Unenforceable nonsense or slippery slope for probable cause?

[Fash]

As stated in the article, all of these distractions are covered by the general 'reckless driving' statutes.

Making such a detailed offense grounds for getting pulled over is the problem I have with it because of the unlikelihood of law enforcement being able to determine the thing in your hand is a cellphone. Even more so, the likelihood that you could be pulled over for a cellphone issue while not possessing a cellphone.

For instance having a Snickers in your hand is not an offense that you can be pulled over for, but surely at 50mph, it might look like a cellphone, no?

[valryte]

Some of the things for which you should be reported as a suspected terrorist include the usual things, like weapons of mass destruction, and hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis, but also includes people who “Make numerous references to US Constitution,” “Claim driving is a right, not a privilege” and “Attempt to ‘police the police.’”

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05 ... st-threat/

Looks like Midnyte, aside from also being classified as a fucking dumbass, also falls under the suspicion of "domestic terrorist."

[Aslanna]

A Snickers looks nothing like a cellphone. Not to menton people usually don't put phones in their mouth. You're honestly just reaching for anything now.

Just acknowledge that it's an unnecessary distraction to driving and move on. If cellphone use is already on the books as an offense adding texting isn't a huge stretch in regards to them having cause to stop you.

[Fash]

The current cellphone law does not give them the ability to pull you over for being on a cellphone. The proposed texting law would.

reading comprehension ftw!!

[Aslanna]

The current cellphone law does not give them the ability to pull you over for being on a cellphone. The proposed texting law would.

I see. I am not familiar with the laws of every state and was confused by the wording of the original article!

Obviously I think New Jersey needs to revisit their cell phone ban and allow the police to pull you over for that too like in other states. If they can't pull you over for doing 'banned' activities what is the point of banning them? It makes it hard to levy the fines upon violators if they're not able to stop them.

http://www.cellular-news.com/car_bans/ For an interesting chart of other countries where cell phone use while driving is banned. In some countries you can even get prison time! If only we had that here life would be sweet.

[kyoukan]

And Fash, I got you beat. I drive 20 mph over the speed limit while texting, smoking, listening to my music loud enough to rattle the windows in the car in front of and behind me, and honking my horn at the person in front of me that's going 5mph under the speed limit in the left lane

translation: I'm a fucking douche that should have my license revoked.

[Zaelath]

And Fash, I got you beat. I drive 20 mph over the speed limit while texting, smoking, listening to my music loud enough to rattle the windows in the car in front of and behind me, and honking my horn at the person in front of me that's going 5mph under the speed limit in the left lane

translation: I'm a fucking douche that should have my license revoked.

Both of these facts have been well established in prior threads.

[Arborealus]

And Fash, I got you beat. I drive 20 mph over the speed limit while texting, smoking, listening to my music loud enough to rattle the windows in the car in front of and behind me, and honking my horn at the person in front of me that's going 5mph under the speed limit in the left lane

Sweet cause I'm the old guy in front of you laughing my ass off 'cause I have plenty of time...Honk more...that'll help...

[kyoukan]

if he spits on you, don't try anything cause he's just waiting for you get all up in his grillz so he can bust a cizzap in your white ass, yo.

[Drinsic Darkwood]

Is he seriously bragging about that shit?

[miir]

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05 ... st-threat/

Looks like Midnyte, aside from also being classified as a fucking dumbass, also falls under the suspicion of "domestic terrorist."

Threat level: Midnyte

[Funkmasterr]

Oh isn't it cute, I have a little fanbase! Actually that statement was mostly sarcastic and meant to address what everyone here thinks of me anyhow!

[masteen]

I was behind a tourist on a scooter who was texting the other day. He was doing 20 on the busiest 4 lane road in town. Everytime a truck would fly past him at 50 and almost blow him over, he'd wave his Blackberry at them like they did something wrong.

Texting while driving should be a hangin' O-fence.

[Aslanna]

Oh isn't it cute, I have a little fanbase! Actually that statement was mostly sarcastic and meant to address what everyone here thinks of me anyhow!

If the only requirement to being considered part of your fanbase is to point out what a moron you are I don't think it can be classified as "little."

[Truant]

Granted, i've been in a cave for the last three days...but I really don't see what the big fucking deal is.

It's already illegal to be on the phone while driving (without the use of a handsfree device) in the states of TX and FL. Probably many more, I just know those because I lived in them.

Granted, it's not really enforced, it's a liability thing, like Kyou said.

[Aslanna]

New hazard: Driving while wired
By Christina Crapanzano, USA TODAY

Lawmakers in a dozen states are trying to ban drivers from using video games, computers and fax machines in cars in a new wave of driver-distraction legislation.

Since January, states including Texas, New York and Arizona have considered bills that would limit the use of car electronics that go far beyond cellphones, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Most bills would require violators to pay fines ranging from $50 to $600. So far, only one of this year's proposals has been enacted — in Tennessee.

States also are trying to track how much of a threat electronic gadgets such as iPods and front-seat movie screens pose to safety. Statistics are scarce because it's difficult for police to determine whether an accident was caused by a distraction in the car, but legislators say electronics clearly are grabbing drivers' attention.

"I got in a cab and the cabdriver was watching the fights on a TV he had in the front seat," says New York state Sen. Carl Marcellino, whose bill to prohibit drivers' use of display-generating electronics passed unanimously in the state Senate June 21. "Cars are becoming an extension of the workplace and an extension of the home."

Legislators are targeting:

• Video games. In-car screens make it easy to play Xbox, PlayStation and Nintendo games. In Arizona, it's legal to play video games while driving. State Sen. Ron Gould has proposed a bill to outlaw it.

• Fax machines. "I know people who honest to God have fax and e-mail in their car," says Illinois state Rep. William Black, whose bill would create a distracted-drivers task force to study the effects of mobile high-tech appliances.

• Computers. Drivers can e-mail and create a PowerPoint presentation on PCs now featured in a variety of cars, including Ford and KIA models.

• DVD/TV monitors. Since 2003, about 3,200 drivers have been pulled over in California for watching DVDs and TVs.

Statistical tracking of the connection between crashes and driver distractions is in its infancy. So far, few deaths have been directly linked to electronic devices.

Opponents of the crackdown say lawmakers should focus on proven traffic-safety issues such as speeding, drunken driving and seatbelts. "Our point is, do the things we know will save lives," says Jonathan Adkins, spokesman for the Governors Highway Safety Association, which represents states on traffic safety issues.

Still, high-tech driving distractions are gaining more attention from police. "We're seeing people driving down the road at night watching a video," says Phoenix officer Terry Sills. "I tell people you're just plum stupid for doing this. It's a really serious problem."

omg I have a right to play video games and watch movies while driving. Stop trying to take our rights away you nazis!

[miir]

I'd love to see the size of the portable generator required to power a PS3 or 360 in someones car.

[Funkmasterr]

New hazard: Driving while wired
By Christina Crapanzano, USA TODAY

Lawmakers in a dozen states are trying to ban drivers from using video games, computers and fax machines in cars in a new wave of driver-distraction legislation.

Since January, states including Texas, New York and Arizona have considered bills that would limit the use of car electronics that go far beyond cellphones, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Most bills would require violators to pay fines ranging from $50 to $600. So far, only one of this year's proposals has been enacted — in Tennessee.

States also are trying to track how much of a threat electronic gadgets such as iPods and front-seat movie screens pose to safety. Statistics are scarce because it's difficult for police to determine whether an accident was caused by a distraction in the car, but legislators say electronics clearly are grabbing drivers' attention.

"I got in a cab and the cabdriver was watching the fights on a TV he had in the front seat," says New York state Sen. Carl Marcellino, whose bill to prohibit drivers' use of display-generating electronics passed unanimously in the state Senate June 21. "Cars are becoming an extension of the workplace and an extension of the home."

Legislators are targeting:

• Video games. In-car screens make it easy to play Xbox, PlayStation and Nintendo games. In Arizona, it's legal to play video games while driving. State Sen. Ron Gould has proposed a bill to outlaw it.

• Fax machines. "I know people who honest to God have fax and e-mail in their car," says Illinois state Rep. William Black, whose bill would create a distracted-drivers task force to study the effects of mobile high-tech appliances.

• Computers. Drivers can e-mail and create a PowerPoint presentation on PCs now featured in a variety of cars, including Ford and KIA models.

• DVD/TV monitors. Since 2003, about 3,200 drivers have been pulled over in California for watching DVDs and TVs.

Statistical tracking of the connection between crashes and driver distractions is in its infancy. So far, few deaths have been directly linked to electronic devices.

Opponents of the crackdown say lawmakers should focus on proven traffic-safety issues such as speeding, drunken driving and seatbelts. "Our point is, do the things we know will save lives," says Jonathan Adkins, spokesman for the Governors Highway Safety Association, which represents states on traffic safety issues.

Still, high-tech driving distractions are gaining more attention from police. "We're seeing people driving down the road at night watching a video," says Phoenix officer Terry Sills. "I tell people you're just plum stupid for doing this. It's a really serious problem."

omg I have a right to play video games and watch movies while driving. Stop trying to take our rights away you nazis!

The driver doesn't, but every other person in the car does including the passenger in the front seat - so how are you going to prove that the driver was paying attention to it and not just the passengers?

[Aslanna]

If you're so dull and boring that your passenger would rather watch a movie instead of engaging in any sort of conversation with you then you deserve to get a ticket.

lolz!

[miir]

I thought it was illegal for manufacturers to install video/dvd player/screen in the font seating area of an automobile.

If it isn't, it should be.
It's just common sense.

[Jice Virago]

I live in Orange County, the small armpit of less poluted air between LA and San Diego, where the two biggest freeways in the nation merge (the 5 and the 405) and I drive up the 405 on a daily basis. I am pretty fucking liberal on many issues, but on this one, I am all for the fucking goon squads. The next time some asian lady or fake titted blonde airhead fucking nearly runs me over in her SUV because she is texting and/or has no concept of what a fucking turn signal is, I am getting a gun. There are way too many stupid people with liscences that they should not have driving around and a few less will make the world a better place. You can get away with being a total douche in the midwest, where there are hardly any cars on the highway, but in a populated area, this shit has to stop.

[Funkmasterr]

miir - I believe that (I am sure this differs state to state or what) there are not laws in place about installing stuff in the front seat (in MN, at least), but generally the things are designed with a wire that will not allow the device (tv's, touch screen cd/dvd players) to work in the front seat unless the car is in park.

However, most people I know just disconnect that 1 wire and that issue is bypassed.

[Aslanna]

The driver doesn't, but every other person in the car does including the passenger in the front seat - so how are you going to prove that the driver was paying attention to it and not just the passengers?

...generally the things are designed with a wire that will not allow the device (tv's, touch screen cd/dvd players) to work in the front seat unless the car is in park.

However, most people I know just disconnect that 1 wire and that issue is bypassed.

Hmm.. Let's apply a bit of logic to this: It's designed not to work unless the car is in park. However the officer sees it on while you're driving. I think the proof is fairly obvious. The fact that it is active is more than enough 'proof.' And in addition to that they should also fine the driver for making it work while driving. Double whammy!

[Funkmasterr]

I don't agree. Making a law for something like this under the assumption that the driver is always watching the video and not the passenger is bullshit. As far as the wiring thing, the only place I know for a fact that is done is the in dash dvd/cd players. The tv's that are mounted on the ceiling, in the visors, etc could be different and I've never asked.

But the fact remains that I don't agree, other people in the car should be able to do whatever they damn well please.

[Siji]

Looking forward to some fucking enforcement on cellphone use while driving.

Ditto. It's getting really fucking ridiculous how many people are on the phone while driving.. or more accurately, imitating driving. I don't give two shits if you think you're capable of talking on the phone and driving at the same time, tell that to all the DUI accident victims of people that think they're fine to drink and drive.

The other day I nearly hit a little girl on a bicycle because she was pedaling away and looking down at her phone instead of noticing that she was veering out into the middle of the road. It's getting out of hand. You're not that important. Your topic of conversation is not that important. Get off the fucking phone.

It's already illegal to be on the phone while driving (without the use of a handsfree device) in the states of TX and FL. Probably many more, I just know those because I lived in them.

In FL it is? I haven't heard that myself. I know it is in NY (well, at least parts of NY), but I've never heard anything about it being illegal in FL.

[Boogahz]

It's already illegal to be on the phone while driving (without the use of a handsfree device) in the states of TX and FL. Probably many more, I just know those because I lived in them.

In FL it is? I haven't heard that myself. I know it is in NY (well, at least parts of NY), but I've never heard anything about it being illegal in FL.

It's not illegal in Texas either.

E-mail hoax warns of fake new Texas traffic laws
AUSTIN — An e-mail hoax warning of fake new traffic laws and huge fines in Texas has prompted thousands of calls and e-mails to the state Department of Public Safety.

The e-mail, which DPS spokeswoman Tela Mange said is entirely false, warns of drastic increases in fines for violations as of July 1 and that Texas drivers are now required to use hands-free devices for their cell phones while driving.

"The phones started ringing off the hook Friday morning," Mange said.

The e-mail, which has apparently made its way to thousands of inboxes across the state, claims to be a list of new traffic laws.

It claims an incorrect lane change could result in a $380 fine. Drivers, it says, must use a hands-free cell phone device or face a fine of $285. Driving more than 3 mph over the speed limit will lead to a speeding ticket, the e-mail said.

After getting flooded with calls, DPS posted a public alert on its Web site warning the e-mail is a hoax.

The Legislature did not pass any new laws limiting cell phone use in cars, and most of the traffic laws legislators approve take effect Sept. 1.

Among the new laws that really take effect are new vision and driving tests when drivers 85 and older renew their licenses, and a person ticketed for driving 95 mph or faster will not be allowed to take a driving safety course to get the ticket dismissed.

Mange said Tuesday that officials believe the hoax started in California. She said officials can do little to stop it other than get the word out that it is fake.

"The Internet is a beautiful thing except when people use it for misinformation," Mange said.

[Zaelath]

"The Internet is a beautiful thing except when people use it for misinformation," Mange said.

Hehehe.. I like it. Who needs to lobby for the laws you want. Just email a bunch of retards that they exist and watch them act like they do.

[Funkmasterr]

Looking forward to some fucking enforcement on cellphone use while driving.

Ditto. It's getting really fucking ridiculous how many people are on the phone while driving.. or more accurately, imitating driving. I don't give two shits if you think you're capable of talking on the phone and driving at the same time, tell that to all the DUI accident victims of people that think they're fine to drink and drive.

The other day I nearly hit a little girl on a bicycle because she was pedaling away and looking down at her phone instead of noticing that she was veering out into the middle of the road. It's getting out of hand. You're not that important. Your topic of conversation is not that important. Get off the fucking phone.

It's already illegal to be on the phone while driving (without the use of a handsfree device) in the states of TX and FL. Probably many more, I just know those because I lived in them.

In FL it is? I haven't heard that myself. I know it is in NY (well, at least parts of NY), but I've never heard anything about it being illegal in FL.

Yeah it is in NY, in all of New York city I believe. They are enforcing the shit out of it there too, the amount of tickets they have given out is insane.

[Braxter]

Businessweek's compiled list of laws concerning cell phone use while driving.

This is taking away my rights of freedom and I don't like it. Everyone is different. Some people are incapable of walking and chewing gum and most can. Should we ban chewing gum and walking? Just because a small minority of people are fucking idiots and cannot temper their uses of these devices all of us should not have to pay. This is really getting frustrating. I'm fucking tired of the majority being fucked over by such a small minority. A couple overly sensitive cock suckers banish Imus and other DJs all the time, when most of us are fine and can handle it.

I agree it has a lot to do with multi tasking ability. I know some people that could absolutely not talk on their cell and focus on driving, and I know more that can. I text on my phone all the time while I am driving, and will continue to do so indefinitely, but then again using T9 word on my cell I can text without looking at my phone (unless I have to type a super long text, which I wouldn't do while driving.)

I think you both have a fundamental misunderstanding of the intent of laws in general. Every law is passed with the goal of bettering the public welfare. In practice, some laws don't live up to this, but it's what lawmakers strive for. This law is no different: in passing it, the legislators in New Jersey (et al.) felt that the public would benefit by it. Even if you're right in that some people's ability to multitask allows them to safely text and drive simultaneously (hint: you're not right), it is irrelevant where the law is concerned.

Also, laws cannot be selective. We don't make laws that apply only to stupid people and laws that apply only to smart people. If we can prevent people in general from killing others by forcing them to drive safely, then it should be done despite the inconvenience to everyone else. And the fact that laws can't be selective should not prevent us from passing them.

There is truth to some of what you say. At its most basic level, this is a security vs. liberty issue, but it's definitely not a fundamental rights or civil rights issue. Federal and state laws concerning motor vehicle operation are put in place to ensure the safety of every driver not an individual driver. That is, they're concerned with the safety of the roads in general. That's what prevents this from being a fundamental rights issue: it is about the group and not the individual.

When you look at the body of (preventative) laws passed by our federal and state governments, one theme rides through all of them: individual liberty shall not be restricted unless other individuals are harmed by the lack of restriction. As fun as it may be, you can't shoot bullets into the air, yell 'fire' in a movie theater, park your car in the middle of the highway, etc. This is one more law along the same vein. All it's doing is rehashing the same theme in light of new technology.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Braxter, I see your point. I just have a problem with reactionary lawmaking. I think when laws are made there should be sufficient evidence to do so. All I have seen so far is subjective.

I feel maybe in line with preventative law making, maybe selt belts and helmets for motorcyclists is a much better analogy. They benefit everyone. I don't feel this cell phone law benefits everyone. I think it is a reactionary media driven law.

[Aslanna]

It benefits everyone by making the roads safer from idiots who don't pay attention while screwing around with electrnic devices. How is it hurting anyone? Media driven law? Just how to you come to that conclusion? I don't see it being hyped everywhere in the media day after day. It's a law drivne by common sense. Unfortunately there are people out there who lack common sense and they are a danger to everyone on the road.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

It benefits everyone by making the roads safer from idiots who don't pay attention while screwing around with electrnic devices. How is it hurting anyone? Media driven law? Just how to you come to that conclusion? I don't see it being hyped everywhere in the media day after day. It's a law drivne by common sense. Unfortunately there are people out there who lack common sense and they are a danger to everyone on the road.

I thought we already covered this. If its true intention was to protect everyone, they would have removed radios, TV's, banned drive thru's, and banned passengers from talking during transport. All it is, is something attainable. They can get this one through. They'd never be able to ban the others.

[masteen]

I'll take law that actually makes sense any way I can get it. Reactionary, proactive, vision from Allah, I don't give a fuck. Please keep the retards off the fucking roads.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

For the record, I agree with no texting while driving. I don't agree with banning cell phone usage while driving.

[Aslanna]

I thought we already covered this. If its true intention was to protect everyone, they would have removed radios, TV's, banned drive thru's, and banned passengers from talking during transport. All it is, is something attainable. They can get this one through. They'd never be able to ban the others.

That's why I specifically said 'electronic devices'. Anyone with even half a brain knew I was referring to the devices that are targeted by these new laws (and the topic of this thread). I guess that's why you couldn't.

Banned drive-thru's lolz!

You still haven't explained what you mean by 'reactionary media driven law'. How exactly is the media driving these laws?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I thought we already covered this. If its true intention was to protect everyone, they would have removed radios, TV's, banned drive thru's, and banned passengers from talking during transport. All it is, is something attainable. They can get this one through. They'd never be able to ban the others.

That's why I specifically said 'electronic devices'. Anyone with even half a brain knew I was referring to the devices that are targeted by these new laws (and the topic of this thread). I guess that's why you couldn't.

Banned drive-thru's lolz!

You still haven't explained what you mean by 'reactionary media driven law'. How exactly is the media driving these laws?

How is it statistically driven? Answer that first.

[Wulfran]

But the fact remains that I don't agree, other people in the car should be able to do whatever they damn well please.

I would agree with that statement if you added "as long as they don't pose a distraction to the driver". Thats the problem with cell phones and even shit like eating when you're driving: they take some focus off the primary task of keeping your vehicle safe. Driving is NOT a right: its a privilege issued within the limits of a number of laws to make it as safe as possible to eveyone on the road. The primary concern of EVERYONE in a vehicle should be that safety otherwise they don't have the right to be there. I worked for a large oilfield service company (they're now a division of Schlumberger) about 15 years ago, whose business consisted of transporting big pieces of equipment to various sites but whose employees generally spent more time on the highway than on the sites themselves. They tracked the number of accidents as part of their overall employee safety program. The consistent #1 cause of injury crashes their vehicles/people were involved in (I think it was through tracked since the late 70s or early 80s), were caused by Driver Inattention: people eating, drinking, talking on a cell/two-way radio, fucking with a radio/stereo, etc. I realize you can't make a law against everything but you have to legislate for the lowest common denominator otherwise some stupid fuck will try just about anything.

[Soreali]

I thought we already covered this. If its true intention was to protect everyone, they would have removed radios, TV's, banned drive thru's, and banned passengers from talking during transport. All it is, is something attainable. They can get this one through. They'd never be able to ban the others.

That's why I specifically said 'electronic devices'. Anyone with even half a brain knew I was referring to the devices that are targeted by these new laws (and the topic of this thread). I guess that's why you couldn't.

Banned drive-thru's lolz!

You still haven't explained what you mean by 'reactionary media driven law'. How exactly is the media driving these laws?

How is it statistically driven? Answer that first.

A little old but here ya go!

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/transporta ... 5.htm#data

[Boogahz]

Inattention in general appears to be a larger factor than just Cellphone usage based on that poll. Too bad they cannot come up with a way to attach a hand to headrests that could smack someone in the back of the head when they aren't paying attention to the road.

[Soreali]

True, but at least gives the statistics when a cell phone was involved..


Work with me here I googled that in 2 minutes!!

[Boogahz]

True, but at least gives the statistics when a cell phone was involved..


Work with me here I googled that in 2 minutes!!

I was just surprised that the percentage of tracked cellphone related accidents was that low. I guess that not paying attention could count things like rubbernecking and throwing shoes at kids in the back seat, which would explain why the percentage of phone related accidents was so low. Maybe they threw the phone at the kids and kept the accident from being tracked correctly!

Honestly, the number of accidents I see/hear about at work do not include as many inattention related stories as I would expect. Most people that talk about those situations do so in reference to "close calls" (no pun intended).

[Soreali]

Well that was also two years ago or so.. I would say its safe to assume that the number of morons on their cell phone while driving has increased since then.. and i'd also bet that the number of accidents resulting from it have gone up as well...

I for one could care less if they make this a law.. and I live in jersey.. I txt message all the time but I never take my eyes off the road because I dont need to.. On the other hand I for one never talk on my phone while driving..

[Fash]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/ ... 4-18-05-45

CANANDAIGUA, N.Y. (AP) -- Text messages were sent and received on a 17-year-old driver's cell phone moments before the sport utility vehicle slammed head-on into a truck, killing her and four other recent high school graduates, police said.

[Fairweather Pure]

I never understood the popularity of text messaging. I just, you know, call the person I want to communicate with. I guessed I missed the boat on that one.

I talk on my cell phone all the time while driving. Of course, I don't live in a huge metropolis with 8 lane highways. These cities seem to be the ones having the problems and are initiating the laws. The pessimist in me thinks they just see an easy revenue stream with tickets.

[Lalanae]

I never understood the popularity of text messaging. I just, you know, call the person I want to communicate with. I guessed I missed the boat on that one.

Yeah I don't get it either. I thought technological trends exist because they simplify things or make things more enjoyable. Typing a message out when I could just, um, speak what I need to say, seems like a waste of time.

[Boogahz]

She probably didn't have a headset to use while driving, duh!

As if talking on your phone while driving were not enough of a distraction, texting is downright stupid.

[Sylvus]

I never understood the popularity of text messaging. I just, you know, call the person I want to communicate with. I guessed I missed the boat on that one.

Yeah I don't get it either. I thought technological trends exist because they simplify things or make things more enjoyable. Typing a message out when I could just, um, speak what I need to say, seems like a waste of time.

For me, the appeal in texting is the same as that of emailing. Sometimes (often, really) I don't want/need to have a two-way conversation on the phone. Text messaging enables me to just shoot off a quick "hey, i'm at mel's diner if you want to come meet me", which takes me about 5 seconds to type on my phone's keyboard. And it doesn't require me waiting for a response or whatever when one isn't immediately necessary. If my good friend John Doe is taking a nap and wakes up a half hour from now, he can look at his phone and know where I'm at and respond accordingly. Sure, voicemail accomplishes the same task, but it takes comparatively MUCH longer for me to call, wait for his greeting, leave a VM, him to see he's got it, call his VM, listen to the message than it does for me to type it and it to be waiting on his phone for him to read it. With my friends, if someone is coming to pick someone else up or whatever, there will often just be an "omw" text when the person leaves. Typing little things like that, that don't require a whole conversation, is way easier than waiting for the person to answer and having a meaningless chat with someone that you just spoke to an hour ago to tell them you'd see them in an hour.

I agree that it's kind of pointless if you're trying to communicate with or catch up on old times with someone and haven't spoken to them in a number of months or years. In that case, I'd call and speak to them.

Why, just this weekend I saw a great use for text messaging. I was at a concert and when my friend went to the bathroom, she texted me "do you want me to grab you a beer?" I never would have been able to hear her ask that on the phone, and I might have missed out on a cold, frosty beverage.

[Winnow]

Why, just this weekend I saw a great use for text messaging. I was at a concert and when my friend went to the bathroom, she texted me "do you want me to grab you a beer?" I never would have been able to hear her ask that on the phone, and I might have missed out on a cold, frosty beverage.

How did you hear your phone ring or was it on vibrate?

I've never sent a text message by phone, but I did a lot of text messaging back in the late 90's when I worked for Motorola. They were all hyped up on using Skyword pagers, giving everyone the batman utility belt look.

IMO, the best use ever for text messaging is "calling" in sick. I had a group setup to spam a default text message (maybe changing a word or two), making sure at least someone would get the message. It was pain free and a few button pushes later I would be back asleep snoozing away with any responses returning to my skypager that I could check in case something actually important was going on that needed my attention.

On a related note: most of the time, email > phone call

[Sylvus]

How did you hear your phone ring or was it on vibrate?

It was on vibrate.

[Boogahz]

Why, just this weekend I saw a great use for text messaging. I was at a concert and when my friend went to the bathroom, she texted me "do you want me to grab you a beer?" I never would have been able to hear her ask that on the phone, and I might have missed out on a cold, frosty beverage.

A real friend would have brought you the beer whether you needed another or not.