backtop


Print 48 comment(s) - last by shabby.. on Apr 9 at 10:01 PM

Western state sets a controversial driver distraction precedent

Source: The Appelate Division Superior Court for the County of Fresno, Calif.





Comments     Threshold


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

I never understood these laws
By ebakke on 4/8/2013 3:22:02 PM , Rating: 2
Why do we need different laws for every type of distracted driving? Speeding. Eating. Texting. Talking. Maps. Too many friends in the car (or other "graduated driver's licensing" restrictions). Drinking. Other drugs.

Stupid. If you're not paying attention and you harm someone else, you should be punished and be liable for whatever harm you caused. The end. I won't feel any better or worse if someone hits me while texting vs if they hit me while reaching in the back seat to smack their kid. Regardless of which specific thing was distracting to that individual, me and my property are still damaged.




RE: I never understood these laws
By Rukkian on 4/9/2013 11:20:51 AM , Rating: 2
While I understand part of your argument - why do we need to have seperate laws when distracted driving should be one offense, I do not agree with the other part. The laws try to bring attention to get people to stop the stupidity before they injure or kill somebody. Nobody listens, but tha is besides the point.


RE: I never understood these laws
By ebakke on 4/9/2013 6:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
If no one listens, then why bother?


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis










botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki