Survey: Distracted Driving

[Republic]

Originally Posted by Vyper Just because all distractions can't be enforced or avoided, doesn't mean we should allow them all.

Explain.

Originally Posted by Vyper Really? I don't even notice when I adjust the volume on the radio, hitting those little buttons on the phone on the other hand...

The point isn't about your ability to work your radio. It's more about some other guy's inability. All it takes is a split second to lose control of an automobile. If we're going to let this go because it's only a distraction to "some", how is it that we aren't applying the same standard to texting? I mean, some people might be really adept at it. Ya know?

Originally Posted by Vyper Really? Not being able to text while driving is taking away your liberty?

Yes. Check the very definitions you linked. Read the first line. Removing freedom is removing liberty.

Originally Posted by Vyper I also can't walk into a bank wearing a ski-mask and packing a hunting rifle to deposit my paycheck. Help, help I'm being oppressed! (Note: no one will ever die from my performing these actions, well, except maybe me when the bank guard shoots me)

Are you really comparing criminal activity to texting? If it's legal to carry firearms into a bank where you live, that's a personal liberty you have that should be defended as any other rights you may have anywhere else. I'm guessing it's not though. Oppression really has nothing to do with giving up personal liberty. People voluntarily give it up all the time, sometimes not even knowing it.

[Vyper]

Originally Posted by Republic By whose determination is the element of infringement decided? And, are you willing to apply the same criteria to every aspect of life? At what point does the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" begin? Where does it end?

Same as with all of your other traffic laws. The Officer in question writes the ticket, and if the offender chooses to fight it, the Judge (or Jury depending on the type of offense) makes the final ruling.

And yes, if any aspect of my life it going to get someone else killed sure, I'll apply it.

As for where your rights begin and end, they begin... well at the beginning, and end when they start to infringe on others rights.

Originally Posted by Republic The point isn't about your ability to work your radio. It's more about some other guy's inability. All it takes is a split second to lose control of an automobile. If we're going to let this go because it's only a distraction to "some", how is it that we aren't applying the same standard to texting? I mean, some people might be really adept at it. Ya know?

No, not that adept. At least not the average population. Some stunt drivers may be talented enough to drive their car with a brick on the throttle and themselves sitting on the hood. That doesn't mean we should let them do it during rush hour.

Originally Posted by Republic Yes. Check the very definitions you linked. Read the first line. Removing freedom is removing liberty.

The definition you reference (with my original comment):

1 : the quality or state of being free (vague to the point of useless... what is free?)

Your definition of freedom seems to imply that any law takes away my liberty. Thus the law against me coming to your house at night and stealing your television impinges on my liberty. Darn fascist!

Originally Posted by Republic Are you really comparing criminal activity to texting? If it's legal to carry firearms into a bank where you live, that's a personal liberty you have that should be defended as any other rights you may have anywhere else. I'm guessing it's not though. Oppression really has nothing to do with giving up personal liberty. People voluntarily give it up all the time, sometimes not even knowing it.

What makes it a criminal activity? The fact that there is a law against it. There is a law against my packing the gun into the bank (and even wearing the ski-mask into the bank), even if I'm just there to deposit my paycheck. If we outlaw texting while driving, it too becomes criminal activity, and distracted driving, unlike my masked attempts at personal finance, kills people. So why are you defending peoples right to risk others lives while driving, but not up in arms about the loss of my ability to manage my finances while hiding my horrible nose job?

[Akryn]

I wonder what people in this thread think about this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8339680.stm

[Yhor]

For entertainment..

http://www.dumblaws.com/

[Republic]

Originally Posted by Vyper Same as with all of your other traffic laws. The Officer in question writes the ticket, and if the offender chooses to fight it, the Judge (or Jury depending on the type of offense) makes the final ruling. And yes, if any aspect of my life it going to get someone else killed sure, I'll apply it. As for where your rights begin and end, they begin... well at the beginning, and end when they start to infringe on others rights. No, not that adept. At least not the average population. Some stunt drivers may be talented enough to drive their car with a brick on the throttle and themselves sitting on the hood. That doesn't mean we should let them do it during rush hour. The definition you reference (with my original comment): 1 : the quality or state of being free (vague to the point of useless... what is free?) Your definition of freedom seems to imply that any law takes away my liberty. Thus the law against me coming to your house at night and stealing your television impinges on my liberty. Darn fascist! What makes it a criminal activity? The fact that there is a law against it. There is a law against my packing the gun into the bank (and even wearing the ski-mask into the bank), even if I'm just there to deposit my paycheck. If we outlaw texting while driving, it too becomes criminal activity, and distracted driving, unlike my masked attempts at personal finance, kills people. So why are you defending peoples right to risk others lives while driving, but not up in arms about the loss of my ability to manage my finances while hiding my horrible nose job?

You're seriously missing my point. I'm not speaking to enforcement of the inane laws we need to draft in order to cover everything drivers might do as a distraction. I'm speaking to authoring of said laws. By whose authority is it determined that texting is worse than knob adjusting? etc? etc?

Where did I defend anyone's right to risk the lives of others? Distracted driving also doesn't kill people. Where do the distractions begin (as per your impression)? Where do they end? Which distractions are "worse" than others? Who decides that? How is it decided? Many examples of distractions have been described in this thread. Are they all as dangerous? These are the determinations I'm interested in hearing more about.

I'm assuming you're pro-life as well? I mean, it's pretty clear that abortion impedes someone's "right to life". It logically seems to me that anyone in favor of additional driving restrictions who also use the "right to life" position should also be against abortion, smoking, drinking, drug use, etc. Am I right? These things kill more people than text messaging ever will. Where's the outrage in these cases?

Laws such as the ones relevant to this thread are just like all the others. They cause a major nuisance to the good among us who try to live as best as we can because the idiots need to be told every breath to take. Those of us who have common sense are never put into compromising positions in the first place. I guess my overall question is how stupid do you think people are and how far are you willing to go to tell people how to live?

[Republic]

Originally Posted by Vyper Your definition of freedom seems to imply that any law takes away my liberty. Thus the law against me coming to your house at night and stealing your television impinges on my liberty. Darn fascist!

That's largely correct in my view except of course for the ones designed to protect liberty. As far as stealing my television, my handgun will immediately remove all your liberty while protecting my own. Liberty lost is liberty protected in such case. Committing a crime forfeits your right to liberty.

Look, I'll save you some time here. I'm basically in agreement that there may be a need to adapt laws around current technology, ways of life, etc. I've never really been against necessary legal protections that preserve life, etc. What I do object to is the thinking that throwing a bunch of laws at a problem fixes it. That clearly isn't the case. People are still idiots. Some need Mother Government to hold their hand. I don't deny that. What I get sick of is having to pay for other people's stupidity all the time.

My objection(s) in this thread are more towards the process of determining what deserves new laws than the new laws themselves. The immediate response of "we need the government to outlaw this" is a dangerous one in my view. We aren't Europe. This isn't how our system works. The "change we can believe in" mentality has it wrong.

[Vyper]

Originally Posted by Republic You're seriously missing my point. I'm not speaking to enforcement of the inane laws we need to draft in order to cover everything drivers might do as a distraction. I'm speaking to authoring of said laws. By whose authority is it determined that texting is worse than knob adjusting? etc? etc?

Maybe I'm still missing what your asking. As with all laws, it's up to the legislative branch to examine what evidence is available, weight it with the opinions of the people, and do their best to make an informed decision. There is plenty of evidence that talking on a cell phone while driving is dangerous (see the study I linked earlier as an example). I have yet to see any on knob adjusting, or pretty girls on the side of the road.

Originally Posted by Republic Where did I defend anyone's right to risk the lives of others? Distracted driving also doesn't kill people. Where do the distractions begin (as per your impression)? Where do they end? Which distractions are "worse" than others? Who decides that? How is it decided? Many examples of distractions have been described in this thread. Are they all as dangerous? These are the determinations I'm interested in hearing more about.

Distracted driving doesn't kill? Then you suggest that the various folks blasting through stoplights while talking on their cell, watching a movie, etc, etc, would virtually all have failed to see the stoplight even if they weren't performing these activities. As to the rest of your questions, see my above answer.

Originally Posted by Republic I'm assuming you're pro-life as well? I mean, it's pretty clear that abortion impedes someone's "right to life".

I see it with no such clarity, but I won't sidetrack the discussion.

Originally Posted by Republic It logically seems to me that anyone in favor of additional driving restrictions who also use the "right to life" position should also be against abortion, smoking, drinking, drug use, etc. Am I right? These things kill more people than text messaging ever will. Where's the outrage in these cases?

Funny, there are laws designed to protect people (especially children) from the dangers of second hand smoke. Same with drinking (drunk driving laws anyone?), and drug use (I assume we're talking heroin, meth, etc rather than ******). As for what these people do to themselves, I could care less.

Originally Posted by Republic Laws such as the ones relevant to this thread are just like all the others. They cause a major nuisance to the good among us who try to live as best as we can because the idiots need to be told every breath to take. Those of us who have common sense are never put into compromising positions in the first place. I guess my overall question is how stupid do you think people are and how far are you willing to go to tell people how to live?

A law against texting while driving would be a major nuisance for you? really?

Originally Posted by Republic That's largely correct in my view except of course for the ones designed to protect liberty. As far as stealing my television, my handgun will immediately remove all your liberty while protecting my own. Liberty lost is liberty protected in such case. Committing a crime forfeits your right to liberty.

You keep talking about committing a crime yet you cannot commit that crime unless you've already forfeited you're (using your definition) liberty. A crime cannot exist without laws, and laws restrict (what you call) freedom. I think what you're really going here is that I sacrifice my liberty by knowingly doing something that may (or will) harm you.

Originally Posted by Republic Look, I'll save you some time here. I'm basically in agreement that there may be a need to adapt laws around current technology, ways of life, etc. I've never really been against necessary legal protections that preserve life, etc. What I do object to is the thinking that throwing a bunch of laws at a problem fixes it. That clearly isn't the case. People are still idiots. Some need Mother Government to hold their hand. I don't deny that. What I get sick of is having to pay for other people's stupidity all the time.

Then I'm not sure what all the discussion has been about. I never said anything except that I support a ban of cellphone use while driving (in fact I think I kept it down to texting). Whether its through the adjustment of existing laws, or the creation of new laws is, (or even happens at all) is what all those nice congressmen are there to decide.

Originally Posted by Republic My objection(s) in this thread are more towards the process of determining what deserves new laws than the new laws themselves. The immediate response of "we need the government to outlaw this" is a dangerous one in my view.

In this we are in agreement (I think). In an ideal world (ok more ideal) laws could be much more general (I mentioned I liked Montana's old Reasonable and Prudent law), and common sense could see to their enforcement. But, we don't live in an ideal world, and must make do with what we have.

Originally Posted by Republic We aren't Europe. This isn't how our system works. The "change we can believe in" mentality has it wrong.

Actually, that's exactly how our system works. Maybe not how it should, work, maybe not how it was intended to work, but that is how it works.