2yrs for texting and killing

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Exactly.......

What's next in the age of Big Brother? Wouldn't be surprised that the insurance lobby is figuring out a way to propose hidden cameras in cars....

I can't wait until they make speed limiters linked to GPS mandatory on all vehicles sold in the US.
Right now they also have pilot programs where data loggers capture driving habits and send the info directly to insurance companies...I cant wait till they make those mandatory.

No speeding, aggressive driving is automatically reported. Toss in all the safety nannies (stability control, traction control, lane departure sensors, proximity sensors, auto park, auto shift, auto drive etc ect etc) and they will finally make travel safe for everyone within the constraints imposed by the law.

We will finally be able to text and travel without having to take public transportation.

The only thing is that they would have to ban all the older vehicles that don't have all the safety nannies installed.
For historical vehicles they would either have to pull the drivetrains (so you would be able to demonstrate the operation under a controlled environment) or do what they would have to fill the engines with concrete or something.

Motorcycles should just be banned altogether.
Too much is in control of the rider and everyone knows that human error is the leading cause of accidents. Its too difficult to control a motorcycle and text at the same time.

Maybe they should just ban cellphones.

[Turbo Ghost]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Exactly.......

What's next in the age of Big Brother? Wouldn't be surprised that the insurance lobby is figuring out a way to propose hidden cameras in cars....

You obviously haven't been paying attention! Several years ago, the insurance companies lobbied congress to install GPS in all vehicles so they could monitor the insured drivers driving habits and adjust rates accordingly. They were not successful.
So, they went a different route. Perhaps you've heard of it.
It's called OnStar. There are other variations for other manufacturers but, it's all the same principle. I know, OnStar is great! It's so helpful and it's saved lives. I agree. However, don't be surprised when it's used for more sinister purposes. I believe one of the insurance companies has an offer where they install their own GPS tracker in your car and your rates can go down if you are a good driver. Of course, their definition of a good driver might be different than yours!
Big Brother is out there and he is us!

[fasternyou929]

Originally Posted by Turbo Ghost

Personally, I think handsfree is safer than talking to a friend in the car because you aren't constantly looking over at the person and you keep your eyes on the road.

An interesting theory, but an in-depth study was done a while back that proves otherwise. Turns out when you are talking on the phone, your brain does something to establish a "connection" with the other person, something it doesn't have to do when you are sitting next to them.

It changes your focus to the horizon and creates a "virtual" connection characterized similar to a day-dream. Your eyes, and your mind, are taken off the road an order of magnitude more on a phone call than they are during a person-to-person discussion.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

I can't wait until they make speed limiters linked to GPS mandatory on all vehicles sold in the US.
Right now they also have pilot programs where data loggers capture driving habits and send the info directly to insurance companies...I cant wait till they make those mandatory.

No speeding, aggressive driving is automatically reported. Toss in all the safety nannies (stability control, traction control, lane departure sensors, proximity sensors, auto park, auto shift, auto drive etc ect etc) and they will finally make travel safe for everyone within the constraints imposed by the law.

We will finally be able to text and travel without having to take public transportation.

The only thing is that they would have to ban all the older vehicles that don't have all the safety nannies installed.
For historical vehicles they would either have to pull the drivetrains (so you would be able to demonstrate the operation under a controlled environment) or do what they would have to fill the engines with concrete or something.

Motorcycles should just be banned altogether.
Too much is in control of the rider and everyone knows that human error is the leading cause of accidents. Its too difficult to control a motorcycle and text at the same time.

Maybe they should just ban cellphones.

And the sad thing is, "the herd" will accept it....

Lately I've been hearing people have a growing acceptance of not owning a car, and just using public trans......But then I live in a big metro area......

Plus, we'll be seeing "drive by wire" sometime soon....

[TYEster]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Exactly.......

What's next in the age of Big Brother? Wouldn't be surprised that the insurance lobby is figuring out a way to propose hidden cameras in cars....

Hidden? They figured out how to make it popular already...

http://www.progressive.com/auto/snapshot.aspx

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by TYEster

Hidden? They figured out how to make it popular already...

http://www.progressive.com/auto/snapshot.aspx

Wow, how stupid

I haven't been paying attention to the insurance world, I've stayed with the same company (GEICO) for the last 10-12 yrs

Wonder how they define "sudden braking"

Personally I think sudden brakers are safer than old farts who constantly "ride" their brakes, overheating them

[Rangerscott]

There was a girl in court for the same thing. Lets see if she gets as a harsh punishment.

http://www.kctv5.com/story/17587020/...e-driving-case

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

So the fact that he received a text one minute before the crash PROVES that he was texting or reading at the moment of the crash. Gotta love people's logic.

Where's the outcry over women who apply makeup while driving?

How about handsfree calls? Better believe people become distracted by those sometimes. But no, people ignore all that and focus their hatred on texting instead. Hypocrites.

Why can't people be punished for the act, instead of the alleged cause of that act. I'm tired of people saying that someone is "more guilty" because of HOW it allegedly occurred.

Bullshit.

A guy has a few to many happy pops at the bar, and kills somebody on the way to Piggly Wiggly, he does time.

Good, we all say. He was impaired.

By your logic, he should just do time for drunk driving, since you can't really prove he crossed a double yellow on a curve because he was drunk. Maybe there was a bee in his car, who knows?

Texting may not be on the same level of impairment as being drunk, (depending on how drunk you are) but it definitely impairs your ability to drive, since driving requires that you WATCH WHERE THE FUCK YOU'RE GOING.

I don't think it's asking to much for you to put down your idouche box 3000X, or your news paper, slutty romantic novel, Big Mac, laptop, or bong, and drive your goddamn car like there were actually other people on the fucking road.

JC

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

Bullshit.

A guy has a few to many happy pops at the bar, and kills somebody on the way to Piggly Wiggly, he does time.

Good, we all say. He was impaired.

By your logic, he should just do time for drunk driving, since you can't really prove he crossed a double yellow on a curve because he was drunk. Maybe there was a bee in his car, who knows?

Texting may not be on the same level of impairment as being drunk, (depending on how drunk you are) but it definitely impairs your ability to drive, since driving requires that you WATCH WHERE THE FUCK YOU'RE GOING.

I don't think it's asking to much for you to put down your idouche box 3000X, or your news paper, slutty romantic novel, Big Mac, laptop, or bong, and drive your goddamn car like there were actually other people on the fucking road.

JC

Australian and UK studies show that talking on a cell phone is roughly equivalent to having 3 'standard' alcoholic drinks in you (call it around BAC 0.10). Texting is infinitely worse.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Australian and UK studies show that talking on a cell phone is roughly equivalent to having 3 'standard' alcoholic drinks in you (call it around BAC 0.10). Texting is infinitely worse.

I am calling bs to that one, but whatever.

I'd be willing to bet that most people only have 1 hand on the wheel the majority of the time. Therefore, holding a cellphone isn't all that bad except for the conversation/distraction bit. And you would be just as distracted by a handsfree call as you would be a handheld call.

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

Bullshit.

A guy has a few to many happy pops at the bar, and kills somebody on the way to Piggly Wiggly, he does time.

Good, we all say. He was impaired.

By your logic, he should just do time for drunk driving, since you can't really prove he crossed a double yellow on a curve because he was drunk. Maybe there was a bee in his car, who knows?

Texting may not be on the same level of impairment as being drunk, (depending on how drunk you are) but it definitely impairs your ability to drive, since driving requires that you WATCH WHERE THE FUCK YOU'RE GOING.

I don't think it's asking to much for you to put down your idouche box 3000X, or your news paper, slutty romantic novel, Big Mac, laptop, or bong, and drive your goddamn car like there were actually other people on the fucking road.

JC

First, a reference to a more well-known grocery chain (not Piggly Wiggly ) might have helped make your point better

Second, well I guess you got me there