Originally Posted by modelcitizen

I thought that the law in Massachusetts says that you must have both hands available for operation of your vehicle at all times. Talking on a hand-held cell phone is prima facie evidence that that law is being broken. Why is the law not enforced? This is a serious safety problem.

Originally Posted by djgj200

I forget where I heard it, but I guess those bluetooth thingys for the cellphone or any headsets for phones are illegal to use while driving. Does anyone know a law that would prohibit that, whether it specifies headsets in the law or something that you could say prohibits it if you get into technicalities of it. Just wondering since the subject of talking on cell phones while driving was brought up.

Originally Posted by modelcitizen

I thought that the law in Massachusetts says that you must have both hands available for operation of your vehicle at all times. Talking on a hand-held cell phone is prima facie evidence that that law is being broken. Why is the law not enforced?

Originally Posted by SOT_II

Although I don't really know I thought those were legal. When they mention headsets in the law, I think they mean walkman like headsets for music.
I'm sure you've seen it, a shitass car with nice rims driving down the road. El Torro lost his Alpine to a radio theft a whole back so now he pumps music right into his pea brain via an iPod shuffle and some big honking Koss headsets that make him look like a cross between chewbacca and princess leigh.

Originally Posted by MM1799

We are paid to keep traffic moving that the whole point. Intentionally? You are an idiot. Rubbernecks are NOT the police's fault. If people realized that in that 4 seconds nothing exciting is going to happen and kept their eyes on the road -- this wouldn't be a problem.

Originally Posted by MM1799

Ok just because I am getting ready for work and am bored at this moment, I'll humor you with a response (again). I'll give you some situation that are plausible of why they are sitting there. Ok?

1) As I state before, they are looking for a specific car. Maybe it was involved in a rape? If it were my mother or sisters I'd be happy as hell to see the police out their doing what they can to find the perp.
2) Maybe they are on a break.. you seem to know the laws. Working 8.5hrs, are they entitled to a break? And maybe they were conscience enough to realise (in such a traffic jam) they should stay close to road incase a serious accident w/ injuries happened.
3) Hey who knows, maybe they were waiting for the idiots that blow up the BDL at high speeds and potentially kill anyone who might fixing a flat or whatever.
4) They might have been tired of answering ignorant motorists questions about how they perform their jobs and decided to sit back and watch the motorists do it themselves.

The point is you dont know, so I dont see how you have any reason to come on a police board and question their actions and actually expect a sypathetic ear.

Originally Posted by modelcitizen

As a commuter who has endured the construction on Route 3 and who is happy to see it behind us, I have also watched the average speed during rush hour in the morning approach 80 mph. I understand the need for speed limit enforcement, but I find speed traps on Route 3 South at 4:45 in the afternoon, at the crossover several miles north of 128, absolutely a slap in the face of motorists.
As soon as there is police activity, on go the brake lights, and we, already facing an unpleasant and dangerous ride, start the ride north with two miles of stop-and-go, and get to see the state police waltzing around at their cruisers. They could not care less about the inconvenienced motorists in the northbound lanes. Let's put it this way: they are either ignorant or apathetic, or both. But, as a clue, you answer the question, "If police officers are subject to the same traffic laws as you and I, unless, of course, they are responding to an emergency with their lights on and sound devices in operation, in which case they might be seen exceeding the speed limit, or stopping at a red light, then proceeding through with caution, why do they routinely cruise the highways of Massachusetts at 80-85 mph and more, with impunity, while we most certainly would receive a ticket for those speeds?"
I'll give you a clue: they don't have to sit in traffic. On go the blue lights, everyone pulls over, and off they go. It's commonplace. Ambulance drivers, fire department vehicles: they all do it. And the most ironic thing is that the law in Massachusetts says that you have to pull over if a police officer is behind you. Get this: if you are going the speed limit or below and don't pull over, he can cite you for failure to keep right. He'll put on the ticket that traffic was passing you on the right, that you weren't passing anyone, whatever he wants to say, because it's his word against yours. Naturally, if you're going over the limit and he's behind you, you're automatically heading for trouble, at his discretion, of course. And this discretion is the case in point which I want to make about traffic safety: cell phones.
Cell phones are in the eyes of most serious and safe drivers I know the biggest hazard to highway safety extant. These buffoons are not attentive: they are concentrating on their conversation. They can not hear horns or other warning sounds. They can not turn their heads at an on-ramp or changing lanes to see the car in the blind spot, or don't even care to. They ride in the high-speed lane at rush hour at 55, oblivious to other drivers. They ride in the center lane at 55, oblivious to other drivers. Please, someone tell me what these dolts did behind the wheel before cell phones came along. It's easy, and they're still doing it: eating, putting on make-up, reading, drinking coffee. I know an Italian guy who smokes, drinks coffee, talks with a hand-held, and drives all at the same time, and he gesticulates all the while.
I thought that the law in Massachusetts says that you must have both hands available for operation of your vehicle at all times. Talking on a hand-held cell phone is prima facie evidence that that law is being broken. Why is the law not enforced? This is a serious safety problem.
If the law enforcement community grows a set of balls and starts to enforce the two hands concept, and of course a total ban on cell phones wouldn't be a bad idea, I won't bitch about the speed traps on Route 3 or about non-emergency behind-the-wheel shenanigans of Massachesetts State Police.
Let's get the cell phonies off the roads, or are you waiting for a friend or relative to be killed in an accident caused by one?

Originally Posted by modelcitizen

The officers are standing in the break-down lane southbound, with their cruisers in the crossover. One is shooting the cars with his radar gun, the other is flagging down the unfortunate shlubs who are speeding.

Originally Posted by modelcitizen

A. Where do you work, as a Security Guard at Wal-Mart? I know that red lights and high visibility of police cars are both deterrents to speed. I have seen Massachusetts State Police in the right-hand lane hidden next to and going the same speed as trailer trucks, just waiting for some cretin to go whizzing by in the left lanes. And you just don't get it about about rubber-neck delays during rush hour caused intentionally by Massachusetts State Police. They inconvenience thousands of motorists so they can write a handful of tickets. They could slow down traffic southbound just by being in it.

Originally Posted by modelcitizen

I drive better than you.
A. That's your opinion, you have no idea where I went to driving school, but as the old quote says, "Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius."

Originally Posted by modelcitizen

I dont care about cellphone drivers, I am too busy responding to people who think they know all about my job and dont have a clue.
A. The fact that you do not recognize cell phone users as a hazard to the public safety tells me at once you aren't too aware. I do not know all about your job, but I do know the hazards which I have to avoid on a daily basis, and more are caused by cell phone users than by drunk drivers.

Originally Posted by modelcitizen

Please do not get me wrong, and I of course mean no disrespect to any law-enforcement personnel, but cell phones are a danger. It's the same as wearing seat belts or helmets: if people are going to commit acts of stupidity by not wearing them, the government must stop them. It's the cost to society, not the taking away of an individual's rights, that we must consider.

Originally Posted by modelcitizen

Please do not get me wrong, and I of course mean no disrespect to any law-enforcement personnel, but cell phones are a danger. It's the same as wearing seat belts or helmets: if people are going to commit acts of stupidity by not wearing them, the government must stop them. It's the cost to society, not the taking away of an individual's rights, that we must consider.

Originally Posted by modelcitizen

As soon as there is police activity, on go the brake lights, and we, already facing an unpleasant and dangerous ride, start the ride north with two miles of stop-and-go, and get to see the state police waltzing around at their cruisers. They could not care less about the inconvenienced motorists in the northbound lanes. Let's put it this way: they are either ignorant or apathetic, or both.

Originally Posted by modelcitizen

You are very, very defensive about people questioning how you do your job. I'm sure you do it well, but learn to accept constructive criticism. This is, by no means, a character assassination.