Rubes

[George Jung]

Following several MVA's and deaths, the debate has been rekindled in South Dakota - whether to ban texting while driving. The state legislature voted it down, and by a wide margin, last year - they just weren't convinced it was a problem, and thought it one more example of government intruding on personal rights. With the multiple deaths in the news, the city of SF is looking at banning it, in city limits. Some of the comments - against the ban - are mind-boggling. Not a whit of sense, no studies cited (we don't need no stinkin' studies), no reasoning. It's like dealing with 3 yo's - they want what they want, regardless the implications.

Or herding cats.

http://www.argusleader.com/

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Wow, that's weird. You cannot even talk on your cell phone while driving in Ontario. Only legitimate hands free devices or car technology is legal.

[George Jung]

Yup. Amazing, isn't it?

[David G]

Well... one has to applaud their unwitting efforts both toward keeping the threat of overpopulation dimmed, and toward illustrating the lovely ideological purity of Randian/Darwinian solutions.

[George Jung]

And then we get this....

SA

CRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Legislation that would ban government agencies from disrupting cellphone service without a court order is heading to Gov. Jerry Brown.
The state Senate approved SB1160 on a unanimous vote Monday. The Assembly passed the bill last week.
The bill by Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla of Los Angeles came in response to the Bay Area Rapid Transit system, which cut wireless service in San Francisco subway stations last year to disrupt a planned protest.
The shutdown sparked a global free speech debate.
Padilla says his bill protects the public's right to communication services unless an agency has a court order based on probable cause. The bill protects any service used for calling 911, including wireless and Internet-based services.
BART is supporting the bill.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012...g.html?_r=1&hp

[Keith Wilson]

. . . Darwinian solutions.

Perhaps the solution would be to make it legal to text, but only while NOT wearing a seatbelt and driving a car with NO functional driver's side airbag.

Nah, they'd still probably kill someone other than themselves. . .

[Old Dryfoot]

...Only legitimate hands free devices or car technology is legal.

Same here.

[B_B]

And then we get this....

SA

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012...g.html?_r=1&hp

Gov't (BART et. al.) are all for banning stuff that helps people speak truth to power but have no interest in banning stuff that helps us distract ourselves to death. Lions and circuses.

[David G]

Perhaps the solution would be to make it legal to text, but only while NOT wearing a seatbelt and driving a car with NO functional driver's side airbag.

Nah, they'd still probably kill someone other than themselves. . .

Well, see... it's not just any given texting driver that has voted down such BigGovernmentIsTellingMeWhatToDoAgain restrictions. Heck... he might even have voted FOR them, but it didn't become law, so what the heck???

That's the beauty. Until a majority of the population of the state enacts sensible legislation, and the culture changes to accept such common-sense measures (kinda like the shift in attitudes about driving drunk)... they're all fair game.

[hokiefan]

I have texted while driving in the past. It is frighteningly dangerous, and I will not do it again.

Bobby

[skuthorp]

Banned here, but I see it going on all the time. There are people in jail because they killed someone whilst texting.

[John Bell]

It's banned here, but the authorities admit the ban is pretty much unenforceable.

My take is it's another example of a 'there oughta be a law' situation. The legislature was handed a simple 'problem' (texting while driving) and could quickly create and pass a simple non-controversial law (no texting while driving) and everyone is happy. It doesn't solve anything, but it makes everyone feel better while at the same time making the legislators look like they are effective.

Edited to add: Texting and phone calls aren't the only distraction. I nearly rear-ended someone this morning becuase when I took my first sip of coffee I discovered I had the lid on my travel mug on crooked and it had become a dribble cup. Hot coffee in your crotch is distracting, who knew?!

The answer of course would be to pass a law that banned every activity but driving while in the car. That law would have practically no chance of passing because it would offend practically every person who drives. No elected official wants to get stuck with that proposal, which is why it will never happen. It would be political suicide.

[pipefitter]

The law may be unenforceable, but it may be possible for courts to gather phone records as evidence in the event someone is killed or injured in an auto accident? I wonder if this can be one of those situations like rear end collisions, where the one who actually rear ends the car in front of them is typically automatically charged with the accident?

I recently just got a cell after 4 years without a phone of any kind. Not only do I routinely turn it off when heading for the car, but also forget to turn it back on for hours afterwards, with a backlog of texts that state. . ."turn on your f'n phone!"

I wonder if they know that I can't hear their texts either?

[skuthorp]

"The law may be unenforceable, but it may be possible for courts to gather phone records as evidence in the event someone is killed or injured in an auto accident?"
This is what happens here. And whilst it's impossible to stamp out the practice completely thousands are fined and many loose their licences here on a point system when caught. A policeman sitting on a bench in a busy street could probably pay his yearly salary in a couple of weeks just noting times and number plates.

[Peerie Maa]

It's banned here, but the authorities admit the ban is pretty much unenforceable.

My take is it's another example of a 'there oughta be a law' situation. The legislature was handed a simple 'problem' (texting while driving) and could quickly create and pass a simple non-controversial law (no texting while driving) and everyone is happy. It doesn't solve anything, but it makes everyone feel better while at the same time making the legislators look like they are effective.

Edited to add: Texting and phone calls aren't the only distraction. I nearly rear-ended someone this morning becuase when I took my first sip of coffee I discovered I had the lid on my travel mug on crooked and it had become a dribble cup. Hot coffee in your crotch is distracting, who knew?!

The answer of course would be to pass a law that banned every activity but driving while in the car. That law would have practically no chance of passing because it would offend practically every person who drives. No elected official wants to get stuck with that proposal, which is why it will never happen. It would be political suicide.

There is probably a misdemeanour along the lines of driving without due care and attention, or not being in proper control of the vehicle that covers driving whilst eating drinking or reading a paper map. Thing is using a mobile is so easy to prosecute if there is a traffic cop in your stream of traffic.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Ontario is a more advanced form of civilization compared to the USA. And yes, I can cite examples.

[Flying Orca]

Ontario is a more advanced form of civilization compared to the USA. And yes, I can cite examples.

Man, if you think so, you should see the rest of Canada!

(/ducks)