1. LSCUP7187's Avatar
    I keep old D-cell batteries in my glove box to throw at people I see texting or reading on their phone while driving

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    06-05-10 06:11 PM
  2. Jiggavel's Avatar
    How long are you in a car at any given time? Do you really have to respond to a text/email within 15-20 minutes of receiving it? Are the people you communicate with that demanding? Or would they maybe understand that if you didn't respond right away its because something else more urgent was going on.
    Same deal as people who feel they have to answer their telephone EVERY time it rings, regardless of who is calling. Its your phone, its your deal, you don't have to respond immediately to every message you receive on demand.
    But what email is more important than your life?

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    06-05-10 07:20 PM
  3. EnergyPlus's Avatar
    Sorry, but to claim you can operate a moving vehicle with the same degree of alertness and responsibility, while also looking at your phone and typing/reading messages, is pure folly. If you're as educated as you claim, then you would know that even more minor things, such as listenting to/adjusting your radio, conversations with a passenger, eating or whatever, all are distractions and reduce the alertness of a driver. You would also know that it takes less than 1/100th of a second for someone to cross into your drive path, either a pedestrian or another vehicle and it could well be that 1/100th of a second (longer, probably) that you were glancing down at your phone.

    To say "Most can't do it, but I can" is simply ridiculous. So sure, let's make laws that apply to everyone but those who claim to be above all that. Sorry, but you also probably think you can have a few beers and be just as dexterous and alert and your reaction time is identical to that when you've had zero alcohol.

    I know there are holes in the law, I know it's not perfect. I know that there are plenty of other distractions that seem to not have laws targeting them (there was a very popular case in Florida recently, where a woman was pulled over and cited for driving WHILE she was shaving her VaJayJay, LOL!!!

    Broly, it's your kind of attitude that I find most disturbing and you would be one of the first ones I sued, if given the chance. I think you'd best go back to school and get some education in basic reasoning.
    06-05-10 07:32 PM
  4. EnergyPlus's Avatar
    I find this almost impossible to believe. I would greatly appreciate it if you could post a link to this so-called study. I've never heard of such a study that compared this. Certainly, as we age, our reaction time decreases. but to make claims that "18-31 year olds can drink and text and still have better reaction speeds to drivers over 65" seems like something from another world.

    Acccording to the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) their studies show that "....surrounding distractions in vehicles, such as cellphone use, are growing." They go on to report "distracted drivers account for almost 80% of all crashes and 65% of near-crashes in the United States. (April 20, 2006).

    I have looked all over for your study, but see no reference to it. Here's one interesting little tidbit though, from Clemson University:Study measures danger of driving while texting

    If you're going to cite a study, it's always a good idea to give full disclosure as studies, either the interpretation of them or the study itself, can be as bogus as Blackberry rumors. Hey, I heard RIM is releasing the Storm 5 at the end of the summer. 5GB of App Memory, OS 12.

    I'd like to also bring up the federal study done less then 6 moths ago that showed that drivers ages 18-31 that had been drinking and txting while driving still had better reaction speeds and responses then any driver over 65. I'm not going to put in my 2 cents on senior drivers, cause no matter what someone is gonna be offended, I'm just putting the info out there. If we are gonna start letting the govt make all our decisions into laws, our kids won't even have to think for themselves anymore. No more need for common sense for our kids either I guess, just do what your government tells you is safe.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Last edited by EnergyPlus; 06-05-10 at 07:44 PM.
    06-05-10 07:42 PM
  5. LSCUP7187's Avatar
    The NHTSA and every insurance company will also tell you that when you add more than two male passengers (16-23) to a vehicle operated by a peer, the chances of an accident increase exponentially with each passenger...why? Distractions...just like texting and cellphones

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    06-05-10 07:57 PM
  6. chestvrg's Avatar
    I believe here in Florida a similar no-txt law will be propose in the Florida Senate.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    06-05-10 08:22 PM
  7. Unknown1313's Avatar
    Of course a 20 year old is going to be more responsive than a 60+ yr old, thats the way the human body/mind works, it slows down as we get older. SO honestly thats a ridiculous argument to use against laws that are designed to protect laws, regardless of how insane the implementation is.
    I think you are missing a huge point of my observance. This being that the 20 year old that is drinking AND txting AND driving STILL has better times and 70% better chance of avoiding an accident then someone 65 or older that is ONLY driving. No matter how you want to argue, you are also saying that people over 65 shouldn't drive because most are incapable of operating a car at 100% the same as most people who are txting can't operate a car at 100% either. I'm sure you'll find a way to say its different, but I'm just using your logic.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    06-05-10 08:44 PM
  8. thejgeffect's Avatar
    I mean to be honest, if your going to complain about people texting and driving you might as well complain about people using their nav systems, and adjusting their radio or even fighting with their kids. People are always going to distracted while driving, it honestly depends on how dumb the operator is and how distracted they let themselves get. It's not really a cut and dry scenario. Obviously it would be best if everyone was 100% focused at all times, but that will never be the case, cell phones or not.
    06-05-10 08:53 PM
  9. jeff.parent's Avatar
    I'm sorry. But I'm one of the drivers who texts and calls while driving. Sue me.

    My life is all about being productive. I am a graduate student, I need to respond to my emails RIGHT AWAY and I need to make sure I get things done.

    I've never been remotely close to crashing or dying while doing either of the above actions while driving. When texting I don't even look at my phone, I have such a nice feel for the keys that my typing is nearly 95 percent accurate and it gets the message across.

    In Alberta, they have tried tabling the Cellphone ban, but I doubt it will pass.

    You guys are right, the majority of the population is incapable of driving and calling/texting, but the minority should not suffer because of them.

    And in no way am I saying the ban is a bad thing, but the people who support it are labelling the responsible individuals as one of those idiots who don't prioritize properly. Being safe on the road should always be #1, if you have that in mind why can't you communicate with others if you understand it's a secondary priority?
    Thats a pretty funny response. You know when I speed its cause I work on multi-million dollar projects at work ;-)
    06-05-10 09:15 PM
  10. oldtimeBBaddict's Avatar
    I think that what erveryone is missing on whether or not there should be laws regulating seatbelts, helmets, texting, whatever, is that even if the person injures or kills only themselves, we all pay for it through increased insurance, increased taxes to pay for EMTs, police and everybody who has to clean up the mess that these individuals leave behind. If there were a way that only these morons would pay for their stupidity, then I'd say let them do what they want. It's just not that way in the real world.
    06-05-10 10:17 PM
  11. EnergyPlus's Avatar
    But you STILL have not addressed my point: show me the study. I Googled the heck out of it and found nothing. In fact, I found just the opposite.

    In point of fact, why is it that children under the age of 25, pay more for their insurance? I'll answer for you, because they have a much higher incidence of accidents. That's a fact, can't dispute it.

    Look, there are many ways this can be viewed. And, it can be extended to virtually every conceivable scenario (no eating while in the car, no listening to the radio, no passengers, etc.). The fact remains though, that if you're doing something that REQUIRES you to take your eyes off the road, while having only one hand on the wheel, and focusing on reading the text or, worse, responding to it, you're not paying nearly the amount of attention to what you should be, and that's DRIVING SAFELY. I don't care what the age. The whole age thing is skewing the discussion anyway, the topic is, should there be laws against texting while driving?

    I think you are missing a huge point of my observance. This being that the 20 year old that is drinking AND txting AND driving STILL has better times and 70% better chance of avoiding an accident then someone 65 or older that is ONLY driving. No matter how you want to argue, you are also saying that people over 65 shouldn't drive because most are incapable of operating a car at 100% the same as most people who are txting can't operate a car at 100% either. I'm sure you'll find a way to say its different, but I'm just using your logic.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    06-05-10 10:20 PM
  12. EnergyPlus's Avatar
    Bingo, exactly. It is not a "victimless accident." Society does pay for these things, even when the only one injured is the individual without protection. I'll add one thing you left out though. While a second party in another vehicle may not be injured in an accident, they may well have property damange to deal with plus, they have to live with the fact that some *****, driving a motorcycle, hit their car and was killed. That's not something I want to live with for the rest of my life, even if it was not at all my fault.

    I think that what erveryone is missing on whether or not there should be laws regulating seatbelts, helmets, texting, whatever, is that even if the person injures or kills only themselves, we all pay for it through increased insurance, increased taxes to pay for EMTs, police and everybody who has to clean up the mess that these individuals leave behind. If there were a way that only these morons would pay for their stupidity, then I'd say let them do what they want. It's just not that way in the real world.
    06-05-10 10:23 PM
  13. Chop's Avatar
    There are no intelligent "FOR texting while driving" arguments when it comes to this subject. Period. People can't WALK and text half the time - walk into doors/people, etc. Put them behind the wheel of a 2000lb speeding weapon, and there you have it.

    If you're in your car and you just HAVE to respond to an email/text IMMEDIATELY, pull the car over. Yes, you can even do this on the highway.
    06-05-10 10:31 PM
  14. oldtimeBBaddict's Avatar
    Bingo, exactly. It is not a "victimless accident." Society does pay for these things, even when the only one injured is the individual without protection. I'll add one thing you left out though. While a second party in another vehicle may not be injured in an accident, they may well have property damange to deal with plus, they have to live with the fact that some *****, driving a motorcycle, hit their car and was killed. That's not something I want to live with for the rest of my life, even if it was not at all my fault.
    Of course you're right, but I was addressing the situation where the ONLY person involved is the texter, nonseatbelt wearer, or whatever. If any other party is involved, that we pay just that much more.
    06-05-10 10:33 PM
  15. Chop's Avatar
    You're an inconsiderate, thoughtless *****. Sorry, but it had to be said. Last week my cousin was in her LIVING ROOM and was almost killed by a **** like you who thought it was perfectly fine to text while driving, lost control of her huge SUV and crashed through the side of her HOUSE! My cousin has a huge hole in the side of her house and a destroyed living room now, all because that **** just HAD to text while she was driving.

    And guess what, my cousin is suing her for all she's worth.

    EVERYONE who texts, emails, talks, or does ANYTHING other than drive while they are behind the wheel is irresponsible. Period.
    Quoted for emphasis
    06-05-10 10:40 PM
  16. Artemis68's Avatar
    I can't find that study that says an attention-deficit 18 year old with a cell phone is better at driving than a senior citizen. I'm not buying it.

    I don't understand how using that little "factoid" (as implausible as it sounds) somehow justifies texting and driving when you're young. "Well I'm STILL better than a senior citizen?" Wow. So even when distracted, you're still a bit better than a possibly senile senior citizen with aging eyesight, reaction times, and cognitive abilities? Congratulations...

    It doesn't mean you should further impair your ability to drive. In my area here, we've had boatloads (yes, I mean boatloads) of dumb-*** kids (yes I said it!!) who texted and drove and killed themselves AND others. The text messaging records prove that they were sending/receiving right up til the accident.

    So much for being "young and invincible", eh? I'm 20 years old myself and I'm not going to trust the amazing youthful multi-tasking ability I have at the risk of others. No thanks.
    06-05-10 10:42 PM
  17. Artemis68's Avatar
    That's complete BS. If there are others in the car your un-seatbelted in body slamming into them will certainly hurt if not kill them.
    Agreed. The seat-belt laws exist to stop fatalities in accidents both of the stupid people who didn't wear them, and those who are just innocent victims.

    People can cry "FREEDOM!" all they want, but the truth is, when stupid people don't wear their seatbelts and either a) get hurt/killed OR b) get someone else hurt/killed...the outcome is the same. Society ultimately pays. Insurance rates go up for everyone because accident/fatality rates go up.

    My tax dollars get wasted enough. I don't want them to be further flushed down the toilet because some bonehead doesn't understand physics and the importance of wearing a seat belt.
    06-05-10 10:45 PM
  18. Chop's Avatar
    Anyone else have people on Facebook or Twitter actually POST while driving? I'll see it - it'll say something like, "This lady is on my bumper," or "They're driving so SLOW!"

    Scary...

    If you kill someone (or your dumbass self) while texting/talking/tweeting, do you think your family or the victim's will feel better knowing their loved one(s) were taken as a result of social communication versus drunk driving? I'm thinking no...
    06-05-10 10:49 PM
  19. Artemis68's Avatar
    I've seen some people post on Twitter about driving so I knew that they were driving (sometimes FAST!!!!) when they posted it. Very scary.

    Getting into a fatal accident when texting or whatever, in my mind, is JUST as bad as drunk driving and getting into a fatal accident. Someday, I hope that the penalties will be just as bad for it.

    I don't have as much of a problem with talking and driving as long as people are using a hands-free and NEVER touch their phone. I use a hands-free speakerphone (on my visor) in my car that I can answer with my voice. I just let it hang up on its own..I never touch my phone. That way, I can keep both eyes on the road and hands on the wheel AT ALL TIMES. It's essentially the same as having a convo with someone in the passenger seat.

    The thing is you should never get into a really complicated/emotional conversation with someone in the car. That could cause distraction. I usually just want someone to keep me company when I drive long distances so things are pretty mundane... :P
    06-05-10 10:54 PM
  20. thejgeffect's Avatar
    I can't comprehend why anyone would be against seatbelt laws?? Why wouldn't you be wearing one anyway? What about your family? Selfish.
    06-05-10 10:55 PM
  21. Artemis68's Avatar
    The only people I have seen against seatbelt laws are often the same people who call out "DON'T TREAD ON ME" when any government rules are placed on them.

    don't get me wrong - I'm conservative myself, but not stupidly so. There are some laws out there to protect others and make it so that society as a whole doesn't have to pay for others' stupid mistakes.

    BTW, thejgeffect, I like your avatar. American Psycho, right? I just re-watched that movie with a friend last night. Good stuff. ^^
    06-05-10 10:59 PM
  22. gmkahuna's Avatar
    You're lucky I'm not riding with you. I've had three coworkers pull this BS while they were driving with me in gov't vehicles. Each time I asked for their phone. They handed it to me and I told them if they wanted to text, then pull over and let me drive. I also told them if they continued to drive, they would get their phone back when we stopped. Since they are gov't phones and I am the one who issued them, I can take them away when I see their misuse in progress. My life is more important than some stupid fool playing with his phone while he's driving down the road. The phone won't kill you, running into the back end of a tractor trailer because you have your head up your **** can though.

    I don't even answer mine while I'm behind the wheel and driving.
    06-05-10 11:05 PM
  23. EnergyPlus's Avatar
    Ok, I'm not perfect with this. I do talk on the phone while driving, but 9 times out of 10, it's with my bluetooth headset (VZW's upgrade to .607 hasn't helped me though, the BT volume dropped so low that it's almost impossible to use). I don't feel that talking on a hands free phone is much worse than talking to a passenger on the car (though, there have been some recent arguments that state this is not the case).

    I should also admit that I don't even always, ALWAYS drive with both hands on the wheel, even while not on the phone or otherwise distracted. I sometimes lean over to my right on the armrest and drive with one hand. I know, one could argue about the relative merits of this, and I won't argue back, but I think there's a limit here...there is such a thing as common sense. Are everyone's hands always in the 10/2 position on the wheel? Do you keep the radio turned off? Never talk with a passenger in the car? NEVER go over the posted speed limit?

    At any rate, I don't text, read/send emails or anything else that really calls for me to take my eyes off the road.
    06-05-10 11:25 PM
  24. Pilot Prop's Avatar
    i dont agree with this ban...in that case there should be a ban on all distracting things while driving.....eating, kids and other passengers, car radios, etc etc.....
    06-05-10 11:26 PM
  25. thejgeffect's Avatar
    BTW, thejgeffect, I like your avatar. American Psycho, right? I just re-watched that movie with a friend last night. Good stuff. ^^
    ahah yeah its Patrick Bateman, guys a legend.
    06-05-10 11:50 PM
124 1234 ...
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD