Do You Text and Drive? Should You Be Allowed To?

What can be done to reduce the high risk.

Just don't do it!!!!

On a more serious note this has the same problem as driving drunk or under the influence of drugs, but being more subjective (as there is no test after the fact).

Public media campaigns showing the dangers (be it with knowledge, scare tactics or violent imagery) have been proven to make the average person more safety conscious but seem to do little to the people responsible for repeated texting while driving.

Making it illegal and following up with fines helps but as we have seen with drink driving does not fix the problem completely.

The only real solution I can see is for a software lockout using the phones motion sensing hardware to be built into the cell phones to prevent texting while in a moving vehicle. Period.

If the text is important enough to respond to immediately then pull the vehicle to the side of the road, because realistically most texts are just not important enough to be placing the lives of yourself or others on the road in danger. Period.

On a more serious note this has the same problem as driving drunk or under the influence of drugs, but being more subjective (as there is no test after the fact).

Actually, the texts have a timestamp, so there is a test after the fact. Maybe there should also be a speed recorded.

Oh I know, but I was NOT going to step on that personal privacy "land mine" of a legal problem regarding obtaining text message data for legal prosecution.

I don't see this is a practical or economically viable way in our modern society. The public response would just be too great.

Forms lyns post.... A while back, I beleive it was discussed of having a blocker in the car as its running that cells don't work... But I guess it impinged on rights on the passengers or interfering with FCC signals.

US$10,000 fine, or confiscation of vehicle. Get serious.

Seize the phone.

Require the offender to show up in court to pay fine to get phone back.

That will never work, then the government ends up having to open up abandoned cell phone stores.

Just make it legal to text and drive during certain hours when "sane" people will be home and off the streets, then the free-for-all can proceed, and the idiots who like texting and driving can be sent on to the forever cloud.

I think most new cars now have cell phone docking and voice to text capability....and they have systems for older cars that you can install...This means you just dock your phone when you get into the car and everything is hands free....speech recognition has come a long way in the last few years...I myself don't have any problem waiting or pulling over to the side of the road...

This article is from 2013...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/27/some-cars-will-read-texts-and-emails-or-take-dictation/2026823/

My phone has auto voice text and phone when I'm driving.

I realize my limitations at my age and pull off the road if I have to take notes or do anything other than talk.

It's the under 40 crowd I don't trust.

Then there is the "WOW" effect of when an old fogey like me climbs in one of these and attempts to drive it! That should be dangerous enough in and of itself, no help needed from the phamned done.

OR, we could introduce legislation that makes it entirely legal to go out on public roads and streets at 02:30 (after last call), drive like fiends, text, be drunk, on drugs, or just full of rage. That should lower the Darwin index of the political division that ratifies my new law by at least one order of magnitude.

It really doesn't matter if it's hands free or not, the risk is still exactly the same.

Texting is really bad because it tends to take your eyes off the road entirely. Some say "But it was for only just a second" but in actually it was longer, they just think it was one second.

Talking on a cell phone:

Requires about 85% of your brain to listen to what is being said on that cell phone.

While talking on a cell phone, your response time is reduced to what is equivalent to drunk driving.

That is why you see people talking on the phone and not really paying attention to the traffic around them. They make left turns into on coming traffic, drive slower than usual and hold up traffic and not aware there are cars behind them.

It seems like when ever I see someone do something dumb in traffic, they are on a cell phone, chatting away, unaware.

Those statistics I gave, was what was told me in a defensive driving class.

No, hands-free is not the same. It is far worse when people are focusing up close on the small screen instead of the world outside.

Hands-freed might also be a large distraction to some, but that doesn't make it as bad as non-hands-free. Having a conversation in the car is a lot like hands-free.... you don't prohibit conversation in the car while you are driving, do you?

'...85% of your brain...', come on. That sounds like a baseless statistic they throw at you in a defensive driving course or something. Oh wait...

It makes no difference if you're holding it in your hand or not, you're still using the same brain functions. Which means you are more focused on something that you're going to respond to, than you are on your driving.

Agreed. The difference between talking to someone on the phone vs. a passenger is that the passenger will shut up if there is a sketchy situation so that you can better focus. Where as the phone talker just keeps blabbing away and disrupts your focus when you need it most.

That's a funny idea.... that the passenger in the car might not be just as distracted as the driver by the conversation.

How is it that you can consider your position as even remotely consistent?

'... It makes no difference if you're holding it in your hand or not, you're still using the same brain functions. Which means you are more focused on something that you're going to respond to, than you are on your driving.....'

Followed shortly thereafter by;

'...Someone present in the car, talking to you, doesn't require as much attention as talking on a cell phone....'

.

So, talking to someone requires the same brain function whether you are on a handheld cell phone or a hands free unit, but as soon as the person you are talking to is in the same car, brain function is no longer required? Maybe you want to reconsider that assertion. When you do, pretend like you are making the argument to someone over a cell phone (not in the car beside you)....use those brain functions!

Really, though, in order to use a cell phone, I think the first requirement is to be in possession of one's faculties. Having a brain (that is operable) fits hand in glove with that concept. I think a lot of people out there in society may be considered "normal", but are short a few apples from a complete bushel. Intelligence is not really a bell curve skewed in favor of the high end. The "average", median person out there is probably not really aware of how many pounds of killing machine they are piloting, much less aware of its capabilities and limitations. They seem to only know how to pull out in front of people, because they don't take time (while talking on their cell phone) to properly analyze traffic pattern upstream, and really "see" what is taking place around them. Some people don't even bother looking, and some people when you look into their eyes, there is no one home, just a darkness that is unfathomable.

Because another adult, present in the car with you talking, is about as distracting as ambient noise, unless you are arguing. Disruptive kids or a baby on the other hand is a different story.

That little device called a cell phone, requires focused attention to filter everything else out and hear what is said. That is why, they ask you to pull over when you talk on a cell phone.

What your hands are doing makes no difference, it's the focus of your brain that matters.

I have to add, that another adult in the car that also says. 'LOOK OUT'

or

You should have turned right back there

or

Oh, your going this way?

well you get the picture, it's another set of eyes that may offset at least partially your own distractions.

To me, a person in close proximity is far more engaging and far more attentionally aluring than a voice over a phone.

That any non-negligible segment of the population finds a voice over the phone inherently more distracting than an actual in-the-flesh human in the same space, strikes me as so foreign and quite curious.

I guess I shouldn't really be caught that off guard.... I mean I have never understood how those 1-900- sex lines were ever a viable business either, but in retrospect if there are people that pay to keep those things in business, then at least for that segment, attention for phone calls must rival that alloted to actual people in-person.

.

From my perspective, the problem with texting while driving is largely involved with taking eyes off the road and focusing up close on things that must be manipulated. From my perspective, driving and talking, like running and talking or biking and talking; are not competing mental processes.

The whole idea that a conversation is mentally taxing to the point of interfering with motors skills if it happens over a phone, but not in person, is ludicrous. Is that truly what you are suggesting?

There are probably many valid studies out there that could settle the "distraction factor" debate, if one wanted to look.

Until then, it's just a pi$$in' contest.

Nobody is pissing dollars, Lyn. Literally nobody.

Never mind.

If you ever come across a accident, one realizes the consequences of driving whether it's being distracted, impairment, health issues, it is unnerving. You soon realize what was taught in drivers education that's very important and that is defensive driving.

2 days ago, a friend posted the consequences, which is disturbing. It was in Russia, but the results are the same. I wasn't going to post... But it goes along with the thread.

WARNING VERY GRAPHIC and morbid.

Yeah, your description is spot on. Very graphic....especially that stuff covering the windshield just after the bodies bounce off. Not sure it is from the people per se, but it does heighten the graphic intensity.

.

Just to be clear: just because don't accept that a phone call is inherently more distracting that an actual person; OR because I think a large part of the hazard associated with phone calls has to do with focusing up close and tasks requiring focusing on manual dexterity; does NOT indicate I think it is safe to text and drive.

.

I have no idea if the driver of the Lada was using a cell phone at the time of the crash, but I doubt it. That doesn't seem like a case of distracted driving. My guess would be impaired judgement. Driving well beyond their own abilities as well as those of the vehicle.

.

Even though isn't likely primarily a distraction caused accident, I do understand the point. Yes driving is dangerous. 120 people in the US die every day on the highways. Driving a vehicle requires appropriate attention, thoughtfulness and skill....often absent in many on the road.

.

That still doesn't make it valid/correct/helpful to support every off the wall assertion as long as it seems to back the 'this is bad' band wagon. Talking on a good handfree system is very much like talking to someone in the car.

.

Emotionally charge subjects sometimes inspire people to argue passionately for positions that are not very rational. Throwing a violent video that may nit even be the result of the topic being discussed into the mix is probably not going to help bring back rationality.

I agree, that's just speculation... All due to one does not intentional does this.

the emotions are the same, having myself experienced driving past an accident simular minutes after it happened. In that case, the oncoming driver had a heart attack, cross the centerline and taking out a husband and his two young daughters going on a weekend outing. This happen almost 20 years ago. And is still chilling.

That was just awful. You cannot un-see stuff like that. It was the opposite of defensive driving. Pretty much it was driving while being a complete and total idiot. Darwin award recipient, consolation prizes awarded to other victims for getting in the car with the fool.

I was thinking of not posting... but when you actually come across an accident similar in real life, it is haunting but you do come to the realization that driving is NOT to be part of a multi-tasking.

I live in Florida.

This is where numb nuts comes to retire.

They don't even know how to use a cell phone, much less text.

But that driving slow in the fast lane you speak of and not noticing a string of cars behind them......they've got that one nailed.

with the blinker on....

Likewise. Ambrose Bierce got it right.

Two things that should not have been invented: Nuclear bombs and cell phones...

Already illegal in Australia. Heavy fines and potential loss of licence.

Moving to make "hands free" being illegal for inexperienced drivers. (Learners and Provisional)

Here you progress though

• Learners:- Must be accompanied by fully licenced driver or instructor. 150 hours "in the seat" before elligible to sit provisional test.
• Red Provisional:- Speed limited, restricted to a single passenger. (1 year)
• Green Provisional:- (2 years)

This seems rather oppressive and extreme....what next?, are they going to outlaw any conversation by the driver at all...? Ridiculous...

Studies have shown driver reaction times to be reduced when operating cell phones just like they are when drivers are under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

If I remember correctly the problem appears to be the concentration required to interact on the phone conversation. This shouldn't be a problem with standard conversation in the car. "Yes dear", "no dear", "really you don't say?".

I don't see any difference if the conversation is the same...I think anything that complicated is a "I'm in the car I'll call you when I can talk" sorta thing...As a driver anything that distracts me is my responsibility to stop, that's Basic driving rules 101...Somebody who can't concentrate on their driving and keep their eye's on the road is going to cause an accident, phone or no phone....Blaming the phone, rather than the irresponsible driver, is misguided and does not address the actual problem, it only punishes everybody and gives the cops another reason to stop responsible citizens minding their own business...

I believe that you cannot just pull up to read/respond either...the engine of the vehicle must be off to avoid a fine.

A few days ago a woman I sometimes work with was driving to a meeting, while I was in my own car driving to that same meeting. I heard the warbly tone on my phone indicating I'd gotten a text, so I glanced down at my phone sitting on the console and saw she'd sent me a text.

I do not text and drive, so I did nothing.

Since I didn't immediately reply to her text, she followed that up with a phone call. I ignored the ringing of the phone. So she left me a voice message asking if I'd gotten the text. Then she called me again, and I happened to be stopped at a traffic light so I answered the phone.

She wanted me to know she'd be about 15 minutes late.

I thought to myself, 'Keep texting while driving and you're going to be very late indeed -- as in dead.'

Bring on the flames, I've done it. Not very much, but I cannot say never. However, like many things in life, there are varying degrees.

For instance, what are the traffic conditions? Slinky traffic jams or on the open interstate with very few vehicles? Stopped at a traffic light?

Idle chit-chat or a very short message coordinating an action?

How frequently? Once a week? Once a month? Forty times a day?

Choosing the time to read/respond, e.g. if traffic conditions require my full attention then the phone gets ignored.

My most common responses to incoming texts are "ok" or "drv". The frequency of texting and driving for me is about 2 times a month or less.

What we really want is for drivers to drive responsibly. We 'seem' to think that adjusting the radio volume is 'ok'. But that is a distraction that is not required to operate a motor vehicle. Drinking your morning coffee? Where do we draw the lines?

I don't mind hands-free/no texting laws as they have very little impact on my activities. I agree that there are many people who cannot control their compulsions for constant contact with those in their social circles. I don't understand it as I have too much to do than to screw around constantly texting, chit-chatting, and/or Facebooking and all that crap. I much prefer my social contact to involve a beer or drink and maybe some slow-cooked BBQ, or a campfire but I've just aged into an old fart so I'll go with that. (I do make an exception for CR4 )

Unlike tcmtech, I have two mobile devices - one for work, and my personal phone. The phrase is "Being in touch." It feels more like I'm being squeezed, mangled, or manhandled.

Text and drive? Never. I won't even answer either phone (or make a call) while driving. What ever it is that they want, it can wait.

I am the same regarding texting.

I won't touch my phone while driving.

I do however have bluetooth with steering wheel controls, and will answer a call while driving. I consider it no different than talking to a passenger.

My daughter has a system that will automatically text back with "I'm driving, I'll get back to you later", or sends you to VM if you call. Probably a good system for everyone. Most new cell phones have GPS capability which can detect if you are moving or not. Not that hard to implement this. Maybe it's an app, I don't know.

My phone has drive mode. 'Nuff said. People need to have a drive mode too.

Being not texting does not necessarily make one ready to pull out in traffic, especially when the freaking moron pulls out across two lanes, and goes slow, while others are attempting to get off the dang freeway! And by the way, they looked too broke to pay attention.

DUI / DWI charges if caught texting while driving . End of discussion .

Naturally the main flaw with making phones text / app inoperable above 5 mph is that it also impacts passengers (if they are busy texting fbooking they are not distracting the driver) or (and I know this may be a strange concept) when using public transport!

That said text timings have been used in the UK (one easily found example)

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-36889869

in the prosecution of drivers. We don't have the same protection that Americans have and I suspect here in Korea there are even fewer rights (unless you run a chaebol), which is a bad thing - I like American privacy rights and freedom of speech rights even though in this case a good outcome was the result.

As said above laws are one thing social pressure stops things happening. The decrease in drunk driving is as much down to most people now considering it unacceptable as it is to the law and penalties.

You beat me to it...why should passengers be caught up with drivers? Nonsense. What about if you are a passenger in a taxi, Uber, bus, train, tram or simply a hitch hiker?

I think that is more to do with the cellphone app unable to differentiate between traveling at more than 5MPH and operated by the driver or as a passenger.

Makes sense, otherwise people would just set the cellphone to passenger mode while driving, defeating the entire purpose and making it an inconvenience rather than a deterrent or solution!!!

Well people are ultimately responsible for what they do...trying to force the issue with draconian laws just produces a bunch of lawbreakers...Make phones inoperable when moving and somebody will come out with an app to defeat it the next day, if not the same day....

Daffy, that's a pretty good point.

What are the regulations for professional drivers - "taxi, Uber, bus, train, tram..." regarding the use of mobile device while operating their vehicle?

I'm sure this varies wildly from country to country, maybe even city to city.

I'm pretty certain in NSW Australia that they fall into the same category ie. no mobile phone use. However I do know that the police are exempt while on duty.

GA ~

a motorcyclist ran into the back-end of my mom's car (at high speed, on an open, winding/hilly road in Pennsylvania)... and after she pulled over, my niece jumped out of the back seat to run back and see if he was ok... only to find a cell phone in the middle of the road 'sounding-off-loudly' : "Hello... hello"... (I am guessing that he had been 'struggling' to answer it...?)

Others here have already stipulated the unfairness of 'punishing' passengers in a vehicle, too (via circuitry/app that renders a *moving* phone unusable).

Stiffer penalties and a "zero tolerance" attitude among enforcement officers *should* be satisfactory. That is, except for those individuals who have been brainwashed into believing that "Right-&-Wrong" is a "relative thing", and, at the same time, that they are (biologically-speaking) essentially "no different than an earthworm, or a pig".

Just my two-cents ...

Wait wait wait. Which people think that they are pigs? And these same people see no difference between pigs and earthworms? Is this really a significant population?

.

Also what about this 'Right & Wrong' thing that is not relative. Einstein might have had something to say about that were he still around. As he is not, I'll take a different approach:

.

'Shooting someone with a gun' - Right or Wrong......or is it, what word am I looking for here?, oh yeah, Relative. Is it relative to the specific situation?

.

I think you might have been implying that people who do not believe in an invisible voyeur in the sky have less of a claim to a legitimate set of morals. I have good news, morals are not the exclusive domain of ancient texts with fanciful tales.

It will be revealed in time who is right, who is relevant, and who is wrong. Just saying. Just because things don't stack up right now that would convince you is no reason for you to try to discourage others who have plenty of reasons (just as valid) to affirmatively believe.

Faith is not blindly accepting something with no basis. Faith is placing your weight on something that you trust. A slightly different definition can change an entire argument.

'....because things don't stack up right now that would convince you is no reason for you to try to discourage others who have plenty of reasons (just as valid) to affirmatively believe.....'

Actually, I disagree. Consider it proselytizing; a crusade to save people from committing to accepting as absolute truth events and rules set forth by certain writings based primarily on the those writings promising it really and truly wasn't just made up.

.

'...Faith is placing your weight on something that you trust...'

.

Too circular to be wrong or that useful.

Do you also approach engineering with a closed mind?

When someone refers to your favorite storybook hero as 'fantasy' or otherwise reminds you of the account's fictional nature, does suggesting they are closed minded reassure you about your own evaluation of the information available?

.

Look, they set the bar too high. They got greedy concerning the degree with the belief system could be manipulated.

'Believe this because the vengeful jealous monster of the sky says it is all true. If you don't believe in all of it, the monster will cast you into a pit of fire and snakes for you to suffer, choking, burning, and screaming in utter torment for ever and ever....

....oh yeah, and remember, kids; vengefull jealous monster of the sky (hereinafter abbreviated as VJM) loves you. In fact, VJM loves you so much that he gave up his only son to save you, to pay for all the naughty things you are bound to do....so in a way, you killed his only son by being such naughty nasty things. VJM gave up his absolutely perfect son just to save all you worthless wretches. VJM is so sad missing his perfect son.....

...Wait, what's that? You say VJM and his son have been hanging out ever since he was traded as payment for all that sin?!? What?!? If VJM didn't truly give up his only son, the payment did not clear...it was rescinded! ....

..No one is off the hook. You can stop sing those praises, you way wasn't paid. Why in the world something omnipresent and omnipotent like VJM needs to be constantly praised and ego pumped is absurd....yeah, everyone get out of the various postures of obeisance....'

.

If they hadn't pushed it quite so far, or perhaps if it were just claimed that some of the stories, while fiction, could provide discussion topics that might result in real world benefits, then it wouldn't be so problematic. That however isn't the case.

.

I have made a decision based on the information available to me. It was't even close. I'll certainly be open to reconsidering should new information come to my attention.

.

There are simply too many inconsistencies and problems in the story to warrant a belief that that it all actually happened literally in the ways described.

.

Imagine you drive past a dishovelled person on the holding a cardboard sign that claims that from now on, the meanings have switched for red and green traffic lights. The cardboard sign also states that everything written on it is true....

...Do you choose to have an open mind about red lights meaning 'Go' and blow through the red intersection with faith?

....or would you be a little more close minded?

I don't know of any god like that. I think you have a case of mistaken identity. Good luck, though.

Most criticisms of God come from a straightforward reading of the Bible.

Of courses, it was written and edited by man.

I will keep my personal relationship (whatever it is worth to Him) with God between me and him, if you will just shut up trying to pick on God. Trust me, whatever your problem is, He did not start it.

Something for you to think about. I said nothing that wasn't true. The problem you talk about is a matter of perspective.

"He did not start it"

.

I admit I was caught off gaurd by this alignment of our viewpoints. I was of the (apparently incorrect) view that you were among those who believe a God exists who started everything.

.

My apology for mischaracterizing you. No insult was intended.

Perhaps you all could continue this discussion here: General Religion - Theist

Or here: God Talk

Or here: Morality and Laws

Or here: Science and Religion

Or here: Numbers

I have it on good authority that God doesn't text.

You do realize I didn't bring the subject up. I am merely commenting on assertions published by others.

.

Now, how about tending your own garden before you go out criticizing others? That assertion of yours in comment #32 could use some support, otherwise people might accuse you of believing that something is true merely because you decide to write it.

Well, if somebody ever rediscovers the stone tables..., which were lost, but are rumored to be in some Coptic church in Egypt or Ethiopia.

"Rediscover" would imply that these stone tablets ever existed.

Since the original reference to these "stone tablets" is in some unverifiable work of unknown origin, they may be in the same box as that cat of Schroedinger's.

Agreed. I'm just playing along with what I think is a fantasy.

That explains where "Put the toilet seat back down", "Mind your own business", "Don't eat the yellow snow", "Walk softly and carry a big stick", and "Bring your own bottle" went.

At least not while driving, LOL.

All I stated was He did not start your problems whatever they are. If God created the Universe, is that a problem? I do not read every verse of the scripture as a literal meaning. Some of the text is subjective.

Are you talking about god, or the bible..... don't confuse the two.

At this point, I am about done with this subject matter, as nothing I can say or do will convince anyone of anything, so I am what I am, you are what you are, and let that be that.

Done.

I'm all for that.

' Some of the text is subiective.'

.

Meaning exactly what? Not literally true? Acceptable to be ignored? Not to be taken as seriously as other parts? Not as divinely inspired?

.

Perhaps, if the parts that are subiective could be written in a different color, or maybe just take out and published as an accompanying volume, the more objective parts could be weighed without that unfair burden of the remainder.

.

The argument that 'not all of it should be taken literally' is kind of weasely, right up there with 'he works in mysterious ways' as an explanation for the failure of the prayers for that lump to be benign.

.

Want to give all the credit to this god? Go ahead, but doesn't it feel disingenuous to then shield him from any responsibility?

You two don't see eye to eye on religion.

You think he threw the first punch.

This doesn't belong in an Engineering forum regarding texting and driving.

Are one of these statements subjective?

'Are one of these...'

.

Um, nah.

There are literal portions and figurative portions to any text, and the Holy Bible is no exception. One has to have the decency and common sense to understand which is which. Some education on how the scriptures came down to us, recovery of ancient documents, and translation of old language, and studies of living customs in Biblical times and locales is also a whole complete other branch of study with doctorate degrees being awarded (after devoting years and years to intensive research and study).

It is not some joke on mankind by some group of deranged scribes in ancient times.

It is much much more than most people imagine.

What guaranteed that those secondary methods were perfectly accurate (although granted they were better than Christian methods, if any, of preserving their texts)?

The sheer number of texts (scrolls) recovered over time, and the absolute agreement of the Jewish alphabetic characters. For a document of its size for the time, I would say that is a very good pedigree.

The New Testament (even before Constantine and the Nicean ecumenical council) is not perfectly congruent between some of the recovered documents, but the "drift" in meaning is virtually nil.

Some of the gospel accounts date back to about the 3rd of 4th Century of Anno Domini, Christian era. The letters of Paul are particularly clear in intent and meaning. Paul basically told the men to get off the women's backs even in that day.

Some of the other books are very figurative, prophetic and not easily understood by the unindoctrinated (untaught). The symbolism is better understood in the light of the culture of the times, their concepts of reality (what they could conceive of), and also symbology such as a bear representing a certain country or region.

Yes, the Dead Sea scrolls seems to reinforce it..... But.... Again, who decides

The argument that the original meaning/intent has been well preserved, kind of paints the whole story into a corner. If translation and transcription did not introduce meaningful deviations, then the blame for the horrors and misinstruction of the original tales cannot be placed anywhere except at the origin.

.

Whether you take stories literally of figuratively about holding in high regaurd a god that is pleased by, encourages or commits acts of mass infanticide, that is not a good role model.

.

I don't think that suggesting that the tale is not literally true provides much redemption for relating how god-figure held in high regard is complicit in having a father murder and then burn their child as an offering.

.

Literal or figurative, it makes little difference, when describing as acceptable the cuting open of wives suspected of being raped. The same is true for ripping open the pregnant females and bashing the children against rocks of those tribes that ae no longer in favor.

The fact that a doctorate is required to understand the text does not suggest something divinely inspired, it strongly suggest it isn't even particularly well written.

That so much study is required to begin to understand which parts are to be trusted as straight forward and which are not to be believed, does not suggest an original intent for a unified message to be realized by all. To make something that claims such importance, so convoluted, gives a strong indication that if the convolution was intentional it was meant to cause disagreement, or at the very least it was done with the knowledge it would cause disagreement. Given the violent nature of examples of disagreement resolution provided in the bible, it is pretty straight forward to realize that should the convoluted nature of determining the true intent of the Bible been created intentionally, at the very least it was done with the realization that it would cause multitudes of conflicts resulting in hardship and deaths.

'He works in mysterious ways'.

...there are far more accurate descriptions than 'mysterious'.

'... is no reason for you to try to discourage others ...'

.

That this type of response is so common is strong reason in itself to continue questionig, debating, contesting the assertions that don't stand up to scrutiny.

When a popular response to an idea being challenged is to request respect for the idea, or to attempt a mediation of the form 'well even if you don't believe, let the other believe, don't take it away from them', (with the possible exception of cases like little children believing in Santa Clause or the like) it should encourage more inquiry, not less.

If voting citizens display a propensity to assign a degree of certainty to convictions out of balance with the evidence supporting those convictions, attempts to shield those citizens from elucidation the mismatch should be highly suspect.

Apparently, there are many (most) here who seem to feel that using a cell phone while riding or driving in a moving vehicle is their inalienable right and no one can deprive them of that God-given privilege.

Well, good luck with that.

Autonomous cars will solve the problem, along with a host of others...unfortunately they will probably usher in a whole new set of problems...We don't live in a perfect world and never will, passing laws to try and make it so, just punishes the people and adds to the growing resentment of authority and hardships people have to face....we need to be going the other direction imo....Passing draconian laws produces as much, if not more, negative results as the behaviour you're trying to alter ever did.....imo

We need to be smarter in the ways we influence behavior than just passing laws every time somebody has a complaint about something...Passing laws at the drop of a hat has been the norm for too many years...now we have so many laws that virtually everybody is breaking some law at some time....The government is becoming more and more oppressive as time goes on by the passage of well meaning but ill conceived laws passed on the spur of the moment...We already have more people in jails then any other country, by far....I think the rest are on permanent probation...Life isn't perfect, live with it, or move to the woods and isolate yourself from society, but stop trying to punish everybody for being human....$.02

I don't think that that is a fair assessment of the discussion at all and certainly not my comment.

Texting while driving is a distraction and if you kill or injure someone in accident due to that activity then your texting should be seen as an aggravating factor (and if you kill someone while texting I would suggest that means a manslaughter charge - not sure what the equivalent is in the USA)

There has though been wide ranging discussion on the practicalities of options to prevent drivers doing this; inconvenience to passengers - yes if I am on a bus or a train then I want to be able to use my phone it is not putting anyone at risk; the use of law v social opprobrium to prevent an activity that whilst not ubiquitous is common (spitting in the street is far less common in Europe / US than it was due to societal pressures, smoking bans were imposed legally once Governments knew they had the weight of society on their side) and I think the discussion has been more about how you achieve this desirable aim. (Oh and some honest people owning up to being guilty - yup me too but not often mainly because I haven't driven since arriving in Korea 18 months ago and not driving much when I lived in London)

However an interesting point was made about other distractions - sat navs; satellite radio; trying to find the right station etc and these have always been there. I remember when we first had a car with a radio my dad would not let it be played while he was driving as it was a distraction (fair enough early 70s music was a bit rubbish); I was recently watching an old Brit TV drama and one of the lead characters dies when she is in a car crash caused in part by her fumbling in the glove compartment for a tape and then faffing around trying to insert it.

I am truly glad that Pokemon Go does not work in Korea (an issue with Google maps) because Koreans are so wedded to their phones that there would be a slaughter on the roads. Technically phoning and driving is illegal but not enforced. Policing a text and drive ban would I think be too invasive in the US (and to be honest might provoke the political unrest that Korea needs imho).

I honestly think education is the only answer and throwing the book at those you do actually catch.

Granted, there may be exceptions, busses trains etc. and as sure as we're breathing, there are ways (apps) to determine if you are driving down the street or highway with both hands resting on TOP of the steering wheel while texting or a passive rider.

I see this texting often and almost got run off the road by a texting fool who took offense and tailgated me for honking my horn at him.

'... many (most) here who seem to feel that using a cell phone while riding or driving in a moving vehicle is their inalienable right....'

.

I understand 'most' to mean no less than half. I am having trouble reconciling you statement with the comments here.

.

Would you list the comment numbers that you interpret as believing in an inalienable right to text in an automobile? Twenty five individuals have expressed points of view on this subject. Thirteen would be the minimum out of twenty five that I would consider reasonable to describe as 'most'. I don't see any.

Would my Google Maps still work?

Joke:

I told my wife if I won a million dollars in the lottery that I would give a quarter of it to charity...

That would still leave me $999,999.75

Okay - so texting while driving is distracting, but, allowing complicated multi-option satellite radios, GPS devices, and various parameter display screens on the dash are just fine. Really? If we go after texting, then the satellite radios and the displays with instantaneous mileage, projected mileage from remaining fuel, external temperature, and so on as well as GPS with map displays should also go the way of the 8 track tape, or at the very least not be accessible while the car is in motion. I've been distracted more than once by the above devices, especially the satellite radio. Ever try to find the correct college football game in the 40 or so sports stations, while driving? Try reading that display in abbreviated college names while going around a 90 degree corner. Not a good idea, even on a remote forest road in the "Wilds of Pa".

Two contrarians walk into a bar, and take seats. One says to the other, why are you opposing me? Other one says, "I can't get next to you, babe, I can't get next to you..."

OH well, another waste of a joke, on a thread that will predictably be flat lined at the mention of him who must not be named.