Particularly three different accidents with varying level of potential damage.

Driving on the grounds main road to the kid's High School, coming around a corner at 25mph with another car (smaller SUV) coming from the other direction at approximately 30 mph. The other SUV - driven by a HS teenager was doing the corner mostly in my lane while watching his phone. I had to move significantly to get out of way, narrowly missing him and the trees to my immediate right.

Two other narrower fender bender level misses - because kids and cell phone driving.

I tell you what, the smart phones at times, were the dumbest things ever put into the hands of minors. Between the online bullying, addiction to gaming and texting while driving, I'm not sure they are making our lives any better.

Bring back flip phones and you need to be 21 to own a smart phone:)

I tell you what, the smart phones at times, were the dumbest things ever put into the hands of minors. Between the online bullying, addiction to gaming and texting while driving, I'm not sure they are making our lives any better.

Bring back flip phones and you need to be 21 to own a smart phone:)


Yeh. It was crazy - and it happens a lot

I tell you what, the smart phones at times, were the dumbest things ever put into the hands of minors. Between the online bullying, addiction to gaming and texting while driving, I'm not sure they are making our lives any better.

Bring back flip phones and you need to be 21 to own a smart phone:)

so you blame the phone?

I think we should raise the age to own a Smart Phone to 21.

so you blame the phone?

Left wing mentality

And it is infectious
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think we need a car that stops if someone has a cell phone and is siting in the driver seat.

I think we need a car that stops if someone has a cell phone and is siting in the driver seat.
Yes indeed, similar to the repeat drunk not being able to start their cars, but many here would consider that another lost freedom.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes indeed, similar to the repeat drunk not being able to start their cars, but many here would consider that another lost freedom.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But, see, in your scenario your blaming the driver, not the car.

But, see, in your scenario your blaming the driver, not the car.
Yeah and your point is? I never blamed the gun either, I do have issue with how easy nuts, criminals or anyone wishing to do harm can get their hands on them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah and your point is? I never blamed the gun either, I do have issue with how easy nuts, criminals or anyone wishing to do harm can get their hands on them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You and I mostly agree. My point is that your scenario does not create a loss of freedom for those who are not repeat drunkards. There are not many who believe there is a right to drive while drunk. Nor is there, in a corollary scenario re guns, a loss of freedom for law abiding citizens to buy a gun, even an AR15 type, if guns would not fire in the hands of repeat criminals. The onus, in either scenario, is on the individual, not the instrument.

They drunk being prevented from starting his car wasn’t my primary comment, I was agreeing with old goat that cars as they are developed certainly can incorporate technology to prevent cell phone use if you are driving solo or under a certain age and that might be a freedom many might not want to give up
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

over 90% of households own a cars

data shows 37,461 people were killed in 34,436 motor vehicle crashes


25 % of us households own guns In 2016, there were more than 38,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S


you guy do love your false equivalence's

Yes indeed, similar to the repeat drunk not being able to start their cars, but many here would consider that another lost freedom.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No. Do stupid tricks, win stupid prizes.

But, see, in your scenario your blaming the driver, not the car.

No, he's not, he is using the legal system, after a court hearing, to restrict a right to someone that has broken a law (DUI), with sufficient checks and balances to restrict such a law breaking again.

I'm OK if you apply that in many firearms cases where someone is going to do harm to others or themselves, through the legal system, with sufficient checks and balances where pertaining to restricting someone's rights. Some people should not have access to firearms, some people should not have access to vehicles.

Is this some desperate attempt at an analogy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They drunk being prevented from starting his car wasn’t my primary comment, I was agreeing with old goat that cars as they are developed certainly can incorporate technology to prevent cell phone use if you are driving solo or under a certain age and that might be a freedom many might not want to give up
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I apologize for misunderstanding your intention or your primary comment. I mistakenly responded to your secondary comment, "Yes indeed, similar to the repeat drunk not being able to start their cars, but many here would consider that another lost freedom." I totally missed, or could not find the other comment.

In either case, I doubt that there would be many who would think that OLD GOAT's suggestion would create a loss of freedom. We generally, don't have an individual right to force car manufacturers on how to build their cars. On the other hand, maybe your right. Maybe many would consider it a loss of freedom. I would hope that there would also be a failsafe built in to such cars that they wouldn't come to an immediate stop while driving, especially on an expressway. Probably should have some warning that the car would slow down and then stop shortly if the phone was not off. Might be a good idea.

Is this some desperate attempt at an analogy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am surprised there haven't been calls to let anyone drive any type of vehicle, no license necessary, at any speed or direction in any lane of the road. Criminals don't follow driving laws anyway!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or insurance to compensate the victims of your accidents.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am surprised there haven't been calls to let anyone drive any type of vehicle, no license necessary, at any speed or direction in any lane of the road. Criminals don't follow driving laws anyway!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Where in the Constitution can you find that the states are not allowed to make laws and regulations regarding the driving of automobiles?

No, he's not, he is using the legal system, after a court hearing, to restrict a right to someone that has broken a law (DUI), with sufficient checks and balances to restrict such a law breaking again.

I'm OK if you apply that in many firearms cases where someone is going to do harm to others or themselves, through the legal system, with sufficient checks and balances where pertaining to restricting someone's rights. Some people should not have access to firearms, some people should not have access to vehicles.

I responded to a post which responded to a previous post by comparing a car that stops a drunk to the original post about "a car that stops if someone has a cell phone and is sitting in the driver seat." I don't see anything in either mentioning a court hearing. Maybe I'm misreading it, but the posts suggests to me the possibility of manufacturing cars that stopped if a driver has a cell phone or could stop a drunk from driving--that all cars would have that feature built into them. The reason for that feature being the prevention of a driver from using the car, not because the car would be at fault for an accident if it didn't have the feature, but because the driver would be at fault, regardless of the model of the car. And so the driver would be limited, not the car. And that would not, by most, be considered a loss of freedom.

I fleshed out the comparison with guns in a similar situation in which guns had a built in feature: "Nor is there, in a corollary scenario re guns, a loss of freedom for law abiding citizens to buy a gun, even an AR15 type, if guns would not fire in the hands of repeat criminals." As in the car scenarios, all guns would be manufactured with this feature

In either the gun or car scenarios, I said it is "the individual, not the instrument" that is being prevented regardless of the model.

Yes indeed, similar to the repeat drunk not being able to start their cars, but many here would consider that another lost freedom.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what is confusing about this is that, as far as I'm aware, there is no established freedom or right to drive drunk...so...why would anyone consider a drunk being unable to start/drive his car a "lost freedom"?

who is "many"...can you name a few?

Criminals don't follow driving laws anyway!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, at least you said something that made sense. it's an improvement

Particularly three different accidents with varying level of potential damage.

Two other narrower fender bender level misses - because kids and cell phone driving.

I was sitting in the middle turning lane the other day to turn onto my street and watched a kid coming at me from the other direction 45 mph zone...from as far away as I could see him clearly till be passed me he never looked up from what I'm sure was his phone...it's unnerving when you are accustomed to making eye contact as it gives you an indication that they know you are there......sitting in traffic in Providence the other night taking the girls up to CCRI for sports I challenged them to spot a car where the driver was not on their phone....they were unsuccessful....sad reality...really need to ban them

really need to ban them

Its illegal to text and drive in MA, yet they still do it.

Where I live every once in awhile the police setup a "Cell Phone" trap at the bottom of the street. One of the officers in plain clothes walks up and down the street and looks into cars as they come up to the light to see if they are looking at their phones. If they are, he radios the patrol car that is around the corner.

Its illegal to text and drive in MA, yet they still do it.



so Massachusetts has some of the strictest cell phone accident prevention laws in the country? I wonder where they rank in cell phone related deaths?

so Massachusetts has some of the strictest cell phone accident prevention laws in the country? I wonder where they rank in cell phone related deaths?

Brain Deaths??? Probably pretty high.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, at least you said something that made sense. it's an improvement
You are a real knob.

Where in the Constitution can you find that the states are not allowed to make laws and regulations regarding the driving of automobiles?

I was hoping you would say that :jump:

You are a real knob.

I suppose this a Knob-free statement. :hee:

I am surprised there haven't been calls to let anyone drive any type of vehicle, no license necessary, at any speed or direction in any lane of the road. Criminals don't follow driving laws anyway!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and I've been called worse.

Is this some desperate attempt at an analogy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Huh? No - this actually happened, it is getting rapidly worse, and completely preventable. Ordered my dash cam and will be filming it.


I responded to a post which responded to a previous post by comparing a car that stops a drunk to the original post about "a car that stops if someone has a cell phone and is sitting in the driver seat." I don't see anything in either mentioning a court hearing. Maybe I'm misreading it, but the posts suggests to me the possibility of manufacturing cars that stopped if a driver has a cell phone or could stop a drunk from driving--that all cars would have that feature built into them. The reason for that feature being the prevention of a driver from using the car, not because the car would be at fault for an accident if it didn't have the feature, but because the driver would be at fault, regardless of the model of the car. And so the driver would be limited, not the car. And that would not, by most, be considered a loss of freedom.

I fleshed out the comparison with guns in a similar situation in which guns had a built in feature: "Nor is there, in a corollary scenario re guns, a loss of freedom for law abiding citizens to buy a gun, even an AR15 type, if guns would not fire in the hands of repeat criminals." As in the car scenarios, all guns would be manufactured with this feature

In either the gun or car scenarios, I said it is "the individual, not the instrument" that is being prevented regardless of the model.

The court is the legal entity that determines if you need to blow into a tube to allow your ignition to start if you are a repeat offender / high risk DUI.

I agree with most of your premise

.it's unnerving when you are accustomed to making eye contact as it gives you an indication that they know you are there......

^^^^^ This

I suppose this a Knob-free statement. :hee:



and I've been called worse.

I didn't want to be overly rude :rotf3: