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

[SpeedTchr]

Every state should have distracted driving statutes. Enforce those laws. Whether it's a lady putting on eyeliner at 70 mph, a person with a dog/cat roaming free in the car, a dude eating a two-handed burger, a lawyer reading his briefs, or a baller picking a song from his massive iPod collection, treat those fools just like the texter/phone user -- ticket them or arrest them if the offense is egregious.

Is this on a Tea Party bulletin board or something?

You just can't avoid spewing irrelevant bullshirt.

Distracted driving is a problem, there is absolutely no doubt about that. Enforce the laws that are on the books, and quit winking and nodding at the actions that stupid forks like you think aren't common or dangerous. That means texting AND a litany of other dumbshirt actions that endanger others.

Then again, you probably have a chihuahua jumping around in your car to keep you company... certainly don't want to infringe on that.

 

[outofplace]

Every state should have distracted driving statutes. Enforce those laws. Whether it's a lady putting on eyeliner at 70 mph, a person with a dog/cat roaming free in the car, a dude eating a two-handed burger, a lawyer reading his briefs, or a baller picking a song from his massive iPod collection, treat those fools just like the texter/phone user -- ticket them or arrest them if the offense is egregious.

Is this on a Tea Party bulletin board or something?

You just can't avoid spewing irrelevant bullshirt.

Distracted driving is a problem, there is absolutely no doubt about that. Enforce the laws that are on the books, and quit winking and nodding at the actions that stupid forks like you think aren't common or dangerous. That means texting AND a litany of other dumbshirt actions that endanger others.

Then again, you probably have a chihuahua jumping around in your car to keep you company... certainly don't want to infringe on that.

What behaviors do you have an issue with and where is your data to prove the risk they pose?

See, that's the thing. The data regarding texting and driving is there. Where is the data regarding the dangers of changing the station on the radio? Or adjusting the air conditioning? Or eating while driving? Or any of the other shirt people like you, Zag, tony and A_QB keep whining about in a desperate attempt to justify defending the right to text while driving despite the proven danger it prevents.

 

[old_tony]

Every state should have distracted driving statutes. Enforce those laws. Whether it's a lady putting on eyeliner at 70 mph, a person with a dog/cat roaming free in the car, a dude eating a two-handed burger, a lawyer reading his briefs, or a baller picking a song from his massive iPod collection, treat those fools just like the texter/phone user -- ticket them or arrest them if the offense is egregious.

Is this on a Tea Party bulletin board or something?

You just can't avoid spewing irrelevant bullshirt.

Distracted driving is a problem, there is absolutely no doubt about that. Enforce the laws that are on the books, and quit winking and nodding at the actions that stupid forks like you think aren't common or dangerous. That means texting AND a litany of other dumbshirt actions that endanger others.

Then again, you probably have a chihuahua jumping around in your car to keep you company... certainly don't want to infringe on that.

What behaviors do you have an issue with and where is your data to prove the risk they pose?

See, that's the thing. The data regarding texting and driving is there. Where is the data regarding the dangers of changing the station on the radio? Or adjusting the air conditioning? Or eating while driving? Or any of the other shirt people like you, Zag, tony and A_QB keep whining about in a desperate attempt to justify defending the right to text while driving despite the proven danger it prevents.

This is hilarious. You so badly want to make an issue out of texting and driving that you think ignoring other distractions while driving helps your argument. Just too funny. I guess there was never an accident due to inattentive driving until the last decade or so. Nope. Never.

 

[outofplace]

Every state should have distracted driving statutes. Enforce those laws. Whether it's a lady putting on eyeliner at 70 mph, a person with a dog/cat roaming free in the car, a dude eating a two-handed burger, a lawyer reading his briefs, or a baller picking a song from his massive iPod collection, treat those fools just like the texter/phone user -- ticket them or arrest them if the offense is egregious.

Is this on a Tea Party bulletin board or something?

You just can't avoid spewing irrelevant bullshirt.

Distracted driving is a problem, there is absolutely no doubt about that. Enforce the laws that are on the books, and quit winking and nodding at the actions that stupid forks like you think aren't common or dangerous. That means texting AND a litany of other dumbshirt actions that endanger others.

Then again, you probably have a chihuahua jumping around in your car to keep you company... certainly don't want to infringe on that.

What behaviors do you have an issue with and where is your data to prove the risk they pose?

See, that's the thing. The data regarding texting and driving is there. Where is the data regarding the dangers of changing the station on the radio? Or adjusting the air conditioning? Or eating while driving? Or any of the other shirt people like you, Zag, tony and A_QB keep whining about in a desperate attempt to justify defending the right to text while driving despite the proven danger it prevents.

This is hilarious. You so badly want to make an issue out of texting and driving that you think ignoring other distractions while driving helps your argument. Just too funny. I guess there was never an accident due to inattentive driving until the last decade or so. Nope. Never.

I'm not the one making an issue out of texting and driving. States are passing laws. Even cell phone service providers are initiating campaigns to warn people of the danger involved. Why? Because the data is there to prove it.

You are the one making the idiotic comparison between the act of texting and driving and having a car radio or heat/AC. Mind you, you weren't even just saying that people shouldn't change the station or turn up the heat while the car is moving. You said just having those things in the car is dangerous. I asked you to provide a link to data backing up your claim and you can't do it.

LTL nailed it. Perhaps it is willful ignorance or perhaps you are really just that stupid, but you aren't even trying to make sense on this topic. You know we're right about the dangers of texting and driving, but you are allowing your distaste for government regulation get in the way of reasonable judgement that can save lives. You would rather more people get maimed or killed in car accidents than less.

 

[old_tony]

Every state should have distracted driving statutes. Enforce those laws. Whether it's a lady putting on eyeliner at 70 mph, a person with a dog/cat roaming free in the car, a dude eating a two-handed burger, a lawyer reading his briefs, or a baller picking a song from his massive iPod collection, treat those fools just like the texter/phone user -- ticket them or arrest them if the offense is egregious.

Is this on a Tea Party bulletin board or something?

You just can't avoid spewing irrelevant bullshirt.

Distracted driving is a problem, there is absolutely no doubt about that. Enforce the laws that are on the books, and quit winking and nodding at the actions that stupid forks like you think aren't common or dangerous. That means texting AND a litany of other dumbshirt actions that endanger others.

Then again, you probably have a chihuahua jumping around in your car to keep you company... certainly don't want to infringe on that.

What behaviors do you have an issue with and where is your data to prove the risk they pose?

See, that's the thing. The data regarding texting and driving is there. Where is the data regarding the dangers of changing the station on the radio? Or adjusting the air conditioning? Or eating while driving? Or any of the other shirt people like you, Zag, tony and A_QB keep whining about in a desperate attempt to justify defending the right to text while driving despite the proven danger it prevents.

This is hilarious. You so badly want to make an issue out of texting and driving that you think ignoring other distractions while driving helps your argument. Just too funny. I guess there was never an accident due to inattentive driving until the last decade or so. Nope. Never.

I'm not the one making an issue out of texting and driving. States are passing laws. Even cell phone service providers are initiating campaigns to warn people of the danger involved. Why? Because the data is there to prove it.

You are the one making the idiotic comparison between the act of texting and driving and having a car radio or heat/AC. Mind you, you weren't even just saying that people shouldn't change the station or turn up the heat while the car is moving. You said just having those things in the car is dangerous. I asked you to provide a link to data backing up your claim and you can't do it.

LTL nailed it. Perhaps it is willful ignorance or perhaps you are really just that stupid, but you aren't even trying to make sense on this topic. You know we're right about the dangers of texting and driving, but you are allowing your distaste for government regulation get in the way of reasonable judgement that can save lives. You would rather more people get maimed or killed in car accidents than less.

No. The problem is your side doesn't enforce the laws against inattentive driving so you then decide you need more laws. You can save all kinds of lives if you just ban cars.

 

[outofplace]

Every state should have distracted driving statutes. Enforce those laws. Whether it's a lady putting on eyeliner at 70 mph, a person with a dog/cat roaming free in the car, a dude eating a two-handed burger, a lawyer reading his briefs, or a baller picking a song from his massive iPod collection, treat those fools just like the texter/phone user -- ticket them or arrest them if the offense is egregious.

Is this on a Tea Party bulletin board or something?

You just can't avoid spewing irrelevant bullshirt.

Distracted driving is a problem, there is absolutely no doubt about that. Enforce the laws that are on the books, and quit winking and nodding at the actions that stupid forks like you think aren't common or dangerous. That means texting AND a litany of other dumbshirt actions that endanger others.

Then again, you probably have a chihuahua jumping around in your car to keep you company... certainly don't want to infringe on that.

What behaviors do you have an issue with and where is your data to prove the risk they pose?

See, that's the thing. The data regarding texting and driving is there. Where is the data regarding the dangers of changing the station on the radio? Or adjusting the air conditioning? Or eating while driving? Or any of the other shirt people like you, Zag, tony and A_QB keep whining about in a desperate attempt to justify defending the right to text while driving despite the proven danger it prevents.

This is hilarious. You so badly want to make an issue out of texting and driving that you think ignoring other distractions while driving helps your argument. Just too funny. I guess there was never an accident due to inattentive driving until the last decade or so. Nope. Never.

I'm not the one making an issue out of texting and driving. States are passing laws. Even cell phone service providers are initiating campaigns to warn people of the danger involved. Why? Because the data is there to prove it.

You are the one making the idiotic comparison between the act of texting and driving and having a car radio or heat/AC. Mind you, you weren't even just saying that people shouldn't change the station or turn up the heat while the car is moving. You said just having those things in the car is dangerous. I asked you to provide a link to data backing up your claim and you can't do it.

LTL nailed it. Perhaps it is willful ignorance or perhaps you are really just that stupid, but you aren't even trying to make sense on this topic. You know we're right about the dangers of texting and driving, but you are allowing your distaste for government regulation get in the way of reasonable judgement that can save lives. You would rather more people get maimed or killed in car accidents than less.

No. The problem is your side doesn't enforce the laws against inattentive driving so you then decide you need more laws. You can save all kinds of lives if you just ban cars.

More willful idiocy on your part. Cars are necessary. Texting while driving is not.

Have you ever spoken to anybody in law enforcement about this? I have. And the response is always the same. Tougher laws against texting and driving help them do their jobs and make the roads safer. Over the last year or two, New York State made texting while driving a primary offense, meaning police can pull over a driver they observe doing it. The penalties for texting while driving have also been made tougher.

The reasons for targeting this specific behavior have already been pointed out to you. The data proving how dangerous it is has been collected and made public. Even cell phone service providers are calling for people to stop texting while driving because they know how bad they will look if they don't. They have the sense to listen to what the data is telling us, something you appear to lack.

It really comes down to one thing. "My side" is in favor of preventing motor vehicle accidents. My side is in favor of keeping people safer while they are on the road. My side is in favor of helping law enforcement do its job to enforce laws against distracted driving by improving them and making the penalties tougher.

Your side is advocating an approach that will lead to more people dying in car accidents.

 

[SpeedTchr]

Obviously you have problems with reading comprehension. Nowhere have I argued against laws regarding distracted driving. Period. Enforce the laws on the books, along with more strictly enforcing the speed limits, and driving would certainly be a safer activity all around.

 

[Starman]

Every state should have distracted driving statutes. Enforce those laws. Whether it's a lady putting on eyeliner at 70 mph, a person with a dog/cat roaming free in the car, a dude eating a two-handed burger, a lawyer reading his briefs, or a baller picking a song from his massive iPod collection, treat those fools just like the texter/phone user -- ticket them or arrest them if the offense is egregious.

Is this on a Tea Party bulletin board or something?

You just can't avoid spewing irrelevant bullshirt.

Distracted driving is a problem, there is absolutely no doubt about that. Enforce the laws that are on the books, and quit winking and nodding at the actions that stupid forks like you think aren't common or dangerous. That means texting AND a litany of other dumbshirt actions that endanger others.

Then again, you probably have a chihuahua jumping around in your car to keep you company... certainly don't want to infringe on that.

What behaviors do you have an issue with and where is your data to prove the risk they pose?

See, that's the thing. The data regarding texting and driving is there. Where is the data regarding the dangers of changing the station on the radio? Or adjusting the air conditioning? Or eating while driving? Or any of the other shirt people like you, Zag, tony and A_QB keep whining about in a desperate attempt to justify defending the right to text while driving despite the proven danger it prevents.

This is hilarious. You so badly want to make an issue out of texting and driving that you think ignoring other distractions while driving helps your argument. Just too funny. I guess there was never an accident due to inattentive driving until the last decade or so. Nope. Never.

I'm not the one making an issue out of texting and driving. States are passing laws. Even cell phone service providers are initiating campaigns to warn people of the danger involved. Why? Because the data is there to prove it.

You are the one making the idiotic comparison between the act of texting and driving and having a car radio or heat/AC. Mind you, you weren't even just saying that people shouldn't change the station or turn up the heat while the car is moving. You said just having those things in the car is dangerous. I asked you to provide a link to data backing up your claim and you can't do it.

LTL nailed it. Perhaps it is willful ignorance or perhaps you are really just that stupid, but you aren't even trying to make sense on this topic. You know we're right about the dangers of texting and driving, but you are allowing your distaste for government regulation get in the way of reasonable judgement that can save lives. You would rather more people get maimed or killed in car accidents than less.

No. The problem is your side doesn't enforce the laws against inattentive driving so you then decide you need more laws. You can save all kinds of lives if you just ban cars.

I can't wait to hear what would be the Libbrurrtarian response if the cops begin enthusiastically enforcing the laws against inattentive driving.

 

[outofplace]

Obviously you have problems with reading comprehension. Nowhere have I argued against laws regarding distracted driving. Period. Enforce the laws on the books, along with more strictly enforcing the speed limits, and driving would certainly be a safer activity all around.

I am reading your posts just fine. Well enough, in fact, to notice that you really are arguing against laws against distracted driving. I have spoken with lawmakers, police officers and representatives of cell phone service providers among others about this topic. They all speak to the need for specific measures to deal with texting while driving, which you are opposing when you insist on only enforcing the current laws.

Laws making texting while driving a primary offense help police officers stop distracted drivers. So do harsher penalties directed at those caught doing it. Opposing such laws is arguing against stopping distracted driving. Arguing against such laws is advocating more dangerous roads, more accidents and more people being crippled and killed because some idiot can't wait to get to his or her destination to read a text message.

 

[old_tony]

In the end it's actually about an easy-to-understand principle, so I guess I'm not shocked that the people who wouldn't know a principle if it clocked them upside the head 100 times don't understand.

 

[outofplace]

In the end it's actually about an easy-to-understand principle, so I guess I'm not shocked that the people who wouldn't know a principle if it clocked them upside the head 100 times don't understand.

This from the guy who was whining about others making it personal earlier in the thread, but you never worry about being a hypocrite, do you?

It IS about something simple. My side wants safer roads with fewer accidents, thus fewer people being maimed or killed. Your side opposes making the roads safer. Your side wants more accidents and more death because of them.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I was driving just now in a 45-mph zone, morning rush time. I'm behind a car going about 30, holding everything up. I finally zip around her and glance over. She's staring at her lap, happily texting away.

I get that Tony and others reflexively want to reject new laws. But this is a new phenomenon that requires a new solution. Horses and buggies probably didn't have speed limits. Model Ts did. New problem. New solution. Easy.