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

[jiyeon]

This is probably the harshest punishment we've seen from people offended by the 'Okay boomer' joke, and it's so sad.

[leadeater]

13 minutes ago, Kisai said:

A second phase, where car manufacturers and phone manufacturers require that all mobile devices be connected to the vehicle in order to be unlocked in the vehicle. Transit vehicles (including airplanes, trains and ferries) have their own WiFi AP's that also act as beacons for municipal traffic control.

Could also just make an extension to the NFC standard and have an NFC station in/near the steering wheel that forces any phone in range (seated in the drivers seat) in to driving mode. Would be easy to defeat with a phone case that blocks signal a bit but I'm sure it would work enough to be annoying and should also be able to place radios in multiple positions to beam focus mostly at the drivers seat but would be blocked by both the driver and the seat allowing a stronger signal that would be harder to block without having to move the phone to an unusable position.

[Curious Pineapple]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Could also just make an extension to the NFC standard and have an NFC station in/near the steering wheel that forces any phone in range (seated in the drivers seat) in to driving mode. Would be easy to defeat with a phone case that blocks signal a bit but I'm sure it would work enough to be annoying and should also be able to place radios in multiple positions to beam focus mostly at the drivers seat but would be blocked by both the driver and the seat allowing a stronger signal that would be harder to block without having to move the phone to an unusable position.

*Turns off NFC*

 

There is nothing that can be reasonably done to prevent just a driver from using a phone in a vehicle. Plus there are some situations where the use of a phone would be considered acceptable, such as a call to the police when someone turns around and follows you. I've had that happen and it's not fun.

[leadeater]

9 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

*Turns off NFC*

 

There is nothing that can be reasonably done to prevent just a driver from using a phone in a vehicle. Plus there are some situations where the use of a phone would be considered acceptable, such as a call to the police when someone turns around and follows you. I've had that happen and it's not fun.

Driving mode wouldn't prevent incoming or outgoing calls it would simply disable the screen on the phone. In my car I can operate a paired phone from the steering wheel. This is of course only an option for new cars and new phones as with any new standard. Most people simply work on convenience and ease so would more often forget to turn NFC off before getting in the car and if the only way to do so is to then get out of the car or out of the driver seat it wouldn't take too long for average habits to change as people adjust to not being able to use the screen on the phone when driving.

 

It's not like people don't know its a bad idea but it's fine "I'm only checking it quickly", "I'm at a stop light" etc etc. Real easy to make excuses or self belief justifications.

[Spotty]

6 hours ago, williamcll said:

It said cellphone use while driving is one of the leading killers of teenagers.

Just do what Australia/NSW did. Mobile phone detection cameras that uses AI to scan for people holding phones while driving. Doesn't discriminate based on the age of the driver.

https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/mobilephones/technology.html

 

 

The rest is just stupid. If you want to reduce youth suicide rates make mental health services available and affordable.

[paddy-stone]

Wow, thought that the UK had used up all the stupid when it came to things like this.

 

1. It's not practical
2. it's prejudicial
3. Trying to close the gate after the horse has bolted

 

I would even argue that in this day and age it's a literal lifeline for some people, not just a means of entertainment, as a lot of people don't have landlines any more. Imagine if you will an 18 year old that has no family, has a job to pay their bills, but the job entails being called in when required... is that person supposed to get a landline and be at home every day just in case?. Or, a person under 21 on unemployment, that needs a phone in case an opportunity comes up and needs to get somewhere for an interview, etc.

I can think of dozens of cases, because I am of the generation that grew up without a cellphone, because they hadn't been invented yet... when you've lived without them, you can think of times when having one would have made a big difference.

 

[Curious Pineapple]

15 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Driving mode wouldn't prevent incoming or outgoing calls it would simply disable the screen on the phone. In my car I can operate a paired phone from the steering wheel. This is of course only an option for new cars and new phones as with any new standard. Most people simply work on convenience and ease so would more often forget to turn NFC off before getting in the car and if the only way to do so is to then get out of the car or out of the driver seat it wouldn't take too long for average habits to change as people adjust to not being able to use the screen on the phone when driving.

 

It's not like people don't know its a bad idea but it's fine "I'm only checking it quickly", "I'm at a stop light" etc etc. Real easy to make excuses or self belief justifications.

Or instead of a quick fine and sending them on their way, if ther eis video evidence, car gets impounded and if found guilty in court, sold at auction, or returned to hirer/finance provider if not owned outright.

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

Or instead of a quick fine and sending them on their way, if ther eis video evidence, car gets impounded and if found guilty in court, sold at auction, or returned to hirer/finance provider if not owned outright.

Laws with punishments like that generally aren't practical and much harder to enforce as well as being disproportionately harmful to those of lower incomes preventing them from working. Hard line punishments rare equate to meaningful reduction in the thing it was supposed to reduce e.g. drug use/crimes. Sometimes we just need to develop ways to save ourselves from our own stupidity, we really are not perfect beings. We have the ability to make good choices and judgment just not 100% of the time.

[Bombastinator]

Is this a real bill or just a joke people are pretending is real?

 

UPDATE: it was a joke bill:

The bill was introduced by Sen. John Rodgers, D-Essex-Orleans. 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

 

Apparently it’s already been voted down.  It’s not happening.  It’s fish wrap.

 

Joke bills have occasionally gone places.  The bill to give women basic rights was introduced originally as a joke bill by a conservative republican who’s name I forget.  This one didn’t though. People are treating it like it actually passed though.  It Diddnt.

Edited January 11, 2020 by Bombastinator
Update added

[Curious Pineapple]

Just now, leadeater said:

Laws with punishments like that generally aren't practical and much harder to enforce as well as being disproportionately harmful to those of lower incomes preventing them from working. Hard line punishments rare equate to meaningful reduction in the thing it was supposed to reduce e.g. drug use/crimes. Sometimes we just need to develop ways to safe ourselves from our own stupidity, we really are not perfect beings. We have the ability to make good choices and judgment just not 100% of the time.

Already happens here, uninsured and unsafe vehicles get impounded, and eventually crushed if the owner doesn't get it sorted out. If you need a car for work then don't use the phone and drive, just as you don't drive without insurance. We're not talking driving with lights out or a cracked windscreen here (not that those are particularly safe), but rather operating a machine that can (and will) kill whilst paying zero attention to it.

 

Drugs are different, you can't just drive a car "underground", put the phone in a paper bag and get away with it.

 

Also turning off the display would render any chance of using it for navigation gone

[leadeater]

9 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

Already happens here, uninsured and unsafe vehicles get impounded, and eventually crushed if the owner doesn't get it sorted out. If you need a car for work then don't use the phone and drive, just as you don't drive without insurance. We're not talking driving with lights out or a cracked windscreen here (not that those are particularly safe), but rather operating a machine that can (and will) kill whilst paying zero attention to it.

Doesn't work, we already know it doesn't work. Just like "just say no" didn't work either. Harsher punishments are poor at stopping the thing it was supposed to. We have same laws here yet people still drive cars without warrant of fitness or registration, people still drive drunk, people still speed and there is no punishment that will stop it. Zero tolerance is one thing but to actually strive for zero instances is another, an impossibility so we using our intelligence should not shy away from developing solutions to problems that can help.

 

9 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

Also turning off the display would render any chance of using it for navigation gone

New cars, new phones, new standards. Like I said if it's new it's going to have it's own nav display or anything, it's new design to meet current requirements and has zero effect on existing cars. Phone display is not necessary for the driver.

[cesh me inside b0z]

Great law - Millennial.

 

 

[cesh me inside b0z]

39 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Just do what Australia/NSW did. Mobile phone detection cameras that uses AI to scan for people holding phones while driving. Doesn't discriminate based on the age of the driver.

https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/mobilephones/technology.html

 

 

The rest is just stupid. If you want to reduce youth suicide rates make mental health services available and affordable.

Or have parents get a grip of themselves and discipline them as children correctly.

[Bombastinator]

In other news: bill intended as a joke and never passed gets treated like it’s real and did pass in order to make fun of the state that it happened in.

[mr moose]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

In other news: bill intended as a joke and never passed gets treated like it’s real and did pass in order to make fun of the state that it happened in.

I don;t mind being fooled by it, especially when it makes all those edgy teens crying boomer look silly.

[Flying Sausages]

First, a fk ass female senator wants to add make a bill to add 3 more hours to school and now this?!

[steelo]

As soon as I read that it was proposed in a ultra blue state, like Vermont, I understood.

 

It looks like this is just a joke bill though.

 

 

[Bombastinator]

11 minutes ago, steelo said:

As soon as I read that it was proposed in a ultra blue state, like Vermont, I understood.

 

It looks like this is just a joke bill though.

 

 

It may have been proposed to kill a different cellphone use limiting bill.  I don’t know what cellphone use rules are in Vermont.  In many states they require hands free cellphone use by the driver while driving.  It’s not everywhere though.  It’s possible Vermont has no cell phone use limit bill. Vermont is blue but it’s also very conservative.  

[yian88]

Dumb motherfuckers are dumb, 

[Sauron]

7 hours ago, williamcll said:

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.

That's some of the dumbest reasoning I've ever read. Aside from the fact that the conclusion makes no sense, guns' sole purpose is to wound or kill. It's not a side effect, it's their intended use. Furthermore I don't recall anyone ever arguing that guns should just be banned outright or that they should be banned for people under 21 and nobody else. Usually the gun regulation arguments are just that, arguments to regulate who is mentally fit to own a gun and able to use it correctly - cars require a license for you to drive them, why shouldn't guns?

7 hours ago, williamcll said:

It said cellphone use while driving is one of the leading killers of teenagers.

So 1) maybe raise the legal age for driving considering the US is one of very few western countries that allows it under 18 - surely by this logic banning cars would be the correct step - and 2) how would banning phones under the age of 21 prevent this? Surely this dude is aware that people 22 and above also drive cars?

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

I see plenty of young people making stupid demands for laws that won't work.

This is the guy who proposed this:

 

 

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

[Bombastinator]

39 minutes ago, Sauron said:

That's some of the dumbest reasoning I've ever read. Aside from the fact that the conclusion makes no sense, guns' sole purpose is to wound or kill. It's not a side effect, it's their intended use. Furthermore I don't recall anyone ever arguing that guns should just be banned outright or that they should be banned for people under 21 and nobody else. Usually the gun regulation arguments are just that, arguments to regulate who is mentally fit to own a gun and able to use it correctly - cars require a license for you to drive them, why shouldn't guns?

So 1) maybe raise the legal age for driving considering the US is one of very few western countries that allows it under 18 - surely by this logic banning cars would be the correct step - and 2) how would banning phones under the age of 21 prevent this? Surely this dude is aware that people 22 and above also drive cars?

This is the guy who proposed this:

 

 

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

I saw the name listed with. “D” on it.  Doesn’t matter imho.  Joke bills happen.  Blocker bills happen.  It was one.  It may also have been the other.  If it was used to block a different bill it might matter.  That is unknown though.

[Master Disaster]

3 hours ago, Kisai said:

Indeed, but there's a lot of edge cases.

 

Like the first phase would be to simply prevent unlocking the device when it exceeds 25kph (I pick this because 30kph is the speed limit in school zones), so you must use a hands free mode that is part of the car to use the phone. 

 

That however inconveniences passengers in the car, and those on transit (Eg subways. Trolley/LRT's and Buses rarely exceed 25kph unless they have highway segments.) Which goes back to the entire thing about having WiFi AP's that the device can connect to that pass information from the vehicle to the device. So for transit vehicles, having a "free internet" WiFi access point comes with the device being able to be unlocked used while the vehicle is in motion, however to do that presently would require an app to enforce compliance, which people could probably delete if they found it obnoxious. 

 

Then you have people on bikes, motorcycles, scooters, and mobility scooters which obviously won't have "car kit" type of connectivity. In these cases it would make sense to lock out everything, as there won't be a passenger in most cases.

 

A second phase, where car manufacturers and phone manufacturers require that all mobile devices be connected to the vehicle in order to be unlocked in the vehicle. Transit vehicles (including airplanes, trains and ferries) have their own WiFi AP's that also act as beacons for municipal traffic control.

 

There can also be other benefits, like on transit vehicles, putting the phones into silent automatically so that other passengers are not disturbed.

NFC eliminates most of the passengers problem. Look at the way keyless cars work, the NFC field covers the drivers seat and as long as the "key" is inside the field it works, if the key leaves the field it disconnects. Any passengers are outside the field and are unaffected while the driver is inside so his phone automatically locks. Even if he leaves his phone outside the field he still cannot use it without dangerously stretching with both hands.

[Master Disaster]

2 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

In other news: bill intended as a joke and never passed gets treated like it’s real and did pass in order to make fun of the state that it happened in.

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

[Doobeedoo]

9 hours ago, williamcll said:

concluded those under 21 years old “aren’t mature enough” to possess guns, smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol and the same should apply to cellphone use.

Don't know why that part is in quotations because most around that age there aren't. 

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Doobeedoo said:

Don't know why that part is in quotations because most around that age there aren't. 

Sadly some never mature enough to be safe with any of those. Drinking in moderation or lack of is a bit of a problem here, creates huge problems in hospital emergency departments every Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights. Also during those times almost all ambulance call outs are alcohol related.