Banning the Operation of GPS Devices in Cars?

[+Arrow42]

If you drink & drive, are distracted by being on your cell phone/ arguing with the kids in the back seat/ adjusting the GPS/ etc., it is your own safety AS WELL AS those driving/ walking around you. I hope you can see that.

 

I don't agree that driving drunk and driving while talking on the cell phone are comparable risks.

[+bittsen]

 

That's what I'm talking about. If I engage in risky behavior then I'm responsible for the consequences of my actions. That already existed in the law and that's how it should be. At best it's a waste of police time for minimal gain and at worst its an attack on individual freedoms. I lump it in there with seat belt laws, helmet laws, anti-smoking laws, gun control, etc ,etc, etc.

 

At $90-$300 a pop, I would hardly call it minimal gain.

I agree with you on the rest though. What "innocent bystander" ever got hurt because a driver wasn't wearing a seat belt? (as an example only)

[+J-Way]

If you drink & drive, are distracted by being on your cell phone/ arguing with the kids in the back seat/ adjusting the GPS/ etc., it is your own safety AS WELL AS those driving/ walking around you. I hope you can see that.

I don't agree that driving drunk and driving while talking on the cell phone are comparable risks.

A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver

 

Gotta love search engines on the internet

 

Personally, I believe that anyone who wants a license to drive should be required to undergo training and then pass written and driving tests at LEAST as strenuous as those required for a general aviation pilot's license. And have to completely re-test (written and driving) every 10 years, plus every time you accumulate a set number moving violations (tickets for doing something stupid). And every one over a set age should have to pass a regular medical exam, plus re-test much more often.

 

But this'll never happen because 1) quite a few state legislators would fail the exam, so would never pass the law and 2) states would never be able to pay for all this testing.

[+J-Way]

What "innocent bystander" ever got hurt because a driver wasn't wearing a seat belt? (as an example only)

Ask the highway patrol officer if he's hurting inside when he has to tell a mother that her only son just died in a traffic accident because he was thrown out of the vehicle when it rolled over.

 

And since you could argue that the officer isn't an "innocent bystander", ask the real "innocent bystander" who just had a mangled body land on the ground next to them how they feel about it.

 

Exact arguments for helmets on motorcycles, except the "innocent bystander" gets coated in some idiot's brains.

 

Smoking: Ever heard of second hand smoke? If not, try to breathe clean air in a bar that allows smoking.

 

Gun control: My beliefs on gun control laws are fairly conservative (law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own and carry guns), but PLENTY of people have been hurt because of lax enforcement of existing laws.

[+Arrow42]

At $90-$300 a pop, I would hardly call it minimal gain.

 

I meant from a public safety point of view, but I understand your point.

[+Arrow42]

 

A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver

 

Gotta love search engines on the internet

 

 

I would love to see that study re-done with a statistically significant number of participants and other scenarios included. They could include children, eating, talkative passengers, fatigue, prescription medication, talk radio, heavy metal music, etc, etc.

[+J-Way]

 

A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver

 

Gotta love search engines on the internet

I would love to see that study re-done with a statistically significant number of participants and other scenarios included. They could include children, eating, talkative passengers, fatigue, prescription medication, talk radio, heavy metal music, etc, etc.

The results would probably be similar to the study I linked to. Driving while you are distracted is dangerous; it really doesn't matter what specific activity is causing the distraction.

 

Edit1: And I loved the fact that none of the drunk drivers crashed during the test, but THREE distracted drivers crashed while chatting away.

Edit2: Also, I think I remember a Mythbusters episode where they tested this. I think they came to the same conclusion: driving while talking on a cell phone is as bad or worse than driving while legally drunk.

Edited June 25, 2009 by J-Way

[+Arrow42]

 

A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver

 

Gotta love search engines on the internet

I would love to see that study re-done with a statistically significant number of participants and other scenarios included. They could include children, eating, talkative passengers, fatigue, prescription medication, talk radio, heavy metal music, etc, etc.

The results would probably be similar to the study I linked to. Driving while you are distracted is dangerous; it really doesn't matter what specific activity is causing the distraction.

 

Edit1: And I loved the fact that none of the drunk drivers crashed during the test, but THREE distracted drivers crashed while chatting away.

Edit2: Also, I think I remember a Mythbusters episode where they tested this. I think they came to the same conclusion: driving while talking on a cell phone is as bad or worse than driving while legally drunk.

 

Ok, I agree with you then. Legalize drunk driving. It's not the demon MADD has made it out to be.

 

I've seen the light.

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

Bittsen and Arrow42 are correct in saying these laws make criminals out of normally law abiding citizens without their knowledge. It punishes someone for what they MIGHT do instead of punishing those who HAVE done something wrong. Every single one of these laws is unconstitutional. The problems they claim to solve are already covered by THE law. The Constitution. If you violate my right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, then AND ONLY THEN should law enforcement get involved.

In summation, laws that criminalize POTENTIAL (not actual) violations of someone's rights are a violation of EVERYONE'S rights.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Personally, I'm for a law for targeting distracting drivers. Yeah, I'm a cop, so what, I've been for such a law for longer than I've been a cop.

 

One may note that the NJ law was proposed for programming the GPS while in motion. Makes sense. In fact, some GPSs have a feature that will not allow you to fool with them while in motion. Of course, you can turn those features off. I'd say it would be a good law.

 

Anytime I pull someone over for a moving violation I ask if there was a reason they were doing what they were doing. 90% of the time the excuse boiled down to distraction. They claimed to not know they were in violation. I personally believe that is only valid for about 30% of the drivers, if that. The other 10% of excuses was impatience. I think it's much more impatience than anything else. Folks just don't want to do the speed limit, give adequate following distance, come to a complete stop, or wait until there enough room to merge. Then I have to work their collisions.

 

As a motorcyclist I've long watched peoples' heads, what for their intent. I'd say a vast majority of cellphone users don't use their turn signals. A lot don't turn their heads to check a blind spot. Folks seem to think they can't take the cellphone from their ear to drive. I think it simply never dawns on them to say, "hold up a second," do what they have to do and then resume the conversation. My wife does it all the time. If she's in town or has to make a turn, she puts the phone down.

 

Here's the thing, when you're behind the wheel your first priority is piloting that vehicle. That doesn't simply mean adjusting where it is pointing. You're a driver. You're responsible for you, your passengers, and everyone around you. Those folks outside your car are counting on you to do the right thing, otherwise, they might get hurt. Any action or thing that puts driving at number 2 on your priority list or lower is a bad thing. One day it might catch to you. It might not even be completely your fault, but you weren't able to detect another bad driver in time to avoid that collision simply because you were talking on the phone, eating, whatever...or programming your GPS...while driving.

 

THANK YOU!! I believe a LOT of people's attitudes would change if they lost a loved one to a distracted driver. I can say that I know the feeling, I know the hazards of distracted driving FIRST HAND! Anyone wanting to know my opinion of this can just read the Todie's Wild Ride therad, it's chock full of my opinion on distracted driving...

 

Drivers who talk on the phone are as bad as drunk drivers, they usually weave all over the road, forget to look around, don't signal and are just plain dangerous in MANY cases! I can tell when the driver in front of me is answering the phone, they swerve and then almost always ubruptly slow down and lose all train of concentration! Likewise, I followed a car one morning who was all over the place and nearly hit me...a GPS was in her hands and her comment to me when I suggested she drive instead of screw around?? I'm lost! OK, so potentially killing another is acceptible because you are lost??

 

Bittsen said cellphones were made for drivers (in so many words if I remember correctly)...while this may be true, the use wasn't meant to be distracting, but a safety measure in case of emergency (like an accident, perhaps??). Funny how so many accidents have been caused by these "safety devices"! Ask yourselves, why are all train engineers prohibeted from using any wireless device? The GPS was not made so drivers could be distracted, they were made to help a driver get from point A to point B....safely!

 

Driving is supposed to be your ONLY activity while on the roads, it's not another task to do while going to work, it's THE task and should be taken seriously. When people stop driving distracted, the roads will be safer for all! The driver who killed Tod wasn't using his phone, he was in a hurry and missed his turn...and was in the act of doing a U-Turn when he pulled into Tod's lane causing Tod to make a deadly decision. Had this driver NOT been dstracted, had this driver NOT been in a hurry, had this driver NOT have glanced but actually LOOKED, Tod would still be here! Please, don't be a distracted driver! From what I've heard, the driver who killed Tod has not recovered from this tragedy, do you want to also live with something this horrific?? DRIVE RESPONSIBLY PLEASE!!

 

Oh, btw...besides the driver not recovering, neither has Tod's young son, his older children, his Mother and brothers...nor have I or KAboom. His passing will be marked this August 12th, one year after our loss....a day I will never forget!

[+jicknarson]

Gotta jump in here - this is my first post, so feel free to flame. Whatever. This will not be a popular opinion, and it is not one that I would have held a week ago. I was out caching last weekend, on back roads and topping out at 45 max - while keeping one eye (I thought only one) on my GPSr. Glanced down (again - I thought it was only a glance), looked back up to see a big (close) flash of brown..... and within 3 seconds my vehicle was totaled. Quick as that - and not to say that it wouldn't have happened anyway - this deer was on a death mission - but I had no clue it was even on my radar. I do feel that if I had my eyes and attention ONLY on the road I might have had a chance at avoiding the accident, whether partially or fully. Luckily there were no injuries involved.

Will this change my practices in the future? I hope so....

[+bittsen]

Bittsen and Arrow42 are correct in saying these laws make criminals out of normally law abiding citizens without their knowledge. It punishes someone for what they MIGHT do instead of punishing those who HAVE done something wrong. Every single one of these laws is unconstitutional. The problems they claim to solve are already covered by THE law. The Constitution. If you violate my right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, then AND ONLY THEN should law enforcement get involved.

In summation, laws that criminalize POTENTIAL (not actual) violations of someone's rights are a violation of EVERYONE'S rights.

 

Well said.

So many laws are made with knee jerk reactions. So many laws are made for "what could happen" and nothing else in mind.

 

There was a day, and I don't know when it was, where we were no longer free.

Edited June 26, 2009 by bittsen

[+Rockin Roddy]

Bittsen and Arrow42 are correct in saying these laws make criminals out of normally law abiding citizens without their knowledge. It punishes someone for what they MIGHT do instead of punishing those who HAVE done something wrong. Every single one of these laws is unconstitutional. The problems they claim to solve are already covered by THE law. The Constitution. If you violate my right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, then AND ONLY THEN should law enforcement get involved.

In summation, laws that criminalize POTENTIAL (not actual) violations of someone's rights are a violation of EVERYONE'S rights.

 

Well said.

So many laws are made with knee jerk reactions. So many laws are made for "what could happen" and nothing else in mind.

 

There was a day, and I don't know when it was, where we were no longer free.

 

You have the right to drive...but where did you see you had the right to risk others' lives? Driving distracted is DEADLY and does indeed put others in danger...and why? So you can chat with a pal or try to text your frieds or even type in a set of coords on your GPS? You have a responsibility to drive when behind the wheel, drive only!

 

Knee jerk reaction? I truly hope you don't have to suffer the loss of a loved one, a friend or whatever...due to the negligence of a distracted driver. It truly changes your life...I know this and believe me, my actions these days are NOT knee jerk.

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver

 

Gotta love search engines on the internet

I would love to see that study re-done with a statistically significant number of participants and other scenarios included. They could include children, eating, talkative passengers, fatigue, prescription medication, talk radio, heavy metal music, etc, etc.

The results would probably be similar to the study I linked to. Driving while you are distracted is dangerous; it really doesn't matter what specific activity is causing the distraction.

 

Edit1: And I loved the fact that none of the drunk drivers crashed during the test, but THREE distracted drivers crashed while chatting away.

Edit2: Also, I think I remember a Mythbusters episode where they tested this. I think they came to the same conclusion: driving while talking on a cell phone is as bad or worse than driving while legally drunk.

 

Ok, I agree with you then. Legalize drunk driving. It's not the demon MADD has made it out to be.

 

I've seen the light.

 

I can't believe I see this. Sickning!

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

Well said.

So many laws are made with knee jerk reactions. So many laws are made for "what could happen" and nothing else in mind.

There was a day, and I don't know when it was, where we were no longer free.

Free to make decisions for ourselves....and free to suffer the consequences of those decisions.

 

I wish I could have been around at least 100 years ago to feel what it was like to live free.

 

I must say, though, that I seriously believe that I'm getting the same feeling of excitement that our founders had when they realized that something was brewing that would stop the march to tyranny and end the suffering of free people under unjust laws like these. Anyone else feeling the revolution coming? I do.

[+bittsen]

Well said.

So many laws are made with knee jerk reactions. So many laws are made for "what could happen" and nothing else in mind.

There was a day, and I don't know when it was, where we were no longer free.

Free to make decisions for ourselves....and free to suffer the consequences of those decisions.

 

I wish I could have been around at least 100 years ago to feel what it was like to live free.

 

I must say, though, that I seriously believe that I'm getting the same feeling of excitement that our founders had when they realized that something was brewing that would stop the march to tyranny and end the suffering of free people under unjust laws like these. Anyone else feeling the revolution coming? I do.

Personally, I feel that there is something coming but it could be the N. Korea thing, the 2012 thing or the aliens finally coming to take me home.

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

That's what I'm talking about. If I engage in risky behavior then I'm responsible for the consequences of my actions. That already existed in the law and that's how it should be. At best it's a waste of police time for minimal gain and at worst its an attack on individual freedoms. I lump it in there with seat belt laws, helmet laws, anti-smoking laws, gun control, etc ,etc, etc.

 

At $90-$300 a pop, I would hardly call it minimal gain.

I agree with you on the rest though. What "innocent bystander" ever got hurt because a driver wasn't wearing a seat belt? (as an example only)

 

If Arrow42 engages in risky behavior, being resposnible for the consequences just don't cut it! Minimalizing it as if it's a choice which only affects Arrow42 is like saying yelling fire in a packed building is only a prank! When YOUR actions KILL someone, there are MANY innocent bystanders who are directly affected, I am one of them!

 

I love how some want to pretend their constitutional rights are being trampled on because of a ban of the nature the OP has brought us...when was driving written into the constitution? When did our founding fathers decide use of cell phones and GPS units was a constitutional right? When was killing someone in the name of distracted driving made a God-given right?

[+Klatch]

 

You have the right to drive...but where did you see you had the right to risk others' lives? Driving distracted is DEADLY and does indeed put others in danger...and why? So you can chat with a pal or try to text your frieds or even type in a set of coords on your GPS? You have a responsibility to drive when behind the wheel, drive only!

 

Actually, driving is a privilege, not a right. Otherwise, I agree with the rest of what you said.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Well said.

So many laws are made with knee jerk reactions. So many laws are made for "what could happen" and nothing else in mind.

There was a day, and I don't know when it was, where we were no longer free.

Free to make decisions for ourselves....and free to suffer the consequences of those decisions.

 

I wish I could have been around at least 100 years ago to feel what it was like to live free.

 

I must say, though, that I seriously believe that I'm getting the same feeling of excitement that our founders had when they realized that something was brewing that would stop the march to tyranny and end the suffering of free people under unjust laws like these. Anyone else feeling the revolution coming? I do.

 

Another comment which might be re-thought if you personally have to suffer the loss of a loved one due to negligence of another. This attitude sickens me..... You are NEVER ffree to make a decision which potentially impacts another. Why do you feel you have the right to risk MY life because you want to be irresponsible? Would it be any difference if I pulled up a gun and accidentally shot you? i have the right to bear arms, NOT risk anothers' life by ignorance, by stupidity or by irresponsibility. Saying your rights are being trampled...what about the rights of Tod's now 7 year old son? What about the rihgts of the innocent bystander?

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

You have the right to drive...but where did you see you had the right to risk others' lives? Driving distracted is DEADLY and does indeed put others in danger...and why? So you can chat with a pal or try to text your frieds or even type in a set of coords on your GPS? You have a responsibility to drive when behind the wheel, drive only!

 

Knee jerk reaction? I truly hope you don't have to suffer the loss of a loved one, a friend or whatever...due to the negligence of a distracted driver. It truly changes your life...I know this and believe me, my actions these days are NOT knee jerk.

Isn't killing someone already covered under "Right to Life...." in the Constitution? I have the right to risk other people's lives every second of every day. Driving alone is a serious risk to everyone's lives even without the added risk of drunk driving. The end result of an accident is the same, regardless of the means by which it was achieved!!!! The person who caused it isn't MORE guilty because of the means. NONE of these laws accomplish ANYTHING that isn't already accomplished by the Constitution (besides taking away your liberty one seemingly harmless law at a time).

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

You have the right to drive...but where did you see you had the right to risk others' lives? Driving distracted is DEADLY and does indeed put others in danger...and why? So you can chat with a pal or try to text your frieds or even type in a set of coords on your GPS? You have a responsibility to drive when behind the wheel, drive only!

 

Actually, driving is a privilege, not a right. Otherwise, I agree with the rest of what you said.

 

You are correct! THANK YOU for the correction!

[knowschad]

Gotta jump in here - this is my first post, so feel free to flame. Whatever. This will not be a popular opinion, and it is not one that I would have held a week ago. I was out caching last weekend, on back roads and topping out at 45 max - while keeping one eye (I thought only one) on my GPSr. Glanced down (again - I thought it was only a glance), looked back up to see a big (close) flash of brown..... and within 3 seconds my vehicle was totaled. Quick as that - and not to say that it wouldn't have happened anyway - this deer was on a death mission - but I had no clue it was even on my radar. I do feel that if I had my eyes and attention ONLY on the road I might have had a chance at avoiding the accident, whether partially or fully. Luckily there were no injuries involved.

Will this change my practices in the future? I hope so....

 

You could just as well have been changing the radio station or checking your rear-view mirror.

[knowschad]

Hey, didn't we already solve the world's problems last week?

[+Rockin Roddy]

You have the right to drive...but where did you see you had the right to risk others' lives? Driving distracted is DEADLY and does indeed put others in danger...and why? So you can chat with a pal or try to text your frieds or even type in a set of coords on your GPS? You have a responsibility to drive when behind the wheel, drive only!

 

Knee jerk reaction? I truly hope you don't have to suffer the loss of a loved one, a friend or whatever...due to the negligence of a distracted driver. It truly changes your life...I know this and believe me, my actions these days are NOT knee jerk.

Isn't killing someone already covered under "Right to Life...." in the Constitution? I have the right to risk other people's lives every second of every day. Driving alone is a serious risk to everyone's lives even without the added risk of drunk driving. The end result of an accident is the same, regardless of the means by which it was achieved!!!! The person who caused it isn't MORE guilty because of the means. NONE of these laws accomplish ANYTHING that isn't already accomplished by the Constitution (besides taking away your liberty one seemingly harmless law at a time).

 

You DO NOT have the right to risk my or anyone else's life...EVER! You may think you do, but you are dead wrong! That attitude is truly sickning!

[+RS67Man]

 

That's what I'm talking about. If I engage in risky behavior then I'm responsible for the consequences of my actions. That already existed in the law and that's how it should be. At best it's a waste of police time for minimal gain and at worst its an attack on individual freedoms. I lump it in there with seat belt laws, helmet laws, anti-smoking laws, gun control, etc ,etc, etc.

 

At $90-$300 a pop, I would hardly call it minimal gain.

I agree with you on the rest though. What "innocent bystander" ever got hurt because a driver wasn't wearing a seat belt? (as an example only)

 

If Arrow42 engages in risky behavior, being resposnible for the consequences just don't cut it! Minimalizing it as if it's a choice which only affects Arrow42 is like saying yelling fire in a packed building is only a prank! When YOUR actions KILL someone, there are MANY innocent bystanders who are directly affected, I am one of them!

 

I love how some want to pretend their constitutional rights are being trampled on because of a ban of the nature the OP has brought us...when was driving written into the constitution? When did our founding fathers decide use of cell phones and GPS units was a constitutional right? When was killing someone in the name of distracted driving made a God-given right?

 

Yep, what RR said! If you really think that there are laws being passed that trample on YOUR rights, tell that to people who have lost loved ones because of actions of others and lobbied for those laws to be passed. It is my RIGHT to expect drivers around me to drive in such a way as to not endanger me. If they do, and they cause me injury, then I can sue the flesh off of their bones. A law like this give me precedence to do so. I do not care what anyone says, driving while distracted kills.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Gotta jump in here - this is my first post, so feel free to flame. Whatever. This will not be a popular opinion, and it is not one that I would have held a week ago. I was out caching last weekend, on back roads and topping out at 45 max - while keeping one eye (I thought only one) on my GPSr. Glanced down (again - I thought it was only a glance), looked back up to see a big (close) flash of brown..... and within 3 seconds my vehicle was totaled. Quick as that - and not to say that it wouldn't have happened anyway - this deer was on a death mission - but I had no clue it was even on my radar. I do feel that if I had my eyes and attention ONLY on the road I might have had a chance at avoiding the accident, whether partially or fully. Luckily there were no injuries involved.

Will this change my practices in the future? I hope so....

 

You could just as well have been changing the radio station or checking your rear-view mirror.

 

Yep, and the results would be the same....distracted driving is DEADLY and irresponsible. PERIOD! It's not a right, it's not a freedom , you do NOT have the right to endanger my life because you want to engage in irresponsible activities of any kind! Driving is a serious responsibility, when people start remembering this, we will all be safer on the roads!

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

If Arrow42 engages in risky behavior, being resposnible for the consequences just don't cut it! Minimalizing it as if it's a choice which only affects Arrow42 is like saying yelling fire in a packed building is only a prank! When YOUR actions KILL someone, there are MANY innocent bystanders who are directly affected, I am one of them!

 

I love how some want to pretend their constitutional rights are being trampled on because of a ban of the nature the OP has brought us...when was driving written into the constitution? When did our founding fathers decide use of cell phones and GPS units was a constitutional right? When was killing someone in the name of distracted driving made a God-given right?

What you fail to realize, Roddy, is that those things WERE NOT written into the Constitution INTENTIONALLY. Laws can't be written that deny me the right to do ANYTHING I PLEASE....as long as it doesn't violate someone else's rights. It's a really simple concept. If I want to program my GPS while driving, that's my business and my right.....until doing so violates someone else's rights. At THAT point (and no sooner), I should be held accountable for my actions.

 

Using your logic, the government should be allowed to make a law that forces you to sit in a 6x6x6 cell so that there is NO possible way you could potentially violate someone else's rights.

 

This argument is best taken up using logic and reasoning, rather than the flawed use of emotion and feeling. It tends to lead to circular references that make no sense.

[+Rockin Roddy]

If Arrow42 engages in risky behavior, being resposnible for the consequences just don't cut it! Minimalizing it as if it's a choice which only affects Arrow42 is like saying yelling fire in a packed building is only a prank! When YOUR actions KILL someone, there are MANY innocent bystanders who are directly affected, I am one of them!

 

I love how some want to pretend their constitutional rights are being trampled on because of a ban of the nature the OP has brought us...when was driving written into the constitution? When did our founding fathers decide use of cell phones and GPS units was a constitutional right? When was killing someone in the name of distracted driving made a God-given right?

What you fail to realize, Roddy, is that those things WERE NOT written into the Constitution INTENTIONALLY. Laws can't be written that deny me the right to do ANYTHING I PLEASE....as long as it doesn't violate someone else's rights. It's a really simple concept. If I want to program my GPS while driving, that's my business and my right.....until doing so violates someone else's rights. At THAT point (and no sooner), I should be held accountable for my actions.

 

Using your logic, the government should be allowed to make a law that forces you to sit in a 6x6x6 cell so that there is NO possible way you could potentially violate someone else's rights.

 

This argument is best taken up using logic and reasoning, rather than the flawed use of emotion and feeling. It tends to lead to circular references that make no sense.

 

What YOU fail to understand is you ARE violating someone else's rights when you engage in ANY activity which risks their lives. You do NOT have the right to risk my life because you can't take the extra few seconds to plug in coords while PARKED! You DO NOT have the right to risk my life...PERIOD!

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

Yep, and the results would be the same....distracted driving is DEADLY and irresponsible. PERIOD! It's not a right, it's not a freedom , you do NOT have the right to endanger my life because you want to engage in irresponsible activities of any kind! Driving is a serious responsibility, when people start remembering this, we will all be safer on the roads!

If you can tell me that you drive without changing the radio, the A/C, talking to passengers, looking out the side windows, or ANYTHING ELSE that might distract you, then I will acknowledge your position on this topic. Otherwise, you are full of BS and are a hypocrite. Again, please stop with the emotional appeals that lack any sense of logic and reasoning. Take a step back, a deep breath, etc. You never know how much better it will make you feel.

[+RS67Man]

If Arrow42 engages in risky behavior, being resposnible for the consequences just don't cut it! Minimalizing it as if it's a choice which only affects Arrow42 is like saying yelling fire in a packed building is only a prank! When YOUR actions KILL someone, there are MANY innocent bystanders who are directly affected, I am one of them!

 

I love how some want to pretend their constitutional rights are being trampled on because of a ban of the nature the OP has brought us...when was driving written into the constitution? When did our founding fathers decide use of cell phones and GPS units was a constitutional right? When was killing someone in the name of distracted driving made a God-given right?

What you fail to realize, Roddy, is that those things WERE NOT written into the Constitution INTENTIONALLY. Laws can't be written that deny me the right to do ANYTHING I PLEASE....as long as it doesn't violate someone else's rights. It's a really simple concept. If I want to program my GPS while driving, that's my business and my right.....until doing so violates someone else's rights. At THAT point (and no sooner), I should be held accountable for my actions.

 

Using your logic, the government should be allowed to make a law that forces you to sit in a 6x6x6 cell so that there is NO possible way you could potentially violate someone else's rights.

 

This argument is best taken up using logic and reasoning, rather than the flawed use of emotion and feeling. It tends to lead to circular references that make no sense.

 

So you are saying all rules of the road are unconstitutional? That it is trampling on YOUR rights by setting speed limits, installing traffic signals, making a one way road............And you will drive anyway you please so long as you are not hurting anyone else?

 

I hope I am NEVER on the same road you are on.........

[+Rockin Roddy]

If Arrow42 engages in risky behavior, being resposnible for the consequences just don't cut it! Minimalizing it as if it's a choice which only affects Arrow42 is like saying yelling fire in a packed building is only a prank! When YOUR actions KILL someone, there are MANY innocent bystanders who are directly affected, I am one of them!

 

I love how some want to pretend their constitutional rights are being trampled on because of a ban of the nature the OP has brought us...when was driving written into the constitution? When did our founding fathers decide use of cell phones and GPS units was a constitutional right? When was killing someone in the name of distracted driving made a God-given right?

What you fail to realize, Roddy, is that those things WERE NOT written into the Constitution INTENTIONALLY. Laws can't be written that deny me the right to do ANYTHING I PLEASE....as long as it doesn't violate someone else's rights. It's a really simple concept. If I want to program my GPS while driving, that's my business and my right.....until doing so violates someone else's rights. At THAT point (and no sooner), I should be held accountable for my actions.

 

[b]Using your logic, the government should be allowed to make a law that forces you to sit in a 6x6x6 cell so that there is NO possible way you could potentially violate someone else's rights.[/b]

 

This argument is best taken up using logic and reasoning, rather than the flawed use of emotion and feeling. It tends to lead to circular references that make no sense.

 

Yep, kill someone and the cell you speak of is where you belong! Driving distracted and killing someone is as bad as putting a gun to their head and pulling the trigger. Acting like it's OK because "I was only trying to enter coords into my GPS" is sickning! Pretending you have the right to risk my life for this reason makes me glad I don't have to drive where you are!

 

Had the lady that nearly hit me been noticed by an LEO, she suely would have received a ticket. Telling the officer,"I'm lost" won't cut it, I'll wager!

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

I like how you cleverly dodged my question about your driving habits by immediately going to another emotional appeal that has nothing to do with the discussion.

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

So you are saying all rules of the road are unconstitutional? That it is trampling on YOUR rights by setting speed limits, installing traffic signals, making a one way road............And you will drive anyway you please so long as you are not hurting anyone else?

 

I hope I am NEVER on the same road you are on.........

I'm actually saying that ALL laws that punish people for things they MIGHT do to violate anothers' rights are unConstitutional.

Here is an example...

I want to build a garage on my property. The law says I can't build it within 5' of the property line without the neighbor's permission. Unconstitutional.

I take my shirt off because it's hot. My wife can't do the same because it's against the law. Not only unconstitutional, but sexist (which is unconstitutional).

It goes on and on and on. When does it stop? I'll tell you when. It stops when everyone is forced to live in tiny boxes so that their safety can be ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEED.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Yep, and the results would be the same....distracted driving is DEADLY and irresponsible. PERIOD! It's not a right, it's not a freedom , you do NOT have the right to endanger my life because you want to engage in irresponsible activities of any kind! Driving is a serious responsibility, when people start remembering this, we will all be safer on the roads!

If you can tell me that you drive without changing the radio, the A/C, talking to passengers, looking out the side windows, or ANYTHING ELSE that might distract you, then I will acknowledge your position on this topic. Otherwise, you are full of BS and are a hypocrite. Again, please stop with the emotional appeals that lack any sense of logic and reasoning. Take a step back, a deep breath, etc. You never know how much better it will make you feel.

 

OK, so you're saying I shouldn't drive at all, right? I mean, how can I concentrate when I'm trying to watch my speed, read road signs etc? PLEASE!! Changing a radio is as distracting as checking my speedometer. Takling to a passenger is safer than driving alone in most cases (there are always exceptions) because there are now two sets of eyes paying attention and a conversation can be stopped when needed (while a cell conversation is completely different...does the person on the other end know when you are needing to give extra focus to the road???)

 

The boldened part...you call me a hypocrite and you have NO idea of who I am?? Please do NOT call me ANY names, it is against the guidelines (I hope these guidelines aren't infringing on your "rights")!

[+Arrow42]

What YOU fail to understand is you ARE violating someone else's rights when you engage in ANY activity which risks their lives. You do NOT have the right to risk my life because you can't take the extra few seconds to plug in coords while PARKED! You DO NOT have the right to risk my life...PERIOD!

 

Rockin Roddy, get off the road. I'm a pedestrian - you driving endangers me. You have 2 tons of steal flying down the road under your tentative control and at any time a vital part can give out putting me in danger. I demand that you get off the road and start walking.

 

I see from your first response to my drunk driving comment that I might need a disclaimer. The above statement is absurdity used to illustrate the absurdity of an argument. The point that I'm trying to make is that you absolutely do not have the right to be safe at all times and to argue that you do leads to ridiculous situations.

 

I'm not trying to say talking on the cell phone or plugging coords into a gps while moving is a GOOD idea, I'm just saying keep your @#! @#$@ government control out of my hair. I, and most reasonable people are fully capable of assessing risk and making choices. The constitution has been stretched to nearly the breaking point because of fuzzy "omg think of the children!!!" thinking.

 

And yes, driving is a right. Anything not specifically mentioned by the constitution is assumed to be the right of the individual. I'm so tired of the "driving is a privilege" bull. (Another disclaimer since you seem to twist and misunderstand everything I'm saying: I'm not arguing against drivers licenses or not taking them away when appropriate - due process permits the loss of rights under some circumstances)

[+Rockin Roddy]

I like how you cleverly dodged my question about your driving habits by immediately going to another emotional appeal that has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

I'm done here, too much of the entitlement attitude here for my liking! You want to take this up further, please feel free to PM me, I would LOVE to let you know my TRUE feelings! And, I dodge nothing but the BS you try to pretend is an argument that your rights are being trampled...PERIOD!

 

Am I emotional about this, YOU BET!

[+Arrow42]

I like how you cleverly dodged my question about your driving habits by immediately going to another emotional appeal that has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

I'm done here, too much of the entitlement attitude here for my liking! You want to take this up further, please feel free to PM me, I would LOVE to let you know my TRUE feelings! And, I dodge nothing but the BS you try to pretend is an argument that your rights are being trampled...PERIOD!

 

Am I emotional about this, YOU BET!

 

If you ignore our logical arguments how are we going to have a discussion? If you have no logic behind what you say and you only want to yell and scream obscenities at us in private then perhaps you need to re-assess your opinions on the matter.

[+bittsen]

I like how you cleverly dodged my question about your driving habits by immediately going to another emotional appeal that has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

I'm done here, too much of the entitlement attitude here for my liking! You want to take this up further, please feel free to PM me, I would LOVE to let you know my TRUE feelings! And, I dodge nothing but the BS you try to pretend is an argument that your rights are being trampled...PERIOD!

 

Am I emotional about this, YOU BET!

 

Here is the bottom line, folks. Back on topic.

There doesn't need to be a law stating that people shouldn't use (or program) GPSs while driving. Why? Because if the cop is able to see the GPS being programmed then he's perfectly capable of seeing if a driver is driving distracted. WHY would anyone need to be pulled over if they aren't distracted while driving? Why make the circumstances illegal when a cop can see whether or not someone is distracted.

 

Lets get logical and not emotional about it. Logical laws make sens much of the time (unless written to generate revenue, as many are). Emotional laws don't.

 

Most states already have distracted driving laws. How do GPS, or cell phone laws help?

[+Rockin Roddy]

I like how you cleverly dodged my question about your driving habits by immediately going to another emotional appeal that has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

I'm done here, too much of the entitlement attitude here for my liking! You want to take this up further, please feel free to PM me, I would LOVE to let you know my TRUE feelings! And, I dodge nothing but the BS you try to pretend is an argument that your rights are being trampled...PERIOD!

 

Am I emotional about this, YOU BET!

 

If you ignore our logical arguments how are we going to have a discussion? If you have no logic behind what you say and you only want to yell and scream obscenities at us in private then perhaps you need to re-assess your opinions on the matter.

 

What argument can you POSSIBLY give for being irresponsible and killing someone when distracted? As I said before, when you feel the pain many of us have because of irresponsible actions, you might just have a change of heart! Discussion? Discuss how your rights are being taken away? You never had the right to drive to begin with, as has been pointed out, you earned that privilege by taking the proper training. That PRIVILEGE can be revoked!

[+Rockin Roddy]

I like how you cleverly dodged my question about your driving habits by immediately going to another emotional appeal that has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

I'm done here, too much of the entitlement attitude here for my liking! You want to take this up further, please feel free to PM me, I would LOVE to let you know my TRUE feelings! And, I dodge nothing but the BS you try to pretend is an argument that your rights are being trampled...PERIOD!

 

Am I emotional about this, YOU BET!

 

Here is the bottom line, folks. Back on topic.

There doesn't need to be a law stating that people shouldn't use (or program) GPSs while driving. Why? Because if the cop is able to see the GPS being programmed then he's perfectly capable of seeing if a driver is driving distracted. WHY would anyone need to be pulled over if they aren't distracted while driving? Why make the circumstances illegal when a cop can see whether or not someone is distracted.

 

Lets get logical and not emotional about it. Logical laws make sens much of the time (unless written to generate revenue, as many are). Emotional laws don't.

 

Most states already have distracted driving laws. How do GPS, or cell phone laws help?

 

UMMMM....because LEOs don't always SEE an accident happen???? I will agree with one thing though, we SHOULDN'T need to make these laws...a pity it comes to this, isn't it? But, attitudes as we see here are the exact reason for said laws! And, again, I am done, I will not even bother to read any further. Pease, feel free to argue how you want!

Edited June 26, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

The boldened part...you call me a hypocrite and you have NO idea of who I am?? Please do NOT call me ANY names, it is against the guidelines (I hope these guidelines aren't infringing on your "rights")!

Claiming that doing something that distracts you from driving should be illegal, while doing something that distracts you from driving, would make you a hypocrite. I don't believe that me pointing out that fact violates any guidelines.

[+bittsen]

Here is the bottom line, folks. Back on topic.

There doesn't need to be a law stating that people shouldn't use (or program) GPSs while driving. Why? Because if the cop is able to see the GPS being programmed then he's perfectly capable of seeing if a driver is driving distracted. WHY would anyone need to be pulled over if they aren't distracted while driving? Why make the circumstances illegal when a cop can see whether or not someone is distracted.

 

Lets get logical and not emotional about it. Logical laws make sens much of the time (unless written to generate revenue, as many are). Emotional laws don't.

 

Most states already have distracted driving laws. How do GPS, or cell phone laws help?

 

UMMMM....because LEOs don't always SEE an accident happen???? I will agree with one thing though, we SHOULDN'T need to make these laws...a pity it comes to this, isn't it? But, attitudes as we see here are the exact reason for said laws! And, again, I am done, I will not even bother to read any further. Pease, feel free to argue how you want!

That argument made no sense. If someone isn't driving in a distracted manner, why should they be pulled over for doing something?

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

I'm done here, too much of the entitlement attitude here for my liking! You want to take this up further, please feel free to PM me, I would LOVE to let you know my TRUE feelings! And, I dodge nothing but the BS you try to pretend is an argument that your rights are being trampled...PERIOD!

The "entitlement" thing got me thinking. When I hear the word entitlement, I think of entitlements like welfare, unemployment pay, etc. I don't think I'm entitled to anything. I just want to be left alone. I actually believe there is way too much entitlement these days. In fact, most of these types of laws are created because people think they are entitled to "feel" safe (regardless of whether they are or not). Which brings me back to the whole emotional -vs- logical thought process. It is not logical to think that someone who would violate your rights by crashing into you on the road would care about the manner in which they did it....i.e. drunk driving, distracted by phone or GPS, recklessness, etc. If they do it, they should be punished. If they do not, leave them alone.

[+jicknarson]

Gotta jump in here - this is my first post, so feel free to flame. Whatever. This will not be a popular opinion, and it is not one that I would have held a week ago. I was out caching last weekend, on back roads and topping out at 45 max - while keeping one eye (I thought only one) on my GPSr. Glanced down (again - I thought it was only a glance), looked back up to see a big (close) flash of brown..... and within 3 seconds my vehicle was totaled. Quick as that - and not to say that it wouldn't have happened anyway - this deer was on a death mission - but I had no clue it was even on my radar. I do feel that if I had my eyes and attention ONLY on the road I might have had a chance at avoiding the accident, whether partially or fully. Luckily there were no injuries involved.

Will this change my practices in the future? I hope so....

 

You could just as well have been changing the radio station or checking your rear-view mirror.

 

Yup, Knowschad, I could have.... but I wasn't, and that, for me, is thought-provoking. Looking in my rear view is part of safe driving. Changing the radio station or checking my GPSr is not.

[+Arrow42]

What argument can you POSSIBLY give for being irresponsible and killing someone when distracted?

There you go again, you ignore my arguments and argue against something else. I'm not arguing for distracted driving - I'm arguing against the laws.

 

As I said before, when you feel the pain many of us have because of irresponsible actions, you might just have a change of heart! Discussion?

 

That actually irrelevant to the point if your discussing this from a logical point of view. This is an emotional argument - when those become acceptable in public discourse you start traveling down roads that you really don't want the government to be traveling down.

 

Discuss how your rights are being taken away? You never had the right to drive to begin with, as has been pointed out, you earned that privilege by taking the proper training. That PRIVILEGE can be revoked!

 

As an individual I have the right to engage in risky behavior so long as it not infringe upon the rights of others. The only exception that I'm willing to grant in is when the behavior is a major public safety issue. I simply don't see any evidence to show that this is in any way a major public safety issue.

 

As for that study - they had a tiny sample (40 people) and even then the differences in the results was very minor between the three groups. They also ignored several major issues - for one - many (or most) drunk drivers who are in fatal accidents are blowing well over the legal limit and that wasn't a condition they tested. .08 was chosen as a low-ball estimate to catch the lowest-tolerance drinkers. Also, they didn't really address the point that you can put down a phone - you can't put down being drunk. It's also clear the study was done with an goal in mind. They went out to prove that driving on the phone was evil and they built the test that way.

[+RS67Man]

 

The "entitlement" thing got me thinking. When I hear the word entitlement, I think of entitlements like welfare, unemployment pay, etc. I don't think I'm entitled to anything. I just want to be left alone. I actually believe there is way too much entitlement these days. In fact, most of these types of laws are created because people think they are entitled to "feel" safe (regardless of whether they are or not). Which brings me back to the whole emotional -vs- logical thought process. It is not logical to think that someone who would violate your rights by crashing into you on the road would care about the manner in which they did it....i.e. drunk driving, distracted by phone or GPS, recklessness, etc. If they do it, they should be punished. If they do not, leave them alone.

And this is why a law is made, without it, no one can be punished because there is no law against it. HELLO!!!!

 

If laws were not written to say it is illegal for a unknown stranger to enter your home and take stuff, how would the courts punish the person who boldly walked through your door uninvited and took your GPSr?

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

And this is why a law is made, without it, no one can be punished because there is no law against it. HELLO!!!!

 

If laws were not written to say it is illegal for a unknown stranger to enter your home and take stuff, how would the courts punish the person who boldly walked through your door uninvited and took your GPSr?

You should really pay attention. I have stated previously that all the situations you and others have brought up are already covered under the basic assumption that all humans have the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Violate those basic rights, and you have a crime. Stealing someone's stuff (let alone trespassing on their property) is a violation of those rights, therefore a crime. It can't be much simpler than that.

[+RS67Man]

And this is why a law is made, without it, no one can be punished because there is no law against it. HELLO!!!!

 

If laws were not written to say it is illegal for a unknown stranger to enter your home and take stuff, how would the courts punish the person who boldly walked through your door uninvited and took your GPSr?

You should really pay attention. I have stated previously that all the situations you and others have brought up are already covered under the basic assumption that all humans have the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Violate those basic rights, and you have a crime. Stealing someone's stuff (let alone trespassing on their property) is a violation of those rights, therefore a crime. It can't be much simpler than that.

 

And the person who committed the "crime" can say the same. He was perusing life, liberty and his happiness by infringing on your rights. With out a law, there is no crime.

 

If laws are not written with specific language describing what EXACTLY is and is not not lawful, then all sorts of interpretation can ensue. Then it takes precedence to to establish who is in the right and in the wrong. this in turn will cause what is accepted law to stagnate and new laws could not be written. Take a example of the invention of motor vehicles. 150 years ago, when everyone depended on horses and their own feet to get around, there were no speed limits. You could not go very fast, although there may have been laws about running your horse through the town square. Motor vehicles are invented. Because this new technology enables people to travel faster and pose a threat to others. new laws need to be written to limit the speed motor vehicles can travel in certain areas so the public is not endangered. By your example, no new law needs to be written, even though people are being killed by cars that are traveling too fast. Those that are responsible are clogging the courts arguing that they were perusing their rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Since there is no precedence, nothing has been seen like this, they get off scott free. You can argue all you want about how the person who infringed on your rights needs to be punished, but without a law, no punishment can be enforced by the judicial system. There may or may not be laws written in your state about distracted driving, but if it does not specifically describe everything that can be considered as distracting to the driver, then it needs to be rewritten, or a new law passed.

[+slukster]

That argument made no sense. If someone isn't driving in a distracted manner, why should they be pulled over for doing something?

I just want to be clear on your point of view. Is it OK to drink and drive as long as the driver is able to make it home without swerving or hitting anyone? Only after he begins to swerve or has hit someone has he done something wrong and only then should he be punished? Preventive laws are unneccessary and unconstitutional?

Edited June 26, 2009 by slukster

[+bittsen]

I just want to be clear on your point of view. Is it OK to drink and drive as long as the driver is able to make it home without swerving or hitting anyone? Only after he begins to swerve or has hit someone has he done something wrong and only then should he be punished? Preventive laws are unneccessary and unconstitutional?

 

I could go along with that and, as a point of fact, I don't drink.

I know MANY who could blow over .08 and be otherwise sober. And I know a few who could be at .08 and not walk straight (and one who would be there and pass out if it was chardonnay).