×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Text-Messaging Behind the Wheel

CowboyNeal posted more than 5 years ago | from the move-over-cb-radio dept.

Cellphones 517

theodp writes "TIME interviews 21-year-old Taylor Leming, creator of the 600-member Facebook group I Text Message People While Driving and I Haven't Crashed Yet! While Alaska and Louisiana just became the latest states to pass laws banning text-messaging behind the wheel, Virginia resident Leming is still happily texting away while driving despite some near-accidents. 'Sometimes it just seems easier to text 'Be there in 5' instead of calling,' explains Taylor."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

517 comments

Darwin (5, Insightful)

j_sp_r (656354) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980843)

Why is it important to text that you'll be there in 5 minutes anyway? You can also wait 5 minutes.

And I hope when he crashes and kills himself he doesn't take others with him. Driving and calling (even hands free), texting, or doing anything else (tuning the radio, setting up your nav system) for that matter is just dangerous.

Re:Darwin (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23981045)

God: Where are you?

Idiot: Be there in 5 mins.

CRASH!! BANG!!

Makes sense to me.

Re:Darwin (5, Funny)

eugene ts wong (231154) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981125)

God: Where are you?

Idiot: Be there in 5 mins.

CRASH!! BANG!!


God: That didn't seem like 5 minutes to me.

Re:Darwin (2, Insightful)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981349)

God: Where are you?

Idiot: Be there in 5 mins.

CRASH!! BANG!!


God: That didn't seem like 5 minutes to me.


Idiot: I didn't die immediately!

Re:Darwin (4, Funny)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981191)

Driving and calling (even hands free), texting, or doing anything else (tuning the radio, setting up your nav system) for that matter is just dangerous.

My taxi driver the other day was obsessed with his nav system while driving me home -- He was playing solitaire on it. If I had been able to communicate with him, I would have cursed him out.

Re:Darwin (5, Funny)

gemada (974357) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981235)

The best example yet of this occurred here in Canada. A teenage girl was driving her parents' minivan and got into an accident while texting her boyfriend.....and here is the kicker....HE WAS IN THE BACK SEAT!

Re:Darwin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23981269)

Driving and calling (even hands free), texting, or doing anything else (tuning the radio, setting up your nav system) for that matter is just dangerous.

Don't forget another common distraction: interacting with actual living humans in your vehicle. There should be a law banning passenger seats.

Re:Darwin (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23981339)

I haven't got an ArseFace account, but can someone that has log into his group and give him the righteous abuse that the silly little fucker deserves?

Re:Darwin (5, Insightful)

cyberwench (10225) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981391)

And yet, barely anyone gives a second thought to tuning their radio while driving or talking to a passenger while driving - both things that are shown to create just as much of a distraction.

I don't think there's anyone out there who never ever deals with distractions while driving. Having a sandwich, drinking something, changing tracks on a CD, driving while not having enough sleep... everyone does it on one level or another. All of it is dangerous, but the only thing that seems to get people keyed up is cell phone use. Can anyone explain to me why?

Idiot (5, Insightful)

jrothwell97 (968062) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980851)

despite some near-accidents

Enough said.

Also, just because someone hasn't had an accident in the past, it doesn't mean they won't have an accident in the future.

Re:Idiot (4, Insightful)

iPodUser (879598) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980895)

Exactly. If they've already had near accidents then it's just a matter of time until something bad happens. And so help me if they crash into me...

Re:Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23981077)

And that's how many insurance factors play out - the law of averages says that the longer you go without an accident the more likely you are to have one.

I have a spotless record going back 18 years and I'm paying for it because the numbers say I'm due for a claim.

Obligatory: fuckers.

Re:Idiot (5, Informative)

tonycheese (921278) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981135)

Did ANY of you actually RTFA (including the person who submitted it???)? Clearly, the group was created as a joke and she said in the article that she supports the law even if it would be hard to enforce. She says that although she does do it sometimes, she realizes it's stupid and dangerous and would follow the law if it were to become one.

Re:Idiot (5, Insightful)

jrothwell97 (968062) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981169)

But surely if she considers it irresponsible, she shouldn't do it, EVEN if it is not specifically illegal?

Re:Idiot (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23981233)

Yep. People like her are the reason why religion exists. Let me explain. Despite her reason and common sense telling her that it's not a good idea, she's going to continue doing it simply because "it's not illegal." The only way to get her to actually change her behaviour (and that's a big maybe) is to have some sort of "punishment" go along with the action.

Re:Re:Idiot (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23981401)

I'd like to follow you, or anyone else, around for a day and count the things you do that are irresponsible yet legal that you do despite the dangerous aspects.

Re:Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23981179)

It seems from the page that she was serious at first, and just added that disclaimer later to cover her ass.

Re:Idiot (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23981289)

"Did ANY of you actually RTFA "

You must be new here.

Re:Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23981325)

Think about this for a moment. She created the group when she was 16 and had just gotten a driver's license. Now, most people who had just gotten a driver's license that I knew were incredibly naive about responsible driving and the ramifications of being distracted. Do you honestly believe that she was heavily advocating that people shouldn't be text messaging while driving? Or is it more likely she was thinking "I don't see what the big deal is?" I know where my money is going. It's possible that she's wised up a bit since creating the group, but I can assure you that she wasn't thinking about safety when she first created it.

Re:Idiot (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981237)

Also, just because someone hasn't had an accident in the past, it doesn't mean they won't have an accident in the future.

Or, as the financial types like to say... Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

Re:Idiot (1)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981257)

The group is called "I Text Message People While Driving and I Haven't Crashed Yet!"

Seems like the police should keep an eye on people who suddenly leave the group. :)

rampant idiocy. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23980861)

I say sue the phone makers to remove texting capability after the crash and play the "well I was too stupid to think for myself and I need big brother to make texting/keypads illegal on EVERYTHING"

mwaha.? hah?

Re:rampant idiocy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23980981)

Yeah, you're joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone actually tried that. Sigh.

Kids these days (4, Insightful)

iPodUser (879598) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980865)

I can't believe these people! What's so "fun" about text messages? Why the aversion to real communication? I'd much rather talk to someone than exchange emoticons while risking the lives of those on the road around me.

Re:Kids these days (1)

Wister285 (185087) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980969)

I don't view texting as fun. I view it as a way of communicating when I don't need or want to have a conversation. Some things don't need a phone call.

Person 1: "You coming tonight?"
Person 2: "No."
Person 1: "Going to be fun, eh?"
Person 2: "Yeah..."

*awkward pause*

Person 1: "Um, okay, bye."
Person 2: "Yeah, bye."

Re:Kids these days (3, Informative)

jrothwell97 (968062) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981085)

In my experience, this is how people carry out such short conversations.

Party 'B': Hello, B speaking.
Party 'A': Hello, it's me.
Party 'B': Hello, A.
Party 'A': Whereabouts are you?
Party 'B': I'm just walking past the music shop opposite the church. Where are you?
Party 'A':I'm walking past the hotel. I'll meet you at the swimming pool.
Party 'B': OK, see you later. Goodbye.

Re:Kids these days (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981175)

What's so "fun" about text messages?
I agree. I just don't have time for text messages. It can take an hour of back and forth to have a two minute conversation. I can barely put up with IM, but it is required in our office so that people can interrupt your train of thought if you accidentally get on a productive streak.
I have no "text plan" on my phone, so incoming texts that I didn't ask to receive cost me 15 cents. Outgoing don't cost me anything because I don't do them. I don't have time. Life is too short for text messaging. Call up, get your conversation done and move on.
Maybe it's just nostalgia for the days when all we had was the telegraph.

Re:Kids these days (5, Informative)

Yosho (135835) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981413)

I agree. I just don't have time for text messages. It can take an hour of back and forth to have a two minute conversation. I can barely put up with IM, but it is required in our office so that people can interrupt your train of thought if you accidentally get on a productive streak.
I have no "text plan" on my phone, so incoming texts that I didn't ask to receive cost me 15 cents. Outgoing don't cost me anything because I don't do them. I don't have time. Life is too short for text messaging. Call up, get your conversation done and move on.

As you honestly don't seem to understand the use of text messages, I'll explain why I find them useful: for communicating small amounts of information that don't require conversation, and out of respect for the other person's time.

Let's face it, most people don't want to be interrupted whenever they're doing something. You might be out shopping for groceries, visiting a friend's house, or eating a restaurant, and you probably have your phone with you in case there's an emergency and/or you need to call somebody, but you don't want somebody to call you and suddenly want to have a conversation. Heck, at least in those situations you can talk if you want to; you can't exactly answer your phone and have a conversation at all if, say, you're watching a presentation at work, or if you're already on the phone with somebody else.

When you get a text message, rather than answering your phone immediately, you can view it at your leisure, and it only takes a second of your time to read it. I can tell my girlfriend, "working late tonight, I'll be home in an hour," or my D&D buddies, "On my way, be there 30 minutes," or a couple of my coworkers, "Meet for lunch at Rudy's BBQ", and it only takes ten seconds of my time and effectively none of theirs. I can even send the same message to half a dozen people at once, and that's much faster than calling half a dozen people and repeating the same conversation every time. If, for some reason, they need to answer the message, they can also do so without disturbing any people around them who don't want to listen to somebody chatting on their cell phone.

Does that make more sense? Yes, text messages are a horribly inefficient way of having a conversation, but they're not for conversing, they're for disseminating information.

Re:Kids these days (1)

lilmunkysguy (740848) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981241)

Just because you don't like something, it doesn't mean that everyone has to share your opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own idea of what's fun. I'd much rather text someone a short message than spend time on the phone, and the majority of my family is the same way.

Re:Kids these days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23981277)

So we'll wait till the accidents pile up and then make it a law. What's next? A ban on putting makeup on, on your way to the office? A ban on flashing me (a truck driver, well i play one in chat sessions anyway) on a two lane blacktop?

By the time the law passes we'll have this gizmo from Japan (or China) that will sense how close you are to the car in front of you and the airbag beats you senseless for texting during THAT dangerous approach.

Why such a specific law? (1, Insightful)

thewils (463314) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980875)

Why not simply have a law where you must drive with "due care and attention". This covers everything from texting to putting on your make-up. No need to mention everything specifically. No need to create new laws for new technology.

Re:Why such a specific law? (1)

jrothwell97 (968062) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980921)

The law in the UK covers 'reckless' driving 'without due care and attention'. However, the problem there is to clarify what 'due care and attention' is. Some think that they can still provide due care and attention with a handheld phone call - or eating a cream cake while they're driving.

Then again, maybe natural selection is a good thing.

Re:Why such a specific law? (1)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981049)

I have been involved in two accidents (in nearly 30 years of driving).

On the first occasion, the idiot that drove into the back of me (I was stopped) was drunk, on the second, the woman was on the mobile.

To me (and I'm not a 'hanging around' sort of driver), phone use is as bad as drink driving.

I'd rather that they not naturally select themselves and their germ line out of existence on my rear bumper, thankyou :o)

Re:Why such a specific law? (1)

ozbon (99708) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981127)

Then again, maybe natural selection is a good thing.

With idiots like this, there's no 'maybe' about it.

My issue is more with the people they take with them. Sure, if some idiot wants to send a text message and ends up getting intimate with a brick wall, or some other inanimate object, fine. It's when they whack into the car coming the other way, and take out the occupants of that vehicle as well that I get annoyed.

There's nothing Darwinian about collateral damage.

Re:Why such a specific law? (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981131)

The problem is that they are likely to kill someone else (especially pedestrians) rather than themselves.

Re:Why such a specific law? (4, Insightful)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980983)

Why not simply have a law where you must drive with "due care and attention".

Too vague ... one person's "due care and attention" is anothers recklessness.

Besides, banning texting for the driver while on a highway is a no-brainer ... because obviously people with no brains think they can do it "despite a few near-accidents."

I finally bought a bluetooth earpiece when the laws changed, even though my cell already has speaker-phone capability, so it already was "hands-free"; after a couple of weeks, I now wish I had bought it sooner. (Hint - buy a good-quality one with noise and echo cancellation - you don't want to sound like you're talking in a garbage can).

Re:Why such a specific law? (2, Insightful)

deadmongrel (621467) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981019)

The problem with non-specific laws is that its open to interpretation. Also we can get rid of all specific laws and have one law: "do no evil".
Your definition of evil may be different from mine.

Also, most states have laws against careless operation of vehicles already.

Re:Why such a specific law? (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981205)

Why not simply have a law where you must drive with "due care and attention".
People are not clever enough to work out on their own what new technologies are incompatible with driving. You either have to make a law or put forth a lot of money on "awareness" campaigns. Laws are cheaper.

Re:Why such a specific law? (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981265)

Because there aren't enough lawyers to go around. Won't you think of the poor lawyers?!

Nothing to see here, move along? (1)

papna (1242200) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980879)

This is an interesting issue to discuss, but TFA seems to have virtually no content.

Get a phone and bluetooth headset (4, Interesting)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980881)

What a moron!

exting away while driving despite some near-accidents. 'Sometimes it just seems easier to text 'Be there in 5' instead of calling,' explains Taylor

With a bluetooth headset, I say the person's name, my cellphone dials the number, I say what I have to say, and never have to fumble around with the phone.

Any bets on how long before this guy gets his darwin?

Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23980927)

And, as scientists have repeatedly told us, this is no better than talking on your phone with no headset.

Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset (1)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981097)

And, as scientists have repeatedly told us, this is no better than talking on your phone with no headset.

... are you really going to claim that texting no more dangerous than talking on the phone?

Also, with the right earpiece, you no longer have to use the phone to dial, to answer, or to hang up. You no longer have to hold or even look at the phone at any point, so you can keep your hands on the wheel, and your eyes on the road.

Compare that to texting ...

Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset (3, Insightful)

AmaranthineNight (1005185) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981239)

And I think you missed his point, which was that driving with a headset has been shown in studies to be no less dangerous than driving with a phone in your hand while you are talking to people. The "hands-free" wasn't the problem, the problem was that being on a phone and carrying on a conversation is distracting, whether you're holding it up to your ear or not.

I'd like to see a study done on whether talking to somebody in the passenger seat is just as dangerous as talking on the phone (handsfree or not) while driving. Because if it is just as dangerous to talk to a passenger, then really they can either ban talking in cars (imagine the outcry) or stop passing laws against doing other stuff in cars (talking on a cell phone). Although the texting thing is definitely a no-brainer.

Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset (1)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981373)

The article was about text messaging while driving a car, as opposed to just calling the person. I'm glad you agree that texting is a no-brainer :-)

As for the distraction of talking on the phone, most people can't even drive properly when they have NO "distractions."

For them, a cellphone, or anything else, is going to diminish their already-lousy driving.

How about a ban on cell-phone use for anyone who has less than, say, 5 years driving experience, *any* demerit points, or was responsible for accident within the last decade? That would snare most of the less competent, less experienced, and more "accident-prone."

Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23981409)

How about you quit doing other shit and just drive? I think it's really funny how everybody seems to think that cellphones are a problem - except for them, as if they have some special powers or something. Get off the phone and fucking drive.

Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset (4, Informative)

ozbon (99708) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981161)

If you'd RTFA, you'd know that "this guy" is actually a girl.

TIME's Sarah N. Lynch contacted the group's founder, Taylor Leming, 21, of Round Hill, Va., who submitted her responses via e-mail

Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset (1)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981299)

I read the article afterwords; it doesn't change anything wrt the stupidity involved. She admits not only to nearly causing accidents, but the picture clearly shows that she's not looking at the road.

Voice Recognition (1)

KrunchTime (605821) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980887)

I'd like a phone that would let me talk my text messages in and read the response to me.

Re:Voice Recognition (2, Insightful)

jrothwell97 (968062) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980991)

In that case, how long would it be since I get a text reading

Hello deer, I'm on the mane road and will be hone in to innits.

And in that case, WTF is wrong with just making a phone call?

I think you meant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23980893)

"B their in 5". HTH. HAND.

Moron (5, Insightful)

smolloy (1250188) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980903)

I hope her first accident, the one that teaches her how dumb and selfish this is, only injures/kills her and no one else.

I also hope her insurance company reads time.com.

Re:Moron (4, Insightful)

owlstead (636356) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981109)

You learn or you die, you cannot combine the two. Anyway, I hope she crashes and just seriously damages the car, with the insurance company not paying out. There is no reason to wish her harm just because she (at 21 years old) makes some stupid mistakes.

Re:Moron (1)

digitalaudiorock (1130835) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981167)

I hope her first accident, the one that teaches her how dumb and selfish this is, only injures/kills her and no one else.

I also hope her insurance company reads time.com.

I suppose the sort of attitudes that cause people to intensionaly do any unsafe things driving (texting, street racing, whatever) often come from not being old enough to have learned first hand how a few milliseconds can pertinently screw up so many lives.

That being said, I've been run off the road by cell users who are way more than old enough to know better.

Re:Moron (2, Insightful)

mrbah (844007) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981177)

That last part is actually a very good point. With employers checking up on prospective hires' Facebook profiles, I don't find it a stretch to think that insurance companies would do the same thing. Here's hoping they quadruple the rates of everyone in that group.

Re:Moron (1)

AmaranthineNight (1005185) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981295)

I hope the next time you wish ill on somebody because of a slashdot summary you go ahead and RTFA first.

She knows text messaging while driving is dangerous and doesn't do it often, she fully supports a law against it, and has said she'd follow that law if it were passed. But no, let's get right on hoping a 21 year old woman gets into an accident and gets hurt, that will make things better.

risk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23980905)

the more one engages in a potentially risky activity, the more likely it is they will suffer negative results.

As has often be said (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23980909)

the really effective way to make people drive more careful is to replace the airbag in all cars with a big pointy spike aimed at the driver's head.

Why a law? (3, Insightful)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980917)

Sure people are dumb. But how can anyone be so mind-boggling stupid that they would think that texting while driving is a good idea? I mean, why not just go to the next step and drive blindfolded? There shouldn't even need to be a law because no one should be dumb enough to do this. But I guess I have too much faith in humanity.

Re:Why a law? (1)

Captain Murdock (906610) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980973)

Either you're older than the current generation that's been raised on text messages or you're naive for some reason. This happens all the time among people I know. (I'm 20.) I've actually did it a few times myself before I realized what a stupid move it is. It's like reading a book while driving, you can't look at two things at once.

Re:Why a law? (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981369)

But I guess I have too much faith in humanity.

These days it seems like any amount is too much.

Just because person X hasn't had an accident... (1)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980925)

...it doesn't mean that you're not more likely to have one while operating any device that takes your eyes off the road.

Mobile phones are still so new that proper statistics don't really exist. (Ever here in Finland, where most in my generation had a mobile in high school, pre Y2K.) But I still don't think it can ever be safer to drive while doing anything else at the same time.

Sometimes it makes the most sense to simply find a place to pull over for a moment, if you really need to do something which will take your attention off the road. As for calling, there's this thing called a "hands free device" which works pretty darn well these days...

Great Idea... (4, Insightful)

deadmongrel (621467) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980931)

I am starting another group:
  "I am drunk While Driving and I Haven't Crashed Yet!"

It sucks that we have to make laws to compensate for commonsense.

It's not easier, it's harder! (1)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980935)

How can it be easier? A voice call distracts you for a few seconds, tops- with speeddial, voice dialing, and other options, it takes little to no time.

Even if you're texting proficient, you still have to look at the screen to check your output multiple times, distracting you from the road.

While I'm normally a person that is against the "nanny state", idiots who get distracted while driving are not only a danger to themselves, they are a danger to every other person around them.

Re:It's not easier, it's harder! (2, Insightful)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980955)

Also, I recognize that you do have to continually think about your conversation during a voice call, but you at least have the ability to keep your eyes on the road...

Re:It's not easier, it's harder! (2, Interesting)

AmaranthineNight (1005185) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981343)

I know people who text without looking (Why would you need to check your output? It's close enough to what you meant) and if the text message in response isn't important, like in the case of texting "be home in 5", it requires lifting up your phone for a couple of seconds and hitting send. Calling could definitely be more distracting depending on how proficient you are at text messaging vs. carrying on a phone conversation.

Re:It's not easier, it's harder! (2, Insightful)

lilmunkysguy (740848) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981393)

you still have to look at the screen to check your output multiple times, distracting you from the road.

Like flipping through the radio stations? Here here! Let's call all radio station flippers names and ban radio station flipping!
Honestly, the cell phone, or the texting, isn't the problem. There are times when it is perfectly safe to text (long empty roads on the way to the coast, for example). As someone above said, the rule should be that you "drive with due care and attention." Banning a particular technology because your view can't apply it in a safe way doesn't seem to be the right answer.

Re:It's not easier, it's harder! (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981395)

A voice call distracts you for a few seconds, tops- with speeddial, voice dialing, and other options, it takes little to no time.
See, I wouldn't have any problem with texting while driving if people would maintain proper distance. Let's say a text message takes 10 seconds to enter (conservative I know), then you need to have your normal 2 seconds plus the additional 10 seconds of space between you and the next driver. At highway speeds, that's about 1500 feet.
Let's not forget about separation from people in the lanes next to you either. You should be sure there is no one at all in any of the other lanes within 1500 feet of you or on the shoulder, coming the other way or driving along the access road in case you really lose it bad when you lose control of the vehicle.
If you can maintain those distances reliably while texting, then text away. At least I know you won't kill anybody ELSE that way.

Make Organ Donor Mandatory for These Idiots! (2, Interesting)

Tsu Dho Nimh (663417) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980937)

I would like to make organ donation compulsory for these people. At least they can be of some use after they crash.

Re:Make Organ Donor Mandatory for These Idiots! (5, Funny)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981091)

I would like to make organ donation compulsory for these people. At least they can be of some use after they crash.

I like the idea of compulsory organ donation, but why wait until after they crash, when the organs might get damaged?

Stop killing people (4, Insightful)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980945)

I've lost two people in pointless car crashes.

Please use your goddamn head and pay attention to the goddamn road.

This is what happens (3, Insightful)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980947)

when society looks down on physical violence. A solid punch to the chin and that guy may see the error of his ways.

Fucking right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23981189)

While I am generally against violence, there are some people who are just begging for a good ass kicking. Clearly this person is one of them.

Darwin Award here we come (3, Interesting)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980951)

We can all remember this thread when the asshat wins a Darwin Award. I've been near clipped many times by people fumbling with their phones. Usually they are gabbing, but more and more it's young kids texting. Youth tends to think it's invincible anyways.

They even reference 'near accidents'. All it takes is for one other person around you to also have a lapse of attention to turn that 'near accident' into a real accident.

If you need to say 'be there in 5' then pull over, or just make them wait 5 minutes. Duh.

Here's A Challenge For The Statisticians... (4, Funny)

DieByWire (744043) | more than 5 years ago | (#23980999)

Given that at some point the rate of new members signing up will equal the rate that existing members die, calculate the maximum number of members of 'I Text Message People While Driving and I Haven't Crashed Yet!'

Don't make me hurt you... (4, Interesting)

astralan (1122953) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981009)

It's thrilling to think of driving south on I-95 in the left lane and see someone driving five feet behind me staring at a phone than my bumper. Isn't that how road-rage gets started? It's more than an accident waiting to happen.

Re:Don't make me hurt you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23981051)

It's enough to make you wish horns were directional.

Get robbed (2, Funny)

Joebert (946227) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981027)

Just because you haven't crashed doesn't mean the extra few seconds it takes you to catch on to what's going on around you doesn't irritate the shit out of everyone else on the road an cause roadrage.

Don't get mad when I smash out your car window with a tire iron and take your phone at a green light, if you were paying attention it wouldn't have happened.

Stop Texting and Drive... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23981037)

I ride a Motorcycle, and I can truly say that I am sick and tired of almost being hit by idiots that are text messaging or chatting on their cell phones...
I have seen people read books, news papers, work papers, shave, eat cereal out of a bowl, put on makeup, etc...and texting or talking on the cell both rank up there with "extremely stupid" behaviors while behind the wheel...
The next person who nearly hits me ... well, I am building an EMP cannon, it should have an effective range of about 20 feet, and should be able to destroy small electronics, possibly an ECU...

Thats funny (1)

dissy (172727) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981047)

Virginia resident Leming is still happily texting away while driving despite some near-accidents. 'Sometimes it just seems easier to text 'Be there in 5' instead of calling,' explains Taylor."

Thats funny, I was just thinking how sometimes it just seems easier to ignore the traffic lights and stop signs. I mean, I get to where I am going so much faster! And haven't had an accident yet, which is of course 100% proof that I never will. /sarcasm

What a selfish _dangerous_ jerk

All I can hope for is she only wraps herself around a tree or lamp post, and not another car or pedestrian.

if God wanted you to text while driving (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981113)

there would be a screen instead of a speedometer, and the steering wheel would have a keyboard.

Hey Taylor, out of the gene pool! (5, Insightful)

Max von H. (19283) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981153)

I nearly got killed a few years ago by a "distracted" driver who was happily chatting on his cell phone while running a traffic light. It took me over a year to recover and be able to work again and I'll feel the secondary effects of this accident for the rest of my life (definitely NOT a nice thing, trust me).

In most European countries, using a cell phone while driving is considered impaired driving and you basically face the same consequences as if you were drunk in case of an accident, meaning your insurance will happily run away from you and you'll be declared responsible for the accident even if it's not initially your fault.

I'm looking forward to the day it'll be the same here in Ontario as a lot of people don't seem to be able to distract themselves from their crackberries while driving. Maybe a $1000 ticket and a license suspension will teach them a lesson before they get to injure or kill someone.

I for one hope this moron eliminates himself from the human gene pool without injuring or killing someone first.

More likely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23981165)

'Sometimes it just seems easier to text 'Be there in 5' instead of calling,' explains Taylor."

Followed by "Mr. Taylor kills family of 5, 5 minutes from home" News at 11.

not dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23981195)

I'm posting this wile drivi

I play russian roulette (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23981227)

And I haven't got shot yet!

Before you all cry "Idiot!"... (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981247)

...and I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment — texting behind the wheel is a symptom of dick-headdery — remember that this is a group on Facebook, OK?

jc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23981275)

to use any device behind the wheel is a distraction .
eventually there luck will run out

TIME? (1)

strabes (1075839) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981283)

Wow, TIME Magazine must be running short on good content. They interviewed the creator of a 600-member facebook group? There's more members in the National Chipotle Day group. Come on.

It already is illegal (1)

Beached (52204) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981311)

In most places they have laws against not paying attention while drive. Negligence behind the wheel is not a charge you want.

Either way, if you kill someone because you you where typing that Bobby was DUI after he was AAK and you professed that you DUNA but then you saw someone and said DURS and tried to give her DWPKOTL all while driving 120km/hr you will most likely be charged.

No need for new laws just charge people with the existing ones. Then someone will text you WTFGDA.

How hard is it to pull over? (1)

i love pineapples (742841) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981347)

I, too, prefer to text over calling for quick messages. But, in the (rare) instances when I feel the need to text while driving, I just pull off the road. At the very least, I wait until I'm at a stop light-- and if the light changes before I can send the message, I toss my phone to the side and proceed to the next place I can pull over. What could possibly be so urgent that it needs to be sent while the vehicle is in motion?

We Need Better Voice Recognition (1)

forrie (695122) | more than 5 years ago | (#23981365)

I've been guilty of this. Tapping out one word, watching traffic, then another. Dangerous mix, and I know one day I'll not be so lucky.

What we need is better voice recognition so we can speak our answers - that's the lesser evil ;-)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...