Member
| Dan, obviously you must stop to do those things, so be sure your callers know to let the phone ring a long time. Just in case you're not stuck in traffic. Maybe "parked" or "not in motion" would be a better way to word it anyway. |
| |
Member
| This whole cell phone debate is starting to cause me to question my political orientation. A troubling notion. Does anyone think I'm exhibiting latent "Libertarian" tendencies if I get a little riled up over the notion of legislating common sense? Granted, the Traffic Code is full of such legislation, most notably the seatbelt law (and will someone please explain to me why motorcyclists don't have to wear helmets if they have insurance but I have to wear a seatbelt--and I'm paying nearly $1400/year in auto premiums), but still. Enough is enough. Back in the good ole days, when I was a young redneck, I recall having my Sweetie sitting right next to me in my pickup on Friday and Saturday night and I'd have my arm around her driving up and down the main drag. Made it really handy to get a little smooch every now and then, but talk about distracting!!! Should we have a law against "smooching while driving?" And I'm sure we're all familiar with accidents caused by folks engaged in more prurient pursuits. If we're really concerned about automobile safety, let's rethink the 70 mph speed limit, teenagers and old folks driving, or for that matter riding around with small children period. Can't tell you how many wrecks I've almost had trying to keep my kids from strangling each other in the back seat! Bottom line, this just sounds like some sort of stuff they'd come up with in California or New York City. This is Texas!!! We can be tough on crime without having to give up what few individual freedoms we have left. Whew! Glad to get that off my chest! Thank you! |
| |
Member
| A.P., if the little numbers at the bottom of the postings can be used for enhancement purposes, you're in much worse shape than I am, and I'm not even going to mention John! |
| |
Member
| quote: Originally posted by John Bradley: How many of you are upset about losing the opportunity to drive while using a cell phone? And please identify at least one phone call that was important enough to endanger the public.
My experience in overhearing cell phone calls (mostly at airports) is that there are no important cell phone calls, except those to police to report a crime. My pet peeve is the idiots who are calling their girlfriend/boyfriend/mother as they walk onto an airplane, to report that they are getting on an airplane. Only to be exceeded in idiocy by the same person reporting their exit of the plane. Is this information we all need to know?????
And don't even get me started on cell phones in video/DVD stores. There is nothing more nauseating than listening to a grown man read off titles to his girlfriend as she vetoes his suggestions.
[This message was edited by John Bradley on 12-13-02 at .]
I'm sure people said the same thing when they put radios in cars. Soon, if not now, having a cell phone handy at all times will feel as normal as having airconditioning in your home. Embrace change, John. Dialing the phone and holding it in your hand is the only problem while driving. Cellphones are essential for ordering pizza, calling long distance, and being accessible 24/7. |
| Posts: 55 | Location: College Station, TX, USA | Registered: January 24, 2002 |
IP
|
|
Member
| I have thought it unfair or at least curious that those little numbers appear anyway, although I know of another forum where you competed for titles like "heavyweight" based on the number of posts. I did not participate in that forum, I just know about it. But any punitive use of those numbers will clearly be prohibited by the ex post facto clause no matter what Rodriguez says, live horse, dead horse or white horse. By the way its Friday again, so what should we be discussing now? |
| |