Cell phone/driving: an officer's view

Status
Not open for further replies.
This whole thread is proof that we have lost the battle against distracted driving. First, many people immediately upbraid the police for using phones during their work (which was not the original topic, and just indicates that they can do anything that certain police officers do). Second, the excuses flow like water about what calls are important to be taken (little Johnny will be left at someone's house if Mommy doesn't take the critically important call).

Another series of signs that 85% of drivers consider themselves better than average, and that the individual's rights continue to trump the good for the masses.

Ugh.
 
Originally Posted By: spasm3
I see few reasons to be on a handheld phone in a car. Medical emergency,calling a traffic accident. Otherwise pull off. Children were in school before cell phones existed what did we do before cell phones? Somehow we survived. Its funny the mentality of this. I can be in a waiting room or in a car with someone and my phone rings, I don't answer it. Invariably the person I'm with gets visibly nervous and finally asks do you need to take that? they are surprised when i say no, not really. Its a society conditioned response that phones MUST be answered right away.


Amen, brother!
 
Originally Posted By: DAC17
This whole thread is proof that we have lost the battle against distracted driving. First, many people immediately upbraid the police for using phones during their work (which was not the original topic, and just indicates that they can do anything that certain police officers do). Second, the excuses flow like water about what calls are important to be taken (little Johnny will be left at someone's house if Mommy doesn't take the critically important call).

Another series of signs that 85% of drivers consider themselves better than average, and that the individual's rights continue to trump the good for the masses.

Ugh.


It's not complicated at all: I have a problem with blatant hypocrisy!
 
Originally Posted By: DAC17
First, many people immediately upbraid the police for using phones during their work (which was not the original topic, and just indicates that they can do anything that certain police officers do).

I think the comment reflects other issues.

If a LEO's office is to enforce laws as written, he ought to obey them.

If a LEO's office is to do what is good for safety, he ought to refrain from driving and speaking on a cellphone.

Americans have a very low tolerance for blatant hypocrisy.
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: DAC17
This whole thread is proof that we have lost the battle against distracted driving. First, many people immediately upbraid the police for using phones during their work (which was not the original topic, and just indicates that they can do anything that certain police officers do). Second, the excuses flow like water about what calls are important to be taken (little Johnny will be left at someone's house if Mommy doesn't take the critically important call).

Another series of signs that 85% of drivers consider themselves better than average, and that the individual's rights continue to trump the good for the masses.

Ugh.


It's not complicated at all: I have a problem with blatant hypocrisy!


Oh Stop. You have much more burning inside you than a mere moral high point.
 
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
Originally Posted By: DAC17
First, many people immediately upbraid the police for using phones during their work (which was not the original topic, and just indicates that they can do anything that certain police officers do).

I think the comment reflects other issues.

If a LEO's office is to enforce laws as written, he ought to obey them.

If a LEO's office is to do what is good for safety, he ought to refrain from driving and speaking on a cellphone.

Americans have a very low tolerance for blatant hypocrisy.







I'm not here to change anyones mind on love or hate or indifference for LE. BUT you do need to realize that there is a lot, and I mean a lot of business that is taken care of over the the cell phone in a cops car that isn't possible over the rover. Now, I'm not stating this is the case in all the calls or even insinuating same just pointing out that it is another facet not spoken of as most assume the cop is on the phone with some broad.
 
Another reason why I love living in texas.

The government does not get in the way.

Cell phone use while driving is legal, texting is legal.

It may not be smart to do, but the civilian is left to his own judgement to use it or not.

I have noticed that texting or calling in a SCHOOL zone is illegal, which makes perfect sense to me.
 
To those that are trying to crucify those that use hands free calling, have you ever ate while driving? Ever adjusted the radio or climate control? Looked at an accident, or sung along to a song? There are thousands of ways to be distracted. When you are 100% distraction free, I'll listen to your arguments. I agree that texting is a problem, and not using hands free could be a problem for some.

Is it too much to ask that those that are paid to enforce the laws, also abide by those laws?
 
I hope you guys didn't scare off the OP with your remarks. I thought we would hear something back from him by now. Only 5 pages later.
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
If a LEO's office is to enforce laws as written, he ought to obey them.

No one answered this before, so I'll ask it again. Why no complaints about speeding to catch a speeder, or running a red light to catch someone who ran a red light.

Additionally, if someone in a difficult to find location needs emergency services and the responder (be it the ambulance driver or police officer) has to speak to the complainant directly, using his cell, to clarify directions, you want them pulling over?

The police officers (and other emergency personnel) ARE following the laws as written. Every example I have seen explicitly exempts such personnel while in the execution of their duties. So, how are they violating the law? Are you arguing that they aren't police officers? That they aren't in execution of their duties? That the exemption is unconstitutional? The state governor didn't sign the law? What?
 
Originally Posted By: dernp
We talked for a bit about blue tooth and hands free.


I don't see how that's any better. The driver is still very distracted because her mind is on the conversation.
 
Originally Posted By: BISCUT
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
Originally Posted By: DAC17
First, many people immediately upbraid the police for using phones during their work (which was not the original topic, and just indicates that they can do anything that certain police officers do).

I think the comment reflects other issues.

If a LEO's office is to enforce laws as written, he ought to obey them.

If a LEO's office is to do what is good for safety, he ought to refrain from driving and speaking on a cellphone.

Americans have a very low tolerance for blatant hypocrisy.







I'm not here to change anyones mind on love or hate or indifference for LE. BUT you do need to realize that there is a lot, and I mean a lot of business that is taken care of over the the cell phone in a cops car that isn't possible over the rover. Now, I'm not stating this is the case in all the calls or even insinuating same just pointing out that it is another facet not spoken of as most assume the cop is on the phone with some broad.


My last Bluetooth earpiece cost me about $25!
 
Originally Posted By: Garak


The police officers (and other emergency personnel) ARE following the laws as written. Every example I have seen explicitly exempts such personnel while in the execution of their duties. So, how are they violating the law? Are you arguing that they aren't police officers? That they aren't in execution of their duties? That the exemption is unconstitutional? The state governor didn't sign the law? What?


Yup. This is mostly so criminal defense lawyers can't point fingers in court and say, neenner neener neener the cop was breaking the law.

So seat belts etc are used "per departmental policy" so any problems with personnel have to go through channels and aren't handled by outsiders. Some jurisdictions don't even require cops to have driver's licenses!

And yeah cops have it dangerous. Numerous cruisers have been clobbered so far this winter in icy conditions while they've responded to other accidents. That doesn't mean I'd like the 99% of drivers who aren't police to be compromised and distracted. When I see a marked cruiser I give it more leeway anyway in case it has to suddenly turn around etc.
 
Originally Posted By: spasm3
That's not an emergency. Unless the driver was on the way to the hospital or reporting an accident/medical emergency, ticket them.

But he didn't know it wasn't an emergency until he answered the call.
If people can know what their children/significant others are calling them for without answering the phone, there would be no use for them at all.
 
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Originally Posted By: spasm3
That's not an emergency. Unless the driver was on the way to the hospital or reporting an accident/medical emergency, ticket them.

But he didn't know it wasn't an emergency until he answered the call.
If people can know what their children/significant others are calling them for without answering the phone, there would be no use for them at all.


If he is receiving the call, and feels he must answer it , pull over then call them back. Again its society conditioning that people think phones MUST be answered. People are slaves to phones and thinking they must be instantly available to anyone and everyone at a moments notice. When I'm call for the hospital I still don't answer when driving , I pull to the side and call the party back. takes about 1 minute. If I can do that so can others. When I'm not on call , I rarely even carry a phone!!
 
Well, not carrying a phone at all is not an option for most people these days I think
smile.gif

Pulling over and answering the call is a very good idea.

Anyway, I only use hand free answering if I am driving - and there are only 2 numbers (caller ID and such) to which I will answer at all.
All other calls I just let go to voice mail.
I don't do any texting at all.
 
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: dernp
We talked for a bit about blue tooth and hands free.


I don't see how that's any better. The driver is still very distracted because her mind is on the conversation.


How is that different than talking to a passenger?
 
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Well, not carrying a phone at all is not an option for most people these days I think
smile.gif



They just think its not an option. For some it is necessary. For most is simply a notion that they can't leave the house with out it.

The hands free stuff, i have no problem with.

Voice mail he he, not only do i not text, I don't have a voicemail box either!
happy2.gif
 
Last edited:
Again, Need a phone/don't need a phone at all stuff depends on a lot of things; and those things are so individually specific,I am not even going there.
It's also not some kind of 'victory' to not need a phone, or to need one. Depending on perception, either (esp. someone who never needs/uses a phone and is unreachable by family or work places, and has no way for others to leave a message in an emergency) can be looked at as a negative these days.

But all that is clearly for a different topic.
Let's stay on topic for now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top