So you send your BF a text message...

[Citizen]

What a bunch of baloney that is. Protecting our young is not important? Authoritarian police state?? you have got to be kidding.

Thats exactly how it comes about.

 

[lilly]

She knew he was driving. She knew the time he'd be in the car coming home from work.

Citizen, I have said many times, I am talking about the New Jersey case only.

 

[Friday13]

It's a matter of choice, lilly, and HE made the choice to look at the text, no one forced him to do that. If she is held responsible, then anyone, anywhere, any time who sends a text could be held responsible for the irresponsible actions of the person who reads it when he should be paying attention to driving. He was driving and made the wrong choice.

Would the map maker be responsible for the young man's actions if he chose to read a map while driving? Would the razor manufacturer be responsible if he chose to shave while driving? Would the vendor be responsible if he chose to eat while driving?

People do all these things every day...distracted driving. It's all about choices. Personally, I shut my cel fon off when I'm driving.

 

[Friday13]

If I happen to phone him while he is driving, it is his responsibility to allow it to go to voicemail, as I do, and then check his messages when he is in a safe condition to do so.

Thanx, Haps! You said it all much better than I did.

 

[Friday13]

That's where it's headed if these people are allowed to sue the young woman.

 

[Friday13]

The driver is in control of the vehicle, no one else but the driver.

It's all about choices, Craig, and the driver made the wrong choice. Do you remember the train wreck a few years ago where the engineer was texting/reading a text and didn't see the signal? Many people died that time. The engineer made the wrong choice.

Trains and text messages made a deadly combination when two locomotives collided head-on last year near Los Angeles, California, witnesses told an investigative panel this week.

Metrolink commuter train engineer Robert Sanchez missed a stop signal while trading text messages with a friend on September 12, leading to a collision with a Union Pacific freight train that killed Sanchez and 24 other people in Chatsworth, California.

The accident injured 101 people and caused $10.6 million in damages, according to a report by federal investigators.

Source - 2009

 

[Dino]

The judge will not rule against Shannon. If he or she does, they'll be removed from the bench within months.

This is a broad-swinging lawsuit with no chance of finding the female liable.

 

[Friday13]

Now that's not a bad idea...

Perhaps we should require an IQ test as a prerequisite for receiving a drivers license?

 

[Friday13]

But I have been talking only about the New Jersey case that OP started. Of course I'd be at fault if I live in NJ because I have sent a text that is unlawful and put the other in an unlawful position by answering it.

It's illegal to send or read a text while driving...if the young lady was not driving, she did nothing illegal by sending the text. The young man did something illegal by reading it while driving. He made a bad choice, and is the only one responsible for that choice.

 

[Friday13]

62 times 'that day'. Some young people text hundreds of times a day. It was still his choice alone to think that texting was more important than driving. No one forced him to answer ANY text. His decision, his responsibility. I never even read text messages...if someone has something to tell me, they have a voice.

 

[lilly]

62 times 'that day'. Some young people text hundreds of times a day. It was still his choice alone to think that texting was more important than driving. No one forced him to answer ANY text. His decision, his responsibility. I never even read text messages...if someone has something to tell me, they have a voice.

So you all are saying it is ok for her to break the law. She knew he was driving (she admitted that herself) and when she sent the text she broke the law and more importantly even than that put him in a position to do the same. You say he should not have to open the text and I agree but she should not have sent it.

Friday, I have to agree someone texting 62 times is not many but it is many when one is in a car and against the law. The law in New Jersey was set up to save lives, and they made a mockery of it......This law was also set up to save teenagers not having to face the rest of their life knowing they had killed someone. It benefits everyone!!

 

[Friday13]

I understand what you're saying, lilly, but she did not break the law... she was not driving, and what is illegal is texting while driving. It doesn't matter that she knew or didn't know he was driving. No one held a gun to his head and forced him to pick up that phone. He made a very bad decision, and he alone is responsible for making that decision and the consequences thereof.

We have a ban on texting while driving here in CA, too, yet I see people texting every day. The laws were put in place to prevent distracted drivers from victimizing others thru their thoughtless, irresponsible and dangerous actions. The only way that I can see to stop it is to put some type of device in every car that prevents cel fon transmission when the vehicle is in operation.

 

[lilly]

I understand what you're saying, lilly, but she did not break the law... she was not driving, and what is illegal is texting while driving. It doesn't matter that she knew or didn't know he was driving. No one held a gun to his head and forced him to pick up that phone. He made a very bad decision, and he alone is responsible for making that decision and the consequences thereof.

We have a ban on texting while driving here in CA, too, yet I see people texting every day. The laws were put in place to prevent distracted drivers from victimizing others thru their thoughtless, irresponsible and dangerous actions. The only way that I can see to stop it is to put some type of device in every car that prevents cel fon transmission when the vehicle is in operation.

I too understand what you are saying Friday but that is the crux of the problem and is part of what the law suit is about, that hopefully people will be held responsible when they knew they were endangering a life as well.

I am saying what is out there so far is not working and since that is the case, we need stronger laws. Depending on the outcome of this case there may be stronger laws some day.

Really I am not living in a dream world expecting accidents to never happen but if we don't stop some of this technology been used while driving expecially something that takes our eyes off the road for such a long period of time we will just say yes to anything. I think your idea to put a device in a car that would pick up on texting would be a good one, they improved the safety of talking on a phone in a car, why not this.

If people were interested in their responsibility while driving they would not have to have laws.

If you can be sued for doing or not doing something, it will wake people up.

 

[happyatheist]

It's a matter of choice, lilly, and HE made the choice to look at the text, no one forced him to do that. If she is held responsible, then anyone, anywhere, any time who sends a text could be held responsible for the irresponsible actions of the person who reads it when he should be paying attention to driving. He was driving and made the wrong choice.

Would the map maker be responsible for the young man's actions if he chose to read a map while driving? Would the razor manufacturer be responsible if he chose to shave while driving? Would the vendor be responsible if he chose to eat while driving?

People do all these things every day...distracted driving. It's all about choices. Personally, I shut my cel fon off when I'm driving.

The only exception I think that should be allowed for is if a person actually does know that the recipient of their call/text is driving, AND, the caller/texter is purposely attempting to harrass or instigate a confrontation in order to cause the other to engage in conversing/texting while driving in order to cause the driver harm.

While intent would have to be clearly established in order to bring charges, I am sure there are instances where this sort of thing is done. (My ex-comes to mind. He has a habit of calling to harrass me. When he does not get me on my home phone land line, he expressly calls on my cell phone, with full knowledge that I only use my cell phone while away from home - either while at work or traveling - and that there is a high likelihood that I could be driving when he calls.)

 

[lilly]

The only exception I think that should be allowed for is if a person actually does know that the recipient of their call/text is driving, AND, the caller/texter is purposely attempting to harrass or instigate a confrontation in order to cause the other to engage in conversing/texting while driving in order to cause the driver harm.

While intent would have to be clearly established in order to bring charges, I am sure there are instances where this sort of thing is done. (My ex-comes to mind. He has a habit of calling to harrass me. When he does not get me on my home phone land line, he expressly calls on my cell phone, with full knowledge that I only use my cell phone while away from home - either while at work or traveling - and that there is a high likelihood that I could be driving when he calls.)

That's exactly where I am at H.A. I was talking with my daughter about this last night and she reminded me of something I said when she first starting texting. I asked her if she was driving and she said yes and I didn't reply but when I did that evening, I said I didn't want to be responible for her having an accident and she understood. She did text while driving for awhile but hasn't been for ages.

 

[happyatheist]

That's exactly where I am at H.A. I was talking with my daughter about this last night and she reminded me of something I said when she first starting texting. I asked her if she was driving and she said yes and I didn't reply but when I did that evening, I said I didn't want to be responible for her having an accident and she understood. She did text while driving for awhile but hasn't been for ages.

Yes, but, even if you had texted back (e.g. "no texting while driving!") there would not have been any intent on your part to harass or force a confrontation that would have put her in state of mind to be distracted (quite the contrary, as a matter of fact). As I said, I think the onus would be on a person to prove intent to purposefully distract before any legal action could be taken against someone who calls/texts a person while they happen to be driving.

It would be extremely exceptional circumstances where the person driving would not bear full responsibility for their decision to answer a call or text while driving. A lot of other circumstances, as well as malicious intent, would have to be required before someone other than the driver would be at fault.

 

[lilly]

double post

 

[lilly]

Almost impossible to prove intent, and I didn't read your post correctly. I guess we differ since I feel I should know better than put her in that position.

Geeez, the only thing people would have to do is ask 'are you in a car' but they don't because they don't care if they are in a car and that is the problem.

Tomorrow we will see what the Judge has to say and what he decides. He can't change law but he could recommend it, yet I'm not holding my breath.

 

[BrianDamage]

And he's driving when he gets it.

And he has an accident..

And you get sued...


Text Messengers Await Judge's Decision on Accident Liability

From: NBC

A New Jersey judge is expected to decide Friday whether the sender of a text message can be sued in an accident in which the recipient was distracted by the text.

The civil claim stems from a 2009 traffic accident in Mine Hill, N.J. Linda and David Kubert were riding their motorcycle when a pickup truck driven by Kyle Best, then 18 years old, hit them.

The husband and wife each lost a leg in the accident and are now amputees. They're suing not only Best, but Shannon Colonna as well, the teenager who sent Best text messages while he was behind the wheel.

In this instance, probably yes. In general, it depends. If Colonna had sent Best a single text message, and he had an accident while reading it, no. But she was having a conversation with him. If she knew he was driving, she was aiding and abetting him in the commission of a crime, and should bear half of the responsibility for the accident.

 

[BrianDamage]

The responsibilty for being responsible while operating a motor vehicle lies with the person driving the vehicle. No person is required to look at or answer a text message - ever, let alone while while operating a motor vehicle. And, as has been pointed out, there are laws against doing just that in a good many states already, with legislation pending in others.

Basically, what you're suggesting is that people who make phone calls and send text mesages are required to know what condition and exactly where the intended recipient of their phone call or text message is at the time they attempt to make contact. Which is, without a phone call or text message, absolutely impossible to do, since most people do not actually posess psychic abilities. e.g. if I need to contact my brother, who has no land line, only a cell phone, I could make a reasonably educated guess at what time of day he may be at work (where he actually is required to do a lot of driving), but I have no way of knowing, outside of those hours, what he may happen to be doing at any other given time - picking up his kids, grocery shopping, going out on a date or what have you. He doesn't submit a schedule to me or anyone else regarding his moment by moment activities.

If I happen to phone him while he is driving, it is his responsibility to allow it to go to voicemail, as I do, and then check his messages when he is in a safe condition to do so.

I've got to disagree with you. No such preknowledge is required to avoid being sued. If you call or text your brother while he's driving, and you aren't aware that he's driving, you're in the clear. Now, if, as part of the conversation, he tells you he's driving, you have the choice of hanging up, or not texting back, to preserve your immunity. If you choose to continue talking, or keep responding to his responses, then you've removed your own immunity, by aiding and abetting his breaking the law.