Ultimate boomer law - "joke" bill bans phones for people under 21

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

So you're saying Florida Man is becoming Vermont Senator?

Seems a little bit maybe.  Iirc the whole deal with Florida man is Florida has an oddball law or other where there is some sort of requirement on how  police blotter information has to be posted and the result is stuff that normally doesn’t get posted for other states gets posted for Florida.  Thus Florida gets a rep for unusual amounts of stupid behavior that might be nation wide had that law been everywhere.  The Florida man phenomena turns out to be more of a “police see some weird shit go down” thing than a “Floridians do weird and dumb shit” thing.  It’s not that Floridians don’t do weird dumb shit, it’s that it’s more easily available.  There probably a “North Dakota man” too.  We just don’t read about it.  Might apply to any area anywhere in the world for that matter.  “Australia man” might be more fun for example just because they have wacky critters over there but might also be about the repeated death of Australia man on the ground that those same wacky critters are also occasionally incredibly dangerous.

[Sauron]

3 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Joke bills happen.

I don't think people elect representatives for them to present joke bills. Especially when half of the US government is still basically missing with mr.T refusing to nominate crucial figures.

3 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

If it was used to block a different bill it might matter.  That is unknown though.

We do know, the dude was very clear on what the point was.

[Master Disaster]

Just now, Sauron said:

I don't think people elect representatives for them to present joke bills. Especially when half of the US government is still basically missing with mr.T refusing to nominate crucial figures.

Trump was elected and he's basically a walking talking joke.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

Trump was elected and he's basically a walking talking joke.

That's kind of my point

 

AHEM I mean... surely his constituents had reason to believe his policy proposals were 100% serious and totally feasible when they were presented during his campaign and that's why, after careful scrutiny, they chose him over the alternatives.

Spoiler

LMAO I can't even keep a straight face while typing that

 

[Master Disaster]

3 minutes ago, Sauron said:

That's kind of my point

 

AHEM I mean... surely his constituents had reason to believe his policy proposals were 100% serious and totally feasible when they were presented during his campaign and that's why, after careful scrutiny, they chose him over the alternatives.

  Reveal hidden contents

LMAO I can't even keep a straight face while typing that

 

I feel we should probably drop this subject before wroth encounters the both of us

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

I don't think people elect representatives for them to present joke bills. Especially when half of the US government is still basically missing with mr.T refusing to nominate crucial figures.

We do know, the dude was very clear on what the point was.

Re: mr T.  

Unwilling is one way to put it I guess.  I personally see it as him wanting to micromanage and use skilled people as stalking horses for his self invented fancies and blame them rather than himself when they fail.  Carter had exactly the same problem.  No one would work for him willingly either.
 

Re: The dude.

possibly.  May be a TLDNR error on my part.

 

 

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

Unwilling is one way to put it I guess.

I'm willing to accept he might be "incapable" if you prefer

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

possibly.  May be a TLDNR error on my part.

let me quote:

Quote

Rodgers said Wednesday he introduced the bill to make a point. “I have no delusions that it’s going to pass. I wouldn’t probably vote for it myself,” he said. He said he’s a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and the Legislature “seems bent on taking away our Second Amendment rights.” He said, based on the information presented in the bill, a cellphone is much more dangerous than a gun.

 

[goodtofufriday]

I feel like this bill was made to be outlandish to get people to come up with more practical solutions the issues addressed by the proposal. 

[Nowak]

Wait, people in Vermont have phones?

Last time I was there, cellular service was so spotty outside of a more urban area like Montpelier that I ended up not touching my phone a lot of the time.

[justpoet]

https://www.mynbc5.com/article/rodgers-proposed-vermont-cellphone-law-really-a-statement-on-gun-rights/30475932

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

I'm willing to accept he might be "incapable" if you prefer

let me quote:

 

Yeah.  I saw that bit.  I didn’t  Think it was what you were referring to because it’s such a canned comment.

It could in theory by why he did it.  Smells heavily of BS to me though.  Have to look at how the voting procedure in that state at that time works.  If it was to stop another bill from being voted on by forcing a vote on another bill with a similar subject there will be evidence.  In Vermont.

[Donut417]

13 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

'm all for driver's licenses being much more difficult to get, and probably raising the minimum age for a license to 18 wouldn't be a bad thing either. High-schoolers with limited driving experience really are dangerous on the road, and while

So your deny these people the ability to work? At least in Michigan you can work at like 14 years and 8 months. Not every one lives near a place of work. And walking is not an option for every one. And not every one can get a ride in. 

 

Ill be honest most of the issues I have seen on the road are from people who have years of expierence. For example elderly people driving 20 MPH under the speed limit. Thats just as dangerous as driving 90 MPH. Because your impeading traffic and causing road rage. People in big trucks tailgating. BMW drivers passing unsafely and doing 70 MPH in a 45 MPH zone. The fact is people will be unsafe regaurdless. OH and the biggest reason this wont fly, at least in Michigan. The state potentially would be out registration fees, licsense fees and insurance kick backs. The state rather have the money than safty, sadly. 

 

What we really need is laws that require car manufauctures to include infotainment systems in all cars that you can connect your phone to. Make it safer to use GPS, to make calls and to listen to Text messages. Then people wouldnt need to have their phones in their hands. The government already mandated that all cars now have Tire Pressure Sensors to help stopping tire releated accidents. We now have backup cameras in most cars now days. Thas how you make people safer. 

 

But reguardless. People will only be as safe as they want. There is no law that can keep people from being cunts on the road. 

[corsairian]

Apple wont let this bill pass. Apple's Congress critters will shit this bull out. The Under 21 is a huge market for apple, Samsung, and all these other Phone Manufacturers. They're not gonna let their profits suffer from a bill like this passing. If it's for driving only, sure. But not a blanket ban on phones.

[atxcyclist]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

So your deny these people the ability to work? At least in Michigan you can work at like 14 years and 8 months. Not every one lives near a place of work. And walking is not an option for every one. And not every one can get a ride in. 

 

Ill be honest most of the issues I have seen on the road are from people who have years of expierence. For example elderly people driving 20 MPH under the speed limit. Thats just as dangerous as driving 90 MPH. Because your impeading traffic and causing road rage. People in big trucks tailgating. BMW drivers passing unsafely and doing 70 MPH in a 45 MPH zone. The fact is people will be unsafe regaurdless. OH and the biggest reason this wont fly, at least in Michigan. The state potentially would be out registration fees, licsense fees and insurance kick backs. The state rather have the money than safty, sadly. 

 

What we really need is laws that require car manufauctures to include infotainment systems in all cars that you can connect your phone to. Make it safer to use GPS, to make calls and to listen to Text messages. Then people wouldnt need to have their phones in their hands. The government already mandated that all cars now have Tire Pressure Sensors to help stopping tire releated accidents. We now have backup cameras in most cars now days. Thas how you make people safer. 

 

But reguardless. People will only be as safe as they want. There is no law that can keep people from being cunts on the road. 

I worked for a long time in high school with just my bicycle to get there, which was my primary transportation for school as well, and I started working when I was 15. 

 

I have the exact opposite experience, I pass two high schools on my way to work every day, and see plenty of student-involved accidents. All states would lose out on registration and license fees, and insurance companies would lose those incredibly high premiums, but driving isn't a protected right.

 

I don't see making new cars more tech-laden as a fix, because most high school drivers have old used cars. More stringent licensing requirements and probably raising the driving age are the only practical ways to help as I see it. Cell phone prohibition is stupid, I had one when I was 14 and haven't ever gotten into a car accident while texting or anything like that. People in high school really shouldn't be allowed to pilot a 3000lb deadly projectile, their reasoning and judgement are not functioning all that well yet.

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, atxcyclist said:

I worked for a long time in high school with just my bicycle to get there, which was my primary transportation for school as well, and I started working when I was 15. 

Do that here in Michigan and you will DIE. People dont give a fuck on the road ways. You legally cant ride on the side walk. We dont have bike paths in my area, though some cities do. My mom has almost gotten hit walking. Ive seen too many people on the news getting ran the fuck over. Also we dont beleive in public transportation around theses parts. Even Detroit has shitty public transit. A few buses and the People mover doesnt really take you too many places. We have no bus service where I live. If you dont have a car you dont go places. 

 

1 hour ago, atxcyclist said:

would lose those incredibly high premiums

Again not here in Michigan. We have NO FAULT. So insruance is always high. Also here in Wayne Country we have Detriot which has an issue with Grand Theft Auto which drives up rates. I see more adults not giving a fuck on the road than kids. Espeically those in BMW's. 

 

1 hour ago, atxcyclist said:

All states would lose out on registration and license fees,

Yes, but here in Michigan we kinda need those to keep are crumbling roads glued together. 

[atxcyclist]

4 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Do that here in Michigan and you will DIE. People dont give a fuck on the road ways. You legally cant ride on the side walk. We dont have bike paths in my area, though some cities do. My mom has almost gotten hit walking. Ive seen too many people on the news getting ran the fuck over. Also we dont beleive in public transportation around theses parts. Even Detroit has shitty public transit. A few buses and the People mover doesnt really take you too many places. We have no bus service where I live. If you dont have a car you dont go places. 

 

Again not here in Michigan. We have NO FAULT. So insruance is always high. Also here in Wayne Country we have Detriot which has an issue with Grand Theft Auto which drives up rates. I see more adults not giving a fuck on the road than kids. Espeically those in BMW's. 

 

Yes, but here in Michigan we kinda need those to keep are crumbling roads glued together. 

Michigan 

Michigan 

Michigan 

Michigan 

Michigan 

Michigan 

 

There's more in this world than Michigan, just FYI.

[PhantomJaguarr]

I could have evaded a month of being grounded when I was 8 years old if I had a cell phone to call my parents to tell them where I was really at. Smh..

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, Sauron said:

This is the guy who proposed this:

 

 

a 61 year old republican. Who's demanding laws that won't work again?

Still doesn't explain what his age has got to do with anything?

[Donut417]

2 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

There's more in this world than Michigan, just FYI.

But many states have the same issues. Crumbling roads, shit insurance (California), and bad drivers. From what I have watched on Youtube, the BMW thing is a Nation wide issue, people in BMW's are just cunts, I guess thats a pre req of buying a BMW. But restricting people from being able to get jobs and contribute to society is not a good idea. We need to give them a chance to become a contributing part of society and devlope skills. Its a lot easier to get a better job out of high school if you have been working for a few years and have gained expeirnce. Plus it gives you an oppertunity to save up for college or what ever you intend to do when you graduate. Plus a car teaches resposiblity. 

 

My parents gave me a car to use, but I had to PAY for gas, insurance, minor repairs and maintence. Its a lot easier to learn this shit when your younger than when you 18 and getting started on your own. 

 

Also not sure if anyone pointed this out, but at 17 you can legally join the military and go to war. So how the fuck does it make sense to take away driving? I mean they have already taken away drinking and smoking, as they both require being 21. So you can go off to war and die, but not drive a car? Thats kinda fucked up. 

[Brooksie359]

15 hours ago, Kisai said:

I think the problem here goes right back to vice crimes (tobacco, alcohol, recreational drugs, etc.) In those case, using those substances always harm the user.

 

In an ideal environment, those substances would not exist at all, but they're too simple to manufacture, and there is too much money to be made in letting people kill themselves. 

 

You can't do that with phones or cars. They are expensive. Post-paid phones require credit, car loans require credit. Kids do not have credit.

 

So this is actually easy enough to do. The state tells the ISP's to discontinue family plans. They could also go even further by banning the sale of sim cards and prepaid phones without ID. Put them in the same place with the Vape pens and Cigarettes.

 

Yet, what is more likely to kill someone under 21? Definitely not the phone.

 

Rather, more work has to be done to twist the arm of smartphone manufacturers (eg FCC) to require that devices that "can distract" must have distraction-prevention safety features in the same way seat-belts are a standard feature on cars. 

 

There is a very simple way to do this with cars, and it surprises me nobody has done this.

 

- Put a USB port in the glove compartment or a dedicated center console compartment. When the vehicle is in gear, the compartment magnetically locks. Do not permit USB ports in the front of the vehicle otherwise. Rear vehicle USB ports must only be permitted in the rear seating area, (eg behind the headrest and at unable to be reached by the driver.)

- To make it more useful, this USB port shall communicate with the vehicle's entertainment services, GPS, dash cams, and CANBUS II to tell the device it's in a vehicle and should route the SIM card appropriately if the car has it's own LTE/5G radio.

 

Every car has a glove compartment or a center console, and that is the best place for the phone to prevent distractions presently.

 

Now what about other problems? Using phones in class? Using phones in theater's? Using phones in churches? etc.

 

This is also easily solved by the user not being an asshat in the first place, but since we're talking about laws here, let's solve this with a technical measure that isn't really that hard. Cineplex has the "timeplay" app so you can play games in the theater pre-show. Extend this function further, where if you connect to the School, Theater or Church's WiFi, the WiFi AP actually switches to "DND mode" which means devices connected to this must turn off all sound, lights, vibrations other than emergency calls while "in session". When not in session, the AP connects to the internet without an interception page and will even permit WiFi calling.

 

Now, because bad things always happen when you try to curb how something is used, people are going to miss important calls/texts while in the theater. Is that a fair tradeoff? Maybe not if you're a doctor or have a sick family member. But you're also not required to connect to that AP. Interrupt class, theater or church, and you'll be asked to leave. The AP is a courtesy so you don't accidentally interrupt things.

 

No law is necessary to do any of the technical measures. However perhaps a law might light a fire under Apple or Google's feet that this is something that should be addressed or their devices will be curtailed from sale.

As someone who uses their phone for GPS just like millions of others that solution would restrict such use and be a huge problem especially for industries like uber and lyft. 

[Guest]

To be fair, I wouldn't be against a bill like this, with a more reasonable age of around 12-15 (Starting high school). I'm not really sure though, we've entered into an age where just about everything you would want to know is at your fingertips. How would this affect the development of teenagers, and for that matter young children?

[atxcyclist]

26 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

But many states have the same issues. Crumbling roads, shit insurance (California), and bad drivers. From what I have watched on Youtube, the BMW thing is a Nation wide issue, people in BMW's are just cunts, I guess thats a pre req of buying a BMW. But restricting people from being able to get jobs and contribute to society is not a good idea. We need to give them a chance to become a contributing part of society and devlope skills. Its a lot easier to get a better job out of high school if you have been working for a few years and have gained expeirnce. Plus it gives you an oppertunity to save up for college or what ever you intend to do when you graduate. Plus a car teaches resposiblity. 

 

My parents gave me a car to use, but I had to PAY for gas, insurance, minor repairs and maintence. Its a lot easier to learn this shit when your younger than when you 18 and getting started on your own. 

 

Also not sure if anyone pointed this out, but at 17 you can legally join the military and go to war. So how the fuck does it make sense to take away driving? I mean they have already taken away drinking and smoking, as they both require being 21. So you can go off to war and die, but not drive a car? Thats kinda fucked up. 

 

All states have their problems, Texas is no different. We have decent insurance requirements here, but we have many uninsured drivers, and cyclists get run over all the time here in Austin, which is extremely bicycle-friendly. I worked in high school for many good reasons like learning responsibility, handling money, and etc., but cycling there was just reality. In my opinion, making someone actually work for it like taking a bus or cycling, makes them appreciate and likely take the experience of driving more serious when they can do it.

 

There needs to be a universal age of autonomy in the US. Whether that's 18 or 21, basically all manner of things you can do as an adult need to be available to you. Credit availability, ability to sign legal documents, driver licensing, any firearm ownership, ability to smoke and drink, all of it. I too believe it's ridiculous that at 18 you can buy a car, have a mortgage, get married, and join the armed forces, but you cannot smoke a cigarette, drink, or anything else that requires you to be 21. 

[CB_J_IRacing]

Ppl need to leave zoomers alone. It's hard being a snowflake in this climate.

[Kisai]

4 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

As someone who uses their phone for GPS just like millions of others that solution would restrict such use and be a huge problem especially for industries like uber and lyft. 

That's why I keep mentioning car kit over and over. You  have no reason to use the phone while the vehicle is in motion, even if you're using Lyft and Uber. A vehicle that you intend to use for ride sharing, just like in taxi's, would have a permanent hands-free car kit if the vehicle doesn't have it's own. 

 

The problem with the distracted drivers is that they keep touching their phones while the vehicle is in motion or while it's still in gear (such as at a traffic light.) 

 

And here's how you solve the ridesharing edge case. Vehicle manufacturers come standard with a USB and Bluetooth "carkit" mode's. The carkit has "ridesharing/taxi" mode which connects the one USB port in the center console to the car's carkit, and Uber passengers connect to the car's WiFi AP which will be called "Uber_LICENSEPLATE" or "Lyft_LICENSEPLATE" or something like that. When the App see's that AP it notifies the rider that their vehicle should be nearby. 

 

There's also various NFC types of options here as well, but the point being made is that the phone's screen should be non-interactive while it's moving, and should be OFF (eg no notifications or notification sounds) while it's moving since that creates a distraction. Phone calls and text messages get routed to the car's own system, music get's routed to the entertainment system, dashcams can use the connected devices to store the trip video, etc. It really is dangerous to use the phone as a GPS if the phone is not fixed in place, and the GPS map should only be displayed if it's in turn-by-turn mode.

 

There's lots of different things that can be done to ensure that driver keeps their eyes on the road.

[Flying Sausages]

Apple sale drop more than 10%. Apple is mad now.