I would agree that if you do actually cause an accident or are video recorded driving in an objectively illegal manner AND you are objectively under the influence of drugs or alcohol or texting you might be subject to an enhanced penalty provided you are afforded the right to a trial by a jury of your peers without prejudice.
Posted with SwiftKey
Ok, welp. Here we go. I haven't had a lively debate on the forums in a long time, I've been too busy. This should be fun, for me.Originally Posted by kimberdan
Keeping in the scope of texting and driving here:
1) WE DO hold them accountable. In this sense we hold them "more accountable" once this has been "proven". Depending on local laws, it's often a aggravating factor in a case.
2) If no one was able to text and drive or use their cellphones and drive (if it was somehow made impossible), it is a categorical fact that thousands fewer would die on the roads. Indeed, many fewer accidents would occur yearly. This would objectively save tens of thousands of lives, and likely many (hundreds of millions) of dollars through the next decade. Simpson and Wilson published a fantastic study on this in 2010. Rudimentary, but nice.
3) It's not even an embedded activity, in relation to the action of driving.
So no it's not a "thought" that it will save a life, it is empirically proven that it will save thousands, and would likely save many (hundreds of) millions financially. Accidents, repairs, ER visits, lawyers, disabilities etc.
No, it's not just like guns. It's nothing like guns. I loathe dismantling arguments like this, because they are so off base, they don't even deserve reply.
1) Guns are a very special case, people need to stop relating things to them. They are one of the few things today that are (nearly) explicitly mentioned in the Constitution (ie: they exited then and now). So the arguments for them from a legal aspect are markedly different.
2) Guns themselves can protect you, and others, in a life-threatening situation. Texting while you are driving (as shown above) does not. Indeed the antipodal is the truth (as shown above), you are more likely to die texting while driving. Texting while driving only facilitates social interaction in almost every case. Here is the kicker, in the case that you are using your phone in the case of an emergency, once you prove you are dialing 911 (or similar) you can actually become exempt from the texting and driving laws... for the very fact you would be using it to save a life rather than social interaction.
3) Guns (often) have restrictions on them as well about when, and where, they can be carried on the person. Often times schools, courtrooms, bars (or under the influence), all have laws etc.
Isn't this all the more reason to uhhh... have these laws in place.
Also, before you say "but yeah, maybe for the kids" you need to look up the concept of the "personal fable".
Wait, here it is... the personal fable. It's funny that you misspell "hardley", yet it's those damn kids who can't text and drive. Though kids may not be as capable at driving, you likely absolutely suck compared to texting relative to the majority of kids today. So, it evens out... you can drive better and have more skill there, many kids almost assuredly know their way around a cellphone better than you. SO when it comes to texting and driving, you (may) have an advantage in one area (driving), yet conveniently you neglect that many kids have the other portion far more sorted than you (texting). Comical, really.
Also, in NY the punishment for young drivers is more severe.
Also, it's funny that you use miles as a qualifier. That is the exact logic that LEO's use to be exempt from these laws "well, we are trained to use our equipment" "we use it everyday, and it's how law enforcement has done it for years".
If you would like me to dismantle any more of your arguments, please post them below. I will do so in turn.
Last edited by AirMoore; 10-23-2014 at 09:27 PM.
Should we call CJR?
AirMoore (10-23-2014)
This first line is one of the most asinine things I have ever read in my entire life. Honestly, I just cannot imagine a person typing it.
According to this line of reasoning, anyone who wishes, should be able to own nuclear weapons. Also, anyone should be able to own any chemical/biological compound ever created. Absolutely anyone.
This second line is just as comical, really. The equivocation error here is as follows: Nearly all the basis for the aforementioned: Religion. Texting & Driving: Empirical Evidence (ie: Not Religion).
That, my friends, is apples and oranges to a "T".
Last edited by AirMoore; 10-23-2014 at 09:29 PM.
I wish I could "thank" the post more, haha.
Honestly, I quite miss the debates I had with CJR. We had our differences, yet he is a good chap.
As for kimberdan and NVR2FST, I hope they don't take this as a personal affront. I'd grab coffee with you old chaps any day of the week (or hot cocoa, I don't much care for coffee). Doesn't mean I won't debate you boys though, ya wily little pup-chows!
Best part is, I agree with their general feeling (Big Brother has gone way too far, as well as some nanny laws).
Honestly, as I said in another post, I quite enjoy this small community (or used to, things have changed, which is one [of many] factor[s] why I am not on as much). So, even with all the people I have dialogued and debated quite intensely with through the years; I can't think of a single individual who, if it came right down to it, I would decline a nice lunch with. Indeed, it's often those I debated with me the most, that I respected the most.
EDIT: So as to not go too far off topic (even though this is the off topic section), I'd like to say FJR does bring up a good point. There are differences of course, but a very good devils advocate POV (that we don't often see on the forums).
Last edited by AirMoore; 10-23-2014 at 10:02 PM.
curmudgeon (10-24-2014), kimberdan (10-24-2014)
One of my favorite pics
BYE BYE LSP HELLLOOOOO ALP
REDLINE REDLINE REDLINE, CAN NEVER GO WRONG WITH A REDLINE.....BY THE WAY DID I TELL YOU I HAVE A REDLINE?
WAZE
PRECEDENT DETECTORS:
9500ix
VALENTINE 1
WHISTLER CR90
curmudgeon (10-24-2014), kimberdan (10-24-2014), PAPACUCU (10-24-2014)
Interesting what you said about how efficient kids are texting compared to adults. Reality hit me at the doctors office, I saw some kids typing about three times faster than me and I consider myself pretty fast.
BYE BYE LSP HELLLOOOOO ALP
REDLINE REDLINE REDLINE, CAN NEVER GO WRONG WITH A REDLINE.....BY THE WAY DID I TELL YOU I HAVE A REDLINE?
WAZE
PRECEDENT DETECTORS:
9500ix
VALENTINE 1
WHISTLER CR90
This is still getting investigated as possible texting and driving
curmudgeon (10-24-2014)
The video above is EXACTLY what I posted about, never knowing that it had actually already happened.
Last edited by NVR2FST; 10-24-2014 at 12:59 AM.
oddpedestrian (10-24-2014)
1) WE DO hold them accountable. In this sense we hold them "more accountable" once this has been "proven". Depending on local laws, it's often a aggravating factor in a case.
We hold them accountable IF an accident happens, How else do we hold the responsable accountable? A 35 dollar fine? Well Ill tell ya my Brother from another mother just graduated from NYSP and we talked about writing tickets for speeding and such, He was taught that HEy if i write you ticket you think twice about breaking the law again.. ? I have to argue.. Its 35 dollars how can you equate a human life in exchange for 35$?
There is no price for a life... You get another 35$ but a human life you can not replace..
2) If no one was able to text and drive or use their cellphones and drive (if it was somehow made impossible), it is a categorical fact that thousands fewer would die on the roads. Indeed, many fewer accidents would occur yearly. This would objectively save tens of thousands of lives, and likely many (hundreds of millions) of dollars through the next decade. Simpson and Wilson published a fantastic study on this in 2010. Rudimentary, but nice.
In Theory YES, bt you can say the same for someone that is speeding,drinking and driving and anything else that we can do on the road that can cause and accident.. Nanny sensors? why do we need them? If your driving a 2 to 3000 pound missile and feel the need to have an electronic alerting system to let you know someone is in the lane next to you? You should NOT be behind the wheel.
Case in point, I know that if im on the road and theres many turns coming up or im in stop and go traffic im NOT going to pick up my phone and text...
You have to make adult decision and with that comes adult consequences...
3) It's not even an embedded activity, in relation to the action of driving.
So no it's not a "thought" that it will save a life, it is empirically proven that it will save thousands, and would likely save many (hundreds of) millions financially. Accidents, repairs, ER visits, lawyers, disabilities etc.
Wait, here it is... the personal fable. It's funny that you misspell "hardley", yet it's those damn kids who can't text and drive. Though kids may not be as capable at driving, you likely absolutely suck compared to texting relative to the majority of kids today. So, it evens out... you can drive better and have more skill there, many kids almost assuredly know their way around a cellphone better than you. SO when it comes to texting and driving, you (may) have an advantage in one area (driving), yet conveniently you neglect that many kids have the other portion far more sorted than you (texting). Comical, really.
Yes im sure that kids know there way around a cell phone and text faster then me, But thats only because I have a life that does NOT require me to let everyone know about every little thing that is going on in my life....
Im not interested in telling everyone that i have as friend that im eating lunch and then im going to go to the Bathroom and many other personal things..
Hardley is a type
Also, in NY the punishment for young drivers is more severe.
Also, it's funny that you use miles as a qualifier. That is the exact logic that LEO's use to be exempt from these laws "well, we are trained to use our equipment" "we use it everyday, and it's how law enforcement has done it for years".
Im not using that as a qualifier, Im just saying that i think that me at 43 years of age that travel from FL to NY 5 to 8 times a year is going to be more inept to things that are around me and what is going on while im on the road, A young person that has been driving for 2 to 3 years to go from home to school and then around town does NOT have the experience of travel as i do. Im not saying i am better then anyone by NO means, But i think i have a bit more experience when it comes to travel
If you would like me to dismantle any more of your arguments, please post them below. I will do so in turn.[/QUOTE]
Your argument will NOT dismantle any thing that i believe in... Its just your thought on this.... In America we are still allowed to have our own opinion.. We can agree to disagree....
Last edited by kimberdan; 10-24-2014 at 08:16 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us