TexasCHLforum.com

Jusme

The Annoyed Man wrote:
I became a pessimist about human behavior because it disappoints me less often.

Ok, I'm stealing that one!!

Jusme

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Nightmare69 made a point that I think a lot of people missed. There is a way for LEO's to address the "distraction" problem (I hate typing that!) and it is a citation called "failure to drive in a single marked lane." That requires no proof of cause such as a cell phone, crying kids, spilled coffee, etc. Just write the ticket.

Criminal laws are not going to stop the problem, so please stop calling for more laws. It's a very slippery slope because this whole "distracted driving" topic could well lead to an epidemic of new criminal laws. Drunk driving laws haven't stopped drunks from driving or people getting killed. Reckless endangerment laws haven't stopped parents from leaving their children in hot cars in parking lots. Animal cruelty laws haven't stopped people from leaving dogs to die in hot cars. I could go on and on. These types of criminal laws are largely ineffective because people suffer from "Other Guy Syndrome." "It's going to happen to other people, but not to me! Why further the mindset that every problem can be fixed with a restrictive law or that government can protect us from anything and everything? This is just another version of "safety at any cost, even freedom. Why call for ineffective criminal laws when there is an easy technological fix?

The only answer is technology. Cell phone manufacturers must disable the incoming/outgoing text feature while the unit is moving at a speed greater than X MPH. This has a downside as it will require the GPS to be on all the time which will drain the battery much faster. The manufacturers will have to allow the location feature to be turned off even with the GPS operational so that people cannot be tracked against their will. This is especially for women and high-risk people. It's all a matter of software, so it's not a difficult fix. Folks, PLEASE put down the hammer and pick up a slide rule. (Let's see how many of the youngsters know what that is!)

Chas.

The only drawback I see for "disabling" the phone using motion, is that it would also affect passenger's phones. But I agree, that there is probably a way to achieve the cure, with technology.

Jusme

bblhd672 wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Texting and driving are a deadly combination that nothing will stop or even significantly curtail. As TAM said, it's caused either by addiction, irresponsibility or both.

As a lawyer and former LEO, I want to look at the new law from an enforcement perspective -- it won't work. There's no way for an observing LEO to determine a person is texting as opposed to dialing their phone, entering an address in Google Maps, punching up a song to play through the car radio, etc. If the driver is stopped and tells the LEO (or refuses to answer the texting question) he/she wasn't texting, then there will be no basis on which to issue a citation. Sure, the LEO can ask to see the phone, but the driver is not required to give it to the officer. If they do and the phone is locked, the driver isn't required to give the officer the password. The LEO will be powerless to do anything, unless he/she has grounds for a warrant. Absent aggravating circumstances, that's not going to happen.

I fear the only thing the new texting law will accomplish is the opening of Pandora's Box. Get ready folks, other laws to prevent illusory "distracted driving" will be introduced in coming sessions. Eating, drinking (coffee, water, anything), listening to the radio, talking to passengers, driving with children in the car, have all been falsely claimed to create a dangerous condition by distracting the driver. As a pilot I find claims that people aren't capable of multi-tasking to be as silly as the Flat-Earth people. Granted, some pilots are better than others as is the case for drivers. But the lowest common denominator philosophy is dangerous ground when dealing with restrictive laws.

Remember, most people in Salem were thrilled when the first witch was burned, but . . .

Chas.
Pandora's Box is already cracked and falling apart. In New York state legislators are mulling a law that will allow police to attach a device to cell phones at the scene of an accident and download the data to determine if the driver was texting at the time of the accident.
https://www.policeone.com/police-produc ... -advances/

Even that is "after the fact" enforcement. The same thing can be done through subpoena. I believe that this will be overturned as unconstitutional, since no due process can be afforded, for anyone involved in an auto accident, and even then, cannot be shown to be conclusive evidence of the cause. A shortcut of due process, is not going to prevent anything, and them comparing it to ignition lock breathalyzers, is more than just a stretch for justification.
If an officer believes that someone is texting, stopping them and forcing them to hand over private property, for the purpose of self incrimination, will not fly. Cell phones, are not contraband. Drivers are not even required to disclose that they have a cell phone in their possession, and a warantless search, without probable cause, will not pass the smell test, in court.
Don't get me wrong, I am just as frightened, and angry with those who I see putting lives at risk, with their behavior, but this law, in my opinion, will do little to prevent it. I see it like Charles said, as a "gateway" to more laws, when this one fails to achieve the desired results. The freedom to travel, will become so restrictive, that it will be meaningless.
You simply cannot legislate common sense behavior. There will be a few, people, who will, at first, obey the law out of fear, but then resort back to their old habits. JMHO

Jusme

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Texting and driving are a deadly combination that nothing will stop or even significantly curtail. As TAM said, it's caused either by addiction, irresponsibility or both.

As a lawyer and former LEO, I want to look at the new law from an enforcement perspective -- it won't work. There's no way for an observing LEO to determine a person is texting as opposed to dialing their phone, entering an address in Google Maps, punching up a song to play through the car radio, etc. If the driver is stopped and tells the LEO (or refuses to answer the texting question) he/she wasn't texting, then there will be no basis on which to issue a citation. Sure, the LEO can ask to see the phone, but the driver is not required to give it to the officer. If they do and the phone is locked, the driver isn't required to give the officer the password. The LEO will be powerless to do anything, unless he/she has grounds for a warrant. Absent aggravating circumstances, that's not going to happen.

I fear the only thing the new texting law will accomplish is the opening of Pandora's Box. Get ready folks, other laws to prevent illusory "distracted driving" will be introduced in coming sessions. Eating, drinking (coffee, water, anything), listening to the radio, talking to passengers, driving with children in the car, have all been falsely claimed to create a dangerous condition by distracting the driver. As a pilot I find claims that people aren't capable of multi-tasking to be as silly as the Flat-Earth people. Granted, some pilots are better than others as is the case for drivers. But the lowest common denominator philosophy is dangerous ground when dealing with restrictive laws.

Remember, most people in Salem were thrilled when the first witch was burned, but . . .

Chas.

This has been my argument against a texting ban all along. First, it's all but unenforceable, but it is also begins the slide (or speeds it up) towards more totalitarian laws.
Criminalizing something that should be common sense, doesn't prevent anything, if common sense is not used in the first place. There are laws that require drivers to have insurance, wear seat belts, get their vehicles inspected, etc. All of these, are things that should be done, by common sense drivers, but they have not prevented one accident, forced people to maintain their vehicle, or carry insurance, if they were not pre-disposed to do those things in the first place.
I don't do any of those things, for fear of being ticketed, I do them for my own safety and peace of mind. My kids learned very quickly while I was teaching them to drive, that there is nothing on their cell phone that can't wait until they stop. I have told them, that even if it is my wife or I calling, if they answer while they are driving, they won't like what we have to say to them. Everyone who knows me, knows that if they text me and I don't reply, it's because I'm driving, including my boss, and SWMBO. JMHO

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 4 matches

Re: This Texting While Driving is really starting to get to me!

Re: This Texting While Driving is really starting to get to me!

Re: This Texting While Driving is really starting to get to me!

Re: This Texting While Driving is really starting to get to me!