Lawrence and Douglas county
Lawrence cell phone ban would be strictest
Prohibition would include even hands-free devices
June 1, 2006
Advertisement
New York, you've got nothing on Lawrence.
New York state made national headlines four years ago for becoming the first state to ban motorists from using cell phones. But a proposed cell phone ban in Lawrence would be tougher than that law or any other cell phone ban in the country, a national group that studies cell phone usage said.
The proposed Lawrence ordinance - up for discussion Monday by the Traffic Safety Commission - would ban the use of both hand-held cell phones and hands-free cell phone devices by motorists.
"That would be a first in this country," said Russ Rader, a spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Other bans generally prohibit only hand-held devices, with some banning hands-free devices for certain types of motorists, such as teenagers or school bus drivers.
The Lawrence ban on hands-free devices would apply to all drivers, and some cell phone researchers said it was about time for a city to adopt such a ban.
"If you pass a ban that just prohibits the hand-held devices, you're sending a message that the hands-free devices are safe, and that is false," said Paul Atchley, an associate professor of psychology at Kansas University and one of the leading researchers of cell phones and motorists.
Rader said he agreed the research backs up claims that hands-free devices are no safer for motorists than hand-held ones. He said the institute - which is funded by the insurance industry to conduct studies on ways to improve driver safety - did an extensive study in Australia using cell phone records of people involved in accidents. The study showed people using a cell phone were four times as likely to get into an injury accident, regardless of whether they were using a hand-held or hands-free device. A Canadian study produced similar results.
"I think, initially, people assumed that the problem with using a cell phone while driving was the holding of the phone and the dialing of the phone, but now the body of research is suggesting that the conversation itself is the major distraction," Rader said.
Cell phone companies, though, have disputed the dangers of hands-free phones.
"We would certainly oppose a complete ban," Jamie Hastings, director of government affairs for T-Mobile USA, previously told the Journal-World. "We think there are distractions just as great. I suppose if you also want to ban McDonald's coffee and kids in the back seat, then we wouldn't oppose it."
Rader said the fact that the hands-free research - conducted in 2004 - is relatively new is probably one reason communities haven't started adopting hands-free bans. He also said some communities may be concerned about how to enforce the ban.
Enforcement challenges have been the issue that city staff members have cautioned traffic safety commissioners to consider. Scott Miller, a staff attorney for the city who handles many police related matters, said it likely would take an aggressive enforcement strategy for any ban to improve safety or reduce accident rates.
"I'm not saying we would have to have more police officers - that's not my job to make that determination - but we would need to allocate police resources so they could spend time doing intensive enforcement for it," Miller said.
Reader poll
Studies have suggested that the effectiveness of cell phone bans are related to the amount of enforcement and publicity that communities direct toward them. A study of the New York state ban found that hand-held cell phone use by drivers dropped by about half during the first months following the ban. But one year after the ban had been in place, hand-held cell phone usage among drivers had climbed to virtually the same rate as before the ban.
In Washington, D.C., though, hand-held cell phone usage went down about 50 percent following its ban and has remained below pre-ban levels. But enforcement activity in Washington, D.C., is aggressive. Tickets for cell phone violations there represent 8 percent of all moving violations compared with 4 percent in New York, according to studies compiled by the institute.
When traffic safety commissioners review the proposed ordinance at their Monday meeting - which begins at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall - it will be the second time in as many months that they've discussed cell phone bans.
At their May meeting, traffic safety commissioners considered an ordinance that would have banned the use of cell phones by drivers younger than 18. Instead, a majority of commissioners directed staff members to come up with a proposal that would ban cell phones for all motorists.
The ordinance commissioners are now set to consider has but one exception: Motorists could use a cell phone to make an emergency call to police, fire or other agencies.
The proposed ordinance lists a maximum fine of $100 for violating the ban, but lists no minimum fine.
In addition to the cell phone ban, traffic safety commissioners also will consider an ordinance that would double the fine for inattentive driving - from $60 to $120 - for any motorist involved in an accident while using a cell phone.
Any decision by the Traffic Safety Commission must be approved by city commissioners before it is final.
More like this
- Phone ban loses favor 97 comments / June 6, 2006
- Proposal would prohibit teens from using phones while driving 33 comments / April 29, 2006
- Distracted driving an ‘epidemic’ 5 comments / October 1, 2009
- Dangerous distraction June 27, 2001
- Bring on ban 7 comments / October 19, 2005
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Nation has right to ask ‘why?’ November 21, 2009 · 2 comments
- Mangino denies validity of former player allegations November 19, 2009 · 158 comments
- Nothing to lose: Reeling KU huge underdog for a change November 21, 2009 · 6 comments
- Blog: We Noticed November 19, 2009 · 116 comments
- Blog: Palin Book Could Be Your Cheapest Source For Winter Fuel November 20, 2009 · 57 comments
- Where but in Lawrence? November 21, 2009 · 1 comment
- KU's Chancellor issues statement putting support behind Lew Perkins November 20, 2009 · 38 comments
- Blog: Why Do People Repeat Falsehoods? November 20, 2009 · 47 comments
- Lawrence man charged in hit-and-run accident that killed bicyclist November 19, 2009 · 109 comments
- No busker ban November 21, 2009 · 2 comments
- New, legal, drug has law enforcement concerned — and it's already on a Lawrence store's shelves November 4, 2009
- Commission votes against including gender identity in Lawrence's anti-discrimination policy November 19, 2009
- CLARENCE E. RINKE OBITUARY October 19, 1999
- Message warns students at Perry-Lecompton not to attend class today April 20, 2007
- Resident hopes to start rickshaw business in downtown Lawrence, pending city approval November 19, 2009
- Need information during Saturday's H1N1 clinic? Let us know November 20, 2009
- Sexual healing: Dennis Dailey coaches couples with tough love at his intimacy workshop November 20, 2009
- KU student pushes button that demolishes a portion of the Kansas Turnpike bridge November 19, 2009
- A sad story November 19, 2009
- KU's Chancellor issues statement putting support behind Lew Perkins November 20, 2009
1 June 2006
at 4:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
The_Voice_of_Reason (Anonymous) says…
Lets see… In the past four or so years the so called “leaders” of Lawrence have ban fireworks, smokeing in public buildings, and are now trying to ban cell phone useage in OUR cars! All while we have kids getting injured and killed at intersections due to problems with the roads, we have major problems with the growth of the city along with a mounting sewer problem, we have the scum of Topuka coming over and shooting up our clubs and bars, we have huge traffic congestion problems, problems with the homeless, and a lack of funding for public schools. Is it just me or do these “leaders” have their priorites so far out of wack and their heads so far up their a$$es that they could wear themselves as hats. Hey city comission… do something useful!!!
1 June 2006
at 5:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…
Well, if you would hang up and drive instead of gabbing to whoever, you would notice how many people you nearly hit on a regular day.
1 June 2006
at 5:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rednekbuddha (Kelly Powell) says…
I have to agree with reason….They have been quite ban happy……Once again i state that things like this should be voted on.
1 June 2006
at 6:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Informed (Anonymous) says…
They gotta catch me first.
1 June 2006
at 6:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BrianR (Anonymous) says…
Another idiotic ban. Apparently these people don't learn from past mistakes.
Restrict hand-held, go with hands-free divices, anything else is an outrage. Basically no ban is really enforcable, I see hand-held phones all the time in NY and NJ.
At any rate, this will give the LPD something else to do rather than catching the thieves who are slowly, piece by piece, stealing everything out of my neighborhood. Nice work, commission, now, get real.
1 June 2006
at 6:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
This is the sort of thing that you get when you have “Progressives(Read:”repressives”) on your Kommission.
all hail boog, shauner and rundle!
Thanks.
Marion.
1 June 2006
at 6:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
“wearing themselves as hats”
Humorous, and yet absolutely on-target!
1 June 2006
at 6:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ben_ness (Anonymous) says…
The banning of hand free devices while driving is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. What is next? No talking to your passengers while you are driving.
1 June 2006
at 6:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marshalus (Michael Stanclift) says…
Will this apply to police as well? I see more police officers driving around talking on cell phones than I do anyone else.
As soon as I can I'm getting out of this town.
1 June 2006
at 6:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LivedinLawrence4Life (Anonymous) says…
Hand free devices absolutely should not be banned! Those of us who can actually talk and drive at the same time and have never had an accident should have the freedom to use a headset connected to our phone. However, if someone has a cell phone related accident, then ok, ban them from using cell phones in cars.
1 June 2006
at 6:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanzer (Anonymous) says…
I just want to know how talking on the phone is any different from other dissociative states drivers find themselves engaged in - such as daydreaming, practicing speaches to the board, etc. now there is a test for the prof. I can't wait for them to also ban daydreaming while driving.
Just my curios observation tells me - those who drive and talk on hand-helds are more problematic in town than the highway - ever sit at a 4-way and watch everyone on hand helds go out of turn or not completely stop? Wait - maybe this ban is really just a form of road rage for the commission.
1 June 2006
at 6:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
demsducks (Anonymous) says…
ben_ness, you took the words right out of my mouth.
1 June 2006
at 6:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanzer (Anonymous) says…
ben-ness the prof says that talking on the phone is more distracting than talking to people in the car. something about imagining them talk perhaps makes it more distracting. daydreaming is pretty similar… but he hasn't tested that one.
on another note - i know a lot of folks around town that do crisis calls while in the car - using hands free devices… i guess the crisis calls will have to wait.
1 June 2006
at 6:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
punkrockmom (Anonymous) says…
I'm not for a ban of any sort. I've been run off the road by people with and without phones. I think it would be ok to charge more for violations committed while using a phone. Speeding, wrecks, whatever, make the fines more if a phone is in use. I AM a phone user. However, my son throwing things and kicking my seat and such things are way more distracting. I avoid both in the car as much as possible.
1 June 2006
at 6:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blue73harley (Anonymous) says…
Ban bans.
1 June 2006
at 7:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
1DJMjas7 (Anonymous) says…
I can talk on the phone and drive at the same time. It has never caused a near accident, or an accident. I think what they really need to ban is idiotic drivers. The people that slam on the brakes to turn & use no turn signals. The people that drive in the dark/rain without headlights. The people that talk on their phones & can't pay attention to the road at the same time. The people that are eating & not paying attention to their driving. I also agree with The_Voice_of_Reason that there are many more useful things the city could do rather than worrying about cell phone usage.
1 June 2006
at 7:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
poolside (Anonymous) says…
I have to agree with T-Mobile- ban eating McDonalds, or kids fighting in the back seat if you want to be fair. And let's add car stereos to that ban. Better yet, control the number of 15-24 year olds in one car at one time.
I bought my cell phone so I COULD talk in the car. When my kids are stranded somewhere with a dead battery, or something like that I want them to find me, and me them. A cell phone with prepaid minutes is cheaper than a CB radio. (Which is also used most often, in the car, WHILE driving.)
I believe hands free devices are much safer than holding the phone. And I think with a hands free set it is more difficult to text while driving, something that absolutely must be stopped!
1 June 2006
at 7:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jetgirl (Anonymous) says…
Next they'll try to pass laws so we can't talk to the passengers in our vehicles because those conversations are also too distracting.
While I believe that holding a phone while driving can be risky, I think that first passing a law limited mobile phone use to hand free devices is the better way to start.
For being the most liberal city in Kansas, Lawrence sure has passed many more laws limiting our choices more so than in other areas in the state. It's almost like our leaders are looking to the state of New York as an example of what laws we should have.
1 June 2006
at 7:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
geekin_topekan (Anonymous) says…
I agree with the McDonald's ban.But Please,don't ban BurritoKing!!
1 June 2006
at 7:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
There is absolutely no doubt that talking on a cell phone, hand-held or hands-free, while driving is a dangerous distraction. What makes it different from other distractions mentioned is that it can be rather easily banned. The only question is whether the ban will be enforced enough to make it work.
1 June 2006
at 7:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
satchel (Anonymous) says…
Unbelievable.. Well, this has sealed us not moving to Lawrence.. all hail boog.. and the Liberal 'regressives' who run Lawrence. Let's make it o.k. to smoke pot in the car, but not talk on hand free phones.. We can turn up the radio and dance while driving, while talking to our passengers and eating a sandwich.
This is totally ridiculous.. but you libs in lawrence voted these idiots into office.. try voting in a real conservative and you will get your rights back.. i.e. smoking rights, firework rights and even cell phone rights..
1 June 2006
at 7:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crono (Anonymous) says…
Agreed–if “the body of research is suggesting that the conversation itself is the major distraction”, then it seems *logical*, not just *possible*, that the city ought to ban talking to other passengers, singing along to the radio, or any other activity a driver might do that could maybe possibly be slightly distracting. This obviously is ludicrous.
Give us a ticket if we're driving recklessly. I think we already have a law for that.
1 June 2006
at 7:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cowboy (Anonymous) says…
100 years ago…..the stocks were placed all over the town square as the kommission had sentenced those evil cell
phones users to public humiliation sessions. The new shipment of torture devices has arrived so they can also punish those makeup appliers , roundabout jumpers , and the satanic ones caught listening to Barry Manilow music in their cars…..
LJW , how about full disclosure…who are the petitioners on this ?
1 June 2006
at 7:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
YourItalianPrincess (Anonymous) says…
Okay….here we go again.
I have a cell phone, but I only answer it when I'm driving if my son or another family member is calling me. If there is an emergency I want to know about it then and not later. I don't answer anyone elses call until I get to where I'm going.
If they are going to ban cell phones then ban them from everyone. Don't pick and choose who can and can't use one. You simply can't choose who can and can't use one. We have doctors, lawyers, police, etc…….I could go on and on who need them I would imagine. You can't pass a law that says…….Okay, since you are a doctor you can use your cell phone, but since you are just a mom or dad I guess you are not that important.
If they are going to try to ban cell phones while driving…….heres a list of other things that people shouldn't do either:
Putting on make-up while driving
Changing you radio station while driving
Those pesky little dogs in drivers' laps while driving
Eating while driving
Drinking any type of berverage while driving
Smoking while driving
Did I mention those pesky little dogs?
I'm sure I and others can think of more things that would distract you from driving. I don't want to give anyone any ideas, but it all barrels down to the same thing.
Pull over and answer your phone if needed. There are parking lots all over the place. If you phone rings, just pull over and answer it, its simple.
1 June 2006
at 7:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksmattfish (Anonymous) says…
Let's see, convenience or safety? Hmmm, what would a good American do? Pick convenience every time! Who cares if talking on the phone while driving has been shown to be just as dangerous as driving drunk? Who cares if quick, easy lines at the airport allow terrorists to get through? Who cares if fast food is making the nation obese? Who cares if there's going to be no gas left for our children? give me convenience or give me death! The new American pledge.
1 June 2006
at 7:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
superduper (Anonymous) says…
Here's great stupid idea :) Maybe we can have cell phone hot spots. They just remove all of the cell towers that cover the whole city and you have to drive to some designated parking lot to talk on the phone. They can put $1 per minute parking meters in that lot and make a lot of money. The only major city and university on the planet where talking on the phone is banned. That ought to make CNN right? I wonder how the cell phone companies would feel about that.
1 June 2006
at 7:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
superduper (Anonymous) says…
What's funny is the banner ad on the upper right where I just posted my comment was for a cell phone :))
1 June 2006
at 7:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KsTwister (Anonymous) says…
Punish the whole for the sake of a few,this is definitely Lawrence Stupid Kansas. More frivol legal battles please! Now,what can you do about a mother-in-law in the back seat before its inside vehicular homicide?
1 June 2006
at 7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Informed (Anonymous) says…
Welcome to Lawrence; the answer is 'no'.
1 June 2006
at 7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…
gee, i'm surprised they don't ban the sales of cell phones or make it illegal for car dealers to sell cars with blue tooth technology. what about the voice command navigation system in some cars, where the computer talks to tell where to turn? what if someone from out of town is caught using their cell phone while driving? does this mean all these young college student drivers will be exempt from the ban using their cell phones while driving or will lawrence have to expend a boat load of money for little street signs placed everywhere saying “it is illegal to use a cell phone while driving (even hands free)?” that in itself will be dangerous just trying to read it while driving.
since richard heckler “merrill” is an expert in traffic safety and since this ban will be the strictest in the country, i think we need to get used to the idea of the total ban - because surely it is going to happen. after all, it will be for our own good. utopia here we come, and they did NOT have cell phones in the 1880's! smart growth at work - turning today into what the 1880's coulda been.
1 June 2006
at 7:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
melott (Anonymous) says…
two big research studies have shown that hands-free devices increase the accident rate just as much as hand-held devices, which is about the same as being drunk.
1 June 2006
at 7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blessed3x (Anonymous) says…
People! Life will be so much easier when you just realize that the “progressives” know exactly how your life should be run. Please just hand over all control to them. Relax, the progressives are here to help. Now hand me that joint while the light's still red.
1 June 2006
at 7:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
neopolss (Anonymous) says…
Years ago, I used to love Lawrence. It most certainly is NOT the town I lived in ten years ago. To those who say, if you don't like it, leave - I did.
1 June 2006
at 7:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
takeastand (Anonymous) says…
boog, shauner and rundle need to reconsider starting their medications back up again
1 June 2006
at 8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ben_ness (Anonymous) says…
Why not pass an ordinance requiring all drivers to wear a gag-ball when behind the wheel.
1 June 2006
at 8:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho (Anonymous) says…
As a motorcyclist, I applaud the cell phone ban. I've had too many close calls with people gabbing on the cell phone who suddenly change lanes without paying attention. Many cell phone users also fail to use turn signals because that hand usually holds the phone to their ear. If you need to make a call, please pull over.
1 June 2006
at 8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
spamqueen (Anonymous) says…
Have traffic accidents GONE UP in Lawrence in the last 5-10 years due to cell phone usage while driving? I've seen people reading while driving, eating, drinking, kissing, hitting each other, smoking, yelling, singing, dancing, entertaining pets on their laps, doing their hair, applying makeup, and picking their noses. I think all these things need to be banned. Please wise commission, protect us from ourselves!!!!!!!!! it's your job!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 June 2006
at 8:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
The vast majority of drunk drivers are never caught. Does that mean there should be no laws against drunk-driving?
1 June 2006
at 8:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dudesmithy (Anonymous) says…
This is so funny! Everyday on this board someone seems to be complaining about drivers with cell phones. Now the commission is thinking about doing something about it and everyone complains!!!
I know…Lets blame it on roundabouts. That's everyones favorite scapegoat! So I'm sure it has to fit into this discussion somewhere.
-DS
1 June 2006
at 8:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…
they should pay more money for a study of your very question spamqueen. have accidents gone up in lawrence since the introduction of the cell phone? i see a professor getting some federal grant money in the very near future and i see some east coast firm getting hired by the city to do another study.
1 June 2006
at 8:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
spamqueen (Anonymous) says…
Yes, repeal drunk driving laws. I need a friggin' drink after reading what some of you “progressives” have to say. (We need more laws—who cares that much of the time, those laws we do wisely have aren't enforced. . .)
1 June 2006
at 8:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
compmd (Anonymous) says…
I am going to refute all of the studies that say hands-free kits are as bad as handsets right here.
Handset: Requires you to use one hand to hold it against your head.
Handsfree: Does not require you to hold anything against your head.
Holding something requires motor control which requires brain power. QED.
Yesterday I almost got killed by an oblivious older woman with a phone planted against her head. No joke, red ford escort zx2, short woman, light hair, and yes I know her plate number. She turned left in front of me without signaling or yielding to oncoming traffic (me). She had no idea that a car was coming towards her with horn blaring, tires screeching, trying to slow down and get out of the way. No, I was not on the phone at the time.
What's worse is this isn't the first time something like this has happened. Anyone here drive stick and use a handset? Hard isn't it? A bluetooth headset lets you focus much more on driving since you've got your hands freed up and no wires dangling around you. Best investment I made for my phone.
If the city wants to charge people with inattentive driving if they are in an accident while talking on the phone, maybe the city should consider actually proving that the driver was not attentive at the time of the accident. I can't wait for one of those trials.
Ban the handsets, fine with me. But the headsets too? Typical backwards Kansas move.
1 June 2006
at 8:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
spamqueen (Anonymous) says…
I disagree, compmd, about one thing for sure: Lawrence is NOT typical Kansas. :-)
1 June 2006
at 8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DaREEKKU (Anonymous) says…
I would have to agree with most of you. Ban Handheld, but not hands free.
1 June 2006
at 8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bmwjhawk (Anonymous) says…
“Well, this has sealed us not moving to Lawrence.”
Wow! You must have very important cell phone conversations that can't wait the no more than 15 minutes it takes to get somewhere in this town.
This potential ban makes more sense than the smoking ban, because I can't make the decision to stay off those roads that are travelled by inattentive phone-callers.
1 June 2006
at 8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…
Like princess, I will answer my phone will driving if it is the hubby or the kids. If no one is bleeding, broken, or the house isn't on fire, I will call them back when I get to where I am going.
I don't know if cell phones make people more inattentive than anything else does. I have almost been mowed down in the last two weeks by people who are just bad drivers - no cell phones in sight.
The proposed cell phone ban is ridiculous. Just fine the drivers who cause accidents by inattentive driving, and pull those over who may be driving inattentively (whether it phones, kids, dogs, food, dancing, etc).
P.S. I miss the fireworks on the 4th.
1 June 2006
at 8:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tyger_lily (Anonymous) says…
I say it is about time. This wouldn't affect me at all since I NEVER talk on the phone while driving. Almost on a daily basis I get the jacka** behind me, gabbing on the phone and almost smashing in to me because I used my turn signal and slowed down to make a right turn. Then they speed up past me and flip me off. I have a bright yellow car so I am not that easy to miss, they are all upset because the world isn't revolving around them at that moment. I think the cell phones should be banned and then everybody in Lawrence needs to be sent to driving school to learn that turning into the wrong lane is supposed to be illegal. I know it is a concept for most people around here, but there are other people in the world.
1 June 2006
at 8:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Here we go again, I love it when I see those “I can actually drive and talk on the phone” posts. By what criteria are you not impaired; that you haven't been in an accident while talking on the phone?
The hard-nosed nature of such posts is so fascinating. I suppose 90 percent of the people that post here are also “better than the average driver”, a number slightly higher than the general population, where 80 % of people believe they are better than the average driver, huh!?
Compmd, the issue here is attention. Holding something doesn't necessarily require attention. Shifting your car is also a well-learned response that requires little if any attention. Driving your car in response to a new threat, doing something out of the norm, is NOT well-learned and therefore will demand your attention (or you fail the task.) Response is delayed beacuase talking on the phone requires attention to process and respond; Each conversation is different, and therefore you can't go on auto; if you are on auto (e.g., uh-huh-ing everything said by your wife and not really listening then why is that phonecall so important?)
The issue here is attention, which is drawn away by the conversation; the conversation is what also takes up most of the time spent using the phone… dialing while driving isn't a good thing, but it isn't the primary issue. It takes very little of the time and seems to have very little overall impact on the driving situation. That's why hands-free devices are the biggest joke; allowing of hands-free devices was a legislative way of appeasing people who THINK the problem is the fumbling with the phone (the same people that think that “well isn't this like a car conversation” or “isn't this like playing with the radio” no, it isn't!). Perhaps it doesn't make obvious sense why these are different, but I will take the research over the scoff of “I can drive while using the phone, while some others clearly cannot.” How do you know you can? If you are so sure, you are probably the scariest driver on the road, dividing attention among driving, talking and assessing your driving ability (in addition to the myriad other things the average car trip entails).
And BrianR, because something is difficult to enforce, you propose that as a reason for having no law? Well, I suppose murder needs to be taken off the books as do MOST other crimes where the catch and convict rates are less than 50%; wouldn't that be a good measure of enforcement difficulty? Get rid of those silly civil rights laws as well (most cases of racism and sexism go unenforced). Speeding would certainly go; I bet 99.9% of speeding incidents (but at least 50%!) are not caught and therefore the law is unenforceable. Remember that when your kid gets hit in the street by someone going 45 in a 25 talking on the cell phone assessing his driving as “hey I can talk on the cell phone.”
1 June 2006
at 8:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BJ (Anonymous) says…
A study in Europe resulted in banning cell phones in cars, but not handsfree devices. It is working very well.
But why listen to Europeans? They have roundabouts that actually work. We don't want that to happen in Lawrence, do we now?
1 June 2006
at 8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
offbrand1 (Anonymous) says…
There is something to be said for this ban when I repeatedly see people talking on the cell phone while driving and completely oblivious to what is going on. I've seen people run red lights, stop lights, change lanes and almost hit someone, etc., Bottom line- when you drive a car and aren't watching or paying attention to the road, you are an accident waiting to happen. I watched a guy run a red light while he was text messaging- totally ridiculous. I didn't think hand held cell phones needed to be banned, but after seeing this and adding it to the number of times I've nearly been mowed down in parking lots because some SUV mom is too busy gabbing on her cell to pay attention to where she's going, I changed my mind.
I don't know that bans would even be effective, but if they want to ban something, ban the hand held phone and nothing else. Make people put their phones on their dash with a little attachment so they can have both hands on the wheel or let them get an ear bud. It's cheap and easy, people, and it makes sense. Surely that's not infringing on anyone's civil rights, now is it? And for those of you that say talking on the cell phone isn't any worse than putting makeup on or eating in the car, I agree. You shouldn't do that stuff either.
Cell phones are practically surgically attached to people nowadays. Can we roll it back a little and agree that we don't need to have the dang thing attached to our ear when we are operating a vehicle? Can we agree that using a hands free device like an ear bud or attaching the phone to the dash and using the speakerphone might - just might- save a few accidents?
1 June 2006
at 8:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
spamqueen (Anonymous) says…
Goddess some of you are hilarious. I say just ban STUPID people driving. That's a great law! I'll volunteer to help enforce that one. Hey Jayhawks71 (a.k.a. attention boy or GIRL): There are many things that distract drivers or divert their attention while driving besides cell freakin' phones. Lack of brain cells probably adds to the risk for accidents as well. . .
1 June 2006
at 8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
conservative (Anonymous) says…
This has got to be the dumbest thing I have seen from this commission, and that is saying a lot. I understand the idea that they want to make the roads safer, but trying to ban specific behavior isn't the right way to go about it. Double, triple, quadruple or whatever the fine for inattentive driving, and then actually start ticketing for it. Don't worry about the cause of the bad driving, just start ticketing the bad drivers. Because yes, there are a lot of bad drivers out there, some are on cell phones, other's aren't.
1 June 2006
at 8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
takeastand (Anonymous) says…
conservative
good post
1 June 2006
at 8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
“What's worse is this isn't the first time something like this has happened. Anyone here drive stick and use a handset? Hard isn't it?”
Absolutely - which is why I won't answer the stupid phone without a hand-free setup.
And what's up with this “they do it in Europe”, “European”, Europe this, Europe that… It's like some kind of pathetic mental condition - Europe-envy. Ah, but it is the living hope of the socialists, isn't it? Ok, never mind - answered my own question.
1 June 2006
at 8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
storybook (Anonymous) says…
Okay, So this ordinance may be a good thought, but goes a bi tto far. I do think that use of hand-held cellphones should certainly be banned, but would be virtually impossible to stop and enforce completely. But I'll get to that in a bit.
On the other hand, using a hands-free device is no more of a distraction to the driver than countless other distractions from the road in front of them. Many have been posted here in the commnets already, but here are a few.
Admiring your little lap dog while you drive.
Changing the station or volume on your radio
Changing a CD in the CD Player.
Telling your kids to be quieter or behave when fighting while you drive
Talking to someone else in the car
Using a GPS device to find your way around or a touch screen panel.
Singing along with the radio
etc. etc. etc.
Anyways, banning the use of all cell phones while driving would be almost impossible to inforce for just Lawrence. What, will signs be posted at every possible roadway entracne to Lawrence that you can not use cell phones in any fashion while driving within our city? Probably not. So although the ordinace make try to reduce accidents it would most likely be just another ordinace that never gets enforced.
1 June 2006
at 9 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
i_have_only_valid_opinions (Anonymous) says…
so, maybe we have fewer accidents in town with a partial/full ban on cell phones. but, i would bet my life that accidents on K-10 and I-70 increase because people who do have important business requiring cell phone use while driving would have to pull onto the shoulder to stop and talk and would get rear ended by someone not paying attention. i know this because i have a friend that was hit from behind doing exactly this.
plus, you would greatly increase the number of people making last minute decisions to turn (probably without using turn signals) as they are trying to hurry and catch important incoming calls. so, i guess we wouldn't have fewer accidents in town.
1 June 2006
at 9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BunE (Anonymous) says…
Storybook, the government knows best.
We must ban car radios and conversation in cars as well. no singing in cars!
C'mon, this is for your own good. We want to protect you from yourselves.
By the way, we are going to listen in to your international calls and keep records of your calls so that we can make things safer for you too.
1 June 2006
at 9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…
I don't think there needs to be a ban, but if an accident is caused by doing stupid things while driving, people should lose their driving privleges or even serve jail time. I do get sick of people thinking their conversations are more important than their driving. Last night a man ran a red light, because he was only aware that the car turning left next to him was moving. He was too busy talking to notice that the light was only for the left turn. Fortunately the driver who should have been turning left in front of him was driving defensively. I also was almost run over by a girl downtown one afternoon. She was turning right on a red, but didn't see the pedestrian getting ready to cross the street. She never knew I was there even after she had turned. Next time I'll slam my fist down on her hood or trunk to get their attention.
1 June 2006
at 9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rhd99 (Anonymous) says…
Let's have another ban: BAN the city commissioners from being PAID for doing nothing but banning!
1 June 2006
at 9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
CanadianPassport (Anonymous) says…
If you can't talk and drive at the same time, you should have your driver's license taken away. In fact, the DMV should give people cell phones to use during tests.
1 June 2006
at 9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mseybold (Anonymous) says…
People, People, People! I have not heard any mention of using speakerphone in the ban! There is no hands free, and there is no hand to your head.
1 June 2006
at 9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gaiapapaya (Anonymous) says…
My kids and I were almost hit yesterday by a lady who turned into the parking garage downtown without looking to see if there were pedestrians in the way. She was trying to downshift, turn, and talk in a busy area during the noon hour with lots of construction and busses around. She then yelled “Watch it!” as if we were supposed to realize she was zooming into the garage without a turn signal. A half block later, someone actually pulled into the intersection at 9th and NH while we were crossing, on a phone, and waited in the middle of the intersection for us to cross, waving his hand at to get out of his way.
Of course some people don't or won't yield to pedestrians without a phone, but I know phones contribute to it. And before people start going on about kids in the car, I do pull over if my kids won't cut out the bickering and tell them they can stop or we can be late. I also wait to turn a song for them until we get to the light and are stopped. We need stop this lifestyle of entitlement that we should be able to do whatever we want, when we want, consequences be damned.
And we would still have fireworks if people would have just picked up their trash. I miss them, but driving or riding anywhere on the 4th meant avoiding people launching rockets in the streets and tons of trash. Once again, if people would just be responsible…
1 June 2006
at 9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mseybold (Anonymous) says…
Well I suppose speakerphone is “hands free” but who's to say if you are not just talking to yourself. There is no cord hanging from your ear! Enforcement of this ban is a joke!
1 June 2006
at 9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
formerlyKS (Anonymous) says…
The Voice of Reason,
I know what you mean about problems. Topeka has the scum of Lawrence coming over and stealing our jobs.
I guess people in Lawrence have to be critical of Topeka because they're insecure about themselves: the fact that Topeka has posted bigger population increases than Larry the last two years, remains a far bigger city with a much healthier economy than Lawrence, and essentially supports your lazy a$$es by our jobs.
If you hate Topeka so much, quit your jobs in Topeka and stay out!
BTW, Hasn't it been Olathe residents that have caused most of the recent violence in your city? But, let's not blame Jo because secretly everyone in Lawrence wants to be like Jo.
1 June 2006
at 9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bretherite (Anonymous) says…
Ok let's ban kids in the backseat of cars. We all know what a distraction a 3 year old throwing a fit or a couple of pre teen arguing can be. Mediating those things are a bigger distraction because most people turn around to yell at their kids rather than watch the road.
1 June 2006
at 9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty (Anonymous) says…
Lawrence is once again publicly demonstrating that they have a bad case of the stupids.
Plus the city has no authority to ban cell phones. Let alone enforce it.
1 June 2006
at 9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BrianR (Anonymous) says…
Jayhawks71,
Nice straw man, next.
1 June 2006
at 9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
METALQ2 (Anonymous) says…
I now realize communism is real in Lawrence Ks
1 June 2006
at 10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Informed (Anonymous) says…
Get yourself a Bluetooth headseat and people will think you're talking to yourself. (Like the speakerphone scenario.)
Face it, this will be a largely unenforceable ban — like the fireworks. Darn! I should have bought a bunch while I was in MO yesterday.
1 June 2006
at 10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justsomewench (Anonymous) says…
can they just ban my daughter from reciting entire episodes of random cartoons while i'm driving?
please?
1 June 2006
at 10:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
METALQ2 (Anonymous) says…
If the police can't use cell phones, that means they will have to broadcast accidents over the air. That would enable Transmasters to chase redlights again.
1 June 2006
at 10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
no ban cars they are the evil that the commision should protect us from we should all just go back to horse and buggy, but the commision should be made to clean up after the horses. I think if people just use commen sense and pull off the road and stop to talk it would help but distration happens in to many ways to ban just one thing….. and the motercycle guy i hate to say this but most people do not look for motercycles or bikes cell phone or not so stricter enforcment is what is needed and paying attention. I also think the commision should be followed and video taped while driving so we can see what they do when driving I bet more than one talks on the phone while driving, does not yield at a round about, fully stop at a four way and speeds a little. How about sueing the commision for being dumb and self absorbed and not truely haveing the city and her people at heart and taking the wishes of all of us in mind when they make stupid choices and fastly spend all our money on things that do not matter in the long run. I know 90,000 dollers for new flowers downtown is not real high on my list of must but hey it is just our money I bet they could have had all the elem. students all buy seeds at a store and go downtown olay in the dirt for a couple of days learned some things and made beutiful little gardens but no that would be teaching our children something not on the “no child left behind” list oh well what to do.
1 June 2006
at 10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jrlii (Anonymous) says…
Ban Bans.
As the acts of Government become more and more intrusive, Government is rapidly approaching the point of qualifying as a crime against humanity.
1 June 2006
at 10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
warthog (Anonymous) says…
Sure… ban cell phones… then ban radios, cuz we know how distracting that is… first thing ya know, they'll be banning sex while driving, too.
1 June 2006
at 10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
sorry warthog already a no no just sue them all for being dumb
1 June 2006
at 10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
warthog (Anonymous) says…
SEX is a no no while driving??? Ooops…
1 June 2006
at 10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jimincountry (Anonymous) says…
Ban phones and sex while driving………pull over first!
1 June 2006
at 10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
usaschools (Anonymous) says…
Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “What is government but tyranny?” Well spoken indeed.
That being said, I am in favor of a ban on the use of hand-held cell phones while driving for these reasons:
1) No one can drive safely with one hand. This is why in 100% of driver's education classes, 100% of drivers are taught to drive with both hands on the wheel. The fact that some of us endanger ourselves and others by driving with one hand does not make this a safe practice, nor does it make it right. Accidents happen when the unexpected occurs - a pot hole, a bump, someone changes lanes without signaling, a car you didn't see, a child you didn't see, an animal in the road- you need to react quickly and you need both hands. You cannot make a sharp right holding a cell phone in your left hand or vice versa.
2. It has been my experience over the last several years that the vast majority of inattentive drivers that I observe in my daily travels are talking on a cell phone. This includes people who run right through stop signs and lights as though they were not there, people who pull out in front of oncoming traffic, people who drive really slow, people who change lanes erratically, and so on. Sorry for those of you who can handle it, a great many people cannot. Enough people cannot handle it to make it a significant safety risk.
3. By now, we all know someone who has been in a fender bender with a person talking on a cell phone. The anecdotes from my friends usually include a denial from the other driver that they were talking on the phone at the time of the accident. In other words, even those who drive with cell phones realize that it detracts from their attention to the road. They know it would seem to contribute to their negligence in an accident. Ask a police officer about this.
A legitimate function of the government is to protect us from a reasonble threat of harm in a reasonable way. A ban on non-hand-held devices seems to me to be unreasonable, but a ban on hand-held devices seems quite reasonable. I see little difference between talking on a non-hand-held device and conversing with a passenger.
1 June 2006
at 10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
craigers (Anonymous) says…
Write tickets to the individuals that cause accidents while on cell phones. This ban is dumb. Most phones have speakerphone capability so I guess I will just leave my phone in the cup holder and talk really loud without the hands-free device. As long as I don't see any cops doing it, I won't have a problem with it.
1 June 2006
at 10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
BrianR- straw man? Hah, then dispose of it empirically, should be easily done. Nice attempt at ad hominem/ non-sequitor though! Try again!
1 June 2006
at 10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
southerngirl (Anonymous) says…
What about engaging in “Clinton sex” while driving, is that illegal too?
The military has banned cell phone usage without a hands free device on all bases worldwide, but our base commander went a step further and just banned cell phone usage while driving.
1 June 2006
at 10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…
I have to admit two things. One, I sometimes talk on my phone while driving (maybe once a week, I'm not using my phone as a prosthesis). Two, I completely agree with this law and wish it were nationwide. Looooong before cell phones I was sick of all the bad drivers. The distractions of phone has made it worst. We all need to hang up and drive.
And, as the story says, hands-free devices do NOT change the risk factors. That is a fact. It's the amount of distraction involved in carrying on an engaging conversation while driving.
1 June 2006
at 10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…
In reference to the photo on the front page, since when are 13 year olds allowed to drive?
1 June 2006
at 11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blue73harley (Anonymous) says…
I don't agree with a ban but I do think people should shut up and drive…
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll…
1 June 2006
at 11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Gootsie (Anonymous) says…
I think it's all being spearheaded by cell phone companies to get us to use a whole bunch of minutes retrieving messages. They started this with their looooooong lead-ins to leaving a voice mail.
It's a conspiracy. And they're watching us.
I get really annoyed by drivers with cell phones. I love the idea but just don't see how we can train everyone to pull over and take the call.
On I-70 yesterday, I was passed by a young woman on the phone and reading something from the newspaper. And I was going 75 mph (don't tell).
1 June 2006
at 11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
She's 14 and on the edge of her family's farm… in Kansas.
1 June 2006
at 11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mike_blur (Mike Blur) says…
Wow OldEnuf2BMyYoungerBrother, I thought that chick was cute in a hippy style kind of way. You mean to tell me she's not legal? Better get my mind to thinkin' purer thoughts….
1 June 2006
at 11:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
spym00se (Anonymous) says…
Ban IPOD's in the car. I swear every time I touch that thing in the car I almost bite it.
1 June 2006
at 12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…
Honestly, you could ban conversation for the same rationale. Car radios too (I had a friend who got plowed into because of someone who was changing the station). Kids, too (again, someone hit my car while dealing with her kids in the car). It makes sense to ban the big obvious stuff, but in the end, we all just need to start using our brains when we get behind the wheel. It's not an office, restaurant, bathroom or disco… it's a car.
1 June 2006
at 12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
People with manual transmissions should definitely not use hand-held phones! Have you ever seen a sorority girl/soccer mom smoking, talking on the cell, and trying to shift at the same time? Not pretty! Also, I think we should ban soccer mom's who drive mini-vans and let their children eat fastfood.
1 June 2006
at 12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justthefacts (Anonymous) says…
Choices:
1. Create a list of things and then prohibit doing all of them while driving. How many or potential causes of accidents are there that could be avoided if people just paid attention to driving and nothing else?
2. Just prohibit inattentive driving (a general standard; judged on a case by case basis) and punish those who get into wrecks because they were driving badly (in trouble meaning; traffic tickets, higher insurance and/or loss of driving privileges).
Now, which choice would be easier to write into law (or might already be there) or is easier to enforce?
Then there's the little problem of catching violators of the list of prohibited things; “Do not use cell phones. Do not read maps. Do not put on makeup. Do not eat. Do not take one hand off the wheel. Do not change radio stations or book tapes. Do not drink…etc.”
Seeing what someone is doing as you pass them (or vice versa) is one thing. However, ever tried to see what someone is doing in their car while sitting in a parked car on the side of the road (which is where most LEO's are when watching traffic?). Give it a shot. Stand on a busy street corner and try to figure out if the person in the cars that go by are on the phone or putting on makeup etc. It's not easy from a distance.
Seems to make more common sense to severely punish those who cause wrecks because of inattentive driving.
But it's likely that those who believe passing new laws to govern the choices of individuals will pass yet another fairly unenforceable law trying make sure that the general public is protected from the general idiots out there.
Don't know how well it can work, without giving the officers extra enhanced vision capabilities, but lack of real world common sense never stopped new laws from getting passed.
1 June 2006
at 12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gphawk89 (Anonymous) says…
I've personally found that talking on a cellphone (even with a hands-free kit) is much more distracting than talking with another passenger in the car. I can't pinpoint exactly why that is - I guess everyone just deals with that stimulus a bit differently. And for that reason I rarely talk and drive anymore. There's nothing on the phone that can't wait until I'm home or at least parked somewhere. If common sense would prevail and all the folks that can't seem to talk and safely drive at the same time (yes, I'm including myself in that cagegory) would do the same voluntarily, there'd be no need for a stupid ban like this.
And really the same goes for any number of other stupid bans. If folks could just govern themselves, use a bit of common sense, and not be quite so selfish, we wouldn't need bans on smoking, speeding, fireworks, littering…
1 June 2006
at 12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
paladin (Anonymous) says…
I think an exception should be made for the Amish. Their buggies don't go that fast, anyway. And, if one of them is talking on his cell phone, it is probably for a good reason.
1 June 2006
at 12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
http://www.braunconsulting.com/bcg/ne…
––––––––––––––––––—
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/…
–––––––––––––––––––—
In a widely reported story, for example the Dec. 2, 2002 Washington Post story, it was reported that “drivers talking on their phones are responsible for about 6 percent of U.S. auto accidents each year, killing an estimated 2,600 people and injuring 330,000 others.”
And what was casually reported along with this story — I heard it reported on the radio the same way — was that the convenience of the cell phone outweighed or equaled the 2600 lives lost:
Dialing for Disaster
Can't imagine life without your cell phone? They're an important part of everyday life, but using them while driving increases your chance of getting into an accident by 400 percent.
When you're searching for a number, dialing or talking on a cell phone, you're not watching the road like you should. Hands-free features help, but they can't prevent you from becoming involved in a conversation and losing concentration.
A survey of 837 drivers with cell phones found that almost half swerved or drifted into another lane, 23 percent tailgated, 21 percent cut off someone, and 18 percent nearly hit another vehicle while using the phone. So what can you do? How can you be a safe driver if you absolutely have to use your phone while traveling? Wireless-phone manufacturers suggest these options:
Pull off the road and stop in a safe place before using your phone. [Keep this in mind: If you're on a busy road and want to make a call, it's not always safe just to pull over to the side. Records show that people doing this have been killed when other motorists hit them from behind. Experts say the best thing to do is to get away from all traffic by pulling into a parking lot and then making your call. Also remember it's illegal to use a cell phone in your vehicle in some states. Check your local state and municipal laws to avoid problems.-Ed.]
When the phone rings in traffic, let it ring. It's better to use your phone's voice mail or even to miss a call than to put yourself, your passengers, or others at risk.
Become familiar with your phone before using it on the road.
Never take notes or jot down numbers while driving.
1 June 2006
at 12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ben_ness (Anonymous) says…
Don't know if anybody has noticed, but Lawrence has made national news on this issue.
www.drudgereport.com
1 June 2006
at 12:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Survey Supports Ban:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04…
1 June 2006
at 12:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
paladin (Anonymous) says…
Merrill knows best. For him and for everyone else. That's why he's a VIP.
1 June 2006
at 12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
thisiknow (Anonymous) says…
I do not have a cell phone but if I did and this ban became law, I would definitely ask for a reduction on my bill because I am not allowed the use of it 24/7. The cell phone companies might want to put their 2cents in on that if enough customers complain. I know alot of people sign yearly contracts and if you have to wait until you get home to use a phone–-why have a cell? Something to think about.
1 June 2006
at 12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Merrill, come on man, posting the results of empirical research to convince people. You have got to be kidding me. These people KNOW that they can drive and talk on the phone. They KNOW that their “right” to drive should have no limitations placed on it. They KNOW it all; to heck with research… that is until they want the spoils of research (e.g., the latest treatment for their ailment).
Folks like paladin don't want anyone presenting evidence to the contrary of what the KNOW. Paladin forgets that he lives in a society, and one in which people don't really care that much about their fellow man.
It is just too much darn work to pull off the road to talk on the phone. That call is more important than anyone else's safety.
And as for “changing the radio station” being this huge distraction, how many of you are spending minutes changing the station?!
1 June 2006
at 12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
thisiknow: Perhaps the cell phone company would just tell you to pull over as you need to make calls. Maybe they'd tell you to walk instead of drive. Maybe you should make all your calls before work and before 7am, if you don't want to call at night. These companies will definitely not cut our bills.
1 June 2006
at 12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justsomewench (Anonymous) says…
“I think an exception should be made for the Amish. Their buggies don't go that fast, anyway. And, if one of them is talking on his cell phone, it is probably for a good reason.”
ba dum cha!
(belated, but well deserved.)
1 June 2006
at 1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
thisiknow- classic. Who said you have to wait to get home to use your phone? No one! It is just amazing how the world is full of dichotomous thinking (i.e. black and white).
Are most of those people on “limited minute” plans, especially during the day? Perhaps you should pay the city commission a bit for helping you and all your friend avoid overages? Now doesn't that sound absurd?
I am done thinking about your ridiculous claim.
1 June 2006
at 1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
offbrand1 (Anonymous) says…
Aw come on, jayhawks 71, I have it on good authority that you scan your iPod in your car while driving. Does your Honda come equipped with autopilot or something?
And stop with the big words. I'm tired of keeping www.dictionary.com open while I read your posts.
:)
1 June 2006
at 1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Why must we wait until an accident has occurred before something is done? What if you cause an accident without being involved (and then drive off because you are attending to your phonecall, oblivious to the world around you)? What if you simply cause someone else to make a radical driving maneuver that puts their life and limb in a potentially hazardous situation, with no accident occurring. Why do YOU get to do whatever you want with little consideration for your fellow driver (let alone fellow human being!)
I suppose one could champion the repeal movement and repeal laws regarding speed limits, red-light running, lane markings, school zones, construction zones, licensing drivers, right-of-way for emergency vehicles, flow direction on streets, and of course driving while intoxicated. I suppose when you are on the dead end of one of these behaviors, you can change your perspective.
1 June 2006
at 1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
corners (Anonymous) says…
Fact: Car radio and CD players cause 9 times more accidents than cell phones. Other occupants cause 8 times more accidents than cell phones.
I propose a law that would outlaw all vehicle controls, including radio, HVAC controls, manual transmissions (taking hands off the wheel to shift is dangerous), plus a lock that would not allow windows to be operated while the vehicle is moving. The only allowed passengers are children under 18. Children under 18 riding with a parent or guardian must be restrained from moving by the use of leg, arm, and body restraints. A gag must be placed in the mouth of the child to prevent talking.
The world is now a much safer place.
1 June 2006
at 1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
spacystaci8 (Anonymous) says…
I am so tired of the city of bans. Once again glad I live somewhere else. I think people should have the right to decide. When we don't have the right to decide you might as well say we live in a communist country! This is America land of the free. If I wanted to live in a place where people told me when to take a crap I would move to a communist nation.
1 June 2006
at 1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
corners - First, cite your facts. Second, let me guess that 100 times as many people adjust their radios and 100 times as many people have passengers in the car (ironically, that is what transportation is all about–-transporting people and goods!).
You also present a mixed bag of attention demanding tasks and non-attention demanding tasks.
Someone needs to come up with something other than the tired old arguments of “the radio causes accidents.” *sigh*
1 June 2006
at 1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
http://news.google.com/news?q=Cell+Ph…
I read one study that implied a person at the “legally” drunk point may be more alert than a cell phone user behind the wheel.
The bottom line could be if a driver had to respond to an emergency situation would two hands or one on the wheel
be best?
While eating,drinking,smoking,doing make up or screaming at the children are thrown in the mix I've read nowhere that promotes talking on cell phone while driving.
There are plenty suggesting to pull over or let it ring then check messages later. Even while stopped at a stop sign some don't realize it's their turn to move on simply because of conversing on a cell phone so I would not call that paying attention.
The city of Lawrence has taken a position requesting drivers pull over which of course does not apply to emergency staff.
1 June 2006
at 1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justsomewench (Anonymous) says…
if i restrained my daughter's arms, who would steer while i hunt for the flask, look for my glasses, and touch up my nails?
1 June 2006
at 1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Just a reminder…
Nobody's “rights” are being infringed upon here. Driving and using a cell phone are both *privileges*… and generally contingent upon whether or not you have money in the budget for them.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
1 June 2006
at 1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
spacystaci8 (Anonymous) says…
If this law passes I will start shopping, dining and taking my business elsewhere! We have already started going out in other towns. I don't need some dada, dope-smoking bunch of liberals to tell me what to do! If I can't talk on the phone at that moment I simply don't answer it. If traffic is light and easy I answer my phone. I was in a wreck caused by sun shining in someones eyes. Try and ban the sun you liberals!!!
1 June 2006
at 1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
spacystaci8-you live in a nation where you are told WHERE you can take a crap. Given that we should have the right to decide, as you put it, if I choose to take a crap on your front lawn, what do you think? Well, you should be opposed to that (and I bet you are) because you have a right to own property and I would be violating that right. You have no right to operate your motor vehicle however you see fit.
On a tangent… what do you think of the government spying on what its citizens do and restricting freedoms left and right (often slowly, by moving the bar, then moving it again). Land of the free, yeah right.
Someone needs to repeal the last lines of the national anthem… o'er the land of the free (not anymore) and the home of the brave (only those who defend the country and those who speak out against the tyranny that has developed need apply.)
1 June 2006
at 1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
PegC (Anonymous) says…
I live in NY; I see as many drivers using handheld cellphones as before the law was passed. I have Bluetooth in my car with a Bluetooth cellphone and use it. I find talking on the phone distracting, but I have always had a much worse problem with distractions from passengers (and I'm talking adults, not kids). Unless and until passengers are banned, I think banning cellphones, either type, is totally absurd. I fiddle with my iPod and water bottle in the car, too - I feel fairly certain NY and Lawrence will be trying to ban them next. How about banning makeup? How about newspapers? I was followed at 80 mph through Danbury, CT by a guy reading the NY Times. Yesterday I followed a woman fiddling with a stickshift, a cigarette and a water bottle and I was amazed she didn't plow into the guy in front of her. Where does it end? This is like a Jerky Boys routine: Ban everything!
I despise liberals, the Nanny State, and government insinuating itself into every single facet of our lives. Hopefully Lawrence and other overly-regulated municipalities will soon learn the lessons of the law of unintended consequences.
1 June 2006
at 1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
spacystaci8 (Anonymous) says…
You can crap on my lawn if you want, can't be any worse than all the dog poo I already have. It would be great target practice for my paintball gun!! I see what you are saying but I just can't agree. It is a shame the gov't is spying but maybe some spying would catch some terrorists. The way I see it I have nothing to hide, go ahead spy on me, you will probably be bored out of your skull.
1 June 2006
at 1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
oh just ban every thing.
1 June 2006
at 1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
corners (Anonymous) says…
jayhawks71
http://www.aaafoundation.org/multimed…
You mention percentage of cars on the road and the accidents involved as your way to justify deaths, but you need to look at the raw number of deaths/injuries. Fact, radios kill/injure more people each year than cell phones. Not addressing the larger killer would be like trying to find a cure for Ebola before Cancer.
Let's address the bigger problem and work our way down from there. Ok? ban car stereos!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 June 2006
at 1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Beelzabubb (Anonymous) says…
What about my Dick Tracy wristwatch radiophone? I just sent away for it and I'm going to be in Kansas for the next thirty days. The seller only gives a 30 money back guarantee. It has to be tested in my car. Jimmy Hoffa is alive!! He was last seen in a Topeka truck stop and I am hot on his trail. I cannot complete my investigation without the use of my wristwatch radiophone.
Many of the men's restroom stalls in Kansas now sport this sign “hoffa was here” So where do you think he is now in OZ?
1 June 2006
at 1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DubbleDukes (Anonymous) says…
ok, first off, i dont agree with poolsides comment about limiting the number of 15 to 24 year olds. i can see 15 to 19 or 20, but not all the way to 24…i'm 24 and even when i have 3 of my buddies ages 22 to 27 in the car we never have an accident. too many watchful eyes.
2nd, i agree with banning mcdonalds (or other fast food) while driving. i see too many people eating while driving and that takes both hands. especially considering when you have a big mac in the left hand and a large coke in the right while trying to drive with either ur left hand or knees….thats the accidents waiting to happen. not cell phoners.
3rd. hand helds i can see banning. cuz then its obvious that ur on the phone while driving. hands free units i dont agree with. every one of my friends that use a cell phone while driving uses a hands free unit. so do i. they take maybe a second to look at whos calling to decide if you want to answer it or not. or you can just use instict and answer it anyways. or just flat out ignore it. ur choice.
4th…..and the biggest i see missing here….speaker phones!!!! what are you going to do? you see someone talking in the car and no one is around…you can either assume 1 of 3 things…either a) their crazy and u dont want to mess with them, b) they are on a speaker phone of which there isnt a ban against cuz its not tying up either hands nor is it obvious that your on one, or c) they are singing along with the radio station…whatcha going to do????
altho i do agree with several people on here about banning for the younger ages (under 20). they dont have the experience needed to operate a motor vehicle safely while talking on a cell phone. much less sometimes just operating a motor vehicle safely regardless. and you think learning to drive in lawrence is bad….stick a 15 year old with a learners permit and the parent in the car and make them drive kansas city trafic!!!! thats how i learned to drive!! and this was way before all the bans and crap…I-35 is dangerous enuf as it is. not to mention the side streets.
5th…they already cant stop you just for a seat belt infraction, you have to be doing something else wrong first, like speeding. so if your talking on a cell phone, and doing nothing else wrong, can they stop ya? not legitemately. same as if i was to get stopped for a “no seat belt” in my pickup which just has lap belts!!! i could be wearing it, they'd stop me for not wearing it (cuz they wouldnt be able to see it!!!!), and then you could sue the idiot police or city for a false stop!!!
ok, i think i'm done ranting and raving for the moment..
1 June 2006
at 1:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…
if they REALLY cared about our safety, they wouldn't have let the SLT go from a 4 lane highway into a 2 lane highway (because that is what happened after all these delays). thanks for nothing progressives.
i will be marketing a “Learn to talk like a Ventriloquist” book in the very near future. i will try to have walmart or target sell them for me.
1 June 2006
at 2:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
Remember back when they wanted the smoking ban, and a lot of people wanted it, because they thought they knew what was best for everybody else in the world? Said it was a health hazard.
And people said, “wait until they want to ban something that's important to you”.
I guess cell phones in cars are important to an awful lot of people, considering the posts here today. And guess what? They did come to ban something YOU want.
The bans won't stop there, either. Eventually, there will be something else they'll want to ban. For our health and safety, of course.
1 June 2006
at 2:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jedifunk (Anonymous) says…
This town loves to ban things, and it's getting ridiculous. In between the ban on fireworks, the ban on smoking, and the apparently soon-to-be-ban on cell phones while driving, they also sent nutritionists into my high school to tell us that we were eating is unhealthy. Yeah, cause that was hard to see. But instead of limiting our consumption, they just get rid of it altogether, which prompts rebellion and encourages junk food consumption all the more when we're not at school. This cell phone ban will have the same effect. I'm sick of bans…I can't wait to go AWAY to college so I can actually enjoy some personal freedoms. Sheesh.
1 June 2006
at 2:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
PegC writes:
“I despise liberals, the Nanny State, and government insinuating itself into every single facet of our lives. Hopefully Lawrence and other overly-regulated municipalities will soon learn the lessons of the law of unintended consequences.”
************************************
Does that also include insinuations deemed “necessary” for purposes of “national security?” Or insinuations deemed “necessary” to curb or restrict behavior that one “holy book” or another might consider “sinful?” Is it the “Nanny State” as a whole you despise, or is it okay for the Nanny to invade bedrooms and tell us where the gays and lesbians are?
As for your precious “libs”… I'm sure they despise you right back, you luscious lil' extremist, you! ;)
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
1 June 2006
at 2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
black_watch (Anonymous) says…
How about instead of completely banning the action, making one responsible in case of an accident or injury? After all, if I'm on a hands-free and I don't wreck, why do I get punished? I haven't done anything.
I refuse to be criminalized on a trivial matter. Why don't we ban cellphones altogether? And cigarettes? And alcohol, too. Alcohol hurts TONS of people. Not wearing sunglasses while driving in the summer is dangerous. Let's make it illegal not to, no matter what.
This legalistic viewpoint has to change, or we're going to find ourselves all locked in cages before we know it. I refuse to live in that kind of world. Hands off my freedom.
1 June 2006
at 2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
lunacy-I suppose you truly believe in the looney idea that they had the final say in the SLT, right?
spacy-I have nothing to hide either…that isn't the point. Our system assumes innocence until proof of guilt. Spying on citizens is a fishing expedition in which your RIGHT to privacy is infringed upon unnecessarily.
As for the speakerphone defense (first, isn't this going to be a part of the ordinance), it should be rather simple for you to produce your cell phone bill to exonerate yourself. You could simply avoid court by showing the officer that your phone didn't make or receive a call in the last, say 5 minutes, right? My phone is 3 years old and keeps track of the outgoing and incoming calls as well as missed calls (just in case you were going to use the “I didn't answer it” defense). Any other defenses we need to dismiss? At least now you can stop saying that “no one has addressed it.”
corners- your citation (thanks!) is completely consistent with what I said though. If there are 100 times as many people messing with their stereos than talking on cell phones, you would expect there to be 100 times as many accidents attributed to “stereo manipulation” than cell phone use. What you see is about 20 times the rate.
Next, these are based on accidents in which a cause was attributed by a police officer- who wasn't there when it happened.
Next, the data are consistent with the subjective interpretation that talking on the cell phone is more taboo than changing the radio station. If one gets in an accident, are they going to admit to being a moron talking on the cell phone or saying “oh the I looked down at the radio for a second (versus I was on the phone for 10 minutes… which sounds more egregious?). One is more socially acceptable than the other (there are a lot more people saying to ban cell phones while driving than are saying to ban car radios, contrary to what one would concluded from this forum!).
Finally, the data are from at least 6 years ago. In those years, cell phone use has increased substantially… so the logical inference is that more people are using cell phones while driving (subject to some data!). The percentage of cars with radios (and people using them) has NOT gone up at the same rate (raise your hand if you have a car without a radio in it (now put down your hand if your radio is simply broken)).
Measure the performance of humans placed in real or realistic driving situations. Oh wait, that has already been done repeatedly, thus providing empirical support for the danger of talking on the cell phone while driving.
1 June 2006
at 2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gphawk89 (Anonymous) says…
I've seen several posts from people concerned that IPods will be banned next. Do you mean iPods with headphones? Aren't headphones already banned while driving (at least in Lawrence and several other cities - not sure if there's a state law covering this)? Do people really wear headphones while driving? Now that's just plain stupid. I for one want to be able to hear the siren on the fire truck BEFORE it obliterates me in an intersection.
1 June 2006
at 2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
ban ban ban , horse and buggy here we come commision still gets to clean it up
1 June 2006
at 2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
glockowner - i guarantee police officers are better trained drivers than the average joe. that said, I do not believe that police officers should be allowed to use cell phones while driving.
1 June 2006
at 2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bankboy119 (Anonymous) says…
Can my daughter play with her Nemo phone? What if my wife held the cell phone to my ear while I'm driving? What if she's on the phone with the person I need to talk to and I spend too much time concentrating on talking to her to relay the message to the intended receiver?
1 June 2006
at 2:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
OK, let's justify the claim that the city commission is “ban happy.”
Add to my list -
1) Smoking ban in public places.
2) Cell phone while driving ban.
(finishes removing the lid from this can of worms… ) Commence.
1 June 2006
at 2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Pilgrim, please *DO* conduct fake cell phone calls for the patrol officers! Then later, when you have a *REAL* situation of some sort that you need assistance with, and you call for assistance, the dispatcher will say “Cancel that—just that jerkoff that taunts our patrol officers with fake cell phone calls. He's probably faking this one, too…”
It amazes me that this topic has garnered so many angry responses today, from so many people that are apparently “whipped” by a little plastic box with some microchips and a battery. How did you people ever make it through the 1970s, or 1980s? I understand that a lot of you may have cut your land lines at home (I've done that myself), but all we're really talking about here is pulling over to the side of the road, or a convenience store or a parking lot. Sheesh!
Don't get me wrong—I think the ban is a bit silly, myself, and would much rather see something like a mandatory 30-day jail sentence if *your* cell phone usage is determined to be a factor in an auto accident.
Have we really become that weak?
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
1 June 2006
at 2:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Too bad all these posts weren't sent via snail mail to the traffic safety commission. They'd have to spend the entire meeting reading the letters…..
1 June 2006
at 2:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
offbrand1 (Anonymous) says…
I find it interesting that the same people who scream about these bans “intruding in their personal lives” are the same people who support warrantless phone tapping and the Patriot Act. Does anyone else see the irony here?
1 June 2006
at 2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
corners (Anonymous) says…
jayhawks71 - So, let me get this straight. You know radios kill/hurt 9 times more people than cell phones, but you don't care about all the deaths because the usage/mile is lower? This reminds me of the old saying, “the solution to pollution is dilution”.
Why has no one has addressed the real problem? There are too many bad drivers out on the road in the US. People blame it on anything but the actual person in control of the vehicle. Why not just make the driver's license test an actual test of skill instead of the joke it is right now? Make the driving test MUCH harder, and have driving re-tests every 4 years and watch the accident rates drop.
1 June 2006
at 2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyhawk (Anonymous) says…
glock,
This board is probably where the city registers items they never thought about, the unitended consquences and all. Once again, we are merely a little petri dish for the elite academics to conduct social experiment.
I stated quite a while ago, that if the city has not imposed on you yet, just give them time. The way I see it, either they have hopes that through their bans on things they personally dislike, they will create some grand legacy, or, maybe they feel they have absolutely nothing to lose since they are basically lame ducks.
Either way, it sucks to be us.
1 June 2006
at 2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
corners, isn't that how they do things in Europe? Aren't drivers licenses a much bigger deal there?
Oh wait… sorry… I forgot… “Europe bad, evil, weak, socialist. America good, right, strong, freedom.”
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
1 June 2006
at 2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
corners (Anonymous) says…
offbrand1
“I find it interesting that the same people who scream about these bans “intruding in their personal lives” are the same people who support warrantless phone tapping and the Patriot Act. Does anyone else see the irony here?”
You do realize you were the first person on this entire thread to mention this, don't you? WTF are you talking about? Please show me another person, becides yourself, who made such a statment. Do YOU see the irony?
1 June 2006
at 2:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
offbrand1 (Anonymous) says…
corners-
I find that it goes much deeper than the rash of bad drivers we have nowadays. It's the multitasking, “I'm in a hurry so I can't be bothered” society that we've become that makes people think it's perfectly fine to drive while talking on a cell phone regardless of whether their actions affect others. Once people get in their cars, there's a mindset that takes place. It's almost a negation of responsibility to anyone else on the road.
I agree that the current driving test is a joke, but I bet you a bajillion dollars that you'd get the same kind of flare up from the anti-ban people for making them take harder driving tests.
1 June 2006
at 2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BedlamX (Anonymous) says…
Have anyof you actually read the reports merril posted?
I only ask because I have and I'm not getting this overwhelming feeling of anti-cell phone attitude from them as most. The one from Braun Consulting has me wondering about the completely truthful representation of “facts” due to the statement at the bottom of the page soliciting businesses to pay them to come up with a company policy for cell phone use. Although, they did add this little tid-bit of info:
“It should also be pointed out that the data is not comparative to other things that go on in cars such as smoking, scolding the kids, eating, shaving, putting on makeup and talking to passengers, none of which involve cell-phones. The point is that while phone use may be no more (or no less) distracting than other “in car” activities it is cell phones that are getting all the attention.”
I found this interesting from the Science Daily article:
“¢ Drowsiness is a significant problem that increases a driver's risk of a crash or near-crash by at least a factor of four. But drowsy driving may be significantly under-reported in police crash investigations.
¢ The most common distraction for drivers is the use of cell phones. However, the number of crashes and near-crashes attributable to dialing is nearly identical to the number associated with talking or listening. Dialing is more dangerous but occurs less often than talking or listening.
¢ Reaching for a moving object increased the risk of a crash or near-crash by 9 times; looking at an external object by 3.7 times; reading by 3 times; applying makeup by 3 times; dialing a hand-held device (typically a cell phone) by almost 3 times; and talking or listening on a hand-held device by 1.3 times.”
Seems, according to this, that we need to ban reaching for stuff and looking at external objects before cell phone usage (btw…someone already mentioned beautiful joggers…almost 3 times as distracting as a hands-free unit :) ).
The consumer reports article simply shows that a majority of people in whatever area they surveyed would support a ban. We all know how accurate surveys are.
Sorry…this is as far as I've gotten reading the links. I just found these things…interesting.
1 June 2006
at 3:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
offbrand1 (Anonymous) says…
corners -
Made what statement, exactly? Oh, is it that I put quotation marks around “Intruding in their personal lives”? I was not actually quoting anyone on this board- the quotations were used under literary license to evoke a voice to that particular line.
I was merely drawing a parallel between two issues, responses that followed and the interesting relationship therein. I'm not quoting anyone- I'm merely setting up an interesting debate to take the conversation to the next level.
1 June 2006
at 3:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
corners (Anonymous) says…
Agnostick said, “corners, isn't that how they do things in Europe? Aren't drivers licenses a much bigger deal there?”
Yes it is. They also don't have soccer moms driving SUV's obviously too large for their driving skill level with DVD players and screaming kids in the back. And, I'm a conservative.
Which brings me to my other idea, making a new class of license. Keep the same lame excuse for a driver's license test for class C license, but make class C license only good for up to 3,000 lbs. Then, introduce a new, harder to obtain license with requires proof of driving skill, class C+. Class C+ would be for 3,000 to 18,000 lbs.
1 June 2006
at 3:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
corners (Anonymous) says…
offbrand1 said, “Made what statement, exactly? Oh, is it that I put quotation marks around “Intruding in their personal lives”? I was not actually quoting anyone on this board- the quotations were used under literary license to evoke a voice to that particular line.”
It was your comment stating bring up phone tapping and the Patriot Act. You were the only person to say so. You are putting words into people's mouths and making false generalizations. Nice try.
1 June 2006
at 3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
to ban or not maybe with condiitons as is with all bans. Maybe not here but that is how it should be if truley for saftey. 16 yr old cell phone giggle giggle, yeah I can see that. But a total ban no seems unamerican
1 June 2006
at 3:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nike1608 (Anonymous) says…
This is the most rediculous thing I have heard yet. This town is trying to control every aspect of our lives! Some people are smart enough to drive and talk on the phone. Not everyone is an idiot…and not everyone should be treated like one. Come one Lawrence, get real!
1 June 2006
at 3:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RichardCory (Anonymous) says…
Here's an idea: How about instead of trying to peer through people's windows and deciding what it is that's distracting them, and tacking on yet another ban, why not just toughen up the requirements to get a driver's license in the first place? Yes, some people can't drive with a cell phone, but there are plenty of people that should not be driving with a radio, passenger, attractive jogger going down the sidewalk, etc. You can't effectively ban EVERY distraction (nor should you - I know of several people that cannot use their legs, and guess what - they're using their hands to run the gas and brakes - but should everyone that's paralyzed from the waist down be banned from driving - absolutely not) - but we could limit the number of people on the road that aren't going to fair well with ANY type of distraction, by not giving them licenses to begin with.
1 June 2006
at 3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BongoBob (Anonymous) says…
Let's see. I can eat a burger, smoke a cigarette, while not wearing a helmet on a motorcylce, but I can't talk hands-free?
So will they employee lip reading patrols to ensure I am not singing to the radio or will that be banned as well?
1 June 2006
at 3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blue73harley (Anonymous) says…
Jayhawks71 - you must be new or have a short memory. Also banned in Lawrence…
3. fireworks
4. balloons at car dealerships
5. circuses with “exotic” animals
6. charity car washes
7. pesticides in certain parks
8. garage(etc) sale signs on public right of ways
9. the attempted ban of Walmart
1 June 2006
at 3:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
well not totally dumb teenagers really do not need an added distraction, they are distracted by enough, friends boy or girlfriend radio people on the street traffic in general. Have 5 kids driven with 4 watched them all, drive, hello no help needed to get distracted. They think they are inmortal at those ages it is normal.
1 June 2006
at 3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BongoBob (Anonymous) says…
offbrand1 indicates a parallelism between the Patriot Act, phone tapping, and cellphone ban in vehicles.
So, offbrand1, if you are at a traffic light, a call comes in from your house where your 2 year old is being babysitted, do you assume it is an emergency or that the child is thirsty?
Do you risk the chance of knowing before you can get through the light and off of the road?
1 June 2006
at 3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
offbrand1 (Anonymous) says…
corners- I was not putting words in anyone's mouth per se- it was an observation and only that. I didn't name anyone on this board as having eluded to anything I put in that post, although now I can see how you would have got that impression.
My point was to get those who are upset about phone bans to think about the warrantless phone tapping and Patriot Act and see if there were any similarities or differences of opinions when it came to government interfering in our daily lives.
1 June 2006
at 3:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
hey give me a parapaligic any day over most drivers, know paralized persons myself and I did not mean adults, even though some should never drive, I was refering to teenage drivers who do not have the experience in life let alone behind the wheel.
1 June 2006
at 3:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
The_Voice_of_Reason (Anonymous) says…
How about we ban the city Kommission??????? Who is with me?
1 June 2006
at 3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jaydoc24 (Anonymous) says…
Hey, I have an idea. All Lawrence drivers should be required to wear a helmet that can detect thoughts. Only when one has no thoghts in their head that may alter their driving ability, should their cars run. If an idea pops into their head (thereby dividing their concentration between driving and thinking) the car should just die right in the middle of the road. Or, what may be better is that they should simply ban cars and make people walk everywhere. But then what when people are bumping into each other while walking because they were not paying their full attention to thier surroundings because they are talking on their cell phones?
Exclusive clip from actual meeting:
Council Head: “It has come to this council's attention that we are running out of things to ban. If there was just something else we could ban…any suggestions?”
Councilman: “I know…PEOPLE…let's ban the citizens of Lawrence!”
Respondant: “Timmy, that's a dumb—wait a minute, that's not a bad idea!”
1 June 2006
at 3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
oh yes voice ban them all
1 June 2006
at 3:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
offbrand1 (Anonymous) says…
BongoBob- If I was an alarmist, I would assume every call was a matter of life and death and violate traffic laws and put everyone on the road around at risk. Since I'm not an alarmist, I would make the rational choice to make it through traffic safely and then take the call.
The parallel I was drawing was based on the notion of less government in our lives. It would appear to me that those who would refuse the government to ban their use of cell phone would gladly tell the government it's okay to spy on them. This seems somewhat at odds with the notion of less government.
1 June 2006
at 3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
flash (Anonymous) says…
We should ban roundabouts. Not cell phones.
1 June 2006
at 3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
ok the fact is no matter what we will lose. Our commision does not care what we think. I do think some form of restrictions on phones ,maybe, if they are the right ones I still think teen drivers do not need to be on the phone. now call me crazy I am ready for it.
1 June 2006
at 3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
law (Anonymous) says…
If I were still an officer I would refuse to enforce this BS. I still know many of the officers here and discussions on this are pretty much the same. “I'm not enforcing that kind of idotic crap.” Trust me the LPD officers don't like the crap the commish tries to push on them and they don't have to enforce it.
1 June 2006
at 4:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
well why not just get into trouble and then we might have to ban officers.I know bad of me just making a point but as a former cop would you say teen drivers need to be on the phone?
1 June 2006
at 4:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
hey law you live in law? just wandering my mom always says how many police from here live out by her.
1 June 2006
at 4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
sorry Law you live in Law.? still looks funny
1 June 2006
at 4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
“Jayhawks71 - you must be new or have a short memory. Also banned in Lawrence…
3. fireworks
4. balloons at car dealerships
5. circuses with “exotic” animals
6. charity car washes
7. pesticides in certain parks
8. garage(etc) sale signs on public right of ways
9. the attempted ban of Walmart
add
10. couches on porches
11. loud parties
12. sugary snacks in schools
oh, yeah, and remember when Sue Hack attempted to ban
13. protestors at city council meetings?!? LOL!
1 June 2006
at 4:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
paladin (Anonymous) says…
When They run out of bans, They can make more requirements. They already require seat belts and, I think, that drivers wear shoes. Probably underwear, as well. I would like to see Them make wearing a Crash Helmet a requirement for drivers. I do have a bright yellow one, an expensive one, that I wear at all times when driving my SUV. And, when I go to the Wal-Mart. Sometimes, other places. Drivers and passengers would be much safer if all were required to wear them. Safer in a crash, safer from road rage incidents, and safer from each other, from domestic disputes in particular. They could be personalized in any number of unique and beautiful ways, expressing each person's individuality. Any number of other requirements come to mind, but this would be a good start. As 9-11 taught us, one can never be too safe. Any price to pay for our safety and security, for ourselves and our loved ones, is too cheap.
1 June 2006
at 4:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Ban #14: More than three un-related persons residing in a single family rental residence.
I predict the next ban will be to prohibit smoking in a rental residence. Why? The city already requires tenants to allow a city inspector into their homes to make sure they aren't breaking ban #14, and to check for safety violations. It would be very easy to add “the smell of cigarette smoke or presence of cigarette butts” to the list of violations of the inspection.
1 June 2006
at 4:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Just kidding. Down, down, Dr. Bruner, please don't get started again.
1 June 2006
at 4:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban. is that all of them?
1 June 2006
at 5:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
topekan7 (Anonymous) says…
Please…keep this repression and lunacy 30 miles east of my pleasant community! Freedom and liberty are at stake when these so-called progressives attempt to protect their constituents. It's not the role of government to continually attempt to control what goes on inside a private citizen's home or vehicle. Consenting adults are free to have sex in the privacy of their own bedrooms…responsible adults should remain free to speak on their mobile device while driving in their automobiles. As for the irresponbile drivers? Write them tickets for inattentive driving. Crack down on the law that is already on the books. If the police officer observes inattentive driving…write a ticket! Make the fine big…but don't punish the responsible drivers who pay full attention to their driving and happen to be talking on the phone, to others in the car, singing, or eating a big mac. If you don't like Topeka…stay the hell out! And keep your bigoted, ignorant opinions in Lawrence. I've lived in both cities…Topeka clearly wins the battle of progressive cities…jobs, growth, good transportation, great hospitals, incredible library, parks and rec, etc.
1 June 2006
at 5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
Humorous to read all of these posts from those opposed to “bans”. Not mentioned in Gidiot's list are the bans that he agrees with, such as bans on gay marriage, bans on drug sale and use, and bans on tobacco sales to minors, bans on underage drinking, etc…
The point is, some bans have objective, scientific data that justify their existence, such as drunk driving, drug sales and use, and underage tobacco and alcohol use. Cell phone use while driving has similar data supporting it.
I guess I can understand those who are opposed to “bans” but would punish the result of behavior (e.g. punish those who cause accidents). However, the point of prohibiting objectively dangerous behavior is to protect innocent people from the results in the first place.
Banning cell phone use while driving will not bring an end to the world. Ten years ago no one did it at all. Now its an inalienable right? Please.
The other type of ban is one driven purely by ideology and dogma, such as bans on abortion, gay marriage, etc. These are the bans that concern true libertarians.
1 June 2006
at 5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bthom37 (Anonymous) says…
Don't blame me.
I voted for Kang.
1 June 2006
at 5:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
corners, you are drawing conclusions the data do not warrant. The data in the report are where a police officer determined cause;how is cause determined? Is there only ONE cause? If the radio is on while I am on my phone which was the cause? Cops are not trained to research the attentional task demands. Second, as the proportion of accidents attributed to ONE factor increase, others go down. As the number of cell phones used while driving increases, the proportion of accidents will increase and those attributed to radio usage will decrease. The reverse also true, and perhaps that is why radio accidents are inflated. Also, the statistics are from 2000 at best; the number of cell phones has increased at a much higher rate than car stereos. A police report relies on a guided guess or on someone's admission of what they were doing. The data are skewed toward the more socially acceptable response,”officer I just looked away for a moment… to change the radio station” rather than “I was so engulfed in my phone conversation.” People are all about image management;if people told the truth when caught, we would have little need for criminal courts! And sure… make the driving test an actual test. The result of fewer accidents will not be the sole result of getting “bad drivers” off the road. There will simply be fewer drivers… sounds like dilution of pollution issue you criticized (fewer cars on the same amount of roads)!
1 June 2006
at 5:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
godot, in case you didn't get the gist of my post… I began the list to let people like yourself rant.
Loud parties were banned long ago in many places. It is called “disturbing the peace” in most circles. If your freedoms infringe on my rights (or if your noise invades my property, your noise loses.)
A ban on sugary snacks in school is hardly an original either. And wouldn't the ban apply to PUBLIC schools? I thought parents would be in favor of this, as parents of schoolchildren (and schoolchildren) are really the only ones affected by a ban on school-provided access to Coca-Cola.
There was no Wal-mart ban or attempted Wal-mart ban.
Wal-mart seems to be doing just fine in Lawrence. In fact, they have expanded the existing location.
ban (the noun) - A prohibition imposed by law or official decree.
When was Wal-mart banned from the city? Let's not confuse the issue by making patently false claims.
A ban on pesticides in certain parks. Hmmm perhaps those parks where people roll around in the grass? Where kids play? Where pets roam with bodies inches above the ground? Aren't these CITY parks anyway?
I believe that the “ban” on more than three unrelated people living in a rental was made in response to a grass-roots effort by homeowners in Lawrence. First, commissioners are attacked because they ignore the people, and here they LISTEN to the voters and that isn't good enough. Some want a commission that does nothing; others want a commission that does their bidding, regardless of the impact on others. It is this human selfishness that propagates the need for laws.
1 June 2006
at 5:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
corners (Anonymous) says…
Fact: The percentage of automobile deaths from head injury is higher than the percentage of motorcycle deaths from head injury.
I can't wait to laugh my ass off at Lawrence when they pass the US's first automobile helmet law. HA!
1 June 2006
at 5:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
horse and buggys here we come. Buy the comission shovels.
1 June 2006
at 5:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Posted by Pilgrim
“B) They can't ignore a 911 call. It's against the law. If an emergency is reported, they have to respond.”
Well yeah, here you seem to want the law to work in your favor. No deal! I say the law should be ” If Pilgrim is taunting the police, then his 911 calls will be ignored.” There, we resolved your little problem of it being against the law. Heck, just put your house on the “do not respond” list, just like pizza places have “do not deliver” addresses.
1 June 2006
at 5:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
corners, you seem to be missing the point. This isn't about protecting the head that is so stupid not to protect itself. That is, this isn't about protecting people who use cell phones while driving. It is about protecting the people they hit.
I am all for a repeal of a helmet law for motorcycles and a repeal of seat belt laws in cars (with the exception of restraints for children). Let survival of the smartest reign. If you choose not to wear a helmet (and your head meets the pavement) or you don't wear a seat belt, (and you make like a cannonball) so be it.
Hmmm what proportion of accidents involve cars? What proportion involve motorcycles? What is the ratio of cars to motorcycles on the road?
Statistics don't lie. People lie with statistics.
1 June 2006
at 5:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
corners (Anonymous) says…
topekan7 said, “Topeka clearly wins the battle of progressive cities…jobs, growth, good transportation, great hospitals, incredible library, parks and rec, etc.”
Are you freaking kidding me? I don't live in either hell hole, but Topeka?!…progressive?!…growth?!…library…WFT? You need to get out of that town and see the rest of the country and visit a real city. My wife is from Topeka, and every time we visit we try to get out of that town as fast as possible before getting shot.
Topeka Population 1990 Census 160,976
Topeka Population 2000 Census 169,871
Now, that's growth. LMAO!!!
1 June 2006
at 5:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Hey Topekan, do what you want in your car, but don't do it on a public roadway. Drive on your privately funded roads. What? They don't get you where you want to go? Oh well, too bad, I suppose you have to have concern for your fellow citizens if you want the spoils of living in a society!
1 June 2006
at 5:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
corners (Anonymous) says…
jayhawks71 said, “Hmmm what proportion of accidents involve cars? What proportion involve motorcycles? What is the ratio of cars to motorcycles on the road?”
That statistic is on a percentage basis. ~60% of automobile deaths are a result of head injury, and ~45% of motorcycle deaths are a result from head injury. Lawrence automobile law here we come. We're just trying to protect the driver of the car from the person of the car talking on their cell phone. ;)
1 June 2006
at 6:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
corners (Anonymous) says…
jayhawks71 said, “And sure… make the driving test an actual test. The result of fewer accidents will not be the sole result of getting “bad drivers” off the road. There will simply be fewer drivers… sounds like dilution of pollution issue you criticized (fewer cars on the same amount of roads)!”
Sounds like you're having a little cause and effect confusion. The effect of the harder driving tests will be better skilled drivers.
1 June 2006
at 6:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nativeokiegirl27 (Anonymous) says…
Yes…I agree..what is this town coming to…seems like they want to run our lives for us…personally I think that the people of Lawrence should decide this ban and not the commissioners…sure their are more important things this city needs to concentrate on than trying to worry about cell phone use.
1 June 2006
at 6:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
corners, your point about Topeka is taken, however, your statistics are in err.
The numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau are:
Topeka -
2003 estimate: 122, 008 (-.7% from 2000)
2000: 122,377 (1.3% increase over 1990)
1990: 120,806 (self calculated)
Lawrence -
2003 estimate - 82,120 (2.5% increase over 2000)
2000 - 80,098 (a 21.4% increase over 1990)
1990 - 65,979 (self calculated)
Source: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/stat…
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/stat…
1 June 2006
at 6:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
corners, seems like you attribute your change to a sole cause. Is this some sort of controlled experiment?
Sure, people who pass a harder skills test will be more skilled drivers. However, you won't be giving licenses to as many people. You have created what we call a confound. So, if we see fewer accidents, what led to the decrease? More skilled drivers? Perhaps. Fewer drivers on the road (and therefore less traffic and fewer cars to hit)? Perhaps. Perhaps those who are better skilled are better educated and make more money and drive better cars that are less likely to have failing brakes and bald tires? Perhaps. All of these and more? Yes.
Come back when you have completed a course in basic research methods.
1 June 2006
at 6:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Hey corners, I suppose traumatic head injury that does not resulted in death can be overlooked; it has a negligible effect on quality of life, not to mention the lifetime of financial strain placed on the person who lives through the accident but can't more or think. And again, your head hitting the pavement because you didnt wear a seatbelt or a helmet should not be the concern of the government. We aren't really worried about the effect on YOU of your own actions.
I would like to see one documented case where not wearing a seatbelt was the primary (or secondary) cause of an accident. On the other hand, not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle has more potential (perhaps that bee that hits you in the eye at 70mph has caused a few accidents.).
Again, let's muddy things up to make our point. Nice job, but again, caught!
1 June 2006
at 6:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Posted by Pilgrim (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by jayhawks71 (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 5:44 p.m.
Posted by Pilgrim
“B) They can't ignore a 911 call. It's against the law. If an emergency is reported, they have to respond.”
Well yeah, here you seem to want the law to work in your favor. No deal! I say the law should be ” If Pilgrim is taunting the police, then his 911 calls will be ignored.” There, we resolved your little problem of it being against the law. Heck, just put your house on the “do not respond” list, just like pizza places have “do not deliver” addresses.
*********************************************
Which ignores A). Good job.
Oh, how pompous of one of us to assume that each item posted requires an addressing of every point made. Had you thought about it carefully, point A was answered within my response to point B. How is it the dispatcher wouldn't know who you are when you call? You don't suppose they have access to a list of information (say false 911 calls, which of course they continue to respond to in our world); I bet typing in your name with do not respond (in my perfect world where you don't get the benefit of protection of your rights, by law) would be so difficult!
I suppose when you have an emergency (why else would you be calling 911) you are going to ensure that you locate a phone that your name, address, or both are not attached to (oh wait, you are the same guy toying with the police by driving around “pretending” to talk on the phone ).
Think corners, think before posting.
1 June 2006
at 6:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Hey I have an idea. Let's implement a pure democracy. Eliminate “officials” for every decision that needs to be made in the running of a city, county, state, country. We can vote on everything then. If you think government breeds stagnation, check out pure democracy, where your days and nights are filled with decisions, most of which you know nothing about. Classic! Rule by the ignorant (that is, all of us, we are all ignorant of many things!) and not only that but constant, non-stop decision making. Where do I sign up!?!?!?
1 June 2006
at 6:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
hey law, isn't there some sort of oath cops take to “uphold the law?” Hmmm sounds like a few of them need to be out on their keesters! I suppose if I don't LIKE a law, I can ignore it right? If cops can ignore enforcing laws that they don't like without penalty, I can ignore the laws I don't like, without penalty (afterall, I'm Joe Public and they are public servants… I can't be held to a higher standard than my servants, can I?).
1 June 2006
at 6:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cowboy (Anonymous) says…
Will I still be able to ride my horse and talk on my cell phone ? I want horse lanes thru the entire city dangit , My horse only puts out a bit of methane and recycled grass every once in a while , he doesn't tear up the roads , and requires very little parking space. He also will trim grass and weeds along his way for free.You dont have to plow snow for him either. Only one problem , he hates bicycles , those evil silent noisy things that sneak up on him with those strange people in the funny suits. spooky !
1 June 2006
at 7:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Yourworstnightmare, you are confusing me with other people, and local laws with state laws.
I am in favor of legalized drugs, but not just in Lawrence. There should be federal decriminalization. I don't want to see Lawrence become a mecca for drug users.
I do not post in favor of banning marriage for gays; I say to all, why in the world would you want to be married? Especially in Kansas, a community property state? Cherish your automony!
Regarding banning alcohol for minors, I say if you are old enough to vote, you are old enough to drink.
jayhawks71, you attribute blue harley's list to me. My bad, I did not attribute him in my post. I take credit for only for the couches, sugary snacks in schools, loud parties (i.e. the sound-o-meter that determines what is loud and what is not), the attempted ban on silent protestors carrying signs, and the limit on residents in single family homes. I have had to say “no” to several “rainbow families” thanks to this ban, by the way.
1 June 2006
at 7:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
This proposed cell phone ban has given Lawrence another 15 minutes of infamy on the internet and national news.
Congratulations to the Mayors who appointed the people on the Traffic Safety Commission. You have helped to solve the problem of affordable housing in Lawrence. I can see the price of homes dropping with every news item about the “progressive” restrictions that people who live in Lawrence have to put up with.
1 June 2006
at 7:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Godot,
No problem on the failure to cite. Your posting privileges are revoked and you are banned :).
I agree with this: “Regarding banning alcohol for minors, I say if you are old enough to vote, you are old enough to drink.”
Time to raise the voting age to 25.
1 June 2006
at 7:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
wow made national news again? oh wait that is never good is it. just kidding we all love lawrence we agree with everything our com. bans bans bans bans sorry the programing was wearing off.
1 June 2006
at 7:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Maybe its all the news coverage that led to the 24% increase in the Lawrence population between 1990 and 2003. One would think no one would want to live in Lawrence, yet that does not seem to be the case. How odd to find something completely counterintuitive. Well, no more counterintuitive than the finding that talking on a cell phone is more attention demanding than talking to a passenger or changing the radio station, that is.
1 June 2006
at 7:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
anonimiss (Anonymous) says…
Let's fix all of the problems with one ban: let's ban stupidity. Everyone has to take a test, and if someone failed, they would be banned from Lawrence. The test would include questions such as:
Do you shoot people at bars?
Are you a bad driver?
Do you frequent unrailed high areas while intoxicated?
Do you dig in dumpsters?
A “yes” to any of the questions would be automatic failure.
1 June 2006
at 7:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
I think it is more of a case of wanting to leave bigger places but not be in tiny places you know we gots to have our fast food and bars around here.
1 June 2006
at 7:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
no cowboy no cell phone might make the horse lose site of his way and if he can't share the road well gez.. kidding
1 June 2006
at 7:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
I wonder if there is a “settler complex” in Lawrence. Even though roughly 1/4 or more (some people have moved) of the population of Lawrence is “new” since 1990, the people that were here before seem to think they should “have more say” in what goes on. Fortunately, it doesn't work that way.
1 June 2006
at 7:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
settler complex oh please get a grip on reality
1 June 2006
at 7:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Yeah people that were here before other people get territorial. They believe the newbies should either change to fit the existing structure or get out. It just doesn't work that way. Sorry, if you were in Lawrence first, you get no more right in decisionmaking than someone who just bought a house last week. Yes, a settler complex. I suppose you are offended by the pejorative “complex.”
1 June 2006
at 7:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
“I wonder if there is a “settler complex” in Lawrence. Even though roughly 1/4 or more (some people have moved) of the population of Lawrence is “new” since 1990, the people that were here before seem to think they should “have more say” in what goes on. Fortunately, it doesn't work that way.”
jayhawks71, we would call that a “majority.” Unless you are in the Senate, that is the way it works.
1 June 2006
at 7:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
well then Godot, a majority of people responding to the LJW poll are in favor of a ban. I suppose we can suspend discussion. The people have spoken. Case closed right? :)
Oh and that 25 percent is a conservative number. More “settlers” have probably died or moved away. What are you going to say in 5 years when the number of people who moved to Lawrence in the previous 20 years outnumber the settlers? In fact, I bet the number of “hippie liberal pot smoker” types outnumbers the settlers already.
1 June 2006
at 8:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
jayhawks 71 wrote, “well then Godot, a majority of people responding to the LJW poll are in favor of a ban. I suppose we can suspend discussion. The people have spoken. Case closed right? :)
Only if you believe that an LJW poll is legitimate.
You might be a newcomer, maybe from another country, for all I know. Let me educate you. In the US, decisions that will result in the taking away of freedoms of citizens are made by elections, not by unscientific, unverifiable internet polls.
1 June 2006
at 8:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
complex? no but I find the idea that people think the commision should be able do what they want is wrong and how did settlers complex figure into any of that? I do not care if you have been here one hour or a hundred years come on you can not let people just ban anything they want.
1 June 2006
at 8:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
It is not the “settlers” it is the commisioners that think they are more important and they are the only ones that matter
1 June 2006
at 8:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Godot, nope, born and raised in the USA along with 15 years living in Lawrence.
Clearly the sarcasm was lost on you. I thought the smiley face would convey that, but clearly not. LJW polls ARE meaningless in decision making, I realize that.
However, I might clarify for you or educate you in the system of representative democracy that we have here in the US. We, the people, ELECT officials (and in some cases we elect the electors!) to make decisions for us. We, the people are rarely presented with referenda. Therefore, unless you characterize the Senate and House votes on bills to become laws as “elections,” restriction of freedoms (aka laws) are not made by elections.
I knew that civics class would come in handy one day. Who knew that it would be valuable on an Internet post!
Momma (that sounds funny to say) - the commissioners arent doing “whatever they want to do.” Oddly the (admittedly flawed) poll supports a ban (it is the closest thing we have at this point to a measure of what the citizens think). Just like the “ban” on unrelated people living in a rental, that was started by citizens, not the commission; the smoking ban was in response to citizens, maybe not you or Marion, but others went to the commission, the body that has the power to enact ordinances in Lawrence.
The settlers seem to think that the commissioners should be listening to THEM and them alone. It reflects the egocentrism of the settlers. The conclusion that the commissioners are “out of control” or “not listening to the citizens” because the commissioners aren't concurring with the settler point of view.
Whether Lawrence is changing for the better or the worse, it is changing. The settlers need to adapt.
1 June 2006
at 8:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
now why does momma sound funny come on and yes change happens good and bad but I do not think the commish listens to all so vote maybe
1 June 2006
at 8:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Jayhawks71, sorry I missed the sarcasm. I recall your posts regarding the smoking ban, and your insistence on foisting your viewpoint on everyone else. And, thanks, but no thanks, on your civics lesson. Your example has nothing to do with what happens in Lawrence municipal government.
:)
1 June 2006
at 8:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Consider the following hypothetical: Let's say every citizen in Lawrence had a sit down with the commission to express his/her concerns. IN the end a decision needs to be made and given that not everyone would be in agreement entering the sit-down meeting, some portion of the population would cry “they didn't listen to me” because the decision made was not in accordance with their wants. Even worse, some people would conclude that the commission willfully enacted something that the “people” didn't want. This is egocentric thinking.
It's pure cliche to say, but you can't please everyone! The commissioners have more to take into account than the opinion of citizens. This thread reflects a lot of opinion about cell phones that is just flat unsubstantiated by research. In fact, the research says just the opposite of what some are saying. The slippery slope proposals that are made by others are equally as maddening (e.g. ban phones in cars… ergo… ban radios, ban passengers, ban children, ban cars, ban transportation, ban commerce, ban capitalism, ban America.) It looks foolish because it is, yet that is the tactic taken by some in this thread. It is a logical fallacy.
1 June 2006
at 8:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
why does it sound funny ?? :)
1 June 2006
at 8:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Which part of the Lawrence municipal government does not involve election of officials who are empowered to make decisions on behalf of the citizenry. That is the core of the LMG or the US Congress. Perhaps you should seek a civics lesson somewhere, if not from me.
I see the ad hominem infused in your wry commentary. Argue my points if you will. I will defend them to the best of my ability. The arguments made here border on the absurd. Many are based on false premises. Others ignore empirical research a la fundamentalist creationism claims. I see the same claims made repeatedly and yet the 15th time they are no more logical than the previous 14.
Many people seem to think that their freedoms are infinite. In a society, they are not, especially when your freedoms infringe on the freedoms of others and even moreso when your freedoms infringe on the rights of others. Why one thinks they should be able to do anything he wants while driving amazes me! Transportation is about facilitating the movement of people and goods. That is at the core of the issue. When the evidence shows that an additional and non-essential action infringes on my freedom to move about, you have gone too far. Freedoms themselves form an implicit hierarchy in our society. When one freedom infringes on the other freedom and compormise seems impossible, the freedoms are weighed against one another. One is going to be deemed more important than the other. In our society, the freedom to move freely trumps the freedom to talk on a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle. As a though experiment, imagine which society prospers if only one of these freedoms can exist. The evidence is clear, our society prospered quite well without people talking on cell phones while driving their vehicles.
I am all for less government in our lives, but there are places where it is necessary. If people were considerate of others and actually took into account the effects of their actions (whether they don't, out of ignorance or choice is irrelevant) there would be little need for government intervention. However, our human nature (probably rightly so) is such that we usually think of “me first.”
1 June 2006
at 8:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
It sounds funny because 1) you aren't my momma and 2) because I don't even call my mother “momma.”
1 June 2006
at 8:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Driving and Talking
http://www.siu.edu/~perspect/06_sp/ca…
1 June 2006
at 9:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
jayhawks71: “settlers syndrome.” That reeks of “ageism.” Surely someone as enlightened as you would not discriminate, neigh, target, a population, based on age, for your social experimentation?
1 June 2006
at 9:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Oh merrill there you go again with your references to empirical research. You don't get it. Joe Settler doesn't care about the research. Joe Settler knows that he can drive and talk on the phone without impairment. That research didn't include him and therefore you can't generalize to him. He is different. When he gets an illness though he accepts research findings and takes the pill his doctor gives him to lower his cholesterol. Heck, for all Joe Settler knows, the drug doesn't even lower his cholesterol, but he blindly accepts those numbers the doctor gives you with her interpreation. I mean, how do you really know it does anything? All they do is give you some statistic on how much LDL cholesterol you have in your bloodstream, but you can't believe statistics. You have to go with your gut and what you know for goodness sake. Joe settler knows he can drive just fine thank you very much while he talks to his wife about whether the lawn will get mowed tonight or tomorrow; the essential conversation that couldn't wait.
1 June 2006
at 9:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Oh and merrill, we can dismiss this research because it contains a fallacy. Those researchers are far from the first to demonstrate the fallacy of the “myth.” Strayer and others have already conducted research doing just that.
1 June 2006
at 9:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
see, a perfect example of falsely re-stating the issue.
“every little inconvenience”
Without the brain, we wouldnt have to worry about driving cars, talking on cell phones, or even the existence of cell phones or vehicles. The problem would be solved. So, maybe NO don't “grow a brain.”
The spinal cord on the other hand….
1 June 2006
at 9:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
paladin (Anonymous) says…
I think They should ban public lecturing by pompous ARs, who are afflicted with some sort of superiority complex. Harmful to the general sense of, “Hey, I'm OK, even without your input or approval”.
1 June 2006
at 9:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
awoc (Anonymous) says…
“ad hominem/ non-sequitor.”
That is just funny. Do you actually HAVE a clue?
About anything?
1 June 2006
at 9:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Lynn731 (Anonymous) says…
These people are very scary. The government was not ever envisioned to have this kind of control over people's lives. Who in the hell do they think they are? I'll talk on my phone when and where I damn well please. You 3 little people are not God. I'm certainly glad I do not live in your little liberal tainted kingdom. What is absolutely incredible to me is why a town of 80,000 people puts up with this kind of crap. Apparantly something in the Lawrence water supply destroys gonads. Thank you, Lynn
1 June 2006
at 9:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mztrendy (Anonymous) says…
only 1 person per car. Then we can complain about gas prices! and lets ban people in checkout lines on cell phones! They get on my nerves.
1 June 2006
at 9:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mztrendy (Anonymous) says…
and I know someone who rear-ended someone because he dropped his cheeseburger and was reaching for it! Ban Cheeseburgers!!!
1 June 2006
at 9:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…
A special police unit could be set up with cell phone interception technology to determine if a mobile cell phone is in use, then the intercepting officers could visually inspect the person driving to determine if the driver is actually talking over the phone or to themselves.
these special radio intercepting police units could be called “Signal Specialists” units and they could have the letters “SS” emblazened on the side of their vans and they could wear brown shirts. i think there is some progressive fascism at work here.
they could also make it illegal to speak while driving, then they wouldn't have to worry about someone using a hands free unit.
1 June 2006
at 9:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
awoc, guess you don't get it? Where does your problem lie?
I interpreted BrianR's “Jayhawks71, nice straw man. Next!” comment to be a thinly veiled slighting of me and his dismissal of my perspective. Perhaps it wasn't inteded as such, but the tone of this thread facilitates such interpretations. As for non sequitur, ad hominems have nothing to do with the issue at hand and therefore, the reference to non-sequitur is appropriate.
Second, there was no straw man proposed, if he interepreted my response as a mischaracterization of his perspective, he sure didn't put up much of a refutation. Therfore his claim of straw man was non sequitur.
Enlighten me as to where my fallacy lies? Clearly you are the expert in logic and structured argument. Teach me Yoda.
1 June 2006
at 9:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…
lawrence made the drudge report AGAIN! thanks for promoting lawrence as a lunatic asylum progressives.
1 June 2006
at 9:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
posted by paladin
“I think They should ban public lecturing by pompous ARs, who are afflicted with some sort of superiority complex. Harmful to the general sense of, “Hey, I'm OK, even without your input or approval”.”
Unfortunately that would infringe on a couple of rights. :)
1 June 2006
at 10:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Why ban cheeseburgers? Perhaps ban operating a motor vehicle while under the dash looking for anything. Oh wait, that would already be a violation.
How about this. No explicit ban on talking on cell phone while driving. As some have suggested, simply include it as inattentive driving. We have a stack of empirical research that demonstrates that talking on the phone consumes attention and makes driving dangerous.
The outcome of this newer proposal: if you are talking on a cell phone while driving, you get a ticket for violating the law and accept the ambiguity of what constitutes “inattentive driving” hovering over us.
The outcome of a ban on using a cell phone while driving: if you are talking on a cell phone while driving, you get a ticket for violating the law, with the specific action for which you will be cited made explicit.
There that should clear things up. :)
1 June 2006
at 10:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
lunacy, or perhaps the existing police force could enforce the laws as they took an oath to do, eliminating the need for Signal Specialists to be added to the payroll. Oh wait… I guess that would mess up your not-so-subtle nazi/fascist reference. Sorry, I will step back and let you partake in loose metaphor.
1 June 2006
at 10:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
ok thanks
1 June 2006
at 10:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DubbleDukes (Anonymous) says…
Posted by bankboy119 (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Can my daughter play with her Nemo phone? What if my wife held the cell phone to my ear while I'm driving? What if she's on the phone with the person I need to talk to and I spend too much time concentrating on talking to her to relay the message to the intended receiver?
–—
I KNEW I forgot something in my last set of ravings on this topic….what about passengers? are they going to try and claim that a passenger on their cell phone is breaking the new “ban” for non-use of a cell phone in a vehicle? how? its not distracting to the driver, they arent operating said vehicle….so what about passengers??
1 June 2006
at 10:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jeremiahlegislator (Anonymous) says…
This would be very nice. I would ban any activity when driving. Not even turning the steering wheel. Not driving at all would be better. Less polution. Less inflation. Less defaltion. God bless Kansas. Cheapest girls on porn movies comes from there. And they look good too. Why not move to Mexico you morons !!!!
1 June 2006
at 10:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Hey Godot, age is independent of susceptibility to “settler complex” but thanks for asking! One can be 21 years old or 81 years old and suffer from it. As long as they were here before someone else they are prone to it. Simply described, it looks like this. “I was here before you, so I my wishes take priority over yours.” It doesn't exist in isolation, obviously, but it's an influence on behavior.
1 June 2006
at 10:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
DD- good point. Although I believe the term motorist is used by the LJW reporter and probably not in the ordinance. I checked the definition of “motorist” just to be accurate and it means “someone who travels by automobile,” so that term would include passengers. I bet the ordinance (is it available online?) has some “while operating a motor vehicle” clause in it. We probably shouldn't be too picky on the words chosen by the reporter when assessing the proposed ordinance.
1 June 2006
at 10:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Harry_Manback (Anonymous) says…
Wow, this is now one of the top news stories on msnbc.com Way to go Lawrence…LOL!
1 June 2006
at 10:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Posted by jeremiahlegislator (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 10:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This would be very nice. I would ban any activity when driving. Not even turning the steering wheel. Not driving at all would be better. Less polution. Less inflation. Less defaltion. God bless Kansas. Cheapest girls on porn movies comes from there. And they look good too. Why not move to Mexico you morons !!!!
Who are the morons? From the post, the only candidates appear to be “people” or “people-like” entities.
I see “I” (stated by jeremiah), “God” and “cheapest girls on porn movies.”
Jeremiah if you want to go to Mexico and take God and some “cheapest girls on porn movies” with you, you have my blessing jeremiah! :)
1 June 2006
at 10:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
From the AP article, from a spokesperson for Sprint-Nextel:
“We think the best way to change behavior is through education.”
He should read this thread. That's a nice sentiment, but I guess he doesn't spend much time trying to convince the stubborn with solid evidence. Perhaps he should begin by herding cats.
1 June 2006
at 11:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DubbleDukes (Anonymous) says…
a list of the states that are or arent banning cell phone usages…along with other countries in the world…
http://www.cellular-news.com/car_bans/
and no, i'm not finding anything on the actual proposed ordinance on the web.
2 June 2006
at 12:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Meatwad (Anonymous) says…
it's silly to ban headsets/handsfree.
What is REALLY scary is seeing people TEXT messaging while driving.
2 June 2006
at 12:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Factoid (Anonymous) says…
Cell-phone conversations, including those using hands-free kits, are more distracting than conversations with passengers. This has been demonstrated by experiments on driving simulators and borne out by accident statistics. The pioneering work was conducted by Professor Andrew Parkes of the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) in the UK. He showed that passengers are aware of the tasks facing drivers so they adjust their conversation patterns to reduce the pressure on drivers. Cell-phone callers don't do this.
2 June 2006
at 12:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
touringdriver (Anonymous) says…
fix the streets, feed the homeless, have our city officials put their heads out of their butts and find more inportant things to discuss. like this joke of a traffic way. how long has it been? i hope these same city officials can handle a real problem. god forbid. p.s. i for one think they need paid more money for the important discussions they have to endure.
2 June 2006
at 12:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gop4life (Anonymous) says…
Heil, Hitlers!
2 June 2006
at 1:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Posted by Pilgrim (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 11:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by jayhawks71 (anonymous) on June 1, 2006 at 10:41 p.m.
Perhaps he should begin by herding cats.
********************************************
That's what enforcing this ordinance abortion will be like. I suspect the cops will think so, too.
––––––––––––
Pilgrim, law enforcement is their job. (in my best Dubya voice) There's an ol saying out there … I saw it…er heard it well… there out west…. if you don't like something… then fool you once… no…. if you don't like your job, get another one. Isn't that what we are to tell the servers in Lawrence who should be allowed to work in a non-smoking environment? If it's good enough for them then it should be good enough for a police officer, right? The police are not the judicial system - they aren't asked to enforce only those laws that they agree with or those that are easily enforced.
The job of a cell phone executive has never been (and never will be) to educate the public about the hazards of driving while on the phone. Look at the beer commercials, they basically pay lip service.. “Don't drink and drive” tacked on at the end of a commercial. Sure, that's nice and all, but that is far from educating the public. The executive's job is to ensure that the company's value remains high and that the stockholders are kept happy.
And touringdriver…. If they were tackling what you deem to be “more inportant (sic)” then someone else would come out to complain and characterize that issue as nonsense.
It's amazing how people get really ticked when their car gets a ding in it or when someone nearly runs them over, or runs them off the road while in their vehicle…. yet this attempt to reduce each of these is viewed as nonsense. Well folks, stop complaing about your insurance rates going up, the cost of auto body repair, the cost of human body repair, the cost of funerals and the cost of trying a vehicular homicide case.
2 June 2006
at 1:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Hey at least Pilgrim is consistent in his lunacy. At least once “this lunacy” passes, lunacy in Lawrence will remain “balanced” as he plans to replace it with his own act of lunacy. (boy that lunacydetector must be working overtime, or does it only detect disturbances in the force… er lunacy?)
from another thread:
Posted by Pilgrim (anonymous) on May 3, 2006 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here's an idea. If this lunacy passes, I plan on driving around with my headset on but not plugged in, and I will mouth whatever words I hear on the radio to make it look like I'm having a conversation. I can't wait to see the look on the cop's face when he sees I'm not talking on the phone. If everybody does this for even a little while, it won't be long before the cops learn to ignore this behavior.
2 June 2006
at 1:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justsomewench (Anonymous) says…
ban me! ban me! (does that come with a relocation package?)
you know, i could care less about the cell phones. i always have the voices in my head to keep me company (and tell me to veer into oncoming traffic…often).
2 June 2006
at 2:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
( I know, I know, you don't care about the research…. I will herd cats anyway…)
From the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration report in 1997… NINE years ago…
“Legislative proposals have been introduced in some States that prohibit the use of cellular telephones that require the driver to manually operate or hold the phone. These legislative initiatives seem to be based on the assumption that hands-free cellular telephones are acceptable while driving, but hand-held cellular telephones are not. Hands-free designs should reduce the demands on the driver associated with dialing, holding, reaching for or picking a handset. This in itself might be seen as a clear and unequivocal safety gain. However, hands-free designs will do nothing to mitigate the distraction potential of cellular telephone conversation. Proposed legislation may inadvertently promote greater use of cellular telephones among drivers who currently limit or altogether avoid cellular telephone use while driving by implying that hands-free designs must be safe, thus increasing exposure to other potential risks that may still exist.”
…Nice, and here we are 9 years (and a lot of research to support the NHTSA claim) later debating why hands-free is no better than handheld, when it comes to distraction.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04…
“Our data further suggest that legislative initiatives to restrict hand-held devices but permit hands-free devices are not likely to eliminate problems associated with using cell phones while driving because these problems are attributed in large part to the distracting effects of the phone conversations themselves.”
….and wow, only 2/3 of Americans (in a survey of 849 people.. margin of error +/- 3.4%) would support a ban on using the cell phone while driving… Isn't that a SUPER majority godot?
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04…
…even looking at the operation of the brain adds to the stack…
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiolo…
… ergonomics research supports the claim….
http://pda.physorg.com/lofi-news-driv…
…research at the University of Utah adds to the mounting evidence….
http://www.utah.edu/unews/releases/03…
http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCogn…
2 June 2006
at 2:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
…they know it down under….
http://www.insurance.com/Article.aspx…
… the rest of the world gets it… I know I know, we are America, we follow no one (except when it comes to science performace where we TRAIL nearly everyone!)
http://www.cellular-news.com/car_bans/
…and to bolster my earlier claim that driving and using the cell phone leaves you no resources left to assess your driving…
“The researchers also noted half the students in the study “reported they have observed other drivers driving erratically while using a cell phone, but rarely if ever thought that their own driving was impaired when they used the cell phone. : A consequence of using a cell phone is that it may make drivers insensitive to their own impaired driving behavior.”
But, you know, to heck with research. People just know they can drive and talk on the phone just fine thank you very much!
2 June 2006
at 4:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sweetpeagj (Anonymous) says…
I would have to agree that there needs to be a lot more attention given to the act of driving. I am not sure a complete band on cell phones is the answer. One area that wasn't discussed was the new “options” that comes in cars. How many people are actually watching tv and driving now? I have seen people doing just that while trying to pay attention to the road. Does this mean a new trend where the city of Lawrence can ban what options you choose in your vehicle while you live here? I wonder how the manufacturers will cast their votes when Lawrence moves into that direction.
There are a lot of distractions in a motor vehicle one of which is hand held cell phones. That list has been repeated all across this board. I believe that drivers should be made responsible for their actions and not have to wait for a new “ban” to do that for them. The only thing this ban will hurt is individual responsibility to limit ourselves. If more people would get into a vehicle and just drive safely the city wouldn't have had to even think about such a ban.
As far as the kids in the car issue..I am the mother of four. When they were younger it drove me nuts to have to get into a car with them. I was always playing referee and it was very distracting. More so than anything I have come into contact with since. Nine times out of ten, I would wait till the ex got home or get a sitter before running errands. Nothing worse than a baby crying while two are fighting and the fourth one screaming to make this driver into a nervous nelly.
2 June 2006
at 4:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nonimbyks (Anonymous) says…
Great Scott! Too the time machine!
2 June 2006
at 4:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cellogrl (Anonymous) says…
I think that banning cell phones completely is stupid. This does not take into consideration that the skill level of everyone is different. I for one have been driving and talking on the phone for years and I have never, I repeat NEVER been in an accident or gotten a ticket when or when I was NOT on the phone. This is stupid! i can't believe i voted for these guys. They looked so good on paper! I guess this is the difference between paper and real life.
2 June 2006
at 6:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Lonestar1 (Anonymous) says…
Cellphones are like microwaves, what did we do before we had them? I could drive without people calling and bothering me. I could drive with out someone talking on a cell phone nearly hitting me or cutting me off because they did not know I was there as they chatted with who knows. Bring on the Ban.
2 June 2006
at 7:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
AmericanSigh (Anonymous) says…
If they ban even the hands free phones, then they should also ban talking while driving. They should also ban all drive thru windows so you can't eat while you drive. And how about those kids in the back seat having a temper tantrum. Why not ban them to the truck beds? Give them something to do while we drive them around town. They can throw their shoes at pedestrians and motorists. Or can we give them our cell phones to call Dr. Phil? I'd take this one to Oprah or Dr. Phil. Or better yet, happy Regis and Kelly. Kelly could smack some sense into your city officials with or without nail polish.
2 June 2006
at 7:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
I wonder who should be the ones sighing. So they should ban talking while driving; haven't seen that one before!
PS - Isn't it already illegal to transport people in the bed of a truck? Perhaps that's why.
2 June 2006
at 8:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
born1980 (Anonymous) says…
So the Patriot Act is bad because it restricts personal freedom, but everything else is fair game. These “progressives” want all the benefits that come from living in a college town with none of the side effects. Keep it up morons. While you deal with cell phone bans and Dadaism, your town's housing costs keep rising and people have to commute longer for a decent paying job. More people will keep moving to SE Shawnee County where I live and increase my property value.
2 June 2006
at 8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
Studies show…..
Studies show…..
Studies show…..
How is it that every crackpot, social engineering, government/socialist power grab starts off with “Studies show…”? It's become the mantra for people who cannot grasp the concept of “liberty”.
2 June 2006
at 8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Pilgrim whines:
“Lawrence, Kansas — The Nanny State Out of Control.
“Quit expecting the government to solve every little inconvenience. Grow a brain, then a spine, people.”
*******************************************
These little “inconveniences” you refer to… would that include such things as…
1) What's available to watch on TV?
2) Adult-oriented items sold in clearly-marked retail shops?
3) so-called “global terrorism?” Or, like politics, perhaps “All terrorism is local?”
4) The gender and number of consenting adults of legal age… another consenting adult of legal age decides to take to bed with him/her?
Face it, hypocrite: You embrace your so-called “Nanny State” with open arms and open mouth and bended knees whenever it can step in and solve one of **YOUR** perceived “inconveniences.”
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
2 June 2006
at 8:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Born, the problem with the Patriot act (and other government fishing expeditions revealed lately in the news ) is that it violates and restricts people's inalienable rights. You have no “right to drive” and a law restricting what you can or cannot do in a motor vehicle does not restrict your rights.
2 June 2006
at 9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
75x55 - I suppose we should ignore research that shows that some actions raise the potential to cause injury to life, limb and property to unacceptable levels? How would unacceptable be defined? Well, I might suggest that one way would be by a majority of people having a problem with it. Interestingly (and here I go with…. a STUDY) 2/3 of Americans are in favor of banning cell phones while driving.
In the Declaration of Independence, it states:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
People remember the list of three, yet ignore the order of them. Life before Liberty and Liberty before the pursuit of happiness. They aren't listed in a random order (nor alphabetically). They form an order and model order for society. Life trumps liberty. In a society there must be a way of maintaining order.
The rule of law and government are the mechanisms by which THIS society maintains order.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
If you have a problem with the government then abolish it, but you should probably have the backing of a majority or you reject the concept of democracy.
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
And you had better be ready to put safety ahead of happiness.
” …laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
2 June 2006
at 9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
glock, so, this makes national news. Where is the subjective interpretation that makes a mockery of Lawrence (or Kansas) in that arena? It comes from within you. To be honest, the rest of the nation probably doesn't care much about Kansas.
As I provided data for previously, if Lawrence is such a nightmare in which to live, why had it grown by 24% between 1990 and 2003? Settler complex running rampant.
2 June 2006
at 9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
satchel (Anonymous) says…
In response to my earlier comment and the 'commenter' of it. This did 'seal' our decision NOT to move to lawrence. 'Sealing' it means this was just one more reason, not the WHOLE reason. You see that is how liberals think. They don't. They take one sentence and twist it to fit their 'bias'.
Nevertheless, we don't want to live in a liberal utopia. This cell phone ban is just a small part of the whole regarding Lawrence. Bad streets, no fireworks, refusal to build a highway cutting through Lawrence because of the liberal's desire to 'save the wetlands'.. or maybe some frog that lives in them. Higher property taxes to pay for their misuse of money regarding their infrastructure.. streets, and the sewer system they didn't plan ahead for.. You see, liberals don't think of 'cause and effect' like conservatives do.
Look at New Orleans?? That is a liberal utopia and look at how 'prepared' they were.. Where did all that money go that was supposed to go toward the levy system? They have misused the money from taxpayers, just like liberal lawrence has!! Shoot, ole' Boog probably uses some for his marijuana garden in his home.
Why would anyone want to put their well-being in the hands of a bunch of 60's burn-out libs? They don't handle money right, and they want to run your life by banning everything, YET.. they claim to be pro-choice. SO, the lawrence residents voted these jokers in and they are paying for it with their freedoms being taken away and a bunch of nonsense when it comes to making it safer to drive. They won't build a highway cutting through lawrence which increases the chance of accidents on 23rd st., yet they ban cell phones.. INteresting isn't it.. Just a new way to make money off the backs of hard workers so they can turn around and spend it on useless stuff.
If you choose to live in a city run by libs, you will pay for it.. It does hit you at home and in your pocket book. Who would want to live there?
2 June 2006
at 10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Funny, satchel… you have such a disdain for Lawrence and “libs” (“libs”… is that like “Kike?” “Nig?” Wop?” ), that you don't even live there… yet you run to this forum every chance you get to shoot your mouth off about it?
Things that make you go “Hhhhhmmmmmmmm…”
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
2 June 2006
at 10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
GardenMomma (Anonymous) says…
They just need to invent a car that will drive itself; they we can all talk on the phone as much as we want.
2 June 2006
at 11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Hey satchel, the Conservatives seem to be really good at saving money. Since dubya took office, the national debt has gone up by 2.5 trillion dollars (in 5 years!). Our national debt is now 8.36 trillion dollars and increasing at a rate of 1.75 billion dollars per day. Our debt is increasing at a rate of 500 billion per year.
During Clinton's “liberal” reign, we went from 4.2 trillion to 5.7 trillion, and increase of 1.5 trillion in 8 years. A change of 188 billion per year.
During Bush the First's reign, we went from 2.7 trillion to 4.2 trillion; an increase of 1.5 trillion in 4 years. A change of 375 billion per year.
I wonder which of these three would best wear the label of spendthrift. Yeah the Republican party operates on a buy now pay later mentality (increase the debt); the Democrats operate on a buy now pay now (raise taxes) mentality. Both are poor strategies, but I don't know about you, but that interest really gets you nothing.
2 June 2006
at 11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
jaw71 -
The problem is WHO defines “unacceptable” and HOW they intend to “solve” the perceived “problem”.
“Unacceptable” to power-hungry socialist dictators will be quite different than to pols with some respect for their fellow citizens and their liberties.
I'm not castigating ALL studies; but even you know that there are many studies out there being generated for purely partisan or (worse yet) money-raising reasons.
2 June 2006
at 11:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
It is funny that Jayhawks71 thinks that the fact that Lawrence grew by 24% between 1990 and 2003 is proof that Lawrence is keeping up with the rest of the country.
According to the US census, the average rate of growth in the US cities during that time period was 5.3% per year. Lawrence's 24% growth over 13 years represents less than 1.2% per year, compounded. That puts Lawrence way, way below the national average in growth.
And that study, the one done in Michigan, polled less than 900 people. Wow! That certainly is a definitive, scientific study, isn't it?
2 June 2006
at 11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
So now Keith Olberman, of ESPN fame (and now of MSNBC obscurity) is the voice of the coasts AND the conscience of the nation? Hah. So, people on the coasts , notorious for their friendliness and concern for their fellow man (strangers included) is your model for “what's right” and what everyone else should be doing? Hah!
As for the second point. What's the problem? Olberman is as clueless about the stack of research that his interns can't read for him as some of the opinions posted in this forum.
If Olberman told you that Tylenol was a big scam and did nothing for most people's headaches, would you believe him?
Try talking to someone in the Midwest and ask them what they think of the coasts. Now you tell me, whose opinion of the other trumps whom?
2 June 2006
at 12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Wow Godot, do you know what you are talking about? Do you know the sample size of polls presented on the news; scientific polls nonetheless?
About 1000 people! Educate yourself about sampling techniques, margin of error, and research methods in general before you comment on something you clearly don't understand (unless you are intentionally trying to mislead the rest of the people here.).
Ever wonder what that plus or minus 3% margin of error rate comes from? It comes from the inverse of the square root of the sample size. 849 people yields an MOE of 3.43%. 1000 people yields a MOE of 3.16%. A whopping .27% change in the precision of the estimate.
Why can you do this? Appropriate sampling procedures. Using a small sample to accurately predict truman defeats dewey is what launched Gallup into the national spotlight, when his sample accurately predicted the election winner when a sample of 2 million had DEWEY winning.
Perhaps you might take a lesson in sampling even though you turned down my previously offered civics lesson. If anything, at least review the first three sections.
http://janda.org/c10/Lectures/topic05…
It's OK Godot, you aren't alone in your skepticism of such sample sizes accurately reflecting the population.
2 June 2006
at 12:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
As for your other statement, where did I say that Lawrence was “keeping up” with the rest of the country? Don't mischaracterize my statement. I said:
“As I provided data for previously, if Lawrence is such a nightmare in which to live, why had it grown by 24% between 1990 and 2003? Settler complex running rampant.”
In addition the population of the USA increased by 16% between 1990 and 2003. The increase in the population of Lawrence in the same time increased by 24.8%.
The population of:
Topeka increased 2.5% between 1990 and 2005.
KC, MO grew by 2.1 percent between 1990 and 2004.
Omaha, NE grew by 21.9% between 1990 and 2004.
Tulsa, OK grew by 4.5% between 1990 and 2004.
Joplin, MO grew by 14% between 1990 and 2004.
Wichita, KS grew by 16% between 1990and 2004.
St. Louis, mo dropped by 8% between 1990 and 2004.
Dallas, TX grew by 20% between 1990 and 2004.
Chicago, IL grew by 2% between 1990 and 2004.
Springfiled, MO grew by 7% between 1990 and 2004.
Lawrence seems to be doing pretty well for a liberal nightmare of a city, wouldn't you say?
What more do you need?
2 June 2006
at 12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ben_ness (Anonymous) says…
I hope the City Commission and Boog pay heed to these blogs as they seem like a fair representation of the Lawrence Constituency's feeling on how their city is currently being run. When I was a kid Lawrence was such a great place, largely due to it tolerance.
2 June 2006
at 2:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EvaTrujillo (Anonymous) says…
I always wonder what age group was studied in those cell-phone surveys that show cell phone use impairs the driver's attention. The reason why I inquire, is that the twenty-somethings (with less experience of driving obviously), have a life-time of multi-tasking. They have conversations on-line with many persons, as well as completing many other technological tasks in tandem with other tasks. On the basis of this, I speculate their brains are developing in a different way than others (older) are. This is pretty brave of me to speculate but I think the tweny-something generation (once they have more experience driving) will actually be okay drivers with a cell phone. Myself, I just watch out for any driver eating, shaving, putting on make-up, talking on the phone, especially if they're in a tall unweildy vehicle (truck, suv). This too, may go the way of the outrage when radios were put in cars.
2 June 2006
at 2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Eva, now you are talking!
One of the criticisms typically levelled against experimental research is that the participants are often college students.
Unless the research specifically compares younger to older adults (and some do), the age range of participants is in the 18-35 range, weighted heavily at the lower end.
So, the research typically is reflecting the performance of the group you are mentioning.
An issue with older adults is a general cognitive and motor slowing. So, they need more time to perform the same task compared to a younger driver.
The human brain develops from both a genetic blueprint and environmental (biological, social, and cultural) factors. The influence of genetic “programming” is strong (brains develop in a very similar order, result in similar structures, etc..) The fact that many teens multi-task has some influence on their cognitive abilities, but the question is whether they are truly getting better at multi-tasking or just perform more poorly on each task. The answer is probably a bit of both. What one might also see is an inability to sustain attention (because of all the task switching) or perhaps an inability to control attention (because because any little thing draws their attention).
What the cell-phone while driving research seems to suggest is that in this age group, their performance suffers when dramatically when multi-tasking.
So I wonder, based on your speculation, should we allow people to “practice” driving and talking on the cell phone on our highways (creating additional, unnecessary hazards to other humans) so that when they get older they will be “old pros” at talking on the cell phone?
Perhaps we should allow the experts (race car drivers) latitude with the speed limit on those same roads because they are well trained in driving 100+mph.
2 June 2006
at 2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Ben, when I was a kid, The Dukes of Hazzard, Knight Rider, and Chips were high-quality television. Today, I look at these shows with disbelief and can't believe that I ever thought they were just so good. Typically childhood is a wonderful time for people. We often look back on those times with nostalgia. It probably has little to do with how Lawrence was run and more how your family lived.
2 June 2006
at 3:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ben_ness (Anonymous) says…
hawks71: Thanks for the attempt at enlightening me and educating me on something I already know. My comments had nothing to do with KnightRider, CHiPs or the A-Team. They had to do with a town that has changed drastically since I was in highschool, or even attending classes at KU. This isn't based on adolescent perception but experiences external from how my family lived. Nice try though, prof.
2 June 2006
at 3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
horse and buggy thats it.
2 June 2006
at 3:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bunnyhawk (Anonymous) says…
Let's just ban people altogether………….they are soooooooooooo annoying……….and messy, too!
2 June 2006
at 4:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
gee ben, you were able to dissociate your mind from your brain, resulting in your own childhood and adolescence having no bearing on your perception and memory of “good ol' Lawrence.” (don't worry, I won't throw any memory or perception research your way; I retired from herding cats early this morning) I'd like to hear how you were able to accomplish such a feat though. I am always intrigued by rare ability; perhaps you could be part of a case study. Interestingly, there is a class of psychological disorders named “dissociative” disorders. I wonder if you stumbled on to a controlled dissociation.
Someone also doesn't get analogy either. I hope the schools in Lawrence have improved since you attended, o erudite one.
2 June 2006
at 4:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Arminius, can you elaborate on the radio show discussion for those of us that didn't hear it? What was the point? Presenting Highberger's thoughts on anarchy and technology from the mid-80s, out of context, makes it difficult to get the gist of your post.
2 June 2006
at 5:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Pilgrim, it's your biased perception of how this is perceived around the country. I suppose we can again rely on Keith Olberman to give us the pulse of the nation.
As for statistics, a statistic never told a lie; a statistic was never “wrong”; a statistic never misled. leave statistics out of it, they are amoral.
2 June 2006
at 6:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EvaTrujillo (Anonymous) says…
Jayhawks71, thank you for that information bout the age groups and what the studies suggest with multi-tasking. And no, of course not, I don't want to encounter someone while they practice talking on their cell phone, or others shaving, putting on make-up, eating while driving with their knee. Seriously though, teens have more car crashes when they have passengers in their vehicle, so I think they would be more inclined to crash while in a conversation on their cell phone. Twenty-somethings, a different story, need better research. Personally, the ban doesn't bother me. I'll just assume drivers are talking on hands-free devices because it will be harder to be detected.
2 June 2006
at 6:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
“Lies, d*mned lies, and statistics.”
Hey Pilgrim - sounds like a good STUDY to make; lemme work up a proposal and after I clear 500K from a couple of foundations and the NEA, I'll publish it….
2 June 2006
at 6:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Eva, people will always try to skirt the law; that has been used by some to suggest that when they characterize a law as “unenforceable” it dooms the law. Unfortunately, they are often looking at the problem from one angle and miss out on alternative interpretations and ideas.
Once some have their way and characterize certain laws as “unenforceable” the speed limit will be repealed. Short of living in a police state (and even that would fail) no law is enforceable when you yoke it to the criterion that most offenses are caught; heck let's lower the bar 1/3 of offenses. Soon we will do away with laws period. It will be a great society.
More research can always be done. There are no critical flaws in the research that has been done, however I don't interpret your response about “better research” to imply that the research is flawed.
Evolution has warehouses full of good research behind it yet there are still people who believe that an invisible man's hand came down and made humans , separate and distinct from all other forms of life, 5000 years ago. Some people will hold true to their beliefs in the the face of evidence to the contrary.
Research and evidence are of value to them when it supports their point of view or they get something out of it (e.g., a treatment for an ailment or illness).
2 June 2006
at 6:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EvaTrujillo (Anonymous) says…
jayhawks71,
Absolutely, research and evidence are of value when it supports their point of view or they get something out of it. Agree, people will always skirt the law. As a driver, I sure see alot of that for sure! Some get caught, some don't, and many get a speeding ticket every three years because oh it's time for one - to keep the insurance rate up, chuckle. A police officer won't be able to see a hands-free device so it makes it hard to enforce the ban but as a driver, we can all assume other drivers are going to go underground, and therefore we can drive more defensively. This is a good thing. Our police officers need bigger paychecks for putting up with us.
2 June 2006
at 9:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
Arminius, I asked you to elaborate on the context of the radio show you mentioned because I didn't hear it. you presented his writing out of context (a link with nothing about the discussion on the radio program. That is why I asked you to elaborate on the radio show discussion for those of us that didn't hear it.
And, I never said anything about his current disposition toward what was written. I am trying to figure out is what you are implying about Highberger? Get to the point.
Pilgrim…. ….. ….. nevermind.
2 June 2006
at 9:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
75, sorry to hear you don't value research. Go back to your cave and worship the darkness. Clearly science has done nothing to change your life.
2 June 2006
at 10:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
topekan7 (Anonymous) says…
Inattentive driving is already a crime. Enforce that and the issue is resolved.
3 June 2006
at 8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ben_ness (Anonymous) says…
Hawk71 (Dr. Phil): You appear to suffer from some sort of psychological self-esteem issue in which you feel compelled to attack every person on this stream. Most likely from a dominant spouse at home, or weight problems. Your complex could even be more deep rooted, perhaps you were bullied when you were a child or it could even be that you are repressing a deviant or perverse sexual appetite. Could it be that you are in to beasteality.
As for your blatant attempt to dominate the other bloggers on this stream, why don't you take a stab at participating instead of being a schmuck. You can tell a person you don't agree with them in other ways than psychoanalyzing them.
3 June 2006
at 9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
happyone (Anonymous) says…
that is too funny ben…….sounds to me like you're the one being Dr Phil
Jayhawk71 keep up the fight the ban needs to happen
3 June 2006
at 9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ben_ness (Anonymous) says…
happyone, I am glad you were able to pick up on the sarcasm.
3 June 2006
at 9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ben_ness (Anonymous) says…
I have projection issues….
3 June 2006
at 10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
…only sarcasm has an element of subtlety to it.
[sarcasm enclosure]Your post is like the six-year old who calls a “big stupid” then says “it was ONLY a joke” when the parent says “that's not nice” only the six-year old here is ben. :-) ;-) :-P :-0
perhaps you are the one with the self-esteem issues, you seem to take offense at my responses, and …. that's ok… go with your catharsis ben… go with it…release…I can handle your tirade… go ahead… vent… perhaps you are the victim of Grand Theft Auto.[sarcasm enclosure]
3 June 2006
at 2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
arminius, of all people at whom to point your “use some initiative” comment. LOL. YOU were the one making a point. You didn't make it with the post you made. I was just interested in the point YOU were making, not what a radio talk show host was trying to make. Listening to that show would STILL leave out your point.
topekan, can you define “inattentive driving” for us? I wonder how the courts and police define it. Guess I will have to use “some initiative,” but perhaps I would like to know YOUR understanding of the term.
I sure wish the Right in this country would stop spending our money (current and future) and stop expanding government. Boy, sounds like the old Liberals!
3 June 2006
at 2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ben_ness (Anonymous) says…
hawk71: who are you? You are so darn witty and seem almost godlike with your understanding of such pressing issues. Your syntax is brilliant; it could almost be considered art. Your use of vocabulary, caps, and voice is about as close as one could come to absolute greatness on a blog as significant as the ljworld. I have learned so much from you over these past few days. Especially about my own childhood and my hidden love of Michael Knight (of course, we can't forget Kitt) and how he affected my warp sense of what Lawrence use to be and what it is now. I think he really must have had something to do with all of these recent bans and my disassociation.
By the way, citizens of Lawrence, next time you are pulled over for talking on your cell phone. Be careful, it may be Panch.
3 June 2006
at 4:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
bun - you have crafted the saddest post I have ever read.
-you are so clever and sardonic in your use of irony. a Shakespearian in literary prowess, you are.
-hidden love of Michael Knight and his car? I had no idea; however, that wouldn't be my first choice of things to share about myself. TMI, ben.
-godlike? in what way? are you insinuating that I do not exist? that I am simply a creation, by humankind in order to account for that which they cannot explain? how dare you!
-the ljworld blog is relevant, not significant.
-and it's Ponch, bun.
3 June 2006
at 4:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ben_ness (Anonymous) says…
jayhawk71: You couldn't be more right. If has been fun. Good luck!
3 June 2006
at 5:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
ciao!say hi to dubya for me on your way to work, senator.
3 June 2006
at 6:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ben_ness (Anonymous) says…
Will do.
4 June 2006
at 9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
seniorrunners (Anonymous) says…
My husband and I are moving to Lenexa in 3 days. We will miss absolutely nothing about this place!!!!
4 June 2006
at 10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
The settlers are running the settlers are running!
4 June 2006
at 12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ben_ness (Anonymous) says…
jayhawks71: You are hilarious… :)
seniorrunners: I grew up in Lawrence, my family is fifth generation, and none of us live there anymore. While we all have good memories of Lawrence, we don't miss it much either. It really has changed.
4 June 2006
at 2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
ben, thanks for realizing that “settler complex” was said tongue-in-cheek. I certainly think there is that human bias to think that “we were here before you, we matter more”, but to call it a “complex” was employing a pejorative term to stir up some emotion.
I agree with the sentiment of your last, brief remark. It has changed, everything changes, everywhere, but that should not be taken to mean that things are “worse.” It is different. Better/worse is determined by whether it fits with what a person wants. The concepts of right and wrong” do not form a dichotomy, they form a continuum. Some things are “more right” than others; some issues are “more important” than others.
The concept of “settler complex” simply reflects human nature and that people don't like to change. As we age we become less open to the behaviors of “kids these days.” We don't like to adapt; when we do it, we often do it unwillingly and rarely without a fight. We are all lazy to some degree and adaptation requires work. Sometimes we perceive the work as justifiable, sometimes we do not.
Ben, if someone from your family lived in Lawrence, I am wondering, would your family lineage give them more say in the direction of Lawrence?
4 June 2006
at 2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ben_ness (Anonymous) says…
Jayhawk: That is a good question and something I haven't put a whole lot of thought in to. I always thought it was interesting going to LHS back in the early 90's and having teacher's both my Mother and Uncles had back in the 60's. It is also interesting to listen to them talk about how Lawrence use to be vs. how it is now. They still like Lawrence, but feel it has outgrown them a bit. I believe lifelong Lawrence residents can have pull if they choose as it is still a small town and knowing the right people can give you influence, especially if you are brought into the good ol' boy's club of Lawrence (sometimes referred to as the Lawrence Mafia). Those types of relationships are typically easier to foster if you are engrained in the community. I feel that family lineage may give you more say, but more as a default as opposed to statute. I guess it depends on how apathetic you are and whether you really care if things change.
And for the record: I think dubya is the worst President this country has seen in my lifetime. Perhaps my liberal upbringing in what use to be a liberal town has affected my left leaning tendencies.
Thanks for the entertaining posts. You are a very good writer!
4 June 2006
at 2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
vote, vote, vote.
4 June 2006
at 3:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
ben, let the secret out that I am not here to tell people what to do or what not to do. I do realize that my posts foster discussion and getting ideas out there. I am much more passionate about people thinking about why they support (or don't support) a perspective than I am about seeing cell phones or smoking ordinances passed. Although I certainly agree with both, as I believe they have plenty of evidence and logic behind them. That said, I think the government intrudes too much into our personal lives (e.g., what we do in our homes), but human nature makes us selfish and in public (whether its publicly OWNED or a “public place” like a restaurant) people who do whatever they please put restraints on others. They cry about their freedoms being restricted, yet they are more than happy to infringe upon the freedoms of others, when they see fit.
momma, to what are you referring? Please expand on your post. Are you calling for a referendum? If so, where does it end? :-) *ouch, just fell on that slipper slope*
4 June 2006
at 3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
nothing really just this city seems to be, vote happy, ban happy, and sue you happy.
5 June 2006
at 9:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
countrysunshine (Anonymous) says…
I have a comment about this cell phone ban. This ban pertain to police officers, because during this weekend I
saw at least three law officails have a cell attached to
their ear. If this ban goes through it should pertain to everyone. I fully believe this ban is stupid personaly, I know I have seen people drive putting on makeup, brushing their teeth, reading a map, or paying attention
to their kids, because they are fighting in the backseat, or maybe should the ban eating while driving, I know we are guilty of that one. I think they have other problems to worry about than people talking on the cell phones. Well that is my two cents.
5 June 2006
at 11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LogicMan (Anonymous) says…
Well, having Libertarian leanings, I had mixed feelings, but now am fully in favor of this total ban (while a vehicle is moving).
This morning, while driving halfway through town, a guy in a giant, shiny, new pickup truck was weaving all over his lane and driving slowly on Iowa. Approching from behind in my lane, I saw he was on a cell phone.
In passing him, he swerved toward me and my lane. He suddenly saw me and gave a “where did you come from, jerk” look as he was now reading a text message.
In my rearview mirror, he was then on the phone again, swerving toward the curb, and slowing up other traffic.
Just the latest experience …
Neither driving nor talking on a phone is difficult, by itself. But using cell phones seem to take the same portion of the brain that driving uses, and some (most?) can't seem to do both well at the same time. Therefore, safety, must come first.
Ban their use, while vehicles are in motion, nationwide.
Until then, please use courtesy — don't answer your cell phone until you have pulled off the road. And don't initiate a call if you are or will be rolling.
5 June 2006
at 9:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…
pilgrim, cut and paste away. I bet this identical comment is on larryville too.
:-)