Chicagoist: City Council Passes Driver Cell Phone Ban

gatorfan

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:49:44 -0600

It's just another scam to make money for the city. They aren't ticketing people for eating or putting on makeup. The first offense IS NOT $50. I just got back from court and it was about $150 with court costs imposed as well. The City of Chicago is ADDICTED to giving tickets of EVERY sort. Cell phones, parking meters, residential parking, city stickers. We might as well live in NYC which is at at least a bit more interesting of a place.. the tickets are lower and the cops and meter maids aren't OBSESSED with handing out tickets for everyting.

Gillam

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:13:39 -0600

Better the foot slip than the tongue. Gillam.

brian

Thu, 04 May 2006 17:53:33 -0600

interesting comments, health is very important, topic of my new book

Internet Casino

Mon, 05 Dec 2005 05:24:13 -0600

Take your time to check

YL

Wed, 11 May 2005 19:35:04 -0600

As any intelligent person knows, cell conversations are more distracting than passengers because they -- "WHAT!?" -- require -- "YOU'RE BREAKING UP!" -- total -- "CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?" concentration just in order to -- "WAIT, I MISSED MY TURN" -- communicate. Plus, the person you're talking to on the cell phone has no vested interest in pointing out that you're about to run a red light. Granted, this ban doesn't go far enough. As Zorn likes to point out, hands-free phones aren't any less distracting than hand-helds. But it's a step in the right direction. Chicago's pedestrians and cyclists are gradually having their freedom to travel safely enhanced.

The_city_of_Chicago_hasn't_assigned _me_an_approved_name_yet

Wed, 11 May 2005 18:22:16 -0600

As any intelligent person knows, it is not the physical act of dialing and holding the phone to their ear that causes problems. The distraction is the actual conversation. So, what's next? If your driving with a passenger in your vehicle, you must sit in complete silence. Chicagoans are gradually having their freedom stripped away and are doing nothing about it.

Mr. Smith

Wed, 11 May 2005 16:48:57 -0600

Oh man, Benjy. That sounds like heaven.

Benjy

Wed, 11 May 2005 16:41:23 -0600

As a recent victim of an accident caused by a cell phone driver, I favor this. However, I see other things as potential distractions equally as bad and I'm not sure how realistic it is to enforce everything, as Ald. Burke proposed. How does he see this expanding this to all distractions? Using a hand-free device for a cell phone is one thing... but how are we supposed to drink our morning coffee on the way to work!?!? Are we going to have to use those camelback things and drink coffee through a hose?

pedestrian

Wed, 11 May 2005 16:28:45 -0600

After nearly getting run over by yet another jagoff running a red light while chatting it up on his celly just yesterday, all I've got to say is IT'S ABOUT FRICKING TIME!!!!!!!!

Tannerman

Wed, 11 May 2005 16:28:21 -0600

Overall, I think this is a good thing. It's going to require a change of behavior (and sales of hands-free devices will go up), but overall, good stuff. Plus, shuts up more idiots.

Eric

Wed, 11 May 2005 16:26:53 -0600

So, the cops are using cell phones instead of radios these days? I really don't understand the exemption for law enforcement officals. Is a cell phone generally used to help fight crime?