This post makes me want to pat you on the head and give you a cookie.
Texting takes a lot more attention from driving than eating a burrito or using the radio.
The only problem with allowing people to engage in this behavior is that they are putting others in harms way, too. Not just themselves.
Here are a few recent articles on the dangers.
http://www.caranddriver.com/feat..._is_it_-
feature
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/1...0texting&
st=cse
And a little game.
http://www.nytimes.com/interacti...0texting&
st=cse
And I never said it wasn't dangerous - just that there are a myriad of things people do in a car - smart or not - that should also be outlawed if we're going to go this route.
We're telling people when they can smoke, where they can smoke, that they can't drink in a bar without possibly getting a public intox - where does it end?
@Bethany
I didn't get the sense that you said it's not dangerous, but I think graham (crackers) is saying that you are minimizing the risk factor. Right, g?
Bethany, you're missing the bigger picture about some of these high profile bans. Accidents resulting from texting & driving costs taxpayers and insurance companies loads of money. I would generally support a ban, a repeal of a ban or a controlling measure (i.e. no smoking in restaurants) if it reduces consumer fees and government spending, clearly save lives and does not infringe upon our constitutional rights.
I was not tracking with your reasoning.
Just an FYI, everyone - I can see IP addresses. So please - for the sake of intellectual honesty and good, clean debating - keep to one nickname.
Sock puppetry is such a bore.
First they came for our blood samples, but I did not object as I was lamentably sober. Next, they came for our cellphones, but I did not object because, face it, I'm a lazy fuck and I've got plenty on my mind already, thanks. Then they came for our radios and I dared not take a stand, figuring Dallas radio pretty much sucks anyway. Eventually, they came for our cigarettes but I tooketh not a stand -- there is such a thing as breaking the law surreptitiously, hello? Then, they came for our kids and I was like, really? You mean we don't have to pay you?
Finally, they came for my burrito: and alas, there was no one left to stand up for me.
I'm posting as a sock puppet just because you told me not to. Ever since those guys with the big boots and billyclubs took my burrito away -- I hadn't eaten even half of it yet! -- I'm like Mr. Civil Disobedience, seriously, yeah, I know, right? In fact, Mr. Civil Disobedience probably should have been my sock-puppet name.
Death to fascist swine!
This is just another example of laws passed to make it look like the government is "doing something." These bans have serious unintended consequences.
Land of the no longer free, bitter, and nanny state...
This is the silliest kind of slippery slope argument, with hypothetical eventualities especially selected for their absurdity (“No burritos!” “No children!”). And, as is often the case with “You’re not the boss of me”-style libertarians, you consider only your own potential inconvenience to be more important than the potential harm your behavior might cause others.
If they ban cellphone use while driving, men will marry their goats.
I know I will!
Commenting by HaloScan
