A very masterful demonstration of sheer stupidity coupled with poor reading comprehension. You are way, way late to the party, moron. Did you even read this?:

If you did, why are you so incapable of understanding it? Do you wear white sunglasses or something?

How dare you make such a common sense suggestion on this forum. I made this very suggestion to one of our (formerly) well respected contributors, and one that is a motor officer at that - one that admits to cell phone use when driving. A guy who has undoubtedly responded to collisions resulting from cell phone use. His response? He got very angry, said some vile things about me, and left in a huff. A number of the other sooper jeenyuses that we are blessed with on this forum had similar reactions to any afront to the god-given right to yammer away on their cells while driving. You will never get through to any of these guys, nor will I.

Was this in Canada? If so, amazing.

I thought Canucks were perfect.

"No dog in the hunt"? Are you really going to say that? You are one of the worst offenders I know. We have discussed this many, many times, with you insisting that holding your phone in your hand, away from your head - so long as it is not up to your ear - is legal under Washington State's law. It's not. The only legal use under our state law is hands-free. Holding one in your hand, out in front of your face, is not "hands free".

We have even discussed the fact that any use of a cell while driving is dangerous, even if some use (hands free) is legal in Washington. You clearly do not care, as you have consistently and quite vehemently defended your "right" to do so. So please don't lie to these guys and tell them you "have no dog in this hunt".

Scooter, who funded that paper you linked, Verizon?

It did not include a number of journal articles I have read that compared driving drunk and driving with a cellphone and noted a similar, deleterious effect on driving ability.

Jeff, I don't know what is up your butt, but you need to stop it. I merely posted a link to an interesting article. I don't appreciate being called a liar. I demand a public apology here and now! I don't have a dog in the hunt. My discussions with you have merely been the statement of the law. I can care less what opinion people have. The law is the law.

Washington law is the following RCW. It allows a cell phone to be used in speaker phone mode, which means you can in fact hold the phone in one hand and talk on the speaker phone away from your ear.

RCW 46.61.667
Using a wireless communications device or hand-held mobile telephone while driving.

(1)(a) Except as provided in subsections (2)(a) and (3)(a) of this section, a person operating a moving motor vehicle while holding a wireless communications device to his or her ear is guilty of a traffic infraction.

(b) Except as provided in subsection (2)(b) and (3)(b) of this section, a person driving a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in RCW 46.25.010, including while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic control device, or other momentary delays, while using a hand-held mobile telephone is guilty of a traffic infraction. For purposes of this subsection, "driving" does not include operating a commercial motor vehicle with or without the motor running when the driver has moved the vehicle to the side of, or off, a highway and has stopped in a location where the vehicle can safely remain stationary.

(2)(a) Subsection (1)(a) of this section does not apply to a person operating:

(i) An authorized emergency vehicle, or a tow truck responding to a disabled vehicle;

(ii) A moving motor vehicle using a wireless communications device in hands-free mode;

(iii) A moving motor vehicle using a hand-held wireless communications device to:

(A) Report illegal activity;

(B) Summon medical or other emergency help;

(C) Prevent injury to a person or property; or

(D) Relay information that is time sensitive between a transit or for-hire operator and that operator's dispatcher, in which the device is permanently affixed to the vehicle; or

(iv) A moving motor vehicle while using a hearing aid.

(b) Subsection (1)(b) of this section does not apply to a person operating a commercial motor vehicle:

(i) When necessary to communicate with law enforcement officials or other emergency services; or

(ii) Using a mobile telephone in hands-free mode.

(3)(a) Subsection (1)(a) of this section does not restrict the operation of an amateur radio station by a person who holds a valid amateur radio operator license issued by the federal communications commission.

(b) Subsection (1)(b) of this section does not restrict the operation of two-way or citizens band radio services.

(4) For purposes of this section, "hands-free mode" means the use of a wireless communications device with a speaker phone, headset, or earpiece.

(5) The state preempts the field of regulating the use of wireless communications devices in motor vehicles, and this section supersedes any local laws, ordinances, orders, rules, or regulations enacted by a political subdivision or municipality to regulate the use of wireless communications devices by the operator of a motor vehicle.

(6) Infractions that result from the use of a wireless communications device while operating a motor vehicle under subsection (1)(a) of this section shall not become part of the driver's record under RCW 46.52.101 and 46.52.120. Additionally, a finding that a person has committed a traffic infraction under subsection (1)(a) of this section shall not be made available to insurance companies or employers.

***Also, here is an interesting article from our local paper that supports my position on holding a cell phone and using it in speaker mode:
Answers to questions about cell phone and texting laws - seattlepi.com

so this means that sitting at a stop light its legal to use the phone?

(b) Except as provided in subsection (2)(b) and (3)(b) of this section, a person driving a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in RCW 46.25.010, including while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic control device, or other momentary delays, while using a hand-held mobile telephone is guilty of a traffic infraction. For purposes of this subsection, "driving" does not include operating a commercial motor vehicle with or without the motor running when the driver has moved the vehicle to the side of, or off, a highway and has stopped in a location where the vehicle can safely remain stationary.

Reread bolded section to get the answer to your question.

touchy subject.

sheesh. hig's counters a motorist's slightly annoying social behavior with a slightly annoying social behavior and posts . . . where there becomes a pile-on/pile-up of slightly annoying social behavior to counter his slightly annoying social behavior of slightly annoying social behavior.

I'm beginning to become slightly annoyed. -- Don't you guys make me pull this car over! :cool:

Then that would mean the local FW cops need a class. I once saw a cop shine his spot light in such a way that it reflected off the rear view mirror and into the drivers face while he was sitting at a long light using the phone.

Good cop. If you understand what the bolded part reads, it is illegal to use your phone at a stop light. That cop could have given him a ticket, instead he annoyed him with his light, which I'm sure got the guy's attention.

Scooter, we have discussed this "to your ear" thing at length, and yes, it is a loophole in the current law that you lawyer types exploit. There is no functional difference between "to your ear" and a foot, or two feet from your head. Our State Senator Tracey Eide, who was instrumental in passing the current law, is seeking to close this loophole by strengthening this law. She is very clear, and most legislators agree with her, that the original intent - the spirit of this law - was to only allow truly hands-free devices, as the rest of the law clearly states. She wasn't counting on guys like you nit-picking this law to their own (and I'm sure some traffic lawyers' clients') benefits.

Regardless, it has been well established that even hands-free is every bit as dangerous as holding one in your hand. It's not the act of holding the device, it's the act of talking over it and listening to it that causes the distraction and, therefor, the danger. A few of us have linked studies that demonstrate this, if you care to read them. We have discussed this at length.

You know full well what is up my butt - you clowns who insist on yammering away on your phones while driving. I've made that clear not only on this thread, but to you a number of times. I simply have no patience for it. My ire has grown even worse over the course of the last year or so, almost having been hit by cellphone distracted drivers on a number of occasions since our accident. It simply has to stop. You guys have selfishly turned it into a war zone for the rest of us out there.

I stand by what I said - you clearly do have a dog in this hunt. You have very strong feelings about your right to continue to use your phone while driving under Washington State law, following the letter, rather than the spirit of the law. Please think of me, and my wife, out there somewhere on our bike as you continue to engage in, and justify this selfish, dangerous act. Or, better yet, please just knock it off.

"I Can Be So Juvenile At Times..."
 

QUOTE FROM MORON: "I Can Be So Juvenile At Times...."

Yes...it's obvious from the name of your original post...without reading any further.

Tell us "moron", what exactly brings out the hooligan in you?

Wow "moron", I guess being a "youngish 30-something" in a "shiny new BMW 3 series" and having a "GQ look going" with "white rimmed sunglasses" must have really hit a nerve with you. Otherwise, your quote probably would've been "some douchenozzle with a cell phone glued to his ear...".

Tell us, "moron": If he'd have been a yuppie in a Prius, would he still have brought out the "hooligan in you"? What if he was some techno-geek with an XR 650? Would you have mindfuk'd him on the freeway like you did, or would you have pulled over and bought him a double latte with extra whipped cream?

Yeah "moron", quite a few of us can't understand what got into you as well. But I think you pretty much explained it with the whole "GQ / BMW / white sunglasses" thing. Sounds pretty insecure, obviously having a Freudian moment there.

Hey "moron", this is classic textbook Passive/Aggressive behavior, usually exhibited by the biggest cowards/poosies. What's the matter, you couldn't text and paste all your cell phone stories to him to his face? Aren't you the self-proclaimed Martyr for this issue?

More examples of passive/aggressive wuss behavior from a "moron".

And the classic finishing touch, the smug self-satisfaction of the "moron" that has just completed the Hat Trick of douchebaggery. As the "moron" stated before, he probably never knew that the "moron" was even "messing with him". And yet, the "moron" still derived some sick kind of "high" from the whole ugly scene.

No, "moron", I'm not "late for the party". Actually, it looks like I arrived right on time. I've been watching this abortion of a thread (which you started, BTW) and have taken note of your behavior and the illogical rationalizations you have made to justify your stupid "moronic" behavior.

I have not taken any of your statements "out of context" as you have proclaimed earlier. THESE ARE YOUR STATEMENTS. THESE ARE YOUR QUOTES. If this were a day in court, you would have been laughed out of it about 8 or 9 pages ago.

Oh, and just a bit of advice: you really should be more careful about casting aspersions about people you don't know or have never met.

"Moron".

Oops my bad. You are correct.

I think if you go back through this thread, you will find this has all been covered.

You're like the stone cold sober guy who shows up at the party as it is winding down in the wee hours, except in reverse. You are the drunken idiot who shows up about the time everyone else has sobered up, and can't understand why no one wants to carouse with him anymore.

The words 'ad nauseam' come to mind... :rolleyes:

To summarize: If it's illegal where you are driving don't do it. If it is legal do it understanding that you need to be extra vigilant.

I love this thread,

only because it's brought the word

yammering

into most of my conversations for a few days.

It's a great word. Go get 'em, Higgins!

Been busy, only read page 10 of this. A few observations:

1) I just got home from driving 30 days in Europe, 2,600 miles in 9 countries. It that time, I only saw one person driving while talking on their cell. Lots of time on the Autobahn in Germany; they are the best drivers I've seen in my life.

2) Last year spent 5 weeks in Australia.......3,000 miles on a Motorcycle and 1,600 miles in a diesel Landcrusier: I saw exactly 2 people driving and talking on a cell. Both younger drivers in town.

We just don't taking the task of driving very seriously in this country.....It's a shame.....

Bob, great to see you chiming in. I well remember a story of yours from a few years ago when you were in Australia, and your host was driving. When his phone rang, he pulled over to answer it, kind of surprising you. His attitude was more or less "of course that is what you do". I hope I got that kind of right - I think that's how you explained it.

Anyhoo, I'm done yammering. We've gone full circle so many times I've gotten dizzy. You guys will just have to carry on (or, preferably not) yammering without me. See ya...