New laws for 2009

[Salty]

Has there been a credible study showing 
that wearing helmets saves lives in car accidents? I bet 
there hasn't.

Yes there has - see Link 1 Link 2 and additional links

[

However, they have shown that talking on the cell 
phone is the same as being slightly drunk as far as your 
attention goes.  As I said, I have seen 3 people go through 
red lights or stop signs while talking on their cell phones.

I would like to see that study - is there a link?

Science Daily reports that the National Traffic and Safety Administration found that 25% of all collisions are caused by distraction - thats all kinds of distractions - cell phone, eating, radio ect.
Drunk driving is involved in about 40% of collisions - even though 73% of all drivers talk on the phone.
Ok so you saw 3 people run red lights - that could
be said of any thing - you give a poor argument.

This from "Car-Accident-Advice.Com "Also, the problem...by cell phone use while driving is relatively minor compared to drunk driving..."

 Also, just because a law making people wear 
helmets might be ridiculous does not mean it's 
wrong to make a law against talking on cell phones. 
That's a logical fallacy - forgot which one; I think it's 
called the fallacy of the Beard

The point I was making is that if you believe a certain action (or inaction) causes a problem you need to take a preventative measure. In essence I am agreeing with you ( yes, in a round about way)

But you still have not answered my question from post 17 "Marcia, would you support a law that would require all drivers and passengers of vehicles to wear a helmet? Think about how many lives that would saved (and I am not being facetious)"

A simple yes or no will do!

Salty

 

[windcatcher]

Marcia, would you support a law that would require all drivers and passengers of vehicles to wear a helmet? Think about how many lives that would saved (and I am not being facetious)

A helmet inside a car.....no way! It might limit freedom of movement to look-see out the mirrors or windows. The discomfort would be distracting. The sides might interfere with peripheral vision. A face shield might fog or distort images or interfer with judgement of depths. On a motorcycle, a bike, or in a race car or stunt vehicle.... yes. But in a passenger vehicle or a truck.... no way.

One thing which no one has mentioned regarding cell phone use when driving and the law....... is that, cell phones are a relatively recent invention and they are more prolific than the citizens band radio of yesteryear, which was more the tool of truck drivers or rescue and hobby groups in mostly rurual areas. The CB radio differs from the cell phone in that often one channel is used for basic information and most who use it keep it on to monitor traffic conditions which might be reported: When extended conversation arises and motorist are traveling in the same direction, the courteous will switch to an agreed upon channel from the basic monitoring channel to leave it open for those seeking information or giving alerts. The CB radio was not the typical fare of teenage drivers.... or even most young adults with fresh driving skills.

The more recent cell phone is an object that people carry everywhere..... and from the disturbance one hears in theatres, restuarants, church, offices, and markets.... as well as parks and open spaces... means people are conditioned to using it in multiple places and more dependant on it..... and of immediately responding lest they lose a call. Therein is the rub: When driving, one's first priority should be attention to the road and prepared to put all else on hold: However, the immediate response to a ringing phone almost guarantees that for most people, even when driving, their first thought is to respond to the phone: With just a little more thought and planning, they might be less distracted.

As another mentioned earlier, a phone call which is complex or has emotional intensity is a further distraction as the attention leaves the road and goes to the person on the other end and problem solving elsewhere. Except for emergencies...... which even then may present a risk, the cell phone in a driver's hands doesn't mix well with the attention which most driving conditions demand.... and if it takes a law to impress the people because they have too much stupidity to figure it out for themselves... then so be it.

 

[hawg_427]

Hey SALTCITYBAPTIST,


You mentioned a law against eating while driving, funny thing is it is a law in several states. I had to pass a car today whose driver was doing 10 MPH under the posted limit and in the left lane,, which is the passing lane. LOL
The cell phone law is a good one. I go to so many car accidents that happened as a result of the driver talking on the cell phone. They also drive in the left lane and cannot seem to go the speed limit. Soon enough it will all be Bluetooth or some other sort of hands free talking. I pass so many kids texting while they are driving or should I say attempting to drive.

 

[Salty]

Was not aware of the "no eating" in some States! Thats the reason I tell my students to check on local laws if they plan on driving in different States.
You mentioned the "nut" who was driving MPH in the left lane. Specifically, there is no law in NY against that, however, you may not impede traffic; so if taken to the enth degree, so if you are doing the the speed limit of 60, technically, you could be given a ticket - for impeding - even if the person who wanted to pass you would be speeding!
There are a few other "catch all" laws as well. For example, even though eating is not specifically against the law in NY, you could be found guilty of reckless driving - its all in the opinion of the police officer and DA.

As a driving instructor and as a Conservative (note the capital C) I am all for save driving, but lets be realistic.

Salty

 

[windcatcher]

Was not aware of the "no eating" in some States! Thats the reason I tell my students to check on local laws if they plan on driving in different States.
You mentioned the "nut" who was driving MPH in the left lane. Specifically, there is no law in NY against that, however, you may not impede traffic; so if taken to the enth degree, so if you are doing the the speed limit of 60, technically, you could be given a ticket - for impeding - even if the person who wanted to pass you would be speeding!
There are a few other "catch all" laws as well. For example, even though eating is not specifically against the law in NY, you could be found guilty of reckless driving - its all in the opinion of the police officer and DA.

As a driving instructor and as a Conservative (note the capital C) I am all for save driving, but lets be realistic.

Salty

I do agree that if the rules of the road and the laws regarding things like following too closely, using the left lane for other than passing or impeding traffic in that lane, passing on the right....except when the road way permits and an emergency exists, failure to give a sufficient notice...... at least a minimum of a 3 second signal before changing lanes, occupying a lane in which another has signaled to enter, and then accelerating to compete with their entry (could be a reckless charge), etc..... Weaving across lanes or failure to stay in ones lane; Driving a vehicle in which safety features aren't working or properly maintained; Failure to stop at the bold stop line instead of proceeding ontop of it to stop at the crosswalk; Making a complete stop with traffic check whenever required: If all of these kind of rules were enforced or citations issued, the public would become more aware of behaviors ( because of word of mouth or out-crys of protests) which cost them money and contribute to accidents and it would force their attention to return to the road when driving or suffer the expense of fighting fines, convictions, and increased insurance cost. There is probably no more intimidating citation than that of driving reckless, under which most could be cited: It is a death sentence to a CDL career, and is right up there with a DUI/ DWI. In the past LEO's have been reluctant to issue reckless driving citations, except for blatantly outrageous acts, but it can be a catch-all umbrella with serious penalties and repercussions for those successfully convicted.

When a boundary is strong enough that crossing it causes sufficient awareness and pain..... people are more inclined to both observe the boundary and warn others who seem less aware or alert to its dangers..... thus spreading the information and conditioning to conform to that which is law.

 

[Salty]

This bit on Driving is interesting, but that was not the only law listed. For those who would like to discuss the other laws please link over to
2009 new laws part II

 

[windcatcher]

This bit on Driving is interesting, but that was not the only law listed. For those who would like to discuss the other laws please link over to
2009 new laws part II

Well, I sort of liked the Florida law requiring medical estimates to be given if requested by patients. (But someone already commented on it.) My district state senator, Republican, who is retiring from the senate after this his last term (we have term limits), is also a retired physician.... and I think some of these health care laws are reflective of his influence. This one really sounds like a good law: Even if people are already insured and have no concern regarding paying copays or deductibles..... still if they more actively participated in knowing what their health insurance is covering and the cost of procedures...... they might be in a better position to actively participate in cost cutting or holding the companies responsible for misrepresentation and manipulation when it occurs.

It is kind of hard for me to have an opinion on some of the other laws. The people in those states are more apt to be informed as to how those came about.

 

[Marcia]

Posted by Salty re using cell phones equal to being slightly drunk

I would like to see that study - is there a link?

Yes:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201586,00.html

The study supports previous research that has revealed the risks of using cell phones, including the hands-free variety, behind the wheel.
"We found that people are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated at the legal blood-alcohol limit," said Frank Drews, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Utah.
Previous studies have suggested as many as 2,600 people are killed each year in accidents involving drivers on cell phones. About 10 percent of drivers say they sometimes talk on cell phones while driving, and that figure is growing.
<more>

Also see
Drivers on Cell Phones as Bad as Drunks
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/studien/bericht-67179.html

Cell Phones Make Drivers as Bad as Drunks
http://www.livescience.com/health/060629_cell_phones.html

 

[Marcia]

Salty posted

But you still have not answered my question from post 17 "Marcia, would you support a law that would require all drivers and passengers of vehicles to wear a helmet? Think about how many lives that would saved (and I am not being facetious)"

Neither link you posted showed any studies that wearing helmets would prevent these injuries. Whereas, I have posted links showing studies that talking on cell phones is worse than being drunk and causes accidents.

 

[rbell]

And this thread illustrates why government healthcare would be such a horrific idea...then the gubmint gets into the business of protecting us, from us. The reasoning would then exist that says, "Well, since I pay for your healthcare, I can tell you how to live your life."

We'll have bureaucrats running after us, making us wear helmets, handing out seat belt violations for golf carts, and putting a "fat tax" on certain foods that aren't on the "approved list."

 

[donnA]

Yep, it means you get discharged once they reached the estimate whether you're felling better or not.

"Here, take this prescription and come back for a new estimate..."

There unexpected things, like meds they we're planning on using, or more meds then they planned, emergencies that would raise the cost, etc. yep, then they send you home, whether you need further medical care or not because they've reached the limit. I really doubt this will cause people to have better health care.

 

[windcatcher]

Yep, it means you get discharged once they reached the estimate whether you're felling better or not.

"Here, take this prescription and come back for a new estimate..."

Certainly you are joking........... right?

In Florida, a handful of new laws include one that gives hospital patients improved consumer protection. It requires hospitals and health care facilities to give patients a good-faith estimate of anticipated charges for planned procedures if requested. They must also post notices in reception areas advising patients how they can get information on charity and discount policies.

If this works like other similar laws in Florida regarding 'a good faith estimate'...... then it means the cost is either less or will come within a certain percentage of estimated cost..... or will not override beyond a certain amount without first consulting with the consumer or his guardian. It means that additional treatment or tests, or observations, if recommended, may require a new estimate with communication and approval whenever possible before proceeding.

I see this adding some to the cost of paperwork and red-tape already required by government regulations..... but, in this case, it is working to keep the consumer informed. Most of all previous paperwork just added to the record keeping and documentation process, from which most standards of care are evaluated and modified..... without input or significant quality increased or assured to the consumer for the additional work and expense.