Distracted driving laws

Just curious what you think about "Distracted Driving" laws. Are they constitutional? Are they needed?
Sometimes it seems like every other driver on the road has a cell phone stuck in their ear.

 

I think it's needed specifically for cell-phones. 20 years ago it wasn't necessary, other laws applied (careless, or reckless driving). The number of accidents caused by cell-phone usage speciffically has become a major issue. Too many people, cell-phones firmly stuck to their ear, are dumb and are not paying the proper amount of attention needed while driving. I don't even like the radio on when I'm driving, and can't stand cell-phones lol

 

I should add that Michigan enacted a law not that long ago (maybe 2 or 3 years ago?) specifically against cell-phone usage in vehicles. You must be parked with the engine off and key out of the ignition I think. I still see a lot of people driving with a cell-phone planted to their ear though.

 

You can pass all the distracted driver laws you want...cell phones, texting, eating, smoking, drinking coffee, adjusting the radio, talking, arguing, putting on makeup, whatever. I bet most of the laws would just be a fine. Does that stop people from speeding? Running lights? Doing slow and goes at stop signs? Not as far as I can tell but maybe I just live amongst scofflaws. lol. I think the real solution is probably to take bad drivers off the road. But we don't really want to do that.

As far as constitutionality...if open container laws are deemed constitutional, then I would think distracted driver laws would be too.

 

Hate to tell you all what I used to do driving a number of years back........don't think it broke any laws like public nudity for the windows were closed.

 

I think you kind of just told us what you said you'd hate to tell us.

 

I'm in an area where Winter usually sets in fast, too fast for bad drivers. Every year there are dozens of cars in the ditches lining our roads after the first Winter-blast rolls in. I try not to drive much during that time, not because I can't handle a little snow or ice, but because those bad drivers may not be in a ditch yet lol

 

I'm for the laws ( then, by all means, text away).

 

Oh no, it's back!

 

I caught a little blurb in one of the local papers not long ago.

A local college set up a course with obstacles and had students drive through it while texting. If those obstacles had been people there would have been some hurt and dead people for sure.

Unfortunately it's like Stu said though. People don't necessarily follow the laws do they.

One thing I most definitely agree with is strict punishment for those that don't follow posted speed limits in construction zones.
We have two seasons here. Winter and construction. In the last year two construction workers have been killed by those not following the OBVIOUSLY posted speed limits etc.

I'm one of those guys that people don't like to get behind especially in construction zones. If the speed limit is 45 I might go 45. If I'm not comfortable with that I might go slower. Don't care what the folks behind me think. I'd hate to make some woman a widow and her kids fatherless.

 

My cars have Bluethooth so I am never distracted while looking into other cars for Andy-like activities.

 

Well good for you...your family must be so proud.

 

I miss being young or at least younger.

 

No not really, their cars have Bluetooth as well.

 

So, you have your cars (plural) and members of your family have their own cars too? My gosh man, when is enough enough? If you are truly down for the cause you have to see that this is a prime example of excess. Let's get a leftist ruling on this one. Should dr moen,phd be forced to share his overabundance of cars with someone like iq-less who apparently isn't as fortunate?

 

In a social utopia, everyone would have a car equal to everyone else. Therefore, IQLess would have a bluetooth-enabled car just like Moen's and wouldn't have to work for the extra amenities such as the aforementioned bluetooth or things like navigation, custom wheels, upgraded stereo system, etc.

Unfortunately, this concept has already been tried and it resulted in the Trabant produced in the former East Germany:

View attachment 274

Now, the Trabant is a lovely little car, but I'm sorry to say that it didn't have bluetooth. It was sort of "long in the tooth", but no actual bluetooth. Sorry, Comrades.

Anyway, back in America, if IQLess would like to drive a car like Moen's, he might ask Moen to donate a car to him. Share the wealth I always say!

 

Let's join together & ask dr moen, phd to share his wealth with iq-less & provide him with a bluetooth enabled car. After all, it's only fair.
Let me go out on a limb here & predict dr moen, phd will not redistribute his own wealth. Instead he will continue to advocate the redistribution of everyone else's wealth.

 

I have a vague idea what blue-tooth is, and am not interested in owning a vehicle with it. It's just not my thing. What I do want is your wealth David... pony up. I don't want Coin's at all... it's... soiled...

 

Why would you want my wealth? It's not yours, you didn't work for it.
If you desire wealth why wouldn't you try to earn your own?

 

Yeah, but I think if the IRS did an audit of you and calculated your wealth they could give me sayyyy ...50% of it, which would probably be too much for myself so I'd redistribute it as necessary.

When would a good time for you be? I'll let the IRS know...