Distracted driving laws existed before cell phones were a problem. Perhaps people feel, since DD laws hardly ever get enforced, maybe a more enforceable law with stiffer penalties is in order. The world changes, some laws need updating to keep up with it.

I mean, sure we dont want to be overburdened with new laws, but at the same time, Cellphone use causing accidents is becoming an epidemic in this country. Perhaps its time to tighten screws on those who do it, regardless of what laws are on the books already.

I have no problem with a new cell phone restriction law on driving in addition to the distracted driving law. I see no outrage in making sure people are safe with a more enforceable "redundancy" as others would suggest. Not to mention raised awareness because of a new law could be very beneficial, and lower traffiic accident statistics.

quote Originally posted by Shyster: Funny. There are already laws against "reckless driving." Enforce them. Then get a life. So maybe better driver training is the answer. .

Except that
To quote Ron White:
"You caint fix stoooopid."

Besides all this "law" would be is detail added to the law that says "wreckless driving", it basically falls under that heading and declares texting while driving "wreckless".
I mean you could set an age limit for it, I'm not sure age has much to do with it except for quantity of texts being 90% higher in younger folks, you could have to take "driving while texting driving tests" to see how well you do. That might prove a point actually!

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: You do realize that we can now almost walk past a bar and be eligible for a DWI right? If nothing they need to relax these laws a bit. Allow some use of common sense before it's too late. Brad

I don't see how you could get hit with a DWI/DUI while walking.

~ Derek

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: Because they are not then being dangerous? I mean, I'm the first one that thinks everyone should be suspect, and we should all get at least a daily cavity search because hey, we may be hiding something.....Wait. nope. I could care less what people are doing in their cars if they are not being a danger to others, if we use your example the person is not being a danger. HELLO, EARTH CALLING!!! Brad

Let's repeal drunk driving laws, then, make that slippery slope go the other way. If someone can handle their liquor and drive in such a way as to appear to be fully in control of the car, i.e. maintaining lane control and speed control, then it's nobody's business as to what they're doing in their car, such as drinking. Ok, I can see it now. Some people would actually welcome that change to the law.

BTW, Texas doesn't have "distracted driving" laws, so there's nothing to enforce until after the wreck and injuries/fatalities has occurred. Even then, reckless driving is extremely difficult to charge. If a drunk causes a wreck then they can be charged with a DWI, a serious offense that's commensurate with the seriousness of the behavior. If a texter causes the wreck then there's not much that can be charged since no offense was committed.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 06-28-2011).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Let's repeal drunk driving laws, then, make that slippery slope go the other way. If someone can handle their liquor and drive in such a way as to appear to be fully in control of the car, i.e. maintaining lane control and speed control, then it's nobody's business as to what they're doing in their car, such as drinking. Ok, I can see it now. Some people would actually welcome that change to the law. BTW, Texas doesn't have "distracted driving" laws, so there's nothing to enforce until after the wreck and injuries/fatalities has occurred. Even then, reckless driving is extremely difficult to charge. If a drunk causes a wreck then they can be charged with a DWI, a serious offense that's commensurate with the seriousness of the behavior. If a texter causes the wreck then there's not much that can be charged since no offense was committed.

How about if they can beat the cop in a "quick draw" contest, there is no ticket?
A drunk would probably come in second.
Shooting while texting?
Hmmmm.

After all, there is that "second amendment thing....
Is a smartphone in the hands of a driver more or less dangerous than a loaded gun?

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 06-28-2011).]

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: How about if they can beat the cop in a "quick draw" contest, there is no ticket? A drunk would probably come in second. Shooting while texting? Hmmmm.

How about a drag race? My Crown Victoria has all the police performance stuff on it, and more... I know for a fact my Crown Victoria LX-HPP is quicker / faster than a Crown Victoria Police Interceptor.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: After all, there is that "second amendment thing.... Is a smartphone in the hands of a driver more or less dangerous than a loaded gun?

A loaded gun being fired while driving.

It boggles me how many folks are pro-text-driving on this forum...

Just went through my cellphone record for thr last 12 months.
Sent: 5 texts, all from home. (All answers to received texts...I have 500 free texts a month STILL don't use much of them,))
Missed calls: 58 ( well, I AM deaf ).
How many did I call back? NONE. If it was THAT important, they would call again,)
My cellphone usage this month? 0.03 euros I have Skype on it, and intrernet hotspots (home and at work) have reduced my actual cellphone calls via my phone provider to 30 seconds in total
Nick
Edit to add...my cellphone is firmly OFF when I am driving...end of...

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 06-28-2011).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: It boggles me how many folks are pro-text-driving on this forum...

And WHAT is wrong with firing of a quick text or reading a couple e-mails while sitting at a stoplight ?.....that light is 3 minutes long, the choices are masturrrba....pick yer nose, pick yer azz, or do something productive for those 3 minutes....

I usually use text-to-voice via bluetooth, but have NO problem firing one off or reading a couple while sitting at a light.

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: And WHAT is wrong with firing of a quick text or reading a couple e-mails while sitting at a stoplight ?.....that light is 3 minutes long, the choices are masturrrba....pick yer nose, pick yer azz, or do something productive for those 3 minutes.... I usually use text-to-voice via bluetooth, but have NO problem firing one off or reading a couple while sitting at a light.

At a stoplight i agree totally, as long as you don't miss the light and hold up traffic, but while moving, no its not acceptable at all.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: How about a drag race? My Crown Victoria has all the police performance stuff on it, and more... I know for a fact my Crown Victoria LX-HPP is quicker / faster than a Crown Victoria Police Interceptor.

I am ALL for this one.

quote Originally posted by TommyRocker: That rat bastard, he isn't doing enough to protect us from ourselves!

LOL!

as an officer, my opinion is having legislation to ticket for it would not make a dent anyway. There is only one way you could prove this. If you caused an accident and they pulled records and found you sent a text seconds before wrecking, then they could nail you. However, they already can get you for criminal negligence for such a thing, so its a feel good law that does nothing. Besides, you cant prove someone was texting because they are looking down or have a phone in your hand. You want cops pulling people over and accusing them to see their cell phones without a warrant?

Perry is right on this one, it causes more issues then it fixes. As of right now, if they find out you were texting, legal or not, there are mass other laws on the book including manslaughter in case of death that would screw you.


Its like having gun laws, if you go to a "gun free zone", it may make you feel better or give a false sense of security, but in reality, your a sitting duck. The reason a school is a favorite choice of gunmen is because they know all the sane people are defenseless and unarmed. Legalize teachers to pack heat, and you will see a decline in massacre shootings, especially after the first few who try get their ass dropped for going to the wrong school.

[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 06-28-2011).]

quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: Perry is right on this one, it causes more issues then it fixes. As of right now, if they find out you were texting, legal or not, there are mass other laws on the book including manslaughter in case of death that would screw you.

My only issue with this is manslaughter will send your dumb, inconsiderate ass to jail but when you get back out you can begin terrorizing the roads again. Loss of license for life is incredibly more harmful than 4 or 5 months in con-college or whatever it is you get for negligent manslaughter these days. Driving infractions should result in the driving related penalties. And they should be incredibly severe for negligence cases.

~ Derek

quote Originally posted by Derek_85GT: My only issue with this is manslaughter will send your dumb, inconsiderate ass to jail but when you get back out you can begin terrorizing the roads again. Loss of license for life is incredibly more harmful than 4 or 5 months in con-college or whatever it is you get for negligent manslaughter these days. Driving infractions should result in the driving related penalties. And they should be incredibly severe for negligence cases. ~ Derek

that's a good point, although if the judge sees fit, they can take driving privileges away. Perhaps they should focus on a law that says if proof it brought fourth you were texting and caused an accident, then such penalties apply. Either way, it should be a secondary infraction, not primary.

The truth of the matter is this, in the UK anyway:
Do you honestly think taking a licence away from somebody who habitually drives uninsured, or drunk, will actually make them STOP driving?? You really can´t be serious!!!!
The sort of people who habitually break the Law are the hardcore 75% of those who are caught and charged. They more often than not don't have a licence in the first place, having lost it multiple times before.
They started confiscating and crushing the cars of those breaking the motoring laws...and within a day, they were back on the roads again!! THEY JUST DON'T CARE!!!!
A survey on TV UK just last year also revealed an interesting statistic: The majority of people who drive whilst uninsured, because they just can't afford to pay the insurance... drive very very carefully to avoid being caught. In fact, thre policeman being interviewed said those people were probably the safest and most law-abiding (OTHER than not having the insurance ) drivers on the road! Does that surprise me? Not in the least.
Now they have instant numberplate recognition, and can randomly check whether the car is insured or not without checking the drivers´papers, these are even MORE careful not to attract attention to thermselves by poor driving habits. The Officer actually said, with a smile upon his face, they were booking quite possibly a lot of the safest drivers on the road...and THAT is where I get my belief that fully comprehensive Insurance is a BAD thing, lulling people into taking risks they otherwise WOULDN´T take, if THEY had to pay the full damages, rather than sharing them amongst the GOOD and CONSIDERATE drivers to get them paid.

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 06-28-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Shyster: Funny. There are already laws against "reckless driving." Enforce them. Then get a life. All but the most power-happy among us do not see the need to regulate every possible aspect of our existence. I'm sure I'm not the only one of those of us who fly (I'm not the only one, here) who regard this whole debate with a certain amount of amusement. We are not only expected, we are required to operate our vehicles in three dimensions (not two) while talking on the telephone (radio), and while maintaining a mental picture of other communications to find other traffic. Most all of us have had it pounded into our heads in the early stages to "never drop the airplane to fly the mike." So maybe better driver training is the answer. But more laws? We have more than enough laws to regulate human existence. Utopia is not an option.

Well said! And I whole heartedly agree.

Enforcing the laws we have on the books is the answer. Although I agree that texting and simple cell phone use has caused a whole lot of accidents, enforcement of existing laws such as reckless driving certainly qualifies for this.

------------------
Ron

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: BTW, Texas doesn't have "distracted driving" laws, so there's nothing to enforce until after the wreck and injuries/fatalities has occurred. Even then, reckless driving is extremely difficult to charge. If a drunk causes a wreck then they can be charged with a DWI, a serious offense that's commensurate with the seriousness of the behavior. If a texter causes the wreck then there's not much that can be charged since no offense was committed.

Oh, really? Perhaps you can explain away the existence of this statute, which is exactly what it is that you claim does not exist:

quote Texas Transportation Code Title 7. Vehicles and Traffic Subtitle C. Rules of the Road Chapter 545. Operation and Movement of Vehicles Subchapter I. Miscellaneous Rules § 545.401. Reckless Driving; Offense (a) A person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. (b) An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by: (1) a fine not to exceed $200; (2) confinement in county jail for not more than 30 days; or (3) both the fine and the confinement. (c) Notwithstanding Section 542.001, this section applies to: (1) a private access way or parking area provided for a client or patron by a business, other than a private residential property or the property of a garage or parking lot for which a charge is made for the storing or parking of motor vehicles; and (2) a highway or other public place. (d) Notwithstanding Section 542.004, this section applies to a person, a team, or motor vehicles and other equipment engaged in work on a highway surface.

quote “'Willful or wanton disregard' is substantially equivalent to a mental state of recklessness. See Bartholomew v. State, 871 S.W.2d 210, 214–15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (Clinton, J., concurring)." Zuliani v. State, 338 S.W.3d 213, 213 (Tex. App.–- Austin 2011)

Now, maybe you don't think the penalties are severe enough. So be it. Pound on your (State) senator and representative to increase the penalties. But before you do, please check yourself in to one of our fine jails for 30 days, to get a personal measure of what you wish on others.

Just don't claim that the law does not exist, when it's there for all to see. Maybe if existing laws were enforced occasionally, we wouldn't need ever more laws, which will only be selectively enforced.

Of course, we also have this gem:

quote § 545.402. Moving a Parked Vehicle An operator may not begin movement of a stopped, standing, or parked vehicle unless the movement can be made safely.

proving once again that nothing obvious is so small that it should not be deemed a violation of THE LAW.

In short, get over yourself. We do not need laws to regulate every single aspect of human behavior. We have so many that we don't enforce the ones we have. Why on Earth should we need more to say the same things in different words, only to not enforce them, either?

I say it again, Utopia is not an option.

Let me start by saying I do not condone cell use in any way while driving but...

Recently I heard a stat (unconfirmed) that california actually experienced more accidents after enacting a no texting law. Supposedly the problem cam from people holding the phones in their laps so the cops couldn't see them. When texting is legal motorists can hold the phone by the steering wheel and still enable the peripheral vision.

Thoughts?

quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: ...... Perry is right on this one, it causes more issues then it fixes. As of right now, if they find out you were texting, legal or not, there are mass other laws on the book including manslaughter in case of death that would screw you. .....

I dont see how this causes any issues?
as far as I can tell, all this does is create one more reason someone can get pulled over.

quote Originally posted by Xyster: Let me start by saying I do not condone cell use in any way while driving but... Recently I heard a stat (unconfirmed) that california actually experienced more accidents after enacting a no texting law. Supposedly the problem cam from people holding the phones in their laps so the cops couldn't see them. When texting is legal motorists can hold the phone by the steering wheel and still enable the peripheral vision. Thoughts?

lol - that is funny!
it seems what people really need is assistants (or drivers?)

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: It boggles me how many folks are pro-text-driving on this forum...

So we're clear... just because I don't support legislation banning something, doesn't necessarily mean that I support the act.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: I dont see how this causes any issues? as far as I can tell, all this does is create one more reason someone can get pulled over.

As xster pointed out, people will try to circumvent the law and more accidents could be cause as a result. Also, I stated that it could to lead more cops pulling people over who think they saw texting. Of course, that's only if its a primary infraction.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Governor Perry, in all his wisdom, vetoes a bill that would have made texting while driving a ticketable offense, a class C misdemeanor like speeding and running stop signs. http://www.dallasnews.com/n...ng-while-driving.ece "Perry said the keys to discouraging the practice are information and education through public service ads and driver education courses." Yep, some billboards and TV ads will stop all those text drivers from injuring and killing folks on the roads down here... BTW, it's not illegal to tailgate down here either. Yep, look it up. There's nothing in the law that defines what tailgating is, and the only offense listed is failure to maintain safe following distance, an offense that can only be ticketed after the wreck happens.

I beg to disagree.... I have lived in Texas and I know people (my brother for one in Woodway - right outside of Waco) that have been ticketed for tailgating .
of course...he also got a ticket for no front license plate...which is usually a warning. could have been the souped up camero he was driving.

quote: Texas vehicle code:
Sec. 545.062. FOLLOWING DISTANCE. (a) An operator shall, if following another vehicle, maintain an assured clear distance between the two vehicles so that, considering the speed of the vehicles, traffic, and the conditions of the highway, the operator can safely stop without colliding with the preceding vehicle or veering into another vehicle, object, or person on or near the highway.(b) An operator of a truck or of a motor vehicle drawing another vehicle who is on a roadway outside a business or residential district and who is following another truck or motor vehicle drawing another vehicle shall, if conditions permit, leave sufficient space between the vehicles so that a vehicle passing the operator can safely enter and occupy the space. This subsection does not prohibit a truck or a motor vehicle drawing another vehicle from passing another vehicle.(c) An operator on a roadway outside a business or residential district driving in a caravan of other vehicles or a motorcade shall allow sufficient space between the operator and the vehicle preceding the operator so that another vehicle can safely enter and occupy the space. This subsection does not apply to a funeral procession.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.


Note: It does not specify the exact distance... but it's up to the officer's opinion - and that opinion changes according to road conditions.
I guess it depends on the cop's mood.

if you want to test this out... next time you're out on the road... try tailgating a cop car and see if it's a ticketable offense or not.

[This message has been edited by boomme (edited 06-29-2011).]

I can't believe there have been people on this thread that suggested that cell phones be barred from sending texts while in the car
I can't count the number of times a friend has tossed me the phone to send a reply to someone.
I won't text while I'm on any road but a straight road with no traffic. And even then it's always really short.
Don't like that I do that? I really couldn't care less. I care about how I drive, and try to stay as attentive as possible at all times. But sometimes that strict attentiveness isn't necessary.
And Boonie, why aren't there breathalyzers on every car? Because they are pieces of crap that often cause problems even when totally sober. If I ever see you trying to put one on my car I'll punch you right in the kisser.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: I can't believe there have been people on this thread that suggested that cell phones be barred from sending texts while in the car I can't count the number of times a friend has tossed me the phone to send a reply to someone. I won't text while I'm on any road but a straight road with no traffic. And even then it's always really short. Don't like that I do that? I really couldn't care less. I care about how I drive, and try to stay as attentive as possible at all times. But sometimes that strict attentiveness isn't necessary. And Boonie, why aren't there breathalyzers on every car? Because they are pieces of crap that often cause problems even when totally sober. If I ever see you trying to put one on my car I'll punch you right in the kisser.

Why so hostile? Touching a nerve about drinking?

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 06-29-2011).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Why so hostile? Touching a nerve about drinking?

No lol I was hoping the "kisser" showed the lightness of the statement. I think some need them on their cars, but not the whole public unwarranted because I've seen how faulty they are and how they really impede on driving.

quote Originally posted by dsnover: I'm kinda unsure about a law about texting. It's virtually impossible to enforce. At the same time, texting while driving DOES cause accidents, which, unlike seatbelt laws, DO affect other people at times, so it may be a legitimate law to protect people (but then there's that enforcement problem). I'd suggest that perhaps instead of trying to pass a law that is unenforceable, that when an accident is caused that can be traced back to texting, then make it a major fine and jail time. A REAL deterrent. And no excuses. -Darryl

Seat belt laws are not just for the protection of the driver in question. A driver who is not wearing the seat belt and shoulder harness combination is an additional hazard to people in other cars. A driver who is not strapped again and thereby slides around on the seat during an unexpected manuever or skid is prone to lose control of the steering wheel and brakes and that car becomes a hazard to other cars on the road.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Seat belt laws are not just for the protection of the driver in question. A driver who is not wearing the seat belt and shoulder harness combination is an additional hazard to people in other cars. A driver who is not strapped again and thereby slides around on the seat during an unexpected manuever or skid is prone to lose control of the steering wheel and brakes and that car becomes a hazard to other cars on the road.

Really? I'd be interested to see some real data on that one, if you can provide it. Absent anything statistically relevant, I stand by my statement.

(Please note that I'm one of those people who won't move the car until everyone is buckled up, so it's not that I'm against seat-belt usage. I'm against 'nanny-state' laws)

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I don't think the key is to make it some kind of ticket-able offense, but rather, make it so that if they cause an accident while doing it, they go to jail, regardless of how minor.

Isn’t that like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped? Texas governors know what is best for the rest of us. Look just how good a job GWB did.

Or in your case closing the dog run gate after the dog has gotten run over in the street.

How many people need to be killed before we outlaw the use of these things while driving?

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.

Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: Isn’t that like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped? Texas governors know what is best for the rest of us. Look just how good a job GWB did. Or in your case closing the dog run gate after the dog has gotten run over in the street. How many people need to be killed before we outlaw the use of these things while driving? Steve

Steve, I understand what you are saying, but this does come down to enforcement. It simply isn't possible to enforce these laws. There aren't enough police to sit at every corner and cite people for every violation (nor would you want there to be).

-Darryl

quote Originally posted by dsnover: Steve, I understand what you are saying, but this does come down to enforcement. It simply isn't possible to enforce these laws. There aren't enough police to sit at every corner and cite people for every violation (nor would you want there to be). -Darryl

yes - clearly impossible to actually chase people down who are texting
but - once the stupidity ensues, and vehicles collide, after the fact enforcement is 100% doable.

I dont think anyone is suggesting police actively go and hunt down texters - but, no reason not to take advantage of those clearly doing it. There are plenty of traffic laws being violated RIGHT NOW, and there are not officers "on the move" to go get them. Traffic violations are ticketed as found. most are not found. doesnt mean we give up on traffic laws. How many people have you/will you see speeding today? did each and every one get a ticket? did even ONE of them get a ticket?

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: yes - clearly impossible to actually chase people down who are texting but - once the stupidity ensues, and vehicles collide, after the fact enforcement is 100% doable. I dont think anyone is suggesting police actively go and hunt down texters - but, no reason not to take advantage of those clearly doing it. There are plenty of traffic laws being violated RIGHT NOW, and there are not officers "on the move" to go get them. Traffic violations are ticketed as found. most are not found. doesnt mean we give up on traffic laws. How many people have you/will you see speeding today? did each and every one get a ticket? did even ONE of them get a ticket?

Of course you can't get rid of all traffic laws. I'm not suggesting that. But many of them are merely 'revenue enhancement', designed under the guise of 'safety', when really, they are just ways of getting more $$. More along the lines of, well, we pulled you over for X, but we can also get more money from you because of Y, even though it wasn't any factor at all.

quote Originally posted by dsnover: Of course you can't get rid of all traffic laws. I'm not suggesting that. But many of them are merely 'revenue enhancement', designed under the guise of 'safety', when really, they are just ways of getting more $$. More along the lines of, well, we pulled you over for X, but we can also get more money from you because of Y, even though it wasn't any factor at all.

100% agree with that!

so, why not add texting to that list?

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: 100% agree with that! so, why not add texting to that list?

Because they are all equally wrong IMHO. The police shouldn't be around to 'increase revenue'. They should be officers of the peace. The myriad of laws we have that serve only to ensnare is extremely 'Stalin-esque', ie 'Show me the man and I'll find you the crime'.

Slippery slope, it is....

quote Originally posted by Shyster: proving once again that nothing obvious is so small that it should not be deemed a violation of THE LAW. In short, get over yourself. We do not need laws to regulate every single aspect of human behavior. We have so many that we don't enforce the ones we have. Why on Earth should we need more to say the same things in different words, only to not enforce them, either? I say it again, Utopia is not an option.

The rudeness of your reply notwithstanding, I talked with my best friend on this subject last night, who happens to be a police officer here in Texas. The law you cited doesn't actually mention cell phone use at all, and he said he can't use it as long as the driver stays within the lane boundaries and doesn't cause a collision. It isn't until *after* the collision that anything can be done (but of course, it's a bit too late at that point). Even then, he said he's never heard of anyone being charged under that law for a collision where cell phone texting was determined to be the root cause.

I see this whole issue as being about regulating risky behavior. Every study I've seen so far has concluded that texting while driving is extremely risky behavior. It's not illegal, so there's no incentive to not do it other than personal fear of injury or death, a very low-strength fear for young people who have a proven track record of, on average, thinking they're invulnerable and immortal.

I equate text-driving to drunk driving, extremely risky and dangerous to those others sharing the road. Sure, lots of people can drive drunk and not cause a collision, but that's not the point. It was made illegal because of the simple fact that when you increase the risk you increase the fatalities and injuries. It's the right incentive, as most people will choose to not break the law by drinking and driving. A law against text-driving would accomplish the same goal. Or, barring that, rewording the existing law to specifically define text-driving as wanton and reckless would work.

So, get over yourself in turn. I'm just fine with my thought patterns, and your oh-pinion about them is, to me, meaningless.