye contact with him when I talk. But he has seen me stop for squirrels that jumped in front of my car in the middle of the night while texting and now is unphased by it.
I've tested watching movies, but it requires too much eye focus (I can scan a page without focusing directly on it) and so I don't.
I don't like phone calls, but have taken them while driving. My brain prioritizes the driving and sometimes I'll phase out on what is being said. I've tried bluetooth headsets, but always lose them.
In person, I discourage people to text while driving. I see massive impairment in the vast majority of the population. I don't oppose fines on cell phone use. I'm posting this anonymously on the internet.
I don't know why I'm posting this; I'm not advocating that people should in any way, shape, or form. I'm curious to see a discussion ensue, but I'm expecting to receive a lecture. Have at it.
It really funny when I go driving in my city and see so many cops on the cell phone or reading the computer in the car and traffic is passing them or at the lights and everyone is going and they do NOT know the light to green. No lights or siren so they are not going to a priority call.
And even if some of the times it is excuse they are going to call and I say some times they should pull over get all the info than drive.
Yet it is illegal to text and drive or be on the cell phone.
And even if some of the times it is excuse they are going to call and I say some times they should pull over get all the info than drive.
Yet it is illegal to text and drive or be on the cell phone.
You must realize by now that you are an exception to the rule.
I can only suggest that you rise in the corporate structure, sufficient to have a chauffeur-driven car at your disposal.
"... The authors also took the time to remind their readers that the supertasking population really is small, so you shouldn't assume you're one of them. Unfortunately, it looks like most people tend to believe they're the exception to this rule ..." From the article linked in the quoted post. Have you been tested?
Ironically, when asked, the vast majority of drivers rate themselves as "above average".....
He passed the FTSs?
----------
Most departments I knew had policies against using the MDT or computer while driving.
Fishing for compliments? I'm not sure what point are you trying to make.
Anyway, I can't wait for the Google driveless car to be safe enough for everyday use...
I'm not looking forward to having both driverless and driven cars mixing together in traffic. Too easy for a driven car to freak out a driverless car by cutting close, and too difficult for driven car to know what a driverless car is aware of. When I'm driving I can look at another car's driver - and tell if they are aware of me or not (if we make eye contact, then I can assume they know that I am there - if I am looking at the back of their head, then I can assume they don't know that I am there.) There will be situations where the driverless car may or may not know that another car is there.... and there are no clues that will indicate to a driven car's driver any kind of clue.
Or are we supposed to assume that a driverless car knows where all the cars are around it at any given moment?
To the first point, I do not think that DUI laws are "ridiculous". I have several friends with DUIs. I have one immediate family member with a DUI. None of them have had their life altered. All are professionally employed and do well at their jobs. The immediate family member was denied a job offer after her DUI came up in the background check, but the position required driving a company car. Forgive me for thinking that denying a job driving a company car to someone with a DUI on their record is not a bad practice. Almost everyone I've known who had a DUI received either just a fine, or maybe a night or two in jail in the worse circumstances. Hardly ridiculous, and hardly life-altering. If you have multiple DUIs, then you absolutely SHOULD have your life altered. And a DWI should also be harsh.
As for the second point about applying the same laws to phone use. I am all for cell phone laws, yet I do use the hands free in my car (it's built in over the speakers...no headsets). However, I do agree with you that cell phone penalties should not equal DUI penalties. Cell phones should be light fines. Texting should be heavy fines.
I am a young new driver. I leave my cell off and throw it in the glovebox, I don't need to be on a stupid phone when driving. Like I would get service on the roads out here anyways.
And, as if by some miracle, your life suddenly becomes your own again.
Although the glove-box might get very hot, if you park for a while in the Sun.
If you don't already, I would recommend that you take it with you when you leave the car.
And, as if by some miracle, your life suddenly becomes your own again.
Although the glove-box might get very hot, if you park for a while in the Sun.
If you don't already, I would recommend that you take it with you when you leave the car.
Yeah, Well its been a while since I last drove. I only still have my stupid learners. So I was with people while driving.
To be honest. I don't get the point its such a distraction. I have problems operateing the radio while I am driving. Glad I have a mix cd I just leave in.
but yeah, I can not see how people can function talking on the phone and driving.
Son, if I may, you have yet to encounter the advantaged people that frequent this place.
They are all seeing, all knowing, the very essence of god-like creatures, but, unfortunately, swaddled in peasants clothing.
Live long, and prosper.