Cell Phone Users

[icecreamman]

I think I know the answers to this question already, but I thought it would raise an interesting discussion. Is it just me or does every other biker out their just about get mauled by some idiot on a cell phone every time you get on the road? It is much easier to notice it on a motorcycle than a car, but here in the metroplex I know for a fact at least 90 percent of drivers are on a cell phone talking or texting swerving all over the road from bar ditch to bar ditch. I cannot help but give them a downshift and a burp from the old busa as I pass them and try to make it a memorable conversation for them. I wish the LEOs would spend more time pulling them over than me for going 10 mph over the speed limit.

 

[icecreamman]

I feel better now that I have vented. Now I shall go mingle with idiots..........

 

[MelodicMetalGod]

It most certainly ain't just you.

 

[Dino]

You are spot on.

 

[Lurch]

MY humble opinion is as follows

A loaded Cell phone is MORE dangerous than a loaded gun.

 

[CWCobra]

I cannot fathom why there is so much interest in MPH enforcement, and so little interest in cell enforcement. IMHO, it's waaaay more dangerous to operate a vehicle while celling than it is to drive 20 over on a deserted section of highway. But guess which carries the more harsh penalty? And guess where enforcement resources are focused?


Just sayin'

CW

 

[Ape]

Never mind the cell phone. I love it when I find them reading a novel on the Mass Turnpike where everyone is doing 75 MPH +.

That's when I give them some special love and downshift a few gears to make sure their peace and quiet is interupted so they can pay attention to the road again.

 

[dadofthree]

MY humble opinion is as follows

A loaded Cell phone is MORE dangerous than a loaded gun.

Phones don't kill people idiots do

 

[dadofthree]

Certain behaviors use to indicate a drunk driver, but now-a-days it's more than not someone on their phone. We don't have any laws on the book about cell phone use, but I can still get them for left of center.

 

[Acehole]

Ohio law of no Texting while driving goes live i think by the end of the month. I'm sure no special enforcement will occure, but can be used as cause of accident and hold higher penalties.

 

[busa-saga]

lol..i thought i was the only one who did the downshifting thing just to have them almost have a heart attack. pull up beside them and watch them catching their breath..then pull away like i seen a ghost

 

[Pinky Winky]

I'm trying to get the courts to let me see the call and txt history of the old guy that hit me to see if that why he didnt see me and came over on me.

 

[Greenbean]

I do the same think dude!!!

 

[Schism]

i used to think cell use was the big killer but the texting tops it all. you are absolutely right on and it's only going to get worse for us riders.

 

[MelodicMetalGod]

I cannot fathom why there is so much interest in MPH enforcement, and so little interest in cell enforcement. IMHO, it's waaaay more dangerous to operate a vehicle while celling than it is to drive 20 over on a deserted section of highway. But guess which carries the more harsh penalty? And guess where enforcement resources are focused?


Just sayin'

CW

Oh, that's easy. Speed enforcement is easy to see/identify and easy to prove. All the other stuff is much more difficult to prove and therefore considered a waste of time and effort. They know they'll make money for most speeding tickets, even if the ticket goes to court. So, they focus on speeding b/c it has a definite payoff.

The other stuff is waaaaayyy more dangerous. Think red light running, stop sign running, driving while distracted (phone, texting, gps, reading, etc). But it's tougher to identify/witness and if it is witnessed, it's difficult to prove. All that boils down to less money per unit of troop time which equals lack of interest and effort by law enforcement. Even though they constantly say that SAFETY is their only concern with traffic enforcement, that's obviously not the case since the far more dangerous behaviors are left alone while routine speeding remains the number one focus and THE number one most likely encounter that a motorist will have with law enforcement.

The system is broken and it leaves us all at greater risk and on our own out there every time we drive or ride among the public.

Be safe y'all.

 

[4acp]

get a magaphone exhaust and bounce your bike off the rev limiter beside them... if that don't work.. kick a mirror off.... lol..

 

[dragonbusa]

I drive an 18 wheeler for my $$$$. when i get beside them i lay on the OLE AIR HORNS!!! Did that to one lady texting on 440 in nashville, she thru the dam phone in the air !!! I think all cell phone use should be banned while driving. END OF STORY

 

[CWCobra]

Oh, that's easy. Speed enforcement is easy to see/identify and easy to prove. All the other stuff is much more difficult to prove and therefore considered a waste of time and effort.
....

LEOs do not have to "prove" a speeding or any other moving violation at all; all they have to do is to say that a violation occurred. LEO says you were doing 60 in a 45; you say you were doing 45. Sorry - LEO wins. You say you stopped at the corner stop sign; LEO says you didn't. Sorry again: you didn't stop. A LEOs word is sufficient for a ticket, and usually for a conviction if taken to court. Whether or not the motorist was actually speeding or rolling thru a stop sign does not enter into the issue. As an experienced officer, who carries a weapon, the LEO's word is golden, and all but irrefutable.

The very same approach could be taken with texting. If a LEO says you were texting, or celling, that should be and could be sufficient for a ticket and conviction. But thus far, the LE community has chosen to turn a blind eye to those guilty of driving while impaired by PDAs.

Shame on them.

CW

 

[Lurch]

LEOs do not have to "prove" a speeding or any other moving violation at all; all they have to do is to say that a violation occurred. LEO says you were doing 60 in a 45; you say you were doing 45. Sorry - LEO wins. You say you stopped at the corner stop sign; LEO says you didn't. Sorry again: you didn't stop. A LEOs word is sufficient for a ticket, and usually for a conviction if taken to court. Whether or not the motorist was actually speeding or rolling thru a stop sign does not enter into the issue. As an experienced officer, who carries a weapon, the LEO's word is golden, and all but irrefutable.

The very same approach could be taken with texting. If a LEO says you were texting, or celling, that should be and could be sufficient for a ticket and conviction. But thus far, the LE community has chosen to turn a blind eye to those guilty of driving while impaired by PDAs.

Shame on them.

CW

So what you are saying is that we are GUILTY until we prove we are innocent?
Not trying to start a war here, but that is how I read what you wrote. My word against yours is simply I am guilty until I can prove otherwise. Your word does not PROVE guilt, but I am guilty until I have hard proof that I am not?

 

[shadetree57]

We have the same problem here. Wonder how these people ever got through life before cell phones came out? I use mine but don't stay on it long.