On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:56:46 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote:

"richard" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:28:14 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote:

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

Another dumb, unenforceable liberal law. How can they possible know
whether
you are using a hands free transceiver or not? You are driving along with
both hands on the wheel and talking..... For all they know you are talking
to a passenger, or singing along with the music on your car radio. And why
would it be any more dangerous than doing either one of those two things?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know if it's still that way, but back in the 70's, if you even
wanted to have a car radio in your car, you had to apply for a special
permit at the DMV, and they would levy a tax and stamp your registration
with the approval.

Where was this supposed to have happened? No state ever had such a law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ach... I thought I had mentioned the state. It was Wyoming, and they
certainly did have such a law. I remember the headache when I tried to
register my first car there. I ended up using a pocket transistor radio on
the dash rather than pay the extra money (I was only 18, and didn't have a
lot of disposable income at the time..

Sounds more like a cash strapped city law than a state law.

There was an unwritten "law" that said red cars belonged to the fire dept.

Brenda Ann wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

Another dumb, unenforceable liberal law. How can they possible know
whether you are using a hands free transceiver or not? You are
driving along with both hands on the wheel and talking..... For all
they know you are talking to a passenger, or singing along with the
music on your car radio. And why would it be any more dangerous than
doing either one of those two things?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know if it's still that way, but back in the 70's, if you even
wanted to have a car radio in your car, you had to apply for a special
permit at the DMV, and they would levy a tax and stamp your
registration with the approval.

Yeah.... That makes a lot of sense. Pay a tax for the privelege of killing
yourself or someone else in a car accident.... but that should tell you what
its all about.. Money. If the government sees some way to get some extra
money from any of its citizens, they'll jump on it. They don't need any
excuse. They just collect money for the same reason Hillary climbed
Everest.... "Just because its there".

Brenda Ann wrote:
"richard" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:28:14 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote:

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

Another dumb, unenforceable liberal law. How can they possible know
whether
you are using a hands free transceiver or not? You are driving along
with both hands on the wheel and talking..... For all they know you
are talking to a passenger, or singing along with the music on your
car radio. And why would it be any more dangerous than doing either
one of those two
things? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know if it's still that way, but back in the 70's, if you
even wanted to have a car radio in your car, you had to apply for a
special permit at the DMV, and they would levy a tax and stamp your
registration with the approval.

Where was this supposed to have happened? No state ever had such a
law.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ach... I thought I had mentioned the state. It was Wyoming, and they
certainly did have such a law. I remember the headache when I tried to
register my first car there. I ended up using a pocket transistor
radio on the dash rather than pay the extra money (I was only 18, and
didn't have a lot of disposable income at the time..

There is probably some medical term for, "Fear of new devices". But for sure
there should be one for, "Grabbing an opportuniuty to steal money from the
taxpayers." It is a disease one catches while on the campaigne trail.......

richard wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:56:46 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote:

"richard" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:28:14 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote:

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

Another dumb, unenforceable liberal law. How can they possible know
whether
you are using a hands free transceiver or not? You are driving
along with both hands on the wheel and talking..... For all they
know you are talking to a passenger, or singing along with the
music on your car radio. And why would it be any more dangerous
than doing either one of those two things?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know if it's still that way, but back in the 70's, if you
even wanted to have a car radio in your car, you had to apply for a
special permit at the DMV, and they would levy a tax and stamp your
registration with the approval.

Where was this supposed to have happened? No state ever had such a
law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ach... I thought I had mentioned the state. It was Wyoming, and they
certainly did have such a law. I remember the headache when I tried
to register my first car there. I ended up using a pocket transistor
radio on the dash rather than pay the extra money (I was only 18,
and didn't have a lot of disposable income at the time..

Sounds more like a cash strapped city law than a state law.

There was an unwritten "law" that said red cars belonged to the fire
dept.
I can believe it. There have been many dumb laws passed. Some of them have
been thrown out by the higher courts, either 'state or federal. Like the guy
back in the 60's who wanted to start a cable TV business in southern
California. Every movie theatre had a petition in their lobbys to prevent
him from doing it. and hunderwds of thousands of movie goers signed it. Not
only that, but the stupid
California voters voted for it! Of course, the California Supreme Court
threw it out. (His cable business didn't take away anyone's rights. If he
came to your door and asked you if you wanted him to deliver a cable signal
to your house, all you had to do was say, "No", and slam the door in his
face. Ande, if your neighbor had one delivered to his living room, You
wouldn't even know it, so it wouldn't hurt you in the least) But millions
of California voters pulled the lever on "no" for that poor guy, and it cost
him a bundle to fight it to the state supreme court..... Go figure.....
People haven't a clue as to what the Constitution is all about. And by,
"people" I also mean our legislaters....

On Nov 7, 7:51*pm, richard wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:56:46 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote:
"richard" *wrote in message
.. .

On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:28:14 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote:

"Bill Graham" *wrote in message
om...

Another dumb, unenforceable liberal law. How can they possible know
whether
you are using a hands free transceiver or not? You are driving along with
both hands on the wheel and talking..... For all they know you are talking
to a passenger, or singing along with the music on your car radio. And why
would it be any more dangerous than doing either one of those two things?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know if it's still that way, but back in the 70's, if you even
wanted to have a car radio in your car, you had to apply for a special
permit at the DMV, and they would levy a tax and stamp your registration
with the approval.

Where was this supposed to have happened? No state ever had such a law.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ach... I thought I had mentioned *the state. It was Wyoming, and they
certainly did have such a law. I remember the headache when I tried to
register my first car there. I ended up using a pocket transistor radio on
the dash rather than pay the extra money (I was only 18, and didn't have a
lot of disposable income at the time..

Sounds more like a cash strapped city law than a state law.

- There was an unwritten "law" that said
- red cars belonged to the fire dept.

=ERGO= If'n you was in a Red Car/Truck
and was not a Fire {Emergency} Vehicle :
YOU MUST HAVE BEEN SPEEDING [.]
-and- Deserved a Speeding Ticket.

On Nov 7, 9:39*am, radioguy wrote:
Not satisfied with just outlawing cb and ham radios which use hand-
held microphones, Canada has now outlawed hands-free ham radio by
hams, and hands-free cb by cbers, yet still allows two-way radio use
by taxi cab drivers, school-bus drivers, and businesses, police,
etcetera even though all those people have MUCH LESS training in
operating a two-way radio than hams do.

such as almost none, if not none, although it is usually none.

even low-class redneck cbers know more about how to properly use a
radio then those people do.

yet the only ones allowed to use it are the ones with little or no
training while the ones not allowed to use it ae the ones with the
proper training in how to use it.

If the police had the proper training, then they would not be
arresting people under phony radio laws which they claim is the actual
law.

so that alone is proof the police do not have the proper training in
howw to properly use a two-way radio since they do not even know the
radio laws that they are trying to enforce, and therefore should also
be prohibited from using a two-way mobile radio if the cbers and hams,
which have the actual training as it is required to get their ham
raadio license also are not allowed to operate their two-way radios
mobile.

Basically NO Cellphoning While You Are Driving
-distracted-driving-
=equates=to=
No Hamming & No CBing While You Are Driving
-distracted-driving-

Hand Free For One : Hands Free For All ~ RHF

On Nov 7, 1:34*pm, richard wrote:
..

Not quite.
The Ontario law is requiring users of various devices to be "hands free" by
2012.
Basically, no mic in the hand.

It is not all of Canada, just Ontario.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"The Canadian Automobile Association is convinced that driving while
using a hands-free cell phone is no safer than driving with a handheld
cell phone. It’s pushing the provincial governments to expand their
bans"

"A Saskatchewan poll taken in September 2009 indicated that 60 percent
of residents “strongly support” bans on cell phone use and text
messaging by drivers.
… Saskatoon’s police chief has called for cell phoning and texting to
be outlawed for motorists."


"Recent research has shown that distractions caused by hands-free
devices can be equally as dangerous as handheld ones. In a March 2010
report, the National Safety Council in the U.S. suggests that laws
allowing hands-free devices give a false impression they are safe.
Research indicates that talking on cell phones, even hands-free, is as
dangerous as driving with a blood alcohol count of .08. Texting while
driving increases the risk of fatal accidents by 2300%. It estimated
that drivers using cell phones in any manner failed to see up to 50
per cent of the information in their driving environment; that is,
they may have looked at something, but it did not register. In Canada,
the Canadian Automobile Association has lobbied provincial governments
to expand bans to hands-free devices."

Behind the

"Driver using hands-free phone caused fatal crash
Drivers have been given a stark warning of the dangers of hands-free
mobile phone calls after a haulier was jailed for causing a fatal
crash whilst talking on a Bluetooth headset."

"The Department of Transport's official stance on making hands-free
phone calls is that they are a 'distraction' and should be avoided
Photo: BLOOMBERG
By Nick Britten and Gordon Rayner
9:25PM BST 26 Jun 2008
205 Comments
Marvyn Richmond, 49, was so engrossed in a conversation with his
mother that he failed to notice traffic ahead of him had come to a
standstill, and ploughed into the back of the queue, killing Michael
Buston, a passenger in a van.

Relatives of Mr Buston and road safety charities called for an
outright ban on making phone calls whilst driving, which makes drivers
four times more likely to have an accident, even if they are using a
hands-free kit.

Mr Buston's father-in-law, Peter Long, whose son was badly hurt in the
crash in March last year, said: "The use of hands-free phones should
be stopped. Whether it's hands-free or not, it's still a distraction
to any driver.

"What happened was totally avoidable. At the end of the day this man
has ruined many lives, all because he was using his mobile while
driving."

Richmond was jailed for four and a half years after being convicted at
Lincoln Crown Court of causing death by dangerous driving.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...tal-crash.html



Q. What are the sources of driver distraction?

A. There are many distractions in everyday driving. Events and
activities inside and outside the vehicle can cause driver
distraction. Many of these have been recorded in the Crashworthiness
Data System maintained by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) and include:


Something taking place alongside the roadway
An unexpected noise
Operating the radio, CD, or cassette player
Adjusting the climate or operational controls
Using other devices in the vehicle (navigational instruments, business
tools, cellular telephones)
Eating, drinking and smoking
Other distractions while driving include personal grooming,
conversations with passengers, disciplining or tending to children,
reading or writing.

Back to top

Q. What are the consequences of driving while distracted?

A. Distracted drivers react more slowly to sudden traffic conditions
or events, such as a car stopping to make a turn, or pulling out from
a side road. They fail more often to recognize potential hazards such
as pedestrians, bicycles or debris in the road. They decrease their
"margin of safety" leading them to take risks that they might not
otherwise take, such as turning left in front of oncoming traffic.

When a driver's attention is drawn away from the road and the
surrounding environment, the result could be a delayed reaction to a
hazard, or possibly a failure to detect it at all. All of these are
common factors associated with vehicle crashes. Driver focus is
critical to anticipating and avoiding collisions.

One of the earlier studies on distracted driving, released by
Transport Canada's Ergonomics Division, 'The Impact of Cognitive
Distraction on Driver Visual Behaviour and Vehicle Control' in
February 2002 (Harbluk and Noy) found that performing a demanding
cognitive task while driving produced changes in the drivers' visual
behaviour, vehicle control (as indicated by braking behaviour), and
subjective assessments of workload, safety, and distraction.

A more recent study by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) released in April 2006 concluded that driver
age, experience, daytime sleepiness ratings and personality can make
significant differences in a driver's involvement in crashes and near-
crashes due to distractions.

Back to top

Q. How many collisions are caused by distracted drivers?

A. Driver distraction is cited as one of the most common contributors
to traffic crashes but the numbers vary depending on the study.
According to a 2006 study published by the U.S. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the various forms of driver
distraction are estimated to contribute in 8 out of every 10 crashes
(NHTSA, April 2006). This figure translates into almost 4 million
crashes per year. Estimates of a similar magnitude have been cited in
other reports (NHTSA, 1997, Treat et al. 1979).

http://www.caa.ca/driventodistraction/what/faq.html

"radioguy" wrote in message
...
On Nov 7, 1:34 pm, richard wrote:
..

Not quite.
The Ontario law is requiring users of various devices to be "hands free"
by
2012.
Basically, no mic in the hand.

It is not all of Canada, just Ontario.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"The Canadian Automobile Association is convinced that driving while
using a hands-free cell phone is no safer than driving with a handheld
cell phone. It’s pushing the provincial governments to expand their
bans"
.....

Opinion poll items snipped
Your silly opinion polls don't change the fact that you lied about all of
Canada having such a ban.
As was said, "It is not all of Canada, just Ontario."

Go back to your trolling.

On 11/9/2011 10:57 AM, anon wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Nov 7, 1:34 pm, wrote:
.

Not quite.
The Ontario law is requiring users of various devices to be "hands free"
by
2012.
Basically, no mic in the hand.

It is not all of Canada, just Ontario.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"The Canadian Automobile Association is convinced that driving while
using a hands-free cell phone is no safer than driving with a handheld
cell phone. It’s pushing the provincial governments to expand their
bans"
....

Opinion poll items snipped
Your silly opinion polls don't change the fact that you lied about all of
Canada having such a ban.
As was said, "It is not all of Canada, just Ontario."

Go back to your trolling.




Next, they are going to realize that talking on a hands free cell phone
is no different that speaking to someone in the car with you -- and then
you are going to be banned from saying anything to the cars occupants
while driving!!! DUH!!!

ROFLOL -- you just have to love these idiots -- I mean it is so obvious
their mothers didn't!

Regards,
JS

On Nov 11, 10:10*am, John Smith wrote:
On 11/9/2011 10:57 AM, anon wrote:









*wrote in message
...
On Nov 7, 1:34 pm, *wrote:
.

Not quite.
The Ontario law is requiring users of various devices to be "hands free"
by
2012.
Basically, no mic in the hand.

It is not all of Canada, just Ontario.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"The Canadian Automobile Association is convinced that driving while
using a hands-free cell phone is no safer than driving with a handheld
cell phone. It’s pushing the provincial governments to expand their
bans"
....

Opinion poll items snipped
Your silly opinion polls don't change the fact that you lied about all of
Canada having such a ban.
As was said, "It is not all of Canada, just Ontario."

Go back to your trolling.

Next, they are going to realize that talking on a hands free cell phone
is no different that speaking to someone in the car with you -- and then
you are going to be banned from saying anything to the cars occupants
while driving!!! *DUH!!!

ROFLOL -- you just have to love these idiots -- I mean it is so obvious
their mothers didn't!

Regards,
JS

Number One 'Contributing Factor' to Car/Truck
Related Accidents Eating/Drinking While Driving
-hamburger-in-the-face-=s-blind-spot-ahead-
-soda/coffee-in-the-face-=s-blind-spot-ahead-

Number Two 'Contributing Factor' to Car/Truck
Related Accidents Smoking While Driving
-cigarette-in-the-face-=s-cloudy-vision-ahead-

Major 'Contributing Factor' to Car/Truck Related
Accidents/Deaths Driving While *T*I*R*E*D*
-asleep-at-the-wheel-kills-kills-kills-