Still More Danger To Scooter/2-Wheel Riders

[BuddyLicious]

Just Today 5/20/09

LOS ANGELES (Reuters Life!) – A quarter of American cell phone users admit to texting while driving, despite bans in seven U.S. states and several serious accidents recently, according to a report on cell phone use released on Wednesday.

The report also found that some of the worst driving-while-texting, or DWT, offenders live in states where the practice is already banned or where legislation is pending.

Drivers in Tennessee were the most prolific texters, with 42 percent of those questioned admitting to the habit. A ban on using a cell phone to text while driving goes into effect in Tennessee in July.

Yet 83 percent of the 5,000 people surveyed across the United States said they thought DWT should be illegal. The survey was carried out on behalf of mobile voice technology company Vlingo.

Text messaging has been blamed for a number of recent high profile accidents, including a train crash in the Los Angeles area last September in which 25 people were killed, and a Boston trolley crash this month in which almost 50 people were injured.

In both cases, the drivers were found to have been sending and receiving text messages seconds before the crashes.

"Texting is such an integral component of our daily lives, and the cautionary tales about DWT danger have not stemmed the tide," said Dave Grannan, CEO of Vlingo.

PS-Want to become very rich? All you need to do is invent an electronic device that will disable cell phone use for up to 100' radius.

[fs8gbe]

that device does exist, btw.

[Alix B]

sometimes I text while riding my scoot.

Well, I did it twice, in traffic, going slow speeds. I enjoyed that people looked so shocked. Meanwhile, cagers text with glee all across the country.
I hate it. When I'm riding with a friend I ask that they stop texting and drive.

[Quo Vadimus]

Was it Carlin? -

Think of the average person. Now consider that half of people are dumber than that![/i]

[Ray Knobs]

In the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and many other countries, blocking cell-phone services (as well as any other electronic transmissions) is against the law. In the United States, cell-phone jamming is covered under the Communications Act of 1934, which prohibits people from "willfully or maliciously interfering with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized" to operate. In fact, the "manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless transmissions is prohibited" as well.

Jamming is seen as property theft, because a private company has purchased the rights to the radio spectrum, and jamming the spectrum is akin to stealing the property the company has purchased. It also represents a safety hazard because jamming blocks all calls in the area, not just the annoying ones. Jamming a signal could block the call of a babysitter frantically trying to contact a parent or a someone trying to call for an ambulance.

[bluebuddygirl]

In the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and many other countries, blocking cell-phone services (as well as any other electronic transmissions) is against the law. In the United States, cell-phone jamming is covered under the Communications Act of 1934, which prohibits people from "willfully or maliciously interfering with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized" to operate. In fact, the "manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless transmissions is prohibited" as well.

Jamming is seen as property theft, because a private company has purchased the rights to the radio spectrum, and jamming the spectrum is akin to stealing the property the company has purchased. It also represents a safety hazard because jamming blocks all calls in the area, not just the annoying ones. Jamming a signal could block the call of a babysitter frantically trying to contact a parent or a someone trying to call for an ambulance.

Yeah, but except for that babysitter one, it would be so satisfying!!

[pugbuddy]

In the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and many other countries, blocking cell-phone services (as well as any other electronic transmissions) is against the law. In the United States, cell-phone jamming is covered under the Communications Act of 1934, which prohibits people from "willfully or maliciously interfering with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized" to operate. In fact, the "manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless transmissions is prohibited" as well.

Jamming is seen as property theft, because a private company has purchased the rights to the radio spectrum, and jamming the spectrum is akin to stealing the property the company has purchased. It also represents a safety hazard because jamming blocks all calls in the area, not just the annoying ones. Jamming a signal could block the call of a babysitter frantically trying to contact a parent or a someone trying to call for an ambulance.

This viewpoint needs to change.

[iwabj]

00ps

[Kaos]

In the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and many other countries, blocking cell-phone services (as well as any other electronic transmissions) is against the law. In the United States, cell-phone jamming is covered under the Communications Act of 1934, which prohibits people from "willfully or maliciously interfering with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized" to operate. In fact, the "manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless transmissions is prohibited" as well.

Jamming is seen as property theft, because a private company has purchased the rights to the radio spectrum, and jamming the spectrum is akin to stealing the property the company has purchased. It also represents a safety hazard because jamming blocks all calls in the area, not just the annoying ones. Jamming a signal could block the call of a babysitter frantically trying to contact a parent or a someone trying to call for an ambulance.

This viewpoint needs to change.

I'm not so sure. I enjoy my right to communicate. I don't apreciate when others interfere with it. I'm the head engineer for a phone company, and if my phone is out of service I could potentially miss a page that tells me that 100's of thousands of people are without 911 service. People could die.

I think its also my responsibility to not allow my phone to cause enough distraction that I harm someone else. I don't hold long phone conversations while driving(or riding!) though I will hold short ones(Cardo Scala Rider's are great!)
But ultimately I think its up to the individual to regulate themselves. Not for someone else to force them to loose communication.

[BuddyLicious]

I see before long where a tax will be placed on cell phone and contracts to enable the states to hire more cops to do nothing but watch for cell use while driving.Yep you heard it here first...

[TVB]

This viewpoint needs to change.

Good luck with that; you'll need it. For better or worse, wireless communication is becoming essential to personal and public safety (to say nothing of the personal freedom issues involved). The only countermeasures that are going to be permissible will be voluntary and strictly limited in scope (e.g. a cinema with a posted statement that they're blocking phone signals in the auditorium).

Texting is just the latest example of something to distract drivers. Phone conversations - hands-free or not - are also a dangerous distraction, so is eating, and (according to several studies) so are conversations with the person next to you. There's no way that's going to be banned, so it really comes down (once again) to defensive driving/scooting/pedaling.

[pugbuddy]

I'm not so sure. I enjoy my right to communicate. I don't apreciate when others interfere with it. I'm the head engineer for a phone company, and if my phone is out of service I could potentially miss a page that tells me that 100's of thousands of people are without 911 service. People could die.

I think its also my responsibility to not allow my phone to cause enough distraction that I harm someone else.

I don't mean that we should block all cell usage on roads, etc.... There are certainly plenty of good reasons that people need to use their phones. But I definitely think that if a business wants to block cell phone use in their location (theaters or restaurants for example), they should be able to do so. Just my opinion.

I agree that the individual is responsible for their phone's use/distraction/etc.... Sadly, very few seem to consider how annoying cell phones can be to others.

[Lookin' To Scoot]

I'm not so sure. I enjoy my right to communicate. I don't apreciate when others interfere with it. I'm the head engineer for a phone company, and if my phone is out of service I could potentially miss a page that tells me that 100's of thousands of people are without 911 service. People could die.

I think its also my responsibility to not allow my phone to cause enough distraction that I harm someone else. I don't hold long phone conversations while driving(or riding!) though I will hold short ones(Cardo Scala Rider's are great!)
But ultimately I think its up to the individual to regulate themselves. Not for someone else to force them to loose communication.

Sir, you are exactly what the problem is with cell phone users. First of all, while we do enjoy the right to free speech in this country, I'm not familiar with anything in the constitution, bill of rights or any laws that give you the right to put me in danger when you're texting or talking on your cell phone while driving. And how can you possibly think that short conversations are any less distracting than long ones? All you are really saying is that when you hold a short conversation you are just spending less time putting other people in danger. Finally, are you really so naive as to believe that the individual will actually regulate himself? If people actually would, there wouldn't need to be any laws. Yea, that's going to work. No wonder 83% of those in the survey quoted by the OP want driving while texting to be outlawed or that people want to take matters into their own hands (also self-regualtion) by electronically jamming cell phones.

I appreciate your right to communicate. However I also think I should have the right to ride down the road without getting killed or maimed by some idiot distracted by his cell phone.

[LuvMyScoot]

I'm not so sure. I enjoy my right to communicate. I don't apreciate when others interfere with it. I'm the head engineer for a phone company, and if my phone is out of service I could potentially miss a page that tells me that 100's of thousands of people are without 911 service. People could die.

I think its also my responsibility to not allow my phone to cause enough distraction that I harm someone else. I don't hold long phone conversations while driving(or riding!) though I will hold short ones(Cardo Scala Rider's are great!)
But ultimately I think its up to the individual to regulate themselves. Not for someone else to force them to loose communication.

Sir, you are exactly what the problem is with cell phone users. First of all, while we do enjoy the right to free speech in this country, I'm not familiar with anything in the constitution, bill of rights or any laws that give you the right to put me in danger when you're texting or talking on your cell phone while driving. And how can you possibly think that short conversations are any less distracting than long ones? All you are really saying is that when you hold a short conversation you are just spending less time putting other people in danger. Finally, are you really so naive as to believe that the individual will actually regulate himself? If people actually would, there wouldn't need to be any laws. Yea, that's going to work. No wonder 83% of those in the survey quoted by the OP want driving while texting to be outlawed or that people want to take matters into their own hands (also self-regualtion) by electronically jamming cell phones.

I appreciate your right to communicate. However I also think I should have the right to ride down the road without getting killed or maimed by some idiot distracted by his cell phone.

You've got that right! Yesterday some dumb idiot backed out in front of me in the parking lot. That's right; she was yapping on her cell phone. Luckily I was paying attention and quick stopped. I have no idea if she had just made the call or had been yapping for awhile. It doesn't matter. She wasn't paying attention and that's ALL that matters.

[Kaos]

I'm not so sure. I enjoy my right to communicate. I don't apreciate when others interfere with it. I'm the head engineer for a phone company, and if my phone is out of service I could potentially miss a page that tells me that 100's of thousands of people are without 911 service. People could die.

I think its also my responsibility to not allow my phone to cause enough distraction that I harm someone else. I don't hold long phone conversations while driving(or riding!) though I will hold short ones(Cardo Scala Rider's are great!)
But ultimately I think its up to the individual to regulate themselves. Not for someone else to force them to loose communication.

Sir, you are exactly what the problem is with cell phone users. First of all, while we do enjoy the right to free speech in this country, I'm not familiar with anything in the constitution, bill of rights or any laws that give you the right to put me in danger when you're texting or talking on your cell phone while driving. And how can you possibly think that short conversations are any less distracting than long ones? All you are really saying is that when you hold a short conversation you are just spending less time putting other people in danger. Finally, are you really so naive as to believe that the individual will actually regulate himself? If people actually would, there wouldn't need to be any laws. Yea, that's going to work. No wonder 83% of those in the survey quoted by the OP want driving while texting to be outlawed or that people want to take matters into their own hands (also self-regualtion) by electronically jamming cell phones.

I appreciate your right to communicate. However I also think I should have the right to ride down the road without getting killed or maimed by some idiot distracted by his cell phone.

Wow, where do I begin?

First, yes I AM saying that I am posing less risk by limiting the length of my phone calls. Quite often, the content of my call is "I'm driving/riding, I'll call you back" I recognize that its more of a risk than refraining from talking at all. I make a concious effort to be sure that more of my attention is on the road than the conversation, another reason I refrain from long calls, as I can't devote the required attention to them.

I'm also not JUST talking about driving, I'm also talking about the use of cell-jammers.

I also don't recognize anything in the constitution or bill of rights that gives YOU the right to drive danger free. Driving is by it's very nature dangerous, if you have a problem with others endangering you DON'T DRIVE. By the very nature of other people being on the road they are endangering you with their driving.

I consider a short conversation an "acceptable risk" in the same manner I consider riding my scooter an "acceptable risk". Thankfully the bill of rights and constitution still gives me the right to make up my own mind on what is a risk.

No, I don't really think people WILL self-regulate, which is why you DO see so many idiots yacking and not paying attention.
But I also think that people have the ability to self regulate this action, and the right to be allowed to.
I am however all for education on proper ways to self-regulate, as I don't really think most people understand how to.

[LuvMyScoot]

In the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and many other countries, blocking cell-phone services (as well as any other electronic transmissions) is against the law. In the United States, cell-phone jamming is covered under the Communications Act of 1934, which prohibits people from "willfully or maliciously interfering with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized" to operate. In fact, the "manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless transmissions is prohibited" as well.

Jamming is seen as property theft, because a private company has purchased the rights to the radio spectrum, and jamming the spectrum is akin to stealing the property the company has purchased. It also represents a safety hazard because jamming blocks all calls in the area, not just the annoying ones. Jamming a signal could block the call of a babysitter frantically trying to contact a parent or a someone trying to call for an ambulance.

This viewpoint needs to change.

I'm not so sure. I enjoy my right to communicate. I don't apreciate when others interfere with it. I'm the head engineer for a phone company, and if my phone is out of service I could potentially miss a page that tells me that 100's of thousands of people are without 911 service. People could die.

I think its also my responsibility to not allow my phone to cause enough distraction that I harm someone else. I don't hold long phone conversations while driving(or riding!) though I will hold short ones(Cardo Scala Rider's are great!)
But ultimately I think its up to the individual to regulate themselves. Not for someone else to force them to loose communication.

"People could die" if you miss page saying that 100's of people are without cell phone service. Yes, but people could also die if you allow yourself to be distracted from the road to read that text message. There is absolutely no reason why a driver can't find a safe place to stop before reading/writing text messages. The time lost would me minimal but it could save someone from serious injury or death.

[Kaos]

This viewpoint needs to change.

I'm not so sure. I enjoy my right to communicate. I don't apreciate when others interfere with it. I'm the head engineer for a phone company, and if my phone is out of service I could potentially miss a page that tells me that 100's of thousands of people are without 911 service. People could die.

I think its also my responsibility to not allow my phone to cause enough distraction that I harm someone else. I don't hold long phone conversations while driving(or riding!) though I will hold short ones(Cardo Scala Rider's are great!)
But ultimately I think its up to the individual to regulate themselves. Not for someone else to force them to loose communication.

"People could die" if you miss page saying that 100's of people are without cell phone service. Yes, but people could also die if you allow yourself to be distracted from the road to read that text message. There is absolutely no reason why a driver can't find a safe place to stop before reading/writing text messages. The time lost would me minimal but it could save someone from serious injury or death.

We process over 20,000 911 phone calls per day.
Thats 20,000 people AT RISK of death at that momemt VS the MAYBE 100 people on the road around me not eminently in danger of death.
Statistically its more likely that one of the 20,000 will die than that I will hit someone.

That being said, I try to only look at stop lights, and will never look in heavy traffic.

[jijifer]

California passed a law saying you can't TALK on a cell phone while driving UNLESS using a handsfree device. I swear that hasn't deterred ANYONE. Frick, if they just enforced said law (using traffic cams to catch culprits even) we'd get out of a deficit ASAP. Our brilliant law makers didn't put in a clause about texting. I'm sure there'll be a special election for that.

There's no going back. Once pagers were things of Doctors. Cell phones used to have batteries carried in briefcases. And this wasn't even 25 years ago- yo. People are so dependent on this electronic communication. California's laughable Hands-free law illustrates how legislating isn't doing jack shit when not enforced.

So yeah, you can't take the text out of user. You can legislate the crap out of personal freedoms but in the end people aren't complying. How's about an automatic loss of license for a year if you cause an accident while using your phone?

[Kaos]

California passed a law saying you can't TALK on a cell phone while driving UNLESS using a handsfree device. I swear that hasn't deterred ANYONE. Frick, if they just enforced said law (using traffic cams to catch culprits even) we'd get out of a deficit ASAP. Our brilliant law makers didn't put in a clause about texting. I'm sure there'll be a special election for that.

There's no going back. Once pagers were things of Doctors. Cell phones used to have batteries carried in briefcases. And this wasn't even 25 years ago- yo. People are so dependent on this electronic communication. California's laughable Hands-free law illustrates how legislating isn't doing jack shit when not enforced.

So yeah, you can't take the text out of user. You can legislate the crap out of personal freedoms but in the end people aren't complying. How's about an automatic loss of license for a year if you cause an accident while using your phone?

Yeah, they're looking to pass that law in Oregon as well, and have already in Washington. The problem with all three laws are they're all secondary infractions. Meaning you cannot be stopped for them, but can be sited for them if stopped for something else.

[jijifer]

California passed a law saying you can't TALK on a cell phone while driving UNLESS using a handsfree device. I swear that hasn't deterred ANYONE. Frick, if they just enforced said law (using traffic cams to catch culprits even) we'd get out of a deficit ASAP. Our brilliant law makers didn't put in a clause about texting. I'm sure there'll be a special election for that.

There's no going back. Once pagers were things of Doctors. Cell phones used to have batteries carried in briefcases. And this wasn't even 25 years ago- yo. People are so dependent on this electronic communication. California's laughable Hands-free law illustrates how legislating isn't doing jack shit when not enforced.

So yeah, you can't take the text out of user. You can legislate the crap out of personal freedoms but in the end people aren't complying. How's about an automatic loss of license for a year if you cause an accident while using your phone?

Yeah, they're looking to pass that law in Oregon as well, and have already in Washington. The problem with all three laws are they're all secondary infractions. Meaning you cannot be stopped for them, but can be sited for them if stopped for something else.

yeah - no teeth. and to your point, I would guess that the majority of texts being sent/received are not life threatening or urgent. At work I have a crackberry and i swear it was a learning curve NOT to look at that thing all the time - even while driving. I love that my scoot gives me an excuse to tune out of the communication world for the duration. I do have a bluetooth headset for my helmet but mounted on the right side like a dummy so until I pull out the hairdryer and get it off to put on the left, I don't use it. Totally ok. Seriously, there's nothing happening in MY world that a 30min wait will ruin.

[Kaos]

California passed a law saying you can't TALK on a cell phone while driving UNLESS using a handsfree device. I swear that hasn't deterred ANYONE. Frick, if they just enforced said law (using traffic cams to catch culprits even) we'd get out of a deficit ASAP. Our brilliant law makers didn't put in a clause about texting. I'm sure there'll be a special election for that.

There's no going back. Once pagers were things of Doctors. Cell phones used to have batteries carried in briefcases. And this wasn't even 25 years ago- yo. People are so dependent on this electronic communication. California's laughable Hands-free law illustrates how legislating isn't doing jack shit when not enforced.

So yeah, you can't take the text out of user. You can legislate the crap out of personal freedoms but in the end people aren't complying. How's about an automatic loss of license for a year if you cause an accident while using your phone?

Yeah, they're looking to pass that law in Oregon as well, and have already in Washington. The problem with all three laws are they're all secondary infractions. Meaning you cannot be stopped for them, but can be sited for them if stopped for something else.

yeah - no teeth. and to your point, I would guess that the majority of texts being sent/received are not life threatening or urgent. At work I have a crackberry and i swear it was a learning curve NOT to look at that thing all the time - even while driving. I love that my scoot gives me an excuse to tune out of the communication world for the duration. I do have a bluetooth headset for my helmet but mounted on the right side like a dummy so until I pull out the hairdryer and get it off to put on the left, I don't use it. Totally ok. Seriously, there's nothing happening in MY world that a 30min wait will ruin.

No, I totally agree. Probably 99.bunch-o-nines% of the time they're not important. My real point was that laws arn't going to help one bit, education might.
My other point was look at this problem from all angles. I agree that most people talking and nearly all people texting are needlessly endangering.

Not everyone is.

Think about EVERYONE affected before passing sweeping laws.

[Hwarang]

Greetings! Interesting discussion you have going on here.

I'd like to take a minute to point out that every state already has provisions for ticketing or even applying criminal charges to driving while distracted situations that result in damage/injury ... and that it has been a problem before texting and cellphones existed.

Rather than blindly demonize the cellphone or those using it, we could simply start utilizing existing the already existing methods of deterring such behavior and at the same time encourage personal responsibility (in regards to distractiosn) across all forms of driving.

Attached to this post are some low res images of a billboard campaign that ran here in MN. You'll notice that cellphones and texting aren't event mentioned (but could be).

[Ray Knobs]

Sir, you are exactly what the problem is with cell phone users

keep making new laws, that will help. BAHAHA

[Scooter Hoot]

Unfortunately, until we get autopilots for our cars, distracted drivers are always going to be a problem. I remember 15 years ago when my mom finally browbeat my dad into getting an answering machine. He didn't want people to be able to leave messages for us anytime - he figured if they wanted to get a hold of us that badly, they would call back. Now every member of my family from my 85 year old grandpa to my 10 year old cousin has a cell phone and is reachable almost 24 hours a day.

I'm thinking about telling my friends and family when I go on my road trip this summer, I'm turning off my phone and won't answer any emails without EMERGENCY!!!!! in the subject line. Even those won't be checked more than 1 time / day. Go "off the grid" for a week or two ...

[Cheshire]

Phone jammers and signal blockers definately aren't the way to go.

-Law enforcement. They use the same frequencies.

-Signal jammers don't discriminate between the driver's cell and the passengers'. Many times I've had a navigator coordinating with the caravan I'm leading for directions, food- and rest-breaks, etc.

-Pathfinding devices. There are quite a lot of cellphones and equipment that use cell phone signals for GPS devices. Not cool to make someone who's visiting from 3 states over to see their child graduate college suddenly become lost and take a couple hours to get back on track because a jammer screwed with the GPS they were following...making them miss their turn off a one-way street. Not cool.

-If I've pulled over and am being all responsible-like while making my call and you ride by with your signal jammer...I'm going to be MAD.

-You get the idea. Broad=spectrum solutions are very rarely solutions. They tend to just make more problems.

[pugbuddy]

I've owned a cell phone in the past but I don't now and haven't for a good decade or more. I don't agree with the idea that society would collapse without them either--we've done without them before, we can do without again (although I understand that we won't go back to that). But they are a convenience, not a necessity, IMHO, so I don't like the idea that individual business owners may have no option but to put up with them.

[charltons]

It's been a while since I've posted, but as a teacher I would LOVE, absolutley LOVE to have a cell phone jammer!

[Kaos]

It's been a while since I've posted, but as a teacher I would LOVE, absolutley LOVE to have a cell phone jammer!

Heh, I can understand that Still, I think a no-cellphone policy would be better than a jammer. Make it known that they'll be confiscated if found...
But not being a teacher myself, I don't know how possible/feasable this is

[BuddyLicious]

I'm not sure what the answers are but I do know one thing,I would not want to be the person having to tell the family's of a dead person(s) that their Loved one was killed by a driver distracted by using a cell phone.I know someone has to do it but still. Hey where is that technology we were promised of auto's driving themselves?

[Cheshire]

Scooter Hoot: I do this CONSTANTLY. Heck, that's been practically a law of camping and trips since I can remember in my family! If it's camping, there are only 2 pieces of tech allowed. (Used to be only one until cellphones became compact.) Leader of the group is the only one allowed to have these 2 items: one watch, one cellphone. Everything, I mean EVERYTHING that used a battery except flashlights stayed in the car...and the phone stayed off. It was just for emergency, like broken leg or someone fell off a cliff. The watch was for the last day to make sure we got back on schedule.

Charltons: My design instructor in college didn't allow cell phones. The class rules, which we agreed to in writing, basically said if they disrupted class once, that was your warning. Twice means it's a present to the instructor. If he's in a good mood, he MIGHT give it back after class. (He usually did.) If you actually answered it at any time, whatever project was being worked on or coming due...don't even bother turning it in. You answered it twice, save your GPA and go straight to administration to drop the class...or he'll drop you himself and it'll go on your GPA as drop-fail.
If you had a genuine need, by all means talk to him before-hand and he'd be understanding. Great teacher. No one gave him grief over the way he enforced this policy, either. There might have been one or two people to start to...but the rest of the class would sit on them before the instructor could get a word out.

[kneil67@yahoo.com]

I'm not sure what the answers are but I do know one thing,I would not want to be the person having to tell the family's of a dead person(s) that their Loved one was killed by a driver distracted by using a cell phone.I know someone has to do it but still. Hey where is that technology we were promised of auto's driving themselves?

my grandparents told me that when im an adult everyone will be flying around in jet cars, well .......... im still waiting..............

[BuddyLicious]

I'm not sure what the answers are but I do know one thing,I would not want to be the person having to tell the family's of a dead person(s) that their Loved one was killed by a driver distracted by using a cell phone.I know someone has to do it but still. Hey where is that technology we were promised of auto's driving themselves?

my grandparents told me that when im an adult everyone will be flying around in jet cars, well .......... im still waiting..............

Yep I remember than one too.And these too:

1.We will be using jetpacks to fly anywhere you want.
2.For meals,you will just take a pill.Each pill is a different food.Your choice.
3.Living on the moon
4.Fully automated kitchens,just push a few buttons and wala a complete meal waiting for you.
5.Solar for 100% of our energy needs.
6.Robot servants.
7.Laser guns for personnel use.

There's more I'm sure.he he

[Kaos]

5.Solar for 100% of our energy needs.

I live in Portland, I KNEW that one wasn't going to work....

[kneil67@yahoo.com]

I'm not sure what the answers are but I do know one thing,I would not want to be the person having to tell the family's of a dead person(s) that their Loved one was killed by a driver distracted by using a cell phone.I know someone has to do it but still. Hey where is that technology we were promised of auto's driving themselves?

my grandparents told me that when im an adult everyone will be flying around in jet cars, well .......... im still waiting..............

Yep I remember than one too.And these too:

1.We will be using jetpacks to fly anywhere you want.
2.For meals,you will just take a pill.Each pill is a different food.Your choice.
3.Living on the moon
4.Fully automated kitchens,just push a few buttons and wala a complete meal waiting for you.
5.Solar for 100% of our energy needs.
6.Robot servants.
7.Laser guns for personnel use.

There's more I'm sure.he he

are yous my lost kin folk

[kneil67@yahoo.com]

5.Solar for 100% of our energy needs.

I live in Portland, I KNEW that one wasn't going to work....

I read a Tom Wolfe book that talked about growing blackberries on top of the tall buildings to act as a big umbrella It was SEattle Or Portland dont know

[charltons]

It's been a while since I've posted, but as a teacher I would LOVE, absolutley LOVE to have a cell phone jammer!

Heh, I can understand that Still, I think a no-cellphone policy would be better than a jammer. Make it known that they'll be confiscated if found...
But not being a teacher myself, I don't know how possible/feasable this is

confiscating them is a pain in the tookus- too much drama. They think they'll just DIE without their cell phone. I say just jam'em and be done with it. Or maybe a device that overrides their signal with a single text message: "Put away the d**** phone and pay attention!"

[charltons]

Charltons: My design instructor in college didn't allow cell phones. The class rules, which we agreed to in writing, basically said if they disrupted class once, that was your warning. Twice means it's a present to the instructor. If he's in a good mood, he MIGHT give it back after class. (He usually did.) If you actually answered it at any time, whatever project was being worked on or coming due...don't even bother turning it in. You answered it twice, save your GPA and go straight to administration to drop the class...or he'll drop you himself and it'll go on your GPA as drop-fail.
If you had a genuine need, by all means talk to him before-hand and he'd be understanding. Great teacher. No one gave him grief over the way he enforced this policy, either. There might have been one or two people to start to...but the rest of the class would sit on them before the instructor could get a word out.

Oh, for that much power! Alas, I teach public school. And on top of that it has been and will be raining for quite some time-so no scoot.

[Cheshire]

5.Solar for 100% of our energy needs.

I live in Portland, I KNEW that one wasn't going to work....

I read a Tom Wolfe book that talked about growing blackberries on top of the tall buildings to act as a big umbrella It was SEattle Or Portland dont know

Ya know...that's giving me an idea for some landscaping I'm in the middle of....

[ericalm]

Folks, let's try to leave out political ideologies out of this discussion. We really don't need to get into our individual interpretations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The simple fact is, distracted drivers are dangerous drivers, regardless of what the distraction is. You can be damn sure that a cell phone in one hand is a pretty good distraction. If they're texting or checking email, all the more so.

Despite whatever laws exist or are coming down the pipeline, and whether you think it should be up to legislatures or individuals to stop the practice, it's still rampant and still a danger to all of us. Individuals do all kinds of stuff they know is wrong and that endangers themselves and others. They do it all the time because they usually get away with it, legal or not, and no one gets hurt. Until someone does. I'd be pretty dubious of any driver who said they had never driven while distracted, when too tired, or with blood alcohol over the legal limits. I've driven drunk before (though not in many years), as have many of us. I probably still futz with my iPod in the car much more than is safe or necessary.

So if we're guilty of this stuff (and we're the ones who are particularly aware of it), can we really rely on the guy arguing with his girlfriend, the driver yelling at her kids, or the person who is lost and trying to pull up a map on their Blackberry?

All I'm saying is that we're the ones who have to protect ourselves and bear the responsibility of being extra alert and looking out for these people.

[fs8gbe]

sometimes I text while riding my scoot.

Well, I did it twice, in traffic, going slow speeds. I enjoyed that people looked so shocked.

hehe, that is awesome. well played

[broke]

I read a Tom Wolfe book that talked about growing blackberries on top of the tall buildings to act as a big umbrella It was SEattle Or Portland dont know

Some day I'm going to write a Sci-Fi book about black-berries choking out entire cities... dozers, chemicals, even fire are futile against their spread! They are a god forsaken WEED in my mind. I hate them.

(Of course, I love them in pie, on ice cream, in jam... bittersweet berry!)

[Buddy_wannabe]

I hate talking on a cell while I'm driving ... it interfers with my book reading time on my ipod.

[Tenchi]

I have a friend who will remain nameless who is constantly arguing me with regarding her ability to talk on the cell and drive. I can't tell you how many times she'll be yakking to me while driving and then say "Oh, )^*&&, I missed my exit....into her apartment complex, or on a ramp she's exited a hundred times. I hand my phone to the wife if someone calls, or, if I'm by myself, and unless I'm being called to perform brain surgery, I let it pass until I can pull over.

No, I'm not a brain surgeon, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once....