Reply With Quote
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.
So you want equal enforcement of all public safety laws?
That is just stupid.....again, no surprise from you.
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.
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.
no i'm not, idiot.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".
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 mother er 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?
And drinking alcohol has never caused an accident either, right?
It just increased the chances.
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.
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.
Are you sure accident rates haven't gone up, or are you just throwing that fact out? Just curious.
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 . 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 if people aren't held accountable though.
If cops could really read minds, you probably wouldn't be able to drive, tbh.
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?
Absolutely. As long as it is more than a glance.
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.
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.
I understand, but not everyone is dangerous with a quick glance. Some can even text without looking. You know, like touch typing.
Just because that's how it works for you, doesn't mean it works like that for everyone.
some drunks can drive better than some sober people, but there is no good reason to allow it.
get rid of it.
Some people can handle their alcohol. Does that mean we should legalize drunk driving?
"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.
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?
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"?
Whatever you think he should do, Rick Perry will do the exact opposite.
Notice a pattern?
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.co...y-veto-of.htmlEvery arm can wield a hammer: Defending Perry's veto of Texas texting ban
When Governor Rick Perry announced his vetoes, Grits praised the Governor's decision 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," 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 that it was worth passing the law just "in the hopes of saving even one person." The Midland paper called the veto a "mistake."
Seemingly to counter Ragland's opinion column, but mostly reinforcing it, the News followed up by publishing an article today 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.”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. 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.
“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.”
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 su ion" 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, in fact, but that's a column for another day.)
And for this sacrifice of liberty, we get no do entable improvement in public safety. Mulvaney did at least mention countervailing research (discussed on Grits when it came out): "A study released last year by the Highway Loss Data Ins ute 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 ins ute 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.
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.
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".
very poorly played
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
