Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 49

Thread: U.S. withheld data on risks of distracted driving

  1. #31
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,492

    Re: U.S. withheld data on risks of distracted driving

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr_Patrick View Post
    At first I thought it said "Taxing while driving", like people doing their taxes. Though, considering some of the absurd crap that people do while driving it wouldn't surprise me.

    That study doesn't surprise me at all. The most idiotic thing is I actually know a few people who proudly claim that they can text while driving like putting others at risk is something to be proud of.


    you know it used to be shocking to see someone doing 40 in the fast lane swerving around txting.....



    used to be....
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  2. #32
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: U.S. withheld data on risks of distracted driving

    Quote Originally Posted by bhkad View Post
    I think that is a rationalization which can't be proved.

    Buzzed driving is drunk driving.
    Ok ok, i can see you are a bit sensitive here. How about getting blown while driving? Would you be willing to agree that some people can operate a vehicle better than others while receiving fellatio?

    Or how about a mom smacking her daughter in the backseat for repeatedly kicking her chair? My mom was amazing at that!

    Or how about being really tired?

    I can go on and on, the point of the matter is; are we to create laws to stop this unsafe driving behavior

    Drunk driving is a victim less crime, based on the assumption of injury. On the other hand, driving while drunk and killing an innocent person is at the very minimum, vehicular manslaughter.

    IMHO of course!
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  3. #33
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: U.S. withheld data on risks of distracted driving

    I don't like any of these stupid laws anyway. From texting, to cell phone, to even drunk; don't like them. The specific laws you see put up, like bans on texting while driving, are for money purposes only. State fundraising. All of this can be covered by 1 law....reckless driving. Doesn't matter the reason, reckless driving. That's the real world effect we're all talking about here, and that's what I care about.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #34
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: U.S. withheld data on risks of distracted driving

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Drunk driving is a victim less crime, based on the assumption of injury. On the other hand, driving while drunk and killing an innocent person is at the very minimum, vehicular manslaughter.

    IMHO of course!
    So what you are saying is that we shouldn't try to discourage any of this behavior, and only bother with it if someone dies as a result?

    Thats absurd.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  5. #35
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: U.S. withheld data on risks of distracted driving

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I don't like any of these stupid laws anyway. From texting, to cell phone, to even drunk; don't like them. The specific laws you see put up, like bans on texting while driving, are for money purposes only. State fundraising. All of this can be covered by 1 law....reckless driving. Doesn't matter the reason, reckless driving. That's the real world effect we're all talking about here, and that's what I care about.
    Here we go with this again, Ikari and the money raising conspiracy.

    Question, if it was all about money raising, why would the NHTSA withhold the results for so long?

    Just think of all the money that could have been gained!!!
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  6. #36
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: U.S. withheld data on risks of distracted driving

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    So what you are saying is that we shouldn't try to discourage any of this behavior, and only bother with it if someone dies as a result?

    Thats absurd.
    Instead of giving someone 18 months suspend 9, and 5 years probation: Anyone found guilty of an alcohol/text/phone/sex/etc... related vehicular fatality should be given 20 years minimum.

    On top of that, more funding should be given towards programs that remove of the possibility of drunk driving. Such as motor clubs that have designated driver's on call in specific areas. You pay a yearly fee, and can call and get picked up (only) so you do not have to drive, or get in a vehicle where someone has been drinking.

    But.... Arresting someone for "what could" happen is what is absurd. How about spousal murder? Are we to slap an attempted murder charge or something of that nature, every time a married couple has an issue. That is usually how these murders begin, with a fight. I mean, why stop at discouraging behavior with criminality for driving.

    /siren "John Spartan you are fined one credit for breaking the morality statute." Is this your wet dream?
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  7. #37
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: U.S. withheld data on risks of distracted driving

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Here we go with this again, Ikari and the money raising conspiracy.

    Question, if it was all about money raising, why would the NHTSA withhold the results for so long?

    Just think of all the money that could have been gained!!!
    Lots of laws are money makers. Why the texting bans? Because it's safer? No, because you get to give a ticket. If it wasn't about the ticket, you'd have only the one law; reckless driving. But making all the specific laws and giving license to arbitrarily search (such as check points, pulling people over at certain times of the night, etc) are just for raising money.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  8. #38
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: U.S. withheld data on risks of distracted driving

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Lots of laws are money makers. Why the texting bans? Because it's safer? No, because you get to give a ticket. If it wasn't about the ticket, you'd have only the one law; reckless driving. But making all the specific laws and giving license to arbitrarily search (such as check points, pulling people over at certain times of the night, etc) are just for raising money.
    Texting while driving does not fall under reckless driving.

    Reckless driving requires specific driving behavior, as has been determined by the courts.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  9. #39
    dangerously addictive
    americanwoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,419

    Re: U.S. withheld data on risks of distracted driving

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Texting while driving does not fall under reckless driving.

    Reckless driving requires specific driving behavior, as has been determined by the courts.
    I agree. I got a careless/reckless driving ticket the other day. I was speeding about 10 miles over the limit, yes I admit it, and the car in the fast lane where I was driving was going about 40 (speed limit 60) so I changed lanes quickly and then went back in my lane. A cop saw and gave my a careless driving ticket instead of speeding because of the lane change. I was in control the whole time, just speeding a little. I would hate to think of myself in the same category as some jerk off who swerved into traffic and wasn't even paying attention to the road because they were texting.
    I call my own shots, largely based on an accumulation of data, and everyone knows it.
    _____________________________________________

  10. #40
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: U.S. withheld data on risks of distracted driving

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Instead of giving someone 18 months suspend 9, and 5 years probation: Anyone found guilty of an alcohol/text/phone/sex/etc... related vehicular fatality should be given 20 years minimum.
    Who gets this sort of penalty for DWI?


    On top of that, more funding should be given towards programs that remove of the possibility of drunk driving. Such as motor clubs that have designated driver's on call in specific areas. You pay a yearly fee, and can call and get picked up (only) so you do not have to drive, or get in a vehicle where someone has been drinking.
    Why can't we already have that and not have to 'fund' it? Why must the government always spend the money for these things?


    But.... Arresting someone for "what could" happen is what is absurd. How about spousal murder? Are we to slap an attempted murder charge or something of that nature, every time a married couple has an issue. That is usually how these murders begin, with a fight. I mean, why stop at discouraging behavior with criminality for driving.
    Its because it is what they have done. An argument doesn't mean that someone has attempted murder. When someone is charged with DWI they are not charged with "Attempted crashing into someone" although it may seem that way in your mind. If someone gets out and drinks and drives and crashes into someone and causes a fatality, they are charged with a felony. The problem is that drunk drivers cause alot more damage than you think. Their level of problems don't work on the same scale as the functionality of your on/off light switch. Its not "Killed someone, Or made it home without problems". Drunk drivers destroy government property such as road signs, crash into other cars causing property damage but no death, crash into other cars causing injuries and property damage but no death, crash into landscape causing property damage, crash into landscape causing property damage and injury to themselves, crash into landscape causing property damage and killing themselves, cause other vehicles to crash when trying to avoid/evade their actions, are a general menace to the motoring public who have to evade their way around them and attempt to not get into a crash with them.

    All these incidents cost 'society' safety and money. Whether it be individuals, government, or business. If it is government or business, than it will indirectly cost individuals money.

    Besides that, DWI laws are laws that actually work. Most people who get caught Driving while impaired do not offend a 2nd time.


    /siren "John Spartan you are fined one credit for breaking the morality statute." Is this your wet dream?
    Umm.. no. That has nothing to do with anything.
    DWI enforcement works to make the roads safer.

    A place where police are too busy investigating 12 drunk driver crashes in a 2 square mile radius while armed thugs go robbing stores left and right because police coverage is so thin. Is that your wet dream?
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •