Texting Behind The Wheel Should Be Same As DUI

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by HardOCP News, Nov 2, 2009.

  1. Azhar

    Azhar Fixing stupid since 1972

    Messages:
    18,875
    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2001
    what the fuck?
     
  2. ShotFromBehind

    ShotFromBehind Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    406
    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006

    Live to die my friend, live to die. :). To add the flames, I text and use my scooter all the time. Also just like going 90 in a Ferrari is safer than going 90 on oldsmobile from the mid 80s with broken shocks, the same can probably be said for texting and driving if your 30 or 60, or whatever makes someone better at texting than not. It does not necessarily take the same amount of focus to text and drive for everyone.
    That being said I don't text and drive my car. That is mainly due to I love driving and way more than I do texting (which is not really at all) not because of a law. The opposite is true of me and speeding. I don't speed in my scooter because I don't feel in control on it when I do but in my car speeding to a certain extent I still feel in control.

    All info is imo btw.
     
  3. ShotFromBehind

    ShotFromBehind Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    406
    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    ^^ this is on my phone so skip it if bad grammar bothers you, I know its bad ;)
     
  4. Draax

    Draax [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,120
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    The ever increasing sense of entitlement is extremely disconcerting.
     
  5. bisby

    bisby [H]Lite

    Messages:
    110
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    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.
     
  6. Ibanezfoo

    Ibanezfoo Gawd

    Messages:
    776
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
  7. Azhar

    Azhar Fixing stupid since 1972

    Messages:
    18,875
    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2001
    Oh i understood you. I'm just dumbfounded at how anyone could in their right mind support drinking and driving. Seriously, what the fuck?
     
  8. Ibanezfoo

    Ibanezfoo Gawd

    Messages:
    776
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Well at least YOU get it. ;) Amen brother. Some of these communofascists seem too eager to give up control of their lives.
     
  9. starsfan7

    starsfan7 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    193
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    The fact of the matter is, make a law against it, I'll still keep doing it, I'll just find ways to not get caught, because I've already being doing it safely for 4-6 years by just using common sense. I'm not going to let any government or authority tell me how to go about my life. They outlaw a lot of stuff, but people keep doing it. Like an above poster said, just like asinine gun laws don't prevent gun crimes, because CRIMINALS who want to rape/murder/pillage are GOING TO BREAK THE LAW anyway because they are CRIMINALS. You are criminalizing the act of essentially having a phone in a car at that point. And don't come back and argue that "blah blah blah, just texting while driving, blah blah blah". If unlike me, you have had your head jammed securely up your own ass for the last 15 years, then I guess you don't realize that cops, like people, are fallible, I'm 100% against having a DUI equivalent because a cop had a bad day. WE DON'T NEED MORE LAWS, WE NEED MORE INTELLIGENCE AND RESPONSIBILITY.

    I'm pretty sure if the people that founded this country could see where we are now, they'd be irate. These are the same people that started splitting wigs over their favorite breakfast drink being unfairly taxed, people seem to forget that. The name of the game here is MINIMAL GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE in my daily life, and we are going the wrong direction at break-neck pace.
     
  10. bisby

    bisby [H]Lite

    Messages:
    110
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    i'd have to say drinking and driving isnt quite covered under the same umbrella as texting/driving or responsible gun ownership.
    These are situations where coherent (supposedly) logical people are making decisions and weighing potential consequences if something goes wrong.
    Once you are drunk there is no more logical decisions being made so there needs to be some sort of fallback regulation to decide for you.
     
  11. synapsis

    synapsis Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    392
    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Living in the age of Twitter and the like I'm sure the response will be great, but:

    What is so important that you have to send a piece of communication immediately? What did you do before texting was available?


    For those with the comments containing "If you feel you can text and drive, go for it.": My sister insists she's a great driver, yet she's written off two cars. Who judges driving ability? The idea isn't for taking away texting from supposedly "capable" drivers, it's for taking away texting from people who can't even drive in the first place. Unless you can accurately determine driving ability, a law would have to blanket all drivers. Don't get mad at the lawmakers, get mad at the idiots who made the problem in the first place.
     
  12. Ibanezfoo

    Ibanezfoo Gawd

    Messages:
    776
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    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.
     
  13. Azhar

    Azhar Fixing stupid since 1972

    Messages:
    18,875
    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2001
    I should shoot you. There's no guarantee that you'll actually die, so it's okay for me to shoot you. No.
     
  14. CaliGirl

    CaliGirl Gawd

    Messages:
    803
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2009
    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".
     
  15. bisby

    bisby [H]Lite

    Messages:
    110
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    true, we live in a world which punishes the responsible.
    If your sister has trashed 2 cars, hopefully her insurance premiums have gone through the roof. Thats called a punishment. If she is too dumb to figure out that she shouldnt be driving distracted, it'll continue to go up. if she injures/kills someone and shes driving distracted. thats called reckless driving/vehicular manslaughter. Theres jail time for that. So lets see. With the current system, there is jail time/major financial costs for crashing while on a cell phone.... Some people make it sound like you get a high five and a plaque from the president for crashing a car while texting. Theres already punishments in place. perhaps they should be harsher?
    If you crash while on the phone youve now broken 2 laws (reckless driving and cellphones). If you DONT crash while on the phone youve still broken a law. Breaking a law for doing nothing harmful. Its like a "pre-crime" thought police kind of thing. I try to not be all hippy "stick it to the man" type but Id rather not be arrested for someone elses stupidity.
     
  16. starsfan7

    starsfan7 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    193
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    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.
     
  17. Ibanezfoo

    Ibanezfoo Gawd

    Messages:
    776
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    That would be causing physical harm to another, by which they have every right to shoot back. See there? No government rules necessary.
     
  18. Ibanezfoo

    Ibanezfoo Gawd

    Messages:
    776
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    No rules necessary. If he caused you physical harm than you should kick his ass or whatever and have him replace your car. If he doesn't want to pay, THEN you take him to court. No government rules necessary about who is allowed to do what.
     
  19. Ibanezfoo

    Ibanezfoo Gawd

    Messages:
    776
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    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? ;)
     
  20. Ibanezfoo

    Ibanezfoo Gawd

    Messages:
    776
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    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.
     
  21. Azhar

    Azhar Fixing stupid since 1972

    Messages:
    18,875
    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2001
    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.
     
  22. starsfan7

    starsfan7 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    193
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    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.
     
  23. bisby

    bisby [H]Lite

    Messages:
    110
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    pulling a car into an intersection that already has a car in it, and thereby t-boning them is already a crime.
    I think ibanez takes it a little bit far with some of his vigilante justice, but agree with his theory of punish the crime itself, not the method.
    Owning a gun should not be a crime, using a gun to interfere with someone else's life should be. Whether you shoot the gun or not. If you just press the gun into someones face and make them give you their money -> Should be a crime. the gun is merely a vessel for right's interference.
    Texting while driving: did this person drive like a dick? Is tboning a car a crime already? i think so. Does it matter the reason the guy did it? No. its illegal. he should be punished.

    There doesnt need to be a law for every situation. It is illegal to plant an armed nuclear weapon on 1st street. It is illegal to plant an armed nuclear weapon on 2nd street. It is illegal to plant an armed nuclear weapon on 3rd street... etc etc etc. This could be wrapped up "it is illegal to plant bombs" or even more simply, laws we already have such as "it is illegal to damage someone elses property or cause harm to them".... No need to define miniscule laws covered by laws we already have
     
  24. starsfan7

    starsfan7 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    193
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    You are extremely naive to think that your vote has anything to do with the constitutionality of a law. Our government doesn't work that way. You elect people to represent you to make laws for you, YOU have little to no direct power over federal lawmaking.

    Don't penalize me because people are irresponsible, natural selection will take care of that. Don't like it? Don't drive. No one is making you.

    Let me say this as well, you seem to put a lot of trust and faith in "laws", but who made those laws? People did. Guess what, people are imperfect, we cannot create a perfect government or perfect laws, so we shouldn't be trying to.
     
  25. Ibanezfoo

    Ibanezfoo Gawd

    Messages:
    776
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    If potentially killing someone is not enough incentive to keep someone from drinking and driving, what good is a law going to do?

    The freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Other than that, swing away.

    Vote all you want, unless you physically restrain people its completely irrelevant.

    Conversely, anyone who thinks we are any better off with them, is naive. We all have the right too life and liberty. Depriving anyone of those via drunk driving, shooting, drowning, etc etc etc is already unconstitutional.
     
  26. Ibanezfoo

    Ibanezfoo Gawd

    Messages:
    776
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Some people think they do... guess it makes them feel better.
     
  27. Draax

    Draax [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,120
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    People don't really believe freedom comes without responsibility do they?
     
  28. thereal

    thereal n00b

    Messages:
    21
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
  29. topslop1

    topslop1 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,180
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    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?
     
  30. Ibanezfoo

    Ibanezfoo Gawd

    Messages:
    776
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Those things all look like murder to me. People choosing to behave in a manner they know might kill someone actually resulting in a death. While I believe I am free to fire my AK in my backyard, I choose not to do it because it could go through the fence and kill someone. Also the noise would be bothersome to others on their own property.
     
  31. jeremyshaw

    jeremyshaw [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,112
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    And yet our two CA senators still recieve full party co-operation.

    Despite the fact one of them has a state Civil Conractor, that, ironically, she sends all the work orders to.

    And that managed to fund a mansion that niether of their combined salaries would of been able, by any stretch of any imagination, be able to afford otherwise.


    We don't vote bad/dirt politicians out.


    We just don't (unless if they are Republican, then the media has a field day with it).
     
  32. jeremyshaw

    jeremyshaw [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,112
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Can you ignore the previoius post? That doesn't belong here, no matter how relevant it is.
     
  33. Kristofff

    Kristofff [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,303
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    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.
     
  34. jwalk6

    jwalk6 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,039
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    OMG, ROTFL...

    I just spit my coke all over my keyboard when I read that..

    :D
     
  35. krupted

    krupted 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,244
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    we have plenty of laws. lets focus our energy into making cars drive themselves. that would eliminate all this crap.
     
  36. Techno Pride

    Techno Pride Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    143
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2000
    I have trouble *walking* through a crowd while texting. You mean some of the guys here can *drive* properly while texting?
     
  37. quixotic

    quixotic Gawd

    Messages:
    763
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Some people can't listen while taking notes. Does that mean everyone can't?

    Also, the person who earlier said everyone thinks "I can do it just fine" but can't is ironically the one who assumed just because they can't, no one else can.
     
  38. starsfan7

    starsfan7 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    193
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    I still say seatbelt laws cross a line into none of the governments business territory. I don't want you or anyone else telling me what is safe to do with a car that I paid for, a seatbelt that I paid for, and a life that belongs to me. If I ram my car into you, then it's the governments business. If I am driving down the street minding my own business, I kindly ask that you and the .gov do the same. The same thing with my phone. If I am driving recklessly because of my phone, punish me for that, but I don't need uncle sam to sit over my shoulder to make sure I'm not doing any unsafe texting while driving, and um, I'm not letting off of that, ever.

    Like I said, pass a law, I'll just figure out how to do it and not get caught, and I'm pretty sure so will everyone else. Because all the laws in the world aren't gonna stop people from doing what they want to do, plain and simple. The best you can do is try and get out of the way.
     
  39. Gorankar

    Gorankar [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,317
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    I think it was the personal attack, and not the profanity. If the dropping the f-bomb was enough to get you banned around here, I would have been perma banned years ago.
     
  40. djgizmo

    djgizmo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,429
    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2006
    Agreed. I didn't bother reading another 8 pages of replies... but seriously, anyone that thinks txting is even within the same ballpark as DRUNK DRIVING / DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE, is out of their gawd damn mind.

    Do I think its a problem? Yes. However, I believe it'll be solved by itself before it's even addressed in the near future. More and more devices are coming with the option of txt to speech for email / books. The next logical step is to incorporate that into Bluetooth headsets / smart car systems.

    Like most things, people that almost run others off the road are ABUSING the ability to txt and drive. During a long high way run, i've been guilty of looking through a few texts as I have cruise control set and see no one nearby.

    Do I think a person should be fined? Yes, but PROVING a person was texting & driving vs just not paying attention is a different story. If licenses start being revoked on a whimsical basis, it could lead to something disastrous for society.