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 (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



154 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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?"
 
2013-08-29 09:48:53 AM
Why the

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.


Why the hell is everybody arguing about the intent of the text sender? It shouldn't even be an issue. It's the driver's responsibility. If somebody texts you while driving you are not obligated to read or reply to that text.
 
2013-08-29 09:48:53 AM
I don't see the problem. If it can be proven that the other side participating knows that the person is driving then they are willingly part of the distraction and if that distraction causes a crash they should be held liable for their part.

You can't just do whatever the fark you want and not expect consequences. If you caused a crash because you were sitting in the passenger's seat flailing your arms around in front of the driver like an idiot you'd be held jointly liable, I don't see how this is fundamentally different. If you're a distraction you're a distraction, it doesn't really matter what the mechanism behind your distracting behavior is, only that you knew you were a part of the problem and didn't make any attempt to correct your behavior.
 
2013-08-29 09:49:15 AM

WhiskeyBoy: 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."


That's still pretty farking absurd. The driver isn't obligated to read or respond to the text while driving.
 
2013-08-29 09:50:52 AM
They arent trying to keep people safe you morans.

Two people charged = two tickets = double the fine $

Follow the money.
 
2013-08-29 09:50:54 AM

bucket_pup: 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.


Hah. Can you imagine what would happen if the cops made it open and notorious that they were going to use cell phone data to issue tickets and cite people for driving while texting?
 
2013-08-29 09:51:29 AM

serial_crusher: special20: I gotta move those dead hookers...

What about these color TVs?


Gotta move these refrigerators first.
 
2013-08-29 09:52:49 AM

Cheesehead_Dave: serial_crusher: special20: I gotta move those dead hookers...

What about these color TVs?

Gotta move these refrigerators first.


What about your microwave ovens?
 
2013-08-29 09:53:55 AM
Just repeat this mantra to yourself when you think about texting while driving: "I am not that important."
 
2013-08-29 09:54:07 AM
If you're unable to read a text message then you're similarly unable read any mapping/gps device.  They too must be outlawed..

/stupid
 
2013-08-29 09:54:18 AM
So, send a text saying "Are you driving?" and get ticketed.  Well, there goes the neighborhood.
 
2013-08-29 09:54:54 AM

HotWingConspiracy: That's still pretty farking absurd. The driver isn't obligated to read or respond to the text while driving.


To be fair, this guy's GF would probably freak out if he didn't respond within 3 minutes.  But you're correct, obviously.  There is no law that says you must look at your phone immediately when a text arrives.
 
2013-08-29 09:55:10 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.


Court costs = revenue.  Do you not think this was a variable?  Who cares where the burden of proof lies, the state will gladly accept your not guilty plea and accept your money. Are they trying to recoup the Jersey Shore losses they took this year?  I recall reading that they were blaming the hurricane for poor tourist revenue.  Maybe it's just that no one wants to visit Jersey.
 
2013-08-29 09:55:37 AM
...ugh, add "to" where applicable.
 
2013-08-29 09:56:21 AM

skozlaw: I don't see the problem. If it can be proven that the other side participating knows that the person is driving then they are willingly part of the distraction and if that distraction causes a crash they should be held liable for their part.

You can't just do whatever the fark you want and not expect consequences. If you caused a crash because you were sitting in the passenger's seat flailing your arms around in front of the driver like an idiot you'd be held jointly liable, I don't see how this is fundamentally different. If you're a distraction you're a distraction, it doesn't really matter what the mechanism behind your distracting behavior is, only that you knew you were a part of the problem and didn't make any attempt to correct your behavior.


Not even remotely similar. One can be ignored much easier than the other.
 
2013-08-29 09:57:03 AM

mortimer_ford: Why the hell is everybody arguing about the intent of the text sender? It shouldn't even be an issue. It's the driver's responsibility. If somebody texts you while driving you are not obligated to read or reply to that text.


Ultimately THIS.  Lots of "OMG let's sue [insert songwriter/talk show host] when I crash!!! Wharrgarbl."  It was ruled that the text sender is only liable if they  knewthe person they were texting was driving.  Which is still pretty stupid because if they knew that, they should understand why the driver doesn't text back.  The person driving the vehicle is in charge of the operation of the vehicle, no one else.

skozlaw: I don't see the problem. If it can be proven that the other side participating knows that the person is driving then they are willingly part of the distraction and if that distraction causes a crash they should be held liable for their part.

You can't just do whatever the fark you want and not expect consequences. If you caused a crash because you were sitting in the passenger's seat flailing your arms around in front of the driver like an idiot you'd be held jointly liable, I don't see how this is fundamentally different. If you're a distraction you're a distraction, it doesn't really matter what the mechanism behind your distracting behavior is, only that you knew you were a part of the problem and didn't make any attempt to correct your behavior.


I can ignore my cell phone.  If you're flailing your arms in front of me while I'm trying to drive, that's not something I can easily ignore.
 
2013-08-29 09:57:21 AM

stamped human bacon: If you're unable to read a text message then you're similarly unable read any mapping/gps device.  They too must be outlawed..

/stupid


Stop stating the obvious. This is fark...there's no room for saying something that makes sense here.
 
2013-08-29 09:57:58 AM

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


Text them and ask
 
2013-08-29 09:58:13 AM

The more you eat the more you fart: Two people charged = two tickets = double the fine $


In reality: 2 people charged = one found liable = 1 fine + 1 pile of court costs for the state
 
2013-08-29 09:58:29 AM

HotWingConspiracy: That's still pretty farking absurd. The driver isn't obligated to read or respond to the text while driving.


This is hardly unique. People get screwed by the irresponsibility of their acquaintances all the time. There are people with drug arrests solely because they were hanging out with some idiot who was carrying when they got pulled over. It falls under the category of protecting yourself from the people around you. If you know the person you're texting is driving, and you know they're an irresponsible moron who's going to read it, don't text them.

Regardless, the odds are that if you send them one text they're not going to crash so most of the time a single message isn't going to result in any problem at all. It's one thing to send them one and then done, even if they respond, versus two idiots having an ongoing conversation which is where this will really shine.
 
2013-08-29 09:58:37 AM
Hero?  [DUMBASS] tag for subby and mod
 
2013-08-29 09:58:55 AM
I just don't see how this ruling will ever lead to charges.  It is entirely, completely and without a doubt (IMO) the driver's responsibility to drive safely.  How does the person not in the car ever know for sure what the driver is doing.  Unless they're using google hangouts/skype/facetime/etc, there's no way they can possibly know.

"Hey, what are you up to?" -Thing 1
"driving" -Thing 2
"ok, text me when you get home" -Thing 1

Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the third text there is expected to be read while the car is moving?  Not in my eyes, you can't.
 
2013-08-29 09:59:22 AM

HotWingConspiracy: WhiskeyBoy: 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."

That's still pretty farking absurd. The driver isn't obligated to read or respond to the text while driving.


Absolutely agree.  See my above post.  I realized in my explanation I didn't make it clear that it's still stupid.
 
2013-08-29 09:59:37 AM

cardex: 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


It's still farking stupid.  Even if you know someone's driving, you shouldn't be obligated to expect that they'll behave like a spaz and read your message immediately.  When someone does something stupid and gets into an accident, it should be their judgement and their judgement alone that is held as the cause.

Should hot women be ticketed if they walk down the street without a burqa, and cause a car accident because some retard decided to stare too long?
 
2013-08-29 09:59:42 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.


If you listen to Limbaugh or 'Beiber', then you deserve what you get.
 
2013-08-29 10:00:03 AM
NJ's major problem with texting is the driver hitting a pothole while holding a phone, making the vehicle impossible to control.

Of course the same thing happens when the driver is just holding the steering wheel and doesn't even own a phone.
 
2013-08-29 10:00:38 AM

WhiskeyBoy: I can ignore my cell phone.


mortimer_ford: One can be ignored much easier than the other.


For the purpose of brevity, see here (man).
 
2013-08-29 10:00:51 AM
Drunk af going 120 drifting corners #farkIt YOLO
 
2013-08-29 10:01:52 AM

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


This.  When a person is sending a text, in most cases they don't know where the person receiving is.  Really stupid idea.
 
2013-08-29 10:03:20 AM
There seems to be some confusion.
Assault Texts can always be sent at any time.

Nannys are off the hook!
 
2013-08-29 10:04:36 AM
So many teenagers in this thread.
 
2013-08-29 10:07:25 AM

thurstonxhowell: The more you eat the more you fart: Two people charged = two tickets = double the fine $

In reality: 2 people charged = one found liable = 1 fine + 1 pile of court costs for the state


But its worth the gamble for them if they even get half of those cases prosecuted.

The guilty party pays court costs anyhow...so the d.a. is gonna TRY no matter what.

Gotta get that $$ you know..
 
2013-08-29 10:09:16 AM
If you're driving a car then the responsibility for that is 100% on you.  If you choose to read a text while driving then you are a dickhead.  If you think you're perfectly capable of driving safely and texting then you are an ignorant dickhead.  You are 100% responsible for a potentially lethal piece of machinery.  Act like it.
 
2013-08-29 10:10:29 AM

The Goddamn Batman: Just repeat this mantra to yourself when you think about texting while driving: "I am not that important."


Or, just repeat this mantra to yourself when you are texting while driving: "Human beings are not an endangered species."
 
2013-08-29 10:11:16 AM

bucket_pup: 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.


Prior art:  http://tasker.wikidot.com/autorespondwhiledriving
Sorry. Ideas are cheap -- you need a brand.
 
2013-08-29 10:11:18 AM
This only makes sense if you respond to a person who you know is texting while driving
 
2013-08-29 10:11:24 AM

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

This.  When a person is sending a text, in most cases they don't know where the person receiving is.  Really stupid idea.


Did any of you actually RTFA or are you pretty much just using your imagination so you can be outraged. Even though the precedent was set, the person on the other end was let off because she didn't know he was driving.

Exactly what you think should happen is what happened here. They went after the other party as a participant and the court said "that's fine, but in this instance there's not enough evidence to prove she knew he was driving so you lose".

You people try way too hard to be wrong.
 
2013-08-29 10:14:11 AM

HotWingConspiracy: That's still pretty farking absurd. The driver isn't obligated to read or respond to the text while driving.


Try telling that to the kind of person who sends hundreds of messages per day.
 
2013-08-29 10:15:24 AM

bucket_pup: 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.


Wouldn't stop me from texting you while I'm stopped at a red light, with my speed at zero, and then reading your reply while I'm zipping down the road a few seconds later.

Not that I would. I farking hate texting drivers. If I was a cop, I could probably fund the whole department just by writing texting tickets. I see several every day just in the few minutes I'm on the road.
 
2013-08-29 10:15:51 AM

HotWingConspiracy: WhiskeyBoy: 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."

That's still pretty farking absurd. The driver isn't obligated to read or respond to the text while driving.


People are weak and can't control their impulses.  Probably every cell phone plan includes voice mail so you don't have to answer your phone right away, yet many people think that they are so important that they must answer each and every call right away or the world will end.
 
2013-08-29 10:16:18 AM
Oblig:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-HCs4tRw8o&feature=youtube_gdata_pla y er
 
2013-08-29 10:16:50 AM

Twinkles: HotWingConspiracy: That's still pretty farking absurd. The driver isn't obligated to read or respond to the text while driving.

Try telling that to the kind of person who sends hundreds of messages per day.


Ok? The volume of texts doesn't really change anything in my mind. The driver is in complete control of the situation.
 
2013-08-29 10:17:38 AM

vudukungfu: If you are driving and have a cell phone turned on, you are an asshat.


It's not uncommon for people of this century to have a cellphone charger somewhere in their line of sight between the wheel and the road, with the phone providing navigation data, music for the sound system, etc.

There's also Bluetooth mics and fairly robust speech-recognition software on modern phones, which makes it possible to respond to IMPORTANT messages without taking your hands off the wheel.
 
2013-08-29 10:22:20 AM

skozlaw: WhiskeyBoy: I can ignore my cell phone.

mortimer_ford: One can be ignored much easier than the other.

For the purpose of brevity, see here (man).


If you know the person you're texting is driving, and you know they're an irresponsible moron who's going to read it, don't text them.

This won't be an issue unless the opinion of the texter about the textee could somehow be proven. This is an invitation to some elastic lawmaking.

People get screwed by the irresponsibility of their acquaintances all the time. There are people with drug arrests solely because they were hanging out with some idiot who was carrying when they got pulled over.

I don't agree with laws like this.
 
2013-08-29 10:23:25 AM

stamped human bacon: If you're unable to read a text message then you're similarly unable read any mapping/gps device.  They too must be outlawed..

/stupid


And don't get me started on those "speedometer and tachometer" thingys. Talk about a distraction... they've got those little spinny needles moving all around in front of me when I'm trying to drive.
 
2013-08-29 10:24:04 AM

vudukungfu: If you are driving and have a cell phone turned on, you are an asshat.


Your common sense hurts.

Is it just me or when driving a large vehicle at high speeds you should be concentrating on driving. Not texting, not talking, not fooling with gps, not putting on make-up, shaving.....
I punch myself in the nuts when I catch myself doing 1 of the above.  Except for the make-up of course...
 
2013-08-29 10:27:26 AM

litespeed74: vudukungfu: If you are driving and have a cell phone turned on, you are an asshat.

Your common sense hurts.

Is it just me or when driving a large vehicle at high speeds you should be concentrating on driving. Not texting, not talking, not fooling with gps, not putting on make-up, shaving.....
I punch myself in the nuts when I catch myself doing 1 of the above.  Except for the make-up of course...


Dont look down and get distracted by the speedometer either...
 
2013-08-29 10:30:21 AM

mortimer_ford: This won't be an issue unless the opinion of the texter about the textee could somehow be proven


Kind of the point. Based on the ruling the only way you're going to be held liable is if 1) You were texting the person at or just before the time of the crash and 2) it can be proven that you knew they were driving.

Not seeing the problem here. Joint liability is not a new thing and this doesn't change the fundamental rules. If you engage in a behavior that contributes to another person's injury and it can be proven you were acting negligently, you're partly liable for what happened even if you didn't actually cause the injury. This is nothing special, it's just an acknowledgement that a semi-new technology isn't exempt from that basic test that has existed in some form for centuries.

mortimer_ford: I don't agree with laws like this.


That doesn't really matter because your opinion of it is a separate thing that I'm not questioning. Nor do I necessarily disagree with you when it comes to my particular choice of an example.

In this case though, you're simply wrong. It's a matter of liability and the rules are nothing new nor are they special. You can go after any involved party you want in your suit against people who injured you, you just have to prove they actually were involved to win, same as now in any other circumstance.
 
2013-08-29 10:31:47 AM

The Goddamn Batman: Just repeat this mantra to yourself when you think about texting while driving: "I am not that important."


Maybe YOU aren't...
 
2013-08-29 10:32:01 AM

The more you eat the more you fart: Dont look down and get distracted by the speedometer either...


Knowing your speed is part of the driving process, but don't let that stop you from making terrible, brainless analogies.
 
2013-08-29 10:34:29 AM

skozlaw: The more you eat the more you fart: Dont look down and get distracted by the speedometer either...

Knowing your speed is part of the driving process, but don't let that stop you from making terrible, brainless analogies.


Oh..you mean like cops who check their laptops, answer the radio...and play with their radar?

Id say if the cops can do all of that and be deemed to be safe, i can look at my car's info screen to see who's calling or texting safely.
 
2013-08-29 10:37:13 AM

The more you eat the more you fart: Oh..you mean like cops


No, I don't "mean like cops" because that has nothing to do with this thread.
 
2013-08-29 10:42:46 AM

skozlaw: The more you eat the more you fart: Oh..you mean like cops

No, I don't "mean like cops" because that has nothing to do with this thread.


Sure it does.

The police are ticketing people who text and drive...and the people who sent the text...while they themselves are doing far worse.
 
2013-08-29 10:43:46 AM

rubi_con_man: 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.


Know what? I do that all the time. It makes my commute a lot more enjoyable.

So, basically, fark off.
 
2013-08-29 10:47:56 AM

Baron Harkonnen: rubi_con_man: 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.

Know what? I do that all the time. It makes my commute a lot more enjoyable.

So, basically, fark off.


No different than playing loud music.

Dumbass sheeple always wanting more restrictions on everyone ELSE..and then complain about big government.

The stupidity never ceases to absolutely astound me
 
2013-08-29 10:50:53 AM

Baron Harkonnen: rubi_con_man: 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.

Know what? I do that all the time. It makes my commute a lot more enjoyable.

So, basically, fark off.


I concur; your enjoyment while commuting is substantially more important than is the ability to hear the sirens of emergency vehicles.
 
2013-08-29 10:51:38 AM

Baron Harkonnen: rubi_con_man: 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.

Know what? I do that all the time. It makes my commute a lot more enjoyable.

So, basically, fark off.


You are robbing yourself of one of the senses that might keep you safe on the road.
 
2013-08-29 10:56:52 AM

Dimensio: Baron Harkonnen: rubi_con_man: 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.

Know what? I do that all the time. It makes my commute a lot more enjoyable.

So, basically, fark off.

I concur; your enjoyment while commuting is substantially more important than is the ability to hear the sirens of emergency vehicles.


which would be just as affected by loud music whether on headphones or not. You want a Db level at the ear regulation (sensible), not a visible signs of listening to music regulation (idiotic).

Please rethink your complaint to sound less like "Waaah!" and more like "I think this issue could be better handled by..."
 
2013-08-29 10:58:19 AM
The issue with headphones is that you may not hear an emergency vehicle. What do deaf people who drive do in that situation? Not get out of the way?

Are you saying deaf people should be banned from driving?
 
2013-08-29 11:00:49 AM
Attorney here (NJ one to boot).  I'm not certain this would hold up in practice, at least in criminal/municipal court (and even then, any smart attorney would just plead down to a lesser charge).  A civil action might be a better route to prosecute the texter (as opposed to the textee, whose insurance company would take the lead on the case), but this just seems like a cash grab on the part of the state.  Christie has to fund the "Stronger Than the Storm" commercials somehow.
 
2013-08-29 11:03:10 AM
When driving a car there are many times when the car stops (stoplight, gas station, school bus, etc...). When the car is stopped and you return or generate a text is that negligent driving?
 
2013-08-29 11:04:50 AM

dready zim: The issue with headphones is that you may not hear an emergency vehicle. What do deaf people who drive do in that situation? Not get out of the way?

Are you saying deaf people should be banned from driving?


I think emergency vehicles also have flashing lights... the sirens are only really intended for warning the blind drivers.
 
2013-08-29 11:09:52 AM

andyofne: dready zim: The issue with headphones is that you may not hear an emergency vehicle. What do deaf people who drive do in that situation? Not get out of the way?

Are you saying deaf people should be banned from driving?

I think emergency vehicles also have flashing lights... the sirens are only really intended for warning the blind drivers.


Well that`s good, I`d hate to think only the blind drivers would get out of the way! I`m glad someone thought of that eventuality.
 
2013-08-29 11:12:51 AM

HotWingConspiracy: You are robbing yourself of one of the senses that might keep you safe on the road.


Dimensio: I concur; your enjoyment while commuting is substantially more important than is the ability to hear the sirens of emergency vehicles.


So what you guys are really saying is that you want all car stereos of every kind prohibited by law? Is that correct? Or are you just both idiots with no clear idea of what you're saying, but enjoy that satisfying rush of righteous indignation that comes with a snap judgment?
I bet I know the answer to that one.
 
2013-08-29 11:14:01 AM

spartacus_prime: Attorney here (NJ one to boot).  I'm not certain this would hold up in practice, at least in criminal/municipal court (and even then, any smart attorney would just plead down to a lesser charge).  A civil action might be a better route to prosecute the texter (as opposed to the textee, whose insurance company would take the lead on the case), but this just seems like a cash grab on the part of the state.  Christie has to fund the "Stronger Than the Storm" commercials somehow.


This was a civil action.
 
2013-08-29 11:15:16 AM

Baron Harkonnen: HotWingConspiracy: You are robbing yourself of one of the senses that might keep you safe on the road.

Dimensio: I concur; your enjoyment while commuting is substantially more important than is the ability to hear the sirens of emergency vehicles.

So what you guys are really saying is that you want all car stereos of every kind prohibited by law? Is that correct? Or are you just both idiots with no clear idea of what you're saying, but enjoy that satisfying rush of righteous indignation that comes with a snap judgment?
I bet I know the answer to that one.


You're kind of a raging asshole, eh?

There is some daylight between banning radios and not pumping sound directly into your skull, but I get that it's hard for infants to discern these things.
 
2013-08-29 11:16:47 AM

dready zim: Dimensio: Baron Harkonnen: rubi_con_man: 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.

Know what? I do that all the time. It makes my commute a lot more enjoyable.

So, basically, fark off.

I concur; your enjoyment while commuting is substantially more important than is the ability to hear the sirens of emergency vehicles.

which would be just as affected by loud music whether on headphones or not. You want a Db level at the ear regulation (sensible), not a visible signs of listening to music regulation (idiotic).

Please rethink your complaint to sound less like "Waaah!" and more like "I think this issue could be better handled by..."


Headphones also dampen external sounds, even when they're not playing music.  So it wouldn't be as simple as measuring music volume at ear.  You'd have to measure sound-proofing of the car, etc.  Or just make a blanket rule against headphones because that's a little more feasible to implement.

dready zim: The issue with headphones is that you may not hear an emergency vehicle. What do deaf people who drive do in that situation? Not get out of the way?


Deaf people tend to have better visual acuity than hearing people.  They're probably still less likely to notice the ambulance than an undistracted hearing driver, but are certainly more likely to notice it than a distracted hearing driver.

/ I wear headphones on my bike all the time.  My plan if I get pulled over for it is to try and convince the cop that I'm deaf and just wear the headphones as an outward indicator to drivers that they shouldn't expect me to hear them.  I do a killer deaf voice impression.
 
2013-08-29 11:21:53 AM
Hero Tag? Subby is an idiot.
 
2013-08-29 11:23:37 AM
Still: who writes tickets to the cops for doing the exact same thing..and worse?
 
2013-08-29 11:27:42 AM

Baron Harkonnen: HotWingConspiracy: You are robbing yourself of one of the senses that might keep you safe on the road.

Dimensio: I concur; your enjoyment while commuting is substantially more important than is the ability to hear the sirens of emergency vehicles.

So what you guys are really saying is that you want all car stereos of every kind prohibited by law? Is that correct? Or are you just both idiots with no clear idea of what you're saying, but enjoy that satisfying rush of righteous indignation that comes with a snap judgment?
I bet I know the answer to that one.


Your comparison is apt, as automobile sound system speakers and headphones block outside sounds to listeners with identical effectiveness.
 
2013-08-29 11:29:09 AM
Thanks to all the asshats who simply can't refrain from touching themselves  their smart phones while driving, I guarantee that we will start seeing nanny state tech that shuts town texting while in the car.  No one's going to like this but it's what happens when too many morons roam free.
 
2013-08-29 11:31:21 AM

Odd Bird: Hero?  [DUMBASS] tag for subby and mod


THIS
 
2013-08-29 11:31:27 AM

Dimensio: Baron Harkonnen: HotWingConspiracy: You are robbing yourself of one of the senses that might keep you safe on the road.

Dimensio: I concur; your enjoyment while commuting is substantially more important than is the ability to hear the sirens of emergency vehicles.

So what you guys are really saying is that you want all car stereos of every kind prohibited by law? Is that correct? Or are you just both idiots with no clear idea of what you're saying, but enjoy that satisfying rush of righteous indignation that comes with a snap judgment?
I bet I know the answer to that one.

Your comparison is apt, as automobile sound system speakers and headphones block outside sounds to listeners with identical effectiveness.


The minor attenuation provided by headphones is irrelevant compared to the masking noise provided by either the speakers or the headphones. In fact, simply having your windows rolled up will block outside sounds better than wearing headphones. So, yes... speakers and headphones do block outside sounds to listeners with identical effectiveness (provided the SPL at the listener is the same).
 
2013-08-29 11:38:53 AM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: stamped human bacon: If you're unable to read a text message then you're similarly unable read any mapping/gps device.  They too must be outlawed..

/stupid

And don't get me started on those "speedometer and tachometer" thingys. Talk about a distraction... they've got those little spinny needles moving all around in front of me when I'm trying to drive.


The Chevy Volt has a video game going on in front of you called keep the green ball in the middle of the range. If you go too fast, the ball moves up the graphic and you know you're not maximizing your power. There's also a ton of other information that rivals any text message. Annoying, really.
 
2013-08-29 11:44:25 AM

rubi_con_man: 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.


Your assessment of your own sanity is correct, you are insane for wanting people pulled over for wearing headphones.  Please seek help.
 
2013-08-29 11:50:51 AM

Turbo Cojones: 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.


Sometimes it is.
 
2013-08-29 11:52:53 AM

HotWingConspiracy: You're kind of a raging asshole, eh?

There is some daylight between banning radios and not pumping sound directly into your skull, but I get that it's hard for infants to discern these things.


You know what, Susan? You can pretend like you have some sort of super scientific knowledge of stereos and headphones, but the truth is you're just pulling this out of your ass.
"It seems to me that blah blah blah." I get it. You have opinions.
 
2013-08-29 12:06:33 PM
what we need as a society is another way to blame someone else for our own mistakes. Of course, it's the person who knowingly sent the text not the a**hat who was behind the wheel answering it.

Of course, blaming someone else is all our "representatives" in politics seem to know how to do so this law makes perfect sense to them.

HOW ABOUT SOME PERSONAL FARKING RESPONSIBILITY???

/ morons, all of them.
 
2013-08-29 12:11:34 PM
So...what happens when someone gets an Amber Alert message while driving?

Is it the kidnapping victim's fault?
 
2013-08-29 12:12:55 PM

mainstreet62: So...what happens when someone gets an Amber Alert message while driving?

Is it the kidnapping victim's fault?


I predict that butterflies in china will be receiving many tickets very soon.
 
2013-08-29 12:15:17 PM

vudukungfu: If you are driving and have a cell phone turned on, you are an asshat.


Isn't it time for your nap grandpa? This will probably shock you, but in addition to the ability to make calls and send texts, modern cell phones have gps and the same navigation software that a dedicated gps has. They also enable you to stream music through your stereo using things like Pandora, Google Play etc. so you don't need to suffer through the shiat local radio and all of their commercials. They call these wonderful devices "smart phones." You should get on the Google and look them up.
 
2013-08-29 12:18:52 PM
In other news subby is a f*cktard. Like I would have any idea what the person I'm texting is doing
 
2013-08-29 12:26:04 PM

skozlaw: The more you eat the more you fart: Dont look down and get distracted by the speedometer either...

Knowing your speed is part of the driving process, but don't let that stop you from making terrible, brainless analogies.


Then you had better rip that evil stereo and speakers out of your car. They don't have shiat to do with the driving process. Neither do your climate controls for that matter (you should really only get a single button to turn on the defrost).
 
2013-08-29 12:29:18 PM

FrankenPC: Thanks to all the asshats who simply can't refrain from touching themselves  their smart phones while driving, I guarantee that we will start seeing nanny state tech that shuts town texting while in the car.  No one's going to like this but it's what happens when too many morons roam free.


Which will be followed shortly by a hack to remove such ridiculous restrictions.
 
2013-08-29 12:36:34 PM
I farking hate people who dick around with their phones while they drive, but this sounds like bullshiat even to me.

Here's all you have to do to keep from distracted by a phone: put it away and don't touch it until you get to your destination and put the car in park. I do it every day. It's not hard.
 
2013-08-29 12:56:31 PM
So the sender of the text had a lot more money than the receiver in this case?
 
2013-08-29 12:59:14 PM

Dr J Zoidberg: In other news subby is a f*cktard. Like I would have any idea what the person I'm texting is doing


Subby did not introduce the law, some f*cktard legislator in NJ did that
 
2013-08-29 01:05:31 PM

monoski: Dr J Zoidberg: In other news subby is a f*cktard. Like I would have any idea what the person I'm texting is doing

Subby did not introduce the law, some f*cktard legislator in NJ did that


Subby decided that this stupid law  was worth a hero tag
 
2013-08-29 01:09:20 PM

monoski: Subby did not introduce the law, some f*cktard legislator in NJ did that


So, basically, you didn't even bother to RTFA even though you seem to have a very strong opinion on it.
 
2013-08-29 01:16:20 PM

Baron Harkonnen: HotWingConspiracy: You're kind of a raging asshole, eh?

There is some daylight between banning radios and not pumping sound directly into your skull, but I get that it's hard for infants to discern these things.

You know what, Susan? You can pretend like you have some sort of super scientific knowledge of stereos and headphones, but the truth is you're just pulling this out of your ass.
"It seems to me that blah blah blah." I get it. You have opinions.


Do you always lash out like a baby when someone points out your asshole tendencies?

Cry harder.
 
2013-08-29 01:19:53 PM
I think humanity is going to look back at the invention of the cell phone as the point when our species nearly destroyed itself.
 
2013-08-29 01:27:06 PM

skozlaw: I don't see the problem. If it can be proven that the other side participating knows that the person is driving then they are willingly part of the distraction and if that distraction causes a crash they should be held liable for their part.

You can't just do whatever the fark you want and not expect consequences. If you caused a crash because you were sitting in the passenger's seat flailing your arms around in front of the driver like an idiot you'd be held jointly liable, I don't see how this is fundamentally different. If you're a distraction you're a distraction, it doesn't really matter what the mechanism behind your distracting behavior is, only that you knew you were a part of the problem and didn't make any attempt to correct your behavior.


You are a nanny-state statist.  You are everything wrong with modern society in a nut shell.  Please do not have children. Fortunately. other statists like you are in favor of eugenics.
 
2013-08-29 01:29:08 PM

serial_crusher: 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.


How about the driver show some responsibility and not answer until they are not driving?

You liberals ban sugar, large sodas, popcorn, salt and choice. You would have it where adults simply are not accountable for their own actions.  You are a child. You are a cancer to society.

/This is what happens when liberals control our failing education system for decades.
 
2013-08-29 02:06:27 PM
My fiancee does that shiat all the time. Ill IM her;

"Ok, leaving to pick you up from work".

I get there

"Did you stop at X and get Y?"
"Uh, no... didnt know i was supposed to?"
"I texted you right after you left!"
"Yeah, i heard it, I was driving."
"Oh yeah..."
 
2013-08-29 02:09:29 PM

Nemo's Brother: serial_crusher: 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.

How about the driver show some responsibility and not answer until they are not driving?

You liberals ban sugar, large sodas, popcorn, salt and choice. You would have it where adults simply are not accountable for their own actions.  You are a child. You are a cancer to society.

/This is what happens when liberals control our failing education system for decades.


You conservatives ban medical privacy for half the population and marriage for a twentieth. I wouldn't throw any stones if I were you.
 
2013-08-29 02:12:39 PM

Headso: "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


If you knew that they would check it? What the hell? One of the great things about text messaging is that you don't have to answer right away. It's a faster and more efficient version of sending a damn letter/e-mail. It's entirely reasonable to expect someone to wait until they're not in traffic to look at and/or respond to a text.

vudukungfu: If you are driving and have a cell phone turned on, you are an asshat.


That's a really shortsighted statement. I use my phone to stream and/or play music, podcasts, etc to my car stereo. My phone is also my only GPS, which I window mount when in use. There are perfectly valid reasons to have your phone on when driving.

It's up to the driver to not do anything to distract themselves when in traffic. What that distraction is doesn't matter and it's asinine to single out phones as being completely a bad thing in a car.

I usually drive with 2 phones on me; my personal phone and my work phone. One of them is usually doing one of the things I listed above. Even so I don't check or respond to messages when in traffic and I've never had any close calls due to me being distracted.

Personal responsibility. It's a thing.
 
2013-08-29 02:22:47 PM
This is why I always ask during cell calls if the person is driving, especially if I know the person I'm talking to has a habit of talking or texting while driving. They know that if I hear any traffic or other car noises I will hang up ASAP, even if right in the middle of a conversation. I ask them the same thing when texting. When I have my phone in the car, I shut it off. No call or text is that important, it can farking wait until I stop the farking car.
 
2013-08-29 02:24:46 PM

Nemo's Brother: You are a nanny-state statist. You are everything wrong with modern society in a nut shell. Please do not have children. Fortunately. other statists like you are in favor of eugenics.


Out of curiosity, have you ever posted anything that might even be temporarily mistaken for an intelligent thought?
 
2013-08-29 02:42:45 PM

Theaetetus: Nemo's Brother: serial_crusher: 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.

How about the driver show some responsibility and not answer until they are not driving?

You liberals ban sugar, large sodas, popcorn, salt and choice. You would have it where adults simply are not accountable for their own actions.  You are a child. You are a cancer to society.

/This is what happens when liberals control our failing education system for decades.

You conservatives ban medical privacy for half the population and marriage for a twentieth. I wouldn't throw any stones if I were you.


I'm not pro-texting-while-driving.  I'm pro-choice-of-whether-or-not-to-text-while-driving!
 
2013-08-29 03:02:05 PM
This is completely insane.  The legal system at its worst.

The lawyer who thought of naming the text originator in the lawsuit is epitome of the stereotypical vile garbage all the jokes come from.
 
2013-08-29 03:02:57 PM

rewind2846: This is why I always ask during cell calls if the person is driving, especially if I know the person I'm talking to has a habit of talking or texting while driving. They know that if I hear any traffic or other car noises I will hang up ASAP, even if right in the middle of a conversation. I ask them the same thing when texting. When I have my phone in the car, I shut it off. No call or text is that important, it can farking wait until I stop the farking car.


What if your text asking if they are driving causes the wreck?
 
2013-08-29 04:11:38 PM

Dirtybird971: what we need as a society is another way to blame someone else for our own mistakes. Of course, it's the person who knowingly sent the text not the a**hat who was behind the wheel answering it.

Of course, blaming someone else is all our "representatives" in politics seem to know how to do so this law makes perfect sense to them.

HOW ABOUT SOME PERSONAL FARKING RESPONSIBILITY???

/ morons, all of them.


And just what do you have against 12 step plans to total responsibility abrogation?
'Tween those and some real law enforcement with zero tolerance, people WILL learn their lesson.

And then we can all feel safe.
 
2013-08-29 04:25:39 PM

Best Princess Celestia: 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


Oh... pardon me lady... I gotta go move those now deceased sex-workers.

Sheesh! Need a ride somewhere?
 
2013-08-30 10:13:04 AM
IRQ12:
What if your text asking if they are driving causes the wreck?

Because I think before I text. I usually know the person I'm texting, and therefore have an idea of their schedule. If the hors are when I would normally be commuting, I don't text becuse it's likely they would be doing the same thing. If I'm at my desk at lunch, ditto. I also associate with people who are smart enough to realize that you don't have to look at or answer a text message as soon as you get it. The response can wait. The technology works like that. Who'd have thought?
 
2013-08-30 12:04:08 PM

rewind2846: IRQ12:
What if your text asking if they are driving causes the wreck?

Because I think before I text. I usually know the person I'm texting, and therefore have an idea of their schedule. If the hors are when I would normally be commuting, I don't text becuse it's likely they would be doing the same thing. If I'm at my desk at lunch, ditto. I also associate with people who are smart enough to realize that you don't have to look at or answer a text message as soon as you get it. The response can wait. The technology works like that. Who'd have thought?


You're funny.
 
Displayed 154 of 154 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report