This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on June 4, 2009 6:50 PM. The previous post in this blog was Dorothy! Dorothy!. The next post in this blog is Not pictured. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Verizon wins again

I see that the bill to ban cell phone use while driving is dying in the Oregon Senate. Ginny Burdick and crew -- bought and paid for?

Comments (14)

Hey, Jack! Come on back to NJ. They don't often enforce that law, but at least it's on the books.

What's funny is Ginnie Burdick regularly talks on the cell phone while driving back and forth to Salem, and yet supports the ban. Meanwhile Adams and Blumenhauer both talk big above about forcing people out their automobiles and on to mass transit. And yet here again, it's do as I say not as I do. Both of them drive around in trucks and SUVs. But this is Oregon where jive talking works very well with a looney electorate. Obama's Hope-a-Dope did really well in this sorry state.

She can hear them now!

Ironically, if Ginnie had won Sten's seat, he would likely be sitting in the Lege by now.

Why did we vote Democrats into the State Senate? They're as corporate as the Republicans about some things.

I won't argue that cell phones are not distracting, but if we are after laws to minimize driving distractions there are bigger fish than cell phones.

Darwin's theory.... anyone?

Charles: Name one that isn't already way illegal (like DUI).

In my experience, the number of bad drivers on cell phones now surpasses the number of bad drivers not on cell phones.

But if the bad drivers on cell phones stopped using their cell phones the chances are that most of them would still be bad drivers. It isn't that cell phones make bad drivers, it is that almost everyone has a cell phone now.

There are already laws that cover failing to do your duties, why do we need a law that singles out one potential problem? If we are going to add a new law it should be generic enough to cover everything: shaving, make-up applying, eating, selecting music from a collection, reading, smacking kids in the back seat, adjusting the seat, adjusting the heat/AC, talking to people/pets in the car, etc...

It isn't that cell phones make bad drivers

This is demonstrably wrong and ignorant.

What about CB/HAM radios and walkie-talkies? Wouldn't they cause drivers to be "bad" as well under your reasoning? Would they be covered under the new law?

This has been tested and proven- using a cell-phone while driving increases the risk of accident beyond a safe level. Of course like banning smoking in bars, Oregon is usually 5 years behind the rest of the West Coast.

The comment about "bigger fish" reminded me about a Mythbusters episode (tv.com lists it as season 3, ep. 13, yes my son and I love that show) where they tested (on a closed track) the cell phone distraction factors. First, they drove the track straight through, then while talking on a cell phone, and finally after downing enough beer to make them legally under the influence. It does shed some light on the thinking behind these attempts at laws, though in the case of cell phones you would THINK common sense would prevail. Yeah. Like THAT'S gonna happen.

Clicky Web Analytics