Printable View
Do we know if this person was drunk or texting? It is apparent that this person SHOULD have NOT been behind the wheel in any capacity...Quote:
Originally Posted by oddpedestrian
Again as i just stated, This person made an adult decision and she/He will now have adult consequence....Its a fact of Life..... No I do not want to see anyone get hurt but its a fact of life..
Can't be drunk she would have been charged from the jump, so must be sleeping or texting.Quote:
Originally Posted by kimberdan
We hold them accountable before it happens (in NY let's say) via 5-points on their license, and what can amount to an exceptional sum of money in toto. Furthermore, IF they do cause an accident, then it is generally considered an aggravating factor in the legal process.Quote:
Originally Posted by kimberdan
As for the whole state trooper bit, I'm not wholly sure what the point was, so I'll just let it slide.
Are you trying to affirm my point for me, or what? As you can see from the independent study I have furnished (and there are hundreds, if not thousands)... this is not theory. This is empirically backed data. If texting and driving were made impossible, it would categorically save lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by kimberdan
Speeding is fundamentally different from Texting/Drinking&Driving for two reasons. The fact you have categorized these with speeding is the real crime here.
1)Driving in-and-of itself involves some element of speed, in it's very nature IT HAS TO. It cannot be avoided. It is a categorical imperative.
Texting/drinking need not be involved in driving in any way whatsoever.
The key here is, we place speed-limits in an arbitrary nature, to limit a categorical imperative of driving. Texting/drinking have no such basis.
2) Furthermore, in regards to speeding, (as aforementioned) it is an arbitrary restriction to a categorical imperative of driving. While many studies show "speed to be a factor" in crashes, the degree to which speed (or speeding) is involved, is arbitrary.
Take for example our good friend the autobahn, it's a sample of convenience. Statistically the unlimited portions are not categorically more dangerous than other (relatively comparable) roads. In this sense, speed(ing) does not invariably create a more dangerous road. Whereas, both texting and drinking (to my knowledge) have never been shown (in any independent study) to be as safe, or more safe. Again, this only compounds the more important issue outlined above, speed is a categorical imperative, speeding (the ing part) is merely an arbitrary delineation.
I wholly agree. I thought we were talking about texting and driving? So, tougher laws to get and maintain your license.Quote:
Originally Posted by kimberdan
Ahhh, you can predict the future, so you know precisely when to use your cellphone in every situation, knowing in advance that it will be safe to do so. Fantastic really, could you please let me know the lotto numbers for this upcoming week?Quote:
Originally Posted by kimberdan
Thanks again for affirming my point. You may be better at driving, they are likely better at texting.Quote:
Originally Posted by kimberdan
You are using it as a qualifier, you did in the last post. Perhaps more comical is that you use it AGAIN as a qualifier after directly stating you are not using it as such. This is how your argument plays out:Quote:
Originally Posted by kimberdan
"I'm not using it as a qualifier of how come I am different and should be allowed to do this. Here is why I am more qualified to do this activity... NY/Florida, 43 years old, etc, etc."
Come on now, you can't be serious.
Also, here is that personal fable coming into play again!
Actually, no. It isn't just my thought, I have empirically supported evidence for a good portion of my statements. You are the one who simply has how you feel about something.Quote:
Originally Posted by kimberdan
Though, with that stated, I wholly agree that you are absolutely allowed to have your own values, opinions, and beliefs. I would vehemently fight for you to be able to have (and express) these opinions. Alas, imposing them without empirical evidence on others (or in this case: imposing, through lack of imposing them) is problematic.
I mean the crux of your argument is a slippery slope. In your way of thinking, the government shouldn't be allowed to stop the average citizen from owning a nuclear armament. After all, they really don't hurt anyone just sitting there, HOWEVER, after the individual uses them, then is the time to act and punish him. UM WHAT? Your logic is... troublesome.
Going back to agreeing to disagree, I absolutely support this. When I say things like I will dismantle your argument, I don't mean objectively, I mean subjectively (though, in this case, it's near objectively).
Don't take it personally old chum, I rather enjoy this, it's not a personal affront in any way (ie: if you are ever back in New York, and wanted to discuss such topics over tea-and-crumpets, I'd be more than willing). Some of my best friends have ideals that are diametrically opposed to mine, and we can get into some serious discussions; yet... we are still friends come the end of the day.
Believe me. We are going to see a lot more Internet use while driving. You can't stop technology. If it is physically possible and economically affordable people are going to do it, "laws" or no "laws". Just get rid of speed limits and Internet usage will go down as people prioritize getting where they're going in as little time as possible.
Posted with SwiftKey
I can't remember what car commercial it was, but I saw one the other day where they were advertising the car having rolling wifi. That's pretty badass if you ask me.Quote:
Originally Posted by NVR2FST
@Oddpedestrian Thanks for the write up. I have promoted it to an article, but the discussion may continue here. Keep up the good work!
Chevy GM...Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty
that could have been avoided if the guys called 911 in the bigining instead of videoing her for so long. so instead of the police catching her she crashes into another car and they get involved in the crash as well. maybe this will teach them to call 911 BEFORE the driver crashes.Quote:
Originally Posted by oddpedestrian
@lugnuts
The police would have not made it in time regardless. If the cops were called every time someone is weaving in my state there be no cops but traffic cops.