View Full Version : Legislating stupidity
It's a sad statement that there's enough people so stupid that they text while driving, enough so, a no-texting-while driving law was passed in MA.
When I get in the car, before I start the car moving, I put my wireless hands-free in my ear, and never make phone calls unless stopped, etc. This sh&%^ is not rocket science...
It's astounding to me a law has to be passed because people are really that dumb. The few times I had to respond to a text when in the car, I pulled into a parking lot, etc to respond.
I understand the reason for such a law, but attempting to legislate common sense - yet again reminding how dumb and inconsiderate most people are - never seems to actually improve the situation.
Governor Deval Patrick yesterday signed into law legislation making Massachusetts the 29th state to ban texting behind the wheel for all drivers and any cellphone use for those under 18.
Violations will result in a $100 fine, and drivers under 18 will also have their licenses suspended for 60 days and be required to complete a safety course. The offenses will not be considered moving violations and will not result in insurance surcharges.
The law, the product of intense lobbying by safe-driving advocates and families of loved ones lost in fatal accidents, will take effect in 90 days, in October. It also requires drivers 75 and older to take vision tests and renew their licenses in person, rather than online.
The governor signed the bill in his office, surrounded by lawmakers, state officials, and relatives of those who have been killed in texting-related crashes. Bumper stickers placed around the bill read “Drive Now, Text Later.’’
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/07/03/new_state_law_spells_it_out_no_texting_behind_wheel/
Man people suck.
Business_Casual
09-25-10, 18:03
Whatever, dude. I text and email while driving all the time. So does everyone else on the beltway.
B_C
I saw in the news recently that a cop was texting while driving at a high rate of speed and crashed. I wonder if he got a ticket. :o
"Scientific tests" show that a person texting while driving is less capable of responding to hazards than someone who is legally drunk.
AS the old joke goes, we're better off having drunks behind the wheel than texters. At least the drunks are trying to drive...
ForTehNguyen
09-25-10, 20:21
this is not going to change accident rates, despite the fact that fatal accidents haev been dropping since the 80s but we've been using the cell phone more. More looking tough and revenue stream. This only eliminates one out of a million other ways to get distracted while driving
It's like that here in MI too.
Too many ****ing times I've seen idiots almost hit me or another because they were finger ****ing their damn phones.
The punishment should be sawing off one hand.
No anesthesia.
pilotguyo540
09-25-10, 23:49
Oh good lord! Look, some can, some can't! I get so damn bored when I drive that texting is about the only thing that keeps me alert at all. Do I do it during the morning commute? No. There are too many things to watch for. I will and do talk on the phone anytime. Again, some can, some can't. I can so I will. This nanny shit makes me sick.
kaiservontexas
09-26-10, 00:38
I had a girlfriend once who played a GBA while driving until I ripped it out of her hands.
Fine by me.
Oh good lord! Look, some can, some can't! I get so damn bored when I drive that texting is about the only thing that keeps me alert at all. Do I do it during the morning commute? No. There are too many things to watch for. I will and do talk on the phone anytime. Again, some can, some can't. I can so I will. This nanny shit makes me sick.
This is an ignorant set of statements. Maybe you (and everybody else) can...for now. If a person is doing anything other than concentrating on the road while driving, he or she is a danger to themselves, their passengers, and every other vehicle around them. And if a person cannot stay alert without texting, they shouldn't be on the road at all. Even though, some may argue that texting detracts from alertness in the first place...oh yeah, which is the whole reason for this conversation in the first place.
I think traffic & safety could be improved nationwide with just two enforced laws:
1. - No cell phone usage in an automobile.
2. - The left lane is for passing only.
People are still going to do #1 but make the penalty very stiff - $500. What's pitiful is #2 is a law on federal highways but I have never seen it enforced. No one wants to get off of cruise control...
.
Whatever, dude. I text and email while driving all the time. So does everyone else on the beltway.
B_C
That appears to be the problem. :rolleyes:
this is not going to change accident rates, despite the fact that fatal accidents haev been dropping since the 80s but we've been using the cell phone more. More looking tough and revenue stream. This only eliminates one out of a million other ways to get distracted while driving
Looks like another "feel good" law that will be a PITA for LE to enforce. Has anyone written tickets for this type of law in their own states? Could have been put under existing laws of doing stupid things while driving that is dangerous/moving violations.
pilotguyo540
09-26-10, 10:23
This is an ignorant set of statements. Maybe you (and everybody else) can...for now. If a person is doing anything other than concentrating on the road while driving, he or she is a danger to themselves, their passengers, and every other vehicle around them. And if a person cannot stay alert without texting, they shouldn't be on the road at all. Even though, some may argue that texting detracts from alertness in the first place...oh yeah, which is the whole reason for this conversation in the first place.
Ignorant my ass. Its true. Just because you don't belong on the road doesn't mean you don't have to be. People still have work to do for customers who don't guve a rats ass about any excuse. If I never had to drive again I would be happy. There are a million ways to get in a wreck. You can't outlaw them all. Demonizing a cell phone is just ignorant and lazy. The problem is that it works. That is the same tactic used by the brady campaign to take guns away. Maybe I am old fashioned when I say that legislators should mind their own business.
Every time you get on the road you are taking a risk. There are no guarantees. My sister just died in a car accident a few moths ago. She took a risk and lost. That was her fault. You are fooling yourself if you think these laws will make a difference. It will get out of hand. No eating in a car. No drinks. No stereo. Like I said before, some people can some can't. The nanny state is upon us and we wonder why we are losing our freedoms.
"Scientific tests" show that a person texting while driving is less capable of responding to hazards than someone who is legally drunk.
Similar tests also showed that listening to the radio while driving is almost as dangerous. I don't see them banning radios in cars. Although lets not give them any idea.
For the record I don't text or email while I drive but I do talk on the phone a lot. (Using a headset)
ForTehNguyen
09-26-10, 10:59
checking out that hot babe jogging trying to keep this a 10 is dangerous as well. Theres still a million other ways to get distracted which are unenforceable.
All the laws against handheld cell phone use make people think handsfree is safe. It is not.
Any distraction is unsafe, some drivers are better at managing the distractions and keeping enough focus on the road.
Our company, who has 500+ 18-wheelers, service trucks, cars, etc., forbids us to drive and use a cell phone, even in our personal vehicle if we are on company time.
I don't think people realize the risks. Laws are needed (but need to be enforced) when people's behavior put innocent people at risk.
I think eventually, enough outcry will force legislation to get cellphone companies to come up with a way for the GPS in cell phones to drop calls or limit them to 30 seconds, if a person is moving at a high-rate of speed.
It is a problem and I sure would hate to cause some innocent kid in the backseat of another car to be killed because I was negligent.
But maybe it's just me...
.
Business_Casual
09-26-10, 14:30
Demonizing a cell phone is just ignorant and lazy. The problem is that it works. That is the same tactic used by the Brady campaign to take guns away.
Exactly. It is shocking how people on a gun forum don't realize this.
B_C
Ignorant my ass. Its true. Just because you don't belong on the road doesn't mean you don't have to be. People still have work to do for customers who don't guve a rats ass about any excuse. If I never had to drive again I would be happy. There are a million ways to get in a wreck. You can't outlaw them all. Demonizing a cell phone is just ignorant and lazy. The problem is that it works. That is the same tactic used by the brady campaign to take guns away. Maybe I am old fashioned when I say that legislators should mind their own business.
Every time you get on the road you are taking a risk. There are no guarantees. My sister just died in a car accident a few moths ago. She took a risk and lost. That was her fault. You are fooling yourself if you think these laws will make a difference. It will get out of hand. No eating in a car. No drinks. No stereo. Like I said before, some people can some can't. The nanny state is upon us and we wonder why we are losing our freedoms.
The underlying problem is that you think it's about demonizing the cell phone. It's not. It's about people using them on the road and thinking that they (the person using the phone) are better than they actually are. It's not the phone, it's the people.
It's not the gun, it's the person. Kind of like how it's illegal to CCW when you're intoxicated. As it should be.
And please accept my condolences for your sister.
pilotguyo540
09-26-10, 15:36
The underlying problem is that you think it's about demonizing the cell phone. It's not. It's about people using them on the road and thinking that they (the person using the phone) are better than they actually are. It's not the phone, it's the people.
It's not the gun, it's the person. Kind of like how it's illegal to CCW when you're intoxicated. As it should be.
And please accept my condolences for your sister.
Thank you for your condolences.
Its not just about demonizing the cell phone. It is also about government intrusion, personal accountability, and any other excuse to rape me of my herd earned money.
The important thing is that sometimes bad shit happens to good people for no reason. When its your time, its your time.
Cheers.
Exactly. It is shocking how people on a gun forum don't realize this.
B_C
===============================
There are laws (which I support) stopping irresponsible people from discharging firearms, target shooting, shooting pests, and such, around inhabited areas. This puts innocent people in danger. You are against these laws? This is not gun control, it is trying to control stupid irresponsible people.
Irresponsible people are drivng their vehicles while talking or texting on a cell phone, and putting innocent people at risk.
Sooo...there's not a problem... Are you against DUI laws, too?
This video drove it home to me. (http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-10323039-48.html)
.
Business_Casual
09-26-10, 17:23
Are you against DUI laws, too?
Actually, I'm glad you brought that up. Because, yes, in large measure I am against them. I remember when you could legally drink while you drive - you just couldn't be intoxicated. There's is actually nothing wrong with have a few drinks and driving, in my opinion. I think you should know your limit, not depend on the government to tell you what it is.
Then along came MADD. Now you literally, in some jurisdictions, can't have any alcohol, period. That's what you call a slippery slope. Same thing happened with guns - from literally no laws about carrying to the point where in some jurisdictions you aren't able to even own a firearm.
It bears mentioning that the only reason we have BATFE agents today is they didn't have anything to do when prohibition ended.
B_C
.
Years ago, I had my wife and kid in the car and I could see some drunk swerving and just started coming over in my lane. Big ditches on both sides but by the Grace of God, just feet from us he swerved back over.
So, I came up with this "fair punishment" for DUI. I am a fair shot with a handgun, probably about as fair as the DUI guy is driving. I have never been drunk. Whatever the breath-alyzer number the DUI guy came up with, I would drink to match his number. He would stand 25-yards away with...say...a target on each side of his head and a target on each side of his body. Then, I get four shots. He would quickly see how it felt.
This is absolutely no different than what he chooses to do to everyone on the road when he drinks and drives.
Man! I hope they don't pass this into law. I don't feel like turning into a lush this late in life. :alcoholic:
But maybe it's just me... :)
.
Belmont31R
09-26-10, 18:13
Cell phone use while driving should be like Germany's unlimited speed catch.
If you are driving or texting while driving any accident you get into is legally presumed to be your fault. Just like if you go over 130KPH in Germany speed is presumed to be a factor but if you want you can exceed that.
Cell phone use while driving should be like Germany's unlimited speed catch.
If you are driving or texting while driving any accident you get into is legally presumed to be your fault. Just like if you go over 130KPH in Germany speed is presumed to be a factor but if you want you can exceed that.
============================
Man! I think that would be easy to enforce...just look at the cell phone records and the car's computer.
Whew! Might keep me from having to turn into an alcoholic. :)
.
On the one hand I support the idea that cell records should be pulled to evaluate if the at-fault driver was on the phone or texting when the accident happened, but on the other hand I don't think it should matter; a wreck is a wreck. Penalize the at-fault driver regardless of what they did to cause the accident, and the penalties should increase as the cost of damage or level of injury increases.
This does not change the fact that texting, or even talking on the phone, while driving is inherently stupid. Nobody is that important. Using the "well I've never gotten into an accident doing it yet" argument is equally stupid.
Business_Casual
09-26-10, 19:20
So, I came up with this "fair punishment" for DUI.
OK, but I don't think you'll get anyone to adopt that in the real world.
This is absolutely no different than what he chooses to do to everyone on the road when he drinks and drives.
No, it is what happens when someone intoxicated drives. It is different, just as discharing a firearm in a crowd is illegal if you do it for no reason, but legal if you do it to protect life.
Man! I hope they don't pass this into law. I don't feel like turning into a lush this late in life. :alcoholic:
Um, OK.
B_C
Thank you for your condolences.
Its not just about demonizing the cell phone. It is also about government intrusion, personal accountability, and any other excuse to rape me of my herd earned money.
The important thing is that sometimes bad shit happens to good people for no reason. When its your time, its your time.
Cheers.
But what happens when you're the cause of the bad stuff happening to good people for no reason?
What about the raping people of their lives?
Was it just their time?
This is an ignorant set of statements. Maybe you (and everybody else) can...for now. If a person is doing anything other than concentrating on the road while driving, he or she is a danger to themselves, their passengers, and every other vehicle around them. And if a person cannot stay alert without texting, they shouldn't be on the road at all. Even though, some may argue that texting detracts from alertness in the first place...oh yeah, which is the whole reason for this conversation in the first place.
So when are they going to outlaw radios in cars, or other people talking in cars or kids in cars? All are distractions from what you are supposed to be doing?
I'm not supporting texters...... but I am against the seemingly Zero Tolerance of some of these statements.
pilotguyo540
09-26-10, 20:18
But what happens when you're the cause of the bad stuff happening to good people for no reason?
What about the raping people of their lives?
Was it just their time?
Yes.
In the aviation world we have rules (far's) and guidelines (aim). The information in the AIM is not law but can be used against you if you royally **** up. Would this be a good compromise?
Nobody wants to be responsible for killing anyone on accident, but its not the governments job to protect everyone from everything. We don't want it to be.
Please excuse any tyypo's I am driving... Seriously I am.
Business_Casual
09-26-10, 20:29
The aviation analogy is apt - pilots are doing a lot of things in the cockpit. Oh, often one of them is texting airline control, isn't it? :cool:
B_C
pilotguyo540
09-26-10, 20:49
The aviation analogy is apt - pilots are doing a lot of things in the cockpit. Oh, often one of them is texting airline control, isn't it? :cool:
B_C
Yes, but to be fair, there are usually 2 distracted pilots instead of one distracted driver. But to reverse it again, pilots are much smarter and more orderly than the average driver. :D
Driving licenses are the best scam since the 3rd Reich.
You ever notice how most of these people can't really drive anyway? It doesn't stop people with suspended, revoked, non-existent or no-habla licenses from driving.
Speed limits are another great scam. I mean I've never gotten a ticket for speeding, but they ought to rename them "productivity tickets", you were doing stuff in a safe manner, but you were doing it too fast.
I'd rather pay for cops in taxes than tickets, sort of like protection money back in the big cities (and I mean that in sort of a good nostalgic way). I wonder how many people would prepay $1,000 every year for the right to drive as fast as they wanted to? How about 5k a year? There's got to be a supply demand curve that meets at a very lucrative point for licenses to break the law. Perhaps a progressive speed breaking tax would work? That way if you were making 50k a year, you could pay $500, but if you make 500k a year, you'd have to pay 5k, 10k, etc.
Drunk drivers that kill people do need to pay in blood, not joke jail sentences.
Well I have a different take on this than some of the people here. Back in the day (a couple years ago) when there were no "smart phones" and no touch screens, I would text while I drove. I could read a text and then reply with one hand, without looking at the screen while I drove. But that was via a pad that had bumps and indicators so that I could do it by touch. I now have an all touch screen phone with no reference point for texting/calling, and I realized (about 2 days after getting the phone) how dangerous it is to be staring at your phone while driving. (I was wandering out of my lane, I never left it, but it was enough to make my heart speed up when I looked back at the road and saw a truck right there).
I know that I will never text while driving (unless I go full on nerd and get a Bluetooth speech to text thing going on), just because I don't take stupid, easily avoidable risks with my life, or the lives of others.
And I know 2 people that have totaled their cars by rear ending someone at a red light, because they were texting and didn't even notice the car in front of them was stopped. And not trying to say anything here, but both were women. And both admitted to their phones as being the reason for the crash.
If something can wait 5-10 minutes for you to get where you're going before responding, why not just wait? I mean no one texts you if they're in trouble and need help ASAP, that's a call. And that's still legal. Texting is not as important as anyones life.
Business_Casual
09-27-10, 10:26
Wow, did you know that if you pull the trigger of a loaded Glock it can go off? Even if you didn't mean it? They should ban those things!
Or maybe people should take personal responsibility for their actions.
Doing dangerous things can be dangerous.
B_C
ForTehNguyen
09-27-10, 10:41
cell phones may be distracting yes but are they a significant enough source of distraction to cause more accidents?
I say no
http://jalopnik.com/5644967/texting-and-driving-may-not-lead-to-more-crashes?skyline=true&s=i
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/12/2010/09/340x_iihs_graphics_01.jpg
John_Wayne777
09-27-10, 10:41
If it were possible to legislate good judgment and sound reasoning then the United States would be the safest nation on the planet.
It isn't.
I get rather annoyed with the "Do something!!" mindset. The idea is that we witness people doing stupid things and some think that we should "Do something!" to stop them from doing those stupid things. Often the "something" that is done is passing new laws...laws which rarely seem to actually put a dent in the original behavior. That leads to crackdowns, which leads to more legislation, which leads to more crackdowns, and the next thing you know somebody has a felony conviction for peeing in public.
A woman I worked with lost her son in a car accident because the teenage girl driving the Ford Expedition that slammed into his Ford Escort at 55 MPH broadside ran a red-light...because she was on her cell phone. A few months later she circulated a petition to make using the cell phone while driving illegal in Virginia. I politely declined to sign her petition. While I was very sorry that her son was killed, her daughter-in-law was almost killed, and that her infant grandson was also injured...I didn't really see how giving the Commonwealth the power to write more tickets would lead to fewer instances of events like the one that took her son.
Holding the teenage girl responsible for her actions, on the other hand, would have probably done that. Instead, there was almost as much outpouring of sympathy for the girl who smashed into the family as there was for the family...so she received a slap on the wrist.
It just so happens that not six months later she was busted on DUI. Funny how that works out, isn't it?
Lowest common denominator policies rarely produce the intended result. Whether those happen to be dress codes in the office or laws that prohibit doing obviously stupid things, the end result is almost always the same: The problem children will still be problem children and the people who feel the most pain from the new rule will generally not be the ones who the policy/law was supposed to deal with.
Wow, did you know that if you pull the trigger of a loaded Glock it can go off? Even if you didn't mean it? They should ban those things!
Or maybe people should take personal responsibility for their actions.
Doing dangerous things can be dangerous.
B_C
I agree. I made a choice not because of the law changing here in Michigan, but because it's not worth it to me. That's my personal choice. I know that if I could do it in a manner that wouldn't take my eyes off the road, or possibly endanger the drivers around me, I would still do it.
But if you're against big brother in every way shape or form, buy an old car that doesn't meet any of the new government safety ratings, never wear a seatbelt, and email/txt on your phone all day long. Just remember that there are usually 2 parties in an accident, and (usually)only one of them is doing something wrong. Your conscious is yours to deal with
pilotguyo540
09-27-10, 12:19
You are the person responsible for your safety. Can you handle that?
Safety features are very nice and I would buy them even if they were not required. I am still opposed to the government stepping on my choices.
Speeding is against the law. Is it for safety??? No, it is for revenue. Plain and simple. You speed, I speed, we all speed. Are we any more of a danger at 70 vs 65 on an empty highway? Not really.
Talking while driving is illegal out here in Kali. Everyone does it anyways. It is just another excuse to bully people out of money. Everyone knows it and nobody seems to care. If you think this law is different, put on your big boy undies and grow up a little. Laws should never be based off of emotion. Voting for this will make you feel good for now, but nothing more.
What I find completely stupid is the legislation surrounding these "distractions." What the %&*$ do you guys think goes on in an aircraft cockpit? Talking to ATC, switching frequencies, tanks, aircraft configurations, transponder codes, engine mixtures, etc. ALL of these are distractions that are ten-fold more intense than typing a text message, yet the FAA finds it safe enough to allow passengers to fly on planes with the pilots doing these very things (even with two pilots, it's hard). Please don't tell me humans can't multi-task - they can.
No, this is a classic case of "let's punish the symptom instead of the disease." Stupid, irresponsible people should be punished. Kill someone in an accident while texting? Vehicular homicide. Almost cause an accident? License revoked for 6 months to a year. Repeat offenders? Revoked for life. And so on and so forth.
Instead of leaving it to people to text responsibly (while stopped or using a voice-to-text converter), ALL texting is now banned. Another liberty down the drain. And how's it going to be enforced? Just toss your phone to your passenger and claim it's theirs - you don't have a phone so you couldn't be texting.
And the repercussions? Are they going to start confiscating phones if they think you were texting to run forensics on? As an officer, you can't legally claim someone was texting if they can't PROVE you had a phone in your lap (where most people hold their phones while texting). What if someone's looking down trying to adjust their seat? The scenarios are endless, all thinks to some worthless bag of skin who can't think for themselves.
In Michigan you can still use your cell phone while driving, you simply cannot text on it.
And no, I did not vote for the law, but I am a responsible adult who will follow it.
And you need a lot of classroom and instruction time to get a pilots license. Just a little bit more than a drivers license. I don't really see how you can compare them. I don't know of many people that fly a plane at 80mph while flying 5 feet away from a family of 5 in another plane. . .
If you guys don't like the law, break it. It's your decision.
Just another, in a long and rediculous line of ways to "harass and collect" whilst appearing to "serve and protect".
They think just because they seem to have our "safety" in mind we won't notice they are robbing us blind. It works very well; all too well.
If people want to talk/text and drive go for it; when you almost hit me on the highway (Happens to me about 5 times a day and it is getting old); wave like you understand you are the one being a jack-off and taking my life into your hands for a trivial technologically mediated conversation, don't flip me off and become a belligerent asshole on a mission to make sure I know how inconsiderate and childlike you are; I already know very well.
I hate driving texters, but I hate unecessary liberty infringing legislation much much more.
The fewer laws and regulations we impose on ourselves the better off we are...
[QUOTE=WillBrink;767562]It's a sad statement that there's enough people so stupid that they text while driving, enough so, a no-texting-while driving law was passed in MA. =QUOTE]
Even more sad is it that we legislate these idiotic laws that people have no intention of following; it is just a way to collect $$$; they know the law won't stop anyone from texting while driving; it will give them a couple hundred thousand dollars of revenue that wasn't there before. Even worse yet is that we are all stupid enough to go along with this reigamaroe, and just keep allowing them to pass rediculous legislation, allow them to control a bit more of our personal lives each day, harass and steal from us on a consitent basis; while threatening imprisonment or death.
No matter what position our governments take on issues, and how they decide to deal with those issues; people are going to do what they are going to do. Let's get real and stop pushing legisaltion that is just plain dumb. Texting while driving is dumb; but writing a law that wastes money so we can fine people for texting while driving is downright stupid, pathetic and un-American.
Let's waste millions in tax dollars to pass the bill, milliions in tax dollars enforcing, and take cops off of more important crimes to enforce it; yeah that will stop people from texting while driving....
Why don't people just let people be for chrisake? DO we really need to control eachother this much? I think not!
Police officers use their computers while driving all the time, and that's not a slam against them. I don't see much difference between that and texting and I don't think we need another revenue generating law.
Talking on your cell phone while driving is illegal in CA and I see people doing it all the time. Why? Nobody gives a shit and they don't think they'll actually get a ticket for it which is the same thing that people will do with texting.
I see LEO's talking and texting while driving just as much as anyone else. In fact a few years back I was rear ended by one while he was talking on his cell phone. Man was he a total prick to deal with; tried to deny the call and say it was my fault, but his call log said otherwise, there was a traffic cam at the intersection and I had four witnesses (Good thing to, or who knows what might have happened to me/my pocket book)...
I agree there shouldn't be a law against texting while driving, but as someone who does it very often myself I also know how irresponsible and rather selfish it is. Never caused an accident doing so, but I also don't have the situational awareness I would have if I wasn't. The buttons are very small, easy to make spelling mistakes and get frustrated.
As far as the comments along the lines of "If someone kills you as a result of their texting that's life and it was your time"...please stop with the insanity. The selfish dumb**** who wasn't paying attention made it that person's time.
I don't think we need another revenue generating law.
.
Especially the way we classify things as "revenue generating". IF you can collect $45.00 now, but it cost you $100.00 to do so in the long run, you are "generating revenue" by the misplaced standards of our backasswords govt.
GermanSynergy
09-27-10, 14:15
I saw someone eating a cup of ice cream in Gainesville, VA on Friday night and kinda drove with their wrists. Kind of a sight to behold...
ForTehNguyen
09-27-10, 14:22
double post
ForTehNguyen
09-27-10, 14:24
this banning texting thing is like making murders committed with a certain weapon a worse offense than others. Uhh its still murder.
I saw someone eating a cup of ice cream in Gainesville, VA on Friday night and kinda drove with their wrists. Kind of a sight to behold...
the only reasonable solution is to ban ice cream, then radios, music, hot blondes in red convertibles,
Study: Texting and Driving Killed at Least 16,000 in US
Updated: 4 hours 43 minutes ago
http://www.aolnews.com/health/article/texting-and-driving-is-growing-american-killer-study-reports/19650470?test=latestnews
Texting bans don't seem to be 'working'
---
Texting-While-Driving Bans Fail as Rules Ignored, U.S. Insurer Study Says - Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-28/texting-bans-fail-as-u-s-drivers-ignore-rules-insurer-funded-study-says.html
ForTehNguyen
09-28-10, 11:23
the key paragraph. Oh noes, unintended consequences, didnt see that one coming!
The Highway Loss Data Institute study covered four states that prohibited driver texting in 2008 and 2009 -- California, Louisiana, Minnesota and Washington. Lund said that the bans may worsen the problem as drivers moved their phones out of sight to avoid detection, shifting their eyes farther from the road.
ForTehNguyen
09-28-10, 11:36
Study: Texting and Driving Killed at Least 16,000 in US
Updated: 4 hours 43 minutes ago
http://www.aolnews.com/health/article/texting-and-driving-is-growing-american-killer-study-reports/19650470?test=latestnews
I greatly distrust any DoT related data especially after the BS during the Toyota fiasco. NHTSA own database was a POS that was chock full of errors. For instance, it was found in some cases where there was bad tabulating, bad sorting (data columns and rows getting mixed up), bad QC on the data and they a few times they counted pets that died in a car wreck as "deaths" Ray La Hood always has some damn nanny agenda, making it even more distrustful.
La Hood is crying up a storm here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/texting-driving-bans-make-roads-safer-study/story?id=11744804&page=2
"This report is completely misleading," said LaHood in a statement after the study was made public. "Distracted driving-related crashes killed nearly 5,500 people in 2009 and injured almost half a million more. Lives are at stake, and all the reputable research we have says that tough laws, good enforcement and increased public awareness will help put a stop to the deadly epidemic of distracted driving on our roads."
The funny thing he say its 5500 deaths from "distracted driving related" crashes. How many of those were directly related to using a cell phone? Afterall, the cell phone is only one of countless ways to get distracted: radio, talking to a passenger, messing with the GPS, hot babe out jogging, etc. Even the govts numbers arent solid.
The funny thing he say its 5500 deaths from "distracted driving related" crashes. How many of those were directly related to using a cell phone? Afterall, the cell phone is only one of countless ways to get distracted: radio, talking to a passenger, messing with the GPS, hot babe out jogging, etc. Even the govts numbers arent solid.
Though this may be true to an extent, sounds like you are starting to reach a bit in order to debunk something that sounds perfectly plausible. Remember that I said I do it without issue as well, but we're talking people as a whole including teenagers.
And not everyone out there can claim to be a super drive-while-texting M4C hotshot. To fully understand, you must think outside this elite box.
:haha:
Moose-Knuckle
09-28-10, 16:03
It's called personal responsibility.
The average idiot doesn’t realize that driving is a privilege not a right, their since of entitlement is nauseating. From a sociological stand point I could write a thesis on humans and their behaviors behind the wheel. Most feel that the road belongs to them and to hell with everyone else. These kinds of people exhibit all types of behaviors, usually they are the ones who drive too fast and ride everyone else’s ass or they are the one’s driving 10 miles under the speed limit with a line of cars half a mile long behind taking up time and space. Ad texting and drinking their coffee and you get the recipe for disaster. Most cannot even drive while listing to the sounds that come out of their car’s speakers much less read street signs, digest the blitzkrieg of advertisement bill boards, and navigate the cardinal directions. You have female drivers donning their war paint while starring haplessly into their sun visor’s vanity mirror, soccer moms turned around giving her child who is in the back seat the Gettysburg address and so on and so fourth. And my favorite the herd mentality, no one can break loose and go ahead or stay behind the pack; no they have to stay all bunched up.
As other’s have mentioned you can’t legislate stupid nor can you fix it, you just have to endure it. . .
Driving is a right, just like gun ownership. Neither are respected to the degree they should be.
It's called personal responsibility.
The average idiot doesn’t realize that driving is a privilege not a right, their since of entitlement is nauseating. From a sociological stand point I could write a thesis on humans and their behaviors behind the wheel. Most feel that the road belongs to them and to hell with everyone else. These kinds of people exhibit all types of behaviors, usually they are the ones who drive too fast and ride everyone else’s ass or they are the one’s driving 10 miles under the speed limit with a line of cars half a mile long behind taking up time and space. Ad texting and drinking their coffee and you get the recipe for disaster. Most cannot even drive while listing to the sounds that come out of their car’s speakers much less read street signs, digest the blitzkrieg of advertisement bill boards, and navigate the cardinal directions. You have female drivers donning their war paint while starring haplessly into their sun visor’s vanity mirror, soccer moms turned around giving her child who is in the back seat the Gettysburg address and so on and so fourth. And my favorite the herd mentality, no one can break loose and go ahead or stay behind the pack; no they have to stay all bunched up.
As other’s have mentioned you can’t legislate stupid nor can you fix it, you just have to endure it. . .
It is a right to move freely about this country; it would not be too hard to see that driving a car would fit into this category. Where in our constitution does it say that driving is a privelege only bestowed to those deemed worthy by our government? I've never seen that anywhere in the consitution; in fact it says the exact opposite in the tenth amendment. What people sadly and oft forget is that things not specifically included/powers not specifically granted to the FED or States in the constitution are by default reserved by us people to decide how we THE PEOPLE deal with these new issues (Be they technological or otherwise) as they come up, not for our government to usurp control over and force on us.
And you need a lot of classroom and instruction time to get a pilots license. Just a little bit more than a drivers license. I don't really see how you can compare them. I don't know of many people that fly a plane at 80mph while flying 5 feet away from a family of 5 in another plane.
You're both proving and missing my point at the same time.
Yes, pilot's training DOES take more time, but that proves that multitasking IS possible with the correct training, therefore why should things like texting be illegal? With the correct training it's perfectly safe, therefore it shouldn't be made illegal for those that have discernment when and when not to do it. Those who do it unsafely should be criminally prosecuted (the common sense thing to do). Instead, the government has decided to make it illegal for everyone in an attempt to pocket money. This helps no one and hurts everyone.
Also, you can't mess up a car's fuel / air mixture while driving it (unless you've modified your car to do so), you can't set your altimeter to the wrong pressure levels, etc. If you mess up in a car, you pull over to the side of the road. Even if you wreck your car, there's a 99% chance you'll live. Do ANYTHING wrong in an aircraft and it could cost the lives of everyone on board. Yet pilots do MANY things that are much more distracting than texting while flying.
See the underlying hypocrisy?
It is a right to move freely about this country; it would not be too hard to see that driving a car would fit into this category.
Driving is a right? Maybe, but tell you what.
How about we designate two sets of roadways? One set for licensed drivers and one set for anyone and everyone without restriction? No speed limits, no age minimum, no alcohol restrictions.
You will most likely find me traveling on the licensed driver roadways.
Driving is a right? Maybe, but tell you what.
How about we designate two sets of roadways? One set for licensed drivers and one set for anyone and everyone without restriction? No speed limits, no age minimum, no alcohol restrictions.
You will most likely find me traveling on the licensed driver roadways.
That argument is called a "false dilemma." It makes it appear as if those are the only two options available, when in fact that is not the case.
THCDDM4 simply stated it was a right of the people. There's no reason to believe that the people couldn't require everyone to undergo the correct training before being allowed on the roadways. No where was it mentioned that there were no age minimums or alcohol restrictions. There is also a difference between lack of rule and common sense, of which THCDDM4 was promoting the latter.
Driving is a right? Maybe, but tell you what.
How about we designate two sets of roadways? One set for licensed drivers and one set for anyone and everyone without restriction? No speed limits, no age minimum, no alcohol restrictions.
You will most likely find me traveling on the licensed driver roadways.
So what your saying is we as a people don't have the simple gumption to devise a viable system of regulating drivers without our government intervening and holding our hands?? :rolleyes: Wrong. It is very ignoarant and dangerous to believe we as a people couldn't make a system work at least as good if not better than our Government; our government by the way that is very inefficient and has not our best wishes in mind. A Government that spends a Million dollars just to figure out how to spend 2 million dollars.
THCDDM4 simply stated it was a right of the people. There's no reason to believe that the people couldn't require everyone to undergo the correct training before being allowed on the roadways.
So then, we are talking about a right combined with legal restrictions? Such as the right to keep and bear arms? Or is there just a moral obligation to undergo this "training"?
Not trying to be a wiseguy, just how I see it. And I will gladly reiterate that I do not want to share the roadways with legally unregulated drivers.
So then, we are talking about a right combined with legal restrictions? Such as the right to keep and bear arms? Or is there just a moral obligation to undergo this "training"?
Not trying to be a wiseguy, just how I see it. And I will gladly reiterate that I do not want to share the roadways with legally unregulated drivers.
There's a difference between the people governing themselves and the government deciding what's best for the people. The first is Constitutional, the second is not.
The people should determine collectively what they deem is safe vs unsafe, NOT have a watch-dog legislating body step in and determine that something they do isn't safe for them and then try to collect money from that activity in the same breath.
If the people of their own state deem that texting is unsafe, then by all means, ban it (provided that they are not going against the Constitution in doing so), but they haven't. Instead, the government has stepped in, called it unsafe and made it illegal... and is now making money off of it. In the meantime, accident rates have risen. That's what happens when government gets involved. We've lost another freedom, have another law to abide by, and have another tax/penalty to pay should we be charged with what should be a non-issue.
Remember, remember, the 16th of December...
The people should determine collectively what they deem is safe vs unsafe, NOT have a watch-dog legislating body step in and determine that something they do isn't safe for them and then try to collect money from that activity in the same breath.
I absolutely positively agree with you here. Problem is, if we took a vote today among all citizens 18 and over, I suspect the vast majority would vote to keep such common sense legal restrictions in place. This for not only their own safety's sake, but that of their children as well who must also travel the roadways.
I know I would at least.
So then, we are talking about a right combined with legal restrictions? Such as the right to keep and bear arms? Or is there just a moral obligation to undergo this "training"?
Not trying to be a wiseguy, just how I see it. And I will gladly reiterate that I do not want to share the roadways with legally unregulated drivers.
Is the regulatiuon & testing involved in getting a drivers license keeping anyone safe? Driving is individual, you are either good at it, or youre not. Hopefully if you're not; you get some training and get better; but having this so called "test" that I could have passed before I even drove a car be the gold standard of if you are a safe driver is rediculous. I've taken several driving tests and I learned more from my parents and grandparents than anything that shit test had to offer. Even the driving portion of the test itself is a complete joke, "go up the street, turn left, parallel park the car, go back down the street, take a right, park the car; I'm deducting 2 points because you went to fast around that turn; you pass..."
How hard would it be to simulate that without the government involved?
I cannot speak of how the "System" would or should be, we as a people would devise a plan, move forward and amend that plan as necessary. It SHOULD NOT be regulated by our government. I am not arguing the symantics of how or what that system should or shouldn't be, just that our government has no right/place in their current control over such things.
I'm sure our system would be flawed just like every other, but at least it would be ours, and we would have 1 less thing that the govt controls.
I absolutely positively agree with you here. Problem is, if we took a vote today among all citizens 18 and over, I suspect the vast majority would vote to keep such common sense legal restrictions in place. This for not only their own safety's sake, but that of their children as well who must also travel the roadways.
I know I would at least.
Yes, but the problem is that regardless of how good or bad the law is, the government passed it unconstitutionally. A otherwise good law passed in the wrong way, for the wrong reasons, is a bad law.
Yes, but the problem is that regardless of how good or bad the law is, the government passed it unconstitutionally. A otherwise good law passed in the wrong way, for the wrong reasons, is a bad law.
^Exactly!
We could have the exact same system for all I care, as long as we the people are in the "drivers seat" so to speak (Pun intended) not the government forcing us to follow their decree, with penalty of fine or imprisonment if we do not follow.
Moose-Knuckle
09-29-10, 16:00
This is not 1776 where anyone can hook up their mule to the cart and head into town with ma and the kid folk. Today's cities are densely populated with complex highway networks spanning from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Modern automobiles can weigh upwards of thousands of pounds and have the ability to travel at high rates of speeds. People who choose to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways need to verify they are proficient in their knowledge of the traffic code and driving capabilities. We have people on the highways and byways who cannot even speak English much less read it. We have a large number of aging drivers who suffer from everything from being legally blind to having Alzheimer’s. If you choose to drive a vehicle on public roadways then that vehicle must be registered, it must be inspected (and pass), it must be insured, and you must be licensed (aka prove that you are a competent driver).
If it’s your right as an American to operate a motor vehicle on public roads then it is the right of those who own the roads to regulate who get’s to drive on them. And by that I don’t mean you and I the tax payer; I mean the state/feds that are responsible for their maintenance. I don’t know about other states but in Texas the state can and will take away your license if you have multiple No Insurance citations and or DWI’s.
What would the world be like if everyone who wanted to exercise their civil liberties and argue they didn’t need a license as it was their God given birth right to drive a tractor trailer down the road, fly an airplane, or steer an ocean going vessel? Chaos would ensue. . .
This is not 1776 where anyone can hook up their mule to the cart and head into town with ma and the kid folk. Today's cities are densely populated with complex highway networks spanning from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Modern automobiles can weigh upwards of thousands of pounds and have the ability to travel at high rates of speeds. People who choose to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways need to verify they are proficient in their knowledge of the traffic code and driving capabilities. We have people on the highways and byways who cannot even speak English much less read it. We have a large number of aging drivers who suffer from everything from being legally blind to having Alzheimer’s. If you choose to drive a vehicle on public roadways then that vehicle must be registered, it must be inspected (and pass), it must be insured, and you must be licensed (aka prove that you are a competent driver).
If it’s your right as an American to operate a motor vehicle on public roads then it is the right of those who own the roads to regulate who get’s to drive on them. And by that I don’t mean you and I the tax payer; I mean the state/feds that are responsible for their maintenance. I don’t know about other states but in Texas the state can and will take away your license if you have multiple No Insurance citations and or DWI’s.
What would the world be like if everyone who wanted to exercise their civil liberties and argue they didn’t need a license as it was their God given birth right to drive a tractor trailer down the road, fly an airplane, or steer an ocean going vessel? Chaos would ensue. . .
You're missing the entire point. No one's arguing safety vs chaos, that isn't the issue. You'd have to be a maniacal anarchist to want all rules, regulations, and government to end.
The issue is GOVERNMENT taking up the responsibilities that the Constitution implicitly left to the people. The framers knew that any government, even theirs, would eventually try to take away the rights and responsibilities of the people in the name of safety, authority, or any myriad of excuses. This is why they listed the rights of the government in the Constitution.
The framers originally intended our government to be different; the government can ONLY have the rights listed to it by the Constitution. Anything not listed is a right of the PEOPLE. This is a far cry from the Obama administration calling for states to ban texting while driving and them complying.
We're giving up our liberties in the name of "public safety," "a right to healthcare," "a right to an education," etc. Read the writings of our forefathers (the Federalist papers are a good place to start). This is not about rules and regulations - it's about a government overstepping its bounds.
Moose-Knuckle
09-29-10, 16:40
You're missing the entire point. No one's arguing safety vs chaos, that isn't the issue. You'd have to be a maniacal anarchist to want all rules, regulations, and government to end.
The issue is GOVERNMENT taking up the responsibilities that the Constitution implicitly left to the people. The framers knew that any government, even theirs, would eventually try to take away the rights and responsibilities of the people in the name of safety, authority, or any myriad of excuses. This is why they listed the rights of the government in the Constitution.
Our "supposed" government is different, because Constitutionally, it can ONLY have the rights listed to it by the Constitution. Anything not listed is a right of the PEOPLE. This is a far cry from the Obama administration calling for states to ban texting while driving and them complying.
We're giving up our liberties in the name of "public safety," "a right to healthcare," "a right to an education," etc. Read the writings of our forefathers (the Federalist papers are a good place to start). This is not about rules and regulations - it's about a government overstepping its bounds.
We the people are the GOVERMENT. Sure the system is broke but this thread is not about that. If it were then we would be talking about the Federal Reserve (the private corporation that owns America and us). We have elected officials that represent us to create and mandate traffic laws whether it be your local city council or the governor of your state. It's not some dark sinister plot to take away the Bill of Rights. If you have a problem with your local and or state traffic code then there are democratic ways of dealing with the matter; you can write your congressman, attend a city council meeting to voice your concern, vote, and the list goes on.
We the people are the GOVERMENT. Sure the system is broke but this thread is not about that. If it were then we would be talking about the Federal Reserve (the private corporation that owns America and us). We have elected officials that represent us to create and mandate traffic laws whether it be your local city council or the governor of your state. It's not some dark sinister plot to take away the Bill of Rights. If you have a problem with your local and or state traffic code then there are democratic ways of dealing with the matter; you can write your congressman, attend a city council meeting to voice your concern, vote, and the list goes on.
Apparently you missed the part where many of these texting laws are the result of the Obama administrations REQUEST to enact these laws. When did the PEOPLE ask for anti-texting laws? What about healthcare? More than 66% were against it, yet that passed. I guess that was what the people wanted, huh?
You're using circular reasoning to validate your argument. You're saying that, since the people elect the government, anything that government does is what the people WANTED because they elected them, and therefore those laws are by the people. If your argument isn't a perfect example of the corruption and backwards elitism present in today's government, I don't know what is. The government is supposed to REPRESENT the people, not decide for them. The PEOPLE did not ask for texting laws (or healthcare, or any other number of screw-ups that the current administration has committed), so they have no Constitutional right to try to pass them.
The American people did NOT ask for anti-texting laws (and the study shows that no one seems to be following it either); the government passed the law under the pretense it was trying "protect" the people. No where in the Constitution does it say that a state may strip a liberty in the name of safety. It does, however, state that government may not take a liberty, make it a privilege, and then tax for it. Funny, because texting results in a MONETARY fine with ZERO criminal liability, even though it was passed in the name of "safety."
The colonists wrote letters to the government in their time too. They pleaded, tried to bargain, and even tried to meet them halfway. So to your argument, your approach doesn't always work, nor is it appropriate when the government starts grossly overstepping its bounds.
Apparently you missed the part where many of these texting laws are the result of the Obama administrations REQUEST to enact these laws. When did the PEOPLE ask for anti-texting laws? What about healthcare? More than 66% were against it, yet that passed. I guess that was what the people wanted, huh?
I know the crux of this thread was texting while driving, but good or bad we can easily see the discussion has evolved into whether driving is a right or a privilege overall. Most of your recent posts confirm this.
And on top of that you are now reverting to health care, which has nothing to do with this discussion on a practical level. You either want unregulated drivers or you don't, and it seems you don't.
But that's fine and you are welcome to your opinion. I just don't believe you have justified it.
And on top of that you are now reverting to health care, which has nothing to do with this discussion on a practical level. You either want unregulated drivers or you don't, and it seems you don't.
But that's fine and you are welcome to your opinion. I just don't believe you have justified it.
Again, I want regulated drivers. And I want regulations in general. But when the FEDERAL government comes in and asks states to pass anti-texting laws, and they comply, something is wrong. The other examples (i.e. healthcare and driving itself) simply show more of the same. I'm not trying to defocus the thread, I'm just showing a pattern.
You can't tell a fish it's in water until you take it out of it. Likewise, you can't convince most people they're losing liberties until there's none left to lose. All of these laws are being passed by government without regard to liberty... and most of us have accepted them in the name of "safety" and "the greater good."
If the people of X state, of their own accord, did a study and found that lives being lost to texting while driving was unacceptable, and they pass a law by their own accord which does not benefit those in authority (e.g. no collecting money from the offense), then I'm completely for it. And I'm for any law like this. This ultimately results in each state having laws tailored to the lives and interests of its citizens - this is what the founding fathers intended. However, when the federal government (or elitist, majority state party leaders) comes in and demands us to pass laws that aren't by or for the people, it's wrong. I'm also against non-Constitutional lobbyists and special-interest groups for the same reason.
Laws should be made BY the people FOR the people, not by the GOVERNMENT for the SAFETY of the people. Last I checked, police officers can still type on their cruiser laptops while doing 70mph down the interstate while we can't even text on a phone while stopped. See the nanny-state hypocrisy?
And yet the first rule they pound into your head in flight school is what?
FLY THE AIRPLANE
All that other stuff is secondary. That's the problem with texting while driving. People forget to DRIVE THE CAR and they don't have the rigors of that simple rule instilled in them.
Yes, you're correct. But unlike driving, they also teach a common-sense approach as well.
Fly first, communicate second, comply third.
I'm assuming you're a pilot?
pilotguyo540
09-29-10, 17:55
I can't believe this thread is still alive. Yesterday on the front page of the USA today was an article stating that anti texting laws have led to an increase of accidents. I didn't bother posting because I figured we would have moved onto another argument :)
I am a little torn on the driving as a right or privilege. On one hand it is a "complex task" that requires training. On the other hand the only other choice is public transportation. That puts the government in control. Someone can shoot all the holes in this that they want, I am just thinking off the cuff. I just really think it sucks the way we allow these things to happen.
On the LE side, I saw a local cop talking on his cellphone while driving in his marked car. That wouldn't have been a big deal to me, except that his agency had just finished a targeted enforcement blitz against "distracted drivers," which their spokesman specifically said targeted people talking on phones while driving.
Here in NJ talking on the phone while driving is illegal, yet I still see police officers do it often almost 2 years (I believe) since the law was enacted.
But I think the only offensive aspect of it is how I have never seen one attempt to be discreet while doing so.
Moose-Knuckle
09-29-10, 18:03
The colonists wrote letters to the government in their time too. They pleaded, tried to bargain, and even tried to meet them halfway. So to your argument, your approach doesn't always work, nor is it appropriate when the government starts grossly overstepping its bounds.
Then I wish you the best of luck as you rage war and revolution upon the District of Columbia over the implementation of don't text while drive laws.
Then I wish you the best of luck as you rage war and revolution upon the District of Columbia over the implementation of don't text while drive laws.
And yet our own revolution arguably started over a tea tax. :rolleyes:
Ironic how we forget details like that. Reagan was right when he said "Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction." Arguing that a texting law isn't worth fighting against in the name of freedom is of the mentality that makes that statement true.
Moose-Knuckle
09-29-10, 21:00
And yet our own revolution arguably started over a tea tax. :rolleyes:
Arguably indeed, there were many more contributing factors for the War of Independence than mere taxation without representation. The regulation of cellular devices wasn't one of them. . .
If you have beef with the Federal government on creating laws forbidding texting while driving then you should really be pissed at the FCC's regulatory practices of cell phone frequencies.
Ironic how we forget details like that. Reagan was right when he said "Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction." Arguing that a texting law isn't worth fighting against in the name of freedom is of the mentality that makes that statement true.
No one has forgotten anything; you just want to beat a dead horse.
Finally, a cop in a locality about 30 min from me just got nailed with a $2mil verdict against him because he was talking and e-mailing from his cruiser while responding at 126mph to a call where other officers had already arrived. His extracurricular activities caused him to cross over to the wrong side of the road and hit another car head-on.
Do you mean this officer who was on paid leave for 2 years while the investigation was completed, was found guilty, and is now suing for worker's comp due to the accident?!?! http://abcnews.go.com/Business/illinois-killer-cop-workers-comp/story?id=11738010
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.