Last post on May 25, 2013 at 3:48 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views
What is this discussion about?
#21260 of 21749 Re: Late? [jjackson12]
Jan 17, 2013 (11:27 am)
No harm, no foul. At least the driver kept himself busy on the task of driving. I daresay that's better than texting, makeup application, or other distractions that many "drivers" busy themselves with over that same distance.
Jan 18, 2013 (12:45 pm)
Like you, I see TONS of drivers with cell phones to their ears, yet I never hear of anyone being stopped for this primary offense.
What's up with that?
They always are crying for more money, yet this is a great source of revenue....
#21262 of 21749 Re: . [slorenzen]
Jan 18, 2013 (1:27 pm)
It's too much work, I think. Far less effort involved in sitting with a radar gun and a cuppa, or setting up cameras.
I swear, at any given moment here, at least a quarter of the "drivers" on the road are not really driving.
What's worst is that they waste effort with public information campaigns about "laws", then do a negligent job with enforcement.
#21264 of 21749 Re: . [backy]
Jan 18, 2013 (7:55 pm)
I don't know if I can buy that. It's easy - phone to ear = violation = ticket. Patrol cars all have cameras now, install some more, and let the proof be in the pictures.
Make any phone inputs/holding while in motion a violation. Syncing to bluetooth, using speakerphone, anything. And again enter the cameras. Make refusing to use integrated bluetooth an additional fine. And implement wealth based fine scales.
And really, give the fines more teeth.
It might be difficult, but that's life - some parts of all of our jobs are more difficult than others.
Or if revenue enforcers refuse to do this because it isn't easy, let them enforce turn signal and crosswalk regulations, which also seem to go ignored.
Driving home tonight: 400 year old woman in a Prius, getting dark out, no lights, going 30-35 in a 40 where everyone goes 45, so every car was zooming by, and she was a pylon. I didn't know whether to feel sorry or annoyed. Then got behind a typical older suit in a LS460AWD - slowly takes off at green, one lane left turn onto 2 lane road, he swings wide into the far right lane with no signal, crawls, gets into left lane, crawls. I think he was holding something. Local car too, so no lost excuse.
Only saw 1 other no lights car, an Edge with some senior ladies in it, parking lights only. Maybe those were the automatic lights?
While jogging, I am in a crosswalk on green, grey 08-10 or so Accord cuts in without looking, misses me by a small margin, I throw up my arms in an Italian palms-up style gesture, and the driver yells at me . Ah passive-aggressive Seattle. He then drives slow, yaps some more, but quietly - couldn't understand him. I was going to say something funny like "I'm not interested in a date, sorry", but I was short on breath and not feeling it. So I said "go away", and slowly, he did. In Florida, that would probably get you shot.
#21265 of 21749 Re: . [fintail]
by steve_ HOST
Jan 18, 2013 (8:04 pm)
Careful, you'll wind up with a Starbucks latte in your face. Probably a double shot.
All the comments about people driving without their lights on makes me think that'll be the next NHTSA requirement. Auto headlights in all cars, including a rain sensor. The auto lights and auto wipers are pretty nice in the in-law's Buick.
#21266 of 21749 Re: . [steve_]
Jan 18, 2013 (8:42 pm)
With all the paranoid gun nuts out there today, you never know. Maybe it's time to start carrying my old phone on me while jogging.
I think the proliferation of LEDs is not 100% for looks, but for future DRL rules. They might even exist in the EU now, and of course in Canada date back 20 years.
Jan 18, 2013 (8:57 pm)
Driving home tonight: 400 year old woman in a Prius, getting dark out, no lights, going 30-35 in a 40 where everyone goes 45, so every car was zooming by, and she was a pylon.
Based on your exaggeration of this woman's age, I have to conclude that the speeds you cite are also exaggerated.
#21268 of 21749 Re: . [fintail]
Jan 18, 2013 (9:18 pm)
It's easy - phone to ear = violation = ticket.
You didn't read those articles, did you. First, holding a phone to the ear has to be against the law. In many states, it isn't. (It's not where I live, for example.) Texting is more likely to be outlawed--but how to prove someone was texting? (see first article)
Maybe if you and others who feel so strongly about banning use of cell phones while driving would use your time and energy to support 1) enactment of those laws, and 2) funds to beef up enforcement, the roads would be more to your liking, with fewer cell phone users. Yes, it might be difficult, take some real effort on your part and by many others... but all for a good and noble cause, right?
And implement wealth based fine scales.
You have a thing against "wealth", and you drive... what kind of cars? Be careful what you wish for.