New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

So you send your BF a text message...

Ginnie

Council Member
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.
If they text & ask "are you driving" isn't that texting a driver?

Myself there is no way I could ever support a law that punish's someone for sending a text, unless the content of the text is illegal.
i.e. child porn, threats etc.... things like that, as I know my kids never know when I'm driving & they text me all the time. I never answer the phone or texts when driving, I don't even read texts when I drive. That said, no one should be punished for texting me when I am driving, it is up to me to do the right thing & ignore them while driving.

Otherwise people should be jailed for listening to the radio when driving, as that is a big distraction, along with eating or talking to a passenger or even paying attention to a small child. There are a lot of things that distract a driver just as much as reading a text while driving.
 

Ginnie

Council Member
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.
What if it was a small child in a child seat that distracted him, should the child be held liable?
 

lilly

Council Member
If they text & ask "are you driving" isn't that texting a driver?

Myself there is no way I could ever support a law that punish's someone for sending a text, unless the content of the text is illegal.
i.e. child porn, threats etc.... things like that, as I know my kids never know when I'm driving & they text me all the time. I never answer the phone or texts when driving, I don't even read texts when I drive. That said, no one should be punished for texting me when I am driving, it is up to me to do the right thing & ignore them while driving.

Otherwise people should be jailed for listening to the radio when driving, as that is a big distraction, along with eating or talking to a passenger or even paying attention to a small child. There are a lot of things that distract a driver just as much as reading a text while driving.
Yes Gennie, the one text is texting but it's not 62 .....62 is a conversation. In NJ it is against the law to text and the girl involved in the case has admited that she knew he was driving. You have to remember that texting takes your eyes off the road for a longer time than even before cell phone use was made more safe.

It's a long thread and you may have missed some of it but of course feel as you wish.
 

Ginnie

Council Member
Yes Gennie, the one text is texting but it's not 62 .....62 is a conversation. In NJ it is against the law to text and the girl involved in the case has admited that she knew he was driving. You have to remember that texting takes your eyes off the road for a longer time than even before cell phone use was made more safe.

It's a long thread and you may have missed some of it but of course feel as you wish.
a 2 &1/2 year old or 3 year old knows one is driving to, that doesn't stop them from demanding attention & probably getting it, even if the driver is the only adult in the car.
 

lilly

Council Member
a 2 &1/2 year old or 3 year old knows one is driving to, that doesn't stop them from demanding attention & probably getting it, even if the driver is the only adult in the car.
They are safe in a car seat and if the mother wants to count stars in the sky, it's not thousands of people taking their eyes off the road.

I'm sticking with the New Jersey law suit that was the OP
 
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.
Not necessarily. If you look at a case where 2 people are arguing, say, and one gets in the car to leave, already in an agitated (distracted) state of mind, and, 60 seconds later, the other person calls or texts them to carry on the argument, then, that person knows the other is driving, knows the other is already in an agitated state of mind, and is purposely contacting them while driving, more than likely attempting to provoke them into answering. All you would really need is a witness to the argument... which may not be hard to find if such an altercation takes place outside.

But, the point is, more often than not, on the first point of contact, someone doesn't know whether or not you are driving. Even if the first point of contact expressly inquires. They don't know until you answer (or not). Therefore, it is the driver's responsibility to refuse to answer the call/text if they are, indeed, driving. The burden of responsibility lies with the driver. Furthermore, even if the caller knows the person is driving, it is still the driver's responsibility to end the call because they are the person who is acting illegally and/or irresponsibly. The only time the burden would shift to the caller/texter is if they are knowingly talking to someone who is driving and are doing so either against the wishes of the driver or to purposely distract the driver.

Your prior post did make me laugh, though. When a caller/texter asked the question "are you driving?", the driver responds, "yes" and then the caller/texter hangs up or does not send another text, I wonder in how many cases, the person driving would wonder if they just lost the signal or something happened to the caller/texter and would feel obligated to call them back immediately?

Perhaps a better way to go about this would just be to change the calling/texting etiquette protocol to the first thing a person says is "are you driving?" and a lack of response would signal "yes", so they know to try again later.

Of course, that probably wouldn't do a whole lot for phone communication if every conversation starts out something like... "are you driving?", "No, Im peeing, what you want?"
 

lilly

Council Member
Not necessarily. If you look at a case where 2 people are arguing, say, and one gets in the car to leave, already in an agitated (distracted) state of mind, and, 60 seconds later, the other person calls or texts them to carry on the argument, then, that person knows the other is driving, knows the other is already in an agitated state of mind, and is purposely contacting them while driving, more than likely attempting to provoke them into answering. All you would really need is a witness to the argument... which may not be hard to find if such an altercation takes place outside.

But, the point is, more often than not, on the first point of contact, someone doesn't know whether or not you are driving. Even if the first point of contact expressly inquires. They don't know until you answer (or not). Therefore, it is the driver's responsibility to refuse to answer the call/text if they are, indeed, driving. The burden of responsibility lies with the driver. Furthermore, even if the caller knows the person is driving, it is still the driver's responsibility to end the call because they are the person who is acting illegally and/or irresponsibly. The only time the burden would shift to the caller/texter is if they are knowingly talking to someone who is driving and are doing so either against the wishes of the driver or to purposely distract the driver.

Your prior post did make me laugh, though. When a caller/texter asked the question "are you driving?", the driver responds, "yes" and then the caller/texter hangs up or does not send another text, I wonder in how many cases, the person driving would wonder if they just lost the signal or something happened to the caller/texter and would feel obligated to call them back immediately?

Perhaps a better way to go about this would just be to change the calling/texting etiquette protocol to the first thing a person says is "are you driving?" and a lack of response would signal "yes", so they know to try again later.

Of course, that probably wouldn't do a whole lot for phone communication if every conversation starts out something like... "are you driving?", "No, Im peeing, what you want?"
Well I'm glad I made someone laugh, I'm sure laughing here. it's been a tough road :). I like your etiquette protocol best if the people knew what you were talking about. I assume this would be with friends that you have already written (texted the rules) huh.

Forget the rest of it, you're not going to change my mind, here I thought you were with me for a minute.:confused: Now there has to be a witness to an altercation. :D

I needed that laugh by the way.
 

Friday13

Governor
Possibly, Haps, but it was still HIS decision/choice to leave the phone active and respond. As I said, when I'm driving, I usually shut my phone off...or ignore it, if I forget to shut it off. He was not forced to respond, he chose to do so.
 

BRU

Mayor
Of course I am in agreement with suing the text-er, anything it takes to stop texting and save lives. This is not a frivolous law suit like so many out there, parents will make sure their kids do not text this way. It's not just the young, adults abuse it as well. JUST not in the car, is that too much to ask.
hmmm...so how was the person sending the text supposed to know the recipient was driving? Seriously? When I hear a text notification while I'm driving I WAIT until I'm NOT driving to answer the text. That's my responsibility as the driver, it's not the sender's responsibility. Hell if that's the case we would have to outlaw ALL texting anytime, anywhere.
 

lilly

Council Member
hmmm...so how was the person sending the text supposed to know the recipient was driving? Seriously? When I hear a text notification while I'm driving I WAIT until I'm NOT driving to answer the text. That's my responsibility as the driver, it's not the sender's responsibility. Hell if that's the case we would have to outlaw ALL texting anytime, anywhere.
NO Bru, in the New Jersey case it is against the law to text and the law suit states the girl admitted knowing her BF was in a car, that is quite different.
 
Well I'm glad I made someone laugh, I'm sure laughing here. it's been a tough road :). I like your etiquette protocol best if the people knew what you were talking about. I assume this would be with friends that you have already written (texted the rules) huh.

Forget the rest of it, you're not going to change my mind, here I thought you were with me for a minute.:confused: Now there has to be a witness to an altercation. :D

I needed that laugh by the way.
With you in blaming the caller/texter, who has no idea what the recipient of the call/text may or may not be doing at the time they call/text.? No. As I said, it simply isn't reasonable to blame people for the lack of responsibility on the part of others.

Under your rules, a caller/texter who specifically asks on the first point of contact whether the recipient is driving, and is lied to by the driving recipient, would be as culpable as the irresponsible driver. "Are you driving?", "No." "Blah, blah, blah." Car crash with serious injuries, and all of a sudden someone 1000 miles away who was told they were not talking to a person driving a car is responsible for the crash. No. That's not fair.

As I said, under some fairly stringent requirements for intent, a case could be made that a caller is purposely instigating harm to a driver, but, under normal circumstances, a caller has no way of knowing if a person is driving, and the responsibility for maintaining proper control of a motor vehicle always resides with the driver.
 

lilly

Council Member
I give up Happ of course I don't think a person who doesn't know the person is driving is lible, but in the NJ case she admitted she did know.

All these other things are just ways to make it work if someone tried to stick someone with a law suit when they didn't know the person they texted was driving which I would never want to happen but answered some of it. Probably not very well thought out because I couldn't care less about that!

I wish we could just stay with the NJ case, that is what the OP started and that is what I have been posting about.
 

lilly

Council Member
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=8676564

The Judge made his decision to not hold the sender responsible.

I have to edit.

But Colonna testified at a deposition she didn't know whether Best was driving at the time.
(from the link above)

I based my info from the link I posted that said she knew so now I agree with the decision. I know the Judge had other reasons also but if I knew that was the truth, I could have saved myself alot of typing.
 
Possibly, Haps, but it was still HIS decision/choice to leave the phone active and respond. As I said, when I'm driving, I usually shut my phone off...or ignore it, if I forget to shut it off. He was not forced to respond, he chose to do so.
My point was, more or less, if you already know someone is in an agitated state of mind, possibly a little out of control already, then provoking them is simply pouring fire on an existing flame. People can be held liable for that.
 
I give up Happ of course I don't think a person who doesn't know the person is driving is lible, but in the NJ case she admitted she did know.

All these other things are just ways to make it work if someone tried to stick someone with a law suit when they didn't know the person they texted was driving which I would never want to happen but answered some of it. Probably not very well thought out because I couldn't care less about that!

I wish we could just stay with the NJ case, that is what the OP started and that is what I have been posting about.
I am staying with the NJ case and the link that was posted:

"The attorney for the injured couple, Stephen “Skippy” Weinsten, has argued Colonna was aware Kyle Best was reading her messages while in a moving vehicle because she was aware his work shift at the West Morris Area YMCA had just ended and he would likely be on the road."

It doesn't say that she knew. It says that the lawyer suing her says that she should have known.

There's a big difference between knowing and would have/could have/should have known.

I'm not sure about you, but, often, I have no idea of what the time is when I am calling someone, and even if I do, I certainly do not correlate what time it is back to their daily schedule to figure out where I think they might be right when I call them. And even if I did, that doesn't mean that they would be where I think they might be anyway.

Again, it is the driver's responsibility, always, to act responsibly while driving. Either don't answer the call/message or answer and state that you are driving and will call them back later (if that's even legal). Or, if you want/need to communicate, then just pull off the road and stop being a danger to others.
 

lilly

Council Member
[URL="http:/ /HAPPYI am staying with the NJ case and the link that was posted:

"The attorney for the injured couple, Stephen “Skippy” Weinsten, has argued Colonna was aware Kyle Best was reading her messages while in a moving vehicle because she was aware his work shift at the West Morris Area YMCA had just ended and he would likely be on the road."

It doesn't say that she knew. It says that the lawyer suing her says that she should have known.

There's a big difference between knowing and would have/could have/should have known.

I'm not sure about you, but, often, I have no idea of what the time is when I am calling someone, and even if I do, I certainly do not correlate what time it is back to their daily schedule to figure out where I think they might be right when I call them. And even if I did, that doesn't mean that they would be where I think they might be anyway.

Again, it is the driver's responsibility, always, to act responsibly while driving. Either don't answer the call/message or answer and state that you are driving and will call them back later (if that's even legal). Or, if you want/need to communicate, then just pull off the road and stop being a danger to others.[/QUOTE]

So now that it's over you bring this up. How many times did I say she knew and not a word from anyone. I based it on the above and the fact the attorney for the couple said she admitted it.

I can't even find my link but I'll look through the thread again, if it wasn't in that thread I will find it.
 

lilly

Council Member
I think there was a little part you left out when you quoted .....the part where it says SHE SAYS.

Skippy Weinstein, the Kuberts' lawyer, argues Colonna was "electronically present" in the crash. He says she should have known Best was driving home as they exchanged text messages leading up to the crash. She says she "may have known" he was driving.

If that isn't admitting it, I don't know what is and exactly why you left it off the end of your post. And don't start on that 'may' stuff because if you were in that position and asked that question, you know exactly what she meant.
 
Top