Statewide Texting while Driving ban

[lockmat]

Texas lawmakers tentatively approved a statewide ban against texting while driving, saying the practice is a hazard more dangerous than drunken driving.

http://www.chron.com...an/7512204.html

I text while driving, yet I still agree with this. Although I'm not sure how it will be enforced. How can it be proved?

edit: forgot to mention it allows texting and reading texts while stopped at a stop sign or traffic signal.

Edited April 8, 2011 by lockmat

[TheNiche]

What this bill needs is a dead white female toddler (with a name commensurate with that demographic) (preferably blonde). The toddler must die in a car wreck caused by someone blaming their distraction on texting rather than acknowledging that they might possibly be incompetent. Political convenience is Truth.

[dbigtex56]

What this bill needs is a dead white female toddler (with a name commensurate with that demographic) (preferably blonde). The toddler must die in a car wreck caused by someone blaming their distraction on texting rather than acknowledging that they might possibly be incompetent. Political convenience is Truth.

You've been watching Nancy Grace, haven't you?

Still, the guy last week who VERY nearly ran me down (missed by a hairsbreadth!), while making an illegal turn, seemed annoyed that he had to stop texting long enough to, you know, not kill me.

I am not young, blonde or female; yet, I hold on to the pathetic belief that my life matters; texting, less so.

[Fringe]

Inconsiderate people who text while driving shouldn't receive a citation. They should be dragged out of their vehicle and pistol whipped. Just my 2 cents.

[sidegate]

Lots of things distract people while they are driving. Ban one, then ban them all.

[LTAWACS]

Make them pay/.

[ricco67]

While banning it might be good on the books, but tough to enforce, wouldn't there be a provision of additional punishment if an accident was caused while they were texting?

If that is the case, then upping a charge up a level or two might scare a few, but hardly any.

A friend of mine was recently hit from behind because of some teenage girl was facebooking.

[Highway6]

Meanwhile.. I can now press a button on my new Chevy's mirror and get facebook status updates while asking my built in GPS console to find the nearest pizza joint while shuffling through my playlists and mp3 folders until i find the perfect driving song..... while my Xbox is on pause on the video console waiting for the next light.

If they wanna make laws fighting driver distractions, they should stop being pansies with the low hanging fruit.

What the hell will this law accomplish when consumers demand and manufactures provide.. turning our cars into one big distracting communication/entertainment module on wheels?

Edited April 8, 2011 by Highway6

[ricco67]

Meanwhile.. I can now press a button on my new Chevy's mirror and get facebook status updates while asking my built in GPS console to find the nearest pizza joint while shuffling through my playlists and mp3 folders until i find the perfect driving song.

If they wanna make laws fighting driver distractions, they should stop being pansies with the low hanging fruit.

Okay...so then they should make it so that if an accident occurred at the time an electronic device was accessed within vehicle (GPS, Phone, Text, Radio).

Is that something you are suggesting? That could make trying to access that information quite a challenge for a fender bender, but can be easy if it involved a serious injury or death.

[west20th]

Lots of things distract people while they are driving. Ban one, then ban them all.

Makes sense. Cell phones w/o some blue tooth type device should all be banned. Just banning texting with exceptions makes the law nothing more than a stunt, it's really unenforceable.

[Highway6]

Okay...so then they should make it so that if an accident occurred at the time an electronic device was accessed within vehicle (GPS, Phone, Text, Radio).

Is that something you are suggesting? That could make trying to access that information quite a challenge for a fender bender, but can be easy if it involved a serious injury or death.

I'm saying going after texters is too little too late.. the floodgates are open. If any lawmaker was seriously concerned about distractions while driving, Onstar, built-in tvs, and turning the radios into laptops never would have been allowed.

I'm not advocating for this to have happened.. i'm just using this to highlight the ginormous pointlessness of this texting law.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Highway6

[sidegate]

It could be argued that texting is safer than speaking on a phone since one can write at a red light then stop writing when traffic builds up or stress level is otherwise raised. Personally speaking, there are times when even having a conversation with someone in the seat next to me intrudes on the level of concentration required.

Driving is all about context - a person's proficiency, the level of stress in any given situation - that laws rarely accommodate. There are more pressing issues for our lawmakers to be focussing on.

[lockmat]

To turn the radio station, one hand off the wheel is required and a quick glance or two. At least when talking on the phone your eyes are still on the road, even if concentration is broken somewhat.

I can't quantify it, but it does seem texting is more dangerous than other things we do while driving. Many times, unless you're a teen or a phone gooroo, it requires a) both (especially for phones with keyboards) hands to text and also taking your eyes off the road.

Edited April 8, 2011 by lockmat

[lockmat]

It could be argued that texting is safer than speaking on a phone since one can write at a red light then stop writing when traffic builds up or stress level is otherwise raised.

In the case of this law, it would allow texting while at stop signs and traffic lights.

[RedScare]

What the hell will this law accomplish when consumers demand and manufactures provide.. turning our cars into one big distracting communication/entertainment module on wheels?

[samagon]

Lots of things distract people while they are driving. Ban one, then ban them all.

agreed, but then I disagree.

do not ban the activities.

for each, you have to have stipulations, exclusions, etc.

just for the texting thing they're already talking about, you can't text unless you are stopped at a stoplight, but then, what if you are at the stoplight, the light turns green, you are all enveloped in the text and don't notice, some guy coming up to the light sees a green light, reaches down to take a bite out of his big mac, and slams into you. if you had been driving, rather than texting (which was legal because you were stopped, you were just distracted from what you should have been doing, driving) the wreck wouldn't have happened, if the other guy wasn't distracted by eating, no wreck either.

anyway, it's silly, stipulations, rules, regulations, it's very simple:

make distracted driving illegal.

if you are participating in an activity that is distracting you from operating a vehicle, you get a ticket.

There's no need to make 50 different laws for all of the different potential ways a driver could be distracted, besides, some of the activities that would distract one person, won't distract another from performing the primary function of operating their vehicle.

pie in the sky, I know, expecting law makers to make logical rational laws is silly.

[Fringe]

make distracted driving illegal.

if you are participating in an activity that is distracting you from operating a vehicle, you get a ticket.

You cannot leave anything to law enforcement open for interpretation. It just doesn't work. Like when the state enacted the law in 2003 about obscured license plates. Some overzealous officers got carried away with it and were writing tickets without looking or understanding the "intent" (my wife was one of those).. In 2007 the law was revised and clearly spelled out what the state considered obscured

[Highway6]

Is this a mocking face? agreeing face? confused face? constipated face ?

[sidegate]

agreed, but then I disagree.

do not ban the activities.

for each, you have to have stipulations, exclusions, etc.

just for the texting thing they're already talking about, you can't text unless you are stopped at a stoplight, but then, what if you are at the stoplight, the light turns green, you are all enveloped in the text and don't notice, some guy coming up to the light sees a green light, reaches down to take a bite out of his big mac, and slams into you. if you had been driving, rather than texting (which was legal because you were stopped, you were just distracted from what you should have been doing, driving) the wreck wouldn't have happened, if the other guy wasn't distracted by eating, no wreck either.

anyway, it's silly, stipulations, rules, regulations, it's very simple:

make distracted driving illegal.

if you are participating in an activity that is distracting you from operating a vehicle, you get a ticket.

There's no need to make 50 different laws for all of the different potential ways a driver could be distracted, besides, some of the activities that would distract one person, won't distract another from performing the primary function of operating their vehicle.

pie in the sky, I know, expecting law makers to make logical rational laws is silly.

Okay, if they ban obnoxious flashing neon signs in car dealerships, freeway billboards, etc, I'll sign up for the "make distracted driving illegal" argument.

[editor]

Lots of things distract people while they are driving. Ban one, then ban them all.

If all things were equally distracting, that would make sense. But they aren't. Taking a sip of coffee while not removing your eyes from the road in front of you is very different from having your head down, eyes at a different focal length, staring at the gadget you're twiddling with in your crotch.

[editor]

While banning it might be good on the books, but tough to enforce, wouldn't there be a provision of additional punishment if an accident was caused while they were texting?

If that is the case, then upping a charge up a level or two might scare a few, but hardly any.

A friend of mine was recently hit from behind because of some teenage girl was facebooking.

Enforcement isn't hard since so many people do it. In a state I was in recently where driving-while-texting is illegal, they just have one cop stand on a busy corner, and he radios to the six motorcycle cops on the other side of the intersection who to pull over. They'd do this right around the 20th of each month, and easily write 100 tickets in an hour.

It's great entertainment if your apartment happens to overlook an intersection frequented by elitist new money Vladivostok douchebags who drive their six-month-old $200,000 Italian sports cars into the ocean when they're bored with them. (The price of the ticket isn't the problem, but multiple moving violations [like the guy arrested FOUR times driving over 130MPH across a floating bridge] hurt their H1B status.)

Was that too specific?

[samagon]

If all things were equally distracting, that would make sense. But they aren't. Taking a sip of coffee while not removing your eyes from the road in front of you is very different from having your head down, eyes at a different focal length, staring at the gadget you're twiddling with in your crotch.

I bet some people can be equally distracted by drinking from a cup, as some would be while texting.

the same could be said of talking while driving.

[dbigtex56]

For those who defend texting while driving, here's a cheerful little story.

Five young women, lifelong friends who were on the cheerleading squad, out to celebrate graduation from high school, were killed in a car crash. Phone records indicate that the driver was texting immediately before the crash.

Some of my sister's volunteer EMT/firefighter friends had to clean up the mess.

[RedScare]

Is this a mocking face? agreeing face? confused face? constipated face ?

It is my, "what do you mean, when?, They already do that", face.

Rereading your post, I see that you are also claiming that they already do that. I misread it to suggest that it may happen in the future.

My bad.

Edited April 8, 2011 by RedScare

[Highway6]

It is my, "what do you mean, when?, They already do that", face.

Rereading your post, I see that you are also claiming that they already do that. I misread it to suggest that it may happen in the future.

My bad.

Roger that.. 10-4

[TheNiche]

I am not young, blonde or female; yet, I hold on to the pathetic belief that my life matters; texting, less so.

You are ***; your life matters not. Every politician knows it.

[sidegate]

If all things were equally distracting, that would make sense. But they aren't. Taking a sip of coffee while not removing your eyes from the road in front of you is very different from having your head down, eyes at a different focal length, staring at the gadget you're twiddling with in your crotch.

We're skipping LOTS of variables here - speed, road conditions, how good a driver one is......this is not something a government should be involved in. If it does want to get involved I can think of any number of other things it should be, but will never be.

[sidegate]

For those who defend texting while driving, here's a cheerful little story.

Five young women, lifelong friends who were on the cheerleading squad, out to celebrate graduation from high school, were killed in a car crash. Phone records indicate that the driver was texting immediately before the crash.

Some of my sister's volunteer EMT/firefighter friends had to clean up the mess.

I am extremely sorry to hear about this, but were there any other variables involved in this incident? Even if none were documented, there may be some that will never be known

I am not defending texting while driving. I am saying that there is only so far a government's hand should reach.

[RedScare]

We're skipping LOTS of variables here - speed, road conditions, how good a driver one is......this is not something a government should be involved in. If it does want to get involved I can think of any number of other things it should be, but will never be.

The government builds and maintains the roads. It determines who may be permitted to use them. Why should it not determine under what conditions one may use them, especially when some of those conditions (texting) have been shown to be more dangerous than already legislated conditions, such as excessive speed and intoxication?

[TheNiche]

The government builds and maintains the roads. It determines who may be permitted to use them. Why should it not determine under what conditions one may use them, especially when some of those conditions (texting) have been shown to be more dangerous than already legislated conditions, such as excessive speed and intoxication?

Precedent is dumb.