Originally posted by 347Mike
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Arlington bans texting and driving today.
Collapse
X
-
-
so can I use the navigation on my phone while driving? can I dial a number on it before I raise it to my ear to talk?
it's JUST texting that's not allowed, right?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by HarrisonTX View PostBrother, she swerved because she was a woman, the texting didnt contribute much to her inability to operate a motor vehicle.
You said it best. People (including women) can't drive for shit. You throw texting into the loop and it makes everything 100 times worse. But I am sure everyone on here is a Mario Andretti and can text, drive, jerk off, and count the 100s in their lap all at the same time.
You guys act like you can't survive without texting. Everyone acts as if the world is ending and everyday their rights are being taken away. The fact is, the world is evolving, we didn't have texting 20 years ago for it to be a problem. New rules comes new laws.
I am willing to bet that everyone in here one time or another has sped passed someone and said get off your phone or pay attention to the road. That right there shows you are for this law, you just don't like it because you don't like being told what to do.
I am sure they can implement this into every state, city and town, and you know what, it isn't going to affect me. So I can care less..
Leave a comment:
-
I think this is completely stupid, and my bet is that they give out more tickets for TWD than they have accidents in the next few months.
It sucks to get a ticket, but you can get your text records from your service provider, and prove that you weren't texting at the time.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 347Mike View PostLol I'm all for it. It was just this morning I saw someone swerve into my lane. When I passed, she was on her phone. You are driving why the fuck do you need to text? As for the gps, well you put in the address and leave it.
I see people daily fucking up the flow of traffic due to texting. I do it and I even have close calls.
Leave a comment:
-
Lol I'm all for it. It was just this morning I saw someone swerve into my lane. When I passed, she was on her phone. You are driving why the fuck do you need to text? As for the gps, well you put in the address and leave it.
I see people daily fucking up the flow of traffic due to texting. I do it and I even have close calls.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Steve View PostIt also gives officers another cheap, free entry level way to stop people that can't be proven either way. Just another way for law enforcement to harass people playing the gray area.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cooter View PostI think it's funny that people actually think this is going to deter people from texting and driving
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by stevo View PostThe odds are the cop would find the camera and beat the shit out of you for filming him.
Stevo
Leave a comment:
-
Now you're comparing texting to talking to a passenger in your car?
Let's go ahead and ban birthing as well since toting kids around in cars is distracting to the parents. Now I'm starting to see the light!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 5.0_CJ View PostYou forgot to address those other two points again. So what you're saying is the victims are just not the "ultimate" victims. You're grouping victims into categories which are more, or less important. So you're deciding which people should have retribution, and which should not? Which people are entitled to compensation, and which are not? Does that sound about right? Do you see how this shit gets out of control?
The reason why your drunk driving comment is completely irrelevant, is you forget that to enter into a decision or contract - legal or otherwise, the law requires you be in a competent frame of mind, and able to understand the consequences. When you are drunk, you are unable to do this. This falls into it's own legal category, much as driving when stoned, or driving without your glasses, or operating equipment, or even walking down the street. All of this is illegal not because driving or walking itself is a dangerous act, but because the individual is not in a competent frame of mind. I could stab your entire family in the face and kill them, but if I can prove I was not in a competent frame of mind (see: insanity) then I can get off scott free.
The thing a lot of people do not understand is case law and how it's used. And more importantly - how it's exploited. The law itself comes up as a specific defined situation. But, unbeknownst to most voters it carries a more dangerous part to it. Case law generally is used to reference not a specific situation, but the idea - and more importantly - the motivation behind the law. So, the idea of banning texting on cell phones sounds great. However, in case law it would be incorporated to include the motivation behind the law - distraction. The law itself is representing as banning cell phones, but the case law will be used to prosecute against distraction. And, this leaves the door open for people to be prosecuted for talking to someone in the car, looking at a billboard, etc. etc. etc. This is the dangerous slippery slope of judicial interpretation. Ever heard of people protesting "legislating from the bench?" Essentially, a judge cannot 'create' a law himself. But, he can use an existing law of similar mind and 'interpret' to apply via case law. That's how tyranny grows in a free and open society - regulation. You still with me Geof? This is the kind of thought and knowledge required to not be taken advantage of by whimsical regulation. It's pretty easy to just vote for something that "makes you feel good." Ask people from England.
Leave a comment:
-
I can't wait until they pass the law that would ticket people for picking their noses.
Leave a comment:
-
You failed to address one of my posts as well, for the record. Let me respond to this one first, then I'll go and see what you're referring to.
Originally posted by 5.0_CJ View PostYou forgot to address those other two points again. So what you're saying is the victims are just not the "ultimate" victims. You're grouping victims into categories which are more, or less important. So you're deciding which people should have retribution, and which should not? Which people are entitled to compensation, and which are not? Does that sound about right? Do you see how this shit gets out of control?
If someone's texting and not paying attention to the road and winds up killing somebody, the blame lies soley on THEM. Are you telling me that the blame should be on the victim? Sorry, jack, you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time? The family of this victim IS entitled to some form of justice (retribution). They ARE entitled to some sort of compensation, in whatever form it comes in.
The police POLICING for an activity that could prevent all of that in the first place, should be welcomed and embraced.
Originally posted by 5.0_CJThe reason why your drunk driving comment is completely irrelevant, is you forget that to enter into a decision or contract - legal or otherwise, the law requires you be in a competent frame of mind, and able to understand the consequences. When you are drunk, you are unable to do this. This falls into it's own legal category, much as driving when stoned, or driving without your glasses, or operating equipment, or even walking down the street. All of this is illegal not because driving or walking itself is a dangerous act, but because the individual is not in a competent frame of mind.
The bottom line is this, while our ideology, (I'm assuming) for the most part, is essentially same, we disagree on this front and neither one of us will budge from our stance.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by kbscobravert View PostTime to go drive through Arlington with my cell phone in my hand waiting to get pulled over and handed a ticket. "Your Honor if you will watch this short little video clip from my on board Go Pro camera set up you will see the stop was unwarranted"
Stevo
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by The Geofster View PostI bet you'd change your opinion if your wife/son/daughter were injured or killed by somebody texting and driving (not saying I've had a relative that has happened to).
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: