Phones Bluetooth

[Turtle]

Any thoughts on Plantronics Voyager Legend?

Not from me. I've never used it. Or the Tiger. I went through every Motorola and Jawbone and a few others of that :stick it in the ear" type, and every one of them it was they could hear me but I couldn't hear them, or I could hear them and they couldn't understand me. I finally found the Blue Parrot, and because it works so well (and looks ever so stylish!) I haven't seen any need to try something else.

 

[TruckTurner65]

Back when I got the Nokia headphones is when I first looked into all this in depth. I was actually very surprised at how many states don't disallow the headphones covering (or in) both ears. I figured none of them would allow it because A) it's something I wanted to do, and B), it makes sense not to intentionally cut yourself off from honking horns and sirens. That's when I discovered the 18 states on the map that don't allow it. And just to be sure, I went to every one of those state's actual statues and read what it said. I also looked at the laws at the other Midwest states that I frequent, just to be sure.

Florida, incidentally, at the time I originally looked it up, did not have the motorcycle helmet exemption that is now has. That may be why AAA has it wrong (incomplete, rather). But generally speaking, I tend to go and read a state's actual law rather than summaries from a third party Web site.

When I had the Nokias in the truck it was kinda nice driving down the road with the noise canceling activated, even when I wasn't listening to music or anything. But I never did that in heavy traffic, only out on the rural Interstates. I didn't want to not be able to hear the sirens or any horn, just in case.

[A)] Cracks me up. That's usually what I run into.
I never did any research and never even considered it being an issue. I don't consider it common sense as someone indicated earlier. A headset, especially an on ear one does not isolate sound- you can still hear horns and such. You can turn your stereo up so you can't hear, so what's the difference? I DJ and I've driven PROUDLY with over the ear studio headphones. Matter of fact I hit a clown in NJ who thought he was gonna jump in front of me in gridlock. He jumped out his car and started yelling. He pulled over. I kept going. Later I told the cops I didn't know I hit him and that he jumped out the car and started babbling, but I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE SAID BECAUSE I HAD MY HEADPHONES ON!!!!
To me it's just like stupid window tint laws. People say cops can't see in your car. Ok, but is it illegal to have a van that doesn't have any windows? No? Then shut up! It's called inconsistent lawmaking! I can't talk on the phone, gotta go purchase a hands free device, but you can eat a four course meal????! Either ban everything or ban nothing!
I'm ranting. Sorry.

 

[Turtle]

Yeah, it's really not a good idea to turn the stereo up so loud that you can't hear, either, even though a lot of people, myself included, do it all the time (although in a Sprinter with only the dash speakers, that's not an easy thing to do without blowing the speakers). Sense, common and otherwise, tells you that it's not a good idea to drown out or block ambient or external noise that may be important, like sirens, honking horns, or screamed pleas to stop backing up over someone or some thing.

The really ironic thing about hand-held cell phones versus hands-free talking is, every study that's been done on the issue show that both methods of using a cell phone result in exactly the same diminished alertness and response times. The rationalization is that talking on a headset is functionally no different than talking to passengers. But talking to passengers also results in the same diminished alertness and response times, and isn't that funny. If the cell phone laws were based on actual fact, we wouldn't be able to use them at all while driving, with or without a headset. But lawmakers faced too strong an outrage from constituents to go that far. That's also why we don't have helmet laws when driving or riding in a car, despite helmets being far more of a factor in saving lives than seat belts.

As for windowless vans, a van with no windows is called a tank in the Army.

Most of the window tint laws are mainly concerned with the windshield and the two windows to the driver's immediate left and right. The windows behind the driver are less affected by tint laws, with those windows mostly being allowed any amount of tint you like or darker tint than the front windows. About one-third of the states allow them to be blacked out completely.

As for that four course meal, while there are no state laws that I'm aware of that specifically prohibit eating while driving, there are plenty of much broader laws against distracted driving. If an officer determines you are a danger to others due to the distraction of eating, grooming, using music controls, talking to passengers, drinking, smoking, etc., they can ticket you for either distracted driving or reckless driving. Lots of examples of that to be found. Last year in Kentucky, the State Police set up checkpoints, like the sobriety checkpoints, to look for people driving while eating, even though it's not illegal. It was to "educate the public" about the dangers of distracted driving. Meanwhile, police response times to actual emergencies continue to grow. <snort>