Americans still texting while driving despite bans

[jillio]

However the point that others were trying to make is that the laws would solve problems! My point is, it won't unless people decide to do what they should have done in first place, laws or no laws.

Therefore your point is moot.

No, my point is not moot. Laws still increase the probability of the majority of people adhering to the law. Seat belts, at one time, were not mandatory, and, as a consequence, there were many traffic deaths that could have been prevented had the people involved been wearing their seatbelts. At the very least, many injuries would have been minimal rather than severe.

People "should" have been wearing their seatbelts all along. However, they were not. Since the enactment of a law requiring such, more people are wearing seat belts. And lives have been saved as a result.

The same can be said of child restraint devises. People "should" have been using them all along. They didn't. Now they do because it is the law.

Using the "should" argument is really not very effective. People "should" do a lot of things. But we can't go on what people "should" do, but rather on what they actually do.

 

[Jiro]

No, my point is not moot. Laws still increase the probability of the majority of people adhering to the law. Seat belts, at one time, were not mandatory, and, as a consequence, there were many traffic deaths that could have been prevented had the people involved been wearing their seatbelts. At the very least, many injuries would have been minimal rather than severe.

People "should" have been wearing their seatbelts all along. However, they were not. Since the enactment of a law requiring such, more people are wearing seat belts. And lives have been saved as a result.

The same can be said of child restraint devises. People "should" have been using them all along. They didn't. Now they do because it is the law.

Using the "should" argument is really not very effective. People "should" do a lot of things. But we can't go on what people "should" do, but rather on what they actually do.

sounds like you're saying this result was largely due to seat belt law. Wasn't it because of intensive awareness program at that time and a revised driver education that includes an emphasis on wearing seat belt?

 

[jillio]

sounds like you're saying this result was largely due to seat belt law. Wasn't it because of intensive awareness program at that time and a revised driver education that includes an emphasis on wearing seat belt?

Got anything to support that conclusion?

Why do you think those intensive campaigns were spawned? Because it was now a law.

 

[Secretblend]

No, my point is not moot. Laws still increase the probability of the majority of people adhering to the law. Seat belts, at one time, were not mandatory, and, as a consequence, there were many traffic deaths that could have been prevented had the people involved been wearing their seatbelts. At the very least, many injuries would have been minimal rather than severe.

People "should" have been wearing their seatbelts all along. However, they were not. Since the enactment of a law requiring such, more people are wearing seat belts. And lives have been saved as a result.

The same can be said of child restraint devises. People "should" have been using them all along. They didn't. Now they do because it is the law.

Using the "should" argument is really not very effective. People "should" do a lot of things. But we can't go on what people "should" do, but rather on what they actually do.

One flaw, Seat belts were not included in cars earlier so it became an habit to not put it on. Cars were around alot longer before cell phones came out.

However, texting while driving effects person texting/drive and others they hit or get in the way of (example: cutting in front of others or etc.)

Seatbelts only effect the person who decided not to put on seatbelts (or the passengers in their car) so it doesn't effect others if you don't put it on.


Two totally different reasonings therefore your point IS moot!

 

[jillio]

I'm sorry but you should re-read this thread. You are quite far from understanding my position in this issue. Nice try to put the words in my mouth.

I have read the whole thread, and your position is quite clear, Jiro.

 

[Jiro]

I have read the whole thread, and your position is quite clear, Jiro.

then get it right this time

 

[jillio]

then get it right this time

You're funny!

 

[Jiro]

You're funny!

I'm sorry but what are you laughing about? People are dying out there because of distracted drivers. More and more teens are getting hurt/killed. I don't think this is a laughing matter, Jillio.

 

[jillio]

I'm sorry but what are you laughing about? People are dying out there because of distracted drivers. More and more teens are getting hurt/killed. I don't think this is a laughing matter, Jillio.

People getting killed are not a laughing matter. Your posts, however, are hysterical. Please note, I said, "You're funny." not "It's funny."

 

[Jiro]

People getting killed are not a laughing matter. Your posts, however, are hysterical. Please note, I said, "You're funny." not "It's funny."

exactly what part is funny? I'm pretty passionate about enacting safety programs and changing driver education to make driving safe for all of us because I love to drive/ride. I'm born to ride! In my 13 years of driving, I have driven over 100,000 miles in over 10 states and 3 countries. I've been thru many kinds. I've seen it all. Do you have anything constructive to contribute to this thread in fixing this problem?

DWT Law has been around for a few years now. The statistic on teen accidents due to DWT is still rising. I guess the law has made no effect. Laws are one thing.... but the trainings & awareness program come a long way and it has been proven effective as I have provided proof in my post #212. So I ask you - where did I state that this law should be abolished? See my post #187

It's very odd since you're very vocal about having a comprehensive sex education but not having a comprehensive driver education and awareness programs. Majority of drivers began at teenage years. Don't you think that we should mold them and equip them with comprehensive education in hope of them forming a good habit as a safe driver when they become adults?

 

[Hear Again]

What is your point? She used the word "not" in front of guarantee. That means it isn't guaranteed. You however, seem to be looking for some sort of guarantee that something will be 100% effective before you decide it is worthwhile.

Exactly. Nothing in life is guaranteed, so Jiro's argument in that respect is moot.

 

[jillio]

One flaw, Seat belts were not included in cars earlier so it became an habit to not put it on. Cars were around alot longer before cell phones came out.

However, texting while driving effects person texting/drive and others they hit or get in the way of (example: cutting in front of others or etc.)

Seatbelts only effect the person who decided not to put on seatbelts (or the passengers in their car) so it doesn't effect others if you don't put it on.


Two totally different reasonings therefore your point IS moot!

And texting wasn't illegal so it has become a habit to text and drive. And passengers are others.

 

[jillio]

exactly what part is funny? I'm pretty passionate about enacting safety programs and changing driver education to make driving safe for all of us because I love to drive/ride. I'm born to ride! In my 13 years of driving, I have driven over 100,000 miles in over 10 states and 3 countries. I've been thru many kinds. I've seen it all. Do you have anything constructive to contribute to this thread in fixing this problem?

DWT Law has been around for a few years now. The statistic on teen accidents due to DWT is still rising. I guess the law has made no effect. Laws are one thing.... but the trainings & awareness program come a long way and it has been proven effective as I have provided proof in my post #212. So I ask you - where did I state that this law should be abolished? See my post #187

It's very odd since you're very vocal about having a comprehensive sex education but not having a comprehensive driver education and awareness programs. Majority of drivers began at teenage years. Don't you think that we should mold them and equip them with comprehensive education in hope of them forming a good habit as a safe driver when they become adults?

Who said I wasn't in favor of comprehensive driver's ed? I think most programs teach kids going through their program that texting and driving is dangerous, just as they teach that driving while impaired is dangerous.

What does how many miles you have driven have to do with anything? This isn't about you. And, quite obviously, you haven't "seen it all."
If humor has to be explained, it ceases to be humor. Just leave it at "You're funny."

What problem is it that you think needs to be fixed? The number of people who ignore the law?

 

[Jiro]

Who said I wasn't in favor of comprehensive driver's ed?

then why this such a combative behavior against me when I was trying to push for comprehensive driver ed? Do you have anything constructive to add beside pushing for this ineffective, useless law?

I think most programs teach kids going through their program that texting and driving is dangerous, just as they teach that driving while impaired is dangerous.

and that's what I'm trying to tell you. It is not as comprehensive as the way I want it to be. Its emphasis on safety is mediocre at best.

What does how many miles you have driven have to do with anything? This isn't about you.

Actually it's about me as well since I'm part of this. So are you unless you don't drive. I can't tell you how many times I've had close encounters with distracted drivers including today. I rode about 200 miles today to and back from South Jersey on motorcycle. Beside - you have frequently pulled "qualification card" number of times in many threads. Why can't I do same?

If humor has to be explained, it ceases to be humor. Just leave it at "You're funny."

It already ceased to be a humor in the beginning. :roll: Shouldn't have brought it up in the first place anyway.

again - Do you have anything constructive to add beside pushing for this ineffective, useless law?

 

[Jiro]

What problem is it that you think needs to be fixed? The number of people who ignore the law?

That question was already answered in my post that you just replied to. It's becoming very tiresome to explain same thing to you over and over and over. Here's a suggestion - before you ask me any question, simply go back my previous posts and read them. Chance is my posts have answered 99.9% of your questions.

 

[Buffalo]

because of GPS - we traveled further than before... to go where no man & woman has gone before.

Oh, man has traveled further because of GPS? Maybe it is because men don't like to ask for directions but love technology. That is why men traveled further by typing in a destination and they don't get lost anymore (going in circles)!!!

 

[Jiro]

Oh, man has traveled further because of GPS? Maybe it is because men don't like to ask for directions but love technology. That is why men traveled further by typing in a destination and they don't get lost anymore (going in circles)!!!

that's right. women have traveled further as well.

 

[Hear Again]

Oh, man has traveled further because of GPS? Maybe it is because men don't like to ask for directions but love technology. That is why men traveled further by typing in a destination and they don't get lost anymore (going in circles)!!!

 

[Hear Again]

What does how many miles you have driven have to do with anything? This isn't about you. And, quite obviously, you haven't "seen it all."

Exactly.

 

[C.C.Sinned]

because of GPS - we traveled further than before... to go where no man & woman has gone before.

:roll: :bsflag:
Erwin "Cannon Ball" Baker didn't need a GPS or interstates

same with Bessie Stringfield