Archive

Ohio's new texting-and-driving law

  • ernest_t_bass
    jordo212000;1251673 wrote:I was mainly laughing at the assertion that driving while drinking coffee is comparable to driving drunk

    EDIT I think I misunderstood the earlier posts.

    Driving drunk and driving while drinking a beer aren't the same either.
  • O-Trap
    jordo212000;1251673 wrote:I was mainly laughing at the assertion that driving while drinking coffee is comparable to driving drunk

    EDIT I think I misunderstood the earlier posts.
    Oh it's different than "drunk," but you could be over the legal limit (hell, I'm over the legal limit before I feel it) and really no more dangerous on the road than someone with a hot mug of coffee.
  • Steel Valley Football
    O-Trap;1251680 wrote:Oh it's different than "drunk," but you could be over the legal limit (hell, I'm over the legal limit before I feel it) and really no more dangerous on the road than someone with a hot mug of coffee.
    Instead of trying to quantify each individual driver, they made it illegal to do, period.
  • Sykotyk
    Steel Valley Football;1251712 wrote:Instead of trying to quantify each individual driver, they made it illegal to do, period.
    And some people may be dangerous with a food processor, should we outlaw those?

    I agree with the spirit of the law, but the fact that you could be operating a vehicle precisely to the letter of the traffic code, and yet because your BAC is above .08, you're automatically guilty of a crime.

    Unfortunately, the Supreme Court will not touch a case involving statutory drunk driving where no other violation was present. So, the law, as it stands, will stay on the books. And I'm sure the texting laws will be the same. Until the law becomes a blanket restriction (no texting anywhere, or no BAC above .08 anywhere) would the Supreme Court actually step in to hear a case.
  • Sykotyk
    Steel Valley Football;1251712 wrote:Instead of trying to quantify each individual driver, they made it illegal to do, period.
    And some people may be dangerous with a food processor, should we outlaw those?

    I agree with the spirit of the law, but the fact that you could be operating a vehicle precisely to the letter of the traffic code, and yet because your BAC is above .08, you're automatically guilty of a crime.

    Unfortunately, the Supreme Court will not touch a case involving statutory drunk driving where no other violation was present. So, the law, as it stands, will stay on the books. And I'm sure the texting laws will be the same. Until the law becomes a blanket restriction (no texting anywhere, or no BAC above .08 anywhere) would the Supreme Court actually step in to hear a case.
  • O-Trap
    Steel Valley Football;1251712 wrote:Instead of trying to quantify each individual driver, they made it illegal to do, period.
    So why are we trying to quantify the level of danger posed by some distractions, but not others? Why not make them all illegal, period?

    Or why not just force everyone to be responsible with the consequences of their actions?
  • Steel Valley Football
    Sykotyk;1251899 wrote:And some people may be dangerous with a food processor, should we outlaw those?

    Your analogy is incredibly poor.

    Person is to food processor as person is to car. They are not banning cars. However, if a person were operating a 3000 lb food processor that moved around town at 65 mph, then, yes, it should be illegal to drink alcohol while operating.
  • O-Trap
    Steel Valley Football;1251951 wrote:... it should be illegal to drink alcohol while operating.
    What victim is there of the act of drinking and driving itself, accident notwithstanding?
  • Glory Days
    O-Trap;1251485 wrote: I'm not even sure that would work, though. I'd just prefer to be left alone, and if I cause an accident, whether because I was texting or because I fell asleep at the wheel, I should be held fully responsible. I think that trying to legislate the specific kind of distraction is frivolous.
    when you cause an accident though, you are cited for something whether its failure to control, following to closely, speeding, stop sign, DUI, and now texting. its really nothing new.
  • Glory Days
    O-Trap;1251979 wrote:What victim is there of the act of drinking and driving itself, accident notwithstanding?
    what victim is there for any traffic law, accident not withstanding? its preventative and to control driving behavior. most people when they get a ticket for speeding, watch there speed, maybe not forever, but for the near future etc.
  • Steel Valley Football
    O-Trap;1251979 wrote:What victim is there of the act of drinking and driving itself, accident notwithstanding?
    Potential victims abound, thus the law. Same with mandatory insurance laws. Why make people have insurance if they've had no accident? The potential for accidents. Inevitably, accidents will occur. Same with drinking and driving.
  • O-Trap
    Glory Days;1252046 wrote:when you cause an accident though, you are cited for something whether its failure to control, following to closely, speeding, stop sign, DUI, and now texting. its really nothing new.

    I'd say that if you cause an accident a la texting, you've violated failure to control. Why is the redundancy necessary?
    Glory Days;1252047 wrote:what victim is there for any traffic law, accident not withstanding? its preventative and to control driving behavior. most people when they get a ticket for speeding, watch there speed, maybe not forever, but for the near future etc.
    Apropos given that I just got one not long ago.

    However, the "preventative" argument that is used to justify the laws in place could also be used to add additional laws, such as making it illegal to drink hot beverages, eat, or even talk on the phone via hands-free device while driving. There is no difference between the justification of the laws currently in place and the would-be laws I just mentioned.

    So, more or less, I think it's stupid to "control the behavior of drivers" who haven't committed a crime.
    Steel Valley Football;1252070 wrote:Potential victims abound, thus the law.
    Potential victims? Each child is a potential victim of his or her parents. You can't guard against the potential for a victim.
    Steel Valley Football;1252070 wrote:Same with mandatory insurance laws. Why make people have insurance if they've had no accident?
    Why indeed? Why not just give them the choice to either use the security of insurance or be held culpable for the repercussions of their actions?
    Steel Valley Football;1252070 wrote:The potential for accidents. Inevitably, accidents will occur. Same with drinking and driving.
    And inevitably, people will die from staircase falls. Are we going to legislate for that potential?
  • Glory Days
    O-Trap;1252094 wrote:I'd say that if you cause an accident a la texting, you've violated failure to control. Why is the redundancy necessary?



    Apropos given that I just got one not long ago.

    However, the "preventative" argument that is used to justify the laws in place could also be used to add additional laws, such as making it illegal to drink hot beverages, eat, or even talk on the phone via hands-free device while driving. There is no difference between the justification of the laws currently in place and the would-be laws I just mentioned.

    So, more or less, I think it's stupid to "control the behavior of drivers" who haven't committed a crime.



    Potential victims? Each child is a potential victim of his or her parents. You can't guard against the potential for a victim.



    Why indeed? Why not just give them the choice to either use the security of insurance or be held culpable for the repercussions of their actions?



    And inevitably, people will die from staircase falls. Are we going to legislate for that potential?
    generally drinking hot coffee and falling down stairs do not harm other people.
  • Gblock
    the only way they can give you a ticket is if you admit to texting while driving
  • O-Trap
    Glory Days;1252187 wrote:generally drinking hot coffee and falling down stairs do not harm other people.
    Drinking hot coffee while driving has indeed been linked to accidents where others have been injured, both as a result of distraction from sipping and in the event that the coffee spills.

    Per Insurance.com:

    "Avoid these three dangerous food groups while driving
    • Hot - Whether it's hot coffee, hot chocolate or a soup-to-go can, you can spill it or burn your mouth in an instant. And, can't someone invent a travel lid that doesn't leak?
    • Greasy - It's true that tacos, chili dogs and hamburgers are designed to be eaten on the run! But, greasy foods make your steering wheel a mess and that spells danger. Perhaps even more dangerous is the person who's grabbing a BBQ rib or wing from a bucket of chicken.
    • Gooey - A jelly donut or breakfast burrito can easily ooze down your shirt on the way to work. And, what's more distracting that worrying about how you'll get the stain out before a morning meeting?"
    They also said that, per their own study, coffee was the single most dangerous legal food or drink you can be consuming in your car based on the number of accidents resultant from it.

    Sounds like coffee needs to go if we're going to be basing laws on the potential for injury.

    Should we do anything about the potential for the potential for injury?
  • O-Trap
    Glory Days;1252187 wrote:generally drinking hot coffee and falling down stairs do not harm other people.
    Drinking hot coffee while driving has indeed been linked to accidents where others have been injured, both as a result of distraction from sipping and in the event that the coffee spills.

    Per Insurance.com:

    "Avoid these three dangerous food groups while driving
    • Hot - Whether it's hot coffee, hot chocolate or a soup-to-go can, you can spill it or burn your mouth in an instant. And, can't someone invent a travel lid that doesn't leak?
    • Greasy - It's true that tacos, chili dogs and hamburgers are designed to be eaten on the run! But, greasy foods make your steering wheel a mess and that spells danger. Perhaps even more dangerous is the person who's grabbing a BBQ rib or wing from a bucket of chicken.
    • Gooey - A jelly donut or breakfast burrito can easily ooze down your shirt on the way to work. And, what's more distracting that worrying about how you'll get the stain out before a morning meeting?"
    They also said that, per their own study, coffee was the single most dangerous legal food or drink you can be consuming in your car based on the number of accidents resultant from it.

    Sounds like coffee needs to go if we're going to be basing laws on the potential for injury.

    Should we do anything about the potential for the potential for injury?
  • Steel Valley Football
    O-Trap;1252094 wrote:
    (1) However, the "preventative" argument that is used to justify the laws in place could also be used to add additional laws, such as making it illegal to drink hot beverages, eat, or even talk on the phone via hands-free device while driving. There is no difference between the justification of the laws currently in place and the would-be laws I just mentioned.

    So, more or less, I think it's stupid to "control the behavior of drivers" who haven't committed a crime.



    (2) Potential victims? Each child is a potential victim of his or her parents. You can't guard against the potential for a victim.



    (3) Why indeed? Why not just give them the choice to either use the security of insurance or be held culpable for the repercussions of their actions?



    (4) And inevitably, people will die from staircase falls. Are we going to legislate for that potential?

    (1) Preventative laws are everywhere. They don't arrest only people who cause planes to crash. They arrest anyone on a plane with the potential to cause a crash. Likewise, they don't only ticket/arrest people who speed or drive drunk and cause a crash. They ticket/arrest those who speed or drive drunk because of their potential to cause a crash.


    (2) They most certainly do remove children from homes with the potential of endangering children. The reason are too numerous to even list here.


    (3) That's not a viable solution as not everyone is able prove they are financially responsible for accident cocst, medical costs, etc of other drivers. Insurance uses statistics and varying rates to allow everyone to be financially responsible. Under your proposal, poor people would not be allowed to drive a all.


    (4) Derpity derp derp.
  • O-Trap
    Glory Days;1252187 wrote:generally drinking hot coffee and falling down stairs do not harm other people.
    Drinking hot coffee while driving has indeed been linked to accidents where others have been injured, both as a result of distraction from sipping and in the event that the coffee spills.

    Per Insurance.com:

    "Avoid these three dangerous food groups while driving
    • Hot - Whether it's hot coffee, hot chocolate or a soup-to-go can, you can spill it or burn your mouth in an instant. And, can't someone invent a travel lid that doesn't leak?
    • Greasy - It's true that tacos, chili dogs and hamburgers are designed to be eaten on the run! But, greasy foods make your steering wheel a mess and that spells danger. Perhaps even more dangerous is the person who's grabbing a BBQ rib or wing from a bucket of chicken.
    • Gooey - A jelly donut or breakfast burrito can easily ooze down your shirt on the way to work. And, what's more distracting that worrying about how you'll get the stain out before a morning meeting?"
    They also said that, per their own study, coffee was the single most dangerous legal food or drink you can be consuming in your car based on the number of accidents resultant from it.

    Sounds like coffee needs to go if we're going to be basing laws on the potential for injury.

    Should we do anything about the potential for the potential for injury?
  • O-Trap
    Steel Valley Football;1252230 wrote:(1) Preventative laws are everywhere. They don't arrest only people who cause planes to crash. They arrest anyone on a plane with the potential to cause a crash. Likewise, they don't only ticket/arrest people who speed or drive drunk and cause a crash. They ticket/arrest those who speed or drive drunk because of their potential to cause a crash.
    Never said they weren't. Said they shouldn't be. If I harm someone, then I'm responsible. If I don't, then I'm not. Why is that so difficult?
    Steel Valley Football;1252230 wrote: (2) They most certainly do remove children from homes with the potential of endangering children. The reason are too numerous to even list here.
    That's because the reasons aren't quantifiable when you're dealing with potential risks or problems. The potential dangers are virtually limitless. As such, to apply the same logic without arbitrary bias would suggest that any child could be considered to be in a dangerous environment if we're dealing with potential injuries and not just dealing with actual ones.

    A small family pet can pose the potential for injury or death to a child. An example would be an article I posted awhile back about a Pomeranian dog under 10 pounds killing a baby in a family's home.
    Steel Valley Football;1252230 wrote:(3) That's not a viable solution as not everyone is able prove they are financially responsible for accident cocst, medical costs, etc of other drivers.
    "Responsibility" and "ability" are not the same. I think you're confusing the two.

    If a person is found at fault, it is their responsibility to rectify the situation, regardless of their ability to do so. I may not be able to cover accident and medical costs out of pocket. That's why, mandated or not, I will have insurance. It enables me the ability to cover that for which I am responsible in such a circumstance.

    If someone refuses to get insurance, but they are found to have caused an accident, they have to come up with the money. Don't have it? Wage garnishments and repossessions are an option to cover the costs. Ultimately, it's safer to have it, but it doesn't change the level of responsibility for the accident.
    Steel Valley Football;1252230 wrote:Insurance uses statistics and varying rates to allow everyone to be financially responsible. Under your proposal, poor people would not be allowed to drive a all.
    No, it allows most to be financially capable. "Responsible" has to do with whose actions were the cause of the circumstances. "Capability" or "ability" has to do with that party's ability to rectify those circumstances.

    "Poor" people would be allowed to drive if they so chose. They'd have to weigh the risk of covering damages in the event that they caused an accident, but they would be free to make that choice themselves.
    Steel Valley Football;1252230 wrote:(4) Derpity derp derp.
    I see the parallel went over your head. Oh well. At least offering some form of response to 3 out of 4 isn't the worst you could do.
  • Glory Days
    O-Trap;1252243 wrote:Drinking hot coffee while driving has indeed been linked to accidents where others have been injured, both as a result of distraction from sipping and in the event that the coffee spills.

    Per Insurance.com:

    "Avoid these three dangerous food groups while driving
    • Hot - Whether it's hot coffee, hot chocolate or a soup-to-go can, you can spill it or burn your mouth in an instant. And, can't someone invent a travel lid that doesn't leak?
    • Greasy - It's true that tacos, chili dogs and hamburgers are designed to be eaten on the run! But, greasy foods make your steering wheel a mess and that spells danger. Perhaps even more dangerous is the person who's grabbing a BBQ rib or wing from a bucket of chicken.
    • Gooey - A jelly donut or breakfast burrito can easily ooze down your shirt on the way to work. And, what's more distracting that worrying about how you'll get the stain out before a morning meeting?"
    They also said that, per their own study, coffee was the single most dangerous legal food or drink you can be consuming in your car based on the number of accidents resultant from it.

    Sounds like coffee needs to go if we're going to be basing laws on the potential for injury.

    Should we do anything about the potential for the potential for injury?
    So I am more likely to cause an accident drinking coffee in a car than drinking water?

    and maybe we should, i dont feel like looking up the stats, but I remember reading Germany had very strict laws, including no eating while driving etc and it works pretty well keeping traffic crashes down.
  • Steel Valley Football
    O-Trap;1252243 wrote:Drinking hot coffee while driving has indeed been linked to accidents where others have been injured, both as a result of distraction from sipping and in the event that the coffee spills.

    Per Insurance.com:

    "Avoid these three dangerous food groups while driving
    • Hot - Whether it's hot coffee, hot chocolate or a soup-to-go can, you can spill it or burn your mouth in an instant. And, can't someone invent a travel lid that doesn't leak?
    • Greasy - It's true that tacos, chili dogs and hamburgers are designed to be eaten on the run! But, greasy foods make your steering wheel a mess and that spells danger. Perhaps even more dangerous is the person who's grabbing a BBQ rib or wing from a bucket of chicken.
    • Gooey - A jelly donut or breakfast burrito can easily ooze down your shirt on the way to work. And, what's more distracting that worrying about how you'll get the stain out before a morning meeting?"
    They also said that, per their own study, coffee was the single most dangerous legal food or drink you can be consuming in your car based on the number of accidents resultant from it.

    Sounds like coffee needs to go if we're going to be basing laws on the potential for injury.

    Should we do anything about the potential for the potential for injury?

    When/if insurance and police data and statistics show reason for a law banning coffee, that's indeed what will happen.
  • Steel Valley Football
    O-Trap;1252254 wrote:Never said they weren't. Said they shouldn't be. If I harm someone, then I'm responsible. If I don't, then I'm not. Why is that so difficult?



    That's because the reasons aren't quantifiable when you're dealing with potential risks or problems. The potential dangers are virtually limitless. As such, to apply the same logic without arbitrary bias would suggest that any child could be considered to be in a dangerous environment if we're dealing with potential injuries and not just dealing with actual ones.

    A small family pet can pose the potential for injury or death to a child. An example would be an article I posted awhile back about a Pomeranian dog under 10 pounds killing a baby in a family's home.



    "Responsibility" and "ability" are not the same. I think you're confusing the two.

    If a person is found at fault, it is their responsibility to rectify the situation, regardless of their ability to do so. I may not be able to cover accident and medical costs out of pocket. That's why, mandated or not, I will have insurance. It enables me the ability to cover that for which I am responsible in such a circumstance.

    If someone refuses to get insurance, but they are found to have caused an accident, they have to come up with the money. Don't have it? Wage garnishments and repossessions are an option to cover the costs. Ultimately, it's safer to have it, but it doesn't change the level of responsibility for the accident.



    No, it allows most to be financially capable. "Responsible" has to do with whose actions were the cause of the circumstances. "Capability" or "ability" has to do with that party's ability to rectify those circumstances.

    "Poor" people would be allowed to drive if they so chose. They'd have to weigh the risk of covering damages in the event that they caused an accident, but they would be free to make that choice themselves.



    I see the parallel went over your head. Oh well. At least offering some form of response to 3 out of 4 isn't the worst you could do.

    "Shoudn't be". This all your opinion, which can't be debated. It's not based on actual data, but, rather, your opinion.
  • O-Trap
    Glory Days;1252264 wrote:So I am more likely to cause an accident drinking coffee in a car than drinking water?

    and maybe we should, i dont feel like looking up the stats, but I remember reading Germany had very strict laws, including no eating while driving etc and it works pretty well keeping traffic crashes down.
    I believe you are correct. Either way, that castrates the individual's ability to make choices based on their OWN abilities in light of treating everyone like the lowest common denominator. I'm just not a fan of laws that further restrict the rights of an individual because of the actions and results from other people. If I'm able to do something without causing injury to another, I think I should be able to make the choice whether or not to do it, and I reap the consequences of what I sow. If I cause injury, I'm held responsible for restoration. If I do not, then there is no need for restoration or regulation.
    Steel Valley Football;1252271 wrote:When/if insurance and police data and statistics show been for a law banning coffee, that's indeed what will happen.
    They already do, actually. And who gets to decide what the plum line is for the potential for injury? Ban all eating and drinking? Maybe ban talking to other passengers in the car? Both of those have been proven to cause a diminished driving aptitude, so they both increase the potential for injury.
    Steel Valley Football;1252272 wrote:"Shoudn't be". This all your opinion, which can't be debated. It's not based on actual data, but, rather, your opinion.
    Correct. What CAN be discussed is the consistency with which the laws created. If the factor that motivates the eventual illegality of smoking while you drive is simply that "it increases the risk," then that same factor should then be a test by which all activities while driving must be judged ... that is, if we want our law to by objective, logical, and explainable. It's intellectually dishonest to use that as the sole factor to determine the illegality of some, but not others. Given that as the sole factor, you either arrive at the conclusion that virtually every action which could potentially result in injury (basically, if you're doing anything other than watching the road and mirrors while both hands are on the wheel) should be illegal because of the aforementioned potential, or the conclusion that none of those actions should be illegal or punishable until they result in injury. That's not opinion. That's logical consistency.
  • Steel Valley Football
    Sounds like you need to GTFO of this country because you don't like the laws. Be sure to send us a postcard! ;)
  • O-Trap
    Steel Valley Football;1252299 wrote:Sounds like you need to GTFO of this country because you don't like the laws. Be sure to send us a postcard! ;)
    I'd rather stay, but if nanny state laws like the ones you seem to support here continue to get worse, I may indeed leave, because it will no longer be the same country. Even now, I get a little bit of a chuckle at the name "Statue of Liberty," when liberty is so freely surrendered to the state in exchange for them regulating our safety from ourselves.

    America: The Land of the Safe ... not the free