CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:54:49 -0000

There are good reasons why people must use their cells and you can not regulate phone uses.

Re: Question of the day

Beowulf — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:07:34 -0000

Normally, as a Republican, I would struggle with this. I dislike government intervention in just about everything. But, in this case, it is very much like the helmut law for motorcyclists. The greater good overwhelms my belief in individual liberties. Don't wear a helmut or feel free to talk on your cell phone but only if there is ZERO possibility that you will touch upon the lives of the rest of us. And, we know that this is not the case.

Incidentally, when cell phones first came out I used to argue with my brother-in-law who constantly was on his cell phone talking when driving or doing just about anything. I told him that he was highly likely to cause an automobile accident and kill himself (or somebody else). I also told him that some scientists had a theory that constant cell phone use might cause brain cancer. He just shook his head and ridiculed me for my concerns.

Incidentally, I attended my brother-in-law's funeral last month. He died from brain cancer. Was there a "cause & effect" relationship due to his constant cell phone usage? I don't know. I can only say that for my wife and myself, we will make our cell phone calls "pithy" and infrequent in the future.

Re: Question of the day

Amy — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:14:43 -0000

babs: i'm speculating. the death of the child near Lincoln Park was all over the news. it caused quite a stir about traffic near the zoo, stop signs and if i know about it this must be news because I don't even live in that ward. i don't expect that from my council member, but many in Lincoln Park do.

Re: Question of the day

plutocrat03 — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:10:11 -0000

more a revenue grab than a safety enhancement.

The aldermen/women are compelled to 'do something' abut stuff.

Another tax which will hurt the poor more than the rich

Re: Question of the day

babs — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:47:03 -0000

Amy,

I don't understand why a driver who hit a small child would make an alderman (or any elected) squirm, was she in the car or a friend or what? How is it her responsibility? You are dreaming about how you are represented.

Re: Question of the day

VanillaMan — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:05:57 -0000

I prefer hands-free anyway, so that I can turn and yell at my kids fighting behind me as we eat Taco Bell on the expressway.

Re: Question of the day

gail — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:45:57 -0000

I strongly support getting touch on cell drivers. I'm living proof cell phones and driving don't mix. I was on my cell trying to dial and drive on a two-lane road and not going more than 20 mph but in the second I looked down to dial and looked back up, a crossing guard appeared with six small children in the street. I slammed on my brakes and rammed into a van that was perilously close to the kids. I learned my lesson with that close call. I have not used my cell phone while driving since. They are bad news.

Re: Question of the day

Skeeter — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:42:49 -0000

For the record, my actual objections to the ordinance are:

1. It is already covered by laws against negligent driving, and adding one more category does not do anything to advance the cause; and

2. This should be done at the state, and not the city, level.

Re: Question of the day

Skeeter — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:40:41 -0000

I fully support this well-reasoned ordinance, and hope, in turn, that Alderman Daley supports my "Ban Bright Shiny Objects That Might Be Distracting to Drivers When In A Car Or Near A Roadway" ordinance.

My research on this is continuing, but so far I have determined that Bright Shiny Objects cause distractions that lead to many, many accidents (or near-misses) each and every single day.

Now is the time to ban bright shiny objects. Our safety depends on it!

Re: Question of the day

Amy — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:38:10 -0000

maybe the guy who ran the stop sign and hit the small child was on a cell phone. that case was one of the things that made Vi squirm.

Re: Question of the day

James the Intolerant — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:31:11 -0000

If the police are not going to enforce the law, which they clearly don't now, what's the difference.

Re: Question of the day

chimack — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:30:55 -0000

Noticed the ambiguity in my previous post.
VI's chief of staff LOST the committeeman's race and her run-off challenger won.

Re: Question of the day

chimack — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:29:02 -0000

Here's the deal.
Vi had four challengers in 2007. That caused a run-off. She won the runoff. But her run-off challenger ran against Vi's candidate (her chief of staff Chuck Eastwood) and lost. So Vi knows she will have challengers again in 2011 and she knows her "guy", a proven loser, won't likely win her seat if he is appointed to replace her. SO, Vi has to look like she is doing something for a change in order to tell her constituents she is working for them.

Now to this ordinance. It does not address any of the real concerns of the 43rd ward. Those concerns would be enforcement of all of the laws regarding creating drunks (overserving/licensing additional bars in the ward) and enforcing laws against public drunkeness and the crimes yuppie drunks commit nearly every night from midnight on.

Re: Question of the day

Thomas Westgard — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:26:44 -0000

A fine for distracted driving would be reasonable, but what's happening is that limited categories of distraction are being singled out for no good reason. You don't want people fiddling with their CD or MP3 players either, or arguing with a passenger, or eating, or anything else that distracts them from focusing on driving. But we select out cell phone use - for what reason?

What's funny is that, somewhat hypocritically, I use my iPhone as my sound system while driving. The actions to use the iPod function aren't really any different from the actions to use the phone function - I'm just pushing adjacent controls on the same device. Yet, one is illegal and the other is legal. It really makes no sense to ban one and not the other.

Re: Question of the day

Six Degrees of Separation — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:25:38 -0000

Prowler-

Law enforcement is also allowed to break the "normal" speed limits in hot pursuit (hopefully not getting into or causing a crash along the way), ambulances likewise are allowed to get a critical patient to a medical facility. It's a societal tradeoff.

Re: Question of the day

zatoichi — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:21:00 -0000

Great idea! At a minimum I would add amendments to include using the steering wheel as a drum while any music is playing (handsfree power guitar must remain an exception), eating/drinking anything (especially fries in a container), smoking, looking out the side windows at something for more than 5 seconds, not looking in the rearview mirror less than 3 times a minute, driving the speed limit or less in any non-right lane, using the wheel as a desk while reading maps/newspapers/magazines, application of make-up/combs/shaving at anytime, selecting the next CD from a container/visor, changing radio stations, talking to the car next to you, hand signals of any kind, sunglasses at night, bass that vibrates terribly, checking your recent purchase to read the package, looking in the back seat for any reason, changing clothes, closing your eyes, using a towel for your face, any hat that limits your vision, anything less than two full hands on the wheel (disability certs available from your physician), intimate personal activity while the car is moving (keep it G rated), any window with more than 50% decal coverage, balloons/sleds/boxes/ice/snow/smoke that block vision.

Re: Question of the day

prowler — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:00:14 -0000

If there is an exemption for Law enforcement it just goes to show that this is a revenue generator only. If it is truely a safety issue the only exemption (for obvious reasons) should be calling 911.

(1) Law enforcement officers and operators of emergency vehicles, when on duty and acting in their official capabilities*.

Re: Question of the day

Excessively rabid — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:59:37 -0000

Where do we draw the line with this? I'm as annoyed by people talking on a cell while driving as the next person - I've seen people using one while riding a MOTORCYCLE, for crying out loud! - but they aren't the only devices that cause problems. A few years ago I was hit by someone who was fooling with his radio. Get rid of radios? I don't think so. Then there are all the other gizmos demanding your attention in today's vehicles. Any of them can pose a dangerous distraction under the right circumstances. Whatever we do, it can't be city by city. The rules of the road need to be substantially the same throughout the country. It would all be a lot easier if people used some sense.

Re: Question of the day

Ghost — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:56:49 -0000

What fan said

Re: Question of the day

cover — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:53:41 -0000

Why doesn't the City of Chicago just institute a $10 per day per resident fee for living in the city, with an exemption for anyone below some income threshold, instead of having a myriad of small taxes, fees, and onerous fines?

I assume the city does not have the power to tax or levy a fee on commuters, or it would have been enacted many years ago. The closest it could get (as far as I can remember) is to issue parking tickets to randomly-chosen license plate numbers, which might explain why so many downstate motorists used to be shaken down by the city.

Re: Question of the day

Yellow Dog Democrat — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:52:03 -0000

HA-HA!

from the Sun-Times today, per the Nation Traffic Safety Council:

"Drivers using cell phones are four times more likely to get into accidents.

Roughly 2,600 people a year die in car wrecks involving cell phones.

And there is no difference between talking on a cell phone or going hands-free."

By encouraging drivers to switch to hands-free and promoting it as a "safe" alternative, Alderman Vi Daley's ordinance flies in the face of the most current research.

Dumb, dumber, and dumbest.

I'd love to have some panoramic footage of just ONE city council meeting, showing all of the activities that Vi Daley and other Aldermen engage in while voting on critical legislation, including talking on their cell phones during debate and surfing the internet.

Talk about endangering the public. Now THERE'S a cell phone ban I could support.

Re: Question of the day

TR — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:50:55 -0000

Empirically speaking, driving while talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as driving moderately drunk. Not super-drunk (over .2), but still over the legal limit. So presumably both should be treated the same: either we raise the DUI level, or ban talking on the cell while driving.

Re: Question of the day

Anon from BB — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:44:26 -0000

If it's the conversation that's distracting, then like John Bambenek said, let's just ban passengers while we're at it.

I know, everyone needs to now drive vehicles with only one seat - for the driver only. Car pools will be outlawed! My goodness, can you imagine what might happen if someone was talking to three or more people! It would be carnage on the highways and byways!

Re: Question of the day

The KQ — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:33:20 -0000

I drive the Veteran's Memorial Tollway (355) every day. While there are times that I get stuck behind a slow driver who is gabbing away on their phone (I just love when they talk with their hands) they are not necessarily the ones I worry about. The distracted drivers I worry about are the ones putting on their makeup or reading while they are driving. I have seen women with makeup bags in their laps, putting on eye liner while driving in the left lane. That drives me nuts. Somehow, I always find time in the morning to get dressed and made up while at home.

Re: Question of the day

Six Degrees of Separation — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:27:37 -0000

Let it roll, baby, roll!

All night long!