Reply With Quote
Is sexual contact the only way to get HPV?
lol HPV vaccinations, shoulda called them what they were "the shot"
Is sexual contact the only way to get HPV?
So, when we have to pay increased health insurance premiums, and for asshats to spend the rest of their lives hooked up to breathing machines, all for the sake of not regulating an activity that clearly harms the public good, and has no redeeming value, what the ?
This should have been a no brainer.
If texting while driving not illegal at state level, then does that cancel San Antonio's "micro-managing" rule of no texting while driving, like Fed's mj as schedule A overrides states' allowing mj shops and medical mj?
something like this, the state would pretty much have to specifically prohibit municipalities from such enforcement.
Funny, but the governor's logic could also be applied to laws that prohibit drinking while driving.
brain-dead ideological pandering always renders a politicians into stupidity and inconsistency.
this guy is the best troll since Dubbya
I can think of several driving laws that are worse than texting that go unenforced. Following too close and pole positioning are two examples.
Thing is, apply the basic rule. If someone is texting at a stop light, what's the problem?
What someone is doing is not the root problem Inattention and carelessness in moving traffic are the root problems that cause accidents.
People have in fact gotten tickets for tailgating. Don't know what "pole positioning" is.
Show your stats that tailgating is worse than texting.
Who is complaining of drivers texting at a stop light?Thing is, apply the basic rule. If someone is texting at a stop light, what's the problem?
What someone is doing is not the root problem Inattention and carelessness in moving traffic are the root problems that cause accidents.
Not enough considering it happens everywhere regularly.
Constant lane changes to move ahead in traffic.
How about showing your stats that testing is bad enough to warrant being illegal.
If we ban texting a driver from in a car, what's next?
It would become an offense with this legislation, wouldn't it.
You mean you didn't read the legislation?
but they are enforced.
You are the first person I've ever heard say that it's worse than texting....
what is the exact opposite of "this statement from WC surprises me"?
changing lanes to pass can be a legal move.Constant lane changes to move ahead in traffic.
you need to specify what part of reckless driving you are referring to.
also feel free to show how this can be worse than texting.
I think the stats shown in this thread are sufficient.How about showing your stats that testing is bad enough to warrant being illegal.
LnGrrrR's post in #44
It's irrelevant what's next to be banned.If we ban texting a driver from in a car, what's next?
Curious though, what do you think will be "next"?
You didn't, you stupid lazy dumb .It would become an offense with this legislation, wouldn't it.
You mean you didn't read the legislation?
However, the statewide measure would allow motorists to read text messages and to send messages while stopped at traffic lights or stop signs - something the San Antonio ordinance prohibits.
Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...#ixzz1QUhaGSwr
My God...
Do you understand the wiggle room in the wording?
This is a given.Due to advancements in technology, texting while driving is on the rise and is increasing day by day.
This doesn't prove texting is the cause. I'm more inclined to see these people as irresponsible, and will be irresponsible in other ways as well.A study by Virginia Tech Driving Ins ute revealed that those who resort to texting while driving are 23 time more likely to meet with an accident.
Who are they comparing that too? A non distracted driver perhaps? A non distracted driver has a near zero chance of an accident. How can we eliminate all distractions?
From my understanding, the word "caused" is implied from the fact something was going on, but not necessarily true. Funny how they included "talking" to get to that number as well, as I think it's safe to say 28% of cars on the road have someone else in the vehicle, and they are probably talking.According to a report by the National Safety Council, 28 percent of car accidents are caused by talking or texting while driving.
Only 26% How many are lying?In another recent survey, 26 percent of cell phone users said that they have texted while driving.
Now I would believe that phones were used, but not the cause. How many of these accidents would have occurred without a cell phone being used?According to the Department of Transportation cell phones are involved in 1.6 million accidents a year, causing half a million injuries and 6,000 deaths.
Don't get me wrong. I don't like to see people using cell phones while driving. I just think it's a stupid thing to add to the books when so many more dangerous acts by drivers go unenforced. We see reckless driving everyday on the roads. Accident rates have not gone up, phones are just becoming an excuse.
you trying to wiggle out of your ignorance and stupidity is also no surprise.
Just showing the problems with the statements. It lacks any certainty. It supports an agenda.
texting is inattentiveness to the extreme. A driver has to shift all of his mental faculties and a lot of his physical faculties away from driving and onto the cell phone. you can talk on the cell phone and still see where you're driving and keep both hands on the wheel. that's nearly impossible to do while texting.
also, i don't want the guy ahead of me reading/responding to texts at the stop light b/c he's not gonna pay attention when the light turns green
Tex ting is only one of several distractions some drivers have. It's just one you can see. Other distractions you can't.
Next, you're going o want the thought police to know when someone is inattentive for other reasons.
That agenda is called "public safety". Frankly I'm okay with that agenda, aren't you?
Seriously, does the fact that there's no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that texting was the specific causation of the distraction in those wrecks that texters were 23 times more likely to get into mean that you're not sure whether or not texting while driving is a bad thing?
Are you seriously opposed to banning a specific observable behavior that causes distraction merely because there are other distractions that aren't as observable? Does any attempt to reduce the number of distracted drivers have to be an "all or nothing" approach?
If you want to take issue with the specific law and how that law would have been enforced, that's one thing. But please tell me that you at least agree that texting while driving does cause accidents and that some kind of effort to prohibit that behavior is worthwhile.
In Study, Texting Lifts Crash Risk by Large Margin
At what point should I be expected to pay for the crash that results from your right to text while driving at 102 feet per second?The Virginia Tech Transportation Ins ute, which compiled the research and plans to release its findings on Tuesday, also measured the time drivers took their eyes from the road to send or receive texts.
In the moments before a crash or near crash, drivers typically spent nearly five seconds looking at their devices — enough time at typical highway speeds to cover more than the length of a football field.
Even though trucks take longer to stop and are less maneuverable than cars, the findings generally applied to all drivers, who tend to exhibit the same behaviors as the more than 100 truckers studied, the researchers said. Truckers, they said, do not appear to text more or less than typical car drivers, but they said the study did not compare use patterns that way.
This is not an activity that results in no measurable harm to others.
It can, and does, lead to actual deaths, not to mention the medical costs of the resulting crashes for survivors.
You about having to pay for other people's right to be lazy, but seem ok when it comes to paying for their right to behave like morons?
I don't understand that at all.
Yes if I thought they were serious rather than it being a political hot button.
That's all this is. Brownie points for law makers. If they were serious, they would enforce the public safety laws on the books we have now before making more.
Every state I have driven in, I see people driving lethal weapons not caring about how dangerous they can be. Nearly all accidents are preventable. I seriously doubt the numbers will be different legal or banned. The same people who would have an accident texting are the same irresponsible people who will have an accident doing some other irresponsible act.
Few things chap my ass more than adding laws to the books that are not already enforced.
Same thing goes for helmet laws. I don't want to pay for some jackass' medical bills when he is hooked up to a freaking ventilator for 40 years.
It's not the device that causes the accidents. It's the carelessness of the drivers.
That's right, punish all for the actions of some.
The problem with that is that texting seems to be far riskier than any other distraction.
The cost to benefit is actually pretty favorable, when it comes to spending effort on preventing it, as opposed to worring about a second or two for a radio station change.
Okay, you're against redundant laws. Fair enough. So in jurisdictions where texting while driving is covered under some other wreckless driving law you're okay with cops ticketing texting drivers? Right?
I want to drive drunk. I've never gotten into a wreck while driving drunk. Why should I be punished for the actions of others who have gotten into wrecks while driving drunk? There shouldn't be any laws prohibiting me from driving drunk.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions