# NTSB ban on all electronic devices in vehicles



## NorCalHal (Dec 14, 2011)

My brother, a long haul truck driver, just informed me of a new reccomendation by the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) to ban all forms of communication in vehicles.
This includes hands free cell phones.



No call, no text, no update behind the wheel: NTSB calls for nationwide ban on PEDs while driving
*December 13, 2011*

 Following today's Board meeting on the 2010 multi-vehicle highway accident in Gray Summit, Missouri, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) called for the first-ever nationwide ban on driver use of personal electronic devices (PEDs) while operating a motor vehicle.
The safety recommendation specifically calls for the 50 states and the District of Columbia to ban the nonemergency use of portable electronic devices (other than those designed to support the driving task) for all drivers.  The safety recommendation also urges use of the NHTSA model of high-visibility enforcement to support these bans and implementation of targeted communication campaigns to inform motorists of the new law and heightened enforcement.
"According to NHTSA, more than 3,000 people lost their lives last year in distraction-related accidents", said Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman. "It is time for all of us to stand up for safety by turning off electronic devices when driving."
"No call, no text, no update, is worth a human life."


----------



## King Bud (Dec 14, 2011)

.. but cigarettes are cool :beatnik:


----------



## ozzydiodude (Dec 14, 2011)

I think anyone talking or texting while driving should be charges with wreckless driving and atempted murder. When ppl are on the phone they do not pay attention to their driving.


----------



## Budders Keeper (Dec 14, 2011)

What would we do without the Government protecting us all. The gene pool USED to have a way to clean itself out.


----------



## pcduck (Dec 14, 2011)

Next will be no passengers in your vehicle. We already have laws for reckless driving let them enforce those laws for the people that cannot talk and drive at the same time. Has anyone recently seen what is in the front seat of a LE vehicle? They have more electronic gadgets then ever and always on their cell phones. They can't all be using them for emergency use only.


----------



## Rosebud (Dec 14, 2011)

They still have access to cb radios or are those old fashioned by now?


----------



## Locked (Dec 14, 2011)

Budders Keeper said:
			
		

> What would we do without the Government protecting us all. The gene pool USED to have a way to clean itself out.




No doubt......we coddle the weak way too much.


----------



## Roddy (Dec 14, 2011)

Budders Keeper said:
			
		

> What would we do without the Government protecting us all. The gene pool USED to have a way to clean itself out.



When drivers abuse their privilege to drive by doing dangerous things such as drinking, we praise laws protecting us, when they do something EQUALLY as dangerous (as tests have shown), we complain big brother is stepping on our rights when they try to protect us. Personally, I am very much in favor of a law telling those who can't do the ONE thing they MUST do (driving responsibly and carefully) when behind the wheel because they are too busy trying to post a joke on FB with their "smartphone".

Having lost a friend to a distracted driver (lost and looking at a map) when he turned in front of my friend (riding motorcycle)....it's not fun, especially when it could easily be avoided by simply pulling over if you must read/text/talk etc.


----------



## Roddy (Dec 14, 2011)

Hamster Lewis said:
			
		

> No doubt......we coddle the weak way too much.



I don't mind people killing themselves foolishly, but you're a target as well by their stupidity, is this ok with you??


----------



## Roddy (Dec 14, 2011)

pcduck said:
			
		

> Next will be no passengers in your vehicle. We already have laws for reckless driving let them enforce those laws for the people that cannot talk and drive at the same time. *Has anyone recently seen what is in the front seat of a LE vehicle?* They have more electronic gadgets then ever and always on their cell phones. They can't all be using them for emergency use only.



Because some do it, it's ok for others?? These people have been trained in advanced driving skills...most of us citizen drivers haven't.


----------



## pcduck (Dec 14, 2011)

> especially when it could easily be avoided by simply pulling over if you must read/text/talk etc.



I guess you do not have kids or friends or drink coffee/water/soda while driving?



> These people have been trained in advanced driving skills



A distraction is a distraction. Unless they can keep one eye on the road and the other eye on their computer plus their thoughts always maintained on driving. They have not been schooled on this.


----------



## Roddy (Dec 14, 2011)

Tests have shown these activities, while mildly distracting, are nowhere near as bad as drinking and driving...and using a cell phone has been proven to be just that! A huge difference, imho

Not knowing exactly what the train you for, I can't say, but I'd be willing to bet they're training them for more and more situations. And yes, I guess I can say they are trained to use electronic devices, they're trained how to call in emergencies while in chase and such. So, yes, they are trained for this imho.


----------



## dman1234 (Dec 14, 2011)

I agree with it, Here in Ontario Canada, you can use hands free all you want but holding a cell phone or texting while driving is $150.00 fine. i see people on their phones constantly, its not inforced very well.

And you cant smoke a ciggerette in a car with a person under the age of 16 in the vehicle.


----------



## pcduck (Dec 14, 2011)

> Tests have shown these activities, while mildly distracting, are nowhere near as bad as drinking and driving...and using a cell phone has been proven to be just that



I would like to see these tests. But like I said a distraction is a distraction and what is good for the goose should be good  for the gander.


----------



## Irish (Dec 14, 2011)

on my local news this very moment, three teens are being extracted from a subaru lodged under the rear end of a school bus with 21 kids on board...all three deceased...guess what the driver was doing!?!

edit>>> two teens. brother and sister...


----------



## ozzydiodude (Dec 14, 2011)

Rosebud said:
			
		

> They still have access to cb radios or are those old fashioned by now?


 
One under the dash Good Buddy:aok:


----------



## ston-loc (Dec 14, 2011)

My straight up STAND BY IT opinion. I can talk on a phone, holding it in one hand, have a coffee between the legs, smoke in other hand, WHILE driving a stick shift, better than many people I see on the road. Comparing it to drunk driving is absurd. Chemically altering ones self is different than being a concious person doing multiple things at once safely. 
I have literally told drivers to pull over, sitting in the passenger seat because they couldn't drive and talk to me without turning sideways. Some people just suck, and shouldn't be allowed to drive regardless. You have to have some kind of brain to drive. Coddling the idiots is not the answer.


----------



## Roddy (Dec 15, 2011)

pcduck said:
			
		

> I would like to see these tests. But like I said a distraction is a distraction and what is good for the goose should be good  for the gander.




I should have said studies, of course, and I believe the NTSB has all the info. I say I believe because it's been awhile since I've been active in the safety issues (loss of biker friend made me an activist for quite awhile, I still buy up hundreds of bike helmets and give to needy kids...well, gave only 107 last year in comparison to years past). If not there, I'd search drunk driving/texting studies or whatever. Wish I still had all this info on my computer in front of me. Believe the study was done in the last couple of years, maybe even last year...no, more likely 2 years ago, but not sure.


----------



## Roddy (Dec 15, 2011)

ston-loc said:
			
		

> My straight up STAND BY IT opinion. I can talk on a phone, holding it in one hand, have a coffee between the legs, smoke in other hand, WHILE driving a stick shift, better than many people I see on the road. Comparing it to drunk driving is absurd. Chemically altering ones self is different than being a concious person doing multiple things at once safely.
> I have literally told drivers to pull over, sitting in the passenger seat because they couldn't drive and talk to me without turning sideways. Some people just suck, and shouldn't be allowed to drive regardless. You have to have some kind of brain to drive. Coddling the idiots is not the answer.



And that's great Ston, you're well above the norm, more an exception, it appears! I'm sure you've seen the commercial where the driver is distracted by the radio, food, make-up etc (ins commercial)....that's the normal driver. Now, imagine a lady driver, wanting to put on make-up, needing her hair done and ooops, the text beep just went. Imagine the guy too intent on the football game on his smartphone to be paying attention to his surroundings. Wow, look out....I've been hit by the lady applying make-up, by the lady reading a book and almost hit by the lady too busy programming an address into her GPS (all women and sorry ladies, these are my honest experiences) Adding in yet another danger to driving...sad.

Driving is a privilege, not a right, and not to be taken lightly! Too many people these days are too casual in their driving. People think they can do several things while driving (multitasking) when in reality, when driving, that's ALL you should be doing! It takes a lot to keep yourself, your fellow drivers and even pedestrians safe, it's not just an activity, it's life and death!


----------



## Roddy (Dec 15, 2011)

Irish said:
			
		

> on my local news this very moment, three teens are being extracted from a subaru lodged under the rear end of a school bus with 21 kids on board...all three deceased...guess what the driver was doing!?!
> 
> edit>>> two teens. brother and sister...



Yes, tragic!!  I wonder, how do those who feel people should be allowed to do whatever they desire while driving feel about the bans NTSB put in place on pilots and train engineers?? And, why do you suppose they put them in place?? And, think about this, the train is even on tracks! And, not only pilots, by air traffic controllers as well. lol....lots of ands....


----------



## Roddy (Dec 15, 2011)

pcduck said:
			
		

> I would like to see these tests. But like I said a distraction is a distraction *and what is good for the goose should be good  for the gander.*



I won't disagree, but at the same time I also say it has no effect on the driver being responsible. If the cop was driving off a bridge.....


----------



## Roddy (Dec 15, 2011)

Another thing to think about, most (as in majority) of the people driving and texting these days are KIDS!!! Teens who have little experience driving in the first place.


----------



## Hick (Dec 15, 2011)

> A Virginia Tech Transportation Institute study of commercial drivers found that a safety-critical event is *163 times more likely* if a driver is texting, e-mailing or accessing the Internet.


 ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx

.ntsb.gov/news/events/2011/gray_summit_mo/index.html  <-- board summary of the accident that prompted it all


----------



## Roddy (Dec 15, 2011)

Hick said:
			
		

> ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx
> 
> .ntsb.gov/news/events/2011/gray_summit_mo/index.html  <-- board summary of the accident that prompted it all



I couldn't tell you how many times my son has walked out the door, said bye and all (even me replying), then a few minutes later having me wondering where that boy is....all because I was too engrossed in responding to a comment on the forums or playing games. Imagine this same distracting factor in a car where it could be potentially deadly...


----------



## Roddy (Dec 15, 2011)

*As a Massachusetts OUI criminal defense attorney, I've seen studies suggesting that Jackson is wrong -- because texting while driving is actually more dangerous than driving drunk. In fact, one study, done in Britain, also found that texting while driving was more dangerous than driving under the influence of marijuana. The Royal Automobile Club Foundation, part of the British version of AAA, commissioned a study comparing the driving skills of drivers who were sending or receiving text messages; drunk; or high. Reaction times for the texters in the study dropped by 35%, while legally drunk drivers saw a 12% drop and drugged drivers saw a 21% drop. In addition, texters were a staggering 91% more likely to drift out of their lanes, as compared to 35% for the cannabis smokers.*

hXXp://www.massachusettsduilawyerblog.com/2010/01/studies-show-texting-while-driving-worse-than-drunk-driving.html

Not the NTSB report I was looking for, but....


----------



## Roddy (Dec 15, 2011)

*A road test run by Car & Driver magazine showed dramatically slower reaction times by two test drivers who tried to brake while reading and, separately, writing text messages. Previous studies on DWT have typically been run in car simulators. The magazine believes its study may be the first conducted in a real vehicle on a stretch of road. To cover different age ranges, two separate tests were set up on a road course--one with 22-year-old Jordan Brown, a Car & Driver intern, the other with the magazine's 37-year-old editor-in-chief, Eddie Alterman. *

*The results showed that at 35 mph, it took a sober Brown an extra 21 feet to hit the brake while reading a text message, and an extra 16 feet while typing a message.
At 70 mph, it took him 30 extra feet to jam on the brake while reading a text, and an extra 31 feet while composing.
Those figures compared with an extra 7 feet at 35 mph and an extra 15 feet at 70 mph while intoxicated. However, in his drunken condition, Brown had to be told twice which lane to drive in--a dangerous scenario if he had been in actual traffic.
At 35 mph, a sober Alterman took an extra 188 feet to step on the brake while reading a text, and an extra 90 feet while typing a message.
At 70 mph, he took an extra 129 feet to hit the brake while reading a message, and an additional 319 feet while writing one.
While intoxicated, it took him at extra 7 feet at 35 mph and an extra 15 feet at 70 mph.*

*&#8220;The prognosis doesn&#8217;t improve when you look at the limitations of our test,&#8221; writes Mike Austin, the author of the Car and Driver article. &#8220;We were using a straight road without any traffic, road signals, or pedestrians, and we were only looking at reaction times.&#8221;*

hxxp://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10272628-94.html?tag=mncol;txt


----------



## pcduck (Dec 15, 2011)

Like I said before Roddy they already have laws on the books for this, it is called reckless op. I would imagine if you were to look at the percentages of the amount of people that use cell phones and the number of accidents it would be quite low.



> I won't disagree, but at the same time I also say it has no effect on the driver being responsible. If the cop was driving off a bridge.



And that is just ridiculous.

So you are saying that since a few cannot we should all be penalized?

Any more it seems it is always the few whiners out there that get their way while the rest of the people get their rights taken away.jmo


----------



## Roddy (Dec 15, 2011)

Come on duck, comparing cops to citizens is silly at best anyway. 

And I'll just go back to drivers using phones and driving distracted make you a target, if you're OK with being a target for someone's irresponsible driving, go for it!!

Say duck, a few of us can drink and drive pretty well...should we then allow all???

When the whiners are victims, the ones taking note do studies proving the fact...yeah, we should pay attention and take action. If not by law, maybe we should just get the pitchforks and torches? And some goof's right to drive dangerously should NEVER take away my safety...ever. 

*Driving is NOT a right....not a privilege*


----------



## Roddy (Dec 15, 2011)

One thing I didn't copy/paste but found interesting was the fact NTSB investigators routinely check the phones of drivers in accidents. This is even citizen motorists...


----------



## pcduck (Dec 15, 2011)

Like I said before Roddy *they already have laws on the books for this, it is called reckless op.* I would imagine if you were to look at the percentages of the amount of people that use cell phones and the number of accidents it would be quite low.

I am comparing the LE when they are using their cell phones for non emergency calls. Use of a hands free device is no different then talking to your passengers or telling your kids to settle down in the back seat or drinking coffee, eating or anything else that may distract you while driving.  

 They do not need new laws for this they already have them, just enforce them. This is just another move by the people in charge to show that they are doing something and not just sitting there and getting paid.

A sober person reaction time does not change, the change comes from the amount of time it takes a sober driver to go from the distraction back to the reaction, what ever the distraction is.

If you feel you may be a target any time you get behind the wheel then maybe you should just stay inside with your door locked.


----------



## pcduck (Dec 15, 2011)

Oh and as far as LE being able to drive better while distracted of their phone, we have had 2 accidents in the area here where it was LE fault because of the distraction of a cell phone while in use.


----------



## ozzydiodude (Dec 15, 2011)

IMO 99.7% of the driver, even those "trained" drivers can't drive and chew bubble gum. THe LEO should not have those gadgets at their desposal while driving, they are working and should be watching out for criminal activities not catching up to facebook.


----------



## Hick (Dec 15, 2011)

hxxp://miami.cbslocal.com/2011/12/13/up-a-pole-miami-cop-ok/

Miami police spokesperson Detective Willie Moreno said Brutus, a 4 year veteran, was driving when he was momentarily distracted, as he reached for a fallen pen. His patrol car left the road and headed for a utility pole, but before it struck the pole, the car rode up along a guy wire.


----------



## Roddy (Dec 15, 2011)

I'm all for A BAN on ALL drivers use of cell phones....

I wonder if anyone can show me a downside to banning phone use while driving....


----------



## Roddy (Dec 15, 2011)

Hick said:
			
		

> hxxp://miami.cbslocal.com/2011/12/13/up-a-pole-miami-cop-ok/
> 
> Miami police spokesperson Detective Willie Moreno said Brutus, a 4 year veteran, was driving when he was momentarily distracted, as he reached for a fallen pen. His patrol car left the road and headed for a utility pole, but before it struck the pole, the car rode up along a guy wire.



Exactly, Hick!! There are enough distractions out there already without adding in one that has no place at all in driving!


----------



## pcduck (Dec 15, 2011)

> I'm all for A BAN on ALL drivers use of cell phones....



Even the hands free devices?


----------



## ozzydiodude (Dec 15, 2011)

pcduck said:
			
		

> Even the hands free devices?


Yes too may people have to move their hands while there talking, we all rode with them and know who they are. IMO alot of the ppl with driver's lic, should not be aloud to talk period while driving. They need horse blinders on. so that they keep their eyes and mind on what they are doing


----------



## Roddy (Dec 15, 2011)

ozzydiodude said:
			
		

> Yes too may people have to move their hands while there talking, we all rode with them and know who they are. IMO alot of the ppl with driver's lic, should not be aloud to talk period while driving. They need horse blinders on. so that they keep their eyes and mind on what they are doing



This is why the laws (around here, at least) do not allow teen drivers to have passengers!


----------



## NorCalHal (Dec 15, 2011)

What the #[email protected]% happened to America.

Lets have the goverment dictate all we do in the name of "Safety".

Please don't cry either, as I have lost quite a few friends to idiot drivers, let me tell you. Sure, you can say "a ban would have saved them", but then again, they might have choked on a chicken bone the next day.....that's life.

I rock hands free, and have since DAY 1 when Cali passed the law banning cell phone use. To be honest, the reason I did get a hands free was simply not to get pulled over for a stupid reason like holding a cell phone....Cause I tend to ride dirty all the time. haha.

I see no reason to ban hands free sets. In fact, if anything, they should make that the one exception. Can't text on a hands free.....


----------



## Roddy (Dec 15, 2011)

It is sad you need to tell people how to stay safe, Hal, I agree there!! It's sad we need laws to keep us safe too, but the lack thereof means many many more deaths and ruined lives. 

Some say we don't need a new law, there's already laws for reckless driving...then why did we need drunk driving laws? Wouldn't that be reckless?? Yet I don't see many complaining about those laws which protect us from those who can't control themselves.

As far as hands free, I'm sure I could dig up a study on that as well....


----------



## SmokinMom (Dec 15, 2011)

Someone I know lost her husband in an accident.  He lost control of his car and died on impact.  A few days later she learned he was texting a friend at the time of the accident and now has no husband, her young son has no father. 

I've texted while driving before so I'm guilty too.  What happened to Kristen was a huge reality check.  If its that important to send a text, I'll pull over.

When I read about this ban it gave reference to a flight where both pilots were on their laptops and went 100 miles past where their destination was and had to turn around and get back on course.  PILOTS!!!!!

Having said all that, I think a complete ban of these devices is extreme.  I believe that hands free cell use should be ok, ESP since they said navigation devices won't be affected.  Gps can be just as distracting, IMO.

Too bad they won't ban driving with screaming toddlers..


----------



## Roddy (Dec 15, 2011)

GPS units are bad, being a cacher, I can't tell you how many times I've been distracted by the thing beeping and me trying to see what turn it wants me to make. Programming one while driving....YIKES!!!


----------



## Hick (Dec 15, 2011)

> Too bad they won't ban driving with screaming toddlers..


:rofl:.... or women/wives!...:ignore: :ignore: :ignore:


----------



## Roddy (Dec 15, 2011)

Hick said:
			
		

> :rofl:.... or women/wives!...:ignore: :ignore: :ignore:



:rofl: :rofl:


----------



## ozzydiodude (Dec 15, 2011)

Hick said:
			
		

> :rofl:.... or women/wives!...:ignore: :ignore: :ignore:


 
Be safer if they had their own roads.


----------



## Roddy (Dec 15, 2011)

ozzydiodude said:
			
		

> Be safer if they had their own roads.



We'd be safer.......


----------



## Roddy (Dec 16, 2011)

hxxp://www.causes.com/causes/639835-connect-for-good/actions/1475122?causes_ref=email&template=bulletin_mailer%2Fposting&utm_campaign=MS&utm_medium=email&utm_source=bulletin

*Look at your last text message. Would it be worth dying over? Take the pledge to not text while driving and AT&T will donate $2 (up to $60,000) to the National Organizations for Youth Safety, to continue their effective community-based programs to teach teens to be safer drivers.*

Hey, you can break the pledge (if you must), but the teens will still benefit!!


----------



## Rosebud (Dec 16, 2011)

Hick said:
			
		

> :rofl:.... or women/wives!...:ignore: :ignore: :ignore:



You drive with a lot of screaming women do you hick?


----------



## Roddy (Dec 16, 2011)

Thank you, 'Rockin.
By taking the pledge, you raised $2 for NOYS and joined 4,385 people taking action!

was a simple, single click action and done, and it helps the youth...as well as ALL drivers!


----------



## ston-loc (Dec 16, 2011)

These things should be common sense! If something is happening that is going to take my attention off the road I pull over. If I want to call my wife on my drive home, I do so. I have the where withall to safely do both. I have never and WILL NEVER get in an accident caused by having a conversation and my hand to my ear. 
Making laws to coddle idiots is ridiculous! If someone cant carry on a conversation AND drive, paying attention to the road, (I SCREAM THIS EVERY DAY COMMUTING BY THE WAY!!!)  THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DRIVE!!!!!!!
Making detailed, ** laws for everyone is **. Drivers are responsible for 1000's of pounds of metal moving down the road. If they get distracted that easily, and drive stupidly, LIKE I SEE DAILY, they should have their licenses revoked. ENFORCE laws, don't make new ones for everyone, just to allow idiots to keep a privlige. They can take the bus!  Ughghh, sorry, end rant....


----------



## Roddy (Dec 16, 2011)

I hear ya Ston, I do, but it's just not working, as is obvious by your very rant (which, btw, is very similar to my daily rant LOL). My thought, the law is made more for show than to make another law. Not that they won't enforce it, they are already and will even more to show that this type of behavior is unaccepted. It's clear that many think it is accepted. And Ston, you say you never will (accident/phone use)...lets hope that's true, I'd hate to have something happen that'd make you regretful for the rest of your life (or your loved ones)! But, keep in mind, it doesn't have to be you making the mistake, maybe you'll need to make a life or death reaction, there's a lot of possibilities! Truly, you don't even have to be in a vehicle, pedestrians and bicyclists are at danger as well.

I appreciate both sides, I don't like having laws made needlessly either since it sets us up for worse things down the road. Well, some of us may not make it down the road without some kind of intervention. IDK, maybe they shoulda just did a "click it" type campaign, but...


----------



## ston-loc (Dec 16, 2011)

Roddy, we're kinda on the same page. Just different opinions of solutions. Making a new law is nothing without enforcing it. Why not enforce what is already in place? Why not pull over the person who is swerving in and out of lanes, via cell phone use putting on makeup digging through their purse looking at directions etc??? What benefit is it to ticket "me", making a phone call driving completely safely, to other drivers while tons of idiots that have no business driving are ok? 
Personally, I think the drivers license test should be more detailed, along with non driving, "intelligence" tests. 
Making a law for use of electronics is in the works. What's next? Cant drink coffee while drive law. Cant put on lipstick while driving law. 
We don't need all this detailed list laws! ENFORCE laws now! Drive like an idiot you get sited! Kick those points up and get your license suspended. That's in place! JUST ENFORCE IT!!!


----------



## Roddy (Dec 17, 2011)

Truly, we will likely never know, Ston. We can't be privy to the help this law may give law enforcement, bettering their ability to do stop this (cell phone records may now be easier to access after accidents or crimes, for example). But I'm guessing, as much as the fat cats in the big houses like to make laws, they probably had some reasons. I'm also guessing there are things covered that just weren't ever even thought of when reckless driving laws were made!

Personally, if it stops people from driving and using a phone, AWESOME!!! Hey, if it even just brings it to some people's attention (I'm sure there are many out there blissfully ignorant of the law and/or the dangers)...THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!! It could be my life or a loved one's life we're talking about!

I don't own a cell phone, haven't since Nextel's beep beep phones! :rofl: Life is so sweet not being a slave to those things...for me!


----------



## Irish (Dec 17, 2011)

Rosebud said:
			
		

> You drive with a lot of screaming women do you hick?


 
thats why they invented drivers side only air bags i thought!


----------



## Roddy (Dec 17, 2011)

LOL Irish....then the passengers complained.


----------



## SmokinMom (Dec 17, 2011)

Irish said:
			
		

> thats why they invented drivers side only air bags i thought!



:giggle:


----------



## Wetdog (Dec 19, 2011)

Budders Keeper said:
			
		

> What would we do without the Government protecting us all. The gene pool USED to have a way to clean itself out.



True, but I don't want to get caught in the collateral chlorine splash.:holysheep: 

Wet


----------



## Roddy (Dec 22, 2011)

hxxp://youtu.be/mjc_0JBlRgE

Not sure if everyone or anyone saw this or not, good little clip.


----------



## crisw69 (Dec 24, 2011)

I guess putting on make up and eating in vehicles is still ok.


----------



## Irish (Dec 24, 2011)

road rage kills people everyday...


----------



## HabitualConcepts (Dec 24, 2011)

Holy crap! It's going to be interesting to see if this get's legislated and passed. While I do think it's a great idea, I hope they still allow bluetooth car phones or headsets. I have to agree that there is still going to be a lot of stupid people on the road doing stupid stuff regardless.


----------



## ozzydiodude (Dec 24, 2011)

And those of us that are not stupid get stupid mad putting up with their stupidity in driving ways


----------



## Roddy (Jan 11, 2012)

:yeahthat: No doubt, Ozzy!!

While in Vegas, I saw they went from the warning to ticketing stage of this law there. Still plenty of people on their phones though, sadly. They are allowing use of hands-free in Nevada, as far as I could tell.


----------

