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.
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
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.
Talk about calling it.
I'm gonna save that link. The current budget crisis was manufactured by the governor and Republican legislature in 2006.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Last edited by Winehole23; 06-29-2011 at 03:35 PM. Reason: god, what a mess
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.
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 for Dale.
Probably. Like I told WC, I certainly understand opposition to a new law on the grounds that it would be redundant.
Not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that texting/eating/reading/applying makeup while driving isn't equivalent to driving dangerously?Instead of criminalizing particular activities in the car isn't public safety better served by targeting people who are in fact driving dangerously?
I thought so at first, now I'm less sure. I'm not so sure the activities alone warrant enforcement, absent erratic driving.
Better that cops concentrate on the guy weaving around, than every jackass with a visible cellphone.
I took the suggestion to mean that cops should just enforce laws after a potentially dangerous incident actually occurs.
I'm betting that cops can concentrate on both of those instances.
Some issues with the grits article:
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.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!
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 su ion because they're glancing down.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.
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.
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.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.
Also, how long is the "period" that deaths are declining? Facts and figures would've helped the argument much more, imho.
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.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
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?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.
Of course, that means that said person is already drunk and on the road, and probably has done so numerous times before.
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?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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
But officer.... I was masturbating.
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.
How about gay sex while driving?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
