Interesting texting case...

[Hokie5150]

and I don't accept text by that I mean I don't open 'em.

Yeah it's so 20th Century but it's something that I've held steadfastly to.

As to the thread subject would it apply to Spam text and their originators? If it does I'm all for it. P

I'm with you. I don't text either.

[nolanvt]

I read that this morning. I just don't understand the texting while driving thing. I disagree with being able to go after the person that sent the text to the driver that got into the accident.

I can see IF it can be proven the person sending the text knew the recipient was driving.

I can't. It's the responsibility of the person receiving the texts to make a decision on whether or not to pick up the phone. Could we sue the radio DJ for playing a song that a person likes? The person goes to turn up the radio and gets in an accident. Could you sue then?

Good example. Maybe we could sue the car manufacturers for putting buttons on the dash that they know people are going to try and use...

If you are in a car with someone and cause a distraction that causes to driver to wreck, are you at all to blame?

"cause a distraction" seems very broad in your hypothetical.

I hate to do the slippery slope thingy, but this could be a slippery slope if we set the precedent that the texter who texts a person they know is driving liable. My wife and I will often text each other when we know the other is driving (e.g. I want such and such on my Chipotle burrito, going to the driving range, etc) with the idea that the other won't read it until they've stopped somewhere.

[USN_Hokie]

I read that this morning. I just don't understand the texting while driving thing. I disagree with being able to go after the person that sent the text to the driver that got into the accident.

I can see IF it can be proven the person sending the text knew the recipient was driving.

I can't. It's the responsibility of the person receiving the texts to make a decision on whether or not to pick up the phone. Could we sue the radio DJ for playing a song that a person likes? The person goes to turn up the radio and gets in an accident. Could you sue then?

Good example. Maybe we could sue the car manufacturers for putting buttons on the dash that they know people are going to try and use...

If you are in a car with someone and cause a distraction that causes to driver to wreck, are you at all to blame?

Let's make your example correct:

If you are in a car with someone and write a note on a piece of paper and the driver leans over to read it and crashes are you at all to blame?

I say no....because the driver should have personal responsibility. If only there was a party of personal responsibility...

[Hokie CPA]

If you are in a car with someone and cause a distraction that causes to driver to wreck, are you at all to blame?

It depends on what you did to cause the wreck. If you were back-seat driving and yelling at the driver to slow down, change lanes, watch for the guy on the bike, you're gonna miss your turn.... then, while that's annoying, it's not cause for getting into an accident. However... if you reached over, grabbed the steering wheel, and pulled the car off the road and into a sidewalk full of pedestrians before slamming into a bagel shop, then yeah... you caused that and need to be held accountable for it.

[awesome guy]

I read that this morning. I just don't understand the texting while driving thing. I disagree with being able to go after the person that sent the text to the driver that got into the accident.

I can see IF it can be proven the person sending the text knew the recipient was driving.

I can't. It's the responsibility of the person receiving the texts to make a decision on whether or not to pick up the phone. Could we sue the radio DJ for playing a song that a person likes? The person goes to turn up the radio and gets in an accident. Could you sue then?

Good example. Maybe we could sue the car manufacturers for putting buttons on the dash that they know people are going to try and use...

If you are in a car with someone and cause a distraction that causes to driver to wreck, are you at all to blame?

queue up CW with backseat female drivers...

[awesome guy]

If you are in a car with someone and cause a distraction that causes to driver to wreck, are you at all to blame?

It depends on what you did to cause the wreck. If you were back-seat driving and yelling at the driver to slow down, change lanes, watch for the guy on the bike, you're gonna miss your turn.... then, while that's annoying, it's not cause for getting into an accident. However... if you reached over, grabbed the steering wheel, and pulled the car off the road and into a sidewalk full of pedestrians before slamming into a bagel shop, then yeah... you caused that and need to be held accountable for it.

I think backseat drivers are more of a distraction than txts. But the whole argument is silly, the driver is still the driver. They should pull over if someone is being such a problem and explain it to them or let them cool off.

[Hokie5150]

I think backseat drivers are more of a distraction than txts. But the whole argument is silly, the driver is still the driver. They should pull over if someone is being such a problem and explain it to them or let them cool off.

The question is not whether or not they are more (or less) of distraction. The question is whether or not you have any share of blame if you cause a distraction that results in a wreck.

[USN_Hokie]

I think backseat drivers are more of a distraction than txts. But the whole argument is silly, the driver is still the driver. They should pull over if someone is being such a problem and explain it to them or let them cool off.

The question is not whether or not they are more (or less) of distraction. The question is whether or not you have any share of blame if you cause a distraction that results in a wreck.

Hot chick walking down the street. Driver gets distracted and hits another car.

Should the hot chick bear some blame?

[Hokie CPA]

I think backseat drivers are more of a distraction than txts. But the whole argument is silly, the driver is still the driver. They should pull over if someone is being such a problem and explain it to them or let them cool off.

The question is not whether or not they are more (or less) of distraction. The question is whether or not you have any share of blame if you cause a distraction that results in a wreck.

And the answer to that question is NO. If I'm driving and someone is being that much of a distraction, I have no qualms about doing exactly what my Dad used to do and pulling off to the side the road and telling them they are welcome to get f*ck out and walk and they can't shut their f*cking pie-hole.

[Hokie CPA]

I think backseat drivers are more of a distraction than txts. But the whole argument is silly, the driver is still the driver. They should pull over if someone is being such a problem and explain it to them or let them cool off.

The question is not whether or not they are more (or less) of distraction. The question is whether or not you have any share of blame if you cause a distraction that results in a wreck.

Hot chick walking down the street. Driver gets distracted and hits another car.

Should the hot chick bear some blame?

If you have cut-rate insurance, you could be paying for this yourself...

[nolanvt]

I think backseat drivers are more of a distraction than txts. But the whole argument is silly, the driver is still the driver. They should pull over if someone is being such a problem and explain it to them or let them cool off.

The question is not whether or not they are more (or less) of distraction. The question is whether or not you have any share of blame if you cause a distraction that results in a wreck.

Hot chick walking down the street. Driver gets distracted and hits another car.

Should the hot chick bear some blame?

There would've already been precedent set had Kramer not screwed up. Jackie Chiles had them on the ropes.

[Florida Hokie]

I think we'd need to see her naked before making such a determination.

I think backseat drivers are more of a distraction than txts. But the whole argument is silly, the driver is still the driver. They should pull over if someone is being such a problem and explain it to them or let them cool off.

The question is not whether or not they are more (or less) of distraction. The question is whether or not you have any share of blame if you cause a distraction that results in a wreck.

Hot chick walking down the street. Driver gets distracted and hits another car.

Should the hot chick bear some blame?

[Florida Hokie]

Slippery Slope argument: Billboards, construction zones, radio, etc. etc. etc. - there are all sorts of potential distractions to a driver. It's up to the driver not to be distracted by them. This would include texts in my book.

I think backseat drivers are more of a distraction than txts. But the whole argument is silly, the driver is still the driver. They should pull over if someone is being such a problem and explain it to them or let them cool off.

The question is not whether or not they are more (or less) of distraction. The question is whether or not you have any share of blame if you cause a distraction that results in a wreck.

[USN_Hokie]

I think backseat drivers are more of a distraction than txts. But the whole argument is silly, the driver is still the driver. They should pull over if someone is being such a problem and explain it to them or let them cool off.

The question is not whether or not they are more (or less) of distraction. The question is whether or not you have any share of blame if you cause a distraction that results in a wreck.

Hot chick walking down the street. Driver gets distracted and hits another car.

Should the hot chick bear some blame?

There would've already been precedent set had Kramer not screwed up. Jackie Chiles had them on the ropes.

Nice pull, I completely forgot about that episode.

[USN_Hokie]

Slippery Slope argument: Billboards, construction zones, radio, etc. etc. etc. - there are all sorts of potential distractions to a driver. It's up to the driver not to be distracted by them. This would include texts in my book.

I think backseat drivers are more of a distraction than txts. But the whole argument is silly, the driver is still the driver. They should pull over if someone is being such a problem and explain it to them or let them cool off.

The question is not whether or not they are more (or less) of distraction. The question is whether or not you have any share of blame if you cause a distraction that results in a wreck.

"The owner of that taco stand should've known his burrito was going to give you explosive, fiery gates of hell diarrhea while you were driving home....which distracted you and caused an accident."

This logic really is a wrapped present for trial lawyers.

[Hokie5150]

Slippery Slope argument: Billboards, construction zones, radio, etc. etc. etc. - there are all sorts of potential distractions to a driver. It's up to the driver not to be distracted by them. This would include texts in my book.

In doing a quick Google search on this another issue came up. It appears that in many areas it is illegal to intentional distraction bicyclists...hmm.

[Hokie5150]

Slippery Slope argument: Billboards, construction zones, radio, etc. etc. etc. - there are all sorts of potential distractions to a driver. It's up to the driver not to be distracted by them. This would include texts in my book.

In doing a quick Google search on this another issue came up. It appears that in many areas it is illegal to intentional distraction bicyclists...hmm.

And it should be noted in this discussion that I'm not 100% on board with either side of this issue. I'm merely pointing out where I could see legitimate angle to it...as I started this: Interesting.

[USN_Hokie]

Slippery Slope argument: Billboards, construction zones, radio, etc. etc. etc. - there are all sorts of potential distractions to a driver. It's up to the driver not to be distracted by them. This would include texts in my book.

In doing a quick Google search on this another issue came up. It appears that in many areas it is illegal to intentional distraction bicyclists...hmm.

Yeah...in DC, you can't honk your horn at someone on a bike. That's different, you can't ignore someone blaring their horn at you from behind. You can turn the volume down/off on your phone, though....

[Hokie5150]

Slippery Slope argument: Billboards, construction zones, radio, etc. etc. etc. - there are all sorts of potential distractions to a driver. It's up to the driver not to be distracted by them. This would include texts in my book.

In doing a quick Google search on this another issue came up. It appears that in many areas it is illegal to intentional distraction bicyclists...hmm.

Yeah...in DC, you can't honk your horn at someone on a bike. That's different, you can't ignore someone blaring their horn at you from behind. You can turn the volume down/off on your phone, though....

Why can't you ignore a car horn?

[Florida Hokie]

You better not if you are on a bike.

Slippery Slope argument: Billboards, construction zones, radio, etc. etc. etc. - there are all sorts of potential distractions to a driver. It's up to the driver not to be distracted by them. This would include texts in my book.

In doing a quick Google search on this another issue came up. It appears that in many areas it is illegal to intentional distraction bicyclists...hmm.

Yeah...in DC, you can't honk your horn at someone on a bike. That's different, you can't ignore someone blaring their horn at you from behind. You can turn the volume down/off on your phone, though....

Why can't you ignore a car horn?

[Hokie5150]

You better not if you are on a bike.

The majority of bikers I see have earbuds in...

[USN_Hokie]

Slippery Slope argument: Billboards, construction zones, radio, etc. etc. etc. - there are all sorts of potential distractions to a driver. It's up to the driver not to be distracted by them. This would include texts in my book.

In doing a quick Google search on this another issue came up. It appears that in many areas it is illegal to intentional distraction bicyclists...hmm.

Yeah...in DC, you can't honk your horn at someone on a bike. That's different, you can't ignore someone blaring their horn at you from behind. You can turn the volume down/off on your phone, though....

Why can't you ignore a car horn?

I suppose if you were completely lit up on drugs you might ignore a car horn.....maybe we should ban drugs?

[awesome guy]

Slippery Slope argument: Billboards, construction zones, radio, etc. etc. etc. - there are all sorts of potential distractions to a driver. It's up to the driver not to be distracted by them. This would include texts in my book.

In doing a quick Google search on this another issue came up. It appears that in many areas it is illegal to intentional distraction bicyclists...hmm.

Yeah...in DC, you can't honk your horn at someone on a bike. That's different, you can't ignore someone blaring their horn at you from behind. You can turn the volume down/off on your phone, though....

Why can't you ignore a car horn?

I suppose if you were completely lit up on drugs you might ignore a car horn.....maybe we should ban drugs?

we should use nautical rules, the biggest boat wins. I'm sure to look out for tugs and cargo vessels as they cruise by, throwing up a big wake, pushing me out of the channel. I'm not sure why jet skis think they have right of way, I'm 5-6 foot longer and so should have the right of way.

[CWHOKIECPA]

I think backseat drivers are more of a distraction than txts. But the whole argument is silly, the driver is still the driver. They should pull over if someone is being such a problem and explain it to them or let them cool off.

The question is not whether or not they are more (or less) of distraction. The question is whether or not you have any share of blame if you cause a distraction that results in a wreck.

The answer is no, because it is impossible for the phone to be a distraction if I decide it's impossible for the phone to be a distraction.

[Florida Hokie]

I think you do know the answer. Jet skiers are D bags.

I'm not sure why jet skis think they have right of way,