Texting while driving

cokewithvanilla

jflail2 wrote: »

CWV, your argument honestly sounds a bit like a couple guys I knew back home that "could drive sorta drunk just fine."

Yea.....just because you haven't had an accident yet doesn't mean it's not dangerous.

I'd personally rather err to the side of caution, but that's just me.

I didn't realize that I made an argument that texting and driving is safe.I really think comparing drunk driving to texting is unfair. When you're drunk driving, you're always drunk (or at least for quite a long stretch).

Usually, text messages are pretty short. So, you are able to put the phone in a place so you do not take your eyes off the road then focus your eyes on the phone for a second, read the short message (in the manner you would read a speedometer), and respond without looking at the phone.

By doing it this way, you never actually take your eyes off the road. and you always use one hand to text, so you never have your hand off the wheel. Are you as aware as if you were fully paying attention, no.. are you more aware than if you were drunk... probably.

A few minutes ago, I drove by a cop that was reading a magazine while driving. If you think that is less dangerous than texting.... well, I don't know what to say.

quadzilla

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

I think you'll find that we can impose a lot of ridiculous fines and it still wouldn't stop the problem. Again, I ask, why is texting and getting in an accident any worse than changing the radio station, or being otherwise distracted and causing the same accident?



Indeed, there are aspects of life that we CANNOT legislate away. Distracted driving is just another one of those things. Laws are being passed, hell, distracted driving laws have been on the books for years.

People are people, they will get distracted. Now, if you want to stop only the distracted drivers that are distracted by texting, give them an easier way to text and drive (like the voice system previously mentioned). People either have to realize it's dangerous, and assume that the danger great enough to outweigh the benefits of doing the action, or they have to be given a better way to do the same thing.

And all of those carry heavy penalties. This "we can't do anything about it so we shouldn't try because that's just how people are" attitude of yours sucks. Should legislation always be a last resort? Sure. But obviously, people aren't getting the message that this is stupid behavior just like they didn't start wearing seat belts until it became a law. And some still don't, but it does help minimize the number willing to take the risk of being fined.

quadzilla

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

A few minutes ago, I drove by a cop that was reading a magazine while driving. If you think that is less dangerous than texting.... well, I don't know what to say.

I think that's a stupid effing cop and he should be reported.

steveinaz

vc69 wrote: »

I'm sorry Steve, but if you think that the burden put on health care/insurance by smokers is not affecting your insurance premium, you are sadly mistaken.

Smokers DO NOT increase my car insurance rates. Cell phone users do. re-read what I posted.

vc69

steveinaz wrote: »

Smokers DO NOT increase my car insurance rates. Cell phone users do. re-read what I posted.

*Insurance rates*

I don't think you specified car insurance. If so, my sincere apology.

steveinaz

My bad, I was talking about driving, so I assumed you knew I meant car insurance.

My point is (and this is my opinion), you won't stop the behavior--so "collect" on the back-end. Tax. Maybe have a waiver for those who don't pay for/have/don't want texting ability. I know it seems ridiculous---and honestly, IT IS; but lets face it, most people are rediculous as evidenced by how often you see the practice occurring.

I say have them face the same penalties that drunk drivers face---they are every bit as dangerous, and FAR more commonly seen on the road.

hearingimpared

vc69 wrote: »

The fact that you don't use one removes any credibility you may have when discussing a suitable solution.

Hold on thar Kemosabe! Are you telling me that if one doesn't own a cell he has no right to express his distain and fear of nuts who drive all over the road while texting or being on the phone.

That would be akin to saying if you don't drink you have no credibility when it comes to drunkin driving laws.

I want to believe I misunderstood you Kev. I know you have a better noggen on your shoulders than that!:eek::D:p

cokewithvanilla

quadzilla wrote: »

And all of those carry heavy penalties. This "we can't do anything about it so we shouldn't try because that's just how people are" attitude of yours sucks. Should legislation always be a last resort? Sure. But obviously, people aren't getting the message that this is stupid behavior just like they didn't start wearing seat belts until it became a law. And some still don't, but it does help minimize the number willing to take the risk of being fined.

I agree. Legislation should be the last resort. Yes, they carry heavy penalties, but they are... pretty bad crimes? The crime fits the punishment. With texting, the best we can do is a ticket and that's not gonna help IMO...

As for the seat belt law, that is just stupid. It doesn't hurt anyone besides, possibly, the one who breaks it. The only time there should ever be restrictive laws is if the action harms others.

Toolfan66

WOW 5 pages of crap about texting while driving when even common sense says it's not a good idea!!

Oh well after a good crash "if you live". the Obama health care Program will take care of you, and maybe just maybe you can get a good lawyer to sue the cell phone companies like some did with the tobacco companies, and you will be set for life!!

messiah

TOOLFORLIFEFAN wrote: »

WOW 5 pages of crap about texting while driving when even common sense says it's not a good idea!!

Oh well after a good crash "if you live". the Obama health care Program will take care of you, and maybe just maybe you can get a good lawyer to sue the cell phone companies like some did with the tobacco companies, and you will be set for life!!

Totally agree. This went 5 pages?

There is no good reason to text while driving

Ever!!!

mdaudioguy

bobman1235 wrote: »

Never heard of a stick shift eh?

I drive one. I was just trying to come up with an absurd technical solution to counter the absurdity of a tax-based solution... I thought if someone could actually take that seriously, then they might also buy my "idea".

mdaudioguy

messiah wrote: »

Totally agree. This went 5 pages?

There is no good reason to text while driving

Ever!!!

You'd think we could all agree to that...

vc69

hearingimpared wrote: »

Hold on thar Kemosabe! Are you telling me that if one doesn't own a cell he has no right to express his distain and fear of nuts who drive all over the road while texting or being on the phone.

That would be akin to saying if you don't drink you have no credibility when it comes to drunkin driving laws.

I want to believe I misunderstood you Kev. I know you have a better noggen on your shoulders than that!:eek::D:p

Perhaps you did misunderstand Joe. I took issue with Steve making some rather outrageous suggestions and then declaring he does just fine without a cell phone. I posit that if you don't use a cell phone, then suggesting said outrageous solutions had no credibility based on the fact that you don't use one and wouldn't have a vested interest in solving that problem without punishing all users of cell phones. Even the responsible ones. That is akin to a non drinker offering suggestions to responsible drinkers on how to solve the drunk driving problem and saying: I don't drink, so lets solve the dunk driving problem by making booze so expensive the you can't possibly drink AND afford gas to drive the car.

Maybe not the best analogy but it's late and I'm tired.

steveinaz wrote: »

I say have them face the same penalties that drunk drivers face---they are every bit as dangerous, and FAR more commonly seen on the road.

Now that is a suggestion that I can get behind

I do apologize for any misunderstanding.

cokewithvanilla

mdaudioguy wrote: »

You'd think we could all agree to that...

if we all agreed to that, then this thread wouldn't exist because it wouldn't be a 'problem'

edit: assuming, of course, that this is a sampling of the greater population ( which is probably too big of an assumption).

cokewithvanilla

quadzilla wrote: »

I think that's a stupid effing cop and he should be reported.

I just got used to it. The other day I saw one on a two lane road (one lane each direction) swerving back and forth between the lanes for like a mile and a half, over hills and whatnot. And there is, of course, the infamous red light running cops... one did that last night. He was behind me and just turned his lights on, ran the red and turned them off. I was just happy as hell that he was no longer behind me.

I guess that's what happens when they get stuck in a car for an 8 hour shift.

mdaudioguy

Come to think of it, there may actually be too much technology in police vehicles. Not too long ago, I saw a detective (who I know) pull into the high school parking lot after I had already parked. I thought he pulled in a little too fast, but my attention was drawn when I heard him hit the curb. It was then that I noticed he was typing something on a laptop that was mounted in his car. Instead of parking, he drove off. My guess is he took a lap around the school to avoid the embarrassment.

cokewithvanilla

Haha. I caught one looking at pron in the Moe's parking lot at like 2am. I take it they don't have internets, but they can sit outside some place and get the wifi.

mdaudioguy

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

if we all agreed to that, then this thread wouldn't exist because it wouldn't be a 'problem'

edit: assuming, of course, that this is a sampling of the greater population ( which is probably too big of an assumption).

This thread got long because you stated (allow me to paraphrase) that it's not really that much of a problem and no more of a distraction than lots of other things, and that some people can do it quite safely...

I beg to differ, but I'm not really sure what the answer might be. I did, however, learn a lot of answers that should never be...

cokewithvanilla

haha. I'm generally good at that

Nothing like a good disagreement

I still think it can be done relatively safely. Not saying that it is. Especially if you compare a good driver who is a good texter/multitasker against a bad driver...

mdaudioguy

And so on and so on... ad nauseum.

cokewithvanilla

mdaudioguy wrote: »

And so on and so on... ad nauseum.

haha. I just can't help myself

sorry

cstmar01

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

haha. I'm generally good at that

Nothing like a good disagreement

I still think it can be done relatively safely. Not saying that it is. Especially if you compare a good driver who is a good texter/multitasker against a bad driver...

driving, 95% of people if not more are not good drivers. Period. add in rush hour, stress, blah blah blah and they get worse, throw in texting and it increases.

I won't feel bad the day that either A someone hits you because they "thought" they were a good driver, or B the day you hit someone because you "thought" you were a good driver.

and you already proved to all of us with your ticket how great your record for driving is. :rolleyes: