been a driver for 15 years and have NEVER caused an accident or been pulled over for any moving violation
Ever change a CD
no, i have an iPod that i can use without taking my eyes off the road
eat
only when parked
look for something in the car
if it’s outside my visual range (i.e. not on the passenger seat) and cannot be identified by touch alone, it’s not important enough to distract me from my primary purpose of DRIVING
look at a map
i pull over first
use a cell phone
only when the car is stopped and i’m parked on the side of the road
when i’m behind the wheel it is my primary responsibility to operate the vehicle in a safe and prudent manner, the object of driving is to arrive at your destination alive and in one piece, and not to run over/collide with/etc other road users
It depends what you mean by ‘distracted’, I suppose. Sure, I’ve been momentarily distracted while driving. Just today I was driving back from the gym and happened to notice a friend of mine walking the other way. For about a quarter of a second, I was not fully focussed on the road. Stuff like that happens routinely to every driver as it is impossible to maintain 100% total concentration on anything for long stretches of time.
However, there is a difference, when apportioning responsibility for mishaps behind the wheel, between the kind of momentary distraction which happens every day and prolonged engagement in activities that are actually distracting. I have never, not once ever, done anything anywhere near so mind bogglingly stupid and dangerous as the clueless dumbfuck driver in the OP. If, through some traumatic head injury, my personality changed to the point where I would even consider texting while driving, I should have my license should permanently revoked.
Well, I don’t know about tragically wrong, but irresponsibility behind the wheel can only really be proven in the eyes of the law through accidents and mishaps, yes.
Does this line bring to mind a line delivered by the teacher in “A Christmas Story”? Remember the protagonist’s response to it? I suspect the driver feels the same way. Imagining a lifetime of remorse from some goof who text messages while he drives is a BIT of a stretch. More likely he feels a certain glee. Got away with it, he did.
And having a heart attack is voluntary behavior like text messaging? WTF?
translation: Do you know what I blame this on the breakdown of? Society!
He didn’t make a fucking MISTAKE! Making mistake is making a right turn when you should go straight. Making a mistake is not looking (just once) before changing lanes. Making a mistake is taking a curve a little too fast.
Text messaging while driving is SERIOUSLY FUCKING STUPID ASSHOLE IDIOCY! It’s not at all in a category with the occasional lapse in attention that all drivers occasionally commit. I’m sorry, your language is so sloppy (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here) that it’s misleading.
Now you’re not sure? Two posts ago you said he most likely felt gleeful about it. Of course, you don’t know jack about him, and the articles are 2 paragraphs long, so I don’t know how you came to that conclusion.
Not too long ago people were inventing your motivations behind some of your post topics. Suggesting that you posted in order to “get off” on peoples reactions, or other such nonsense. I thought that was crap, and I think suggesting this kid is “gleeful” over this situation is crap too.
This kid should feel shitty, and should be ashamed, and maybe should be punished harder than he is. I’m just pissed that so many want to throw this kid under the next bus.
Hey, hey, no personal insults okay, them’s fightin’ words, don’t EVER call me a politician, m’kay?, and to answer your question, NO the object is not more important than driving
simple, the phone is turned off unless I need to use the bloody thing, if I do need to use it, I pull over first, the cell phone is for my use only, for emergencies, if people call me (which is rare, as only 3 people know my number anyway) and i’m driving, they can leave a message in the voicemail
at least read through the conversation before criticizing a post that has been discussed quite thoroughly already, you are an example simply supporting the point that i am coming from,
Doesn’t make sense to me either. Increasing penalties doesn’t seem to solve problems.
What would cut down on drunk driving is increasing the probability of getting caught. But how to do this? Tie a breathalyzer to the ignition of every vehicle? IMO, it would greatly cut down on drunk driving if each and every time a driver started their vehicle after having had a couple too many, a cop was radioed and immediately stopped you and fined you $100. That would be better than how we do it now. By the time the average drunk driver finally gets pulled over - or worse gets in an accident - they’ve probably been drunk driving for years. Then they’re looking at jail time, loss of license, up to $10,000 in legal fees & fines, losing their job so they can’t pay the fines, community service, probation, counseling, etc, etc.
And that only would solve the drunk driving problem. But far, far more fatalities occur as a result of nothing more than stupidity and incompetence. You’ve got your drivers who are too tired. Too angry. Too much cold medicine. Too distracted by something. Too stupid. Let’s face it. Most of us believe most drivers are stupid. At least stupider than we are. Which really means, we’re all stupid sometimes.
The reason they’re called “accidents” is because, duh, they’re accidents. People usually don’t set out to kill each other with their vehicles.
I think it’s time we faced a hard truth. Human beings are too stupid to pilot large, powerful, deadly vehicles. Let computers do the driving (at least within city limits), and let people still be able to go to the store, drive to work, while putting on their makeup, eating breakfast, tapping away on the laptop, text messaging, screaming at the kids, having a martini, sleeping, reading a book, or whatever.
I was responding directly to a poster who had just airily opined that “a lifetime of regret is punishment enough” (for KILLING someone). I was pointing out that it was just as likely the kid didn’t give a shit. As you say, we don’t know, therefore claims about his hypothetical guilt are absolutely fatuous when offered as a just punishment for killing someone.
It’s certainly possible he feels gleeful. I think the “lifetime of remorse” stuff is absolute crap.
Yknow, this people who knew and cared about Sydney might just find your attitude a tad cavalier. “Sure, it’s terrible that Sydney was run over because an idiot kid was text messaging instead of watching the road, but we can’t go and INCONVENIENCE a YOUTH over a little thing like KILLING someone.” Does Sydney’s life count for NOTHING with you?
We are not talking about an inconvenience. We are talking about a lifetime punishment for a 17 year old who screwed up while driving. Punishments ranging from going to jail for years and being a convicted felon upon release, which will largely tank any decent job opportunities for the kids entire life, or a lifetime ban on driving.
Is it really necessary to punish this person for the remainder of their lives over this transgression? How does society benefit from that? As much as he’s been portrayed as a menace, he isn’t a serial rapist, or a violent thief, or an incorrigable murderer, he’s a kid who did something stupid while driving.
If you’re looking to protect society, we need to make distracted driving punishable the way drunk driving is punishable. That means changing the law, not suddenly changing the punishment for this one event. If Colorado wants to protect its populace, it should ban cellphones while driving, and enforce it. That will do a hell of a lot more than making this kid a felon.
If you want vengence, then there’s really no leniency argument to make, is there?
By sending the message to every other teen out there that if they kill someone by text messaging, they too will be punished severly.
Whether something like that works or not is really asking a fundamental question about the penal system, but that basic argument seems to be lost on a lot of people in this thread.
It’s not just about punishing this one kid. It’s about creating a sufficient deterrent for grossly negligent irresponsible brainless misuse of a vehicle.
Ain’t lost on me. But I think you will have a better chance of getting through by banning the use of cellphones while driving and hammering that point into young driver’s heads before giving them a license. In CO, where this happened, the rule is that you can’t use cells if you’re under 18. Which is fine, except it clearly tells teens that cellphone use is OK, if you’re of age. It also tells me that lawmakers looked at the cellphone issue and decided they were safe for most drivers.
Instead of telling this teen that cellphones are dangerous and not to be used while driving, we tell him that they are fine, once an arbitrary date rolls around. So, the kid uses his phone, kills a guy, and we sit here telling him he should have known better.
For some here, it sure seems to be about punishing the kid. If it’s about creating a deterrent, then create a deterrent, that’s what laws are for. Making one kid an example is a shit-ass way of showing that one shouldn’t use cellphones while driving.