Texting Behind The Wheel Should Be Same As DUI

"and a life that belongs to me."

That would be nice if the happy morons who don't want to wear a seatbelt while riding in a car, or a helmet while on a bike would just DIE instead of lingering. After you're "life" is reduced to a persistent vegetative state and your insurance runs out then it's on my dime. PULL THE PLUG. Same thing with texting- collateral damage. I don't care if you ram a tree at 80mph, but who's gonna pay to have your stupid ass pulled off the tree and carted away? Mommy?

Quote:
Brain Injury Facts

If you think you are at low risk of traumatic brain injury, think again: About one in every 200 Americans (1.4 million a year) suffers a brain injury each year at an economic cost of more than $60 billion.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
 
djgizmo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pretty much every study of the subject shows texting while driving is actually just as bad, if not worse, than drunk driving. Distracted driving is a huge source of accidents, and you don't get any more distracted than texting. It's the same reason you're not allowed to watch TV while you drive or read a book or other such highly distracting activities.


------
Seriously. Whatever you have been texted can wait. I swear the dang kids just cannot NOT answer the phone or NOT answer the text. Seriously. Your precious text messages are not a life or death matter. Driving is.
 
Reality said:
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
Click to expand...

:(

insurance companies lobbied for this law. in illinois especially, money buys anything. it didnt get much resistance from the police unions either, as they salivate at every new legal reason to pull people over. this law isnt about people's safety, it's about greed and control.
 
GreenMonkey said:
Seriously. Whatever you have been texted can wait. I swear the dang kids just cannot NOT answer the phone or NOT answer the text. Seriously. Your precious text messages are not a life or death matter. Driving is.
Click to expand...

Until they are involved in an accident and injure/mame/kill someone or have someone close to them as the victim in the same scenario, they are going to keep doing it. No government law is going to change this.
 
krupted said:
:(

insurance companies lobbied for this law. in illinois especially, money buys anything. it didnt get much resistance from the police unions either, as they salivate at every new legal reason to pull people over. this law isnt about people's safety, it's about greed and control.
Click to expand...

The same is true for 99% of the laws we are supposed to be obeying these days...
 
Actually my sociology professor would tell you that you only need 1000 people in a survey to generalize the group of any number. Not saying I believe it, but it's just something to consider.

sirmonkey1985 said:
nearly all americans? hmm i dont ever remember filling out a questionaire or poll asking me if i thought it was illegal..

thats about how legitimate these bogus polls are.. they get maybe 1000 people to actually do them and then claim everyone that answered it speaks for all americans..
Click to expand...
 
chaos68 said:
Actually my sociology professor would tell you that you only need 1000 people in a survey to generalize the group of any number. Not saying I believe it, but it's just something to consider.
Click to expand...

Thats the kind of BS schools push these days. Of course they want you to believe that because if you do, you will believe these lame ass statistics the media is always pushing. Until somebody actually asks every single American about something, I will never believe any type of statistic that claims "34% of Amercians yadda yadda..."
 
I think the whole "I can drive while texting just fine!" argument is bullshit and sounds like something a teenager who just got his license and thinks he's invincible would say. There are people who have driven drunk several times and haven't gotten into accidents;that doesn't make it okay, though. Driving is dangerous enough when everyone is paying attention, let alone having their eyes glued to a phone.

I'm preaching to the choir however. Everyone who agrees with me is going to continue to agree with me and those who don't will keep their heads firmly lodged in their asses until whatever. Arguing on the Internet is so pointless.
 
Ibanezfoo said:
Thats the kind of BS schools push these days. Of course they want you to believe that because if you do, you will believe these lame ass statistics the media is always pushing. Until somebody actually asks every single American about something, I will never believe any type of statistic that claims "34% of Amercians yadda yadda..."
Click to expand...

You mean the lame-ass statistics backed by mathematical probability? :rolleyes: 1000 is a pretty small sample, but a proper sampling of 10,000 people is pretty dam accurate.
 
ou mean the lame-ass statistics backed by mathematical probability? 1000 is a pretty small sample, but a proper sampling of 10,000 people is pretty dam accurate.
Click to expand...

Yep that's the one. Evidently people think that the MTBF by the hard drive manufacturers was obtained by running all the hard drives until failure, then releasing them to the public.

Don't tell them about the methodology used to determine lifecycles for aircraft parts, you might start a panic since those are based on evil and flawed statistics too.:eek:
 
Nemesis999 said:
You mean the lame-ass statistics backed by mathematical probability? :rolleyes: 1000 is a pretty small sample, but a proper sampling of 10,000 people is pretty dam accurate.
Click to expand...

Then why the deception? Even if 30,000 people were asked, that still does not encompass all of a single group includes only 30,000 people. 1000, 10,000, 100,000 does not total all Americans.
 
Ibanezfoo said:
Thats the kind of BS schools push these days. Of course they want you to believe that because if you do, you will believe these lame ass statistics the media is always pushing. Until somebody actually asks every single American about something, I will never believe any type of statistic that claims "34% of Amercians yadda yadda..."
Click to expand...

Yeah, damn those schools pushing BS like statistics and math.

Go get an education.
 
mrpc9886 said:
Yep that's the one. Evidently people think that the MTBF by the hard drive manufacturers was obtained by running all the hard drives until failure, then releasing them to the public.

Don't tell them about the methodology used to determine lifecycles for aircraft parts, you might start a panic since those are based on evil and flawed statistics too.:eek:
Click to expand...

And all the laws in the world don't stop hard drives from failing or airplanes from crashing, no matter what your statistics say.
 
And all the laws in the world don't stop hard drives from failing or airplanes from crashing, no matter what your statistics say.
Click to expand...

NOW YOU'VE GOT IT!! Absolutely correct; however, there are no absolutes all we can do is mitigate or reduce risk:

risk mitigation

Definition:
Systematic reduction in the extent of exposure to a risk and/or the likelihood of its occurrence. Also called risk reduction.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/risk-mitigation.html

So ask yourself this question, for the average driver, does the risk of an accident increase along with increasing distractions?

If so then how do we mitigate this risk?

Remember, we're not looking for perfection or absolutes, that's a fallacy of logic, we're looking for reduction of risk. All life is a risk but we can take steps to reduce the likelihood of a negative outcome.
 
mrpc9886 said:
NOW YOU'VE GOT IT!! Absolutely correct; however, there are no absolutes all we can do is mitigate or reduce risk:

risk mitigation

Definition:
Systematic reduction in the extent of exposure to a risk and/or the likelihood of its occurrence. Also called risk reduction.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/risk-mitigation.html

So ask yourself this question, for the average driver, does the risk of an accident increase along with increasing distractions?

If so then how do we mitigate this risk?

Remember, we're not looking for perfection or absolutes, that's a fallacy of logic, we're looking for reduction of risk. All life is a risk but we can take steps to reduce the likelihood of a negative outcome.
Click to expand...

Humans are not machines, your logic is flawed. Applying arbitrary "you're not allowed to do X" rules and restrictions to beings that are innately free does not work. This has been proven time and time and time again, even using statistics. Humans and animals learn from experience. As someone else said up there, go ahead and tell them they can't text, they will do it anyway. The only time its anyone else's business is if they do indeed crash.
 
Humans are not machines, your logic is flawed.
Click to expand...

I did not compare them to machines at all. Statistics is the basis for just about everything we do from epidemiology to census gathering to insurance actuarial tables.

Many people don't learn even from experience have a look at the rates of recidivism for DUI...and yet we still have laws against drunk driving.

Again, your argument is based on a fallacy: since we can't absolutely fix the problem we shouldn't even try (by passing a law).

Based on your argument why then have any laws at all?
 
Some of you just dont get it heh.

Explain that to a 6yr old why her mom isnt home; 20hrs reconstructive surgery from 18yr girl texting and running a light.
 
troisanh said:
Some of you just dont get it heh.

Explain that to a 6yr old why her mom isnt home; 20hrs reconstructive surgery from 18yr girl texting and running a light.
Click to expand...

"An irresponsible idiot killed your mom and a piece of paper with rules on it didn't fly out and save her. The politicians responsible for saving your mom with their laws were nowhere to be found. Life is a challenge, get used to it. If you are scared of the outside world we can always bubble wrap you and keep you safe in the closet... well unless there is an earthquake, flood, asteroid, etc.... maybe we should make laws against them so they don't happen."
 
How is making such draconian rules going to change shit? I'm all for slamming someone if they cause a crash doing something, ANYTHING, stupid (including texting) while driving. But being drunk and driving is not the same as texting and driving. 1 more step to making America a police state...
 
Ibanezfoo said:
"An irresponsible idiot killed your mom and a piece of paper with rules on it didn't fly out and save her. The politicians responsible for saving your mom with their laws were nowhere to be found. Life is a challenge, get used to it. If you are scared of the outside world we can always bubble wrap you and keep you safe in the closet... well unless there is an earthquake, flood, asteroid, etc.... maybe we should make laws against them so they don't happen."
Click to expand...

sorry, but this makes no sense at all. laws are not made to stop certain types of human behaviour. nobody thinks that a law against murder is going to stop murder altogether - that is the definition of naive.

laws are there so that when stupid people do stupid things, the rest of us have the ability to say "look, here is what you did, and you must now face the following consequences."
 
Usquabach said:
sorry, but this makes no sense at all. laws are not made to stop certain types of human behaviour. nobody thinks that a law against murder is going to stop murder altogether - that is the definition of naive.

laws are there so that when stupid people do stupid things, the rest of us have the ability to say "look, here is what you did, and you must now face the following consequences."
Click to expand...

Trouble is some people like him cannot distinguish between democracy and anarchy.
 
ordovician said:
How is making such draconian rules going to change shit? I'm all for slamming someone if they cause a crash doing something, ANYTHING, stupid (including texting) while driving. But being drunk and driving is not the same as texting and driving. 1 more step to making America a police state...
Click to expand...

THIS.

And it's not even close.

I rarely text while driving since I find it a complete nuisance but when I have done it, it was no more distracting than changing the song on my iPod Touch. Are you going to outlaw that as well? BTW, I have had a license for 9 years and have used a vehicle as part of my occupation for almost 7 of those years. My driving record is flawless, no speeding tickets, no accidents, nothing.

Some people are shitty drivers in the first place and lack the ability to multitask. While it really isn't a great idea to text while driving, don't rake me over the coals for it. If I cause an accident while doing it, that is another story.
 
Usquabach said:
laws are there so that when stupid people do stupid things, the rest of us have the ability to say "look, here is what you did, and you must now face the following consequences."
Click to expand...

And we already have laws against harming other people.... so what are more laws restating the same thing going to accomplish? NOTHING
 
ordovician said:
How is making such draconian rules going to change shit? I'm all for slamming someone if they cause a crash doing something, ANYTHING, stupid (including texting) while driving. But being drunk and driving is not the same as texting and driving. 1 more step to making America a police state...
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. I'll repeat this again. Pretty much every study has shown that you T&D (texting and driving) is as bad as drunk driving.

Everyone in this thread that say "but I can text and drive fine" or "I've been doing it forever without a problem". Doesn't matter. Statistically you are just as bad as a drunk driver. You're not more awesome than everyone else. You've just been lucky.

http://www.livescience.com/health/060629_cell_phones.html
But, as with drinking and driving, people tend to think they can handle it. "Eighty percent of drivers think they are above average," Drew says, pointing out a statistical impossibility.
Click to expand...

Congratulations, welcome to the majority that think THEY are awesome drivers.


This argument that I hear from people that insist THEY are awesome and can text and drive at the same time... it sounds just like drunks I've heard that insist THEY can drive when drunk, unlike other drunks.
 
mrpc9886 said:
"and a life that belongs to me."

That would be nice if the happy morons who don't want to wear a seatbelt while riding in a car, or a helmet while on a bike would just DIE instead of lingering. After you're "life" is reduced to a persistent vegetative state and your insurance runs out then it's on my dime. PULL THE PLUG. Same thing with texting- collateral damage. I don't care if you ram a tree at 80mph, but who's gonna pay to have your stupid ass pulled off the tree and carted away? Mommy?

Quote:
Brain Injury Facts

If you think you are at low risk of traumatic brain injury, think again: About one in every 200 Americans (1.4 million a year) suffers a brain injury each year at an economic cost of more than $60 billion.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Click to expand...

comrade said:
That would be nice if the happy morons who want to smoke in the privacy of their own homes would just DIE instead of lingering. After you're "life" is reduced to a persistent cancerous state and your insurance runs out then it's on my dime. PULL THE PLUG. Same thing with alcohol- collateral damage. I don't care if you have a huge massive coronary and liver failure, but who's gonna pay to have your stupid ass carted away, your heart jolted and your liver replaced? Mommy?

Quote:
Cigarette Smoking Facts

During 2000–2004, cigarette smoking was estimated to be responsible for $193 billion in annual health-related economic losses in the United States ($38.6 billion a year).

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Click to expand...

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
GreenMonkey said:
Yes, it is. I'll repeat this again. Pretty much every study has shown that you T&D (texting and driving) is as bad as drunk driving.

Everyone in this thread that say "but I can text and drive fine" or "I've been doing it forever without a problem". Doesn't matter. Statistically you are just as bad as a drunk driver. You're not more awesome than everyone else. You've just been lucky.

http://www.livescience.com/health/060629_cell_phones.html


Congratulations, welcome to the majority that think THEY are awesome drivers.


This argument that I hear from people that insist THEY are awesome and can text and drive at the same time... it sounds just like drunks I've heard that insist THEY can drive when drunk, unlike other drunks.
Click to expand...

The difference here is that texting takes me eyes off the road for a second, while drinking literally impairs you to a sometimes large extent. I have drank so much that I have blacked out, thrown up, and woken the next morning with no recollection of the previous evenings events. I have never had that response from texting.
 
Raekwon said:
The difference here is that texting takes me eyes off the road for a second, while drinking literally impairs you to a sometimes large extent. I have drank so much that I have blacked out, thrown up, and woken the next morning with no recollection of the previous evenings events. I have never had that response from texting.
Click to expand...

But you're wrong, obviously, because *studies* prove it's just as bad.
 
Spewn said:
But you're wrong, obviously, because *studies* prove it's just as bad.
Click to expand...

Studies funded by who and with what agenda? Were these studies backed up by alternate studies? What event triggered the initial study?
 
GreenMonkey said:
Yes, it is. I'll repeat this again. Pretty much every study has shown that you T&D (texting and driving) is as bad as drunk driving.

Everyone in this thread that say "but I can text and drive fine" or "I've been doing it forever without a problem". Doesn't matter. Statistically you are just as bad as a drunk driver. You're not more awesome than everyone else. You've just been lucky.

http://www.livescience.com/health/060629_cell_phones.html
Click to expand...

You're astoundingly confused. In order to prove that, statistically, cell-phone using drivers are "as bad as" drunk drivers you'd need to start by comparing in-the-field statistics, and I don't see any anywhere. I see studies, I see controlled-environment experiments, but not anything based on real accidents, real injuries, real deaths.

There's been no statistical demonstration of how likely you are to cause a problem while being on your phone. The fact that these "studies" and "reports" are often given to us along with rhetoric like "Last week I almost got hit by someone who was on their phone!" How useful is that? How does that prove the point? I see people do similar things when I'm driving by the simple merit of them being A) completely oblivious to everything but what's directly in-front of them, B) in the middle of some other attention-drawing task, C) a terrible driver?, D) a complete moron.

If only you could tell your buddy not to be drunk anymore because the traffic was picking up like you can tell him to get off the damn phone.
 
A bit of weird grammar there? I had meant to say "The fact that....doesn't help."
 
This thread is a pseudo-intellectual train wreck, I love it.
 
Ibanezfoo said:
And we already have laws against harming other people.... so what are more laws restating the same thing going to accomplish? NOTHING
Click to expand...

yes. you are right. we do have laws against "harming other people" but let's look at this from a different perspective.

1) i am drunk and driving down the road. i know i am a good driver even when drunk and so far my driving has been impeccable. i exit the off-ramp of a major freeway and unfortunately a biker happens to fall off their bike in front of me while not wearing a helmet. i hit the biker and he/she dies (this just happened last week less than 10 min from where i live)

2) i am texting while driving down the road and i happen to be an impeccable driver while texting. i have sent 1,000+ texts while driving at freeway speeds with no problem so far. same thing happens - i hit a kid who has fallen off their bike and they die.

now. the family of the deceased wants an explanation. they want justice. there are already laws that make drunk driving illegal and if i ever kill someone in a car while drunk, it's called "vehicular manslaughter" and "driving under the influence" - sometimes carrying double-digit prison sentences (in canada)

now if scenario 2 unfolds and the family is looking for justice; even though i was distracted behind the wheel, i might get off scott-free since would be no law declaring texting while driving illegal (the family will be told it was an accident and that their child died because he had the unfortunate timing of falling off his bike in front of a car while not wearing a helmet). in fact, in the case i am sighting, there were no criminal charges laid against the driver.

if my reaction time was delayed even one millisecond because i was texting behind the wheel, then i might as well have been drunk and run over some innocent person who, although clumsy, did not deserve to die because my reaction was delayed.

the law makes the general "texter" responsible for their delayed reaction time - it has nothing to do with ability and how "good" you personally are at non-distracted texting
 
now if scenario 2 unfolds and the family is looking for justice; even though i was distracted behind the wheel, i might get off scott-free since would be no law declaring texting while driving illegal (the family will be told it was an accident and that their child died because he had the unfortunate timing of falling off his bike in front of a car while not wearing a helmet). in fact, in the case i am sighting, there were no criminal charges laid against the driver.
Click to expand...
In New Zealand we have "reckless driving causing death" if the driver was ascertained to have been doing something other than driving while, well, driving. That include(d) texting. We've now got a ban (effective as of about 5 days ago) that prohibits texting while driving.
 
I agree with the topic. I stopped texting while driving myself. A lot of distance is covered while you're looking down trying to find that damn exclamation point..1...@....#....$...%....&.....oh here it is.....Crash!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top