Slashdot Mirror
Florida Man Faces $48k Fine For Jamming Drivers' Cellphones
An anonymous reader writes with this news from The Independent: An American driver is facing a $48,000 fine after using a mobile signal jammer in his car to block motorists around him from using their phones on the road. Jason Humphreys reportedly used the jammer from the back seat of his Toyota Highlander for around two years before being caught by Florida police. The 60-year-old said that he used the jammer – which transmits radio signals that interfere with mobile phones – because he was 'fed up' with watching others use their phones on the road.
A story from late April (before the fine was levied) gives more detail: The case along I-4 started on April 29, 2013, when the cellular company Metro PCS contacted the Federal Communications Commission because a transmission tower along I-4 would suffer in the morning and evening. A week later, agents from the FCC's enforcement division in Tampa staked out the freeway on May 7, 8, and 9 and pinpointed a “strong wideband emission” in the cellphone wireless range “emanating from a blue Toyota Highlander sport utility vehicle,” with Florida license plates, according to a complaint issued by the FCC on Tuesday. Another clue: When Hillsborough County Sheriffs deputies stopped the SUV, their own two-way radios were jammed."
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
FloridaMan, hero of the people!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I agree with the first part of your comment, and came here to say almost the same thing. The law of unintended consequences strikes again.
The second part makes you seem like a moron. Seriously, losing access to your e-toy for a minute or two is worth killing over? Get a grip.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
I can't say I disagree with why he did it, but it's kind of hard to argue that he didn't break the law.
From what I can tell, at any given time a huge fraction of drivers are either texting, or holding onto their phone and talking.
If where I lived introduced one of those bounties where you get money if you can get a picture of a face and a license plate using the phone while driving ... well, I could go a few blocks from my house to an intersection, and pay off my house in a few weeks.
Almost weekly I find myself behind someone who is driving a little erratic because they're holding their phone with one hand, gesturing with the other, and not paying attention to what's going on around them.
I feel bad for this guy, but I fear he's probably screwed, since he broke the law in doing this. If someone had needed to call 911 near him that wouldn't have worked out well.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Seems contrary to what he is trying to accomplish. I assume he wants people to put their phones down and pay more attention to driving. I think the results will be more people looking at their phones in confusion, trying to redial, etc. i.e. the exact opposite of paying more attention to their driving.
Randomize. Have the thing be on every third day or for 20 minutes then off or some other timer. Even a toggle switch on the dash so it could be turned on when "needed" vs always on. They will find you if it's always on.
[John]
Shit better not happen!
I want a mobile version for my bicycle, so that people, you know, will refrain from trying to kill me all the time.
And if he drove past an accident and interrupted a 911 call? Man fuck you.
As an amateur radio hobbyist, im absolutely fed up with people basing their knowledge of healthcare reform solely on what Fox News says, but it doesnt give me the right to build a wave bubble jammer and knock out the satellite uplink for the local affiliate station. Because as much as i hate Fox, they provide valid EAS warnings and weather.
Good people go to bed earlier.
But he could could have bought one of those russian style dash cams. Mounted it on near the roof line, looking sideways and downwards. May be two such cams on either side of the vehicle. Record it continuously and report the actual distracted drivers, along with the video footage to police. Or without even going to police upload them into some kind of YouTube channel and shame them into compliance. When they see how seriously long, their "momentary" glance at the texts, the distance covered when they were distracted, most sane people will feel compelled to comply. After all, 99.9% of the people do come to full stop at stop signs even when there is no other vehicle is in sight, without any one policing it.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Wrong.
By jamming their phones, drivers are more likely to look down at their phones wondering why the hell their calls isn't going through, making them MORE likely to cause an accident.
Captcha = reckless
Or a swift kick in the nuts.
he was acting in self defense to prevent an idiot driving while on a cell phone from causing an accident
"The signal is bad around these parts... let's switch to message chat !"
This is a prime example of why we have societies, laws and regulations - in this case those designed to stop mobile phone usage. Going for an individual solution quickly devolves into mayhem: thousands of bystanders affected, emergency calls interrupted, and probably not a single accident prevented.
Came here to say exactly this.
Whoever uses the phone while driving will try 2-3 times and have his eyes on the phone longer as opposed as having the other side answer and him talking and leat looking in front of him.
Yes, I know the attention span of someone talking on the phone and driving is the same as someone who's drunk, but still it must beat not looking at the road.
Curiously yours, crip.
... drivers trying to troubleshoot their phones. If you've ever been in the car with someone trying to reboot their phone, re-sync bluetooth, change their map destination, etc... you know they are more dangerous than anyone talking - I wonder how many inadvertent accidents his jammer caused.
When car started to be equipped with electronic spark control, it was found that a particular UK car brand was very prone to RFI from CB stations. Whenever the RF field was strong enough, the car engine stopped due to EM interference.
CB radio drivers, whenever they spotted this car type in the London traffic, drove close to it, honked at the poor driver to get his attention, and then showed him their hand pressing the push-to-talk button of the transceiver...
You gotta wonder how many watts his jammer was putting out if it was able to affect a cell phone tower than was several hundred feet away if not further. There are 100-watt mobile models available.
I'm not one of those people who think the minuscule power a cell phone puts out is going to rot your brain from occasional use but I've got to imagine that lots of watts in close proximity at that frequency can't be good. Especially daily for two years.
Oddly enough, using this RF calculator, seems to show no safety problems except, possibly, for the cars directly adjacent.
Cheers,
Matt
If you wanted to do this without getting caught, keep the jammer turned off but within reach. When you see a driver on their phone, run the jammer for just long enough to drop their call. May also be wise to do this sparingly, and not on a daily commute route. This guy was asking to get caught.
If you pretentious jerks would follow the rules of the road Instead of doing things like: splitting lanes with cars, especially when they're stopped at a traffic control; riding next to your buddies in the car lane when you have a perfectly good bike lane; and completely ignoring traffic controls creating situations that would get a motorist killed if they tried that in a car; you might not think people were trying to kill you.
It always shocks me when I see one whose actually following the rules of the road.
It's not illegal to be riding and using a cell phone at the same time.
It is illegal to cause harmful emissions (jamming)
In Florida, only for text messaging. They don't ban hand-helds or cell phones.
See http://www.drivinglaws.org/flo...
Also, officers don't pull you over simply because you are on the phone, they only enforce it if they catch you doing something else at the same time.
Of course. You can't commit a hate crime without a long standing, deep-rooted pattern of racist discrimination fitting it. Just because one race is shooting at another does not make it a hate crime. There are plenty of non-racist reasons for black people to shoot at white people (or vice versa) and you have to have actual evidence of racial motivation or premeditation before you can start talking about a hate crime. Also, Zimmerman was of Hispanic descent anyway and don't racist assholes like yourself hate Mexicans as much as you hate blacks?
citation needed
It actually doesn't meet the criteria. With sterilization he certainly couldn't contribute to the gene pool, but it wouldn't delete him.
Either way, though, it's typical of the stand your ground mentality.
I feel like this would cause a dangerous rolling bubble of confusion as all the drivers around me pay even less attention as they look at their phones to see if the call got dropped. I'm glad this guy got caught.
And if you're a passener ? Or you're on the side of the road trying to make an emergency call? Or you're an emergency vehicle driver using a two-way radio?
Or are you trying to say his jammer only targeted drivers?
I heard this one kid once started a thermonuclear war, just because he was looking for a BBS to play games on.
It all ended up OK in the end though after tic-tac-toe proved that all conflict is pointless.
How about a nice game of chess?
Every heard of hands free devices? Usually its implemented via Bluetooth.
I'm my car I can press a button on the wheel, say "Call Wife Mobile" and it will call my wifes mobile phone. Never seeing or touching my phone.
I live in Saskatchewan, Canada. We ridiculously harsh penalties when it comes to "distracted driving" (their words). I haven't heard of any province or state that has banned using your phone through a hands free device.
The claim that using a cellphone while driving is dangerous stems completely from the action of taking your hand(s) off the wheel, and eyes off the road. This is exactly what bluetooth hands free systems are designed for, and exactly why they are including it in more and more vehicles.
If you're curious, I drive a 2012 Kia Sorento EX V6 AWD Luxury Edition... Bought it last July for about $22K (Canadian) with less than 50,000km on it.
I know if someone did that to me, I'd go 'stand my ground' on his ass and delete him from the gene pool.
This is why I do not like guns in the hands of "normal" people.
Florida Stand Your Ground Law comes into play when "reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another " It doesn't say anything about blocking phone signals.
what if people had to dial 000, 112, 999 or whatever emergency number is in the US? first responders can't use thier walkie talkies. shame on the jammer! hope the judge throws the book at him.
Seems like most states ban texting while driving but talking on the cellphone while driving is legal in many areas.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
I'll see your random AC comment and raise you one Pol Pot.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Consider this: A driver who does not receive texts will not check their texts.
No beer and no TV make Homer something something
I've been seeing too many vehicles with flashing lights lately that didn't used to have them, from school buses and garbage trucks to mall cops. It's making true emergency vehicles, such as police/fire/ambulance not stand out as much as then used to.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/o...
This is a follow-up, not a duplicate.
Which given enough time will do absolutely zero for accidents. The problem isn't the handsfree, it is the fact you have someone paying more attention to what is being said on the other side of the phone call than actually what is happening around them. Driving should take up 100% of your attention.
All he has to do is claim he was acting in self defense to prevent an idiot driving while on a cell phone from causing an accident around him.
There is a saying we have in manufacturing that "local maximums make global minimums". Just because it is optimal for one part of the system doesn't mean it is globally optimal. His jamming activities could easily interfere with 911 or emergency broadcasts or ambulance transmissions or cell phones that have nothing to do with anyone driving. He's basically deciding unilaterally that his needs should be placed ahead of everyone else's. It's self indulgent and potentially dangerous. We regulate the airwaves and how people can use them for VERY good reasons. Reasons that are much more important than his little temper tantrum.
In the UK the law is pretty straightforward: You can use "reasonable" force, which pretty much translates to no more than your assailant - you can't stab them if they haven't got a knife, etc. But then you wouldn't have hospital bills in the UK anyway.
Consider this: A driver who does not receive texts will not check their texts.
That's true. Sadly a driver that attempts to call 911 from a ditch will wonder what's up.
I can't say I disagree with why he did it
I disagree with why he did it. He could have easily jammed 911 calls, ambulance transmissions to hospitals, law enforcement, first responder requests/communications, etc. Not to mention all the people he blocked who were not driving, i.e. passengers. He unilaterally decided that his needs were more important than everyone else's. As far as I'm concerned he should see some jail time in addition to a huge fine. This is not a small deal.
From what I can tell, at any given time a huge fraction of drivers are either texting, or holding onto their phone and talking.
That's true but it doesn't give anyone the right to go all vigilante about the problem.
I feel bad for this guy,
I don't. He's a self indulgent asshole.
Bicyclists want to treated like both a car AND a pedestrian. Meaning they ride on sidewalks, cross streets whenever they want - ignoring traffic lights, and get all pissed when pedestrians get in their way or when they disobey traffic rules and get pissed at motor vehicles.
I got clipped by a cyclists riding in a pedestrian lane and the fucker acted like I was at fault.
There are a lot of assholes on bikes.
The claim that using a cellphone while driving is dangerous stems completely from the action of taking your hand(s) off the wheel, and eyes off the road. This is exactly what bluetooth hands free systems are designed for, and exactly why they are including it in more and more vehicles
Actually, there have been a number of studies that show it's the distraction of talking on the cell phone that is dangerous and using a headset does little to reduce that danger.
I agree. We can have people go ape shit because ONE problem isn't being resolved by the authorities or people are being unreasonable. IMHO it's easier to just lower your window and nicely tell them they are causing danger for other drivers and should consider getting a blue tooth device. Sure some will tell you to go F yourself but some will think twice before picking up the phone.
Will Florida Man ever be stopped?!
So we shouldn't have kids in a vehicle or speak to the passengers then?
Around here, buses have a "don't talk to the driver unless stopped" sign in the front. Somehow I don't see the regular car driver being magically better at multi-tasking to deserve better.
Ezekiel 23:20
For a few minutes anyway. The signal jammer moves with the guy's car.
No beer and no TV make Homer something something
Fines like that don't stop Americans. Passing laws where the officer can punch you in the face, THAT will stop people from doing it. we are some of the stupidest people on the planet, we can't connect financial fines with our behavior, but physical pain will connect just fine.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
...this wouldn't be a story. The law did it's job and the man was fined, but there isn't a news article for every parking ticket.
The reason this is interesting is because the ethics of this part of the law are in question.
Then we should ban all conversation inside the vehicle period. Sounds like a nanny state utopia to me.
Your interacting with other members of the gene pool makes you a member, if not directly, because you influence the success of the other members.
Even if you're dead, you still have a lasting influence.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Even if you ignore all that it's a false idea anyway. Unless you can stop him from having ever interacted with another human could you remove his influence on the gene pool. You don't need to reproduce (in any fashion) to influence the gene pool.
Extreme example: Hitler had a huge influence on the pool.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
True, but then again all those folks who's calls get dropped are now distracted by trying to figure out what's going on, or reconnect. Not everyone has a fancy voice-command system to help out with that.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
This driver ignores texts received while driving. If it's important, they can place a voice call and I'll answer it using my bluetooth earpiece.
It's not that hard. Really, your phone is not your brain... you can put it to sleep while driving. It's OK, your friends can wait for you to get back to them with "OMG LOL!"
I can see the fnords!
He said he called his wife. He wasn't paying attention.
Just a dude. Stuck in IT.
...accidents, too?
If this guy is responsible for people having accidents because they chose to troubleshoot their phones while driving, why isn't anyone whose software, hardware or design that causes cell phone glitches responsible for accidents caused when people decide to troubleshoot those problems?
Cell phone glitches happen -- blaming someone other than a driver who decided that troubleshooting their phone was more important that driving for the accident seems ridiculous, especially if you're willing to blame some mobile jammer when you're not willing to blame poor programming, poor hardware or poor design.
You could/should, because your awareness does not exit the car. Talking on the cellphone is like daydreaming, your mind's GPS location is not the same as your physical body's GPS location. So it takes more time to react to potentially dangerous traffic situations while using your phone.
No. Passenger conversations differ substantially from cell phone conversations, and prove far less distracting.
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
It can't be your top priority or you would put it away / stop driving.
It's *a* priority but it's secondary to shooting something / getting somewhere.
Hands-free sets don't help (or drinking from a travel mug while driving, for example, would have been banned long ago). The conversation with a party not in the vehicle is what is causing the problems. Note also that passenger conversations differ substantially from cell phone conversations, and prove far less distracting.
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
Not only did he block cellphones but, apparently, he was also interfering with the radio communications of first-responders.
Imagine what is going on inside the head of the officer who pulls you over for any reason just as his radios go dead. This is a tense and dangerous moment for him under the best of circumstances.
For a few minutes anyway. The signal jammer moves with the guy's car.
A few minutes can make a difference, especially if the attempting caller is only conscious for ten seconds.
Barring Anguirel's post, this is not true for everyone. I've seen people drift while chewing gum, talking to people, looking in the rearview mirror, etc. Some people literally cannot do 2 things at once, with one of those being breathing.
For these types of people, a conversation with a passenger is no different than talking on the phone, or even having kids in the car. They will be distracted in all cases if there's anything at all that can catch their attention.
Other people, however, will tune a conversation out when driving conditions warrant it. They fall outside that distracted group. Part of this is realizing that no phone conversation requires catching everything the first time, and that asking for clarification or repetition is valid, since you're taking the call while driving in the first place.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Taser. It's effective and non lethal. Gun nuts always forget about tasers because of their blood lust.
Untrue - Taser's can still be lethal.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
So it's ok to break the law to enforce a non-law in a way that causes less safety, not more?
Learn to love Alaska
And I've seen people drift doing nothing else. The something else "helps" in some cases like lonely highways.
Learn to love Alaska
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
If this sounds like a typical firearm owner to you, you don't know many. Most you will never even know own a firearm.
Yes, for the 15 second it takes the guy to drive by at 75MPH.
Yes, for the 15 second it takes the guy to drive by at 75MPH.
Fifteen seconds is enough to make a difference in some cases. Is it worth endangering innocents to prevent someone from receiving a text. For starters, not all drivers read their texts while driving. Let's recall why some people are making arguments that what this man is doing is A-Okay: "Consider this: A driver who does not receive texts will not check their texts."
"less lethal" not "non-lethal". Tasers can (and do) kill.
Learn to love Alaska
my IQ is 30% higher than the average person
I look down at my phone [while driving] to see what the heck happened
If you're as bright as you say you are, you'll realize that those two statements are mutually exclusive.
Isn't it illegal to be a vigilante?
That's all. Have a nice day.
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
I have no idea how someone could have a problem with stand your ground.
It encourages a confrontation when none was necessary. Most duty to retreat laws are "stand your ground" laws.
Nowhere in the US is it illegal to fight back when cornered. The definition of "cornered" is variable enough that someone should be able to argue they were cornered, for all reasonable circumstances.
"stand your ground" encourages people like Zimmerman to follow suspicious and dangerous people into dark alleys, and shoot them when confronted.
In your situation, could you have safely walked away? No? Then it wouldn't have mattered if "stand your ground" or "duty to retreat" applied. Both lead to the same conclusion. You had to defend yourself. The opposite of "stand your ground" still allows you to defend yourself everywhere in the USA. May not apply in the UK or elsewhere.
I (a white guy) have been the victim of race based violence in E dallas.
Oh, and as a Dallas-born person, I would doubt your story because there is no "E Dallas". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E..., but to a "local" one would use the neighborhood name. Lakewood or White Rock. East Dallas is Mesquite. Though a tourist wandering around in the worst neighborhoods they could find might have accidentally ended up there, as it's a site of popularity and gentrification. But if you are looking for a fight in Dallas, I recommend Oak Cliff/West Dallas (west and north Dallas is "defined" as a neighborhood, East and South aren't, and are generally identified by the neighborhoods.
Learn to love Alaska
I suggested face punching not face tasers! I'm not an animal!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
In the US the law is pretty straightforward. You can use "reasonable" force, which pretty much translates into "if you are afraid for your life, you may kill them". So a granny being beaten would likely never be able to defend herself with fists, so a gun is about the minimum violence that would stop the attack. A fist against a granny is deadly force, so you can respond in kind. You don't need to carry an arsenal and only respond with the same weapon used against you, just a "reasonable" response.
Learn to love Alaska
All he would have done was make people use their phones more
They'll still send the txt they were trying to. They'll just have to try multiple times.
They'll still call back the person they were talking to. They just have to look away from the road and dial again.
... and those with hands free devices will look down at their phone to see if the call was cut off or not.
By jamming their phones, drivers are more likely to look down at their phones wondering why the hell their calls isn't going through, making them MORE likely to cause an accident.
An accident which wouldn't have occurred if the driver weren't using the cell phone while driving in the first place! Don't try to shift the blame here. This guy is just trying to make the roads safer; he got no personal or financial benefit by operating this jammer. His motives were good, even if his methods were a bit extreme.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
And if he drove past an accident and interrupted a 911 call? Man fuck you.
There's no reason to think he wouldn't have turned off the jammer if he saw an accident.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Passengers scream a lot more about perceived threats too. :) They may see something out of the corner of their eyes (or directly in their line of sight). The person on the other end of a phone call rarely sees your driving hazards.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
If you're curious, I drive a 2012 Kia Sorento EX V6 AWD Luxury Edition... Bought it last July for about $22K (Canadian) with less than 50,000km on it.
A $250 after market head unit will have the same function... I have the same functionality in my 2002 Nissan 200sx.
I never use it as I've got a rule that I never use the phone whilst in the car... When you drive a sports car any accident is bad, so you have to look out for all the distracted drivers who aren't looking out for you.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
A bus is a lot bigger than a car, with a lot less margin for error. I have a city bus that's converted to be a RV. All that extra space beside a car becomes pretty much non-existent. According to the FHWA, lanes are 9 to 12 feet wide. My bus is 8.5 feet wide, so on a narrow road, that gives me 3 inches on either side on a local road, along the 40 foot length of it.
The last drive I took it for a drive, I cruised down a 6 lane "local" road, with 9' lanes. It was like threading a needle with giant steel elephant, and people get stupid around large vehicles. Sure, it can stop on a dime, as long as that dime is the size of a Buick.
Bus passengers tend to be more annoying too. They tend to argue, just because they can.
The "don't talk to the driver" rule is mostly there so the driver can say "Go away, I'm driving." I've had plenty of bus drivers that like some idle conversation. I'm not asking how to get to some obscure place, or demand that they take the bus off-route to drop them off, so they like talking to me. :)
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
AFAIR, interfering with telecommunications systems is a federal crime. Certainly in England it's in there with mail robbery and will likely get you a long holiday (they will throw away the key if they think for a second they'll get away with it).
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
it's nowhere near 700/800MHz, it's the 934MHz GSM band (used in Europe for the TETRA radio system that piggybacks the cellular network). Very easily done with a piece of kit that's still available on the secondhand market with no modifications: a 934MHz mobile transceiver.
(I have one, never powered it up).
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Okay I looked into some of the provisions of stand your ground and your right. It's seemed to me like in the Zimmerman case it was self-defense not stand-your-ground. I don't really have an opinion on that case though..I wasn't there.
East Dallas absolutely exists. If you know where puff n stuff is on Columbia that area is East Dallas. Roughly from where main turns into elm down to beacon and Columbia.
What happened to me happened on S St Mary in Junius Heights. There are 3 neighborhoods in that area, and I've always heard them referred to as "East Dallas." South of 30 is South Dallas, and that's a much worse place to find yourself late at night.
Still, drive down St Mary or that part of Santa Fe and you'll see it's not much better than oak cliff.
Not to be racist, but for the most part East Dallas is Mexican and South Dallas is black.
Dallas didn't annex everything around them like Houston did..Mesquite is it's own city not East Dallas.
no, vigilantism is not only legal, it's encouraged through pretty much any civilised culture (some call it bounty hunting, some call it neighbourhood watch). It's when you break the law doing it, when it becomes illegal.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
what a load of bollocks.
I carry air rifles through major cities. They're in cases, but it's fairly obvious what's in the cases. I also carry a sidehandle baton - openly. TOTALLY illegal in England (though I've never been charged with carrying offensive weapons and here's why: my accepted justification is that considering what else I'm carrying (to legitimate destinations using lawful means) I would rather kneecap the cunt who's trying to steal my firearms (and who obviously has plans for future use of said firearms including potentially causing harm to one or more people) and face the music than let them away and possibly even coldcock me with my own weapons). It's not a case of meeting force with force, it's a case of seeing and reacting to a threat by preparing *before* it becomes necessary to react. Being in such a visible state of preparedness pretty much negates any thoughts anyone might have to trying to relieve me of my luggage anyway.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
East Dallas north of 30 was "lower Greenville" up until it was "Deep Ellum". South of 30 was "Fair Park".
Quando vivia en dallas, hable espanol. My Mexican friends lived by Love Field. II never had any problems with race in Dallas. South Dallas was all black. But I haven't lived in Dallas in 10+ years.
I know plenty of people that would call Puff n Stuff "Oak Lawn" because Fitzhugh starts in Oak Lawn proper, even if the other end isn't anywhere near Oak Lawn. But my circle would have called it Lower Greenville. Though looking, there are references to it being called Old East Dallas, but I've never heard anyone call it that. But I didn't live near there. I'm from North Dallas (Prestonwood, to be more specific). So my lexicon may not have matched someone who lived closer to that area.
I went to high school at L.G. Pinkston. Walked to a friend's house from there (through the projects), people came out of their house to look at the white guy. I was probably the only non-government employee white guy some of them had seen. But I never felt unsafe. I stayed away from South Oak Cliff.
Learn to love Alaska
It really is simple. Safety IS top priority handling a ton of steel at 60 mph. So, you keep your hands at 10 and 2 at all times? You never adjust your radio or ventilation while moving, right? You've probably mastered using only your peripheral vision to check your instrument panel so you never look away from the road for even a split second. After all, it's a ton of steel at 60 mph.
You assume that the parent drives a car. That's not necessarily a safe assumption. (Myself, I live in downtown Chicago. Driving a car here would be bloody stupid -- I'd be paying $30k for a parking space, plus $90/mo in HOA fees on that parking space, and who-knows-how-much for parking where I'm trying to get to... when I can just walk to my destination or get on the L).
You completely missed the point. Speaking of the alternative way to deal with this...
your going to cry in your pillow because you had to slow down and wait a whole 10 seconds, in order to safely pass a cyclist?
This morning, me and a row of about 20 other vehicles took about 12 minutes to climb a hill behind a single cyclist. So what should have been a 14 minute drive turned into a nearly 30 minute drive, complete with lots of extra fuel burned by many people. The long hill is a no passing zone, and he was slowly climbing it straight up the middle of the single travel lane. Of course there's a full-lane-width, paved shoulder on the right, and he could have moved over (without changing his pace for a moment) for the few seconds you're mentioning to allow an entire row of traffic to move past him and return to operating at an efficient speed, but no. Just another guy that thinks he'll get people to like cyclists more if he does everything in his power to make traffic move as slowly as possible, or is hoping that he can force others to pass on the right, risking a citation. Deliberate, purposeful douchiness, and completely unnecessary, as he had options that wouldn't have slowed him down a bit.
As far as taxes,why would you think that cyclists don't pay taxes toward the roads?
Again, since you you've chosen not to read, because most of the road construction/maintenance budget here comes from taxes levied on the fuel that cars and trucks (not cyclists) consume.
And if cyclists were breaking the law as often as you seem to think they are, why aren't you calling the cops?
And report what? "There's a guy in a red and blue outfit riding a bicycle slowly in the middle of road!" No tag number, and fifteen minutes before a cop could show up to where the call had been made - or longer during rush hour. So that what, he can issue a citation for what someone described on the phone? Doesn't work that way. Cyclists are cited here when a cop happens to actually see them doing the usual red light violation that you're so pleased to do yourself. They'll also get a citation for weaving between cars, but only if the cop can actually catch them in traffic. It's rare, obviously, for all of the circumstances to line up just right and allow that to happen.
I guarantee you drive over the speed limit
Sometimes, if it's safe, sure. What I don't do is deliberately drive under the limit (say, 15mph in a 45mph zone) in a way that prevents all the traffic behind me from moving at the posted limit. Me driving 50mph in a 45mph doesn't impede the people behind me. You do get that, right? Maybe you don't.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
you go FLORIDA MAN!
Common sense would tell the cyclist he should move over, but there must be a reason he is not. Safety?
This isn't about common sense, or safety. The deliberately visible, obstructionist cyclists here do what they do to make a point. It's the Occupy Travel Lane movement, essentially. If they want to use travel lanes, they use travel lanes. I'm not saying they don't have the right to, what I'm saying is that even when they have the option to easily let a column of cars get by at normal speeds, they don't. On purpose. Over and over again. There is the rare, sensible cyclist who gets it, and who isn't thinking that he'll make it better for future cyclists by making enemies of normal commuters.
If he is doing something illegal, then get a cop out there.
Nice platitude, but again, completely unworkable. If a cop is already there, ahead of the cyclist in traffic and able to see him, run across multiple complete lanes of moving cars and physically stop him, then he has a chance at writing a citation. Otherwise, it's a lost cause, and the cyclists know it. This is the second worst commuting area in the country. The cops don't make a fuss in traffic unless people are on fire or shooting at each other, because pulling over a single person to write a citation will cause a backup that will last for 45 minutes. The Occupy The Travel Lanes douches know this, and revel in it.
I SAID that I believe most cyclists are not commuters, they are out for exercise.
I'm talking about middle-of-the-business-day road use in dense urban and suburban areas heavy with traffic. These are commuters, mostly. The road team and recreational guys who travel in packs are a completely different sort of problem, but at least they move a little faster.
If the cyclist were breaking the law that frequently, the cops would be actively staking out the fucking place looking to gather revenue.
As mentioned above, no. They won't, can't, don't.
So I weeded out an admission of your deliberate law-breaking. So why is it ok for you, but not me?
Because I don't run red lights, or obstruct traffic. But that's the behavior we're talking about here. The guy going 50 in a 45 doesn't slow down dozens of other people. Are you insisting that the two things are equivalent - that moving along with everyone else at 5mph over the limit is the same as running a red light or holding up a long column of cars and trucks for no reason but Occupying?
You also don't seem to understand that have the right to drive slower than the speed limit.
Generally, here, that's not true. People falling more than 10mph below the posted speed limit while not behind some other obstruction are committing a moving violation.
Much less frequently is it paired with a sign indicating a minimum speed limit, but I have seen it on occasion. Only then are you constrained to a minimum speed.
Depends on the jurisdiction. Those are posted in places where (mostly) heavy trucks are notorious for slowing things down, and they post the minimum so that there's zero opportunity for argument in the case of a citation. Regardless, in some parts of this area, the cop can simply write a citation for "traveling at an unreasonable speed" - which they'll issue to, for example, someone stupid enough to move slow, heavy equipment (like a crane trailer, whatever) over the road during rush hour. That heavy trailer vehicle, unlike a guy on a bike who can hop a curb and disappear from traffic, is a lot easier to cite.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.