I drive on the freeway every day... and every day there is some car in the "fast lane" going 60 mph. Every fricking day. Today i pulled around one, two people looking at a cell phone, not 5 minutes later there is a car going about 50. Yup, texting on his cell phone. Every day, all the time. Is there something a citizen can do (short of throwing a brick through their windows)? The CHP doesn't have enough cars around to help. Rant off.
My truck texts for me via voice control. People doing it manually just can't afford the proper equipment. So, you just need to get a law to eliminate the poor. The democratic way would be to require automated in dash texting as safety equipment.
The only alternative would be to live and let live in a free country. To hell with that.
Don't believe it's economic. I too commute daily and there's nothing that can't wait till I get to work or home. Most phones can voice text. Selfish bastards.
For months I ran the engineering team in Calgary for our oil sands project whilst commuting between Calgary and Ft. Saskatchewan with nary an issue. Red Deer could get hairy in the winter so caution was required.
But . But . But thats illegal in cali. Call the chp maybe they can hide out and catch them, probably give them a seatbelt ticket for good measure. Have to pry them away from whater part of town they are in giving kids tickets for not having a helmet on while riding a bicycle or writing fix it tickets for not having your headlights at the right height. However they wont impound a car from an illegal driving with no license or insurance thats perfectly fine.
I passed a mamaw in the left lane this morning going to work. She was doing like 50 in the fast lane and when i passed her she was texting. I wish it was legal to put them in the wall, would buy a 1973 impala and go to town on these dumbfu ks...
texting and driving is stupid, irresponsible, and impossible to stop. As Ron White said, "You can't fix stupid". Pass all the laws you want, but all the cops can do is pluck the low hanging, or unlucky, fruit. The other 99% of those 'breaking the law", will go about their lives unscathed.
In the last couple of years I've seen several rear-end collisions on the highway here within a couple of miles of where it intersects with our road. People driving along with their heads right up their azzes in a cell phone crashing into the back end of someone stopped to make a turn. It's like an epidemic. It's against the law to text and drive here but it's ignored....constantly seeing people weaving around on the road, you know what's going on.
I used to be able to with the old phones that used telephone keypad layout. I didn't have to look at what I was typing. (A couple friends DID get strange messages. :)) I won't try it with a smart phone with a "regular" typewriter type pad.
If we really want to stop the texting then the laws against it, which we already have, need real teeth even on the first offense. No negotiation, 6 months loss of phone service and 6 month suspension of the driver's license. Mandatory minimum, no room for the judge to show pity. [bleep] pity.
I commute sixty plus miles to work and the texters are getting out of hand. Statistic show texting/cell phone use is becoming a primary causal effect for road accidents and I agree. It's not a factor of legislating to the lowest common denominator, if that was the case I'd agree. The problem is they are trying to KILL ME. I'm all for draconian, punitive penalties for texting whilst driving as well as driving at or below the speed limit in the left lane.
I have to "hit the ditch" pretty damned regularly. The road into my place is not all that great. I'm not complaining, I don't mind it's sensible 45 MPH speed limit, and know where it's heaves and potholes are. There are LOTS of negative to positive cambered areas. I've crossed a double solid line put in by some idiot "engineer" countless times,....many times with a Sheriff's Dept vehicle right behind,....Hey, they know these roads too, and most all of them are right in my tracks. One of those "smile and wave" situations. The newest shiniest mini-van or pickup is prone to swerving on roads like this. Add an out of state tag, 65-70 MPH velocities, and texting,....THAT is what we have, and it's not flying, Orville. GTC
just "ok"? Google "Single Frequency Approach" in aviation. It might enlighten you. OR try this, on when flying an instrument approach in inclement weather, once you reach a certain point on you glidepath and distance to touchdown, the Controller directs: "you need not acknowledge further transmissions" (i.e. STFU and focus on flying) and this is to pilots and aviators, as in folks who are off the scale when it comes to multi-tasking and hand-to-eye coordination, when compared to the rest of the great unwashed...
I drive 11 hours a day in the big rig. 99 percent of the time when I see somebody doing something really stupid, they are texting while driving. Drunks drive better than texters.
It is if the LH lane's speed limit is 60 or 50.. But some states do have laws that specify RH lane unless passing.. Of course - people ignore that just like they text and drive..
I'm with CaliRN - and if I could get away with it I'd mount that 9'6" Western on the front of my dualie and push every one of 'em I see into the deepest ditch I could find.. And it's usually women - somehow they just CAN'T get off their damned phones.. Maybe it's not rampant in some areas, but around here it's just nuts.
Too many of my friends have been rear-ended/rammed by a-holes who just CAN'T live w/o texting while driving...
I really don't give a fugk what you do in your airplane.
Dave
I know, it's easy to disparage what one does not understand. It's complicated and a reason as to why there's only been about 41,000 Naval Aviators in history out of a population of 320 Million. It's hard to live with, but I figured the hint at multitasking, hand-to-eye coordination and why we don't talk and fly in certain situations, not to mention statistics as to how Texting and driving effect vehicle mishaps would have clued you in..
Working in or near the road for lots of years before I retired. People on the phone, talking or texting is a problem, but so is putting on lipstick, mascara and other beauty tricks, along with reading newspapers, books, and road maps while driving 70+ MPH. All of this happens way more than you think. miles
Don't regularly pack a phone so it's not an issue with me. The one I have was previously my kid's. He can't remember its password, so I can't receive text anyway.
The best example I've seen on phone effects was the Myth Busters where the crew handled a driving course both on and off the phone (conversation only). Phone chat was about as bad as being drunk. In their examples the drivers had to respond to challenging questions like repeating a long sentence, doing some mental math, or giving detailed directions. Essentially, people cannot multitask.
I don't do freeways very often, but on those days about 9 out of 10 weaving cars are dealing with a screen when one catches up with them. There are far more really important people on this earth than I ever imagined.
To get their attention, I'd personally like to install a locomotive air horn on my rig.
If ever involved in an accident, immediately note and record the precise time if possible, and the authorities can probably check on the offenders cell activity.
Probably a good insurance money making scheme if one just drove around and kept an eye on the drivers immediately behind.
Working in or near the road for lots of years before I retired. People on the phone, talking or texting is a problem, but so is putting on lipstick, mascara and other beauty tricks, along with reading newspapers, books, and road maps while driving 70+ MPH. All of this happens way more than you think. miles
Agreed - but all in all I'd estimate 90% of these distractions involve phones and all the others you mention add up to the other 10%.. Just a WAG..
I know, it's easy to disparage what one does not understand. It's complicated and a reason as to why there's only been about 41,000 Naval Aviators in history out of a population of 320 Million. It's hard to live with, but I figured the hint at multitasking, hand-to-eye coordination and why we don't talk and fly in certain situations, not to mention statistics as to how Texting and driving effect vehicle mishaps would have clued you in..
I'm sorry your hand-to-eye coordination is so amazing that you can't operate a phone and drive in a straight line at the same time.
I drive on the freeway every day... and every day there is some car in the "fast lane" going 60 mph. Every fricking day. Today i pulled around one, two people looking at a cell phone, not 5 minutes later there is a car going about 50. Yup, texting on his cell phone. Every day, all the time. Is there something a citizen can do (short of throwing a brick through their windows)? The CHP doesn't have enough cars around to help. Rant off.
CaliRN
It has been well-established on the 'fire that no one should do anything to see that the laws pertaining to driving are followed.
I heard a lengthy interview with a gal the other day, she is starting the "Julie Don't Text and Drive Foundation." She is dedicating her life to educate people of the dangers of texting while driving.
Her daughter Julie was 18 years old, was talking on her cell phone, ran a stop sign and t-boned a truck. Totalled her car but not hurt too badly.
A year later, Julie was texting while parking on the 4th floor of a parking deck. Drove right over the edge, Dead Right There.
Julie was a slow learner. At least she killed herself before she killed someone else. Mom ought to start the "Julie Was a Dumb Ass Foundation."
Working in or near the road for lots of years before I retired. People on the phone, talking or texting is a problem, but so is putting on lipstick, mascara and other beauty tricks, along with reading newspapers, books, and road maps while driving 70+ MPH. All of this happens way more than you think. miles
Agreed - but all in all I'd estimate 90% of these distractions involve phones and all the others you mention add up to the other 10%.. Just a WAG..
It's pretty rare that somebody can convince me we need another stupid ass fugkin' law.
Since I started texting while driving, I have only been in 3 serious accidents in the last 50,000 miles. Before I started texting, I used to have 5-6 accidents/50,000 miles.
I commute sixty plus miles to work and the texters are getting out of hand. Statistic show texting/cell phone use is becoming a primary causal effect for road accidents and I agree. It's not a factor of legislating to the lowest common denominator, if that was the case I'd agree. The problem is they are trying to KILL ME. I'm all for draconian, punitive penalties for texting whilst driving as well as driving at or below the speed limit in the left lane.
Jorge, at the very least, the penalty for texting should be as severe as DUI. Take away the texter's permission to drive at all, and you might see a reduction in that sort of behavior. Might not either. Millions still drive with a snoot full. As I keep saying, you can't legislate behavior.
I commute sixty plus miles to work and the texters are getting out of hand. Statistic show texting/cell phone use is becoming a primary causal effect for road accidents and I agree. It's not a factor of legislating to the lowest common denominator, if that was the case I'd agree. The problem is they are trying to KILL ME. I'm all for draconian, punitive penalties for texting whilst driving as well as driving at or below the speed limit in the left lane.
Jorge, at the very least, the penalty for texting should be as severe as DUI. Take away the texter's permission to drive at all, and you might see a reduction in that sort of behavior. Might not either. Millions still drive with a snoot full. As I keep saying, you can't legislate behavior.
Isn't the beginning of your post a contradiction to the end of your post?
I drive on the freeway every day... and every day there is some car in the "fast lane" going 60 mph. Every fricking day. Today i pulled around one, two people looking at a cell phone, not 5 minutes later there is a car going about 50. Yup, texting on his cell phone. Every day, all the time. Is there something a citizen can do (short of throwing a brick through their windows)? The CHP doesn't have enough cars around to help. Rant off.
CaliRN
should've included the facetiousness icon. You want a free country, you have to deal with the danger and inconvenience of stupid drivers. Might as well vote Democrat, it's all moving us in that direction.
I know, it's easy to disparage what one does not understand. It's complicated and a reason as to why there's only been about 41,000 Naval Aviators in history out of a population of 320 Million. It's hard to live with, but I figured the hint at multitasking, hand-to-eye coordination and why we don't talk and fly in certain situations, not to mention statistics as to how Texting and driving effect vehicle mishaps would have clued you in..
I'm sorry your hand-to-eye coordination is so amazing that you can't operate a phone and drive in a straight line at the same time.
My truck texts for me via voice control. People doing it manually just can't afford the proper equipment. So, you just need to get a law to eliminate the poor. The democratic way would be to require automated in dash texting as safety equipment.
The only alternative would be to live and let live in a free country. To hell with that.
I was passed the other day, while driving home from work, by a white trash welfare recipient who had all those amenities. I'm sure the govt. thought it was fair to use the tax payers money to pay for the pukes car, phone and texting services. I work for a living, so I can't afford "the proper equipment" to properly text while driving....
The worst culprits I see are truckers on I25 - weaving all over the road, and not paying attention to their surroundings. They should lose their CDL permanently, when caught. One recently ran into a State Police car that was stopped to help a stranded motorist (both off the roadway, even beyond the shoulder). Gentleman in the pickup went for a short hospital visit - the officer saw it coming in time to jump out of the way - she is fine. Pickup totaled - cruiser burned to ashes. Driver got 7 tickets, IIRC - including reckless driving (due to cell phone records) I'd bet money he is looking for a new occupation, right now. And - deservedly!
I've thought that mounted fully auto paintball guns would work. Should be standard equipment. Permanent paint. Blast the dumb arses and avoid all the cars with the colorful paint splatters. Once a year your insurance agent inspects you car. Rates go up for excessive splatters.
I commute sixty plus miles to work and the texters are getting out of hand. Statistic show texting/cell phone use is becoming a primary causal effect for road accidents and I agree. It's not a factor of legislating to the lowest common denominator, if that was the case I'd agree. The problem is they are trying to KILL ME. I'm all for draconian, punitive penalties for texting whilst driving as well as driving at or below the speed limit in the left lane.
C'mon, Dave, maybe you're just pulling our chains with this idiocy
If you're referring to this Dave, no I'm not.
This anti-texting schit is just more brain washed idiocy. Glancing at a phone at eye-level and sending an abbreviated response requires no more risk than changing the radio station. Or sipping your coffee. Or looking around for change as you approach a toll booth.
Common sense would dictate that one doesn't need to type nor read a novel while driving in heavy traffic. But since there are too many dumb fugks in the world, it's now a crime to glance at your phone or type a short response. Anybody that can chew gum and jog at the same time is capable of this yet it is now outlawed in (I believe) 48 states. Why? Because of the lowest common denominator. That's why.
And of course there are about 5 billion alleged conservatives that are all too eager to allow this type of idiotic legislation.
My truck has Bluetooth. In order for me to make a call or send a text in most states I have to stare at a TV screen in the middle of my dashboard. I have to scroll through contacts, speak, push buttons, yada, yada, yada. How in the earth's holy fugk is that less distracting than typing "10-4" on a phone?
My truck also has a navigation system so when I drive around schit holes like Minneapolis, Chicago, or San Antonio, I don't have to ask any of the local mouth breathers directions. Why in the fugk is it legal for me to stare at the TV screen, as I drive in congested traffic, but it's not legal for me to look at a hand held fugking phone that can tell me the same info?
Does any of this make any sense? No. It doesn't. It's just more feel good fugking bullschit that the brain washed masses buy into because they don't/can't think for themselves.
And let's not forget many states have caveats for law enforcement officers. Because we all know anybody in that line of work has the reflexes of ninja trained cats. JFC. How do you people buy into this bullschit?
"Jorge-the-Cuban, what are your thoughts regarding warfare in the 14th century?"
"Uhhhhh, I've landed non-fighters on a carrier. Like....a bunch. Also, I'm sterile. So I have that going for me."
I keep overestimating your capacity to grasp the obvious. Incidentally, the toughest airplane to land on a carrier is a turbo-prop called the E-2 Hawkeye, and the hardest, BY FAR, is the EA-6B Prowler. The easiest? The F/A-18 Hornet. My airplane, the S-3 Viking, ran about the middle in difficulty. I could wax eloquently on the intricacies and nuances of carrier aviation, but you need to crawl before you can walk on more mundane subjects, like factual evidence shows testing whilst driving accidents are on the rise. Feel free to let me know if you need anything else.
Young girl rear ended a buddy of mine at a stop light while texting. He explained to her that she should write a letter to the trailer manufacturer for building such strong bumpers cause thats what saved her from being bathed in 9000 gallons of Hydrochloric Acid.
Sadly, this whole thread has lost sight of what made America the greatest country in the world. Legislating behavior modification is what America has turned to because people can't control themselves.
It wasn't more than a generation ago that people respected other people's rights and acted accordingly. For the past 40 years hippies, democrats and other bleeding hearts have been successful at ignoring common sense and forcing others into restrictions to modify people's behavior to suit their perception of right and wrong.
If we got back to a society that still sang patriotic songs and said the Pledge of allegiance in our schools and practiced discipline in our lives like we did about 40 years ago, life would be like it was 40 years ago and we wouldn't be as restricted as we are now and looking for more restrictions to control bad behavior that is a risk to society...
So what do you propose we should do NOW to stem the almost 60% increase in accidents due to texting? Or we can go back to the good old days of Deadwood, do away with most laws and if one sees something you deem a danger to yourself, just take appropriate action, like tapping their rear bumper and run them off the road..
C'mon, Dave, maybe you're just pulling our chains with this idiocy
If you're referring to this Dave, no I'm not.
This anti-texting schit is just more brain washed idiocy. Glancing at a phone at eye-level and sending an abbreviated response requires no more risk than changing the radio station. Or sipping your coffee. Or looking around for change as you approach a toll booth.
Common sense would dictate that one doesn't need to type nor read a novel while driving in heavy traffic. But since there are too many dumb fugks in the world, it's now a crime to glance at your phone or type a short response. Anybody that can chew gum and jog at the same time is capable of this yet it is now outlawed in (I believe) 48 states. Why? Because of the lowest common denominator. That's why.
And of course there are about 5 billion alleged conservatives that are all too eager to allow this type of idiotic legislation.
My truck has Bluetooth. In order for me to make a call or send a text in most states I have to stare at a TV screen in the middle of my dashboard. I have to scroll through contacts, speak, push buttons, yada, yada, yada. How in the earth's holy fugk is that less distracting than typing "10-4" on a phone?
My truck also has a navigation system so when I drive around schit holes like Minneapolis, Chicago, or San Antonio, I don't have to ask any of the local mouth breathers directions. Why in the fugk is it legal for me to stare at the TV screen, as I drive in congested traffic, but it's not legal for me to look at a hand held fugking phone that can tell me the same info?
Does any of this make any sense? No. It doesn't. It's just more feel good fugking bullschit that the brain washed masses buy into because they don't/can't think for themselves.
And let's not forget many states have caveats for law enforcement officers. Because we all know anybody in that line of work has the reflexes of ninja trained cat. JFC. How do you people buy into this bullschit?
Dave
Dang, thats the longest post I have ever seen you write.... and I agree with 100% of it. +9999 We have too many laws already... time to start afresh with the original law, the constitution.
I believe you are looking for immediate resolution to a problem that has taken decades to unravel. Piling on more law and restrictions is today's answer, but not the answer we really need.
Do you agree we have become a less tolerant society than we were 40 years ago?
The opposite affect of a liberating society of the 60's and 70's has gotten us to where we are today, not cell phones, cigarettes and whiskey...
I believe you are looking for immediate resolution to a problem that has taken decades to unravel. Piling on more law and restrictions is today's answer, but not the answer we really need.
Do you agree we have become a less tolerant society than we were 40 years ago?
The opposite affect of a liberating society of the 60's and 70's has gotten us to where we are today, not cell phones, cigarettes and whiskey...
I believe you are looking for immediate resolution to a problem that has taken decades to unravel. Piling on more law and restrictions is today's answer, but not the answer we really need.
Do you agree we have become a less tolerant society than we were 40 years ago?
The opposite affect of a liberating society of the 60's and 70's has gotten us to where we are today, not cell phones, cigarettes and whiskey...
Fo sho, the chicks in the 60's were into that "Free Love gig" or "Love everybody". Did my best to accommodate them.
Young girl rear ended a buddy of mine at a stop light while texting. He explained to her that she should write a letter to the trailer manufacturer for building such strong bumpers cause thats what saved her from being bathed in 9000 gallons of Hydrochloric Acid.
'Bluetooth' is one thing...holding some 'smartphone' in one mitt and texting with the other is quite different - and dangerous as hell.
It's the latter that just pizzes me off - AND has caused innumerable accidents nation-wide....in fact, becoming the number one cause..
If the driver finds a shoulder and stops to call/text - fine.. But the majority don't - at least not around here.. And the biggest offenders are women.
Honestly did not know you were a truck driver deflave.. A tow-truck driver I know who comes in for coffee wears what looks to be a hard-plastic 'necklace' that has his mike and phone connected.. Looks weird as hell but it works very well..
'Bluetooth' is one thing...holding some 'smartphone' in one mitt and texting with the other is quite different - and dangerous as hell.
Again, using the Bluetooth is no less distracting than using the phone itself. People claim it is, but it's a lie.
And clearly new laws are not going to change the behavior of any person that feels they should remove two hands from the steering wheel and type as they drive down a highway.
When the first laws regarding texting and driving were passed, accidents INCREASED. This was due to people no longer keeping phones at eye level in an attempt to avoid a ticket.
So again, the laws accomplish nothing other than removing more freedoms from people that can use a phone and common sense simultaneously. It's just more feel good bullschit.
The majority of those links support my narrative. You should read them.
This one is especially funny given the fact that dumb ass politicians in 37 states (and their equally dumb ass supporters) ban cell phone use based on age. The further they were from 18, the more distracted:
C'mon, Dave, maybe you're just pulling our chains with this idiocy
If you're referring to this Dave, no I'm not.
This anti-texting schit is just more brain washed idiocy. Glancing at a phone at eye-level and sending an abbreviated response requires no more risk than changing the radio station. Or sipping your coffee. Or looking around for change as you approach a toll booth.
Common sense would dictate that one doesn't need to type nor read a novel while driving in heavy traffic. But since there are too many dumb fugks in the world, it's now a crime to glance at your phone or type a short response. Anybody that can chew gum and jog at the same time is capable of this yet it is now outlawed in (I believe) 48 states. Why? Because of the lowest common denominator. That's why.
And of course there are about 5 billion alleged conservatives that are all too eager to allow this type of idiotic legislation.
My truck has Bluetooth. In order for me to make a call or send a text in most states I have to stare at a TV screen in the middle of my dashboard. I have to scroll through contacts, speak, push buttons, yada, yada, yada. How in the earth's holy fugk is that less distracting than typing "10-4" on a phone?
My truck also has a navigation system so when I drive around schit holes like Minneapolis, Chicago, or San Antonio, I don't have to ask any of the local mouth breathers directions. Why in the fugk is it legal for me to stare at the TV screen, as I drive in congested traffic, but it's not legal for me to look at a hand held fugking phone that can tell me the same info?
Does any of this make any sense? No. It doesn't. It's just more feel good fugking bullschit that the brain washed masses buy into because they don't/can't think for themselves.
And let's not forget many states have caveats for law enforcement officers. Because we all know anybody in that line of work has the reflexes of ninja trained cats. JFC. How do you people buy into this bullschit?
Dave
I tend to agree with deflave. Texting and driving can be dangerous, but with proper risk management can be done safely. I very rarely text and drive. When I do it's a quick one letter or one word response that is somewhat time sensitive. I do a full and thorough 360 scan before each key stroke. I won't do it when anyone is in my danger zone. It's really no different from reading road signs in an unfamiliar area. It's something that can be so distracting that it becomes dangerous, but it can also be managed safely. I drive about 150-200 miles per work day. The obliviousness I see in texters is just [bleep] staggering. People become engrossed in their phones to the point that they lose awareness of driving. drifting out of their lane. Pinballing back and forth within the lane. Going so slow as to hinder the flow of traffic. Unable to maintain a constant speed. I honk at every damn one of the idiots and shake my head at them. It's funny how many get pissed at me.
No they don't. The only one supporting your narrative is there is virtually no difference between Blue Tooth or similar device and regular texting. Every other study, (for example that of commercial drivers: Driver Distraction in Commercial Motor Vehicle Operations”, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 2009 – text messaging creates a crash risk 23 times greater than driving without distraction) where texting was a primary and not a secondary violation (Florida was that way)reduced accidents across all age groups. AS to your link, of course that is true. The older one gets the slower one's reaction time becomes. BUT when coupled with inexperince (the #1 cause of accidents with teenagers) Texting is another factor in the equation they just don't need: link
So what do you propose we should do NOW to stem the almost 60% increase in accidents due to texting? Or we can go back to the good old days of Deadwood, do away with most laws and if one sees something you deem a danger to yourself, just take appropriate action, like tapping their rear bumper and run them off the road..
Where did you get that data? Fatality rates per mile driven are at an all time low. I have looked for accident per mile traveled data and haven't found any.
Frankly, I don't remember, might have even been a news broadcast. I do know just as you state overall accidents are low, perhaps a clearer narrative would have been of accidents that do occur texting showed a 60% increase as a causal factor? I will try and find it.
C'mon, Dave, maybe you're just pulling our chains with this idiocy
If you're referring to this Dave, no I'm not.
This anti-texting schit is just more brain washed idiocy. Glancing at a phone at eye-level and sending an abbreviated response requires no more risk than changing the radio station. Or sipping your coffee. Or looking around for change as you approach a toll booth.
Common sense would dictate that one doesn't need to type nor read a novel while driving in heavy traffic. But since there are too many dumb fugks in the world, it's now a crime to glance at your phone or type a short response. Anybody that can chew gum and jog at the same time is capable of this yet it is now outlawed in (I believe) 48 states. Why? Because of the lowest common denominator. That's why.
And of course there are about 5 billion alleged conservatives that are all too eager to allow this type of idiotic legislation.
My truck has Bluetooth. In order for me to make a call or send a text in most states I have to stare at a TV screen in the middle of my dashboard. I have to scroll through contacts, speak, push buttons, yada, yada, yada. How in the earth's holy fugk is that less distracting than typing "10-4" on a phone?
My truck also has a navigation system so when I drive around schit holes like Minneapolis, Chicago, or San Antonio, I don't have to ask any of the local mouth breathers directions. Why in the fugk is it legal for me to stare at the TV screen, as I drive in congested traffic, but it's not legal for me to look at a hand held fugking phone that can tell me the same info?
Does any of this make any sense? No. It doesn't. It's just more feel good fugking bullschit that the brain washed masses buy into because they don't/can't think for themselves.
And let's not forget many states have caveats for law enforcement officers. Because we all know anybody in that line of work has the reflexes of ninja trained cats. JFC. How do you people buy into this bullschit?
Dave
I tend to agree with deflave. Texting and driving can be dangerous, but with proper risk management can be done safely. I very rarely text and drive. When I do it's a quick one letter or one word response that is somewhat time sensitive. I do a full and thorough 360 scan before each key stroke. I won't do it when anyone is in my danger zone. It's really no different from reading road signs in an unfamiliar area. It's something that can be so distracting that it becomes dangerous, but it can also be managed safely. I drive about 150-200 miles per work day. The obliviousness I see in texters is just [bleep] staggering. People become engrossed in their phones to the point that they lose awareness of driving. drifting out of their lane. Pinballing back and forth within the lane. Going so slow as to hinder the flow of traffic. Unable to maintain a constant speed. I honk at every damn one of the idiots and shake my head at them. It's funny how many get pissed at me.
I'm seeing it like this too. I HATE new laws, and it is too bad that some folks who type short, one or two word responses (vs. people writing sentences) are being barred from it when it is perfectly legal to use touch screens/dash mounted GPS/fumbling for change, stare at billboards, check out the slut in the Maserati, etc.
The line has to be drawn somewhere though, else folks will continue to push the legal limits...how can the law say that a person like DeFlave (who likely can safely text a one word response) can legally text and drive but the bawling bleeder driving home the morning after can't text "I can't believe I [bleep] him again...he's such as [bleep]..."
The 24 HC teaches sociological principles better than any college could dream of...
Just yesterday, in a 70 mph zone, a car doing about 45-50 in the passing lane , kinda weaving around, thought it was a drunk but was a young guy texting, he was totally oblivious to me as I passed him on the right.
He was likely one of those guys that will tell you "I can text and drive with no problem at all" or "I can drive better after two or three beers".
The trouble with these idiots is that they never see the folks who have to slam on their brakes to keep from hitting them or take evasive action like swerving to keep from getting hit by them. Since they never see these almost-victims, they go blithely on their merry way convinced that all is well.
The line has to be drawn somewhere though, else folks will continue to push the legal limits...how can the law say that a person like DeFlave (who likely can safely text a one word response) can legally text and drive but the bawling bleeder driving home the morning after can't text "I can't believe I [bleep] him again...he's such as [bleep]..."
Well that's just it.
We can't use legislation to rid our society of dip schits. Just let her bawl and drive and text as far as I'm concerned.
Just yesterday, in a 70 mph zone, a car doing about 45-50 in the passing lane , kinda weaving around, thought it was a drunk but was a young guy texting, he was totally oblivious to me as I passed him on the right.
He was likely one of those guys that will tell you "I can text and drive with no problem at all" or "I can drive better after two or three beers".
The trouble with these idiots is that they never see the folks who have to slam on their brakes to keep from hitting them or take evasive action like swerving to keep from getting hit by them. Since they never see these almost-victims, they go blithely on their merry way convinced that all is well.
They should make it illegal to text and drive in that state.
I commute sixty plus miles to work and the texters are getting out of hand. Statistic show texting/cell phone use is becoming a primary causal effect for road accidents and I agree. It's not a factor of legislating to the lowest common denominator, if that was the case I'd agree. The problem is they are trying to KILL ME. I'm all for draconian, punitive penalties for texting whilst driving as well as driving at or below the speed limit in the left lane.
Soon a third texting ticket, or injury accident while texting will be a felony.
One of these days I am going to quit swearing and just do it..
buy an older Dodge 1 Ton Diesel, and then put about a 600 pound bumper and brush guard on the front, and a bumper on the back that was taken off the front of a Deuce& aHalf....
People in the left lane or faster lanes, driving erratic and texting... I would just love to pass them on the right, pull in front of them and tap my brakes to drop my speed about 15 mph or so and let them rear end the Pickup....
Driving to and from Colorado recently, in my Pilot, I was amazed at how many people spend more time on their cell phones or texting whatever, than they spend paying attention to where they are going....
even coming off of Pike's Peak, bumper to bumper traffic at a crawl and the number of people still texting... amazing sitting next to some vehicles with 4 or 5 people in them and each one was busy starring at their cell phones....
If no witnesses, in my old fantasy beat up 1 ton Dodge Diesel, would love to just nudge them off the road....
I have no empathy for these people if they end up hurting themselves... just for those others they might hurt.
and yeah, I don't text anyway......even at home... someone texts me, I call them back and tell them I don't text....
The line has to be drawn somewhere though, else folks will continue to push the legal limits...how can the law say that a person like DeFlave (who likely can safely text a one word response) can legally text and drive but the bawling bleeder driving home the morning after can't text "I can't believe I [bleep] him again...he's such as [bleep]..."
Well that's just it.
We can't use legislation to rid our society of dip schits. Just let her bawl and drive and text as far as I'm concerned.
Dave
But that's when a wreck will happen, and someone innocent will die.
How do you protect one person's rights without stomping on another's?
The line has to be drawn somewhere though, else folks will continue to push the legal limits...how can the law say that a person like DeFlave (who likely can safely text a one word response) can legally text and drive but the bawling bleeder driving home the morning after can't text "I can't believe I [bleep] him again...he's such as [bleep]..."
Well that's just it.
We can't use legislation to rid our society of dip schits. Just let her bawl and drive and text as far as I'm concerned.
Dave
But that's when a wreck will happen, and someone innocent will die.
How do you protect one person's rights without stomping on another's?
This whole situation is a tough one.
Life isn't safe. Everyone dies and none are innocent. Ben Franklin said something about Liberty vs Safety a long time ago. I agree with him.
C'mon, Dave, maybe you're just pulling our chains with this idiocy
If you're referring to this Dave, no I'm not.
This anti-texting schit is just more brain washed idiocy. Glancing at a phone at eye-level and sending an abbreviated response requires no more risk than changing the radio station. Or sipping your coffee. Or looking around for change as you approach a toll booth.
Common sense would dictate that one doesn't need to type nor read a novel while driving in heavy traffic. But since there are too many dumb fugks in the world, it's now a crime to glance at your phone or type a short response. Anybody that can chew gum and jog at the same time is capable of this yet it is now outlawed in (I believe) 48 states. Why? Because of the lowest common denominator. That's why.
And of course there are about 5 billion alleged conservatives that are all too eager to allow this type of idiotic legislation.
My truck has Bluetooth. In order for me to make a call or send a text in most states I have to stare at a TV screen in the middle of my dashboard. I have to scroll through contacts, speak, push buttons, yada, yada, yada. How in the earth's holy fugk is that less distracting than typing "10-4" on a phone?
My truck also has a navigation system so when I drive around schit holes like Minneapolis, Chicago, or San Antonio, I don't have to ask any of the local mouth breathers directions. Why in the fugk is it legal for me to stare at the TV screen, as I drive in congested traffic, but it's not legal for me to look at a hand held fugking phone that can tell me the same info?
Does any of this make any sense? No. It doesn't. It's just more feel good fugking bullschit that the brain washed masses buy into because they don't/can't think for themselves.
And let's not forget many states have caveats for law enforcement officers. Because we all know anybody in that line of work has the reflexes of ninja trained cat. JFC. How do you people buy into this bullschit?
Dave
Dang, thats the longest post I have ever seen you write.... and I agree with 100% of it. +9999 We have too many laws already... time to start afresh with the original law, the constitution.
The line has to be drawn somewhere though, else folks will continue to push the legal limits...how can the law say that a person like DeFlave (who likely can safely text a one word response) can legally text and drive but the bawling bleeder driving home the morning after can't text "I can't believe I [bleep] him again...he's such as [bleep]..."
Well that's just it.
We can't use legislation to rid our society of dip schits. Just let her bawl and drive and text as far as I'm concerned.
Dave
But that's when a wreck will happen, and someone innocent will die.
How do you protect one person's rights without stomping on another's?
This whole situation is a tough one.
Life isn't safe. Everyone dies and none are innocent. Ben Franklin said something about Liberty vs Safety a long time ago. I agree with him.
Why can't I fire a rifle on a school playground? Drive around wasted like I am 18 again? Light fireworks next to the gas pump? It should be my right to do so correct? Those people I kill or hurt were not innocent right? That was a chance they took and they lost, because I have the right to be reckless. That whole liberty vs safety thing you know???
Just to be clear, I'm not totally anti-driving while texting...I am however, just trying to be fair about the complexity of these issues.
Why can't I fire a rifle on a school playground? Drive around wasted like I am 18 again? Light fireworks next to the gas pump? It should be my right to do so correct? Those people I kill or hurt were not innocent right? That was a chance they took and they lost, because I have the right to be reckless. That whole liberty vs safety thing you know???
Just to be clear, I'm not totally anti-driving while texting...I am however, just trying to be fair about the complexity of these issues.
The improper use of an object should not bar me from the proper use of an object.
Correct...but where should that line be drawn? Who is to say where that line should be drawn?
Some dip$hit "safely" shooting in a playground would not bar you from use of a gun (at least not yet...) nor would some idiot lighting a roman candle next to a gas pump cause you to lose your fireworks rights (at least not yet).
Question remains: why should doing these things be illegal? It is their right to be reckless, regardless of how it affects others right?
The line has to be drawn somewhere though, else folks will continue to push the legal limits...how can the law say that a person like DeFlave (who likely can safely text a one word response) can legally text and drive but the bawling bleeder driving home the morning after can't text "I can't believe I [bleep] him again...he's such as [bleep]..."
Well that's just it.
We can't use legislation to rid our society of dip schits. Just let her bawl and drive and text as far as I'm concerned.
Dave
But that's when a wreck will happen, and someone innocent will die.
How do you protect one person's rights without stomping on another's?
This whole situation is a tough one.
Life isn't safe. Everyone dies and none are innocent. Ben Franklin said something about Liberty vs Safety a long time ago. I agree with him.
Why can't I fire a rifle on a school playground? Drive around wasted like I am 18 again? Light fireworks next to the gas pump? It should be my right to do so correct? Those people I kill or hurt were not innocent right? That was a chance they took and they lost, because I have the right to be reckless. That whole liberty vs safety thing you know???
Just to be clear, I'm not totally anti-driving while texting...I am however, just trying to be fair about the complexity of these issues.
I agree its way more complex than Safety vs Liberty but I believe things have swung way to far in the Safety direction. Guess thats what I am really trying to say.
Nothing wrong with firing a rifle in a school playground as long as the target and beyond is clear. Teach the kids how to shoot.
Sure, driving wasted is not a good idea, but .08 bac is hardly wasted.
Fireworks next to a gas pump... is that actually illegal? Crap.
I don't know 'bout THAT exactly. Perhaps it's not possible to tell from your driving whether or not you've had 2 Coors Lights. It is less likely that your driving is good after beers than it is likely your driving sucks even without them.
I agree its way more complex than Safety vs Liberty but I believe things have swung way to far in the Safety direction. Guess thats what I am really trying to say.
Nothing wrong with firing a rifle in a school playground as long as the target and beyond is clear. Teach the kids how to shoot.
Sure, driving wasted is not a good idea, but .08 bac is hardly wasted.
Fireworks next to a gas pump... is that actually illegal? Crap.
This I can mostly agree with. I don't know if fireworks being lit next to a gas pump is illegal or not (I am sure some cities/counties/states have laws stating you need to be X feet from flammable sources, etc.) but it sure as hell wouldn't be safe, regardless if it is legal or not.
.08 B/C can be totally wasted for some, completely sober for most. Some folks may have some medical condition that causes one beer to make them totally $hitfaced, like a high school chick.
Ever take a valium and drink a beer? It wouldn't be illegal to drive with that in your system, at least as far as BAC laws go. It sure as hell wouldn't be safe for the most part.
I would fully agree that safety laws have gone too far though.
Correct...but where should that line be drawn? Who is to say where that line should be drawn?
Some dip$hit "safely" shooting in a playground would not bar you from use of a gun (at least not yet...) nor would some idiot lighting a roman candle next to a gas pump cause you to lose your fireworks rights (at least not yet).
Question remains: why should doing these things be illegal? It is their right to be reckless, regardless of how it affects others right?
But you're not being intellectually honest about the subject when you use those examples.
Is it illegal to discharge firearms on the playground? Most likely it is. Does that mean I shouldn't be able to use my firearm at the range?
Is it illegal to have open flames near a fuel pump? Most likely it is. Does that mean I shouldn't be able to light off my fireworks in my yard?
Is it illegal to swerve in and out of your lane in moving traffic? Most likely it is.
Is it illegal to drive 40mph in the passing lane? Most likely it is.
Is it illegal to drive a car into another car's rear bumper? Most likely it is.
If a phone is causing a person to do these things then cite the person for doing these things and leave my phone the fugk out of it.
I was woke up last night around 11:30 to the sound of an air ambulance copter flying over about 200 feet above my house.
A car swerved over into the lane of an oncoming car at the end of my street resulting in a head on collision and 3 women being sent to the university hospital.
If a phone is causing a person to do these things then cite the person for doing these things and leave my phone the fugk out of it.
Dave
There's the kicker, and one I totally agree with, but why is it illegal to swerve in and out of traffic or drive slow in the fast lane? Shouldn't it be their right to do so?
I'll bet back in the 30s, 40s and 50s when traffic laws such as tailgating, lane switching, minimum/maximum speeds, etc. were getting stricter and stricter due to accidents and people getting killed other people bitched about losing their freedoms due to govt. intervention. Those traffic laws you don't seem to have an issue with.
Again, I am not anti-texting while driving...I am just trying to see this from all sides.
One of these days I am going to quit swearing and just do it..
buy an older Dodge 1 Ton Diesel, and then put about a 600 pound bumper and brush guard on the front, and a bumper on the back that was taken off the front of a Deuce& aHalf....
People in the left lane or faster lanes, driving erratic and texting... I would just love to pass them on the right, pull in front of them and tap my brakes to drop my speed about 15 mph or so and let them rear end the Pickup....
Driving to and from Colorado recently, in my Pilot, I was amazed at how many people spend more time on their cell phones or texting whatever, than they spend paying attention to where they are going....
even coming off of Pike's Peak, bumper to bumper traffic at a crawl and the number of people still texting... amazing sitting next to some vehicles with 4 or 5 people in them and each one was busy starring at their cell phones....
If no witnesses, in my old fantasy beat up 1 ton Dodge Diesel, would love to just nudge them off the road....
I have no empathy for these people if they end up hurting themselves... just for those others they might hurt.
and yeah, I don't text anyway......even at home... someone texts me, I call them back and tell them I don't text....
I have a problem with most speed limits. They are set ridiculously low. I would be more in favor of recommended speed signs just to give folks what speed might be appropriate not enforced limits, and make the number realistic instead of 10 to 15 mph too low. Give the police something useful to do like solving crime instead of making money.
There's the kicker, and one I totally agree with, but why is it illegal to swerve in and out of traffic or drive slow in the fast lane? Shouldn't it be their right to do so?
No. I don't think people have the right to drive into my vehicle and damage my property.
I have a problem with most speed limits. They are set ridiculously low. I would be more in favor of recommended speed signs just to give folks what speed might be appropriate not enforced limits, and make the number realistic instead of 10 to 15 mph too low. Give the police something useful to do like solving crime instead of making money.
I don't read the speed limit signs because they are a distraction.
I don't know 'bout THAT exactly. Perhaps it's not possible to tell from your driving whether or not you've had 2 Coors Lights. It is less likely that your driving is good after beers than it is likely your driving sucks even without them.
Is it illegal to swerve in and out of your lane in moving traffic? Most likely it is.
Is it illegal to drive 40mph in the passing lane? Most likely it is.
Is it illegal to drive a car into another car's rear bumper? Most likely it is.
If a phone is causing a person to do these things then cite the person for doing these things and leave my phone the fugk out of it. Dave
You are cool with those laws but you aren't cool with a law prohibiting the thing that causes the majority of those offenses to occur?
If I have to suffer the horrible inconvenience of not being able to text and operate a motor vehicle but said law keeps some nitwit 20 year old Bernie voter from slamming into my wifes car with my kids in the back because she was busy perusing the latest posts on the tmz website, then so be it.
Or DWC. Driving While Canadian. An affliction that causes drivers to either drive at ridiculously unsafe speeds to include passing on the shoulder of a 2 lane road, or to drive at a ridiculously slow speed while the people who are actually trying to phouking get somewhere build up behind them.
Side note, if they outlawed riding a phoucking bicycle on a 2 lane highway I'd be more than ok with that.
You are cool with those laws but you aren't cool with a law prohibiting the thing that causes the majority of those offenses to occur?
If I have to suffer the horrible inconvenience of not being able to text and operate a motor vehicle but said law keeps some nitwit 20 year old Bernie voter from slamming into my wifes car with my kids in the back because she was busy perusing the latest posts on the tmz website, then so be it.
I'm well aware that the majority of this country likes to legislate based on the lowest common denominator.
Or DWC. Driving While Canadian. An affliction that causes drivers to either drive at ridiculously unsafe speeds to include passing on the shoulder of a 2 lane road, or to drive at a ridiculously slow speed while the people who are actually trying to phouking get somewhere build up behind them.
Side note, if they outlawed riding a phoucking bicycle on a 2 lane highway I'd be more than ok with that.
This guy texts and drives also. Get the pitchforks.
Or DWC. Driving While Canadian. An affliction that causes drivers to either drive at ridiculously unsafe speeds to include passing on the shoulder of a 2 lane road, or to drive at a ridiculously slow speed while the people who are actually trying to phouking get somewhere build up behind them.
Side note, if they outlawed riding a phoucking bicycle on a 2 lane highway I'd be more than ok with that.
I've always called it DWA...Driving while Asian. Seattle has an issue with this.
As far as the bicycle riders...holy $hit does that $hit piss me off. The liberal cesspool that is Missoula thinks otherwise.
There's the kicker, and one I totally agree with, but why is it illegal to swerve in and out of traffic or drive slow in the fast lane? Shouldn't it be their right to do so?
No. I don't think people have the right to drive into my vehicle and damage my property.
Dave
So a person should be able to drive 100 MPH in a school zone, cause you to swerve into a different lane, jam on your brakes and make you $hit your pants and that's OK, but as soon as they damage your property, then they have crossed the line into the "illegal" territory?
So a person should be able to drive 100 MPH in a school zone, cause you to swerve into a different lane, jam on your brakes and make you $hit your pants, but as soon as they damage your property, they have crossed the line into the "illegal" territory?
Or DWC. Driving While Canadian. An affliction that causes drivers to either drive at ridiculously unsafe speeds to include passing on the shoulder of a 2 lane road, or to drive at a ridiculously slow speed while the people who are actually trying to phouking get somewhere build up behind them.
Side note, if they outlawed riding a phoucking bicycle on a 2 lane highway I'd be more than ok with that.
I've always called it DWA...Driving while Asian. Seattle has an issue with this.
As far as the bicycle riders...holy $hit does that $hit piss me off. The liberal cesspool that is Missoula thinks otherwise.
Or DWC. Driving While Canadian. An affliction that causes drivers to either drive at ridiculously unsafe speeds to include passing on the shoulder of a 2 lane road, or to drive at a ridiculously slow speed while the people who are actually trying to phouking get somewhere build up behind them.
Side note, if they outlawed riding a phoucking bicycle on a 2 lane highway I'd be more than ok with that.
This guy texts and drives also. Get the pitchforks.
Or DWC. Driving While Canadian. An affliction that causes drivers to either drive at ridiculously unsafe speeds to include passing on the shoulder of a 2 lane road, or to drive at a ridiculously slow speed while the people who are actually trying to phouking get somewhere build up behind them.
Side note, if they outlawed riding a phoucking bicycle on a 2 lane highway I'd be more than ok with that.
I've always called it DWA...Driving while Asian. Seattle has an issue with this.
As far as the bicycle riders...holy $hit does that $hit piss me off. The liberal cesspool that is Missoula thinks otherwise.
This is what America has come to, sad but true. Public safety is a huge issue, but has been the reason for so much loss of Liberty.
Alfred Nobel invented dynamite with the same ingredients that are found in dynamite today. You were able to buy dynamite for what ever your needs were until more recently when it has become a controlled substance and a public safety hazard.
You can no longer go down to the county road department and buy dynamite that was easily obtainable only 30 years ago. Something has changed, but it isn't the dynamite...
You are cool with those laws but you aren't cool with a law prohibiting the thing that causes the majority of those offenses to occur?
If I have to suffer the horrible inconvenience of not being able to text and operate a motor vehicle but said law keeps some nitwit 20 year old Bernie voter from slamming into my wifes car with my kids in the back because she was busy perusing the latest posts on the tmz website, then so be it.
I'm well aware that the majority of this country likes to legislate based on the lowest common denominator.
Or DWC. Driving While Canadian. An affliction that causes drivers to either drive at ridiculously unsafe speeds to include passing on the shoulder of a 2 lane road, or to drive at a ridiculously slow speed while the people who are actually trying to phouking get somewhere build up behind them.
Side note, if they outlawed riding a phoucking bicycle on a 2 lane highway I'd be more than ok with that.
I know. Those godddamn bicycles are so hard to pass.
Did every one miss the part where he admitted to driving a Pilot? That's as 270 gay as its gonna get in this thread with out some ones feelers get hurt?
Every cell phone should have a shut off after the vehicle gets over ten mph. Problem solved.
No wonder this country is such a mess.
It's only a matter of time. Chevy is already bragging that their car won't start if the radio is on. How in the fugk that's a selling point is beyond me.
Breathalyzers from the factory would certainly reduce the number of fatalities in this country. I also see no reason for any civilian to be able to drive 100mph so we may as well take that away too.
All decisions must be made by somebody else as we've been winnowing away at the concept of personal responsibility for decades now...
Travis, did you notice since Montana instituted seat belt laws, open container laws and speed limits, that highway deaths have actually risen...and by quite a bit?
I am starting to become a fan of just shooting all .gov teat suckers, liberals, and anyone just too forking stupid or lazy to accept personal responsibility.
Breathalyzers from the factory would certainly reduce the number of fatalities in this country.
Yes, and also the number of unwanted pregnancies. I'm all for breathalyzers.
Are you saying a dick should have a breathalyzer on it?
No, that would not address the, er, "root cause" of the problem.
The breathalyzer would be a portable hand-held device, and both the male and female participants would have to be tested. If either or both were found to be intoxicated, the couple would have to settle for fellatio.
Sounds draconian I know but I'm willing to sacrifice.
Travis, did you notice since Montana instituted seat belt laws, open container laws and speed limits, that highway deaths have actually risen...and by quite a bit?
I did not personally but that has been pointed out to me by a number of Montana natives.
Open container and switchblade laws are excellent examples of how stupid human beings can become.
Punish the idiots who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, leave the rest of us along.
If some ass hole causes an accident whilst texting throw the book at them.
The entire texting laws are about as stupid as moving the BAC limit to .08 from .10.
Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!
If someone causes an accident or does damage, punish them. Don't punish me when I do no damage or cause no problems.
I agree a large problem was created when laws were put in to place and people started trying to use a device on the sly, averting their eyes down and away from their view of the road.
I am tired of those supposed geniuses in statehouses and DC legislating what they KNOW to be best for me and the dirty unwashed masses based on the actions of a few.
Punish the idiots who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, leave the rest of us along.
If some ass hole causes an accident whilst texting throw the book at them.
The entire texting laws are about as stupid as moving the BAC limit to .08 from .10.
Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!
If someone causes an accident or does damage, punish them. Don't punish me when I do no damage or cause no problems.
I agree a large problem was created when laws were put in to place and people started trying to use a device on the sly, averting their eyes down and away from their view of the road.
The whole idea is to prevent the innocent from being t-boned,
you're saying, as they pry my carcass from the wreck, it's all good as long as the texter gets a ticket.
Anyone that can't admit texting while driving is a distraction, is in denial.
Punish the idiots who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, leave the rest of us along.
If some ass hole causes an accident whilst texting throw the book at them.
The entire texting laws are about as stupid as moving the BAC limit to .08 from .10.
Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!
If someone causes an accident or does damage, punish them. Don't punish me when I do no damage or cause no problems.
I agree a large problem was created when laws were put in to place and people started trying to use a device on the sly, averting their eyes down and away from their view of the road.
The whole idea is to prevent the innocent from being t-boned,
you're saying, as they pry my carcass from the wreck, it's all good as long as the texter gets a ticket.
Anyone that can't admit texting while driving is a distraction, is in denial.
Breathing can be a distraction also. Especially if you get hiccups or a coughing fit. Better legislate against breathing while driving. The radio is a distraction. Better start outlawinf them.
Those damn gauges and idiot lights down out of my line of sight away from the windshield are a huge distraction. When are we going to get together and demand that these be outlawed also.
You are missing my point. My question, why the hell do I need or deserve to get a ticket if I do not create or cause an accident? If the guy creates an accident, punish him for that. If it proves he/she was distracted by a phone, you can maybe enhance charges. But stop trying to persecute me for the sins of others.
The whole idea is to prevent the innocent from being t-boned,
Githefugkouttahere.
If that were even remotely true we'd have a breathalyzer in every vehicle, on-board radios and billboards would be illegal, and so would your cigarette and cup holder.
The whole idea is to prevent the innocent from being t-boned,
Githefugkouttahere.
If that were even remotely true we'd have a breathalyzer in every vehicle, on-board radios and billboards would be illegal, and so would your cigarette and cup holder.
Better ban cleavage while you're at it.
Fuggin commie, cleavage is one of the few things left to fight for. You must learn where to draw the line of common sense and good taste!
And why are people drawn to the notion that manslaughter involving text messages should bring a more severe punishment than manslaughter involving the application of makeup, or blowing a stop sign, or scratching your balls?
Can't we go back to the good old days of murder being murder, and manslaughter being manslaughter?
Try to stay focused, manslaughter is manslaughter, period.
the object used has little to do with it.
I also love how certain people try to reason with, 'well it's not illegal to put makeup on while driving', it is illegal under several different terms including inattentive driving.
I would ask all of you promoting the idea of banning The use of cell phones while driving to take the words "cell phones while driving" and replace cell phone with gun and while driving with anywhere except the gun range.
That is is the same line of thinking that you are promoting here. Denigrating and accusing an object rather than the person responsible for the act while using said object. So we have to ban all use of said object unless it conforms to what thise screaming loudest say is correct.
Travis is right, a lot of closet liberal thinkers here.
I would ask all of you promoting the idea of banning The use of cell phones while driving to take the words "cell phones while driving" and replace cell phone with gun and while driving with anywhere except the gun range.
That is is the same line of thinking that you are promoting here. Denigrating and accusing an object rather than the person responsible for the act while using said object. So we have to ban all use of said object unless it conforms to what thise screaming loudest say is correct.
Travis is right, a lot of closet liberal thinkers here.
There is no "right" to have a phone of any kind. I hope when you have an accident, it is a single car accident.
I would ask all of you promoting the idea of banning The use of cell phones while driving to take the words "cell phones while driving" and replace cell phone with gun and while driving with anywhere except the gun range.
That is is the same line of thinking that you are promoting here. Denigrating and accusing an object rather than the person responsible for the act while using said object. So we have to ban all use of said object unless it conforms to what thise screaming loudest say is correct.
Travis is right, a lot of closet liberal thinkers here.
There is no "right" to have a phone of any kind. I hope when you have an accident, it is a single car accident.
Trust me when I tell you that those on the left do their best to deny that there exists a right to own a firearm.
Besides that, you are using the exact same argument to try and control everyone's use of a device because the actions of a very slim percentage of owners of said device. Enumerated rights or not, these are the exact same positions taken by those who deem that it is important to control all of us firearm owners for their perceived safety.
The whole idea is to prevent the innocent from being t-boned,
Githefugkouttahere.
If that were even remotely true we'd have a breathalyzer in every vehicle, on-board radios and billboards would be illegal, and so would your cigarette and cup holder.
Better ban cleavage while you're at it.
Dave
Travis/Dave/Clark,
How dare you suggest such a thing.
Legislating to the lowest common denominator suggests that you be sent to the basement for retraining/indoctrination. Brainwashing even.
Geno
PS, cupholders are a worthy invention. They cut down on spilling hot coffee on ones lap and therefor help to keep shysters unemployed.
