If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   New Jersey is so serious about stopping asshats from texting and driving that they'll even go after the person who SENDS a text to a driver   (cnn.com) divider line 154
    More: Hero, New Jersey, WPIX, Appeals Court  
•       •       •

6294 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Aug 2013 at 9:24 AM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



154 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-29 08:49:28 AM
The plaintiffs' attorney, Stephen Weinstein, argued that the text sender was electronically in the car with the driver receiving the text and should be treated like someone sitting next to him willfully causing a distraction, legal analyst Marc Saperstein

The argument seemed to work.

img.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-29 09:06:50 AM
So if I'm driving in NJ , listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio, he can be sued when he sends me into a murderous rage and I plow into a farmer's market? Certainly, he knows that many of his listeners are driving and he's therefore electronically in the car with them.

How about Justin Beiber? He records those insipid songs knowing full well that people are going to listen in the car, get distracted and run over school children.
 
2013-08-29 09:25:58 AM
No. That's absurd.
 
2013-08-29 09:25:58 AM
The general case must be made "How in the hell would I know what the recipient is doing?"
 
2013-08-29 09:27:25 AM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: So if I'm driving in NJ , listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio, he can be sued when he sends me into a murderous rage and I plow into a farmer's market? Certainly, he knows that many of his listeners are driving and he's therefore electronically in the car with them.

How about Justin Beiber? He records those insipid songs knowing full well that people are going to listen in the car, get distracted and run over school children.


Following that, if I see a cop on my television at home, that gives him the right to search it?
I gotta move those dead hookers...
 
2013-08-29 09:28:59 AM
So you have to send a text to everyone in your contact list before you drive anywhere so they know now to text you or else they'll get in trouble too?  Don't get me wrong, texting and driving is stupid and they need to find a way to prevent people from doing it more.  That being said, Hero tag is not appropriate for this post.
 
2013-08-29 09:29:45 AM
welcome to the liberal NJ.  They have to protect everyone.
 
2013-08-29 09:30:08 AM
My head just asplode.
 
2013-08-29 09:30:16 AM
Reminds me of the Best Korea article a few down.
 
2013-08-29 09:30:30 AM
How the fark do I know what my friends are doing when I send them a message?

"Hey dude, you wanna go watch the game at the bar on Saturday?"
'WTF I was taking a shiat and you made me laugh I just split my rectum and will need surgery for anal fissures.  I sue you.  I'm down for the game though.'
 
2013-08-29 09:30:46 AM

wildcardjack: The general case must be made "How in the hell would I know what the recipient is doing?"


This. There should at least be a burden of proof that I know someone is driving before I am charged with texting a driver. Anyway shouldn't the onus be on the driver to put down their damn phone?
 
2013-08-29 09:30:55 AM

special20: Eddie Adams from Torrance: So if I'm driving in NJ , listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio, he can be sued when he sends me into a murderous rage and I plow into a farmer's market? Certainly, he knows that many of his listeners are driving and he's therefore electronically in the car with them.

How about Justin Beiber? He records those insipid songs knowing full well that people are going to listen in the car, get distracted and run over school children.

Following that, if I see a cop on my television at home, that gives him the right to search it?
I gotta move those dead hookers...


STOP CALLING THEM THAT!!!!!!
/stab leg with needle
 
2013-08-29 09:30:56 AM
I give up on this species.
 
2013-08-29 09:31:02 AM
Okey then Phone calls during sex are now considered harassment calls
 
2013-08-29 09:31:53 AM
"We hold that the sender of a text message can potentially be liable if an accident is caused by texting, but only if the sender knew or had special reason to know that the recipient would view the text while driving and thus be distracted," the court said.

Ok, so almost nobody would ever been actually charged with this...sounds like yet another pointless law
 
2013-08-29 09:31:56 AM
That's farking stupid.

And how the hell do you prove that the sender knew the recipient was driving, unless the text was, "hey I know you're driving right now, but open this text and respond to it immediately"?

Finally, people should become aware that you don't have to immediately read a text when you get one.  Now I know most texts contain vital information like "sup" or "hi babe :)" but maybe waiting a few minutes to read it won't send the Earth off its axis.
 
P0e
2013-08-29 09:32:11 AM
From what I've read on other articles, you can be held liable if you KNOW the person on the other side is texting you while driving and you continue a conversation.  The burden of proof is on the state to prove that you KNEW the person you were texting was driving, and you continued having a conversation with them after that.  If you send a text to someone, and you don't know that they are on the road, and they check your text and get into an accident because of that, you're still not liable.
 
2013-08-29 09:32:26 AM
Headline:  "Text a driver in New Jersey, and you could see your day in court"

Fark: Article: "The driver is ultimately responsible, he said. Not someone sending him a text. "
 
2013-08-29 09:33:30 AM

MBrady: welcome to the liberal NJ.  They have to protect everyone

themselves at the expense of the plebes undeserving of their enlightened glory.

Seems more accurate this way.
 
2013-08-29 09:33:41 AM
If you are driving and have a cell phone turned on, you are an asshat.
 
2013-08-29 09:33:59 AM
a 3 second distraction can be fatal. don't do it.
 
2013-08-29 09:34:45 AM
Odd use for the Hero tag.  Did subby lose a loved one to a driver receiving a text?
 
2013-08-29 09:35:37 AM
This should have the FAIL tag..
 
2013-08-29 09:36:16 AM

Walker: The argument seemed to work.


When was the last time you heard of any passenger held responsible for an accident? Apparently people will phones are still the out-group.
 
2013-08-29 09:36:21 AM

wildcardjack: The general case must be made "How in the hell would I know what the recipient is doing?"


Generally speaking that's likely true.  But the case in point in TFA spoke of a couple that were texting like mad back and forth, and the one not in the car knew damned well her boyfriend was driving.
 
2013-08-29 09:36:41 AM

P0e: From what I've read on other articles, you can be held liable if you KNOW the person on the other side is texting you while driving and you continue a conversation.  The burden of proof is on the state to prove that you KNEW the person you were texting was driving, and you continued having a conversation with them after that.  If you send a text to someone, and you don't know that they are on the road, and they check your text and get into an accident because of that, you're still not liable.


That's what TFA says so i am going to give subby 10/10 great troll lots of bites already
 
2013-08-29 09:36:41 AM

SundaesChild: wildcardjack: The general case must be made "How in the hell would I know what the recipient is doing?"

This. There should at least be a burden of proof that I know someone is driving before I am charged with texting a driver. Anyway shouldn't the onus be on the driver to put down their damn phone?


That's EXACTLY what the appeals court ruled. IF, and ONLY IF, you know that somebody is driving AND you know they are likely to respond to your text, then you can be held liable. In this case, they actually DID find the defendant not liable, as she was in the habit of sending hundreds of texts per day and therefore likely didn't know what the driver was up to (ie, driving).
 
2013-08-29 09:36:56 AM

BalugaJoe: a 3 second distraction can be fatal. don't do it.


The other day someone called and I picked up my phone to look at the caller ID and almost had an accident. Can we find that telemarketer?
 
2013-08-29 09:37:55 AM
Well, time for me to move
 
2013-08-29 09:38:20 AM

P0e: From what I've read on other articles, you can be held liable if you KNOW the person on the other side is texting you while driving and you continue a conversation.  The burden of proof is on the state to prove that you KNEW the person you were texting was driving, and you continued having a conversation with them after that.  If you send a text to someone, and you don't know that they are on the road, and they check your text and get into an accident because of that, you're still not liable.


This article says the same thing; nobody (but me, apparently) bothered to read it.
 
2013-08-29 09:38:45 AM

garandman1a: MBrady: welcome to the liberal NJ.  They have to protect everyone themselves at the expense of the plebes undeserving of their enlightened glory.

Seems more accurate this way.


Well it isn't their fault they are smarter and better than you.  Just do what you're told, already.
 
2013-08-29 09:38:49 AM
Sounds reasonable to me, as long as the proper exceptions are made.  In this case, they were having a multi-text conversation.  If she knew he was driving and continued to engage in the conversation, that's bad.
Now, if I know somebody's driving and send them a single text intended to be read after they get where they're going, that's a different story and I'd better not get in trouble for it.
 
2013-08-29 09:38:59 AM

P0e: From what I've read on other articles, you can be held liable if you KNOW the person on the other side is texting you while driving and you continue a conversation.  The burden of proof is on the state to prove that you KNEW the person you were texting was driving, and you continued having a conversation with them after that.  If you send a text to someone, and you don't know that they are on the road, and they check your text and get into an accident because of that, you're still not liable.


What if you text me knowing I'm about to get into a car? I could receive or read the text later while I'm in the car. Better know when you're texting someone whether they could be driving at all that day. If we're in public together and I ask you to text me something, you'd better grab onto me and be sure to delete the text from my phone before you let go so that  you're sure you don't get into any trouble.
 
2013-08-29 09:39:01 AM

lustfish: Headline:  "Text a driver in New Jersey, and you could see your day in court"

Fark: Article: "The driver is ultimately responsible, he said. Not someone sending him a text. "


It took them way too long to come to that conclusion.
 
2013-08-29 09:40:08 AM
sometimes the dog has to go in the middle of the night.  I take him out to pee or poop or throw up all over the place at 3am on a wednesday.  I know my friends are asleep.  I take my phone and I will text them stuff.  the texts aren't meant to be read instantly.  They are meant to be read when my friends wake up and check their phones.
 
2013-08-29 09:40:14 AM
What about e-mail? I might be unaware of the fact that one of the recipients in a reply-all has a mail notification sound on his mobile device and doesn't mute it when driving.

I sure hope none of you are checking new Fark comments in the car.

/hides
 
2013-08-29 09:40:24 AM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: So if I'm driving in NJ , listening to Rush Limbaugh

a report on this decision by one of the judges on the radio, he can be sued when he sends me into a murderous rage and I plow into a farmer's market? Certainly, he knows that many of his listeners are driving and he's therefore electronically in the car with them.

I'm good with that.
 
2013-08-29 09:40:45 AM

special20: I gotta move those dead hookers...


What about these color TVs?
 
2013-08-29 09:40:57 AM

P0e: From what I've read on other articles, you can be held liable if you KNOW the person on the other side is texting you while driving and you continue a conversation.  The burden of proof is on the state to prove that you KNEW the person you were texting was driving, and you continued having a conversation with them after that.  If you send a text to someone, and you don't know that they are on the road, and they check your text and get into an accident because of that, you're still not liable.


Right, but the only time they could prove you know is if the driver texts "I'm driving". Even if it's: "I'm on my way to the store" you could easily claim you thought they were walking or riding as a passenger. This is a law for a one in a million scenario.
 
2013-08-29 09:41:38 AM
Um, that's a civil court subby. It's not the state prosecuting a criminal matter.

TMYK
 
2013-08-29 09:42:24 AM
Now we are getting somewhere.  Let's hope that other states begin to classify those "accidents", which are just as much "accidents" as a guy with a .2 BAL driving 20 miles in the wrong lane on I-95 and hitting a school bus.

I hope that people begin to realize that when you take a bite of Whopper while texting with the other hand and steering with your knees all the while sitting with one foot on the driver's seat with the legs spread (to air out the vag maybe?) that an accident really is not an "accident".

It's NOT a farking La-Z-Boy recliner, douchebags.
 
2013-08-29 09:42:52 AM

YoungLochinvar: P0e: From what I've read on other articles, you can be held liable if you KNOW the person on the other side is texting you while driving and you continue a conversation.  The burden of proof is on the state to prove that you KNEW the person you were texting was driving, and you continued having a conversation with them after that.  If you send a text to someone, and you don't know that they are on the road, and they check your text and get into an accident because of that, you're still not liable.

This article says the same thing; nobody (but me, apparently) bothered to read it.


no one likes a flashy bastard
 
2013-08-29 09:42:56 AM
Just add the current speed of both the sender and the receiver in each message. It would be easy enough to add this feature to most phones now days.  Then you can decide if it's worth sending more messages.

/// Making the patent paperwork as I type this.
//// Give me money.
 
2013-08-29 09:44:45 AM
You know what I want? I want cops pulling people over for use of headphones while driving ... I see that stuff all the time and it's INSANE.
 
2013-08-29 09:44:52 AM
She knew he was driving...she for sure asked "what r u doing?" Him "on my way 2 ur house".....or something like that during the over 100 texts.
 
2013-08-29 09:45:05 AM

Walker: The plaintiffs' attorney, Stephen Weinstein, argued that the text sender was electronically in the car with the driver receiving the text and should be treated like someone sitting next to him willfully causing a distraction, legal analyst Marc Saperstein

The argument seemed to work.

[img.photobucket.com image 460x300]


So I'm supposed to magicaly know when my friends are in a car? WTF.
 
2013-08-29 09:45:34 AM
Wow, all this outrage and no one seems to have read the article.  Let me help you all.

"They ruled that if the sender of text messages knows that the recipient is driving and texting at the same time, a court may hold the sender responsible for distraction and hold her liable for the accident."
 
2013-08-29 09:45:41 AM

browntimmy: P0e: From what I've read on other articles, you can be held liable if you KNOW the person on the other side is texting you while driving and you continue a conversation.  The burden of proof is on the state to prove that you KNEW the person you were texting was driving, and you continued having a conversation with them after that.  If you send a text to someone, and you don't know that they are on the road, and they check your text and get into an accident because of that, you're still not liable.

Right, but the only time they could prove you know is if the driver texts "I'm driving". Even if it's: "I'm on my way to the store" you could easily claim you thought they were walking or riding as a passenger. This is a law for a one in a million scenario.


It's not a law, it was part of a decision in a civil suit.
 
2013-08-29 09:46:32 AM
People convicted of texting while driving should be banned from operating any vehicle that isn't a motorcycle/scooter. Let's let them see things from the other side. Y'know, the side where some stupid asshat cager who isn't paying attention to where his or her 4,000 lb death machine is going because they're too busy blabbering about the big shiat they just took before leaving home can kill someone in the blink of an eye. That side.
 
2013-08-29 09:48:53 AM

wildcardjack: The general case must be made "How in the hell would I know what the recipient is doing?"


The proposed law is stating it is the senders responsibility to establish if the person is driving (stupid) so now all txt's in NJ will start with "what up, U driving?"
 
Displayed 50 of 154 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report