Texting While Driving

AH is talking about the fun kind of feedback every vehicle gives when you back it into a corner or otherwise test your/it's limits

I was referring to mundane stuff like graphs illustrating topspeed, avg speed, red lights run, number of occupants, phone calls/texts/internet searches made & accepted

Just because the telephone rings, it doesn't mean that it must be answered!

Exactly!!!!

WHOA, Grimewl --- And Participants !!

This forum is read by all. Please don't try to present rational thinking that will bring us too close to the Flame. Keep talking like this and some politician may read it and come up with an idea for a Common Sense Licensing Agency.

Everyone is required to pay for and be tested for common sense! The "New Govt. Agency" would be profitable from day one with RE-TEST revenues!! They could get to enforcement and penalties, Later!! An Entire New Industry !!

Catch 22

it would require a certain amount of "common sense" to see the need for & set up such an agency

and under the guise of "national security" all politicians are exempt from testing.

And the people that fail the common sense test will be eligible for disability benefits as well as handicap parking?

If you score too high you might give the government cause for concern. A government is useless without needy dependents.

Blimey!

We should try to harmonize standards now so we have a single unified International Standard for Common Sense. (Although the Germans probably already have a DIN standard for this!)

I have to say, I'm shocked at the number of comments in this thread that are trying to justify opposition to texting-while-driving laws.

Inconvenient laws? Perhaps.

But I'd wager that every single one of you would have an immediate change of heart if your wife or son or daughter was run off the road to their death by someone concentrating on their text message for one second too long.

Clearly the radio comparison is not valid. Spelling, punctuation, spaces, capitalization, content, concentration... none of that compares to simply pushing a single button to change a radio station or volume. That's just silly. It's a matter of "degree of distraction"

These laws that "infringe on our rights" are protecting me from some dumb a## that is steering a half ton of steel that can crush me, while he is composing a paragraph. I don't care if "you" can type without looking. For every one of you that can... there are thousands that can't.

Don't let your political indignation and self righteousness get in the way of common good sense. Really... I'm surprised at some of you.

That's my rant. Sorry.

I haven't read any comments here that support texting while driving. The only hint of it is those of us opposed to adding further laws against something there is already a law against (a law against texting and driving is already covered under reckless driving). We don't need the government dictating everything we do.

The problem you have of trying to be protected from a dumb a## isn't going to be corrected by a law against texting and driving. Those laws actually encourage people to not use common sense or good moral judgement. People fall back on "well the law doesn't specifically say 'no texting'" as opposed to being held accountable for their actions. As the government takes over the roll of parent people don't have to think anymore.

JB, I couldn't disagree more.

To say that a law will not discourage someone from texting and driving, in my opinion is both false, and irresponsible. A law that specifically states that, will CERTAINLY discourage SOME people from texting and driving. There are a multitude of laws that are followed by people, not because they agree with the law.... but for the simple reason that they don't want to get caught and fined or punished in some way.

An additional law... or to put it in engineering terms.. a redundant "back-up" law that specifically states NO TEXTING WHILE DRIVING will not change my day to day life in any way. But... it WILL stop at least one person from doing just that, for fear of having to pay a fine if caught. And that one person may very well be the person that was destined to plow head-on into my daughters car, as it drifts out of their lane due to texting.

Again, I ask that you don't allow your political indignation get in the way of common sense. There is nothing wrong with a back-up system that actually will save a life. I believe that is far and away more important, than some theoretical insult to your personal interpretation of your civil liberties. Obviously it is your interpretation, and NOT a universal interpretation... because I for one, do not feel threatened by this extra law.

I agree and disagree.

Living in a state that has a law for hands free cell usage and no texting, or reading of e-mails has made people become creative and on the constant look out for cops while they are breaking the law. Yes there will be the few that will uphold the law and not use the phone in the car at all, but the majority of the people I see (daily) while driving are the ones that are riding low in the seat constantly checking the mirrors and not paying attention to the road while talking on the phone because they are looking for the cops. Or they have the phone low in their lap texting trying not to be obvious as they swerve around the road. So the law may stop a few but it has proven to be more of a danger........or maybe a game to some.

Yes, the law will stop a few from texting. Exactly my point.

But I will take exception to your statement that "it has proven to be more of a danger". That's quite a thing to say. I'm going to go out on a limb and say, I doubt that this "fact" has been proven. And before you quote some scientific study, or other... let's make sure that whatever study you may refer to wasn't conducted by some group with a political or monetary agenda.

I find it hard to believe that anyone has proven that the law has made it more dangerous.

I am not going to quote a study of any sort as I do not know if one has been done at all. I am simply stating a fact that I SEE PERSONALLY at least four days a week while I travel between the design jobs I am currently involved in. I would say it is at this time 10 out of every 50 cars I see on the road with people texting or using their cell phones (not hands free).

I am afraid that is not compiled scientific data, done by an organization that has a means to their end.

That is just actual on the road fact, I see as stated 4 days a week. Just get on the highway in California....law breakers everywhere. May not be the same in Montana or "in the middle of know where Arizona."

It's the same here. In fact it may be 20 out of 50 cars. All I'm saying is that without the law, there would be more of them.

texting & driving is probably like the seatbelt law, an add on to the ticket the cop was already writing.

the cellphone companies could help by imposing some restrictions to the use of their text or internet services, based on movement of the handheld device. I don't see any problem restricting passengers also. There can be integration with insurance companies.

Instead of having another law, which you don't seem to mind, just enforce existing laws already on the books that's not being enforced....like Inattentive Driving

That sounds like a reasonable idea. But my objection to doing that, instead of having an additional law specifically forbidding all texting while driving is that I could see some clever attorney arguing his clients case that "Inattentive" is a judgement call by the arresting officer. Some would argue that they, unlike others, were in fact attentive to their driving, despite the fact that they sent a short text.

You see? It leaves open loopholes. A straight-out and specific ban on all texting while driving leaves no wiggle room for excuses. And I'm still convinced that even if it saves one life, among millions, it is worth the bruised egos of a few thousand ultra-sensitive "Constitutionalists" and Conservatives, that have purely political reasons for being against this law.

Don't you think there will be lawyers debating what is classified as "Inattentive"?

Just make it clear-cut and simple. NO Texting.

I could see some clever attorney arguing his clients case that "Inattentive" is a judgement call by the arresting officer.

Yes, it can be subjective can.

But the actually fact would most likly be.

It then it goes to court, and the judgement call is not made by the arresting officer but by the judge,

And when it goes to court, the judge rules against the defendant, the defendant pays the fine, the attorney gets to add to his/her kids college fund.

my personal interpretation stems from what this country was founded on. The rights of people as individuals, not as a group. Does a group of people have more of a right to free speach than an individual? Would not an individual have a right to protect themselves with a firearm when being attacked by a group of thugs?

The idea that we get these rights from God and not the government means that these rights are not subject to what is politicaly correct at the time which is what i am led to understand from your statement about "universal interpretation" . If i am wrong i am sorry. Just because you dont feel threatened by something does not mean that everyone should feel the same way. If you feel that your safety is endangered by someone driving and texting along side of you, its up to you to protect yourself and others by getting out of the way and calling the police (after you pull to the shoulder, stop, park, put on the hazzards, turn off the ignition, place orange cones around vehical, send up flares and whatever else one might think they need)

Someone may be able to read a brief text question and reply with a y or n and not swerve or crash. What about someone focusing on reading a billboard, advertisement, street sign, ect? The fact remains that the problem is reckless driving. Let a court decide the punishment, more punishment for texting, less for sneezing or whatever.

Uh-oh... I'm not going to get into a debate that involves both politics AND God... especially on an engineering site.

All I'm concerned about is the dangerous act by someone that endangers the lives of my innocent loved ones... and how to eliminate that act, that is dangerous to other people.

The punishment, after the fact, is not that much of a concern of mine. At that point, it would be too little, too late; now wouldn't it. So if I hold your heavenly right to text while driving on a freeway in one hand... and the safety of innocent people in the other hand.... hmm.... which one will get preference.

But okay, I can't resist... which page of the new testament gives you texting while driving rights? (Even if its a quick yes or no)

Oh... and let me be sure to understand... it is my full responsibility to get out of the way of swerving texters?? (Which implies I would be at fault if I didn't get out of the way and I was paralized because of it?) Really? That's what you're going with??

I guess i shoulnt have capitalized God but i thought it would have been disrespectful to some not to. my religious knowledge doesnt expand much further than the da vinci code movie. Perhaps creator would have been the proper choice of words.

Would you not agree that most of our laws are based on punishment after the fact? Or should we try to legislate thought and punish people for what we think they may do?

P.S. what is this new testament you speak of

You wrote, "which page of the new testament gives you texting while driving rights? (Even if its a quick yes or no)"

Actually, it was one of the 15 commandments, but Moses dropped one of the Tablets and it was lost along with 4 others. I saw it on TV.

And if Moses would have pulled over, and put the tablets away while he was traveling, things could have been different.

yes, texting came along way since the time of Moses.

They called it glyphing back then. Swerving chariots all over the place. There should have been a law.

That's hilarious! GA from me.

There's really only one commandment the rest are irrelevant or redundant

Treat others as you would be treated

What no comments about any of the potential technical or other market based suggestions I made? You being the FCC scholar on this thread :D

yes it is your responsibility to get out their way, if not than whos would it be?

for my self I can do 2 things behind the wheel

the primary is drive

the secondary can be one of a few things:

talk on the phone, hands free, because it's much more convenient

use the navigation device to navigate, set on audio

twiddle with the radio

eat or drink

when I try to add a 3rd task, scarry things happen

I used to joke that talking on the phone wouldn't kill me, but dialing just might

OK,

Humor me for a moment. Let's assume that it's illegal and a class x misdemeanor, no matter if the law is for texting while, or reckless, driving.

Next, an officer has to witness the offense, and make a decision to pursue the perp, or not.

Chances are good that the officer is either headed to a call already, nearing the end of his shift, talking to someone on his free cell phone, or busy looking at his remote DX terminal while driving and doesn't see them anyway.

Oh, and, how do you think the call would be handled by dispatch if it was phoned in by someone driving down the freeway beside the texter?

So, no matter how many laws are passed, if they are not enforced, what good are they?

TRUE DAT!!!

AMEN BROTHER

Ah. There you are, Devil's Advoca-- I mean, lynlynch. I knew you wouldn't disappoint me

Okay... well, not sure where you're going with this, but... yes, if it's not enforced regularly, it's less effective and won't work all the time. Obviously. Just as any law. Murder, for instance. If it's not enforced 100% of the time, some percentage of the lawbreakers will go un-punished.

But if a specific law doesn't exist, the dangerous act will go un-punished much more of the time. Particularly if there are loopholes in the generic "Inattentive Driving" law that allow arguments regarding the exact definition of "inattentive". Am I the only one who has this opinion? It seems very straightforward and logical to me. Of course no law is perfect in it's execution, but you gotta go with the odds. No statisticians here?

Ah there you go taking us all the way back to post 98 & 103. The laws are already in effect in California and they are useless other than for the honest people that will not text because it is the law.

You remember I am sure the saying that a locked door only keeps out the honest people! It is the same with a Texting law, and frankly the honest people are usually a bit more logical and would not text anyway. Its the I am entitled to text people that are the ones to worry about. They are rarely aware of their surroundings anyway.

Clearly, you and I have a difference of opinion on the usefulness of this law. I agree it is not a perfect law. And I agree that not all people follow the law. But my reasoning that the law will still result in more people not texting, than if the law was not in place at all... if even by the smallest percentage... if even by one person.... still seems like sound reasoning to me.

When it comes right down to it, it is the choice of the person who will or will not obey the law, in place or not. So as mentioned many times by some very smart engineers in here the ability to Text should just be taken away from the end user while manning a car be a safety feature added to all new cars coming off the line that disable all but 911 on your phone while the vehicle is moving. That is the safest, simplest and most effective solution.

I know now I am going to get the are you going to take my guns next argument next. No I will not take your guns. I own guns and like most have been trained and understand when they should be used. Its not the same as a usually younger person with out life skills that gets behind the wheel of a 2500 pound machine and decides to not pay attention.

It's OK for me to text and drive because I'm so darn good. It should be against the law for everybody else because everybody else is stoopiur than me.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/16014/New-York-DOT-Now-Adding-2-point-Driver-s-License-Penalty-For-Talking-On-The-Phone-While-Driving?frmtrk=CR4digest

The law does not apply to Police in any state.

The reasoning for this is that there may be times that an officer may need to call in a call NOT using the radio so if the PERP is listening to a scanner they will not be aware of the call or conversation.

It makes seance but you know that they are still calling in the grocery lists.

you can use bluetooth to make a call instead of texting

I'm just waiting for someone to come up with a system to allow texting and driving...

All you need is a small wireless camera on the front of the car that is routed to the display of the phone.

Some idiot will take that seriously and try it. Worked for James Bond, no?