Turns out texting while driving is :techman: ...

...Sorry, UA. But actually there's no reason I can't play "Angry Birds" during my morning commute.

Taking your trolling out in the open now that you've shot your entire neg-rep wad? The pixels, they burn.

You want to know what increases risk? Banning it so people have to look down to their laps to do it.

You want to know what decreases it? Telling people that if they'll do it RIGHT ON TOP OF THEIR STEERING WHEEL it's fine.

Oh, and UA, FAH Q, as shootER would say.

*Ahem*

"Kill them all."

I would like to trade driving with no lights when it's pitch-black for texting I must say. The "no lights" thing is running rampant in my town. I'm talking no parking lights, no fog lights, no shit.....just invisible unless the traffic signal lights/street lights at busy intersections show them. :santa_angry:

I think what the Feds are proposing is a ban on all electronic devices. That could include GPS and might even be interpreted to include your car's stereo.

IMHO this is another Federal infringement on liberty and I oppose it. It's already covered by existing laws anyway. If you are distracted, for whatever reason, and cause an accident, you're at fault and will be cited for it.

IF it can be proven. And I'm sure people are just tripping all over themselves to admit it when they fuck up.

"You know, I might have seen him in the lane next to me, but I was trying to finish a text."
OR
"You hit me because you weren't paying attention! Too busy on your phone!"
"No I wasn't."
"Yes you were."
"Liar! Prove it!"



So you want the "freedom" to gamble everyone's safety on your exaggerated perception of your ability to multi-task? Fine. But you cause one accident, just fucking ONE because you were fiddling with your phone, and you should lose your license FOREVER. Same with drunk driving and all the other stupid shit people do.

Timing is everything.

Let dogs sort them out.

Now we're talking. I'm pulling everyone's cell phone records as part of a crash investigation. Fuckers.

The problem with "it's enough to revoke their license forever after they cause a crash", is: it's too late for the victims, because the punishment comes after they're dead. It is sensible to define and enforce behavior rules in public spaces, like roads.

I don't think anyone is saying it's enough, but more like 'it's a start.'



Want to kill someone in America and get away with it?

Use a car.

No "if" to it. You rear-end somebody for whatever reason and you're at fault. The forensics of the accident investigation pretty much tell the tale of who was at fault.

You might recall that I posted pics about 4 or 5 years ago of damage to my Tacoma when I got rear-ended by a driver who was distracted by her cell phone. Stupid bitch didn't get off of the phone the whole time the cops were there investigating the accident. She also tried to claim that she was 1 month pregnant and was having abdominal pains. Her pain suddenly got better when she realized that she was getting the ticket.

My wife caused an accident one time when she was distracted by one of the kids. Do we pass a law that bans kids from riding in cars?

Sorry, but I don't want the gubmint regulating every facet of my life.

As for drunk drivers, how about enforcing the laws that are already on the books? It's not unusual here for drunk drivers to be caught for the 7th, 8th, or more offenses and driving on revoked licenses, but the judges turn them loose.

Yes. They should be at home, in cages, at all times.

But you presumably do want it protecting your right to not be harmed by negligent drivers. That means you must be held accountable for your own actions as well. You are not your own sovereign little travel capsule when you're in a car on the road.

I also think you're a damned fool if you don't wear your seatbelt, but I'm opposed to laws that make them mandatory.

I'm almost fanatical about using a hands-free device when driving. I have a Bluetooth and I use it religiously. Frankly, I find the Bluetooth less distracting than talking to someone in the car.

How, exactly, do we ban the use of phones in the car? With a device in the car that blocks the signal...and in the process, adds more to the cost of the car? And what about the passengers? They're not driving and their use should not be disabled. What happens if another car is shooting at me, riding my bumper, road-raging, or whatever and I need to call 911?

Nope! I don't want any more government intrusion in my life. There's too much already. I'm not willing to give up any more liberty. To paraphrase Franklin, when you give up liberty for security, you wind up having neither.

Hmmm, where's that irony-meter smiley......

As am I, but outside absurd hypotheticals about all passengers becoming human projectiles, that doesn't affect other peoples' safety.

I still give my dad shit when he talks to me on a headset. Don't care that he'd been driving for 10-15 years before I was born and spends more time on the road driving a semi than I spend awake. Half the time I talk to him, it's "Dad, tell you're not on a fucking cell phone while you're driving."

How do we catch anyone else committing some kind of violation in their car? Don't act like it's not possible, and don't float the "If you can't catch all of them, there's no point in even trying" line of bullshit.

If only it were possible to pay some kind of...officer or something, who would drive around in some kind of...official vehical, to observe drivers' activities and assess those situations.

This is not giving up liberty or security. This is me asking you not to shoot a gun near my head, and you saying "what's the big deal? I didn't actually hit your head. "

Yes. I have spoken.

You don't want more government intrusion but you do want more government intrusion. I think a reasonable compromise is a hands free device and no texting, but banning cell phone use entirely is going too far.

Is it intrusive to require you to signal your lane changes and follow at a safe distance? This is no different.

Still gonna have to enforce it. Intrusively.

It's not a matter for the Fed to decide at all. Period, full stop. Regulating/licensing/policing drivers is a state function, NOT a federal one.

I get it. I'm the one in this conversation who was actually in an accident caused by a driver who was distracted by a cell phone.

Drinking age used to be the same way. However once the Feds start yanking Highway Funds states fall in line pretty quick.

Therein lies the problem.

A CDL ( Commercial Drivers License) is required to drive interstate, and a Haz Mat clearance requires an FBI security check with fingerprints..
pretty close to a national license

Open dessert, pitch dark, motorcycle, night vision goggles. Its an awesome experience.

I'll never understand why people have a need (much less a desire) to be constantly texting.

They need to ban all of it, hand held or built in doesn't matter. Its not what you do with your hands but where your mind is that matters. They especially need to ban it for truckers, that shit is out of control. Of course though, I doubt they do anything in this state because I have seen loads of police and highway patrol using them while driving.

Jeeps and SUVs on freeways are inherently dangerous. They are top-heavy and have short wheelbases so they can't take ramps at a proper speed to allow motorists behind them to merge with traffic. They are big, so if you get stuck behind one you can't see what is going on with traffic in front of you. If you get hit by one in a normal-sized car, you're pretty much dead. Furthermore, there is no particular certification required to drive one. Drive a commercial truck, you need a special license. Motorcycle? Special license. SUV? Fine! Get right in! Finally there is absolutely no reason they belong on a modern road--their features contribute nothing except reduced fuel mileage. They should be outlawed.