TexasCHLforum.com

1911 10MM wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

1911 10MM wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion as am I. They are not completely different things but have a lot in common. Just because you don't see it doesn't make it insulting, ridiculous, or uncalled for. I have already seen several other comparisons. Just because you disagree doesn't make it factual. If you don't think the youngsters won't be hacking and jail breaking phones to text well again I believe they will. It is part of their life. They are already doing it.

The reason it is insulting, ridiculous and uncalled for is because I do NOT support a law requiring carriers or manufactures to take steps to prevent texting while driving. The anti gun idiots you compared me to support laws that will require manufactures to add chips to guns. Therefore, your assertion and comparison involving me is not valid. I am not support the locking down of phones so they can't be used to text while driving nor am I supporting a new law. I have only challenged the premise some have based their arguments. As far as your smart gun comparison, it may be valid with others in this thread but not me.

I think people should choose not to text and drive on their own. I also think carriers and manufactures could curtai/preventl most of it if they choose to take steps to do so.

I didn't compare you to anyone, I asked you a simple question. Texting and driving is dangerous but so are a lot of other things people do while driving.

Liberty wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

1911 10MM wrote:
I think people should choose not to text and drive on their own. I also think carriers and manufactures could curtai/preventl most of it if they choose to take steps to do so.

I detest any attempt to control my behaviour by the outside world.
I don't want governors on my cars to help keep me safe.
I don't want seatbelt laws to force me to be safe.
I don't want cell phone companies dictating my behaviour.

Its about freedom. Giving up freedom is one more step to servitude. There is a certain safety in slavery I suppose. It turns out that when companies and government force us to certain behaviours in the name of our interests, it turns out that it is really in their interests.

No I don't text or even talk on the cell while driving. But it's my decision, not Verizon, Not Samsung or any governments.

1911 10MM wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion as am I. They are not completely different things but have a lot in common. Just because you don't see it doesn't make it insulting, ridiculous, or uncalled for. I have already seen several other comparisons. Just because you disagree doesn't make it factual. If you don't think the youngsters won't be hacking and jail breaking phones to text well again I believe they will. It is part of their life. They are already doing it.

Texas Transportation Code - TRANSP § 545.401. Reckless Driving;  Offense

(a) A person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.

(b) An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by:

(1) a fine not to exceed $200;

(2) confinement in county jail for not more than 30 days;  or

(3) both the fine and the confinement.

(c) Notwithstanding Section 542.001, this section applies to:

(1) a private access way or parking area provided for a client or patron by a business, other than a private residential property or the property of a garage or parking lot for which a charge is made for the storing or parking of motor vehicles;  and

(2) a highway or other public place.

(d) Notwithstanding Section 542.004, this section applies to a person, a team, or motor vehicles and other equipment engaged in work on a highway surface.

SewTexas wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

1911 10MM wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

1911 10MM wrote:The phone companies can do what they want but it won't solve a darn thing as all of the phones can be hacked to defeat anything the phone companies put in as software. Education is the key not more laws or software.

You think people aren't aware texting and driving is dangerous?

Nothing will be 100% but if something were to be done, I'd prefer it be done by the phone makers rather than the legislature or congress.

It's unreasonable to expect software to fix the problem when it can be defeated. iPhones can be jail broken and everything else can be hacked. The problem isn't the tool, it's the people who use the tool in an improper manner. Are you a proponent for smart guns?

Stop with comparison to anti gun idiots that support smart guns as that is insulting, ridiculous and uncalled for as they are two completely different situations.

The average person is not going to jailbreak their phone in order to defeat the texting while driving safety features is they are installed by the manufacturers of carriers. Like I said, nothing is 100% and I do not believe it should be forced by legislation.

phone mfgs aren't going to force it on their customers without leg, because their customers don't want it, and if they are forced to put it on, yes the average person will figure out how to break it, that will be the first thing they do.

1911 10MM wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

1911 10MM wrote:The phone companies can do what they want but it won't solve a darn thing as all of the phones can be hacked to defeat anything the phone companies put in as software. Education is the key not more laws or software.

You think people aren't aware texting and driving is dangerous?

Nothing will be 100% but if something were to be done, I'd prefer it be done by the phone makers rather than the legislature or congress.

It's unreasonable to expect software to fix the problem when it can be defeated. iPhones can be jail broken and everything else can be hacked. The problem isn't the tool, it's the people who use the tool in an improper manner. Are you a proponent for smart guns?

1911 10MM wrote:The phone companies can do what they want but it won't solve a darn thing as all of the phones can be hacked to defeat anything the phone companies put in as software. Education is the key not more laws or software.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I am absolutely opposed to disabling a phone while the car is moving. There are too many times when calls for help are made while driving. 911 is by no means universally available, so leaving that option is not a solution. See, this is precisely the "distracted driving" lie that is being sold to everyone.

Chas.

apostate wrote:What about a kidnap victim in the trunk? What company is going to invite a wrongful death lawsuit because they blocked their call or text for help?

gtolbert09 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

RogueUSMC wrote: That way our would not be dependent upon a Bluetooth enabled vehicle. The problem is which carrier or phone manufacturer wants to go first by forcing the issue and upsetting a certain number of its customers?

Actually Apple is working on a device (iPhone) that's disables hand held use based on an algorithm that uses speed, g-force and other physics. You either have to have a Bluetooth headset or a vehicle with Bluetooth in order to use the phone. To use the map, you need to key in the destination before you start driving, once you start moving, the ability to type is disabled.

Other manufactures are working similar technology that forces you to use voice to text while driving.

Yes I am employed by a major wireless company. ;)

RogueUSMC wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I can put my phone in "drive mode" and it will auto respond to the sender with a text telling them I'm driving and will reply soon. This is a manual process I must initiate. The manufactures could make this an automatic process using the already installed technology such as the GPS and accelerometer. Once the phone is moving at a certain rate of speed it could automatically switch into drive mode.

Passengers that are not driving could have a way to override this via a manual process that takes some effort. This would not be 100% effective but would be more effective than making more ineffective laws.

My phone is set to do this automatically when my phone connects to my truck. The only manual manipulation required is to turn it off I I desire it turned off...

Abraham wrote: Yes, new technology could stop it, but when will that be available?