Texting While Driving: Do We Need a Law?

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?
 
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.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']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.[/QUOTE]

Do you get a monthly statement from your dirty thoughts?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']That brings up something - has anyone ever challenged one of these Cell Phone Driving laws on 1st Amendment grounds?[/QUOTE]

ummm, talking on the phone while driving is not protected by the first amendment.
 
[quote name='QiG']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[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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?[/QUOTE]

Because DS playing while driving has soared in the past couple years. :roll:
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

I enjoy that feature too :bouncy:
 
[quote name='willardhaven']My point is that we do not need specific laws for each specific kind of cellphone use.[/QUOTE]

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).
 
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.

;)
 
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.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']That brings up something - has anyone ever challenged one of these Cell Phone Driving laws on 1st Amendment grounds?[/QUOTE]
Um, which part of the 1st is being infringed?
[quote name='perdition(troy']wtf get off my pokemoning while driving habits.[/QUOTE]
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.
[quote name='thrustbucket']That said, I still do it daily on my new Pre, I can't help to do so on such an awesome phone.[/QUOTE]
I'll take personal responsibility is for other people for 1000, Alex.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/quote]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?


[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/QUOTE]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:
[quote name='Liquid 2']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']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.[/QUOTE]

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.pdf
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

Whoa, you've had your license less then 6 months and you're texting while driving?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/quote]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.

[quote name='mykevermin']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)."[/quote]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.

[quote name='mykevermin']"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."[/quote]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.


[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/QUOTE]
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."

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

[quote name='docvinh']Whoa, you've had your license less then 6 months and you're texting while driving? [/QUOTE]What? Try reading my post again. I didn't say anything about how long I've had a license...
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']ummm, talking on the phone while driving is not protected by the first amendment.[/QUOTE]

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?
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Why always the fighting?[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']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.[/QUOTE]

:rofl:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/QUOTE]

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?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/quote]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.

[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/quote]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.

[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/QUOTE]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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']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?[/QUOTE]

Thank you.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

/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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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?
[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']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?[/QUOTE]

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?

[quote name='UncleBob']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?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

i always talk about replacing my steering wheel with a ps2 controller... would that count?
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']i always talk about replacing my steering wheel with a ps2 controller... would that count?[/QUOTE]

depends on if it has a rumble pack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top