Perry vetoes Texting-While-Driving bill (Post: home, safer, moving)

[TexasHorseLady]

I'm not a libertarian or a Republican or a Democrat (not that there's any difference, at bottom, between those latter two as far as their most basic goal - to make all our decisions for us and we shouldn't bother our pretty little heads actually thinking about it because THEY know what's best).

You should know that the morality laws have a tendency to cloak themselves in public health (safety) issues. Especially those regarding homosexuality.

However, I notice that you didn't address the real issue, the internal inconsistency in the argument that some of those are demanding laws against texting while driving while putting forth at the very same time the idea that we DON'T need laws against such things as eating/drinking/conversing with passengers in vehicles even if those things are factors in MORE fatal accidents than anything to do with a cell phone, simply because they are so much more common a cause of driver distraction.

It's a bandwagon, folks. Need to get off the bandwagon and actually THINK about what you're advocating we do and not do, and see if there's any possibility that you're saying we don't need laws against things that you commonly do that are as dangerous as or more dangerous than (statistically) what you're advocating for specific laws against.

[PanTerra]

Originally Posted by Mark-Tyler is Special

Texting while driving, even talking on the cell phone, hands or no hands device has been against the law in Germany and other countries in Europe for years. They have enought brains to know how dangerous it is !!

If they had enough brains to know how dangerous it is, they wouldn't need a law.

[BestintheWest]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

I'm not a libertarian or a Republican or a Democrat (not that there's any difference, at bottom, between those latter two as far as their most basic goal - to make all our decisions for us and we shouldn't bother our pretty little heads actually thinking about it because THEY know what's best).

You should know that the morality laws have a tendency to cloak themselves in public health (safety) issues. Especially those regarding homosexuality.

However, I notice that you didn't address the real issue, the internal inconsistency in the argument that some of those are demanding laws against texting while driving while putting forth at the very same time the idea that we DON'T need laws against such things as eating/drinking/conversing with passengers in vehicles even if those things are factors in MORE fatal accidents than anything to do with a cell phone, simply because they are so much more common a cause of driver distraction.

It's a bandwagon, folks. Need to get off the bandwagon and actually THINK about what you're advocating we do and not do, and see if there's any possibility that you're saying we don't need laws against things that you commonly do that are as dangerous as or more dangerous than (statistically) what you're advocating for specific laws against.

Your right to text while driving shouldn't trump my right to live.


And as the thumb-typing generation takes to the road, so does the bad habit. A recent poll by Consumer Reports showed that 63 percent of drivers under 30 said they had recently used a hand-held phone while behind the wheel.
About half of them were texting. Others were talking or indulging in the slew of activities that smartphones unleashed: updating their Facebook statuses, maybe, or playing Angry Birds. But no matter how they were twiddling with their phones, every one of them was distracted.
Such distraction can turn deadly fast. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 2009 alone, 995 people were killed in crashes that involved a driver using a cellphone. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood calls the problem "a deadly epidemic on America's roads."


Thmbs dwn: Attention Gov. Perry: Texas needed that ban on texting while driving | Editorial | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

[cinnamon_toast]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

However, I notice that you didn't address the real issue, the internal inconsistency in the argument that some of those are demanding laws against texting while driving while putting forth at the very same time the idea that we DON'T need laws against such things as eating/drinking/conversing with passengers in vehicles even if those things are factors in MORE fatal accidents than anything to do with a cell phone, simply because they are so much more common a cause of driver distraction.

I don't believe that texting while driving is as dangerous as eating, drinking (non-alcoholic beverages) and talking. So that argument doesn't fly with me.

[PanTerra]

Originally Posted by cinnamon_toast

I don't believe that texting while driving is as dangerous as eating, drinking (non-alcoholic beverages) and talking. So that argument doesn't fly with me.

Just need to make drive-thru's illeagal.

[catman]

cinnamon_toast: I don't know about eating while driving, but texting while driving is definitely more distracting and dangerous than taking a sip from a Coke or talking (assuming one can keep his eyes on the road). The complexity of the activity and the need to look at the device takes care of that question. It is indefensible.

[PanTerra]

Originally Posted by catman

cinnamon_toast: I don't know about eating while driving, but texting while driving is definitely more distracting and dangerous than taking a sip from a Coke or talking (assuming one can keep his eyes on the road). The complexity of the activity and the need to look at the device takes care of that question. It is indefensible.

It is not just the act of sipping the coffee, it is the frantic rush to clean it up after you spilled it on that last turn so it doesn't stain.

http://www.womenwithwheels.com/Driversbewarefood.html

[Bo]

Some off-topic posts above were moved to a new thread.

//www.city-data.com/forum/texas...rtion-law.html

[cinnamon_toast]

Originally Posted by catman

cinnamon_toast: I don't know about eating while driving, but texting while driving is definitely more distracting and dangerous than taking a sip from a Coke or talking (assuming one can keep his eyes on the road). The complexity of the activity and the need to look at the device takes care of that question. It is indefensible.

Completely agree. As far as food goes, it probably depends on what you are eating, which is perhaps why there is no law against it. A candy bar is one thing, a burrito is another.

From here on out, I am done with this conversation, isn't there an expression about beating a horse to death? I don't think anything new has been added for quite some time.

[winkosmosis]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

I'm not a libertarian or a Republican or a Democrat (not that there's any difference, at bottom, between those latter two as far as their most basic goal - to make all our decisions for us and we shouldn't bother our pretty little heads actually thinking about it because THEY know what's best).

You should know that the morality laws have a tendency to cloak themselves in public health (safety) issues. Especially those regarding homosexuality.

However, I notice that you didn't address the real issue, the internal inconsistency in the argument that some of those are demanding laws against texting while driving while putting forth at the very same time the idea that we DON'T need laws against such things as eating/drinking/conversing with passengers in vehicles even if those things are factors in MORE fatal accidents than anything to do with a cell phone, simply because they are so much more common a cause of driver distraction.

It's a bandwagon, folks. Need to get off the bandwagon and actually THINK about what you're advocating we do and not do, and see if there's any possibility that you're saying we don't need laws against things that you commonly do that are as dangerous as or more dangerous than (statistically) what you're advocating for specific laws against.

The average person has a 1% chance of dying in a car accident.

Texting while driving increases that to 20%, and that's not even including the risk to other drivers and pedestrians.