Texting and Driving

[tt335ci03cobra]

I think that’s right. All these anti 2a marches, no anti addictive, spying tech marches. Hmmm, Soros is in the sandbox.

 

[Need 04 Wine]

I think society is self interested enough to put down an addictive device if they could easily lose their license or see jail time.

It would dramatically hurt the economy though. The repair and medical industry would shrink, car sales would drop, on and on.

yep my job and others would have hours and hours of "lost" time due to having to pull over and check for enroute updates. I can only legally work so long in a day, now Im spending 20% of that time parked on side of road

 

[Smooth]

Any restrictions to phone or whatever use or so on while driving is arguably an infringement of rights...

No it's not.

Responding to addicting tech and services isn’t nearly as addictive when you know an end result of no license or real prison time is a reality.

I don't think you understand addiction.

 

[Need 04 Wine]

No it's not.


I don't think you understand addiction.

Ya my phone is not a right fo sho.

And yes addiction def note gambling is in there, which I think you could toss phone in there

Addiction is a condition in which a person engages in use of a substance or in a behavior for which the rewarding effects provide a compelling incentive to repeatedly pursue the behavior despite detrimental consequences. Addiction may involve the use of substances such as alcohol, inhalants, opioids, cocaine, nicotine, and others, or behaviors such as gambling; there is scientific evidence that the addictive substances and behaviors share a key neurobiological feature—they intensely activate brain pathways of reward and reinforcement, many of which involve the neurotransmitter dopamine.

 

[CV355]

No offense, but driving in a panic state concerns me. It can cause irrational decisions.

I have, and still, counsel people with panic and anxiety. I have been there myself. That is why I studied psychology in the beginning.

No offense taken. For the record, when I panic in traffic, I don't do anything that would endanger anyone more so than simply staying in the current situation (being boxed in by dangerous drivers). The only exception to this was the incident that made me give up my last motorcycle. After getting caught in a hailstorm, everyone was driving 10x dumber than usual. It was absolute madness on Rt123. After nearly being hit 4 or 5 times in a matter of minutes, I nearly got ground to bits against a guardrail when some dumb woman driving a BMW and texting tried passing me in my lane. I lost my cool, pinned the tach, dropped the clutch and didn't let out of the throttle until I was about 5 miles down the highway. Of course, empty highway is safer than bumpercar traffic.

To another point I read in this thread, yes, there is some level of known hypocrisy in us driving fast cars and complaining about idiots on the road. I'm not going to say "it's ok because..." but let's look at it from a severity point of view.

What's more dangerous:
A) Someone driving distracted, not looking at the road for extended periods of time
B) Someone who occasionally stomps the throttle on the highway when no cars are around

Let's do another one:
A) Someone who treats every traffic light as their own personal dragstrip, regardless of surrounding traffic
B) Someone who is eating a donut while driving

Laws are laws, and if we drive over the speed limit to enjoy the power our cars make, it's still breaking the law. However, I'd rather drive being surrounded by 50 cars driven by people who are glued to the road than 5 degenerates texting while driving. Remember before texting, when we'd get upset at seeing someone yakking on a phone while driving? Doesn't seem so bad by today's standards. Slippery slope of acceptance. "eh it's not so bad compared to ____" This is also why I despise "infotainment" systems in cars.

 

[MG0h3]

I was being facetious. I think history has shown that no matter what the potential punishment is people will still break the law.

lol...sorry I missed that. May have had something to do with beer.

 

[coposrv]

How would you feel if your wife/kid was killed from someone doing something they had no business doing? Im assuming youd want to literally kill said person wouldn't you.

I’d be gutted but an eye for an eye isn’t the answer. Prison is for reform not punishment.


Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app

 

[Coiled03]

I’d be gutted but an eye for an eye isn’t the answer. Prison is for reform not punishment.

When, in the history of prison, has it ever been effective at reform? What you wish it were for, and what it IS for are two different things.

 

[Revvv]

Is it possible for the systems we have to identify the phone is solely in drivers hands and not the passengers?

If so yep.



Manslaughter yes.



Cops here can legally ask you to open your phone and let them look at email, texts, and phone calls, to see if you have just received and responded to any, if you refuse its instant ticket. Of course they have to see/have reasonable doubt that you were on it.

They need probable cause. I would accept the ticket and see the officer in court. He better have clear cut evidence that I was sending a text, or doing something stupid.

For all the officer knows I was glancing at my maps app for the next turn.

Sent from my [device_name] using the svtperformance.com mobile app

 

[coposrv]

When, in the history of prison, has it ever been effective at reform? What you wish it were for, and what it IS for are two different things.

The Dutch and Germans are seeing success. They have moved away from a “punitive path”. Especially in non-violent cases.


Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app

 

[Need 04 Wine]

No offense taken. For the record, when I panic in traffic, I don't do anything that would endanger anyone more so than simply staying in the current situation (being boxed in by dangerous drivers). The only exception to this was the incident that made me give up my last motorcycle. After getting caught in a hailstorm, everyone was driving 10x dumber than usual. It was absolute madness on Rt123. After nearly being hit 4 or 5 times in a matter of minutes, I nearly got ground to bits against a guardrail when some dumb woman driving a BMW and texting tried passing me in my lane. I lost my cool, pinned the tach, dropped the clutch and didn't let out of the throttle until I was about 5 miles down the highway. Of course, empty highway is safer than bumpercar traffic.

To another point I read in this thread, yes, there is some level of known hypocrisy in us driving fast cars and complaining about idiots on the road. I'm not going to say "it's ok because..." but let's look at it from a severity point of view.

What's more dangerous:
A) Someone driving distracted, not looking at the road for extended periods of time
B) Someone who occasionally stomps the throttle on the highway when no cars are around

Let's do another one:
A) Someone who treats every traffic light as their own personal dragstrip, regardless of surrounding traffic
B) Someone who is eating a donut while driving

Laws are laws, and if we drive over the speed limit to enjoy the power our cars make, it's still breaking the law. However, I'd rather drive being surrounded by 50 cars driven by people who are glued to the road than 5 degenerates texting while driving. Remember before texting, when we'd get upset at seeing someone yakking on a phone while driving? Doesn't seem so bad by today's standards. Slippery slope of acceptance. "eh it's not so bad compared to ____" This is also why I despise "infotainment" systems in cars.

Answer 1- A
Answer 2-A

My question now.

What's more dangerous:
A) ) Someone who occasionally stomps the throttle on the highway when no cars are around
B) Someone who occasionally looks at a text or email on the highway when no cars are around

I’m not coming at you on this. Your very civil in all this and I agree with everything you’ve said. The examples you have given of drivers are just un believable. By now I would have a pulled them over and defiantly would have had a cops involved.

Just entering this as probably everyone answered the same.
And now change a few words and see what happens.

Again I’m agreeing people doing this non stop in populated highly travelled routes should be eliminated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tt335ci03cobra]

No it's not.


I don't think you understand addiction.

It’s arguable in court that it’s an infringement of rights. It also is argued every day and binds up the legal system with filler suits and general limp wristed cases. I don’t condone it but I also am such a strong proponent of the bill of rights that I would never bite my tongue to spite my face and open the can of worms that blocking phone use in a car would lead to. That’s a slippery slope that will impact much more than just phone use while operating a vehicle as people adopt the resultant winning defenses to win far more detrimental cases of unintentional harm.

Addiction is something easy to understand. Things become addictive when they impact our brain chemistry and develop dependence. Dopamine, and many other chemicals are key to this conversation as studies have proven they are produced in excess by tech stimulus such as social media. Facebook and other tech sites are on the record both with investors, filings, and public documents stating that they build addicting algorithms into their sites. They have various algorithms that will respond to given user profile types to better “hook” the user for as long as possible. Further, they have fake accounts known as bots that will chime in positively (or negatively) to keep people on their sites. Comments and so on from bots are indescribable from real peoples accounts, and definitely are extorted to manipulate and cause addicted users.

Look it up, Facebook and others are on the hook in the public square right now for more than just 3rd amendment issues. They are doing some intended and unintended dark spirited things.

Consider this, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs wouldn’t let their own children use unsupervised tech like iPhones or so on. Some even claim they were totally void in those kids lives.

Ask why that would be. It’s a long deep dive.

I’m not sold on the idea that there is just accidents that can kill people and there’s no need to face jail time. If it’s knvoluntary man slaughter do to negligence such as known distracted driving, I condone manditory 3yr(+ as needed) prison time.

If I open a restaurant and keep a crappy kitchen, and people get sick or die, or if it’s an unsafe environment and workers get hurt or die, it’s involunatry manslaughter.

Accountability is a good thing for society. I argue that it’s better to have law and order than snowflakes and conciliation prizes, with mild slaps on the wrist.

 

[Coiled03]

The Dutch and Germans are seeing success. They have moved away from a “punitive path”. Especially in non-violent cases.

So, 2/195 countries. Solid case.

 

[03cobra#694]

yep my job and others would have hours and hours of "lost" time due to having to pull over and check for enroute updates. I can only legally work so long in a day, now Im spending 20% of that time parked on side of road

You’re a self admitted violator. As much as I think you’re ok, you my friend are wrong here.

 

[03cobra#694]

It’s arguable in court that it’s an infringement of rights. It also is argued every day and binds up the legal system with filler suits and general limp wristed cases. I don’t condone it but I also am such a strong proponent of the bill of rights that I would never bite my tongue to spite my face and open the can of worms that blocking phone use in a car would lead to. That’s a slippery slope that will impact much more than just phone use while operating a vehicle as people adopt the resultant winning defenses to win far more detrimental cases of unintentional harm.

Addiction is something easy to understand. Things become addictive when they impact our brain chemistry and develop dependence. Dopamine, and many other chemicals are key to this conversation as studies have proven they are produced in excess by tech stimulus such as social media. Facebook and other tech sites are on the record both with investors, filings, and public documents stating that they build addicting algorithms into their sites. They have various algorithms that will respond to given user profile types to better “hook” the user for as long as possible. Further, they have fake accounts known as bots that will chime in positively (or negatively) to keep people on their sites. Comments and so on from bots are indescribable from real peoples accounts, and definitely are extorted to manipulate and cause addicted users.

Look it up, Facebook and others are on the hook in the public square right now for more than just 3rd amendment issues. They are doing some intended and unintended dark spirited things.

Consider this, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs wouldn’t let their own children use unsupervised tech like iPhones or so on. Some even claim they were totally void in those kids lives.

Ask why that would be. It’s a long deep dive.

I’m not sold on the idea that there is just accidents that can kill people and there’s no need to face jail time. If it’s knvoluntary man slaughter do to negligence such as known distracted driving, I condone manditory 3yr(+ as needed) prison time.

If I open a restaurant and keep a crappy kitchen, and people get sick or die, or if it’s an unsafe environment and workers get hurt or die, it’s involunatry manslaughter.

Accountability is a good thing for society. I argue that it’s better to have law and order than snowflakes and conciliation prizes, with mild slaps on the wrist.

You so spun this off topic it’s ridiculous.

 

[Need 04 Wine]

You’re a self admitted violator. As much as I think you’re ok, you my friend are wrong here.

Lol ya the wife thinks I’m a violator too but she kinda likes it. Lmao.

I don’t claim to be right, I apologize and retract all statements that anyone would read as such.

I simply think some of the people that attack so readily, do similar things and think nothing of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CV355]

Answer 1- A
What's more dangerous:

A) ) Someone who occasionally stomps the throttle on the highway when no cars are around
B) Someone who occasionally looks at a text or email on the highway when no cars are around

In case A, the driver is likely focused on the road.
In case B, the driver is consciously deciding to put driving secondary to texting.

I vote B as more dangerous on the basis of lack of control and awareness. Ever since I was little, my father told me "be aware of your surroundings." Anyone who feels that a cell phone is a higher priority than being focused on the road should NOT be on the road. Period.

Severity is subjective. I've been dealing with subjective at work for years. I've done risk assessments, PFMEAs, DFMEAs, you name it. My signature is on DFMEAs where death is a repeating occurrence for result of failure mode. The reason I'm mentioning this is because I can cherry pick instances all day long. Fact is, someone stomping the throttle in traffic is more dangerous than a lone idiot on the highway texting and driving (higher risk of damage/casualties). The reason I'm so adamantly opposed to texting and driving is that it's so common and there's barely any social stigma about it. It's somehow acceptable and encouraged to drive around as a rolling danger, but the news is focusing all efforts on a statistical outlier because of some old Hungarian Jew with scrotal eye sockets.

Also, just got back from going to dinner with the wife. There was something like a max exodus of Sunday drivers on Rt123. After we got onto the highway portion, we saw that traffic had been held up by two cars running neck and neck at about 25mph under the speed limit and swerving around in their lanes. Finally made it up to them, saw a safe gap, passed. Looked over. BOTH had their faces glued to their phones. I think Easley SC is just the capital of horrible drivers. I drove through Greenville and honestly didn't have any problems with anyone driving. Get back into Easley and every other driver is a window-licking idiot.

Without starting a new thread: Dash-cams- any opinions? The 4 mile journey to get coffee is becoming more dangerous than what Bruce Willis pulled in Die Hard 3.

 

[Need 04 Wine]

In case A, the driver is likely focused on the road.
In case B, the driver is consciously deciding to put driving secondary to texting.

I vote B as more dangerous on the basis of lack of control and awareness. Ever since I was little, my father told me "be aware of your surroundings." Anyone who feels that a cell phone is a higher priority than being focused on the road should NOT be on the road. Period.

Severity is subjective. I've been dealing with subjective at work for years. I've done risk assessments, PFMEAs, DFMEAs, you name it. My signature is on DFMEAs where death is a repeating occurrence for result of failure mode. The reason I'm mentioning this is because I can cherry pick instances all day long. Fact is, someone stomping the throttle in traffic is more dangerous than a lone idiot on the highway texting and driving (higher risk of damage/casualties). The reason I'm so adamantly opposed to texting and driving is that it's so common and there's barely any social stigma about it. It's somehow acceptable and encouraged to drive around as a rolling danger, but the news is focusing all efforts on a statistical outlier because of some old Hungarian Jew with scrotal eye sockets.

Also, just got back from going to dinner with the wife. There was something like a max exodus of Sunday drivers on Rt123. After we got onto the highway portion, we saw that traffic had been held up by two cars running neck and neck at about 25mph under the speed limit and swerving around in their lanes. Finally made it up to them, saw a safe gap, passed. Looked over. BOTH had their faces glued to their phones. I think Easley SC is just the capital of horrible drivers. I drove through Greenville and honestly didn't have any problems with anyone driving. Get back into Easley and every other driver is a window-licking idiot.

Without starting a new thread: Dash-cams- any opinions? The 4 mile journey to get coffee is becoming more dangerous than what Bruce Willis pulled in Die Hard 3.

Gotcha.

I run a dash cam.
Can’t recall name(go dad maybe). Works great turns on with key.
Records roughly 4 hours.
Use it daily.
It’s about 3”x3”. Can set it so screen goes black after 5 minutes but still records. Which is awesome cause I drive a lot at night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DaleM]

yep my job and others would have hours and hours of "lost" time due to having to pull over and check for enroute updates. I can only legally work so long in a day, now Im spending 20% of that time parked on side of road

Your job excuse is pretty selfish. Why not out an auto response that you are driving and will reply once finished?
Will that be your excuse when you kill someone? Will that be what your eife tells you kids? Hey jids, daddy died because his job was more important than us.

 

[Need 04 Wine]

Your job excuse is pretty selfish. Why not out an auto response that you are driving and will reply once finished?
Will that be your excuse when you kill someone? Will that be what your eife tells you kids? Hey jids, daddy died because his job was more important than us.

Let me make this very clear. I have tried all things mentioned.

My bosses response you take that long to respond again. Leave the phone and keys on counter and go the **** home.

Care to explain how I get around that.

And kiss my ass if think I’m walking from a 115k a year with full benefits retirement savings matching and free truck phone and fuel, with a high school education under my belt.

Care to explain how your wife will explain to your kids you died while doing a high speed pull and blew a tire?
Pretty selfish.

And I’m still waiting for you to answer some of my other questions

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk