# Fuck the NTSB... I'm using my Bluetooth regardless of what Congress does...



## mal (Dec 13, 2011)

And that's that.

They should ban talking in cars too, fuckin' Douchers. 

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...r-ban-on-in-car-phone-use-even-with-bluetooth



peace...


----------



## Avatar4321 (Dec 13, 2011)

Land of the free...


----------



## mal (Dec 13, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> Land of the free...



It's a New Tax the Gubmn't wants to Impose without having to Pass Taxing Legislation...

This is ALL about $$$ they will get from Fines.



peace...


----------



## Warrior102 (Dec 13, 2011)

Another smooth move by that fucking imbecile Ray LaHood. He's dumber than Joe Biden....


----------



## mal (Dec 13, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Another smooth move by that fucking imbecile Ray LaHood. He's dumber than Joe Biden....



Biden sits around wondering... _"How the Fuck did I become VP?... And #2 to a ******?"_

And if you think that "Clean and Articulate" Doucher Binden has Fired off "******" as much as Robert Byrd, you are kidding yourselves. 



peace...


----------



## J.E.D (Dec 13, 2011)

First, it's a safety issue. Drivers - especially teens - are way too distracted with their cell phones. Just talking on a phone while driving (let alone texting) is dangerous. Second, it's a non binding recommendation. Ultimately, it'll be up to individual states if they want such legislation.



> The recommendation, which isn't binding but which is likely to influence the decisions of Congress and state legislatures in writing  new safety laws, makes only two exceptions: You could still use GPS navigation devices, and you could use your cell phone in an emergency.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Dec 13, 2011)

JosefK said:


> First, it's a safety issue. Drivers - especially teens - are way too distracted with their cell phones. Just talking on a phone while driving (let alone texting) is dangerous. Second, it's a non binding recommendation. Ultimately, it'll be up to individual states if they want such legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> > The recommendation, which isn't binding but which is likely to influence the decisions of Congress and state legislatures in writing  new safety laws, makes only two exceptions: You could still use GPS navigation devices, and you could use your cell phone in an emergency.



It's being submitted to congress for a national ban. It's ludicrous. Talking on my phone first and foremost is my freedom. Secondly are they also going to ban me from talking to a passenger, singing along to a song I like, eating, applying makeup for the girls, eating, looking at scenery, reprimanding kids, or any other distracting activity? 

Fuck it, just ban me from leaving my bedroom because an accident might even happen in the kitchen or on my front steps. 

Fuckin Nazi state bullshit.


----------



## J.E.D (Dec 13, 2011)

Grampa Murked U said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> > First, it's a safety issue. Drivers - especially teens - are way too distracted with their cell phones. Just talking on a phone while driving (let alone texting) is dangerous. Second, it's a non binding recommendation. Ultimately, it'll be up to individual states if they want such legislation.
> ...



"*The recommendation,* *which isn't binding* but which is likely to influence the decisions of Congress and state legislatures in writing new safety laws, makes only two exceptions: You could still use GPS navigation devices, and you could use your cell phone in an emergency."


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 13, 2011)

mal said:


> And that's that.
> 
> They should ban talking in cars too, fuckin' Douchers.
> 
> ...



Got to keep us children safe from us.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Dec 13, 2011)

JosefK said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > JosefK said:
> ...



Well why not recommend that the elderly are required to take reflex tests past a certain age? 
You do understand the implications no? Given the right congress this would pass. Ie, Obamas first 2 years.


----------



## J.E.D (Dec 13, 2011)

Grampa Murked U said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Maybe. But given the current congress, there's no way in hell they'll take up the recommendation.


----------



## paulitician (Dec 13, 2011)

They should probably just ban cars all-together. They're just too dangerous. After all,how many people die in cars every year? It's a damn Genocide. And then swimming pools next.


----------



## 8537 (Dec 13, 2011)

As long as they don't try to ban sex while driving I won't complain.


----------



## paulitician (Dec 13, 2011)

Or they should just ban Cell Phones all-together. I mean all that 'Sexting' and stuff. Oh, but then how would your carrier and Government be able to track your every move? No they definitely wont ban those.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Dec 13, 2011)

Hence forth it shall be considered illegal to transports siblings at the same time in one vehicle. They are far to distracting to allow for driving to occur safely.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 13, 2011)

mal said:


> And that's that.
> 
> They should ban talking in cars too, fuckin' Douchers.
> 
> ...



Federal fucktards  are ---allegedly --- concerned about American deaths while  simultaneously preparing to invade Iran and unleashing WW III.

Stupid sons-of-bitches!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.


----------



## paulitician (Dec 13, 2011)

Contumacious said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > And that's that.
> ...



Gotta distract the sheep. What's next? Banning light bulbs? Oh wait,they already did that.


----------



## mal (Dec 13, 2011)

paulitician said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...



They did not, they Mandated the Use of More Harmful ones!...



peace...


----------



## Kiki Cannoli (Dec 13, 2011)

I wonder how pilots manage?

I smell the insurance lobby.


----------



## Warrior102 (Dec 13, 2011)

Kiki Cannoli said:


> I wonder how pilots manage?
> 
> I smell the insurance lobby.



Horseshit. It's that idiot LaHood. Distracted driving is his #1 issue. Meanwhile, the FAA guy (under LaHood) gets popped for DUI. 

Changing radio stations is also distracting. 

What next? Ban XM and Sirius?

Pull your head out of your ass. You're worshipping an idiotic administration. 

And please spare us the "But Bush... " bullshit.


----------



## paulitician (Dec 13, 2011)

Better not let Homeland Security hear you spouting that. You could be designated a Terrorist and put on their 'No Drive' list. No but seriously,do they have a 'No Drive' list? That has to be coming soon no? Nothing would surprise me now.


----------



## Kiki Cannoli (Dec 13, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Kiki Cannoli said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how pilots manage?
> ...



warrior i have no idea what you are on about.  i agree with mal.


----------



## paulitician (Dec 13, 2011)

Next they should ban all radio too. After all,it is distracting. And not just the radios in your car. I mean radio all-together. Because if radio still exists,some Citizens will just sneak and continue listening in their cars. So radio has to go completely.


----------



## Cammmpbell (Dec 13, 2011)

mal said:


> And that's that.
> 
> They should ban talking in cars too, fuckin' Douchers.
> 
> ...



You Silver Tongued Devil You


----------



## techieny (Dec 13, 2011)




----------



## MeBelle (Dec 13, 2011)

GPS systems are OK, funny that. There are GPS that you can talk to.

I have a friend who has a cell hook up through Sirius. She doesn't need blue-tooth.
She tells the phone to get directions, dial a number, etc. The phone answers "Yes, Sweety'.
The phone is hilarious, we trip it up and it comes back with attitude!


----------



## freedombecki (Dec 13, 2011)

Top Ten Worst Cell Phone-Related Injury Accidents of All time: Prison edition

10. Alleged texting causes death of 5 high school cheerleaders

9. Pregnant Florida woman killed by texting driver

8. California Metrolink engineers texting activity ends in deadly commuter crash

7. Facebook updates lead to fatal Chicago pedestrian accident
*
*6. One month jail-time for texting on the job

5. Five months jail time for young texter
*
*4. One year jail time for 20-year-old text & drive motorist
*
*3. Six years of prison time for paying-bills-while-driving motorist

2. Seven years prison sentence for 22-year-old texting motorist

1. Ten years in prison for texting and driving homicide

My husband crossed the street in front of our business and saw a man in a wheelchair who'd been struck by an idiot texting while driving in a downtown area.

Driving under the influence of a little cell phone use can kill.


----------



## jillian (Dec 13, 2011)

mal said:


> And that's that.
> 
> They should ban talking in cars too, fuckin' Douchers.
> 
> ...



you're one of those people who doesn't keep up with the flow of traffic while you're on the phone, aren't you? *sigh*


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 13, 2011)

mal said:


> And that's that.
> 
> They should ban talking in cars too, fuckin' Douchers.
> 
> ...



  You said "BAN"!!!


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 13, 2011)

mal said:


> And that's that.
> 
> They should ban talking in cars too, fuckin' Douchers.
> 
> ...



Are there any FEDERAL drunk driving laws?  Or are they all STATE laws?


----------



## mal (Dec 13, 2011)

xotoxi said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > And that's that.
> ...



Don't know... Ask Bodecea, she's had like 3 DUI's.



peace...


----------



## DaGoose (Dec 13, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Kiki Cannoli said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how pilots manage?
> ...



I won't mention Bush but I will point out that LaHood is a REPUBLICAN.  And It would have to pass a GOP controlled House to become law.


----------



## paulitician (Dec 13, 2011)

They got one of them there 'No Drive' lists yet? Yall should be very careful how you speak about the NTSB. Their good buds over at Homeland Security could declare you a Terrorist and place you on a 'No Drive' list. Watch your backs people.


----------



## Steelplate (Dec 13, 2011)

Hey...I don't care if you do use your cell phones... in fact, let's repeal the DUI laws too. With one exception...If you kill someone their families can sue your miserable life out of existence.


----------



## paulitician (Dec 13, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Hey...I don't care if you do use your cell phones... in fact, let's repeal the DUI laws too. With one exception...If you kill someone their families can sue your miserable life out of existence.



Boy you sure do seem to be in a permanent state of confusion. Citizens already can sue over that. Seriously,do you have newspapers where you live? Because obviously the internets isn't doing anything for you. Maybe try reading a newspaper sometime. Give it a shot.


----------



## Steelplate (Dec 13, 2011)

paulitician said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > Hey...I don't care if you do use your cell phones... in fact, let's repeal the DUI laws too. With one exception...If you kill someone their families can sue your miserable life out of existence.
> ...



No... I mean sue you to the point you will never have anything again.


----------



## Mustang (Dec 13, 2011)

mal said:


> And that's that.
> 
> They should ban talking in cars too, fuckin' Douchers.
> 
> ...


 
There's a lot of things that shouldn't be done when people are driving.  Smoking comes to mind.  I want people to concentrate on the road, and not on their phone, or a pack of cigarettes.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 13, 2011)

mal said:


> And that's that.
> 
> They should ban talking in cars too, fuckin' Douchers.
> 
> ...



AND YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

There is a reason why cell phones and such are banned from planes.


----------



## chanel (Dec 13, 2011)

I think they should just outlaw death.  Then we wouldn't have a need for all this other silliness.


----------



## pete (Dec 13, 2011)

mal said:


> And that's that.
> 
> They should ban talking in cars too, fuckin' Douchers.
> 
> ...



Little fucking dogs on laps and steering wheels !!

So does that mean cops as well seeing as all the cars have laptops and they drive down the road typing away every time Im along side one and I see them talking on phones as well.


----------



## paulitician (Dec 13, 2011)

chanel said:


> I think they should just outlaw death.  Then we wouldn't have a need for all this other silliness.



Or outlaw life. Hmm?


----------



## Cammmpbell (Dec 13, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Hey...I don't care if you do use your cell phones... in fact, let's repeal the DUI laws too. With one exception...If you kill someone their families can sue your miserable life out of existence.



They already can. Leave it up to the lawyers...they get a third of any settlement. What a bunch of goddam vultures. OH!!!!! I forgot...about half or more of the U S congress is made up of lawyers.


----------



## Avorysuds (Dec 13, 2011)

JosefK said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > JosefK said:
> ...



I agree with Gramps. To further Gramps argument by adding my own thoughts I would say it should be left up to the states and Bluetooth should be allowed. Gramps makes good points tho.

I do however agree I'd like to live in a a state where you needs hands free.


----------



## chanel (Dec 13, 2011)

The REASON so many people text now is BECAUSE of the cell phone bans.  If they allowed people to TALK, they wouldn't be hiding their phones on their laps.  Unintended consequences.


----------



## Cammmpbell (Dec 13, 2011)

chanel said:


> The REASON so many people text now is BECAUSE of the cell phone bans.  If they allowed people to TALK, they wouldn't be hiding their phones on their laps.  Unintended consequences.



It doesn't make any difference. They've discovered that texting is more fatal than drunk driving. When a DUI causes a death 80% of people are asleep in their bed. Texting and cells go on 24-7.


----------



## J.E.D (Dec 13, 2011)

chanel said:


> The REASON so many people text now is BECAUSE of the cell phone bans.  If they allowed people to TALK, they wouldn't be hiding their phones on their laps.  Unintended consequences.



No offense, but that is a weak argument. Teenagers prefer texting to talking. My nephew rarely answers his phone when I call; but if I text him, he texts right back. And yes, he did actually tell me that he prefers to text. And anyway, talking on the phone while driving isn't much safer than texting while driving.


----------



## Cammmpbell (Dec 14, 2011)

JosefK said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > The REASON so many people text now is BECAUSE of the cell phone bans.  If they allowed people to TALK, they wouldn't be hiding their phones on their laps.  Unintended consequences.
> ...



Nearly 40 years ago when I was teaching my children to drive I taught them to keep their hands on the wheel and their eyes on the road. I told them that driving is a full time job. I've driven nearly two million miles during my lifetime and other than a couple of fender benders which were someone else's fault I've never had an accident. I think anyone who uses a phone or computer while they're driving has their head up their ass. It's stupidity in it's rarest form.


----------



## chanel (Dec 14, 2011)

JosefK said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > The REASON so many people text now is BECAUSE of the cell phone bans.  If they allowed people to TALK, they wouldn't be hiding their phones on their laps.  Unintended consequences.
> ...



It is not a weak argument.  Yes, many teens (and adults) prefer to text, but I believe the reason they do it in cars is because they don't want to be seen by a cop.  I certainly know a few people who have said so.



> As state legislators across the United States enact laws that ban phoning and/or texting while driving, a new Highway Loss Data Institute study finds *no reductions in crashes after hand-held phone bans take effect. *Comparing insurance claims for crash damage in 4 US jurisdictions before and after such bans, the researchers find steady claim rates compared with nearby jurisdictions without such bans. The Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) is an affiliate of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.



HLDI news release

I also read that DESPITE BANS, MORE PEOPLE are admitting to texting while driving.

If drivers were permitted to talk without fear of being pulled over, I honestly think many would give up texting.  Perhaps they should decrease the penalties for talking, and increase the penalties for texting.  

I know it's dangerous.  But I'd be much more comfortable with my kid driving slower because he's on the phone, than taking his eyes off the road to text people.  

Hands free seems like the safest compromise.  That's probably why they want to do away with that too.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 14, 2011)

While I have never been rear ended by a person talking on a cell phone, I have been by a woman putting on make up, a kid changing a CD and a man who spilled his coffee in his lap.

So my advice is to buy the biggest car you can because you will be run into by some idiot on the road.


----------



## chanel (Dec 14, 2011)

Exactly.  I've always driven a large vehicle.

When I had a long commute to work, I used to listen to books on tape.  I can't tell you how many times I missed my exit.  Is that where we're headed?  

Probably the biggest distraction is crying babies.  Maybe they should ban anyone under 18 from riding in a car.


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 14, 2011)

chanel said:


> Exactly.  I've always driven a large vehicle.
> 
> When I had a long commute to work, I used to listen to books on tape.  I can't tell you how many times I missed my exit.  Is that where we're headed?
> 
> Probably the biggest distraction is crying babies.  Maybe they should ban anyone under 18 from riding in a car.



When people start killing people because of crying babies in the car you could well see laws against crying babies too.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 14, 2011)

Katzndogz said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly.  I've always driven a large vehicle.
> ...



I'm cool with that.  There is nothing more annoying than a crying baby.


----------



## Triton (Dec 14, 2011)

If the Feds do find a way to get in on the money just imagine how big the fine is going to be with state and federal fees added on.

Plus if your phone is in the center console and is visible to an LEO say, during a pullover for something else (i.e. seat belts) "Now why is that cell phone sitting there, sir?" 

cha ching!


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 14, 2011)

Triton said:


> If the Feds do find a way to get in on the money just imagine how big the fine is going to be with state and federal fees added on.
> 
> Plus if your phone is in the center console and is visible to an LEO say, during a pullover for something else (i.e. seat belts) "Now why is that cell phone sitting there, sir?"
> 
> cha ching!



You might have to prove that you weren't texting.  That should be quite easy to do as they are saved automatically.


----------



## chanel (Dec 14, 2011)

Katzndogz said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly.  I've always driven a large vehicle.
> ...



Not likely.   From 2001:


> According to a 2001 national survey conducted by the Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS), activities drivers engage in while driving include: talking to passengers (96%), adjusting vehicle climate/radio controls (89%), eating a meal/snack (74%), *using a cell phone (51%), tending to children (41%)*, reading a map/publication (34%), grooming (19%), and preparing for work (11%).



Distracted Driving Causes Fatal Crashes

Shouldn't they have some science to rely on?



> The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, in separate studies of cell-phone use and texting while driving, concluded that banning the phones doesnt improve driver safety.
> 
> The research group, which is funded by the insurance industry, said it compared states with laws prohibiting cell-phone use with states that had no similar laws, and there was *no difference in traffic crashes or fatalities*. In the case of texting, there was a *slight increase in crashes for states that adopted anti-texting rules*, an Insurance Institute spokesman said.



Would A Cell-Phone Ban For Cars Be Overkill? - Driver's Seat - WSJ


----------



## Zoom-boing (Dec 14, 2011)

Why doesn't driving while talking/texting fall under 'distracted driving' laws that already exist?  That's exactly what it is. 

For those who are ok w/hands-free?  It's not your hands, it's your _mind_, your cognitive mind, where the problem lies.  



> Driving is one of the most cognitively complex activities. To drive safely, we have to concentrate, observe and process information quickly and correctly. We have to respond to all sorts of information that is constantly bombarding us from all directions as we drive. We have to be able to estimate speed and distance quickly and correctly. Driving really requires 100% of our attention.
> 
> When we speak on the cell phone while we are driving, we may think we are multi tasking. In fact, our brains do not really multi task. Our attention is divided between activities, and our brain switches quickly from one activity to the other.
> 
> ...



CogniFit's blog: Driving, Cell Phones And Cognitive Abilities


More here:

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/traffic_safety/files/NSC White Paper - Distracted Driving 3-10.pdf

Chanel, you provided an excellent example of why people should not talk on the phone - or listen to books on tape - while driving.  You were distracted to the point of missing an exit . . . what if that had been a car pulling out in front of you?  Bam.


----------



## Kiki Cannoli (Dec 14, 2011)

I saw a chick driving in downtown rush hour traffic while eating with chop sticks, she got nabbed.


----------



## chanel (Dec 14, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> Why doesn't driving while talking/texting fall under 'distracted driving' laws that already exist?  That's exactly what it is.
> 
> For those who are ok w/hands-free?  It's not your hands, it's your _mind_, your cognitive mind, where the problem lies.
> 
> ...



Perfect driving record despite my occasional distractions.  (I hope I didn't just jinx myself )

My point is that there are a zillion distractions and we can't eliminate them all.  Should we ban radios and books on tape?  The data on cell phone use does not back up the law.  

As I have stated before, I would like to see texting eliminated.  But one way to discourage it, is to allow people to call.  If they are "distracted" by a phone call,  there are already laws on the books for that.

Hand-free would solve a lot of problems IMHO.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 14, 2011)

chanel said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Why doesn't driving while talking/texting fall under 'distracted driving' laws that already exist?  That's exactly what it is.
> ...


I think that anyone who wishes to use a cell or other devices while driving ,must take a mandatory "multitasking while driving" test.
if they pass ,they get a tag on their license ,if stopped they can proceed unhindered.
if they fail and are caught using said devices, a minimum $10.000 fine and community service ticket will be issued.
if either causes a death or injury accident ,a 3 year jail term is automatic and all cell and device privileges will be revoked permanently.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Dec 14, 2011)

chanel said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Why doesn't driving while talking/texting fall under 'distracted driving' laws that already exist?  That's exactly what it is.
> ...



Books on tape . . . cell phones . . . texting while driving . . . . kids screaming . . . putting on makeup . . . . eating while driving . . . .all are distractions.  Some are more distracting that others.  Categorize them (you can't toss your kids out of the car ... ok well, they really frown up doing that) and fine the crap out of people who break the law on those categorize distractions.  Ban them?  They're distractions and we have distracted driving laws, so wouldn't they fall under that?  

I disagree about hands-free.  It's not the hands, it's the mind.


----------



## uptownlivin90 (Dec 14, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Hey...I don't care if you do use your cell phones... in fact, let's repeal the DUI laws too. With one exception...If you kill someone their families can sue your miserable life out of existence.



We have laws regarding liability and murder. Could I support hefty penalties if you do kill someone or injure someone because you're using your cell phone, sure. Do I support telling people what they can and cannot do with their own cell phone in their own vehicle? No. You're responsable for what you do... and if you kill someone because of your own stupidity you ought to face the consequences.


----------



## J.E.D (Dec 14, 2011)

uptownlivin90 said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > Hey...I don't care if you do use your cell phones... in fact, let's repeal the DUI laws too. With one exception...If you kill someone their families can sue your miserable life out of existence.
> ...



What about the people who get killed minding their own business walking down the street? Their safety isn't a concern, but a driver's freedom to do what he wants inside his car IS? That makes no sense.


----------



## Meister (Dec 14, 2011)

JosefK said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > JosefK said:
> ...



So it's just a waste of time by Congress.....again?
Lord knows we have a money tree the Congress can harvest in these issues.


----------

