Texting while driving

[serpicostraight]

I believe anyone that, through their negligent actions, causes harm to another should be held responsible for those actions. What they happen to do for a living shouldn't matter.

i couldnt agree more and i hope the system proves that true.

 

[public servant]

A straw man argument is an attempt to misrepresent an opponent's position by creating a superficial proposition and refuted it without having actually addressing the original position. Calling out anarchy when anarchy is proposed is not a strawman.

That just means a spade is a spade...right?

 

[hornadylnl]

We in fact do convict drunks of manslaughter (a form of murder) if they kill someone while driving drunk and the evidence justifies it. They are also convicted of assault, criminal negligence, and a host of other crimes depending on the jurisdiction.

A straw man argument is an attempt to misrepresent an opponent's position by creating a superficial proposition and refuted it without having actually addressing the original position. Calling out anarchy when anarchy is proposed is not a strawman.

And where is anarchy being proposed? Were our founders supporters of property rights (which is not anarchy by the way) or a nanny state that you seem to be fond of? I see nobody advocating lawlessness.

 

[rambone]

Exactly how would it work in your State of Anarchy and Utopia?

There is no personal responsibility in Anarchyville.

I should be able to do whatever I want...whenever I want. There are no consequences for my actions.

Unlike the State of Anarchy heralded by some here...I still believe in rules when the consequences involve others.

If however...your actions only involve consequences to yourself...knock yourself out. Many actions, however...have consequences involving others.

This is where the lawless and absence of any authority society he wishes to live in and I split.

Sheesh. Ya know, every single day the tyrants in congress roll out a brilliant new progressive nanny-state law that is supposed to "save lives" and "save the planet" and "save the economy." The same folks who destroy the country are promising to fix it by making more laws. If you still trust them, I can't see why. Most of the conservatives that I personally know, can agree that - for God's sake - we don't need any new laws. We have more than enough. Government power is bigger than it ever should have been. We have less freedom than ever. Our economy is on the brink of collapse. People are hurting. The nation is bankrupt.

So, is it surprising that I disagree with the daily proposal that they are trying to force on us? It is what any real conservative should be doing. It is what any small-government advocate should be doing. Stop the progressives. Stop the nannies. Stop the statists. Stop the "Libtards."

Well we all talk the talk when it comes to small government... Until tomorrow when the next nanny comes up with a law against something "irresponsible" or that you don't like. Well I have no problem saying that I don't need a ban on texting. I don't need a ban on plastic bags. I don't need a ban on picking my nose. Leave well enough alone. NO new laws.

So, without this brand new ban, are we living in a "State of Anarchy"? Are we "doing whatever we want"? Is America in Anarchy right now!? Should we arrest mothers who are seen scolding their children in the car, like SemperFiUSMC wants?

I didn't think this ever was in question, but financial restitution for your accidents should go without saying. You don't have to be in handcuffs in a cage to be held to personal responsibility.

 

[rjstew317]

if you hurt someone because of your utter and complete negligence why shouldn't possible jail time be considered? if you have made the decision to put other people lives at risk i think you should be held accountable to more then just financial restitution.

 

[.40caltrucker]

And where is anarchy being proposed? Were our founders supporters of property rights (which is not anarchy by the way) or a nanny state that you seem to be fond of? I see nobody advocating lawlessness.

I fail to see this nanny state comparative. Instead of using a talking point, why not show us some studies that show texting while driving to be safe.

Banning happy meals in CA, telling us to buckle up, banning salt in resturants in NY, Richmond, IN evicting the guy living on his own land without utilities. These are all examples of the "nanny state". The govt intruding into our daily lives. None of these put someone else in danger. Texting kills and injures thousands of people a year, other than the texter.

Driving is a privilege, as a result the govt gets to pass laws that effect public safety. Like banning texting while driving, drinking while driving, requiring proper lighting on vehicles, speed limits, stop signs/lights. These are all things that effect others on the road.

 

[rambone]

And where is anarchy being proposed? Were our founders supporters of property rights (which is not anarchy by the way) or a nanny state that you seem to be fond of? I see nobody advocating lawlessness.

If you don't get on the progressive bandwagon for passing a new law every day, you are an Anarchist. I got this figured out.

Its actually funny because I have gotten into it with actual Anarchists on the internet, and the differences between their positions and mine are tremendous. They are disgusted at the thought of a State, a Constitution, and every other tenant of America's founding. You have never seen me argue against that. I support small, constitutional government. But somehow my fanclub on INGO thinks I am the poster-boy for "Anarchy". I find it humorous.

Let's get back to our regularly scheduled episode of Ban-of-the-Day.

 

[rambone]

if you hurt someone because of your utter and complete negligence why shouldn't possible jail time be considered? if you have made the decision to put other people lives at risk i think you should be held accountable to more then just financial restitution.

Every accident is due to negligence. Start applying this to yourselves, your wives, your children, your parents. What does your criminal record look like in this brilliant society where everything is illegal?

 

[hornadylnl]

I fail to see this nanny state comparative. Instead of using a talking point, why not show us some studies that show texting while driving to be safe.

Banning happy meals in CA, telling us to buckle up, banning salt in resturants in NY, Richmond, IN evicting the guy living on his own land without utilities. These are all examples of the "nanny state". The govt intruding into our daily lives. None of these put someone else in danger. Texting kills and injures thousands of people a year, other than the texter.

Driving is a privilege, as a result the govt gets to pass laws that effect public safety. Like banning texting while driving, drinking while driving, requiring proper lighting on vehicles, speed limits, stop signs/lights. These are all things that effect others on the road.

I don't think anyone is saying that texting while driving is safe. People here have listed numerous other things that are unsafe yet they aren't banned. The point us so called anarchists are making is that you can't legislate common sense. If texting should be banned then take the laptops out of police cruisers. Oh wait, they are the only ones professional enough to type and drive at the same time. Actually, they are so professional that they can do it with lights and sirens while on pursuit.

As I said before, I'm undecided as to the criminality of this. I'd have to see the evidence of each particular case to determine whether the negligence reaches the threshold of being criminal. Do we jail a driver who has bald tires and causes an accident on rain or snowy roads?

I would think that being forced to make full restitution for vehicle repairs, car rentals, medical bills, lost time for work, etc would be a much higher of a deterrent than a few months in the pokey. I ask myself, is this text worth the loss of my car, house, and a lifetime of wage garnishment worth it?

 

[rjstew317]

Every accident is due to negligence. Start applying this to yourself, your wives, your children, you parents. What does your criminal record look like in this brilliant society where everything is illegal?

not true, that's a blanket statement. some accidents are just unavoidable, if you are purposefully not looking at the road while driving it a different story all together, at that point you have made the choice that your phone is more important then the safety of people around you.

 

[hornadylnl]

not true, that's a blanket statement. some accidents are just unavoidable, if you are purposefully not looking at the road while driving it a different story all together, at that point you have made the choice that your phone is more important then the safety of people around you.

Ok, let's just ban cars if we can't save everybody. And let's ban guns because some owners are negligent.

 

[rjstew317]

I don't think anyone is saying that texting while driving is safe. People here have listed numerous other things that are unsafe yet they aren't banned. The point us so called anarchists are making is that you can't legislate common sense. If texting should be banned then take the laptops out of police cruisers. Oh wait, they are the only ones professional enough to type and drive at the same time. Actually, they are so professional that they can do it with lights and sirens while on pursuit.

As I said before, I'm undecided as to the criminality of this. I'd have to see the evidence of each particular case to determine whether the negligence reaches the threshold of being criminal. Do we jail a driver who has bald tires and causes an accident on rain or snowy roads?

I would think that being forced to make full restitution for vehicle repairs, car rentals, medical bills, lost time for work, etc would be a much higher of a deterrent than a few months in the pokey. I ask myself, is this text worth the loss of my car, house, and a lifetime of wage garnishment worth it?

what if that negligence results in someones death? no amount of financial restitution can replace a human life.

 

[rjstew317]

Ok, let's just ban cars if we can't save everybody. And let's ban guns because some owners are negligent.

if that's your way of thinking then why don't we give the everyone that's blind a license and a car. you seem to be leaving common sense out of your argument

 

[.40caltrucker]

Ok, let's just ban cars if we can't save everybody. And let's ban guns because some owners are negligent.

Childish statements like this get nowhere. We aren't talking about banning cars of guns because of the few who lack common sense. It's the actions of the few that lead to bans like this. In a perfect world we wouldn't need a law like this, but as a general rule people are stupid and lack real common sense.

 

[hornadylnl]

what if that negligence results in someones death? no amount of financial restitution can replace a human life.

Tell that to the jurors who award multi million dollar law suits. Again, I'd have to see the facts of a particular case before I could determine whether prison is appropriate. Driving a beater and having a part fall off that causes a fatal accident is no less negligent than texting while driving. Do we draw the line at putting a government agent in every vehicle to monitor every driver?

 

[BearArms]

not true, that's a blanket statement. some accidents are just unavoidable, if you are purposefully not looking at the road while driving it a different story all together, at that point you have made the choice that your phone is more important then the safety of people around you.

Can you give me an example of an accident that is 100% unavoidable?

The biggest problem with making this illegal is the fact that the enforcement will be way over the top. The law won't get written correctly and a bunch of douchey LEO's will be writing tickets for people sitting at stop lights and texting. What if I can hook my phone display up to a "heads up display" (like a vette) and have a keyboard on the steering wheel like on an xbox controller?

 

[rambone]

not true, that's a blanket statement. some accidents are just unavoidable,

No, if you cause an accident, then you were negligent by definition. Ice on the road doesn't cause accidents- drivers going too fast for conditions cause accidents. You should have been going slower, had the music lower, not been distracted by your passengers, should have replaced that bulb, should have fixed that part, etc.

EVERY accident involves negligence. Do you really think that every accident should end with somebody in cuffs?

 

[rjstew317]

Can you give me an example of an accident that is 100% unavoidable?

The biggest problem with making this illegal is the fact that the enforcement will be way over the top. The law won't get written correctly and a bunch of douchey LEO's will be writing tickets for people sitting at stop lights and texting. What if I can hook my phone display up to a "heads up display" (like a vette) and have a keyboard on the steering wheel like on an xbox controller?

that's part of the the problem, people have become so complacent with driving that they think it doesnt require their full attention. there is a big difference between not seeing a car in your blind spot while switching lanes, and purposefully diverting your attention(and eyes) to something that has nothing to do with driving.

 

[rjstew317]

No, if you cause an accident then you were negligent. Ice on the road doesn't cause accidents- drivers going too fast for conditions cause accidents. If you cause an accident, then you are negligent by definition. You should have been going slower, had the music lower, not been distracted by your passengers, etc.

EVERY accident involves negligence. Do you really think that every accident should end with somebody in cuffs?

again, your foregoing common sense

 

[.40caltrucker]

No, if you cause an accident then you were negligent. Ice on the road doesn't cause accidents- drivers going too fast for conditions cause accidents. If you cause an accident, then you are negligent by definition. You should have been going slower, had the music lower, not been distracted by your passengers, etc.

That's true and 100% agreed.

EVERY accident involves negligence. Do you really think that every accident should end with somebody in cuffs?

If it involves willful negligence then yes. If someone willfully takes their eyes off the road a plows into my wife and kids that's not an accident. It's negligent homicide.