Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Motorists Killing Pedestrians at 3-Decade High

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Motorists Killing Pedestrians at 3-Decade High

Old 03-15-19, 10:41 AM
  #76  
Leisesturm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,755
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1112 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CrankyOne View Post
Similarly, if our roads were designed to the same safety standards as most European countries we'd have less than 1/3 of those fatalities so rather than 28,000 it'd be about 8,000 so 20,000 lives saved.

If U.S. traffic engineers designed our roads as well as engineers in Europe then of the 38,000 people killed last year about 29,000 would still be alive today. Of the 378,000 people killed over the past 10 years, about 276,000 would still be alive today.

Or put another way, U.S. traffic engineers are responsible for the deaths of 29,000 people last year due to their negligent designs.
As I understand it, U.S. limited access highways and interstates are designed so that an 85th percentile driver feels comfortable and in control at 80mph. This has been the case for decades. I've driven cross country many times in my younger years but have not owned a car for decades. When I drove my wife and I to Oregon which is our home now, I had not driven any vehicle for over five years. I drove a loaded 16' Penske rental truck from NYC to Portland, OR in five days in about every kind of road and weather condition there is. Safely. European Civil Engineers are assisted by the high social intelligence of European drivers in making their roads so safe!!! Just this week at church a mother was expressing thanks that her son survived an accident that crushed his car so badly that he had to be 'extracted' from it! The other driver "fell asleep". It is really a stretch to blame America's road infrastructure for what is actually a massive failure in inculcating a culture of good judgement, skills improvement, and civility in the roadgoing public.
Leisesturm is offline  
Old 03-16-19, 07:30 AM
  #77  
base2 
Senior Member
 
base2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 731

Bikes: N+1

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 343 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Leisesturm View Post
As I understand it, U.S. limited access highways and interstates are designed so that an 85th percentile driver feels comfortable and in control at 80mph. This has been the case for decades. I've driven cross country many times in my younger years but have not owned a car for decades. When I drove my wife and I to Oregon which is our home now, I had not driven any vehicle for over five years. I drove a loaded 16' Penske rental truck from NYC to Portland, OR in five days in about every kind of road and weather condition there is. Safely. European Civil Engineers are assisted by the high social intelligence of European drivers in making their roads so safe!!! Just this week at church a mother was expressing thanks that her son survived an accident that crushed his car so badly that he had to be 'extracted' from it! The other driver "fell asleep". It is really a stretch to blame America's road infrastructure for what is actually a massive failure in inculcating a culture of good judgement, skills improvement, and civility in the roadgoing public.
I think the point of posts #68 , #73 , (that's me) & the posts of Mr. Cranky are that the engineers enable & encourage the poor decisions & tragic higher consequence outcomes through wrong-headed design. They have the wrong human as their safety focus. So with every iteration the drivers connectedness to that human diminishes.
When I finished my post with "Freedom, or whatever..." What I meant was:
The drivers freedom to travel with out risk or consequence the only thing that matters in modern design philosophy.
No one seems to have any interest in changing that.
You are right, it is cultural at this point.
base2 is online now  
Old 03-16-19, 12:46 PM
  #78  
Leisesturm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,755
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1112 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by base2 View Post
I think the point of posts #68 , #73 , (that's me) & the posts of Mr. Cranky are that the engineers enable & encourage the poor decisions & tragic higher consequence outcomes through wrong-headed design. They have the wrong human as their safety focus. So with every iteration the drivers connectedness to that human diminishes.
When I finished my post with "Freedom, or whatever..." What I meant was:
The drivers freedom to travel with out risk or consequence the only thing that matters in modern design philosophy.
No one seems to have any interest in changing that.
You are right, it is cultural at this point.
So why are you still blaming the engineers? "Wrong-headed design"? "The wrong human as their safety focus"? What does that mean? Can you give some concrete examples of how U.S. road infrastructure might change safety metrics for the better?
Leisesturm is offline  
Old 03-16-19, 03:03 PM
  #79  
base2 
Senior Member
 
base2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 731

Bikes: N+1

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 343 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Leisesturm View Post
So why are you still blaming the engineers? "Wrong-headed design"? "The wrong human as their safety focus"? What does that mean? Can you give some concrete examples of how U.S. road infrastructure might change safety metrics for the better?
With every iteration of "safety for car occupants" the goal posts get moved further reducing any connectedness to the task at hand; piloting a 2 ton chunk of metal safely. The feeing of "safety" reduces risk, so drivers risk/reward formula used by the drivet gets skewed in favor of higher speed & disregard for "silly" laws. Drivers in-turn become lax, sloppy, & distracted. When the unthinkable happens they are already so far into a vehicles performance envelope the results can be nothing other than catastrophic.

Come on man, you are smart. This is nothing new. Garbage cars with terrible brakes on tight windy roads near cliffs get driven slower than a Mercedez-Benz get hammering down on the Autobahn. Why? The consequence is a terrible plunge to your doom vs no consequence at all. Driver choices and actions are influenced by the road & car engineer.

If you need another opinion besides mine.
base2 is online now  
Old 03-16-19, 05:37 PM
  #80  
McBTC
Senior Member
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,715

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1461 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
You've got to know when and where to ride and know when there's some sketchy circumstances that you have to think for the driver... Nowadays, if you don't have the physical and mental agility do think and look over your shoulder at the same time, you shouldn't be on the road - you are nothing but an obstruction!
McBTC is offline  
Old 03-17-19, 11:35 AM
  #81  
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,210

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1398 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
To be fair, cars are no match for the Union Pacific.
__________________
I don't know Everything...I've just been at it long enough to know why it's probably messed up.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 03-17-19, 05:41 PM
  #82  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 11,200

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 128 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5269 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by base2 View Post
Garbage cars with terrible brakes on tight windy roads near cliffs get driven slower than a Mercedez-Benz get hammering down on the Autobahn. .
Opinions are fine ... got any facts?

Here is my experience: when I drove like an idiot, i did it in whatever car i drove. When I rode a motorcycle like an idiot, i did it on my motorcycle---in some cases with bald tires and very little brakes. People who are stupid are just as stupid in a new BMW and an old Ford Fiesta. The difference is, the new BMW Can go faster, and probably will, because it has superior brakes, adhesion, and acceleration. But both cars will likely be driven to their limits by the kind of drivers who drive stupidly.

Taken to an extreme ... why not have sharp metal spikes pointed at the driver from the top of the windshield, the steering column, the driver's side door frame, and the center console. Take out the air bags and seat belts. That way if the driver doesn't drive with extreme car, he/she will be impaled. This will increase road safety, you are saying? Why not have one of those insurance-company "snapshot" multi-plane accelerometers which sets off an explosive under there driver's seat if the driver exceeds certain limits?

Real-world experience has shown that people really don't expect to crash, so that the survivability of a crash is not that much of a consideration when deciding to drive foolishly.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 03-17-19, 08:18 PM
  #83  
base2 
Senior Member
 
base2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 731

Bikes: N+1

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 343 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
Opinions are fine ... got any facts?
They are everywhere. Why is it so controversial that peoples actions are influenced by external factors or percieved capabilities of themselves or their machine? You are a human person, correct? Have you never interacted with the world? Every aspect of every thing ever built is influenced by an engineer in some capacity. Are you not aware of how peoples decisions are influenced or the degree properties are agonized over by engineers? Everything from the rumble of the exhaust note to the "thunk" of the door closing to the amount of road noise allowed is purpose built and tailored for a particular effect. By definition that is influencing the occupants. That's the whole point of their work. The concept supports itself...unless you are being deliberatly obtuse & want me to provide a link to an industrial design, architectural design or marketing manuals or psychology in human desision making..in which case, I will point you towards the local community college. Classes are $500 tuition plus books. There you can gain great understanding of factors affecting human decision making. Heres a hint: It's rarely based on non-emotional factors & actions are easily manipulated.
Here is my experience: when I drove like an idiot, i did it in whatever car i drove. When I rode a motorcycle like an idiot, i did it on my motorcycle---in some cases with bald tires and very little brakes. People who are stupid are just as stupid in a new BMW and an old Ford Fiesta. The difference is, the new BMW Can go faster, and probably will, because it has superior brakes, adhesion, and acceleration. But both cars will likely be driven to their limits by the kind of drivers who drive stupidly.
The BMW is more likely to be a pedestrian/cyclist murder machine. Exactly my point. Thank you.
Taken to an extreme ... why not have sharp metal spikes pointed at the driver from the top of the windshield, the steering column, the driver's side door frame, and the center console. Take out the air bags and seat belts. That way if the driver doesn't drive with extreme car, he/she will be impaled. This will increase road safety, you are saying? Why not have one of those insurance-company "snapshot" multi-plane accelerometers which sets off an explosive under there driver's seat if the driver exceeds certain limits?
It would make it safer for pedestrians & cyclists. Exactly my point. Thank you.
Real-world experience has shown that people really don't expect to crash, so that the survivability of a crash is not that much of a consideration when deciding to drive foolishly.
That is exactly my point. For drivers, they are lulled into a false sense of safety due to being insulated from the activity at hand. They don't expect to crash. A feeling of insecurity & tactile sense of forces on the vehicle would influence them to operate the vehicle differently. Engineers have jurisdiction in that domain. Therefore, it makes sense to get their buy-in for all users safety.

Last edited by base2; 03-17-19 at 09:19 PM.
base2 is online now  
Old 03-19-19, 12:02 PM
  #84  
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,210

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1398 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
I don't know about you, but who all owns a Beamer and wants to hit stuff? Inversely proportional to the number of mass market vehicles that might actually hit you.

Unless you are hit by a Maserati doing 185.

In which case, how were you doing 185???
__________________
I don't know Everything...I've just been at it long enough to know why it's probably messed up.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 03-19-19, 02:01 PM
  #85  
mr_bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,310
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1335 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rollfast View Post
To be fair, cars are no match for the Union Pacific.
This thread is “about” interstate highways. There are how many grade crossings on interstate highways in the US?

-mr. bill


mr_bill is offline  
Old 03-19-19, 02:14 PM
  #86  
mr_bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,310
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1335 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rollfast View Post
Unless you are hit by a Maserati doing 185.
To a first approximation, the intersection of the set of people who can drive a Maserati and the set of people who can purchase a Maserati is the null set.

But people who drive Maseratis, no matter their lack of skill level, are not reponsible for the recent increased killing of pedestrians.

-mr. bill
mr_bill is offline  
Old 03-19-19, 02:23 PM
  #87  
REDMASTA
Senior Member
 
REDMASTA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Traveling through time, will return last week.
Posts: 540

Bikes: Bare Rum Sword Knuckle Runner

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
i'm all for autonomous vehicles. the sooner we can get terrible drivers out of their **** boxes and in to one the better.
REDMASTA is offline  
Old 03-20-19, 12:03 AM
  #88  
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,210

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1398 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
I'm all for autonomous demolition derbies myself.
__________________
I don't know Everything...I've just been at it long enough to know why it's probably messed up.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 03-28-19, 06:40 PM
  #89  
greatscott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: California
Posts: 283

Bikes: 1984 Fuji Club

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I'm sure this was covered but I don't have the time to read every post, so I think the reason for the increase in bike and car accidents is due to a few reasons, motorists are driving more miles over the years, motorists have a lot more in car distractions now, there are more cyclists on the road then ever before. those are conflicts and they will cause problems.
greatscott is offline  
Old 03-29-19, 05:01 PM
  #90  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,250

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5979 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
NPR just came out with a report on this... and the conclusions focus on the poor road designs; not serving pedestrians well...
But population growth, like jaywalking, isn't central to the problem, according to Tom Ellington, chair of Macon's Pedestrian Safety Review Board. The county created the board to address the city's long-standing problem with pedestrian fatalities.
"We've spent decades building a transportation system that's designed for cars and not for people."

​"I could point you to places that have as much as a two-mile gap between crosswalks. It's great advice to tell people to use a crosswalk, but that's not very useful if the crosswalk doesn't exist."​​​​​​
AND, most importantly, DISTRACTION!!!
Something else accounts for the 30 percent jump in pedestrian deaths in just the last 10 years. "Looking at the various metrics available, the ones that pop out to me are distraction related to smartphone use and the market share increase in SUVs."

​"There's no question that pedestrians hit by SUVs are more likely to die than those hit by a car," he said. SUVs are bigger, heavier and deadlier for pedestrians.

​Compounding that problem are smartphones. Both walkers and drivers use cell data 4,000 percent more than they did in 2008, which means they aren't watching the roads. ​​​​​
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/28/70648...a-30-year-high
genec is online now  
Old 03-30-19, 08:51 AM
  #91  
greatscott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: California
Posts: 283

Bikes: 1984 Fuji Club

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by genec View Post
NPR just came out with a report on this... and the conclusions focus on the poor road designs; not serving pedestrians well...


AND, most importantly, DISTRACTION!!!

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/28/70648...a-30-year-high
And this is why they need to automatically, with no way of overriding it, to shut down all cellphone capabilities from receiving or sending either text or voice once the built in GPS detects the unit is moving faster than 20 mph, and only allow phones to call 911 over 20 mph; but set a max speed where it would come back on once you exceed 220 mph so you can use while on a airliner. This is far safer to do and far cheaper then to try to get cars to drive autonomously. I know some of you will throw rocks at me but so what? People have been driving cars for many more years without phones then they have with phones so I think we could live without yakking and texting about mostly nonsense to friends and family constantly while driving. At least with a cell phone you can pull over anywhere and make a call, before cell phones we couldn't just pull over anywhere, we had to find a phone booth and prayed it worked and we had the coins to operate it for as long as we needed it!
greatscott is offline  
Old 03-30-19, 10:12 AM
  #92  
base2 
Senior Member
 
base2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 731

Bikes: N+1

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 343 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by greatscott View Post
And this is why they need to automatically, with no way of overriding it, to shut down all cellphone capabilities from receiving or sending either text or voice once the built in GPS detects the unit is moving faster than 20 mph, and only allow phones to call 911 over 20 mph; but set a max speed where it would come back on once you exceed 220 mph so you can use while on a airliner. This is far safer to do and far cheaper then to try to get cars to drive autonomously. I know some of you will throw rocks at me but so what? People have been driving cars for many more years without phones then they have with phones so I think we could live without yakking and texting about mostly nonsense to friends and family constantly while driving. At least with a cell phone you can pull over anywhere and make a call, before cell phones we couldn't just pull over anywhere, we had to find a phone booth and prayed it worked and we had the coins to operate it for as long as we needed it!
It is illegal to interfere with lawful communications.
base2 is online now  
Old 03-30-19, 12:01 PM
  #93  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 11,200

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 128 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5269 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by greatscott View Post
And this is why they need to automatically, with no way of overriding it, to shut down all cellphone capabilities from receiving or sending either text or voice once the built in GPS detects the unit is moving faster than 20 mph, and only allow phones to call 911 over 20 mph; but set a max speed where it would come back on once you exceed 220 mph so you can use while on a airliner.
The legal definition of "lawful communications" can be changed.

We made the old laws, we can make new laws. We can change Any ;law.

The U.S. Constitution, as written, allowed slavery. I hear that might no longer be legal?

I think we can deal with cell phones---if we want.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 03-30-19, 01:07 PM
  #94  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 27,546

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
The legal definition of "lawful communications" can be changed.

We made the old laws, we can make new laws. We can change Any ;law.

The U.S. Constitution, as written, allowed slavery. I hear that might no longer be legal?

I think we can deal with cell phones---if we want.
Who is this "we" you keep mentioning? Does "we" include anybody else but the deep thinkers" of A&S who want to "deal" with motorists and cell phone use with draconian shut 'em down, throw 'em in jail proposals that would be DOA if proposed anywhere but the A&S sandbox?
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-30-19, 02:05 PM
  #95  
base2 
Senior Member
 
base2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 731

Bikes: N+1

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 343 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
The legal definition of "lawful communications" can be changed.

We made the old laws, we can make new laws. We can change Any ;law.

The U.S. Constitution, as written, allowed slavery. I hear that might no longer be legal?

I think we can deal with cell phones---if we want.
"Lawful communications" is any communications allowed by the first amendment concurrent with the license of said station operator. For cell phones, the carrier has a license issued by the FCC to use a portion of the tax-payer owned radiological spectrum. The license is issued because, presumably, the carrier serves some sort of public interest. The cell phone user is allowed use of their communications device &/or service under the carriers license.

It is also why Broadcasters are required by law to have public service programming & to identify themselves, their station call letters, transmitter location +/-5 minutes at the top of each hour, and participate in tests of the Emergency Broadcast System. To ensure they are who they say they are and are on the frequency they are supposed to be. Anything else is depriving that space from some user that has a right to it.

Interfering with lawful communications is also why net-neutrality was/is such a controversial issue. Essentially the telecoms/ISP's wanted the right to interfere with lawful communications of tax paying citizens & that by definition denies them the fruit of their investment in infrastructure, marginalizes their voice, & infringes on individual First Amendment protections.

Ajit Pi gave the ISP'S what they wanted. During the California wildfires it proved catastrophic to firefighting efforts.

This is really basic stuff.
N7FSM
base2 is online now  
Old 03-30-19, 02:24 PM
  #96  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 11,200

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 128 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5269 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
So ... net neutrality could be changed, but no other aspect of communications law?

FCC can make whatever regs they like ... like the Emergency Broadcast System regs, or whatever else, ... or as you mention, station identification breaks and such. The FCC issues licences and can amend licensing regs as it sees fit ... as it did with net neutering. Your argument makes my point. The laws can change.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 03-30-19, 02:54 PM
  #97  
base2 
Senior Member
 
base2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 731

Bikes: N+1

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 343 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
So ... net neutrality could be changed, but no other aspect of communications law?

FCC can make whatever regs they like ... like the Emergency Broadcast System regs, or whatever else, ... or as you mention, station identification breaks and such. The FCC issues licences and can amend licensing regs as it sees fit ... as it did with net neutering. Your argument makes my point. The laws can change.
You are right. The FCC rule was & can be illegally changed when telecom or other industry lobbyists get appointed to head Federal Agencies.

The general consensus among State attorneys regarding net neutrality is that rule change was illegal, unconstitutional, deprives rights of citizenry, and counter to the very reason the FCC exists: To serve the public good. 21 States Attorneys General have filed lawsuits & it is very likely due to be seen the Supreme Court.

Of course that can all be avoided with a law passed by both houses of Congress. But with one side bent on selling out American institutions to industry interests at every available opportunity, that is unlikely to happen.

Thank goodness we have 3 branches of government.

Nevertheless, "lawful communications" is a First Amendment issue, and with very few exceptions can not be regulated.

Back on topic: Sorry, cell jammers are unlikely to become legal anytime soon. If, for no other reason than AT&T, T-mobile, Sprint, et. al, would scream bloody murder aout being denied spectrum they paid for.

I have a feeling you did not read the FCC page the link lead too.

Last edited by base2; 03-30-19 at 03:13 PM.
base2 is online now  
Old 03-30-19, 03:04 PM
  #98  
greatscott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: California
Posts: 283

Bikes: 1984 Fuji Club

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
The legal definition of "lawful communications" can be changed.

We made the old laws, we can make new laws. We can change Any ;law.

The U.S. Constitution, as written, allowed slavery. I hear that might no longer be legal?

I think we can deal with cell phones---if we want.
Ok, so it's better to kill others than to shut down communications to prevent that.

Slavery abused and killed people and that's still legal yet it's not allowed, so why not shut off phones? besides it says LAWFUL communications, if using a phone is a car is made illegal then it becomes unlawful thus it fine with the Constitution.
And no, so far people have not been able to deal with their cell phones. Even in Chicago where it's illegal to use cell phones while driving the cops aren't enforcing it, so that helps.
greatscott is offline  
Old 03-30-19, 03:16 PM
  #99  
base2 
Senior Member
 
base2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 731

Bikes: N+1

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 343 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by greatscott View Post
Ok, so it's better to kill others than to shut down communications to prevent that.

Slavery abused and killed people and that's still legal yet it's not allowed, so why not shut off phones? besides it says LAWFUL communications, if using a phone is a car is made illegal then it becomes unlawful thus it fine with the Constitution.
And no, so far people have not been able to deal with their cell phones. Even in Chicago where it's illegal to use cell phones while driving the cops aren't enforcing it, so that helps.
Dude, are you for real?
You don't know the 13th & 14th Amendments are part of The Constitution?

To your attempt:
You get an awful lot of these links...for a smart person.

Last edited by base2; 03-30-19 at 03:35 PM.
base2 is online now  
Old 03-30-19, 03:47 PM
  #100  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 11,200

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 128 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5269 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I don't see where a cell phone motion sensor would be much more difficult to defend legally than a ban on driving while using a cell phone, or a ban except when totally hands-free--both of which are in place in various areas (though difficult to enforce.)

As far as the First Amendment issue ... not sure i recall which clause involved electronic communications. But, i do know that (was it Frankfurter?) one justice made it clear that yelling fire in a theater was not protected, and it is generally accepted that any speech which incites to violence or criminal action is not protected. If cell-phone use is linked to motorist deaths then a similar logic would follow.

The car-makers might actually install jammers instead of the phone makers doing it ... that would be one way to approach the issue. Hands-free bluetooth phone-linking would become a prime option ... mo' money for car companies. Texting seems to be the real culprit anyway. Also, states can regulate roads to their own standards (which is made clear by driving cell-hone bans.) The FCC doesn't have to get involved.

Not saying it will or should happen, just saying that th idea that it can't happen is an overstatement.

I hope net-neutering comes up in the Supreme Court. It is an embarrassment for the whole nation.
Maelochs is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.