Do you have adblock enabled?
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 153
    More: Hero, New Jersey, WPIX, Appeals Court  
•       •       •

6318 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Aug 2013 at 9:24 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 153 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report