The Observation Deck

What is a one-touch capability? I'm not aware of such a thing, generally speaking, on my cell phone.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Stan Austin wrote:Is there any Lakewood incidents which prompted this effort? Stan Austin

I think it is called "elections."

.

Nothing like elections to get those legislative juices flowing (except in Washington these days).

Tim Liston wrote:What is a one-touch capability? I'm not aware of such a thing, generally speaking, on my cell phone.

Dan and I are referring those occasions where all that is called for is touching a single button. "Re-center" on the map apps is the best example I can think of.

Understandable texting, however, talking on a cell phone? Why, so both hands are on the steering wheel in a city that 35 mph is the highest speed limit? How did we ever manage to control a vehicle without power steering or brakes, using our arm as a turn signal, or shifting the gear lever? Then there was seat belts, mom's arm was always sufficient to keep you from smashing into the metal dash. I can remember when the lying politicians passed seat belt law promising that you would never get pulled over for not wearing it.

More parental laws by those who need to feel "protected". First the warning labels that hot coffee is hot, and now holding a cell phone to your ear and driving a car with power steering, power brakes, blinkers and an auto transmission is deemed dangerous by the little brains the city council has left due to the injury caused by them sitting on it.

Richard

I understand the concept of the nanny state, and certainly, some laws seem silly.

BUT, I think that these automobile laws are necessary given that a vehicle is 2-3000 pounds of metal that can kill if the operator isn’t controlling the vehicle. Just like restricting alcohol and drug use while driving, it seems we need to look at the ubiquitous cell phone as another distraction that can be implicated as a cause of numerous accidents and deaths.

Should we have to tell people to keep their attention on the road while driving? In a perfect world, maybe not. But I’ve seen FAR too many drivers looking down at, or fumbling with their phones and missing stop signs, veering out of their lane, running rad lights, and not noticing pedestrians in crosswalks.

Had it not been SO apparent that cell phone usage while driving is a hazard, maybe we wouldn’t need these laws. But the fact is, we do. And I hope law enforcement ENFORCES these laws and people realize that they will be held accountable for their behavior which puts themselves and others at risk of injury and death.

I hope people like the woman in Rocky River who was driving on the wrong side of the road while talking on her phone and then giving me the finger eventually gets caught.

I could wish for more nuances, but i've become convinced these laws are necessary.

[quote="Bridget Conant"]Richard

I understand the concept of the nanny state, and certainly, some laws seem silly.

BUT, I think that these automobile laws are necessary given that a vehicle is 2-3000 pounds of metal that can kill if the operator isn’t controlling the vehicle. Just like restricting alcohol and drug use while driving, it seems we need to look at the ubiquitous cell phone as another distraction that can be implicated as a cause of numerous accidents and deaths.

Should we have to tell people to keep their attention on the road while driving? In a perfect world, maybe not. But I’ve seen FAR too many drivers looking down at, or fumbling with their phones and missing stop signs, veering out of their lane, running rad lights, and not noticing pedestrians in crosswalks.

Had it not been SO apparent that cell phone usage while driving is a hazard, maybe we wouldn’t need these laws. But the fact is, we do. And I hope law enforcement ENFORCES these laws and people realize that they will be held accountable for their behavior which puts themselves and others at risk of injury and death.

I hope people like the woman in Rocky River who was driving on the wrong side of the road while talking on her phone and then giving me the finger eventually gets caught.[/quote]

=================================================================================================

You are missing the point, talking on a phone hands free with two hands on the wheel or one hand on the wheel with the other holding the phone has nothing, but nothing, to do with distraction, does is? The phone conversation is the distraction, is it not?

I have a vehicle that I can call, both send and receive texts it with verbal instructions completely hands free. My $50 K plus vehicle's navigation won't let me enter an address but I can select a location by touching the screen of past or favorites locations, plus traffic updates, weather while diving, and yes it can be a distraction. Does that make me more competent driver than a driver in a car less expensive without all the features holding a cell phone to his/her ear, absolutely not.

This is about REVENUE, nothing more or less. The Lakewood police could give a rat's arse about your safety from people holding a cell phone. The Democrats, who had nothing better to do than remove the only hospital from the city endangering the residents, a 1000 times worse than a diver holding and talking on a cell phone. However, it is OK to smoke, put on makeup, eat, drink, etc with one hand on the steering wheel but God forbid if you hold that phone to your ear and lit become an affront to humanity and a mortal sin, all bullshit.

From your conformation in Rocky River, we can only determine that she was no lady, a commodity the becoming very rare, and most importantly, Lakewood parental laws have no jurisdiction in Rocky River. This is all about revenue, Democrats passing assize laws under the pretense that the law are for public safety. They will instruct the cops to nail everyone holding a cell phone to their ear. I suggest everyone bake a cookie in the shape of a cell phone and hold it up while driving in Lakewood, that will infuriate the cops. The inept city attorney, mayor and council have written a vague and unenforceable law that when it is challenged beyond the Lakewood's kangaroo court, it will be overturned. You cannot legislate that select people get a fined if they touch their cellphone being used as a navigation system but it's OK for those diving more expensive cars to touch and manipulate their factory navigation system.

So every red light, I can put the car in park and get on facebook?

Unfortunately, the nanny state may be needed because too many people can't act responsibly without such guidance and even with it will continue to do so. Take look around when you're driving next time, what I tend to see is that the majority of the cars have drivers who are speaking on the phone hand to ear or looking at the phone and not driving properly [Not moving as lights change, swerving, running lights, etc). This is not a young person thing, I would say adults have a lock on it as well.

Act like a responsible adult when operating a deadly motor vehicle and teach your kids as well and then maybe a babysitter may not be needed.

Mapping usage and related are just poor excuses.

If you drive responsibly this is a non-issue.

john crino wrote:So every red light, I can put the car in park and get on facebook?

Honk, honk.