There is a new Texting while driving law in the works, Do you think that is the Text Sender's responsibilty if the receiver is a driver and gets into a wreck? The new law that is being proposed is that the text message sender can be liable (Ability to be sued) if the text message receiver is a driver and gets into an accident. Do you agree????
I am totally against Texting and driving, but this law sounds dumb. It is the responsibility of the DRIVER to not view the text or make a text. Who is to say the person sending the text knows if a person is driving or not?
The law that should be made is one that makes texting and driving the same as DWI/DUI. Phones can and should be shut down by technology from even allowing texting while a vehichle is moving.
I agree that the Law about Texting and Driving should be put into place.
No I don't agree. The sender of the text isn't and shouldn't be held responsible.
It shouldn't transfer the responsibility to someone else. The responsibility of responding to the text while driving, lays on the driver and common sense about driving. Laws state that 2 hands should be one the wheel at all times for better control. Responding to a text diverts attention from driving, which can be extremely dangerous not only to the driver but other people. There are already enough accidents from dumb/stupid stunts from drivers.
I suppose you phone them first to find if it is OK to send them a text, or are they driving
I thought the law read, that while driving both hands need to be on the wheel, at 10 and 2? Enforcing this Law would stop burger munching, coffee drinking, texting, cell phones, and any other distraction the driver might be engaging in. Another Law is redundant, no?
I don't think "10 and 2" was ever any part of a law, but it certainly was and is a "best practice" for responsible driving (although "9 and 3" is gaining favor).
I'm gonna drink my coffee while driving, thank you!
Unless you have a hands-free mobile setup, you have no business having your cell phone turned on while driving.
I don't think so, Cags. But maybe a legal expert can chime in. I do remember, though, that some town in California starting fining car drivers and passengers for smoking in their cars. I'm not sure what the status of that is.
I copied directly from Mass.gov's RMV driver's information page.
This goes for the passing the driver's test.
Passenger Vehicle Test Procedures
You should arrive approximately five minutes early for your scheduled road test
appointment. You will not be able to take your test if you are late.
Before your road test, the RMV examiner will inspect your vehicle to ensure that it is
properly registered, that all equipment is in good working order, and that the vehicle
provides a safe, adequate, and clean seat for the examiner and easy access to the brake.
After the examiner inspects and approves the vehicle, the driving test will begin. Only you,
the examiner, and your sponsor are allowed in the vehicle during the exam. The examiner
will sit in the seat next to you; your sponsor must sit in the rear. No children or pets are
allowed. If the examiner so authorizes, a language interpreter may also be allowed in the
vehicle. You and your sponsor are not allowed to converse unless authorized by the
The examiner’s goal is to observe your driving performance. During a road test, you should
be prepared to demonstrate your ability to...
• Use hand signals
• Start the engine
• Start and stop the vehicle
• Parallel Park
• Back the vehicle approximately 50 feet
• Make left - right turns
• Start, stop, and turn the vehicle on a hill
• Turn around between curbs (three point turn)
• Enter and leave intersections
• Recognize and obey traffic signs, lights and signals, and other rules of the road
• Use good driving sense
In addition to judging your overall driving skills, the examiner will note how well you follow
general good-driving procedures, including whether you...
• Use good driving posture, with both hands always placed properly on the wheel
• Drive in the proper lane and look carefully and signal properly before changing lanes
• Maintain enough distance between your vehicle and the one ahead of you
• Always drive at safe speeds to comply with speed limits and varying traffic conditions
• Properly yield the right-of-way
• Are generally aware of your actions and particularly those of other drivers
These are things you need to accomplish to get your license. They are standards based on policy. Possibly, the policy is based on law, but to say that 10 and 2 or both hands on the wheel are legislated is a stretch.
Actually, when I took my drivers test the police officer noted I did as instructed by the handbook issued. The permit test requires that a driver know that 9 and 3 are the location standard for the hands to be on the wheel at this time. When I took the permit test is was 10 and 2.
A few weeks ago a woman making a call (not texting) smacked into the back of my daughter's nice, new, car. (I could have KILLED that woman that night.) (My daughter is now fine now and wasn't seriously hurt, but she wasn't even stopped when the woman plowed into her. My daughter said it was a woman about my age, calling her daughter.
Just yesterday, a kid in Massachusetts got a year in jail and a 15-year loss of his license after being found guilty of killing the man he hit when he lost control of his car.
Yes. There needs to be a law. No senders to drivers shouldn't be held responsible. Also, though, people just need to grow up when it comes to this acting like five-year-olds and being too stupid to realize they need their eyes/hands on the road. The texting/calling thing is almost worse than drunks killing people on the road, because at least drunks aren't in their right mind. These texting/calling pea-brains are supposedly in their right mind. They're just among the zillions of people who think "it won't happen to me".
The texting/cell phone problem is widespread and relatively new and involves typing and reading (etc.). I don't think people should start throwing in everything else anyone can ever do (like take a simple swig of a drink or smoke) because they aren't the same problem that texting in these days. (Years ago, a woman turning around and yelling at her kids plowed into my father's car. There's a point where texting/calling and "everything else" shouldn't be all blended and considered for outlawing. Do people with sneezing problems then also get outlawed from driving in cars, along with texting? People with kids? The texting/cell phone problem is big enough that it's become its own thing, I think. (As with so many other things, I think it doesn't hurt for people to keep talking about this subject wherever discussions go on, either. Social pressure can work at least to some degree.)
I agree that the conversation should be ongoing.
I'll also add that learning to drive in this country (USA) used to be something that was part of a public high-school curriculum, but that's all gone now. Where do kids learn to drive these days?
About 25 years ago, when driver's ed began to disappear from public schools, folks of my generation wailed about where youngsters got their drivers' licenses. The joke was, at Woolworth's. Woolworth's is now gone, but the joke continues on with modifying Woolworth's to WalMart's.
The point is, no one is teaching kids how to drive responsibly, unless parents make sure their children are taught by certified driving schools, and that comes at a cost. An additional sadness is that the parents of young drivers coming up today probably never had responsible driver's education themselves.
I agree about driver's ed (my mother made sure we all got it), but I think a big problem for young people (but also for a lot of older people who haven't experienced something only because they've been lucky) is that "It can't happen to me" thinking.
Young kids have that thinking anyway (and one kind of hates to rob them of it), but a lot of older people have it too; and they mainly have it because they've gotten away with doing one thing or another while being fortunate enough not to have had something happen. Older people tend to look at their history of doing something (like texting or tail-gating or speeding), seeing that that they haven't yelled killed anyone and are, themselves, still alive; and then assuming it's because they're "so skilled" or "so capable" THEY can do whatever it is without worrying that something awful will happen to them. I almost think it's often the people with years of getting away with taking chances who are worst; because they'll look at their "track record" (or nothing but good luck), it fuels a false sense of competence and invincibility. When it comes to accidents there can be a "perfect storm" type of phenomenon; and people who haven't happened to encounter that "perfect storm" often do get away with their risky behavior. The problem is that one driver can run into that perfect-storm situation and end up sending his car flying into the car of innocent people who weren't taking that "remote" chance at all.
What, like my father, 55 years driving and never had an accident but saw plenty in his rear view mirror?
You bring up two important issues. One is about defensive driving and the other is about losing independence.
Young people do think they are immortal, no doubt about that, and that's why learning the principles of defensive driving is so important. Sometimes I think, unless a youngster is in charge of farm equipment, he shouldn't get his driver's license until he's maybe 25. Is that the age where that immortality begins to loosen its grip?
When folks are older, and, as you have said, haven't caused a horrible incident, they feel confident in what they do. However, many of them also know, in conversations with themselves, that their reactions are not what they once were or their eyesight is not what it once was. But they don't want to lose that independence, almost a right, of getting behind the wheel. It's a tough thing.
I'm sorry to say that an older friend of mine called the other day and said she'd like to take a familiar road trip, a trip she'd taken for years, but she'd feel better if she had a passenger who could read the road signs. I know what's going on in terms of her eyesight, but she's not willing to step back and relinquish her right to drive.
All I can say is that when I get to the point where I need a passenger to read road signs, I voluntarily stop driving.
by Catherine Kane4 years ago
What do you think about texting while driving?Saw that a Mass. teen was convicted yesterday of motor vehicle homicide by texting. He swerved into oncoming traffic, crashed headfirst into a truck and killed a 55 yo...
by Ralph Deeds8 years ago
Should texting while driving be illegal?
by billd016035 years ago
If you saw a person texting while driving would you try to signal the driver so they would stop?I was in rush hour traffic on Friday nite on a busy main road. Traffic was stop and go and at no time were we ever going...
by Rock N Roll Jeans7 years ago
Serious thoughts here about a serious problem. I have heard where autos can be equipped with devices to prohibit driving while drunk. But what about texting? Can technology step to the forefront here and...
by Dan Robbins4 years ago
Stop with the texting and driving!!!Do we really need a law about texting and driving? With integrated dvd, gps, touch screen stereos, conversation mirrors, buttons, plugs, switches, cigarettes, drinks, food, dancing,...
by PR Morgan4 months ago
Do you think teens should be allowed to drive at 16 years old?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.