backtop


Print 108 comment(s) - last by sinful.. on May 15 at 12:46 PM


  (Source: AskMen.com)
Laws banning texting and driving are hard to enforce

Many states around the country have bans in effect for driving and texting or making calls while driving without a hands free device. Despite the fact that laws are in place in many cities to prevent drivers from texting and driving, few tickets are issued for the offense in most areas.

In the Raleigh N.C. area, a ban has been in effect on texting and driving since December of 2009. Despite the law, so far the number of tickets written in the area is miniscule. WRAL reports that in Wake county only two citations have been issued for texting and driving while in Durham County only one citation has been written. Across the entire state of North Carolina, only 71 citations for texting while driving have been issued.

Highway Patrol spokesman Sgt. Jeff Gordon said, "It’s an excellent law; it's just that a trooper has to articulate that a person is in fact texting and not looking at their phone number or making a phone call."

The North Carolina law states that driver should pull over to send a text message, but many drivers simply ignore the ban. One 21-year-old driver Nadia Hedgley said, "It is bad. I know it's unsafe, but if you've got to text, you've got to text." "There have been times when I’ve texted, and I’ve realized I’m getting up too close to a car,” added 21-year-old driver Alicia Tegan.

The problem is that it is hard for officers to see when a person is texting and driving and when they do see a person using their phone while driving or looking down at the phone; it can be hard to tell if the person is making a call or sending a text.

A report issued in December 2009 showed that drivers who are texting and driving are six times more likely to have an accident. Despite the facts and the publicity surrounding the dangers of texting and driving, many simply ignore the law. One teen interviewed by Reuters in December 2009 simply said, "Nobody is going to listen."

 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Dumb and Dumber
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/12/2010 10:18:02 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
One 21-year-old driver Nadia Hedgley said, "It is bad. I know it's unsafe, but if you've got to text, you've got to text." "There have been times when I’ve texted, and I’ve realized I’m getting up too close to a car,” added 21-year-old driver Alicia Tegan.


**Picard facepalm**




RE: Dumb and Dumber
By smackababy on 5/12/2010 10:21:12 AM , Rating: 3
You mean to tell me you've never had a moment where if you didn't send that "idk my bff jill" to your friend, you would have just died? ...me neither


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Dr of crap on 5/12/2010 10:28:09 AM , Rating: 5
The line says it all -
"If you've got to text you've got to text."
Does that work for drinking and driving as well!!


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By chagrinnin on 5/12/2010 1:33:20 PM , Rating: 5
That line sounds familiar because most of us have used it before,...for urination.

"When you gotta go, you gotta go."

Although most of us pull over to do that.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By MrBlastman on 5/12/2010 10:27:37 AM , Rating: 5
Kids who are caught texting and driving need to have their hands superglued to their steering wheels, their eyes superglued to their windscreen and their butts strapped to their chairs. Driving is a responsibility and a priviledge, where respect of others on the road both in safety and courtesy is of highest priority--not some goon on the other end of a darned phone.

This makes me sick, though I am not suprised of the attitude and how few have been ticketed. Until a system is devised to shut down all texting (or calling ability) when the driver is driving the car when it is in motion, these laws will do little to stop this problem.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Spivonious on 5/12/2010 10:35:38 AM , Rating: 2
Blocking texts/calls wouldn't work. What if the passenger wants to text/call?

I do think that if you're caught texting and driving that you should lose your license.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By MrBlastman on 5/12/2010 11:11:38 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
What if the passenger wants to text/call?


Simple--the driver has to pull over and stop the car first. :)


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By jonmcc33 on 5/12/2010 11:26:09 AM , Rating: 1
This applies to drivers only. Use some common sense.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2010 11:29:48 AM , Rating: 2
If "common sense" was used more, we wouldn't be talking about adding some stupid anti-cell device to cars in the first place. Which is a completely retarded idea by the way.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By MrBlastman on 5/12/2010 11:39:25 AM , Rating: 2
It is a retarded idea. We shouldn't even have to think of resorting to such draconian measures. Other than doing it, what better idea can you come up with to curb the problem?


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By AEvangel on 5/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Dumb and Dumber
By porkpie on 5/12/2010 3:26:42 PM , Rating: 3
"It's the same moronic train of thought that led to DUI laws."

Now DUI laws are moronic also? DUI deaths have dropped by HALF in the last 20 years, thanks primarily to strict enforcement of DUI laws, and despite the population increase (and miles driven per capita) increase over that same period.

That's 13,000 lives saved a year from this "moronic" train of thought. Do us a favor and think before you post next time.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By AEvangel on 5/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Dumb and Dumber
By porkpie on 5/12/2010 4:53:45 PM , Rating: 4
"There were already laws on the books to deal with DUI. "

No. Catching someone after they've already killed a few people isn't the same thing. DUI laws prevent deaths, not simply punish those who kill while driving drunk.

"..DUI laws were just another knee jerk reaction to people willing to sacrifice their freedoms "

Other than the "freedom" to drive drunk, what freedom have you lost here?


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By AEvangel on 5/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Dumb and Dumber
By porkpie on 5/12/2010 6:55:07 PM , Rating: 2
"Random check points set up to catch people driving drunk, which subjects hundreds of innocent people to random searches by police."

Whoa, talk about conflating issues! The legality of random checkpoint's has nothing to do with DUI laws. While they're occasionally setup during a "prime time" such as New Years Eve, they also operate many other times, and are designed to catch everything from insurance violations to those with open warrants.

With or without DUI laws, such searches could and would still happen. Your beef with them is a horse of an entirely different color, sorry.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By AEvangel on 5/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Dumb and Dumber
By MrBlastman on 5/12/2010 3:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
Wait a minute... DUI laws are moronic? Have you looked at the statistics of how many innocent people die every year due to DUI? Hint: It isn't the person committing the DUI.

DUI laws are necessary and if anything, too lenient.

Perhaps you have never lost anyone close to you due to a DUI. I have. A friend I know lost both of his parents in one night due to some nut driving the wrong way due to being inebriated. This friend of mine has not been the same ever since--he was in his early 20's when it happened and his brother was younger than that.

DUI is serious and is not just "another way to collect fees." If you drive drunk, you should lose your license and be locked up. It is basically attempted negligent manslaughter.

As for privacy--you have no right to text and drive if it is going to place others on the road in danger, just like you have no right to shoot a firearm into a neighbors house randomly, or dispose of nuclear waste into a public creek behind your house.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By AEvangel on 5/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Smilin on 5/12/2010 6:23:29 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for that anecdote. Sorry about your buddy.

Now are you *really* saying we should abandon DUI laws?


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By AEvangel on 5/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Smilin on 5/13/2010 5:34:51 PM , Rating: 2
Good to know.

Hey no offense but I'm going to go ahead and pretty much dismiss anything else you say.

It's a fairly radical view you have there and I'm sure you recognize it as such. Hopefully this isn't coming off as a surprise.

Best of luck to you.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By AEvangel on 5/13/2010 7:43:25 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks...but don't be surprised as I'm not the only that has this view. Their is quite a large community out their that views these laws as an invasion of our freedoms and privacy.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.h...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli41.1.h...


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Smilin on 5/14/2010 1:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
I think there is much larger communitity that thinks that anti-DUI community are a bunch of idiots. I'm one of those.

Really. If that is the belief then it brings to question overall judgement on all matters.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By sinful on 5/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: Dumb and Dumber
By AEvangel on 5/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Keeir on 5/12/2010 8:29:30 PM , Rating: 3
AEvangel

There is a problem with using existing laws to cover things like DUI and texting.

Existing reckless laws typically leave alot of wiggle room and interpretation.

DUI laws on the other hand are clear about violation and punishment.

Here's a great statement from my state's law I think you feels would "cover" DUI and texting..

""Negligent" means the failure to exercise ordinary care, and is the doing of some act that a reasonably careful person would not do under the same or similar circumstances or the failure to do something that a reasonably careful person would do under the same or similar circumstances."

Whooo I really prefer that defination to 0.08 BAL!


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By AEvangel on 5/13/2010 1:18:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Existing reckless laws typically leave alot of wiggle room and interpretation.


What wiggle room?? If the cops says you were then you were, there is no wiggle room.

quote:
DUI laws on the other hand are clear about violation and punishment.


Really, then tell that to my friends client that passed the both field sobriety tests but yet is still facing DUI charges.

quote:
Whooo I really prefer that defination to 0.08 BAL!


Yes, since you can be cited for a DUI offense and not blow 0.08 BAL. That Definition seems quite realistic.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By jonmcc33 on 5/12/2010 12:32:11 PM , Rating: 2
Well, there are plain idiot drivers. There are drunk drivers. There are drivers who have their attention taken away by everything from cell phones to stereos to DVD players in the car. There are some idiots that read a book while driving. The cell phone use has been an issue for years as it took away a driver's attention.

Texting is just about the worst out there. Instead of looking down and typing just make a call. The human race has gotten lazy with the use of texting on a phone.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Smilin on 5/12/2010 5:41:31 PM , Rating: 4
With drinking and driving you basically have a drunk operating the motor vehicle.

With texting you basically have *nobody* operating the motor vehicle.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By DanNeely on 5/12/2010 11:50:49 AM , Rating: 1
After super-gluing their eyes forward will you be giving them all pardons when they run down bikers because they couldn't check their blind spots before changing lanes?


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2010 10:59:27 AM , Rating: 2
What do you expect??

This is what I tried to argue with you guys about last time one of these articles came up. It's hard to enforce uniformly. And laws trying to curb a behavior that we have decided, for whatever reason, is wrong simply never have the desired effect.

Texting bans are stupid. They might make you feel safer because you think it's prudent or proactive, but so what? So was Prohibition and look how good that worked out.

Make the penalties for texting related accidents as severe as you want, sure. I'm all for that. But you are NEVER going to be able to ban it effectively.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By porkpie on 5/12/2010 11:05:06 AM , Rating: 2
FYI, a close friend of my son's (and a boy who I knew since he was 6 years old) died a few months ago in a head on crash.

His phone records showed he had sent 5 texts in the 6 minutes immediately prior the crash.

Your argument is like claiming we shouldn't give out speeding tickets, but should simply "severely penalize" people once they cause an accident. The only problem is, far too often those people can't be penalized -- because they're dead.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2010 11:23:59 AM , Rating: 4
Well you are obviously too emotionally connected to this story, via your son's friend, to objectively debate this issue. Like most issues today, if someone gets hurt or killed, we need to try to move heaven and Earth to "do something" about it. No matter the cost.

If you seriously believe a texting ban would have spared his life, then that's absurd and you know it. He wouldn't have not texted just because of it, and unless a cop magically happened to see him doing it prior to the crash, he still would have crashed anyway.

This issue needs something called AWARENESS. That's supposed to start in the home, with the parents, and in our communities. In fact, what in the hell are parents doing giving textphones to every teenager anyway? My kids would get a cellphone when they turned 18 and could get a job and buy their own damn phones, period.

But instead of advocating for personal responsibility, awareness, etc etc. Here you are saying some law, that can't even be enforced, is going to do the job for you. Everyone these days want's a law for everything...


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By rocky12345 on 5/12/2010 12:19:02 PM , Rating: 2
The law i a step forward but like it states it is not very effective as of yet. They will have to find ways to properly enforce it better. Lets face it texting while driving causes crashes that could have been avoided if the person would have just paid attention to driving & not so focused on that little screen that he/she just had to use while driving. Nothing anyone can say will change the fact that texting while driving can & does cause car crashes. I will go as far to even say that I have seen so many people even texting while walking. They look like zombies walking very slow face pointed down at the screen so they can focus on that tiny little screen to get that so very important message out that they just crossed another street. I have had teens just walk blindly from the sidewalk on to the street & not have a clue they just did that & then look so shocked that they are almost hit by a passing car.

If the texter's even have so much trouble just texting & walking without almost dieing how the hell can you expect them to text & drive in a safe manner.

They either need to enforce these laws or come up with ways to disable the texting abilities of cell phones while in motion or better yet maybe something like voice to text software. Then again i you are going to talk to your phone to get a text out why not just call the person you are texting.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By zmatt on 5/12/2010 12:21:38 PM , Rating: 2
amen!

You can't outlaw something people want to do, it will still happen, same with alcohol, drugs, speeding, and texting. People will still do it. If you want to change something you change their minds and make them responsible not the law books.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By inighthawki on 5/12/2010 3:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
No but it can potentially lower the rate of such activities and can provide a safer environment for those who do not want to do it. By your logic, if we didn't pull anyone over for speeding we would all still be the same, but let's be real, with no enforcement of speed limits we would easily have people going over 100 in 30-40mph zones, which is just being a hazard to everyone around you.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2010 4:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
we would easily have people going over 100 in 30-40mph zones


Yeah right.

You know there is a reason we got this far as a country without a law or ordinance for every single little thing under the sun. Some people still believe in being responsible, good citizens, and have personal accountability. If you believe that without tons of laws we would all become bloody savages then you're sadly misguided.

Most people aren't speeders, just like most people aren't texting while driving. But, again, you CAN enforce the speed limit through a variety of methods that are time proven to be effective. Texting? Not really.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By inighthawki on 5/12/2010 4:30:22 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know where you come from, but here on Earth we have millions of people, especially young teenagers, who think they are invulnerable, think they are always right, and think they are the only ones who know how to do something "the right way". This same group of people are the ones who believe that they can drive whatever speed they want because "they can handle it" since they're special or something.

I'm not trying to say we need a law for every little thing; however, saying no enforcement of a speed limit would result in a society where everyone magically obeys the speed limit anyway is ridiculous.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2010 5:51:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm not trying to say we need a law for every little thing


And I'M not calling for total anarchy!


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By porkpie on 5/12/2010 12:23:13 PM , Rating: 3
"If you seriously believe a texting ban would have spared his life, then that's absurd ... He wouldn't have not texted just because of it"

There are many teenagers that don't speed because they're afraid of getting a ticket, not because they're afraid of dying in a crash. Do speeding laws stop all teens from speeding? No, but they certainly reduce the level.

As for your belief this law is somehow draconian, that is wrong also. A "draconian" law would be banning all texting period, or banning text-capable phones from being in moving vehicles. That would impact people who didn't text while driving. This law, on the other hand, only impacts those who actually do commit reckless behavior that endangers others.

" Here you are saying some law, that can't even be enforced..."

Utter nonsense. Of course it can be enforced. It can't be enforced for every single violation -- but then what law can?


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2010 12:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Utter nonsense. Of course it can be enforced.


Did you read the article !?? How can you call that being enforced...

quote:
There are many teenagers that don't speed because they're afraid of getting a ticket


Again, according to the article, your chances of getting a texting ticket are so low as to be NON EXISTENT! Getting caught for speeding is a very real likely hood. Texting? Not so much.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By ekv on 5/12/2010 1:23:30 PM , Rating: 2
For speeding there is RADAR. [RADAR detectors in some states are frowned upon / confiscated, if you're somehow stopped].

For texting ... ? Don't know much about cellphone comm protocols. I don't think it'd be impossible, but rather unlikely a texting cell could be detected. I mean, how do you detect a texting cell from a neighborhood home from a moving car?

Unless local parents and politicians push for it, the police have other duties that'll take priority (over tickets for texting).


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By callmeroy on 5/12/2010 2:29:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For speeding there is RADAR. [RADAR detectors in some states are frowned upon / confiscated, if you're somehow stopped].


Frowned upon? Try illegal.

United States Law varies from state to state, but detectors are generally legal in private vehicles under the Communications Act of 1934[15] and illegal in commercial vehicles by DOT regulation (49 CFR 392.71). Exceptions:

Illegal in all vehicles: Virginia, Washington D.C., U.S. military bases

Illegal in commercial vehicles under state law: Illinois, New York, New Jersey (specifically, commercial vehicles over 10,000 pounds (4,500 kg) and all vehicles over 18,000 pounds (8,200 kg)) Also illegal in all commercial vehicles over 10000lbs under US federal law

Indirectly illegal (Illegal due to prohibitions against affixing items to windshield - "obstructing vision"): Minnesota, California[1], New York[16]
Repealed: Connecticut (repealed in 1992)[17]

Confiscation and/or destruction of the detector was once a common practice but lawsuits raised by drivers arguing violation of property rights have resulted in temporary removal while a citation is written, then return of the device after its description (make, model and serial number) has been entered on the ticket - usually for speeding and possession/operation of detector



RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2010 4:13:09 PM , Rating: 2
Sad but true. A gross violation of citizens rights making those illegal was too. If they have the right to monitor us, we should have to right to know we are being monitored.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By porkpie on 5/12/2010 1:32:28 PM , Rating: 2
"Did you read the article !??"

Did you? Let me quote:
quote:
Across the entire state of North Carolina, only 71 citations for texting while driving have been issued.
That's 71 people who will think twice about texting the next time they drive. Furthermore, these are almost certainly the most egregious cases -- the people most likely to cause an accident (who else would text in NC where a patrol officer could see them doing it?)

Secondly, how many people stopped (at least reduced) their texting for fear of a ticket?

"your chances of getting a texting ticket are so low as to be NON EXISTENT! "

Nonexistent is the chance of being mauled by a polar bear and a regular bear on the same day. 71 people cited is not "nonexisent". It's 71 people who have had the law enforced against them.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2010 1:52:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did you?


Yeah, the one pretty clearly saying the ban isn't effective? I did. I'm not sure what YOU read, but it's clear you want it to state something it's not.

quote:
That's 71 people who will think twice about texting the next time they drive. Furthermore, these are almost certainly the most egregious cases -- the people most likely to cause an accident (who else would text in NC where a patrol officer could see them doing it?)


Right, 71 out of millions of potential offenses. Man Porkie, that's some AWESOME enforcement!!

quote:
That's 71 people who will think twice about texting the next time they drive.


Or it's 71 people who will pay the small fine, and keep doing it. Who knows ?

quote:
Furthermore, these are almost certainly the most egregious cases


What method of pure speculation did you use to determine that? Straw, grasp, meet Porkie.

quote:
71 people cited is not "nonexisent".


Across an ENTIRE STATE?? And we're talking North Carolina here, not Alaska. That is a pathetic number. You keep bringing up "71" like it's a goddamn Olympic Gold Medal. Think about what you are saying for a minute.

Again, I'm sorry for your loss. But you aren't thinking clearly.
quote:
quote:


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By keegssj on 5/12/2010 2:02:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
71 people cited is not "nonexisent".

Across an ENTIRE STATE?? And we're talking North Carolina here, not Alaska. That is a pathetic number. You keep bringing up "71" like it's a goddamn Olympic Gold Medal. Think about what you are saying for a minute.


Population of NC "9,380,884 - Jul 2009, U.S. Census Bureau"

71 citations for 9 million people sounds pretty insignificant to me.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2010 2:15:36 PM , Rating: 1
Of course it is. He's being a freaking idiot on this issue.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By porkpie on 5/12/2010 2:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
"71 citations for 9 million people sounds pretty insignificant to me."

They have less than that for planting bombs, and only a few hundred total each year for murder. Should we eliminate those laws also, on the grounds we're not catching enough people?


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2010 2:37:23 PM , Rating: 1
lol I knew you would go there. As if you weren't already illustrating your absurdity, you go and pull the murder card. Like that is even close to relevant here.

Again, you can make all the laws you want. That doesn't mean they are going to work for everything. This is an awareness issue, not a texting issue.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Smilin on 5/12/2010 4:41:31 PM , Rating: 2
His point was valid, poked fun because you guys were being dumb so he illustrated with an extreme example. Now you're bitching about that.

Just because it only caught 71 offenders out of *many* does not mean it's a bad law and should be discarded.

The law is working. It might not be working well. Hell it might be working terribly but the fact is it's working. The law is not *causing* more people to text and drive.

You also keep mentioning this "awareness" thing. Part of "awareness" is the awareness that this act is illegal.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By porkpie on 5/12/2010 5:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
"Just because it only caught 71 offenders out of *many* does not mean it's a bad law and should be discarded."

I'd like to add that a law that is extremely expensive to enforce, or onerous in the "side effect" restrictions it places on citizens engaging in non-harmful behavior (such as a law banning all gun ownership as a proxy for reducing gun crime) then it is certainly valid to say "the results don't justify the costs".

But in this case, however, there is no enforcement cost, or unintended side effects. The positive aspects of this law may be minor, but the negative aspects are nonexistent.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2010 5:57:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just because it only caught 71 offenders out of *many* does not mean it's a bad law and should be discarded.


If the premise is that the act is so pervasive, widespread, and dangerous that we need a law to ban it, and then the law only catches 71 out of MILLIONS, then yeah I think it's time to rethink the approach. Maybe not discarded, but certainly revisited. Do you have ANY common sense?


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Smilin on 5/12/2010 6:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
I would like to see the law improved, yes.

Abandonded, no.

I think a license suspension in place of a fine would be a good start. If you can't keep the safety of your fellow drivers in mind then get off the road.

I'd also like to see it enforced better. See someone with a device in their hand? Probable cause there. Pull em over and check the "sent" folder. Run their license while you're at it (they might be suspended from a previous offense..who knows) and do all that other smell-for-alcohol traffic stop stuff.

IMHO it's not that hard to spot someone texting. They drive like their head is up their ass and are always fussing with something in their lap.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2010 6:55:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think a license suspension in place of a fine would be a good start.


Oh is that all?? Very good Mein Fuhrer!!

Technically they can't do that for the same reason they don't issue you a ticket with points loss. It's not a moving violation.

quote:
Pull em over and check the "sent" folder.


Oh right, screw due process and civil liberties. Let's go right into Gestapo tactics!

You disgust me. It's protect and serve, not come after everybody! And all because the problem is SO widespread, a whole 71 people were caught out of millions.

quote:
IMHO it's not that hard to spot someone texting.


Based on North Carolina's results so far, it either;

A. IS that hard to spot
B. There isn't nearly as many people texting while driving as we were lead to believe
Or C. Cops have bigger fish to fry and don't feel like pulling over someone and harassing them for something so minor.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By porkpie on 5/12/2010 7:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
"Oh is that all?? Very good Mein Fuhrer!!"

So a license suspension for reckless endangerment while driving you now consider to be fascism? We have to leave people on the road, no matter how dangerous they are?

Are you intentionally trying to embarrass yourself, or is it just happening accidentally?


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Dumb and Dumber
By porkpie on 5/12/2010 9:51:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're right. Screw due process. Fuck being innocent until proven guilty. Let's just take everyone who ever does anything wrong, first offense or not, and suspend their licenses and pile on thousands in fines! That will show them!
Can you not argue like a sane human being for once? No one is saying "screw due process". If they want to fight their ticket in court -- that's their right. And no one is saying a single texting violation should result in loss of license and "thousands in fines" ... though I think a second violation in five years time would fit the crime nicely.

Texting is about the most dangerous thing you can do behind the wheel, besides intentionally ramming your vehicle into a crowd of pedestrians. It should have a serious penalty attached. If you want to drive -- don't text. Simple. You don't risk the lives of innocent people to get your texting fix.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Reclaimer77 on 5/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Dumb and Dumber
By porkpie on 5/13/2010 7:25:56 AM , Rating: 2
"BULL! It doesn't even compare to being drunk behind the wheel. "

Stop being an idiot. This study by the Transport Research Library found texting to be far more dangerous than driving drunk:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/news/arti...

Car and Driver magazine decided to do their own test, and found the same thing:

http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/d...


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Reclaimer77 on 5/13/2010 11:22:46 AM , Rating: 1
Did you actually research the methodology used in those tests?? It's absurd, and in no way reflects real world conditions. When you KNOW you are just sitting in a room or simulator, and there is no real responsibility or danger, of course you won't pay as much attention.

Also the statistic are skewed because of one VERY important distinction that they don't make. A texters chance of an accident only increased WHILE they are texting. A person driving while intoxicated is impaired permanently every minute he is operating the vehicle. The chance for an incident increases exponentially the longer he is in the vehicle.

Driving drunk PHYSICALLY impairs your brain. You are unable, physically, to perform at the same levels. You are BRAIN DAMAGED! Saying this is LESS dangerous than texting? Only a moron would believe that. Are you a moron??

Drunk driving kills thousands a year dumbass. If your friend died of it, you would be absolutely RAILING against it. But now because he was texting, it's a BIGGER problem than DWI's ??? You are actually trying to marginalize driving drunk to make your point, despicable.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Smilin on 5/13/2010 5:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You know, I'm telling you for your own good, you need to take a break from this discussion. It's obviously hitting too close to home. He's dead and gone, and you need to deal with that. He made a choice. Nobody forced him, a lack of a law didn't compel him, society didn't let him down. It - just - happened.


You are taking this event and mixing it with the passion you see in porkpies argument and coming to the conclussion that he is somehow not thinking clearly.

First, porkpie is always like this. I'm on his side in this argument but I've been on the opposite of others. He typically gets kinda riled up and starts questioning your sanity or competence when you disagree with him.

Second, while concern about some anonymous person on the 'net is certainly refreshing to see I think he can take care of himself.

But most importantly: stop using this event as an excuse to dismiss his arguments as invalid. He's got valid points. They are different from yours because he disagrees with you, not because he's too emotional to think logically.

I have not endured such a tragedy and I agree with his points (so far).


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Smilin on 5/13/2010 4:55:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh is that all?? Very good Mein Fuhrer!!


Easy there with the Nazi tourrettes there Glenn Beck.

quote:
Technically they can't do that for the same reason they don't issue you a ticket with points loss. It's not a moving violation.


Interesting. Not a moving violation tet they can only issue tickets if the vehicle is moving? Mind like a bear trap huh?

quote:
Oh right, screw due process and civil liberties. Let's go right into Gestapo tactics!


Go re-read the 4th and 5th there pal. You have the right to refuse but with probable cause your texting records can be obtained.

quote:
You disgust me. It's protect and serve, not come after everybody


Apparently your idea of protect and serve is to allow criminals to just carry on about their business and cause automobile accidents. Your drama queen behavior is what's disgusting here dude.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By porkpie on 5/12/2010 6:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
"If the premise is that the act is so pervasive, widespread, and dangerous that we need a law to ban it,"

The premise is that texting while dangerous kills people. Period. And not just the people texting, but the people they crash into. Are you disputing this happens?

Further, you're missing the entire point here. What matters isn't how many people are caught, but rather how many are dissuaded from texting. Without statistics on that, it is impossible to adjudicate the effects of this law.

Still further, you haven't addressed my earlier statement. The positive effects of the law may or may not be minor...but its negative effects are essentially zero. So why not leave it on the books, and convince officers to enforce it even more, rather than just remove it?


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2010 7:16:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The premise is that texting while dangerous kills people. Period.


There goes the emotional blackmailing again. Are you SURE you aren't a Liberal?? The premise is that texting has a higher chance at being distracted, WHICH COULD increase your chances of having an accident. Not that it just plain KILLS PEOPLE. And we already had something on the books for this damnit, it's called RECKLESS DRIVING ! If someone is texting and swerving all over the place or getting into accidents, it's ALREADY COVERED BY A LAW.

quote:
What matters isn't how many people are caught, but rather how many are dissuaded from texting.


Without a reasonable expectation and fear of ever getting caught, there IS NO DISSUASION! YOU are missing the point, again.

Do you honestly expect me to believe that since December of 2009, suddenly 50-75% of all texters just up and stopped doing it because of this law??

quote:
convince officers to enforce it even more


Again, DID YOU READ the article? We can't convince officers to have magnified x-ray vision and psychic powers, which is what it would take to properly enforce this. From the article :

it's just that a trooper has to articulate that a person is in fact texting and not looking at their phone number or making a phone call."
The problem is that it is hard for officers to see when a person is texting and driving and when they do see a person using their phone while driving or looking down at the phone; it can be hard to tell if the person is making a call or sending a text.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By porkpie on 5/12/2010 2:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
If the law convinces 71 people to not text, that's potentially 71 lives saved...much more than that, actually, when you consider most accidents involve at least two people.

We have environmental laws on the books that cost billions to enforce, that save an average of 0 - 10 lives per year. This law costs nearly nothing to enforce, and has at least a small positive effect. Why are you so against it?


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2010 4:20:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the law convinces 71 people to not text, that's potentially 71 lives saved...much more than that, actually, when you consider most accidents involve at least two people.


Here we go again. Just because the person you knew died, does not make texting a life or death issue every single time. And what is this, Minority Report? Everyone who text's is being tried for the Future Crime of vehicular neglect?? You act as if it's a forgone conclusion that texting WILL lead to an accident that leads to deaths. If that was the case, it would be a moving violation, subject to points being taken off your license leading to higher insurance premiums, just like speeding. Ask yourself why it's not.

quote:
We have environmental laws on the books that cost billions to enforce, that save an average of 0 - 10 lives per year.


And I'm sure you know by now I'm not for those either.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Smilin on 5/12/2010 12:55:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well you are obviously too emotionally connected to this story, via your son's friend, to objectively debate this issue.


No, you are obviously using his assumed emotion to dismiss an otherwise rational and well spoken point.

The law might not be terribly effective at stopping people but that doesn't mean the behavior of texting while you are driving should be ok or legal.

This isn't an insurmountable problem. People never used their seatbelts in the 70s yet it's almost universal today. How did we pull this off? #1 is that Awareness that you're talking about, #2 is the laws on wearing a seatbelt, and #3 is peer pressure once the masses choose the right path.

As for giving kids cellphones: it's your kid, do what you want. My kid is going to be well adjusted for the society they will eventually inherit. Part of this social adjustment will be text messaging with their siblings, peers, and schoolmates as they grow up. They are also going to learn via carrot, stick, and by parental example not to ever text while driving.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2010 1:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but that doesn't mean the behavior of texting while you are driving should be ok or legal.


Where did I say it should be?

quote:
This isn't an insurmountable problem.


It's also not the biggest threat to the known Universe either.

quote:
My kid is going to be well adjusted for the society they will eventually inherit.


If your kid isn't going to be "adjusted" because you made him/her wait a few years for a cellphone, than buddy, that speaks volumes about your parenting skills.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Smilin on 5/12/2010 4:18:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where did I say it should be?


This sure sounds like you don't like the law right here...

quote:
Here you are saying some law, that can't even be enforced, is going to do the job for you. Everyone these days want's a law for everything...

..but whatever.
quote:
If your kid isn't going to be "adjusted" because you made him/her wait a few years for a cellphone, than buddy, that speaks volumes about your parenting skills.


If you say so. Texting may not be important to you and I but it will paramount in the world our kids grow up in. Denying them literacy in the technology would deprive them of competitiveness to their future peers.

I'm quite capable of raising a well adjusted kid who does not text but I'm not going to. I'm sure I caused lots of trouble and headaches for my parents when I used a telephone and computer but I thank them today for giving me the experience. Like I said, do whatever you want with your kid. Mine will eventually need employees. ;)


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By VahnTitrio on 5/12/2010 11:39:29 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, if it's really that important pull into a parking lot and send your message.

Off-topic I love Ford Sync for making phone calls. Although it doesn't support texting on my phone (it mistakes a text message as an incoming call, interrupting your music for 3 seconds), it does make it easy to just call the person back and see what they wanted. Unless of course that person has a foreign name, then good luck getting it to dial the correct person via voice command. Or give that person a nickname.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By callmeroy on 5/12/2010 11:51:31 AM , Rating: 2
Picture this...

Nadia gets in an accident , while she gets badly hurt she is stable....unfortunately she killed a person in the other car.

So now I guess Nadia's attorney will recite her famous defense to the victim's family....."I'm sorry for the loss of your (son/brother/sister/daugther/spouse/etc.)...but Nadia had to text...and you know what you have to text you have to text"....

Un...

friggin...

believable...


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By Omega215D on 5/12/2010 3:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
After making a statement like that I wonder why she still has her license.


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By marvdmartian on 5/12/2010 3:56:47 PM , Rating: 2
Someone..... PLEASE ....break that girl's thumbs before she kills someone!!

Makes me wonder, too, how many cops are texting while driving?? ;)


RE: Dumb and Dumber
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/14/2010 7:34:24 AM , Rating: 2
Quote corrected for typical teenage girl style:
quote:
"It is [sooooooo] bad. I know it's unsafe [and stuff], but [like OMG] if you've got to text, you've got to text[, right?]"


The interviewer should have knocked her silly right then and there.


By Beenthere on 5/12/2010 10:37:10 AM , Rating: 2
...while driving should get a mandatory year in jail and a $1000 fine. Second offenders get 3 years and a $10,000 fine. Texting and talking on cellphones while driving is an epidemic in America.




By FDisk City on 5/12/2010 11:42:14 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah! And if you're caught texting during a movie, death by firing squad!


By Omega215D on 5/12/2010 3:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
Not just while driving but also walking. I've seen people just walk right into the street against the light and nearly get hit by oncoming vehicles all because the pedestrian was too preoccupied by their phone.


By porkpie on 5/12/2010 4:09:56 PM , Rating: 2
Their life; their risk. I wouldn't support a law against that at all. Texting while driving, however, endangers others besides you.


By Smilin on 5/12/2010 5:48:25 PM , Rating: 2
Hey hey. Easy guys. I'm all for banning texting and driving but lets stop it there. No sense in sucking all the comedy out of the world.

People who text-and-walk-into-poles add a brightness to our lives that is more than worth the occasional lost life.


By Omega215D on 5/12/2010 10:29:51 PM , Rating: 2
Not that but they can sue and most of the time win if they get hit or strike an object belonging to someone else. A neighbor of mine is fighting a lawsuit that some idiot on a Blackberry filed. The idiot crossed the street in the middle of the block and wasn't paying attention. My neighbor tried stopping but someone rear ended him and pushed his car into said idiot.


By Smilin on 5/13/2010 10:00:30 AM , Rating: 2
He should counter sue said idiot for causing the accident.


WOW
By HoundRogerson on 5/12/2010 11:48:24 AM , Rating: 2
This blog article went 15 comments without someone mentioning the hot blonde in the picture.

Good job guys, way to stay on-topic for once.




RE: WOW
By callmeroy on 5/12/2010 11:54:40 AM , Rating: 2
Well there's a thought that came to my mind concerning something I'd like that woman to do TO me while I am driving...

But I suppose that's far more distracting than if I were texting...


RE: WOW
By Smilin on 5/12/2010 1:00:07 PM , Rating: 2
Have a seat right over there...


RE: WOW
By phazers on 5/12/2010 11:59:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This blog article went 15 comments without someone mentioning the hot blonde in the picture.


LOL - actually I was gonna mention how I'd like to give her a ticket, whether she's texting or not :P.

Seriously, I guess the next step will be for the gov't to mandate that all cellphones sold in the US to activate GPS functionality and disable the alphanumeric keys (which would disable texting as well as dialing) if it is determined the phone's measured speed exceeds 5mph. In other words, you could still use the phone as a phone in a hands-free mode, but nothing else. Of course that would greatly inconvenience passengers as well, thanks to the actions of a few bozos..


RE: WOW
By VahnTitrio on 5/12/2010 12:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
Except that would disable any passengers phones...


RE: WOW
By phazers on 5/12/2010 5:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Except that would disable any passengers phones


Which is basically what I meant by "greatly inconvenience passengers" :P.

But thanks for clarifying..


RE: WOW
By Smilin on 5/12/2010 1:01:11 PM , Rating: 2
Have a seat right over there...


Why make the distinction?
By nafhan on 5/12/2010 11:57:22 AM , Rating: 2
Why make a distinction between texting and calling? Give a ticket to anyone who's got a phone in their hand. Looking down to dial number on the keypad doesn't really seem much safer than looking down to enter a short text message.




RE: Why make the distinction?
By Smilin on 5/12/2010 12:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yep. Write the ticket, let the court sort it out.

If it gets contested then rapidly dismissed (typically low cost to taxpayer) then so be it.

The kid still had to show up in court with a parent...which if you're my kid is going to fix your wise-ass faster than some trivial fee.


RE: Why make the distinction?
By porkpie on 5/12/2010 12:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
"Why make a distinction between texting and calling? "

I'll give you a hint. One requires you take your eyes off the road, the other doesn't. Incoming calls don't require you to dial and for outgoing calls, on a 9-key numeric pad, it's trivial to dial by touch alone.

Try reading a text message without your eyes, though.


RE: Why make the distinction?
By ekv on 5/12/2010 1:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Try reading a text message without your eyes, though.
You could always have text-to-speech ... 8)

[I apologize if I'm making light of a serious situation].


RE: Why make the distinction?
By nafhan on 5/12/2010 2:08:02 PM , Rating: 2
Several states (and DC) have hands free laws already in place. It wouldn't be a big jump to apply those same laws to texting (they may already apply, not sure). Even if you do have the number memorized, you've got one hand and your mind occupied by something unrelated to driving. "Phone in the hand" might not be perfect, but it has the advantages of being an existing legal precedent, easy to enforce, easy to understand, and somewhat reasonable.
Anyway, as others have stated, when driving you should be driving not messing with your CD/MP3 player, making calls, eating a burger, etc.


again with the epic fail
By inperfectdarkness on 5/12/2010 1:26:32 PM , Rating: 4
seriously guys. attractive woman pics must be made available in high rez.

that is all.




RE: again with the epic fail
By The0ne on 5/12/2010 4:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
You don't want your wish to come true. Just like at night, it's best view from FAR away. When you get close, RUN AWAY! Unless your drunk of course and we know that happens :D


RE: again with the epic fail
By Smilin on 5/13/2010 5:31:00 PM , Rating: 2
Have a seat right over there...


Nadia Hedgley is...
By iFX on 5/12/2010 12:40:24 PM , Rating: 1
... a stupid bitch! Her parents should be jailed.

quote:
One 21-year-old driver Nadia Hedgley said, "It is bad. I know it's unsafe, but if you've got to text, you've got to text." "There have been times when I’ve texted, and I’ve realized I’m getting up too close to a car,” added 21-year-old driver Alicia Tegan.




RE: Nadia Hedgley is...
By DM0407 on 5/12/2010 12:46:37 PM , Rating: 2
If your young enough to NEED to text someone while driving on the road your too young to drive. Plain and simple.

Don't fool yourself, your not that important. People will survive without your input.

Any crime that only hurts the perpetrator should not be punished (consumption of drugs) but if you endanger another person it should be harshly punished.


RE: Nadia Hedgley is...
By callmeroy on 5/12/2010 2:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
Drugs hurt others. Maybe indirectly, but its still the drugs causing it. Have you ever heard of a "nice" gang that simply asks people to kindly hand over money for their drug habit? ....didn't think so....me either.

I do agree with your point on texting though...part of the problem young people have today is this obsession to ALWAYS be updated on every slight detail their friends are involved in. Seriously...I fully believe a good 90-95% of any phone call you see someone making while driving and any text someone does while drive....is actually very very UNIMPORTANT little gossip crap.

30 years ago I was a kid just starting elementary school...from that time even up through high school we seemed to do fine w/o having to update our friends every 5 minutes of every single day of our lives....why is it different now?


RE: Nadia Hedgley is...
By Smilin on 5/12/2010 5:50:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah those roving drug gangs and their reefer madness.


I am Nadia
By NmHedgley on 5/13/2010 9:17:03 PM , Rating: 2
First off, I am a good driver and have NEVER once been in an accident, gotten a ticket or even been close to being in one in the 7 years that I have been driving.
Yes, I have texted a few times when I've been driving; such as when I'm STOPPED at a light or going down a road that is UNOCUPIED by other cars. Dear god people, big friggin whoop!
The wrong part of the whole matter is not being focused on the road and what's around you. HOWEVER; There is no difference in looking down at your phone to text as there is speaking to someone on the phone, changing music in your car, eating and even looking at yourself in the mirror! They are all considered as distractions while instead you should be focused on the road in front of you.
I really resent being judged and having nasty comments said about us such as "they should be in jail" and that we have "no brain cells". Who the hell are you?! I would like to see the driving skills / records and IQ levels of you people who have gotten your panties so highly twisted up your behind all because of a silly 2 minute clip on WRAL that has caused you to feel the right to rudely JUDGE two girls you don’t know who weren't even taking the silly interview seriously anyway! Get over yourselves!!!
Quite frankly, you people must have really sad and pathetic lives to be so high strung over such a ingsignificant matter in life. There is so much more going terrible things going on in the world.
This was a whole joke between me and my friend. I can't believe we have gotten so much dramatic comments about us.. thanks for given us all this attention!
And as a final note; all you people saying "my parents should go to jail", do you actually KNOW MY PARENTS?!! have you ever met them or know how they raised me?? HOW DARE YOU. Just to through a guilt trip on you; my father died when I was 9 years old; how about you go run him down at his grave you ignorant scum.




RE: I am Nadia
By Smilin on 5/14/2010 11:05:10 AM , Rating: 2
If you're only texting while on some otherwise empty road who cares? I think the real gripe here is putting others at risk.

You seem pretty bitter at everyone. I bet your Dad wouldn't like the way you are talking.


By ranran on 5/12/2010 2:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, though my wife and I have discussed a simple solution as our daughter comes of age - all teens must have jammers installed in their cars.

If the vehicle is on - the jammer activates.

You can even tie it into a 'crash-sensor' net so that the jammer becomes disabled when the vehicle is in an accident, if the vehicle doesn't turn off...

That would seem to solve a lot of these problems. If you're driving, no using cell phones. Period.

Tell you the truth, I wouldn't mind seeing a device like this mandatory on *all* vehicles, regardless of age.

If you really need to make a call - pull over and stop the car. Easy as pie.




Easy To Find Here
By FredEx on 5/12/2010 7:57:06 PM , Rating: 2
We have no problem seeing texters driving in my area of Michigan. A local TV station did a story about our new law banning texting while driving...they set up a camera on a busy road coming in to my small town when people would be on the way home from work and d*** nearly everybody was on a cell. Some in another world yakkin' and some texting.

I was almost in a head-on with a young girl texting in her tiny old Nissan. Doing the two thumb texting with her wrists resting on the center of the steering wheel. She almost hit a van after going past me coming at me on my side of the road. Guess she looked up before the van since she swerved to barely miss it and went past a school bus that just dropped off kids.

In that tiny rust bucket she was in she'd of been hurting hitting my full size 4 door. Her phone would have gotten jammed, jammed in the dash along with her arms.




In Response...
By ategen on 5/13/2010 11:55:48 PM , Rating: 2
What they conveniently didn't play on the news was when we were defending the no-texting while driving law by saying it's probably a good law to have because "There have been times when I’ve texted, and I’ve realized I’m getting up too close to a car." Don't talk to the media because they will only use what part of a conversation will best benefit their story.

When someone comes up to you on the street and turns a camera on your face while asking you controversial topic questions, do you think everything comes out the way you'd want it to if you were given time to think about the subject?

We've seen strangers post ugly comments like - we are all boobs and no brain or that we, or our parents should be in prison. If you're going to talk about ignorance then you should probably refrain from making comments like those ones.




Why not ban all distractions?
By CU on 5/12/10, Rating: 0
"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki