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 41
    More: Hero, New Jersey, WPIX, Appeals Court  
•       •       •

6291 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Aug 2013 at 9:24 AM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-08-29 09:06:50 AM
6 votes:
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 09:35:37 AM
3 votes:
This should have the FAIL tag..
2013-08-29 09:30:46 AM
3 votes:

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 09:28:59 AM
3 votes:
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 12:06:33 PM
2 votes:
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 09:58:37 AM
2 votes:
Hero?  [DUMBASS] tag for subby and mod
2013-08-29 09:49:15 AM
2 votes:

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 09:48:53 AM
2 votes:
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 09:30:56 AM
2 votes:
I give up on this species.
2013-08-29 09:30:16 AM
2 votes:
Reminds me of the Best Korea article a few down.
2013-08-29 09:27:25 AM
2 votes:

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 09:25:58 AM
2 votes:
The general case must be made "How in the hell would I know what the recipient is doing?"
2013-08-29 03:02:05 PM
1 votes:
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 02:12:39 PM
1 votes:

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 02:09:29 PM
1 votes:

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 01:29:08 PM
1 votes:

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 01:27:06 PM
1 votes:

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 12:56:31 PM
1 votes:
So the sender of the text had a lot more money than the receiver in this case?
2013-08-29 12:36:34 PM
1 votes:
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 12:15:17 PM
1 votes:

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 11:52:53 AM
1 votes:

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 11:44:25 AM
1 votes:

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 11:31:21 AM
1 votes:

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


THIS
2013-08-29 11:21:53 AM
1 votes:
Hero Tag? Subby is an idiot.
2013-08-29 11:15:16 AM
1 votes:

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 11:12:51 AM
1 votes:

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 10:56:52 AM
1 votes:

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 10:47:56 AM
1 votes:

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 10:43:46 AM
1 votes:

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 10:16:50 AM
1 votes:

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 09:59:37 AM
1 votes:

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 09:57:03 AM
1 votes:

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 09:50:52 AM
1 votes:
They arent trying to keep people safe you morans.

Two people charged = two tickets = double the fine $

Follow the money.
2013-08-29 09:38:20 AM
1 votes:

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 09:36:21 AM
1 votes:

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 09:34:45 AM
1 votes:
Odd use for the Hero tag.  Did subby lose a loved one to a driver receiving a text?
2013-08-29 09:33:30 AM
1 votes:

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 09:32:26 AM
1 votes:
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. "
P0e
2013-08-29 09:32:11 AM
1 votes:
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 09:31:56 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-08-29 08:49:28 AM
1 votes:
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
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report