Slashdot Mirror
NJ Court: Sending a Text Message To a Driver Could Make You Liable For Crash
C0R1D4N writes "A New Jersey Appeals Court has ruled that both sides of a texting conversation which resulted in a car accident could be held liable. The ruling came as part of a case in which the driver of a truck received a text message shortly before striking a motorcycle carrying two passengers. The court ruled that while in this case, the person sending the text wasn't liable, they could be if the circumstances were a little different. '...a person sending text messages has a duty not to text someone who is driving if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving.'"
What if I place a phone call to someone I know, or "have a special reason to know", may be driving?
Idiocracy was supposed to be a comedy, not a how to instruction manual.
Would seem that any action that distracts a driver would then be fair game. Called someone you know on their mobile phone? Even the simple act of them having to reach for the phone, or put their bluetooth headset one, or (heck) even press the answer button on their in-dash system could be argued by a lawyer to have caused a distraction. And what's next? Can I be liable simply for waiving at someone from the sidewalk? After all, they may have to turn their head to see who it was that was waiving, and next thing you know.... BLAM! sigh. I sure do love living in NJ at times.
The last time I wrote code, it was Morse
The whole point of text messages is to allow for asynchronous communications with someone. Texting someone while they're driving is one of the best times to do it because it means they can get back to you whenever they're done. It's the driver's fault completely for looking at the text. Could you blame Facebook for pushing an update to your phone while you're driving if you looked at it and crashed?
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
You send a text because you know someone is driving, so they can pick it up later rather than answering a voice call.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
There will likely never be a situation where the non-driving texter can be held responsible. Burden of proof will always be on the plaintiff, and proving that the non-driver knew that the driver would read his or her texts while driving will almost always be a legal impossibility. And, in that case, this makes about as much sense as holding a passenger in the car liable if they were being purposefully distracting or disruptive (IMO: perfectly valid).
Thank goodness that our telepathic abilities are so capable that we can all tell from any distance that the other person is driving.
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
Unlike a phone call, a text message has the expectation to be read when the receiver chooses. I send text messages to people I know are driving so the message is there when they stop.
No wonder everybody hates New Jersey.
It's clearly not the fault of the driver for answering the text while driving... Isn't the point of text messaging that you can send it and they can read when convinenent?
Good luck proving that someone knew they were texting a driver.
Are you just driving, or can i send you an SMS ?
That is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. It's up to the driver to not check his or her phone well driving, thats it. It doesn't matter if people are texting you, calling you or even trying to IM you, just don't pick up the phone. This is another example of the pass the buck system of law making. Lets not make any one person responsible for being irresponsible and immature, lets make everyone deal with the fact no one has grown up.
Wouldn't this same logic apply to the thousands of roadside bulletin boards (advertisements) along New Jersey roadways? Some of which are getting extremely out of hand and distracting with full color animated displays...
Beware of the Leopard.
Why not make parents eternally responsible for the actions of their offspring, since everything their children do wrong would never have happened if they had never been born? Is NJ trying to legislate personal accountability out of existence?
The court ruled that while in this case, the person sending the text wasn't liable, they could be if the circumstances were a little different. '...a person sending text messages has a duty not to text someone who is driving if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving.'"
There is no real way for an individual to know if the receiver is driving.
But the cell provider knows - it has GPS data or data of towers being used. Meaning as the person is moving they'd be using different towers.
So, it's up to the cell provider to block texts going people in a moving vehicle.
So, the cell providers are liable and therefore, should be sued for the accident because it's their fault.
I think everyone involved deserves at least a million dollars.
By this logic, you could also be held responsible for an accident after emailing, tweeting or mentioning someone in a Facebook status while they're driving. Come to think of it, phoning someone while they're driving (even if they have handsfree) could be construed as deliberate distraction, as could texting a passenger with important news that might interest the driver. This is bonkers; you can't control how and when someone else uses their phone, nor should you be responsible for their poor choices while driving.
Teenage girls who freak out if a boy doesn't reply in 20 seconds aside, of course.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
For this to happen, we would need to change our whole judicial view point which requires intent (mens rea). Either that, or negligence needs to become so broad that everyone is a criminal all the time. Negligence requires a common sense factor that you knew ahead of time that something could happen. Yelling "Fire" is a great example of the application in a sane system. Unfortunately we have not been sane for quite some time.
Oh, and I guess FCC emergency broadcasts that hit your phone like the recent CA Amber alert would be exempt because those come from "approved" sources.. and you citizen are anything but approved.
Quoting my favorite Philosopher, Socrates: "Justice can not be gained by an unjust system. The two ideas contradict each other."
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Does this mean that liquor companies/distributors/salespeople/bar tenders will now get in trouble if they sell alcoholic beverages to someone that might drive while under the influence of this alcohol?
(In most state, the driver is not legally allowed to view texts sent to him. It's the drivers fault for reading the text/drinking the alcohol.)
T-Mobile (my provider) just sent me a free ads text message while I was driving, can I sue them for attempting my murder?
Is it just me, or are things getting to the point where nary a day goes by without some headline causing us to check and make sure it's not April Fool's?
I swear, I've never seen policies as ridiculous as what's coming out nowadays. Even Caligula would balk at some of this shite.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Being in New Jersey can make you liable for being in New Jersey
I use textsecure on my phone, and I have now and will continue to maintain that texting CAN be done safely while driving, and that most of the problem with it is based on strawman arguments based on how long a person COULD spend or how long average people spend staring at the phone rather than watching the road.
In no way, of course, would I say that all drivers who text do so safely or even that the majority do, just that nobody has yet shown that it has to be unsafe, or even that it is a significant issue that rises so far above the background as to be worth solving.
That said.... two things stopped me from texting. The first was getting a smart phone....boy are touch screens hard to use without looking at them! However, I have a droid2, which has a physical keypad, basically requires two hands to use.
So this is where textsecure comes in. To read a text message, I have to decrypt my text messages. That means entering a password which requires special chars and capitals, which makes typing it a bit cumbersome. Putting in my password while driving is hard enough that I gave up shortly after setting it up.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Driver: "Yo, dude, I'm headed your way. In my car. Driving it myself. Alone. Tell me where you're at so I can pick you up".
Non-driver: I'd better not send a response since I know my friend is driving and sending a text might be a distraction.
Driver sends multiple texts to non-driver:
Driver: "C'mon man, answer me!"
Driver: "Why don't you ANSWER!!!?"
Driver: "WTF!!!! I will spam u with texts until you tell me where you are!!!".
Driver: "U R M8king me crzy!!! Answer!!!".
Driver: Runs over child at school crossing
Lawyer to non-driver: "Why didn't you respond? You clearly knew Driver would continue to text while driving until you responded. If only you had responded, the driver would have put down the phone and driven safely to your location. You are responsible for the accident because you did not take sufficient measures to ensure the driver would stop texting!"
Non-driver: "FML."
Don't worry. I'm sure that any ignorance in the judicial branch will be swiftly rectified by the legislative branch. Right?
...why not make the phone companies liable for transmitting the text to you while you are in a moving car. It's not like they don't already know where you are at all times.
So if I send a text saying
"Call me when you get to [destination]" or "Call me when you're not driving"
what's my liability there?
It wouldn't be unheard of for me to be on a text group with 4 friends where we are all calling each other gay (not that there is anything wrong with that), then to have my wife text and ask if I have left work yet, and me say yes I'm driving to the store now brb. She'll text back with ok get A,B,C... and then for me to tell my friends I'm driving to get them tampons at the store. They keep texting in the group thread with each other. Mean while I'm only texting at red lights, but I happen to drive into bus full of nuns and kids and puppies while looking at a provocative billboard. Now everyone I care about goes to jail?
"Two words Mr. President, plausible deniability" - Independence day
Plead the fifth on this nonsense. At what point did we decide that liability through transitivity is a good idea. The implications for such a law are unbelievable and the slippery slope thereafter would be a floodgate for frivolous law suits galore. Right up there with 'the devil made me do it'.
I live in Iowa and will never visit New Jersey having seen who lives there from what I believe to be the most accurate documentary of common NJ life. This judge's statement is no surprise at all. NJ residents are kind of dumb.
The more people that are liable the more lawyers you need to defend them.
It's not just teen guidos/guidettes clowning on tv, it's the whole state.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
I hope it is... please let it be a joke....
If I'm going to do the time, might as well do the crime...
If my text messages sent to a driver may cause me to be liable for the crash, then I guess I'll just have to hack the car's Android API and drive it remotely while they answer my text messages.
The person sending it has no way of knowing what the recepient is doing, and the recepient is responsible for his/her own actions. Either have the common sense to keep the phone turned off, or at least to not answer it.
So if I send a message at 2:15 PM, and the recipient has his or her phone off for a while, but then has the brilliant idea to turn it back on at 3:30 PM while driving on the highway and starts using the phone and reads the message, then I'm at fault for the idiot's unsafe driving behavior a full hour and fifteen minutes before it happened? Just the idea of this is beyond fucked up. Here's an idea: Nail the idiots that drive with questionable habits. Not the people who not only aren't with them, but may not even know what they're even doing at a specific point in time to begin with.
That most judges are also lawyers.
So the are just as fucked in the head and share the same vested interest in destroying life for the rest of us as do normal lawyers.
The recipient of a gunshot would could be held liable for their own harm due to their knowledge that a bullet would harm/kill them. Extrapolation is fun.
I just changed my Facebook status to "Driving. Don't text me, or call me, or carrier pigeon me, or think of me (making my ears burn) or I'll crash into something and you will be liable."
In other news, traffic reporters held liable for distracting drivers on busy roads.
It's not binding precedent.
Here's you chance to write an app that postpones texts until the GPS says you've stopped for more than a couple minutes. Implementation details are left as an exercise to the reader.
If you know the guy's driving and you purposefully distract him and accident is caused as a result . . . you ought to have to share the burden of paying for the harm you caused along with the driver.
The standard first sentence of each text message will become: "I know you're not driving."
So will the law extend to radio stations with shock jocks or passengers in the car? Or even better yet phone calls?
Paul: Father... father, the sleeper has awakened! - Dune
Would seem that any action that distracts a driver would then be fair game.
Yes. If and only if, your actions were negligent (or worse) in doing so. Negligence requires that your actions be a proximate cause of the harm and that the results be reasonably foreseeable.
In the hypothetical laid out by the judge, if you knew the person (a) was a driving AND (b) had a propensity to recklessly respond to messages, then you in fact would bear some responsibility for calling someone with those properties in spite of the known risk in doing so. That is, unless the cost of not contacting the driver was greater than the cost of the harm times the risk of it occurring or unless some affirmative defense like necessity applies. Etc. Etc.
There's nothing especially controversial from a legal standpoint about the argument he's making -- it's a straightforward application of the criteria for negligence.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
A Federal ban on Text Messages
Not only woild this mean safer driving, it would also improve workplace productivity, education, and dining at restaurants.
And save the NSA some mponey too.
So it's only a crime if you're psychic?
Finally! An end to telemarketing!
Does that mean the state could be held liable if they send amber alerts to someone driving?
This is just more proof that America has lost its collective mind. When did personal RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY become anathema? Seriously, this is just a bloody joke. Why not just say the person texting and driving was a victim not only of the TEXTER but also the Telecom who passed the text along. Shouldn't they also be liable in this case on this basis? Everyone in America is a victim nowadays.
I've had 6 surgeries due to RA in the last 4 years. I should probably sue my parents for passing on bad genes. When will this stupidity end?
Pax Vobiscum
So, when my Garmin GPS loudly announces "please drive the highlighted route" and I take my eyes off the road to look at the screen to see what route might be highlighted and in doing so drive into a tree, is my GPS liable for the damage?
Can I sue Garmin for distracting me while driving? After all, they know have reason to know that I'll look away from the road. Sounds like in NJ, a weasle of a lawyer can get Garmin to buy me a new car.
There will likely never be a situation where the non-driving texter can be held responsible. Burden of proof will always be on the plaintiff, and proving that the non-driver knew that the driver would read his or her texts while driving will almost always be a legal impossibility.
You're right, if there's only a single message involved before the accident.
You're very, very wrong if a conservation develops between the two parties. Then the only burden involved is showing that the one party knew the other was driving at the time, which may be easy to tell from the conversation itself or from other evidence (knowing the other's schedule, having sent the driver to grocery store, the driver is on their way to the other party, etc.). If they did know that, and they receive a reply, then they have prima facie evidence that any further messages create a hazard.
Oh, and there's the question of whether or not this is an acknowledged habit, which could be picked up by subpoenaing other conversations between the two.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Ones with honking horns or police sirens are quite dangerous.
If I text someone, and I have no idea where they are or what they are in the middle of doing ... how the hell can I be liable for whatever the recipient did thereafter?
Nothing about me texting you compels you to read the damned thing while you're driving. One of the nice things about text messages is you can ignore it for a little bit because it's not real time -- that the recipient chose to do something stupid is entirely their own problem.
Increasingly, I am convinced that judges in the US don't have the barest grasp of logic.
Can we extend this to say that gun makers/auto makers are liable if they allow a gun/car to come into the hands of someone with a temper or any history of bad judgement? Because this is basically saying you're now responsible for the actions of anybody you could reasonably conclude does stupid things.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
It's clearly not the fault of the driver for answering the text while driving
I'm not sure they are excusing the driver for being an idiot, they are just saying that there was an idiot accomplice who contributed to the crash.
Isn't the point of text messaging that you can send it and they can read when convinenent?
No, the purpose of text messaging - at least in the US - is to maximize the profitability of the cellular networks. Even if you have an "unlimited texting plan" on your cell phone you are saving your cell phone company bucketloads of money every time you send a text rather than making a phone call, regardless of how quickly you can read and write messages.
That said, the people who send the most messages - and are most likely to get in a car accident while dealing with them - don't wait until it's "convenient".
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
How can you prove that you didn't know someone you sent a text message to was driving or not, or that they'd read it while driving? If allowed to stand then nobody would be able to text anyone, ever, for fear of being guilty of potentially causing an accident. Rediculous.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Does this mean I won't be receiving Amber Alert messages on my cellphone anymore? Because they are sending it to all cellphones, they know for certain some people will receive the text while driving.
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
Can we not also hold the service providers liable for delivering text messages to people that are likely to look at them while driving?
It's clearly not the fault of the driver for answering the text while driving...
The judge doesn't say or even imply that. The sender's liability is merely in addition to the driver's liability, and most juries would probably apportion the majority of the liability on the driver if in a jurisdiction in which they don't simply have joint liability.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The "texter" is sending a message. how can this person know if the recipient of said text is driving? It's like sending an e-mail. You are sending the e-mail or the text message but have NO expectations of instant feedback. This is bogus to try to put the blame on the sender..
Responsibility on reading any form of transmission should rest squarely on the shoulders of the person reading said transmission.
Whatever happened to personal accountability?
And for example, let's say the recipient does inform the sender that they are driving.. Then what? even if the sender keeps on sending messages, all the recipient has to do is drive, and ignore the device. Surely when you are in a safe area, you can then look at the stupid messages.
Again, we can't be in control of others, but should always be in control of ourselves.
The premise for these laws are utterly ridiculous.
What a serious waste of tax payers monies.
Just claim you assume the driver pulls over before reading any text message.
Does this mean that liquor companies/distributors/salespeople/bar tenders will now get in trouble if they sell alcoholic beverages to someone that might drive while under the influence of this alcohol?
Yes. It's called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dram_shop>dram shop liability. It's a little more strict than "might drive while under the influence of alcohol," but in essence, you are not allowed in any state (as far as I am aware) to continue serving people who are visible intoxicated. Some states actually criminalize this as "serving intoxicated people." In most states, this requires the person to be just blatantly hammered first, but not all. Some states also extend dram shop liability to social hosts (e.g. people holding a party).
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I was recently on a wrongful death civil jury over a truck that ran into a boat trailer parked in left lane of divided highway at night (not technically interstate but effectively). you would be amazed at how stupid some jurors are - plantiff's expert witness is an LPE & civil engineering professor, state patrol's accident reconstruction experts say same thing as plaintiff, defense brings in a retired cop who used to work accidents (but wasn't on reconstruction team) who says a bunch of obvious BS (to anyone who passed high school physics) & we had people seriously saying: "well, gee, how do we decide who's credible?". some of these morons actually believed the lights on a boat trailer could work with a torn ground wire!
bottom line, I agree in principle that you shouldn't text someone you know is driving but I DAMN SURE don't trust a bunch of Joe six-packs (or cops for that matter) to decide if I knew...
that the US is always number one, but especially in "most idiotic courts in the solarsystem", well, congrats, you're number one...
overly attached girlfriend sends you a text message, you don't answer because you are driving. she gets changes with 217 counts of distracting the driver with text messages.
If someone sends me a text while they know I'm sleeping and know I have to drive to work in the morning can they be held liable when I get into my car and allide with a stationary lamp post due to lack of sleep caused by the text messages?
One of the fucked up things about this country is number of lawyers and their illogical influence on production and interpretation of law having the effect of reinforcing gainful employment of lawyers. Last I remember US has something on order of half the worlds lawyers yet carries only 5% of its population.
In an environment where everyone can be blaimed for the stupidity of others or actions beyond their control then everyone is guilty of something which seems to me to be the goal. The more common sense is thrown out the window the more productivity and society suffers.
God help us all if Kevin Bacon ever gets hauled into court.
where the sender also feels the impact of the collision that he caused, airbags or not.
Why should Darwinian evolution be applied only on one end?
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
What the GP roughly paraphrases (but gets key details of wrong), is the basic principles of felony murder. The doctrine of felony murder simply holds that if someone dies while you are in the process of committing an inherently dangerous felony (i.e. a violent one), whether that death is deliberate or accidental, you are guilty of murder for that death. In this case, what hurts you because of your friend's felony murder is that the doctrine extends to all co-conspirators in the original felony.
It's a highly controversial doctrine, because in many states, it carries the death penalty, and it requires no intent to kill, and it requires little to no foreseeability or only tenuous causation. A more extreme example would be that you would be guilty of felony murder if someone got scared and had a heart attack during the robbery.
Knowledge of the gun has absolutely nothing to do with it -- just willing participation in a conspiracy to commit or in the commission of a dangerous felony.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I do this all the time.
I don't expect them to read them until they get where they are going.
But I send info that is pertinent to what is going on or necessary.
When they stop, they can get the message I sent and respond if they need to.
And every sign on the road.
If the signs are there to get the attention of drivers how is this different than a text message?
So I guess government agencies will be responsible for the accidents when they send Amber/weather/disaster alerts to the entire population of a region simultaneously? Yeah, right. If you're sending an alert to as many as ten million people simultaneously (NYC mobile phone users?) there is definitely a reasonable assumption that at least some portion of them are driving when they receive it. And on my handset at least those things are LOUD (I've since disabled most of them) This ruling is stupid beyond description.
Wait a minute how did the rider of the motorcycle get two other people on it. I thought most motorcycles only sat 2 and unless a large bike uncomfortably at that.
By this argument, the NSA is responsible for all car accidents during their SMS related snooping.
You can't police free will that way and expect everyone to blindly comply. Who does NJ think they are? The NSA?
Quoting my favorite Philosopher, Socrates: "Justice can not be gained by an unjust system. The two ideas contradict each other."
Just != unjust. No shit.
Note: I am not a lawyer, and this should not constitute legal advice.
Supposedly, A knows that B is driving but doesn't expect B to be distracted when A texts B. So A texts B and B responds (regardless who starts the texting session). During their texting session (while B is still driving and A knows that B is driving but believe that B is not being distracted by the text), B was texting back and rear end another car in front at the same time (and may cause a lot of damage).
In this scenario, if B has responded and A continues to text, then A knows enough to theoretically be liable. The core question that will come down to the jury is whether or not a reasonable person in possession of all the same facts would believe that their actions would distract B or whether that distraction was unforeseeable. The reasonable person standard is an objective one; it ignores whether A subjectively believed B shouldn't be distracted in favor of whether or not is was reasonable to do so.
Personally, I think it would be hard to get a jury to rule that it was reasonable to expect that a person could carry on a safe conversation while driving (especially in the face of evidence that would slant perception of the actual risks in the other direction in the form of the crash).
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Well, it recently was revealed that some lenders will not lend to people who have too many internet social media emails, etc., with other people who have a bad credit rating.
I guess the powers that be want to reward the tiny who live in Stepford Wives irreality.
Course, the judge in this case in an idiot....
This NJ court is nuts. Sending a text message is quite innocuous and quite safe. What is not safe if the idiot behind the wheel to check the message without first pulling off the road or waiting for the next traffic light to read the message. After all, the phone stores the message! I hope this decision is appealed.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
And what about the one who encouraged them? Where does this end?
And teens are both the biggest texters and the worst drivers.
So, tell me, if I know someone is a bad driver, and you dont actively stop them from driving, and they hitkill someone, are you responsible?
No, that's covered under the "duty of care" requirement of negligence. There is a strong legal distinction between pushing someone off a cliff, selling them a cheap rope that breaks and causes them to fall, and walking away if they're clinging to the edge.
You have no duty to take positive action to stop someone else from doing something that may cause themselves or others harm. You are, in common law jurisdictions, generally not required to save someone from drowning, for example. That is quite different from the duty not to take an action that causes them to harm or be harmed, which is what negligence is about.
The basics of the tort of negligence are pretty accessible to the layman compared to other areas of the law. I recommend starting with the Wikipedia article I linked above and go from there, reading each of the subsections they present. Learning negligence law and applying it before taking an action may save you a lot of money in the long run as well as simply teach basic mindfulness towards others.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
>> What if I place a phone call to someone I know, or "have a special reason to know", may be sneezing... http://what-if.xkcd.com/55/
Whats next? Making witchcraft & sorcery illegal?
Oh, wait...
What?
Ah... that's my fault, that bit belongs to the Saudi's and their great thinkers...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18503550
But this is about as stupid isn't it?
rm -rf --no-preserve-root /
Carriers have every ability to know when a cell phone is in motion, and to disable text messaging features.
The carriers should be held liable for crashes that are caused by texting services.
I'm sorry, but this is the height of stupidity.
I get texts and emails all the time when I'm driving. My phone makes a sound when that happens. I'll bet yours does, too. I don't have to take my eyes off of the road to be aware of this.
If I know there's an ongoing issue I find a shoulder and pull over. Otherwise I answer when I stop for gas or biology. Several in short succession means somebody has found a *new* issue and is freaking out. Pull over & talk to them.
WTF is so difficult about this? I've completed plenty of 12 hour trips in 14 hours because I accumulated a couple of hours parked emailing or texting (mostly email). If people can't wait until you're done driving for an answer, simply allow for that when you plan your trip.
FB does have reasonable knowledge if you are driving. Since most cars are operated with only one person inside (statistically), and FB is location aware, it can tell when you are moving at reasonable velocity along a road. The statistics are in favor of you driving during that time. The ignore the likelihood would clearly be reckless endangerment on the part of Facebook. In fact, they should be liable for damages not just to the person you hit, but to you as well.
Hey - you know some lawyer is going to try this angle at some point.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Any idiot can make up a scenario were doing X is illegal and another scenario were not doing X is illegal.
The word you're looking for is "lawyer"
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
If people were solely responsible for their own actions, then all offences of the form "inciting x" couldn't be an offence because the people involved chose to do it.
It also means that police entrapment wouldn't be a defence, because the person could have refused to do it.
It would likely also mean that nobody could claim provocation as a defence.
Neither of them has NEARLY as much money as the phone company, who with location data can tell the owner of the phone is on a road going REALLY fast! There's absolutely no technical reason they couldn't disable text messaging to or from that phone that's in a moving vehicle! If you already feel that someone who knows that person's driving can be held liable then the obvious next step is to sue the phone company that knew he was in a moving vehicle, for TEN MILLION DOLLARS!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The problem is 90-95% of people are that stupid.
Over 80% of people are inadequate drivers with ANY kind of distraction. Driving requires all your attention at all times, within the limits of human capabilities.
Most people I know and observe are stupid enough to text and/or have voice conversations while driving. (Hands-free might be slightly better than hands-on, but is still too distracting, under the vast majority of circumstances for the vast majority of drivers.)
There are only two solutions.
1) Ban ALL texting. because sooner or later 90-95% of people will text while driving. Ban drivers from all voice calls.
2) Nuke them from orbit. Option number two is the only way to be sure.
The article states:
Drivers in New Jersey were left stunned, after state Appeals Court judges found that when a driver is texting and causes an accident, the recipient of the texts can also be held liable for negligence.
Highlighting is mine. This makes the ruling even more stupid. If I read a TXT at home while watching TV I have no way to "reasonably know" if the sender is driving a vehicle or not. What if I don't ever read the message, am I still guilty just because I received it?
Oh, and I guess FCC emergency broadcasts that hit your phone like the recent CA Amber alert would be exempt because those come from "approved" sources.. and you citizen are anything but approved.
Once you explain how the official who issued the amber alert would know that you are driving and would read the message while doing so, your logic makes perfect sense.
Agreed. If allergies are that bad then you already need to be on guard at all times as any surface in a public place could contain trace amounts of peanuts which could in turn be transferred to the counters at work.
News flash: The world won't end if you're banned from bringing an allergen to work. Peanut butter and perfume are not required to sustain life. Bringing them to a workplace when they are a known danger to your coworkers makes you an ass at best, and a callous murderous pig at worst. Consume peanut butter on your own time, and wear anti-stink that doesn't kill your colleagues. Not hard. It amazes me what people are willing to give up and put up with in the name of public safety but then at the mere mention that they should help keep someone safe by giving up food or their favourite noxious petrolchemical smell they fly off the handle suggesting you're violating their rights. Get some perspective! Try living with someone that has such allergies and worrying every day you might not see them because they or some selfish idiot makes a mistake that costs them their life.
Wait, since the NSA is monitoring all messages, and they also know where you are and what you are doing, and have the resources, since they don't have to fill out wiretapping forms anymore, it's ALL their fault!!!!
Like a ruling that someone would be able to know the person they are texting is driving a vehicle on a public roadway.. God it just keeps getting better. WTF?
adn the nsa is then liable for not preventing you from recieving it and sending a police car and a terrorist squad for your actions...
ya
caus eya know...they know it all
Stupid fucking morons.
The driver is solely responsible for choosing when to read / send text messages.
Period. End of the discussion.
Hey you, yeah you - you know who you are, you stupid fucking judges who came up with this pathetic excuse for a decision.
People are responsible for their own actions. They make choices, no one is in the car with a gun to their head telling them to read / answer the text while driving.
Sheesh..
But let's play with this a bit shall we? I mean you did after all open this door, so let's just see what we can slide through.
Bar sells alcohol, they are now equally responsible for murder if the drunk driver kills someone. Check!
Judge doesn't lock up a killer, who then subsequently kills again - ooof - poor idiot judge - you are now equally responsible for the murder. Check!
Cop turns on siren to pull someone over, person panics, guns it, crashes into 10 other vehicles, killing 5 people - cop equally responsible for 5 murders... Check!
Hmmm - go ahead and play that game, I'll enjoy watching all the cops and judges being sent to prison for murder. (Grabs more popcorn to enjoy the show!)
--I'm driving, please don't text me or I'll have to read it and crash and send you to jail.
NJ People: Making a ridiculous Ruling could make you liable for people laughing till they drop dead.
When you send a text message you have no guarantee of delivery time. In many cases it will reach the recipient in just a few seconds but you do not know that for sure. It could get there immediately, after an hour, after two days, who knows. I have had messages take longer than one week to arrive.
So the sender cannot know if the message will get delivered at the same time that the recipient is driving.
"Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9194523
tl;dr - Woman gets drunk, drives, then winds up killing some people. For some reason the state charged the guy who bought her some of the drinks. /facepalm
How about we just stick to holding people accountable for their actions instead of shifting the blame to others, mmmkay?
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
A friend of mine has an app on her iPhone that will convert what she says on the phone's mic to text. Why then can't the text message be converted back, so that the receiver can receive the text in the form of a voice-text?
Shit in this scenario, if the sender knew the driver was on the road, then a bit more care in what is written so the text could be converted would simplify the entire argument.
Sadly, I know the response to this, the sender just doesn't give a shit. Many people don't know how to write proper English anymore, so why would they try to be more concise for a text to voice message.
Hell for that matter, just go back to CB radio then...
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
Omg, think about cab drivers. They'll never receive texts/calls from their loved ones. :(
If somebody decides to bath in perfume then i will track down some selenophenol and start spraying that near them.
hint folks if i can smell you when i am 15 meters away YOU HAVE TO MUCH STINK ON.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
First Mt. Laurel and Abbot decisions, then, massive property taxes, and now this. What was once the Garden State is turning itself into a wasteland.
This is my sig.
Oh, I forgot...I'm supposed to know where everyone is at all times.
I'd enjoy taking a baseball bat and showing some tough love to the idiots that thought up this STUPID law.
But then they'd probably pass a law making it illegal to think...not that they do anyway.
This is a classic case of spreading as much responsibility over as many parties as the sheeple will permit. People must remember that they are dealing with a state that is the worst of all ideologies amassed into one jurisdiction. Individuals and corporations are taxed and regulated as in a welfare state, but when it comes time to receive the benefits of said welfare state, they are given some Darwininan yet obfuscated answer as to why they are not eligible. The only matter going for New Jersey is that they do not retest senior citizens for driving and they allow passenger plates on cargo vans and pickup trucks.
This argument would be more valid if it was a phone call. Phone call need or desire am immediate response or as soon as possible. If you don't require a response or you don't need to an immediate response texting is the most appropriate method. If the message needs to be received and or responded within 6 hr time frame, use a text message. 24 hours or more use an e-mail. You respond to a text at the at the first convenient moment. Driving is not is not that kind of moments. If you need to get a message to someone and you know he's driving a text message is the most appropriate and responsible method to use. If you receive a text while driving, responding to it when you stop for food, gas, a rest stop, or when arrive at your destination is a perfectly socially except able response. If you stupid enough to put your self and others at risk by immediately responding to a message that doesn't demand an immediate response, you are solely responsible. If some one is texting you with the expectation of an immediate response. You need to tell them they're wrong.
This is abject lunacy ! The only person who knows, absolutely and irrefutable if they are driving is the driver! This is just another decision to remove responsibility from the right person ( the perpetrator) and put it on someone else ( society) Personal responsibility is an anathema to liberals.
A lot of these issues could be fixed with some proper driver training. We need to stop using laws to try to scare people into responsibility.
Also a decent public transportation system so people who are incapable of driving can have other ways to make a living and get around.
...where intelligence and common sense are against the law
When you press send you have no way of knowing if the Person is in a car or not, If they enforced it, you wouldn't dare text as you have no idea as to the disposition of the recipient.
So we're gonna need a driving mode for mobile devices now?
What if it's a 13-year old who sends the text. We gonna try him as an adult for murder? Oy!
Taking personal responsibility doesn't un paralyze someone when you hit them with your car and break their neck that one time you do screw up because you were looking at a text message. That is why certain things are banned, because they statistically increase the chance of an accident,
No, the reason certain things are banned is because it makes a great source of revenue for certain assholes. The explanation of "saving lives" or whatever is nothing more than a bullshit excuse used to sell it to useful idiots, such as yourself.
which can have consequences that can be undone with money from a lawsuit or "my bad" when someone like you misjudges there ability.
So the ASSumption you are making here is that I am prone to "misjudge my ability"? Sorry mother fucker, I don't think you understand what country you live in. This is the United States of America and I don't need a nanny to look over my shoulder and protect me from harm. I will shoot you in the face before I bow down to your tyranny, you fucking fascist. I know myself and my own abilities far better than you possibly ever could.
Your argument is the same lame ass argument I hear when people talk about .08 BAC being too low for a DUI because "They can drive just fine" when at .08
Only a dumb ass would say that argument doesn't make sense. There are people who can drive just fine with a .08 BAC. It's an arbitrary number that someone pulled out of their ass and it results in far more harm than it solves. Only idiots like you believe the "War on Drunk Driving" is solving anything.
Texting while driving is always more dangerous than not.
Wrong.
Driving is full of risks, but this risk is completely avoidable.
Driving is full of risks, but you aren't willing to accept those risks, because you're a fucking coward who doesn't understand that not wanting to accept the risk doesn't mean you won't be exposed to it anyway. It's up to each of us to protect ourselves on the roadway. Suing some dude because his friend was a dumb ass that checked his text message at the wrong moment isn't doing a damn thing you make you safer, coward. All it's doing is destroying the remnants of what once made this country great: personal responsibility.
This is an argument for the idea that an individual's presence can be expanded to to suit the statist agenda to spread liability as far as the courts can get away with.
--
Another fine opinion from The Fucking Psychopath®.