Looking at the screen and interacting with it is obviously safer than holding the phone to your ear and talking to someone. Don't be an idiot. You're operating a two ton machine at speed. Keep your eyes on the road.
Steven R. Spriggs, the appellant, held his mobile phone in his hand to use the mapping application to find his way around the congestion when STOPPED in heavy traffic
This person was not moving at the time. On top of that, if the phone had been a Garmin GPS instead of a phone the ticket would never have been issued even though the user would have been using both devices in the same way.
This kind of stuff is just stupid.
Is it just me, or did that topic title make you cringe? So I guess my mind treats information like a fuller treats wool?
Here is an article about fullers:
Also, things cannot be 'fuller' than full. Things are full or they are not. And even then, it would be 'more full' not fuller.
How dare the government force me to buy seat belts for my car!
Hey, don't laugh, I remember when seat belts were an option. My grandmother literally said "I don't want to wear a seat belt. If I get in an accident, I want to be thrown from the car."
Then of course she would talk about one person who was thrown from a car and then the vehicle caught on fire. "And if they had worn their seat belt they wouldn't be alive today." It didn't matter that almost any day in the newspaper you could point out where someone died in an auto accident and almost every time they were not wearing a seat belt.
No, you really can't count on people on their own to do what is best even for their own long term self interest.
Link to Original Source
What did the janitors at Olive-Harvey do to deserve having their names and wages published?
If you work for the public, you can't count on this information not being exposed in a freedom of information act request. I don't think it is fair either. But, this kind of information is posted at least once a year by our local newspaper for people working for our county.
So if you don't want this kind of information publicly available, don't work in a public sector job.
I can certainly understand their desire to get away from these devices. So many people use these devices to 'entertain' their children. I've always found you are trading one problem for another. When we bought our last van I refused to have a DVD player in the vehicle. Having three children, I knew I'd be replacing 'I'm bored' with a battle over which video they would watch. BTW: try finding a used Sienna XLE without a DVD player. On long trips, we talk or listen to music. We do have tablet devices, cell phones and iPad touches. But we monitor their use. Until homework is done, they are not touched. If the weather is nice we ask them why they aren't outside playing. Without supervision, they would never take their eyes off the devices.
But, these devices also really do provide services that I would not want to do without. One great example, the quality of textbooks today is often poor. Sometimes my children actually do not have a textbook they can bring home. I'm often using the internet to help them when they run into a road block doing their homework. I would not do without that.
I worked in electronics sales in the early 80s. In San Antonio, TX at the time you had to take a polygraph to work almost anywhere (for example, Radio Shack was one). As soon as I was hired in most places, my new co-workers started telling me how to beat the polygraph. (I had no reason to worry, but they told me anyway). In the end I found out that many of these folks were robbing the employer blind. And all had passed a polygraph.
Of course, your ability to beat the polygraph probably has a lot to do with who was administering the test. Since so manyl employers back then required polygraphs, you ended up with a bunch of 'Polygraph Marts' who had people administering the tests who really weren't qualified to do so.
Dihydrogen Monoxide is no laughing matter.
Neither is hydrogen hydroxide