Other Resources My Cup of Joe » "Crotches Kill" ad campaign Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2013-02-24 8:43 PM

User image

Master
4452
200020001001001001002525
Subject: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign


2013-02-25 4:40 AM
in reply to: #4635336

User image

Regular
302
100100100
Georgetown, KY
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
I think that's an awesome ad campaign!
2013-02-25 6:04 AM
in reply to: #4635336

User image

Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
I believe Al Capone found that truism out.
2013-02-25 11:17 AM
in reply to: #4635336

User image

Master
2538
200050025
Albuquerque
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
awesome! LOL
2013-02-25 4:29 PM
in reply to: #4635336

New user
347
10010010025
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
I had to drive my son to a game the other night, about a half hour drive (in the rain, at night). So I turned the phone off so I could concentrate on driving, and I had a nice chat with my son.  Apparently, the location of the game got changed, but I didn't find out because they were calling me while the phone was off. Everyone thinks I'm the crazy one because I turned my phone off while driving. I'm not saying I never have the phone on in the car, but when I told people the phone was off for that reason,  they were like "who turns their phone off in the car?"..
2013-02-25 5:40 PM
in reply to: #4635336

User image

Elite
4547
2000200050025
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign

This issue had me thinking today...what options do we have to combat this behavior that 99% of us can agree is dangerous (texting while driving)?  

Heavy fines?

Jail time when it's found to be a contributing cause in an accident that harms others??

Personally, my gut reaction is heavy fines...with the addition of posting the fines publicly.  It sounds crazy, so please give me alternatives!  Thanks.



2013-02-26 3:40 AM
in reply to: #4636739

User image

Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
ChineseDemocracy - 2013-02-25 6:40 PM

This issue had me thinking today...what options do we have to combat this behavior that 99% of us can agree is dangerous (texting while driving)?  

Heavy fines?

Jail time when it's found to be a contributing cause in an accident that harms others??

Personally, my gut reaction is heavy fines...with the addition of posting the fines publicly.  It sounds crazy, so please give me alternatives!  Thanks.



Personally I like that one. Something to the effect of

If you are involved in an accident with injury to another person, determined to be your fault, and a cell phone is found in your car, the police have cause to subpoena the records for that cell phone for 10 minutes prior to the accident until 10 minutes after the accident. If it is found you were texting, or you were talking with no hands free device in the car, there is a mandatory 6 month jail time. Non negotiable, non reduceable.

There, you're free to do what you want until you unnecessarily harm another.

2013-02-26 8:49 AM
in reply to: #4637101

User image

Veteran
869
5001001001002525
Stevens Point, Wisconsin
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
DanielG - 2013-02-26 3:40 AM
ChineseDemocracy - 2013-02-25 6:40 PM

This issue had me thinking today...what options do we have to combat this behavior that 99% of us can agree is dangerous (texting while driving)?  

Heavy fines?

Jail time when it's found to be a contributing cause in an accident that harms others??

Personally, my gut reaction is heavy fines...with the addition of posting the fines publicly.  It sounds crazy, so please give me alternatives!  Thanks.

Personally I like that one. Something to the effect of If you are involved in an accident with injury to another person, determined to be your fault, and a cell phone is found in your car, the police have cause to subpoena the records for that cell phone for 10 minutes prior to the accident until 10 minutes after the accident. If it is found you were texting, or you were talking with no hands free device in the car, there is a mandatory 6 month jail time. Non negotiable, non reduceable. There, you're free to do what you want until you unnecessarily harm another.


I couldn't agree more.  Here is a local story of a guy who did get charged for a fatal accident.  Although I think that the sentence is still a little light it's a step in the right direction. 

http://www.wausaubusinessdirectory.com/blogpostings/Stevens_Point_Man_Sentenced_in_Fatal_Crash_2885.cfm

I just wonder how much the texting actually played into his sentence. 

2013-02-26 10:56 AM
in reply to: #4637298

User image

Champion
10020
50005000
, Minnesota
Bronze member
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign

Around here, my impression is that you are only penalized if you cause a crash.  Few (none?) are pulled over just for texting, even though it is so easy to spot and it is illegal.   1)  find the person driving stupidly, 2) look at their gaze.   Half the time they are holding the phone up, to be seen through the window.  I don't need to be a trained police officer to suss then out and they are everywhere. 

My preference would be enforcement and fines before the accident happens.  And then, yes, a REALLY big penalty if it contributes to a crash.



Edited by BikerGrrrl 2013-02-26 10:57 AM
2013-02-26 11:14 AM
in reply to: #4637475

User image

Champion
14571
50005000200020005002525
the alamo city, Texas
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
BikerGrrrl - 2013-02-26 11:56 AM

Around here, my impression is that you are only penalized if you cause a crash.  Few (none?) are pulled over just for texting, even though it is so easy to spot and it is illegal.   1)  find the person driving stupidly, 2) look at their gaze.   Half the time they are holding the phone up, to be seen through the window.  I don't need to be a trained police officer to suss then out and they are everywhere. 

My preference would be enforcement and fines before the accident happens.  And then, yes, a REALLY big penalty if it contributes to a crash.

Virginia JUST passed a law where texting is a primary offense, which is a great first step.  Previously, you had to be speeding/running a stop sign/whatever and texting would get tacked on.  Now, a cop can pull you over JUST for texting.

We don't have any laws against talking while driving, no hands-free required. 

2013-02-26 11:22 AM
in reply to: #4637494

User image

Champion
10020
50005000
, Minnesota
Bronze member
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
mehaner - 2013-02-26 11:14 AM
BikerGrrrl - 2013-02-26 11:56 AM

Around here, my impression is that you are only penalized if you cause a crash.  Few (none?) are pulled over just for texting, even though it is so easy to spot and it is illegal.   1)  find the person driving stupidly, 2) look at their gaze.   Half the time they are holding the phone up, to be seen through the window.  I don't need to be a trained police officer to suss then out and they are everywhere. 

My preference would be enforcement and fines before the accident happens.  And then, yes, a REALLY big penalty if it contributes to a crash.

Virginia JUST passed a law where texting is a primary offense, which is a great first step.  Previously, you had to be speeding/running a stop sign/whatever and texting would get tacked on.  Now, a cop can pull you over JUST for texting.

We don't have any laws against talking while driving, no hands-free required. 

Ours is a primary law, I think it's been that way from the beginning. I am incredulous that they don't enforce it!



2013-02-26 11:27 AM
in reply to: #4637503

User image

Champion
10668
500050005001002525
Tacoma, Washington
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
BikerGrrrl - 2013-02-26 9:22 AM

Ours is a primary law, I think it's been that way from the beginning. I am incredulous that they don't enforce it!

Maybe because then they'd have to ticket themselves for using their laptops and cell phones while driving...

Oh, that's right... the law doesn't apply to law enforcement!

2013-02-26 11:45 AM
in reply to: #4635336

User image

Science Nerd
28760
50005000500050005000200010005001001002525
Redwood City, California
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign

I think it's catchy and will get people's attention, so that's probably a good thing.

I did have to explain the word "crotch" to a couple of non-native English speakers in my lab. Not sure how I feel about that aspect of this ad. 

2013-02-26 12:19 PM
in reply to: #4635336

User image

Regular
525
50025
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
I know I am in the minority about these laws, but I disagree with them It is already illegal to not stop at a stop sign, it is already illegal to straddle two lanes or swerve back and forth, etc . . . Enforce the laws we have and you don't have to come up with another law that makes it illegaler to do these same things. You show me an instance where something bad happened while someone was texting and if I can't find a current appropriate law forbidding their actions you might change my mind, but I don't see it happening.
2013-02-26 12:22 PM
in reply to: #4637503

User image

Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
BikerGrrrl - 2013-02-26 12:22 PM

Ours is a primary law, I think it's been that way from the beginning. I am incredulous that they don't enforce it!



Because it's pretty easy to beat and damn near impossible to prove you were texting. Without your phone company's records you can be checking the time, entering your password because you lock your screen and all sorts of other things. No, you cannot say for sure they were texting without the phone records. Hell, I could write War and Peace on my cell phone and not violate MN's texting law as that's for creating, sending and receiving electronic messages only.

It's a stupid thing to make a primary offense but people who feel they want to "do something" don't see that and push for it. That leaves the cops in the unenviable position of using discretion and only ticketing for it after another violation in any case because it's so unenforceable until something else happens.

2013-02-26 12:23 PM
in reply to: #4637596

User image

Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
Its Only Money - 2013-02-26 1:19 PM

I know I am in the minority about these laws, but I disagree with them It is already illegal to not stop at a stop sign, it is already illegal to straddle two lanes or swerve back and forth, etc . . . Enforce the laws we have and you don't have to come up with another law that makes it illegaler to do these same things. You show me an instance where something bad happened while someone was texting and if I can't find a current appropriate law forbidding their actions you might change my mind, but I don't see it happening.


Bingo! Plus negligent driving already covers driving whilst distracted and doesn't require any specific "creating a text for electronic submission" BS to prove intent.



2013-02-26 12:24 PM
in reply to: #4637596

User image

Champion
10020
50005000
, Minnesota
Bronze member
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign

Its Only Money - 2013-02-26 12:19 PM I know I am in the minority about these laws, but I disagree with them It is already illegal to not stop at a stop sign, it is already illegal to straddle two lanes or swerve back and forth, etc . . . Enforce the laws we have and you don't have to come up with another law that makes it illegaler to do these same things. You show me an instance where something bad happened while someone was texting and if I can't find a current appropriate law forbidding their actions you might change my mind, but I don't see it happening.

I basically agree with you.  If someone is driving distractedly, whether it's a text message, or distracted by a problem at work, or they are having a stroke, or they are hitting their kids in the backseats - WHATEVER, they should be pulled over and addressed.  Then, what the cause is can be cited accordingly.  But stupid driving is stupid driving and I am tired of it.   A lot of this lawmaking is probably unnecessary.

2013-02-26 12:47 PM
in reply to: #4637603

User image

Champion
10020
50005000
, Minnesota
Bronze member
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign

I did a little article search and thought about this some more.

I think the advantage of having the no-texting law is not to stop people who are obviously causing trouble, but to preempt it.  For instance, I can probably manage to drive (within reason) while sending the occasional text on a very normal drive.  However, what if a biker falls on the road in front of me?  Would I notice them? Not if I were texting (and would I sacrifice my phone by dropping it to grab the wheel and swerve?).

It sounds like the majority of people who do get tickets, that happened to be texting, are because they were doing something else like lane straddling.  One article I found was a guy who lied to a police officer after being seen texting, and said he was using a remote to change his stereo.  The officer cited him anyway, saying he "felt comfortable testifying that he was texting."   The funny thing is that the penalty for erratic driving, running a stop sign, etc, is apparently worse than the one for texting.  I wonder how much time police officers spend in court testifying about the events they write citations for?

So yeah, bring down the inattentive drivers for any reason!  But, we shouldn't stop in our desire to make drivers take driving more seriously.  Since so many apparently can't be trusted to do it themselves, we have to legislate the behavior.

2013-02-26 12:59 PM
in reply to: #4637642

User image

Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
BikerGrrrl - 2013-02-26 1:47 PM

So yeah, bring down the inattentive drivers for any reason!  But, we shouldn't stop in our desire to make drivers take driving more seriously.  Since so many apparently can't be trusted to do it themselves, we have to legislate the behavior.



We really don't "need" a hell of a lot more laws and could probably do to lose half the ones on the books.

What we NEED is to enforce the ones there and quit giving out candy and icecream to those who violate them. Suspended sentence for vehicular homicide? WTF? That doesn't need a texting law, that needs the primary law's max sentence with no hope of parole.

Lemme get off this soapbox before I start yelling


2013-02-26 1:14 PM
in reply to: #4637669

User image

Champion
10020
50005000
, Minnesota
Bronze member
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
DanielG - 2013-02-26 12:59 PM
BikerGrrrl - 2013-02-26 1:47 PM

So yeah, bring down the inattentive drivers for any reason!  But, we shouldn't stop in our desire to make drivers take driving more seriously.  Since so many apparently can't be trusted to do it themselves, we have to legislate the behavior.

We really don't "need" a hell of a lot more laws and could probably do to lose half the ones on the books. What we NEED is to enforce the ones there and quit giving out candy and icecream to those who violate them. Suspended sentence for vehicular homicide? WTF? That doesn't need a texting law, that needs the primary law's max sentence with no hope of parole. Lemme get off this soapbox before I start yelling

Oops, my bad.  The Pollyanna side of me assumes laws will be enforced.    Sadly, I know this is not true often enough. 

2013-02-26 1:24 PM
in reply to: #4637718

User image

Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
BikerGrrrl - 2013-02-26 2:14 PM

DanielG - 2013-02-26 12:59 PM
BikerGrrrl - 2013-02-26 1:47 PM

So yeah, bring down the inattentive drivers for any reason!  But, we shouldn't stop in our desire to make drivers take driving more seriously.  Since so many apparently can't be trusted to do it themselves, we have to legislate the behavior.

We really don't "need" a hell of a lot more laws and could probably do to lose half the ones on the books. What we NEED is to enforce the ones there and quit giving out candy and icecream to those who violate them. Suspended sentence for vehicular homicide? WTF? That doesn't need a texting law, that needs the primary law's max sentence with no hope of parole. Lemme get off this soapbox before I start yelling

Oops, my bad.  The Pollyanna side of me assumes laws will be enforced.    Sadly, I know this is not true often enough. 



It's one of the pieces of the puzzle often ignored in threads like this.

BJS document:
Based on data collected by BJS in its "National Corrections
Reporting Program," inmates released from prisons in 2000 had
served an average of 55% of their total sentence in prison. The
percentage of sentence served ranged from 67% for those
convicted of weapon offenses to a low of 49% for those convicted
of a drug offense.

Applying these percentages to State prison sentences received in
2000, it is estimated that felons sentenced in 2000 would serve
about 22 years, or 55% of their average 42 year prison sentence.


Maybe if we started ending parole, it would be a start. Perhaps if we had never had parole, things might not have gotten to this point.



2013-02-26 1:38 PM
in reply to: #4637596

User image

Master
1780
1000500100100252525
Boynton Beach, FL
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign

Its Only Money - 2013-02-26 1:19 PM I know I am in the minority about these laws, but I disagree with them It is already illegal to not stop at a stop sign, it is already illegal to straddle two lanes or swerve back and forth, etc . . . Enforce the laws we have and you don't have to come up with another law that makes it illegaler to do these same things. You show me an instance where something bad happened while someone was texting and if I can't find a current appropriate law forbidding their actions you might change my mind, but I don't see it happening.

With the same reasoning, should we eliminate drinking and driving laws?

2013-02-26 2:28 PM
in reply to: #4635336

User image

Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
and, as always in interesting threads, people bring really silly ideas and try to make them fit the topic.

Gee, shouldn't we legalize murder because assault is already a crime? Har-de-har-har.

2013-02-26 3:39 PM
in reply to: #4637669

User image

Elite
4547
2000200050025
Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
DanielG - 2013-02-26 1:59 PM
BikerGrrrl - 2013-02-26 1:47 PM

So yeah, bring down the inattentive drivers for any reason!  But, we shouldn't stop in our desire to make drivers take driving more seriously.  Since so many apparently can't be trusted to do it themselves, we have to legislate the behavior.

We really don't "need" a hell of a lot more laws and could probably do to lose half the ones on the books. What we NEED is to enforce the ones there and quit giving out candy and icecream to those who violate them. Suspended sentence for vehicular homicide? WTF? That doesn't need a texting law, that needs the primary law's max sentence with no hope of parole. Lemme get off this soapbox before I start yelling

Don't stop yellin'!  I love it!  Texting when driving deserves jail time in my opinion.

2013-02-26 5:19 PM
in reply to: #4637974

User image

Subject: RE: "Crotches Kill" ad campaign
ChineseDemocracy - 2013-02-26 4:39 PM

Don't stop yellin'!  I love it!  Texting when driving deserves jail time in my opinion.



IF someone is injured or property damage occurs I completely agree.

I tend to lean towards exactly what I said, leave people alone unless they unnecessarily harm another.

Seems simple enough. Yeah, doesn't work for all scenarios but in general.

New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » "Crotches Kill" ad campaign Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2