DUI Or DWT?

By fitsnews • on February 8, 2010
Comment Print

texting driving

By FITSNews || As someone who habitually drove drunk back in “the day” (he’s got a DUI to prove it) – and someone who habitually texts while driving today (bad, bad founding editor), Sic Willie is the ideal person to answer this question.

“Which is more dangerous: drunk driving or driving while texting?”

“DWT, mos def,” Sic said.

Really?

Actually, he’s right.

Studies have shown that driving while texting is much more dangerous than DUI (or DWI, depending on what state you come from), the logic being that drunk drivers at least have their eyes on the road most of the time.  In fact, the reaction time for drunk drivers is substantially faster than the reaction time for driving texters, who are three times slower to pick up on thinks like red lights or brake lights.

Now … you’re probably thinking that because this is a hardcore libertarian website that we opposed any law cracking down on DWT.

Wrong.

We’re all about individual liberty around here, people (obviously), but there’s a point where that “liberty” can infringe on the individual liberties of others – in which case, it’s not really liberty at all, is it?

For example, Sic Willie’s right to DWT is trumped by your right not to get run over by a distracted Sic Willie.

Seriously, you don’t call it “liberty” when a drunk driver who is texting his favorite prostitute (while simultaneously locating “Shoop” on his iPod) runs a red light and plows into a family returning home from a midnight mass, do you?

Of course not.

There’s nothing wrong with drinking, prostitution or Salt-n-Pepa in our book, but adding “driving” to this mix presents a problem.

Having said that, we stridently oppose any effort by the federal government to resort to its tired old strategy of blackmailing states into changing their existing laws.

DWT laws – like speed limits, DUI law, primary seat belt enforcement and other roadway-related matters – should be the exclusive purview of state governments, especially in “donor” states like S.C. (which gives up more than it gets in highway dollars).

Also, we oppose efforts to link cell phone bans with DWT bans.

Clearly talking on your cell phone while driving isn’t anywhere near as dangerous as DWT, and government’s efforts to incorporate cell phone bans into DWT legislation is overreaching, pure and simple.

Texting While Driving ...

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

UPDATE: We would like to point out that you can text from here just fine.

fitsfinger

Match.com

Comments

By really???? on February 8th, 2010 at 10:19 am

I like how the picture shows two vans in an apparent head on collision…or just parked face to face.

By Cooter Brown on February 8th, 2010 at 12:19 pm

Ye left out “non ov da gob’mint’s bitness,” Mista Willie.

If’n wee need mo laws fer dis, let me suggest outlawin’ eatin sandwiches, applying make-up, adjustin th’ volume on da radio, scratchin balls, talkin’ to passangers, hollerin’ at yung’ubns, looking t’ th’ left or rite, road head, dinkin’ hot beverages, calling Rush Limpball an arse or Kev Cohen a retard, pressing th’ accelarater or brake at times inconvenient to otha drivas, and so forf an’ so on.

By MOHANNA on February 8th, 2010 at 1:05 pm

Right now the law only protects the blackerry’s civil liberties. Not the passengers or other drivers. It’s the story of “All The People Were Killed In The Head-on Collision, but the Cell Phone Survived” and your right to use them while driving survived. Cold Comfort.

By Eric on February 8th, 2010 at 1:31 pm

Sic, no one is denying that people shouldn’t be texting while driving – but the real problem is with the enforcement of the issue. The fact is by having another unenforceable law (easy to text out of sight) it will allow police to profile individuals easier and abuse their powers.

Also, texting is equally as distracting as eating food, changing clothes, shaving, putting on make-up, making love, yelling at kids, changing the radio, petting your dog, looking at billboards, etc. Do you want a law for every scenario that could impair drivers?

By dirtbogger on February 8th, 2010 at 2:46 pm

The answer is dirt roads, they are hard to text on (too bumpy). Just tear up all the asphault, plus it would make drinking and driving fun again!

By Genomic Repairman on February 8th, 2010 at 4:56 pm

Man I just got a warning for texting at a red light and found out that a ticket for it could cost me $500.

By Catherine on February 8th, 2010 at 7:02 pm

I personally prefer TWDD (texting while driving drunk). Lets not pussyfoot around here. Either you’re a badass or you aren’t. If you’re gonna go, go all out! GD underachieving half-assing do gooders. So annoying!

By stimulus on February 8th, 2010 at 7:48 pm

Is there a law that bans reading a newspaer while driving? How about putting on make up while driving?… We do not need more laws, if it is dangerous just don’t do it ( by the way, I’m driving while writing this)

By Darth on February 9th, 2010 at 9:57 am

Still waiting on Toyota drivers to blame brake or accelerator sensor failure on electronic interference from a) an officer’s radar or b) the signal from their phone or handheld that tehy were texting on when incident happened…

personal injury shysters take note, I don’t hang a freebie like this one out often, amuse me by trying to use it in court.

By drunk driving on February 11th, 2010 at 3:24 pm

I agree that DWT is more dangerous. It’s true that at least you have your eyes on the road when your drunk. But I’d feel a whole lot safer knowing no one is driving drunk or driving and texting.

Leave a Comment