01-20-11 08:19 AM
210 ... 6789
tools
  1. Artemis68's Avatar
    I completely support banning ALL cell phone use in cars. Yes, including talking.

    It is important to pay full attention while driving, not just looking at the road and NOT holding anything in your hand, but also keeping your mind on the road. Bluetooth for talking is definitely safer than holding the phone in your hand, but there is still an element of danger. Your attention is partially divided because you are driving AND carrying on a conversation. I have no doubt that even with bluetooth, talking on the phone leads to more accidents.

    I don't use my phone while driving. It's in the glove compartment when I drive...on silent. If I MUST answer/take a call, I pull over. I can only recall a few times where I did talk in the car because it was a genuine emergency (someone was in the hospital, I had an allergic reaction on the way home, etc.) but I would never do it outside of that.

    About 98% of the time, the call can wait.

    I don't know, that's just my $0.02.
    10-11-09 08:34 PM
  2. berryite's Avatar
    The article also mentions the new phone use act.
    I smoked for a short time a long time ago. Haven't touched a cigarette in years. No real agenda on cigarettes here except the longer you are an ex smoker the more distasteful the smoke smells. I try to avoid smoke smell now. Don't really care for it. Other than that, if people want to get lung cancer, that's their right.

    Was walking to lunch today in Santa Monica. We get a lot of Europeans here vacationing. A couple (looked like young German tourists to me) were walking down the sidewalk and the man stopped to light a cigarette outside on the sidewalk. It wasn't 10 seconds before someone rushed over to scold the young man and tell him to stop lighting the cigarette. Santa Monica has limitations on smoking even in some outside areas. The 3 blocks of the outside Santa Monica Promenade is an area where smoking is banned.

    I can see the day where you will be stopped and parked in your car and you'll have people knocking on your window telling you that you can't talk on the phone in your car.

    We're early enough on this to stop the momentum with cell phones but time is moving quickly. Unless people start taking some serious responsibility, the die is cast and fate is sealed. Cell phone use in all cars under any circumstances will be made illegal. Mark my words. The text messaging id*ots out there killing people behind the wheels of their cars will insure this happens.
    Last edited by berryite; 10-12-09 at 04:08 PM.
    10-12-09 04:06 PM
  3. berryite's Avatar
    Was just watching a news show. Amazing developments related to this thread.

    President Obama has just signed an executive order banning all cell phone use in cars for government employees. For those of you who didn't believe my prediction of a total ban on mobile cell phone use in cars, here's the first step to that inevitable end.

    The news report also noted that Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood has this topic on the front burner of his agenda at the DOT. He intends to push stronger laws against cell phone use on the nation's highways.

    Are you getting my point? Seeing my message?

    The report continued on. There are 500,000 accidents on the nation's roads and highways related to drivers being distracted due to text messages. Sadly, there are also 6000 deaths a year related to this childish behavior of sending text messages while driving behind the wheel.

    These statistics will not stand. Laws will be written.

    Next time you see someone text messaging from their car, thank them. They are responsible for laws that ultimately will ban all cell-phone use in all cars on the nation's roads and highways.
    Last edited by berryite; 10-12-09 at 04:17 PM.
    10-12-09 04:15 PM
  4. T
    " ... the man stopped to light a cigarette outside on the sidewalk. It wasn't 10 seconds before someone rushed over to scold the young man and tell him to stop lighting the cigarette ... I can see the day where you will be stopped and parked in your car and you'll have people knocking on your window telling you that you can't talk on the phone in your car."

    I remember when one time I walked my dog onto the beach during the summer season just to take her down to the water for awhile to cool off. It wasn't a ridiculously busy beach day. No harm was taking place, but still, a man in a beach chair felt compelled to yell out to me (with a lisp), "No dogs on the beach!" I looked at him and replied, "So, call the police." He stared at me with a stupid look on his face and did nothing. I proceeded to the water. A short while later, when I returned, he said nothing.

    My point: there aren't enough police to stop all the texting. You do as you wish. Police yourself even. I will continue to text while behind the wheel now ... and after any laws go into effect. (If they do.)

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    10-12-09 10:22 PM
  5. berryite's Avatar
    I will continue to text while behind the wheel now ... and after any laws go into effect. (If they do.)
    So 500,000 accidents and 6000 deaths are nothing you wish to worry about? And *I'm* the despot? Wow.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    10-13-09 12:33 AM
  6. T
    "So 500,000 accidents and 6000 deaths are nothing you wish to worry about?"

    No. It doesn't bother me. I've never caused an accident, and I've never killed anyone, and I won't go through life worrying about what other people "might" do to me, absent yet another law to (hopefully) stop them. I also have guns ... and I don't mind if you have them, too. As I indicated earlier, I will continue to (childishly) "text and drive."

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Last edited by Tnis; 10-13-09 at 07:35 AM.
    10-13-09 06:57 AM
  7. berryite's Avatar
    "So 500,000 accidents and 6000 deaths are nothing you wish to worry about?"

    No. It doesn't bother me. I've never caused an accident, and I've never killed anyone, and I won't go through life worrying about what other people "might" do to me, absent yet another law to (hopefully) stop them. I also have guns ... and I don't mind if you have them, too. As I indicated earlier, I will continue to (childishly) "text and drive."
    Life Member of the NRA here so you'll get no argument from me that you should keep your guns and sleep well knowing that you can protect yourself.

    But this text messaging thing is just something I can't condone. That you've never been in an accident and never killed anyone is irrelevant. If you play Russian Roulette for a week and tell me you've never blown your brains out yet, that doesn't make playing Russian Roulette safe.

    We do gun safety classes so new gun owners won't shoot themselves in the foot. The simple facts are that taking your eyes off the road to send text messages is insanity. You are piloting a 2000 lb missle down a road with other people and you have a responsibility to honor their safety to the best of your ability. Being 1/2 a driver and 1/2 a text messager is simply irresponsible.

    I can't imagine the guilt I'd feel if I caused an accident because I was friviously sending a text message. And the concept of taking someone's life because I was driving and sending text messages? I couldn't live with that.

    500,000 accidents and 6000 deaths? Government statistics. You have no right risking the lives of others so you can take your eyes off the road to send messages that we all know could easily wait until later and really have no urgency anyway.

    I urge you to become a more responsible driver.
    10-13-09 12:56 PM
  8. T
    500,000 accidents and 6000 deaths? Government statistics. You have no right risking the lives of others so you can take your eyes off the road to send messages that we all know could easily wait until later and really have no urgency anyway.

    I urge you to become a more responsible driver.
    Look, nowhere did I say I was not being a responsible driver or risking the lives of others, as you seem to insist. I even stated that I realize you're not a despot and acknowledged that I understood your cause and effect example. All I said was that more laws are not the answer. Why should I be detained by police if I choose to send a text message while crawling in heavy traffic or while stopped at a red light simply because idiots are out killing people and other idiots have erroneously determined that all texting while in an automobile is irresponsible? I understand the seriousness of texting while in control of an automobile. I merely stated that irresponsibility, in general, is a societal problem. Trying to idiotproof everything by enacting more laws, thereby molesting responsible people, is the way of gun control advocates (and other despots). They argue that guns are used by some people to unjustifiably (or accidentally) kill other people, therefore guns should be outlawed.
    Last edited by Tnis; 10-13-09 at 02:33 PM.
    10-13-09 02:09 PM
  9. berryite's Avatar
    Look, nowhere did I say I was not being a responsible driver or risking the lives of others, as you seem to insist.
    Perhaps we're approaching this backwards.

    You seem like an educated and thoughtful person.

    Let's make you "Emperor of the United States" for a day (or empress, I don't know if you are male or female).

    The first item on your agenda in your new role is to resolve this problem. We are a nation of teckie enthusiasts who have gone overboard with our teckie devices. We are causing millions of dollars of property damage in the 500,000 accidents we are causing by irresponsible drivers doing their "text menacing" behind the wheels of their cars and 6000 of our citizens are DYING every year because of this ridiculous behavior. You don't like an overly regulated society. Fine. What specific steps would you take if you were solely able to dictate policy? No evasion stuff. No "I just don't like this or that." You have complete authority and we need a solid plan from you on what you would do to FIX the problem and bring an end to the 500,000 accidents and the 6000 deaths on the road due to text messaging every year in this country.

    So now you are in charge. What do YOU do?
    10-13-09 05:36 PM
  10. Blkbear's Avatar
    Of course as Emperor I would want proof that it's only TEXTING that is causing all these driving deaths. Then I'd want to know what was done to prevent all the non texting driving deaths. The day after the last DUI and DWD *Driving While Distracted* driver was put to death (yes I'm a tad harsh as Emperor), and yes tired drivers would be put to death as well, I would do the the following.

    So we have whittled down the driving related deaths to JUST to the people that are now driving and using their cell phone in a manner than they can be catch in the act. As Emperor, the only thing I can do it make it an automatic subpoena for your phone records, when you are pulled over for suspected cell phone use. So now the officer has to ask for license, registration, proof of insurance and your cell phone to check the call/txting logs. If the subpoenaed records and your phone logs do not match, you will be convicted by your records, and yes, put to death on the spot.

    I think after the first few thousand road side executions of DWD... by the time we get to DWUCP *driving while using a cell phone*, those executions will be few and far between.


    Perhaps we're approaching this backwards.

    Let's make you "Emperor of the United States" for a day (or empress, I don't know if you are male or female).

    The first item on your agenda in your new role is to resolve this problem. We are a nation of teckie enthusiasts who have gone overboard with our teckie devices. We are causing millions of dollars of property damage in the 500,000 accidents we are causing by irresponsible drivers doing their "text menacing" behind the wheels of their cars and 6000 of our citizens are DYING every year because of this ridiculous behavior. You don't like an overly regulated society. Fine. What specific steps would you take if you were solely able to dictate policy? No evasion stuff. No "I just don't like this or that." You have complete authority and we need a solid plan from you on what you would do to FIX the problem and bring an end to the 500,000 accidents and the 6000 deaths on the road due to text messaging every year in this country.

    So now you are in charge. What do YOU do?
    Last edited by BlkBear; 10-13-09 at 09:43 PM.
    10-13-09 09:41 PM
  11. modifyer's Avatar
    Ok... Kill the Emperor.
    10-14-09 12:21 AM
  12. T
    Perhaps we're approaching this backwards.

    You seem like an educated and thoughtful person.

    Let's make you "Emperor of the United States" for a day (or empress, I don't know if you are male or female).

    The first item on your agenda in your new role is to resolve this problem. We are a nation of teckie enthusiasts who have gone overboard with our teckie devices. We are causing millions of dollars of property damage in the 500,000 accidents we are causing by irresponsible drivers doing their "text menacing" behind the wheels of their cars and 6000 of our citizens are DYING every year because of this ridiculous behavior. You don't like an overly regulated society. Fine. What specific steps would you take if you were solely able to dictate policy? No evasion stuff. No "I just don't like this or that." You have complete authority and we need a solid plan from you on what you would do to FIX the problem and bring an end to the 500,000 accidents and the 6000 deaths on the road due to text messaging every year in this country.

    So now you are in charge. What do YOU do?
    Emperor for the Day ... how exciting! (Yes, I'm a male, last time I checked ) What would I do about the perceived problem, assuming there were no constitutional issues or provisions preventing me from taking action (after all, I would be the emperor)? First, I would probably review the penalties for negligently causing injury or death with an automobile. Next, I would make sure that my judges were meting out the penalties I prescribed. If not, I would charge them as accomplices to the criminalized acts of negligence. Finally, I would probably conclude that education is the best way to deal with any such problem and launch media (i.e. propaganda) campaigns as has been done in the past about the dangers of smoking. Then, like happened with smoking, texting while driving would become socially unacceptable. Over time, my subjects would hopefully begin to police themselves, and the problem would be significantly reduced. Then, because I only have one day, I would do other unrelated things.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    10-14-09 07:52 AM
  13. berryite's Avatar
    I would probably review the penalties for negligently causing injury or death with an automobile. ... I would make sure that my judges were meting out the penalties I prescribed.
    LOL. You're the guy who claims that laws aren't needed. Now you are prescribing penalties (which interestingly you don't even detail).

    Finally, I would probably conclude that education is the best way to deal with any such problem and launch media (i.e. propaganda) campaigns as has been done in the past about the dangers of smoking. Then, like happened with smoking, texting while driving would become socially unacceptable. Over time, my subjects would hopefully begin to police themselves, and the problem would be significantly reduced.
    LOL. I've been here talking to you, trying to educate you, attempting to "police" you ... and all you've done is rebel and deny the problem and refuse to address your own behavior. Obviously if I've failed so miserably, anyone in the general public is not going to be able to "police" anyone really very effectively.

    And on the angle of smoking campaigns, anti-cigarette ads really did precious little to change the culture of smoking in our society. What has killed smoking in our society were laws written to restrict where smoking could be done. Cities and states started passing more and more restrictive laws citing that offices were off limits, then restaurants, then bars. Before long, the only places smokers could smoke was in back alleys. The city where I live even has ordinances restricting smoking on some public streets out in the open.

    Laws changed smoking habits, not ads or public pressure.

    Unfortunately your emperorship didn't get the job done. Probably time for the law writers to get to work. As I've predicted, all cell phone use in automobiles will be illegal within the next few years. Not too late to change your behavior ... but unfortunately it will more likely be laws and not common sense that rule the day and change people's behavior.

    First it was smoking bans.
    Then is was seat-belt laws.
    Next will be cell-phone bans in cars.

    Count on it.
    10-16-09 02:17 PM
  14. T
    LOL. You're the guy who claims that laws aren't needed. Now you are prescribing penalties (which interestingly you don't even detail).
    Wrong. I never said laws weren't needed. Laws against negligently killing people with cars are needed. Logs against cell phone use in cars are not. Negligently killing someone with an automobile is already a criminalized offense in many states. Thus, it would seem to be necessary to review the punishments for such criminalized negligence and to review whether punishments are being adequately meted out to the offenders.
    LOL. I've been here talking to you, trying to educate you, attempting to 'police' you ... and all you've done is rebel and deny the problem and refuse to address your own behavior. Obviously if I've failed so miserably, anyone in the general public is not going to be able to "police" anyone really very effectively.

    Probably time for the law writers to get to work. As I've predicted, all cell phone use in automobiles will be illegal within the next few years. Not too late to change your behavior ... but unfortunately it will more likely be laws and not common sense that rule the day and change people's behavior.

    First it was smoking bans.
    Then is was seat-belt laws.
    Next will be cell-phone bans in cars.

    Count on it.
    I assure you that you have taught me nothing. I will continue to use my phone in the car whether or not your prediction is correct. Law or no law, I'll just make sure I don't cause an accident ... and that I don't get caught.
    Last edited by Tnis; 10-16-09 at 08:06 PM.
    10-16-09 08:02 PM
  15. johnstruck's Avatar
    Handsfree takes your cognitive attention just as any device .duh

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    10-17-09 05:26 AM
  16. berryite's Avatar
    I assure you that you have taught me nothing.
    500,000 accidents. 6000 deaths. And I've taught you nothing.

    I rest my case.

    Mr. Cause meet Mr. Effect. Cell phone bans in all automobiles by 2012.
    10-17-09 01:12 PM
  17. T
    500,000 accidents. 6000 deaths. And I've taught you nothing.

    I rest my case.

    Mr. Cause meet Mr. Effect. Cell phone bans in all automobiles by 2012.
    Follow along: the ban you predict (if it even happens) will not affect me. Law or no law, I'll still phone and drive.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    10-17-09 01:37 PM
  18. berryite's Avatar
    Follow along: the ban you predict (if it even happens) will not affect me. Law or no law, I'll still phone and drive.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Have been following along Mr. Tonis. Got that you have *problems* with authority issues long ago. Got that you *think* you are a better driver than anyone else. I'm sure that the people who caused the 500,000 accidents and 6000 deaths on the roads in this country last year probably had similiar arrogance about their abilities.

    I'm now living in a community where I can walk to almost everything. In the last two weeks, I've almost been hit in crosswalks THREE TIMES by drivers such as yourself who think they are above the law and don't need to worry about keeping their eyes on the road while sending text messages and piloting a 2000 lb machine that can take a life in seconds.

    Follow along Mr. Tonis. Your driving skills aren't as good as you believe. No one's are. I hope the lesson that teaches you what you desperately need to learn only involves property damage and no damage or loss of life to another human being.

    In other news, California today announced that the state legislature may soon put limits on the sales of plasma TVs and make them illegal in California due to energy use of these devices. Can anyone doubt that any government that would make TVs illegal can and will also make cell-phone use illegal? Especially when cell-phone use in automobiles is causing more and more accidents and deaths.

    Put down the cell phones folks and start paying more attention to your driving. 500,000 accidents and 6000 deaths every year need not happen if people drop their arrogance and start taking responsibilities behind the wheels of their cars more seriously.
    Last edited by berryite; 10-18-09 at 09:29 PM.
    10-18-09 09:14 PM
  19. T
    You are berry wrong about me as a person and a driver. But okay, we'll put you in for the Citizen of the Year award in the Peoples' Republic of California. In any case, please remember: it's ALREADY ILLEGAL to hit people in crosswalks with cars. So, don't be too sure you won't be hit by a texter while you're in a crosswalk even after the new rules you predict go into effect. But, it seems that for some, whether it comes to laws or a "pill for every ill," a false sense of security is better than none.

    Peace,

    Mr. Tnis

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    10-18-09 11:41 PM
  20. berryite's Avatar
    You are berry wrong about me as a person and a driver
    Actually I'm not. We know as a law of science that if you take your eyes off the road, you are not able to see what is ahead of you and are therefore a very dangerous driver. You claim complete distain for law and common sense and claim you will do what you d*mn well please no matter what. That makes you a poor driver and a poor citizen. Just the facts Mr. Tonis.


    But okay, we'll put you in for the Citizen of the Year award in the Peoples' Republic of California.
    Insulting me and 37 million other Americans doesn't make a stronger case for you. It just makes you look like you are over your head and struggling in the debate.

    In any case, please remember: it's ALREADY ILLEGAL to hit people in crosswalks with cars.
    Actually that is not actually true. IF you have a green light and you are driving the speed limit and aren't under the influence of alcohol or drugs and you aren't text messaging and are otherwise paying attention to what you are doing and someone runs out into the street against the right of way ... even in a crosswalk ... and you hit them through no negligence or malice, then you've broken no law.

    So we see it is NOT illegal to hit people in crosswalks. What is illegal is to hit people in crosswalks if they have the right of way, or if your driving is impaired by drugs, alcohol or distractions by text messaging.

    So, don't be too sure you won't be hit by a texter while you're in a crosswalk even after the new rules you predict go into effect.
    In California, as in more and more states, it is already illegal today to text message while you are driving. So the cases I mentioned ... THREE in the last TWO weeks ... where drivers were text messaging while driving on average at 35 mph through intersections where they did NOT have the right of way because I was in the crosswalk of those uncontrolled intersections, they were breaking the law.

    Unfortunately some of our citizens (like one particular one I have spent a lot of time talking to in this thread) claim that they are above the law and refuse to obey the law and are thus creating hazardous conditions out there. Because conditions are worsening and more accidents are occuring and more people are dying, lawmakers are going to do what they do best and that is make tougher laws and tougher penalties. If these same people who believe that they are above the laws for the rest of us would today follow the law and stop text messaging while driving, the laws probably wouldn't change.

    But, it seems that for some, whether it comes to laws or a "pill for every ill," a false sense of security is better than none.
    But Mr. Tonis, you've proven an lack of understanding of existing laws as shown above. You've also failed to agree that you are not above the law and that you have no right driving a car with limited capacity by taking your eyes off the road to send text messages.

    I'm inclined to ask you if we simply changed the subject from text messaging to alcohol if your argument would change but I'm almost afraid of what your answer would be. You have authority issues and openly admit you will only follow laws that you wish to follow. The bottom line is whether you are drinking alcohol or text messaging, you are in either case limiting your ability to control your vehicle to the best of your ability. Therefore you are a greater danger to others on the road. Unfortunately, you refuse to accept responsibility for your behavior.

    God save us from those who will talk all day about liberty but will never stop to consider the responsibilities they owe that go along with their liberties.

    I once again urge you to become a safer driver and stop the text messaging behind the wheel of your car.
    10-19-09 05:56 PM
  21. T
    It seems we are at an impasse. Rather than continue to repeat things which I have already stated over and over, I'll simply respond to this:

    "Because conditions are worsening and more accidents are occuring and more people are dying, lawmakers are going to do what they do best and that is make tougher laws and tougher penalties "

    "Lawmakers" don't scare me. Many of them are complete buffoons. I stand ready, as a JUROR, to nullify all bad law. If a texter hits a pedestrian, I would probably vote guilty. If a texter were to hit YOU, I would probably vote "not guilty" simply out of spite. If I couldn't convince the other jurors and/or the government plant to acquit, I would at least settle for a hung jury. I understand THAT concept of the law quite well. I assure you, "lawmakers" aren't the end-all-be-all. The people, as jurors, have the raw power to nullify all bad laws (like the anti-phone laws you seem to support) by refusing to convict. (That's just a general statement about the law to hopefully persuade you to tone down your blind faith in "lawmakers.") This subject cert-nly isn't my biggest concern, but it's been fun watching you get your panties in a bunch. In any case, I'm still gonna text and drive.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    10-19-09 06:38 PM
  22. berryite's Avatar
    I stand ready, as a JUROR, to nullify all bad law.
    Delusions of grandeur. You're just an "Average Joe" with a big ego. Time to grow up.

    If a texter hits a pedestrian, I would probably vote guilty. If a texter were to hit YOU, I would probably vote "not guilty" simply out of spite.
    Just losing your credibility with pap like that. Pretty hateful too.

    the anti-phone laws you seem to support
    Amazing that after all this you still can't follow a basic premise. From the beginning I noted that my thoughts on lawmakers toughening the laws against cell phones is not any "pro/con" thing on my part but rather an observation based on the ability to follow normal patterns of behavior. I've said this numerous times, you just don't get it.

    I have said that your driving behavior is unsound and I firmly stand behind that.

    by refusing to convict
    So you are refusing to convict someone who has maimed or killed someone because you don't like a law? That's nuts but something tells me we don't need to worry about you getting on ANY jury panel anywhere anytime soon.

    hopefully persuade you to tone down your blind faith in "lawmakers."
    Again, you just ain't getting it here but trying to clarify it has become like beating a dead horse.

    it's been fun watching you get your panties in a bunch.
    No panties knotted up here.

    In any case, I'm still gonna text and drive.
    And I'm gonna restate that I hope that the life lesson you get in the process is nothing more than a fender bender that only costs you money rather than having to live with the realization for the rest of your life that you've crippled or killed a little child or someone's wife or husband.
    10-19-09 09:22 PM
  23. T
    To my statement about a juror's absolute right to vote "not guilty" you say, "Delusions of grandeur. You're just an 'Average Joe' with a big ego. Time to grow up"? You really are brainwashed. The ones with delusions of grandeur are the judges and other "officers of the court" who routinely lie to jurors telling them that that they must vote guilty or not guilty based only on the facts and not according to how they feel about the law. The fact is, no judge can force a juror to rule one way or the other, and no judge can change a "not guilty" verdict to "guilty." Yes, I said I would probably vote not guilty if a texter were to strike you with his car. To that, I would also add that I would probably vote to convict if you were hauled in for wearing blue on Wednesdays (if your brilliant "lawmakers" happened to make that a non-violent offense for which the penalty was death). As long as the prosecutor were to show me pictures of you wearing blue, I would blindly do whatever was expected of me, again, just to spite you. (Anyone else, I would set free for that "offense.") And you think I won't end up on a jury? I assure you, that if I'm called, I will pretend to be a brainwashed bot like you, prepared to rubber stamp anything "the court" (i.e. the government) wants me to just so that I'm not disqualified by the prosecutor during jury selection . Then, I would vote my conscience.

    Yes, you have said over and over that your thoughts on lawmakers toughening the laws against cell phones are not a "pro/con" thing on your part but rather a mere observation based on the ability to follow normal patterns of behavior. While true, at the same time you do come across as a cheerleader for stricter cell phone laws.

    Fully Informed Jury Association
    10-20-09 09:03 AM
  24. berryite's Avatar
    To my statement about a juror's absolute right to vote
    Snip.

    Put down the phone Mr. Tonis and pay attention to your driving.
    10-20-09 01:20 PM
  25. T
    Snip.

    Put down the phone Mr. Tonis and pay attention to your driving.
    Request denied. This one's posted from my laptop, while at the wheel ... in a school zone.
    10-20-09 01:50 PM
210 ... 6789
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD