Drunk trucking: Protected?

[Milford Cubicle II]

For the record, I never text and drive. I have enough trouble texting (without a keyboard only a phone pad) when standing/sitting still.

It's not our fault that you're too old to know how to text.

For instance, I can honestly text without even looking at my phone. The only time I actually look at is it after I've typed my response to read it and make sure it says what I intended for it to say. Which takes about as long as it takes to check to see what time it is or what station I'm listening to on the stereo.

Therefore it's stupid to advocate banning something that does not CAUSE accidents. Not paying attention causes accidents. Texting/talking/scratching your ass does not cause accidents.

And why did you give the example of your friend's wife getting in a wreck from spilling her coffee when we're talking about texting/talking on the cell phone while driving. Hot coffee in the lap is obviously more distracting. So is the hot cherry from a cigar or cigarette falling into your lap. So let's add smoking while driving to the list of things to ban. See the flaw in logic in this yet?

 

[GrimmJeeper]

See the flaw in logic in this yet?

distraction is the issue here, not talking on the phone, not texting, not being on fire as you state in your example. the problem is the majority of people are less focused on the road than they should be while operating these devices. I know 100% the times i've texted while driving were more focused on fooling with my phone than driving and I refuse to do it anymore unless I'm sitting still at a stop light or something similar. I've seen first hand the damage distracted driving can cause, Just last week I saw a woman plow into a car stopped at a light without even braking because she was on her cell phone. she hit this car so hard it was pushed across the intersection beyond the crossing lines on the other side, then got out and said " I have to call you back somebody slammed on the brakes in front of me". The problem is not the device, it's people's ability to cope with driving and operating them at the same time. It would seem that most cannot, so I think it's better to ban it overall than to risk being rear-ended by someone not paying attention to the fact that they are hurtling thousands of pounds of steel down the road at high speed.

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

That's BS logic though! I understand what you're saying but first of all, you're assuming that because you ban it, people will stop doing it. And second of all, there's already a ban on not paying attention. It's called being at fault for an accident and getting a big fat "failure to maintain control of the vehicle" or a "careless and imprudent driving" ticket! Yet those don't stop people from being dumbasses do they?? So what makes you think people will stop texting for a slap on the wrist ticket?

I think maybe California's "ban everything" liberal attitude has gotten to ya

 

[Darky]

However, having a means of recourse when someone does do something that puts others at risk allows for law enforcement to be able to stop those people and end that particular occurrence. If law enforcement has to wait until the distraction has caused an accident, the damage is already done. Texting while driving is retarded and so is defending it. I've composed texts a couple times without having to look at the phone, but my attention was still not entirely on the driving. now I wait until I'm stopped somewhere. If the light changes, I put it down and it waits til the next stop.

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

Getting a fat ticket (and yes, both failure to maintain and C&I are quite hefty and expensive tickets) is plenty enough of a deterrent for most people to pay attention and drive. And for the others, nothing is going to make them drive like sane human beings.

If I choose to text and drive, then I do so knowing that if I cause an accident as a result I'll have plenty of punishment coming.

What's really retarded is ticketing someone for doing something that COULD lead to an accident. Until they've caused an accident, they haven't done anything wrong. By your argument, doing anything "distracting" while driving should be illegal.

 

[scottmcneal]

H U A driving KILLS

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

Exactly. I see far more people driving like bullsh*t while doing absolutely nothing distracting at all. If you're on your phone, understand that you're on the phone AND driving and therefore drive accordingly - carefully. Same with texting. Same with drinking coffee. Same with smoking. Same with doing shots.

Ok, that last one was a joke but my point remains.

 

[scottmcneal]

YEP.You win.

 

[Darky]

Exactly. I see far more people driving like bullsh*t while doing absolutely nothing distracting at all. If you're on your phone, understand that you're on the phone AND driving and therefore drive accordingly - carefully. Same with texting. Same with drinking coffee. Same with smoking. Same with doing shots.

Ok, that last one was a joke but my point remains.

What? Drive carefully because you're being careless? How does this even come close to making sense. By that nature, we should leave the drunk driver alone as long as he's driving by braille at 15mph. See, I can make nonsense logical leaps too. As far as your argument against ticketing someone for doing something that may cause an accident, what about speeding tickets, running red lights, crossing the double yellow line, following too closely, wreckless driving, going too slow, impeding traffic, overloading your truck/trailer, etc etc etc.

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

It makes sense because you're wrong that texting is automatically careless.

Whether you realize it or not, you're always driving with some level of distraction. For me, I catch my self paying the least amount of attention to the road just by being in deep thought or day dreaming. My point is, no matter what you're doing while driving, pay attention. All of those tickets you mentioned are innately dangerous which is why they're illegal. It's scientific fact that speed increases fatality in accidents, therefore speed limits. Obviously running red lights is dangerous in and of itself as well. However, nothing says that someone who is texting and driving is speeding, following too closely, crossing the double yellow, impeding traffic, or driving with an overloaded trailer rolleyes: what??). Also, your drunk driving argument is not even close to parallel to my argument for texting and driving. If someone is driving at 15mph, that's dangerous and should be stopped.

Gettin it yet?

 

[Darky]

Running a red light hasn't caused harm to anyone, yet. However it could cause an accident. Speeding in and of itself isn't dangerous, but could cause an accident. An overloaded trailer is more likely to experience a blowout which could cause an accident. My examples weren't all things that people do while texting but examples of laws in place to protect people from dangerous activities.

Explain to me how texting while driving is at all safe. by your logic (which I agree with on this point), distracted driving is dangerous, correct? And people should pay attention while driving. So...doing something other than driving while driving gets a pass because you're OK with it?

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

You're not getting it. Running a red light is no doubt dangerous driving. Speeding causes ZERO accidents, failing to yield the right of way to other traffic or failing to maintain control of your vehicle does; but the speeding makes it much more deadly which is why there are speed limits. Also because you can control your vehicle much better and have more time to react at lower speeds than at higher speeds. Overloading a trailer is dangerous for the reason you gave. Overloading a trailer WILL eventually lead to a blowout. Speeding WILL increase the energy of an accident to much more deadly levels and WILL reduce the time you have to react and WILL make your vehicle harder to control. Correct?

So the question is does texting cause accidents? No. Failing to maintain control of your vehicle or failing to yield to other vehicles does. If someone is texting and blows a red light, ticket them for blowing a red light. If someone is texting and is speeding, then ticket them for speeding. If someone is texting and swerves into another lane, then ticket them for failing to maintain a lane. If someone is texting and runs into the vehicle in front of them, then ticket them for the accident. But if someone is texting and isn't doing any of those things, then how fair is it to ticket them? Texting is not inherently dangerous, people just don't know how to do it safely.

When you're doing it right, you merely glance at your phone every few seconds - just like you may glance down at your speedometer or clock or whatever.

Reaching for things is also distracting. Should we make "reaching while driving" illegal? Gawking at hot ladies in the lane beside you is also VERY distracting, should we make create a law against "running game while driving?" Grabbing cigarettes and trying to light up while driving is also very distracting, as is dropping cherries in your lap or the whole damn cigarette so should we also ban smoking while driving? I could go on and on but if you don't get it by now, you never will

 

[bigalpha]

Speeding causes ZERO accidents,

I don't think this is completely accurate. If you are speeding while it's raining/snowing it definitely can cause an accident.

If you are speeding on bald tires or tires that are old - they can blow out from the speed/heat.

If you are speeding, you may not be able to make the next sharp turn and go flying off the road.

 

[Darky]

You're not getting it. Running a red light is no doubt dangerous driving. Speeding causes ZERO accidents, failing to yield the right of way to other traffic or failing to maintain control of your vehicle does; but the speeding makes it much more deadly which is why there are speed limits. Also because you can control your vehicle much better and have more time to react at lower speeds than at higher speeds. Overloading a trailer is dangerous for the reason you gave. Overloading a trailer WILL eventually lead to a blowout. Speeding WILL increase the energy of an accident to much more deadly levels and WILL reduce the time you have to react and WILL make your vehicle harder to control. Correct?

So the question is does texting cause accidents? No. Failing to maintain control of your vehicle or failing to yield to other vehicles does. If someone is texting and blows a red light, ticket them for blowing a red light. If someone is texting and is speeding, then ticket them for speeding. If someone is texting and swerves into another lane, then ticket them for failing to maintain a lane. If someone is texting and runs into the vehicle in front of them, then ticket them for the accident. But if someone is texting and isn't doing any of those things, then how fair is it to ticket them? Texting is not inherently dangerous, people just don't know how to do it safely.

When you're doing it right, you merely glance at your phone every few seconds - just like you may glance down at your speedometer or clock or whatever.

Reaching for things is also distracting. Should we make "reaching while driving" illegal? Gawking at hot ladies in the lane beside you is also VERY distracting, should we make create a law against "running game while driving?" Grabbing cigarettes and trying to light up while driving is also very distracting, as is dropping cherries in your lap or the whole damn cigarette so should we also ban smoking while driving? I could go on and on but if you don't get it by now, you never will

No trust me, I get your point, I just disagree. I don't look at texting as a lesser offense. Never has there been a text that you absolutely had to send right that very moment. It is an unnecessary distraction. Not everyone is a texting superman like you, most will need to glance down to know what they're doing. Speeding may increase the likelihood of an accident as well as the severity. Texting is exactly the same. Hell, it can be shown that certain people shouldn't even be on the phone while parking. A sheriff's deputy I know was standing with 4 or 5 others when a woman on the phone backed into them, almost pressing them into the wall. The deputy had to break out the woman's taillight to get her attention.

 

[tbburg]

For me, I catch my self paying the least amount of attention to the road just by being in deep thought or day dreaming. My point is, no matter what you're doing while driving, pay attention.

Done that a lot myself. complete a 30-40 mile trip, and haveno memory of the road, conditions, or cars. You know where you're going, put the car on cruise control, the brain on autopilot, and think, listen to music, etc,..

Side note on red light running. If it's so dangerous, why are many states making it legal for motorcycles to drive through red lights if it's dangerous? Blowing through any traffic control point is dangerous, but if you stop, check the intersection, then proceed, you're only guilty of ignoring the red, not of creating a hazard.

 

[scottmcneal]

They must stop for the red light.If the light does not change after time you may go thru the red light.You CAN'T just run it.We have this law in CA now for a long time, i have used it many of times when i was on motorcycles.But you just can't pull up and drive thru it.Some lights won't trigger to change so they allow you to do this.I hated this part of riding.Dam lights in the desert and not changing sucked in the summer

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

I don't think this is completely accurate. If you are speeding while it's raining/snowing it definitely can cause an accident.

If you are speeding on bald tires or tires that are old - they can blow out from the speed/heat.

If you are speeding, you may not be able to make the next sharp turn and go flying off the road.

I agree that it's better to not text and drive than to text and drive. I just don't think it should be illegal. There are already plenty of laws already in place for committing violations that you might commit as a result of texting (or not paying attention in general) while driving, therefore I see no need for another (redundant) law.

I don't think this is completely accurate. If you are speeding while it's raining/snowing it definitely can cause an accident.

If you are speeding on bald tires or tires that are old - they can blow out from the speed/heat.

If you are speeding, you may not be able to make the next sharp turn and go flying off the road.

Speeding causes ZERO accidents, failing to yield the right of way to other traffic or failing to maintain control of your vehicle does... you can control your vehicle much better and have more time to react at lower speeds...Speeding WILL increase the energy of an accident to much more deadly levels and WILL reduce the time you have to react and WILL make your vehicle harder to control

If you're able to control your vehicle, then you're not going too fast. If you can't control your vehicle then you are going too fast. Speed limits have almost nothing to do with controlling your vehicle. As I'm sure you know, your ability to maintain control of your vehicle depends on who you are and what you're driving. Also, in bad weather you can lose control of your vehicle WELL below the posted speed limit. See how the correlation between speed and accidents is not with speed, but with maintaining control of your vehicle? Yes, speed generally correlates with ability to control your vehicle, but is not the cause of accidents. The autobahn is a good example. They're not concerned with speed, they're concerned with you maintaining control of your vehicle. Which is one reason they take such good care of the road surface.

And no, I would not condone texting and driving on the autobahn :laugh3:

 

[5-90]

They must stop for the red light.If the light does not change after time you may go thru the red light.You CAN'T just run it.We have this law in CA now for a long time, i have used it many of times when i was on motorcycles.But you just can't pull up and drive thru it.Some lights won't trigger to change so they allow you to do this.I hated this part of riding.Dam lights in the desert and not changing sucked in the summer

Which leads right into the argument I have with bicyclists as well - if we're all going to play in the same sandbox, we all have to play by the same rules.

- If I have to stop for a light, you have to stop for a light.
- If I have to stop before making a turn, you have to stop before making a turn.
- If I can't go through light after waiting, you have to wait for it to change as well.
- If I have to respect lane markings, you have to respect lane markings. A lane is one vehicle wide - not one and one-half, not two. I don't care that your engine is air-cooled - I couldn't "split lanes" when I was driving my Bug...
- If I have to yield to traffic and let it pass because I'm going too slow, do do you.
- If I have to stay out of a bicycle lane, you have to stay out of the automobile lane.

"Share the road" cuts both ways - and bicyclists and motorcyclists, from what I've seen, seem to think that "give and take" means "I give, you take."

Which I find infuriating.

 

[Darky]

I agree that it's better to not text and drive than to text and drive. I just don't think it should be illegal. There are already plenty of laws already in place for committing violations that you might commit as a result of texting (or not paying attention in general) while driving, therefore I see no need for another (redundant) law.

it would be nice if people were intelligent enough to make the decision on their own about when it is safe and when it isn't but people are idiots.

If you're able to control your vehicle, then you're not going too fast. If you can't control your vehicle then you are going too fast. Speed limits have almost nothing to do with controlling your vehicle. As I'm sure you know, your ability to maintain control of your vehicle depends on who you are and what you're driving. Also, in bad weather you can lose control of your vehicle WELL below the posted speed limit. See how the correlation between speed and accidents is not with speed, but with maintaining control of your vehicle? Yes, speed generally correlates with ability to control your vehicle, but is not the cause of accidents. The autobahn is a good example. They're not concerned with speed, they're concerned with you maintaining control of your vehicle. Which is one reason they take such good care of the road surface.

And no, I would not condone texting and driving on the autobahn :laugh3:

There's actually a lot more going into the speed limit then just maintaining control. Factors such as typical traffic load, average speed of traffic, intersecting roads/driveways, zoning, curves, hills, etc. On CA SR 62, the same highway has speed limits ranging from 40 up to 65 depending on where you are. In between towns where there are no driveways or crossroads, it is 65. When it runs through the "bustling metropolis" of Yucca Valley (those who've been through Yucca will know what a joke that statement is), it drops to 40.In areas that are still sparsely populated but have a couple small crossroads, they set the limit to 50 or 60.

Which leads right into the argument I have with bicyclists as well - if we're all going to play in the same sandbox, we all have to play by the same rules.

- If I have to stop for a light, you have to stop for a light.
- If I have to stop before making a turn, you have to stop before making a turn.
- If I can't go through light after waiting, you have to wait for it to change as well.
- If I have to respect lane markings, you have to respect lane markings. A lane is one vehicle wide - not one and one-half, not two. I don't care that your engine is air-cooled - I couldn't "split lanes" when I was driving my Bug...
- If I have to yield to traffic and let it pass because I'm going too slow, do do you.
- If I have to stay out of a bicycle lane, you have to stay out of the automobile lane.

"Share the road" cuts both ways - and bicyclists and motorcyclists, from what I've seen, seem to think that "give and take" means "I give, you take."

Which I find infuriating.

The point behind allowing a motorcyclist to go through a light after stopping is that the lights out here are triggered by weight, somewhere around 800lbs. Unless you're a big fatty on full dress Harley, you're not likely to trigger the light. Rather than make you sit in 120 heat on top of a chunk of exploding metal for what could be upwards of 15-30 minutes in some areas out here, they allow you to go through.

Lane splitting has nothing to do with being air-cooled. It has to do with the fact that a bike can fit through and done properly, can be safe and a nice perk. Mind you, most don't do it properly. Properly doesn't mean doing 80 in between a line of cars doing 65. I wouldn't mind putting a speed limit (uh oh, there's that word again) on lane splitting, ie, maybe at speeds below 25 or so. Get through the traffic jam, get to the front of the line, but don't appear out of nowhere when I may be wanting to change lanes on the I10.

 

[tbburg]

There's actually a lot more going into the speed limit then just maintaining control.

Yep. Our interstate system was designed for 75mph travel,.. In 1950s technology automobiles. What mainly goes into speed limits now is politics.

The point behind allowing a motorcyclist to go through a light after stopping is that the lights out here are triggered by weight

I know about the active read light sensors. My point was, if a motorcycle can pull to a stop light,(red) observe the intersection, then safely move through the intersection without waiting for the signal, a driver in a car could do the same maneuver successfully and safely.

Lane splitting has nothing to do with being air-cooled. It has to do with the fact that a bike can fit through and done properly, can be safe and a nice perk. Mind you, most don't do it properly. Properly doesn't mean doing 80 in between a line of cars doing 65. I wouldn't mind putting a speed limit (uh oh, there's that word again) on lane splitting, ie, maybe at speeds below 25 or so. Get through the traffic jam, get to the front of the line, but don't appear out of nowhere when I may be wanting to change lanes on the I10.

Lane splitting isn't a perk. It should be illegal. While there may be a safe way to do it, I don't know what it would be. "Safely" running the lane divider between 2 cars at any speed would require driver/biker/driver communication, so that everyone involved would know what everyone else involved was doing. That isn't going to happen, so it can't be done safely. Getting through a traffic jamb quicker might be a perk, but it's no excuse to do it.
If they wanted to put a speed limit on lane splitting, I'd vote in favor of 7-10 MPH below current traffic conditions.

it would be nice if people were intelligent enough to make the decision on their own about when it is safe and when it isn't but people are idiots.

And bikers are people.