Focus on distracted drivers

textingBishop Police Department to Hold Zero Tolerance Distracted Driving
Enforcement Operation

As part of this month’s Distracted Driving Awareness Month campaign, Bishop Police Department will be offering “zero tolerance” to those texting or operating hand-held cell phones during the month of April 2012. Drivers who break the law and place themselves and others in danger will be cited. The current minimum ticket cost is $159, with subsequent tickets costing at least $279.

Distracted driving is a serious traffic safety concern that puts everyone on the road at risk. As a result, law enforcement across the state, including Bishop Police are increasingly cracking down on cell phone use and texting. This April will see over 225 local agencies plus the CHP conducting zero tolerance enforcements.

“We take the issue of distracted driving very seriously.” said Bishop Police Chief Chris Carter. “Cell phone use and texting while driving is such a serious concern that we are putting officers on the road to enforce zero tolerance. Is that text message or cell phone call really worth $159?”

Drivers who use hand-held devices are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves.  Younger, inexperienced drivers under 20 years old have the highest proportion of distraction-related fatal crashes.   In addition, studies show that texting while driving can delay a driver’s reaction time just as severely as having a blood alcohol content of a legally drunk driver.

Studies show that there is no difference in the risks between hands-free and hand-held cell phone conversations, both of which can result in “inattention blindness” which occurs when the brain isn’t seeing what is clearly visible because the drivers’ focus is on the phone conversation and not on the road.  When over one third of your brain’s functioning that should be on your driving moves over to cell phone talking, you can become a cell phone “zombie.”

“Turn off your phone and put it out of reach as you get into the car,” said Christopher J. Murphy, Director of the California Office of Traffic Safety.  “Think before you call or text someone.  If there is a chance they may be driving, let it wait.  It’s not worth it.”

Katie Coffman, Public Information Officer.

 

, , , , , ,

120 Responses to Focus on distracted drivers

  1. NewEra April 3, 2012 at 1:46 pm #

    It’s a great effort, but i dont see this really giving our over inflated local cops dept. anything more to do, dang they must be bored! I guess i would seek crime also if there wasn’t anything to do. TALK ABOUT A WASTE OF RESOURCES!
    I mean I dont feel anymore safer when I see them just wasting gas.

     
  2. Trouble April 3, 2012 at 2:51 pm #

    I’ll stop talking on my cell phone as soon as the cops stop talking on theirs. Seems fair to me.

     
    • Big Rick O'Brien April 3, 2012 at 7:42 pm #

      I’ve noticed that they don’t wear their seatbelts, either.

       
      • Just the Facts April 3, 2012 at 11:55 pm #

        Big Rick, Bishop PD has two sets of rules. One set for them and another set for the peasants who they will ticket and fine to balance their budget.

        It is just another form of taxation.

         
  3. Just the Facts April 3, 2012 at 3:16 pm #

    The cops are legally allowed to talk on their cell phones while driving. 99% of the time it is personal and has nothing to do with their job.

     
    • Really April 3, 2012 at 7:51 pm #

      Agreed….they are humans too and I don’t recall them offering “texting or talking while driving” classes in the academy. How are they any more qualified to be able to talk/text while driving than anyone else? They have radios to use for work.

       
    • harry April 4, 2012 at 7:53 pm #

      Just the Facts, “99% of the time it is personal and has nothing to do with their job.”. Please post the information and source of your “Facts”! Or change the name you use to post to Just My my Made up Facts or Just BS.

       
      • Just the Facts April 4, 2012 at 8:15 pm #

        I know a lot of cops and they told me.

         
      • NewEra April 4, 2012 at 8:21 pm #

        Well I almost agree with a strong percentage of the time it is personal, under the observation of seeing them do nothing but drive to point A to point B. And you will never make me a believer that they are that busy to be on the phone that often! Come on I understand the importance of law enforcement. Most drugs and evils come from out of town. Stop penalizing the locals because you couldn’t keep it out, or from coming in!

         
  4. MJA April 3, 2012 at 8:45 pm #

    I don’t use my cell phone when I am driving my car while trying to eat a double bacon cheeseberger, frys, and drink a jumbo coke, expecially while trying to find a favorite cd to put on all the while conversing about the loss of civil liberties with my girl friend and wondering if the meds the doctor gave me is causing my drowsiness all at the sametime because: (breath) I believe phones are really dangerous too!

    Thanks,

    =

     
  5. Trouble April 3, 2012 at 10:01 pm #

    About the only right know, is my right to free speech shall not be infringed on. Did I get that right?

     
    • harry April 4, 2012 at 8:02 pm #

      Yes, but not when you are putting fellow citizens at risk because you are driving while impeded/distracted. IMHO any distracted/impeded driving is not much different than DUI! I respect your rights and had a career protecting those rights but don’t let your rights lead you into irresponsible acts.

       
      • Trouble April 5, 2012 at 7:05 pm #

        Harry, sorry to disagree, but my right to free speech is protected and shall not be infringed open. DUI is a different matter.

         
    • Big AL April 4, 2012 at 11:12 pm #

      You got it Trouble, and amen we have that right.

       
    • dean April 6, 2012 at 9:28 am #

      Trouble –

      “Free speech” as you seem to imagine it (you can say whatever you want to whomever, where ever, when ever) does not exist. There are always reasonable time/place/manner restrictions that can be placed on speech.

      Do you see the ACLU suing California on First Amendment grounds because the Hands Free law? No? There’s a good reason for that.

      Take your “free speech” argument to court when you get a ticket for hands-free violations and tell a judge he’s full of it. See how far you get.

       
      • Trouble April 6, 2012 at 12:25 pm #

        Dean you are likely correct, and once I saw Benetts question to me about hands free stuff, it made me see I was over doing it on this matter. But I still think this law is for the birds.

         
  6. Big AL April 4, 2012 at 12:27 am #

    They do .. cause they can … 10-4

     
  7. Eastern Sierra local April 4, 2012 at 8:18 am #

    As a member of the “National Motorist Association,” many items discussed in this article are actually not substantiated by the facts.

    One fact I find interesting, in States that pass “hands free” cell phone laws the accident rate actually INCREASES, not decreases. “Highway Loss Data Institute” found that, “Insurance collision loss experience does not indicate a decrease in crash risk when hand-held cellphone laws are enacted.” Much to the astonishment of the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) and its parent company, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), their researchers found that texting bans did not reduce crashes. This conclusion was reached after analyzing accident rates from four states – California, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Washington – after texting-while-driving bans were enacted and comparing those numbers with those of neighboring states that had no texting bans during the same time period.

    And while government wants to ban phone use while driving, what about Ipods, portable GPS units, MP3 players and other mobile devices- are these devices “safer” to operate than cellphones?

    This is another attempt by government to add more “laws” to it’s citizen’s lives under the “rouse” of safety. California and other States already have prohibitions against “distracted driving” and cell phones can easily fit into that category.

     
    • Charles James April 4, 2012 at 5:45 pm #

      Perhaps the “statements” you presented from the IIHS website do not, at least on their face, appear to show the need for laws on texting and distracted driving, but a closer look at the website shows that your comments are selective, and misleading, if not disingenuous. Similar disingenuine arguments can be made on speed limits as well.

      Anecdotally from conversations with friends, and from the experience of our own driving while using a phone- whether talking or texting- it is in fact, very distracting, resulting in drifting in lanes and inattention to the road. There are plenty of studies on the cell phone use and texting clearly impedes drivers’ reaction time, including the studies mentioned by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (www.IIHS.org), from which you quoted some very selected portions to advance your position.

      I hope those that approved of your message and of your opinion, actually visit the website (http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/cellphones.aspx) to get the full picture of what was actually written. It’s far more enlightening that the “selected” portions that you lifted from the material to advance your argument.

      Your comment that “This is another attempt by government to add more “laws” to it’s citizen’s lives under the “rouse” (sic) of safety”, is nothing more than your personal opinion, and one not proven by any “facts” that you presented. In what way is a “ruse” being played on citizens by enactment of these laws?

      The anomaly of no decrease in accidents with enactment of these laws has a lot to do with the fact that it is based on “claim rates”. Unless you are a complete idiot, there is no way someone is going to file an insurance claim and report that he or she was talking or texting on the phone at the time of the accident! Especially so in a state where it is illegal!

       
      • Eastern Sierra local April 5, 2012 at 8:13 am #

        Even the website you reference proves my point over and over again.
        It’s unfortunate that you claim to be unable to multi-task by driving and talking on the phone simultaneously. I’ve been doing it since cell phones became common place in the early 1990’s on the freeways of LA, OC, San Diego, San Fransisco, Atlanta, and NYC and have never been in accident…..if people in the Eastern Sierra find it “difficult” to talk (on a cell phone) and drive with as few distractions as there are here then it’s pretty obvious to me that they’ve lived here way too long and probably also have problems talking and walking; changing a radio station and driving, chewing gum and walking, etc. etc. etc.

         
        • Benett Kessler April 5, 2012 at 1:06 pm #

          ESL, In covering news for 37 years here, I will tell you that distractions while driving lead to many, if not most, accidents whether it be eating, talking on a phone, texting, playing a CD, disciplining the kids, arguing with a passenger. We’ve heard it all. For safety’s sake, anything that helps individuals concentrate on the one thing they must do while in a vehicle – driving – we see as very positive. Your claim to perfection in concentration is not shared by other human beings. Benett Kessler

           
        • Ken Warner April 5, 2012 at 5:14 pm #

          You’ve never been in an accident because other people were paying attention to your erratic driving and were giving you wide berth.

           
      • Trouble April 5, 2012 at 6:51 pm #

        What do you think about the new emergency phone line the county has? They call you if there is a emergency. But the cops say the best thing I should do is not answer it. Ya right.

         
    • Big AL April 4, 2012 at 11:45 pm #

      I read that a while back ESL, about the data showing an increase in accidents involving cell phone usage after states have enacted no cell phone and texting while driving laws. What a twist, who would have figured?
      One can’t help but feel it is a money maker, yet another money making law, more than it is a safety measure. I think laws at times, get enacted because of safety concerns raised, but also the revenue that comes from them is an added bonus to government. I feel .. most of the laws enacted now days, especially in this state just make it easier to control people under the guise of safety. A lot of them might have been started in good faith, but then along the way it just gets added to heap of laws that take away our ability to think for ourselves and make right choices, goodbye common sense, you won’t need it because some one will tell you how to act in all things.
      Common sense is something that seems to be not taught now days, along with personal and social acceptance of consequences for one’s actions.
      This is something human beings have always have to deal with, but it is increasingly evident, more and more with every year that goes by. The problem seems to be doubling exponentially.
      It reminds me of a line from an old song …. “Signs, signs .. every where there’s signs .. do this .. don’t do that ….”
      We do need some laws, there’s no getting around some without them telling us .. what to do or what not to do some just can’t figure it out. But some just don’t make sense, but then yeah .. we need to told I guess because we don’t have the sense to make the right choice. Like texting, as Charles James say’s .. all over the lanes trying to make sure you don’t misspell a word or your predictive texting doesn’t send an embarrassing message to someone.

       
  8. NewEra April 4, 2012 at 10:38 am #

    Distracted Driving is a major problem, but if they are gonna address it in ways that offers no real deliverables, Why dont we just all donate 200 dollars a year to BPD, Inyo Sherriff’s dept., CHP, because we love what and how they are doing things.
    Oh wait cant forget MPD, Mono Sherriffs, and Kern Sherriffs Dept. cause whenever our county has something to do that involves real police work that actually matters they need there assisstance.
    because we obviously dont have the manpower here?

    FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS A BEAUTIFUL PRACTICE!

     
  9. John April 4, 2012 at 2:01 pm #

    Wow!! As a former resident of Bishop, and are regular visitor, I can’t believe the replys. I was always very happy to see the Bishop police, CHP, and Inyo sheriff departments all doing a very good job. I have been driving for over 40 years, and have gotten along just fine, without a cell phone call while I am driving. Wonder how all of you would feel, if God forbid, you hit a child in one of the many cross walks on Main Street, because you were using you Constitutional right of free speech!!

     
    • Eastern Sierra local April 4, 2012 at 4:04 pm #

      …..and for someone who has driven for over 40 years I’m sure you are also perfectly fine not using an Ipod, computer, cordless phone, and don’t know how to text too; but that doesn’t mean that everyone should be just fine with it also. I’m sure if some “whipper snapper” said, “I’ve riden a horse for over 40 years and have gotten along fine without a car” you’d be upset if government was trying to ban automobiles.

       
    • Trouble April 4, 2012 at 4:15 pm #

      John- admit it, no one really calls you anyway.

       
      • Wayne Deja April 5, 2012 at 8:21 pm #

        Trouble…Maybe John…and myself…kind of prefer it that way …especially when we’re driving a vehicle..and maybe we just aren’t as important and charismatic as you must be having to always be talking and communicating on a cell phone 24/7…Maybe when we want to communicate with another person,we do it the “old fashion way”…get from point A to point B to hold a conversation…and do it face to face…or,God forbid,wait till you get home and use the land-line.As John stated, what if you hit a child in a crosswalk,or caused an accident while you were “exercising your right to free speech” while talking on the phone ? Would you see that as collateral damage to one of your numerous important cell phone calls while operating a motor vehicle? Maybe dennis says it best….just another whining teabagger having their “freedom of speech” infringed upon.

         
  10. NewEra April 4, 2012 at 4:59 pm #

    Where I am coming from is there is too many cops doing the same job at the same time. When you live in these small town communitys you know who everybody is. If they really cared about the youth and people they wouldn’t treat them like a number or statistic.

    In No way am I defending anybody who is reckless enough to continue to drive while distracted when they know the dangers.

    Freedom speech that I was referring to is the fact I can voice my opinion here on this website, and no I am not driving right now.
    Oh and by the way can somebody refresh my memory what the speed limit is? Is it 65? 70? 75? Or 80? I guess it depends on which one they feel like enforcing that day.

    In a time where budgets and wasting resources is a big priority do they really need new vehicles every few years? These towns are small enough put them on bicycles!

     
    • Eastern Sierra local April 5, 2012 at 8:04 am #

      Amen “New ERA” and in the city of Bishop there are 6 law enforcement agencies: the Bishop PD, the Inyo Sheriff, the CHP, and BLM, DFG, and Inyo NFS police…..there are too many law enforcers in Northern Inyo County all with unbridled budgets.

       
  11. Wayne Deja April 4, 2012 at 6:04 pm #

    What I don’t understand is WHY people got to talk on the cell-phone while they drive?….or for that matter,need to talk on a cell phone when you go fishing,camping,shopping,taking the dog for a walk,going to the bathroom,etc.? A couple days ago,I was at a local coffee shop to purchase a helium balloon,and everyone there,drinking coffee and doing whatever you do in those coffee shops,had a cell-phone up to their ears….or talking into one of those where the parties voice they were calling was also audible. The only time I even had a cell-phone is when on-the-job10 years ago,one of those big box-types that plugged into the cigarette lighter…which I only used when I had to..which was rare..and rarely answered when someone called me.The only time I ever really needed one is when my truck broke down…and when I made a call to my boss,there was no service.

     
    • Trouble April 4, 2012 at 8:17 pm #

      Wayne I pay a hundred plus dollars a month for my phone. I enjoy it. Besides no one is going to tell to sit down and shut up.

       
      • Wayne Deja April 5, 2012 at 1:41 pm #

        Trouble…Judging from this article,the CHP might do just that if they catch you yapping on the cell while your sitting and driving….

         
        • Trouble April 5, 2012 at 6:56 pm #

          Wayne, just to make it clear to you, I will continue to talk on my phone when ever I want. Maybe I’ll get fined, I don’t really care. This law goes to far.

           
          • Benett Kessler April 5, 2012 at 7:11 pm #

            Trouble, have you ever tried a hands free bluetooth ear piece. You can talk and not be distracted by
            picking up and answering a phone instrument. It’s also legal. BK

             
          • uff-da April 6, 2012 at 7:35 am #

            Trouble- Perhaps the next child riding their bike or pedestrian who gets hit by the distracted driver will be well known by or even a family member of yours– someone who feels they are above the law and don’t think laws are to protect the innocent from the idiots.

             
    • Big Rick O'Brien April 5, 2012 at 3:19 am #

      The coffee shop in Lone Pine sells helium balloons ?

       
      • Wayne Deja April 5, 2012 at 1:38 pm #

        Yes they do….The old Florista flower shop…..

         
    • Eastern Sierra local April 5, 2012 at 8:15 am #

      Wayne- admit it, no one really calls you anyway….

       
    • cat April 5, 2012 at 1:37 pm #

      Wayne,

      Too bad you don’t feel the same way about computers. It would be most refreashing not to read your ramblings!

       
      • Wayne Deja April 5, 2012 at 4:25 pm #

        cat….Don’t read em’….

         
  12. Big AL April 4, 2012 at 11:55 pm #

    LOL Wayne You must have gotten that truck when the company upgraded from wagons eh? hehe
    I guess it just depends on how you see it, sometimes one is driven by necessity, some people are more social. Maybe you need to come up to Bishop more often and be more sociable.

     
  13. Rob April 5, 2012 at 8:07 am #

    Back the badge people, chances are if you we’re pulled over you earned it.

    LEO’s for the most part treat people the way they want to be treated; with respect.

     
    • Eastern Sierra local April 9, 2012 at 7:57 am #

      If most people get pulled over it’s because “law enforcement” needs you money.

       
  14. dennis April 5, 2012 at 3:36 pm #

    Yet more Tea Party-sounding whining from those who hate the idea of paying taxes for:
    Fire Departments, Police Departments, Transportation, Education, Defense, Post Offices, Arts and Culture, Social Services, Housing, Low-income assistance, Unemployment compensation, Veterans Affair, Health, Energy, … etc., etc., etc.

    These Limbaughites don’t think they have to pay any taxes or talk on their cell phones “any damn time we want to!”

    Such a drain on any civilized society.

     
    • kaat April 5, 2012 at 11:10 pm #

      and so the name calling starts when someone has a different opinion than you….putting people in neat political boxes….name calling is a drain….it’s adds no value to the discussion dennis….please just tell us what your opinion is and leave it at that.

       
      • dennis April 6, 2012 at 12:36 pm #

        In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn’t there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person’s arguments.

        If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and acts like a duck …

         
        • Tourbillon April 6, 2012 at 8:22 pm #

          You’re correct. You’re a jerk. Since I did not use this to undermine your argument, it is not an ad hominem attack, by your own words.

          Feel better?

          Now, to undermine your argument, the Tea Party is completely in agreement with paying for essential government services. Which is why it is so set against bloated, metasticizing government trying to do more than it has the skills to do. Empirical evidence proves that the government is incompetent at so many things, including picking market winners (or maybe you like Solyndra); Government therefore should stick to the elemental public services we all need. Which you list. And with which the Tea Party is in agreement.

          As you presumably can see, this is not an ad hominem attack. I do not disparage your argument by attacking you. I simply call out the usual left wing bait-and-switch, which, apart from ad hominem attacks, too often is your only line of reasoning.

           
          • Ken Warner April 7, 2012 at 9:59 am #

            …what empirical evidence? The rants from FoxNEWS and other conservative talking heads?

            And who would do what better? Maybe BP? Maybe Halliburton? Golman-Sachs? Unitedhealth Group? Corrections Corporation of America? How about contracting out our police forces to Blackwater? Would you prefer that?

            You really think for profit companies can better provide public service — for a profit?

            I can’t think of a better reason for an ad hominem attack than reasoning like that.

             
        • Big AL April 6, 2012 at 11:38 pm #

          So what they hey is a tea bagger anyways? Sounds like a lot of bagging going on there Dennis, is that what a tea bagger is?

           
          • dennis April 7, 2012 at 2:40 pm #

            A” tea bagger” is a person who reveres Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter.( All made millions by demonizing the word “liberal.” )
            They are convinced liberals (aka Democrats) are the Devil and believe they represent the “Only, true Americans.”

            These poor souls actually believe people like Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann should be the President of the U.S.

            If a contest was held as to who could wave a flag the fastest and hardest – they’d win hands down.

            And that’s about as deep as their thinking goes.

             
          • Big AL April 7, 2012 at 6:57 pm #

            Sounds like hog wash to me Dennis .. the same rhetoric you are describing.

             
  15. cat April 5, 2012 at 5:54 pm #

    Wonder if the Po-Po is going to ticket themselves. Almost every Mammoth cop is on the phone on his way to or from work!

     
  16. Trouble April 5, 2012 at 7:24 pm #

    Benett, how come there is no reply box on your comment to me? I know you are the editor, but I think I should be able to respond directly to your question.

     
    • Benett Kessler April 6, 2012 at 9:33 am #

      I don’t know, but I did get your reply and responded. Thank you, BK

       
  17. Trouble April 5, 2012 at 7:47 pm #

    Benett- to answer your question without disclosing what I do for a living is hard. But, if you were a fed-x driver that is dispatch by a company paid cell phone and expected to answer it all the time, it is difficult to do with a bluethoot. It falls off when I have to do many of your duties. It is easier to have it in my shirt pocket on vibrate. Try pulling a bluetooth out and activating it while your driving,it’s very hard. My other option is to put the bluetooth on and off 50 plus times a day. Ya, right.

     
    • Benett Kessler April 6, 2012 at 9:32 am #

      I see your point. Your company needs to find an answer for you – a better bluetooth, if there is such a thing, or bluetooth capabilities
      inside the truck. BK

       
    • Wayne Deja April 6, 2012 at 12:42 pm #

      I was a delivery driver for 14 years in Lancaster….going to Ridgecrest,Palmdale,Littlerock,Quartz Hill,Tehachapi,Lake Los Angeles,Pearblossom, Rosamond and Mojave…In those 14 years,never once did I use a cell phone…and in those 14 years, probably 10 times,at the most,having a reason to call my office…or for them having to call me while I was on my 5 day-a-week route……and when I did,it was a land-line.Granted,this was when cell phones weren’t too popular…but it shows delivery routes can be accomplished without constantly having your ear up to the phone yapping…

       
    • dean April 6, 2012 at 4:11 pm #

      If your company expects you to be able to answer the phone at any time… then pull over and answer the phone. Complete your conversation. Safely merge back onto the road and continue on your way.

      No one has a right to sacrifice the safety of others for convenience. Distracted driving kills people. Do you need a reminder?

      http://www.sierrawave.net/8750/chp-confirms-new-details-on-last-augusts-fiery-wreck/

       
    • Big AL April 7, 2012 at 7:05 pm #

      My blue tooth works well Trouble .. it’s a Motorola .. same reliability that goes into our two way radios. I forget it is there a lot of times, people are always like what’s in your ear? But I had one before it didn’t do too well.

       
    • sierragrl April 9, 2012 at 12:17 pm #

      putting the bluetooth on to take a call is less safe then just answering your phone with your hands. This is a bad law. There are a million things (ok, maybe that is a slight exaggeration) that are as distracting or more so. Hold people accountable for their actions instead of trying to legislate to death. ie. the penalties for causing an accident while do anything in addition to driving need to be much more significant….jail time would do it. Also, my 40 minute commute on 395 is no problem as far as driving while talking on a handheld phone. But I wouldn’t do it in rush hour in San Francisco. This law should not apply to rural areas.

       
      • Trouble April 9, 2012 at 12:29 pm #

        Thanks Sierragirl ! I now know I’m not alone.

         
      • Big AL April 9, 2012 at 10:11 pm #

        You put the bluetooth on before you go sierragrl, not when you get a call .. I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think there is any clear solution … people still use cell phones, probably just as much as before the law went into effect. And crack downs like BPD’s current zero tolerance will not impede people.
        More jail time, longer sentences, will only lead to having more people in jail for something such as this .. and other such laws. adding to overcrowding of the jails and prison system.
        Make people pay more fines … maybe that would deter? Maybe $10,000 will deter?
        That might put a dent in it .. take a bite out of crime. But if people think they can get away with it, they will do it.

         
        • sierragrl April 10, 2012 at 2:54 pm #

          my point was to make talking on phones legal, but up the punishment for screwing up….ie. causing an accident. Hold people responsible as opposed to trying to legislate everyone’s life to death.

           
  18. STEVEN April 6, 2012 at 8:06 am #

    Law Enforcement are exempt from this law. My guess is that they are conducting unfinished business on their phones while driving. Sometimes I’m sure they are ordering pizza. I still think it is unsafe and unless it is an absolute emergency, they too should have to pull over and talk. After All, they are humans just like us and they too can cause an accident just like us. And we civilians have about as much experience as they do when it comes to driving with our ears plastered to the horn, dont we?

     
    • Just the Facts April 7, 2012 at 8:59 am #

      I am sure that the XM Radio that officers install in their cars does not distract them either! NOT!!!

       
      • Rob April 7, 2012 at 10:34 am #

        They’d be better informed if the listened to 92.5 KSRW to keep up and local news and events.

         
  19. dennis April 6, 2012 at 10:28 am #

    This “I’m an American and I can talk on my cell phone when I’m driving anytime I want”
    rhetoric is reminiscent of a previous politicized argument regarding handguns.

    Next we get to hear: “You can have my cell phone when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!”

    No one ever said Limbaughism and the Tea Party mentality doesn’t affect people.

     
  20. dennis April 6, 2012 at 10:32 am #

    P.S. when I read: “… so the name calling starts when someone has a different opinion than you….putting people in neat political boxes”

    Does this include the word “liberal” (and not the original live-and-let-live definition – the “anything goes/bad American definition) ?

     
    • Big AL April 7, 2012 at 7:59 pm #

      LOL dennis you must be one of them liberals you are defending so intensely .. I don’t really care if you are … liberal … tea bagger … conservative or if anyone else is .. politics is a messy subject that involves a lot of paper work to clean up after, especially when it gets dumped out in the quantities like you are.

       
      • dennis April 9, 2012 at 5:40 am #

        There is a foam-at-the-mouth group that listens to Oxycontin-inspired radio talk show hosts and reads all the manic sounding Ann Coulter books all focusing on the demonization of the word “liberal.” It’s all they do.

        Please provide your definition of the word to reach a common understanding.

        Thanks in advance.

         
      • dennis April 9, 2012 at 6:04 am #

        Define liberal.

         
        • Big AL April 9, 2012 at 10:31 pm #

          define foam at the mouth … define conservative …

          Meeting in the middle is not bagging on everyone and thinking you are somehow above others.
          Understanding and accepting of other’s views while wanting to have your views known and accepted.
          Giving and taking .. but mainly giving in some .. to meet in the middle on issues and beliefs.
          Being able to express yours in a way it can be understood and not push it on the other.
          Being humble and causing ire humiliation.

          I think in short … humbleness and understanding.

          I speak out about your words here dennis because as I see it, you are acting in just the same manner as those you attack. Only it seems to be with a bite of vengeance. Repay hatred with humiliation, not more ire. Ire only begets ire.

           
          • dennis April 10, 2012 at 11:11 am #

            Tell it to THESE people – Big.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rtyQf6Hwk

             
          • dennis April 10, 2012 at 12:47 pm #

            “I speak out about your words here dennis because as I see it …”

            says Big Al.

            Perusing all the postings today, I’d say Big Al speaks out about … well just about everything.

            And this is an M.O. of today’s modern American conservative movement (which bears no semblance whatsoever to his father’s or grandfather’s brand of conservatism)
            With this type it’s best if you keep postings to a minimum of words.
            Right, Big?

             
          • Big AL April 10, 2012 at 10:07 pm #

            No Dennis .. my M.O. as you put it doesn’t point to any political party. I don’t side with any of them, I think say how I see it. I don’t bag on the parties like you do, I just bag on people when I see them blowing it.

            I think rhetoric like yours is bovine scatology. So there’s my M.O. for ya. But you can try to put me in one or another of the political parties if you like, you can even bag on me, if it makes you feel good … knock yourself out there.

            You just keep proving my point.

             
    • kaat April 8, 2012 at 1:11 am #

      yup

       
  21. cat April 6, 2012 at 11:19 am #

    Steven,

    Law Enforcement is only exempt for speaking on a cell phone for official business only. All one has to do is complain to the department, and I would gaurentee that a review of the cell phone bill shows personal calls being made during the Officers tour of duty.

    They should lead by example, too bad they don’t.

     
    • Wayne Deja April 7, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

      cat…You got to go through a lot of legal loops to be checking on cell-phone records…even when it’s related to calls during work hours…..And you tell me I ramble?

       
      • sierragrl April 10, 2012 at 3:08 pm #

        um, no. The city or town issued phone has a bill that should and can easily be reviewed by the supervisor or administrative staff. Not hard at all. The hard part would be knowing if they were driving while they made the call.

         
        • Wayne Deja April 10, 2012 at 6:49 pm #

          sierragrl….sounds like a great idea…and something I’m sure Law Enforcement wants to look into and investigate with their officers.And,surely,the public wants too…The resources that it would take,time,money,man hours,etc. trying to find out if their officers are making personal phone calls while on the job (something most everyone does),and then trying to find out when and where they were made….and if they were in a moving squad car while they were being made.Ya know what ?…This topic has gotten so far out of hand with all these comments,and what some are saying…IMO…If people want to yap on a cell phone while they are driving,don’t complain if you get a ticket.Hopefully,they won’t have an accident and injure innocent people if they do.If they’re on the open road,with no one around,get distracted,and wrap their vehicle around a telephone pole,got no one to blame but themselves.

           
    • Big AL April 7, 2012 at 8:04 pm #

      hehe do you really think they will take your complaints under consideration and investigate it. We can complain about it, but that would be as far as it goes … thank you very much for your concern we will look into .. it have a good day.

       
  22. Charles James April 6, 2012 at 11:26 am #

    It’s clear from the posts that some people have issues when it comes to law enforcement officers (LEOs) exemption to use cell phones on duty while driving. Others appear to simply have issues with law enforcement period if it in any way contradicts with their personal lifestyle choices. A few posting appear to answer only to a higher authority- that would be themselves.

    The bottom line on the exemption for police use of cell phones while on duty driving is fairly straightforward: It is permissible while driving for emergency and work purposes.

    Most law enforcement agencies have an expectation that officers set an example for other drivers on the road, whether on or off duty, being only too aware of the effect bad or illegal behavior by an officer has on the public’s perception of them and its confidence in law enforcement. Sadly, public contempt for authority in general; and for government agencies in particular- including law enforcement- are at an all time low. Some of it may be deserved; most of it is not.

    The answer to the problem isn’t kvetching about the “appearance” of another’s actions, but getting to the substance and facts behind them.

    Law enforcement agencies do not condone double standards for their officers and many monitor cell phone use by their officers while on duty, and take appropriate action when it is not compliant with their policy. Having said that, it would be interesting to hear from our local law enforcement agencies on what their own policies are with respect to this issue, how they enforce it, and if there are effective remedies in place to address it.

    What do you think Bennett? Is this doable?

     
    • Benett Kessler April 6, 2012 at 6:39 pm #

      Yes, it is. Stay tuned. BK

       
    • Big AL April 7, 2012 at 8:15 pm #

      Yes I do believe that there is reason for LEO’s to use cell phone, I have personally witnessed personal use of cell phones by officers while driving. I do not believe it is the immense proportion that some make it out to be. But just the same it does happen. The problem is .. when people see them using them frequently, it doesn’t look too good for them.
      And yes I do have a problem with authority, when authority is abused. I do not hate authority, it is needed, but when it abused it’s power, when individuals abuse their power and their oath, that I take offense too and speak my mind about.

       
    • Trouble April 9, 2012 at 12:11 pm #

      Charles- it really isn’t the police I have a problem with concerning the cell phone laws. It’s all these mama boy laws our lawmakers are shoving down our throat in the name of public safety. It’s pushing us close to a police state in my opinion. That doesn’t mean I blame the police for enforcing the law.

       
      • Big AL April 9, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

        Amen Trouble

         
  23. Ken Warner April 6, 2012 at 7:10 pm #

    Sure do like dennis’ and Charles James’ responses. So refreshing to read literate expressions of thoughtful analysis.

    Question: how does one write the possessive of a proper name ending in ‘s’?

     
  24. dennis April 7, 2012 at 2:08 pm #

    I’m surprised the angst-ridden, anti-government, anti-this, anti-that posters above don’t all use the moniker “Rush.”

    What can you say? It’s a wacky world.

    And now we get English lessons.

    Always a source of enjoyment they are. :>

     
  25. dennis April 7, 2012 at 2:29 pm #

    I think if there was a slugfest between Elizabeth Tenney and this Warner character – I’d put my money on Tenney.

    When do you suppose “The Right,” The Tea-Baggers”, “The Neocons” “The Limbaughites”
    or “The Only True Americans” (as they like to call themselves) are going to figure out that it’s not What they say – it’s HOW they say it.

    The general perception amongst the young people today (the future) of these types is old, grizzly, rednecked and sounding a wee bit … ahem, … nuts. (There – I said it)

    But good news. Everybody dies off sooner or later.

     
    • Ken Warner April 7, 2012 at 4:44 pm #

      No, it’s what they say.

      And I guess if you don’t talk “text” you probably do sound old to the next generation — who will be known for their illiteracy and shallowness.

      BTW: violence as the final arbiter is certainly a Tea Bag characteristic — “Don’t retreat — reload” etc. Are you sure you are dennis?

       
    • Big AL April 7, 2012 at 8:19 pm #

      I’m glad I’m not miserable like what you write dennis lol

       
    • Reality Bites April 7, 2012 at 10:26 pm #

      “Tea Baggers” is an ugly term for gay sex between males. Those who cannot win the argument based on logic and facts default to calling the other side “Tea Baggers” rather than Tea Party memebers.

      When they continue to lose the argument they come up with other names such as “Neocons” “Limbaughites” “Rednecks” etc.

      As a political atheist I do not subscribe to either side’s political bible. The one thing that remains constant is when one side begins with the name calling, they have lost the battle and they make themselves look foolish.

       
      • Big AL April 8, 2012 at 10:36 pm #

        Amen Reality

         
      • Eastern Sierra local April 9, 2012 at 7:52 am #

        Actually, “Tea bagging” doesn’t have to be just and “ugly term for gay sex between males” it can also be for heterosexuals too.

         
      • dennis April 9, 2012 at 8:12 am #

        “…when one side begins with the name calling, they have lost the battle and they make themselves look foolish.”

        It is my belief that the very same name-calling (“liberal” is a dirty word amongst one angst-ridden group) caused the “lost battle” of putting the likes of Sarah Palin or Michele Bachman into the White House.

        Ever notice how often the word “liberal” pops on formats such as these?

        These people are fooling no one but themselves and our children (the future) view these types as crazy.

         
      • dennis April 9, 2012 at 9:40 am #

        “Tea Partiers,” Tea-baggers,” whatever you want to call them –
        here is a meeting of some people (some say a prime example) of why there is great concern for the youth of America (the future) as they inherit the mess.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OemUugDSeWk&feature=related

         
      • sierragrl April 9, 2012 at 12:20 pm #

        As I recall, the tea party members themselves originally used the term tea baggers, until it was brought to their attention what is was also a term for.

         
  26. Wayne Deja April 8, 2012 at 6:27 pm #

    I just “googled” tea-bagger on urban dictionary…..There are all kinds of things it can be….each one had me laughing out loud.

     
    • Big AL April 9, 2012 at 9:55 pm #

      LOL Wayne

       
  27. dennis April 9, 2012 at 8:05 am #

    Not being under the influence of that group, the definition of “Tea Bagger” as noted above, is news to me. So, I suppose ignorance of any code talk within that group is no excuse.

    I do have compassion for anyone trapped in the state of California that is generally regarded as the bastion of liberal thought, (the original live-and-let-live definition – not the demonized anything goes/bad American Limbaugh definition).

    It must be a living hell for these poor souls.

    But I think if these foam-at-the-mouth types might limit their hate-filled daily sessions with the likes of conservative guru, Rush Limbaugh – they might not run the risk of spontaneously combusting and all will benefit.

     
    • Big AL April 9, 2012 at 9:57 pm #

      Sounds like you’re doing a little foaming at the mouth too there dennis with your own rhetoric. Better have the hose ready there buddy.

       
      • dennis April 10, 2012 at 9:40 am #

        People who find their way onto this exchange of information/venting/therapy format might as well know that whenever I read the word “liberal” (as is one political group’s ad infinitum Modus operandi) I will always give the Webster definition over the Limbaugh/Beck demonized one.

        It’s tough to turn the other cheek in today’s polarized country. Even tougher to lower oneself to the other’s level.

        But I could certainly understand why some of the supporters of this movement would get riled enough when they are exposed via youtube, etc. thinking this means of exposure is mere “foaming at the mouth.”

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rtyQf6Hwk

         
        • Big AL April 10, 2012 at 10:21 pm #

          Well there you go Den .. I don’t like rush either, he is just another bagger who has lost touch with reality … just saying though .. I see in a lot of your posts, the same thing .. so yeah .. all parties .. have people who spread lies, hate and discontent about the other parties.
          I think you have some good things to bring to this without presenting it in the way you do … and I have to apologize for some of my remarks, the rhetoric pushed my buttons. So I will leave this rest, this horse has been beaten to death and drug around enough.

           
      • dennis April 10, 2012 at 11:35 am #

        There appears to be some confusion re: the use of the terms “liberal” and “foam at the mouth.”

        Perhaps this uncensored clip will shed some light on what I am driving at re: my concern for the group that clearly foams at the mouth.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NutFkykjmbM

        ps – there’s plenty more where that came from. Foam-at-the-mouthers are everywhere.

         
  28. dennis April 9, 2012 at 9:47 am #

    Unedited Tea Party protestor

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUsBvkfQKUw&feature=relmfu

     
    • Trouble April 9, 2012 at 12:36 pm #

      That’s classic Dennis.

       
  29. Ken Warner April 9, 2012 at 4:17 pm #

    This is an odd place to discuss the Tea Party and their baggers but here is a fairly accurate history of the genesis of the Tea Party — from the Guardian so you can give it a little more trust than the usual sources….

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/25/tea-party-koch-brothers

     
  30. dennis April 9, 2012 at 5:07 pm #

    The Tea Party is an offshoot of the modern American conservative movement.
    This rabid movement bears no semblance whatsoever to their father’s or grandfather’s style of conservatism.
    It has been replaced with non-stop hate-mongering and led by their gurus Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

    Here’s just a small example of what they do and how they do it. There are many, many more examples anyone can view for themselves on youtube.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NutFkykjmbM

     
  31. dennis April 9, 2012 at 5:10 pm #

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NutFkykjmbM
    Hate comes to Orange County.
    The Tea Party in action.

     
  32. kaat April 9, 2012 at 8:04 pm #

    Ken Warner and Dennis……………what a combo…………..bff’s or what?

     
  33. kaat April 9, 2012 at 10:33 pm #

    the bff comment….just meant to say that the two of you sound so much alike that you could be the same person…

     
    • Ken Warner April 10, 2012 at 9:18 am #

      Yes, quite unlike the right wing conservatives who all have unique and profound viewpoints.

       
      • dennis April 10, 2012 at 9:53 am #

        Here are some “right wing conservative viewpoints” as mentioned by the poster above.
        They most certainly ARE profound. (as well as frightening)

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rtyQf6Hwk

         
        • Ken Warner April 10, 2012 at 8:37 pm #

          The phrase “dumpster diving” keeps rolling around my brain.

           
      • Rob April 10, 2012 at 1:25 pm #

        A whole lot of people are light years a part in point of view. It’s amazing we accomplish anything.

        I can’t wait till fishing season 🙂

         
        • Big AL April 10, 2012 at 9:59 pm #

          I hear ya sieragrl, I wasn’t meaning to go against what you said, but just throwing out a few thoughts on what you said. the thing about bluetooth was a joke.
          It just goes back to what I have said before .. people are getting less inclined to be responsible for their actions, it doesn’t seem to make a difference with making so much laws … does and don’t s .. as Trouble says.
          All these laws heaped up .. will bury us. but, it makes it easier for us to not make decisions .. or will it make it easier for us TO make decisions? hmmm

          A favorite quote I heard once …. “If you don’t know who you are .. the world will tell you who you are.”

          If we can’t know how to act .. the world will tell us how to act.

           
        • Big AL April 10, 2012 at 10:24 pm #

          LOL Rob … you’re right .. but somehow we do.

           
  34. dennis April 11, 2012 at 5:17 am #

    An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy.

    Sad to see what some believe to be “The American Way” Posting nothing of substance but ad hominem attacks.

    I wonder where they get it from?

     

Leave a Reply



KSRW · 1280 N. Main St. Suite J · Bishop, CA 93514 · 760-873-5329
Positive Projections Web Design