It ought to be illegaler
Texting and driving should be a felony, says some half-witted simpleton. Better idea, crashing into people is illegal.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
June 25th, 2015 at 7:19 pm
Sadly, the “half witted simpleton” is the Knox County D.A. who apparently doesn’t have nearly enough for her felony division attorneys to do.
June 26th, 2015 at 3:02 pm
Will it be a felony when cops do it?
Or otherwise muck around with their in-car electronics?
No?
Of course not.
June 26th, 2015 at 5:18 pm
CB radios?
Music systems?
Food?
Conversation?
Day dreaming?
Sex?
Cell phones?
They all have one thing in common; being distracted by any of them (or by anything else) can result in “inattentive driving”, which is and for a long time has been a violation.
The only reason to stack charges upon charges like that, Progressive style, is to attack our capitalist, technological civilization (what remains of it anyway). It is a standard feature of all Progressive thought and action, just like having a fever is a standard feature of many microbial infections and shivering is a standard feature of the early onset of hypothermia.
June 26th, 2015 at 7:06 pm
It would appear that the interaction of two-way comms has a detrimental effect on ones ability to control any sort of vehicle, along with a huge loss of situational awareness.
This first became noticeable in WW2 pilots, especially fighter pilots. It takes quite a bit of mental bandwidth to hold a two way conversation (interactive), while also controlling any sort of moving equipment. Add in a rapidly changing environment, and the ability to do things correctly goes out the window.
Pilots have to really work at learning to deal with radio comms while controlling an aircraft. Vehicle drivers get no such training time, and most don’t have the mental acuity that high level pilots have, to start with.
I spent about five years patrolling CA freeways, specifically watching traffic and drivers. My conclusion was that, for the most part, drivers have almost no ability to drive and talk at the same time. Doing it in text just adds an additional level of difficulty to the process.
Lots of people are injured or killed by drivers using phones. This should not be occurring.
June 26th, 2015 at 7:45 pm
“Lots of people are injured or killed by drivers using phones.”
And a lot are killed or injured for a lot of other reasons, and always have been, since the invention of the automobile. The trend however is that a lot fewer are being injured or killed today than there were before the cell phone.
Once again and with feeling; inattentive driving is inattentive driving no matter what the cause of the distraction, AND we already have laws against inattentive driving. M’Kay?
The idiotic (insane, really) situation we are building for ourselves is that;
Officer Friendly sees someone weaving on the road, obviously impaired, pulls over said impaired driver. Finds out it’s only some old lady who’s a poor driver. Lets her go without a citation because she doesn’t have a cell phone.
See the problem, Skippy? I was a witness to just such an incident. Said old lady was then free to go on and endanger people with impunity. Substitute said old lady with any other non cell phone distraction and you have the same problem, and THAT is why it is utterly stupid to single out cell phones.
You see, in the broader context, this is supposedly why we have such a thing as a “driver’s license”. Its original intent (or at least its excuse) was that it would allow the state to make sure a person could drive safely before being allowed to do so.
Well that’s gone all to hell hasn’t it. It’s become nothing more than an ID card (“Papers please!”), and so now what; you want to ban inanimate objects that might be a distraction to the driver. Let’s see now; how many different inanimate objects might there be, which can, a) fit into a motor vehicle cabin and, b) possibly distract the driver? Now we need an ever-growing official list, and gaggle of government-paid retards to keep the lists. See where the silly-ass Progressives are taking us?
One more time now; What part about general “inattentive driving” does not make sense to you as grounds for a pull-over, a good talking to and a ticket? Does the cell phone really mean anything, OR is it the inattentive driving that’s actually, you know, the problem? You’re saying that the same level of intentiveness is OK, so long as it’s not because of texting. Right?
This is just like the “weapon enhancements” in criminal sentencing’
“Killing someone is one thing, sure, but do it with a gun and we’ll be REALLY pissed!” Meaning that if you do it with a knife or a club it’s not so bad. Meaning that we now have a de facto “preferred murder weapons” statute.
Seriously, are we all really just plain fucking stupid? If so I guess we deserve what’s coming.
June 26th, 2015 at 10:58 pm
Errrmmmm, Mexico makes being at fault in an accident a crime. This has worked poorly.
In Mexico, the insurance companies recommend you exchange insurance cards, and flee immediately from the scene of an accident without saying anything to anyone.
They will then settle it quietly.
June 28th, 2015 at 2:43 pm
“The trend however is that a lot fewer are being injured or killed today than there were before the cell phone.”
Lyle, care to clarify this statement?
If you are looking at the start of cell phones timeline, that would be bogus. You would have to be counting from when phones all became small, handheld units, and therefore common and cheap enough for everyday use by the average person.
Or, are you saying that cars are safer to crash today, so it’s ok to kill some additional number of people, as long as it doesn’t exceed the improvement in crash safety?
Look, my point is that the typical person has little appreciation of just how bad they drive when they are using a phone IN ANY MANNER. Add in that it is a documented psychological mode that when people perceive that they are “safer” due to safety equipment, they will push the boundaries of their actions until they reach their mentally perceived same level of hazard.
Most drivers are borderline incompetent. As in most activities, they learn to do it to a minimum standard, and then stop learning/improving. Any change in their driving environment leaves them flustered and not in control. They don’t see anything going on around them.
They are as bad, if not worse, when talking on a phone, as a drunk driver. It’s not apparent from observation if a bad driver is drunk or phoning. At least their eyes are nominally on the road, or at least pointing that direction. Texters are looking down at their lap, mostly, so I’m thinking they are just as disconnected mentally as a person talking. Texting didn’t seem to be a common thing 10-15 years ago, so I don’t have much personal observational experience on it.
CB radios?
Conversation?
Cell phones?
Same category of distraction, pretty much.
I should mention, I don’t think making it a specific crime is the right thing to do. Won’t have a positive effect on the problem. As Kristophr mentions, it will just cause more problems, not solve any.
For that matter, I don’t think that having a specific BAC number for a DWI/DUI is a good thing. It should be the way you mention, are they in control of their vehicle, or not?