Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So are a number of other things. How come very few ever address that? Why is it apparently okay to almost kill someone eating something that doesn't mix well with driving? Is almost killing someone REALLY worth changing what song plays next, or staring at a good looking woman jogging who'll never give you the time of day anyway, or retrieving what it is that's in the glove box that you can't find and just can't wait to retrieve later when you're parked?
What is with the witch hunt reserved solely for cell phone-based distractions? Frankly, I think it's a form of discrimination similar to racism if you ask me.
Other than your absurd comment regarding racism I agree that other forms of distractions do exist while driving.
However in many cases, those distractions are typically intermittent and infrequent. Yet everyone seems to have a cellphone now days, and far too many people are using them on a regular basis while driving.
Have you ever noticed as many people blowing their horns at people when the light turns green, compared with just a few years ago?
I believe it is because even people who don't text while the car is moving, will read and respond to texts at red lights. Trouble is that many times they are in the middle of reading or responding when the light turns green.
So everyone is delayed by the inconsiderate, narcissistic fool in front of them. By the time someone finally does blow their horn, the offending driver makes their left turn, and most others miss their opportunity. So now many people who are fed up just assume a texting zombie is in front of them, and blow their horn to make sure the person knows the light is green. This is of course rude and annoying to those who are making sure no one is running a red light, or do not like jack rabbit starts. Yet it is a result of people getting fed up with it happening over and over again. Swerving into other peoples lanes or running off the road and causing stones and other road debris to fly and hit the cars behind them is another result of these fools. Yet for all the little things they do to **** people off, when they maim, paralyze or kill other people, there is no punishment to fit their crimes.
Ever try to walk through a mall and not have to go out of your way to avoid a texting zombie? Well I have gotten fed up with them, and yell out to them to watch where they are going, because I will no longer move a micron to avoid a collision. It is not because I will not give way in general, as I feel it is polite for everyone to do so. However I will be damned if I am going to tolerate the inconsiderate fools who believe they can interfere with others peoples lives all because they are too addicted to reading their cellphones.
This is the fourth time i'm answering this exact question....
The app automatically reads incoming emails. no manual input required....ever.
Roflmao. You can't manually read something, unless it's Braille. Additionally, the semicolon makes it clear this is a new and separate idea. The law does not differentiate HOW you read a text, whether visually or by an app. Again, your going to lose. And you deserve too.
Some of the things you mentioned can be done without taking your eyes off the road. Far too many people (including teenagers) have cell phones and use them while driving. At the scene of the accident, police can look at the call or text log and see the exact time of the call or text (send or receive) and show it was a factor in the crash. You can't prove changing a radio station or eating a French fry caused an accident.
You're right, there was no distracted driving before cellphones and won't be after we ban all of them, cause cellphones are the only things that can and do distract drivers.
Roflmao. You can't manually read something, unless it's Braille. Additionally, the semicolon makes it clear this is a new and separate idea. The law does not differentiate HOW you read a text, whether visually or by an app. Again, your going to lose. And you deserve too.
Oh another bozo.....
There's a difference between reading the text and one being read to you. One is illegal. One is not. The app reads the incoming texts.
Want me to write it so a 4 year old (you) would understand?
Phone read text to you: gooood! You read text: baaaaad!
You're right, there was no distracted driving before cellphones and won't be after we ban all of them, cause cellphones are the only things that can and do distract drivers.
Or maybe you're just an idiot.
No. Yes, there are other types of distracted driving, but from my own observations, it's not very common to see drivers eating while driving or looking down inside their glove box. However, it has become extremely common to see more than half the drivers trying to juggle using a cellphone while driving. They use their right hand to keep it to their ear, or their head is tilted because the phone is wedged between their neck and shoulders. I see drivers all of the time playing with their smartphone.
And yes, it's more dangerous to be talking on the phone than talking to a passenger in the car. Why? Because the passenger also has their eyes on the road and will also react to any possible dangerous situations. But the person on the other end of the phone isn't in the car with the driver and can't react to what's happening around the car. And this lulls the driver into a false sense of safety.
Add me to the long list of posters hoping that the OP has to pay the full fine.
Suck it up, pay the fine, and turn off the phone while driving.
See my point about this being the absolute worst way of thinking of all. How would the world be if we had sucked it up and paid the tea tax?
Quote:
Originally Posted by victimofGM
Some of the things you mentioned can be done without taking your eyes off the road. Far too many people (including teenagers) have cell phones and use them while driving. At the scene of the accident, police can look at the call or text log and see the exact time of the call or text (send or receive) and show it was a factor in the crash. You can't prove changing a radio station or eating a French fry caused an accident.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
distracted driving is distracted driving. but eating a hamburger is not the same as using a cell phone while driving. i can eat that burger and still concentrate on my driving. talking on the phone, or texting, whether you use a hands free app or not, is a major distraction because you are splitting your time between driving and playing with your phone.
Seriously? You eating a burger and then searching the seat for a napkin, or looking down to pick up the pickle that fell in your lap.. Not distracting. The women putting makeup on in a mirror, they're not distracted.. It's just cell phones? Come on. think about that one and do you legitimately think the others are OK?
And, again.. police cannot look at your cell phone data AT THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT unless you give them your phone to look at it. They could get a warrant for it, but they can't just take your phone and look at it.
Also.. You certainly can prove that eating a fry or changing a station caused an accident. If someone says "I looked down to change my radio and when I looked up, all traffic was stopped and I plowed into it".. They just admitted it, so it's proven. Eating a hamburger would be even easier to prove.. There'd be hamburger all over the windshield.
Texting while driving laws, in the words of Penn and Teller, are BS. Scrap every texting/talking while driving law in the country and put Distracted Driving laws in their place. That way, the cops CAN pull over the person eating the burger while driving, they CAN pull over the person who is texting while driving and they CAN pull over the person who is leaning over the seat slapping their kids in the back while going 70mph down the interstate. They can also pull over the person who is smoking and drops the cigarette in their lap and does the seat dance. Or the person searching their glovebox for something.
Oh another bozo.....
There's a difference between reading the text and one being read to you. One is illegal. One is not. The app reads the incoming texts.
Want me to write it so a 4 year old (you) would understand?
Phone read text to you: gooood! You read text: baaaaad!
First, calling me names, when you whined about it before, makes you a hypocrite.
Second, reading comprehension is important. The law does not differentiate, you are 100% making that distinction up.
But seriously, go to trial, PLEASE represent yourself, at the minimum it will be amusing to those there.
Seriously? You eating a burger and then searching the seat for a napkin, or looking down to pick up the pickle that fell in your lap.. Not distracting. The women putting makeup on in a mirror, they're not distracted.. It's just cell phones? Come on. think about that one and do you legitimately think the others are OK?
{snip}
Texting while driving laws, in the words of Penn and Teller, are BS. Scrap every texting/talking while driving law in the country and put Distracted Driving laws in their place. That way, the cops CAN pull over the person eating the burger while driving, they CAN pull over the person who is texting while driving and they CAN pull over the person who is leaning over the seat slapping their kids in the back while going 70mph down the interstate. They can also pull over the person who is smoking and drops the cigarette in their lap and does the seat dance. Or the person searching their glovebox for something.
Exactly.
And yes, to answer the previous post--yes, I think people singling out cell phone distractions exclusively is analogous to racism, or at the very least profiling, very much so.
Second, reading comprehension is important. The law does not differentiate, you are 100% making that distinction up.
The law doesn't differentiate because the English language does that with two different words. One is called reading. The other is called listening.
A fair example.. Your kid gets an assignment to read The Scarlet Letter. You buy them the ebook and they read it.. Same thing as reading the paperback version, or the first edition.
However.. You buy them the audio book. Not the same thing. They're no longer reading it. They're listening to someone else reading it.
The law prohibits reading. Not listening.
So when anyone on here tells you that you're not listening. They're right. Unless, of course, you happen to be using a text to speech app.
EDIT to add..
Quote:
And yes, to answer the previous post--yes, I think people singling out cell phone distractions exclusively is analogous to racism, or at the very least profiling, very much so.
Can we equate them to hate crime legislation? I actually started to bring that up in my last post, but didn't want to open that can of worms.. But, since it had really already been opened. The "R" word is thrown around too much.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree that other forms of distractions do exist while driving. 
