Don't Text and Walk

Source

After drinking and driving and texting and driving comes a new law in the States prohibiting the usage of cellphones while walking. The Ohio State University study shows it serves as a serious distraction that can become dangerous.

Parked vehicles arn't the only victums of this thoughtless act: Other pedestienes, closed doors, street lights, the ground, and fountains are at risk of collision.

Have you ever been guilty or a victim of texting and walking? How do you feel about this new law?

 

I say: LET THE FLAME WARS BEGIN

 

Thanks to Smurfasaurus, I text and walk all the time! *shot*

I haven't ran into anything or killed myself /yet/ from texting and walking, because I actually have common sense *GASP!* and I actually look up sometimes to know what I'm walking towards!
For gods sake, just look up from time to time or don't do it at all.

 

I've never tripped and fell while texting and walking, but I have stumbled and misstepped. I actually try not to text and walk at the same time for these reasons. :B

 

I simply do not do two things at once. I either walk or have a conversation. One has more risk from reading a newspaper while walking as it covers more of your range of vision.

 

I don't text and walk often if at all, but it drives me nuts when people are walking slowly because they're focusing on their text.

 

Not that I know of, but a few weeks ago, I was going to McDonald's during one of my school days (I can't remember if it was during my open 3rd or after I was done with 5th period), and I was leaning down because I was looking for coins in the little storage area to the left of the steering wheel, and I really wasn't paying attention to what I was doing and kept going all over the road like I was drunk. Luckily for me, because I have a lot of common sense, I looked up frequently.

I never told my mom, but, according to her from some of our discussions, a collision can happen in that time when you look down for a second or two.

 

http://www.type-n-walk.com/

 

I've seen this and honestly I'm a bit upset that society has gotten to the point where we have to be connected even when walking down the road. Put the phone away for a few minutes.

 

The app's not a bad thing.
People aren't going to stop.
Might as well keep them from getting hurt.

 

What ever happened to calling people?

God... This is sad...

 

im not even good at texting i just call because i get fustrated and it is sad people cant just call instead of texting.

 

It is just a tad sad that no one can seem to pay attention at all now a days, even without a phone in hand. Heck, Ive seen grown adults do this, not just teenagers! But its their business, not mine.. I just hope they dont get hurt or anything, even if they do use that iPhone app. (Not everyone has an iPhone, though.) Oh goodness.... I really do hope no one gets run over anytime soon because of technology.. ;; ( Its okay computer I still loves you! -hugs- :c )

 

You should stop whining about people not calling people anymore and how we need to be in contact with someone all the time. You sound like one of those elderly people claiming that "everything was better before." Today's society is a technological one, and because of this, we are the way we are. My entire life revolves around technology, I do most of my schoolwork using a computer/internet, I contact my friends with my phone, I order food with my phone or the internet, and the list goes on.


In short, the law is ******ed.


Slightly more than 1,000 people visited emergency rooms.

How fucked up does legislation have to be where one thousand people makes it so a few hundred million inhabitants can't text while walking? Not that I care, I'll do it regardless.

All you have to do is look up once in a while while texting, and you are fine. I always browse vg.no (Norwegian news) or something similar on my way to class, I just know how to use common sense, for deity's sake!

To me this is a law that could only happen in a nation where common sense has to be forced by law.

 

Before others bother, I would like to say that you do not present the opposing side well. Whether others agree with you or not, you are showing that stupidity exists on both sides of the issue. Also, please watch your use of the quoted word and never use it as a synonym for "stupid" or "annoying". Several members have been bothered by it recently.

 

In danger of making this thread go off topic, I feel I must reply.

******ed means less advanced/slower/slow/delayed. If people find the term '******ed' offensive, I don't care, that's just them making it offensive, which it isn't.

In this case, it is not used as a synonym for stupid or annoying. It has nothing to do with mental ******ation either.
However, it is ******ed in the sense that it's slow thinkers whom have come up with it (which I guess makes them stupid, I'll give you that). It is a law that will not do anything what so ever. People will continue to text while walking, only now there is a chance they may get some sort of "warning" from an officer.

 

Like with jaywalking. Or they might give you a ticket.

How you intend something to be taken is not as important as how they actually take it. If you do not care for how they take it or do not realize that they associate it with the mentally handicapped, then it is you who is being slow in realizing it. ******ation is used as a synonym for being 'special', 'slow' or 'mentally handicapped' by a large majority of the population. It is also used as a derogatory word and can usually be substituted for the word 'gay' when most people use it in a similar manner. "That's gay" and "that's ******ed" mean roughly the same thing to today's society, especially among people your age and under, but what they actually mean when they say both of them is "that annoys me". The way you used it fit in with this definition so well that I would have to think on it to realize that you were using it correctly. As a law itself cannot think and therefore cannot be "******ed" or slow in thought, I can only assume that you were being slow-witted yourself when you posted that response.

What you are attempting to do by posting is communicate a specific idea. If you fail to make use of context to represent your point in the best way, then that is a failing on your part rather than that of those who hear it.

 

Indeed like jaywalking. I don't think this law will have any effect at all.

The interpretation of a word is subjective. In any case of expressing thoughts, it is always the down to the subject to interpret, and whoever utters the said phrase or word does not stand at fault, unless offending was the actual intent.

Also, the reason I can, and will continue to use '******ed' descriptively, is because how I use it. I do not call anyone with mental ******ation '******,' because in that setting, it will be derogatory.

Also, the word ****** is used in Norway. Only a minority reacts to it negatively, and you know why only the minority reacts?

Because it is not used to offend people with mental ******ation. Just because people are unable to look beyond their own understanding of what other people put in the words they use, doesn't make the one who uttered them at fault. For crying out loud, my friend has a sister with Down's Syndrome, and he doesn't take offense to the use of the word ******, he even uses it himself.

 

I advise you to remember that this site is not inhabited by a majority or even a large body of Norwegians, and that more people have taken a stance against using it than those who take a stance for.

Only a minority react negatively to the use of the word "gay" as well. You also have the term "******". Calling someone a ****** is taken as offensive just as calling someone a ****** is. However, it is not a majority who get offended just because ****** is seen as a negative term; rather, if they get offended, it is because they believe that is a mean thing to call someone—because they, too, believe it to be a negative thing. What "******" and "gay" allude to are obvious, so what do people think of when they get called a "******", even in Norway? Who comes to mind?

Are you arguing that subliminal bigotry on a massive scale is not bigotry because only a minority are offended?

 

[video=youtube;9sjuBF0-sRE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sjuBF0-sRE[/video]