I just got home after spending more than a week on the road (From DFW through Tulsa, OK to Springfield, MO; to Galesburg, IL; Back through St. Louis, MO to North Little Rock, AR; then back home to DFW area. over 2,000 miles in total) and I have grown to HATE you idiot ass-holes that insist on texting while driving. I almost got run off the road countless times by idiots with both hands on their mobile device texting instead of driving their auto.

You can sometimes pick out these idiot fucks the way they swerve around and are not following the flow of traffic. But the ones that decide to pull out their mobile to send that "emergency" text while going 75+ MPH on the interstate are really dangerous. We were on I-44 outside Tulsa and motoring quickly to Springfield when this one ass nearly ran me off the road when he swerved from the right lane to the left slowing down a good 10 MPH in a few seconds. When I passed him he had both hands on his mobile. If I didn't have my family in the van I could have done something to him.

You are driving ass holes. Put down the damn phone.

As bad as driving .

Tulsa and OK City are terrible about that. Whenever I was down there I road raged more in a 20 min period than in my entire life. It's really disgusting.

In my opinion this is even more dangerous than driving . At least the guy still has his eyes on the road.

Over this last summer I was heading home from visiting my dad's and notice a jeep wrangler weaving from deep shoulder to all the way over into the left lane and back with sudden jerky corrective movements. I'm doing 75ish mph, he was slowly pulling away so he must have been doing 80 or so. As I come up along side it I see 2 teenage looking kids. Both are shirtless and shoeless with the top and doors removed. No seatbelts. The driver actually has the cellphone placed on the center of the steering wheel texting with both hands......steering with the back of his wrists with one foot planted on the dashboard.

Absolutely ridiculous.

_________________
Larreth Wolfsong (long retired)
Lanys T'vyl, Everquest

Zinky, Lvl 60 Warlock
Thunderhorn, WoW

they finally made it illegal here in Ontario to operate a electronic device that is not hands free while driving, so you will get a ticket if caught with a cell planted to your ear while driving

I personally know of a friend who has ran her car into the ditch twice now due to texting while driving, I told her she better smarten up before killing someone.

_________________
Jake Rivers - Senex Legio
Get off my Lawn alliance

Funny you mention this. My friend Robin drives down the road in her minivan with the kids in back while texting non-stop. I'm amazed she's not been in a head on collision or rolled off the road.

_________________
Larreth Wolfsong (long retired)
Lanys T'vyl, Everquest

Zinky, Lvl 60 Warlock
Thunderhorn, WoW

It's been illegal on government installations for about two years now. Pretty sure you can't even use hand's free until you're off post. One of my bosses was complaining the other week about getting a ticket for texting while driving on base. This is not even three months after he totalled his van doing pretty much the same thing. Blackberry addiction I tells you.

I think it’s funny how people jump all over texting, but yet say nothing about people that eat, shave, put on makeup, yell at their kids all while driving, all of these things distract and take you away from the job of driving. Sure some states have made it illegal to text while driving, but there was already a law in most states that would cover this that can't or was not enforced, reckless or in-attentive driving.

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

The number of people that I see texting while driving vastly surpasses the number of people doing those other things.

Texting takes far more of your concentration from the road.

I sent a text once when I was running late, only 3 or 4 words, I won't do it again.

That is what my friend said too, she has gone into the ditch twice now, I am sure I will hear about her hitting the ditch again.

_________________
Jake Rivers - Senex Legio
Get off my Lawn alliance

I should add though, although I am not guilty of texting while driving, I have found myself going over the shoulder a few times on the road from simply changing the station on my satellite radio, or entering in a address on my gps.

_________________
Jake Rivers - Senex Legio
Get off my Lawn alliance

If you are deemed at-fault in an accident, regardless of cause, you should lose your license for 1 year. That would cure a lot of these problems.

No, it wouldn't.

Pass a law, stating that you cannot text on your phone while driving. If a policeman observes you doing this, you are given an immediate ticket. Make the fine an outrageous amount- 1000 dollars. You need to give people a reason *not* to do something. It is obvious with all the crappy drivers on the road that a couple points and a hundred dollars or so isn't getting the message across... so make it so that if you get caught and are given the fine, it is so astronomical that it *hopefully* makes you not text and drive again.

Then again, I also am of the belief that all cars should come with a built in breathalyzer machine. Imagine how many drinking/driving accidents could be eliminated with something like this in place...

_________________

imagine how many people would just have their sober friend start up their car.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

What's a little aiding the commission of a felony among friends after all.

It isn't just the starting up of the car that is the issue. It is the breathing into the machine at random points every 5-15 minutes after the car is started. Sure I suppose you could drive intoxicated and have your sober friend sitting in the passenger seat breathe into the machine when it goes off... but you also could have said friend just drive the car home and be safe about it.

While it may not eliminate every situation where a driver is intoxicated and drives home... it probably reduces that amount by a significant amount to make a serious difference. Besides, if you are out with friends and all four friends have had a couple beverages... then no one would be able to start the car. Now you either have to sober up (again being safe and preventing drinking/driving) or you get a taxi (another safe option).

_________________

who wouldn't want to have a face mask on while they drive their car?

Yeah, that's never gonna happen.

_________________

I guess you've never known anyone with the DUI kits on their vehicles, that is how it already happens.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

That's done as a punishment. Big difference between installing that and forcing it on known offenders versus it being installed in every new car for everyone.

_________________

It isn't a face mask, as you say it is. You can pick the machine up, breathe into it, and put it down. When it randomly goes off every 5-15 minutes the machine gives you a 4-6 minute window to breathe into it, so if you don't feel comfortable doing it while driving you can always pull over and do it. So the safety aspect is there.

And I know that it will never happen, since that would mean the bars and restaurants would lose a ton of money and heaven forbid they lose sales over the safety of others. All I am saying is- if every car had one, what percentage of drinking/driving incidents would be eliminated because of it? I would venture to say as high as 95% of incidents would disappear if this was to happen. You are always going to have those idiots who cheat the system, but for the most part your drivers will be sober instead of intoxicated.

Heck I went on a camping trip this summer where someone had the breathalyzer machine in their car. They continued to drive around while intoxicated. How, you ask? They had one of those portable air mattress inflating machines- the ones that blow up air mattresses. He even showed me- he turns this air mattress machine on, puts it into his breathalyzer... and passes. So you are going to have idiots like him bypass it, that can never be 100% eliminated. But the hope is that you get rid of enough to save some lives out there...

_________________

You are correct. In one situation it is trying to rehabilitate an offender into not drinking and then driving a car in order to prevent accidents and save lives. In the other situation it is preventing accidents and saving lives before an accident/death happens that would require a machine to be installed in the car. Prevention FTW.

_________________

We don't need more laws, we need to have people that follow the laws on the books. It really does not matter if its 1 or 1000, people will still do what they want regardless of who they hurt or might hurt. Proof of this is DWI laws it cost you 1000's of dollars if you get one yet there are still just as many d r u n k s on the roads as before they started all the DWI enforcement campaigns.
Imagine how many accidents could be eliminated if people thought about others and what there actions could do to others, and not just them self's.

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

If you're going to attempt that argument, you should stop selling guns while you're at it in your little utopia.

Neither is going to happen. For pretty much the exact same reason.

_________________

Oh and everyone uses condoms. All the time, every time.

Shrug. Like I already said, it will never happen. Bars and restaurants would lose way too much money from alcohol sales, they will throw a fit if something like this would pass. It would be nice, however, for bars and restaurants to have some small amount of accountability at times for drinking/driving situations. If a group of 4 sit down, a restaurant *could* ask who is the designated driver and then serve that person unlimited free non-alcoholic beverages for the night to promote safe driving. Or they could do what they always do, and serve 2+ beverages to each party member, knowing that one of them could potentially get behind a car later on that night and cause some form of havoc.

O and if you have unprotected sex with someone, that will potentially not be injuring anyone but you and that person. If I have four drinks and drive home, I am potentially injuring not only myself but 'x' amount of drivers/people I may come in contact with on the way home. That is a difference. Sure someone could argue that if you give someone a STD and then I have sex with that person I could acquire the STD, so potentially it will hurt me. However I am making that choice to have sex with someone without knowing their sexual history, whereas if I am driving on the road there is no way I can tell if the drivers on the road have had a few drinks in them- outside of the obvious poor driving habits. But then again those drivers may just be texting

_________________

You're right it will never happen, but not because those industries will lose money. It's because the technology to easy to circumvent, costly to implement, and an annoyance to those who don't drink and drive.

Not to mention the fact that drinking and driving is only one part of the problem. People who text and talk on the phone have already been mentioned, but there are also those who habitually drive while tired or under the influence of drugs (legal or otherwise).

It won't happen because it's a terrible idea.

Why should a business take any responsibility for their patrons? Why can't their patrons take responsibility for themselves?

Sounds like cicely would happily endorse a nanny state.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Do you guys think seatbelts suck too?

You just have to get used to the idea. I wish there was some easier way to detect blood alchohol level, though-- something that feels less cumbersome.

Seatbelts are optional.

And your car still runs if you wear them or not.

_________________

In most states they're not really optional.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Actually, businesses can cut off alcohol to anyone they choose if they feel that that person has had too much. Granted that doesn't happen much, but they have in the past.

All I am saying is- there is a problem with drinking and driving. Having breathalyzers on all cars is one idea of reducing (by a significant amount) the amount of intoxicated drivers on the road in this country. Which, in theory, will lower the amount of accidents and deaths from intoxicated drivers. Will it eliminate it 100%- no. Will people still find a way to try and get around it- of course. But in my opinion, having a breathalyzer on every car will make a positive difference and reduce the potential. And if it reduces alcohol related driving deaths by, say, 50%... then shouldn't we give it some consideration?

And if my idea is so dumb... then how do you propose that we eliminate drinking and driving? Stop serving alcohol altogether in our country? Stop serving it in public areas?

I am sure one day in the next few millenia there will be computer controlled cars that will take you wherever you need to go, that will run off of sensors and GPS units and everything will be run via computers/robots/etc. Which means all you do is sit in a car and do anything but driving. At that point, yeah... you can drink all you want. Doesn't matter cause the computer is getting you home safely. But we are not there yet (obviously), so we should try and determine ways to help curb alcohol related driving incidents.

Unless, of course, you are like Cartman and you just don't care about Japanese whales. Or whatever Stan was trying to save. In that case, not much can be done to sway your opinion

_________________

Someone pull Cicely's plug, please.

They're not legally optional, but there are no methods in place to prevent or hinder your ability to drive your car if you choose to not wear them. It's basically an honor system.

And what a great idea... perhaps cars shouldn't run if the seatbelt isn't on.

Why is this bad?

No one said otherwise.

It wouldn't reduce alcohol related deaths by 50 percent, or even a fraction of that. Those devices are pretty much useless. They are easy to circumvent, and would not remain functional without a court appointed probation officer to check out your car every now and then (hell, they don't always remain functional long even with a PO doing random inspections).

We don't. We simply continue to punish those we catch breaking the law.

You curb it through education and punishing those that are caught, the same way you curb almost all other crime.

To what point? People that don't want to wear a seatbelt will just buckle it and sit on top of it, like they already do in a lot of cases so that it appears from behind as though you are wearing it. That's assuming that they don't just get their cars fixed so that it starts regardless of whether the seatbelts are being used.

Both of those suggestions only act as a hindrence to law-abiding drivers. Those that do not have any particular concern with driving under the influence or not wearing a seatbelt will happily take the extra time to fix it so that they are no longer bothered by those things. I doubt anyone would actually change their behavior because of those two things if they are already more than ready to risk jail time or fines.

lol... sitting on top of it requires more effort than simply wearing it. As for fixing your car so it doesn't work--- well that's a lot of extra work just to break a law.

I'm someone who doesn't *always* wear my seatbelt. On short trips, I'm sometimes just too lazy to put it on. A system like this would force me, and millions like me, to do so. It certainly wouldn't be worth it for me to "hack" into my car to get rid of it.



Concerning seatbelts, this statement is simply false. Law-abiding drivers will put their seatbelt on anyway, and their car will start just fine. It's everyone else that will be inconvenienced.

I'm still not seeing how this is a bad thing, aside from the inevitable, "omg it will make cars cost more!" argument that I expect will come eventually.

I completely disagree with you about the ineffectiveness of the machines. I wonder- have you ever had to have one put on your car? I know from personal experience with many friends/work associates/etc in Arizona who have had them. They have used mouthwash... and could not start their car. They have had one beverage... and had to wait until they could start their car. The machines do seem to do a pretty good job of detecting alcohol and determing the level of intoxication for an individual. And if someone is out with their friends and they have 2-3 drinks... they are not driving home for quite some time.

But whatever. It would be nice to see this stop, but I don't know how effective our current measures are holding up. Granted my idea may not be the best, but I would think it would be far better than what we are doing right now as a society. My opinion, of course.

_________________

Not so. You buckle it once, and never unbuckle it again. As for fixing it, it most likely wouldn't be much work at all depending on how it was implemented.

If you're so lazy that putting on your seatbelt to only go a mile or two is too much work, then maybe you're right.

I don't know about you, but I sometimes start my car and leave it running for a bit to warm up while I am inside, or go in to grab something while the car is running. Sometimes I have to take off my seatbelt in order to grab something from the backseat or passenger floorboard while the car is running. There are a LOT of legal and valid reasons to have your seatbelt off while the car is running.

Cost is largely irrelevent I think. I dont think it would drive up costs too much if it is done during manufacturing. That said, I still think it's a dumb idea.

All of those hypotheticals are solved simply by making the car not be able to go into drive without having a seatbelt on. DVD players built into the front of the car work that way right now, like mine in my Cadillac-- is that bad too?

I think you are running out of reasons, sir. There is zero inconvenience to a law abiding driver if we go with that one.

Fribur and Cicely, I think you're missing out on one of the core concepts upon which America was created, you know the whole prohibition of "illegal search & seizure." That is, a fundamental facet of American life is that you are free from being monitored without cause.

Requiring otherwise innocent people to submit to searches (seatbelt checks/breathalyzers/airport security/etc) is contrary to what freedom is all about.

Guess it just depends on the person for the seatbelt thing. I find no reason to leave the car running. Stuff like "Did I leave something in the back and now I have to go get it?" is solved by not rushing into things and/or not being forgetful(same with going inside to get something while car running). Kinda sounds inefficient. I guess if you lived in on one of the poles go ahead and let it warm up a bit, but beyond that I'd tell anyone to man it up.

But this has nothing to do with any government entity monitoring you. Are you saying that the DVD player in my car is "un-American" because it won't play when I put my car in drive? I hope you're consistent in your views.

That's quite a stretch, lol.

That's just your DVD player. They don't all work like that, Sparky.

It's even more simply solved by allowing people to make their own determination in regards to which safety features they will utilize (as we currently do, and will continue to do). If they choose to not utilize them, then they can deal with the consequences (harm, fines, etc.)

What you are proposing is symbolic at best. Easy to circumvent and impossible to enforce. What's the point?

People who text while driving (not all, but most) are overwhelmed by an insufferable sense of vanity and narcissism. I don't see any other way of addressing this problem except by placing a penalty large enough to overcome their fixation with themselves (at least temporarily.)

My views tend to be extreme (fair warning). I've always felt that whether it be helmets on motorcyclists, seatbelts, or other safety devices that drivers choose whether or not to use; or distractions like cell phones, texting, GPS devices, changing radio stations, exchanging CDs, etc. that the driver distracting themself or not being as safe as possible (including drink, medicine etc) should simply be automatically at fault at least as much as any other driver involved (to cover multiple idiots). If no other driver is involved the minimum penalty should be a weekend in prison, a significant fine, and public service (where only picking up trash from the street is acceptable service).

Kul, the problem is, I will probably be the other person in another car, whil this IDJIT is texting. I do not want to be dead, disabled or injured.

That's the risk you take when you drive a car.

Most people accept the risk of injury and/or death while driving a car as inherent to the act. Granted, you'd hope that if it does happen it's due to something other than someone elses negligence, but that's out of anyone's control but their own.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

If a car manufacturer decides to put a feature in a car they feel enhances safety, that is their choice. The government REQUIRING such a feature is dubious as far as I'm concerned. Requiring otherwise innocent people to submit to a breathalyzer prior to starting a car is un-American (to use your word). A device that requires the seatbelt be engaged is similar - effectively monitoring the state of a car to protect someone from themselves. There is obvioulsy a line that blurs when you discuss safety devices - especially those that might protect others and are relatively unobtrusive, like a DVD player that is voluntarily disabled by a manufacturer. Try to think a little before you bust out the 'lol'. I know it's tough, but I have faith in you.

no, I'm definitely bursting out with the "lol."

I am, however, sticking with the seatbelt thing, not the breathalyzer. The breathalyzer is a little more intrusive and is an inconvenience even to law abiding citizens.

The seatbelt, though-- this is a great idea, as it ONLY inconveniences those who choose to break the law. If you wear your seatbelt, it will make absolutely zero difference to the way you run your car. If you don't wear it, then you are breaking the law anyway. To try to turn this into an illegal search and seizure is definately lol-worthy.

Are you aware that there are many safety features in cars that are required by the government?

If you have nothing new to add to this, then I have to admit that I don't either. I suppose we could simply agree to disagree...

Yes, but seatbelt requirements are a state-to-state restriction. While most states have mandatory seat belt laws, others make it non-required for passenger vehicle use.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Isn't it only the law if you're on a federal/state road? Is it the law if I'm on my property? Is it the law in every state?

What's wrong with cars that beep annoyingly at you for not wearing your seatbelt? My BMW does, and it is annoying as fuck.

How do you prevent errors, such as packing your front seat with boxes or groceries? Do I have to buckle up my 12-pack of diet coke? If you put in a tool to disable the detection, like you can for airbags and people who are underweight, then won't people who are truly determined to circumvent it find a way and just do that? I mean - people who want to wear seatbelts do. Once you get in the habit, it's pretty hard not to, unless you forget - in which case, the whole "annoying car beeps at you" comes into play.

It's safer to have both hands on the wheel while driving. Can we disable the car if it only detects one set of hands? And, will it work for Jennifer Garner's man-hands if so? Would her man-hands count as one hand, or two? Lots of details to think about.

I think a good compromise might be that if you don't wear your seatbelt, a pre-recording of Fribur nagging you could play over the car stereo.

As with most "let the government regulate it" proposals, this is good in theory. The problem is when reality sets in. And it is certainly a type of search - the debate is whether it's illegal.

Here are a lot of reasons why it's a bad idea:
* Laws vary by state. Some have age limits, some have weight limits, some have front seat laws, some have back seat laws. From pure practicality, it would be nearly impossible to configure cars correctly. I guess you could pass a universal seatbelt law, but again - not the nature of America, states rights.

* I have a friend who has a dog that rides in his front seat, and the dinger always goes off. So, he keeps the seatbelt slacked and engaged.

* What if the seatbelt is disengaged while driving? Does the car shut off? Does it slow to a stop? A car dead in the middle of the interstate... hmmm, seems more dangerous to others. Again, pure practicality gets in the way.

* If the device malfunctions, the car becomes completely undrivable. What if there is an emergency? What if there isn't an emergency and I simply don't want to spend $100 on a tow?

I could probably ramble off a bunch more if I put some effort into it.

So while discussing "illegal search" may seem LOL to you, all these impacts are why that little piece of the Constitution is brilliant. It isn't simply "don't come in my house with armed cops", it's about preventing the government from complicating your life.

The bottom line is, it is a completely impractical suggestion.

Just go with "you can't start the car without the seatbelt on". If they take it off afterwards, nothing. That would probably prevent most of the issues anyway, since I believe the majority of people simply forget to put it on in the first place, rather than take it off while driving. For the dog example, just have a button that does a one-time-only disable.

Annoying beep just doesn't seem to cut it these days. People just get used to the sound and forget about it.

A "one time disable" completely negates the point. Again, this is the problem - people come up with these supposed great ideas, but reality gets in the way. And if you think people "get used to the sound", you're whacked.

Why must we try to use technology to fix a problem that is not a technology issue?
Seat belt laws are bull shit, it should be my choice if I want to were one or not, have this type of law is just a money generating scam. I am not saying that seat belts don't save lives (I worked as a Firefighter & EMT for 4 years so I know they do), it’s just bull shit to force you to wear your seatbelt.
but what does wearing or not wearing your seatbelt have to do with inattentive driving?

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.