O/T: Gotta Love It TV-B-Gone and similar devices

[Steve Turner]

Who are you to decide that ANY driver operating a cellphone is impaired to the point that of it being a DUI? Some drivers can deal with the multitasking WAY better than others. I can handle it just fine, thank you very much; my mirrors, my turn signals, the road, and the world around me continue to get my undivided attention, while the person on the other end of the phone gets what's left. However, some (most?) people can't even drive correctly when they're carrying on a normal conversation with a passenger sitting next to them, so how do you propose that we handle that? Should we "scientifically" block all interaction with a driver that *might* "impair" them? Unless the activity is

*actually* impairing their ability and causing them to commit infractions, why should there be any reason to interfere with their activities? And why should *you* be the one to decide? This should be the domain of law enforcement, not vigilantes. Besides, how do you know that cellphone conversation you're jamming isn't somebody with a serious situation on their hands?

[Swingman]

The best thing to do is to obey the law. Any self-righteous, self-appointed vigilante, including those advocating using illegal jamming devices, needs his ass kicked swiftly ... along with a jail sentence.

[Robatoy]

I still like the idea of jammin' the jammer up the jammer's ass.

*breaking into Marley's song* Jamminajamminajamminajammin

[Lew Hodgett]

Many states including California have outlawed the use of cell phones while driving.

More will follow.

As someone who has made a living for many years by effectively communicating with others, I find it impossible to effectively communicate while trying to multitask

Lew

[Swingman]

A recent change, or did you leave an important fact out?

It is "handheld" use that was prohibited by CA law. Motorists 18 and over may use a ?hands-free" device.

That "more will follow" is why I own a bluetooth headset and use it in the car ... and for the very reason that sensible law was enacted.

AAMOF, my city, West University Place, TX, is one of the first municipalities to ban all cell phone use in school zones and texting while driving.

[notbob]

The same as your toothless "jammerectomy" threat, which carries no further than the muzzle of my .45 compact.

nb

[Neil Brooks]

Is there a certain threshold that I'm obliged to meet, and ... are you the Keeper Of That Threshold?

More details, please!

[Neil Brooks]

*I* didn't "decide" anything.

I referenced the conclusions of studies of the issue.

Go look into it. There are quite a few well-regarded studies that all conclude exactly that.

And OhByTheWay: as a former bartender, I'm *quite certain* that I can drive perfectly fine ... WAY over the legal limit.

But I'm perfectly fine with obeying the law because:

a) I'm probably wrong about that, and

b) I don't believe most other drivers are.

Also ... people with "serious situation" -- much like people with a serious buzz -- should pull over.

Touched a nerve, did I? LOL!

[Neil Brooks]

Totally agreed.

[notbob]

Likewise.

I'd love to have a personal 100 ft radius jammer. The number of people who blather endlessly about inane crap is noise pollution in the worst degree. It's only due to the power of corporate money that has made the cell phone unstopable in everyday life. OTOH, with the advent of texting and the horrendous charges inflicted on the customer, I'm amazed companies have not made a u-turn and advocated the banning of cell phone conversation many places. Now that texting is possible, the lame excuse of "my baby is on fire", along with the higher texting fees, makes cell phone drone laws completely bogus.

nb

[Ed Pawlowski]

True.

That statement alone proves you wrong. Read what you wrote.

However, some

There is a difference between talking to a passenger and talking on the phone. Really, there is. Talking to a passenger, you are more likely to stop the conversation if a situation happens that needs more attention compared to talking on the phone.

Unlike the other poster, I'm not going to stop you from talking. I do it myself. The amount of attention and likelihood of distraction depends on many factors, Traffic, weather, who you are talking to, the subject, etc. In light or no traffic and asking the wife what is for dinner is far different that being in heavy fast moving traffic while trying to give detailed technical support to a customer.

In the past couple of years, quite a few teenagers have been killed while driving and talking. Where do you draw the line?

[Doug Miller]

Most other drunks are, too. They're quite certainly perfectly wrong.

Yep. You are. Friend of mine with a PhD in toxicology participated in a study, when he was in grad school, sponsored by the university's toxicology department and the State Police. They set up a road course with traffic cones in a parking lot, and served alcohol to the volunteers while the officers measured their BAC with breathalyzers and the uni tox dept confirmed the measurements by analyzing blood samples. The volunteers would then attempt to drive through the course.... He said that at 0.03 BAC he thought he probably wasn't safe to drive, at 0.05 he was sure he was NOT -- and at 0.10 he was quite sure that he WAS safe, but the video proved otherwise. :-)

That's really the danger of alcohol: it destroys the judgement. The more you drink, the less able you are to tell if you've had too much.

[Neil Brooks]

The corollary to that is that -- since the passenger is watching the "same movie" as you are -- most passengers know when they need to STFU, too ;-)

Thank you for yet another important distinction that ... seems beyond the grasp of oh-so-many people.

I've lost one friend to it, already (though it did nothing to affect my view on the subject. I already knew it was a disaster waiting to happen ... in so many contexts). My 100k person town lost about three KIDS because of cell-phone-wielding drivers ... in 2009, alone.

I know where _I_ would draw the line ;-)

[SBH]

My instructor stated it this way...."never underestimate your opponent." The true martial artist is skilled at avoiding a fight but always prepared if the avoidance is itself unavoidable.

[krw]

There is also a lot of nonverbal communication going on when it's in-person that isn't possible over the phone. This likely reduces the concentration needed to get an idea across as well as indicating when to STFU.

SWMBO gets mad at me for cutting her off when she calls and I'm driving. OTOH, she gets pissed when others are yakking on phones when she's driving. Go figure.

Cell phone seeking Sidewinders?

[Neil Brooks]

You've just reinforced my point. Thank you :-)

[Neil Brooks]

Oh ... say THAT three times, fast :-)

[krw]

Does saying it fast knock out cell phones? ;-)

[Neil Brooks]

What?

Hello?

Hel-lo??

Hel-LOooo??

Crap.

[Martin H. Eastburn]

They outlawed them to be in the hands and yakin on them.

How about automatic answer in radios and headsets ?

They should also outlaw newspaper reading, makeup on face, making love, etc.

A cell phone might be the only link to a loved one dying or needing help right now.

I think wildcat cell phone killing can be cause for serious charges by those who got cut off or blanked out.

Mart> "Steve Turner" wrote: