Did text-messaging lead to N.Y. crash?

[Gunny]

By BEN DOBBIN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 33 minutes ago

CANANDAIGUA, N.Y. - Text messages were sent and received on a 17-year-old driver's cell phone moments before the sport utility vehicle slammed head-on into a truck, killing her and four other recent high school graduates, police said.

Bailey Goodman was driving her friends to her parents' vacation home when her SUV, which had just passed a car, swerved back into oncoming traffic, hit a tractor-trailer and burst into flames. Five days earlier, the five teenagers had graduated together from high school in Fairport, a Rochester suburb.

more ...http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070715/ap_on_re_us/crash_five_killed

Bet she thought she was a multi-tasker.

 

[Shattered]

Goodman had only a junior driver's license, making it illegal for her to be driving after 9 p.m. without supervision or to be carrying so many young passengers.

Inexperience lead to her death more than anything else. She's not even old enough to know what multi-tasking is, much less actually pull it off.

 

[Gunny]

Inexperience lead to her death more than anything else. She's not even old enough to know what multi-tasking is, much less actually pull it off.

Yeah. Couldn't have a thing to do with dividing her attention.

 

[Care4all]

Either way, it is not a reason to add another law to our laws on the books...

It is reckless driving, that should cover it.

The free market can choose to run a campaign against text messaging while driving to inform the public on this hazzard, but to give our government more control over us for something that is already covered, even for an adult, with the charge of reckless driving, is just unnecessary imo.

Care

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Either way, it is not a reason to add another law to our laws on the books...

It is reckless driving, that should cover it.

The free market can choose to run a campaign against text messaging while driving to inform the public on this hazzard, but to give our government more control over us for something that is already covered, even for an adult, with the charge of reckless driving, is just unnecessary imo.

Care

BULL and you know it or should. The Government LICENSES us to drive. It is not a right we have, it is a privelege we earn. Spelling out whats allowed and NOT allowed is required of the Government in this case. Whats sad is that common sense can not prevail but has to be spelled out case by case in laws.

 

[Care4all]

BULL and you know it or should. The Government LICENSES us to drive. It is not a right we have, it is a privelege we earn. Spelling out whats allowed and NOT allowed is required of the Government in this case. Whats sad is that common sense can not prevail but has to be spelled out case by case in laws.

Bull, what's sad is that one or two incidents of ill doing allows you to force all others in America, to follow the way you think!

The ''crime'' is ALREADY covered by reckless driving, and other laws relating to endangering others.

 

[Gunny]

Either way, it is not a reason to add another law to our laws on the books...

It is reckless driving, that should cover it.

The free market can choose to run a campaign against text messaging while driving to inform the public on this hazzard, but to give our government more control over us for something that is already covered, even for an adult, with the charge of reckless driving, is just unnecessary imo.

Care

Sorry, but I disagree. When irresponsible people present a danger to the lives of others, it IS the place of the law to step in and require responsible conduct.

Almost to the person, whenever some nimrod is tooling along in the left-hand lane, there's a phone stuck to their ear and they're oblivious to any and everyone around them. It's bad enough when they do it in the right lane, but when I'm driving, I'm driving, not tooling around rubbernecking and yacking on the phone.

Txting requires even more attention than THAT. It's ridiculous.

 

[Gunny]

Bull, what's sad is that one or two incidents of ill doing allows you to force all others in America, to follow the way you think!

The ''crime'' is ALREADY covered by reckless driving, and other laws relating to endangering others.

It isn't one or two incidents. People are impeding and/or endangering traffic every day because they can't wait to get home or stop somewhere to yap on the phone.

When specific behavior is the cause, that specific behavior needs to be addressed, not covered by some catch-all.

 

[Kagom]

Stupid little teenagers trying to text and drive at the same time. If that's why she and the others died, I have no real sympathy. Eyes on the friggin' road for a reason.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Using Care4all's reasoning, we do not need Rape laws. It is already illegal to hold someone against their will, illegal to hit them or cause bodily harm in any manner, illegal to force them to do things against their will. Why there are a HOST of laws that apply.

 

[mattskramer]

It isn't one or two incidents. People are impeding and/or endangering traffic every day because they can't wait to get home or stop somewhere to yap on the phone.

When specific behavior is the cause, that specific behavior needs to be addressed, not covered by some catch-all.

I disagree. I think that it should not be a crime to talk on a cell phone and drive at the same time. Where would you draw the line? I like to pick up junk food at a fast-food drive through and eat while driving. It might be a distraction for some people but I have never caused an accident while doing it. I think that some people have had accidents while eating and driving at the same time. Let’s outlaw eating while driving. Similarly, let’s outlaw playing with CD players while driving. Let’s outlaw changing radio stations while driving. What else can we outlaw? Let’s outlaw putting on makeup while driving.

By the way, do you have a cell phone? I’m just wondering.

 

[mattskramer]

Using Care4all's reasoning, we do not need Rape laws. It is already illegal to hold someone against their will, illegal to hit them or cause bodily harm in any manner, illegal to force them to do things against their will. Why there are a HOST of laws that apply.

That is a nice try but a faulty analogy. Holding someone against her will is one level of crime. What does more harm or trauma to the victim. Just holding her or holding her and raping her? Committing rape is a higher level of crime that includes holding someone against her will.

Whether or not you are talking on a phone when you hit someone does not increase the level of damage that the innocent person receives. What else can you do to someone except hit him when you are driving a car (whether or not you are talking on a cell phone)?

 

[trobinett]

Come on people, you CAN'T protect people from themselves.

I think its sad, that these young people have died, and needlessly at that, but it was THEIR choice.

I see it every day, bad driving, REALLY bad driving.

I use to think that I was a little over the top on being aggressive when I was young, 45 years ago, but compared to young driver today, I pale in comparison.

My sympathies to all their loved ones, what a waste.

 

[Gunny]

I disagree. I think that it should not be a crime to talk on a cell phone and drive at the same time. Where would you draw the line? I like to pick up junk food at a fast-food drive through and eat while driving. It might be a distraction for some people but I have never caused an accident while doing it. I think that some people have had accidents while eating and driving at the same time. Let’s outlaw eating while driving. Similarly, let’s outlaw playing with CD players while driving. Let’s outlaw changing radio stations while driving. What else can we outlaw? Let’s outlaw putting on makeup while driving.

By the way, do you have a cell phone? I’m just wondering.

BS, relativist argument. The fact of the matter is, when one is piloting a a ton or so of steel at 70 mph down a road with other knuckleheads doing the same, one should be concentrating on driving, and only that. It takes only a split second of distraction to cause someone's death, and "I'm sorry" doesn't bring them back.

I would also say in regard to your comparison, most people I know can hit the piehole with some fries without taking their eyes off the road. If you can't, then you shouldn't be eating while driving.

Yes, I have a cell phone ... no I don't answer it when I'm driving. I'll see who called when I get where I'm going. I grew up with telephones that hung on the wall and didn't even have answering machines. I consider just the fact I'm not tied to the wall a privilege. Others take that privilege as a right without regarding the consequences of their irresponsible behavior to others.

 

[mattskramer]

The fact of the matter is, when one is piloting a ton or so of steel at 70 mph down a road with other knuckleheads doing the same, one should be concentrating on driving, and only that. It takes only a split second of distraction to cause someone's death, and "I'm sorry" doesn't bring them back.

I’m sorry that they were such negligent drivers. It was not the phone’s fault. Depending on the size, weight, and speed of the car, and the type of road and weather conditions and distance from other cars, and width of your driving lane, and whether or not there is an on-coming lane, one can take his eyes off the road from a split second to a couple of seconds with little risk to causing an accident. Whether one is driving and eating, driving and talking, driving and putting on makeup, driving and playing with the radio, the person is ultimately responsible. We should not prohibit talking on a cell phone while driving from the vast majority of responsible drivers (those who don’t cause accidents) because a few people do cause accidents. Simply toughen the penalty for people who cause accidents. Get them off the road for a very long time.

I would also say in regard to your comparison, most people I know can hit the piehole with some fries without taking their eyes off the road. If you can't, then you shouldn't be eating while driving.

Fair enough. It is a perfectly logical comparison. I know people can talk on a cell phone without taking their eyes off the road. If you can’t, then you shouldn’t be using a cell phone while driving.

 

[Gunny]

I’m sorry that they were such negligent drivers. It was not the phone’s fault. Depending on the size, weight, and speed of the car, and the type of road and weather conditions and distance from other cars, and width of your driving lane, and whether or not there is an on-coming lane, one can take his eyes off the road from a split second to a couple of seconds with little risk to causing an accident. Whether one is driving and eating, driving and talking, driving and putting on makeup, driving and playing with the radio, the person is ultimately responsible. We should not prohibit talking on a cell phone while driving from the vast majority of responsible drivers (those who don’t cause accidents) because a few people do cause accidents. Simply toughen the penalty for people who cause accidents. Get them off the road for a very long time.



Fair enough. It is a perfectly logical comparison. I know people can talk on a cell phone without taking their eyes off the road. If you can’t, then you shouldn’t be using a cell phone while driving.

Matts, you're making excuses for distracting one's attention from a primary responsibility. Wanna walk and talk on a phone? Fine. I don't care if you run yourself into a wall, and if you walk into someone else it's highly likely you won't kill them.

IMO, when you get the behind the wheel of a vehicle with its inherent potential for danger, you should be driving, period.

 

[mattskramer]

Matts, you're making excuses for distracting one's attention from a primary responsibility. Wanna walk and talk on a phone? Fine. I don't care if you run yourself into a wall, and if you walk into someone else it's highly likely you won't kill them.

I’m not making excuses for anyone. It is a shame that the particular people who were talking on a phone and driving were so reckless and basically killed themselves. Also, I strongly believe that anyone who injures someone while driving should be taken off the road.

IMO, when you get the behind the wheel of a vehicle with its inherent potential for danger, you should be driving, period.

You are confusing me. I though that you previously said that people may eat and drive at the same time. Should people be allowed to eat while driving?