This week, California's ban on handheld cell phones while driving goes into effect. Since I already have handsfree in my car, it won't effect me, and there's nothing unconstitutional about the law, and it is entirely within the state's power to impose it under the 10th Amendment, so I'm not sure what I think of it. It's necessary for all the idiots who weave all over the road and don't pay attention while on their cell phones, but on the other hand I hate government meddling and increased nanny-state laws. On a positive note, it's only a $20 ticket with no points on your record, unlike states like New York where it's a very expensive ticket in the hundreds of dollars.
I'm curious to hear all your thoughts on this, because idiots driving badly while talking on the phone is a *HUGE* problem in Scottsdale, especially those idiots who drive huge SUVs and can't handle them safely as it is. And, let's be honest here, Arizona has become one of the more big government nanny states in the nation, so your cell phone ban is undoubtedly right around the corner.
Would you support or oppose a ban on cell phones while driving, considering what a problem it has become in Arizona?
Start car, back out of space without looking, dial and hold cell phone to ear. Why is it that people in Arizona can't seem to drive without talking on the cell phone? Yeah, it's annoying but I'm against banning it. Enough regulation already.
It's like a security blanket for those people that venture out into the scary outside world in their giant SUV.
I don't see Phoenix or Scottsdale cops pulling people over for tailgating and speeding so I doubt they would bother to peek in someones tinted windows to see if they are babbling away.
Posted by: D in Scottsdale | June 29, 2008 at 08:26 PM
I prefer to look at what the scientific community has to say about such things, as well, Government is full of idiots. Studies have shown that talking on a cell phone impairs driving ability similar to being intoxicated by alcohol. So common sense says doing so while driving is dangerous, and we need such a law as most of the sheeple in this world don't have much in the way of common sense and need some sort of penalty to keep them in line.
Posted by: Matt | June 29, 2008 at 08:27 PM
The evidence is finally in:
http://www.willthomasonline.net/willthomasonline/The_Evidence_Is_In.html
I quit using those devices around 2005, thanks to the investigations of those that actually aren't profit driven, and vowed not to own one again; excepting for those handy disposable phones available at Ace Hardware. One in the glove compartment of every vehicle, now one cannot criticize for NOT owning one for emergency use.
Toss your phone and enjoy restful sleep and clear thinking and avoid head tumors or be like Ted Kennedy, recovering from brain surgery. (very profitable!)
Electromagnetic fields (heat) and biological life are completely incompatible. So no cyborg legs or borg implants for us either, lol.
Truth and its three phases:
Ridicule
Violent Opposition
Acceptance...
- Schopenhauer (paraphrased)
Posted by: FastLarry | June 29, 2008 at 09:37 PM
Well if any of that's true then I'm in the clear. I hate cell phones, refuse to carry one with me, and only use it in the car on handsfree.
Posted by: Frank Rumbauskas | June 29, 2008 at 11:42 PM
Ho, ho Frank....who would want to call you, in any case?
Clearly, you are too 'busy' keeping up on events in
Scottsdale to have anything else to say.
How does a confirmed asshole, like you, run even a scam
business?
Posted by: Steve | June 30, 2008 at 12:47 PM
I guess I better state my view on the cell phone in general first before I go into my opinion on the ban. My phone is a tool not a toy. It is not pink with rhinestones. My phone does not have a camera or any other unnecessary gadgets and I use it for work. If I use text messaging its to contact someone in another state or country. Why some people spend 2 minutes to write a message that would take less that 20 seconds to call someone locally and tell them I will never understand.
As for the ban I am torn in two directions really. Arizona to me is a place void of any original ideas. The legislators look to copy anything California does. Although I don't like being behind singular tasked people ( folks who have difficulty walking and chewing gum at the same time) driving 10 miles under the speed limit while they talk on their cell phone. I equally don't like the government telling me what I can and can not do in my car. Whats any different being on your phone or someone distracted eating or putting on make up while driving? Not if but when we get this ban in Arizona it will bring us just one step closer to being forced to wear a helmet, shoulder pads, and a mouth guard to drive a car.
Posted by: war_shu_duck | June 30, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Well, I am a cranky, stubborn, opinionated, devout Libertarian (some might even call me an asshole) who hates mandates, both for the inherent nonsense of them and, perhaps more importanly, the "slippery slope" implications of them. The genesis of "good" mandates like no cellphones while driving is the same genesis that leads to .01 DUI laws and stuff like that. So, all of that is a long-winded way of saying I oppose cellphone bans on principle grounds, which in no way means I wouldn't like to slap the shit out of the Snottsdale type cretins who weave into my lane so they can chat up their fellow cretins while driving.
The collective need solve only those problems that can only be solved by the collective. SARS is an example of something that can only be solved by the collective. I don't think the damages caused by Snotsdale type cretins using cellphones while driving falls into that category. It still falls solely into the personal responsibility category. Cause an accident by using a cellphone while driving? You pay.
Posted by: Dean Kennedy | June 30, 2008 at 01:21 PM
LOL Steve, you never cease to crack me up!!!!
You see, I own multiple businesses, but I don't work in any of them. I pay others to do that. That's the entire point of owning a business and not having a job.
If I was stuck in an office all week then I might as well be living back in Scottsdale instead of enjoying this beautiful beach town.
You seriously need to read "Rich Dad's Cashflow Quadrant" or "The 4-Hour Workweek" to understand the concept of owning a business system that runs itself. But I'm guessing both of those books are WAY beyond your third-grade reading level.
Posted by: Frank Rumbauskas | June 30, 2008 at 03:15 PM
Hey Dean and war_shu_duck, you make great points that I agree with. Here's a great example of where the "slippery slope" is going:
New "studies" are saying that talking on a handsfree phone is just as dangerous as holding one to your ear, because the conversation itself is supposedly the distraction. Based on that logic, talking to a passenger in the car would be equally as distracting - maybe even more if you turn to look at them - so after banning handsfree conversations, the gubmint will take the next step and ban conversations with passengers in the car. Next they will say if talking is dangerous, then singing along to music must be too, so to avoid that problem we will ban radios in cars and you will drive in silence.
See where this is going?
What sickens me is that the police officers of today actually go along with this bullshit and ticket people for crap like talking on the phone or .01 DUI. If the cops had any balls they'd refuse to enforce this shit and the legislators would quit making such imposing laws.
It's sad that the image of the brave officer who risks his life to protect society has been replaced by that of a ticket-writing revenue officer. Is there any difference today between traffic cops and IRS officers?
Posted by: Frank Rumbauskas | June 30, 2008 at 03:20 PM
It's even worse, Frank. The ticket-writing officers insist that they don't have quotas. Yeah, right. The guy who writes 10 tickets in a month while all of the other hot-penciled Nazis write 50 won't get called in to discuss his "performance issues".
By the way, I think our beloved socialist guv Napolitano got it into her budget to install 100 something speed cameras around the state, you know, for "safety". When it happens, keep an eye out for my protest where I drive back and forth between Phoenix and Tucson doing 45 MPH. If we're gonna be safe goddamnit I say let's go all in. Fuck it, 35 MPH speed limits on the freeways.
Posted by: Dean Kennedy | June 30, 2008 at 05:40 PM
Get a damn Bluetooth and move on. They're cheaper than a dinner for two at TGI Friday's!
Or just not have a cell phone. It's nice to not be reached when you want some solitude.
Posted by: Eric | June 30, 2008 at 10:02 PM
FYI:
"...On Thursday the Arizona legislature approved a budget plan for the coming year that eliminated a $2 billion shortfall by cutting spending for college construction projects and expanding revenue by beefing up photo enforcement and the state lottery..."
In otherwords, the shyster commies in government want to get more people to gamble, and then rape them for going 5 mph over the speed limit, using Big Brother cameras on every corner, whose sole purpose is to raise money by fleecing the common, hard-working man.
Why don't you villainous dolts in the AZ State & City governments take a pay cut, you fricken' shysters!
I can't believe this sh*t, the audacity of it all!
Posted by: joe jacari | June 30, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Oh man! I am so happy about the cell phone ban in cali! I actually grew up in Newport Beach (corona del mar) moved to Scottsdale about a year ago when my dad decided to retire and move there. I just moved back to CDM (thank god) although my experience in scottsdale was a good one. People in california can't drive for shit, but ESPECIALLY in Irvine, hopefully i dont have to explain why. Keep your hands and eyes on the raod and not on the text messages. In newport and laguna people ACTUALLY WALK! so it's extra important at least in my part of town that you are always paying attn to the crosswalks and so on. I love this site, i don't think scottsdale sucks, but i still think this site is funny.
Posted by: Wes Daniels | July 01, 2008 at 01:50 AM
I agree with banning using a cell phone while driving but hands free is alright. Every time I'm behind someone and they're weaving in and out of the bike lane they're usually on a cell phone.
Posted by: eric in vegas | July 01, 2008 at 04:19 AM
Wes, your comment had me cracking up, I know *exactly* why people in Irvine can't drive but am wise enough not to come out and say it!!!
Posted by: Frank Rumbauskas | July 01, 2008 at 12:19 PM
I have one that I use for emergencies.
I drive quite frequently across the AZ desert and I really do not want to wait for the AZ "Highway Patrol" to come to my assistance when its 116 degrees outside. I RARELY see ANY AZ Patrols on the 10 (State line to 84 exit) or on the 84S or N which is where I drive the most in AZ. Did it 2 weeks ago and no sign of any AZ Highway Patrol cars to be seen. Good grief.
The only time I've seen them on a REGULAR basis is on the 10 before driving into NM. They camp out in the center divider next to a tree or in a depression to catch the unwary heading into NM.
Plantronics sells the best cell-headset - very clear reception, albeit with a cord: $31.95 at Best Buy.
MG
Posted by: MG | July 01, 2008 at 01:04 PM
Did Steve get his hyphen foreclosed?
Posted by: Dean Kennedy | July 01, 2008 at 02:32 PM