As long as you don't hurt anyone, or anyone's property, have at it. But the second you slip up, punishment by the victim should be swift and painful. You can't regulate responsibility, it must be experienced.
what the fuck?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As long as you don't hurt anyone, or anyone's property, have at it. But the second you slip up, punishment by the victim should be swift and painful. You can't regulate responsibility, it must be experienced.
Enjoy being raped and pillaged by gov. rules and regulations until you can't smoke a cigarette and drive at the same time because you are distracted by "ashing" or the "nicotine buzz".
It's a basis not for texting while driving but a basis for not having the gov tell you how to poop and when to poop. You wouldn't understand becuase you'd rather live oppressed by asinine laws for 120 years than to live with the ability to have choice for 80. Quality of life vs. quantity of life. Anyone and everyone is obsessed with longevity. - Live free or die.
im going to have to side with the "there are already laws against reckless driving" crowd.
Same with gun laws. there are laws against shooting people. why do we need 10000 different laws about it. Pretty sure if someone is going to break one major law, they dont care how many minor laws go with it. THINKING about shooting someone is not illegal. It in no way impacts their rights or life. Im 90% sure (i dont know allof you) that there are a LOT of [h]ard gun owners that have never shot another person. But there are a LOT of gun crimes out there. A LOT. are guns bad? should all guns be outlawed? the same device/contraption in the hands of different people can be used very very differently.
Arguably. There is nothing "wrong" against texting while driving. or talking on the phone, or singing along to loud music. or eating. No one gets hurt.
People get hurt when someone runs into someone else. Crashing a car into someone else is already illegal. it might happen from focusing too much on a phone, or on a conversation, or a big mac. It might even be enough to say that if you just got dumped by your girlfriend, you found out your wife is cheating on you, or you have ANY other tragic event, you might be driving distracted. Potentially even more distracted than while talking on a phone. Perhaps we should have a psychologist built into our cars and we have to talk to them to ensure emotional stability before we drive.
Person A is a horrid driver. Person B is a great driver. Person B drivers better while texting than Person A does with 100% focus. Person A on the phone is even worse. The issue isnt the phone, its person A in general.
tl;dr - if texting distracts you too much, you are reckless driving which is already illegal. if you are competent enough to do it without crashing/threatening anyone else, feel free.
Oh i understood you. I'm just dumbfounded at how anyone could in their right mind support drinking and driving. Seriously, what the fuck?
We all know what happens when someone drinks and drives. When someone does it, they know the risks. But, this mentality of punishing people before they've actually done something harmful is downright frightening and infuriating. People are getting fined/punished for what COULD happen, not for what actually happened. This is not justice. There are so many things that COULD kill you, you simply can't ban it all. Are we going to ban bricks because someone COULD pick one up and smash in your skull? This type of law is a slippery slope.
You know what, its against the law, and I still have family members killed by a drunk driver. No law flew out and saved them. The government was not a victim in this crime, we were. It is our place to punish the drunk driver, not the governments.
I should shoot you. There's no guarantee that you'll actually die, so it's okay for me to shoot you. No.
I should shoot you. There's no guarantee that you'll actually die, so it's okay for me to shoot you. No.
If texting while driving is enough to warrant the same punishment as a DUI then I think eating/drinking [non-alcoholic] should get the same. I was T-boned by a driver earlier this year cause he was too preoccupied with his coffee and didn't "see me".
Not to be a ball-buster but you kind of just made his point for him. I could butter knife you, there's no guarantee you'll die, so it's okay. EXACTLY. Punish the individual for the act of butter knifing or shooting, not for shooting a target or spreading some butter.
Oh i understood you. I'm just dumbfounded at how anyone could in their right mind support drinking and driving. Seriously, what the fuck?
And I don't support drinking and driving, I support FREEDOM. If someone is stupid enough to drunk and drive and something bad happens, they must suffer equally.
And don't punish for the act of simply owning or carrying a butter knife. Well, unless its a semi-automatic assault butter knife right?
If texting while driving is enough to warrant the same punishment as a DUI then I think eating/drinking [non-alcoholic] should get the same. I was T-boned by a driver earlier this year cause he was too preoccupied with his coffee and didn't "see me".
You make it sound like the drinker is the only person who's going to get hurt or killed. The law may not not stop a person from acting responsibly, but it makes people think twice. Without the DUI laws, everyone will drive home drunk without worrying about being pulled over because they were swerving on the road - and might hit someone, or something.
Laws are there for a reason. People take "freedom" out of context a great deal. Freedom doesn't mean you can do anything you want. Freedom means we can vote for laws to come to pass. We can vote a law out of existence if it's unconstitutional. We can vote judges and lawmakers in and out of office if they make bad laws.
You are extremely naive to think that we'd be better off without drinking laws.
You make it sound like the drinker is the only person who's going to get hurt or killed. The law may not not stop a person from acting responsibly, but it makes people think twice. Without the DUI laws, everyone will drive home drunk without worrying about being pulled over because they were swerving on the road - and might hit someone, or something.
Laws are there for a reason. People take "freedom" out of context a great deal. Freedom doesn't mean you can do anything you want.
Freedom means we can vote for laws to come to pass. We can vote a law out of existence if it's unconstitutional. We can vote judges and lawmakers in and out of office if they make bad laws.
You are extremely naive to think that we'd be better off without drinking laws.
Essentially. The idea being that we don't need a law against stabbing someone with a butter knife cause that would be covered under assault or murder if you die. Same thing as texting/talking while driving, punish the individual for their irresponsibility with the device (be it car or phone, or both). We have laws for that already, we don't need more of them.
I personally believe leave it alone in terms of lawmaking since there are laws against hitting people or other cars. However (I don't back this idea) it would be interesting to see a blanket law that could only be inserted after the fact of an accident as added penalty or punishment under a "distracted driving" law.
I.e. if you hit and kill a person you get manslaughter, if you hit and kill a person while drunk you get drunk driving and manslaughter, or if you hit someone (and killed them) because you were texting on your phone you got a "distracted driving" with manslaughter.
What do you think of this?
We can vote judges and lawmakers in and out of office if they make bad laws.
This forum cracks me up. I drive a lot for my job and see most people texting every day as I travel up and down the highways, yet I don't scream the sky is falling. I swear, you people are probably the same ignorant jackasses who think if gay marriage is recognized by the states, that the whole country will fall apart because everyone will catch the gay, if it becomes tolerated.
I have trouble *walking* through a crowd while texting. You mean some of the guys here can *drive* properly while texting?
IMO banning him for profanity is overreacting a bit.
Minus the profanity, I agree with him. The guy clearly doesn't realize the government can't make laws that apply to every single individual type of person/situation. Laws are basically a blanket thrown over everyone. Sure, 99 times out of 100 it won't apply to you, and frequently it will affect you, but they're just covering their ass for those times where it's applicable
Saying we shouldn't outlaw texting because one person can do it safely, and that it's unfair because not everyone is incapable of texting safely while driving, is borderline retarded, at least shows you don't understand why laws are so broadened
It's sort of like safety belt laws. It's against the law to not be wearing your seatbelt in the state of IL. It's not because the govt. is protecting YOU, it's in situations where a non-secured body inside a vehicle is a serious danger to other passengers inside that vehicle. Now, let's say you're driving alone. This law would probably be meaningless, because you're not going to be flying through your windshield as a projectile, being harmful to others outside your vehicle, due to how windshields are manufactured now (They don't shatter during impact, they bend and crack). It's easier for the law to apply to everyone and every situation, than to write laws with numerous stipulations
IMO banning him for profanity is overreacting a bit.
First time drunk drivers don't even lose their license most of the time. Not gonna happen.
And be careful what you wish for. If something like this were to ever happen, it would encompass a lot more than cell phones, and you could find yourself without a license and without a way to get to work or make a living, depending on where you live and the availability of public transportation.