Should it be against the law to text and drive? (109)
FalkirkguyFalkirk, Central, Scotland UK1 Threads 54 PostsCrosstownTraffic: Well, surely carrying passengers is as bad a texting...... you should have put them in the back seat at least!!
Maybe thats how I hurt my back! 
AmericanGardener: I think your law is all that would be required then. As i said it's a very sensible way to go about it. And then everyone is responsible for themselfs and the way they drive a vehicle. There would be no need for any other laws if this one is in place. It's all inclusive and it covers all stupid actions whether specifically spelled out ahead of time or not.
there lies the problem though...... some people are so stupid that need to have things spelt out for them !
Englishman55: there lies the problem though...... some people are so stupid that need to have things spelt out for them !
I think they call that predictive text!
CrosstownTraffic: I think they call that predictive text!
Englishman55: there lies the problem though...... some people are so stupid that need to have things spelt out for them !
Yes they are. But i believe you've settled the debate on texting while driving. We should just have a law like the one in the UK. It spells out certain things such as cell phone use, and texting.. yet leaves it open enough to include all other stupid acts which are as of yet unforseen.
No need for any law against either cell phones or texting or eating while driving individually. It spells it out clearly enough.. you do stupid things.. you are breaking the law. Simple easy and all encompassing. I like it. So that's what we should go for. A real logical sensible law. I still don't know what the penalites should be. As i said.. just making money off of crimes by the government isn't an appropriate punishment in my opinion.
Heather2212: Do you text and drive?
I never text and drive I always use a headset and then only to answer calls and say I will call back.
However, I can see both sides of this argument, on one side, we have dickheads who should not be allowed to use a bumper car in a fairground who get driving licenses, let alone drive while using a phone. on the other hand one has to ask the question, if you are incapable of driving safely while turning on/off the heater, blowing your nose, changing radio stations, then should you be allowed to actually drive?
I was a professional race driver, I know the concentration required when controlling a vehicle at high speed, but I also know that there are times when, while making a specific manoeuvre, you may have to change gear, steer, brake, feather the throttle, turn down the boost, check for someone on the inside/outside, judge the apex, and monitor the engine system all in a split second.
The true answer in my view is more rigorous driving test and exams, and the teaching of common sense when driving.
I read that recently in the UK a man was fined for blowing his nose, as the officers decided he was not in full control of his car. The man in question was stationary in a traffic jam at the time.
There is over regulation just as much as under regulation IMO.
rizlared: I never text and drive I always use a headset and then only to answer calls and say I will call back.
However, I can see both sides of this argument, on one side, we have dickheads who should not be allowed to use a bumper car in a fairground who get driving licenses, let alone drive while using a phone. on the other hand one has to ask the question, if you are incapable of driving safely while turning on/off the heater, blowing your nose, changing radio stations, then should you be allowed to actually drive?
I was a professional race driver, I know the concentration required when controlling a vehicle at high speed, but I also know that there are times when, while making a specific manoeuvre, you may have to change gear, steer, brake, feather the throttle, turn down the boost, check for someone on the inside/outside, judge the apex, and monitor the engine system all in a split second.
The true answer in my view is more rigorous driving test and exams, and the teaching of common sense when driving.
I read that recently in the UK a man was fined for blowing his nose, as the officers decided he was not in full control of his car. The man in question was stationary in a traffic jam at the time.
There is over regulation just as much as under regulation IMO.
However, I can see both sides of this argument, on one side, we have dickheads who should not be allowed to use a bumper car in a fairground who get driving licenses, let alone drive while using a phone. on the other hand one has to ask the question, if you are incapable of driving safely while turning on/off the heater, blowing your nose, changing radio stations, then should you be allowed to actually drive?
I was a professional race driver, I know the concentration required when controlling a vehicle at high speed, but I also know that there are times when, while making a specific manoeuvre, you may have to change gear, steer, brake, feather the throttle, turn down the boost, check for someone on the inside/outside, judge the apex, and monitor the engine system all in a split second.
The true answer in my view is more rigorous driving test and exams, and the teaching of common sense when driving.
I read that recently in the UK a man was fined for blowing his nose, as the officers decided he was not in full control of his car. The man in question was stationary in a traffic jam at the time.
There is over regulation just as much as under regulation IMO.
Unfortunately, common sense can't be taught.... and isn't very common.
bodleing: The point of the op by the looks of it.
I guess you would have to be pretty stupid to be texting in the middle of 5 o'clock rush hour traffic...what about if there is no one else on the road...the point is, government needs to get out of private lives....seatbelts,brainbuckets,(helmet law) smoking, phones/texting.....we need laws but moreso for people to think for themselves...where does it STOPcgedvr: I guess you would have to be pretty stupid to be texting in the middle of 5 o'clock rush hour traffic...what about if there is no one else on the road...the point is, government needs to get out of private lives....seatbelts,brainbuckets,(helmet law) smoking, phones/texting.....we need laws but moreso for people to think for themselves...where does it STOP
That's right you would have to be stupid. Now if there
were no stupid people maybe we wouldn't need this law.
jvaski: If the bar serves food then smoking should be banned .....otherwise you should be required to post a huge sign outside stating "SMOKING RESTAURANT " ......
Fine...posting a sign I don't have a problem with...telling me what to do in my own establishment is a problem...let the public decide whether or not they want support itcgedvr: Fine...posting a sign I don't have a problem with...telling me what to do in my own establishment is a problem...let the public decide whether or not they want support it
I'm totally against the smoking ban, but I dont see the
relevance with regards to the mobile phone issue.
bodleing: That's right you would have to be stupid. Now if there
were no stupid people maybe we wouldn't need this law.
Are we protecting the stupid or our rights and freedoms...were no stupid people maybe we wouldn't need this law.
cgedvr: Are we protecting the stupid or our rights and freedoms...
I think the idea is to protect us from the stupid.
bodleing: I'm totally against the smoking ban, but I dont see the
relevance with regards to the mobile phone issue.
Its along the same lines as wearing a seatbelt, helmet riding a cycle,smoking,texting....sure you would be more safe to wear your sbelt, or a helmet on a mcycle, not to text in traffic..figure it out...most likely smart to wear a helmet but I don't don't need the government to make it law...trust me Arnold Swartzenneggar needs it to supplement the budget...Califonia is the worstrelevance with regards to the mobile phone issue.
bodleing: I think the idea is to protect us from the stupid.
Like I said earlier today...were doomed.. bodleing: I think the idea is to protect us from the stupid.
Actually i think it's more so to protect the stupid from themselves by calling all of us stupid. Yeah it protects those who are involved with the people who can't figure out how to drive from being in accidents with them. But, mostly i think it's to protect them in the first place.
And as stated over and over again. Our governments will stop at nothing to make laws to protect the few while taking away the rights of the majority. And they are addicted to the money they make off of the stupid ones.. and the stubborn ones who refuse to conform. It's all about money.. and it's all about control. Little to nothing to do with safety except for the fact that they can use it to cause fear in the majority in order for them to give up their freedoms.
Who then is in more need of protection if not the 'stupid'?
So-called 'stupid people' have the same rights as anybody else.
Who defines 'stupidity'?
Does a momentary lack of concentration (any distraction) qualify one as 'stupid'? No-one maintains the same level of concentration or diligence on a daily basis. No-one can be that consistant. So, everyone may be guilty of 'stupidity'. To say, "I've been driving x amount of years and never had an accident" in no way confirms that one won't in the future.
Does the rest of the citizenry deserve the right to be protected from the 'stupid'?
Are the laws to reap in revenue, or to stop people dying? Note: the dead can no longer pay taxes.
Having read this thread these points occured to me.
So-called 'stupid people' have the same rights as anybody else.
Who defines 'stupidity'?
Does a momentary lack of concentration (any distraction) qualify one as 'stupid'? No-one maintains the same level of concentration or diligence on a daily basis. No-one can be that consistant. So, everyone may be guilty of 'stupidity'. To say, "I've been driving x amount of years and never had an accident" in no way confirms that one won't in the future.
Does the rest of the citizenry deserve the right to be protected from the 'stupid'?
Are the laws to reap in revenue, or to stop people dying? Note: the dead can no longer pay taxes.
Having read this thread these points occured to me.
More Threads
men's perspective towards women
1830's Music
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
Feel Good Music
The Best of the GOP
Common Issues with the BMW X1
your personality
rarotonga
wanting beyond need
other can see but not you
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »