TexasCHLforum.com

nonleg wrote:Teenagers are already well documented in their complete inability to judge consequences, risk etc., and that's scientifically proven.

. . . Americans (at least in the south) have a total reluctance to use the horn. Watching the person in front of you text six seconds after the light turns green, and you just stew, rather than honk? You're part of the problem.

. . .

Ah, the whole conversation makes me miss Rome... (A Roman told me, Nonleg, do you know what a millisecond is in Rome? The time between when the light turns green and the people behind you start honking.)

With this, the thread is locked.

Chas.

1911 10MM wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

1911 10MM wrote:The phone companies can do what they want but it won't solve a darn thing as all of the phones can be hacked to defeat anything the phone companies put in as software. Education is the key not more laws or software.

You think people aren't aware texting and driving is dangerous?

Nothing will be 100% but if something were to be done, I'd prefer it be done by the phone makers rather than the legislature or congress.

It's unreasonable to expect software to fix the problem when it can be defeated. iPhones can be jail broken and everything else can be hacked. The problem isn't the tool, it's the people who use the tool in an improper manner. Are you a proponent for smart guns?

Obviously, you are correct about hacking phones, but software can fix the problem for the vast majority of drivers. People capable of hacking phones make up a small percentage of users and frequent mandatory firmware upgrades can make disabling the safety features very difficult to maintain.

Education won't fix anything; people already know the dangers, but they think it won't happen to them because they are too skillful. As I posted earlier, people texting and driving have "Other Guy Syndrome."

Chas.

I am absolutely opposed to disabling a phone while the car is moving. There are too many times when calls for help are made while driving. 911 is by no means universally available, so leaving that option is not a solution. See, this is precisely the "distracted driving" lie that is being sold to everyone.

Chas.

Abraham wrote:Yes, new technology could stop it, but when will that be available?

It's all software so it could be as early as tomorrow. Companies could "push" the fireware upgrade. If you would put your effort into getting the feds to require this very simple software change, rather than calling for ineffective criminal laws, then the day will come sooner rather than later.

Abraham wrote:As it is, texting and driving is now one of, if not 'the' leading driving distraction killing and maiming people.

You have proven my point. You have partaken of the Kool-Aid of "distracted driving." Neither you nor the proponents of "distracted driving" laws will stop with texting.

Abraham wrote:Am I in the minority of those who think something must be done NOW to at least slow it down dramatically?

Why do you ignore the only real fix that will save lives, technology, while demanding ineffective criminal laws that will not "dramatically" lower the death or injury rate?

Abraham wrote:Why am I so ardent about this subject?

Because as a distance bicycle rider I've been injured by distracted by phone drivers.

My left shoulder is a constant reminder. It's always painful.

This explains your fervor on this issue and it is understandable. It's also why you will never serve on a civil or criminal jury that involves an accident in which texting and driving is an issue. You have an emotional investment that makes it impossible for you to be unbiased toward a defendant. In my view, it also explains why you seem to want punishment rather than prevention.

I am not opposed to stopping texting and driving in the least. I want to make a difference, not merely a point. Technology is the cure, not additional criminal laws.

Chas.

treadlightly wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: 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.

Slide rules were the primary computational hardware of NASA, the Neanderthal Aeronautics and Space Administration, and were wooden. Whittled down logs, you might say, and very heavy. You couldn't weigh them on bathroom scales. You had to use C and D scales.

They are banned from modern classrooms because of zero tolerance for profanity. No cursors in classrooms. But that's not the root of the problem, it's just a sine of the times.

Chas.

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.

Abraham wrote:Then, when caught, into prison.

You mr/ms texting while driving will go to prison for a minimum of a year in county lock up or maybe 18 months into the big one...

This offense isn't minor....

You have gone completely off the rails!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jail or prison for texting when no one is hurt? That's just plain nuts.

Chas.

Jusme wrote:. . . Criminalizing something that should be common sense, doesn't prevent anything, if common sense is not used in the first place.

Oh that's good, very good. I'm going to use that line.

Chas.

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.