Texting While Driving: Do We Need a Law?

[mykevermin]

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/Politics/story?id=8246302&page=1

The US Transportation Secretary advocates a law banning texting while driving.

What are your opinions? Many state legislatures are discussing it currently (have any passed laws? I suspect not, but don't really know) - some think that this is more government intrusion into our personal lives, while others feel that this presents a consistent danger to others on the road by virtue of the amount of attention required to text.

What do y'all think?

[dmaul1114]

People shouldn't do it, but I doubt a law would help much. It couldn't be enforced much in the places where it's most dangerous (i.e. interstates and other roads with higher speeds) as it would be near impossible to enforce as it's hard for cops to see what someone is doing when they drive by at high speed, especially texting with a phone in their lap etc.

It could be enforced more in the city when they see someone doing it at a stop light in the car next to them etc., but that's less dangerous so you're basically letting the people doing it will driving get a pass most of the time and just catching people at lights etc. more often.

It's just harder to enforce vs. places that require hands free to talk where it's easy to see someone holding a phone up to their ear.

[Liquid 2]

What ever happened to good ol' reckless driving laws? I don't see why we need to complicate things.

[spmahn]

Many states already have laws against talking on the phone while driving, wouldn't texting be covered under the same law? I'm always against government intrusion in our lives, but this only makes sense to me, as I have no problem with regulating stupidity. If you have send a text message so urgently that you can't wait until your car stops, then maybe driving isn't for you.

[Liquid 2]

Many states already have laws against talking on the phone while driving, wouldn't texting be covered under the same law? I'm always against government intrusion in our lives, but this only makes sense to me, as I have no problem with regulating stupidity. If you have send a text message so urgently that you can't wait until your car stops, then maybe driving isn't for you.

Or, maybe, some people can text and drive at the same time. I do it all the time, but I also look up every 2-3 letters, and I never do it when I don't have a ton of space. Pretty reasonable, I think. Not much different than playing with your stereo or talking on the phone.
Now, if you start jumping lanes when you text, then you should be stopped. Big difference though.

Reckless driving laws cover all this garbage just fine; our politicians just love having another story about how they "care about the children" and waste taxpayer time and money.

[HowStern]

Before one of our kids gets run over while swimming (yes, you read that right (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1203395/Pictured-Trucker-crashes-swimming-pool-texting-mobile-phone-talking-another.html)) something needs to be done.

I can't even believe people do this.

Liquid2, you're unbelievable. It takes 2 seconds for a kid to jump into the road. Please, seriously stop, your texting convos can not be that important.

[Sdawg]

We already have a law prohibiting texting while driving in TN, but since it went into effect July 1st, there has only been a few tickets given for it and I doubt that it has affected the situation as much as the police claim. It all boils down to the fact that on interstates and highways where it is the most dangerous, the cops have a split second window to see a person texting. If anything all a law would do is make people think twice about doing it, but the chances of actually being ticketed for it are slim.

[dmaul1114]

Or, maybe, some people can text and drive at the same time. I do it all the time, but I also look up every 2-3 letters, and I never do it when I don't have a ton of space. Pretty reasonable, I think. Not much different than playing with your stereo or talking on the phone.


I see it as different as it takes your eyes of the road much longer than changing a radio station, skipping a track on a CD, or pressing the answer button no your phone as you have to look down several times, and that's all it takes to have an accident as something jumped out in front of you while you were distracted etc.

I'll confess to talking on the phone a lot while driving. But I never dial. If it rings I can grab it and hit the answer button (send key) without taking my eyes off the road and I drive with only my left hand on the wheel 99% of the time anyway.

But I've NEVER, remotely considered texting while driving. Or even opening a text message I receive while driving as that's just to discracting as it requires diverting my eyes from the road more than I'm comfortable with.

[trq]

See, I was going to post that we don't need new laws; everyone knows it's reckless, so the existing reckless driving laws should cover it, but now I'm not so sure.

Or, maybe, some people can text and drive at the same time. I do it all the time, but I also look up every 2-3 letters, and I never do it when I don't have a ton of space. Pretty reasonable, I think.

No. Stop doing that shit. Seriously. You're gonna hurt yourself, or worse, someone else.

"... people who send text messages while driving are 23 times more likely to be in a crash (or what they call a near-crash event) than nondistracted drivers. ...

In crashes or near-crashes, texting took a driver's focus away from the road for an average of 4.6 seconds--enough time, the report point out, to travel the length of a football field at 55 mph.

By contrast, talking on a cell phone, which allows drivers to keep their eyes on the road, represented an increased risk of only 1.3 times that of a nondistracted driver. "

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10296992-94.html

And that's the more conservative study, that "called into question past research that indicated driving while talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as driving drunk."

[RAMSTORIA]

we already have one here. i havent noticed a difference as i see people texting on the phone all the time still. same with talking on the phone, which is illegal out here without a hands free device.

[xycury]

It can't be enforced, and people should just not do it. It would be nice to say, not be able to txt call while the car is on.... but well people are still idiots.

[seen]

we already have one here. i havent noticed a difference as i see people texting on the phone all the time still. same with talking on the phone, which is illegal out here without a hands free device.

^Don't forget to mention hardly anyone follows the "hands free law"; sadly some law enforcement doesn't either.

[fullmetalfan720]

Yes. We've got laws against drinking and driving, and we should have them against texting and driving.

[mykevermin]

It can't be enforced, and people should just not do it. It would be nice to say, not be able to txt call while the car is on.... but well people are still idiots.

Like speeding laws, though - it can't "be enforced" meaning enforced all the time and every time.

But it is enforced. Speeding laws have, as dmaul might say (;)), a general deterrent effect that helps us all - even if we all violate the speed limits to varying degrees.

[speedracer]

Make the ticket $400 or 24 hours of pickin up trash on the freeway. It's expensive enough to bite most people in the ass while letting our young people get a breath of the fresh air on the side of a highway.

[crystalklear64]

Its already against the law to talk on the phone without a hands free device, just do the same for texting. Sure you can text if you can do it without your hands.

[dmaul1114]

By contrast, talking on a cell phone, which allows drivers to keep their eyes on the road, represented an increased risk of only 1.3 times that of a nondistracted driver. "

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10296992-94.html

And that's the more conservative study, that "called into question past research that indicated driving while talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as driving drunk."

Yep the talking on a cell phone isn't all that distracting. Really not any more distracting that talking to a passenger in the car--assuming you normally drive with one hand on the wheel anyway.

The distraction comes from shit like trying to dial while driving, dig the phone out of a pocket when it rings etc. But I don't see it as a big deal to answer the phone if it's easily accessible (i..e in the cup holder beside you etc) where you can grab and answer without taking your eyes off the road.

But texting is like dialing x 10 since it requires multiple looks away from the road and more than 10 digits to enter.

^Don't forget to mention hardly anyone follows the "hands free law"; sadly some law enforcement doesn't either.

Yeah, I had a cop going the opposite direction swerve toward me a while back on a city street and saw he was texting while driving!

Like speeding laws, though - it can't "be enforced" meaning enforced all the time and every time.


But speeding can be enforced with equal effectiveness on any type of road really. They can sit with a radar on an interstate with a 70 mph speed limit just as easily as a school zone with a 15 mph limit.

Where as with texting it's very tough to catch sitting on the side of the interstate and watch cars zoom by (where it's most dangerous to do) and much easier to detect in slower city traffic, at stop lights etc. (where it's relatively less dangerous).

So that's my issue with it. It's going to mainly only catch the less dangerous behaviors.

[prmononoke]

No.

It's more government intrusion into our personal lives. We need to abolish laws, not add them.

[UncleBob]

Am I the only one who *can* text without taking my eyes off the road?

Anywhoo, I agree - should be covered under existing reckless driving laws, can't reasonably be enforced (even after the wreck, who's to say the passenger wasn't texting for you?).

And kids that jump out in traffic... well, that's Darwin in action.

[HowStern]

No.

It's more government intrusion into our personal lives. We need to abolish laws, not add them.

So, then, you must think drinking and driving laws are intrusive too? We should abolish those then!


@Unclebob, no kids jumping out into the road is kids getting caught up in playing and going a little too far to catch that ball. Kids whose brakes didn't work on their bikes for that split second. Kids who tripped on the sidewalk.

Texting drivers crashing is Darwin in action.

[Liquid 2]

What ever happened to good ol' reckless driving laws? I don't see why we need to complicate things.So does no one have an answer to this?



Liquid2, you're unbelievable. It takes 2 seconds for a kid to jump into the road. Please, seriously stop, your texting convos can not be that important.I don't do it where kids will be around.

I see it as different as it takes your eyes of the road much longer than changing a radio station, skipping a track on a CD, or pressing the answer button no your phone as you have to look down several times, and that's all it takes to have an accident as something jumped out in front of you while you were distracted etc.What about finding a new CD and changing the disc or changing whatever is playing on your mp3 player? Is that alright?

I re-evaluate whether or not it's safe to text every time I look up. I've definitely stopped mid-message when I deem it unsafe. It takes me less than half a second to type 2-3 letters because I can feel my way around the keyboard pretty well, so that takes even more time off when I'm looking at my phone instead of the road. I also look at the road for longer than I look at my phone when I check things.


No. Stop doing that shit. Seriously. You're gonna hurt yourself, or worse, someone else.

"... people who send text messages while driving are 23 times more likely to be in a crash (or what they call a near-crash event) than nondistracted drivers. ...

In crashes or near-crashes, texting took a driver's focus away from the road for an average of 4.6 seconds--enough time, the report point out, to travel the length of a football field at 55 mph.

By contrast, talking on a cell phone, which allows drivers to keep their eyes on the road, represented an increased risk of only 1.3 times that of a nondistracted driver. "

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10296992-94.html

And that's the more conservative study, that "called into question past research that indicated driving while talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as driving drunk."
I don't know what assumptions they made when they did that study. I do know that it takes me far, far less than 4.6 seconds to type a couple letters. Like I said above, I'd be surprised if I spent even more than half a second looking at my phone at any given time.

[UncleBob]

@Unclebob, no kids jumping out into the road is kids getting caught up in playing and going a little too far to catch that ball. Kids whose brakes didn't work on their bikes for that split second. Kids who tripped on the sidewalk.

Texting drivers crashing is Darwin in action.

Agreed on that last point - if you text while driving and end up dead, well, that's what you get for being stupid.

However, if your kid is too "caught up in playing" that they run into the street in front of a moving vehicle, then the kid was dumb or you did a horrible job teaching them not to do so. Somehow, every day, millions of kids avoid the urge to run out into the street in front of moving vehicles. Besides, what's a kid doing unsupervised playing near the street anyway?

When I was little, the brakes actually did go out on my bike. Riding it down a small city street, I was going pretty fast. Coming up on an intersection, I couldn't stop and a truck was coming. So I jumped off the bike. The truck managed to stop in time and I walked away with a few scratches (and a new bike, with new brakes, the next day - whoo!). I was, like, 8 at the time. If I could figure that out, I figure most kids can. Those that can't - well, Darwin.

[n8rockerasu]

Here's my question for those of you who think texting while driving is ok. What if you saw somebody reading a book while driving, or the newspaper. Or even better, doing a crossword puzzle in the newspaper. At what point does it become ridiculous and cross the line?

Personally, I think simply talking on the phone can be equated to talking to another passenger in the car...aside from being an idiot and having to rummage around for your phone and generally not paying attention to what you're doing. But people do that same thing looking for CDs, cigarettes, etc. So, blaming it on the phone rather than the person is unfair.

HOWEVER, engaging in an activity that (typically) requires you to look at your screen and spell out words letter by letter is a little harder to justify as being "necessary". For that matter, why not just use your laptop while driving? Or play Nintendo DS? Regardless of whether any of you "can" do it or not, it's dumb, and you sure as hell don't need to be doing it. If it's that important, pull over, and grow the fuck up.

[soulvengeance]

Or, maybe, some people can text and drive at the same time. I do it all the time, but I also look up every 2-3 letters, and I never do it when I don't have a ton of space. Pretty reasonable, I think. Not much different than playing with your stereo or talking on the phone.
Now, if you start jumping lanes when you text, then you should be stopped. Big difference though.

Reckless driving laws cover all this garbage just fine; our politicians just love having another story about how they "care about the children" and waste taxpayer time and money.

Some people can drink and drive too, doesn't mean it should be allowed.

[n8rockerasu]

Agreed on that last point - if you text while driving and end up dead, well, that's what you get for being stupid.

However, if your kid is too "caught up in playing" that they run into the street in front of a moving vehicle, then the kid was dumb or you did a horrible job teaching them not to do so. Somehow, every day, millions of kids avoid the urge to run out into the street in front of moving vehicles. Besides, what's a kid doing unsupervised playing near the street anyway?

When I was little, the brakes actually did go out on my bike. Riding it down a small city street, I was going pretty fast. Coming up on an intersection, I couldn't stop and a truck was coming. So I jumped off the bike. The truck managed to stop in time and I walked away with a few scratches (and a new bike, with new brakes, the next day - whoo!). I was, like, 8 at the time. If I could figure that out, I figure most kids can. Those that can't - well, Darwin.

That's still a dumb argument. As an adult, you have a far greater responsibility (and mental comprehension...hopefully) to be accountable for your actions than a child. I agree that the parents should be looking out for the kid and teach them good habits, but it still doesn't mean you get a pass. If you kill a kid because you're texting, and the best defense you can give the judge is "well, he didn't look either!", I hope you enjoy your stay in prison.

[HowStern]

Agreed on that last point - if you text while driving and end up dead, well, that's what you get for being stupid.

However, if your kid is too "caught up in playing" that they run into the street in front of a moving vehicle, then the kid was dumb or you did a horrible job teaching them not to do so. Somehow, every day, millions of kids avoid the urge to run out into the street in front of moving vehicles. Besides, what's a kid doing unsupervised playing near the street anyway?

When I was little, the brakes actually did go out on my bike. Riding it down a small city street, I was going pretty fast. Coming up on an intersection, I couldn't stop and a truck was coming. So I jumped off the bike. The truck managed to stop in time and I walked away with a few scratches (and a new bike, with new brakes, the next day - whoo!). I was, like, 8 at the time. If I could figure that out, I figure most kids can. Those that can't - well, Darwin.


Keywords "the truck managed to stop in time"

Darwin has little to do with brake efficiency.

[elprincipe]

We do need a law, along with no dialing cell phones while driving. 80 percent of accidents are caused by distracted drivers:

http://www.automobile.com/distracted-drivers-cause-80-percent-of-accidents.html

While I usually wouldn't care if someone is being stupid, when their being stupid causes them to endanger my life and others' lives it's time to throw the book at them. I think our requirements for driving are far too lenient in this country and driver's ed is a joke. If someone gets caught drunk driving, their license should be suspended 10-15 years, first offense, or even just suspended for life on the first offense. Idiots who text while driving should be severely dealt with as well. You think the 4,000 who died in Iraq in six years is a horrible toll? Yes, it is, but more than 10 times that many die in car accidents EVERY YEAR.

[Liquid 2]

Here's my question for those of you who think texting while driving is ok. What if you saw somebody reading a book while driving, or the newspaper. Or even better, doing a crossword puzzle in the newspaper. At what point does it become ridiculous and cross the line?

Personally, I think simply talking on the phone can be equated to talking to another passenger in the car...aside from being an idiot and having to rummage around for your phone and generally not paying attention to what you're doing. But people do that same thing looking for CDs, cigarettes, etc. So, blaming it on the phone rather than the person is unfair.

HOWEVER, engaging in an activity that (typically) requires you to look at your screen and spell out words letter by letter is a little harder to justify as being "necessary". For that matter, why not just use your laptop while driving? Or play Nintendo DS? Regardless of whether any of you "can" do it or not, it's dumb, and you sure as hell don't need to be doing it. If it's that important, pull over, and grow the fuck up.So, why can't such things be covered by reckless driving laws?
As for crossing the line: I can look away from the road for less than half a second, type a few letters, and look back at the road. You can't read a book like this, much less a newspaper. Same goes for a laptop or a DS.

I can text and drive safely. Others can't, and are reckless, which shows in their driving, and will result in them (hopefully) getting pulled over.

Some people can drink and drive too, doesn't mean it should be allowed.

Drinking literally impairs your judgement and reaction time. Comparing a drunk driver to a driver who looked away from the road for less than half a second is just silly.

[RAMSTORIA]

Make the ticket $400 or 24 hours of pickin up trash on the freeway. It's expensive enough to bite most people in the ass while letting our young people get a breath of the fresh air on the side of a highway.

that would help more than the law. right now in california the hands free law is sort of like a fix it ticket, if you buy a head set after the ticket the fine is reduced to a negligible amount.

[soulvengeance]

So, why can't such things be covered by reckless driving laws?
As for crossing the line: I can look away from the road for less than half a second, type a few letters, and look back at the road. You can't read a book like this, much less a newspaper. Same goes for a laptop or a DS.

I can text and drive safely. Others can't, and are reckless, which shows in their driving, and will result in them (hopefully) getting pulled over.



Drinking literally impairs your judgement and reaction time. Comparing a drunk driver to a driver who looked away from the road for less than half a second is just silly.

Eh, I don't believe you really, but if you say so, sure. Even if you are able to now do it in half a second, at some point you had to work your way up to that point, so I'm sure you didn't start out at half a second, and by being distracted, your reaction time is slower. Actually, I'm 100 percent sure if we compared you to a driver who wasn't texting, your reaction time would be slower. I can't believe you're actually trying to argue that texting while driving is fine.

[n8rockerasu]

So, why can't such things be covered by reckless driving laws?
As for crossing the line: I can look away from the road for less than half a second, type a few letters, and look back at the road. You can't read a book like this, much less a newspaper. Same goes for a laptop or a DS.

I can text and drive safely. Others can't, and are reckless, which shows in their driving, and will result in them (hopefully) getting pulled over.

But it's the constancy of it. When you look down to type a few letters every few seconds, how many times does that happen? 10-15 times to complete a text? When you look back up, how long do you look at the road? At what point are you paying more attention to your texting than you are your driving?

Obviously, you have quite a high opinion of yourself, as your "texting ability" seems to be far superior to everyone elses. But in practical terms, it doesn't matter. It's not necessary, and you'll never prove to a court that it is. If anything, it's arrogant to think it doesn't affect you in any way.

[Liquid 2]

Eh, I don't believe you really, but if you say so, sure. Even if you are able to now do it in half a second, at some point you had to work your way up to that point, so I'm sure you didn't start out at half a second, and by being distracted, your reaction time is slower. Actually, I'm 100 percent sure if we compared you to a driver who wasn't texting, your reaction time would be slower. I can't believe you're actually trying to argue that texting while driving is fine.
I'm not arguing it's fine for all people at all. I'm saying that some can handle it and some can't, which is why we don't need a blanket law. Reckless driving laws cover this situation just fine. No one has presented a compelling reason as to why it does not yet.

I've spent more time distracted and looking away from the road switching CDs than I have been texting. Why is no one calling for a law against switching CDs while driving?
This is just another bullshit, knee jerk, "I want to protect the children! Reelect me!" reaction to new technology.

[Liquid 2]

But it's the constancy of it. When you look down to type a few letters every few seconds, how many times does that happen? 10-15 times to complete a text? When you look back up, how long do you look at the road? At what point are you paying more attention to your texting than you are your driving?

Obviously, you have quite a high opinion of yourself, as your "texting ability" seems to be far superior to everyone elses. But in practical terms, it doesn't matter. It's not necessary, and you'll never prove to a court that it is. If anything, it's arrogant to think it doesn't affect you in any way.

Missed the point completely. See my previous post.

But to answer your questions: 1/2) not as often as I look at my mp3 player; 3) 10-20 seconds, and I check ahead of me, behind me, and my mirrors, and reevaluate if it's safe for me to continue texting or not; 4) Never.

[UncleBob]

That's still a dumb argument. As an adult, you have a far greater responsibility (and mental comprehension...hopefully) to be accountable for your actions than a child. I agree that the parents should be looking out for the kid and teach them good habits, but it still doesn't mean you get a pass. If you kill a kid because you're texting, and the best defense you can give the judge is "well, he didn't look either!", I hope you enjoy your stay in prison.

I agree - if you kill someone while operating a vehicle, you should be held accountable. So should the parent that wasn't watching their child.

Keywords "the truck managed to stop in time"

Darwin has little to do with brake efficiency.

Sorry - should have clarified - the truck managed to stop before it ran over my bike that continued going/skidding after I jumped off. Had the truck not stopped in time, I still would have been fine (aside from a few scratches). Bike, not so much.

[soulvengeance]

I'm not arguing it's fine for all people at all. I'm saying that some can handle it and some can't, which is why we don't need a blanket law. Reckless driving laws cover this situation just fine. No one has presented a compelling reason as to why it does not yet.

I've spent more time distracted and looking away from the road switching CDs than I have been texting. Why is no one calling for a law against switching CDs while driving?
This is just another bullshit, knee jerk, "I want to protect the children! Reelect me!" reaction to new technology.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't think there needs to be another law, mainly because it would be pretty tough to enforce, but to say that it's fine to do it is pretty silly.

[mykevermin]

I'm not arguing it's fine for all people at all. I'm saying that some can handle it and some can't, which is why we don't need a blanket law. Reckless driving laws cover this situation just fine. No one has presented a compelling reason as to why it does not yet.

To the contrary. But you blithely explain away a study with a wave of your wrist and a momentary clack of your keyboard. You've done nothing to refute research, but you've convinced yourself its conclusions are, in fact, invalid.

I don't know what assumptions they made when they did that study. I do know that it takes me far, far less than 4.6 seconds to type a couple letters. Like I said above, I'd be surprised if I spent even more than half a second looking at my phone at any given time.

You should publish this refutation. It's solid stuff. Real depth of thought and analysis. Your theoretical foundation and contribution to the field of knowledge is stunning. The authors of this study should tremble in fear in the eight seconds it took you to skim a summary of it, think to yourself "welp, that's not me, so it must be invalid all across the board," and post it to the internet. Their careers are fuckin' done for, thanks to your brilliance.

[mykevermin]

But speeding can be enforced with equal effectiveness on any type of road really. They can sit with a radar on an interstate with a 70 mph speed limit just as easily as a school zone with a 15 mph limit.

Where as with texting it's very tough to catch sitting on the side of the interstate and watch cars zoom by (where it's most dangerous to do) and much easier to detect in slower city traffic, at stop lights etc. (where it's relatively less dangerous).

So that's my issue with it. It's going to mainly only catch the less dangerous behaviors.

Police do more than simply sit on the side of the road, though.

Now, a law prohibiting texting may only mean people who text while driving will hide it even lower so that a police officer can't see them doing it from the side of the road or driving by. If there's one thing I've learned in my first year teaching, it's this: you, I, ain't nobody gonna stop people from texting when they want to. Rules prohibiting it might as well be rules against breathing as far as this generation is concerned.

That doesn't mean overlooking it should be abandoned because it's difficult to oversee. It's still extraordinarily dangerous.

[crystalklear64]

Who uses CD's these days? Get out of the stone age!

[seanr1221]

I read through this thread on mobile safari while driving.

[KingBroly]

We have laws requiring seatbelts, so we obviously need laws for texting.

/politicianwantingfinemoney

[dmaul1114]

Police do more than simply sit on the side of the road, though.

Now, a law prohibiting texting may only mean people who text while driving will hide it even lower so that a police officer can't see them doing it from the side of the road or driving by. If there's one thing I've learned in my first year teaching, it's this: you, I, ain't nobody gonna stop people from texting when they want to. Rules prohibiting it might as well be rules against breathing as far as this generation is concerned.

That doesn't mean overlooking it should be abandoned because it's difficult to oversee. It's still extraordinarily dangerous.

I suppose, but they don't do much other than sit on the side/median of interstates and other highspeed highways. Maybe they'll occasionally see someone they are passing when driving somewhere texting and can pull them over I guess. I just don't like that it's very difficult to catch those doing it at high speeds, and will be more apt to catch people who only text while stopped at a red light etc (which isn't really dangerous, just annoying when they don't move when the light turns green!).

I'm not thoroughly opposed to banning it (as no one should do it) I just don't think it will have all that much impact as most of the people stupid enough to do it now aren't going to give a shit about the law, they'll just keep it low like you say.

So maybe it's just better to enforce it with reckless driving laws (as others have suggested) rather than having as specific, and hard to enforce, law against it.

[dmaul1114]

What about finding a new CD and changing the disc or changing whatever is playing on your mp3 player? Is that alright?


That's much worse and something I never do. CDs only get changed during stops (or at red light).

MP3 player I only use in the car on long drives (like 4+ hours) and I just cue up several albums to fill the time so I don't have to bother with it while driving on the interstate.

[whoknows]

I text all the time while driving.

I can't help that I'm so incredibly popular.

[n8rockerasu]

So maybe it's just better to enforce it with reckless driving laws (as others have suggested) rather than having as specific, and hard to enforce, law against it.

The problem with this is it gives lawyers plenty of wiggle room. You're going to get all kinds of Johnnie Cochran "What is reckless, really?" defenses. Eventually, a conclusion will have to be reached of whether texting itself is too distracting to do while driving.

And in my opinion, with as many states that have outlawed simply talking on a handset while driving, I can't see any way that texting isn't thought of as being worse. This isn't just a case of politicians pulling laws out of their asses. There's already a precedent here. Easily enforcible or not, it's only a matter of time before texting while driving is ruled to be unsafe, and therefore illegal.

[UncleBob]

To the contrary. But you blithely explain away a study with a wave of your wrist and a momentary clack of your keyboard. You've done nothing to refute research, but you've convinced yourself its conclusions are, in fact, invalid.

To be fair, I could bring up studies that show gaming promotes violence in children, global warming doesn't exist and that universal health care will be the worst thing to happen in this country ever. I can't imagine you'd give 'em much of your time.

[QiG]

Should be a law, and talking on cell phones should be a law as well. Driving is enough of a task that you should be giving it your undivided attention in the first place. Many people believe that they have far more control of their car than they really do, and that's great if you feel you have a really good reaction time, but you never know what's going to pop up in front of or behind you or even if your car is going to have a mechanical failure.

I see people constantly holding a phone to their ears as I wait to turn left at stop lights and it baffles my mind.. is your conversation really important enough to put you and anyone else near the road in a dangerous situation?

NO

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Because nobody else would ever say this ...

Banning texting while driving is a violation of the Second Amendment.

Why?

I have a poison pen.

[UncleBob]

That brings up something - has anyone ever challenged one of these Cell Phone Driving laws on 1st Amendment grounds?

[mykevermin]

To be fair, I could bring up studies that show gaming promotes violence in children, global warming doesn't exist and that universal health care will be the worst thing to happen in this country ever. I can't imagine you'd give 'em much of your time.

Depends on the source. I'm more prone to giving university-backed studies the time of day than, say, John Stossel.

[woodraskam]

How many times have you seen a female putting on makeup while driving, and makeup has been around a lot longer than cell phones. Adding another law for this means we should add a law for using makeup, eating, reading a newspaper, cleaning a gun, performing an exorcism, etc....

At what point do we have to put a little faith in a our legal system to interpret the reckless driving laws correctly?

[thrustbucket]

My state recently made texting while driving illegal.

Reading the statistics and listening to stories of those with loved ones killed by drivers texting, and even having a cousin who recently irreparably shattered her ankle in an accident because she was texting, it starts to make sense.

That said, I still do it daily on my new Pre, I can't help to do so on such an awesome phone.

Edit: It's also kind of a stupid law when you think about it - grasping at straws. What are the chances anyone at the scene of an accident will admit they were texting? What are the chances it can be proven unless someone else in the car says they were? I put it up there with a law that bans thinking dirty thoughts while driving.

[mykevermin]

Edit: It's also kind of a stupid law when you think about it - grasping at straws. What are the chances anyone at the scene of an accident will admit they were texting? What are the chances it can be proven unless someone else in the car says they were? I put it up there with a law that bans thinking dirty thoughts while driving.

Do you get a monthly statement from your dirty thoughts?

[RAMSTORIA]

That brings up something - has anyone ever challenged one of these Cell Phone Driving laws on 1st Amendment grounds?

ummm, talking on the phone while driving is not protected by the first amendment.

[willardhaven]

I'm with Liquid... file this one under "reckless driving". If someone is playing their DS, do we need a law for that too?

[perdition(troy]

wtf get off my pokemoning while driving habits.

[dmaul1114]

I see people constantly holding a phone to their ears as I wait to turn left at stop lights and it baffles my mind.. is your conversation really important enough to put you and anyone else near the road in a dangerous situation?

NO

Again, I really see the dialing and other functions as what is dangerous.

Is talking on the phone (with handset or handsfree) any more dangerous than talking to a person next to you in the passengers seat or the back seat?

So I don't have much problem with people who answer their phone and talk while driving. I do it if I'm not in high speed traffic with cars all around me or something. People just shouldn't be dialing (other than with voice activation on handsfree), texting and doing other shit that takes their eyes of the road.

[mykevermin]

My iphone rules - listen to rawk music while driving, and when a call comes through, it comes through the speakers - I can use it handsfree without any nasty earpiece - and when the call ends, back to the RAWK.

[rabbitt]

I'm with Liquid... file this one under "reckless driving". If someone is playing their DS, do we need a law for that too?

Because DS playing while driving has soared in the past couple years. :roll:

[willardhaven]

My point is that we do not need specific laws for each specific kind of cellphone use.

[seanr1221]

My iphone rules - listen to rawk music while driving, and when a call comes through, it comes through the speakers - I can use it handsfree without any nasty earpiece - and when the call ends, back to the RAWK.

I enjoy that feature too :bouncy:

[dmaul1114]

My point is that we do not need specific laws for each specific kind of cellphone use.

Yeah, that's true. Existing hands free laws should cover texting since you can't do that hand's free. They could ticket anyone they see with a cell phone in their hand while driving.


For the iPhone comments--does that require a special stereo in the car (i.e. bluetooth capable or something)? I haven't looked much into iPhones as I'm not willing to switch from Verizon (and don't really have a need to pay for the data plan).

[mykevermin]

All you need is whatever you use to connect an ipod to the car - radio tuner, or in my case, a cassette adapter.

Yeah, I still own cassettes. ;)

But the voice comes through the speakers and you just talk like you normally would.

I discovered that feature by accident and fell in love with it. I especially like the idea of people driving by me on the interstate while I'm on a long road trip, occupying time by having very fiery political debates with my mom (yeah, I do that).

Because to them, I look like the crazy dude what's screaming at himself.

;)

[dmaul1114]

Awesome. My car has an input jack for MP3 players so that should work if the iPhone ever comes to Verizon. Or some verizon phone immitates it--in any case I've got like 18 months until my next "new every two" phone discount kicks in.

[speedracer]

That brings up something - has anyone ever challenged one of these Cell Phone Driving laws on 1st Amendment grounds?
Um, which part of the 1st is being infringed?
wtf get off my pokemoning while driving habits.
Specially since that one damn pokemons only comes out at night while it's raining and you're doing 10 over. :D

The law should be against using an electronic device while moving with an exception for hands free. Liquid's point is true, but it shouldn't mean that you should be swapping CDs while finding Abra and punching shit into your GPS. Pull off the damn road for a second if you have to.

Really guys, you have the entire world around you on the road and you know it's not fulfilling a responsibility to be safe around others with a ton of fucking metal hurtling through space. Can't it wait 2 goddamn seconds? It's almost certainly the activity we participate in most that has the greatest chance of harming those around us.
That said, I still do it daily on my new Pre, I can't help to do so on such an awesome phone.
I'll take personal responsibility is for other people for 1000, Alex.

[Liquid 2]

To the contrary. But you blithely explain away a study with a wave of your wrist and a momentary clack of your keyboard. You've done nothing to refute research, but you've convinced yourself its conclusions are, in fact, invalid.Did you even read what you're responding to here?

And pray tell, myke, what compelling reason has been given to illegalize texting while driving rather than letting reckless driving laws cover it? And what about someone switching cds or changing tracks on their mp3 player? Should those be illegalized too?


You should publish this refutation. It's solid stuff. Real depth of thought and analysis. Your theoretical foundation and contribution to the field of knowledge is stunning. The authors of this study should tremble in fear in the eight seconds it took you to skim a summary of it, think to yourself "welp, that's not me, so it must be invalid all across the board," and post it to the internet. Their careers are fuckin' done for, thanks to your brilliance.Are you really as fucking stupid as you come off as on the internet? Jesus.

I'm going to lay this out nice and clear so that someone as dense as you can understand.
Here's what I posted, which led to your arrogant-as-fuck bullshit post reply there:
I don't know what assumptions they made when they did that study. I do know that it takes me far, far less than 4.6 seconds to type a couple letters. Like I said above, I'd be surprised if I spent even more than half a second looking at my phone at any given time.

The study in question found that on average texting while driving led people to be distracted for 4.6 seconds, or to be 23 times as likely to get in an accident.

I said I don't know what assumptions they made for the study, so I can't make a comparision between the "typical" driver as they defined them and myself. Did they assume that when one texts, they complete the whole message? Or that they complete a word, or a sentence, or a phrase before looking at the road again? Did they take into account if the driver checked the conditions around them before texting? How about how well the driver can see while texting (I can at least still see in front of me, even if not as well)? How about the location of the phone upon receiving a text (pocket, dash, cupholder, etc)? How about the driving conditions (rain, sun, night, ice, dry, etc)?

All I said was that I didn't fit their conclusions, since I never look away from the road for more than half a second. You decided to shit yourself and post an entirely unhelpful, and extremely stupid comment. Thanks for contributing, Professor Shit-For-Brains.

[dmaul1114]

It could be the 4.6 seconds is the average total time distracted--i.e. the sum of all the times you look down briefly while sending or reading a text. Rather than one 4.6 second diversion.

Or it could just count distracted as the whole time, not just the time with eyes off the road, as you don't have full attention while your looking up and down etc.

But I don't have the time or interest to look into the specifics right now.

[Liquid 2]

That's what I'm saying, dmaul. I don't know enough about the study to make a comparison, but it seems to not apply to me, since I don't exhibit typical behavior when texting (being distracted for 4.6 seconds--assuming it's one 4.6 second stretch, which I don't think is unreasonable because of the example of the distance travelled given in the article).

Our boy mykevermin doesn't like to think though, and jumps to stupid conclusions and embarrasses himself.

[dmaul1114]

Well you're not going to get many reasonable responses when you're trying to justify engaging in a behavior that endangers others around you.

Make all the excuses you want, but you shouldn't be texting while driving. Everytime I see someone doing it I hope they hit a tree or something that harms no one else so we can have some social Darwinism at work.

[Liquid 2]

Are you justifying myke's post? What I do is currently legal; you're more than welcome to disagree with me (as many have thus far), but there's a way to go about it properly.

And think that I shouldn't all you want; I feel as though I'm careful enough to justify it, and that there's nothing morally wrong with how I text while driving. If I get lax in the future, then I hope a cop busts me for driving recklessly.

[willardhaven]

You don't get busted for not being "hands free"?

[Liquid 2]

Never. I don't even know if it's illegal to use a phone in a non-hands-free manner.

edit - just looked it up: there are hands free and no texting laws in place for novice drivers (defined as one who has had their license for less than 6 months) in my state.

[mykevermin]

Did you even read what you're responding to here?

And pray tell, myke, what compelling reason has been given to illegalize texting while driving rather than letting reckless driving laws cover it? And what about someone switching cds or changing tracks on their mp3 player? Should those be illegalized too?

Are you really as fucking stupid as you come off as on the internet? Jesus.

I'm going to lay this out nice and clear so that someone as dense as you can understand.
Here's what I posted, which led to your arrogant-as-fuck bullshit post reply there:


The study in question found that on average texting while driving led people to be distracted for 4.6 seconds, or to be 23 times as likely to get in an accident.

I said I don't know what assumptions they made for the study, so I can't make a comparision between the "typical" driver as they defined them and myself. Did they assume that when one texts, they complete the whole message? Or that they complete a word, or a sentence, or a phrase before looking at the road again? Did they take into account if the driver checked the conditions around them before texting? How about how well the driver can see while texting (I can at least still see in front of me, even if not as well)? How about the location of the phone upon receiving a text (pocket, dash, cupholder, etc)? How about the driving conditions (rain, sun, night, ice, dry, etc)?

All I said was that I didn't fit their conclusions, since I never look away from the road for more than half a second. You decided to shit yourself and post an entirely unhelpful, and extremely stupid comment. Thanks for contributing, Professor Shit-For-Brains.

You can be as angry and irate as you want, but it doesn't change the following:

1) You disregarded the results of a research study as irrelevant and not contributing to what you desire as "compelling evidence" that texting should be made illegal.
2) You maintain your opinion of #1 in spite of both the content of your posts and your own admittance that you did not read anything about the study.

You talk about the 4.6 seconds, claiming you don't know what it means, when there's a press release from VT in the Cnet article. It's 4 pages. Is it that hard to read 4 pages if you want a refined opinion that isn't rooted in something greater than "I'm not like everybody else"?

"VTTI’s research showed that text messaging, which had the highest risk of over 20 times worse than driving while not using a phone, also had the longest duration of eyes off road time (4.6 s over a 6‐s interval)."

There's one line that helps contextualize what 4.6 seconds means. Here's another, since I'm sure you're going to respond with your brand of piss and vinegar, but you'll still be too lazy to read a 4-page PDF (mostly, I'm sure, because you're scared to death of confronting information that violates the conclusions that you've come to already).

"This equates to a driver traveling the length of a football field at 55 mph without looking at the roadway. Talking/listening to a cell phone allowed drivers to maintain eyes on the road and were not associated with an increased safety risk to nearly the same degree."

So, please, have an opinion. Please, disagree with me.

But if you want to make a statement like "there's no compelling argument," man the fuck up and confront the compelling arguments head the fuck on. Don't dance around it and act like it doesn't matter, still claiming that there's no compelling evidence. Makes you look like a chump.

EDIT: On a silver fucking platter for you. I dare you to read it and respond to it: http://www.vtti.vt.edu/PDF/7-22-09-VTTI-Press_Release_Cell_phones_and_Driver_Distraction.p df

[JolietJake]

My new car actually does that too, but because it's bluetooth enabled. Car senses he phone is in range and works just like Myke said. Love that thing.

[soulvengeance]

Never. I don't even know if it's illegal to use a phone in a non-hands-free manner.

edit - just looked it up: there are hands free and no texting laws in place for novice drivers (defined as one who has had their license for less than 6 months) in my state.

Whoa, you've had your license less then 6 months and you're texting while driving?

[Liquid 2]

1) You disregarded the results of a research study as irrelevant and not contributing to what you desire as "compelling evidence" that texting should be made illegal.I think I've said it 20+ times in this thread, but why should we make texting and driving illegal when reckless driving laws cover it just fine?
I've also asked--and received no response--about what the difference between texting and switching a CD or choosing music on your mp3 player is. Those are covered under reckless driving laws; what makes texting so special that it shouldn't be?

Before someone makes the drunk driving connection: drunk driving is different in that it literally affects both your decision-making skills and reaction time.

You talk about the 4.6 seconds, claiming you don't know what it means, when there's a press release from VT in the Cnet article. It's 4 pages. Is it that hard to read 4 pages if you want a refined opinion that isn't rooted in something greater than "I'm not like everybody else"?

"VTTI’s research showed that text messaging, which had the highest risk of over 20 times worse than driving while not using a phone, also had the longest duration of eyes off road time (4.6 s over a 6‐s interval)."Well, that's cleared up then. That doesn't change the fact that I look away from the road for less than half a second for intervals greater than 10 seconds long a piece.

"This equates to a driver traveling the length of a football field at 55 mph without looking at the roadway. Talking/listening to a cell phone allowed drivers to maintain eyes on the road and were not associated with an increased safety risk to nearly the same degree."That was quoted earlier. It means nothing to one who looks away less than 4.6 seconds. I don't know where they got 4.6 from, but I'll assume it's an average for texting drivers. Since I am well within a safe time limit of looking away, I can drive safely while texting. Others, who look away far longer, are not, and their erratic behavior will be seen and they can be pulled over for driving recklessly.


But if you want to make a statement like "there's no compelling argument," man the fuck up and confront the compelling arguments head the fuck on. Don't dance around it and act like it doesn't matter, still claiming that there's no compelling evidence. Makes you look like a chump.
So, I still see no compelling evidence for a whole, separate, brand new law, when the laws already on the books take care of this just fine.

I also LOVE how you (and everyone else who's cited the study) have completely ignored that the "drivers texting are 23 times more likely to get into a wreck" statistic applies to those driving "heavy vehicles/trucks."

----------------

Whoa, you've had your license less then 6 months and you're texting while driving? What? Try reading my post again. I didn't say anything about how long I've had a license...

[mykevermin]

4 pages of reading is too daunting for you, but a longwinded rant is not.

Got it.

At least I know where you stand: among the masses afraid of confronting a reality that belies you.

Go back to gaming threads and take your delusion with you.

[Liquid 2]

Did you even read my post, dipshit? I did read it, and I responded to all your points, and paraphrased a piece of it that invalidated your 23x statistic in situations where the driver was not driving a truck or heavy vehicle (read: this applies to most drivers).

And you didn't have shit to say in response. Again, thanks for contributing. I've only defended myself and been courteous to everyone here (except for dealing with your bullshit, and I even cut that out in my last post so I could reply to your points in a decent manner); you've been attacking, myke, and now you're running away--and trying to get in the last word, no less--since you don't have shit for a response. If you don't have anything worth saying, fuck off.

[UncleBob]

ummm, talking on the phone while driving is not protected by the first amendment.

Am I not allowed by the First Amendment to speak my mind, so long as it is truthful and on public property or private property where I have permission from the owner?

Should it matter what method I choose to use to convey my message?

[willardhaven]

Why always the fighting?

[mykevermin]

Did you even read my post, dipshit? I did read it, and I responded to all your points, and paraphrased a piece of it that invalidated your 23x statistic in situations where the driver was not driving a truck or heavy vehicle (read: this applies to most drivers).

And you didn't have shit to say in response. Again, thanks for contributing. I've only defended myself and been courteous to everyone here (except for dealing with your bullshit, and I even cut that out in my last post so I could reply to your points in a decent manner); you've been attacking, myke, and now you're running away--and trying to get in the last word, no less--since you don't have shit for a response. If you don't have anything worth saying, fuck off.

Really, about the only critique of substance you offer is the limitations of the study on heavy vehicles/trucks. But when you compare the other measures, you see mixed findings; dialing a cell phone was a far higher risk for the heavy group compared to the light vehicle group, but talking on a cell phone itself was a lower-risk.

In the end, your argument is this: "me," "I," "me," "I."

That's called fundamental attribution error.

And it's not a particularly compelling tactic in terms of disputing research.

You've made the comparison to reckless driving before, but here's the thing: we're talking about a kind of interaction that has been shown to be a far, far greater risk factor in causing accidents than cell phone use, than grabbing for a CD, than anything else. Given the increase of risk, there's nothing to compare to texting while driving. If something increases risk that much more compared to other behaviors, it should be looked into. You, like others, have made a false comparison that texting while driving is no different than ______ while driving. Which is simply untrue. It's not a very good argument, so you ought to stop being proud of it.

As for the rest of your stunning refutations, let's get you out of self-uniqueness avenue first and then we'll talk about building a coherent refutation. "I don't do it like that" is the summation of your argument, and that's pretty low quality stuff to be arguing with. I have better things to do with my day than respond to your inept claims.

[Liquid 2]

Why always the fighting?
Because mykevermin, from his Throne of Self-Righteousness, doesn't know how to engage in courteous discourse, and because he has the special skill of completely changing the meaning of what he reads.

[mykevermin]

Because mykevermin, from his Throne of Self-Righteousness, doesn't know how to engage in courteous discourse, and because he has the special skill of completely changing the meaning of what he reads.

:rofl: (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6146775&postcount=14)

[UncleBob]

Given the increase of risk, there's nothing to compare to texting while driving. If something increases risk that much more compared to other behaviors, it should be looked into. You, like others, have made a false comparison that texting while driving is no different than ______ while driving.

Here: Texting while driving is probably safer than driving while wearing a blindfold. Do we need a law written to expressly state that it's illegal to drive while wearing a blindfold - or is it already covered by an existing law?

[Liquid 2]

Really, about the only critique of substance you offer is the limitations of the study on heavy vehicles/trucks. But when you compare the other measures, you see mixed findings; dialing a cell phone was a far higher risk for the heavy group compared to the light vehicle group, but talking on a cell phone itself was a lower-risk.True. The same can be said for the light cars though; you don't know what the increased probability of having an accident is for a light vehicle.

You've made the comparison to reckless driving before, but here's the thing: we're talking about a kind of interaction that has been shown to be a far, far greater risk factor in causing accidents than cell phone use, than grabbing for a CD, than anything else. Given the increase of risk, there's nothing to compare to texting while driving. If something increases risk that much more compared to other behaviors, it should be looked into. You, like others, have made a false comparison that texting while driving is no different than ______ while driving. Which is simply untrue. It's not a very good argument, so you ought to stop being proud of it.Show me a study that shows how much the chance of an accident increases when grabbing a binder of CDs (or better yet, a stack of them), so that we can compare it to these statistics. It takes two hands for me to do something like that (which is why I only do it at lights), where as it only takes me one hand and a lot less time to grab my phone from my crotch and respond to a friend. I always have a hand on the wheel, and I look up very frequently. Even changing tracks on my mp3 player, what with its touch screen, isn't necessarily a simple task. I definitely think the difference isn't that big.

As for the rest of your stunning refutations, let's get you out of self-uniqueness avenue first and then we'll talk about building a coherent refutation. "I don't do it like that" is the summation of your argument, and that's pretty low quality stuff to be arguing with. I have better things to do with my day than respond to your inept claims.The core of my argument isn't that "I don't do it like that" though. I'm using myself as an example as to why a blanket ban isn't necessary (which completely ignores the fact that reckless driving laws already covers this sort of thing). If I can text and drive safely, so can others. Not everyone, that's for sure, but probably enough.

[mykevermin]

That'll be a teen fad by the time I'm a parent. I know it.

That stupid-ass "ghost riding" is covered by reckless laws fer shure - but that's also not something that (1) damn near everybody does at all times of the day (like texting) and (2) do at 70+MPH on the highway.

[QiG]

This is ridiculous, instead of arguing how little or how much cell phone (and other) activities distract you while on the road, why aren't we arguing that it distracts drivers AT ALL and therefore puts the people around the 3-4000lb piece of matter you're controlling with wanton effort at increased risk?

Do I stare at the road and my mirrors 100% of the time I'm behind the wheel? No, but I don't for one second fool myself into thinking it's justified that I should be looking away for longer than a glance and it will all be ok. I'm feeling too lazy do the math, but everything from your reaction time, to velocity and stopping power of brakes works against you exponentially the longer you look away. So continue thinking that it's ok to do so.. what the hell do I know? You're all excellent drivers on top of your super multi-tasking powers that don't need to pay attention to what's in front of you.

[Liquid 2]

Here: Texting while driving is probably safer than driving while wearing a blindfold. Do we need a law written to expressly state that it's illegal to drive while wearing a blindfold - or is it already covered by an existing law?

Thank you.

[mykevermin]

The eye analysis they use is pretty sophisticated stuff, BTW.

Marketers use that stuff to dictate what we do and don't look at on webpages (and how much time we spend doing that).

Which leads me to thinking that's what guided one of my favorite progressions of banner ads for a video game ever: http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/07/14/evolution-of-evony-video-game-ads/

[thrustbucket]

Awesome. My car has an input jack for MP3 players so that should work if the iPhone ever comes to Verizon. Or some verizon phone immitates it--in any case I've got like 18 months until my next "new every two" phone discount kicks in.

/derail

The Palm Pre does the exact same thing. Actually I will raise you some.

I can stream pandora/listen to MP3's, run GPS (And whatever other apps I feel like) at the same time. The music will pause when the GPS has something to tell me, and then unpause. When a call comes in, the music pauses, the GPS still runs but doesn't talk, and my car speakers become my speakerphone. No matter how loud the speakers are, the software in the phone prevents the caller from hearing echo.

The Pre will be on Verizon in the beginning of next year, but I'd suggest switching to Sprint because it's much cheaper (and we are cag's after all) - especially since their roaming agreements make any claims one has better coverage than the other a moot point.

[VipFREAK]

Can we fix the current one first... ? Can someone explain to me how driving with a bt headset is safer? Most the idiots can't drive to begin with them and you let them make a call to keep them pre-occupied?

As for me, I'll keep txting til it's illegal... Yeah, I obviously don't text while I'm driving you idiot. I do text while waiting for the stupid ass lights to change though. Although, lately when I do WANT to txt it seems like it makes all the lights green.

[dmaul1114]

The Pre will be on Verizon in the beginning of next year, but I'd suggest switching to Sprint because it's much cheaper (and we are cag's after all) - especially since their roaming agreements make any claims one has better coverage than the other a moot point.

1. I prefer the verizon network. And most of my friends, girlfriend, family etc. are on verizon so I can't give up the free in network calling.

2. Sprint is probably not cheaper than Verizon with my 20% discount for being a state employee (don't think we get a discount with sprint.


:D

But I still doubt I'll pick one up. I just don't have much need for a smart phone since I'm at a PC so damn much and have my laptop with me when I travel. At least not at the current cost of data plans. If it was $10 a month or something I may consider it.

[dmaul1114]

Can we fix the current one first... ? Can someone explain to me how driving with a bt headset is safer? Most the idiots can't drive to begin with them and you let them make a call to keep them pre-occupied?


You can keep your eyes on the road vs having to fiddle with the phone to dial, answer etc. which requires looking down.

So talking on a hands free shouldn't be much (if any) more distracting that talking to someone in the car with you.

[VipFREAK]

Yet, the drivers that are challenged from the start still keep hitting stuff...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2yf7DGg8WE

[n8rockerasu]

Am I not allowed by the First Amendment to speak my mind, so long as it is truthful and on public property or private property where I have permission from the owner?

Should it matter what method I choose to use to convey my message?

UncleBob seriously needs to read up on his Constitution. Your rights are only unalienable as long as they don't endanger or infringe on the rights of others. Do others not have the right to be safe?

Here: Texting while driving is probably safer than driving while wearing a blindfold. Do we need a law written to expressly state that it's illegal to drive while wearing a blindfold - or is it already covered by an existing law?

I agree that any activity can be unsafe, but you and Liquid2 have to recognize that texting has become a worldwide phenomenon and an obsession for many people. The same obsession does not exist with wearing a blindfold or changing a CD (also changing a CD doesn't occur 20 times an hour).

The reason a specific law for texting is needed is simply because of the frightening fact that so many people don't even consider it to be a dangerous activity. Forget that Liquid2 doesn't think it's a big deal. What about the 16 year old girl who has been driving for 3 months and texting for 3 years? Which activity do you think she'll be more concerned with? It's not even going to cross her mind that it might be reckless.

These are the people you have to go into detail and even be a little redundant for. Big deal if it's an "extra" law, as long as it's trying to keep people safe. Without a doubt there should be a law against texting while driving. Clearly, it's a big enough issue, and it's one that's on its own level in terms of frequency and risk. Forgive me if I could care less about your "right" to endanger my life as you pass me on the road.

[perdition(troy]

Just so you know, I ride a motorcycle 8-9 months (put about 9k miles on it a year) out of any given year. i pay a ton of attention to other drivers, and i honestly think that kids in the back seat cause a LOT more problems for a driver then someone texting ever does. however, texting is a big problem, I won't argue with you there. however, I'm with some of the other posters here when saying that I don't think we need a law stating the obvious (don't text).

Based on what I've seen, cities/counties pass bans on texting just to increase their revenue stream. My local community recently (2 years?) passed a ban on texting. Our city's police chief (my neighbor two doors down) let me know that in the last two years they have given out 0 tickets for texting while. The reasoning behind that is if they give a ticket for someone texting while driving, the money goes straight to the city (due to the law that was passed) instead of the police department. So instead of going towards the police budget, it goes right into the city vault. She said the police department was just instructed to give inattentive driving tickets when they pull someone over for texting.

I guess I understand why people want a ban on texting. Some people just can't live their life without strict set of guidelines guiding their every move. I mean, obviously it's stupid to text while driving. There isn't any question about that. However, is it really necessary to make a law that bans texting while driving? We can't enforce that law even if we pass one (just because of the ratio of drivers:cops). It would be nice to have PSA's about texting while driving or something along those lines, but I don't really see the point of enacting a law that we cannot efficiently enforce.

And just because I can, one more thing to say. What's next, have straps on our steering wheels that keep our hands held at ten and two? Or banning radios because someone might turn the volume up and look away from the road for a tenth of a second? And God forbid you have kids in the backseat that you turn around to look at. Meh.

[mykevermin]

I guess I understand why people want a ban on texting. Some people just can't live their life without strict set of guidelines guiding their every move.

Guiding every other chucklehead on the road's move. Not mine.

That's a fallacious argument. I don't text while I drive, but I stand to benefit from a law that would treat texting as a citeable offense. By not being hit by a car and stuff.

[perdition(troy]

It already is a citeable offense, just like watching tv while you drive is a citeable offense. Or reading a book, or playing videogames. I guess I just don't understand why it has to be spelled out to a t.

[RAMSTORIA]

It already is a citeable offense, just like watching tv while you drive is a citeable offense. Or reading a book, or playing videogames. I guess I just don't understand why it has to be spelled out to a t.

i always talk about replacing my steering wheel with a ps2 controller... would that count?

[perdition(troy]

i always talk about replacing my steering wheel with a ps2 controller... would that count?

depends on if it has a rumble pack.

[dmaul1114]

I guess I understand why people want a ban on texting. Some people just can't live their life without strict set of guidelines guiding their every move.

It's not that people need guidelines.

It's that many people are self absorbed and don't give two shits about anything other than doing exactly what they want regardless of the impact on other people.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need speed limits, laws against DUIs etc. as people would have the common sense and courtesy to not drive too fast or aggressively, to not drink or drive etc. But it's not a perfect world so we need laws to deter some people and incapacitate others (people who lose their license for multiple offenses etc.).

So I can see the need for laws against cell phone use. Though I do agree a texting law is awfully hard to enforce. It would be better to just change the hands free law to make it ticketable if you are seen with a phone in your hand while driving period. That could cover talking, texting, looking at photos, changing songs on the mp3 player on the phone etc. etc.

[soulvengeance]

Just for shits and giggles, found this on nytimes:

http://www.nytimes.com//interactive/2009/07/19/technology/20090719-driving-game.html?ref=technology

I'm curious to see what Liquid would get.:)

[willardhaven]

That's a lot harder than driving.

[VipFREAK]

Probably as gay as the tests they did along time ago that made up the Stats about driving with a cell phone in hand.

[UncleBob]

UncleBob seriously needs to read up on his Constitution. Your rights are only unalienable as long as they don't endanger or infringe on the rights of others. Do others not have the right to be safe?

First, don't get me wrong, I'd be surprised if someone did win such a challenge - my initial question was just wondering if anyone had ever tried it.

However, your statement is wrong - Hate Speech, which one could argue *could* endanger the lives of others - is not illegal in and of itself.

Someone talking on a cell phone *could* endanger the lives of others. But it doesn't automatically do it. Thus, I think an argument could be made.

[elprincipe]

And just because I can, one more thing to say. What's next, have straps on our steering wheels that keep our hands held at ten and two? Or banning radios because someone might turn the volume up and look away from the road for a tenth of a second? And God forbid you have kids in the backseat that you turn around to look at. Meh.

That's really a ridiculous slippery slope argument. It's like saying that requiring someone with bad vision to wear glasses while driving would lead to a law that criminalized taking your eyes off the road at all.

[MSI Magus]

I cant tell you how many accidents we have almost been in with some idiot thats texting. Yes ban it and no I dont care if it makes us a pinko commie socialist socitiety where we all drive around with hands tied to the wheels.