• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

are you for or against a law banning text messaging while driving?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
because if it's not explicitly stated, people will continue to do it because they think they are safe drivers.
same reason they made a law specifically against DUI.

they are doing something that could potentially save lives. not to generate revenue through fines (although that may be an indirect result), not to piss us off with more restrictions.
Click to expand...

I understand that point of view but I think that, at best, it's arguable how many people will stop doing it because it was stated explicitly in a law. So many things can *potentially* save lives but if that's the only excuse, then it's a poor excuse. Even though it's an extreme example, banning sugar can potentially save lives too...

It's much easier to prove that a person was drunk at the time then proving they were texting (unless an officer sees it). To prove that a person was texting would require the department to obtain a subpoena for that person's carrier... and who's to say that they didn't set it their phone to text in 30 minutes and they happened to be driving when it was sent off?

I would like to believe that it's about potentially saving lives... but I can't. If they were concerned about potentially saving lives then they would raise the driving age to 18 or make driving tests a real test, they would propose mandatory testing on the elderly, they would ban eating in cars, they would enact laws to curtail rubbernecking on highways, and i'm sure the list can grow...

edit: even though my statement makes it seem like the gov doesn't care about saving lives, i'm sure they do want to save lives. I just think it's a poor way of going about it.
 
Originally posted by: jtvang125You can be pulled over for those things if they become too much of a distraction for you. If you're swerving all over the road cause you're chomping on a double whooper you'll definitely get pulled over. You won't get cited for eating while driving but probably for careless or reckless driving. Texting is something that should fall into this category as well but I think since it's become so common that a seperate law is needed to remind everyone that it's dangerous and you should not be doing it.
Click to expand...

It is a problem and I agree. But creating a separate law won't solve it. After time, people will just ignore it like so many others. Why don't they actively campaign that texting is a problem and you can be charged under careless driving or whatever? Like the click-it-or-ticket campaign? The only benefit here is an additional charge to laws already in place that prosecutors will love because they then can negotiate other charges off or lower.
 
Originally posted by: SportSC4
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
because if it's not explicitly stated, people will continue to do it because they think they are safe drivers.
same reason they made a law specifically against DUI.

they are doing something that could potentially save lives. not to generate revenue through fines (although that may be an indirect result), not to piss us off with more restrictions.
Click to expand...

I understand that point of view but I think that, at best, it's arguable how many people will stop doing it because it was stated explicitly in a law. So many things can *potentially* save lives but if that's the only excuse, then it's a poor excuse. Even though it's an extreme example, banning sugar can potentially save lives too...

It's much easier to prove that a person was drunk at the time then proving they were texting (unless an officer sees it). To prove that a person was texting would require the department to obtain a subpoena for that person's carrier... and who's to say that they didn't set it their phone to text in 30 minutes and they happened to be driving when it was sent off?

I would like to believe that it's about potentially saving lives... but I can't. If they were concerned about potentially saving lives then they would raise the driving age to 18 or make driving tests a real test, they would propose mandatory testing on the elderly, they would ban eating in cars, they would enact laws to curtail rubbernecking on highways, and i'm sure the list can grow...

edit: even though my statement makes it seem like the gov doesn't care about saving lives, i'm sure they do want to save lives. I just think it's a poor way of going about it.
Click to expand...

i know texting is hard to prove. taht's why i propose, caught holding phone = ticket
no ifs, ands or buts about it.

why do we have a specifically law for DUI? it has nothing to do with being easier to prove.
it's in hopes that now that people are educated that it's illegal and that there will be repercussions, hopefully it will be enough to deter people from engaging in it.
of course you'll never eliminate drinking while driving, but you've likely cut down the number that would've attempted it.

agree? disagree?
 
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: cronos
before this, i would vote for a law against speeding.



..wait..
Click to expand...

when speeding is proven to be more dangerous than DUI, sure.
Click to expand...

there are laws against both of those so we're good :thumbsup:
 
I dunno about you guys who say it's hard to prove - I live in a rural area but have passed quite a few people who were obviously texting or checking text messages.
 
Originally posted by: skim milk
Originally posted by: Amused
I say we ban driving while operating a motor vehicle. It's too distracting!!!
Click to expand...

I say we ban BlahBlahYouToo, who likes this douchebag?
Click to expand...

seriously dude, why do u even try? you just make yourself look more pathetic each time i (and dozens of others here) own u.
 
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: SportSC4
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
because if it's not explicitly stated, people will continue to do it because they think they are safe drivers.
same reason they made a law specifically against DUI.

they are doing something that could potentially save lives. not to generate revenue through fines (although that may be an indirect result), not to piss us off with more restrictions.
Click to expand...

I understand that point of view but I think that, at best, it's arguable how many people will stop doing it because it was stated explicitly in a law. So many things can *potentially* save lives but if that's the only excuse, then it's a poor excuse. Even though it's an extreme example, banning sugar can potentially save lives too...

It's much easier to prove that a person was drunk at the time then proving they were texting (unless an officer sees it). To prove that a person was texting would require the department to obtain a subpoena for that person's carrier... and who's to say that they didn't set it their phone to text in 30 minutes and they happened to be driving when it was sent off?

I would like to believe that it's about potentially saving lives... but I can't. If they were concerned about potentially saving lives then they would raise the driving age to 18 or make driving tests a real test, they would propose mandatory testing on the elderly, they would ban eating in cars, they would enact laws to curtail rubbernecking on highways, and i'm sure the list can grow...

edit: even though my statement makes it seem like the gov doesn't care about saving lives, i'm sure they do want to save lives. I just think it's a poor way of going about it.
Click to expand...

i know texting is hard to prove. taht's why i propose, caught holding phone = ticket
no ifs, ands or buts about it.

why do we have a specifically law for DUI? it has nothing to do with being easier to prove.
it's in hopes that now that people are educated that it's illegal and that there will be repercussions, hopefully it will be enough to deter people from engaging in it.
of course you'll never eliminate drinking while driving, but you've likely cut down the number that would've attempted it.

agree? disagree?
Click to expand...

disagree.
the law for DUI has worked just oh so well...hasnt it?

This law will just become a cash cow for some municipalities in the face of safety... like certain other laws.


Dr Pizza's point about CB's is valid. They are no more distracting than a cell phone, or the radio (mine has a remote control), or the heater vent... we already have laws to protect us from unsafe driving.

Cell phones deserve no special attention.
 
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: sao123

disagree.
the law for DUI has worked just oh so well...hasnt it?
Click to expand...

yeah, i'm with you 100%.
we should just totally do away with that useless DUI one.
Click to expand...

i dont recall saying that. 2 can play that game...


so what your saying is we should ban car stereos, car heaters, GPS navigators, standard transmissions, children in the back seat, rear view mirrors, and one armed drivers?
 
Originally posted by: Xanis
A headset is fine, as it allows both of your hands free to operate the vehicle.

Texting while driving, however, is NOT fine in any way.
Click to expand...

/thread

There shouldn't even be a discussion on this... especially texting while driving :disgust:
 
Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: sao123

disagree.
the law for DUI has worked just oh so well...hasnt it?
Click to expand...

yeah, i'm with you 100%.
we should just totally do away with that useless DUI one.
Click to expand...

i dont recall saying that. 2 can play that game...


so what your saying is we should ban car stereos, car heaters, GPS navigators, standard transmissions, children in the back seat, rear view mirrors, and one armed drivers?
Click to expand...

like i said, when studies have shown that it is as dangerous as texting and DUI, sure.
 
Really? 43% of you guys think having a phone in your hand should be grounds for a ticket? :roll:

Oh ATOT, you're so full of douchebags...
 
Originally posted by: magomago
can we first prove that texting increases accidently by a statistically significant margain?
Click to expand...

only 9 to 17 times WORSE than being legally drunk, depending on whether you're reading or sending.

Text
Text

The results:

* Unimpaired: .54 seconds to brake
* Legally drunk: add 4 feet
* Reading e-mail: add 36 feet
* Sending a text: add 70 feet
 
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Really? 43% of you guys think having a phone in your hand should be grounds for a ticket? :roll:

Oh ATOT, you're so full of douchebags...
Click to expand...

lol I kind of feel this way too, although I rarely use my phone while driving, and definitely not to text.
 
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Really? 43% of you guys think having a phone in your hand should be grounds for a ticket? :roll:

Oh ATOT, you're so full of douchebags...
Click to expand...

when you say douchebags, you must be referring to teh 20% that think it's ok to allow texting while driving, despite studies that have shown it to be worse than DUI.
 
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Next thing you know, people will be clamoring about laws against wanking and driving. 🙁
Click to expand...

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa... whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Stop. Just stop. What?
 
have texted while driving before, it is just dangerousl. i have also used a laptop while driving, it was at night and i took a few seconds off the road, when i looked at the road again, i was in the middle of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top