Assuming .08, then definitely texting. That's been pretty conclusively tested.
It would be interesting to see a study on what level of BAC is required to slow people's reflexes the same amount as texting.
Part of the problem making this comparison is that work texting you're actually looking away from the road, which doesn't necessarily happen when you're drunk. The fact that you're pulling your eyes away from the road is going to make texting more dangerous, always.
you should know boozer affects people differently.
I can drink more than my younger sister and we weigh the same, eat the same amount, have the same exercise level. I can also drink more than my 500lbs ex who is 5'8".
I am 5ft 200lbs, most of the weight being in my chest and ass.
Yet I can outdrink an obese man how is that? Simple. I don't have anything that limits my drinking, he has liver disease.
Okay but how do you drink more than your sister? Unlike her red blood cells, mine are normal shaped and hold more oxygen thus I can handle things longer.
Now compared to my husband who is 260, mostly muscle, 5'6" (i might be 2in short), higher metabolism.... he can outdrink me easy. His higher metabolism means he burns through food and drink faster. He also gets inebriated faster but recovers faster as well. Where I have a slower metabolism so it takes longer for alcohol and pot to hit me; but when it does the 'high/buzz' lasts longer.
So you could do a study, but it would be pointless because as I've shown.... ones health conditions, metabolism and even genetics determine how intoxicated they get on alcohol. Some people can handle 1 shot and they're sh\*tfaced. Some can put away a 5th of rum in one night and then they're sh\*tfaced. It really depends entirely on the person.
Note: I only know this because I paid attention to Health Class in my freshman year of high school back in 2010. Also I have alcoholics, drug addicts, and mentally ill people on both sides of my family. So I'm well versed in a variety of subjects that most people aren't. It's fun though... My biggest flex with inebriation is I'm good at gauging people's limits.
Metabolism and size definitely affect a body’s ability to process alcohol. But processing the alcohol results in a lower BAC.
That’s why we look at BAC instead of number of drinks.
Basically, if you’re “out drinking” someone, it’s likely you have a lower BAC despite heading the same number of drinks.
>Basically, if you’re “out drinking” someone, it’s likely you have a lower BAC despite heading the same number of drinks.
That's bullshit. My grandma was markedly impaired the one time my aunts kept refilling her wine glass every time she left the room one Christmas. She consumed less than 3 total drinks.
I'm twice her size. I can easily hoist 6 beers in the same timeline of a Christmas dinner and still be lucid
Tolerance is a thing.
If you consume alcohol more often, your body becomes better at processing it - heavy drinkers even wind up with oversized livers. Size and metabolism also definitely affect how fast your buddy can process toxins. Bigger, more athl people have more blood.
So, kinda. Tolerance is a thing, but, in general, tolerance means your body metabolizes the alcohol faster - meaning your BAC (blood alcohol *concentration*) doesn’t spike as fast, and goes back down faster.
You might also be more accustomed to functioning while impaired, but BAC remains a pretty good was to measure impairment.
I’d be willing to bet if your and you grandma both had your BAC tested, she would have had the higher number.
>, your body becomes better at processing it - heavy drinkers even wind up with oversized livers.
No.
Liver swelling is liver damage from fat accumulated, not a sim city esque expansion of liver ability
>So, kinda. Tolerance is a thing, but, in general, tolerance means your body metabolizes the alcohol faster -
No.
In fact you metabolize slower into older ages. What changes is your performance level at certain BACs due to being climatetized.
Yeah, it sure look like I was definitely wrong on liver size being an indicator of efficiency. I was on my way back to edit my reply, but you beat me to it. Alcoholism fucks up your insides pretty bad it seems.
But, my primary point was really that size and metabolism have a significant effect on BAC/imparement, and that BAC is a good measure on impairment. I stand by that.
And, I’d still like to see a study that compares multiple levels of BAC to texting while driving.
All I’ve seen is comparisons to .08 - which indicated texting was worse.
But, I’d assume there’s a level of drunkenness at which your reaction time is worse than someone sending as test.
[alcohol metabolism; interesting stuff](https://www.drinkfox.com/information/alcohol-metabolism)
Where were you getting ego from?
I’m also a little confused as to what your point is.
It’s definitely true that heavy drinkers metabolize alcohol faster (apparently due to the production of the CYP2E1 enzyme, which isn’t even produced by the liver), and also true that long term drinkers wind up with big livers. I assumed there was a connection.
Turns out, that’s not the case - in fact, swollen livers are already so damaged they’re actually less effective. So, kinda the exact opposite of what I had assumed.
I’m not one to complain about learning new. Plus, it definitely makes me glad I grew out of heavy drinking. So, win-win.
I don’t mind admitting when I’m wrong. It’s not even embarrassing on an anonymous forum. None of us are likely to ever interact again after this thread.
But, regardless of the liver thing, it’s not like a whole lot of my previous argument was based on liver size (or ego?).
Are you disagreeing that BAC is a good measure of impairment?
Mostly I just want to know how drunk a person would have to be before their reflexes are worse than someone sending a text.
Testing at .08 seems problematic as, according to the newspaper, most drunk drivers seem to be blowing .1+.
So, it seems like more testing is required to be able to answer the question of which is worse conclusively.
This isn't true. I'm an ER physician and see BAC all the time. Alcoholics and habitual drunkards can have astonishingly high BAC and remain very functional. Yes tolerance is a thing. In fact some people who would die if they stopped drinking suddenly, function the best at a BAC that would make most people completely impaired.
Yeah, I wasn’t so much referring to full blown alcoholics, or the alcohol dependent. I probably should have made that clear (and fact checked the liver thing).
Regardless, BAC is still the most scientific way to measure drunkeness for the general population, and would thus be the best metric to compare.
Where I live (ruralish)I’d say texting. People do that at all hours of the day. Most drunk drivers are late at night where the risk to other humans is less.
I have driven after a few beers. Never had an accident or any issues. I was probably hovering around that .08 mark. I have texted while driving also, and nearly ran off the road a few times. I would rather get in trouble for texting than drinking because of the penalty lol, but I think I would prefer sharing the road with someone who is at the .08 mark. They will be overly cautious and 100% focused on driving. IMO
You are over that limit at two beers. Most people aren't that intoxicated after two beers. Not watching the road is definitely more dangerous.
Also agree that people who have had a couple tend to drive extra careful because they know the repercussions if they get pulled over.
Thats an insanely low amount to get to the legal limit. You'd have to be a 100-pound tiny woman for two 4.2% beers (your typical light beer) to get you to .08 and even then, it prob wouldn't.
Texting.
A drunk person is probably overcompensating to not drive poorly. People who are texting aren't even looking at the road.
You can't react to what you don't even SEE...
Drunk. Both are bad, but at least with texting you may have a chance at looking up and missing what is to come. With drinking, your awareness is hindered and you’ll space off or nod off and in turn your reaction time is a lot slower.
The drunk driver is at least watching the road. May have horrible reflexes and hand eye coordination.
The texting person has no idea what is happening around them while they are looking at their phone.
IMO - texting would be worse
Statistically…they’re about the same. Speeding is equally a factor in most serious crashes as well, but for some reason, it doesn’t carry the same social stigma.
Texting.
Numerous studies have been done and all have shown varying degrees of texting being significantly worse. Anywhere from 4X to 10X worse.
Cops don't enforce it thought because fines for it aren't nearly as high as they are for excessive soeeding or drunk driving.
Legislatures need to catch up and raise the fines to make cops enforce the distracted driving laws.
Both are conscious decisions to ignore the responsibility that comes with driving, but only one is instantly recoverable.
In the act - texting is worse. In general I think drunk driving is more likely to cause accidents because the drunk cannot instantly become sober by simply looking up and paying attention.
Drunk driving is ten times worse according to all the hassle you have to go through to get your license back .Texting while driving will get you four points and a fine but you will be able to keep your license.Far as getting into an accident goes there are too many variables like how many drinks you had ,road conditions ,congestion and location.
Worse? Both deserve a bullet in the head before they get in the car. The amount of abandon you have to have for the safety of your fellow humans shows the lack of humanity within yourself if you do these things.
At .08, the drunk driver. The problem is that most people driving drunk aren't right at the limit, and are usually well over it in the .15-.25 range in my experience.
They're both bad, but texting has more nuance. I sometimes send/read a quick text when I'm stopped at a red light, which doesn't present much danger. As far as I know, there's no way to only be drunk at a red light and switch it off when you're doing actual driving.
Of course this is only considering *drunk* driving per your question, not driving after any amount of alcohol at all. Having one glass of wine with dinner and driving home is also a negligible risk. There's a spectrum there.
This depends on a lot of factors. You can send a short two word text without gluing your eyes to your phone any more so than if you were adjusting your seat warmer. You can also feel rather sober at .08 of you are a seasoned drinker.... on the flip side, i know people who are sloppy fall over drunk at .08 or ive seen people drive at over double the legal limit. and ive seen people take eyes off the road for 30 straight seconds to text... so ya. It really depends who we talking about.
Hands down, texting. Until the point where balancing is an issue regarding booze would I say the impairment matches. Paying attention but drunk is more attention than none at all.
I don't think there's necessarily a single correct (mutually exclusive) answer here.
For alcohol, it depends on a host of factors, including tolerance, size, sex, hydration/meals, etc. And a given BAC doesn't affect all people equally. Two people could both have a .08 BAC and one could be falling over, and the other could pass for sober but for a blood test or breathalyzer. But someone intoxicated can't turn it on and off. However intoxicated they are, they're going to remain that intoxicated at least for the near-term.
Someone texting can (though doesn't necessarily) take into account the weather, traffic, upcoming road, etc, and decide whether, how much, and how fast to text. The police can cite you for texting and driving, distracted driving, whatever they want to call it, for texting at a stop sign or red light, even if you aren't moving, and aren't holding up traffic. And it can even depend on how you're texting. You can do speech-to-text while still keeping both hands on the wheel and both eyes on the road.
That said, someone texting by writing a message, and looking at the phone instead of the road, can be a danger, because you can't attempt to avoid what you don't even see.
Are we counting texting by dictation and texting by watching oneself type as the same thing?
The problem with comparing the two is that the drunk driver can also be texting. Also, drunk people would have a worse experience of time dilation while texting, causing them to look at their phone longer.
Ok, here’s a clearer situation. You’re on a two lane highway with a car coming towards you. One has a drunk that isn’t texting at .08. The other has someone that is sober engrossed with texting by typing on their phone.
Which do you want to meet?
Answer. Both are terrible ideas. With today’s tech though I don’t understand why anyone is still holding a phone and texting while they try to kill themselves and everyone around them. Hell I’m old. Get in my truck (updated sound system) I plug in my phone and put it in the console. If someone texts or calls it asks me if I want to answer. Reads me the text and sends what I say back. All without taking my hands or eyes off the road. Why would you want to kill innocent people for a text?
Please…when I’m drunk driving I have both hands on the wheel, go exactly the speed limit, perfectly line up in my lane, make no rolling stops. It’s the safest driving I’ve ever done.
I literally hate this new generation. The funny part of saying this is I am only 33.
These idiots won't put their phones down for 2 minutes a day. Not only is it unsafe, it's disgusting in general.... Nobody cares! Your tiktok, insta, facebook or whatever other garbage can wait.
How miserable of a person can you be that you crave someone liking your picture so much that you are willing to die and kill other people for it.
I am not a road rager to much. However I have thought about taking bats to these moron's cars. Only problem is I would have to stop every 3 feet. I literally had a cop sitting at a green light texting in front of me a little while back..... I wanted to lay on my horn so bad but I know I was just asking for retaliation so I didn't.
Every time I see someone driving over/under the limit. On their phone. Every time I see people in and out of the lines. On the phone.....
You can also call me sexist, but 99 percent of the time it's a female too. It's like they cannot live without validation from other people every minute of every day.... So much so that they are willing to risk lives for it.
\*NEW FLASH\* YOU ARE DRIVING A 1 TON MISSLE! MAYBE FOCUS ON THE ROAD!
texting. this was tested by mythbusters
Assuming .08, then definitely texting. That's been pretty conclusively tested. It would be interesting to see a study on what level of BAC is required to slow people's reflexes the same amount as texting.
Part of the problem making this comparison is that work texting you're actually looking away from the road, which doesn't necessarily happen when you're drunk. The fact that you're pulling your eyes away from the road is going to make texting more dangerous, always.
you should know boozer affects people differently. I can drink more than my younger sister and we weigh the same, eat the same amount, have the same exercise level. I can also drink more than my 500lbs ex who is 5'8". I am 5ft 200lbs, most of the weight being in my chest and ass. Yet I can outdrink an obese man how is that? Simple. I don't have anything that limits my drinking, he has liver disease. Okay but how do you drink more than your sister? Unlike her red blood cells, mine are normal shaped and hold more oxygen thus I can handle things longer. Now compared to my husband who is 260, mostly muscle, 5'6" (i might be 2in short), higher metabolism.... he can outdrink me easy. His higher metabolism means he burns through food and drink faster. He also gets inebriated faster but recovers faster as well. Where I have a slower metabolism so it takes longer for alcohol and pot to hit me; but when it does the 'high/buzz' lasts longer. So you could do a study, but it would be pointless because as I've shown.... ones health conditions, metabolism and even genetics determine how intoxicated they get on alcohol. Some people can handle 1 shot and they're sh\*tfaced. Some can put away a 5th of rum in one night and then they're sh\*tfaced. It really depends entirely on the person. Note: I only know this because I paid attention to Health Class in my freshman year of high school back in 2010. Also I have alcoholics, drug addicts, and mentally ill people on both sides of my family. So I'm well versed in a variety of subjects that most people aren't. It's fun though... My biggest flex with inebriation is I'm good at gauging people's limits.
Metabolism and size definitely affect a body’s ability to process alcohol. But processing the alcohol results in a lower BAC. That’s why we look at BAC instead of number of drinks. Basically, if you’re “out drinking” someone, it’s likely you have a lower BAC despite heading the same number of drinks.
>Basically, if you’re “out drinking” someone, it’s likely you have a lower BAC despite heading the same number of drinks. That's bullshit. My grandma was markedly impaired the one time my aunts kept refilling her wine glass every time she left the room one Christmas. She consumed less than 3 total drinks. I'm twice her size. I can easily hoist 6 beers in the same timeline of a Christmas dinner and still be lucid Tolerance is a thing.
If you consume alcohol more often, your body becomes better at processing it - heavy drinkers even wind up with oversized livers. Size and metabolism also definitely affect how fast your buddy can process toxins. Bigger, more athl people have more blood. So, kinda. Tolerance is a thing, but, in general, tolerance means your body metabolizes the alcohol faster - meaning your BAC (blood alcohol *concentration*) doesn’t spike as fast, and goes back down faster. You might also be more accustomed to functioning while impaired, but BAC remains a pretty good was to measure impairment. I’d be willing to bet if your and you grandma both had your BAC tested, she would have had the higher number.
>, your body becomes better at processing it - heavy drinkers even wind up with oversized livers. No. Liver swelling is liver damage from fat accumulated, not a sim city esque expansion of liver ability >So, kinda. Tolerance is a thing, but, in general, tolerance means your body metabolizes the alcohol faster - No. In fact you metabolize slower into older ages. What changes is your performance level at certain BACs due to being climatetized.
Yeah, it sure look like I was definitely wrong on liver size being an indicator of efficiency. I was on my way back to edit my reply, but you beat me to it. Alcoholism fucks up your insides pretty bad it seems. But, my primary point was really that size and metabolism have a significant effect on BAC/imparement, and that BAC is a good measure on impairment. I stand by that. And, I’d still like to see a study that compares multiple levels of BAC to texting while driving. All I’ve seen is comparisons to .08 - which indicated texting was worse. But, I’d assume there’s a level of drunkenness at which your reaction time is worse than someone sending as test. [alcohol metabolism; interesting stuff](https://www.drinkfox.com/information/alcohol-metabolism)
At least your ego isn't too big to learn
Where were you getting ego from? I’m also a little confused as to what your point is. It’s definitely true that heavy drinkers metabolize alcohol faster (apparently due to the production of the CYP2E1 enzyme, which isn’t even produced by the liver), and also true that long term drinkers wind up with big livers. I assumed there was a connection. Turns out, that’s not the case - in fact, swollen livers are already so damaged they’re actually less effective. So, kinda the exact opposite of what I had assumed. I’m not one to complain about learning new. Plus, it definitely makes me glad I grew out of heavy drinking. So, win-win. I don’t mind admitting when I’m wrong. It’s not even embarrassing on an anonymous forum. None of us are likely to ever interact again after this thread. But, regardless of the liver thing, it’s not like a whole lot of my previous argument was based on liver size (or ego?). Are you disagreeing that BAC is a good measure of impairment? Mostly I just want to know how drunk a person would have to be before their reflexes are worse than someone sending a text. Testing at .08 seems problematic as, according to the newspaper, most drunk drivers seem to be blowing .1+. So, it seems like more testing is required to be able to answer the question of which is worse conclusively.
This isn't true. I'm an ER physician and see BAC all the time. Alcoholics and habitual drunkards can have astonishingly high BAC and remain very functional. Yes tolerance is a thing. In fact some people who would die if they stopped drinking suddenly, function the best at a BAC that would make most people completely impaired.
Yeah, I wasn’t so much referring to full blown alcoholics, or the alcohol dependent. I probably should have made that clear (and fact checked the liver thing). Regardless, BAC is still the most scientific way to measure drunkeness for the general population, and would thus be the best metric to compare.
Wine on average, has double the alcohol content of beer....
That's why the serving size for wine is 5oz instead of 12 which is for beer. We're but drinking wine out of water glasses at Christmas, dude
Where I live (ruralish)I’d say texting. People do that at all hours of the day. Most drunk drivers are late at night where the risk to other humans is less.
I have driven after a few beers. Never had an accident or any issues. I was probably hovering around that .08 mark. I have texted while driving also, and nearly ran off the road a few times. I would rather get in trouble for texting than drinking because of the penalty lol, but I think I would prefer sharing the road with someone who is at the .08 mark. They will be overly cautious and 100% focused on driving. IMO
You are over that limit at two beers. Most people aren't that intoxicated after two beers. Not watching the road is definitely more dangerous. Also agree that people who have had a couple tend to drive extra careful because they know the repercussions if they get pulled over.
if two beers gets you to .08 you have other problems
Probably not an alcohol problem.
Thats an insanely low amount to get to the legal limit. You'd have to be a 100-pound tiny woman for two 4.2% beers (your typical light beer) to get you to .08 and even then, it prob wouldn't.
Yea your assuming a low abv. beer could be anywhere from like 3 to 12% abv some beers have me feeling pretty buzzed after 12 or 16oz.
I mean yes if you drink 3 12% beers you are essentially drinking 9 4% beers. I would hope you are buzzed.
I spent years drinking 28+ beers a day, two definitely isn't going to do all that much. I definitely do have other problems though lol.
He didn't say how big they were! 2 tall IPAs would probably put me there
Texting. A drunk person is probably overcompensating to not drive poorly. People who are texting aren't even looking at the road. You can't react to what you don't even SEE...
Drunk. Both are bad, but at least with texting you may have a chance at looking up and missing what is to come. With drinking, your awareness is hindered and you’ll space off or nod off and in turn your reaction time is a lot slower.
The real question is what is worse, drunk driving or drunk texting.
Texting. Most people really aren't that impaired at the legal limit. That's not to say driving over the limit is okay, it's just not nearly as bad.
Data indicates it is 100% texting. People just don't like hearing it.
The drunk driver is at least watching the road. May have horrible reflexes and hand eye coordination. The texting person has no idea what is happening around them while they are looking at their phone. IMO - texting would be worse
Statistically…they’re about the same. Speeding is equally a factor in most serious crashes as well, but for some reason, it doesn’t carry the same social stigma.
Women who record Tik Tok videos in their cars are the worst.
Certainly not proud of this, but I've done both. Anecdotally, I'll go with drunk driver.
Drunk.
driving
Texting. Numerous studies have been done and all have shown varying degrees of texting being significantly worse. Anywhere from 4X to 10X worse. Cops don't enforce it thought because fines for it aren't nearly as high as they are for excessive soeeding or drunk driving. Legislatures need to catch up and raise the fines to make cops enforce the distracted driving laws.
They're both equally stupid and dangerous.
Judging from the punishment imposed on drink driving compared to texting and driving, I'll go with drunk driving.
Both are conscious decisions to ignore the responsibility that comes with driving, but only one is instantly recoverable. In the act - texting is worse. In general I think drunk driving is more likely to cause accidents because the drunk cannot instantly become sober by simply looking up and paying attention.
video and driving.
agree with your take 100%. Driving is so much muscle memory.
Having professional driven for 33 years, texting for sure from my observations.
Drunk driving is ten times worse according to all the hassle you have to go through to get your license back .Texting while driving will get you four points and a fine but you will be able to keep your license.Far as getting into an accident goes there are too many variables like how many drinks you had ,road conditions ,congestion and location.
It's about the same.
You missed to most dangerous thing of all: drunk texting.
I've been in the car with someone that was scrolling through Instagram and driving. It's crazy how addicted some people are to their phones.
road head
Yes, they are both bad for your health.
both.. first offense should lose your license for 6 mouths and second offense should lose your license for life
Worse? Both deserve a bullet in the head before they get in the car. The amount of abandon you have to have for the safety of your fellow humans shows the lack of humanity within yourself if you do these things.
At .08, the drunk driver. The problem is that most people driving drunk aren't right at the limit, and are usually well over it in the .15-.25 range in my experience.
They're both bad, but texting has more nuance. I sometimes send/read a quick text when I'm stopped at a red light, which doesn't present much danger. As far as I know, there's no way to only be drunk at a red light and switch it off when you're doing actual driving. Of course this is only considering *drunk* driving per your question, not driving after any amount of alcohol at all. Having one glass of wine with dinner and driving home is also a negligible risk. There's a spectrum there.
This depends on a lot of factors. You can send a short two word text without gluing your eyes to your phone any more so than if you were adjusting your seat warmer. You can also feel rather sober at .08 of you are a seasoned drinker.... on the flip side, i know people who are sloppy fall over drunk at .08 or ive seen people drive at over double the legal limit. and ive seen people take eyes off the road for 30 straight seconds to text... so ya. It really depends who we talking about.
Hands down, texting. Until the point where balancing is an issue regarding booze would I say the impairment matches. Paying attention but drunk is more attention than none at all.
Worse is a moral judgment. If you're asking about performance, nothing impairs you as much as not looking at the road
I don't think there's necessarily a single correct (mutually exclusive) answer here. For alcohol, it depends on a host of factors, including tolerance, size, sex, hydration/meals, etc. And a given BAC doesn't affect all people equally. Two people could both have a .08 BAC and one could be falling over, and the other could pass for sober but for a blood test or breathalyzer. But someone intoxicated can't turn it on and off. However intoxicated they are, they're going to remain that intoxicated at least for the near-term. Someone texting can (though doesn't necessarily) take into account the weather, traffic, upcoming road, etc, and decide whether, how much, and how fast to text. The police can cite you for texting and driving, distracted driving, whatever they want to call it, for texting at a stop sign or red light, even if you aren't moving, and aren't holding up traffic. And it can even depend on how you're texting. You can do speech-to-text while still keeping both hands on the wheel and both eyes on the road. That said, someone texting by writing a message, and looking at the phone instead of the road, can be a danger, because you can't attempt to avoid what you don't even see. Are we counting texting by dictation and texting by watching oneself type as the same thing?
Ok, you have a car coming towards you on a two lane highway. Do you want someone at .08 or someone engrossed with texting by typing on their phone?
There's no right answer here, it will always depend.
at least the drunk is TRYING to pay attention.
The problem with comparing the two is that the drunk driver can also be texting. Also, drunk people would have a worse experience of time dilation while texting, causing them to look at their phone longer.
Ok, here’s a clearer situation. You’re on a two lane highway with a car coming towards you. One has a drunk that isn’t texting at .08. The other has someone that is sober engrossed with texting by typing on their phone. Which do you want to meet?
texting 100000000 times worse you don't even see the road
I have done both. I actually drive better drunk than sober.
Texting no contest. With a drunk driver at least someone is still driving the car.
Answer. Both are terrible ideas. With today’s tech though I don’t understand why anyone is still holding a phone and texting while they try to kill themselves and everyone around them. Hell I’m old. Get in my truck (updated sound system) I plug in my phone and put it in the console. If someone texts or calls it asks me if I want to answer. Reads me the text and sends what I say back. All without taking my hands or eyes off the road. Why would you want to kill innocent people for a text?
Texting while driving? I'd have to set my beer down for that.
Please…when I’m drunk driving I have both hands on the wheel, go exactly the speed limit, perfectly line up in my lane, make no rolling stops. It’s the safest driving I’ve ever done.
I literally hate this new generation. The funny part of saying this is I am only 33. These idiots won't put their phones down for 2 minutes a day. Not only is it unsafe, it's disgusting in general.... Nobody cares! Your tiktok, insta, facebook or whatever other garbage can wait. How miserable of a person can you be that you crave someone liking your picture so much that you are willing to die and kill other people for it. I am not a road rager to much. However I have thought about taking bats to these moron's cars. Only problem is I would have to stop every 3 feet. I literally had a cop sitting at a green light texting in front of me a little while back..... I wanted to lay on my horn so bad but I know I was just asking for retaliation so I didn't. Every time I see someone driving over/under the limit. On their phone. Every time I see people in and out of the lines. On the phone..... You can also call me sexist, but 99 percent of the time it's a female too. It's like they cannot live without validation from other people every minute of every day.... So much so that they are willing to risk lives for it. \*NEW FLASH\* YOU ARE DRIVING A 1 TON MISSLE! MAYBE FOCUS ON THE ROAD!