Forgot your password?

If I could (or had to) ban texting in one place ...

Displaying poll results.
I'd start with cars
  14938 votes / 57%
I'd start with restaurants
  561 votes / 2%
I'd start with classrooms
  1703 votes / 6%
I'd start with public sidewalks
  520 votes / 2%
I'd argue that in a sense "everywhere" is one place
  4517 votes / 17%
What's wrong with texting?
  3536 votes / 13%
25775 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

If I could (or had to) ban texting in one place ...

Comments Filter:
  • Why ban in cars? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by octothorpe99 (34654) on Friday March 15, 2013 @11:28AM (#43182781)

    Banning texting in cars makes no sense if the "texter" is not the "driver".

    • by yurtinus (1590157) on Friday March 15, 2013 @11:31AM (#43182823)
      What's wrong with you man?! Think of the children!
    • by chargersfan420 (1487195) on Friday March 15, 2013 @11:34AM (#43182855)
      Agreed. Here in Alberta, Canada, we just passed a "Distracted Driver" law last year. There are heavy fines for anyone caught using their cellphone (or other device) while behind the wheel, grooming, or eating anything that would be considered a "meal" and not a "snack".

      Since it is already banned in cars for drivers here, it led me to vote "What's wrong with texting?", because I think the other options are just silly attempts at oppression of freedom.
      • Agreed. Here in Alberta, Canada, we just passed a "Distracted Driver" law last year. There are heavy fines for anyone caught using their cellphone (or other device) while behind the wheel, grooming, or eating anything that would be considered a "meal" and not a "snack".

        Since it is already banned in cars for drivers here, it led me to vote "What's wrong with texting?", because I think the other options are just silly attempts at oppression of freedom.

        I went with the (amazingly unpopular) choice of "public sidewalks" -- as people often put both themselves and others into harm's way, or just walk along slowly, completely oblivious to how they're affecting sidewalk traffic. If people pulled off to the side of the sidewalk to text, I wouldn't have a problem.

        As for all the other options, they're more a social issue than a safety issue (assuming it's not the driver of the car texting). Actually, I'd suggest that in the case of the car, having the non-driver

        • by kwiqsilver (585008) on Friday March 15, 2013 @12:08PM (#43183189)

          I went with the (amazingly unpopular) choice of "public sidewalks" -- as people often put both themselves and others into harm's way, or just walk along slowly, completely oblivious to how they're affecting sidewalk traffic. If people pulled off to the side of the sidewalk to text, I wouldn't have a problem.

          So then what about tourists who walk down the sidewalk slowly, taking in the sights? Should we ban them, too? And if you're banning things that are inconsiderate, I'd like to humbly suggest one of the most inconsiderate acts possible: banning others from doing things the banner doesn't approve of.

          • Indeed... and just like the one about cars that should have been about impaired drivers, the one about sidewalks should actually be about impaired pedestrians at intersections. NYC already has laws in place about this, due to the number of traffic accidents caused by walking texters there.

            Really: we don't need to ban activities; we need to have enforced consequences for doing dangerous combinations of things.

            Or, we can go the German route, and just have a bunch of red tape associated with acquiring the rig

          • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Friday March 15, 2013 @02:09PM (#43184641) Homepage Journal

            I went with the (amazingly unpopular) choice of "public sidewalks" -- as people often put both themselves and others into harm's way, or just walk along slowly, completely oblivious to how they're affecting sidewalk traffic. If people pulled off to the side of the sidewalk to text, I wouldn't have a problem.

            So then what about tourists who walk down the sidewalk slowly, taking in the sights? Should we ban them, too? And if you're banning things that are inconsiderate, I'd like to humbly suggest one of the most inconsiderate acts possible: banning others from doing things the banner doesn't approve of.

            The difference being, by "taking in the sights" the tourists are, obviously, paying attention to the world around them, unlike those with their heads stuffed in a cell phone screen.

          • Re:Why ban in cars? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15, 2013 @03:10PM (#43185269)

            "So then what about tourists who walk down the sidewalk slowly, taking in the sights?"

            Oh come on now. Have you tried walking lately? People are like zombies now. Checkout lines, stair ways, crossing the street - everyone has their face glued to their handheld device. These people are simply not aware of their surroundings. I have had people stop in front of me while climbing stairs! just stopped dead, zombied, texting. Then they get mad at me for not walking around them! the nerve!

            Its a brave new world out there! take the transit some time and see the absolute zoning out and inconsideration that seems to be the rule and not the exception. Sure they will most likely get hit by a bus eventually, but who wants to wait for that! It wouldn't be such a problem, except that everyone is doing it!!

            And whats with picking up your phone while bagging groceries! Just fucking wait till you leave the store! god damn it!!! I guarantee there is nothing that can't wait 5 fucking minutes!!! The sad thing is that its not only teenagers and youngins doing it. Yesterday a women of about 60 held up the entire line bagging one item at a time because she had her hand full talking on the damn phone!!! These people should know better, but its like you put a phone in their hand and they become a completely different person. They are like little TV's the way people tune out the world.

          • So then what about tourists who walk down the sidewalk slowly, taking in the sights? Should we ban them, too?

            Hmm... Is that an option?

          • by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Friday March 15, 2013 @05:08PM (#43186337)

            > And if you're banning things that are inconsiderate, I'd like to humbly suggest one of the most inconsiderate acts possible: banning others from doing things the banner doesn't approve of.

            Sorry, those suggesting those banning were already banned.

            And the ones doing the banning were also banned. /Oblg. apologies to Monty Python.

        • by jamesh (87723) on Friday March 15, 2013 @10:04PM (#43188157)

          Agreed. Here in Alberta, Canada, we just passed a "Distracted Driver" law last year. There are heavy fines for anyone caught using their cellphone (or other device) while behind the wheel, grooming, or eating anything that would be considered a "meal" and not a "snack".

          Since it is already banned in cars for drivers here, it led me to vote "What's wrong with texting?", because I think the other options are just silly attempts at oppression of freedom.

          I went with the (amazingly unpopular) choice of "public sidewalks" -- as people often put both themselves and others into harm's way, or just walk along slowly, completely oblivious to how they're affecting sidewalk traffic. If people pulled off to the side of the sidewalk to text, I wouldn't have a problem.

          As for all the other options, they're more a social issue than a safety issue (assuming it's not the driver of the car texting). Actually, I'd suggest that in the case of the car, having the non-drivers texting is probably safer than having them talking or listening to music.

          I'm not so bothered about people texting while walking. If you are texting while driving you can easily hurt a lot of other people. If you are texting while walking and step out in front of a moving car then the problem has probably taken care of itself. Someone might have some panel damage and will need to do a bit of scrubbing to get your brains off their windshield but at least some comfort can be taken in the fact that you won't do it again.

          As for the nuisance factor, people texting while walking doesn't contribute significantly to my annoyance while out for a walk in town.

      • by arth1 (260657) on Friday March 15, 2013 @11:55AM (#43183041) Homepage Journal

        Laws like these tend to be overly broad. What if someone uses the mobile phone for driving directions like if it was a dedicated GPS navigator?
        Or has it display alerts from the car through an OBD II bluetooth dongle?
        Or calls to report a crash on a no-stop highway?

        Without actually charging the person and getting a court order for SMS/MMS logs, I don't see how a cop can be burdened by determining what the actual use was.

        Stop people when they drive badly. That should be enough.

        As for TXTing, if I had to ban it in one situation, it would be whenever facing another human being.
        Oh, and in movie theatres. I want it to be dark, not cell phones blinking on and off all over the place.

        Restaurants? Ban children from restaurants intended for grown-ups first. If they don't have child seats and crayons for your spawn, it's a strong hint that noisy smelly tykes disrupting the dining for others isn't welcome.
        Someone might take a picture and MMS it to a Bad Parents wall, which would redeem texting in restaurants...

        • Re:Why ban in cars? (Score:5, Informative)

          by dmatos (232892) on Friday March 15, 2013 @12:42PM (#43183593)

          As is often the case, the original poster did not get into the nitty-gritty details of the law, and you've raised a lot of objections that do not apply.

          http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/distracteddriving.htm [alberta.ca]

          Restricts drivers from:
          using hand-held cell phones
          texting or e-mailing
          using electronic devices like laptop computers, video games, cameras, video entertainment displays and programming portable audio players (e.g., MP3 players)
          entering information on GPS units

          So - dedicated GPS navigator? Mount it on the dashboard and you're fine. Display alerts from the car? Again, mount the phone, don't hold it in your hand, and no problem. Want to talk on the phone? Use a headset, or those fancy through-the-car speakerphone connections, and you're fine.

          Calling to report a crash on a no-stop highway? Unless you've got a hands-free method of doing so, this is arguably dangerous enough that you're going to cause more accidents, so it is not permitted. If you care that much, take the next exit and then call in the crash.

          Basically, if a cop sees you holding your phone up to your head and talking, or holding it in front of you and fiddling with it, then that's distracted driving. It doesn't matter if you're checking your voicemail or talking to someone. It doesn't matter if you're texting or playing Bejeweled. It's something that you shouldn't do while in control of an automobile, so it is against the law, and will garner you a $172 fine in Alberta.

        • Re:Why ban in cars? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15, 2013 @02:24PM (#43184833)

          It was easy to tell the girl that hit my car was texting her boyfriend as the EMTs pulled her unconscious out of the car and later saw the half written text message on her phone that was on the floorboard of the car covered in blood.

      • There are heavy fines for anyone caught using their cellphone (or other device) while behind the wheel, grooming, or eating . . .

        . . . what about breeding . . . ?

      • by orasio (188021)

        Agreed. Here in Alberta, Canada, we just passed a "Distracted Driver" law last year. There are heavy fines for anyone caught using their cellphone (or other device) while behind the wheel, grooming, or eating anything that would be considered a "meal" and not a "snack".

        Well, then I suppose I could have soup while driving in Alberta. It's not a meal, after all.

      • Here in Alberta, Canada, we just passed a "Distracted Driver" law last year....Since it is already banned in cars for drivers here...

        True but not yet for cyclists. One of the stupidest things I've ever seen was last summer when cycling in to work in Edmonton. There was a cyclist texting while cycling on the road.

      • by magarity (164372)

        Since it is already banned in cars for drivers here, it led me to vote "What's wrong with texting?", because I think the other options are just silly attempts at oppression of freedom.

        I assumed the poll was about banning as in actually preventing, not banning as in another law that's ineffectually enforced.

    • I concur. Even if the "driver" is texting, there are times that are ok, and times that are not. That is why there are laws are about "distracted driving" and "impaired driving." Banning texting is too meddlesome, and the problem is covered in other, just as enforceable laws.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        There is no situation where texting on your phone is acceptable when you are at the helm of a fast moving lethal weapon which requires 100% concentration to operate safely. Only when you are stationary in a safe location should you ever use your phone while driving.
        • Re:Why ban in cars? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by arth1 (260657) on Friday March 15, 2013 @12:00PM (#43183099) Homepage Journal

          There is no situation where texting on your phone is acceptable when you are at the helm of a fast moving lethal weapon which requires 100% concentration to operate safely.

          Yes, but what about cars?
          If cars required 100% concentration, there would be very few drivers on the road. Fewer accidents too, but we seem to accept a certain amounts of accidents in order to let most people drive, even when they don't always pay as much attention as we want them to. It's a weigh-off, and things aren't either black or white.

          • Oh, believe me, they very much do require 100% concentration.

            'Cuz that 1% of the time you're not paying attention is the 1% of the time that you rear-end a BMW. Voice of experience.

            • Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15, 2013 @03:31PM (#43185445)

              Human factors engineer working crew systems for aircraft. You don't pay attention nearly as much as you think you do. That 1% is much closer to 40-50%. The real problem is how long you're distracted at a time, not what fraction of the time you're distracted.

              • I've been at the stick of a Cessna 172, (VFR) and was safely able to take my eyes "off the road" with an IFR simulation hood for far longer than would be prudent with a car on many salt flats.

                Voice of experience.

          • Re:Why ban in cars? (Score:5, Informative)

            by arkhan_jg (618674) on Saturday March 16, 2013 @05:50AM (#43189497)

            Even when you're not concentrating (and nobody concentrates 100% on driving all the time, it's near impossible for normal people, i.e. non F1 drivers) - your eyes are still pointed at the road, hands are on the wheel, and your ears are free. While we might not be giving driving our full attention, if something DOES trip our 'oh shiit!' reaction - and we're pretty good at that - we can rapidly spin back up to full alert, including a healthy dose of adrenaline; not always fast enough, especially if we're speeding (because speed limits are based in part upon human reaction times) but it gives us a reasonable chance of reacting to events.

            If your eyes aren't on the road for several seconds at a time or even longer, you may well miss one of those cues until well, it's too late to react in time. If your eyes are spending more time than a quick flick - aka the mirror-scan timescale - not looking where you're going, then you're going to be much more likely to have a crash. Whether you're texting, screwing with changing the MP3 player with your eyes off the road, poking at the GPS, yelling over your shoulder at the kids in the back, it's distracted driving and you're more dangerous to yourself and everyone else around you.

      • Re:Why ban in cars? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by JWSmythe (446288) <jwsmytheNO@SPAMjwsmythe.com> on Saturday March 16, 2013 @06:06PM (#43193183) Homepage Journal

            It's called political pandering. The politicians are making noise, and doing stuff that makes him/her appealing to the voters. "Look, I voted for something that would protect you." It doesn't matter that there are existing laws in place for exactly that.

            Distracted driving covers *anything* that would distract the driver. Conversing with the passenger; reading a book; reading a map; messing with the radio. And as relevant to this conversation, fucking with their cell phone. It doesn't matter if they were texting, reading email, watching a movie, or trying to adjust their streaming audio.

            Say someone was tuning in streaming audio, and got the ticket for texting. It would be thrown out if they could prove they weren't texting. Regardless if it's still illegal, the charge is what they have to prove, not unrelated crimes.

            Even "distracted driving" and "impaired driving" fall under "careless driving". If you were charged with impaired driving, and you (or your attorney) was able to prove you were not impaired, the the prosecution would lose in court.

            Careless driving is easiest to prove. I was in an accident a few weeks ago. I was stopped at a light, and was rear ended. Regardless of what the other driver was doing, she hit me, she was driving in a careless manner. The citation was appropriate. I'm confident that she wasn't texting. She was 60-something, and couldn't figure out how to dial 911. :)

    • We don't RTFA, and in this case, I'd say 60% of us didn't read down to option five.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Rob the Bold (788862)

      Banning texting in cars makes no sense if the "texter" is not the "driver".

      Wasn't that kinda implied in the option? Writing it as: "I'd start with cars, specifically with the driver of the cars in question, but not necessarily the passengers riding in, but not controlling, the aforementioned cars," seems a little awkward, even if it is for the sake of making the option less potentially ambiguous?

      Oh, right. This is Slashdot.

    • I find it incredibly hard to believe that people actually text while driving. It's so fucking stupid I can't even visualize it, my mind refuses to go there. Why in hell do you need a law for something that anybody with an IQ above single digit level would know is wrong? That's like making a law not to throw your child out the window of a 50 story building or not to disconnect the gas line to the stove and start striking matches. It should allready be covered by something called "Reckless Endangerment."

    • When I'm driving and I need to send a message to someone, I use Siri. It's hands free texting. Why should that be banned?

    • by jamesh (87723) on Friday March 15, 2013 @09:58PM (#43188129)

      Banning texting in cars makes no sense if the "texter" is not the "driver".

      You should write to your local congressperson (or whoever makes laws in your country) and alert them to this, just in case they make such a law without taking your point into account. Also point out that they shouldn't ban you from texting in a car if it's parked. And to make sure that "cars" includes trucks, SUV's, etc. And that it's still texting if you are wearing a hat. And that the law applies to people over the age of 75 too. And make sure those little car rides you find in shopping centres are excluded from such laws. And they need to clarify the situation where you are outside the car but leaning on it while you are texting.

      Anything else really really obvious that I might have missed?

    • by rossdee (243626)

      Banning texting in cars makes no sense if the "texter" or the textee is not the "driver".

      I think it should be worded as 'driving while texting' being banned, not the other way around. Its the driving part (while distracted) that should be illegal, and it should be in the legislation that deals with driving, just as DUI and DWI are treated.

      The use of a phone 'hands free' to answer a call should be allowed. (And to those people who say that that is also a distraction, I say that we would have to ban passenge

  • by DRMShill (1157993) on Friday March 15, 2013 @11:56AM (#43183051)

    What the Hell? How did they miss this option?

    • What the Hell? How did they miss this option?

      Or theaters in general. And concert halls, auditoria, . . .

    • by Yosho (135835)

      It's already banned in theaters. At least, if you go to a theater where it's not banned, you should go to a different one.

      • Except the frigging theaters have started to encourage it. At least they did the last time I was there they had text the answer to this quiz to when a prize. Sure afterwards they tell you to shut your phone off for the movie but the problem is once you've encouraged people to make use of a device there is always one more quick thing they want to do and the next thing you know it they are chatting with 3 people at a time texting back and forth for the whole movie.

  • A little late to the party to be asking this question. Many places have already made it illegal to text and drive with the penalties equivalent to reckless driving. A few higher-Ed and most K-12 ban texting or just having a phone out and not on vibrate in the classroom. There's nothing wrong with text messaging. It's not that you do it, it's where and when that makes it sometimes bad. It's the public's lack of common sense I would like to see addressed rather than the by products thereof.
  • by DodgeRules (854165) on Friday March 15, 2013 @12:05PM (#43183163)

    I didn't vote to ban texting in cars because that statement is too broad. That unfortunately covers passengers and that is just idiotic. It also covers while the car is stopped and turned off. If I want to text someone while I am driving, I will hand my phone over to the passenger and have them do it for me, or wait until I am stopped at a red light or in a parking lot. (If the light changes before I am finished sending my text, I place the phone on the passenger seat until I am stopped again before finishing.) Now if the choice was to ban drivers from texting while the car is in motion, then I would choose that option.

    • by gigne (990887)

      so you are the person who is texting at busy intersections, completely missing the change of the lights meaning only two cars get through.
      Yesterday I saw an ambulance struggling to get around someone who was obviously texting in traffic.
      For shame

      • I am VERY conscience of the light and have NEVER delayed moving once the light changes. Most of the typing is done while I'm watching the light and I only need to glance down to make sure I haven't made any laughable mistakes that may end up on some webpage of texting errors.

  • We already have a text ban while driving where I live. But if I could, I'd ban texting in theaters. People who do it often don't silence their phones. Nothing like hearing BING! randomly in a film, and then having a bright screen light up. Often, texters also laugh, snicker, and talk to themselves without being aware of it. I don't mind it many other places, but a theater isn't the right place for that kind of behavior.

  • Saw a bumper sticker on a truck yesterday: "How's my texting?"
  • by Mark Lewis (2834621) on Friday March 15, 2013 @01:20PM (#43184043)

    The US is supposed to be a free country and mostly we still are, but recently there's been a big trend towards overcriminalization [overcriminalized.com].

    No offense to the person who wrote the quiz, but the mind-set is troubling. Honestly, why would we think about banning texting anywhere? Making something illegal is a big deal, we are removing liberties from everybody.

    Unless you're committed enough to freedom that you're willing to oppose laws that ban things that you think are stupid, you're not committed enough to stay free. I think it's stupid to text while driving and I won't do it, but I oppose efforts to ban it legislatively.

    For those who take refuge behind the safety argument (because there is a valid argument to be made for safety): If you are also opposed to other things that research shows are similarly unsafe, like any form of talking while driving, congratulations, you really are in it for safety. Otherwise, you need to examine your motivations.

    • Personally I think that basically all victimless crimes should be decriminalized. ...With the exception only for things that are irresponsible in such a way to create a decent possibility of being a hazard to other people and/or their property. See my comment below yours ETC
    • by TheSwift (2714953)

      Someone mod parent up.

      Slashdotters are quick to complain that our liberties that are becoming fewer and fewer, but we don't hesitate to push legislation when the activity in question bothers us.

      I would attest that there are far more dangerous activities one could commit that are freedoms we wouldn't consider revoking. People are negligent and make poor choices, but removing freedoms that some abuse from the entire population is a knee jerk over correction that gives far too much power to authorities.

  • I would create a 10th circle of hell and let all the t3xting a$$h4ts have at it. In Hell you can text forever. Have fun.

    OMG! It is so HOT!

  • Why does it imply that I would want bans in the rest of the places when I pick cars? Is this some kind of reverse psychology slippery slope?

    I'd ban it in cars, and ONLY cars. And naturally only for the driver.

    And surely it's already "banned" in classrooms? Unless you want to press criminal charges against children who happen to have a social life and *GASP* an inability to not pay attention every day in a classroom.

  • Remember when the bottom choice in Slashdot polls was always a funny or absurd option? Looks like they finally returned to that practice!
  • by TheSwift (2714953) on Friday March 15, 2013 @01:55PM (#43184469)

    ...before removing a freedom from the American people. I recognize that texting while driving can be very dangerous, but it is so important to question our urge to legislate things when it may not be necessary.

    If we are concerned that texting is dangerous and should be banned, shouldn't we make it illegal to eat while driving? Should we ban drive-thru food? What about making it illegal for children in the backseat to distract the driver? Where do you stop? Statistically speaking, I'm convinced that there are far more dangerous activities than texting while driving - where do we stop legislating freedoms to insulate Americans from harming themselves out of negligence?

    Removing a liberty from the American public should not be done without very serious consideration of the matter. There are very few degrees of separation between a nation that is concerned about the safety of their people to a police state.

    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      If we are concerned that texting is dangerous and should be banned, shouldn't we make it illegal to eat while driving? ... Statistically speaking, I'm convinced that there are far more dangerous activities than texting while driving - where do we stop legislating freedoms to insulate Americans from harming themselves out of negligence?

      If it were just harming themselves, I wouldn't care. I'm fully behind New Hampshire's stance on seatbelt laws: If you're an adult, and don't buckle up, and get yourself killed because you go flying through your windshield in a wreck, that's your business.

      The problem is when somebody is texting while driving, goes through a red light that they never even saw, and crushes a couple of 8-year-olds in the crosswalk. That's the reason to ban it: It kills thousands of completely innocent people annually who just h

  • If only it was possible to have some sort of voice recognition system in your phone that would listen to what you say out loud and convert that to a text message. Then the recipient's phone could have a system that would convert the text back to audio and play it into an ear piece...

    Nah, that'd never work........

    • It's called a CB and they've had them since the 1970s... except the intermediary was radio waves rather than text messages.
  • Ban Banning (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Friday March 15, 2013 @02:37PM (#43184973) Homepage Journal

    I'm sorry, but isn't this a free country? Or do we have to put scare quotes around "free" now?

    Seriously, if it's not harming anyone else, or otherwise violating their rights, it's nobody else's business. That's the idea, anyway.

    Driving while texting is already illegal, due to C&I and Reckless driving laws. No ban needed, just appropriate punishment for those who violate the rights of others by texting while driving... maybe similar to drunk driving sentences.

    Texting in a restaurant/movie theater/what have you... Well, it's definitely rude, but not something that "needs a law." Rather, we, as a society, need to learn to treat rude assholes that jabber away like shit, pointing out their dickheaded-ness, and they will usually blush and self-correct.

    Classrooms - wait, don't most teachers already forbid students from using cell phones in class? How about this, instead of a law, why don't we just reach a consensus that it's perfectly OK for a teacher to fail a student for the day if he violates the classroom rules? Or is that not P.C. enough?

    Public sidewalks... Hmm, that is an interesting one. On the one hand, it could be argued that texting in public is not harmful to others, or violate of their rights... on the other hand, there's no shortage of stories regarding, well, stupid people getting themselves killed by paying more attention to their phones than the real world, so much that there has been talk of creating a "warning app" that would alert these morons when they're about to step into traffic.

    Personally, I think if you're so brainless as to walk in front of a city bus unless the device you're obsessing over tells you not to... you need to walk in front of that bus. For the good of the species.

    For the vote, I went with "Everywhere;" partially in an ironic display of my belief that the bans are bullshit (see above), but also because, in my 30 years, I've yet to send or receive a text message of any importance.

  • Not sure why restaurants is so low. It's relatively infuriating when you sit down at a restaurant and immediately everyone gets out their phones and looks down. Why the fuck am I eating "with" them if they're going to spend all their time talking to other people outside the restaurant?

    • Re:Restaurants (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Friday March 15, 2013 @03:52PM (#43185641)

      Not sure why restaurants is so low. It's relatively infuriating when you sit down at a restaurant and immediately everyone gets out their phones and looks down. Why the fuck am I eating "with" them if they're going to spend all their time talking to other people outside the restaurant?

      That doesn't sound like a problem with texting in restaurants so much as a problem with your choice of friends.

  • Movies theatres!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SilverJets (131916) on Friday March 15, 2013 @07:17PM (#43187243) Homepage

    There should be a special place in hell for jackasses that text in dark movie theatres.

  • by kpoole55 (1102793) on Saturday March 16, 2013 @12:39AM (#43188781)

    picked as the best option to what should have read as texting while operating a vehicle. Living on a bike route, I even see people texting as they ride their bicycles.

  • I'm an old married fellow, so it's no longer an immediate concern for me (my beloved wife has little use for texting). Still, when I walk about and see young couples who should be grossing us all out with their lovey dovey public displays of affection, and instead they're paying attention to 3" LCD screens, I feel that yet a little more poetry has left the world.
  • by Gumbercules!! (1158841) on Saturday March 16, 2013 @09:57PM (#43194425)
    You don't kill people SMSing in a classroom, theatre or restaurant. I currently have two broken wrists, thanks to a stupid 17 year old who slammed into my car on Monday of last week, while sending a text. My car, which was less than 2 months old, is written off and he himself is incredibly lucky to be alive. He drove directly in front of my car, so I hit him perpendicular at speed, without even having time to break. I hit his rear door so hard his back seats were buckled. If I'd hit his front door (where he was sitting), and this was milliseconds from being the case, he would be dead, 100% for sure. And all this because the idiot was too busy sending a text to look at the road and he simply pulled out directly in front of me.

    So yes, ban them in cars (and incidentally, they are banned for the driver in cars here in Australia). He's actually going to be charged, because he not only was txting while driving, but he also pulled in front of my by trying to turn right, over a double white line (illegal in Australia), from the left lane (also illegal). He'd had his license less than 2 weeks so he will now lose it for 3 months and he can forget about getting insurance for the next decade because both cars (mine and his dad's), written off, had a collective value of well over $120k.

It seems that more and more mathematicians are using a new, high level language named "research student".

 



Forgot your password?
Working...