We are about to have a Texting while driving law

[excat]

It is a right granted to those of a certain age with the mental and physical capabilities of performing the task.

I thought driving was considered a priveledge, and of which can also be taken away, and mandated as seen fit?

 

[soonerwings]

So you support firearms confiscation? I mean the absence of firearms would certainly reduce firearm deaths. Look around the world and see how few firearms deaths occur in countries with little firearms ownership.

What, you support preventative laws until you find one you disagree with?

As I've stated several times, I support preventive laws that govern conduct of individuals and NOT laws that govern what people own/possess. I never made any blanket statements that ALL preventive laws are good. I guess you overlooked those posts of mine.

 

[soonerwings]

I thought driving was considered a priveledge, and of which can also be taken away, and mandated as seen fit?

Depends on who you ask. The "legal" definition is that it's a privilege. A lot of people disagree and see it as a fundamental right. I can see where both sides are coming from. Personally, I see it as a privilege if you want to drive on roads paid for by the government (taxpayers).

 

[excat]

So you support firearms confiscation? I mean the absence of firearms would certainly reduce firearm deaths. Look around the world and see how few firearms deaths occur in countries with little firearms ownership.

What, you support preventative laws until you find one you disagree with?

Killing someone with a firearm is from a direct, intended, and executed act (in most cases).

Killing someone while texting and driving is killing someone from neglecting to give propper attention to what you are doing.

Now, if you are driving and text, and see someone on the road, and swerve so you WILL hit them on purpose, that's totally different, and would then fit in the realm of shooting someone (on purpose).

 

[soonerwings]

I am not against this law. I was merely saying that i understand the logic of Ted and Henschmen (and others i forget to mention).
understanding does not mean i believe in it now.
I think there are certain rights that may be infringed on like the right to text and drive.

In this society we have to pick and choose the rights that we are willing to loose and those we are not.
But, I think this is the consequence of living in a civilized society. unfortunately this system seems to work in the favor of some and not others. What about all those mothers who lost their children to texting drivers. It seems that their voice was not heard until the incidence with the police and a texting driver.

SO, until the right person (a person in a position of power) suffers from another's negligence, nothing will be done

Just some thoughts. I am learning a lot from this discussion

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say the "right person" is the person in a position of power, unless you mean referent power as opposed to legitimate or coercive power. I'd agree that often issues aren't addressed until something bad happens to a "poster child" that the media can get behind.

 

[excat]

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say the "right person" is the person in a position of power, unless you mean referent power as opposed to legitimate or coercive power. I'd agree that often issues aren't addressed until something bad happens to a "poster child" that the media can get behind.

A lot of that though, is becuase of people that don't see the need for it, until they have that "poster child".... see above 19 page discussion, lol.

 

[KOPBET]

Without visual or forensic examination of the phone or cellular provider records to establish texting was taking place, to me this law is seemingly absolutely unenforceable (unless the cop is in the back seat looking over your shoulder.)

 

[farmerbyron]

As I've stated several times, I support preventive laws that govern conduct of individuals and NOT laws that govern what people own/possess. I never made any blanket statements that ALL preventive laws are good. I guess you overlooked those posts of mine.

I simply wanted to illustrate the absurdity of your assertion that those who oppose this law are opposed to all traffic laws. What we, or at least myself, are opposed to is redundant law. It is already against the law to be texting and driving. Failure to give full attention to the roadway or however it is worded. So if someone is swerving all over the road being a danger to others, they can already be pulled over.

All this law will do is make Ted the terrible texter sit the phone in his lap to text instead of up by the wheel this increasing the danger, not reducing it. As cited numerous times by previous posters.

 

[TedKennedy]

think about it. Your argument is no one was victimized by an incidence of texting while driving, yet you get fined for it, then you are the victim. Your right was infringed.
I am supporting your logic.

But, in the real world (since this is a law now), you would have broken a law and therefore you would no longer be the victim

Gotcha. I misunderstood your post.

For the record, again, I'm not an advocate of texting and driving in all situations.
And I am certainly not an advocate of one more excuse to have interaction with a state or city worker.

 

[soonerwings]

I simply wanted to illustrate the absurdity of your assertion that those who oppose this law are opposed to all traffic laws. What we, or at least myself, are opposed to is redundant law. It is already against the law to be texting and driving. Failure to give full attention to the roadway or however it is worded. So if someone is swerving all over the road being a danger to others, they can already be pulled over.

All this law will do is make Ted the terrible texter sit the phone in his lap to text instead of up by the wheel this increasing the danger, not reducing it. As cited numerous times by previous posters.

That wasn't my assertion. Seeing as the message was posted as a reply to sh00ter, I assumed that it was evident that my reply was specifically for him, as opposed to all who oppose the law in question. My apology for the ambiguity. I'm having trouble remembering his exact statements (and don't want to scroll through 19 pages to find them) but it was something along the lines of "people that support laws like this will lap it up while waving their Gadsden flags" and that ALL tea partiers were supportive of reducing individual liberties. I thought the latter one was kind of strange and I'm not even what I'd call a "tea partier."