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

Why is it so hard for you to understand that the amount of time any particular activity takes your eyes off the road is a factor as well. So is the amount of concentration it takes.

Hell, taking our eyes off the road in front of us is actually part of normal driving (checking mirrors and such). But that isn't the same thing as looking away to read something.

Regarding the last sentence, that's just more of the usual. You ignore evidence or the lack of it whenever it suits you and start taking personal digs when you are losing.

 

Someone more technologically savvy can explain it to me, but why would it involve a tracking system to tell how fast you're going? Seems like the app or whatever other device could sense how fast the car was going without having to report it back to NSA headquarters.

And if you're going to take issue with the app, there's enough data embedded in every app you have that an anti-texting one would hardly be the one that allows the government into your lives. Do you ever turn location services on to get directions?

 

I don't know. I'm saying more that I don't think an app would be such a tracking system. But you really already do have "tracking systems" on your phone if that's how you define them.

And it isn't a clean analogy because none of the other listed behaviors cause the same damage that texting does.

 

Just don't see it. Don't think they're close.

 

In a history of excessively stupid posts you just topped yourself. My side wants safe roads. Your side thinks we get there by not enforcing the current laws that would make the roads safer. Instead, you want us to wait until you get some new law passed when the current law would cover it.

 

In the end, what they're saying is that inattentive driving is perfectly fine by them as long as it's not caused by texting.

 

Learn to read, Tony. Please. It really is an important skill that you lack.

Nobody said anything about not enforcing the current laws. You made that up. What I am talking about is supplementing and improving the laws against distracted driving to specifically address a behavior that studies have proven is extremely dangerous.

I asked if you have spoken to lawmakers or police officers about this subject as I have. They are the ones who explained to me why additional legislation has been passed in some cases and why it is still needed in others. I have spoken to representatives of cell phone service providers, who acknowledge the specific danger that texting while driving presents.

In other words, I am speaking with experts and relying on data. You are talking out of your ass.

 

Either you can't read or you are lying, because that is not what anybody is saying.

You are desperately reaching to try to justify your clueless, knee-jerk response to new legislation against texting while driving by bringing up other behaviors you think might be dangerous. You don't know because you have no data to back it up, but you don't mind tossing out your unsupported opinions as if they were facts.

 

What is the argument against more precise legislation?

 

Every new law is a violation of our constitutional rights.

 

I disagree. We have, for example, degrees of murder. A law specifically categorizing first-degree murder does not, by extension, make manslaughter "OK," does it?

Perhaps an even more apt analogy is drunk driving. We have a reckless driving statute. Then we have a drunk driving statute, which is a way to single out a specific form of reckless driving for extra scrutiny.