Two Thirds Want Cells Banned While Driving

[Rhino]

Two Thirds of Americans Want Cell Phones Outlawed While Driving

Thursday, June 01, 2006
By Miranda Hitti


Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults think their state should pass a law making it illegal to use a cell phone while driving.

So says a new survey from the University of Michigan’s department of communication studies. The survey included 849 adults aged 18 and older.

Nearly seven in 10 participants owned a cell phone. More than 80 percent of those people said their cell phone has simplified their lives.

Survey participants were generally not too keen on cell phone use while driving. But a recent government survey shows that many drivers are chatting on the phone anyway.

The University of Michigan’s survey included this question: “Do you think your state government should, or should not pass a law making it illegal to use a cellular phone while driving?”

Almost two-thirds of participants -- 65 percent -- said yes. Another 29 percent said no. The remaining 6 percent said they didn’t know or refused to answer........http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197860,00.html

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:smirky: The nanny state should put its good intentions to good use by outlawing cell phones behind the wheel. It'd probably save more lives than seat belt laws.

[Nutrider99]

I don't believe the government should have any right to dictate what I do in my car. If I'm driving erraticly because I'm distracted, it doesn't matter what the source is. I could be changing the the radio, looking for a Tic Tac, eating a chicken sandwich or receiving a Lewinski. The cause doesn't matter. If the driver is not operating the vehicle in a safe fashion, cite him for it.

[Incident_command]

If the person is on a hands free type setup I have no problem with them talking on the phone. Its then not much different than talking to a passenger.

[Rhino]

I don't believe the government should have any right to dictate what I do in my car. If I'm driving erraticly because I'm distracted, it doesn't matter what the source is. I could be changing the the radio, looking for a Tic Tac, eating a chicken sandwich or receiving a Lewinski. The cause doesn't matter. If the driver is not operating the vehicle in a safe fashion, cite him for it.
:ditto:

[Betrayed]

I don't believe the government should have any right to dictate what I do in my car. If I'm driving erraticly because I'm distracted, it doesn't matter what the source is. I could be changing the the radio, looking for a Tic Tac, eating a chicken sandwich or receiving a Lewinski. The cause doesn't matter. If the driver is not operating the vehicle in a safe fashion, cite him for it.

If it is dangerous to the lives of others, much like drunk driving, then they have the right in my opinion to ban you from using a cell phone. Yes, changing the radio or doing a numerous amount of things is also dangerous, but cell phones top the list. Among brushing your teeth while driving, doing your make-up, and reading the news paper on the steering wheel while you're driving. You'd be surprised by what kind of dump shit you'll see up here in Chicago.

Cell phones are dangerous. Almost hit a car myself on accident out of stupidity. The headset is cool, like someone said. But you are risking someone elses life. Someone who might have his three kids in the backseat that are all going to be killed because you weren't paying 100% attention to the road.

[Rhino]

If it is dangerous to the lives of others, much like drunk driving, then they have the right in my opinion to ban you from using a cell phone. Yes, changing the radio or doing a numerous amount of things is also dangerous, but cell phones top the list. Among brushing your teeth while driving, doing your make-up, and reading the news paper on the steering wheel while you're driving.Then, by this logic, we should pass a law for each and every one of those. That's what Nutrider was pointing out. You can threaten someones life with a pitchfork, baseball bat, rusty spoon, staple gun or a toothpick, but you don't pass laws for those items. You pass a law against threatening someone's life. All that other crap, just like the cell phone thing, is ridiculous and pointless. What's next on the list and when do we pass a law for it? What do we ban after that? How many of these stupid laws must they pass before the idiots figure out all you have to outlaw is inattentive driving?

You'd be surprised by what kind of dump shit you'll see up here in Chicago.No I wouldn't.

[Betrayed]

You have great points. But here in Chicago, we have a system set up where people are not allowed to use cellphones in their cars while driving in the city. So many people used to do it.

I think they should be allowed outside of cities, but cities are a dangerous environment to drive in, especially ones as big as Chicago. Too many psycho drivers on the road to have any of them using a cell phone. It is unbelievable. Cell phones do take up most of your attention, more so than any other item. That is why they should be banned alone, in cities at least. Are you going to say we should put the lives of others in danger because of a bunch of idiots?

And if you are going to punish inattentive driving, that automatically punishes anyone driving with a cellphone anyway. Might as well ban it.

[Lazarus]

Michigan should keep its liberal opinions to itself... If they want to enslave their people, feel free to do so... Keep you liberal-slaver hands out of Alabama...

If using a cell phone in a car is dangerous to the public then so is using a CD player, an iPod, drinking coffee, eating tacos, etc, etc, etc...

I use my cell phone in my car... It is not hands free - I hold it with one hand to my ear while I drive with the other hand... We do it that way in Alabama because this is the land of the free... We also own guns, eat meat (including veal), wear fur when its cold, hunt woodland critters, openly burn rubbish, and drive pickups and SUVs... We are an unregulated, uncontrolled, barbaric race of free people...

If you fear life then there are any number of highly regulated nursery states where you can go and have your life monitored at every turn... If you wish to live free, Come to the South - and take your chances... Mwahahahahaha!!!!

[Rhino]

And if you are going to punish inattentive driving, that automatically punishes anyone driving with a cellphone anyway. Might as well ban it.No, I've seen lots of people drive quite well with a cell phone. And the 'might as well ban it anyway' argument could also apply to anything else. I've seen people do lots of stupid things while using cell phones, but such stupidity is already against the law. Passing a new one does nothing, and it ignores all the other activities that can get people killed. What happens when they invent more stuff that people can be stupid with? Do we keep passing more and more laws? And what do they do to enforce it? If these people are being dangerous now, why aren't they being ticketed for it? And if they aren't being ticketed for it now, what makes anyone think they'll be ticketed for any new law? The problem is that people in general are driving more sloppy, and that is due in large part to the fact that our existing traffic laws are not being enforced. Given that, it's a bit ridiculous to assume a new one will get enforced any more frequently than the ones we have now. When was the last time you saw them giving tickets for blocking the passing lane or not signalling a lane change? This law won't do anything more other than to add to the already bloated statutes we have on the books. They need to enforce the laws we already have. Those already cover inattentive driving, with or without a cell phone.

[Lazarus]

Automobile accidents were the No 1 killer in America long before Cell Phones came along... Cars are still the No 1 killer and the vast majority of those accidents do NOT involve cell phones - instead they involve irresponsible individuals... But I dont see 2/3 of anyone demanding that Cars be banned...

Banning cell phones for safety reasons falls right into the same bucket with banning guns... Its a feel good solution that does not address the real problem, but it does allow activists and conmen politicians to claim that they have taken action... All they have really taken is one more freedom from us...

[BEST45CAL]

I don't believe the government should have any right to dictate what I do in my car. If I'm driving erraticly because I'm distracted, it doesn't matter what the source is. I could be changing the the radio, looking for a Tic Tac, eating a chicken sandwich or receiving a Lewinski. The cause doesn't matter. If the driver is not operating the vehicle in a safe fashion, cite him for it.

The government actually does have all the right to dictate just about everything you do with your vehicle while it's being operated on public roads.

You do not have the right to drive. It is a privilege. That's why you have to have a license.

We have to either just live with the laws or quit driving on public roads.

Sorry.

[BEST45CAL]

Automobile accidents were the No 1 killer in America long before Cell Phones came along... Cars are still the No 1 killer and the vast majority of those accidents do NOT involve cell phones - instead they involve irresponsible individuals... But I dont see 2/3 of anyone demanding that Cars be banned...

Banning cell phones for safety reasons falls right into the same bucket with banning guns... Its a feel good solution that does not address the real problem, but it does allow activists and conmen politicians to claim that they have taken action... All they have really taken is one more freedom from us...

I wouldn't consider driving a freedom, especially if you have to have a license to do it. It's a privilege, not a right.

The 2nd Amendment is a right. Driving is not.

[Betrayed]

I'll politely agree to disagree with some of you in this thread.

Oh by the way, before I moved to Illinois, my family moved to Austin, Texas. It was a very kick ass city I must say. The people down south are so much more friendlier than the people up in the north of America. That is probably why I am turned off so much from liberalism. Unpolite jack offs.

[DesertFox]

Ban all cell phones period except those of me and my family. And all the resta youse pay taxes to cover our phone bills, which include out-of-country calls.

[Lazarus]

I wouldn't consider driving a freedom, especially if you have to have a license to do it. It's a privilege, not a right.

The 2nd Amendment is a right. Driving is not.Well you can make that assertion only because the founding fathers never conceived of automobiles... But if you suggested to them that the ownership and operation of a horse is a "privilage" and is subject to government regulation, they would likely tar and feather you and put you on the next boat to England...

I tend to bristle at these arguments that the government "has the right" to regulate our lives - They have NO RIGHTS... They are not some entity that has sovereign power over us as if we were subjects of a Monarch... Our constitution says the governement serves at the pleasure of the people...

IMO, no regulation that hits so close to personal freedom should be left to bureaucrats... My car is as personal as my home and they damned well better tread lightly when they get the idea to regulate my living space...

[Betrayed]

The government serves us, and two-thirds of us want cell phones banned while driving, so the government should hurry up and do what the will of the people want.

[Rhino]

Nine tenths of the population wants to be millionaires too. Guess the government should do something.

[Lazarus]

The government serves us, and two-thirds of us want cell phones banned while driving, so the government should hurry up and do what the will of the people want.Correction... 2/3 of the slaves in Michigan want cell phones banned... So the state of Michigan should heed the will of their slaves and take one more freedom from them...

Dont for one second believe this "study" is a true representation of the national opinion...

Nine tenths of the population wants to be millionaires too. Guess the government should do something.Good one, buddy... ;)

[Betrayed]

More like 99/100 people want to be millionaires. But anyway, they should have polls across the country then for it. That is if states make it an issue.

[Rhino]

They sampled the continental US. The study also included far more than just this one issue. The complete study is here (http://141.211.177.75/UofM/Content/comm/document/OnTheMove.pdf). The law part is on page 54. The whole thing is 72 pages.

[Lazarus]

There is always some crusader activist who wants to put his hands in our private lives and add his own personal link to the chains we wear...

[Johnnybegood]

Hands free should not be banned...You have a radio in your car don't you...Next thing you know they'll ban CB radios in trucks and put the public in real danger.....It will never pass in the LIVE FREE OR DIE STATE...We do not have a seat belt law for anyone over 12 years old,No helmet law and you can still smoke in a bar in the smoking area.If you are not paying attention and you get into an accident you get charged with a distracted driver ticket even if it's a Lewinski......SIMPLE, PAY ATTENTION....

[Rhino]

They didn't address handsfree. They just said cell phones. And those other things you mentioned are exactly why I think such a law is stupid.

[DoctorDoom]

Anyone who is so f**king desperate to talk on a phone that they have to clamp one on their ear should pull their bloody car to the curb and blat to their hearts' content. Why is it so hard to grasp that a phone involves a great deal of attention from the driver, who has to try to separate the voice from that shitty little earphone from the traffic noise, steer with one hand, follow the conversation, watch for traffic and pedestrians, and ... and ...

A car is a couple of tons of moving metal, and it requires the driver's full attention to pilot it, especially in urban and suburban traffic. A few seconds of distraction can kill people. IMO, there is not a bloody thing in the world that is so important that a few seconds can't be taken to pull over to the curb and talk on that electronic appendage with the car safely stopped.

And if the assmites who insist on using them while driving aren't bad enough, there are the imbeciles who insist on gesturing with the other hand (yes, I've seen it).

I have zero tolerance for morons. F**K their "freedom"! If they can't grasp the danger of doing it, they're too stupid to be allowed on the road.

As for the juvenile, "You can't tell ME what to do!" bullshit, when one is on a public thoroughfare, the only "right" one has is to drive carefully and safely and not endanger others who are sharing the road. And the state/city gov f**king well has every right to dictate the rules that apply to all who use their roads. You bet your ass they can tell you what to do.

If that's unacceptable, tough shit.

[Beowulf]

First up, I don't own a cell phone for the reasons discussed. If I'm on-call for work, I have to keep the company cell with me. This past weekend it went off while I was driving. I pulled over BEFORE I answered it.

Once, sitting at a red light, I counted how many people were on the cell phone as they drove by. Of the 10 cars I counted, 7 had a cell phone pressed to their ear.

What to do? As with seat belts, I don't think we should make a law for the issue, I think we should make consequences for the action and make them stick. If you are in a wreck because you weren't paying attention, it's your fault regardless. I think mandatory consequences would make a great deterrent.

[Betrayed]

Anyone who is so f**king desperate to talk on a phone that they have to clamp one on their ear should pull their bloody car to the curb and blat to their hearts' content. Why is it so hard to grasp that a phone involves a great deal of attention from the driver, who has to try to separate the voice from that shitty little earphone from the traffic noise, steer with one hand, follow the conversation, watch for traffic and pedestrians, and ... and ...

A car is a couple of tons of moving metal, and it requires the driver's full attention to pilot it, especially in urban and suburban traffic. A few seconds of distraction can kill people. IMO, there is not a bloody thing in the world that is so important that a few seconds can't be taken to pull over to the curb and talk on that electronic appendage with the car safely stopped.

And if the assmites who insist on using them while driving aren't bad enough, there are the imbeciles who insist on gesturing with the other hand (yes, I've seen it).

I have zero tolerance for morons. F**K their "freedom"! If they can't grasp the danger of doing it, they're too stupid to be allowed on the road.

As for the juvenile, "You can't tell ME what to do!" bullshit, when one is on a public thoroughfare, the only "right" one has is to drive carefully and safely and not endanger others who are sharing the road. And the state/city gov f**king well has every right to dictate the rules that apply to all who use their roads. You bet your ass they can tell you what to do.

If that's unacceptable, tough shit.

:claps: Best post in this thread. Completely agree.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Rhino:
No, I've seen lots of people drive quite well with a cell phone.

:unsmile: So, we should allow people to drive while intoxicated, if they're good at holding their liquor?

The problem is that people in general are driving more sloppy, and that is due in large part to the fact that our existing traffic laws are not being enforced.

:unsmile: They are, where I live.

When was the last time you saw them giving tickets for blocking the passing lane or not signalling a lane change?

:question: When was the last time you saw a policeman issuïng a citation, & stopped to ask him what the other motorist's offense was?

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Betrayed:
Oh by the way, before I moved to Illinois, my family moved to Austin, Texas. It was a very kick ass city I must say. The people down south are so much more friendlier than the people up in the north of America. That is probably why I am turned off so much from liberalism. Unpolite jack offs.

:smirky: You're right about southerners, but I'm surprised at your comments about Austin. When I lived there, I found the natives to be conceited & rude. After I graduated from UT, I was relieved to move back to friendly Port Arthur.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Rhino:
Nine tenths of the population wants to be millionaires too. Guess the government should do something.

:smirky: By & large, their lack of wealth poses no threat to my safety.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Johnnybegood:
It will never pass in the LIVE FREE OR DIE STATE...We do not have a seat belt law for anyone over 12 years old,....

:unsmile: Actually, interstate truck drivers still have to wear seat belts in New Hampshire, but that's because of a federal law.

[Betrayed]

:smirky: You're right about southerners, but I'm surprised at your comments about Austin. When I lived there, I found the natives to be conceited & rude. After I graduated from UT, I was relieved to move back to friendly Port Arthur.

I lived in the outskirts, right on Lake Travis. I also lived in Corpus Christi, Texas. Specifically Padre Island, but they all call it Corpus Christi in that section of the island. The people where I lived were very friendly. I don't care about the opinions of people up here, rednecks are cool people. And cowboy hats are awesome. Corpus Christi though is being overrun by drug crime from illegal immigrants. The city is in a sad state, sorry to say. My cousin, also from Poland, got involved and was recently sent to prison for car jacking a car from a 78 year old woman. He was planning on selling it to get money for heroin, which is delt by the illegals there.

As for cell phones, to stay on topic, I just believe it is an unneccesary risk.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:moo: I just saw DoctorDoom's post.

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

:moo: BTW, as an aside, it was exactly one year ago today that I did exactly what DD said responsible drivers should do. While barreling across US 60 between Hereford & Canyon, I received a cell phone call. I asked the caller to HOLD, while I pulled over to the shoulder.

:thumb: I got the job!

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Betrayed:
Corpus Christi though is being overrun by drug crime from illegal immigrants. The city is in a sad state, sorry to say.

:unsmile: I would no longer recommend Port Arthur, either.

[Betrayed]

:unsmile: I would no longer recommend Port Arthur, either.

Yeah, that was a nice city. VERY good seafood restaurants there. You can't get better seafood anywhere in the country except in Texas, maybe some other cities on the coast. But yeah, it is going down the drain too. Last I heard the population ratio was 50% white, 48% Latino (which includes illegals) and 2% other. No doubt they all come from the border, many illegally.

[BEST45CAL]

Well you can make that assertion only because the founding fathers never conceived of automobiles... But if you suggested to them that the ownership and operation of a horse is a "privilage" and is subject to government regulation, they would likely tar and feather you and put you on the next boat to England...

I tend to bristle at these arguments that the government "has the right" to regulate our lives - They have NO RIGHTS... They are not some entity that has sovereign power over us as if we were subjects of a Monarch... Our constitution says the governement serves at the pleasure of the people...

IMO, no regulation that hits so close to personal freedom should be left to bureaucrats... My car is as personal as my home and they damned well better tread lightly when they get the idea to regulate my living space...

The government might not have a God-given "right" to do what they do sometimes, but they certainly do have the authority.

We had the "freedom" to use our cell phones while driving, but a few uncoordinated douche bags out there with poor multi-tasking skills managed to screw it up for everybody else.

However, I am of the mind that if the government wants to take something from all of us, they should at least allow some of us to get part of those "rights" back in the form of a special license.

[Lubbock]

Let me just take it a little further off topic and put in a plug for Lubbock!!!

Greatest city in America!

I lived for thirty three years on the east coast (Richmond), and I promised God if he would let me live long enough to get back to Texas, I wouldn't leave.

For the last 14 years I've kept that promise (except for when I have to venture over into southeastern Oklahoma to pick up the grandkids).

Austin has pretty much forgotten that we exist up here in the Panhandle, and we're just as glad they have.

[DesertFox]

Dallas. That's where the cutest granddaughters in the world live at.

[Beowulf]

Betrayed:
Oh by the way, before I moved to Illinois, my family moved to Austin, Texas. It was a very kick ass city I must say. The people down south are so much more friendlier than the people up in the north of America. That is probably why I am turned off so much from liberalism. Unpolite jack offs.

Thanks!:hissyfit: If you were represented by people like Pat Leahy, Jim Jeffords, Bernie Sanders, Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hitlery Clinton and Chuck Schumar, wouldn't you be a miserable SOB too?

[DoctorDoom]

Let me just take it a little further off topic and put in a plug for Lubbock!!!Any more lights? :D

[Lubbock]

Lights?

Explain, please.

[Timberwolf]

Well you can make that assertion only because the founding fathers never conceived of automobiles... But if you suggested to them that the ownership and operation of a horse is a "privilage" and is subject to government regulation, they would likely tar and feather you and put you on the next boat to England...

I tend to bristle at these arguments that the government "has the right" to regulate our lives - They have NO RIGHTS... They are not some entity that has sovereign power over us as if we were subjects of a Monarch... Our constitution says the governement serves at the pleasure of the people...

IMO, no regulation that hits so close to personal freedom should be left to bureaucrats... My car is as personal as my home and they damned well better tread lightly when they get the idea to regulate my living space...
Hate to disagree with you, but YOU built your home, or you had someone build it for you (or purchased it from someone...thing is, the government did not build, nor does it have an interest in your home - that is my big beef against property taxes, but that is a matter for another discussion :grin: ). You didn't build the public roadways, we ALL DID through our tax dollars. Therefore, the government can regulate which kind of behaviors it will tolerate whilst we operate our private property on PUBLIC roadways.

Conversely, if you own 2,000 acres and are operating your vehicle on your private property, knock yerself out and do whatever your heart desires.

[DesertFox]

One of the govt's functions is to regulate the commons -- the public areas. Somebody has to set and enforce speed limits, train the fire department, build and maintain highways, decide which side of the road to drive on, and all that stuff; and it's all part of the govt's Constitutional mandate of promoting the general welfare.

[Rhino]

Once, sitting at a red light, I counted how many people were on the cell phone as they drove by. Of the 10 cars I counted, 7 had a cell phone pressed to their ear.Didn't know they had that many cell towers in Vermont. :grin:

[Rhino]

:unsmile: So, we should allow people to drive while intoxicated, if they're good at holding their liquor?Very funny. Not the same thing. People are able to drive well with cell phones. Not so when drunk.

:unsmile: They are, where I live.Not where I drive. Sometimes the cops are the worst offenders.

:question: When was the last time you saw a policeman issuïng a citation, & stopped to ask him what the other motorist's offense was?Why, just yesterday! When was the last time you saw people drive badly and have the cops ignore it? As you say, maybe they're better where you live, but not where I drive. And if the cops in your area are enforcing the laws, why aren't they pulling over these dangerous drivers with cell phones. It's already illegal to drive dangerously or without due attention in all 50 states. If as you say, the cops where you live are enforcing that, then cell phones should already be a non-problem. So you don't need a law.

[DoctorDoom]

Lights?

Explain, please.The Lubbock Lights, 1951 (http://ufocasebook.com/lubbocklights.html)

[Nutrider99]

I use my cell phone for business. I travel 50,000 miles per year. Unlike some, I am perfectly capable of doing two things at once. However, in many cases it's more dangerous to pull over to the side than to continue on, because some Kentucky roads are notoriously narrow. However, like I said, if I am a distracted driver, which is already an offense, the nature of my distraction is irrelevant. It's like passing a law that makes it illegal to kill someone with a .38 special. It's already illegal to kill them, what's the point? This is feel-good emotional legislation that has no basis in reality. The nature of business makes it necessary to be in constant communication with potential customers. If this can be accomplished without having a negative impact on safety, then there is no reason to single out the cell phone user and leave the farder to herself.

[Beowulf]

Didn't know they had that many cell towers in Vermont. :grin:
Amazing ain't it? We'd have more but the Liberals complain that it ruins the landscape.

[DesertFox]

What the Nutrider said.

[BEST45CAL]

I use my cell phone for business. I travel 50,000 miles per year. Unlike some, I am perfectly capable of doing two things at once. However, in many cases it's more dangerous to pull over to the side than to continue on, because some Kentucky roads are notoriously narrow. However, like I said, if I am a distracted driver, which is already an offense, the nature of my distraction is irrelevant. It's like passing a law that makes it illegal to kill someone with a .38 special. It's already illegal to kill them, what's the point? This is feel-good emotional legislation that has no basis in reality. The nature of business makes it necessary to be in constant communication with potential customers. If this can be accomplished without having a negative impact on safety, then there is no reason to single out the cell phone user and leave the farder to herself.

Doesn't matter if you can do ten things and drive, using a cell phone does not allow you to devote 100% of your attention toward driving a vehicle safely.

It's not feel good legislation if it can be proven that cell phones cause a distraction to other drivers.

We had the freedom to use our cell phones while driving, but it only takes a few uncoordinated fcuktards to mess it up for everyone else.

So the problem isn't a nanny state. It's the silly bastards who can't multi-task.

[Eagle1]

just like many other things one can do while driving, some people can handle it and some people cant. and i get pissed when i am restricted from doing something just because someone else presents a danger doing it.
i have a problem eating while driving, so i dont do it. i can drive just as well on the phone as off it.

the simple fact is, you cant pass laws on common sense

[Nutrider99]

Doesn't matter if you can do ten things and drive, using a cell phone does not allow you to devote 100% of your attention toward driving a vehicle safely.
And if I can't, it doesn't matter what the distraction is. Anything that captures the driver's attention is a distraction. The driver has the responsibility to drive in a safe manner. If he doesn't, it's not the cell phone's fault.

[Lubbock]

Oh, #46.

That's news to me. I'll have to ask some of the old timers around here if they know or remember anything about it. I've never heard it mentioned in any circle.

The "lights" were the exact configuration of lights seen in other places across the southwet. Wasn't Phoenix one place where that configuration was seen and photographed/filmed for several nights running? It was a lot of years ago, but I seem to remember something aobut it.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Nutrider99:
I use my cell phone for business. However, in many cases it's more dangerous to pull over to the side than to continue on, because some Kentucky roads are notoriously narrow. ...

:rolleyes: Gee, how did we survive, before cell phones were invented?

[DesertFox]

I don't know, but I'm convinced nothing existed on planet earth prior to the puter and the internet.

[Nutrider99]

Gee, how did we survive, before cell phones were invented?
Back then we had warehouses. Now things are "warehoused" in delivery trucks. We have just in time delivery and overnight mail. Profit magins are miniscule and volume is the difference between success and failure. We deal with increased competition and product parity. We are in the information age, where information and timing is critical. Business hours have morphed in to 24 hour on call. If you don't offer it, the competition will. Most people don't need a cell phone. Some of us do.

[BEST45CAL]

Most people don't need a cell phone. Some of us do.

Well I agree with that. There is need and there is want.

[BEST45CAL]

I don't know, but I'm convinced nothing existed on planet earth prior to the puter and the internet.

lol

Yeah, and I think that computers were invented in 1995. Same thing with cell phones. LOL

[DesertFox]

I had a puter in 1986. A Kaypro. State of the art. $2k, and by today's standards a complete piece a shit.

[Eagle1]

first one i had was an IBM PS1
the family got it in 1991, dont know how uch it cost, guessing around 2 grand
and our internet was so slow we got kicked off of the free juno e-mail

and regarding the topic, the only people who should not be allowed to talk on a cell and drive are teenage females

[Charity]

If they take away my cell phone while driving and my applying lipstick in the rearview mirror while drinking my starbucks latte, I may as well just quit driving at all, I mean, where's the fun then?

[DesertFox]

:hahaha:

[Rink]

LOL @ Charity.

Had a story told to me by one of my Truck driving instructors who observed the scenario of a woman on her cellphone...

She was yakking on her cellphone, completely oblivious to what was goin on around her, and at the time at this intersection there was this cop car with sirens and lights goin and behind the police car was a fire engine then behind that was another police car, when the light went green, this oblivious woman continued on not noticing the emrgency vehicles, the first cop car narrowly avoided her, the fire engine swerved to avoid her and the last cop car had to maneuver quicky to avoid sideswiping her.

She was absolutely completely oblivious to the whole scenario and continued on, the last cop car spun around and pulled her over, he was not happy by what my instructor indicated.

THT is one example of why many places has cellphone banns.

But then cellphones arent the ONLY distracting thing around, you have people actually reading newspapers, playing with their ipods, messing with their computers, fiddling with the radio, changing CD's and more.

When I drive, I set my radio up to what I want it to be, and put in the cd's I want then not touch it afterwards as I Hate messing with things while driving

As for cellphones I Barely use em and if need be will answer my cellphones walkie-talkie but its fast and quick to the point as I dont stay on it that long and the other person knows why also.

Anyone else wants to call me, they can wait.

[Charity]

This girl could not live without her cell. :-)

[DesertFox]

I could, but it sure is handy.

When we first got a cell phone, our third daughter was expecting a call from out of country so we let her keep it with her in her bedroom that night. Next morn my wife was fixing breakfast and the land line rang. It was that daughter, placing her order for bacon and eggs from her bedroom about 15 steps away.

[Rink]

I use and keep my cell for emergency purposes only, if I need to talk for anymore than a few moments, I'll pull over and talk, if not then I dont use it.

Prefer it off than on and distracting me.

Lived without cellphones for a LONG time, I could again live without them, only reason why I keep one and have one is for emergency purposes like if my car breaks down on the road or mom gets hurt and needs someone, other than that, anything else I can get their message and call em back later.

[Rink]

I could, but it sure is handy.

When we first got a cell phone, our third daughter was expecting a call from out of country so we let her keep it with her in her bedroom that night. Next morn my wife was fixing breakfast and the land line rang. It was that daughter, placing her order for bacon and eggs from her bedroom about 15 steps away.

LMAO now THATS room service.

I got a cute plaque for just that purpose, its a wooden plaque that says on it "Press button for room service" when you press the button a maniacal laughter starts up. ya need one o those LOL!

[Eagle1]

i know people who dont have cells because they dont want people to be able to reach them 24/7

[Rink]

i know people who dont have cells because they dont want people to be able to reach them 24/7

Can't say I blame them any.

[BEST45CAL]

i know people who dont have cells because they dont want people to be able to reach them 24/7

I call cell phones, PDAs, etc. "electronic ball and chains."

[CzechPrince]

The government actually does have all the right to dictate just about everything you do with your vehicle while it's being operated on public roads.

That we pay for with our tax dollars.

[BEST45CAL]

That we pay for with our tax dollars.

...and they're also some of the ones we elect who make these stupid laws, too.

[Suzie]

Is the intent to try and protect people from themselves? Or to protect the rest of us from the @$$holes?

This is another issue like smoking where you hope that people could use their own common sense to regulate themselves. But since they won't, here come the law leaches. Because humans seem to be getting worse at self disipline, or are so agressive about doing whatever they want whenever they want no matter what those around them think of it. I fear these kind of laws will spread. Sad situation. Locally there was a girl who was killed digging in her purse trying to answer a cell phone when she could have just called them back. The sad part is she took a 6 year old in another car with her and handicapped another for life. People just don't think about those kinds of things.

[Beowulf]

This girl could not live without her cell. :-)
This man can and does!! I don't own my own cell phone in part because I would never have a moment's privacy and I would have it shut off much of the time so why bother having it?

If someone needs me, call me on the home phone or send me an email.

[MSGT]

With bluetooth I am as safe with the phone as without but there is no such thing as an atheist riding with me if I touch the pda.:grin:

[Charity]

It's funny but there have been times, like when I have an add in the paper for a rental, I will be on both my land phone and cell at the same time. That takes some doing I'll tell ya. :-)