1
Any strategies to cope with the MI distracted driving law?
(www.michigan.gov)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2023
1 points (53.3% liked)
Michigan
1 readers
57 users here now
Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam in braccas mea vide
🫴
✋
Banner photos credits
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
There is no devils advocating safety of other people for the sake of your personal entertainment. You owning or not owning a phone does not impact whether or not you need to drive to where you are going. You texting or not texting does not influence the need to drive your car. You killing someone because you couldn't be bothered to keep your eyes on the road instead of on your phone is not an acceptable trade off, on any world, under any scenario.
Drive the car, stay off your phone.
I am on an on-call schedule for a hospital and i need to be able to answer my phone when it rings, even if I'm driving. If I don't, it may negatively effect people in a real way. I can pull over, and doing so on the freeway may be more dangerous than simply answering the call. My reason for posting this post is to help understand how folks are using hands free technology and other strategies to stay safe while also doing what they need to do. Entertainment is there too because I, honestly, want to get better at not being distracted while driving, I have terrible ADHD.
I didn't mean to offend with my response above, pardon me. I was trying to understand how this ties into other equity vs safety vs freedom topics more generally.
I don't think anyone thinks that folks should be recklessly endangering each other for no benefit but entertainment. People do endanger themselves and others for all kinds of reasons, including entertainment--folks motorcycle in the rain, they drive tall heavy cars, they don't run their headlights 100% of the time, etc.--should all of these things be illegal too, because they are less safe than convenient alternatives? Is that "reckless endangerment"? Honestly, I would probably say yes--but it's not like I'm an expert.
If we say "there is 0 tolerance for making our roads less safe", even for "good" reasons, then why not say men under 24 may not drive, and anyone over 80 can't drive at all. The safest thing for everyone would be to never drive, and that seems silly to say...not that I wouldn't love to walk to work, my kids' preschool, and the grocery.
You can answer your phone in one tap, which is in accordance with the law. All of your arguments come across as deflecting, making excuses and rationalizing why you need to be or have a right to be on your phone more, when the reality is that you don't.
You don't need to pull over on the freeway to answer your phone, you can use a ear piece with tap to answer. You don't even need to look at your phone to do it.
TBH, your arguments remind me of those against seat belts when the seat belt laws first came into effect.