Slashdot Mirror
Texter Not Responsible For Textee's Car Accident, Rules Judge
linuxwrangler writes "After mowing down a motorcycling couple while distracted by texting, Kyle Best received a slap on the wrist. The couple's attorney then sued Best's girlfriend, Shannon Colonna, for exchanging messages with him when he was driving. They argued that while she was not physically present, she was 'electronically present.' In good news for anyone who sends server-status, account-alerts or originates a call, text or email of any type that could be received by a mobile device, the judge dismissed the plantiff's claims against the woman."
At first I was disappointed that that the offender only got a slap on the wrist, then I realized he hit a massive douchebag.
...people with an ounce of common sense who get ill at stupidity and greediness via lawsuits.
The collision appears to be caused by negligence, and was not simply an accident. "Accident" is a euphamism, a weasel word designed to make the violation appear less severe.
Please stop politicizing the headlines, Slashdot.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
I agree that the texter is not responsible for the accident, but the initial ruling:'the slap on the wrist' that the textee got, well, IMHO, $775.00 USD is way too small compensation for two innocent victims, both of which had to undergo leg amputations as a result of textee's 'distracted driving'.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
if i get the sense i'm talking to someone who is driving, i will say "are you driving? i'll get off the phone"
it's not about being a hyperactive boy scout, it's not about the law, it's about living with myself. because if i am on the phone with someone while they are driving and i am AWARE of it, then i am responsible for continuing the conversation, and helping to keep the driver distracted
i have to live with myself. and i have to respect myself
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Posting on FB is for everyone I think while texting is for a specific person so I think even if the judge had ruled otherwise it would not have applied to FB stuff. That said, it was the responsibility of the driver to not text while driving, unless he got a text message saying " I know you are driving lets sext chat"
"Best was ordered to speak to 14 high schools about the dangers of texting and driving and had to pay about $775 in fines, but his driver's license was not suspended."
would have been pretty far fetched if you'd be liable for sending txt's as distraction to someone though... quite ridiculous even. but as publicity stunt it works ok. anyhow, terrorists should just drive around in vans with gas containers texting each others it seems, it's a pretty low fine for putting two people on insurance living for the rest of their lives. (yay a card!).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Now I hope the "texter" (the girlfriend) sues the piss out of the motorcyclists who tried to sue her, their children, the lawyer, the lawyers children and anyone else remotely involved in this idiotic fucking lawsuit. Nobody should have to be subjected to this kind of punitive, selfish bullshit. I hope she sues them, prevails and owns their sorry asses for all eternity.
sure, this is good practice. but if you don't know, or are too distracted to notice it is still not your responsibility. being a text, it seems reasonable to assume that the receiver will read it when it is appropriate to do so.
Can somebody with more knowledge ofthe US legal system explain what appears to be a tiny penalty for crashing into and permanently disabling two people? I would have expected a more serious punishment.
Is this a typical punishment for this kind of crime?
Hmmm
The only person responsible for the accident was the driver of the car. He chose to read the text messages whilst driving. What I cannot understand is the reasoning from the courts as to the decision handed down to the driver of the car. Such a serious accident and he did not even get banned from driving? As a motorcyclist that has to contend with car drivers paying insufficient attention to the road on a daily basis, I have to state that the driver should have been penalised much more severely for his actions.
Not a lot else to say really.
If you don't answer the IM, it remains in your inbox just like an email. If you are unavaliable to take the call, IM, or Email while driving, let it go to voicemail, inbox, etc. I'll still be there when you have time to deal with it.
In many places distracted driving due to phone use is illegal. My contacts know I don't take calls while driving, but I am aware I have a message, either voicemail or text.
The illegal act or dangerous act was the driver's responsibility. I'm not sure if texting while driving is lillegal where he was, but it is still dangerous, which was demonstrated by the driver.
The truth shall set you free!
Their jail sentences, fines, and so on are much, much lighter than the US. Remember it is a different country, different laws and all that.
If it is a good thing or not is up for debate but the violent crime per capita statistics make for an interesting comparison.
Willful stupidity is not an accident.
sue the fucking driver, you gold-digging idiots.. and get a different lawyer -- yours is as stupid as the whole lot of you -- filing suit against the non-present girlfriend instead of the driver, which you can do here ya know, seeing how the 775 + community service was the *criminal* penalty (not civil). remember OJ? he got off in *criminal* court but lost his shorts in *civil* court (tfa makes no mention of civil action against the driver .. but if there was any.. you'd think it would be mentioned.. unless the journalist and editors are also fucking morons too)
If you get found guilty of filing a frivolous lawsuit... you should be punched in the face.
I'm not going to bother levying a fine. These idiots are litigious jerks and probably are broke anyway. Why bother with that. Just have the bailiff pop him in the face.
Barbaric you say? Not at all. Barbaric would be one person randomly coming up to another person on the street and doing it. The difference between kidnapping someone for ten years and prison is the court system.
So if the court determines you filed a frivilious lawsuit... one solid pop to the face. Nothing more or less. You want to file another suit? Go for it.
I have no idea if this would cut down on bullshit lawsuits but I'd like to experiment with it.
What about corporations? That's a little more complicated. I don't want to just punch the lawyer in the face because for all we know he's just some young legal grad they hired to be a punching bag. I'd probably go with the head of their legal department or possibly their CEO. God knows Steve Jobs should have been punched in the face a few times went he decided to touch off this patent Armageddon.
Possibly a stupid idea... but it would make judge judy more interesting to watch. Can you just picture this in a tv court show? That would be delicious.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
When Google finally perfects its robotic driving system, hopefully it will become mandatory for all cars and trucks in the U.S, and us motorcyclists can rejoice!
No more texting drivers like from TFA. No more drunk drivers. No more brain-dead drivers who turn left right in front of you in broad daylight, even though you have headlights on high beam and even partially blind people can see you.
Back in another life when I worked in law-enforcement the correct term to use was "traffic collision." This is how you will see it reported on the California Highway Patrol incident page: http://cad.chp.ca.gov/
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
It's not your responsibility to make sure the other person is behaving properly. Do you ask if they just put the baby in the bath, or put a pan full of oil on the stove? I kind of doubt it.
On plenty of occasions, I have answered to say "I'm driving, I'll call you back in a few." If I'm of the belief that where I am driving is too difficult to even do that, I let the phone ring. It's the difference between a long straight empty highway, or navigating city streets with other drivers around.
What if your "sense" isn't right. For example, my mom drives a nice car, that's dead silent inside. Her calls go through via bluetooth to the cars sound system. I can't tell the difference if she's out somewhere, driving, or sitting at home and didn't get to the home phone first. She will tell me "I'm driving, let me call you back."
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Well, Duh...
He didn't say he did it out of a sense of responsibility, it's just plain old good nature and kindness. If you're talking to someone and suspect you're distracting them, it's simple courtesy to offer to call back later. You don't understand civilization too well, do you? Nobody was suggesting you start mind-reading.
Actually, you should read what he wrote. That's exactly what he said. It is out of a sense of responsibility, and he does "sense" if they are driving.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Personal responsibility vs legal responsibility. Context people, use it.
They tried this at a driving school in Belgium. Most people realised pretty quickly how dangerous it was.
The fact that he gets a light fine means nothing when the *CIVIL LAWSUIT* is prepared. Unless otherwise mentioned, I assume he has liability insurance. His insurance company will probably settle out of court with the motorcyclists. They have an open+shut case, and a jury will be very sympathetic to them, so the insurance company will probably pay very close to their initial demands.
Going after his girlfriend is sleazy, however. That crosses the line.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Hooray! This article should be tagged "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense". I'm happy to hear it. The case is ridiculous. The slap on the wrist received by the man actually driving the car that hit the motorcycle is the real problem, attacking random other people who were NOT DRIVING THE CAR is just sad.
If the case had proceeded, beautiful women would have to start wearing burqa's in the US when walking in public, not because of Sharia law, but to avoid getting sued when guys start checking out their gorgeous bodies and beautiful faces, and crash the cars they're driving into people or things...
Then all the signs and billboards would have to come down because the whole point of a sign or billboard is to grab attention, and if someone gets distracted by a sign or billboard... the person or company that put the billboard, etc. up will be liable.
I guess the next thing that's going to happen is they'll sue the company that carried and transmitted the text message, and the company that manufactured the phone.
Hey, why not sue the makers of the motorcycle for failing to make it car-resistant... or sue the guy operating the motorcycle for failing to be aware of his surroundings, and noticing the car?
BTW, I ride (Kawasaki 454 LTD) and I am CONSTANTLY assessing the situation, in front, to the sides, as well as behind me, using mirrors, over the shoulder glances, etc. I always wear gloves and a helmet when I ride... I know that my motorcycle, viewed from the font or the rear, is not much bigger than a person walking, and looks nothing like the car, truck, SUV, semi-tractor/trailer, or bus that the drivers on the road are used to seeing, and are looking for. I therefore assume when I ride, that if anyone CAN make a move that puts his/her car on a collision course with my bike, that they probably will, and I need to prepare for it, by adjusting my speed, lane position, location of my bike with respect to other vehicles' blind-spots, covering horn, brakes, clutch, etc.
I have yet to get hit, and have used my horn judiciously, (just on the occasions when it's appropriate, to make sure they know I'm there...) and I feel pretty safe, even knowing that the barely-guided, four-wheeled missiles behind me move almost as if they are actually out to kill me. Knowing my bike is a veritable cloak of invisibility has kept me well, alive, and safe. Although my bike is no crotch rocket, it has plenty of pick-up, can be "revved to the moon" as they say, but I don't abuse the power (much).
I have seen a lot of people on motorcycles doing insanely, stupidly dangerous things, like riding without a helmet, riding backwards, (I'm not sure how that's even possible...), I saw a guy pass me on the interstate once, (I was going about 65...) pop a wheelie and accelerate to about 110, (just guessing, I'll admit) and I really can't say how he didn't just flip over, which I would probably have laughed at... I've seen a guy with (I'm assuming) cruise control, pass me on a freeway (different day) laying back against the back-rest, with his arms folded across his chest, not touching the handlebars.
I've ridden with my arms crossed on a bicycle, at low speed, on an open road. I can't imagine doing something like that on a 500 - 700 pound motorcycle... (I think it was a Harley... whatever it was, it was huge...).
I've seen a guy riding with another guy standing on the nuts holding the front wheel on, doing about 35 or 40, (at least they weren't doing this idiocy on the freeway!) which I figured there was a guy with a camera somewhere filming this, and these idiots were hoping to get put in the next Jackass movie, or maybe end up in Faces of Death... no helmets, of course... why would anyone need one of them, surrounded by cars on either side going 80 mph...
Anyway, I'm sorry to hear about their injuries, but I do wonder if the motorcyclist couldn't have done something to avoid it, by watching out for the distracted driver... (you can usually see them coming up behind you, they're the cars that are
Personal responsibility
In other words, arbitrary standards.
Only if you are Catholic.
Kid-proof tablet..
Oh. And I almost forgot:
And if you ARE Catholic, then you simply go to confession sometime afterward, and it's all cool.
Morally, at least. As so-defined.
YMMV (my own mileage certainly does vary).
Kid-proof tablet..
There are two douchebags in this case, but they are not the victims of the crime or the merely peripherally involved girlfriend.
The first douchebag is the guy who ploughed into the victims' motorcycle as he texted while driving. The second douchebag is the NJ court which "punished" him with a $775 fine and a few hours community work, but did not even suspend his driver's licence. It has been repeatedly established that texting while driving is more dangerous than driving while impaired by alcohol. He should have received rather more than this slap on the wrist, and the victims of his crime apparently plan to appeal his light sentence.
In Finland and various other countries, and in several states of the US, the law is you stop your car to talk or text on any communication device. You may get fined if observed talking or texting on the phone even if your driving is otherwise perfect.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
I don't understand how it is possible that the driver had to pay less thank 1k. In Italy we have penal sanctions that are too low, for this kind of crime, but the civil penalties can run in the hundreds of thousands, in fact you MUST have insurance to drive to cover them just in case. Don't you have compulsory insurance in the USA?
Ander
@=
It should have been "Unexplained Outbreak of Sanity Rocks Court"
I'm not a catholic but catholic confession includes repentance. You must be sorry for your sin etc etc: http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Why_Confession.htm
So it's not "simply go to confession" (but sociopaths do that sort of thing to win favour/votes).
If you don't see the difference, the next time you screw up you can try saying you are sorry to your Significant Other and ensure your SO knows you completely are not sorry at all. And another time try saying it and really mean it and do something about it.
By the way, are you one of those who has Atheism as his religion? Makes you feel good and better than the others? Gives you a sense of belonging to something better? Get rid of religions and people will make new ones, or convert stuff into a religion (look at the PETA, greenpeace bunch).
I used to regularly get calls from work when they knew I was driving. Took them a fair while to stop despite me not answering. I presume some others are a little less willing to reject a call from the boss.
Given the right circumstances, eg: traveling at 10km/h in peak hour, stopped at lights or on a motorway with no other traffic in sight I have taken calls but people get all bent out of shape when you hang up on them when the conditions change. Most people ramble on the phone too much for it to not be a serious distraction.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
and 50 hours community service
I hope that is cleaning all the bathrooms in Grand Central Station with his tongue.
thanks - clear summary without a political rant!
cheers :-)