Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009 ... news06.txt

City Council members last week adopted what appears to be one of the most restrictive bans in the country governing the use of cell phones while driving.

The ordinance permits police to pull over drivers for sending a text message while behind the wheel of a car, and prohibits all drivers from talking on cell phones, even if they're using hands-free devices such as headsets and earpieces.

Next they'll outlaw eating in the car, then require the removal of cupholders....then outlaw DVD players for the other occupants, then they'll outlaw talking while driving to other occupants...WAFJ.

AZGrizFan wrote:http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009 ... news06.txt

City Council members last week adopted what appears to be one of the most restrictive bans in the country governing the use of cell phones while driving.

The ordinance permits police to pull over drivers for sending a text message while behind the wheel of a car, and prohibits all drivers from talking on cell phones, even if they're using hands-free devices such as headsets and earpieces.

Next they'll outlaw eating in the car, then require the removal of cupholders....then outlaw DVD players for the other occupants, then they'll outlaw talking while driving to other occupants...WAFJ.

So would I be able to use my built in bluetooth?

wideright82 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009 ... news06.txt



Next they'll outlaw eating in the car, then require the removal of cupholders....then outlaw DVD players for the other occupants, then they'll outlaw talking while driving to other occupants...WAFJ.

So would I be able to use my built in bluetooth?

Guess you'd always be able to say you were talking to yourself....

Nannyism? Or public safety?

wideright82 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009 ... news06.txt



Next they'll outlaw eating in the car, then require the removal of cupholders....then outlaw DVD players for the other occupants, then they'll outlaw talking while driving to other occupants...WAFJ.

So would I be able to use my built in bluetooth?

Nope

dbackjon wrote:Nannyism? Or public safety?

Nannyism disguised as "public safety".

dbackjon wrote:Nannyism? Or public safety?

IMO, Another Tax from Big Brother

dbackjon wrote:

wideright82 wrote:


So would I be able to use my built in bluetooth?

Nope

Well, THAT is a crock of shit. Oh well, not like I'll ever be in Montana with my car, and they sure as shit won't know if I'm talking to my car, so fuck em.

AZGrizFan wrote: Next they'll outlaw eating in the car, then require the removal of cupholders....then outlaw DVD players for the other occupants, then they'll outlaw talking while driving to other occupants...WAFJ.

Probably lead to a lot of people falling asleep at the wheel.

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Nannyism? Or public safety?

Nannyism disguised as "public safety".

Same thing if you ask me. You don't hire a nanny for your kids because you want to endanger them. Just nannyism is for things that any grownass person should be able to figure out on their own, like, texting makes driving very difficult.

wideright82 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Nope

Well, THAT is a crock of shit. Oh well, not like I'll ever be in Montana with my car, and they sure as shit won't know if I'm talking to my car, so fuck em.

It's what happens when you let donks run the country/state/county/city.

AZGrizFan wrote:

wideright82 wrote:


Well, THAT is a crock of shit. Oh well, not like I'll ever be in Montana with my car, and they sure as shit won't know if I'm talking to my car, so fuck em.

It's what happens when you let donks run the country/state/county/city.

Obviously there was no amount of logic put into the decision, which sounds exactly like D, Cap'n, TTBF, and HD if you ask me. I'm gonna protest that kids shouldn't be allowed in cars PERIOD, those little fuckers are nothing but distractions. Actually mandatory sound proof glass surrounding the driver.

How the hell is a cop going to be able to prove you were on the phone, unless you are parked or going really slow? If you are flying down the highway and they pull you over what evidence will they have?

slycat wrote:How the hell is a cop going to be able to prove you were on the phone, unless you are parked or going really slow? If you are flying down the highway and they pull you over what evidence will they have?

The fresh creases in the sleeve of your shirt.

As soon as I heard this on the news the other night I asked myself, does this ban also includes talking on any type of radio, i e, truckers, ambulances, tow trucks and COPS who BTW also use cell phones while working?

polsongrizz wrote:As soon as I heard this on the news the other night I asked myself, does this ban also includes talking on any type of radio, i e, truckers, ambulances, tow trucks and COPS who BTW also use cell phones while working?

... and who, according to the article, will now begin to use this capability even MORE.

AZGrizFan wrote:

slycat wrote:How the hell is a cop going to be able to prove you were on the phone, unless you are parked or going really slow? If you are flying down the highway and they pull you over what evidence will they have?

The fresh creases in the sleeve of your shirt.

I wear short sleeves to work........next!

slycat wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:

The fresh creases in the sleeve of your shirt.

I wear short sleeves to work........next!

I'm sure the democrats will work up a system to be able to tell if a phone is being USED and is MOVING at the same time. Then send the thought police out to track your sorry short sleeved ass down.

AZGrizFan wrote:

slycat wrote:


I wear short sleeves to work........next!

I'm sure the democrats will work up a system to be able to tell if a phone is being USED and is MOVING at the same time. Then send the thought police out to track your sorry short sleeved ass down.

Good to know my taxes are being hiked for a valid reason

AZGrizFan wrote:

wideright82 wrote:


Well, THAT is a crock of shit. Oh well, not like I'll ever be in Montana with my car, and they sure as shit won't know if I'm talking to my car, so fuck em.

It's what happens when you let donks run the country/state/county/city.

And when conks run the country, we get warrant less wiretapping.

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
It's what happens when you let donks run the country/state/county/city.

And when conks run the country, we get warrant less wiretapping.

Fine. That doesn't impact me one bit. I get a fucking ticket in Missoula and I'm driving to Helena to cram it down your throat.





The ticket, that is.

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Nannyism? Or public safety?

Nannyism disguised as "public safety".

Not on board with you on this one, Mr. Potter.

I've seen the effect of OCD "phoning while driving"...and while it's amplified in congested urban/suburban areas, it still causes problems in rural areas also. Missoula is hardly "rural", and while Montanan's may be a tad more disciplined than the monkeys who fill California's roadways, it sends the message to citizens to pay attention to their driving when behind the wheel. Haven't studied the details, but allowing "hands free" seems an acceptable solution, just need to keep the driver's fingers off the keypad and keep both hands on the wheel.

What's humorous is the whiney response from Montanan's...as if you've lost your "wubby pacifier"...

travelinman67 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Nannyism disguised as "public safety".

Not on board with you on this one, Mr. Potter.

I've seen the effect of OCD "phoning while driving"...and while it's amplified in congested urban/suburban areas, it still causes problems in rural areas also. Missoula is hardly "rural", and while Montanan's may be a tad more disciplined than the monkeys who fill California's roadways, it sends the message to citizens to pay attention to their driving when behind the wheel. Haven't studied the details, but allowing "hands free" seems an acceptable solution, just need to keep the driver's fingers off the keypad and keep both hands on the wheel.

What's humorous is the whiney response from Montanan's...as if you've lost your "wubby pacifier"...

Z's the only Montanan whining in this thread, and he doesn't even LIVE here anymore.

travelinman67 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Nannyism disguised as "public safety".

Not on board with you on this one, Mr. Potter.

I've seen the effect of OCD "phoning while driving"...and while it's amplified in congested urban/suburban areas, it still causes problems in rural areas also. Missoula is hardly "rural", and while Montanan's may be a tad more disciplined than the monkeys who fill California's roadways, it sends the message to citizens to pay attention to their driving when behind the wheel. Haven't studied the details, but allowing "hands free" seems an acceptable solution, just need to keep the driver's fingers off the keypad and keep both hands on the wheel.

What's humorous is the whiney response from Montanan's...as if you've lost your "wubby pacifier"...

I see. So you're only for "limited government" where it suits you.

Again, it's starting down a slippery slope of no phones, no food, no occupants, no talking, etc., etc., etc. Yeah, sounds crazy, don't it? So did banning cell phones 5 years ago.

What about those who are putting their makeup on driving down the road @ 65? What about those listening to music so loud they couldn't hear an emergency vehicle if it broadsided them? Or those who drive down the road reading the newspaper?

You can't "legislate" common sense. You've either GOT it, or you don't.

AZGrizFan wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Not on board with you on this one, Mr. Potter.

I've seen the effect of OCD "phoning while driving"...and while it's amplified in congested urban/suburban areas, it still causes problems in rural areas also. Missoula is hardly "rural", and while Montanan's may be a tad more disciplined than the monkeys who fill California's roadways, it sends the message to citizens to pay attention to their driving when behind the wheel. Haven't studied the details, but allowing "hands free" seems an acceptable solution, just need to keep the driver's fingers off the keypad and keep both hands on the wheel.

What's humorous is the whiney response from Montanan's...as if you've lost your "wubby pacifier"...

I see. So you're only for "limited government" where it suits you.

Again, it's starting down a slippery slope of no phones, no food, no occupants, no talking, etc., etc., etc. Yeah, sounds crazy, don't it? So did banning cell phones 5 years ago.

What about those who are putting their makeup on driving down the road @ 65? What about those listening to music so loud they couldn't hear an emergency vehicle if it broadsided them? Or those who drive down the road reading the newspaper?

You can't "legislate" common sense. You've either GOT it, or you don't.

Most states already have a "distracted driving" law...allowing L.E. to cite offenders for blatantly doing things while driving that prevent them from safely operating a motor vehicle...problem is, talking on a cell phone was not "deemed" as being a distraction...these new laws codify the obvious.
We've all witnessed "absurd" distracted driving (my best was a gal going WB on I-80 towards S.F., morning rush hour, 70 mph, steering with her knees while holding a bowl and eating cereal with milk...), trouble is, since these incidents are "subjective" in the court's eyes...the officer's often have to be taken off the street to go to hearings and argue their case to judges whose "judgement" is often swayed by cultural norms rather than legislative intent.

I agree wholeheartedly that we can't legislate "common sense", but when the lack of common sense threatens lives, sacrificing the "right" to make phone calls while operating a motor vehicle seems a minor infringement.