texting and driving


bytor2112
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not necessarily. I just told you about my dad.

As Eowyn said, my point was that your father has been extremely lucky. At 70, he is old enough to understand that he should not text while driving. It will be tragic if he has to run someone over before learning that lesson.

Now, I wonder why there's no law against Taco Bell and driving...

In general, I agree with this. But eating a taco or sandwich is much less distracting than reading or sending a text message.

Still, when driving gets intense, as in fast, heavy traffic or deteriorating weather conditions, I shut off the radio or music (if I have it playing -- usually I don't, anyway), ask my passengers to be quiet, and concentrate on the driving. Anything can constitute a distraction when driving, and sometimes all such things need to be quieted. Texting is just so blatant and obvious a distraction in pretty much any condition that it should go without saying that one never texts and drives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your dad has been lucky.

Sounds kind of like a variation of the, "My grand-pappy smoked two packs a day from the age of 16 and lived to a ripe old age of 98!" response you sometimes hear when the dangers of smoking are brought up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate texting, I have it blocked on all of our phones.

If you can't pick up the phone and call me then you must not really want anything that I care about.

You want to email me, that's ok, but I may not check it but every other day or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, when driving gets intense, as in fast, heavy traffic or deteriorating weather conditions, I shut off the radio or music (if I have it playing -- usually I don't, anyway), ask my passengers to be quiet, and concentrate on the driving.

Mmm excuse me guys, can you be quiet I am trying to drive and it is sprinkling. I told you guys be quiet an I am turning off my hymns! :lol:

Just kidding with you Mr. Vort. I actually rear ended somebody when it was sprinkling, so I could learn from you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmm excuse me guys, can you be quiet I am trying to drive and it is sprinkling. I told you guys be quiet an I am turning off my hymns! :lol:

Actually, it's not far off from this. In my car, the driver is The Supreme Ruler and does whatever s/he needs or wants to do. When our kids learn to drive, they savor this power. But of course, as Peter Parker has sagely taught us, with great power comes great responsibility. With the constant harping ^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B instructive encouragement of their parents, they learn that driving requires their full concentration. It's always satisfying to me to see them shut off the radio and ask everyone to be quiet when the driving gets intense.

My preferred phrase is something like, "I need everyone to be quiet NOW. Thank you. Please don't talk any more until further notice." Works like a charm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was the last email I feverishly checked that woke me up. It was some stupid spam email. I thought to myself how awful if that was the reason I crashed into someone!

My kid is going to be driving in less than two years. He started texting a week ago when he got himself a phone. I can't pry the dang thing from his hands! I like the idea of making the kids drive a standard. If he needs two hands to drive, maybe it will keep him from doing something stupid.

I'm going to threaten him too. :D

If I had teenagers with cell phones driving I would get a camera in the car so I can catch them.

It wasn't until my youngest was driving that cell phones could text. I only put a cell phone in her glove compartment for emergency calls. She used it for other things but she also paid for all the overages so she learned quickly not to use it unnecessarily. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has always been an interesting discussion. I, personally, don't have any problems with people texting, listening to the radio, talking on their phone, etc... while driving.

Heck, my sister just talking while driving is more dangerous than the majority of the people who are texting while driving.

I remember having this conversation at work, a few years back, and one employee was so adamant that texting is the worse action someone can do while driving and is the main reason for car accidents.

So, we took the challenge, looked up statistics, and here is what we found:

Number one cause for accidents on the freeway: Listening to the radio, or better said, people playing with their radio while driving. This resulted in 11% of all the accidents, according to this statistic.

Next was talking on your phone, with about 6% of the accidents.

Texting was actually at the bottom, with only 2%.

To be fair, this was 3 years or so back, and statistics tend to change.

I am amazed at how people feel about texting, but have no problems with a radio in the car, which 3 years back was the number one source for accidents.

I used to text, all the time while driving, never had a problem with. I never swerved into any other lane. Once, it became a law, I don't do it anymore. I think it is a dumb law, because at the time when seeking to make it a law in Utah, it was 9% lower than the number one cause, and yet no law was made or has been made regarding our radio, or stereo systems in our cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, when driving gets intense, as in fast, heavy traffic or deteriorating weather conditions, I shut off the radio or music (if I have it playing -- usually I don't, anyway), ask my passengers to be quiet, and concentrate on the driving. Anything can constitute a distraction when driving, and sometimes all such things need to be quieted. Texting is just so blatant and obvious a distraction in pretty much any condition that it should go without saying that one never texts and drives.

I do the exact same thing. The less distractions the better in those types of situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, this was 3 years or so back, and statistics tend to change.

I found this:

NSC updated its annual attributable risk estimate in 2011 using new data from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The updated assessment estimates that at least 23 percent of all traffic crashes - or at least 1.3 million crashes - involve cell phone use per year. An estimated 1.2 million crashes each year involve drivers using cell phones for conversations and at least 100,000 additional crashes can be related to drivers who are texting. Cell phone conversations are involved in 12 times as many crashes as texting.

Link: NSC estimates 1.6 million crashes caused by cell phone use and texting

Here is the thing, and it applies to the above statistic and the ones you shared, those figures don't tell us which is the worse or most distracting action one can take. Why? If texting was hypothetically just as bad as texting on the cell phone but less people text compared to talking on the cell phone the cell phone could still make up the bulk of accidents. A numerical example with made up numbers:

Risk of an accident while using your phone (talking or texting): 10%

10,000,000 people talk on their phone while driving.

1,000,000 people text while driving.

You'll get 1,000,000 talking accidents and 100,000 texting accidents even though there is equal 'risk' but you'd be in error to say that talking on the cell phone is ten times as dangerous as texting. So percent of accidents doesn't tell us how dangerous an activity is in isolation, we need to also know how prevalent it is to get some idea for how dangerous it is. I think we can all agree that driving with a blindfold on is going to be extremely dangerous but not many, if any, people do it so it's going to make up a minuscule amount of total accidents.

What they can do though is address this issue:

I remember having this conversation at work, a few years back, and one employee was so adamant that texting is the worse action someone can do while driving and is the main reason for car accidents.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, you can text/talk on a phone while driving stick shift - that was my first car as a teenager. I agree with everyone else - DON'T TEXT AND DRIVE - period. It's beyond me how anyone believes it is acceptable otherwise. If you absolutely MUST read or send a text, find a safe zone to pull over, and quit putting your life and others at risk. Side thought, I bet most people believe they're good and safe drivers, if you were to ask them..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll get 1,000,000 talking accidents and 100,000 texting accidents even though there is equal 'risk' but you'd be in error to say that talking on the cell phone is ten times as dangerous as texting. So percent of accidents doesn't tell us how dangerous an activity is in isolation, we need to also know how prevalent it is to get some idea for how dangerous it is. I think we can all agree that driving with a blindfold on is going to be extremely dangerous but not many, if any, people do it so it's going to make up a minuscule amount of total accidents.

What they can do though is address this issue:

Thank you Dravin for the thoughts. I agree with your last statement, however my question whenever this type of question is addressed is:

If there are other means by which people are put in danger, why is there no law being made about them?

Example, why do we still have car radios when car radios, stereos, cause accidents?

Why no law regarding smoking while driving? When I was 17 I was rear-ended by a woman going 55, I was at a dead stop, who bent over to pick up her cigarette?

Why no law against talking while driving?

I have a hard time with this argument presented by individuals, "Stop texting so you don't put your life in danger and others."

The premise is "texting puts your life in danger and others, so don't do it" is, at least to me, a straw man's argument.

The moment you step into your car each day you have already put your life in danger and somebody else.

The moment you begin talking to somebody else in the car, especially if they are in the back seat, you put yours and other people's life in danger.

So, I personally, find the argument against texting, lacking, and more of a controlling law verses a sound law.

However, thank you Dravin, for providing the statistics (it seems very similar to the ones I read 3 years or so back, except I don't remember phones being 23%, thus it has risen), and the thoughts regarding it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The premise is "texting puts your life in danger and others, so don't do it" is, at least to me, a straw man's argument.

What argument is being misrepresented? A straw-man is a misrepresentation of another's argument with the idea that it's easier to address than the real thing. If people are using that premise for themselves and not as a misrepresentation of someone else's premise then it isn't a straw-man. It may be a faulty premise, but that doesn't make it a straw-man.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What argument is being misrepresented? A straw-man is a misrepresentation of another's argument with the idea that it's easier to address than the real thing. If people are using that premise for themselves and not as a misrepresentation of someone else's premise then it isn't a straw-man. It may be a faulty premise, but that doesn't make it a straw-man.

Merriam-Webster dictionary: Straw Man

"A weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted."

I definitely could be misunderstanding a straw-man's argument, however I have never heard that a straw-man only relates to another's argument.

I have understood it to mean an argument presented in connection to: another argument (as you suggested), or simply in reference to an idea (i.e. "Texting while driving") and the arguments provided for or against.

Is there a source you review, which would provide a more accurate definition for a straw-man, than Merriam's definition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "straw man" is something you set up in order to tear it down. A "straw man argument" means that you mischaracterize your opponent's argument by putting it into a false form that you can easily refute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "straw man" is something you set up in order to tear it down. A "straw man argument" means that you mischaracterize your opponent's argument by putting it into a false form that you can easily refute.

Thank you Vort, and Dravin. By the mouth of two or three witnesses, the word is established.

Then, as you said, Dravin, I believe it to be a "faulty argument" if I am quoting you correctly from your previous post.

Dumb Merriam, it is supposed to help me ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Merriam-Webster dictionary: Straw Man

"A weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted."

You're proposing people arguing "texting puts your life in danger and others, so don't do it" are so setting up the argument so it can be easily refuted? Even by your definition it doesn't fit. You seem to be trying to make straw-man to mean a weak argument, which makes it useless as an identifier of the logical fallacy.

My understanding of a straw-man:

A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Link: Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By either definition a genuine and originally held and argued position that "texting puts your life in danger and others, so don't do it" isn't a straw-man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Vort, and Dravin. By the mouth of two or three witnesses, the word is established.

Then, as you said, Dravin, I believe it to be a "faulty argument" if I am quoting you correctly from your previous post.

Dumb Merriam, it is supposed to help me ;)

Keep in mind that Merriam-Webster isn't necessarily giving the definition in the context of logical fallacies. Removed from that context I can see how a straw-man can be seen as something easily destroyed/countered or unable to defend itself and stand on it's own merits, aka simply something that is weak. It's just given the context of talking about arguments I assumed the logical fallacy context. It's similar to how if we were having a discussion about an engine and someone mentioned horsepower my first thought would not be literally the power of horses but rather multiples of 550 ft-lb/s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share