Tee Quillin | Is It Anybody’s Business?
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-9,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode-theme-ver-3.4,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.7,vc_responsive


Is It Anybody’s Business?

  |   Other Interests   |   3 Comments

Read this.

Those of you who really know me know that I love my gadgets.  I have a cell phone with a bluetooth headset that I use almost more than the handset itself.  I love my bluetooth headset.

Not only that, but when our cell phone contract comes due in a couple of months, I’m going to be upgrading to a SmartPhone (which will, of course, have bluetooth capability).

My question is this:  How is talking on the phone with a hands-free option any different than carrying on any other conversation with someone who’s actually in the car with you?  Why are cell phones more dangerous than having your kids in the back seat fighting with each other while you are driving?  When are they going to outlaw electric shavers, farding, smoking, playing your car stereo, driving in the rain, or even driving if you are PMSing?  Any of these would make just as much sense as the outlaw that’s prescribed above.

I wish I could say that no one would hold anyone else responsible for any accidents that might happen, but we all know that it’s just a matter of time before somone gets involved in a car accident while farding or shaving who is going to turn around and sue the company who provided their distraction for not warning them about the dangers of using it while driving.  Then we will start to see huge, stupid warning signs on packaging.

I’m sorry, if you are too riddled with ADD to talk and drive at the same time, I want you out of the gene pool.  Now.

  • Bekah | Jun 1, 2006 at 12:23 pm

    How very true!

  • Widgett | Jun 1, 2006 at 1:14 pm

    Here’s my favorite part: if somebody’s actually driving recklessly while using a cell phone…why don’t…we charge them…with RECKLESS DRIVING? Just a crazy, crazy thought.

    Typical government: rather than enforce applicable laws already on the books, they’d rather pass more laws, because that actually looks like they’re doing something.

  • tee | Jun 1, 2006 at 3:17 pm

    Perhaps we should get a law passed stating that “lawmakers” can’t pass any new laws until they a) clear the stupid, out of date laws off the books and b) enforce the laws that remain on the books after section a) is complete.

    I just realized that I left out EATING in the car.

    And, just to let you know, I talked on the phone while eating AND listening to the radio while I was out just a little bit ago and I made it home just fine and no one died.