Texting and driving documentary: "From One Second to the Next"

[old_tony]

To be clear, I have no problem banning other forms of distracted driving, though the bit about dragging the car radio and AC/heat into the discussion just shows how desperate Zag/Tony/A_QB are to find an argument.


Please note that I have challenged them to provide actual data about the dangers of those things as well as eating or putting on make-up while driving, yet they have not even responded. Guess they are all taking old_tony's favorite route of simply ignoring points/questions that they have no decent answer to.

Sorry, but the conversation is about things that are a distraction while driving. If you believe that radios and other things that take eyes off the road are NOT distractions, you're going to have to show me the data that it's not dangerous to take your eyes off the road for one thing but not another.

As I thought. You don't have a reasonable argument.

This isn't about belief. We're talking about laws here, so there should be data to back it up.

The people calling for laws against texting while driving and harsher penalties where those laws already exist have data to back up their argument.

You claim other potentially distracting behaviors are just as much of an issue, yet you have no data at all to back up your claim. In other words, you are talking out the wrong end of your anatomy.

I have plenty of argument. There are a lot of things that can distract while driving. But you and the media are fixated on one. Why haven't billboards -- the sole purpose of which is to be seen and read by drivers -- been banned?

 

[LongTimeListener]

Why haven't billboards -- the sole purpose of which is to be seen and read by drivers -- been banned?

Because they don't cause accidents?

 

[old_tony]

Why haven't billboards -- the sole purpose of which is to be seen and read by drivers -- been banned?

Because they don't cause accidents?

Neither does texting.

However, irresponsible drivers do get into accidents because they stop watching the road to text. Just like irresponsible drivers get into accidents because of multitudes of other distractions that take their attention from where it should be.

And you know what? Every state in America has a law against inattentive driving. Imagine that.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Why haven't billboards -- the sole purpose of which is to be seen and read by drivers -- been banned?

Because they don't cause accidents?

Neither does texting.

However, irresponsible drivers do get into accidents because they stop watching the road to text. Just like irresponsible drivers get into accidents because of multitudes of other distractions that take their attention from where it should be.

And you know what? Every state in America has a law against inattentive driving. Imagine that.

tony, I don't know what it is about you when you get into this mood, but you're just intentionally ignoring facts. You're being willfully stupid. That's it. All there is to it.

Your refusal to believe that texting and driving causes accidents does not change the fact. It merely means you need to be dismissed from any conversation about it. This stuff about all the other ways of distraction -- they do not cause the rash of accidents that texting does, both because they are not as dangerous and because they are not as prevalent.

I don't know if you really are this dumb or you're just making the special effort on this issue, but you sound like a forking idiot.

 

[old_tony]

Why haven't billboards -- the sole purpose of which is to be seen and read by drivers -- been banned?

Because they don't cause accidents?

Neither does texting.

However, irresponsible drivers do get into accidents because they stop watching the road to text. Just like irresponsible drivers get into accidents because of multitudes of other distractions that take their attention from where it should be.

And you know what? Every state in America has a law against inattentive driving. Imagine that.

tony, I don't know what it is about you when you get into this mood, but you're just intentionally ignoring facts. You're being willfully stupid. That's it. All there is to it.

Your refusal to believe that texting and driving causes accidents does not change the fact. It merely means you need to be dismissed from any conversation about it. This stuff about all the other ways of distraction -- they do not cause the rash of accidents that texting does, both because they are not as dangerous and because they are not as prevalent.

I don't know if you really are this dumb or you're just making the special effort on this issue, but you sound like a forking idiot.

No. The difference is I'm putting the responsibility where it belongs -- on the driver.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Oh Christ, this really is a "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. Never mind. You are that dumb.

 

[old_tony]

Oh Christ, this really is a "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. Never mind. You are that dumb.

Why do you have to get personal? There are a million things that can cause accidents when they cause the driver to take attention away from driving. You want to ban one of them. Why don't you want to ban all of them? You must hate safety.

 

[LongTimeListener]

You must hate science, statistics and facts. Your analogies are just terrible and don't hold up. How many accidents would you say billboards have caused in the last, oh, 50 years?

Really, you're just willfully ignoring the basics. It's just not even in dispute.

 

[old_tony]

You must hate science, statistics and facts. Your analogies are just terrible and don't hold up. How many accidents would you say billboards have caused in the last, oh, 50 years?

Really, you're just willfully ignoring the basics. It's just not even in dispute.

No. You're ignoring the basics. Inattentive drivers cause accidents. What causes their inattention doesn't really matter. Every accident -- with the exceptions of those caused by mechanical or equipment failure -- comes down to a driver.

 

[old_tony]

Let's put it this way: In the case of drunk driving you blame the driver, not the bottle of booze. Why in the case of texting while driving do you instead blame the texting and not the driver?

 

[LongTimeListener]

You must hate science, statistics and facts. Your analogies are just terrible and don't hold up. How many accidents would you say billboards have caused in the last, oh, 50 years?

Really, you're just willfully ignoring the basics. It's just not even in dispute.

No. You're ignoring the basics. Inattentive drivers cause accidents. What causes their inattention doesn't really matter. Every accident -- with the exceptions of those caused by mechanical or equipment failure -- comes down to a driver.

Do you even know what the heck you're arguing about anymore?

You are taking a behavior that is proven to be as dangerous as drunk driving and equating it to changing the radio station or looking at a billboard.

I'm going to stop. I'm pretty confident anyone with an ounce of sense on this understands. That rules out you and zag and a couple others, but I can live with that.

 

[Starman]

But.... but .... but... Freedum and stuff.