Texting and Driving

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,288
8,440
113
Washington DC
In his desperate attempt to Save The ARs, Jinentonix has brought up a serious problem. He only did it to Save The ARs, and I don't for a second think he gives two shits about the dangers of texting while driving, but it is a societal problem which has technological and regulatory solutions.

We regulate automobiles very strictly, largely because they didn't exist in the wayback, and the courts have decided for some reason that the internet is the EXACT SAME THING as a hand-cranked printing press, and an AR-15 with a 75-round drum magazine is EXACTLY THE SAME THING as a muzzle-loading Brown Bess musket, but an automobile is a WHOLE NOTHER THING from a buckboard wagon. Hence, the government can regulate the manufacture of automobiles and the conduct of drivers pretty much any damn way it feels like. Seat-belt and helmet laws spring to mind, as do all of the safety and pollution-control equipment and requirements that would VIOLATE MAH RAHTS if it was anything but automobiles.

So. . . suggestions.

1. Strengthen the laws against texting and driving. Bigger fines, jail terms, license loss.
2. Forbid manufacturers from offering WiFi hotspots as part of a car's equipment.
3. At least consider requiring manufacturers to make cars mobile-communications proof, at least while the engine is on or the car is in gear. The latter would allow you to pull over and call/text/get your funny-cat fix, but would prevent you from doing it while driving.

What say y'all?

I woulda put this in the thread on the Uvalde massacre, but that would be whataboutery and pretending I give two shits, and I try not to indulge in cheap fallacies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serryah

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
It would be easier to promote a safe texting while driving course than try and convince the important people that they do not own the road and the latest twitter post from your favourite jock can wait until the next red light at least.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,288
8,440
113
Washington DC
It would be easier to promote a safe texting while driving course than try and convince the important people that they do not own the road and the latest twitter post from your favourite jock can wait until the next red light at least.
Well, except we already have that, and we still have huge numbers of texting-while-driving deaths.

Cuz people are stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dexter Sinister

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
15,069
2,731
113
Toronto, ON
For the WiFi hot spot, are you saying passengers in the cars have no rights? My GPS when car is in motion turns off keyboard entry. So even if the passenger is entering the information, the car needs to be at a full stop. This is the same logic as turning off the wifi hotspot.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,288
8,440
113
Washington DC
For the WiFi hot spot, are you saying passengers in the cars have no rights? My GPS when car is in motion turns off keyboard entry. So even if the passenger is entering the information, the car needs to be at a full stop. This is the same logic as turning off the wifi hotspot.
Yes, I'm saying you have no rights.

Not "passengers" generically, you personally. The person who signs on here as IdRatherBeSkiing.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,277
5,904
113
Olympus Mons
In his desperate attempt to Save The ARs, Jinentonix has brought up a serious problem. He only did it to Save The ARs, and I don't for a second think he gives two shits about the dangers of texting while driving, but it is a societal problem which has technological and regulatory solutions.
Get your strawman right. I don't care about kids being killed with guns because kids being killed by distracted/texting drivers is the only problem that matters.
We regulate automobiles very strictly, largely because they didn't exist in the wayback, and the courts have decided for some reason that the internet is the EXACT SAME THING as a hand-cranked printing press, and an AR-15 with a 75-round drum magazine is EXACTLY THE SAME THING as a muzzle-loading Brown Bess musket, but an automobile is a WHOLE NOTHER THING from a buckboard wagon. Hence, the government can regulate the manufacture of automobiles and the conduct of drivers pretty much any damn way it feels like. Seat-belt and helmet laws spring to mind, as do all of the safety and pollution-control equipment and requirements that would VIOLATE MAH RAHTS if it was anything but automobiles.

So. . . suggestions.

1. Strengthen the laws against texting and driving. Bigger fines, jail terms, license loss.
2. Forbid manufacturers from offering WiFi hotspots as part of a car's equipment.
3. At least consider requiring manufacturers to make cars mobile-communications proof, at least while the engine is on or the car is in gear. The latter would allow you to pull over and call/text/get your funny-cat fix, but would prevent you from doing it while driving.

What say y'all?

I woulda put this in the thread on the Uvalde massacre, but that would be whataboutery and pretending I give two shits, and I try not to indulge in cheap fallacies.
Speaking as a Canadian and dealing with Canadian laws, how's about we treat car ownership and driving like gun ownership. One fuck up and you never get to drive again, period!
Or quit letting the Supreme Court wuss out on sentencing terms. Some goof up here recently got 14 years for killing a family of 4 in an MVA. He'll be eligible for parole in 5 years. And ultimately he'll be allowed to drive again.
In a recent survey a whopping majority of people wanted to see stiffer penalties for texting and driving. And yet 84% of those people admitted to texting and driving with at least some regularity. If you already don't give a shit about breaking a "minor" law, stiffer penalties like higher fines and such aren't likely to deter you from continuing to do it.

It's interesting that you came up with ideas that I came up with a while go though. Number 3 was the best option I could think of. Basically a park-WiFi interlock.

As for your smarmy last sentence, how many threads are in this forum about "We gotta do something about guns!!!!" compared to threads about what to do about criminally irresponsible drivers and their motor vehicles?

A basic G class licence is all you need in Ontario to drive something that is well beyond your capabilities to handle properly. No special training or licencing required because all personal motor vehicles are equal in the govt's eyes. Yep, there's absolutely no difference between a Smart Car and a tubbed out Olds 448 or a Nissan R390 GT1 supercar. The only ones who see the difference are the insurance companies.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,288
8,440
113
Washington DC
As for your smarmy last sentence, how many threads are in this forum about "We gotta do something about guns!!!!" compared to threads about what to do about criminally irresponsible drivers and their motor vehicles?
And in how many of them do people desperately try to distract attention from the subject by screaming about a whole 'nother subject?

And why are you trying to justify your whataboutery? Hell, in your initial whatabout in the Uvalde thread, you admitted you were whatabouting.

Own it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serryah

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,277
5,904
113
Olympus Mons
And in how many of them do people desperately try to distract attention from the subject by screaming about a whole 'nother subject?

And why are you trying to justify your whataboutery? Hell, in your initial whatabout in the Uvalde thread, you admitted you were whatabouting.

Own it.
I do, dumbass, Why ya think I keep "whatabouting"? But yeah, the anti-gun shit is ultimately about "public safety" is it not? I didn't realize that public safety was a single topic issue. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,288
8,440
113
Washington DC
I do, dumbass, Why ya think I keep "whatabouting"? But yeah, the anti-gun shit is ultimately about "public safety" is it not? I didn't realize that public safety was a single topic issue. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
If you own it, why are you now trying to claim it was relevant?

Does this mean I get to say "Whatabout the IRA" in every thread, and justify it by saying "Well, in the broader sense Canada's next election is about human behaviour, and the IRA's terrorism was human behaviour (barely), so it's, like, totally relevant, dude?"
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,277
5,904
113
Olympus Mons
If you own it, why are you now trying to claim it was relevant?
Man, you're really reaching now. Just give it up.
Does this mean I get to say "Whatabout the IRA" in every thread, and justify it by saying "Well, in the broader sense Canada's next election is about human behaviour, and the IRA's terrorism was human behaviour (barely), so it's, like, totally relevant, dude?"
If you want to come across as a complete idiot, sure. Particularly since the IRA had a deeper connection to the US than Canada. And of course because terrorism is the same thing a democratic (sort of ) election.,
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,288
8,440
113
Washington DC
Man, you're really reaching now. Just give it up.

If you want to come across as a complete idiot, sure. Particularly since the IRA had a deeper connection to the US than Canada. And of course because terrorism is the same thing a democratic (sort of ) election.,
I called for a halt to this round, so I'll give you the last word.