Cops crack down on cell phones in school zones

Sep 22, 2010 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Antioch Review

The Niles Police Department is focusing on preventing cell phone usage, including texting, in school zones.

Comments (Page 6)

Showing posts 101 - 117 of117
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101
Oct 19, 2010
 
Mystery Man wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean by jack this thread ?
Anyway i brilliantly discussed hand held vs hands free in another post. But since you missed it i'll go it over again.
For simplicity lets call it HF - Hands Free and HH Hand Held )
The difference is actually very minor.
Those who hold it to the ear have a harder physical time driving most noticeable when making left turns.
The number one problem of cell usage while driving is the distraction from the road to the phone call.
This occurs both HF and HH.
Physically looking at who you are talking to obviously takes your eyes off the road. That's a given.
But its its the distraction of the mind that i'm talking about.
That occurs whether you see the person or not.
Also phone call conversation tends to be more intense then a person in the car conversation.
You're more adapt to force your point over a phone where you're not 100% sure if the reviver is getting your message.
If someone sitting next to you then you know if they are really listening to you or not.
So my point is
1) HF vs HH only makes a slight difference and its physical.
2 ) in person conversation is not as distracting as a cell phone conversation. They are different. You may not view it differently but i do and i think others do too. That is why laws about driving with cell phones are being written. And more will be written later.
This is all conjecture. There is nothing to prove any of what you said.
Just Sayin

Roselle, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102
Oct 19, 2010
 
Hold please wrote:
<quoted text>
This is all conjecture. There is nothing to prove any of what you said.
There have been studies that driving is impaired by using a cell phone while driving. Why do you think that cell phone and texting records have now become part of accident reports and insurance investigations?
VyvB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103
Oct 20, 2010
 
Hold please wrote:
Fear and ignorance isn't common sense.
Common sense is knowing your limitations and acting accordingly.
It's not knowing YOUR limitations, or YOUR perceived limitations of others' abilities and then promoting laws that would restrict others' freedoms based on YOUR lack of ability or YOUR fears.
Like I said before, some people think they drive perfectly well while drunk. All the studies in the world providing evidence that people are impaired while drunk will not convince them that they don't drive well while drunk. So by your "logic" we should not impede said peoples' freedoms based on our perceived conceptions of how they are impaired while drunk. You think TV screens in the dashboard aren't in the realm of reality? Think again. I've personally witnessed just such a thing in someone's giant death machine, I mean over-sized SUV. Again, they thought they could drive fine while playing DVDs from the dashboard. We shouldn't impede their freedo either. Your attempt at logic defies common sense. Reports have shown that hand-held phones cause too great a distraction and many areas are moving to ban their use while driving.
Hold please wrote:
So let's see: talking loudly on a cell phone is rude, because it interferes with the "right" of the people around them to have quiet, but promoting laws that restrict others' freedoms based on your own fears isn't rude? Interesting...
Promoting laws that have studies to back them up do. I think you're forgetting that in this "debate" we have going on that I'm not against hands-free devices.
Hold please wrote:
To be specific, this topic is about banning the use of cell phones while in a car around a school.
Regardless, the common reason I've heard for the banning of the use of a cell phone while driving is because it's a distraction. I provided that list because if we ban the use of a cell phone while driving only because it's a "distraction", then, logically, we should also ban EVERYTHING that could be a potential distraction, such as radios, talking, GPS, eating, etc.
Again, I'm not debating the use of relatively hands-free devices. You want my common sense take on it? Radio - One doesn't flip through stations, tracks, etc. for as long as the typical cell phone conversation. The distraction is more limited. And many auto makers have acknowledged the safety issue of radios, and like my vehicle, have controls for the radio in the steering wheel so you don't have to take your eyes off the road. Talking - Moot point, since it would be hard to ban such a basic function and hard to prove even if it were banned. GPS - Set your destination before you start moving, simple. Eating - Usually not a good idea for you, your vehicle and others on the road around you.

I would like to see all of the above not be specific ban laws. I would rather a police officer be able to pull over an erratic driver and charge them with reckless driving no matter what distraction caused them to drive dangerously.
Gen X

Downers Grove, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104
Oct 20, 2010
 
Mystery Man wrote:
<quoted text>
You do sound like someone too young to drive.
I've never known an adult to talk about Gen X
Isn't that a video game ?
So 29-49 year olds are too young to drive? As far as not knowing an adult to talk about Gen X you must already be senile which explains your fears of technoloy.
Gen X

Downers Grove, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105
Oct 20, 2010
 
Just Sayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think that cell phone and texting records have now become part of accident reports and insurance investigations?
Because insurance companies are looking for more whys to escape paying on claims.
VyvB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106
Oct 20, 2010
 
Gen X wrote:
Because insurance companies are looking for more whys to escape paying on claims.
Sounds like a good way to stop responsible drivers from paying for the accidents of negligent drivers.
Just Sayin

Roselle, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107
Oct 20, 2010
 
Gen X wrote:
<quoted text>
Because insurance companies are looking for more whys to escape paying on claims.
Does it work? If so, you are risking having payment denied by the insurance company when you have an accident while using a cell phone.
Gen X

Downers Grove, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108
Oct 25, 2010
 
VyvB wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like a good way to stop responsible drivers from paying for the accidents of negligent drivers.
You must not have thinked that through. Everyone will still pay more and get less.

For example, say mayhem crashs into you while using a cell phone and the claim gets denied. Well mayhem only has basic insureance so it is no difference to him as he was going to pay for his own stuff myself anyways. You can sue him for the damage to your car and medical costs but that is a gamble and if you win he will most likely file for bankruptancy. If your answer is uninsured motorist coverage. That may pay for your damages but you pay for that coverage. Guess what coverage will go up.

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109
Oct 27, 2010
 
Just Sayin wrote:
<quoted text>
There have been studies that driving is impaired by using a cell phone while driving. Why do you think that cell phone and texting records have now become part of accident reports and insurance investigations?
1. A recent study has shown that laws such as these have actually caused the accident rate to go UP, as people are now using their phones in a more clandestine manner, causing them to take their eyes off the road more.
2. There have been studies that have shown a CORRELATION between an increase in reported accidents and the rise of cell phones. But that's not necessarily a direct CAUSATION.
3. And GenX is right - if the insurance company can use the idea that someone caused an accident by being on the phone to deny a claim, they will.

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110
Oct 27, 2010
 
VyvB wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like a good way to stop responsible drivers from paying for the accidents of negligent drivers.
Do you think that "negligent driving" is only caused by cell phones? That if by some miracle no one was using a phone while driving then all accidents caused by "negligent drivers" would disappear?
That's a bit naive.
Just Sayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it work? If so, you are risking having payment denied by the insurance company when you have an accident while using a cell phone.
Who's to say if you were on the phone or not?
The other person involved? Wouldn't this just be a, "He said, she said," kind of thing? If I got into an accident, what's to stop me from saying, "Well, the other person was on a cell phone and not paying attention," whether they were or not? And to what advantage would it be for me to get that person's claim denied? How would I get my car fixed? If it's not my fault, then my insurance company doesn't have to cover it.

The police?
How would they know? They weren't there when it happened, so how would they know who was doing what? If it went to court, the attorney representing the Defendant would just have to ask the officer, "Were you there when the accident occurred? Then how could you know if they were on a cell phone or not?"

And what about if someone is on the phone and they were rear-ended by someone NOT on a phone? If you rear-end someone, YOU are at fault, period. Should a person who was rear-ended be denied a claim because THEY were on the phone and the person who hit them was not?

I wish you all would just admit:
1. You don't like when people are on the phone while driving
2. You don't understand how people can drive and be on the phone at the same time
3. Your motivations for wanting laws banning cell phone usage while driving (hands-free or not) are cloaked in a desire for safer roads, but are really fueled by your your own disdain for, "those people driving while on the phone."

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111
Oct 27, 2010
 
VyvB wrote:
Like I said before, some people think they drive perfectly well while drunk. All the studies in the world providing evidence that people are impaired while drunk will not convince them that they don't drive well while drunk. So by your "logic" we should not impede said peoples' freedoms based on our perceived conceptions of how they are impaired while drunk.
Should we have laws that say that you're intoxicated after one glass of wine during a large meal? How about a couple of beers while watching an entire three-hour sporting event?
You're right, there are some who think that they drive perfectly well while legally intoxicated, and they'd be wrong. But there are many situations where people know that having one beer isn't going to affect their ability to drive. And it's not for someone else to tell them that it will, just because that someone may not have the same tolerance.
VyvB wrote:
You think TV screens in the dashboard aren't in the realm of reality? Think again. I've personally witnessed just such a thing in someone's giant death machine, I mean over-sized SUV. Again, they thought they could drive fine while playing DVDs from the dashboard. We shouldn't impede their freedo either.
Why such anger? You should check your hostility level and learn to judge people for who they are and not for what they choose to drive.
And to answer your question - yes, I realize that there are TRUE morons out there. But people driving using a headset is a far cry from someone thinking they can watch a DVD and keep their eyes on the road at the same time.
VyvB wrote:
Your attempt at logic defies common sense. Reports have shown that hand-held phones cause too great a distraction and many areas are moving to ban their use while driving.
But I'm not talking about hand-held phones. I'm talking about there being no difference between using a cell phone with hands-free and having a conversation with someone else in the car.
VyvB wrote:
Promoting laws that have studies to back them up do. I think you're forgetting that in this "debate" we have going on that I'm not against hands-free devices.
Then why are we even discussing this? We're arguing the same point.
VyvB wrote:
Again, I'm not debating the use of relatively hands-free devices. You want my common sense take on it? Radio - One doesn't flip through stations, tracks, etc. for as long as the typical cell phone conversation. The distraction is more limited. And many auto makers have acknowledged the safety issue of radios, and like my vehicle, have controls for the radio in the steering wheel so you don't have to take your eyes off the road.
VyvB wrote:
Talking - Moot point, since it would be hard to ban such a basic function and hard to prove even if it were banned.
VyvB wrote:
GPS - Set your destination before you start moving, simple.
VyvB wrote:
Eating - Usually not a good idea for you, your vehicle and others on the road around you.
VyvB wrote:
I would like to see all of the above not be specific ban laws. I would rather a police officer be able to pull over an erratic driver and charge them with reckless driving no matter what distraction caused them to drive dangerously.
Which are laws we already have.
Just Sayin

La Grange Park, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112
Oct 27, 2010
 
Hold please wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's to say if you were on the phone or not?
The other person involved? Wouldn't this just be a, "He said, she said," kind of thing?
What they do is pull your phone records and the data on the automobile computer. If you were on the phone when the computer registered the accident, it will be verified by time stamp data, not "he said, she said." You must not pay attention to the news because this type of data collection from an accident has been mentioned often and is done almost instantaneously as part of the investigation.

I have found many drivers to be more focused on their phone call than their driving to the point that I had to drive defensively to protect myself from them because they were oblivious to what was going on around them. It isn't one person at one time. It is several people a day. If you want to defend that behavior the problem is with you, not me. I don't see the same problem with people eating or listening to the radio.

The driver has a responsibility to other drivers or the system doesn't work. If it is every man for himself, safety is compromised.

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113
Nov 4, 2010
 
Just Sayin wrote:
What they do is pull your phone records and the data on the automobile computer. If you were on the phone when the computer registered the accident, it will be verified by time stamp data, not "he said, she said." You must not pay attention to the news because this type of data collection from an accident has been mentioned often and is done almost instantaneously as part of the investigation.
I don't know what news you're watching, because I've never even heard of this proposed, much less being in practice.
Just Sayin wrote:
I have found many drivers to be more focused on their phone call than their driving to the point that I had to drive defensively to protect myself from them because they were oblivious to what was going on around them. It isn't one person at one time. It is several people a day. If you want to defend that behavior the problem is with you, not me. I don't see the same problem with people eating or listening to the radio.
The driver has a responsibility to other drivers or the system doesn't work. If it is every man for himself, safety is compromised.
And I have found that poor driving is evenly distributed across activity, gender and age. You see what you want to see. You're looking for people on the phone so you can prove your point. Like the saying goes, when you're a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
It's clear that people have their own opinions concerning this issue and I tire of discussing it further. I will leave with this last thought - ban the ban. Stop trying to legislate other peoples' behavior, because it will get out of hand. You may think that banning the use of cell phones while driving, regardless of hands-free or not, is the right call, but be very aware of your motivations. And above all else, hold PEOPLE responsible for their actions, stop looking for ways to excuse them for simply being inconsiderate, selfish, rotten people.

Since: Dec 06

Melrose Park

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114
Nov 4, 2010
 
First of all if the cops are cracking down on this, they need to look to their own officers. I pick up my child from Melrose Park and while I sit and wait, I see people including police officers talking on the cell while driving in front of the crossing area. The cops need to sit there and enforce this if they really want to enforce this. They also need to catch those whom I see crossing the center yellow line.(also, there needs to be signs of school crossing, they took away the yellow flashing light that used to be there)

But, in my opinion...it is all common sense. People need to be responsible drivers and not need the government to step in on everything. Just common sense and responsibility. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Just Sayin

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115
Nov 4, 2010
 
Hold please wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know what news you're watching, because I've never even heard of this proposed, much less being in practice.
<quoted text>
I'm glad to have had the opportunity to educate you.
Just Sayin

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116
Nov 4, 2010
 
Here's a place to read a little bit about cell phone records and car accidents:

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5804482_do-phone-re...
HIYA

Antioch, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117
Nov 4, 2010
 
Trese wrote:
First of all if the cops are cracking down on this, they need to look to their own officers. I pick up my child from Melrose Park and while I sit and wait, I see people including police officers talking on the cell while driving in front of the crossing area. The cops need to sit there and enforce this if they really want to enforce this. They also need to catch those whom I see crossing the center yellow line.(also, there needs to be signs of school crossing, they took away the yellow flashing light that used to be there)
But, in my opinion...it is all common sense. People need to be responsible drivers and not need the government to step in on everything. Just common sense and responsibility. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Trese,
Police and other emergency personnel are exempt from this law when in their official capacity. For purposes of coordination and communication with other officers and dispatch the emergency workers need to be able to use the radio and their cell phones while driving. The reason cell phones are used sometimes over using the radio is when information needs to be conveyed to the officer that they don't want heard by the public who might be listening on a scanner.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 101 - 117 of117
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Niles Discussions

Search the Niles Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
IL Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr lol 47,058
IL Who do you support for Governor in Illinois in ... (Oct '10) 13 hr jimtownhounddogsniffing 3,777
Stone Park .... Again 20 hr Stone Cold Cowards 2
Pharmore Drugs in Skokie (Jul '11) 22 hr Mark 20
What happened to the Hillside Shopping Center? (Mar '08) Thu Scrubber59 491
Close Down the Harwood Heights Aldi (Jul '12) Thu Taxpayer for years 15
G7 is the Best Computer Repair Near Norridge Thu Jean 7
•••
•••
•••
•••

Niles Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Niles People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••