Texting driver convicted of vehicular homocide.

[Blerv]

This is the problem^^


You do not know that, if you would have asked every one of those people that have killed someone if their texts would end up killing someone their answer would be no unless they intended on killing someone. Those people that died....died because of ONE text message. Unless you can foresee the future those "some times" can be at any time and you are rolling a die every time you test it.

That was relating to being stopped in traffic. It's called "context".

You face odds every time you walk of falling down and dying. Some people are throwing way more dice than others. Stationary texting has a pretty low variance.

[FroOchie]

Even stopped in traffic it's not OK. People stopped in traffic still need to be aware of whats around them. Who's crossing the street, who's stupidly driving out of a parking lot into the traffic your stopped in, who's running red lights or pushing yellows, ambulances coming from behind or broken down cars causing the traffic. The list is endless. When you sit in the drivers seat the only thing that should on your agenda is paying attention.

[Blerv]

Even stopped in traffic it's not OK. People stopped in traffic still need to be aware of whats around them. Who's crossing the street, who's stupidly driving out of a parking lot into the traffic your stopped in, who's running red lights or pushing yellows, ambulances coming from behind or broken down cars causing the traffic. The list is endless. When you sit in the drivers seat the only thing that should on your agenda is paying attention.

Agreed. Still, some people are better than others. In that regard cars should not come with radios and it should be illegal to have anyone in the car who can talk to you.

I don't know how half the world gets dressed each morning based on how they drive. They should put a camera in everyone's car and review it every 6 months. If they catch you being crappy more than a couple times off to the government bus wearing the mandatory helmet.

[jzmtl]

It reality not all slogans, do some reading about accident reduction, Human Performance Improvement. Accident do not just happen they have root causes, including conditions or designs that can induce a false sense of safety where none exists. The slogans are used to get people to pay attention and not blow off safety assume accidents are inevitable.

Now for the blame issue, look back at this:



They really cannot sue for spite and a reputable lawyer would probably turn it down. To be successful, they would be required to establish shared responsibility. If the text messages contained something from the sender like, "I don't care what you are doing..." things might have gone the other way.

Did you read my post past the first half sentence?

You said "accidents are preventable. Accidents are caused when we do not do our best to prevent them." My point is you can try to reduce them but you can't prevent them because it's not humanly possible to expect every circumstance that can lead to them.

On the blames, again my original point is it doesn't matter if the sender know if the receiver is driving or not, she's not on the passenger's side holding a gun to the driver's head and telling him to answer or else. The driver doesn't have to reply, or even read it, it's his choice alone that lead up to the final event. The victims may not have sued out of spite, but financial reason is perfectly valid for laying the blame, and in your own words, At that point their attorney would go after anyone that might share any blame.

[FroOchie]

we could nitpick the argument all day and I'm sure I'll agree with many of your points Blerv. They're all distractions, passengers and devices, gadgets in the car etc. The record is showing that this act is one thats more dangerous on average than others though. Distracted drivers siting the confusion the radio gives them isn't as prevalent as the reports as texting while driving. Sad to say but I think everyone should experience the force behind an accident. Even crashes at at meer 25mph feel like ****. I don't want people to be hurt but maybe if we were aware of the what an automobile was capable of we'd respect them more.

[chuck_roxas45]

Don't vehicles kill more people than guns? How strict is the government on gun ownership and use?

[Blerv]

Agreed. Part of your driving test should be putting the car in neutral and pushing it w/o the engine running. Then the driving instructor should look at the person and say, "See, it's heavy as **** right? Don't be a moron and use it like a battering ram."

I further cemented my respect in cars after working at a Ford service dept. Push enough F350 diesels into the shop with 5 other techs and it makes ya think.

[Pinetreebbs]

Did you read my post past the first half sentence?

You said "accidents are preventable. Accidents are caused when we do not do our best to prevent them." My point is you can try to reduce them but you can't prevent them because it's not humanly possible to expect every circumstance that can lead to them.

On the blames, again my original point is it doesn't matter if the sender know if the receiver is driving or not, she's not on the passenger's side holding a gun to the driver's head and telling him to answer or else. The driver doesn't have to reply, or even read it, it's his choice alone that lead up to the final event. The victims may not have sued out of spite, but financial reason is perfectly valid for laying the blame, and in your own words, At that point their attorney would go after anyone that might share any blame.

So we agree we should try to prevent inattentive drivers from causing accidents, very good.

As for suing the text sender, you may not like it or feel it is fair but it was an attempt to apply established law. Bars and party hosts have been successfully sued for over serving, even though they are not in the vehicle. The drunk driver does not have to drink and does not have to get into a car and drive, but they do. In some cases helped by a bar/host that kept serving him even after he was obviously intoxicated.

$1,007,500 SETTLEMENT MOTHER KILLED BY DRUNK DRIVER

A teacher in Collin County, Texas who was killed by a drunk driver. The drunk driver was served alcohol for nearly 12 consecutive hours at a sports bar. Although he was disruptive and started a fight that night in the bar, he was never asked to leave the premises, and the bar staff continued to serve him alcohol throughout, even serving drinks to him after the bar closed. Minutes later, he was in an automobile collision when he turned into oncoming traffic. The police investigation established that the drunk driver was over-served to the point where his blood alcohol content was three times the legal limit in Texas.

[jzmtl]

So we agree we should try to prevent inattentive drivers from causing accidents, very good.

As for suing the text sender, you may not like it or feel it is fair but it was an attempt to apply established law. Bars and party hosts have been successfully sued for over serving, even though they are not in the vehicle. The drunk driver does not have to drink and does not have to get into a car and drive, but they do. In some cases helped by a bar/host that kept serving him even after he was obviously intoxicated.

No, there is nothing to agree upon. I never said anything about should or should not, you just kept taking what I said out of context and dragging it that way.

As for text sender, I said it was wrong to do that from the beginning, not regard the legality of it, again you just run wild with it and pick an argument.

[Monocrom]

About time this nonsense was taken seriously. Won't bring back the victim though.

100% agree!

Long overdue. Normally, stupidity isn't a crime. Honestly though, those who are so incredibly stupid as to text while driving should be locked up just for doing so. In a case where their stupidity leads to someone else's death, then they deserve Life in prison without the possibility of parole. If for nothing else than to protect everyone in society who has a working brain from the sheer stupidity that those texting & driving morons possess.

[BAL]

Your responses make great example, I said any person who is involved in accidents are too emotional to make rational decisions regard the other party involved, and you get all pissy and started to taking what I said out of context, making accusations while avoiding specific points I was responding to. The only thing I can conclude is you were involved in something and now is out for blood.

There have been some great discussions on here about this topic and it is something that we should all think about
the next time and every time that we get in our vehicle. Education can be very valuable for everyone and hopefully
lives can be saved. If someone is at fault for taking another's life, then there needs to be a penalty that includes
jail time and it should be more standard across the country in my opinion.

That's all that I have meant in anything that I have written. In reading some of your posts jzmtl, you seem to be
calling the kettle black in stating that I am taking things out of context and getting all pissy. And your conclusion
is inaccurate, I have never been involved in anything that I feel the need to be "out for blood". Wanting a person
that kills another to spend time in jail is a far cry from being out for blood.

Now lets just all try to stick to the topic and not get personal. I will do that from here on, I just wanted to clarify
first. Blerv and FroOchie have had some very interesting back and form discussions on here and stayed civilized.
That's what this forum is all about.

I apologize to you, jzmtl, if I have taken anything out of context toward you or sounded personal in my comments.
It's all good. This is a hot topic that I believe will get hotter in the future with today's technology and everyome
carrying phones that can do almost anything. They will be able to do more things in the future that will distract us
from our task at hand, driving a vehicle.

Thanks guys.

[jzmtl]

Well it's obvious no one is going to change anyone else's mind so there's no point in continuing.

[Blerv]

Well it's obvious no one is going to change anyone else's mind so there's no point in continuing.

Oh I think this is going someplace!

Wait till page 10. It ALWAYS gets better on page 10. :D

[The Deacon]

If someone is at fault for taking another's life, then there needs to be a penalty that includes jail time and it should be more standard across the country in my opinion.

I agree. I know that, at least up to the time I left last year, sentencing for vehicular homicide in NY was so inconsistent as to be arbitrary and capricious.

[Pinetreebbs]

Well it's obvious no one is going to change anyone else's mind so there's no point in continuing.

I'm more than willing to help you, I just hope it doesn't take 10 pages. :D

[Blerv]

I'm more than willing to help you, I just hope it doesn't take 10 pages. :D

Very rarely is anything solved on page 10 of an internet discussion.

[BAL]

Not trying to add any fuel to anything, but I don't think that it is a matter of changing
anyomes opinion, but more of an awareness that WE ALL need to think about.

I can be just as guilty as anyone. I picked up a few things at Menards this weekend and
on the way home, I found myself glancing at the sack that was sitting in the passenger
seat. I was on a gravel backroad, where there is very little traffic, however, a person
still needs to give 100% to the road. It doesn't take much to be looking in a sack, texting,
talking on the phone, fiddling with a CD or whatever and lose concentration.

I actually thought about this thread and left the stuff alone until I got home. None
of us are above learning a lesson and a reminder to be safe on the roads.

[Blerv]

This thread died for 4 days then was revived to rampage mankind.

/paddles