[joey1910]

I'm ambivalent, on one hand I realize this is a good thing that will save lives, but on the other hand I'm guilty of texting (or really BBMing) while driving although its usually late at night with very little people on the road. I'm pretty good at it, I'm a college kid and need to keep in touch, I know, it's bad. If they ever institute a law like this in Florida I'll follow it, but until then I'll try to limit it as much as possible, but no promises (especially for phonecalls!)

[thejgeffect]

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.....

I agree with you but the government is simply trying to limit the number of things that could lead to accidents. Similar to how they limit just about everything else.

[Artemis68]

While I think driving while distracted is risky (depending on what the distraction is), driving while texting/typing is just STUPID. Why? Because unlike calling/talking to the person next to you, you DON'T have your eyes on the road and you don't have your hands on the wheel. It completely impairs you. That is what scares me.

I may not be a perfect driver (like I said, I use a BT speakerphone) but I will never, ever text and drive at the same time. Never have and never will.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[amazinglygraceless]

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.

Gets my vote for smartest guy in the room.

I am adamantly opposed to the seatbelt laws, if your over 18, it should be your choice, your aren't hurting anyone else. Same with the motorcycle helmet laws, while IMO your a class A moron for not wearing one, if you hit a car on a bike, your the only one getting hurt.

The logic here is simply stunning. You think motorcyclists should wear
helmets to reduce potential injury or loss of life but are okay with
unbelted parties.

Unbelted parties is at the mercy of physics. The number of things that
can happen (including EJECTION FROM THE VEHICLE)
are staggering.
__________________________________________________ ____________

Personally, I support this law and think it should be enacted in every state.

What most are ignoring is that this is not a personal freedom issue, it is a
PUBLIC SAFETY issue.

Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell just this week signed law that
strengthened the penalties for distracted driving and I for one am
very happy that she did.

[Jude526]

Actually anything that takes your mind from the main focus, which should be your driving is a deterance. I am astounded with what I see drivers do. I do have a BT but I still try to not talk while driving. And texting ? You have got to be kidding.
I value my life and the life of others. I see it happening all the time and it is just STUPID. The ban on texting has passed in AZ but it should also be holding the phone to the ear. I don't eat in my car and if I have water, it is sipped at a light. I don't do anything to endanger my life if I can help it.
I have been hit by two drunk drivers and also someone on a cell phone almost collided into me a couple of weeks ago. It angers me that people can't take their phone off their ear and pay attention to their driving.

[EnergyPlus]

To those that say "I manage" or "I do ok with it," or similar, I say "SO FAR." It is more likely than not, that your time will come. You may luck out with it being relatively mild, but it could be much, much worse. I take it personally...you're risking MY life, I really don't care what you do with your own.

[Rootbrian]

Read the entire thread, I for one, don't own a car, will never own a car and will most likely be one of those people riding a bike in 5 years (low income, debt, etc. Others have debt, bills, etc.) or less without any room to sms, tweet/post, send/receive e-mail, bbm (barely use it al all, maybe twice), compose MMS or anything with my phone (generic term for any mobile device) while riding.

This way, everybody including myself, is safe. With a bike, you can pull over *almost anywhere* unlike a car. Maintenance is pretty low cost with a bike: no license, fees or insurance.

I'll be extra protective, I'll even wear a helmet, elbow, knee and just about any possible pads you can wear to protect my body and limbs, if I was to crash or fall off. That would reduce the likelihood of getting injured or going to the hospital. I wouldn't even answer my phone until I was stopped.

I fully support the calling/texting bans. They're only there for your safety.

On the side, I walked and read/sent e-mail, tweeted via SMS and twitter clients in my neighborhood and on the TTC, the streets, never once did I walk into a wall, pole, person or anything nor did I trip. I kept looking forward and scanning the sidewalk in front of my for changes or anything to move around/avoid. I don't do it when crossing the street, as it is STUPID.

I use common sense and no matter how bad my ADD is, I focus on safety.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Broly]

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.

And I would hire the best lawyer to make sure you wouldn't get a dime, because it's people like you who try to use safety laws to your own advantage. Knowledge is power, as is money.

Toss your picket sign on your way out, you righteous zealot. Your rant and support for these bans further show you want to dictate how others live their lives. Stop being a control freak and get your own.

[Artemis68]

Yep, name calling has started on Broly's side. Lovely.

All I have to say Broly, is when (not if, but when) you have an accident and hurt/kill someone, are you going to tell the family/victim the same things you've said here? "It's my life! I do what I want! Rawr!"

Yeah, that'll really get you far. Good job.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Pete6]

1). PLEASE KEEP THIS THREAD POLITE AND ON SUBJECT OR I'LL CLOSE IT.

2). Not wearing a seat belt actually raises global intelligence on a one by one basis, imo.

3). Today there are:
- too many cell phones
- too many cars
- too many incompetents using and not using both for these things not be used exclusively.

[rdyoung]

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. ^^

For me the seatbelt thing is up there with choosing when and how to end your own life. Its about personal freedom and being able to live your life how you want as long your not harming anyone else.
BTW I am NOT a rightwing freedom nut, I do feel that because the government takes taxes from us and we elect officials to "serve" that the GOV has responsibilities when it comes to the safety, etc of its citizenry. However I do believe in the inalienable right to do whatever the **** you want with your own body, and wearing a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet should be a choice I make because of safety, not something I am required to do by law. As I said in a previous post, your class A moronic if you ride a motorcycle without a helmet.

I ask all you of this simple question.
What if a law was passed that required that every cabinet in your house had those childproof locks on them? regardless of whether you had or will ever have children in your home? Would that be a "Don't tread on me" issue? or would it just be ridiculous that you have to deal with those everytime you need to open a cabinet or a drawer?

[oldtimeBBaddict]

What I see going on here is "flamebaiting" i.e. posting something designed to provoke an angry emotional response. The person who posts that respose is reported for violating the terms of the forum, and the flamebaiter goes on their happy way. Best advice, don't fall into the trap of name calling or other reportable behavior. in fact, just ignore the post if you can.

[rdyoung]

Gets my vote for smartest guy in the room.


The logic here is simply stunning. You think motorcyclists should wear
helmets to reduce potential injury or loss of life but are okay with
unbelted parties.

Unbelted parties is at the mercy of physics. The number of things that
can happen (including EJECTION FROM THE VEHICLE)
are staggering.
__________________________________________________ ____________

Personally, I support this law and think it should be enacted in every state.

What most are ignoring is that this is not a personal freedom issue, it is a
PUBLIC SAFETY issue.

Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell just this week signed law that
strengthened the penalties for distracted driving and I for one am
very happy that she did.

I never said you shouldn't wear a seatbelt.
Please explain how me not wearing a seatbelt affects the person driving the other car in an accident?

If I am riding a motorcycle and hit a car, who gets hurt the worst, me or them? Its ME, so why shouldn't I be able to choose whether or not to wear one.
Again, its about freedom of choice. While I do believe most of the laws we have are born of some logic and serve a greater purpose, IE DUI/DWI laws, because that does put the PUBLIC at risk. Some are just a ridiculous encroachment as individuals and our ability to make rational decisions.

Just for you, I will amend my earlier statements.
Being of sound mine and judgement, I believe you are a First Class moron if you choose not to wear a seatbelt or a helmet.

Is that logic easier to comprehend????

[rdyoung]

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

True, but this is also why as you get older, the expiration/renewal times on licenses get shorter so assessments can be done past a certain age as to the ability of the driver to operate safely on the road.

There a was a documentary/news story/something done on drinking/texting/talking while driving with teenagers, and that info negates the study done by the feds. The kids were shocked and amazed at how inable to drive they were.
If you would PM me a link to that study, I will attempt to find the one I am talking about, I don't remember if I saw it on CNN, or where, but I will try and find it.

[gmkahuna]

And I would hire the best lawyer to make sure you wouldn't get a dime, because it's people like you who try to use safety laws to your own advantage. Knowledge is power, as is money.

Toss your picket sign on your way out, you righteous zealot. Your rant and support for these bans further show you want to dictate how others live their lives. Stop being a control freak and get your own.

Actually no, you're still wrong here arguing for the side of ignorance if you will.

You would lose if you violated the law period. No extenuating circumstances will protect you from a knowingly wrong action in a court of law and chances are this would never make it to civil court before you found yourself in a prisoner orange set of coveralls. All of this because you had to have your stupid text message that will still be there when you pull over.

Are you really that foolish that you value no life above a text message that CAN wait until it is safe to read and respond? What if YOUR mother or child were killed by someone doing this. I wonder how you'd feel then.

On the other topic of seatbelts, I wonder how many of you have ever driven a vehicle not wearing one. They hold you in the proper position to accurately, and to the best of your ability, control the vehicle. I have seen far too many people ejected out after a crash to argue against wearing them for one reason. Another reason is that when you push the vehicle to a limit and have yourself moved by centrifugal force because you are not belted in place ( I.E. - you swerve to avoid something in the road or an erratic car ahead of you) you are not fully capable of handling the machine you are in. I've seen it happen, it has caused bad wrecks. I've been there comforting the guy who because he did this, killed his brother who was his passenger because he chose not to wear a seat belt and got to the point where he couldn't control the vehicle. He watched his brother lay there and bleed to death. Time for a reality check folks, they save more than just your own skin. It's a law, wear the damned thing.

[Chop]

I never said you shouldn't wear a seatbelt.
Please explain how me not wearing a seatbelt affects the person driving the other car in an accident?

If I am riding a motorcycle and hit a car, who gets hurt the worst, me or them? Its ME, so why shouldn't I be able to choose whether or not to wear one.
Again, its about freedom of choice. While I do believe most of the laws we have are born of some logic and serve a greater purpose, IE DUI/DWI laws, because that does put the PUBLIC at risk. Some are just a ridiculous encroachment as individuals and our ability to make rational decisions.

Just for you, I will amend my earlier statements.
Being of sound mine and judgement, I believe you are a First Class moron if you choose not to wear a seatbelt or a helmet.

Is that logic easier to comprehend????

The logic behind motorcycle helmet laws is that people DO NOT ALWAYS make rational decisions. "I'm not hurting anyone but me..." - that "argument" is weak at best. The main point here though is that most motorcycle fatalities occur due to helmetless head trauma. Fact. Also, most motorcycle accidents and fatalities occur at speeds SIGNIFICANTLY LESS that 60 mph. Some at near-stops, actually. (Hit by other bikes or automobiles) Fact. So many of these fatalities, arguably, could be prevented by the simple wearing of a helmet. You may still be hurt, but you're ALIVE. You don't die from road rash, or broken arms/legs. You WILL die from multiple skull fractures and brain hemorrhages.

As a sportbike rider, a helmet is NOT optional for me. I'll admit to wearing shorts while riding sometimes (rider for 15 years and temps here pass the 110's) but I never go without my lid. Not even for short convenient trips. Too much good stuff under there I need to keep.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[vinmontRD]

For me the seatbelt thing is up there with choosing when and how to end your own life. Its about personal freedom and being able to live your life how you want as long your not harming anyone else.
BTW I am NOT a rightwing freedom nut, I do feel that because the government takes taxes from us and we elect officials to "serve" that the GOV has responsibilities when it comes to the safety, etc of its citizenry. However I do believe in the inalienable right to do whatever the **** you want with your own body, and wearing a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet should be a choice I make because of safety, not something I am required to do by law. As I said in a previous post, your class A moronic if you ride a motorcycle without a helmet.

I ask all you of this simple question.
What if a law was passed that required that every cabinet in your house had those childproof locks on them? regardless of whether you had or will ever have children in your home? Would that be a "Don't tread on me" issue? or would it just be ridiculous that you have to deal with those everytime you need to open a cabinet or a drawer?

There's another consideration - and reason for the law - that's a key part of this. If the entire issue were just about the risk you choose to take with your own life, this would be a simpler discussion.

On a national scale, the number of emergency room visits, fatalities, and dollars spent as a direct result of people not wearing seat belts is staggering. If all the people who chose to not wear seat belts could be truly held liable for paying these expenses, then the issue might different. But even 7 years ago (when health care, litigation expense, etc were cheaper than today), the cost of people NOT wearing seat belts was estimated at about $26 billion annually, including medical / emergency room care, lost productivity and other injury related costs. A lot of the ER costs are NOT covered by the accident victim, and those portions of the cost that are covered by insurance contribute significantly to the costs insurance companies sustain -- and translate into higher costs for all who would buy an insurance plan.

In general -- there are thousands of avoidable injuries and fatalities each year that simply never had to happen. The cost is outrageous, impacts all of us, and is completely avoidable. If people who feel the need to drive without a seatbelt could sign away their rights to unpaid ER care and insurance coverage, then it would be easier to believe the argument about "personal decisions" and rights. But as long as your actions impact the costs that others have to bear, the argument is nowhere near that simple.

See: National Primary Enforcement Seat Belt Law | Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

[Chop]

For me the seatbelt thing is up there with choosing when and how to end your own life. Its about personal freedom and being able to live your life how you want as long your not harming anyone else.
BTW I am NOT a rightwing freedom nut, I do feel that because the government takes taxes from us and we elect officials to "serve" that the GOV has responsibilities when it comes to the safety, etc of its citizenry. However I do believe in the inalienable right to do whatever the **** you want with your own body, and wearing a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet should be a choice I make because of safety, not something I am required to do by law. As I said in a previous post, your class A moronic if you ride a motorcycle without a helmet.

I ask all you of this simple question.
What if a law was passed that required that every cabinet in your house had those childproof locks on them? regardless of whether you had or will ever have children in your home? Would that be a "Don't tread on me" issue? or would it just be ridiculous that you have to deal with those everytime you need to open a cabinet or a drawer?

Your analogy is hilarious... and flawed. Childproof locks on your cabinets - when you have no children - would be accurate if the discussion was about wearing a motorcycle helmet - when you're walking around/not on a motorcycle.
In which case, yes. That's extreme.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[rdyoung]

CrackberryV79 And VinmontRD

I agree 100% with the laws. In a perfect world, those that were injured due to a choice to not comply with a very simple safety rule/idea, would either pay more for their hospital visit or wouldn't get covered at all.
However because of how/why this country was founded and the social evolution over the past 60+ years, that will never happen.

However for me, it still is a very simple freedom of choice issue, and I can have that view because I have the common sense to wear a seatbelt, and wear a helmet if/when they are needed.
While I do fall more the left on most issues, I do dream of a truely anarchistic world, where everything and everyone just works/gets a long without the need for all kinds of rules/laws/regulations, you can't do that, you can do that only if you do this first/while/after/etc.

Again, I am not arguing against seatbelts or helmets or the fact that they do save lives and money. However barring the crazies on the road, I am a safe enough and defensive enough driver that if I choose not to a wear a seatbelt when I am driving 10miles down the road, that should be my choice.

[rdyoung]

Your analogy is hilarious... and flawed. Childproof locks on your cabinets - when you have no children - would be accurate if the discussion was about wearing a motorcycle helmet - when you're walking around/not on a motorcycle.
In which case, yes. That's extreme.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

The cabinets was not a comparison to or with helmets, it was meant to be an admittedly extreme safety "law" by the state to "protect" the "public".

And maybe someone here can enlighten me as to how/why every discussion that is undertaken on these there pipes they call the interwebs, has to almost always turn into a flame war/battle royale?
Why can't a simple intelligent discussion be had without it devolving into some kind of freeforfall "your momma" showdown?

[LSCUP7187]

People can argue about the laws all they want and which ones the wish to follow or not but if you were to be killed or seriously injured in a vehicle collision because you were on your cell phone or not wearing a seatbelt there wouldn't be a person around NOT saying: "Wow, what a dumb a$$". Why let something so trivial have the potential to take your life?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Chop]

Rdyoung,

I understand what you're saying. What YOU have to understand is that you live in a country where people make "stupid" a sport. This is a country where we have to put notices on commercials with people fighting dragons, or racing sportscars down Mt. Everest, that what you're seeing is fictional OR performed by a professional and that you should NOT try this at home.

You live in a country where people will order hot coffee at McDonald's, open it between their legs, burn themselves... then sue the restaurant for not warning them the hot coffee was hot.

People in this country want it all - and you can't have it all. Want more "freedoms"? We have to show better judgment and decision-making skills.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Chop]

The cabinets was not a comparison to or with helmets, it was meant to be an admittedly extreme safety "law" by the state to "protect" the "public".

And maybe someone here can enlighten me as to how/why every discussion that is undertaken on these there pipes they call the interwebs, has to almost always turn into a flame war/battle royale?
Why can't a simple intelligent discussion be had without it devolving into some kind of freeforfall "your momma" showdown?

wow... Didn't recall "flaming" or insulting you (or your parents) - I was simply trying to draw a parallel between your 'example' and the current topics. Adjust your sensitivity... We're just talking.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[rdyoung]

Rdyoung,

I understand what you're saying. What YOU have to understand is that you live in a country where people make "stupid" a sport. This is a country where we have to put notices on commercials with people fighting dragons, or racing sportscars down Mt. Everest, that what you're seeing is fictional OR performed by a professional and that you should NOT try this at home.

You live in a country where people will order hot coffee at McDonald's, open it between their legs, burn themselves... then sue the restaurant for not warning them the hot coffee was hot.

People in this country want it all - and you can't have it all. Want more "freedoms"? We have to show better judgment and decision-making skills.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

I know full well the breadth and depth of ignorance in this country.
I am from florida and currently reside in NC, No clue why I am still here, but I am.
I am not advocating for the reversal of these laws. I would like to see us as whole take more personal responsibility, IE stop blaming the government for the jobs mess. People need to stand up and realize that life is what they make it, not what others do or don't do.

As for the mcdonalds thing, that has been thrown around for years and there is a lot more to the story than what you have summed up.
The famous/infamous “McDonald’s Coffee Spill Lawsuit” revisited
See that site for the REAL story behind the myth.

[rdyoung]

wow... Didn't recall "flaming" or insulting you (or your parents) - I was simply trying to draw a parallel between your 'example' and the current topics. Adjust your sensitivity... We're just talking.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

I should have added "as an aside" or something to that effect.
You didn't do anything of the sort, however if there wasnt a mod here with the ability to close the thread, it would have gone that way fast. Some people get very very upset and frustrated when their "beliefs" and what they "know" are challenged.