ExFlyBoy5
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
. I say if the cop sees em, their guilty, no need for a trial.
So much for that due process clause and all. Happy Independence Day, ya'll!
. I say if the cop sees em, their guilty, no need for a trial.
I'm tired of the inconsideration and the threat to my life.
I hope you are not poor, since it seems to me you'd both be guilty and unfortunately probably take out other innocent drivers around you.I see the texters about everytime I'm out driving, and I understand they think its harmless when in the city.
What really freaks me out is on the interstate I'm doing 75 mph and I get passed by someone doing 80-85 and he/she is head bobbing texting away.
If I was poor driving an old car, I'd just wait for a head bobber to be behind me, then I'd slam on my brakes and get rich.
IMHO, motorists do not have the right to be distracted. Once they have taken the responsibility to transport themselves in a machine that can easily kill vulnerable road users and others in motor vehicles, they need to pay 100% attention to their responsibility. It amazes me that there is even a discussion about this.
Define distracted driving, if I take a sip of coffee or water while driving then that could be distracted driving, I think the nanny state is getting carried away. Why not take all radios out of the cars and ban all conversation while driving. Oh and can I bound and gag my kids with duct tape because they can be pretty distracting sometimes?
... Here is how the Netherlands handles vulnerable road users:
"When art. 185 WVW is applicable, it means the motor vehicle user is liable for financial damage, unless that driver can prove the incident was caused by circumstances beyond his/her control.
So, what do you do with the violators like young adult speeders or texters? Hang them?
.
If it were left to me, I would not have such age discrimination.
Hang them all, regardless of age.
It wouldn't be technically challenging to make cell phones inoperative when they are on the move. Doing that in a blanket fashion would also make it impossible for others in the car to use their phones, and it would make it impossible for drivers to use GPS on their phones in the way they do now (though there are workarounds for that). Perhaps after one conviction for texting/prohibited use of a phone in a car, a person's mobile cell account should be barred from any on-the-move data access. Their phone number is added to their drivers license, and if a cop finds a phone with any different number within their reach in a car, they are in violation of the terms of their release and go directly to the slammer.
It's quite evident when these folks are going down the road, often well under the speed limit, roaming around in their lane, and paying scarce attention to the world outside.
Well, that chemical you refer to was ingested on a voluntary basis..so no IMO it's not more excusable....Why not slap someone with a $10k fine if they're caught using a smart phone...kind of like what they do when you get busted for a dui.
I was driving on the highway the other day and a big billboard with a dui message: "you just blew $10,000." I thought it was great.
I would say its more excusable to drive while intoxicated than playing with a cell phone when you're sober and driving. When you're drunk a chemical is destroying your body. When you're sober and texting you're just being a &%#@ and there is no excuse. And no...I dont care if you're waiting on a call from the hospital about a family member who is on deaths door...I would rather you not kill someone else in the process of taking a call.
Define distracted driving, if I take a sip of coffee or water while driving then that could be distracted driving, I think the nanny state is getting carried away. Why not take all radios out of the cars and ban all conversation while driving. Oh and can I bound and gag my kids with duct tape because they can be pretty distracting sometimes?
Define distracted driving, if I take a sip of coffee or water while driving then that could be distracted driving, I think the nanny state is getting carried away. Why not take all radios out of the cars and ban all conversation while driving. Oh and can I bound and gag my kids with duct tape because they can be pretty distracting sometimes?
If you or yours was ever a victim of someone driving irresponsibly, you'd probably not only feel differently but be screaming bloody murder for people to listen before more victims are created. Think Russian roulette, not open carry. It's a closer analogy.
Speeding is a leading cause of accidents
Nonsense. Certainly the severity of the accident increases in direct proportion with the velocity at impact, but speed alone is rarely responsible for causing the accident in the first place. Nobody is out there doing 35 mph in a 30 mph zone, then suddenly losing control of their car and wrapping it around a baby carriage full of puppies. That's nanny-state propaganda.
If you or yours was ever a victim of someone driving irresponsibly, you'd probably not only feel differently but be screaming bloody murder for people to listen before more victims are created. Think Russian roulette, not open carry. It's a closer analogy.
Perhaps "excessive speed" or "unsafe speed for the prevailing conditions"?
Nonsense. Certainly the severity of the accident increases in direct proportion with the velocity at impact ...
Force of impact is the force generated when objects meet. The faster you drive, the greater the impact or striking power of your vehicle. The laws of physics determine that the force of impact increases with the square of the increase in speed.
Violating the laws of physics is against community rules.
Sorry, it is not in 'direct proportion'. Impact forces increase with the square of the increase in speed. IOW, a 50 mph impact has 4 times the forces of a 25 mph impact, not 2 times.
https://driversed.com/driving-information/the-vehicle/factors-determining-force-of-impact.aspx
-ERD50