| Author | Message | ||
     Ratbuell |
MD has had a "no handheld phone" law for a couple years now...but only as a secondary offense. Today, October 1st, they made it a primary offense. That means now they can pull you over and cite you specifically for using a handheld cell phone while driving, where before they had to pull you for something else first in order to add the phone offense. We'll see if it helps. | ||
| Xb1125r |
lol, I can't wait to see the first baltimore cop to put away his doughtnut to give a ticket or the first DC cop not to be on the phone while drving specially feame DC cops. lol | ||
| Natexlh1000 |
... or playing solitaire on the stupid crime computer. (yes I have seen this) | ||
| Babired |
there is a guy in Detroit who You tubed himself trying to pull over a Detroit PD in a marked suv for not wearing a seatbelt. its pretty funny | ||
| B00stzx3 |
We got our 2nd Amendment rights chipped away in the same action though  | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Most of Europe it's illegal to drive & hold the phone at the same time. Generally a fine & 2 or 3 points as penalty unless an accident is caused by doing so, then it's classed as dangerous driving. Hands free is ok. | ||
| Darth_villar |
Boost, we don't have a right to drive vehicles. We are responsible for upholding the privilege to drive by driving responsibly. Driving while texting or holding a phone to your head is not responsible IMHO. | ||
| Hootowl |
Actually...driving has been upheld as a right in at least one court decision. In modern America, if the government says you can not drive, they are depriving you of liberty. Driving is a right that can be revoked if warranted, but by default, we all have the right to drive. That was the ruling. I wish I could remember the case specifically. | ||
| Ratbuell |
I'd be interested in hearing about that case...driving is absolutely NOT a right, but a privilege. I hope you are citing the judgement about "deprivation of liberty" and that's not your personal opinion. That's what those two things at the end of your legs are for. Can't drive? WALK. People have done it for millenia. Takes a bit longer...but gets you there just fine. An attitude like that is a big part of the problem...people assume driving is a right, and it most certainly is not. You have the right to utilize the privilege of driving...but you do not have the RIGHT to possess a drivers license. It is not a given. It is earned, and if you •••• up...you lose that privilege. And you walk. Walking, I would have to agree, IS a right that we all have. Driving? Certainly not. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
dont let facts get in the way http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/hold-the-phone -new-study-says-talking-and-driving-not-as-dangero us-as-we-thought/ | ||
| Ratbuell |
so wait...they found no increase in accident frequency after 9pm, and say that means phones while driving isn't unsafe? | ||
| Hootowl |
This page cites some cases. Quick search from my phone. http://www.dailypaul.com/289310/uscourt-decisions- confirm-driving-a-motor-vehicle-is-a-right-not-a-g ovt-granted-privilege | ||
| Whisperstealth |
Ratbuell, I very rarely disagree with you, but to a certain degree, I do in this case. Maybe in a large city with public transit, driving is more of a privilege; but in areas without public transportation driving becomes a basic necessity and a right. A right that comes with responsibility, but a right in my belief. For millions, gone are the days where you could walk to the store, to work, etc. Now if you abuse this right or physically can no longer drive safely, it should be taken away. I especially feel it is wrong to suspend and take away someones driver license for non driving offenses. Failure to pay taxes, unpaid child support, etc. How does taking away their license, where by they end up loosing their job, help? | ||
| Ratbuell |
There are plenty of other options out there. Driving is absolutely not a "right". What next...turn 16 and get issued an automobile because you have the "right" to drive it? Please explain why the days of walking to the store are gone. in 41 years I have yet to live beyond walking distance of some place I can buy basic essentials. Maybe not a megalo-mall shopping center...but if I need milk or tissues or basic supplies I can get them. People do not have the right to drive. They have the right to be MOBILE, and options for that include driving. public transportation. Bicycles. walking. not having a car or a license does not in any way prevent you from being mobile. | ||
| Hootowl |
Yeah, like I said, I wish I could recall the case. Those linked above are very old, and might have been overturned later on, or may be taken out of context. I do believe it to be a right however, subject to regulation in the interest of public safety, in the same way that guns are regulated. We don't let 10 year olds buy pistols. We require licenses for concealed carry. We require a license to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway. | ||
| Hootowl |
And if it isn't, it should be. | ||
| Pwnzor |
Let's see if I can clarify the situation a bit. Driving is a right. Driving on public roads is a privilege. Discuss. | ||
| Fahren |
Siding with Joe on this one. You have the right to live way out in the country, but that doesn't confer any right to drive. | ||
| Ratbuell |
There is no "right to drive". period. If there was, welfare would issue cars. The government would supply them to everyone 16 and over who wanted one but couldn't afford it. This is part of the problem on our roads - people assume they're entitled to be there, and they're not. And they are CERTAINLY not entitled to be there with a cell phone held up to their face causing distraction (the conversation), lack of control (one hand instead of both), and a blind spot big enough to hide another vehicle (because last time I checked I couldn't see through either my hand OR my android). If you want to enjoy the privilege of driving, do it correctly. if you will not or cannot do it correctly, or you do it in a manner that puts me or anyone else on the road in danger, you stand to lose that privilege. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
I don't consider driving to be a privilege at all, in any way shape or form. I consider it my right to drive. Do I have a right to use my cell phone? Do I have a right to use the public bathroom? I guess everything else could be labeled a privilege too. Driving,... (as long as you abide by the standard DMV rules (they are not laws) you have the right to drive. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Am I privileged to have to purchase OBAMAdon'tCARE??? | ||
| 86129squids |
X- easy man. Joe is 100% correct. NOT a right, only a privilege. | ||
| 86129squids |
Whoops, read too fast- Hoot, REALLY?!?!? Please post up evidence. Seems idiotic to me. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
If you reread the article you will find that they compared before and after 9pm. The reason that method was used is because phone calls are generally free after 9pm and thus more people are making calls. In any case, there is no statistical significant increase in accidents due to cell phone use when driving then there is while eating or fiddling with the radio. Texting is a different issue. At the very least, hands free cell phone use should be allowed. As far as driving being a right, nothing in the modern age is ever considered a right unless it pertains to abortion, gays or porn. Anything a normal person would do is always restricted by the government because it's all about control. (Message edited by ferris_von_bueller on October 03, 2013) | ||
| Hootowl |
"Please post up evidence. Seems idiotic to me." Wish I could. I can't find the case I was looking for. It involved a guy whose license was revoked for several unpaid traffic citations. He argued that depriving him of a license was tantamount to depriving him of liberty in modern America. The judge agreed, and declared that the state could not take away his right to drive. It was a long time ago. No telling what the ultimate outcome was. It could also have been a narrow decision that didn't set precedent. | ||
| Cataract2 |
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054787. html Miller does not have a fundamental “right to drive.”   In Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 112-16, 97 S.Ct. 1723, 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977), the Supreme Court held that a state could summarily suspend or revoke the license of a motorist who had been repeatedly convicted of traffic offenses with due process satisfied by a full administrative hearing available only after the suspension or revocation had taken place.   The Court conspicuously did not afford the possession of a driver's license the weight of a fundamental right.   See also Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 10, 99 S.Ct. 2612, 61 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979);  Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 542-43, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971). In sum, Miller does not have a fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle, and the DMV did not unconstitutionally impede his right to interstate travel by denying him a driver's license. "Typically, if a right is going to be limited, restricted or revoked, there must be 'due process' – the right to a hearing – and there must be a good basis for the revocation or restriction,” Lykins said. “The privilege to drive is a benefit that is extended based upon certain requirements being satisfied." “While the 'right of travel' is a fundamental right, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle can be conditionally granted based upon being licensed and following certain rules,” Lykins said. “If rules are broken or laws are violated, the State reserves the right to restrict or revoke a person’s privilege.” | ||
| Xdigitalx |
No.. it is my right.... it is your privilege... if you wish you believe that.. go ahead. | ||
| Aesquire |
Operating a motor vehicle on the Public roads is not a right. You can argue all you want, I might agree with your libertarian or selfish reasons, but want isn't get. You want to drive anything on your own private roads, go ahead. Unless of course the busybody laws are enforced on your pollution, noise, or happiness. After all if you are having fun, Someone is going to be upset with you, because the people who write laws are, by and large, busybody jerks. ( and I'm being unusually polite ) BTW, flying an aircraft of ANY kind is also not "a right". While I have my issues with the traffic control systems, ( mostly that they are obsolete and slow ) you don't have a right to bumble through the air over a major airport or in the areas used to park and move planes in the air nearby. In anything. ( And that has been a Major concern for me on occasion while flying gliders of various types. ) The real subject..... Cell phone use, making and receiving a call, obviously are a distraction. More, IMHO than CB radios were back in the day, but not too terrible. I will bet you $100 that there is an increased risk of accident while using a cell phone. I'm of the opinion that hands free, etc. are statistically tiny changes to that increased risk. I don't see the difference. Texting, OTOH, uses far more of the brain, and is a major distraction. Talking on a phone visually distracts while making & receiving the call, but not the rest of the time, ( unless you are a real loser and have to video chat while driving. WTF? ) and the part of the brain that deals with talking and listening isn't the same parts that drive. Texting is. ( pattern recognition, abstract symbology, etc. ) More important, like traction, attention adds up to 1. If you use some to drive and some to talk, it still totals 1. Add the interpretive part of the spelling and reading functions, and what's left for driving seems TO ME to be too low for safety. Reality seems to agree with me on that, and while you may be a kungfu wizard multitasker, you still can't drive at 100% while LOL'ing. Bet ya. The whole thing gets down to the morality of legislating everything. Where do you draw the line? You could also argue that music can be a distraction. Duh. It also helps keep you awake, and I would resist stupid laws to ban stereos in cars. I'm not at all sure that making a phone call in a car is so evil it's probable cause to stop you. I'm a little more in favor of texting being probable cause. aka "primary offense" I'm not trained in Law. so, YMMV. I'm not at all sure I'd be celebrating this change in the laws. I suspect an increase in revenues, but wonder about a decrease in accidents. | ||
| Cataract2 |
Keep your head in the sand X. I really don't give a s*** what you think on that. The facts are posted right there from a case that is cited over and over in regards to this. Nothing about you not being able to travel, just that to drive it is a privilege. You have a right to travel, just not drive. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
My RIGHT to drive a motor vehicle is granted based on obtaining a drivers license. Paying for registration send insurance. Once that is done I have to right to drive. YOU have the privilege to choose NOT to drive. |
