Put your hands behind your back sir, you are being arrested for disorderly conduct by giving sound advice.
Radar gun that detects text messaging.
- Thread starter dreamache
- Start date
Put your hands behind your back sir, you are being arrested for disorderly conduct by giving sound advice.
This sounds ridiculous and I could probably have it thrown out in court in less than 10 minutes.
1. How does the gun determine the difference between incoming or outgoing texts?
2. Can the gun isolate which passenger in the car is texting?
3. Does the gun know the difference between handsfree/voice texting and regular texting?
4. Is it just SMS or is iMessage/data detected?
5. Can the gun narrow down to a single vehicle? What about on a busy road?
1. How does the gun determine the difference between incoming or outgoing texts?
2. Can the gun isolate which passenger in the car is texting?
3. Does the gun know the difference between handsfree/voice texting and regular texting?
4. Is it just SMS or is iMessage/data detected?
5. Can the gun narrow down to a single vehicle? What about on a busy road?
To play devil's advocate, half of what you listed does not require you to take your eyes off the road for any more than a fraction of a second. Texting requires you to look down at your phone for several seconds at a time, followed by a short period of getting your bearings. While there is risk in both cases, the risk is significantly higher in the latter case.
The other half of what you listed should also be included in any laws. Here in Ontario, our law is against distracted driving in general and not just texting.
40% of road accidents are caused by distracted drivers. How the fuck can you be looking at the road at the same time as texting?
Someone does that and kills your wife and kids lets see if you are bleating on about your freedoms.
I am sorry but if you are too retarded not to know when driving a several ton car (weapon) you should be paying attention then big brother is going to have to step in and slap your dumb ass.
Someone does that and kills your wife and kids lets see if you are bleating on about your freedoms.
I am sorry but if you are too retarded not to know when driving a several ton car (weapon) you should be paying attention then big brother is going to have to step in and slap your dumb ass.
Situation is simple. Just don't play with your fucking phone while driving. Or use speech to text software. I hate motherfuckers who using their phones while driving. Some bitches are almost stooping to write those stupid texts... I don't mind if they kill themselves (and their family) but, I want to get form A to B safely.
I can't tell you how many times I've almost rear-ended a car while trying to determine what color thong that hot girl was wearing.
Hot girls should be illegal.
That's mostly true.* But consider:
Researchers have found that drivers who talk on hands-free phones are just as impaired as drivers who have a 0.08% blood alcohol level. (Source: PDF) Here are a couple of quotes from the linked study:
You're right of course Steve. The risk of an incident while driving with one's eyes off the road is greater than the risk of driving with one's eyes on the road. But the researchers in the linked study found that a driver's abilities can be significantly impaired - to the point of mirroring intoxication - despite the driver's eyes remaining on the road.
So while texting requires a driver to look away from the road, other activities that allow her to keep her eyes on the road can prove to be similarly disastrous. That being the case, advocating the criminalization of texting while driving without advocating a similar approach to other causes of distraction seems inconsistent.
It's worth noting that the research I cited is nearly a decade old. New studies may reveal conflicting findings, particularly when investigating the results of texting. But so far, it looks like drivers can be distracted to the point of seeming drunkenness even with their eyes glued forward.
I've been in lots of near-miss situations due to women daydreaming, yelling at their kids, talking with their friends, eating a burger, applying makeup, or just singing to their stereos while driving. But I wouldn't want to outlaw those activities. Society already has a process in place (insurance, law, etc.) for dealing with mishaps that lead to property damage and injuries. In my opinion, no victim, no crime.
* I've seen female drivers laughing with friends or yelling at their kids while taking their eyes off the road for periods longer than a fraction of a second.
Similarly disastrous? How do you come to that conclusion?
Just because talking on hands free is found to be dangerous it certainly does not follow that the level of danger of taking your eyes off the road is even slightly comparable. Don't see your logic flow at all.
If you follow that train of though then if texting while driving is equivalently dangerous to drinking a bottle of wine then you should be legally allowed to wear a blindfold while driving.
(O_o)
H̨̼̩͐̑͆̀̚&
This.
The technical aspects of this are highly suspect.
It seems like a device like this would become another tool in the police toy box that would be vastly abused and used as a reason to pull you over because "they detected you texting". Now this will be all one sided and they will have full authority to do whatever they want to you.
The solution would be just install a frequency jammer on your car that is on 24/7 or the reverse, emits the same frequency the radar gun detects.
On a side note, the company behind this, ComSonics, makes radar guns for a living so this is right up their alley to try and push this bullshit to LE. Home | ComSonics®
I ran into a nice cop the other day. That interaction had the potential to go wrong in so many ways. I'd post more details, but I fear it would bite me.
Ya know... one good apple spoils the whole bunch or something.
It was nice to see the exception, but maybe he needed to get home to his kids or something.
I suppose I'm only posting this as some sort of true confession... there was this one time that a cop actually helped me. It may have been 1/30 encounters or so... but it really happened. Seriously, it did.
And for the other 29 encounters... fuck them. They give that 1 a bad rep. It's bullshit that this one guy can't get the credit he deserves... but maybe he shouldn't work with a bunch of douches.
And I really mean it. I probably met a good cop the other day.
Here's an idea...
If state's are so worried about the epidemic of texting while driving, make a law that every mobile OS has an app that blocks texting/talking while in a car.
Draconian? Sure.
But if you're looking for a solution to this threat through force and regulation why not just kill the problem at the source? It's easy. You could use ITTT. This lifesaving technology already exists. Why are they letting people continue to kill each other?
On that note, if you want to eliminate drinking and driving, why not make it mandatory to have a breathalyzer in every car? Airbags, seat-belts, exhaust and a thousand other things are mandatory, why not breathalyzers?
Why does the government continue to let innocent people get killed? They could save millions of lives with one stroke of a pen.
There's revenue and control, but that's a small price to pay for saving lives, right?
If state's are so worried about the epidemic of texting while driving, make a law that every mobile OS has an app that blocks texting/talking while in a car.
Draconian? Sure.
But if you're looking for a solution to this threat through force and regulation why not just kill the problem at the source? It's easy. You could use ITTT. This lifesaving technology already exists. Why are they letting people continue to kill each other?
On that note, if you want to eliminate drinking and driving, why not make it mandatory to have a breathalyzer in every car? Airbags, seat-belts, exhaust and a thousand other things are mandatory, why not breathalyzers?
Why does the government continue to let innocent people get killed? They could save millions of lives with one stroke of a pen.
There's revenue and control, but that's a small price to pay for saving lives, right?
What more do you need?
Should a man with a gun be allowed to fire it off in a packed mall or busy street? As long as he doesn't hit anyone victimless crime right?
Uh... No.
There are plenty of ways to harm people without direct violence. Stress, trauma, fear... If you were to stalk and threaten a girl, even if you never intended on touching her, but made her life a living hell, there's a victim there.
If you believe these laws are in place to protect people and not to generate revenue, why not just institute what I suggested earlier?
Ideally, the decision should be left to property owners and insurers.* That's a concept I touched on here and here (parts I and II, respectively).
Here's an example...
Suppose individuals are given a choice:
A. they can buy indemnification insurance from companies who agree to pay compensation for injuries and property damage that result from their clients' actions.
B. they can choose to forgo coverage.
Like all companies, the insurers would have an incentive to minimize their costs - i.e. payouts to victims - and maximize their profits from the members' premiums. Policyholders' rates for indemnification insurance would be based on the level of risk/exposure they pose to insurers. For example, Alan The Accountant, who has no history of violence, would pay lower premiums than Max The Madman, who has a long history of such.
Let's suppose the owner of ACME Mall decides to only allow people to enter his venue if they can show proof of indemnification coverage from a reputable insurer. That alone would significantly reduce the likelihood of a person coming into the mall and wantonly discharging his firearm. Such a person would probably have a history of violent episodes that precludes his (or her) obtaining coverage from a reputable insurer. In short, he wouldn't be allowed inside the mall in the first place.
Is it possible that mild-mannered Alan The Accountant will one day enter ACME Mall and wig out - ala William Foster in the move Falling Down? Sure. It's possible. You can eliminate the risk short of shackling every person to their beds 24 hours a day.
Now, let's say the owner of ACME Mall decides to let visitors discharge their firearms inside his venue whenever they desire. I don't know about you, but I would not set foot inside that mall. Moreover, I'd wager a lot of people - i.e. potential customers - would likewise take their business elsewhere. Thus, the owner would have an incentive to disallow the "right" to discharge firearms in his venue.
Here's my point: incentives and disincentives in a contract-based system would offer better protection from the risk of injury (in all its varied forms) than passing draconian laws that apply to everyone.
Is such a system possible? Of course. Law came before government, not the other way around. It has also existed in spite of government, when state-created law proved inadequate. Is it likely to happen today? Not as long as people vote for rulers.
But just because the future prospects for a contract-based system are dismal doesn't mean we should throw our hands in the air and say, "Screw it, just criminalize everything that presents an element of risk to my safety."
* This plan requires a system of law based entirely on contracts and voluntary transactions/associations. We do not have such a system today.
Nope, that's not enough for me to believe that you're not trolling with this comment:
Someone should just come up with a voice>text converter so you don't need to actually use the buttons... oh.. wait...