Agent,
So, it sounds as though you are for this bill, correct? So much for small government and don’t tread on me, huh? And a woman’s uterus isn’t even involved this time.
You can’t legislate to stop stupidity. Instead of creating a law that ultimately cannot be enforced with any degree of consistency, they should create a law that protects busnesses and motorists that get sued by these people who harm themselves.
In essence, if a person is injured due to there own negligence by distraction of ANY device, the business or motorist has complete immunity. This even applies to the crack or hole in the sidewalk because the injured person could/should have seen the hazard if they were paying attention.
Proving they were distracted could be problematic but technology and witnesses could assist. At the very least, it might prevent some lawyers from taking the case if they know they have n uphill battle. Perhaps the burden of proof should exist with the injured party that they were not distracted?
This type of law would directly affect those that cause their own problem and permit other “responsible” texters to have their liberty to do so.
Integrity, I am not trying to be a smart ___ or otherwise flippant. I just wonder if comparative negligence would not already achieve what you describe. We would still need case law on our side (and I don’t think that it is currently), but at least it is a start. I agree that this won’t stop stupidity.
Thanks for your response, Crain. I don’t think that was flippant, at all.
I agree there could be some potential relief from a comparative/contributory perspective today, but the burden of proof is likely to be on the defendent.
If there was a specific immunity statute, with some “teeth”, it light protect to person/business that was implicated that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Integrity, I am sure you read the recent article on the increase of pedestrian deaths. Many of those deaths were due to distracted walking by texting on cell phones. In this dumbed down, distracted society, these cell addicts cannot get that cell out of their hand, mostly have their nose buried in it a good deal of the time. I don’t know how you legislate responsibility, but I do know that these people hold others accountable if they fall in a place of business or walk out into traffic.
That study didn’t come to that conclusion. In fact most of it is due to increased driving due to cheaper gas. The majority of pedestrian deaths are alcohol-related. There had been an increase in pedestrian injuries due to distraction with a cell phone, but the number is still relatively small, about 3.6% of pedestrian deaths according to an OSU study. It was 1% in 2004 when cell phone use was far less ubiquitous.
I agree society is dumbed down. For example would you care to comment on the almost 100% of climate scientists who believe in man-made climate change, or how all non-Christians are atheists?
No, WC is no fault insurance. It protects both the employee and employer. In its original form (exclusive remedy) it also almost eliminated litigation.
That said, there are some employees that get injured due to there own stupidity.
Ok. Next, lets ban other potential risky behavior. Eating anything unless on a prescribed list of the government, sex, walking in central park, NY, free speech, exercising or playing sports, flying in airplanes, raising children or having pets. You cannot legislate people to protect themselves from themselves and especially subjective to what the bureaucrat thinks is best.
How about just banning texting while walking across the street or in a cross walk? While the person may have the right of away, they just might be dead right.
The pedestrian would be just as dead if they were in the cross walk if the motorist was also distracted by texting. I have observed a guy walking through my parking lot on a number of occasions. That nose is never more than a foot from that cell and he is walking to a grocery store a block away. I am amazed he is still upright.
Next on the ban list: Walking while listening to earphones or headphones.
They don’t have a clue what is going on around them while doing this very distracted activity.
Agent,
So, it sounds as though you are for this bill, correct? So much for small government and don’t tread on me, huh? And a woman’s uterus isn’t even involved this time.
Can I chew gum while walking?
This is example 1A of Government overreach.
Please let’s just let Darwin’s theories work so we can thin the heard. We don’t need more laws that police lack the manpower to enforce.
You can’t legislate to stop stupidity. Instead of creating a law that ultimately cannot be enforced with any degree of consistency, they should create a law that protects busnesses and motorists that get sued by these people who harm themselves.
In essence, if a person is injured due to there own negligence by distraction of ANY device, the business or motorist has complete immunity. This even applies to the crack or hole in the sidewalk because the injured person could/should have seen the hazard if they were paying attention.
Proving they were distracted could be problematic but technology and witnesses could assist. At the very least, it might prevent some lawyers from taking the case if they know they have n uphill battle. Perhaps the burden of proof should exist with the injured party that they were not distracted?
This type of law would directly affect those that cause their own problem and permit other “responsible” texters to have their liberty to do so.
Integrity, I am not trying to be a smart ___ or otherwise flippant. I just wonder if comparative negligence would not already achieve what you describe. We would still need case law on our side (and I don’t think that it is currently), but at least it is a start. I agree that this won’t stop stupidity.
Thanks for your response, Crain. I don’t think that was flippant, at all.
I agree there could be some potential relief from a comparative/contributory perspective today, but the burden of proof is likely to be on the defendent.
If there was a specific immunity statute, with some “teeth”, it light protect to person/business that was implicated that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Integrity, I am sure you read the recent article on the increase of pedestrian deaths. Many of those deaths were due to distracted walking by texting on cell phones. In this dumbed down, distracted society, these cell addicts cannot get that cell out of their hand, mostly have their nose buried in it a good deal of the time. I don’t know how you legislate responsibility, but I do know that these people hold others accountable if they fall in a place of business or walk out into traffic.
That study didn’t come to that conclusion. In fact most of it is due to increased driving due to cheaper gas. The majority of pedestrian deaths are alcohol-related. There had been an increase in pedestrian injuries due to distraction with a cell phone, but the number is still relatively small, about 3.6% of pedestrian deaths according to an OSU study. It was 1% in 2004 when cell phone use was far less ubiquitous.
I agree society is dumbed down. For example would you care to comment on the almost 100% of climate scientists who believe in man-made climate change, or how all non-Christians are atheists?
Former NYC Mayor Mike “Gloomberg’s” nanny-state philosophy is spreading to NJ!
Integrity: Workers’ Compensation is stupidity insurance, isn’t it?
No, WC is no fault insurance. It protects both the employee and employer. In its original form (exclusive remedy) it also almost eliminated litigation.
That said, there are some employees that get injured due to there own stupidity.
dang….I keep on mis-spelling “their”. I do know the difference..just typing too fast and not proof reading.
You had it right the first time on that…even if not, people know what you meant!
Good opinions on the subject at hand :)
MadDog, are you currently employed in the P&C Insurance Industry?
Ok. Next, lets ban other potential risky behavior. Eating anything unless on a prescribed list of the government, sex, walking in central park, NY, free speech, exercising or playing sports, flying in airplanes, raising children or having pets. You cannot legislate people to protect themselves from themselves and especially subjective to what the bureaucrat thinks is best.
How about just banning texting while walking across the street or in a cross walk? While the person may have the right of away, they just might be dead right.
The pedestrian would be just as dead if they were in the cross walk if the motorist was also distracted by texting. I have observed a guy walking through my parking lot on a number of occasions. That nose is never more than a foot from that cell and he is walking to a grocery store a block away. I am amazed he is still upright.