Texting While Driving

[mimartin]

I The problem is that proving someone was reckless might (at least it "does" where I live) require a much more complicated and uncertain (and expensive) evidence (which requires a case by case appreciation) rather than just proving someone was texting (a mere matter of fact). You might have an example right here:

In my experience in the insurance industry it is not that difficult to prove reckless driving in Texas. Pretty much if the Police Officers shows up in court and testifies the trial ends in a conviction.

 

Again, I’m against texting while driving, but I’m also against super secret laws that milk tourist out of their money.

[Darth Avlectus]

^^^<sigh> CA will just have to deal with it since we do have an anti texting and anti-phone chat while driving laws.

 

As if speed traps weren't already enough in 'tourist resort' areas where their penalties are considerably higher than adjacent and surrounding areas.

[Jae Onasi]

Seatbelts are an important safety device for maintaining control of your vehicle. A simple bump in the road can cause you to lose control by literally being bounced out of your seat. Granted it's only a slim possibility, but I've seen it happen to a friend of mine. It was funny to us at the time, but then we were out in a field.

 

Apparently not so slim a possibility. Here's what seat belt use has done for me.

1. Kept me in my seat when I was driving way too fast over a set of train tracks that then had a steep drop-off on the other side. I hit the tracks, and then thought, "Oh, sh*t, the road's gone!" My car went airborne in the best movie fashion. Even with my seatbelt on, I was momentarily airborne, too. My head hit the roof of the car, but the seatbelt kept me in the seat otherwise. If I hadn't had it on, I would have been bounced out of the seat entirely, and out of control of the car.

2. Kept me from faceplanting (or going through) the windshield when a very large tank of a car plowed into our bitty Hyundai Excel. I got mild whiplash and a sprained back, but the seatbelt kept me from major head, face, and neck injuries.

3. Kept me, when I was 8 months pregnant with my daughter, from hitting the steering column with my belly when a guy (talking on his cell phone) turned left right in front of me even though I'd had the green light for a good minute.

4. Kept me from hitting my head any harder than I did on the side window when a guy decided to run a stop sign without looking to see who was coming down the road (me, with right-of-way)

5. Kept my then-3 year old son (in his car seat) from getting hurt in accident 3.

6. Kept both my kids from any injury whatsoever in accident 4 above.

 

Do I play the music way too loud in my car at times? Yes. Do I sing at the top of my lungs with that way-too-loud music? Yes. Do I eat in my car? Yes. Drink iced tea or coffee? Yes. Talk on my phone? Yes, when I need to. Text while driving? No.

[Darth Avlectus]

^^^Dennis Leary is right...forget about the clean car. Dr. Leary would be proud that you at least have safety as your eh...top priority if a tad wobbly. And your kids.

 

At any rate: You can't watch out for the other idiots if you're preoccupied--even with a hands free device. There is watching out, then there is watching out for those who aren't watching out.

 

It's a wonder how law enforcement catches anyone being so preoccupied...oh wait, they have modded vehicles and sheer numbers on their side. Even if they've had one too many doughnuts. (Hey, gotta live up to my GTA namesake once in a while! )

[Working Class Hero]

It's a wonder how law enforcement catches anyone being so preoccupied...oh wait, they have modded vehicles and sheer numbers on their side. Even if they've had one too many doughnuts. (Hey, gotta live up to my GTA namesake once in a while! )

I saw a police officer reading a book and driving at the same time. Not texting, an actual book.

[Samuel Dravis]

It's illegal to text while driving in Austin. I think such a law is unnecessary, as that type of behavior is already covered by other laws. That being said, I have been in the car with people who text while driving and it is somewhat frightening to watch them drift all over. People shouldn't do it, it's simply irresponsible when you're guiding a ton of metal at 60mph.

[Jae Onasi]

It's illegal to text while driving in Austin. I think such a law is unnecessary, as that type of behavior is already covered by other laws.

It may not be strictly necessary, but it makes it easier to prosecute than 'reckless driving' as Darth333 noted, since it's so specific. It also allows fines to be adjusted to a different rate (I would assume higher, because of cynicism, heh) than the generic 'reckless driving'. I think it also sends a message to people who think that texting while driving =/= reckless driving that it really is NOT OK to text and drive.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

It's illegal to text while driving in Austin. I think such a law is unnecessary, as that type of behavior is already covered by other laws. That being said, I have been in the car with people who text while driving and it is somewhat frightening to watch them drift all over. People shouldn't do it, it's simply irresponsible when you're guiding a ton of metal at 60mph.

 

what kind of douchebag does the speed limit or less

[Darth InSidious]

what kind of douchebag does the speed limit or less

 

I dunno, Stan, what kind of inbred, moronic ****wit speeds and looks at a phone to text at the same time? Gee, I bet they're SMRT.

 

[Totenkopf]

^ When they catch him, if they ever do, they ought to throw several books at him. Still, despite that, I have no more love for people who drive under the speed limit than jmac either.

[Tommycat]

This seems very relevant.

Study finds no significant link between cell use and accidents

[Litofsky]

This seems very relevant.

Study finds no significant link between cell use and accidents

 

It appears that way, but I'd venture to say that the information fueling the "head scratching" was fairly worthless:

 

The new study, which was completed in December, looked at crashes (and not just at those involving cellphones) in those four places and found no decrease in accidents, despite the bans’ having reduced the use of hand-held cellphones 41 to 76 percent. The researchers obtained those numbers by going out to street corners and exit ramps to observe how many people had cellphones up to their ears before the bans compared with after the bans.

 

To emphasize:

 

The researchers obtained those numbers by going out to street corners and exit ramps to observe how many people had cellphones up to their ears before the bans compared with after the bans.

 

To me, that seems a terribly foolish way to compile data. Wouldn't the local police departments have records of tickets given out for driving while texting, thus providing a place wherein one might compile more accurate data? Basing scientific results off of watching people from street corners seems to me to be terribly inefficient and ineffective (mainly because we don't know the reasons people were on the phones; for example, we are not aware if it is the new law that keeps the phones off, or some other, unrelated reason).

[Samuel Dravis]

Actually I think the way they got the data was fine, so long as they account for enough variables (like seasonal differences), and have enough data points. The police department information would be skewed because they are not interested in counting every car, just ones breaking the law.

 

Although something more interesting would be to grab the number of active cells with GPS transmitters indicating speeds of over 20 mph or so. Would give much more targeted data, although probably isn't the best precedent.

 

@Jae: I hadn't thought of those points. I agree with you then.

[Litofsky]

Actually I think the way they got the data was fine, so long as they account for enough variables (like seasonal differences), and have enough data points. The police department information would be skewed because they are not interested in counting every car, just ones breaking the law.

 

I just think that there happen to be a large number of variables that could easily misconstrue the data from one experiment to another. Even if they did account for a multitude of variables, it still seems that the data might be skewed in one way or another.

 

Although something more interesting would be to grab the number of active cells with GPS transmitters indicating speeds of over 20 mph or so. Would give much more targeted data, although probably isn't the best precedent.

 

Sir, I do contend that they might be terrorists. To the satellites!

[Darth Avlectus]

So far as texting while driving, the blueprint is already there: these companies report to the FCC and law enforcement anyways, so run an activity track on your phone through your carrier's network in case of suspected TWD.

 

I think it could just be categorized under reckless driving. Since catching in the act is difficult and unreliable.

 

Law enforcement techs have talked about this.

 

Actually I think the way they got the data was fine, so long as they account for enough variables (like seasonal differences), and have enough data points. The police department information would be skewed because they are not interested in counting every car, just ones breaking the law.

 

Although something more interesting would be to grab the number of active cells with GPS transmitters indicating speeds of over 20 mph or so. Would give much more targeted data, although probably isn't the best precedent.

 

 

Well, law enforcement has been looking at ways of eliminating high speed chases. A cell phone as a tracking device isn't too far out of the realm. Still, Onstar equipped vehicles apparently can assist law enforcement.

 

There have been studies done into utilizing directed EMP to disable (translation FRY) the electronics in a car to stop high speed chases. In fact one company offers equipment for serious researchers. It's not too terribly complex science either. Problems here: Underpowered and it won't work. Overpowered and it'll cause collateral damage to other vehicles. The point of research would be to innovate a practical but effective means of utilizing this.

 

Still, I can already see a more practical idea of what's going to happen: Switchboxes incorporated into future car designs where law enforcement has a god code RF signal that throws the switches and shuts the car down. How to implement it? Make it mandatory all cars have it and older cars must incorporate it in order to be legal to drive. Law enforcement has talked about this for the past several years now--so it's not as though I'm giving any ideas to the gov't, cat's out of the bag now.

 

Positive: Safer roads (not guaranteed)

Negative: Just one more way the government definitely has power over you apparently b/c they know best and you don't. Why? The minority who have to screw it up for everyone else. (And how noob law enforcement could play a nasty joke on you )