Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Totally O/T - Archive
  Texas joins the past, yet again... (Page 3)

T H I S   I S   A N   A R C H I V E D   T O P I C
  

Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version

This topic is 3 pages long:  1   2   3 
Previous Page | Next Page
Texas joins the past, yet again... by JazzMan
Started on: 06-27-2011 01:58 PM
Replies: 105
Last post by: Shyster on 07-13-2011 12:14 AM
JazzMan
Member
Posts: 18612
From:
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 653
User Banned

Report this Post06-30-2011 01:51 PM Click Here to See the Profile for JazzManSend a Private Message to JazzManDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by boomme:


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.



I've been tailgated by a cop in a marked unit, one car length or less at 40 mph while I was on my motorcycle, and he wouldn't back off despite me flashing my brake lights and making hand motions to back off. I've also showed police video of a road-rager running me off the road in my Fiero, and tailgating me at 70+ MPH at distances less than 24", weaving back and forth, flipping me off, etc. The officer characterized the rager's driving as, and I quote, "...erratic driving, nothing that's ticketable...".

My God, when it's in front of their face they can't even see it.
IP: Logged
Pyrthian
Member
Posts: 29569
From: Detroit, MI
Registered: Jul 2002


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 342
Rate this member

Report this Post06-30-2011 01:56 PM Click Here to See the Profile for PyrthianSend a Private Message to PyrthianDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by dsnover:
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....


of course. but why not both? we already know that we can solve just about every traffic issue. blow-n-go to stop drunk driving. built-in speed controls, and so on. but, we have to allow for personal freedoms/choices. which means people will drink & drive, will speed, and will use cellphones/text while driving. so, all we can do is fine them.
of course, I hate the fact that the enforcment of these laws is lopsided and prejudicial - but - this is the system we choose. I completely agree with your thinking. 100%. but that doesnt change the system which we must work within. I dont agree with these laws either, but, I do see them as the only viable way to "curb" texting within the system we have.

one of my fun ideas is to have a fixed number of drivers licenses (way fewer than available drivers) - and when you violate a traffic law, you lose yours, and go to the back of the line. suddenly - traffic will be lighter, less fuel used, public transportation grows, and the remaining drivers much more cautious. of course - you also get the onslought of unlicnensed drivers on the road.....but - we have that now too - so....
IP: Logged
82-T/A [At Work]
Member
Posts: 22523
From: Florida USA
Registered: Aug 2002


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 198
Rate this member

Report this Post06-30-2011 02:24 PM Click Here to See the Profile for 82-T/A [At Work]Send a Private Message to 82-T/A [At Work]Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:

But, your ideology is "either you're with us or you're against us", at least, that's the way you've come across to me in the last few months. When viewed with that filter, anyone not against text-driving has got to be for it, right?



Jazz, I don't wnat to play games. I don't fit into one of your mentally constructed containers you've created for people. I'm an individual, and stand by my views, not all of which conform to a specific guideline that's set by a specific political party (which I know you don't agree with). Regardless of what you inferred from me, or are suggesting that I believe, my opinion is that we as a society have become less reliant on ourselves. Because of this, we openly accept more and more passage of legislation that perhaps doesn't need to be passed. It also means that more and more over time, we not only expect, but NEED the government to tell us what we can or cannot do because we have become almost incapable of common sense. It's not black and white, so don't think that because I don't support a no-texting law that I somehow want pure anarchy. There are some things which clearly must be regulated, condoned, etc. But I think a no-texting law is just as ridiculous as the old fashioned sword carrying law that's still on the books in many states.

Some laws are redundant, some are obsolete, and some are totally unnecessary. Enforce the laws we already have, as in this case, there is a driver distraction law... (that has been posted above). I really don't see how texting on the phone is any worse or better than being distracted by a car radio, climate controls, or "hologramming" or whatever future communication form comes into existance in the next decade.

I fully support Federalism... so if a state wishes to pass a law that might otherwise be a little bit ridiculous... I fully support their right to do so, but it doesn't mean I need to agree with it. I believe we should enforce the driver distraction laws. At the same time, I think we need to educate more people on the moral obligations to not text while driving... IE: the deaths caused by it, both to the texter, and innocent bystanders. Unfortunately, I believe that through the same mentality that has created this exorbant push for legislating every single action we do as Americans, it's also created a society where fewer and fewer people think about others. Even something as simple as holding a door open for someone, or making sure you don't open your car door on someone else's car... not because you don't want YOUR car damaged, but because you have genuine concern for other's property and feelings. Society has changed, and I personally believe that the same philosophy that has created this legislative madness, has also caused people to morph into a society of self-centered individuals. We still see some togetherness here on Pennocks... and it's more than just love of Fiero that brings us together. But we're seeing this quite often, less and less in the real world.

We don't need MORE laws... we need to enforce the ones we already have, and... we need to teach our society and our youth, to be more responsible for themselves, their actions, and to be more understanding of their actions within their community.
IP: Logged
theBDub
Member
Posts: 9688
From: Dallas,TX
Registered: May 2010


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 159
Rate this member

Report this Post06-30-2011 02:55 PM Click Here to See the Profile for theBDubSend a Private Message to theBDubDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:


I've been tailgated by a cop in a marked unit, one car length or less at 40 mph while I was on my motorcycle, and he wouldn't back off despite me flashing my brake lights and making hand motions to back off. I've also showed police video of a road-rager running me off the road in my Fiero, and tailgating me at 70+ MPH at distances less than 24", weaving back and forth, flipping me off, etc. The officer characterized the rager's driving as, and I quote, "...erratic driving, nothing that's ticketable...".

My God, when it's in front of their face they can't even see it.


Hmm... they can in MO. It's called a C&I. Careless and Imprudent Driving. My buddy got one for being an idiot, and I almost got one when I found out my gf-at-the-time had broken her neck and was unresponsive in the hospital. I just found out that isn't national. That's sad.

EDIT: spelling.

[This message has been edited by theBDub (edited 06-30-2011).]

IP: Logged
JazzMan
Member
Posts: 18612
From:
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 653
User Banned

Report this Post06-30-2011 06:21 PM Click Here to See the Profile for JazzManSend a Private Message to JazzManDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:


We don't need MORE laws... we need to enforce the ones we already have, and... we need to teach our society and our youth, to be more responsible for themselves, their actions, and to be more understanding of their actions within their community.


Well, teaching kids to be responsible is good and all, but when that fails there's nothing on the books now. You keep saying to enforce the existing laws. A representative of the local law enforcement community tells me there are no laws to enforce, with all due respect to Shyster's find. Fact of the matter is, that law is more typically used for racers and people driving completely bat-crazy like on the sidewalk, wrong way traffic, that sort of thing. WRT texting, this officer tells me he sees texters all the time, but as long as they stay in their lane and don't hit someone there's nothing he can do. And no, near misses don't count.

If given a choice between believing a local police officer who works in this state, or someone from another state who looks up stuff on a website, I gotta go with what's closer to the source.

Therefor, my opinion on the need for a text-driving law still stands, and to me it stands exactly equal with the drunk driving laws. If there is to be no text driving law, then there should be no drunk driving law. Both are equally risky, and that high level of risk is why there is, and should be, laws.

And having been run off the road and nearly killed more than once by texters, I take this issue sort of personal. I envy those that can be subjected to that kind of event and not feel a thing about it, I truly do. When someone tries to kill me, it gets under my skin like a splinter and stays there...
IP: Logged
heybjorn
Member
Posts: 10079
From: pace fl
Registered: Apr 2007


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 97
Rate this member

Report this Post07-01-2011 08:03 AM Click Here to See the Profile for heybjornSend a Private Message to heybjornDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by NEPTUNE:

Is a smartphone in the hands of a driver more or less dangerous than a loaded gun?



The gun doesn't have airbags.

IP: Logged
82-T/A [At Work]
Member
Posts: 22523
From: Florida USA
Registered: Aug 2002


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 198
Rate this member

Report this Post07-01-2011 02:03 PM Click Here to See the Profile for 82-T/A [At Work]Send a Private Message to 82-T/A [At Work]Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:


Well, teaching kids to be responsible is good and all, but when that fails there's nothing on the books now. You keep saying to enforce the existing laws. A representative of the local law enforcement community tells me there are no laws to enforce, with all due respect to Shyster's find. Fact of the matter is, that law is more typically used for racers and people driving completely bat-crazy like on the sidewalk, wrong way traffic, that sort of thing. WRT texting, this officer tells me he sees texters all the time, but as long as they stay in their lane and don't hit someone there's nothing he can do. And no, near misses don't count.

If given a choice between believing a local police officer who works in this state, or someone from another state who looks up stuff on a website, I gotta go with what's closer to the source.

Therefor, my opinion on the need for a text-driving law still stands, and to me it stands exactly equal with the drunk driving laws. If there is to be no text driving law, then there should be no drunk driving law. Both are equally risky, and that high level of risk is why there is, and should be, laws.

And having been run off the road and nearly killed more than once by texters, I take this issue sort of personal. I envy those that can be subjected to that kind of event and not feel a thing about it, I truly do. When someone tries to kill me, it gets under my skin like a splinter and stays there...



If given a choice to believe an electrical contractor who says he knows what the code is... VS finding the actual building code documentation online from the city / county's website, would you pick the electrical contractor?

Not trying to be mean here, but I think you're being a little dramatic about being killed by texters. I mean... at least once a day I have a car veer into my lane, or almost hit me because they're on their cell phone, eating a cheeseburger, or putting on makeup. Maybe that's just Miami / Fort Lauderdale traffic, but is that what you're talking about? I've been more or less run off the road a few times, and you just wait until the crazy car passes, and then you ease back on the road... whether that's hte highway, or down South Beach.

The way you word it... I visualize a you in a small BMW Isetta, and then a lady in a huge Hummer H2 with the gas pedal floored, texting on her cell phone, and you're getting ready to be T-Boned... I'm assuming it was no where near that dramatic?

In any case, our parents have failed this generation. I mean, I think my parents did a great job, but I think generally... this last generation failed this current generation. I just think people today, this generation and the last, just don't take responsibility for their actions. I get the feeling that these people have been almost trained to expect that they need constant assurances and direction from the federal government. I don't see NEW laws as a solution to this problem... on the contrary, I see it as part of the problem.

I understand your point, but I would really like to see another way.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 07-01-2011).]

IP: Logged
2.5
Member
Posts: 43222
From: Southern MN
Registered: May 2007


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 184
Rate this member

Report this Post07-01-2011 03:13 PM Click Here to See the Profile for 2.5Send a Private Message to 2.5Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:


Not trying to be mean here, but I think you're being a little dramatic about being killed by texters. I mean... at least once a day I have a car veer into my lane, or almost hit me because they're on their cell phone, eating a cheeseburger, or putting on makeup. Maybe that's just Miami / Fort Lauderdale traffic, but is that what you're talking about? I've been more or less run off the road a few times, and you just wait until the crazy car passes, and then you ease back on the road... whether that's hte highway, or down South Beach.




Wow I'd move, hasn't happend to me in years.
If I had to live like that I'd have an external cage welded around my vehicle i think.
IP: Logged
Pyrthian
Member
Posts: 29569
From: Detroit, MI
Registered: Jul 2002


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 342
Rate this member

Report this Post07-01-2011 03:15 PM Click Here to See the Profile for PyrthianSend a Private Message to PyrthianDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by 2.5:


Wow I'd move, hasn't happend to me in years.
If I had to live like that I'd have an external cage welded around my vehicle i think.


lol - well, dont drive in Detroit

yikes

it is an alien planet
no one looks like you
no one speaks a coherant language
and the rules - well - we're not sure either
IP: Logged
82-T/A [At Work]
Member
Posts: 22523
From: Florida USA
Registered: Aug 2002


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 198
Rate this member

Report this Post07-01-2011 03:58 PM Click Here to See the Profile for 82-T/A [At Work]Send a Private Message to 82-T/A [At Work]Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by 2.5:

Wow I'd move, hasn't happend to me in years.
If I had to live like that I'd have an external cage welded around my vehicle i think.



Wow? Seriously??? I was in Northern Virginia a couple of years ago, and it was kind of the over-all same thing, just a little bit more attentive.

I never realized South Florida traffic was THAT bad? I mean, I knew it was bad, but I just assumed everywhere else was more or less like this in the city.

The funny thing is... I remember down in Miami when the train would come through... the barricades would come down, and some people who didn't want to be stuck behind all the cars would go into the opposite lanes and start building up traffic there too. When the train was finished and the barricades went up, you sometimes would have cars from both lanes, facing both directions, and no one could go anywhere... (I've seen this a couple of times).

Hah... man, I'm going to miss Miami.


 
quote
Originally posted by Pyrthian:


lol - well, dont drive in Detroit

yikes

it is an alien planet
no one looks like you
no one speaks a coherant language
and the rules - well - we're not sure either



But... the Delta Terminal is nice!!!

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 07-01-2011).]

IP: Logged
2.5
Member
Posts: 43222
From: Southern MN
Registered: May 2007


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 184
Rate this member

Report this Post07-01-2011 04:17 PM Click Here to See the Profile for 2.5Send a Private Message to 2.5Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:


Wow? Seriously??? I was in Northern Virginia a couple of years ago, and it was kind of the over-all same thing, just a little bit more attentive.



Well in the vague way we might be understanding eachother yea probably. When you said veer into your lane I first thought you meant head on. If your're talking downtown downtown,stopped 50% of teh time in traffic, I don’t drive there much. Mostly Freeways, ramps, and “sideroads” for me plus some rural. We have a lot of annoying one way roads downtown Minneapolis. Otherwise the times someone may veer into my lane I see them coming, maybe they just veered the lane before that, or they blinker, but its not that common in my experience. Last time I was almost run off the road was a big rig deciding to take an exit and I was in the lane in his way and it was icy with a snowbank, just braking hard enough to not get hit and not ditch it was tricky. But sounds like they need to do some distracted driving or reckless driving enforcement for sure down there.
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
JazzMan
Member
Posts: 18612
From:
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 653
User Banned

Report this Post07-01-2011 06:47 PM Click Here to See the Profile for JazzManSend a Private Message to JazzManDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
If given a choice to believe an electrical contractor who says he knows what the code is... VS finding the actual building code documentation online from the city / county's website, would you pick the electrical contractor?

Not trying to be mean here, but I think you're being a little dramatic about being killed by texters. I mean... at least once a day I have a car veer into my lane, or almost hit me because they're on their cell phone, eating a cheeseburger, or putting on makeup. Maybe that's just Miami / Fort Lauderdale traffic, but is that what you're talking about? I've been more or less run off the road a few times, and you just wait until the crazy car passes, and then you ease back on the road... whether that's hte highway, or down South Beach.

The way you word it... I visualize a you in a small BMW Isetta, and then a lady in a huge Hummer H2 with the gas pedal floored, texting on her cell phone, and you're getting ready to be T-Boned... I'm assuming it was no where near that dramatic?

In any case, our parents have failed this generation. I mean, I think my parents did a great job, but I think generally... this last generation failed this current generation. I just think people today, this generation and the last, just don't take responsibility for their actions. I get the feeling that these people have been almost trained to expect that they need constant assurances and direction from the federal government. I don't see NEW laws as a solution to this problem... on the contrary, I see it as part of the problem.

I understand your point, but I would really like to see another way.



Your comparison is invalid. I stated that a police officer who is trained in the laws of this state says the law that Shyster found isn't, and apparently can't be, used to go after texters. Last time I checked, Shyster isn't a police officer in this state. As such, as nice as his opinion fits your ideology, the facts on the ground from people actually charged with upholding the law in this state, who are actually licensed to act as police officers in this state, contradicts your repeated statements about enforcing existing laws. There are no existing laws that apply.

Feel free to come to this state, get trained, certified, and hired as a police officer and try enforcing "existing" laws.

Two of the many times I've been run off the road I was on my motorcycle. One texter was driving a Honda Civic, the other one was driving a 90's Suburban. The impact with the vehicle probably wouldn't have killed me directly. Hitting the bridge abutment (Suburban) or getting run over by wall traffic (Civic) probably would have. Luckily both times I was able to avoid a collision and avoid losing so much control that I crashed. I'd love to have been in an Isetta, they've got far more airbags and crush structures than my Kawasaki has. In fact, I *am* the crush structure on my Kawasaki...

Go ahead and mischaracterize it as being "dramatic", spin, twist, and distortion is what it's all about when dealing with a Believer.

Edit to correct an erroneous reference to Shyster.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 07-05-2011).]

IP: Logged
82-T/A [At Work]
Member
Posts: 22523
From: Florida USA
Registered: Aug 2002


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 198
Rate this member

Report this Post07-01-2011 07:58 PM Click Here to See the Profile for 82-T/A [At Work]Send a Private Message to 82-T/A [At Work]Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by 2.5:


Well in the vague way we might be understanding eachother yea probably. When you said veer into your lane I first thought you meant head on. If your're talking downtown downtown,stopped 50% of teh time in traffic, I don’t drive there much. Mostly Freeways, ramps, and “sideroads” for me plus some rural. We have a lot of annoying one way roads downtown Minneapolis. Otherwise the times someone may veer into my lane I see them coming, maybe they just veered the lane before that, or they blinker, but its not that common in my experience. Last time I was almost run off the road was a big rig deciding to take an exit and I was in the lane in his way and it was icy with a snowbank, just braking hard enough to not get hit and not ditch it was tricky. But sounds like they need to do some distracted driving or reckless driving enforcement for sure down there.


Yeah, sorry... by veer, I mean someone casually pulls into my lane without looking, or not even realizing that they're crossing the lane. We do get some crazy stuff though... almost every time, when a turn light turns green, someone invariably in the straight lanes isn't paying attention and starts going straight too (even though the apposing turn lane would put them at odds in the middle of the intersection). People REALLY don't pay attention down here, it's worse than I've ever seen. You stop at a light, and everyone is on their cell phones.


 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:

Two of the many times I've been run off the road I was on my motorcycle. One texter was driving a Honda Civic, the other one was driving a 90's Suburban. The impact with the vehicle probably wouldn't have killed me directly. Hitting the bridge abutment (Suburban) or getting run over by wall traffic (Civic) probably would have. Luckily both times I was able to avoid a collision and avoid losing so much control that I crashed. I'd love to have been in an Isetta, they've got far more airbags and crush structures than my Kawasaki has. In fact, I *am* the crush structure on my Kawasaki...

Go ahead and mischaracterize it as being "dramatic", spin, twist, and distortion is what it's all about when dealing with a Believer.


You definitely have a flare for the dramatic! But yeah, it puts it in a different perspective when you're on a motorcycle... I see that kind of stuff all the time down here. People in huge SUVs... no real attention to what's going on. I always give motorcycles a VERY wide berth... I won't even change lanes in front of one unless I've got like 10 car lengths ahead... you just never know.
IP: Logged
Boondawg
Member
Posts: 38235
From: Displaced Alaskan
Registered: Jun 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 342
User Banned

Report this Post07-01-2011 10:55 PM Click Here to See the Profile for BoondawgSend a Private Message to BoondawgDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:


In fact, I *am* the crush structure on my Kawasaki...



Well, you have been called an "airbag" sometimes 'round these parts, on occassion....
(i kid becouse i love)

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 07-01-2011).]

IP: Logged
Shyster
Member
Posts: 1085
From: Conroe, TX, USA
Registered: Aug 2005


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 58
Rate this member

Report this Post07-03-2011 03:58 AM Click Here to See the Profile for ShysterClick Here to visit Shyster's HomePageSend a Private Message to ShysterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:
Last time I checked, Shyster not only isn't a police officer in this state, he isn't bar certified to practice law in this state. As such, as nice as his opinion fits your ideology, the facts on the ground from people actually charged with upholding the law in this state, who are actually licensed to act as police officers in this state, contradicts your repeated statements about enforcing existing laws. There are no existing laws that apply.


Hmmm......Where, exactly, did you "check?" 'Cause your "check" isn't good here.

You want to accuse me of being "rude" because I don't agree with you, well, fine.
You want to accuse me of being "rude" because I point out that what you claim is absolute fact is, in fact, nonsense, well fine, too.

I was prepared to let all of that go. Nonsense such as yours is not generally my concern. But since you want to attack me personally, let's go. State your proof that my Texas bar card is invalid. Come on, let's have it. Prove what you have said is true, or prove to everyone here that you are a mere loudmouth, who has no standing other than his own bullying rhetoric.

One thing you're right about "spin, twist, and distortion is what it's all about when dealing with a Believer". You're a "Believer," that much is certain.

Let's have it. Inquiring Minds Want To Know!!!!!!!

Sorry Cliff. IBT.

[This message has been edited by Shyster (edited 07-05-2011).]

IP: Logged
84fiero123
Member
Posts: 29950
From: farmington, maine usa
Registered: Oct 2004


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 325
Rate this member

Report this Post07-03-2011 09:18 AM Click Here to See the Profile for 84fiero123Send a Private Message to 84fiero123Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:


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.



Cops are stupid when it comes to the laws they are entrusted to uphold. I can’t tell you how many times here in a farming community we have had to download laws from the net to show to cops who have shown up here for noise offences by us because we are a farm.

Now they insisted they knew the law. So while he was here I looked the law up. Printed it out and gave it to him. He insisted I was wrong. I told him to call it in to dispatch. He did and found I was right. Did he apologize to me? No he simply left.

Cops don’t know all the laws, they can’t. it is simply impossible to know everyone of them. Even lawyers who are supposed to know them are like doctors who specialize because we have overcomplicated some laws so bad.

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.

IP: Logged
twofatguys
Member
Posts: 16465
From: Wheaton Mo. / Virginia Beach Va.
Registered: Jul 2004


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 227
Rate this member

Report this Post07-03-2011 09:33 AM Click Here to See the Profile for twofatguysSend a Private Message to twofatguysDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:


Well, teaching kids to be responsible is good and all, but when that fails there's nothing on the books now. You keep saying to enforce the existing laws. A representative of the local law enforcement community tells me there are no laws to enforce, with all due respect to Shyster's find. Fact of the matter is, that law is more typically used for racers and people driving completely bat-crazy like on the sidewalk, wrong way traffic, that sort of thing. WRT texting, this officer tells me he sees texters all the time, but as long as they stay in their lane and don't hit someone there's nothing he can do. And no, near misses don't count.

If given a choice between believing a local police officer who works in this state, or someone from another state who looks up stuff on a website, I gotta go with what's closer to the source.

Therefor, my opinion on the need for a text-driving law still stands, and to me it stands exactly equal with the drunk driving laws. If there is to be no text driving law, then there should be no drunk driving law. Both are equally risky, and that high level of risk is why there is, and should be, laws.

And having been run off the road and nearly killed more than once by texters, I take this issue sort of personal. I envy those that can be subjected to that kind of event and not feel a thing about it, I truly do. When someone tries to kill me, it gets under my skin like a splinter and stays there...




Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?

If a guy is driving down the road, and you see him look at his phone he somehow becomes evil to you. You need a big gun, take this matter into your own hands. See them evil texters that are not actually hitting anyone, just double tap em. That would teach them. I'm sure you can find a lawyer to help you out if you get in trouble.

BTW, how do you know the people are not just dialing the phone? Or changing songs? Or changing stations on the radio player on their smart phone? How do you know? Please, I want a friggin answer.

Brad
IP: Logged
JazzMan
Member
Posts: 18612
From:
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 653
User Banned

Report this Post07-05-2011 01:50 PM Click Here to See the Profile for JazzManSend a Private Message to JazzManDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Shyster:


Hmmm......Where, exactly, did you "check?" 'Cause your "check" isn't good here.

You want to accuse me of being "rude" because I don't agree with you, well, fine.
You want to accuse me of being "rude" because I point out that what you claim is absolute fact is, in fact, nonsense, well fine, too.

I was prepared to let all of that go. Nonsense such as yours is not generally my concern. But since you want to attack me personally, let's go. State your proof that my Texas bar card is invalid. Come on, let's have it. Prove what you have said is true, or prove to everyone here that you are a mere loudmouth, who has no standing other than his own bullying rhetoric.

One thing you're right about "spin, twist, and distortion is what it's all about when dealing with a Believer". You're a "Believer," that much is certain.

Let's have it. Inquiring Minds Want To Know!!!!!!!

Sorry Cliff. IBT.



My apologies, I didn't catch that you were from Conroe, TX, I read it as another state's acronym.

I'll edit my previous post.

Fact still stands, though, that the police won't (or can't) use the law you cited to pull over texters before they have a wreck. They can use it after the wreck, of course, but by then it's a little too late. Fact of the matter, at least as I understand it, is that if it's not illegal then it's legal. Right now, text-driving is legal, it's only the crashing part that's illegal. Sadly...

As to the "rudeness accusation", your tone in the post to which I was replying was, in fact, rude.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 07-05-2011).]

IP: Logged
Shyster
Member
Posts: 1085
From: Conroe, TX, USA
Registered: Aug 2005


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 58
Rate this member

Report this Post07-06-2011 01:45 AM Click Here to See the Profile for ShysterClick Here to visit Shyster's HomePageSend a Private Message to ShysterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:
Fact still stands, though, that the police won't (or can't) use the law you cited to pull over texters before they have a wreck. They can use it after the wreck, of course, but by then it's a little too late. Fact of the matter, at least as I understand it, is that if it's not illegal then it's legal. Right now, text-driving is legal, it's only the crashing part that's illegal. Sadly...


"Fact" still stands? To what "Fact" to you refer? Your single conversation with a person claiming to hold a Texas LEO certification? What, exactly, does he do? ISD police? MUD police? (Yes, dear citizens, we freemen of the state of Texas actually have Municipal Utility Districts with their own police forces.)(Go Figure). Small town county mounty?

Jazz, I've had local police officers tell me to my face that the fact that a corporate officer used corporate funds for his own benefit was a "civil matter," not a matter for the police. Borrowed his own copy of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure / Penal Code to point out to him the statute that says that misappropriation of fiduciary funds in sufficient amount is a felony. Not misdemeanor, FELONY. You know, prison time, loss of voting rights, get to have strange lovers, that sort of thing.

So maybe you'll forgive me if I really don't care what "facts" you want to adhere to, based on personal conversations with whoever you choose.

"Fact" is, lazy cops are what they are. They either don't know, or don't care, what the law is. Oh, sure, they catch you doing 57 in a 45 (or, better yet, in a school zone), or driving while black, they'll write that ticket in a hurry. Money for the municipality is money for the cops' salaries.

And if they "can't" enforce the law? Well, if they "can't" enforce a reckless driving law, what good is another unenforceable law?

You want a law against texting while driving? If I'm checking my voice mail, am I "texting"? How 'bout if I tried to hit the speed dial to call my wife, accidentally hit the wrong key, had to hit "end," then do it all again? Is that "texting?" What if I look down at the wrong moment to change the radio station, and something goes badly wrong immediately in front of me?

You cannot legislate away Life. If you want to persist in the belief that you can, I refer you to the previous sentence.

 
quote

As to the "rudeness accusation", your tone in the post to which I was replying was, in fact, rude.


I disagree with your appraisal. Apparently, your view of reality is that you can make unsupportable statements, claim them as absolute fact, and then attack anyone who questions your wisdom. I was not being "rude." I was, in the words of Robert Heinlein, "heaping scorn on a silly idea, a practice that I shall always follow."

Or maybe, (because it appears that your definition of "polite" means agreeing with you) I was "rude." So be it.

You want others to be polite to you, maybe, for once, you could do the same.
IP: Logged
JazzMan
Member
Posts: 18612
From:
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 653
User Banned

Report this Post07-06-2011 01:59 PM Click Here to See the Profile for JazzManSend a Private Message to JazzManDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Shyster:
"Fact" still stands? To what "Fact" to you refer? Your single conversation with a person claiming to hold a Texas LEO certification? What, exactly, does he do? ISD police? MUD police? (Yes, dear citizens, we freemen of the state of Texas actually have Municipal Utility Districts with their own police forces.)(Go Figure). Small town county mounty?

Jazz, I've had local police officers tell me to my face that the fact that a corporate officer used corporate funds for his own benefit was a "civil matter," not a matter for the police. Borrowed his own copy of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure / Penal Code to point out to him the statute that says that misappropriation of fiduciary funds in sufficient amount is a felony. Not misdemeanor, FELONY. You know, prison time, loss of voting rights, get to have strange lovers, that sort of thing.

So maybe you'll forgive me if I really don't care what "facts" you want to adhere to, based on personal conversations with whoever you choose.

"Fact" is, lazy cops are what they are. They either don't know, or don't care, what the law is. Oh, sure, they catch you doing 57 in a 45 (or, better yet, in a school zone), or driving while black, they'll write that ticket in a hurry. Money for the municipality is money for the cops' salaries.

And if they "can't" enforce the law? Well, if they "can't" enforce a reckless driving law, what good is another unenforceable law?

You want a law against texting while driving? If I'm checking my voice mail, am I "texting"? How 'bout if I tried to hit the speed dial to call my wife, accidentally hit the wrong key, had to hit "end," then do it all again? Is that "texting?" What if I look down at the wrong moment to change the radio station, and something goes badly wrong immediately in front of me?

You cannot legislate away Life. If you want to persist in the belief that you can, I refer you to the previous sentence.

I disagree with your appraisal. Apparently, your view of reality is that you can make unsupportable statements, claim them as absolute fact, and then attack anyone who questions your wisdom. I was not being "rude." I was, in the words of Robert Heinlein, "heaping scorn on a silly idea, a practice that I shall always follow."

Or maybe, (because it appears that your definition of "polite" means agreeing with you) I was "rude." So be it.

You want others to be polite to you, maybe, for once, you could do the same.


And your tone in this reply is civil? I may be impaired when it comes to detecting things like this, but I have no problem seeing your rudeness in this reply, none at all. The stink of incivility must be pretty stiff for me to be able to smell it, shyster.

In this one reply, you attacked me and my actions, the credibility of the person I referred to, insinuated things about my character that just are plain false, and outright lied.

Maybe that's how things are in the adversarial business you do day to day, but I can tell you most people don't appreciate getting shite upon like this.

Now, lets look at the first paragraph you wrote, shall we?

 
quote
Originally posted by Shyster:
"Fact" still stands? To what "Fact" to you refer? Your single conversation with a person claiming to hold a Texas LEO certification? What, exactly, does he do? ISD police? MUD police? (Yes, dear citizens, we freemen of the state of Texas actually have Municipal Utility Districts with their own police forces.)(Go Figure). Small town county mounty?


Your use of the phrase "claiming to hold a Texas LEO certification" implies that the credentials of the person I discussed this issue with are suspect. Well, you're in error. He has a TCLEOSE certificiation, has had one for over two decades. He works for a city with three quarters of a million population doing field work every day. No, he's not an ISD police officer, a MUD (whatever that is) or any of the other intended to be derogatory descriptions of his position. He is a full blown officer of the law who has the power to arrest anyone in the state, including you, for violations of the law, and does do so on a regular basis.

This entire statement was intended as an attack against me and the officer in question. Single conversation? I've had several since first posting my opening topic, on this very subject.

So, in the tone you so pretend to not use, I politely suggest that you go perform an an act of idcopulation. <---- (note the smile)

Edit to add:

You claim to be a lawyer, at least you imply that you are, so you have access to resources most of the rest of us don't. Here's a little project for you:

Look up all the tickets issued in Texas citing the law you referenced. Exclude citations issued related to an accident and/or DUI. How many tickets are left? Any way to tell if any of those were for text-driving? I'd be curious to see just how well "existing law" is being enforced on this.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 07-06-2011).]

IP: Logged
82-T/A [At Work]
Member
Posts: 22523
From: Florida USA
Registered: Aug 2002


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 198
Rate this member

Report this Post07-07-2011 03:01 PM Click Here to See the Profile for 82-T/A [At Work]Send a Private Message to 82-T/A [At Work]Direct Link to This Post
I just happened to catch this article when I was surfing the news:


"Study: No Evidence Cell Phone Bans Reduce Crashes"
http://www.foxnews.com/poli...ted-driving-dangers/

I IMMEDIATELY thought of this thread...
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
JazzMan
Member
Posts: 18612
From:
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 653
User Banned

Report this Post07-07-2011 07:00 PM Click Here to See the Profile for JazzManSend a Private Message to JazzManDirect Link to This Post
Interesting. The FOX story provided no link to the study, so I dug around and found the website for the organization that did the study, the Governers Highway Safety Association: http://www.ghsa.org/html/issues/cellphone.html

Here's part of what they have to say on the subject:

Driver inattention is a leading factor in many crashes, and cell phone use and texting are some of the most common driver distractions. While more and more states and localities are banning specific distractions, GHSA's message to all drivers is: don't use cell phones or other electronic devices while driving, regardless of the current law.

Recently, states have been passing texting bans for all drivers at a frenetic pace. Twelve states banned the practice in 2009, and another 11 in 2010. Washington State was the first state to enact a texting ban, in May 2007. GHSA supports texting bans for all drivers, but does have concerns about enforcement. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently reported on an enforcement demonstration project PDF icon in Connecticut and New York, demonstrating that high visibility enforcement can reduce handheld cell phone use.

GHSA has not endorsed handheld cell phone bans because there is no clear indication that hands-free use is any safer than handheld. A Virginia Tech study indicated hands-free systems may be beneficial, while studies from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the University of Utah and Carnegie Mellon have reported that all cell phone use is distracting.


GHSA recommends several steps to combat the increasing problem of distracted driving. Specificaly:

* The federal government should:
o Fund research to develop effective methods for enforcing texting and cell phone bans.
o Fund research to determine the nature and scope of the distracted driving problem.
o Fund a media campaign to alert the public to the dangers of distracted driving.
o Develop model policies for employers encouraging them to ban cell phone use/texting by all employees driving for business purposes.
o Provide financial incentives for states that pass comprehensive graduated licensing laws that include cell phone/texting bans for new drivers.
o Support technological solutions that minimize driver distraction.
* States should:
o Ban text messaging for all drivers.
o Ban all non-emergency cell phone use for new drivers, as part of its Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) law, as well as for school bus drivers.
o Include a category for cell phone/electronic equipment distraction on crash investigation forms.


The FOX article was a fair synopsis of the GHSA website's synopsis of the study. The study itself I'm still looking for...
IP: Logged
Shyster
Member
Posts: 1085
From: Conroe, TX, USA
Registered: Aug 2005


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 58
Rate this member

Report this Post07-08-2011 12:14 AM Click Here to See the Profile for ShysterClick Here to visit Shyster's HomePageSend a Private Message to ShysterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:
He is a full blown officer of the law who has the power to arrest anyone in the state, including you, for violations of the law, and does do so on a regular basis.

This entire statement was intended as an attack against me and the officer in question.


Right, and your "assertion" of power (albeit through your esteemed friend) was not intended as an attack? Am I to fear a search warrant, next?

You spit out "absolute" statements as though they were fact, challenge anyone who dares question the factual basis of your claims, and wish to shout down, by threat of intimidation, anyone who dares challenge your "facts."

All this, over whether we need more laws to enforce laws we already have.

I'm not trying to attack anyone. But I will not blindly accept meaningless rules. If you don't like that, too bad, so sad.
IP: Logged
82-T/A [At Work]
Member
Posts: 22523
From: Florida USA
Registered: Aug 2002


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 198
Rate this member

Report this Post07-08-2011 08:11 AM Click Here to See the Profile for 82-T/A [At Work]Send a Private Message to 82-T/A [At Work]Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:

Interesting. The FOX story provided no link to the study, so I dug around and found the website for the organization that did the study, the Governers Highway Safety Association: http://www.ghsa.org/html/issues/cellphone.html

The FOX article was a fair synopsis of the GHSA website's synopsis of the study. The study itself I'm still looking for...


Yeah, I noticed too that they didn't have a link to the study... but after a quick search, I kind of gave up.

I personally don't text while I'm in the car, but I have been known to use my cell phone in the car from time to time. I mean like honestly... I'll make a phone call in my car once a week... and I always try to get off the phone as quickly as possible. But I mean, this is only if / when I'm pretty much the only person on the road... I'd never do it in heavy traffic, if that makes any difference at all.


 
quote
Originally posted by Shyster:

If you don't like that, too bad, so sad.


Hah... that's what my boss told me back in November of 2008.

I said the same thing back to him in November of 2010.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 07-08-2011).]

IP: Logged
JazzMan
Member
Posts: 18612
From:
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 653
User Banned

Report this Post07-08-2011 08:59 AM Click Here to See the Profile for JazzManSend a Private Message to JazzManDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Shyster:


Right, and your "assertion" of power (albeit through your esteemed friend) was not intended as an attack? Am I to fear a search warrant, next?

You spit out "absolute" statements as though they were fact, challenge anyone who dares question the factual basis of your claims, and wish to shout down, by threat of intimidation, anyone who dares challenge your "facts."

All this, over whether we need more laws to enforce laws we already have.

I'm not trying to attack anyone. But I will not blindly accept meaningless rules. If you don't like that, too bad, so sad.


Entirely hyperbole. The entire post.

But, do a Lexis-Nexus search for citations as I suggested earlier, lets put real facts on the table, eh?

As an aside, drunk drivers were covered by the law you cited earlier, so why did we end up with specific drunk driving laws? Using the logic you seem to be applying here, it would seem you're against DWI laws as well. I've known drivers who were perfectly functional at .15, and drivers who couldn't even find their car at .05, so the laws you cited would seem to be more appropriate than the statutory limit laws of .08.

I posit that the DWI laws were implemented because DWI has a high risk level and the laws you mentioned were too difficult to apply to those who were drunk but still seemed to be able to somewhat control their cars. Feel free to elucidate on the reasons why it made sense for DWI laws to be implemented, your coursework for your law degree should have covered that fairly well.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 07-08-2011).]

IP: Logged
Shyster
Member
Posts: 1085
From: Conroe, TX, USA
Registered: Aug 2005


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 58
Rate this member

Report this Post07-13-2011 12:14 AM Click Here to See the Profile for ShysterClick Here to visit Shyster's HomePageSend a Private Message to ShysterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:
Feel free to elucidate on the reasons why it made sense for DWI laws to be implemented, your coursework for your law degree should have covered that fairly well.


Hoist on your own petard, as it were. I never said it made sense for DWI laws to be implemented. Nor will I. Why should I?

More laws to do the same thing do not make sense. Never have. Never will.

I don't care whether they make you feel good. They are nonsensical.

[This message has been edited by Shyster (edited 07-13-2011).]

IP: Logged
Previous Page | Next Page

This topic is 3 pages long:  1   2   3 


All times are ET (US)

T H I S   I S   A N   A R C H I V E D   T O P I C
  

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery | Ogre's Cave
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock