Texting and Driving

[Less Than Liz]

Magus200

What does it hinge on then? The fact that it can't be enforce has no merit on the law itself? You can enforce things like murder but can you enforce things like a**l sex in a bedroom?

You have this knack for comparing apples and oranges. Why don't you read my previous posts on the legitimacy of laws and various reasons for enacting them before running in here to be the Righteous Defender of All That is Retarded By Begging the Question.

[Magus200]

N3bu

Also I have to ask. 5 whole seconds to look at your spedometre? What is it written in Chinese or something?

Just an example. When you text most people don't just look at their phones for a full 5 seconds, is a combination of looking up at the road and the phone at the same time.

[razorsarz]

Make him have to deal with it. He killed someone that's his fault. If you do something stupid you have to deal with it.

[Omnileech]

Magus200

Omnileech

Magus200

Less Than Liz

Magus200

It's retarded to have a law which is even failing to punish those that commit the crime. Just punishing 1 individual out of 10000 that commit a murder is retarded, the methods clearly aren't working. If we are going to make bullshit comparisons like people here are making.

I can safely say that even if police were terribad at capturing murderers to the point where they only ever prosecuted 1 out of 10000, I'd still want murder to be illegal. Murder laws are not more legitimate today than they were 200 years ago because of developments like forensics. I think it's more than fair for we, as a society to say, "This is wrong and we condemn it."

Except not everyone is committing murder and is not as rampant as texting/driving. A huge chunk of the population text and drives, the law ain't going to stop that and is just giving cops another reason to stop you for no reason other then they "suspected" you of texting. Cool like if I din't have to deal with enough bullshit from cops in miami as it is.

A large segment of the population drinks alcohol and drives, litters, jaywalks, drives over the speed limit, changes lanes without signaling, rolls through red lights etc.

Just because a law can be difficult to enforce at times doesn't mean the law doesn't have merit.

Except you can enforce something that is visible or you can test like using an inhaler to determine the levels of alcohol consumption. You can't test for text other then standing next to the individuals car at an angle where the lap is visible.

I saw someone today texting while slowly coasting through an intersection from the sidewalk across from them. They almost hit a cyclist too, because they weren't paying attention at all even though they were going through an intersection and did not have the right of way.

[Magus200]

Omnileech

Magus200

Omnileech

Magus200

Less Than Liz

Magus200

It's retarded to have a law which is even failing to punish those that commit the crime. Just punishing 1 individual out of 10000 that commit a murder is retarded, the methods clearly aren't working. If we are going to make bullshit comparisons like people here are making.

I can safely say that even if police were terribad at capturing murderers to the point where they only ever prosecuted 1 out of 10000, I'd still want murder to be illegal. Murder laws are not more legitimate today than they were 200 years ago because of developments like forensics. I think it's more than fair for we, as a society to say, "This is wrong and we condemn it."

Except not everyone is committing murder and is not as rampant as texting/driving. A huge chunk of the population text and drives, the law ain't going to stop that and is just giving cops another reason to stop you for no reason other then they "suspected" you of texting. Cool like if I din't have to deal with enough bullshit from cops in miami as it is.

A large segment of the population drinks alcohol and drives, litters, jaywalks, drives over the speed limit, changes lanes without signaling, rolls through red lights etc.

Just because a law can be difficult to enforce at times doesn't mean the law doesn't have merit.

Except you can enforce something that is visible or you can test like using an inhaler to determine the levels of alcohol consumption. You can't test for text other then standing next to the individuals car at an angle where the lap is visible.

I saw someone today texting while slowly coasting through an intersection from the sidewalk across from them. They almost hit a cyclist too, because they weren't paying attention at all even though they were going through an intersection and did not have the right of way.

But it bares the question if the same thing could of happened by lighting a cigarette, smoking one or looking for a cd to change the radio station. The technology at the moment doesn't allow for the government to control whether u can text inside of a car or not. However I can understand how such legislation can be used to prosecute someone who has actually killed or caused bodily injury to another individual due to texting. Though that would entail that the government has the authority to use your cellphone and its contents as evidence and it also begs the question whether such an act can be consider negligence should we include all other distractions such as the ones mentioned in the link u posted previously under that category.

[Wendigo]

Magus200

Though that would entail that the government has the authority to use your cellphone and its contents as evidence

It does. When you cause an accident, the government has the authority to use everything in your car as evidence to determine the facts surrounding that accident.

See, your protection from "unreasonable" searches and seizures is overridden by a reasonable need to search and/or seize.

[Origin of Wealth]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Magus200

The Infamous Unami

Coming from someone who occasionally texts while driving, I am in favor of the ban(s).

Think of it this way: It's illegal to brandish a loaded firearm in public. If that firearm discharges accidentally, then the person waving it around is criminally liable. I consider driving without the use of your eyes and hands to be equally irresponsible and an automobile is much more dangerous than a handgun when misused.

A firearm is a tool whose only purpose is to kill.

Really? Then I've wasted a s**t ton of ammo terrorizing paper and cans.

Clearly those paper targets and cans are living life forms.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Origin of Wealth

Old Blue Collar Joe

Magus200

The Infamous Unami

Coming from someone who occasionally texts while driving, I am in favor of the ban(s).

Think of it this way: It's illegal to brandish a loaded firearm in public. If that firearm discharges accidentally, then the person waving it around is criminally liable. I consider driving without the use of your eyes and hands to be equally irresponsible and an automobile is much more dangerous than a handgun when misused.

A firearm is a tool whose only purpose is to kill.

Really? Then I've wasted a s**t ton of ammo terrorizing paper and cans.

Clearly those paper targets and cans are living life forms.

Only to the short bus passengers.

[FLynnTagart]

It pisses me off... behind some jerk off who is alllllllll over the road, going about 8 under the speed limit, not using a turn signal, and then gets mad at me for flashing my lights at them. When I pass i see the little dumb sh*t on his phone texting. Stop it. You drive like a moron if you do text and drive, you may think you drive well but you dont, I hear that sh*t from alcoholics.


Besides... driving is a priviledge, not a right. If you get caught you should automatically be barred from driving ever again.