HANDS FREE CELL USE

Huntindave wrote:

I believe you are the one missing the point.

Cell phone usage is not a “right”.

I bought the phone. I pay the bill. It most definitely is my right to use my property as I see fit, within the law. And to be crystal clear, the law as it stands is on my side of this argument. The burden of proving that a change should be made, and detailing how to make that change without infringing on the rights of millions of people who don’t even drive, yet use their phones for EVERYTHING, is not my burden.

On the other hand, driving is not a right. It’s a privilege you must be licensed for and that can be revoked by the state. (Not so with phones. See the difference?)

Huntindave wrote:

There is already precedent for restricting cell phones usage when it endangers the life and well being of others. Airplanes and certain areas within hospitals are two examples which immediately come to mind.

How does that precedent apply when the use of the phone is in no way endangering the life and well-being of others, but is still traveling at speeds of greater than 5mph? I think some companies like Navionics and many others might have something to say about a law that made their phone apps useless above 5mph. Or go much bigger business — Apple Music, iHeart Radio, these companies bring in major revenue from streaming fees and ads. Think they are going to lie down while the government makes it illegal for their customers to go for a jog and access their products?

Y’all have a fun time debating this further. I’ve said enough here.

How does a passenger slurping a cold can of suds endanger anyone else? The more I think about it, the more I can not see a rational reason to prohibit this non-dangerous practice.

I think the main part of this law is to give another check mark when applying charges. Distracted driving is already a charge. If they can prove at the time that you killed someone you were texting they can add more charges.

Similar to the just passed LRT driver law.

Plus it gives politicians something to put in their “look what I did” column.

I am surprised…not really… how no one has been talking about how this law is unfair to poor people. They typically drive older cars without this technology in it and most likely can’t afford to retro fit their cars. But it is really all about the politics anyway.

Timmy wrote:

How does a passenger slurping a cold can of suds endanger anyone else? The more I think about it, the more I can not see a rational reason to prohibit this non-dangerous practice.

^Agreed.

There are many laws out there that take away people’s rights…rights that do NOT endanger any other person directly. Other examples include: adult tobacco age laws, “illegal” drug laws, adult seat belt laws, gun control laws, etc.

This cell use law does at least deal with endangering other people. I am in-favor of it. Maybe when this one is implemented our government will axe one of its other overreaching laws designed to protect ourselves from ourselves.

Oranda wrote:

I am surprised…not really… how no one has been talking about how this law is unfair to poor people. They typically drive older cars without this technology in it and most likely can’t afford to retro fit their cars.

I mentioned it earlier in this thread but any car with a tape deck can be “retrofitted” to play calls through the car with the purchase of a $6 component such as the one below.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/UTOVME-3-5mm-Car-Audio-Tape-Cassette-Adapter-for-iPhone-iPad-iPod-MP3-MP4-Player-CD-Radio-nano/440877433?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=5387&adid=22222222227068322954&wmlspartner=wmtlabs&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=174506750324&wl4=pla-279191795019&wl5=9019610&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=114226981&wl11=online&wl12=440877433&wl13=&veh=sem&gclid=Cj0KCQjw7sDlBRC9ARIsAD-pDFp0_o35nrxywILH9XVpcopREHwrnbk548kPemdDFzd0RyX5T3xI5o0aApelEALw_wcB

Oranda wrote:

I am surprised…not really… how no one has been talking about how this law is unfair to poor people. They typically drive older cars without this technology in it and most likely can’t afford to retro fit their cars. But it is really all about the politics anyway.

I was thinking this as well but you can just put your phone on speaker to use it, no bluetooth needed. I haven’t read the details of the law but guessing this can be done.

There is no fairness to this law. And no clear line to draw.

I hope it applies to police! I always see the fuzz around here on their handheld cell phones.

Supposedly police are exempt from these laws. Somehow they must have 8 sets of eyes that can run their phone, laptop, and drive at the same time. I don’t know how that can be safe.

Oranda wrote:

I think the main part of this law is to give another check mark when applying charges. Distracted driving is already a charge. If they can prove at the time that you killed someone you were texting they can add more charges.

Finally, some sense. There was previously a loophole that you could use hold your phone to type in directions or scroll through your contacts or dial a phone number. That loophole is now closed and anyone holding a phone and doing anything is now illegal.

Dave, Talking on your phone is your right. This law is a driving law, not a cell phone use law.

Any dangerous acts can be banned from public or private locations. We have a right to bear arms, but that doesn’t give us the right to do it anywhere and everywhere.

kidfish wrote:

I hope it applies to police! I always see the fuzz around here on their handheld cell phones.

Supposedly police are exempt from these laws. Somehow they must have 8 sets of eyes that can run their phone, laptop, and drive at the same time. I don’t know how that can be safe.

Well, police have a slightly different driving test they need to take to drive a squad car, so there’s that. There’s much less likelihood that they’ll have marginal driving skills as has been mentioned here already.

Its a good law. It doesn’t prevent a passenger from calling/talking/texting. As usual, those who are most affected by this law are those who feel entitled or think they can multi-task without ever creating a problem.

We ran some errands this morning and were waiting on a light. The idiot next to us was texting when the green light came. I was two blocks down the road when the dipschnit finally decided to drive he went thru a red light and left many vehicles there to go thru another cycle. But no problem there….eh?

biggill wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>kidfish wrote:</div>
I hope it applies to police! I always see the fuzz around here on their handheld cell phones.

Supposedly police are exempt from these laws. Somehow they must have 8 sets of eyes that can run their phone, laptop, and drive at the same time. I don’t know how that can be safe.

Well, police have a slightly different driving test they need to take to drive a squad car, so there’s that. There’s much less likelihood that they’ll have marginal driving skills as has been mentioned here already.

If that’s the case then this law will not stop me or many others from doing the same. Like mentioned before, its just another law to throw at someone if they get caught doing it. All to save us from morons. The same thing is happening to gun laws.

Attachments:

1. 

   464f1fc8e40b41968d8c41c15755f0d6659bed35050c5a9d577a64ab1f2c4cca.jpg
   

Being on call 24×7 for more than 20 years and having either pagers or cell phone or both could be distracting while driving. Now being retired, I have no problem with leaving phone at home. Amazing how much more peaceful it is while traveling. This is what voice mail is for. The new screens in the new vehicles is far more distracting as it requires you to look down and away from the road and all the new hands free driving will only make you a worse driver when you depend on it in a car without.

We are all missing one thing ……Land of the free…..

I don’t feel free.

I can’t do much without being a criminal.

I have almost been hit several times by people who can’t go 5 ft without their damn phone stuck to their head, I can’t believe any of you think your phone call is more important then someone’s life, or is it you just have the “entitlement mentality?

More laws won’t fix the problem. Look how well laws work at preventing speeding, drunk driving, tailgating, failure to yield, failure to signal a lane change, no passing in no passing zones, need I go on? The only thing that will curb and fix the problem of negligent driving via cell phone usage is to reverse the socially accepted nature of it (and all other bad driving habits).

Want people to stop feeling like it’s ok to do these things, stop standing by and doing/saying nothing while they get away with it. But trust me, be prepared to be told you are the one with the problem for calling them out on it.

Deleted wrote:

We are all missing one thing ……Land of the free…..

I don’t feel free.

I can’t do much without being a criminal.

Huh

At some point in the not so far off future technology will eliminate most car crashes. Either by self driving cars or cars equipped with sensors that “talk” to every other car on the road and driver overrides that prevent a crash. At that point the “driver” can sit back, watch TV, browse the internet and talk on the phone all you want. Maybe even crack a beer and toss a few back on the way to the lake! Until then, turn the phone off and enjoy driving while you still can.

-J.

tangler wrote:

Huntindave wrote:
There is already precedent for restricting cell phones usage when it endangers the life and well being of others. Airplanes and certain areas within hospitals are two examples which immediately come to mind.
How does that precedent apply when the use of the phone is in no way endangering the life and well-being of others, but is still traveling at speeds of greater than 5mph?

Huh? where did I say anything about 5 mph?

tangler wrote:

On the other hand, driving is not a right. It’s a privilege you must be licensed for and that can be revoked by the state. (Not so with phones. See the difference?)

You do realize that a driving license has not always been a requirement to legally drive a vehicle?
New York started issuing badges to chauffeurs in 1903. In that same year Massachusetts and Missouri became the first states to require all drivers, not just professionals, to have a license. The last state to require a license to drive was South Dakota in 1954. It seems sensible to many people now that licensing and safety concerns went hand in hand. Laws requiring people to pass an examination in order to drive often lagged well behind laws requiring a license. While Missouri was one of the first two states to require a license to drive in 1903, the state didn’t make people pass a driving exam until 1952. The earliest state mandated driving exam was in Rhode Island in 1908. The last state to require applicants to pass an exam? South Dakota in 1959.

Perhaps cell phones will follow the same path that driving an automobile has,,,,,,,,,,, and go from a “right” to a “licensed privilege”.

Huntindave wrote:

Perhaps cell phones will follow the same path that driving an automobile has,,,,,,,,,,, and go from a “right” to a “licensed privilege”.

It’s nice to wake up to a good laugh.

So then would you need to take a course when you turn 15 or 16 to learn how to use a cell phone?

You’re talking about the most powerful device in society. The government would have to go up against some of the most powerful companies in the world to control its use. The FBI already fought and lost to apple about unlocking a persons phone for the purpose of investigation.

biggill wrote:

So then would you need to take a course when you turn 15 or 16 to learn how to use a cell phone?

Perhaps, but if you follow the history, drivers exams came to being, in later years after the license itself was required.

Another interesting fact is the percentage of new drivers is actually decreasing ( as of 2014 compared to earlier years);

Around 77 percent of Americans between the ages of 20 and 24 had driver’s licenses in 2014, compared with almost 92 percent in 1983, according to a 2016 report by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. Among 16 year olds, less than 25 percent had licenses in 2014, down from about 46 percent in 1983.

I’m not out to change anyone’s mind on this subject. I do question the idea that they are so absolutely necessary that they change people’s behaviors. How did the human race managed to survive for hundreds of thousands of years without cell phones?

S.R.

Huntindave wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>tangler wrote:</div>
Huntindave wrote:
There is already precedent for restricting cell phones usage when it endangers the life and well being of others. Airplanes and certain areas within hospitals are two examples which immediately come to mind.
How does that precedent apply when the use of the phone is in no way endangering the life and well-being of others, but is still traveling at speeds of greater than 5mph?

Huh? where did I say anything about 5 mph?

You might want to read a whole thread before cherry picking a response to reply to. If you look back, from my first post on I was only ever arguing against the handful of guys saying all phones should just automatically disable when moving over 5mph. I didn’t respond to you, you responded to me, without apparently even understanding my point.

I have never been opposed to the new hands-free law in MN.

biggill wrote:

Dave, Talking on your phone is your right. This law is a driving law, not a cell phone use law.

Well then if you are going to separate the cell phone use from the driving,,,,,,,,problem solved.

What you are saying, is the same as saying DUI is not an alcohol law, it is a driving law. The law concerns both driving and alcohol usage, same as driving and cell phone usage.

Driving is a privilege NOT A RIGHT, it’s NOT GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. as far as licence for driving, it’s suppose to show that you know the laws of the road and to prove you know how to operate a vehicle. that why you have different license classification for car and truck applications. Seems some want to use the “freedom” excuse, again it not a right it’s a privilege, abuse a privilege and you lose it.

Beast wrote:

Driving is a privilege NOT A RIGHT, it’s NOT GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. as far as licence for driving, it’s suppose to show that you know the laws of the road and to prove you know how to operate a vehicle. that why you have different license classification for car and truck applications. Seems some want to use the “freedom” excuse, again it not a right it’s a privilege, abuse a privilege and you lose it.

It’s the very first thing they tell you in Drivers training. They then tell you it during class and it’s the last thing they tell you as you’re walking out the door.

Beast wrote:

Driving is a privilege NOT A RIGHT, it’s NOT GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. as far as licence for driving, it’s suppose to show that you know the laws of the road and to prove you know how to operate a vehicle. that why you have different license classification for car and truck applications. Seems some want to use the “freedom” excuse, again it not a right it’s a privilege, abuse a privilege and you lose it.

You are correct driving is not mentioned in the bill of rights,,,,,, neither is cell phone usage.

Huntindave wrote:

What you are saying, is the same as saying DUI is not an alcohol law, it is a driving law. The law concerns both driving and alcohol usage, same as driving and cell phone usage.

I’ve got no clue what your point is here or why its even relevant.

DUI is statue 169A Who’s lies in the transportation statutes 160-174A. All laws for transportation, not alcohol. The laws pertaining to drinking ONLY WHILE DRIVING. Violation of these laws can result in fines, jail time or both under criminal law. Additionally, the state of Minnesota reserves the right to revoke your civil privilege to drive if you break the criminal driving laws. This is all at a state level.

It’s exactly where the hands free law will be located.

There is no statute for cell phone use.

“Additionally, the state of Minnesota reserves the right to revoke your civil privilege to drive if you break the criminal driving laws. This is all at a state level.

It’s exactly where the hands free law will be located.

There is no statute for cell phone use“…..

Not yet, but soon there will be a statute for cell phone use if the phone is in the hand of a person in the driver’s seat WHILE DRIVING. Its still a good law to have enacted. Want to have a chat and don’t want to be hands-free? Pull over and chat away. This simply puts the decision making right back in the driver/cell phone user’s court. Drive or talk? Or use the hands free option. Simple. Of course there will be those that will feel “entitled” or are too friggin stupid to comply and the new law has criminal written all over for those fools.