Texting while driving should be a crime. I can't think of anything more stupid. And talking on the cell phone is also dangerous -- and has been proven to be just as dangerous as driving under the influence.
Frankly, it should be illegal to do anything other than drive while driving.
On a related note, two weeks ago, a woman yapping on her cell phone backed into me in the Kroger parking lot. Her cell phone is now in multiple pieces, because I crushed it. And her insurance company, according to my insurance company, is dropping her because this is her third accident in two months -- all of which happened while the stupid bitch was on her phone.
Who are the four idiots who voted against this bill? That's what I would like to know.
In theory, this is a good idea, but how exactly is it going to be enforced? How can a police officer prove that someone was texting instead of browsing the internet or scrolling through their address book to find a number? Does this give them authority to confiscate a phone and look through it? Like most pieces of legislation, this is probably a very poorly writtten bill with little thought put into it. Just because someone voted against something doesn't mean they are against the concept, just the way the particular bill is written. For example, I would have voted against the education lottery, even though in theory I support it, because it was very poorly written. I know it's a novel concept for politicians to actually read things before they vote for them (see Stimulus package), but some actually still do it.
(02-19-2009 02:31 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]In theory, this is a good idea, but how exactly is it going to be enforced? How can a police officer prove that someone was texting instead of browsing the internet or scrolling through their address book to find a number? Does this give them authority to confiscate a phone and look through it? Like most pieces of legislation, this is probably a very poorly writtten bill with little thought put into it. Just because someone voted against something doesn't mean they are against the concept, just the way the particular bill is written. For example, I would have voted against the education lottery, even though in theory I support it, because it was very poorly written. I know it's a novel concept for politicians to actually read things before they vote for them (see Stimulus package), but some actually still do it.
So, are you saying that browsing the internet and searching through your cell phone address book are acceptable actions while driving?
No, I mean exactly what I just said.
If they are not going to include those things in this bill, then this law cannot be fairly enforced. That means, as is, it is poorly written and not properly thought out. Police often overstep their boundaries as it is. This is just going to give them more power to abuse.
While I'm against seatbelt laws, I can support this law a little because it affects more than just the person driving.
(02-19-2009 05:00 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]No, I mean exactly what I just said.
If they are not going to include those things in this bill, then this law cannot be fairly enforced. That means, as is, it is poorly written and not properly thought out. Police often overstep their boundaries as it is. This is just going to give them more power to abuse.
Have you seen the bill? Do you know that it is poorly written? All they have to do is ban cell phone use while cars are in motion, and the issue is solved.
Good thing I got that fancy Bluetooth in my new car. To be honest, it's so much better to have the bluetooth functionality in the car. When I drive my girlfriend's car and am on the phone it does feel distracting not having the bluetooth functionality.
(02-19-2009 11:09 PM)Grammar-Nazi Wrote: [ -> ] (02-19-2009 05:00 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]No, I mean exactly what I just said.
If they are not going to include those things in this bill, then this law cannot be fairly enforced. That means, as is, it is poorly written and not properly thought out. Police often overstep their boundaries as it is. This is just going to give them more power to abuse.
Have you seen the bill? Do you know that it is poorly written? All they have to do is ban cell phone use while cars are in motion, and the issue is solved.
They can't ban all distracting activities while driving. Guess what...I have a Sirius radio with a handheld remote. If they accuse me of texting while driving, I could just say I was using that. Besides, when people text, they don't hold their phone up in plain sight where people outside their car can see. They hold their phone down in their laps. If a police officer sees someone glance down, can they accuse them of texting? Get over your boner for this bill and start thinking rationally.
My best guess is the bill isn't being written so police can proactively pull people over and write them a ticket. it's being written so that if it can be proven a person was texting at the time of a car accident, then their insurance company doesn't have to pay. In most instances, insurance policies are void if the accident or injury takes place during the commission of a crime.
That's why, in most states, it's a crime to commit suicide.
I had to lean on the horn to get a woman with her phone up in her face back in her lane this morning.
My dirty look was dirtier than her dirty look.
But, if a text message is being typed, but not sent, then there is no proof that the "crime" ever happened. Also, if someone receives a text message around the time of an accident, how can it be proven that they looked at it or not? What if someone was texting, stopped, THEN got in their car and drove somewhere and had an accident shortly thereafter? How large is the timeframe for it to be considered a crime? And if a police officer pulls you over and asks for your cell phone, would you be bound by law to let him/her look through it?
Things to think about..
(02-20-2009 02:13 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]But, if a text message is being typed, but not sent, then there is no proof that the "crime" ever happened. Also, if someone receives a text message around the time of an accident, how can it be proven that they looked at it or not? What if someone was texting, stopped, THEN got in their car and drove somewhere and had an accident shortly thereafter? How large is the timeframe for it to be considered a crime? And if a police officer pulls you over and asks for your cell phone, would you be bound by law to let him/her look through it?
Things to think about..
I bet if some bitch ever backs into you while yapping on her cell phone, you'll think differently about all this....
Nope. Stupid people will be stupid. No amount of legislation will ever change that.
My bluetooth headset does everything. I don't even have to touch the phone to make a call. Please, don't ban everything. Go after these idiots, but not me.
(02-20-2009 04:53 PM)cb4029 Wrote: [ -> ]My bluetooth headset does everything. I don't even have to touch the phone to make a call. Please, don't ban everything. Go after these idiots, but not me.
If caught, it's a crime.. but not that serious compare to a politician not paying taxes..
One of Scott Murphy's companies, Small World Software, incurred three tax liens for failure to pay taxes, interest and penalties. More than nine years later, two liens are still outstanding. Murphy claims that the new ownership of the business was responsible for the warrants, but documents show that Murphy was, in fact, responsible for the liens, either as the company’s owner or as Chief Operating Officer of the very company (iXL, Inc.) where Murphy tries to place the blame.
(02-20-2009 04:52 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]Nope. Stupid people will be stupid. No amount of legislation will ever change that.
They can be as stupid as they want, as long as they promise to run each other off the road and leave the rest of us alone.