Give Me Texting or Give Me Death!

I teach my children to be safe when they drive. Texting is a definate no no.

Those that think they are capable of texting and driving without keeping their full attention on their driving, are just plain fooling themselves. I had a car totaled because of someone texting while driving and I think my son was lucky that he wasn't killed by the so called capable texter/driver.

I am all for the laws about texting and driving. Bring em on.

Give Me Texting or Give Me Death!

And more and more Death it is, plus innocent bystanders also.

Many text messaging aficionados claim their right to text message while driving as a freedom that the government cannot take away.

People against car seat belts had the same flawed view, many died tragically (and took others with them) due to a distinct lack of common sense.

http://darwinawards.com/slush/200603/pending20060305-210131.html

Using a cellphone (voice or texting) not equipped with a hands-free kit in a stopped or moving car is illegal down here in New Zealand. I welcome the law as studies have shown that texting while driving is more distracting than being drunk.

True.

But there is a big difference between seat belts and texting. If a driver doesn't wear his seat belt, he only endangers himself....and isn't more likely to get into an accident to begin with. While DWT (Driving While Texting) does increase the likely hood of causing an accident, endangering himself (or herself) as well as others.

That is also where the phrase "Clear and present danger" comes from. To me texting while driving is obviously a clear and present danger to yourself and perhaps more importantly to others.

Shawn

In the immortal words of any District Attorney "depraved indifference" or if you do harm, cause injury or death while exercising what you believe to be a constitutional right. You may find yourself being prosecuted for a felony.

However, I do belief the government is trying to overlap laws. There are laws that already state that a driver must be in total control of his/her vehicle. To me reckless driving is reckless driving, whether you are texting, talking on a cell phone, drinking or eating a infamous Taco. My argument is, there is a law in place that already covers texting. Why not just enforce it?

My argument is, there is a law in place that already covers texting. Why not just enforce it?

I agree with what you are saying. It's sort of like the 'hate crime' laws. If someone beats another person to death....there's already a law for that. I don't see why we need another law punishing the perp for hate.....put him away for the result of his actions.

Regarding laws against DWT, I think one advantage of making a specific law is that 'reckless driving' can be left up to interpretation opening it up to abuse (an over authoritative law enforcement officer) or worse not followed by driver who lacks common sense. Sure the person who causes an accident by DWT can be prosecuted, but by then the damage has already been done. Perhaps it's better to specifically establish that DWT is against the law so those who it's not obvious to have an increased chance of becoming aware.

Our culture seems to have devolved into a state where people can't use common sense. Generally I resist efforts to make common sense unnecessary, however, in as this can directly effect the safety of others, specifically those I know and care for.

In general I agree with you that this does come under the generic "reckless driving" legal catch bin. But I believe in some states that by adding a statute for this specific act, a victim automatically obtains the legal right to subpoena the cell phone records of all drivers involved without having to involve a judge.

ahhh yes, the devil is in the details, isn't it.

Does that mean most every accident involving two cars one persons (the victim) is going to be subpoenaing cell phone records....even if the driver of the other vehicle didn't have a cell phone with him at the time?

If one is involved in a collision and files a civil suit against the alleged tortfeasor, he is entitled to know if the driver was distracted while using a cell phone at the time of the collision. This information can be obtained through a "discovery" process. This is true whether or not there is a "statute" prohibiting cell phone usage by the driver. This is a universal rule in all of the federal courts of this country and, I believe, also of every state in the union.

The importance of the statute would dictate that if a person is guilty of violating the statute and a collision occurs, the violation would constitute "negligence per se" (negligence in and of itself) while without the statute, using a cell phone at the time of the collision would be a factor in making a determination by the "fact finder" whether or not the driver was guilty of ordinary negligence. Usually "ordinary negligence"would not authorize "punitive damages" while"negligence per se" would.

Ordinarily I am against government intervention of citizens rights, however, when it comes to cell phone usage while driving an automobile, I am behind restrictions 100%. Restricting texting while driving does not go far enough. Hands free cell phone is not the answer. When someone is guiding a 2000 pound plus guided missile in my direction on a public road I want his operation of that vehicle to be the only thing that is on his mind. Who among you would like to have your doctor discussing his golf game on his hands-free cell phone while he is performing open-heart surgery on you? At least when the doctor says "uh oh"you may be the only one who suffers but when the driver's mind is on something else, it may be a busload of schoolchildren who suffer. All cell phone telephone usage by the driver should be prohibited with punishment more than just a "slap on the wrist".

I realize that this comment will not be popular but each and every one of you know that it's the truth. Best wishes, OEM

"I realize that this comment will not be popular... "

I think you are mistaken....I think many here agree with you.

How do you differentiate between a hands free cell phone conversation and having a conversation between passengers in the vehicle or listening to talk radio?

The difference with other passengers in the car are the passengers become additional eyes and ears to the environment that the driver is in. So while they can distract the driver they will also react to the drive. This is not always true, as any parent knows who has dealt with a bored two year old in the back seat.

The difference with talk radio is that this added stimulus is not expecting a response from the driver.

"The difference with talk radio is that this added stimulus is not expecting a response from the driver."

I guess CB radios fall under this as well, see link.

http://www.todaystrucking.com/news.cfm?intDocID=22559

I found this article surprising. Here is the link.

http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/articles/43812/article.html

I congratulate you for posting this link to the cell phone survey. I hope that everyone who reads it will take cognizance of the dangers imposed in using their cell phone while driving. As much as we hate to abort the convenience we have learned to enjoy, safety comes first.

Thank you and best wishes, OEM

If you have an accident while adjusting your radio, you follow under the laws already on the books of inattentive driving (in the State of Wisconsin with there are different degrees of) and pay the consequences.

p911

Many text messaging aficionados claim their right to text message while driving as a freedom that the government cannot take away.

Many psychopathic pedophiles claim their right to rape and murder children as a freedom that the government cannot take away, too.

It's all the same (il)logic to me.

Swing an ax all you want, just don't swing in the middle of a crowd.