Rick vetoed the statewide texting while driving ban

[Blake]

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry vetoed legislation on Friday that would have banned texting while driving because he views it as "a government effort to micromanage the behavior of adults."

Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7615732.html#ixzz1QDo00pR3

what bullshit.

:lol

[LnGrrrR]

Next up to revoke: seatbelt laws, drunk driving laws, and licenses. :lol

[Blake]

Next up to revoke: seatbelt laws, drunk driving laws, and licenses. :lol

yes, those are too invasive, tbh

[Winehole23]

"a government effort to micromanage the behavior of adults."Unlike mandatory ultrasounds. I hope the Governor was wearing a neck brace when he said that.

[Winehole23]

Hell, maybe we need the neck braces. You could get whiplash just watchin.

[clambake]

i don't live in texas, so i don't know much about this guy.

he can't make the right call on something as simple as this....and he's going to run for president?

this country is truly fucked.

[EVAY]

Unlike mandatory ultrasounds. I hope the Governor was wearing a neck brace when he said that.

:toast

[EVAY]

i don't live in texas, so i don't know much about this guy.

he can't make the right call on something as simple as this....and he's going to run for president?

this country is truly fucked.

The really frightening thing is that he will be a strong campaigner if he runs...and I have always believed he was intending to run for President. If he weren't, he would have kept his word to Kay Bailey Hutchinson and given up the gubernatorial position in favor of her senate seat. He had promised her that if she didn't run against him the election before this most recent one, he wouldn't run again in and she could have the shot at being governor, which is what she wanted. The guy is a sleazebucket.

People, even lots of Republicans, don't really like the guy. It is a statement of how much this state is a one-party state that he keeps getting reelected. The dems can't seem to run a decent candidate for governor, so the Republican gets in pretty much by default. I think the national democratic party gave up on Texas years ago and has just conceded all state elections here.

The guy hasn't really accomplished a blasted thing that is useful for the state, but he takes credit for everything good that has happened and blames someone else for the whatever goes wrong.

[Winehole23]

http://wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Rick-Perry.png

[SnakeBoy]

Yeah it really doesn't make sense not to pass this law and make everyone stop texting while driving for the public good. Legislating human behavior has worked so well in every other case, why wouldn't it work in this case. I for one am glad everyone wears their seatbelt, doesn't use drugs, doesn't drive drunk etc. etc. It's a shame Perry doesn't care about protecting us from the damn text addicts.

[clambake]

wtf?

[CosmicCowboy]

This woman nearly sideswiped me this morning at 70mph on I10. She was in a little Audi sports car convertible. We were running side by side and I wouldn't have even known she was texting and not paying attention to driving if I hadn't been checking out her magnificent rack LOL.

[Blake]

Unlike mandatory ultrasounds. I hope the Governor was wearing a neck brace when he said that.

exactly.


"Every life lost to abortion is a tragedy we all must work together to prevent," said Perry, who had designated the measure an "emergency" item this session. "This important bill will ensure that every Texas woman seeking an abortion has all the facts about the life she is carrying and understands the devastating impact of such a life-changing decision."

Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/05/24/3101247/perry-signs-sonogram-bill-that.html#tvg#ixzz1QE5N6RNn

"emergency item"

[Blake]

This woman nearly sideswiped me this morning at 70mph on I10. She was in a little Audi sports car convertible. We were running side by side and I wouldn't have even known she was texting and not paying attention to driving if I hadn't been checking out her magnificent rack LOL.

so it's possible that you were the one that nearly sideswiped her.

[LnGrrrR]

Yeah it really doesn't make sense not to pass this law and make everyone stop texting while driving for the public good. Legislating human behavior has worked so well in every other case, why wouldn't it work in this case. I for one am glad everyone wears their seatbelt, doesn't use drugs, doesn't drive drunk etc. etc. It's a shame Perry doesn't care about protecting us from the damn text addicts.

So, let's get this straight, you're FOR texting while driving, even though there's numerous studies that have been done that show it increases the risk of accidents?

Or perhaps you think we should just eliminate those laws against drunk driving, drugs, etc etc since people use them anyways?

[CosmicCowboy]

so it's possible that you were the one that nearly sideswiped her.

You are such a dumbass. Didn't you get that it was a self-deprecating joke?

[Blake]

You are such a dumbass. Didn't you get that it was a self-deprecating joke?

this post is funnier than your joke.

[SnakeBoy]

So, let's get this straight, you're FOR texting while driving, even though there's numerous studies that have been done that show it increases the risk of accidents?


Not sure how you come away with me being FOR texting while driving. Are there any activities that increase the risk of accidents that you don't think should be outlawed?

[SnakeBoy]

Instead of constantly making little laws to make everyone a "crimminal" maybe we should just get it over with and pass a law declaring everyone a crimminal and requiring that we all pay an annual fine to make ammends for the "crimes" we commit in the course of living our daily lives.

[Blake]

lol "crimminal"

[Winehole23]

It's a form of reckless driving. More dangerous than drinking and driving imo.

I nearly went off the road a few times back when I was a traveling salesman. I don't recommend it, and I don't do it anymore.


( 'cept sometimes)

[LnGrrrR]

Not sure how you come away with me being FOR texting while driving. Are there any activities that increase the risk of accidents that you don't think should be outlawed?


Instead of constantly making little laws to make everyone a "crimminal" maybe we should just get it over with and pass a law declaring everyone a crimminal and requiring that we all pay an annual fine to make ammends for the "crimes" we commit in the course of living our daily lives.

These two posts seemingly make no sense together. On one hand you're agreeing that texting while driving should be banned, and on the other, you're facetiously suggesting that there are too many laws inhibiting what we can do.

Of course I can come up with other things that would increase the risk of accidents, for instance, driving while blindfolded. But I'm pretty sure that texting while driving is slightly more prevalent, hence the need for a law banning it.

[SnakeBoy]

It's a form of reckless driving.

So are many other activities. Wanna outlaw them all?


( 'cept sometimes)

You're a danger to society!

[CosmicCowboy]

this post is funnier than your joke.

And that was a painfully weak attempt at a save on a stupid post.

[LnGrrrR]

So are many other activities. Wanna outlaw them all?

That's a dumb position to take. You could use the same logic to argue that driving under the influence should be legal, that driving without a license should be legal, etc etc. After all, you can't outlaw everything!

The question seems to be, is the problem widespread enough to where society needs to take active measures to stop/counter it. In the case of texting while driving, I'd argue yes.

[FromWayDowntown]

The great thing about the Perry agenda is that tort reform goes some distance towards ensuring that those who choose to be irresponsible by texting while driving will avoid being micromanaged while also having a great chance to avoid any liability for that choice.

Freedom devoid of responsibility!

[jack sommerset]

It's a no brainer to ban texting while driving and the douche vetoed it. WTF?

[ChumpDumper]

So are many other activities. Wanna outlaw them all?If it's going make someone kill me, yeah I do.

[Blake]

And that was a painfully weak attempt at a save on a stupid post.

if your joke was an actual joke, it was painfully weak to start with.

This current conversation is much more entertaining.

[SnakeBoy]

I'd argue yes.

Well make your case then, I'm not beyond changing my opinion. It would be great if you can put it in the context of these other dangerous activities provided by our wonderful govt...


Other distracting activities include:
•Using a cell phone
•Eating and drinking
•Talking to passengers
•Grooming
•Reading, including maps
•Using a PDA or navigation system
•Watching a video
•Changing the radio station, CD, or Mp3 player.

[CosmicCowboy]

if your joke was an actual joke, it was painfully weak to start with.

This current conversation is much more entertaining.

It was a subtle humorous reference to the fact that there are a lot of things that distract drivers. Should we make them all illegal?

[ChumpDumper]

Well make your case then, I'm not beyond changing my opinion. It would be great if you can put it in the context of these other dangerous activities provided by our wonderful govt...

•Using a cell phone hands free only tbh
•Eating and drinking not a problem
•Talking to passengers not a problem
•Grooming instances can probably fall under reckless driving
•Reading, including maps sure, outlaw that shit
•Using a PDA or navigation system PDA? Absolutely ban it. Depends on the navigation system.
•Watching a video The driver? Fuck yes ban that shit.
•Changing the radio station, CD, or Mp3 player. not a problem

In the context of all the others, texting is probably takes the most attention of any of these activities and is the least defensible. I'd have to look around for it, but a study showed it's the equivalent of driving well above the legal limit of intoxication.

[clambake]

looks like bubba supports this shit.

[CosmicCowboy]

looks like bubba supports this shit.

Talking about me? I'm ambivalent. I don't do it. I hate it when others do it. I'm just not ready to make it illegal. It's the same as that stupid law about not talking on your cell phone in a school zone...Hell, you are already driving only 20mph.

[Blake]

looks like bubba supports this shit.

CosmicCowboy supports ogling while driving

[SnakeBoy]

•Using a cell phone hands free only tbh

I guess you're going to have to change your position on that one.


•Using a cell phone use while driving, whether it’s hand-held or hands-free, delays a driver's reactions as much as having a blood alcohol concentration at the legal limit of .08 percent. (Source: University of Utah)

[ChumpDumper]

I guess you're going to have to change your position on that one.Great.

Texting is even worse.

[clambake]

Talking about me? I'm ambivalent. I don't do it. I hate it when others do it. I'm just not ready to make it illegal. It's the same as that stupid law about not talking on your cell phone in a school zone...Hell, you are already driving only 20mph.

not talking about you.

[SnakeBoy]

If talking on a hands free cell phone is the equivalent of driving drunk then it stands to reason that talking to a passenger in the vehicle is equally dangerous. Ban It! For the good of society Ban It!

[ChumpDumper]

If talking on a hands free cell phone is the equivalent of driving drunk then it stands to reason that talking to a passenger in the vehicle is equally dangerous. Ban It! For the good of society Ban It!Texting is worse.

[clambake]

maybe bubba doesn't know the difference between texting and talking.

[Winehole23]

So are many other activities. Wanna outlaw them all?No way. Not sure a fine is the answer here, and it's another official pretext for stopping motorists. OTOH, it is very dangerous.

You're a danger to society!So is everyone. Ordinary life is risky.

[Blake]

If talking on a hands free cell phone is the equivalent of driving drunk then it stands to reason that talking to a passenger in the vehicle is equally dangerous. Ban It! For the good of society Ban It!

do you believe drunk driving should be not be banned?

[LnGrrrR]

Well make your case then, I'm not beyond changing my opinion. It would be great if you can put it in the context of these other dangerous activities provided by our wonderful govt

Other distracting activities include:
•Using a cell phone
•Eating and drinking
•Talking to passengers
•Grooming
•Reading, including maps
•Using a PDA or navigation system
•Watching a video
•Changing the radio station, CD, or Mp3 player.

Well, using a cell phone is prohibited in many areas as well for the same reason (it's prohibited on Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam); it's a distraction to the driver. But at least you can talk on the phone without taking your eyes off the road.

Talking to passengers is a distraction, but the passengers are active riders in the car as well. If a person driving isn't paying attention, the passengers will usually let them know. Also, there's no realistic way that would ever be outlawed.

It should be pretty obvious that one shouldn't also be allowed to read while driving, and I would like to think that if a cop saw such, they would pull the person over for reckless driving. However, that falls under the "driving while blindfolded" example I gave earlier; I don't think it's prevalent enough to need a law. Grooming is under the same category.

I know many cars nowadays won't allow one to interact with a GPS or video system if the car is in drive. That is a very risky activity. That said, I think texting is worse in many cases, because kids nowadays tend to be texting not just quick notes, but holding conversations through text, greatly increasing the amt of time spent doing something other than paying attention to the road.

Finally, time spent changing the radio station, CD or MP3 player is minimal at best, and usually involves an off hand.

Statistics on driving while texting:

http://www.intellicorp.net/marketing/texting-while-driving-statistics.aspx

Due to advancements in technology, texting while driving is on the rise and is increasing day by day. A study by Virginia Tech Driving Institute revealed that those who resort to texting while driving are 23 time more likely to meet with an accident. According to a report by the National Safety Council, 28 percent of car accidents are caused by talking or texting while driving. In another recent survey, 26 percent of cell phone users said that they have texted while driving. According to the Department of Transportation cell phones are involved in 1.6 million accidents a year, causing half a million injuries and 6,000 deaths.


That study referenced again here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/29/scitech/pcanswer/main5274193.shtml




A recently released study (http://www.vtti.vt.edu/PDF/7-22-09-VTTI-Press_Release_Cell_phones_and_Driver_Distraction.p df%3E%3Cb)</B> (PDF) by the VirginiaTech Transportation Institute found that truck drivers who were texting were 23 times more at risk of a "crash or near crash event" than "nondistracted driving." As per talking on a cell phone, the same study found no increased risk for truck drivers and 1.3 times the risk for car drivers. There was considerably more risk associated with dialing while driving. The institute's Richard Hanowski acknowledges that the numbers are likely to be different with car drivers. As reported (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10296992-94.html%3E%3Cb)</B> by CNET's Jennifer Guevin, the study also found that "texting took a driver's focus away from the road for an average of 4.6 seconds--enough time...to travel the length of a football field at 55 mph."



Another study:

http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2010/09/24/study-texting-while-driving-responsible-for-16000-deaths-in-6-years/



The University of North Texas Health Science Center has looked at traffic data from the Fatality Accident Reporting System (http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/ncsa/fars.html) and texting data from the FCC and CTIA, and — after some hefty number crunching — has come to the conclusion that texting while driving is responsible for accidents that claimed 16,141 lives during the period of 2001 – 2007.


Most experts tend to believe it's a bad thing to do while driving. And prevalent enough to create a law banning it.

[mingus]

The great thing about the Perry agenda is that tort reform goes some distance towards ensuring that those who choose to be irresponsible by texting while driving will avoid being micromanaged while also having a great chance to avoid any liability for that choice.

Freedom devoid of responsibility!

freedom devoid of responsibility is an agenda followed by more than just Perry unfortunately.

[4>0rings]

Good job Rick, less government intrusion. Keep it up.

[Kamala]

Underfunding education by 4 billion....check
Proposing secession from the union...check
Not protecting drivers from texters...check
Making a complete ass of himself in the political arena...check

[Trainwreck2100]

This woman nearly sideswiped me this morning at 70mph on I10. She was in a little Audi sports car convertible. We were running side by side and I wouldn't have even known she was texting and not paying attention to driving if I hadn't been checking out her magnificent rack LOL.

She didn't nearly sideswipe you because she was driving while texting but because she was driving while woman

[Stringer_Bell]

Micromanage the behavior of adults, huh? He could easily say the same thing about more than a handful of the laws he's supported due to his fake ass conservative appeals to his voting base.

It's so half ass for him to veto this when if he let it pass then he'd only be upsetting the complete fucking idiots that text while they drive. He's a fucking idiot too, no chance at the Presidency. None.

[baseline bum]

Notice he said adults, so no one could call him on forcing the HPV vaccinations on kids and the $360 per female child cost on the taxpayers.

[Trainwreck2100]

Notice he said adults, so no one could call him on forcing the HPV vaccinations on kids and the $360 per female child cost on the taxpayers.

lol HPV vaccinations, shoulda called them what they were "the whore shot"

[Winehole23]

Is sexual contact the only way to get HPV?

[RandomGuy]

So, when we have to pay increased health insurance premiums, and for asshats to spend the rest of their lives hooked up to breathing machines, all for the sake of not regulating an activity that clearly harms the public good, and has no redeeming value, what the fuck?

This should have been a no brainer.

[boutons_deux]

If texting while driving not illegal at state level, then does that cancel San Antonio's "micro-managing" rule of no texting while driving, like Fed's mj as schedule A overrides states' allowing mj shops and medical mj?

[Blake]

If texting while driving not illegal at state level, then does that cancel San Antonio's "micro-managing" rule of no texting while driving, like Fed's mj as schedule A overrides states' allowing mj shops and medical mj?

something like this, the state would pretty much have to specifically prohibit municipalities from such enforcement.

[RandomGuy]

Funny, but the governor's logic could also be applied to laws that prohibit drinking while driving.

[boutons_deux]

Funny, but the governor's logic could also be applied to laws that prohibit drinking while driving.

brain-dead ideological pandering always renders a politicians into stupidity and inconsistency.

[hater]

:lol

this guy is the best troll since Dubbya

[Wild Cobra]

So, when we have to pay increased health insurance premiums, and for asshats to spend the rest of their lives hooked up to breathing machines, all for the sake of not regulating an activity that clearly harms the public good, and has no redeeming value, what the fuck?

This should have been a no brainer.
I can think of several driving laws that are worse than texting that go unenforced. Following too close and pole positioning are two examples.

Thing is, apply the basic rule. If someone is texting at a stop light, what's the problem?

What someone is doing is not the root problem Inattention and carelessness in moving traffic are the root problems that cause accidents.

[Blake]

I can think of several driving laws that are worse than texting that go unenforced. Following too close and pole positioning are two examples.

People have in fact gotten tickets for tailgating. Don't know what "pole positioning" is.

Show your stats that tailgating is worse than texting.


Thing is, apply the basic rule. If someone is texting at a stop light, what's the problem?

What someone is doing is not the root problem Inattention and carelessness in moving traffic are the root problems that cause accidents.

Who is complaining of drivers texting at a stop light?

[Wild Cobra]

People have in fact gotten tickets for tailgating.
Not enough considering it happens everywhere regularly.

Don't know what "pole positioning" is.
Constant lane changes to move ahead in traffic.

Show your stats that tailgating is worse than texting.
How about showing your stats that testing is bad enough to warrant being illegal.

If we ban texting a driver from in a car, what's next?

Who is complaining of drivers texting at a stop light?
It would become an offense with this legislation, wouldn't it.

You mean you didn't read the legislation?

[Blake]

Not enough considering it happens everywhere regularly.

but they are enforced.

You are the first person I've ever heard say that it's worse than texting....

what is the exact opposite of "this statement from WC surprises me"?


Constant lane changes to move ahead in traffic.

changing lanes to pass can be a legal move.

you need to specify what part of reckless driving you are referring to.

also feel free to show how this can be worse than texting.


How about showing your stats that testing is bad enough to warrant being illegal.

I think the stats shown in this thread are sufficient.

LnGrrrR's post in #44


If we ban texting a driver from in a car, what's next?

It's irrelevant what's next to be banned.

Curious though, what do you think will be "next"?


It would become an offense with this legislation, wouldn't it.

You mean you didn't read the legislation?

You didn't, you stupid lazy dumbfuck.



However, the statewide measure would allow motorists to read text messages and to send messages while stopped at traffic lights or stop signs - something the San Antonio ordinance prohibits.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7512204.html#ixzz1QUhaGSwr

[Wild Cobra]

I think the stats shown in this thread are sufficient.

LnGrrrR's post in #44

My God...

Do you understand the wiggle room in the wording?

Due to advancements in technology, texting while driving is on the rise and is increasing day by day.
This is a given.

A study by Virginia Tech Driving Institute revealed that those who resort to texting while driving are 23 time more likely to meet with an accident.
This doesn't prove texting is the cause. I'm more inclined to see these people as irresponsible, and will be irresponsible in other ways as well.

Who are they comparing that too? A non distracted driver perhaps? A non distracted driver has a near zero chance of an accident. How can we eliminate all distractions?

According to a report by the National Safety Council, 28 percent of car accidents are caused by talking or texting while driving.

From my understanding, the word "caused" is implied from the fact something was going on, but not necessarily true. Funny how they included "talking" to get to that number as well, as I think it's safe to say 28% of cars on the road have someone else in the vehicle, and they are probably talking.

In another recent survey, 26 percent of cell phone users said that they have texted while driving.
Only 26% How many are lying?

According to the Department of Transportation cell phones are involved in 1.6 million accidents a year, causing half a million injuries and 6,000 deaths.
Now I would believe that phones were used, but not the cause. How many of these accidents would have occurred without a cell phone being used?

Don't get me wrong. I don't like to see people using cell phones while driving. I just think it's a stupid thing to add to the books when so many more dangerous acts by drivers go unenforced. We see reckless driving everyday on the roads. Accident rates have not gone up, phones are just becoming an excuse.

[Blake]

My God...

Do you understand the wiggle room in the wording?



you trying to wiggle out of your ignorance and stupidity is also no surprise.

[Wild Cobra]

you trying to wiggle out of your ignorance and stupidity is also no surprise.
Just showing the problems with the statements. It lacks any certainty. It supports an agenda.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I can think of several driving laws that are worse than texting that go unenforced. Following too close and pole positioning are two examples.

Thing is, apply the basic rule. If someone is texting at a stop light, what's the problem?

What someone is doing is not the root problem Inattention and carelessness in moving traffic are the root problems that cause accidents.

texting is inattentiveness to the extreme. A driver has to shift all of his mental faculties and a lot of his physical faculties away from driving and onto the cell phone. you can talk on the cell phone and still see where you're driving and keep both hands on the wheel. that's nearly impossible to do while texting.

[Oh, Gee!!]

also, i don't want the guy ahead of me reading/responding to texts at the stop light b/c he's not gonna pay attention when the light turns green

[Wild Cobra]

Tex ting is only one of several distractions some drivers have. It's just one you can see. Other distractions you can't.

Next, you're going o want the thought police to know when someone is inattentive for other reasons.

[coyotes_geek]

Just showing the problems with the statements. It lacks any certainty. It supports an agenda.

That agenda is called "public safety". Frankly I'm okay with that agenda, aren't you?

Seriously, does the fact that there's no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that texting was the specific causation of the distraction in those wrecks that texters were 23 times more likely to get into mean that you're not sure whether or not texting while driving is a bad thing?

Are you seriously opposed to banning a specific observable behavior that causes distraction merely because there are other distractions that aren't as observable? Does any attempt to reduce the number of distracted drivers have to be an "all or nothing" approach?

If you want to take issue with the specific law and how that law would have been enforced, that's one thing. But please tell me that you at least agree that texting while driving does cause accidents and that some kind of effort to prohibit that behavior is worthwhile.

[RandomGuy]

Tex ting is only one of several distractions some drivers have. It's just one you can see. Other distractions you can't.

Next, you're going o want the thought police to know when someone is inattentive for other reasons.

In Study, Texting Lifts Crash Risk by Large Margin (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/technology/28texting.html)


The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, which compiled the research and plans to release its findings on Tuesday, also measured the time drivers took their eyes from the road to send or receive texts.

In the moments before a crash or near crash, drivers typically spent nearly five seconds looking at their devices — enough time at typical highway speeds to cover more than the length of a football field.

Even though trucks take longer to stop and are less maneuverable than cars, the findings generally applied to all drivers, who tend to exhibit the same behaviors as the more than 100 truckers studied, the researchers said. Truckers, they said, do not appear to text more or less than typical car drivers, but they said the study did not compare use patterns that way.

At what point should I be expected to pay for the crash that results from your right to text while driving at 102 feet per second?

This is not an activity that results in no measurable harm to others.

It can, and does, lead to actual deaths, not to mention the medical costs of the resulting crashes for survivors.

You bitch about having to pay for other people's right to be lazy, but seem ok when it comes to paying for their right to behave like morons?

I don't understand that at all.

[Wild Cobra]

That agenda is called "public safety". Frankly I'm okay with that agenda, aren't you?

Yes if I thought they were serious rather than it being a political hot button.

That's all this is. Brownie points for law makers. If they were serious, they would enforce the public safety laws on the books we have now before making more.

Every state I have driven in, I see people driving lethal weapons not caring about how dangerous they can be. Nearly all accidents are preventable. I seriously doubt the numbers will be different legal or banned. The same people who would have an accident texting are the same irresponsible people who will have an accident doing some other irresponsible act.

Few things chap my ass more than adding laws to the books that are not already enforced.

[RandomGuy]

Same thing goes for helmet laws. I don't want to pay for some jackass' medical bills when he is hooked up to a freaking ventilator for 40 years.

[Wild Cobra]

In Study, Texting Lifts Crash Risk by Large Margin (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/technology/28texting.html)



At what point should I be expected to pay for the crash that results from your right to text while driving at 102 feet per second?

This is not an activity that results in no measurable harm to others.

It can, and does, lead to actual deaths, not to mention the medical costs of the resulting crashes for survivors.

You bitch about having to pay for other people's right to be lazy, but seem ok when it comes to paying for their right to behave like morons?

I don't understand that at all.
It's not the device that causes the accidents. It's the carelessness of the drivers.

That's right, punish all for the actions of some.

[RandomGuy]

Yes if I thought they were serious rather than it being a political hot button.

That's all this is. Brownie points for law makers. If they were serious, they would enforce the public safety laws on the books we have now before making more.

Every state I have driven in, I see people driving lethal weapons not caring about how dangerous they can be. Nearly all accidents are preventable. I seriously doubt the numbers will be different legal or banned. The same people who would have an accident texting are the same irresponsible people who will have an accident doing some other irresponsible act.

Few things chap my ass more than adding laws to the books that are not already enforced.

The problem with that is that texting seems to be far riskier than any other distraction.

The cost to benefit is actually pretty favorable, when it comes to spending effort on preventing it, as opposed to worring about a second or two for a radio station change.

[coyotes_geek]

Yes if I thought they were serious rather than it being a political hot button.

That's all this is. Brownie points for law makers. If they were serious, they would enforce the public safety laws on the books we have now before making more.

Every state I have driven in, I see people driving lethal weapons not caring about how dangerous they can be. Nearly all accidents are preventable. I seriously doubt the numbers will be different legal or banned. The same people who would have an accident texting are the same irresponsible people who will have an accident doing some other irresponsible act.

Few things chap my ass more than adding laws to the books that are not already enforced.

Okay, you're against redundant laws. Fair enough. So in jurisdictions where texting while driving is covered under some other wreckless driving law you're okay with cops ticketing texting drivers? Right?


It's not the device that causes the accidents. It's the carelessness of the drivers.

That's right, punish all for the actions of some.

I want to drive drunk. I've never gotten into a wreck while driving drunk. Why should I be punished for the actions of others who have gotten into wrecks while driving drunk? There shouldn't be any laws prohibiting me from driving drunk.

[Blake]

If they were serious, they would enforce the public safety laws on the books we have now before making more.

Few things chap my ass more than adding laws to the books that are not already enforced.

So you want equal enforcement of all public safety laws?

That is just stupid.....again, no surprise from you.

[Blake]

It's not the device that causes the accidents. It's the carelessness of the drivers.

That's right, punish all for the actions of some.

Nobody is saying to completely prohibit the device.

What almost everybody is saying is that it should be prohibited while driving.

Only a silly idiot would try to say otherwise.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Tex ting is only one of several distractions some drivers have. It's just one you can see. Other distractions you can't.

Texting requires the texter's hands and eyes for several seconds at a time. There's not many other activities that compare that people do as regularly as texting. It's kind of like driving with no hands and eyes closed. Talking on the phone, putting on makeup, or even shaving don't take as much attention as texting.


Next, you're going o want the thought police to know when someone is inattentive for other reasons.

no i'm not, idiot.

[EVAY]

Tex ting is only one of several distractions some drivers have. It's just one you can see. Other distractions you can't.

Next, you're going o want the thought police to know when someone is inattentive for other reasons.

Classic example of the fallacy of "reductio ad absurdam".

[jack sommerset]

Goddamnit!! You would think this would have been a no brainer. Hopefully technology puts this thing to bed and fast. You,are without any questions, one dumb motherfucker for texting while driving.

With that said, did this law prevent you from texting while at a stop sign, stop light, sitting by the side of the road with the car on?

[LnGrrrR]

This doesn't prove texting is the cause. I'm more inclined to see these people as irresponsible, and will be irresponsible in other ways as well.

And drinking alcohol has never caused an accident either, right?

It just increased the chances.


Who are they comparing that too? A non distracted driver perhaps? A non distracted driver has a near zero chance of an accident. How can we eliminate all distractions?

Strawman. No one is saying we have to eliminate all distractions. But in cases where the distraction has shown to be relatively prevalent, it makes sense to limit these activities.


From my understanding, the word "caused" is implied from the fact something was going on, but not necessarily true. Funny how they included "talking" to get to that number as well, as I think it's safe to say 28% of cars on the road have someone else in the vehicle, and they are probably talking.

Again, passengers in the vehicle are able to notice unsafe conditions. As well, silences occur naturally in normal conversation, but phone/text message conversations do not have these natural silences.


Don't get me wrong. I don't like to see people using cell phones while driving. I just think it's a stupid thing to add to the books when so many more dangerous acts by drivers go unenforced. We see reckless driving everyday on the roads. Accident rates have not gone up, phones are just becoming an excuse.

Are you sure accident rates haven't gone up, or are you just throwing that fact out? Just curious.

[mingus]

Tex ting is only one of several distractions some drivers have. It's just one you can see. Other distractions you can't.

Next, you're going o want the thought police to know when someone is inattentive for other reasons.

i'd have no problem with the policy if we were all driving in lanes that had bumpers on them. but the fact of the matter is we don't and people will text and people will die because of recklessness and stupidity.

i actually knew someone that died because she was driving while texting. she went into the back of an 18 wheeler and lost half of her head in the accident. i was working at a hospital at the time and saw that crazy shit. nothing happened to the truck driver though, but plenty of people have died over the years who weren't lucky enough to be driving an 18 wheeler.

i guess you don't give a shit if people aren't held accountable though.

[ElNono]

Tex ting is only one of several distractions some drivers have. It's just one you can see. Other distractions you can't.

Next, you're going o want the thought police to know when someone is inattentive for other reasons.

If cops could really read minds, you probably wouldn't be able to drive, tbh.

[Wild Cobra]

The problem with that is that texting seems to be far riskier than any other distraction.
Several things are dangerous distractions. If a person takes a second or less, not a problem. It boils down to responsibility.

The cost to benefit is actually pretty favorable, when it comes to spending effort on preventing it, as opposed to worring about a second or two for a radio station change.
How about the costs benefits of enforcing safe driving period. Not just one type of action that falls under that category.

Why do people favor legislation that restricts all because of a few?

[Wild Cobra]

Okay, you're against redundant laws. Fair enough. So in jurisdictions where texting while driving is covered under some other wreckless driving law you're okay with cops ticketing texting drivers? Right?
Absolutely. As long as it is more than a glance.

I want to drive drunk. I've never gotten into a wreck while driving drunk. Why should I be punished for the actions of others who have gotten into wrecks while driving drunk? There shouldn't be any laws prohibiting me from driving drunk.
I have a problem with using the same percentage for all, but alcohol definitely hinders the senses. I would prefer to see a level that no prosecution can take place, and then a range to which is subjective to the drivers driving and responses. Then a higher level that is legally drunk.

I believe 0.08% is the legal limit in most states. I say that's too low. I agree many people still handle alcohol good at higher levels.

Not drunk though.

[Wild Cobra]

So you want equal enforcement of all public safety laws?

That is just stupid.....again, no surprise from you.
If it's not an important enough law to enforce, then let it apply under the basic rule law.

I'm specifically concerned about things I see daily that are dangerous. Especially following two close.

[Wild Cobra]

Nobody is saying to completely prohibit the device.

What almost everybody is saying is that it should be prohibited while driving.

Only a silly idiot would try to say otherwise.
I understand, but not everyone is dangerous with a quick glance. Some can even text without looking. You know, like touch typing.

[Wild Cobra]

Texting requires the texter's hands and eyes for several seconds at a time.
Just because that's how it works for you, doesn't mean it works like that for everyone.

[Blake]

I understand, but not everyone is dangerous with a quick glance. Some can even text without looking. You know, like touch typing.

some drunks can drive better than some sober people, but there is no good reason to allow it.

get rid of it.

[LnGrrrR]

I understand, but not everyone is dangerous with a quick glance. Some can even text without looking. You know, like touch typing.

Some people can handle their alcohol. Does that mean we should legalize drunk driving?

[RandomGuy]

Several things are dangerous distractions. If a person takes a second or less, not a problem. It boils down to responsibility.

How about the costs benefits of enforcing safe driving period. Not just one type of action that falls under that category.

Why do people favor legislation that restricts all because of a few?

"Why should murder be illegal for the rest of us, simply because somebody killed someone?"

"Why should stealing be illegal, just because some jackass robbed a bank?"

"These people were just being irresponsible, that shouldn't be a crime, right?"

The logic is the same.

Your ability to be irresponsible stops when it costs the society we live in collectively more than we are willing to pay.

At some point, we have to collectively set some minimum standards of behavior, and use the law to enforce that standard.

[Wild Cobra]

You guys are getting ridiculous.

[ElNono]

:lol

[LnGrrrR]

You guys are getting ridiculous.

I'd say the same to you.

If texting was found to be prevalent in a high number of crashes, and there is a statistical correlation showing reduced attention, I think it's acceptable for lawmakers to craft legislation preventing it.

After all, alcohol is found to be prevalent in a number of crashes, and there is a statistical correlation.

I'd be fine with a law preventing cell phone usage if the same data set showed up.

If you don't like it, you can always move to another state, right?

[Wild Cobra]

I'd say the same to you.

If texting was found to be prevalent in a high number of crashes, and there is a statistical correlation showing reduced attention, I think it's acceptable for lawmakers to craft legislation preventing it.

After all, alcohol is found to be prevalent in a number of crashes, and there is a statistical correlation.

I'd be fine with a law preventing cell phone usage if the same data set showed up.

If you don't like it, you can always move to another state, right?
If you haven't noticed, I don't like seeing such activity myself. I think you are ignoring some of the things I said, and I think it's time to remind some of you that I play the Devil's Advocate at times here.

Seriously though, do you believe everyone should fall under lowest common denominator laws?

[LnGrrrR]

If you haven't noticed, I don't like seeing such activity myself. I think you are ignoring some of the things I said, and I think it's time to remind some of you that I play the Devil's Advocate at times here.

Seriously though, do you believe everyone should fall under lowest common denominator laws?

Who said anything about "lowest common denominator"? I said if the activity was prevalent, then we should look at banning it through a specific law.

Have you heard me saying we should outlaw eating, changing the radio, or any other number of minor distractions?

By the same token, do you think everyone should fall under some "highest common denominator"? Ie. Should we just have no laws on the books save, "If a police officer thinks you're distracted he can pull you over"?

[Winehole23]

This should have been a no brainer.Whatever you think he should do, Rick Perry will do the exact opposite.

Notice a pattern?:lol:toast

[Winehole23]

Every arm can wield a hammer: Defending Perry's veto of Texas texting ban (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2011/06/media-flailing-agaisnt-perry-veto-of.html)


When Governor Rick Perry announced his vetoes, Grits praised the Governor's decision (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2011/06/perry-vetoes-new-crime-of-texting-while.html) to kill legislation criminalizing texting while driving. On Tuesday, James Ragland at the Dallas News published a column excoriating Perry for the veto ("Texas goveror's logic for vetoing texting-while-driving bill seems twisted (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/columnists/james-ragland/20110621-ragland-texas-governors-logic-for-vetoing-texting-while-driving-bill-seems-twisted.ece)," June 22, behind paywall), declaring that "The 'logic' that Texas Gov. Rick Perry used to veto a bill that would, among other things, prohibit TWD is twisted, if not downright hypocritical," though he granted that "I don’t know if outlawing TWD would prompt Texas drivers to stop cold turkey or merely inspire them to do a better job of hiding their perilous habit."

Setting aside the difficulties of enforcement, Ragland says if Perry supports seatbelt and DWI laws, he has no justification for vetoing this bill. But I measure the issue on a different axis: Criminalizing common behaviors is a slippery slope, and Perry is at least willing to engage in a meaningful debate, unlike Ragland, regarding at what point criminalizing more drivers becomes counterproductive, charging average, law abiding citizens with criminal offenses while diverting police efforts from more serious crime.

Apparently it's come to this in the writing of criminal law, at least according to James Ragland: It's just a good thing to make criminals of non-criminals over any subject you disapprove of even if you don't think doing so will work! Criminalizing new behaviors has become so habit forming, it's the go-to move even (perhaps especially) for liberals. The real danger from the impulse, though, is that creating new crimes or "enhancing" old ones is a purely tactical and thus a bipartisan (really a trans-partisan) approach. You can theoretically criminalize anything you don't like, after all - every arm can wield a hammer. The Wichita Falls Times Record News editorial board chimed in (http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2011/jun/22/texting-ban-bill-not-overreaching/) that it was worth passing the law just "in the hopes of saving even one person." The Midland paper called (http://www.mywesttexas.com/life/article_904234ad-0b35-539a-a1c5-3ecc9344a13b.html) the veto a "mistake."

Seemingly to counter Ragland's opinion column, but mostly reinforcing it, the News followed up by publishing an article today (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/texas-legislature/headlines/20110622-texas-gov.-rick-perrys-veto-of-ban-on-texting-while-driving-unprecedented.ece) from reporter Erin Mulvaney giving a "both sides of the story" (sort of) account of the topic. My favorite part of the story was this quote from a National Safety Council official:

Dave Teater, a senior director for Transportation Strategic Initiatives for the National Safety Council, said texting and driving is a new threat to public health and safety and that the governor’s decision to veto the legislation was “disastrous.”

“If the state is not willing to say whether it’s right or wrong, then it implies that it is not that dangerous,” he said. “People are crashing and causing fatalities across the country. … If our government can’t be involved in public safety, I don’t know what government is good for.”A blogger's dream. How much is wrong with that sentiment? If state law is silent on a topic, that "implies that it's not dangerous"! In court the 5th Amendment will protect you, but in the court of public opinion Mr. Teater is willing to convict states on their silence - unless they pass this bill as some sort of loyalty oath (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0aLrrnyDhg). But the proposed solution really isn't one, despite terrible anecdotes about distracted driving and cell phones which have arisen, perplexingly and counterintuitively, accepting prohobitionists' arguments, during a period when traffic deaths are declining.

As for what else is government good for besides public safety? How about "preserving rights"? That's the foundational role of American government to which Ragland and Treater's comments seem oblivious. A LOT of otherwise law abiding people use their cell phones in the car, so the proposal is to criminalize a new segment of average people, expanding the baseline pool of who may be stopped, questioned, arrested, racially profiled, etc.. significantly.

The bill further eviscerates drivers' remaining 4th amendment rights at traffic stops. Nearly everyone now carries a phone. Criminalizing its use in the car could give officers "reasonable suspicion" at just about every traffic stop. Would it be enough for an officer to say they saw you glancing at your lap when they ask you to get out of the car, pat you down, and search your vehicle? Probably. In fact, given erosions at the Supreme Court regarding Fourth Amendment rights at traffic stops, it's quite reasonable to make a stand here that enough is enough.(I wish the Governor had found his Fourth Amendment backbone a little sooner (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2005/06/terrible-news-perry-vetoes-stronger.html), in fact, but that's a column for another day.)

And for this sacrifice of liberty, we get no documentable improvement in public safety. Mulvaney did at least mention countervailing research (discussed on Grits (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2010/02/study-cell-phone-texting-bans-dont.html) when it came out): "A study released last year by the Highway Loss Data Institute examined insurance claims in several states before and after laws were in place banning texting while driving and found that the laws did not result in fewer crashes," wrote Mulvaney, adding that "When the study was released, the institute told The Associated Press the findings 'don’t match what we already know about the risk of phoning and texting while driving.'”

Though the finding is sidestepped in the story as a one-off, I think the result makes perfect sense. Most texting drivers are younger, and young people already are at greatest risk to cause traffic accidents. They're already distracted and if this wasn't distracting them, they'd find something else; there are plenty of distractions out there to be had, after all. Meanwhile, cars are getting safer, hospitals save more lives than ever and the median age in America is rising. In other words, criminal laws have very little to do with the actual reasons traffic deaths are declining, certainly not to such an extent that they deserve such narrow, singular fetishizing as supposedly the only way government influences behavior, particularly at the level of very personal tasks like preventing "distraction."

My own views, then, lie much closer to those expressed by the lone critic of the bill (besides Perry's veto statement) quoted in the story, "Rep Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, [who] said he voted against the bill because the state already has laws against distracted driving and reckless driving, but a broad prohibition on using cellphones gives police a reason to violate the Fourth Amendment, which forbids unreasonable search and seizure." Bingo! There's that other purpose of government Mr. Teater couldn't locate.

In closing, Mulvaney contacted Grits a couple of days ago to go on the record for this story, but since she didn't quote any of what I sent her, I'll republish it here to close out this entry:

We already have laws governing similar behavior and it's not needed. There are laws against reckless driving already, so on its face it's redundant if the behavior is in any way endangering others.

OTOH, if I read a text at a stoplight I don't think it harms anyone. It's already an area where civil litigation metes out liability quite successfully and criminal law has little to add. Plus studies show similar laws passed in other states simply don't reduce traffic deaths, see here (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2010/02/study-cell-phone-texting-bans-dont.html).

Finally, banning everything that could distract people is just not practical or reasonable, and even if the bill became law, the state can't enforce it. Lots of things can distract you when you drive, from roadside advertising to disciplining a kid in the back seat, adjusting the radio, eating, fiddling with GPS, putting on makeup, you name it ... all the stuff people do in their cars. You can't ban it all.

All this bill has going for it is tearful anecdotes and handwringing - the policy arguments all run against it.http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2011/06/media-flailing-agaisnt-perry-veto-of.html

[Blake]

gritsforbreakfast is greatness.

of course, the same reasoning that "teens will just find something else to be distracted with" can be used to say "a cop will just find some other reason to pull you over".

[Blake]

I think it's time to remind some of you that I play the Devil's Advocate at times here.


very poorly played

[coyotes_geek]

Interesting perspective by grits. I don't neccissarily agree with it, but it's certainly the best supporting case for Perry's veto that I've read.

[admiralsnackbar]

Unlike mandatory ultrasounds. I hope the Governor was wearing a neck brace when he said that.
Game set match. Unless you see the txt veto as an appeal to Teabags and the ultrasound as an appeal to those Christians, in which case it's just politics as usual for Perry.

Fortunately, there will always be this:

http://www.window.state.tx.us/news/60515letter.html

[Winehole23]

Interesting perspective by grits. I don't neccissarily agree with it, but it's certainly the best supporting case for Perry's veto that I've read.That's sort of what I think. Characterizing Perry's veto as him "being willing to participate in the broader debate" grits outlines, seems a bit of a stretch to me.

[RandomGuy]

Game set match. Unless you see the txt veto as an appeal to Teabags and the ultrasound as an appeal to those Christians, in which case it's just politics as usual for Perry.

Fortunately, there will always be this:

http://www.window.state.tx.us/news/60515letter.html

Talk about calling it.


May 15, 2006

The Honorable Rick Perry
Governor, State of Texas
Capitol Building, Room 2S.1
Austin, Texas 78701

Dear Governor Perry:

The Legislature is concluding its work on your tax plan. Your plan is fiscally irresponsible -- it includes an unconstitutional income tax on partnerships and unincorporated associations, the largest tax increase in Texas history and leaves the largest hot check in Texas history. ...

... your plan simply does not pay for itself... As of this moment, this legislation is a staggering $23 billion short of the funds needed to pay for the promised property tax cuts over the next five years.

In 2007, your plan is $3.4 billion short; in 2008 it is $4.3 billion short; in 2009 it is $5.4 billion short; in 2010 it is $4.9 billion short; and in 2011 it is $5 billion short. These are conservative estimates. [emphasis author's-RG]
...
At worst, it will relegate Texans to Draconian cuts in critical areas like education and health care for at least a generation...

The gap is going to continue to grow, year by year. There are only two ways to close a chasm of that magnitude -- future tax increases that you are hiding from Texans now or massive cuts in essential state services -- like public education...

I'm gonna save that link. The current budget crisis was manufactured by the governor and Republican legislature in 2006.

:bang

:bang

[RandomGuy]

If you haven't noticed, I don't like seeing such activity myself. I think you are ignoring some of the things I said, and I think it's time to remind some of you that I play the Devil's Advocate at times here.

Seriously though, do you believe everyone should fall under lowest common denominator laws?

Your claims of being a devil's advocate might be more credible if you state that before you start debating the point. Well meant and freely given.

[coyotes_geek]

That's sort of what I think. Characterizing Perry's veto as him "being willing to participate in the broader debate" grits outlines, seems a bit of a stretch to me.

Agreed. I think Blake made a really good counterpoint to grits about how cops can find a reason to pull you over if they're looking to do so.

Like grits, I'm also a big fan of preserving rights, but we don't have the right to endanger others by driving while distracted.

[Winehole23]

How about eating in the car, or putting on makeup?

[Winehole23]

Turning away from the road to scold or control children?

[Winehole23]

Fishing in the glove box.

[coyotes_geek]

How about eating in the car, or putting on makeup?


Turning away from the road to scold or control children?


Fishing in the glove box.

If these activities are impairing your ability to safely operate your vehicle, then I don't have a problem with law enforcement trying to stop it. Is there a grey area as to how one could go about enforcing such activities? Sure.

[Winehole23]

Aren't there laws that already cover distracted driving? Instead of criminalizing particular activities in the car isn't public safety better served by targeting people who are in fact driving dangerously?

[Blake]

How about eating in the car, or putting on makeup?


Turning away from the road to scold or control children?


Fishing in the glove box.

Eating can be done with one hand while still looking straight ahead.

Turning away for any reason (scolding/glovebox) from the designated position of sitting straight ahead might be something to consider.
I can't really come up with a good defense against prohibiting it as it could potentially negate seatbelt/air bag effectiveness.

I absolutely equate putting on makeup with texting. I doubt it will get any kind of consideration any time soon since it would appear to be a pretty gender specific issue.

[Blake]

Aren't there laws that already cover distracted driving? Instead of criminalizing particular activities in the car isn't public safety better serving by targeting people who are in fact driving dangerously?

When it comes to driving, personally I don't have any problem with such preventative laws.

If a Nascar driver can professionaly drive vehicles at 200+ mph, is it fair to make him/her drive no faster than 70mph on the highway?

Probably not, but since we have no way of knowing that it's Dale Earnhardt Jr behind the wheel, for the overall safety of the driving public, it's tough shit for Dale.

[coyotes_geek]

Aren't there laws that already cover distracted driving?

Probably. Like I told WC, I certainly understand opposition to a new law on the grounds that it would be redundant.


Instead of criminalizing particular activities in the car isn't public safety better served by targeting people who are in fact driving dangerously?

Not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that texting/eating/reading/applying makeup while driving isn't equivalent to driving dangerously?

[Winehole23]

I thought so at first, now I'm less sure. I'm not so sure the activities alone warrant enforcement, absent erratic driving.

[Winehole23]

Better that cops concentrate on the guy weaving around, than every jackass with a visible cellphone.

[Blake]

I thought so at first, now I'm less sure. I'm not so sure the activities alone warrant enforcement, absent erratic driving.

I took the suggestion to mean that cops should just enforce laws after a potentially dangerous incident actually occurs.


Better that cops concentrate on the guy weaving around, than every jackass with a visible cellphone.

I'm betting that cops can concentrate on both of those instances.

[LnGrrrR]

Some issues with the grits article:



It's just a good thing to make criminals of non-criminals over any subject you disapprove of even if you don't think doing so will work!


I missed where those who proposed banning texting didn't think it would work. Was that presented somewhere? I assume the law is to cut down on the number of people texting.



Would it be enough for an officer to say they saw you glancing at your lap when they ask you to get out of the car, pat you down, and search your vehicle? Probably.


A good point, though "probably" is wishy-washy. I agree that the law should be written that police officers have to actually see the person using the phone, and not just have a suspicion because they're glancing down.

Now, that might lead to unintended consequences, with people distracted not only by texting, but by trying to HIDE texting. Not sure if there is any data on that. A legit concern though. I don't think the "danger gap" between texting/hiding texting is as great as the "no texting at all/some texting" gap though.


But the proposed solution really isn't one, despite terrible anecdotes about distracted driving and cell phones which have arisen, perplexingly and counterintuitively, accepting prohobitionists' arguments, during a period when traffic deaths are declining.


Why isn't it a solution? And traffic deaths are likely declining due to better safety standards, better tech, better materials, etc etc. I doubt it's getting much better due to human nature.

Also, how long is the "period" that deaths are declining? Facts and figures would've helped the argument much more, imho.


A LOT of otherwise law abiding people use their cell phones in the car, so the proposal is to criminalize a new segment of average people, expanding the baseline pool of who may be stopped, questioned, arrested, racially profiled, etc.. significantly

Insert "alcohol" into the equation before drunk driving was outlawed, and the argument works the same. If we didn't know that texting/talking on cell phones had serious repercussions, then it makes sense they weren't banned. If we find that they DO cause distractions to a great extent, then I think it makes sense to try and prevent these incidences.



My own views, then, lie much closer to those expressed by the lone critic of the bill (besides Perry's veto statement) quoted in the story, "Rep Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, [who] said he voted against the bill because the state already has laws against distracted driving and reckless driving, but a broad prohibition on using cellphones gives police a reason to violate the Fourth Amendment, which forbids unreasonable search and seizure." Bingo! There's that other purpose of government Mr. Teater couldn't locate.



Then why not get rid of drunk driving laws? After all, if a driver is drunk enough to act erratically, then they should be covered under the "reckless driving" law, correct?

Of course, that means that said person is already drunk and on the road, and probably has done so numerous times before.



They're already distracted and if this wasn't distracting them, they'd find something else; there are plenty of distractions out there to be had, after all.


That sounds like poor logic to me. Just because there are other distractions doesn't mean they all consume an equal amount of attention. Or are teenagers absorbing a greal deal of time continually changing the radio stations?



Finally, banning everything that could distract people is just not practical or reasonable, and even if the bill became law, the state can't enforce it.


Strawman. No one is asking to ban every thing that could distract someone, because that isn't practical/enforceable. They're asking to ban texting.



Lots of things can distract you when you drive, from roadside advertising to disciplining a kid in the back seat, adjusting the radio, eating, fiddling with GPS, putting on makeup, you name it ... all the stuff people do in their cars. You can't ban it all.



Another poor strawman. Just because there are various forms of distraction doesn't mean they all require the same time commitment. If most texting consisted of 5 to 10 message, it wouldn't be a problem. But when people hold conversations through text, then it gets to be a big issue. The other distractions listed are not continuous.

The only strong argument that article provided was that banning texting had little effect on crashes. I'd have to see the data points for that though.

[LnGrrrR]

Also, I don't think it should be "criminalized", but treated as a traffic ticket. If you're caught texting, you have to pay a fine. If you're texting and actually driving recklessly, then they book you on driving recklessly.

[LnGrrrR]

Aren't there laws that already cover distracted driving? Instead of criminalizing particular activities in the car isn't public safety better served by targeting people who are in fact driving dangerously?

It isn't an either-or concept. We can still prosecute those driving dangerously, but we can also filter out activities that are shown to significantly increase a driver's chances of getting into an accident. (Of course, you can define down significant, but that's getting into the weeds.)

[Winehole23]

Has that been shown wrt texting/cell phones?

[LnGrrrR]

Has that been shown wrt texting/cell phones?

Well, the Virginia study seems to imply that it does decrease concentration greatly. I'm not sure if the study determined the average length of time that one spent texting/talking vs. "minor" distractions such as changing the station/getting something etc etc, but I think one can safely assume that a conversation would take longer than these other isolated events.

Now, if there is strong data showing that banning cell phones/texting had little to no effect, that would be a quiver in the anti-ban argument.

[baseline bum]

A good point, though "probably" is wishy-washy. I agree that the law should be written that police officers have to actually see the person using the phone, and not just have a suspicion because they're glancing down.

But officer.... I was masturbating.

[ElNono]

Absolutely hate when I see kids texting and not paying attention AT ALL on the road. I can't count how many times I've been driving in the Parkway and had a car swerving on a lane, hurried up to pass them thinking they might be some drunk driver only to see them looking down, BOTH hands on the phone. We've laws here against both calls and texting since last september, including an increase in fines since enacted. Not sure how effective they are.

I also concur with makeup being also a major distraction. I have a lady almost every morning when I drive my wife to work that thinks her car is a beauty salon. She's hooked on the rearview mirror applying a brush and lipstick, not looking at the road, doing 20mph in a 45mph road, with a long line of cars behind her wondering WTF is up.

Anecdotal, but just my 2c.

[scott]

How about gay sex while driving?

[Winehole23]

Now, if there is strong data showing that banning cell phones/texting had little to no effect, that would be a quiver in the anti-ban argument.You waved off the industry study without looking at any of the data, so it's a bit premature to demand better data, don't you think?

[Marcus Bryant]

There are a variety of things you can do while driving that are hazardous. Perhaps we need a law for each one we can think of. Even Gov. Goodhair can figure this one out.

[LnGrrrR]

You waved off the industry study without looking at any of the data, so it's a bit premature to demand better data, don't you think?

I don't think I have to provide data for and against now, do I? If others want to make the claim that it makes no difference, let them argue their evidence.

[LnGrrrR]

There are a variety of things you can do while driving that are hazardous. Perhaps we need a law for each one we can think of. Even Gov. Goodhair can figure this one out.

Are you against drunk driving laws? If not, why?

[Winehole23]

If others want to make the claim that it makes no difference, let them argue their evidence.If you dismiss evidence without even looking at it you have only clarified your own bias.

[LnGrrrR]

If you dismiss evidence without even looking at it you have only clarified your own bias.

Please point to me where I dismissed the study offhand, thank you. :toast

[LnGrrrR]

Are you talking about the study referenced by Grits in this article?

http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/study-handheld-cell-phone-bans-dont-cut-wrecks-202744.html

The study that was conducted by the Highway Loss Data Institute, that mentions later...


The Highway Loss Data Institute, an affiliate of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said its findings "don't match what we already know about the risk of phoning and texting while driving" and said it is gathering data to "figure out this mismatch."

So the study referred to by Grits that shows that banning texting/cell phone usage has no effect on crashes was conducted by the very same organization that believes texting/cell phone usage has a serious ability to affect a driver.

Damning evidence, to be sure.

[Winehole23]

Yep.

[LnGrrrR]

Considering the Institute who performed the study found the results startling, and is itself unsure of the reasons, I don't find that particularly compelling.

[Winehole23]

I'd have to see the data points for that though.I overread, or hastily read, this statement. The sentence before should have contextualized it for me. My bad LnGrrR.

[Ignignokt]

Rick Perry would make a way better prez than Obama, don't kid yourselves.

[LnGrrrR]

I overread, or hastily read, this statement. The sentence before should have contextualized it for me. My bad LnGrrR.

Fair enough. :toast

[fmedrano1977]

this woman nearly sideswiped me this morning at 70mph on i10. She was in a little audi sports car convertible. We were running side by side and i wouldn't have even known she was texting and not paying attention to driving if i hadn't been checking out her magnificent rack lol.

lmao!

[Winehole23]

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says that 3 of every 4 states that have enacted a ban on texting while driving have seen crashes actually go up rather than down.


It's hard to pin down exactly why this is the case, but experts believe it is a result of people trying to avoid getting caught in states with stiff penalties. Folks trying to keep their phones out of view will often hold the phone much lower, below the wheel perhaps, in order to keep it out of view. That means the driver's eyes are looking down and away from the road.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=22657873&nid=148

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I fully support Rick on this one. Just because women are too fuckin stupid to multitask (i.e. text and drive at the same time) doesn't mean it should be ruined for men fully capable of doing so.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Rick Perry would make a way better prez than Obama, don't kid yourselves.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao yeah, his "Lets hold a prayathon to fix the economy!" plan will surely work.

[resistanze]

I fully support Rick on this one. Just because women are too fuckin stupid to multitask (i.e. text and drive at the same time) doesn't mean it should be ruined for men fully capable of doing so.

:lol

Seriously though, 80% of people are too stupid to operate a vehicle, let alone multitask, man or woman. Last week a guy in front of me was texting in stop-and-go traffic. He kept speeding up to catch up to the flow of traffic then proceeded to text, until he finally mistimed and rammed into the woman in front of him. I immediately switched lanes and laughed hysterically at him with my window down.

Now I'm an awesome driver and could proabably play the violin while driving, but the average citizen is just too dumb.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Me being in the 20% annoys me. Laws are continuously made to protect the stupidity of the 80% that ruin it for smart people, like me.

[Winehole23]

Me being in the 20% annoys me. Laws are continuously made to protect the stupidity of the 80% that ruin it for smart people, like me.what if the laws meant to protect you from idiots put you in even more danger? the insurance industry study cited above suggests this is a possibility.

[TeyshaBlue]

what if the laws meant to protect you from idiots put you in even more danger? the insurance industry study cited above suggests this is a possibility.

The unintended consequences bug strikes again. Other than massively invading your privacy, a tactic that is becoming more and more attractive to local law enforcement, what other solution is there but to criminalize the activity that we wish to curb?

[Th'Pusher]

The unintended consequences bug strikes again. Other than massively invading your privacy, a tactic that is becoming more and more attractive to local law enforcement, what other solution is there but to criminalize the activity that we wish to curb?

Hows that campaign to have people pledge no to text and drive going?

[TeyshaBlue]

No idea. Emperically, it doesn't seem to be going so well hence the "what other solution is there but to criminalize the activity that we wish to curb?"