|
| 90115534 (banned)Someone is sabotaging me.Finding out who join:2001-06-03 Kenner, LA
1 recommendation |
90115534 (banned)
Member
2009-Dec-7 11:24 am
Re: .Wow us Americans are so stupid. | |
|
| | Warzau Premium Member join:2000-10-26 Naperville, IL |
Warzau
Premium Member
2009-Dec-7 2:40 pm
Re: .said by 90115534:Wow us Americans are so stupid. With poor grammar to boot. | |
|
| | | 90115534 (banned)Someone is sabotaging me.Finding out who join:2001-06-03 Kenner, LA |
90115534 (banned)
Member
2009-Dec-7 2:56 pm
Re: .said by Warzau:said by 90115534:Wow us Americans are so stupid. With poor grammar to boot. That was the point of it so you would notice. Looks like a lot more people actually noticed it because of the Nazi grammar chiefs. | |
|
| | | wvcaver Premium Member join:2005-04-17 Millersburg, OH |
to Warzau
said by Warzau:said by 90115534:Wow us Americans are so stupid. With poor grammar to boot. I think you still got the point | |
|
| PhilRojo Sol Premium Member join:2001-06-11 Downers Grove, IL |
to NeoandGeo
| |
|
| | exocet_cmWriting Premium Member join:2003-03-23 Brooklyn, NY |
Re: .said by Phil:That really sums it up. True. Even more stupid that a lawyer actually accepted the case. | |
|
| | | pandora Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2009-Dec-7 2:16 pm
May not have been against OK lawAccording to » www.dmv.org/ok-oklahoma/ ··· l_Phones Oklahoma has no laws regarding using cell phones while driving. This would have made the young mans activity legal. I can't believe Sprint or Samsung are responsible for the actions of this 20 year old guy. Dismissal will be an issue for a judge, and probably for the appellate courts to decide. It seems very obvious to me that talking while driving is not very safe. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: May not have been against OK lawsaid by pandora:According to » www.dmv.org/ok-oklahoma/ ··· l_Phones Oklahoma has no laws regarding using cell phones while driving. This would have made the young mans activity legal. I can't believe Sprint or Samsung are responsible for the actions of this 20 year old guy. Dismissal will be an issue for a judge, and probably for the appellate courts to decide. It seems very obvious to me that talking while driving is not very safe. whether or not its allowed under the law does not mean the person was or was not negligent. Different issue and standard. | |
|
| | | | r81984Fair and Balanced Premium Member join:2001-11-14 Katy, TX 1 edit |
to pandora
The sad part is talking on a cell is no more distracting than talking to a passenger. This driver was stupid and the cell phone had nothing to do with the accident.
It would be the responsiblity of the license bureau to ensure drivers are aware they need to eliminate distractions while driving not a cell phone or phone company.
I hope they counter sue this moron for wasting everyones time with this BS lawsuit and she has to file for bankruptcy. | |
|
| | | | | pandora Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2009-Dec-7 7:01 pm
Re: May not have been against OK lawsaid by r81984:The sad part is talking on a cell is no more distracting than talking to a passenger. This driver was stupid and the cell phone had nothing to do with the accident. I don't know how exactly he was using the cell phone. If it was via a Bluetooth headset, then maybe it is as distracting as conversation. If he was dialing, or holding a phone to his ear, then I'd disagree. Managing a phone while having conversation is more distracting than having a conversation. | |
|
| | | | | | r81984Fair and Balanced Premium Member join:2001-11-14 Katy, TX |
r81984
Premium Member
2009-Dec-7 7:11 pm
Re: May not have been against OK lawsaid by pandora:said by r81984:The sad part is talking on a cell is no more distracting than talking to a passenger. This driver was stupid and the cell phone had nothing to do with the accident. I don't know how exactly he was using the cell phone. If it was via a Bluetooth headset, then maybe it is as distracting as conversation. If he was dialing, or holding a phone to his ear, then I'd disagree. Managing a phone while having conversation is more distracting than having a conversation. If he was dialing or texting then yes it would have been distracting, but holding a phone to your ear is less distracting than talking to a passenger. People tend to turn their heads and look/glance at their passenger while talking. | |
|
| | | | | | | pandora Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2009-Dec-7 7:13 pm
Re: May not have been against OK lawsaid by r81984:but holding a phone to your ear is less distracting than talking to a passenger. We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
to r81984
said by r81984:said by pandora:said by r81984:The sad part is talking on a cell is no more distracting than talking to a passenger. This driver was stupid and the cell phone had nothing to do with the accident. I don't know how exactly he was using the cell phone. If it was via a Bluetooth headset, then maybe it is as distracting as conversation. If he was dialing, or holding a phone to his ear, then I'd disagree. Managing a phone while having conversation is more distracting than having a conversation. If he was dialing or texting then yes it would have been distracting, but holding a phone to your ear is less distracting than talking to a passenger. People tend to turn their heads and look/glance at their passenger while talking. BUT holding the phone to your ear leaves you with one hand only for steering and maybe shifting. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Re: May not have been against OK lawsaid by zaldy:BUT holding the phone to your ear leaves you with one hand only for steering and maybe shifting. This is why God created hands free kits/bluetooth headsets. Not condoning talking while in the car, but you have to find that middle ground. Texting while driving should be punishable by whip. There is only one cure for stupid, and if we can't beat it out of you...well, natural selection will help with that one . I once rode in a car with a friend who texted, with a numerical keyboard. I was sure I was going to die. Not that he was all over the road, on the contrary, he was a good driver - I was just worried about him smacking into someone else that wasn't paying attention and he didn't see because he was texting. Let me jump on my soap box and say - People, if you must *talk* to someone CALL THEM. I can say that ANYTHING you have to say cannot be squished into 160 chars. Text messaging is convient, but it's the death of human communication. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | ctggzg Premium Member join:2005-02-11 USA |
ctggzg
Premium Member
2009-Dec-9 9:08 am
Re: May not have been against OK lawsaid by k1ll3rdr4g0n:This is why God created hands free kits/bluetooth headsets. Studies (and sense) have clearly shown that the conversation itself is much more of a problem than holding the phone. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | ReVeLaTeD Premium Member join:2001-11-10 San Diego, CA |
Re: May not have been against OK lawsaid by ctggzg:said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:This is why God created hands free kits/bluetooth headsets. Studies (and sense) have clearly shown that the conversation itself is much more of a problem than holding the phone. Disagree. And Mythbusters even tested it. Having a regular conversation - such as letting someone know you're arriving shortly - is no more distracting than attempting to stir coffee while driving, or fumbling with the radio. Having a stressful conversation, however, is definitely distracting because you're emotionally engaged, and your focus dwindles. This is true regardless of Bluetooth. HOWEVER... The main problem with people is two-fold. First, having it in your hand IS an issue, because you can't look to your left or your right or to your rear when switching lanes or turning. THAT is a bigger hazard than the stressful communication, because people don't know how to drive as it is. They don't look over their shoulder before switching lanes and just drift, sometimes not even looking in the mirrors (which aren't even showing the true distance of other cars anyway, plus blind spots cause issues). The phone carrier/manufacturer is not to blame. There are numerous warnings in the documentation. It's just that people don't pay attention to them. This chick needs to be suing the distracted driver and the state, IMO. Distracted driver, well that's obvious. State, for not taking any measures to attempt to cut this practice down. I know that sounds drastic, but that's the way I think. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
to ctggzg
said by ctggzg:said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:This is why God created hands free kits/bluetooth headsets. Studies (and sense) have clearly shown that the conversation itself is much more of a problem than holding the phone. You must have a very flexible neck. My sense says that if I am not holding the device I can look around and use both hands in the vehicle, I have more attention to the road than on the phone BUT of course I would loose some focus due to the conversation. Studies cannot lay claim to how everyone's brain works. I multi-task on the computer everyday (Alt-Tab addict), does that mean that I would have the same amount of focus than someone who doesn't multi-task? Everyone's brain is different, everyone thinks differently. I don't condone either like it said, but you need to find middle ground because as long as cell phones exist it will happen. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
zaldy
Member
2009-Dec-15 4:02 am
Bottom line is talking or texting is distracting.
BUT talking on the phone is MORE distracting than talking with another passenger. Because when you are on the phone, the person talking to you can not see you and you can not see them too. So you attention will be more focus into conversation unlike if you are talking to your GF beside you. She will understand that you need to stop talking when you are in the middle of turning or what not while if your GF is on the phone she will constantly ask you "you there" questions which you will be pressure to answer. | |
|
| | | | PDXPLT join:2003-12-04 Banks, OR |
to pandora
That's probably not true. I bet Oklahoma has a law against distracted driving. If the driver was doing something that distracted him sufficiently to cause an accident, whether it be talking on a phone, playing withe radio, reading a magazine, applying makeup (all of which I've seen in traffic), then it would not be legal. What Oklahoma doesn't have is a law that says talking on a cellphone is prima facie evidence of unsafe driving; the officer must make a determination that in the particular instance in question, the use of the cellphone was distracting, and thus illegal in that particular instance. | |
|
| | | | | Desdinova Premium Member join:2003-01-26 Gaithersburg, MD |
Re: May not have been against OK law"What Oklahoma doesn't have is a law that says talking on a cellphone is prima facie evidence of unsafe driving..." Seems to me that in this situation the event in question offers pretty clear evidence of just how unsafe it is... | |
|
| |
to NeoandGeo
that lady is stupid. it is only common sence that it is not safe to drive and talk or text on cell phone. the lady must not have had common sence. it seem like not have common sence runs in the family. | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
Re: .You might want to re-read the post. The lady who is suing -- her mother was killed by a GUY who was using his cell phone. Her mother wasn't using the cell phone. Now, if she had decided to sue the guy who killed her mother because he was using a cell phone while driving (negligence) then she probably has herself a case. | |
|
| | | |
Re: .I agree there.suing the carrier and phone maker will not do anything but a pointless waste of a lawsuit. | |
|
| | | ctggzg Premium Member join:2005-02-11 USA |
to matrix3D
said by matrix3D:Now, if she had decided to sue the guy who killed her mother because he was using a cell phone while driving (negligence) then she probably has herself a case. That shouldn't be a civil case either. That kind of stuff is handled under criminal charges such as criminal negligence, vehicular manslaughter, etc. If the guy was found guilty then maybe he should pay restitution. | |
|
| | |
to jt8523
said by jt8523 :
that lady is stupid. it is only common sence that it is not safe to drive and talk or text on cell phone. the lady must not have had common sence. it seem like not have common sence runs in the family. "Common" sense isn't very common. You might want to try rereading as well. The woman killed was NOT the one on the phone. | |
|
| Mike Mod join:2000-09-17 Pittsburgh, PA |
to NeoandGeo
she's just gold digging.
I don't see how a disclaimer or even an express warranty will help anything on anything that is common sense. nothing will happen. | |
|
| BIGMIKEQ Premium Member join:2002-06-07 Gainesville, FL |
to NeoandGeo
same Bullshit gos on Wis gun manufacturer Friday, October 21, 2005 The House yesterday voted to shield companies that make and sell firearms from lawsuits by the victims of shootings, sending the legislation to the White House and handing the nation's gun lobby a paramount victory it has sought for years. » www.washingtonpost.com/w ··· 485.html | |
|
| nitzan Premium Member join:2008-02-27 |
to NeoandGeo
Amen. Why doesn't she sue the car maker, the local government who built the road, the clothing companies and makeup companies that enabled her daughter to leave the house - while she's at it? | |
|
| | jfd15 join:2008-01-07 West Sacramento, CA 1 edit |
jfd15
Member
2009-Dec-7 6:23 pm
Re: .said by nitzan:Amen. Why doesn't she sue the car maker, the local government who built the road, the clothing companies and makeup companies that enabled her daughter to leave the house - while she's at it? exactly...and until we get "loser pays", this b.s. will never end... trace this back to crooked lawyers and the stooges who do their bidding in Congress(the democrat party)... | |
|
| | | |
Zen6
Anon
2009-Dec-7 6:59 pm
Re: . We need tort reform across America. | |
|
|
sorryYour lawsuit will be dropped. She should of known better. Thus she suffered the consequences. | |
|
| •••• |
brianiscool |
Imaginea warning message each time you send a text or call someone. Then you have to click the ok button lol. | |
|
| •••••••• |
Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC |
Matt3
Premium Member
2009-Dec-7 11:18 am
SighHow long before cell phones start disabling themselves when they detect a moving signal, like most in-car video solutions? Think I'm crazy? If lawsuits like this are won by stupid, money hungry litigious idiots, it will happen. | |
|
| •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• |
Chuckles0 Premium Member join:2006-03-04 Saint Paul, MN
1 recommendation |
$Yes. Sue the companies because they have more money. Don't sue the dummy on the phone he can't pay enough. | |
|
| en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA |
en102
Member
2009-Dec-7 12:41 pm
Re: $That's exactly it. This reminds me of an old story about lawsuits:
There's a kid riding his bicycle down a country road at night, without a helmet, no lights on the road. He is riding down the middle of the road and gets hit by a drunk driver, and injured.
Who does the family sue ? a) Driver (drunk) b) County/State/City (no lights on the road) c) Bicycle manufacturer
Answer C. -Driver doesn't have much money -County/state/city would go after parents for being neglegent -Bicycle manufacturer has money, and there's probably some missing warning about driving a bicycle at night w/o a light, protective gear and driving down the middle of the road.
Follow the money. | |
|
| | The Dv8orJust call me Dong Suck Oh, M.D. Premium Member join:2001-08-09 Denver, CO ARRIS TG862 Cisco 2811 TP-Link Archer AX10
|
Re: $This was an actual case against Cannondale about 15 years ago. A kid was hit by a car while riding on the road at night without the proper gear. The mother sued Cannondale for $7 million for not giving adequate warning or not selling the proper night gear or some shit like that. I just Googled the shit out of it, but couldnt find the lawsuit. I think they settled. | |
|
AZ_OGM join:2007-01-12 Phoenix, AZ
1 recommendation |
AZ_OGM
Member
2009-Dec-7 11:19 am
Stupid is as Stupid DoesForest Gump's words have never been more truer. | |
|
Robert Premium Member join:2001-08-25 Miami, FL 1 edit |
Robert
Premium Member
2009-Dec-7 11:19 am
dupdup post. | |
|
| woody7 Premium Member join:2000-10-13 Torrance, CA |
woody7
Premium Member
2009-Dec-7 11:34 am
Re: Tort reformThis has nothing to do with Tort reform,It shouldn't have even got passed the filing stage. All of these so called frivolous suits (or suits in general) go before a judge or some panel in most states, and then they proceed if merited. I agree we need tort reform, but for the right reason. When someone is injured or killed because a manufacturer didn't want to fix a serious problem with their product, a doctor takes out the wrong lung, etc., a bartender gives an obviously intoxicated person another drink, and so on. I agree that suing the car manufacturer, or the gun maker or the phone company or maker should be left out, but what I don't hear from the pro tort reformers is the actual cost that is associated to the suits. For some reason, lawsuits are factored into the cost of everything to day for good or bad. If you are talking about medical malpractice, the actual cost of malpractice suits that win is surprising low. It is a smoke screen. Peace | |
|
Hpower join:2000-06-08 Canyon Country, CA |
Hpower
Member
2009-Dec-7 11:19 am
Funny..Judge: Mam...did you read the manuel? IT SAYS IT THERE CLEARLY! We cannot control stupidity either kthx. Case dropped. NEXT! Mother: | |
|
Robert Premium Member join:2001-08-25 Miami, FL |
Robert
Premium Member
2009-Dec-7 11:20 am
Tort reformEven more reason we need tort reform. She's suing the entities with the most money. What a joke. | |
|
| •••••••••• |
|
dumbThis lady needs to grow up. Its been warned by everyone, yet so many people still do it. I bet even she has done it once before. | |
|
Cheese Premium Member join:2003-10-26 Naples, FL |
Cheese
Premium Member
2009-Dec-7 11:24 am
Um.....This is common sense that is distracts people? I have a feeling Sprint won't see a day in court for this. | |
|
|
Drive thru???If she wins I'm going to order something from every drive thru in my area and have a small accident after order... then I can sue them because they I was eating while driving and the drive thru teller did not warn me.. | |
|
bemis Premium Member join:2008-07-18 united state |
bemis
Premium Member
2009-Dec-7 11:43 am
grossSeriously... this seems even more egregious then the famous hot coffee law suit.
The theory is it's the cell phone provider and manufacturers fault that someone was distracted and crashed?
Ok, so why not sue the vehicle manufacturer for not warning the driver that doing other tasks while operating the vehicle may lead to distraction? Shouldn't there be a nice big, fat, yellow warning plastered on the dashboard and written in 15 different languages?
While we're at it, why not sue the dealer who sold the vehicle for not properly instructing the driver/owner in it's use?
This is a plain and simple money grab, and while I feel sorry for the person who lost their mother, this lawsuit is an embarrassment. | |
|
| •••••••••• |
1 recommendation |
....Hey can Rosie O'Donnell sue a silverware manufacturer for making her fat? I bet there are no warnings on silverware that warn about the dangers of extreme eating. | |
|
| SeleniaGentoo Convert Premium Member join:2006-09-22 Fort Smith, AR |
Selenia
Premium Member
2009-Dec-7 12:58 pm
Re: ....said by GilbertMark:Hey can Rosie O'Donnell sue a silverware manufacturer for making her fat? I bet there are no warnings on silverware that warn about the dangers of extreme eating. LMAO! That one made my lunchtime. Seriously though, it sounds like Mickey Dee's hung themselves by their defensive mishaps. The legal team needs to be fired LOL. I think this case is more cut and dry as to how many idiot warnings were given and will be dismissed. I feel sad for anyone losing their mother, but I couldn't sue the tobacco company for what my mother knew might happen and it's the same case here. Even though it may have provided some feelings of satisfaction. She shouldn't embarass herself like this. | |
|
| dentman42 Premium Member join:2001-10-02 Columbus, OH |
to GilbertMark
said by GilbertMark:Hey can Rosie O'Donnell sue a silverware manufacturer for making her fat? I bet there are no warnings on silverware that warn about the dangers of extreme eating. Nah, she didn't have time for silverware. She just shovelled it in with her hands. | |
|
1 recommendation |
Blah
Anon
2009-Dec-7 11:46 am
It's Not my Fault!No change or reform of the law is going to change the currently mentality that people have succumbed to. The attitude is "It's not my fault." Blaming credit card companies because you ran up $30k in bills shopping for clothes. you are right, running a business thats to make money is wrong and evil. Managing your own finances is the companies fault. Its the same instance here. Sure it is sad that her mother was killed by the person not bright enough to frive and talk, but its neither the Cell phone company or the cell providers fault. I saw an article last week were a woman was going to sue CSX because her 4 year old child ran onto the tracks chasing his dog and was hit by a train. The boy survived with minor injusries, but she insists that this was CSX's fault because they do not have fences around their tracks. she should also consider a lawsuit against her dog, he did take off running. The point is that these lawsuits are way too common, and way too ridiculous. I think that people who file these lawsuits and are unsuccessful should have to pay 40% of the amount that they sued for to the local school district. There 2 problems solved. | |
|
funchordsHello MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA |
Before we poo-poo this entirely...... the guy who invented the thing, Martin Cooper, once told a state forum back in the 1960s that there should be a lock on the dial to keep people from using it while driving. And since these things are constantly tracking our location (and therefore our speed), a driving lockout is certainly is a feasible thing to do. My Garmin GPS systems have always warned me about the danger of driving while manipulating the GPS, and I have to punch past a warning screen and turn off a safety feature (turned on, by default) in order to use the thing while the car is moving. That all said, I DO NOT support a ban. According to his own statements, it wasn't the complexity of using the phone that distracted this driver, it was the intensity of his conversation. He forgot that job #1 when operating a motor vehicle is safety. Police have been operating mobile radiotelephones for half a century. Rather than banning technology, police departments train the officers to use it in a safe manner. | |
|
| |
Re: Before we poo-poo this entirely...A driving lockout is not feasible based on speed. The speed you are going doesn't indicate that you are driving. There are plenty of people that are passenger's in cars, buses, etc. that would also get locked out\ if you base it only on the speed you are going. | |
|
ackman join:2000-10-04 Atlanta, GA |
ackman
Member
2009-Dec-7 12:11 pm
Line up the attorneysHow many accidents were caused by putting on makeup, or munching a burger, or tuning the radio? | |
|
| PlasticmanWill Work For Bandwidth Premium Member join:2002-09-06 Johnston, RI |
Re: Line up the attorneyssaid by ackman:How many accidents were caused by putting on makeup, or munching a burger, or tuning the radio? I know of one..... My buddy was pulling out of his drive way and a lady hit him while putting nail polish on while driving down the road. | |
|
|
stupidShit, they can't catch a break. They finally get iPCS to quit suing them and the consumers start back up. The justice system needs to punish these frivolous lawsuit.s | |
|
| Cheese Premium Member join:2003-10-26 Naples, FL |
Cheese
Premium Member
2009-Dec-7 12:18 pm
Re: stupidCan I sue the insurance company for allowing an 87 year old to drive, and due to this, hit me and total my car? » photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/ph ··· 8286.jpgOh wait, I did get a lawsuit! Not because of the question above, but that was part of my reasoning. | |
|
| | SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT ·StarLink
1 recommendation |
Re: stupidHoly crap dude..
I agree on that one. Once you get to a specific age, you need to redo your driving test. My G-Grandpa pulled out in front of a semi, it was literally feet between the semi and his car (which also had my Grandma and my uncle in it).
I think my grandma took his keys from that point on. | |
|
|
...I think she forgot some people from the lawsuit like Toyota, Ford, the municipality, the stoplight manufacturer, and lastly, the one person that it might make sense to sue....the driver of the other vehicle. | |
|
Yezidi join:2009-11-17 New York, NY |
Yezidi
Member
2009-Dec-7 12:24 pm
Sad StoryIt's a tragedy that Ms. Smith lost her mother due to the negligence of this 20 year old guy but I really can't see this lawsuit surviving. In a just society she and her family would have the right to decide if he lives or dies but unfortunately she has no real chance of achieving justice for her mother, legally. This lawsuit is doomed. | |
|
| nixenRockin' the Boxen Premium Member join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA |
nixen
Premium Member
2009-Dec-7 2:58 pm
Re: Sad Storysaid by Yezidi:It's a tragedy that Ms. Smith lost her mother due to the negligence of this 20 year old guy but I really can't see this lawsuit surviving. In a just society she and her family would have the right to decide if he lives or dies but unfortunately she has no real chance of achieving justice for her mother, legally. This lawsuit is doomed. It may never have been intended to go to court. Many lawsuits are filed with the knowledge that there's a non-trivial chance that the target of the suit will simply offer a no admittance of fault settlement to make the suit go away. | |
|
|
|