-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Jim Champagne "The bottom line is you can't legislate common sense"
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Vic
Elite Member
Sarcasm, Moonbeam? 😛
LOL! 😀Originally posted by: Carbonyl
It's called respect for people around you not envy. Anyone on WIC can afford a cell phone nowerdays.
I more or less said that... that most anyone can afford a cell phone nowadays. My point was two-fold: (1) because cellphones were once expensive, the hatred of snobby cellphone users still exists (whether you want to admit that or not. it's still true), and (2) people don't like cellphone users because others think that the user is ignoring them - on the road, that makes people angry. edit: In a way, the 2nd part is the most key.
On a side note: when do we outlaw manual transmissions because the driver can't always keep both hands on the wheel?
Amused
Elite Member
😀
And my point is they are knee-jerk laws that do nothing to address the issue.
Whether or not you "trust people's common sense" you're still going to have lapses in it. The question is, do we make harmless activities illegal for all, or do we make hurting others illegal with stiff penalties AND educate the public?
Zebo
Elite Member
Agree to your second point. But 3) is the most key, They ARE ingnoring them. I've done it and have seen others doing it.
What is this some dirty little secret no one wants to admit like masterbation?
After a short while shifing a manual becomes passive, or "natural", where you don't have to think about it. While a coversation requires constant feedback and thinking which can distract some. It not about the hand being off the wheel. It's about diverting your attention and part of your brain to something other than the road and drivers around you.
Zebo
Elite Member
Amused you know where I stand. I think unless you're drunk and showing signs of it you should be able to drive with a martini. Same with cell use. If your weaving all over the road endangering drivers you should be cited. I hate when personel freedoms are ripped away and you need a feed to a law library in your car navigation system to understand what legal and not.
Vic
Elite Member
Exactly! Do we focus on REAL crimes? Do we concentrate our legal enforcement efforts on situations in which people have actually been harmed? Or... do we go after every little petty thing in which people might be harmed, thereby punishing innocent people AND lower both the effectiveness of the law and the respect that the people might have otherwise had in it?
Hey, it's our choice... but I see where we're going. I'm waiting for the laws like when it becomes a crime to pick your nose or (a Heinlein-ian favorite) when it's illegal to walk naked in your own house because someone might look into your windows and see you.
Originally posted by: Vic
Exactly! Do we focus on REAL crimes? Do we concentrate our legal enforcement efforts on situations in which people have actually been harmed? Or... do we go after every little petty thing in which people might be harmed, thereby punishing innocent people AND lower both the effectiveness of the law and the respect that the people might have otherwise had in it?
Hey, it's our choice... but I see where we're going. I'm waiting for the laws like when it becomes a crime to pick your nose or (a Heinlein-ian favorite) when it's illegal to walk naked in your own house because someone might look into your windows and see you.(I personally think that last one describes the purest essence of an uncontrolled democracy... it sounds like a good idea, but only if you're incapable of thinking).
If you did that (in a blatant way) in the UK I'm sure you could be cautioned/arrested for it!
Andy
Vic
Elite Member
I have seen no firm statistics that show that cell phone use causes traffic fatalities. Don't believe the media spin. Driver inattention is the leading cause of accidents, but cell phone use is not the leading cause of driver inattention. Changing stations on the stereo is the leading cause of driver inattention, followed by parent drivers disclipining a child. Should we outlaw car stereos or having children in the car?Originally posted by: Fencer128
but I don't understand:
"Before you kill somebody" -
Andy
This whole issue is just another case of what I call "media legislation." The media takes some little thing (a couple years ago it was "road rage"), blows it way out of proportion, sells a whole bunch of newspapers, and gets some new stupid laws made.
Originally posted by: Vic
I have seen no firm statistics that show that cell phone use causes traffic fatalities. Don't believe the media spin. Driver inattention is the leading cause of accidents, but cell phone use is not the leading cause of driver inattention. Changing stations on the stereo is the leading cause of driver inattention, followed by parent drivers disclipining a child. Should we outlaw car stereos or having children in the car?Originally posted by: Fencer128
but I don't understand:
"Before you kill somebody" -
Andy
This whole issue is just another case of what I call "media legislation." The media takes some little thing (a couple years ago it was "road rage"), blows it way out of proportion, sells a whole bunch of newspapers, and gets some new stupid laws made.
Fair enough,
Andy
I call foul. "it sounds like a good idea, but only if you're incapable of thinking)." is an argument aimed at the thoughtless. It is just an opinion without any data for support. It sounds convincing but only if you're incapable of thinking.
Or consider this:
"Whether or not you "trust people's common sense" you're still going to have lapses in it. The question is, do we make harmless activities illegal for all, or do we make hurting others illegal with stiff penalties AND educate the public?"
------
Note the false reasoning. Do we make "harmless activities" Plowing into a crowd of children because you're talking on the phone and not paying attention to what you are doing isn't harmless. Or notice the false choice. Do we do A or B. We can do A and B. We can outlaw talking and driving, very enforceable because of phone records, and educate too. Part of the function of law is to order society in such a manner as to make it function. We pick a side of the street to drive on and stick to it. One side or the other is irrelevant as long as everybody, by education as to the law, knows what side to drive on. Outlawing cell phone conversations while driving is a way to tell people what experience has proven isn't a good idea. It's not a good idea. Babies whine when they have their dangerous toys taken from them. They want to be free to exercise bad judgment. They still can, it's just that law also carries payback for irresponsibility.
My freedom's being violated. I'm upset.
Without self knowledge, the knowledge of what you feel, you are nothing but an automaton anyway. You are completely trapped on the wheel of Karma, destined to repeat over and over the traumatic events of childhood unconsciously and vicariously by reacting to rule as if it were from nanny. Controlled children yearn to be free straining in their imaginary bonds. If you want freedom seek self understanding.
Or consider this:
"Whether or not you "trust people's common sense" you're still going to have lapses in it. The question is, do we make harmless activities illegal for all, or do we make hurting others illegal with stiff penalties AND educate the public?"
------
Note the false reasoning. Do we make "harmless activities" Plowing into a crowd of children because you're talking on the phone and not paying attention to what you are doing isn't harmless. Or notice the false choice. Do we do A or B. We can do A and B. We can outlaw talking and driving, very enforceable because of phone records, and educate too. Part of the function of law is to order society in such a manner as to make it function. We pick a side of the street to drive on and stick to it. One side or the other is irrelevant as long as everybody, by education as to the law, knows what side to drive on. Outlawing cell phone conversations while driving is a way to tell people what experience has proven isn't a good idea. It's not a good idea. Babies whine when they have their dangerous toys taken from them. They want to be free to exercise bad judgment. They still can, it's just that law also carries payback for irresponsibility.
My freedom's being violated. I'm upset.
Without self knowledge, the knowledge of what you feel, you are nothing but an automaton anyway. You are completely trapped on the wheel of Karma, destined to repeat over and over the traumatic events of childhood unconsciously and vicariously by reacting to rule as if it were from nanny. Controlled children yearn to be free straining in their imaginary bonds. If you want freedom seek self understanding.
Vic
Elite Member
Moonbeam, you really need to put the pipe down before you do permanent damage to your thought processes.
I mean... listen to yourself, man... you used the "think of the children" argument. Then compared free adult citizens to children, and made the government analogous to the caring parent. I thought you were better and smarter than that.
"Plowing into a crowd of children" is not on my list of "harmless activities." And it doesn't require a cellphone to do. Nor does talking on a cellphone while driving automatically mean that one is going to plow into a crowd of children. In fact, I defy you to find a single incident in which cellphone use caused a driver to plow into a crowd of children.
Without self-responsibility, you are a slave... whether you have self-knowledge or not.
I mean... listen to yourself, man... you used the "think of the children" argument. Then compared free adult citizens to children, and made the government analogous to the caring parent. I thought you were better and smarter than that.
"Plowing into a crowd of children" is not on my list of "harmless activities." And it doesn't require a cellphone to do. Nor does talking on a cellphone while driving automatically mean that one is going to plow into a crowd of children. In fact, I defy you to find a single incident in which cellphone use caused a driver to plow into a crowd of children.
Without self-responsibility, you are a slave... whether you have self-knowledge or not.
The problem is that you are equating talking on a cellphone with reckless driving. We already have laws punishing reckless driving and various other traffic infractions. This is the same logic used to justify outlawing guns -- blame the instrument and not the actor. Criminal laws are in place to punish actions which, in and of themselves, are harmful in some way. Talking on a cellphone while driving is not intrinsically harmful.
How many people here have talked in a cellphone while driving and have not caused one single accident?
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, but you are incorrect in your interpretation. What I meant is that people want the government to legislate every activity -- the title of the thread is exceptionally appropriate. The government of each state has already laid out specific laws on the safe operation of motor vehicles. Banning cellphone usage while driving a car addresses only ONE instance of a situation that MIGHT lead to irregular or unsafe driving. How come liberals aren't talking about a "slippery slope" with this issue?
Not sure what traffic conditions are like in Mayberry, but traffic can suddenly change when driving in an urban/suburban environment when someone makes a boneheaded move to change lanes, enter the roadway, stop suddenly, etc. Obviously talking on a phone somewhat reduces your attention to the road but so does singing along to a song or listening to commentary on the radio (not to mention putting a CD in and finding your favorite track or checking directions or an address or...). I am not sure about you, but I don't focus every ounce of my attention on every single aspect of the roadway for every single minute I am in the car. I notice attractice women, nice cars, the weather, the radio, stray dogs, etc.
And while some people have mentioned the enforcement of a ban, I've seen one in action here in Japan. I only see maybe 25% of the Japanese talking on cellphones while driving so I guess it's working tremendously. There aren't many accidents here that I've seen or heard about so perhaps there's something else to the accident problem in the States than cellphone use. The biggest problem is aggressive driving, not cellphone use.
All this theoretical talk is just that, talk. I drive a car and I have eyes. I have seen countless examples of cell phone stupidity, people completely blind to what they are doing because they are engrossed in a conversation. The topic would never have come up if cell phone use wasn't causing accidents. It's a fact that cell phones distract drivers, you can see it every day. I got jammed up behind somebody in the second lane going 35 on the freeway a few days ago. We need a cell phone law and I bet we get it.
--------------
Moonbeam, you really need to put the pipe down before you do permanent damage to your thought processes.
I mean... listen to yourself, man... you used the "think of the children" argument. Then compared free adult citizens to children, and made the government analogous to the caring parent. I thought you were better and smarter than that. (Now this amounts to psychological coercion. You're trying to control my behavior with shame. Shame on you. 😀 Why not let the government do it with laws. 😀 )
"Plowing into a crowd of children" is not on my list of "harmless activities." And it doesn't require a cell phone to do. Nor does talking on a cell phone while driving automatically mean that one is going to plow into a crowd of children. In fact, I defy you to find a single incident in which cell phone use caused a driver to plow into a crowd of children. (Never ask for proof on the tragic. You will regret being accommodated. You can't have harmless activity without dangerous activity too. I don't need drunk driving laws cause I don't drink very much if I'm driving. Severe penalties have reduced this problem. Life for cell phone use would doubtless save lives too. The lack of a specific example, I won't look, changes nothing about my argument because I was providing an example, not a cornerstone. A better question is are there any deaths attributed to cell phone use? I don't want to know. Maybe you do.)
Without self-responsibility, you are a slave... whether you have self-knowledge or not. (Well these are just words from somebody without self knowledge, so you can't address that unknown state accurately. Real self responsibility, (What a horrible term) isn't possible without self awareness, no?)
--------------
Moonbeam, you really need to put the pipe down before you do permanent damage to your thought processes.
I mean... listen to yourself, man... you used the "think of the children" argument. Then compared free adult citizens to children, and made the government analogous to the caring parent. I thought you were better and smarter than that. (Now this amounts to psychological coercion. You're trying to control my behavior with shame. Shame on you. 😀 Why not let the government do it with laws. 😀 )
"Plowing into a crowd of children" is not on my list of "harmless activities." And it doesn't require a cell phone to do. Nor does talking on a cell phone while driving automatically mean that one is going to plow into a crowd of children. In fact, I defy you to find a single incident in which cell phone use caused a driver to plow into a crowd of children. (Never ask for proof on the tragic. You will regret being accommodated. You can't have harmless activity without dangerous activity too. I don't need drunk driving laws cause I don't drink very much if I'm driving. Severe penalties have reduced this problem. Life for cell phone use would doubtless save lives too. The lack of a specific example, I won't look, changes nothing about my argument because I was providing an example, not a cornerstone. A better question is are there any deaths attributed to cell phone use? I don't want to know. Maybe you do.)
Without self-responsibility, you are a slave... whether you have self-knowledge or not. (Well these are just words from somebody without self knowledge, so you can't address that unknown state accurately. Real self responsibility, (What a horrible term) isn't possible without self awareness, no?)
dmcowen674
No Lifer
Originally posted by: Vic
Exactly! Do we focus on REAL crimes? Do we concentrate our legal enforcement efforts on situations in which people have actually been harmed? Or... do we go after every little petty thing in which people might be harmed, thereby punishing innocent people AND lower both the effectiveness of the law and the respect that the people might have otherwise had in it?
Hey, it's our choice... but I see where we're going. I'm waiting for the laws like when it becomes a crime to pick your nose or (a Heinlein-ian favorite) when it's illegal to walk naked in your own house because someone might look into your windows and see you.(I personally think that last one describes the purest essence of an uncontrolled democracy... it sounds like a good idea, but only if you're incapable of thinking).
I'm afraid that has already happened Vic. A guy in Florida had 1 inch between his drapes and didn't realize it and he was cited for indecent exposure even though he was in his own house. He was in bed when the Police arrived to issue a warrant, they had to wait for him to get dressed before they took him to jail.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
This brings a good point. Lawyers are also "in" with the "in" crowd of passing all this nonsense because Lawyers are the happiest bunch that this is happening because you will need your own personal Lawyer with you at all times for everyday life activities. Law Firms draw up the Laws for the Politicians on behalf of the Special Interests pushing for the new Law. For example a Pennsylvania Law Firm was hired by the MPAA and RIAA to write up the new State Super DMCA Laws that are being rammed through each State quickly.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
