MrCatPC
Member
droidx2010 said:
Yeah, "War & Peace" starts off with an oxymoron as a title in the first place, so there you have it! But the AZ DWI cases analogy is all yours, I'm not going there, for comparison at least.
...knew I should have ran that prior post by the publisher first, thanks for the summary! I appreciate economy of words. I tend to spend everything I've got and typically fail at summarization in practice. Sorry I lost ya that time around, and it's been a month so I'm digging through the last 10 pages here (WHYYYYY??!!). Then again, I seem to like to lose readers when possible.
"Discretion is the better part of val--ooh! SHINY!!" Lost myself.
I do have an opinion, but I don't have a strong conviction that it's right, so I'll try not to sound self-righteous here. I'm in question mode, and political discussion is not my aim, just critical thought. I think the implications of a federal law are dangerous as a precedent. It's always time to think about our next precedent. Yes I said precedent, why, what did you hear?
KMy opinions (if you want funny, read it in Eeyore's voice):
Federal ban: no thank you.
State ban: possibly, but the likelihood of an accident increases in city limits here, our cities are so widely spaced apart.
Local (to me): Sioux Falls "city ban for texting while driving" in effect since Friday, September 28, 2012 (coincidentally 10yr wedding anniversary date for my wife & me).
SD state not approving a statewide ban yet but watching our city closely (especially since our population is highest in SD).
The trouble I have with this issue is not the content or legitimacy of the issue itself, it's the abuse of it as a political tool based on emotional connection. People's lives are at stake, I think we see that. I don't see any state jumping up to be known as "The Text & Drive State," but the ability to bash & demonize ourselves over this topic is nearly endless.
Of course we as a nation should prohibit ourselves from distraction while operating a motor vehicle.
Will we?
But should our government?
Analogies aside, it's a technology at its core driven by the need for constant, immediate human connection (without actually being present), necessary or not. But since it's highly mobile, and since we're generally a highly distracted society, the genie's out of the bottle & those who've experienced tragedy (even here in our city) are in panic mode for a solution. Agreeing with previous post, dead is dead. Ought there be a law?
I don't think a federal ban is the answer. Not even close. I do think a federal ban would make people feel better (about themselves), but since we're never to blame & it's always those other drivers who can't multitask as well as we can, what happens next? More bans? Higher penalties? So in any case, would the ban close the issue?
Waiting for some solid results around our city, maybe there'll be a news focus on it around Halloween again, and we'll see if our local ban gives comfort or seriously has no effect. I hate to be pessimistic here, but if it helps or doesn't, the stats could push the issue either way in any case. If less accidents & fatalities occur, is it the ban that helped? How many drivers did the ban actually stop? And does that mean that the ban is or isn't enough?
Could that text & drive simulator (previously mentioned used by a school for educating new drivers) be used at my state driver licensing renewal next time to give me a conditional code T as in "Texting Allowed?"
That'd be nifty. Promise I wouldn't abuse it, no, really. Eeyore never had that much dialogue, sorry to have you stick on that voice for this long. I'm not making any sense. Where's Piglet? ...POST
