backtop


Print 92 comment(s) - last by sdfasdgdhasdf.. on Jan 30 at 12:58 PM

Drivers of large vehicles are the latest to feel the wrath of the anti-texting movement

Driving is a privilege that most Americans take for granted. We drive to work, we drive to see family, and we run errands on the weekend to Home Depot or fend off soccer moms in their minivans at Target. However, technology continues to invade not only our lives, but also our vehicles, which is making the normally mundane act of driving more challenging.

From GPS units to cell phones to SYNC in-car infotainment systems, U.S. drivers have found new ways to distract themselves while driving thanks to technology (not to mention other favorites such as applying makeup, eating, reading the newspaper, etc.). Texting while driving is the latest craze to infect drivers and states around the country are swiftly implementing laws to make such activities illegal. Texting is already banned in 19 states, and 23 states are currently prepping their own laws to tackle the problem.

"Legislators are looking to see if it (texting) is enough of a safety issue that they need to intervene," said Anne Teigen told the USA Today. Teigen is a transportation specialist for the National Conference of State Legislatures. "They often get involved because there's a high-profile accident that had to do with texting. Also, because everybody has a cellphone now."

While states are currently going it alone in drafting "no texting while driving" laws, there are a few nationwide texting bans that drivers should heed. President Obama issued an executive order at the close of 2009 banning all federal workers -- rather, those on the job -- from texting while driving. The ban affects roughly four million federal workers.

Now a new, federal ban is coming down from the U.S. government. The latest nationwide texting ban applies to drivers of big rigs and buses. "We want the drivers of big rigs and buses and those who share the roads with them to be safe," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "This is an important safety step and we will be taking more to eliminate the threat of distracted driving."

Drivers that choose not to abide by the new law face a fine of $2,750.

The bans from both the states and the U.S. government come on the heels of numerous studies which point out the dangerous consequences of texting and driving. A study by the University of Utah showed that drivers that text behind the wheels are six times more likely to be involved in a collision. The National Security Council notes that roughly 200,000 accidents are caused each drivers who text behind the wheel.

However, it's wishful thinking to believe that nationwide texting bans are going to stop people from partaking in America's favorite electronic pastime. Reuters has previously reported that teens aren't persuaded to stop their texting addictions just because there are laws on the books to prohibit the act.

"What I would say is that texting and cell phone devices have become such a component of life for teens and for young people that it's hard for them to differentiate between doing something normal and doing something wrong," remarked Steven Bloch, a senior research associate for the Automobile Club.

Considering that texting while driving isn't a habit that only affect teenagers, it's more than likely that drivers in a more "advanced state of age" are reluctant to stop the practice as well.

While the current nationwide texting bans affect a relatively small portion of the entire U.S. driver pool, Senator Chuck Schumer (Democrat, NY) is looking to change that. Senator Schumer has introduced legislation that would call for a federal ban on texting while driving. States that don't comply with the legislation would be see a 25 percent cut in the federal highway funds they receive.



Comments     Threshold


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

It's a good start
By HighWing on 1/26/2010 2:51:48 PM , Rating: 5
This is at least a good start as a larger fine will make people think twice about doing it, especially if they get caught.

However, this is only effective if people are caught. I've been saying this many times before and it's already been reported here on DT that catching people in the act is easier said then done. But this is at least a good start to deter some people.

If you don't already know about Heather's Law, please take a moment to read the two links I posted here. Heather Hurd was a friend of mine who was killed by a truck driver who was txt'ing and not paying attention to the road.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=...

http://www.theledger.com/article/20080804/NEWS/808...




RE: It's a good start
By AEvangel on 1/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: It's a good start
By Sazabi19 on 1/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: It's a good start
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 3:42:29 PM , Rating: 3
Um, the guy actually has a valid point. While I don't agree with the idea that we can't have DUI laws at all, the fact that people are getting charged with DUI while asleep in a car that doesn't even run, or in the back of a car being TOWED for Christ's sake, is about as silly as it gets.

What kind of judge makes an idiot ruling like that?


RE: It's a good start
By TheEinstein on 1/27/2010 8:16:08 AM , Rating: 2
I drive a semi-truck, specifically a Volvo 780.

In my truck I have a tom-tom, a Qualcomm (Message system via satelite for next load info, fuel stops, routing, etc), cell phone, my laptop, and Sirius Radio.

In a cop car they have stereo, radio, cell phone, computer, and in some a gps system. Cops drive less distance, and less hours than I do, BY FAR. Yet they are expected to do all instruments and a highspeed chase at the same time.

Do not give me some drivel about them being 'more trained' either, they are simply not trained half as much in driving as a semi-truck driver is.

Texting on a phone is idiocy, I admit. But existing laws will cover 100% of what a driver can do. If you wont throw the book at 100% of criminals (yes criminal if you have an accident cause you were distracted, it's called wreckless driving) and if you wont prosecute under certain laws because the standards are hard to meet, then it's your fault prosecutors.

New and endless laws are STUPID. In theory now I cannot read my Qualcomm due to this law, or even hit the next button to shut the thing up when it gets a message. The endless beeping is more a hazard than my hitting the next.

Keep your laws to yourself. I drive safe. In fact I have yet to have ANY accidents while driving (yard accidents only, different story there) even with website reading, typing (slowly) in text boxes, and talking on a phone.

Most drivers you meet wont have accidents due to phone usage.

We are called PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS for a reason.

Do not mistake, bus drivers never should use it anyways, but their standards are half my standards.


RE: It's a good start
By Fracture on 1/27/2010 9:26:45 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is sometimes just that: its their profession. A cop does not have to drive to make a living (necessarily.. or can spend a lot of time parked in one spot).

A small percentage of professional drivers make the choice to sacrifice rest for more miles/hauls, often with disasterous consequences. While your average recreational driver can drink, drive, and cause some pretty serious damage, a sleepy semi driver will turn anything it hits into a crushed soda can.

My point is, its not always the external distractions that cause crashes, but that doesn't really relate to this article. Internal factors such as fatigue will however multiply their consequences, and it is much more an issue with vehicles weighing many times your average SUV.

You are right about experience leading to less accidents under normal circumstances though.


RE: It's a good start
By TheEinstein on 1/27/2010 7:52:48 PM , Rating: 2
Where did I mention fatigue and rest issues?

You reacted like a talking point.

I spoke of instruments and devices, not of fatigue.

Now as I said before, we have a lot of instruments, but we do need certain amounts.

Texting while driving is a skill set for professional drivers. Our next load, directions, fuel routing, HR issues, etc, all via a text device (in my case a Qualcomm)

I cannot wait for the government to regulate sex and porn on the scale they are regulating other freedoms. I can see the laws now "no sex on tuesdays, unless in full body latex" and "premature ejaculation is punishable by a $5000 fine" and "at any time a government regulator may study your sexual habits to determine if they are safe"


RE: It's a good start
By ClownPuncher on 1/26/2010 4:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
You're advocating redundant and specialized laws for things we already have laws for. I suggest you read his post again, because I find it to be very much correct.

Seriously read that DUI for Inoperable vehicles link and tell me it makes sense.

Our legal system needs to get LESS convoluted with arbitrary laws and we should focus on the ones that actually make sense.


RE: It's a good start
By ZHENZHEN on 1/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: It's a good start
By mindless1 on 1/28/2010 12:30:36 AM , Rating: 2
Perversion of existing laws is not a reason to do without law nor do without creating new laws that cover the technological advances made.

If the existing laws really cover the topic then what would be the problem with a specialized law for it? No, I think your argument is nonsense and you just want to text while driving.

I do not support excessively broad application, for example I find the DUI for Inoperable Vehicles conviction ludicrous, but we will not have a solution to excessive interpretation of existing laws until we have laws more fine tuned to specific circumstances.

For example, if they wanted it to be illegal to sleep drunk in an inoperable car, "IF" the people felt it should be illegal, they should have made such a law distinct and separate from DUI. Doing this takes away the reasonable latitude Judges have to pervert the law, by clearing defining what the punishment is for specific things.


RE: It's a good start
By rbsguy on 1/26/2010 3:52:15 PM , Rating: 1
You are absolutely correct.

We don't need anymore laws, just enforce the ones we already have. If someone is guilty of causing a wreck because they were distracted it doesn't matter what distracted them.

This is like hate crime laws. If you kill someone its bad. If you kill someone and it is proved that you did it because you hate them or what they represent, uh-oh this is double bad. This is nuts. The person is dead either way. Just throw the book at murderers in general. Same with distracted drivers. Throw the book at all of them and don't worry about legislating the different classes of distractions.


RE: It's a good start
By Bateluer on 1/26/2010 3:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
No, we need more laws, and more bureaucrats to support them. This is the only way government actually creates jobs.


RE: It's a good start
By msomeoneelsez on 1/26/2010 4:28:17 PM , Rating: 2
While I absolutely do see the sarcasm in your comment (quite well done btw, props) I just want to make a quick economic point.

Government jobs creates nothing. There is no value add at all. Government jobs are all regulation, no production. Government jobs, while some are necessary, i.e. police, fire, military, etc. are bad in excess.

So to anyone thinking that government jobs are good... I truly pity you.


RE: It's a good start
By xmichaelx on 1/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: It's a good start
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 8:16:43 PM , Rating: 3
Why not actually read his post before replying to it? He clearly said police protection was a necessary government role.


RE: It's a good start
By msomeoneelsez on 1/27/2010 1:37:38 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks porkpie :D


RE: It's a good start
By xmichaelx on 1/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: It's a good start
By sinful on 1/26/2010 11:21:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Government jobs creates nothing. There is no value add at all. Government jobs are all regulation, no production. Government jobs, while some are necessary, i.e. police, fire, military, etc. are bad in excess.

So to anyone thinking that government jobs are good... I truly pity you.


You fail, because service jobs don't "produce" anything either; your waiter doesn't "produce" anything, nor does an IT dept, etc.
Yet, they add considerable value, as do many governemnt services (USPS, etc).

Second, you magically ignore things like roads & bridges, which are "produced" and DO add value.

Finally, most of those services provided would be required anyway; the only difference is that those services on the free market would command considerably more money than what the government "charges".
i.e. do you REALLY believe that water service would be cheaper if on the free market? Or that you'd get a better deal on "road maintenance costs" if the government got out?

So, I pity you, because you're just another one of those "Teh evil gubberment ruinz our econome!!!" types that can't see the forest from the trees.


RE: It's a good start
By msomeoneelsez on 1/27/2010 2:19:29 AM , Rating: 2
Excuse me for not being entirely clear; I do believe that some government jobs are necessary. My point was that...
quote:
while some are necessary, i.e. police, fire, military, etc. [they] are bad in excess.


Is that more plain to you?

quote:
Yet, they add considerable value, as do many governemnt services (USPS, etc).

Horrible example. Before UPS and FedEx (i.e. competition) USPS was quite horrible. Maybe the DMV would suite better? Oh... wait... maybe they need some competition?? (sorry, low blow, I know haha)

quote:
Second, you magically ignore things like roads & bridges, which are "produced" and DO add value.


produced by private companies who are contracted by the government for the work... yeah... Where did I forget them?

quote:
Finally, most of those services provided would be required anyway; the only difference is that those services on the free market would command considerably more money than what the government "charges".


Oh, you mean the tax dollars which are terribly hard to track, and are perverted by the 16,000+ pages of tax code? Yeah, thats a great argument to take...

quote:
So, I pity you, because you're just another one of those "Teh evil gubberment ruinz our econome!!!" types that can't see the forest from the trees.


I am not against a body of government, I am against a body of over government. I know you may be used to people taking extremes to win arguments, but I am not here to debate, I am here to educate. I understand economics and can explain it using rational thought and discourse, while it appears that many others cannot.

Back to the point which I originally made...
the government has no resources of its own, and does not produce any goods (wait, I lied, the GM acquisition changed that...) In fact, all it does is provide "services" such as the military, emergency forces, and education. Unfortunately, the government also provides the "service" of "protection" from things and people such as "wall street fatcats" (who, by the way, are now allowed to give all the money they want to politicians...) and "big business", which has lately only shown to allow the businesses with lobbyists to write laws vicariously through politicians in a way that harms competition, and ultimately allows the big businesses to continue monopolizing. Then there is the "service" of warrantless wire-tapping which STILL has yet to be repealed, and was in fact passed by two separate congresses, one Dem, one Repub, and is an absolute violation of our civil liberties.

Want me to go on?

You see, I have reasons for why I am against the expansion of government. I am glad that government exists, I just see the reasons why it should be limited. In that regard, I am quite like the Founding Fathers who, by the way, created a nation with only necessary and proper regulation of the private sector which skyrocketed this nation from creation to world power in a span of 150 years, a feat which has never been done before, and has yet to be approached again (although, not much time has been allowed for that yet.)

Freedom is a much better way in every regard than more government control, so long as there are governmental restrictions on people so that the people do not violate the rights of others.


RE: It's a good start
By sinful on 1/28/2010 2:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Horrible example. Before UPS and FedEx (i.e. competition) USPS was quite horrible.

LOL, Compared to WHO?
You might as well add "They were the worst, and the best, because nobody else was even around!".

quote:
Maybe the DMV would suite better? Oh... wait... maybe they need some competition?? (sorry, low blow, I know haha)

Yeah, maybe they should put the folks from ENRON in charge.
Oh, low blow right back at you!

quote:
Oh, you mean the tax dollars which are terribly hard to track, and are perverted by the 16,000+ pages of tax code? Yeah, thats a great argument to take...

Funny you should say that, since the government is often forced to disclose FAR more than what a company does -- and they can be voted out / kept out of office.
Don't like how your state is being run? Vote your leaders out. Don't like how Toyota is run? TOUGH LUCK, BUDDY.

quote:
and "big business", which has lately only shown to allow the businesses with lobbyists to write laws vicariously through politicians in a way that harms competition, and ultimately allows the big businesses to continue monopolizing.


The fault with that logic is that this happens BECAUSE of government, paradoxically ignoring the fact that big businesses try to monopolize and harm competition ANWYAY -- and only government regulation actually stops them.
What, you don't think Intel wouldn't pull every dirty trick in the book against AMD if they didn't have to worry about the Feds?

quote:
Then there is the "service" of warrantless wire-tapping which STILL has yet to be repealed, and was in fact passed by two separate congresses, one Dem, one Repub, and is an absolute violation of our civil liberties.

Want me to go on?

No, because its just a rant irrelevant to the topic at hand.

quote:
You see, I have reasons for why I am against the expansion of government. I am glad that government exists, I just see the reasons why it should be limited. In that regard, I am quite like the Founding Fathers who, by the way, created a nation with only necessary and proper regulation of the private sector which skyrocketed this nation from creation to world power in a span of 150 years, a feat which has never been done before, and has yet to be approached again (although, not much time has been allowed for that yet.)

Freedom is a much better way in every regard than more government control, so long as there are governmental restrictions on people so that the people do not violate the rights of others.


Funny you should say that -- "The USPS is one of the few government agencies explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution... the USPS's first incarnation was established by Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia in 1775 by decree of the Second Continental Congress. "

Looks like you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the founding fathers.
Oh, but let me guess, Ben Franklin is an ignoramus on the constitution compared to you.


RE: It's a good start
By csrdt on 1/26/2010 5:37:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We don't need anymore laws, just enforce the ones we already have. If someone is guilty of causing a wreck because they were distracted it doesn't matter what distracted them.


I want people fined for texting and driving before they cause an accident, not just after they cause an accident.


RE: It's a good start
By AEvangel on 1/27/2010 1:02:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I want people fined for texting and driving before they cause an accident, not just after they cause an accident.


This is as well is already covered by a current law called reckless driving.


RE: It's a good start
By mindless1 on 1/28/2010 12:24:04 AM , Rating: 2
Fine, so long as we ammend the definition of reckless driving to include operating the new CE devices which can text.

It would be pointless then to try and discriminate between that law, and a law specifically for texting.

The point is simple, we fine people before they are weaving out of control. I totally support that, there is no such thing as a responsible driver that feels they can text while driving. No matter how great a driver they think they are, they'd be even better at it without texting.

I also support legislation against many other things people do while driving. No shaving, no lipstick, no eating, etc. Why? Because I don't want some a-hole running into me or my family, it'd be different if the only risk they posed was to themselves.


A simpler solution
By Rookierookie on 1/26/2010 7:48:46 PM , Rating: 2
Don't fine bus drivers who text while driving. Just make it legal for passengers to throw them off the bus, then run them over with their own vehicle.




Fines rarely work
By Beenthere on 1/26/2010 11:46:48 PM , Rating: 1
Fines rarely work by themselves. I'd say start with a $10,000 fine and six months in jail if there are no personal injuries. If there are personally injuries make it $25K and a year minimum. If there are deaths then just add 20 years in prison for each death. Double everything for repeat offenders.

This is the only means to get dangerous, braindead idiots off the roadways and in prison where they belong. If you need to explain this to people, then they don't belong behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle.




Cheap online shopping
By fasfdhfd0000 on 1/29/2010 4:04:05 PM , Rating: 1

http://0rz.tw/oPWXd
can accept the paypal payment.we can ship within 24 hours after your

payment.

accept the paypal
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
http://0rz.tw/oPWXd




Cheap online shopping
By sdfasdgdhasdf on 1/30/2010 12:58:05 PM , Rating: 1

http://0rz.tw/oPWXd
can accept the paypal payment.we can ship within 24 hours after your payment.

accept the paypal
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
http://0rz.tw/oPWXd




Priviledge? BS.
By chromal on 1/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Priviledge? BS.
By Phynaz on 1/26/2010 2:27:15 PM , Rating: 5
See those things attached to your legs?

Those were the human transportation system for millienia. Quit bitching that driving is a right. It's not.


RE: Priviledge? BS.
By chromal on 1/27/2010 12:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, because I can walk down 3500ft of elevation and 44 miles to work, and then up 3500ft of elevation and 44 miles home each day. Again, get real.


RE: Priviledge? BS.
By namechamps on 1/26/2010 2:34:13 PM , Rating: 4
Um then start a movement to amend the Constitution.

You (me, and the mailman) have NO RIGHT to drive.

You could move, or you could use a bike, or walk, or use a taxi.

You have no right to drive in the same context as you have no Constitutional RIGHT to eat a cheeseburger. Nobody is looking to outlaw cheeseburger eating but if they did you would have Constitutional standing to sue.

You do have a RIGHT to do certain things (but drive and eat a cheeseburger are not among them) such as:

* First Amendment – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

* Second Amendment – A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

* Third Amendment – No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

* Fourth Amendment – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

* Fifth Amendment – No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

* Sixth Amendment – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

* Seventh Amendment – In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

* Eighth Amendment – Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

* Ninth Amendment – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

* Tenth Amendment – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


RE: Priviledge? BS.
By Reclaimer77 on 1/26/2010 2:37:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Um then start a movement to amend the Constitution.


Yeah like anyone does that anymore...


RE: Priviledge? BS.
By AEvangel on 1/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Priviledge? BS.
By ussfletcher on 1/26/2010 2:49:46 PM , Rating: 1
The right to drive has been never directly given, but supreme court decisions make it quite clear that it should be implied.

http://www.thecountyguard.org/right-2-drive-handou...


RE: Priviledge? BS.
By msomeoneelsez on 1/26/2010 5:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
I started writing this comment to disagree with you, but I have actually changed my mind here... Read on for the explanation.

I'm going to quote Judge Andrew Napolitano, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnTuAOBt-P8

Forget the fact that he's on the Glenn Beck show, and remove the "gift from God" part and you have one of the best explanations of a right vs. a good ever publicized.

quote:
What is a right? A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity. Thinkers from St. Thomas Aquinas, to Thomas Jefferson, to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to Pope John Paul II have all argued that our rights are a natural part of our humanity. We own our bodies, thus we own the gifts that emanate from our bodies. So, our right to life, our right to develop our personalities, our right to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, our right to worship or not worship, our right to travel, to defend ourselves, to use our own property as we see fit, our right to due process – fairness – from the government, and our right to be left alone, are all rights that stem from our humanity. These are natural rights that we are born with. The government doesn’t give them to us and the government doesn’t pay for them and the government can’t take them away, unless a jury finds that we have violated someone else’s rights.

What is a good? A good is something we want or need. In a sense, it is the opposite of a right. We have our rights from birth, but we need our parents when we are children and we need ourselves as adults to purchase the goods we require for existence. So, food is a good, shelter is a good, clothing is a good, education is a good, a car is a good, legal representation is a good, working out at a gym is a good, and access to health care is a good. Does the government give us goods? Well, sometimes it takes money from some of us and gives that money to others. You can call that taxation or you can call it theft; but you cannot call it a right.

A right stems from our humanity. A good is something you buy or someone else buys for you.


Tell me, is a car something that stems from your humanity? No. Cars are goods. Cars are property.

That is where I changed my mind, by the way.

But, you have the right to use your property as you see fit. But there is a caveat to this right; the rights of others may be violated by your actions.

On the same note, I absolutely have a right to eat a cheeseburger, so long as I bought or produced it myself (therefor it is my property.)

So yes, you absolutely have the right to drive, but that doesn't mean you have the right to endanger others.

So yes, it is a right to use your property as you see fit, so long as it does not endanger or violates the rights of others, but that does not mean that even chromal is right.

quote:
Driving is not some hoity-toity privilege, people. For some of us, it's our only economic life support.


This does not make it a right to drive anymore than it is a right to have healthcare. This just makes it a need.

Need /= Right

I NEED food to be put on the table to survive, but I must WORK to put food on the table.

I may NEED a car to WORK, but I must WORK to get money (PROPERTY) to buy the NEED which is a car. If I violate the rights of others, or endanger the rights of others either by carelessness or direct actions to violate other's rights, then I am essentially giving up my rights in proportion to the violations of rights which I committed.

In which case; Endangerment /= violation. If you drive while drunk, generally speaking the only way to know unless the cops were sitting in the parking lots of bars and watching for people to pull over when they come out is to see reckless driving, which DOES directly affect other drivers, and may very easily lead to a collision, which is a violation of another's property rights, and possibly a violation of another's right to life.

Think about it this way, someone is holding a gun (driving). They could either be safe with it and point it only down range, clear the gun between firings, etc. (stay within the lines, not drive recklessly, etc.) or they could be pointing it at people, either because they are drunk, or are just careless, or are just "having fun" (drunk drivers, texting, street racing). The possibility of the gun going off and hurting someone that it is pointing at is such a bad possibility, that it is common sense to stop the idiot from pointing it at people. This may be by taking the gun away from him or by fining him, or by teaching him proper gun handling techniques. It is not a question of whether or not you're going to intervene so that safety may be kept, it is how you are going to intervene.

Back to driving; my personal belief of how we should handle it is as follows--

Any reckless endangerment (reckless driving, etc.) should be assessed by the officer on scene when the person is pulled over, and should result in a base fine of x dollars (to be determined by the states, I believe just $50 will suffice.) However, if the officer has reason to believe that the person is drunk, or will continue to drive recklessly, then either a higher fine, or an arrest until sober is warranted with a higher fine incurred.

If it is proven that an officer is unjustified in his decision to arrest, then some method should be in place to punish the officer and remove all infractions placed by the event on the driver.

On the 2nd count of reckless endangerment, the fines double, and the chance to be arrested goes up (track record) as to be determined by the officer on scene.

On the 3rd strike and higher, the fines keep doubling, and jail time determined by the officer, and the license is revocable.

Anyways, that is just my 2 (or 3...) cents.


RE: Priviledge? BS.
By MozeeToby on 1/26/2010 3:20:05 PM , Rating: 1
Do you know why the Bill or Rights are amendments instead of being part of the original constitution? The framers didn't want to give the impression that your rights are laid out in the constitution, it was supposed to be a list of things the government could do, as opposed to a list of things the government couldn't do.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the federal government can control what I eat, therefore I actually do have a constitutional right to eat a cheeseburger. Now, you may be able to argue about 'providing for public welfare' or one of the other clauses, but it would be a damn hard sell.


RE: Priviledge? BS.
By msomeoneelsez on 1/26/2010 5:12:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the federal government can control what I eat, therefore I actually do have a constitutional right to eat a cheeseburger. Now, you may be able to argue about 'providing for public welfare' or one of the other clauses, but it would be a damn hard sell.


You bought that cheeseburger, right?

Unless you stole it, that cheeseburger is your property, therefor you have the right to do what you wish with it, so long as it does not violate the rights of others.

Also, the constitution does not allow for conflicts within itself; if there is a place where a conflict arises, then it is already marked out to say which part is to be followed above the other.


RE: Priviledge? BS.
By Proxes on 1/26/2010 5:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
If people have full right to do whatever they want with their own property then why is it illegal to burn down your own, paid off, home?


RE: Priviledge? BS.
By Camikazi on 1/26/2010 6:17:56 PM , Rating: 2
Endangering the life and property of others I'm guessing, since I doubt most people know how to control a fire that gets out of control.


RE: Priviledge? BS.
By msomeoneelsez on 1/27/2010 1:54:43 AM , Rating: 2
That, and you could argue damaging property values of those around you (just ask a real estate agent about that) and also, if you wish to be rather extreme about it, the pollutants put out by it damage others' rights to life, however, I would refrain from using the latter argument as it is rather absurd. Not like it will stop the EPA though.......


RE: Priviledge? BS.
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 3:46:30 PM , Rating: 2
"Um then start a movement to amend the Constitution."

He doesn't need to. Constitutionally, the Federal Government has no right to enact laws banning texting on state roads. The individual states--yes. But this new federal law is clearly unconstitional, and would be struck down if we had Supreme Court judges that understood the 10th Amendment.


RE: Priviledge? BS.
By msomeoneelsez on 1/26/2010 5:15:58 PM , Rating: 2
He does need to, as you just clearly stated...

Anyways, I believe it can be argued that the Federal government does have a right to enact this law, so long as it is restricted to when the texting interferes with the driving. When the driver becomes impaired as a result of the texting, and therefor becomes a reckless driver.

If you want my explanation of that, please look above to the comments I already posted.


RE: Priviledge? BS.
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 8:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
I think you misread both my post and the Constitution. The Federal government has a right only to regulate commerce between states. The individual states themselves are responsible for what happens within their own borders.

But over the past 100 years, the Federal government has been using increasingly ludicrious arguments to expand their role. For example, if a crook robs a local store, it's a state offense...UNLESS that store has a branch in another state, in which then the Feds say it involves "interstate commerce".


RE: Priviledge? BS.
By msomeoneelsez on 1/27/2010 1:52:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Federal government has a right only to regulate commerce between states. The individual states themselves are responsible for what happens within their own borders.


How does driving fall under commerce??

It is a use of personal property, i.e. a car.

My point is that it can be argued by general welfare ("The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;") that it is in the general welfare to remove reckless drivers from the road, not that it is either right or Constitutional. Above I do state what I believe the best way is to deal with it as my limited knowledge of the issue has determined, but I leave that to others to determine, and that is not considering Constitutionality (not that the government even cares about the Constitution anymore, as you so kindly pointed out.)


RE: Priviledge? BS.
By chromal on 1/27/2010 12:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
I can move? Are you offering to buy my house in this down economy? Great!


RE: Priviledge? BS.
By porkpie on 1/27/2010 1:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
You're free to move. The government does not (and should not) guarantee that you won't suffer an economic impact from doing so.

Your statement is the corollary to the flawed belief that the government owes people food, shelter, and medical care, under the "right the life" clause.


RE: Priviledge? BS.
By Murloc on 1/26/2010 2:35:41 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that it's a necessary expense, but this situation is a consequence of the new transportation systems and growth of everything.

BUT if someone really couldn't afford it, even if it's 20 km he still can ride a bike.


RE: Priviledge? BS.
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 3:54:39 PM , Rating: 1
What if its 200km? Or only 5 km --- but there's an Interstate or divided highway, in the way, where its illegal to ride a bike?


RE: Priviledge? BS.
By chromal on 1/27/2010 12:41:10 PM , Rating: 1
It's kind of fascinating that my comment has generated a lot of great discussion, but the internet jackasses still rated it down. Oh well, passive-aggressive trolls unite, I guess. <3


RE: Priviledge? BS.
By Phynaz on 1/27/2010 12:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
Probably because your comment is stupid.


Excessive
By Reclaimer77 on 1/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Excessive
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/26/2010 2:26:49 PM , Rating: 5
Our drunk driving laws are pretty pathetic. I seriously would like to know why that is the case. I've seen stories of people getting arrested for the 9th or 10th straight DUI offense. Seriously, W T F?

I say we slap them with $3,000 fees just for being a jacka$$ -- then add $1,000 for each consecutive offense after that.

That being said, I find texting while driving nearing the same level of stupidity. Taking your eyes off the road to type on your phone? How idiotic can you be?


RE: Excessive
By ClownPuncher on 1/26/2010 2:48:22 PM , Rating: 4
10 DUI's? Three strikes sounds good to me, jailtime should be the answer at that point, in addition to fines.


RE: Excessive
By Solandri on 1/27/2010 12:32:11 AM , Rating: 2
This has been studied pretty extensively. Unfortunately, people who think as you do are in the minority. Basically, everyone drinks, and everyone drives. Most of us are pretty good at keeping the two separate, but can you be absolutely sure you'll never climb into your car one day while you're roaring drunk? So jurors tend to look at a drunk driver in court and think, "that could be me", and tend to go easy on the guy.


RE: Excessive
By frobizzle on 1/28/2010 8:14:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
10 DUI's? Three strikes sounds good to me, jailtime should be the answer at that point, in addition to fines.

Jail time should be at the first offense. There is absolutely no valid excuse for DWI. None. You want to drink? Don't drive. You want to drive? Don't drink. How can it get any simpler?


RE: Excessive
By AEvangel on 1/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Excessive
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 3:30:32 PM , Rating: 3
I'm about as Libertarian as it gets, but the idea the state can't fine people for unsafely operating a motor vehicle on a state road is rather a stretch.

And yes, the fine for texting should be worse than the fine for drunk driving. According to studies, texting is considerably more dangerous while driving than being drunk.


RE: Excessive
By AEvangel on 1/26/2010 4:08:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm about as Libertarian as it gets.


The rest of your post just made this statement void....I would recommend reading some real libertarian articles like those posted here http://www.lewrockwell.com of you really wanted to brush up on what being a libertarian is all about.


RE: Excessive
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 4:12:21 PM , Rating: 2
I've been reading Lew Rockwell a lot longer than you I bet...and if YOU really knew what "being a libertarian was all about", you'd realize there's a wide range of viewpoints and beliefs within the spectrum.

When I see someone texting while driving a vehicle towards me, I realize they're threatening me, just like they would be if they stated they planned to kill me.

Now whether they actually collide with me or not doesn't matter...just as a verbal threat is still a threat, whether or not they actually carry it out.


RE: Excessive
By AEvangel on 1/26/2010 5:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When I see someone texting while driving a vehicle towards me, I realize they're threatening me, just like they would be if they stated they planned to kill me.


So by your reasoning you would justified in shooting them as they were driving down the road texting??? WoW....I would liked to see that logic played out in court.

Sounds allot like the argument for preemptive war that the last administration used. They "could" have been a threat to me therefore I was justified in attacking them before they actually did ANY harm to me.

Prohibiting Drunk Driving Is Not Self-Defense
http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli41.1.h...


RE: Excessive
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 6:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, that logic has already been played out in court. Seen how many times a cop has shot and killed someone driving towards them, under the premise they believed the person intended to run them over? Same principle.

So yes, if someone was texting and about to run me over and IF shooting them would prevent the accident and IF I had no other means to prevent the accident, I most certainly could shoot them, and almost certainly get off in court as well.

Texting while driving is incredibly dangerous. Its a threat to anyone else on the road. You can't get around that simple fact...and even if it wasn't, the state (though NOT the federal) government would still have a right to control how you operate a vehicle on a public road.


RE: Excessive
By AEvangel on 1/26/2010 7:26:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Texting while driving is incredibly dangerous. Its a threat to anyone else on the road. You can't get around that simple fact...and even if it wasn't, the state (though NOT the federal) government would still have a right to control how you operate a vehicle on a public road.


While I agree with the idea that the state has some right to control driving, I disagree that texting is anymore dangerous then any other distraction that can effect your driving that the person behind the wheel has control over.

quote:
Actually, that logic has already been played out in court. Seen how many times a cop has shot and killed someone driving towards them, under the premise they believed the person intended to run them over? Same principle.


Actually you would still possibly charged with manslaughter and would have to use your own funds to defend yourself where as the police would be put on paid leave while once again YOU paid to defend him.

Also I didn't realize that when you said driving towards you that you meant right at you, my mistake.

I would then by your logic conclude that if the driver were NOT texting but just driving at you that you would not consider them a threat but would just let them run over you???

Once again your logic makes for this law is flawed...texting is no worse then any other form of negligent driving no matter how much you try to defend it these laws like DUI laws make no sense.

(Also I would like apologize for my earlier remark about you being a libertarian, you are right they are varied in their opinions, please accept my apology if I seemed rude.)


RE: Excessive
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 10:16:52 PM , Rating: 2
"I disagree that texting is anymore dangerous then any other distraction that can effect your driving "

Studies have shown that texting is many times more dangerous than driving while drunk. Furthermore, the level of danger is irrelevant. The mere fact that the state chooses not to single out other forms of negligence (beyond dui, that is) in no way, shape, or form implies they lose the right to enforce a very real public safety risk from texting.


RE: Excessive
By AEvangel on 1/27/2010 12:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The mere fact that the state chooses not to single out other forms of negligence (beyond dui, that is) in no way, shape, or form implies they lose the right to enforce a very real public safety risk from texting.


This is the flaw in your entire argument, THEY ALL READY DO!!

The laws are on the books already. There is no need for these frivolous laws which will not lead to protecting the public but instead will only lead to more of an invasion of our privacy.

The hilarity of it is that these laws are already in place in several states and almost all of them the Law Enforcement is calling them unenforceable since there is no way to tell when someone is texting, calling some or using their Ipod.

Do you not understand that the only way they can enforce these laws is by either;

1. Examing your phone after an accident.

2. Making your cell provider give them access to your phone records.

3. Obtaining real time access to your phone's activity while your driving.

Now I know your thinking well if someone is texting while driving and causes an accident, then I'm fine with the State gaining that information to convict them. But what if they weren't texting while driving and the State still requests and is granted access to your private personal information.

I'm sorry no matter what you say, your argument holds no merit. It's like saying that when you committing a crime with dull knife it is much more heinous act then if you used a sharp one. Therefore we need the Anti-Dull Knife law which would penalize you additionally for committing a crime with a dull knife.

If you want to do anything just increase the punishment for negligent driving no matter what the cause!!

I say we enforce or address the laws on the books FIRST, before you go out of your way to try to make new ones that will only result in infringing upon the public's privacy.


RE: Excessive
By Farfignewton on 1/27/2010 2:09:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So by your reasoning you would justified in shooting them as they were driving down the road texting??? WoW....I would liked to see that logic played out in court.


Stupidicide isn't even a word, how could it be a crime? ;)


RE: Excessive
By Yames on 1/26/2010 4:31:05 PM , Rating: 2
Here is Libertarian for you. This is none of the federal govts business. This is a state matter and should be left up to the states to create and enforce this kind of law.


RE: Excessive
By ClownPuncher on 1/26/2010 4:38:21 PM , Rating: 2
Not only is it not their business, it is not within their rights to do so. Prohibition was even lifted in part due to the fact that it was deemed unconstitutional to have a Federal ban on anything not mentioned in the Constitution directly.


RE: Excessive
By msomeoneelsez on 1/26/2010 4:47:21 PM , Rating: 1
Prohibition was a Constitutional Amendment...........


RE: Excessive
By ClownPuncher on 1/26/2010 5:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
Which violated the 10th amendment, which was why it was repealed ... dot dot dot .. dot .


RE: Excessive
By msomeoneelsez on 1/27/2010 1:59:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


That one??

The 18th Amendment stated
quote:
1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.


In other words, it Constitutionally granted the power to enforce liquor restrictions to the state and federal governments. Thats what Amendments do.

Prohibition was repealed because it obviously didn't work, and it created a TON more problems than it "solved."

Furthermore, it took another Constitutional Amendment, the 21st Amendment, to repeal it.
quote:
1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.


RE: Excessive
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 5:02:38 PM , Rating: 2
"Here is Libertarian for you. This is none of the federal govts business."

Which is exactly what I said.


RE: Excessive
By AEvangel on 1/26/2010 4:36:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm about as Libertarian as it gets, but the idea the state can't fine people for unsafely operating a motor vehicle on a state road is rather a stretch.


Sorry for the multi-post, but I never said that...I said there were laws already in place to deal with this issue. The DUI laws were just another way for the State to generate income nothing less, they do not keep us any safer then the current laws that were already on the books.


RE: Excessive
By Samus on 1/26/2010 8:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
First offense for driving drunk should be a fine and some heavy consequences.

Second offense should be permanent loss of driving privilages. Forever.

It's a privilage to drive. You appearantly didn't learn the first time, so you're probably never going to learn and even when you finally kill somebody and get the joke-of-a-charge for vehicular manslaughter (1-3 years in prison in Illinois, and rarely enforced) you'll be back out there again doing it.

People go their entire lives without driving so I don't want to hear this shit like "Waaaaaaah I need my car to get to work!" and "Waaaaaah how am I going to pick up my kids from school!?"

Fuck that. It's time for you to move to a city where you have some public transit. Too big of a change? Well, you should have thought about that before you got in a car wasted enough to be pulled over. More than once.


RE: Excessive
By Reclaimer77 on 1/26/2010 3:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. Not sure how I got a -1 and you got a +5 for saying the same thing, but I agree.

quote:
That being said, I find texting while driving nearing the same level of stupidity. Taking your eyes off the road to type on your phone? How idiotic can you be?


Well I don't agree it's the same. And I'm not sure why we're drawing the line at texting. And I don't agree that you can compare a distraction to an impairment. Drunk drivers are physically unable to focus, a texting person can put the phone down and be 100% at driving. A drunk person is just.. well, drunk.

What about the mother with the baby in the seat next to her swerving all over the place because she's distracted ? Or these f'ing morons driving with a dog on their laps ?

This isn't about safety. It's about governments in a recession looking for more funding. And the fine, in my opinion, in NO WAY matches the "crime". It's excessive. I've gotten in WRECKS that's cost me less money than this.


RE: Excessive
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/26/2010 3:50:01 PM , Rating: 2
If a mother is driving with her crying baby seated beside her, I know a few officers that would have a field day with her :)


RE: Excessive
By Reclaimer77 on 1/26/2010 3:54:25 PM , Rating: 2
Would they fine her $2,750 ???


RE: Excessive
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 4:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
You have a choice to text or not. If your baby starts crying, you can't exactly just turn it off (not without breaking a few other, much more serious laws, that is)


RE: Excessive
By ClownPuncher on 1/26/2010 5:20:12 PM , Rating: 2
I think the point was car seats should be in the backseat, rather than in the passenger seat.


RE: Excessive
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 6:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
If that was the point, then its even more moot, as a woman who intentional endangers her child while driving (by refusing to properly use an infant seat) can be charged not just a couple thousand bucks, but with felony endangerment. Several such cases have happened in recent years.


RE: Excessive
By Kurz on 1/27/2010 12:35:29 AM , Rating: 2
Heh I guess you've developed quite a aura about you Reclaimer.
People down rate you even if they agree with you.


RE: Excessive
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/2010 12:47:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Heh I guess you've developed quite a aura about you Reclaimer. People down rate you even if they agree with you.


I think people, especially younger ones, think that Conservatives like me are just against everything. Even laws like this that sound good and are well intentioned. You often here the Republican party called by Democrats "the party of NO".

That's not true. Me and others like me, would just like to see Government power more challenged and questioned. Because what a lot of people don't seem to get is that government power is, well, like a slow growing tumor. It starts small and seems very benign at first. People get used to the Government making a lot of "little" laws and rulings that only slightly effect our freedoms, or only the ones of "other people".

And before you know it, here we are today. With tons of laws on the books that are Unconstitutional, and nobody cares. People have grown accustomed to our Government overstepping it's bounds, and I just would like to see that more challenged. Our Government is out of control, and it started with LITTLE things, and people were silent and did nothing.

In Europe they are so regulated that you can't even carry your fathers coffin as a Pallbearer if you aren't an official government approved pallbearer. Honestly, is this where we are headed as a country ?

Just ask yourselves more questions when you see laws like these. Challenge yourself and the government. Try to see both sides of the argument. Because they are a big deal, because all these little things add up to BIG THINGS. The Government is not made up of well intentioned people looking out for your well being, I'm sorry to say. Just think about it.


RE: Excessive
By AstroCreep on 1/26/2010 5:43:20 PM , Rating: 2
What makes me roll my eyes is that (in Ohio at least) you can get cited with an OVI (Operating a Vehicle Impaired) for something as simple as using your battery-operated unlocker and getting into the passenger side.

Defined as "I am in control of and am therefore operating" a vehicle at that point, I can be cited for an OVI, even if I have a cab parked next to me and I am simply grabbing my garage door opener from my car.


RE: Excessive
By Kosh401 on 1/26/2010 2:49:59 PM , Rating: 2
Is that maybe also a case of drunk driving legislation being old? We just had an overhaul to ours recently here in Ontario. More strict and more severe fines, you essentially have to be careful driving after even 1 beer now.

I don't think I would call this "excessive" (except when compared to your drinking and driving laws maybe, I'm not familiar with them). If I'm in a bus and the driving is texting ppl I'd be pretty pissed off.

There's a good youtube clip I saw a long time ago. It was a news piece of a bus driver swiping some guy while he was texting.. the guy caught up stopped the bus, was arguing with the driver that he just swiped him, and the driver just closed the door and drove off lol.. terrible. He did get busted tho if I remember right. That was actually a part of a Youtube clip showing a bunch of different texting and public transit accidents, very fitting for this article except I'm too lazy to go find it and link it :)


RE: Excessive
By Reclaimer77 on 1/26/2010 3:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
If you CAUSE an accident, I'm all for you being fined out the ass. But it should not costs you thousands of dollars for simply being fined for texting while driving. That is excessive in any rational sense of the word.

It's just sad how transparent this is and how, because it's unpopular, people go along with it. When it's something that effects them though, they will scream to high heaven. This is about the government wanting more money, not safety.


RE: Excessive
By Kosh401 on 1/26/2010 5:06:18 PM , Rating: 2
Well we just have quite different opinions on this one, then.

I don't look at it as a money grab by gov't; it's a steep (or 'excessive') fine to get people's attention and to try and get them to stop texting while driving. It's the same idea when you hear about customers "voting with their wallet" when they don't buy crappy products, money is the only thing that really gets a company's attention. And it works the same way on the public, as even some of the crazies who think it's fine to text and drive might be more inclined to stop when facing a huge fine.

It's just a way for the gov't to overcome some people's idiocy and lack of concern for others - especially in this case when talking about drivers of vehicles who have dozens of lives in their hands.

Although, I'm all for fines like this for ALL drivers who are texting, as I don't want them on the same roads that my family and I use. I think you can easily argue that texting and driving is clearly dangerous and a form of impairment and people have already been screaming to high heaven about it as it effects them (all drivers), and now we're starting to see results.


RE: Excessive
By Reclaimer77 on 1/27/2010 1:12:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't look at it as a money grab by gov't; it's a steep (or 'excessive') fine to get people's attention and to try and get them to stop texting while driving.


1. The Federal government could care less about your driving safety.

2. It's Unconstitutional for them to pass a federal ban.


RE: Excessive
By AEvangel on 1/26/2010 7:39:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you CAUSE an accident, I'm all for you being fined out the ass. But it should not costs you thousands of dollars for simply being fined for texting while driving. That is excessive in any rational sense of the word.


The same should be and can be said for DUI, the simple fact that you are arguing against this law but defending the DUI laws makes your argument even less sound.

You expect the Drunk driver making the decision to drive while under the influence to pay a higher price, then the person who is clear headed and flagrantly disregards the safety of everyone else to text??

As I have said before, we already have laws in place to deal with this we do not need anymore of these type of laws to legislate stupidity.

All they do is embolden the State and allow them to take more of our freedoms away as well as increase their coffers with needless fines.


RE: Excessive
By Reclaimer77 on 1/27/2010 2:07:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The same should be and can be said for DUI, the simple fact that you are arguing against this law but defending the DUI laws makes your argument even less sound.


Where am I saying that ??

quote:
You expect the Drunk driver making the decision to drive while under the influence to pay a higher price, then the person who is clear headed and flagrantly disregards the safety of everyone else to text??


Drunk driving is illegal and has been for years. Not to mention it's stupid and is the cause of thousands of deaths a year.

Texting while driving has only started being fined by some states before this "federal ban". Which is completely unconstitutional, as you have pointed out yourself.

Comparing the two is stupid. One person is under the effects of a drug, their brains are unable to function properly. Every minute they are behind the wheel, they are a public menace to safety. Is a texter 100% impaired every minute they are behind the wheel ?

Again, I'm not defending those who do it. But the fact that people who drink and drive are less persecuted by the law than those who text is absurd.

quote:
As I have said before, we already have laws in place to deal with this we do not need anymore of these type of laws to legislate stupidity.


Ummm I believe my position clearly states I have the same opinion. So why are you arguing with me ?


RE: Excessive
By XIAOYI on 1/26/2010 9:01:11 PM , Rating: 1
http://www.brand-bar.com
---**** NHL Jersey Woman $ 40 ---**** NFL Jersey $ 35
---**** NBA Jersey $ 34 ---**** MLB Jersey $ 35
---**** Jordan Six Ring_m $36 ---**** Air Yeezy_m $ 45
---**** T-Shirt_m $ 25 ---**** Jacket_m $ 36
---**** Hoody_m $ 50 ---**** Manicure Set $ 20 ... ...
http://www.brand-bar.com


Cheap online shopping
By zengqunhai3 on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
What?!?
By redbone75 on 1/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?!?
By msomeoneelsez on 1/26/2010 5:22:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Also, it's a stupid argument that people try to make about the government interfering too much in my private life and what I can and can't do in/with my own property.


It actually is a good argument to have. Think about if we didn't have that argument...

quote:
We're talking about safety, people.


Famous last words.

In this case, I would agree that a form of prevention should be in place, but it must be done with absolute discretion. It should be more about reckless driving than texting, or drunk driving, or what have you.

My point? Don't be so quick to say an argument is stupid when many people are using it. Look for merit in it even when you may just disagree.

Also, make sure that you aren't supporting a law which may easily be distorted or acted upon in a way other than intended, that just leads to problems.


"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














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