Bill would ban text-messaging while driving

Rockmeister

Rockmeister

All-Star
SACRAMENTO (AP) -- California would outlaw text-messaging while driving under a bill that's headed for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk.

The state already requires adult drivers to use handsfree devices for cell phones. It bars 16- and 17-year-olds from using any device to talk or text while driving.

Senate Bill 28, approved Thursday, would authorize $20 fines for adults if they're caught text-messaging while driving. Repeat offenses could result in $50 fines.

Read rest of story
http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=46748&catid=2
 
Yes please! That's almost as scary as people reading while driving.
 
I would think this would be rather obvious -- between talking on the phone while driving, or actually reading on the phone while driving and then typing a response, which sounds more dangerous to you? :eek:
 
GoGoGadget said:
I... don't see how this isn't already covered by the hands free law.
Click to expand...

From what I have read it isn't - that only covers talking. Texting is already covered by generic "safe / distracted driving" laws, as is eating, applying makeup, etc., but this would specifically address texting.

Let's see if I can find the article.....

Yep - here it is:

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1027244.html

Call it a loophole, perhaps, but California's ban on driving while talking on a hand-held cell phone does not extend to text messaging.

But Assemblyman Chuck DeVore said banning specific distractions is a slippery slope, and unnecessary, because motorists already can be cited for reckless driving.

Drivers' attention can be affected by changing CDs, putting on makeup, or by loud music, pets, crying babies, smoking, eating and other things, he said.
Click to expand...
 
GoGoGadget said:
That's just crazy to me.
Click to expand...
So was having a woman applying mascara in her rearview mirror while tailgating me at 70 on the highway. Not to mention scary. Fortunately, she decided I was driving too slow, so she swung over to an adjacent lane to pass me. Still working on that mascara. :eek:

This one seems obvious to me too. An oversight in the "hands free" legislation.

I've seen people changing clothes, shaving, working on a laptop, having sex, having a dog in their lap, reading maps, reading the newspaper etc, while driving.

I was also rear-ended on the freeway while stopped in traffic, by a woman who I watched talking to her passenger until she looked at the road too late. It was a five-car, rear-end accident.

A law against blatant stupidity while driving would probably include too many people, though. ;)
 
As it stands right now the cell phone law does not cover texting, as wierd as that sounds. However, you still can get cited for texting while driving (or putting on mascara, anything that makes it dangerous to drive) under VC 22350 (Unsafe speed for the conditions - the condition in this case is texting).

Its always fun at traffic court when someone rolls in with that ticket for texting. They always make the best stories.
 
I've always been curious about the whole driving while on the phone thing. I don't really see how it impairs a mature driver. I understand the views against texting while driving, because it requires you to actually look at the phone (in most cases).

But for me, I've only seen people driving poorly while on the phone a small number of times.

I think that people just in general drive poorly and if we see them on the phone, we just use that as a reason.

I don't see the difference with an adult experienced driver driving with one hand on the wheel while looking at the road vs. one hand on the wheel while looking at the road while holding a phone.

So, that begs the question, if talking on the phone is the issue, why is it universally accepted to allow hands-free devices?
 
I think the reason hands free are accepted is because banning talking while driving period would bring the business world to a screeching halt, for one, and having a hands free device allows both hands on the wheel, which is arguably safer.

I know personally I drive like an idiot while the phone is on my ear, but I drive a lot better with my bluetooth on. I'm able to actually look over my shoulder while the bluetooth is in vs. the real phone.
 
C Diddy said:
I've always been curious about the whole driving while on the phone thing. I don't really see how it impairs a mature driver. I understand the views against texting while driving, because it requires you to actually look at the phone (in most cases).

But for me, I've only seen people driving poorly while on the phone a small number of times.

I think that people just in general drive poorly and if we see them on the phone, we just use that as a reason.

I don't see the difference with an adult experienced driver driving with one hand on the wheel while looking at the road vs. one hand on the wheel while looking at the road while holding a phone.

So, that begs the question, if talking on the phone is the issue, why is it universally accepted to allow hands-free devices?
Click to expand...

I guess I'm missing something. I think we have too many laws already - and I think the police already have the tools to ticket someone for doing something stupid. It's not a matter of a law on the books so much as a matter of deciding if we want the police taking the time to actually stop people and write tickets for stupidity. (And yes, I'm agreeing that texting while driving is definitely on the "stupid" list.) It's not like the "stupid" people are really going to quit doing their stupid things just because there's a NEW law about it. They'll still do them - taking their chances that there won't be a cop around to actually witness them.
 
I'm not sure if you meant to quote me there, as you really didn't respond to me directly. I'm not advocating an additional law, I just indicated that I understood the intent behind it.
 
I started out to agree with you about the whole "driving on the phone" thing but then realized after I had opened the "quote" window that I actually wondered why we needed any more laws at all on this topic.

I equate it to having a law against wearing hats and yet having to pass new legislation about various colors of hats.

I don't understand the need for ANY new legislation as this is adequately covered but simply not previously enforced.

Sorry for any confusion...
 
I think this legislation is intended to grab attention and put people on notice. Plus, it lays out a very specific penalty for driving while on the phone or texting.

I agree that we have too many laws as it is, and this one isn't likely to deter very many people from doing dumb things (anymore than speed limits keep people from speeding).
 
Superman said:
I think this legislation is intended to grab attention and put people on notice. Plus, it lays out a very specific penalty for driving while on the phone or texting.

I agree that we have too many laws as it is, and this one isn't likely to deter very many people from doing dumb things (anymore than speed limits keep people from speeding).
Click to expand...



I don't think there is any such thing as "too many laws as is" when it comes to clarification. Clarification is good. Because I absolutely 100% guarantee you if you leave something unclear, you leave a loophole, you are doing nothing but encouraging frivolous litigation. Somebody will seize upon the potential hole and argue it through the courts, and for what? Because we have "too many laws"/are too lazy to fix it? Just fix the damn law, make it clear, and then its nice and clean (except of course for the inevitable yahoo who tries to argue its unconstitutional or whatever).

People often accuse lawyers of causing the massive backlog of frivolous lawsuits, but its not them who create the conditions for that -- its sloppy and incomplete legislation by amateur lawmakers. You leave a hole there that might benefit somebody's client, of course they are going to try to take advantage of it.
 
If the legislation banning cell phone usage had been even a little better thought out, they wouldn't be having to "fix" it. I guess my real problem is with inept legislators... of course, I've been of the opinion few of them are worth the powder it would take to blow them to Mars for a very long time, anyway.

:p
 
I don't think we have "too many laws" but we certainly have "unnecessary" ones. Having this fall under the regular reckless driving statutes works for me.
 
pdxKingsFan said:
I don't think we have "too many laws" but we certainly have "unnecessary" ones. Having this fall under the regular reckless driving statutes works for me.
Click to expand...


And it certainly could, but you know who sorts that out? The courts. the lawyers.

Legislators actually dump that crap on lawyers all the time -- writing vague laws works for everybody. The legislators don't have to waste tiem and effort writing clear laws. The lawyers earn lots of nice fees sorting out what the laws really mean in court. And the judges who rule on these things get to actually make the laws. Everybody wins. Its actually a hallmark of our system. People think its by accident or its because of aggressive lawyers, but its actually a choice. Small government = vague goivernment. Vague government = is going to have be sorted out by somebody. So it falls on the courts.

Again, clarity is good. There is nothing wrong with a law providing that clarity. If you don't have a law providing that clarity, you will get multiple court cases providing it instead. And maybe they do or maybe they do not come down the way you would want them too. And you still are going to have peoiple testing the issue by arguing that the facts of their case are slightly different etc. Write a good law = pretty much closes the issue.
 
Last edited:
Bricklayer said:
And it certainly could, but you know who sorts that out? The courts. the lawyers.

Legislators actually dump that crap on lawyers all the time -- writing vague laws works for everybody. The legislators don't have to waste tiem and effort writing clear laws. The lawyers earn lots of nice fees sorting out what the laws really mean in court. And the judges who rule on these things get to actually make the laws. Everybody wins. Except for the citizens.

Again, clarity is good. There is nothing wrong with a law providing that clarity. If you don't have a law providing that clarity, you will get multiple court cases providing it instead. And maybe they do or maybe they do not come down the way you would want them too. And you still are going to have peoiple testing the issue by arguing that the facts of their case are slightly different etc. Write a good law = pretty much closes the issue.
Click to expand...
But if I understand it as it is now a cop wouldn't pull someone over because they were texting, but if they were pulled over for another offense and texting it compounds on the original ticket. So this isn't clarifying, its adding a new law, which I'd consider unnecessary.
 
pdxKingsFan said:
But if I understand it as it is now a cop wouldn't pull someone over because they were texting, but if they were pulled over for another offense and texting it compounds on the original ticket. So this isn't clarifying, its adding a new law, which I'd consider unnecessary.
Click to expand...


Now you seem to be arguing that the problem is you think it should be ok (or a non-pullover offense) to text while driving. I, on the other hand, think that if you are texting while driving you are putting me and mine at direct risk of your stupidity, and the cop should be able to pull you over, take your phone., stomp on it, and then slap you silly. Maybe equip the cops with big ole paddles and let them just give public spankings right there on the side of the road. Far more effective than fines.
 
Bricklayer said:
Now you seem to be arguing that the problem is you think it should be ok (or a non-pullover offense) to text while driving.
Click to expand...
I do. And if you cause a wreck they oughta be able to impose draconian fines and sentences.
 
Texting is no more or less dangerous than putting on makeup, etc. There are a few people who do very stupid things while operating a vehicle. If a cop sees them doing something that is obviously affecting their driving, he should pull them over. It shouldn't take a myriad of laws to define stupid.
 
VF21 said:
Texting is no more or less dangerous than putting on makeup, etc. There are a few people who do very stupid things while operating a vehicle. If a cop sees them doing something that is obviously affecting their driving, he should pull them over. It shouldn't take a myriad of laws to define stupid.
Click to expand...


Of course it does.

Or a myriad of court cases.

"Stupid" is inherently subjective (and often defined by whether the person making the call does the same stupid thing or not). So is "reckless", "negligent" or any of the other legal standards. And if you are not very explicit about what the law will be, then you are going to get varied results depending upon the judge, the jury, and the talent of the various lawyers.
 
The more laws, the more lawyers needed to find the loopholes. Sorry, Brickie, you and I will just have to agree to disagree about the underlying philosophy here...

:)
 
pdxKingsFan said:
I do. And if you cause a wreck they oughta be able to impose draconian fines and sentences.
Click to expand...


Oddly, waiting until a) somebody kills some innocent person, destroying their life and the lives of their family;l and b) then dropping the hammer on the perp and destroying the perp's life, and the life of his/her family before taking any action does not appeal to me nearly so much as having a direct, unambiguous law on the books to prevent it all from happening in the first place.

Human nature being what it is, if there is ambiguity, wiggle room, cloudiness, people are always going to assume it won;t apply to them, won't happen to them, that they are in the right, etc. You put something explicit down, its much harder to ignore. They banned cell phone talking while driving, I guarantee you that the number of people willing to risk that activity plummeted when that happened.
 
Last edited:
VF21 said:
The more laws, the more lawyers needed to find the loopholes. Sorry, Brickie, you and I will just have to agree to disagree about the underlying philosophy here...

:)
Click to expand...


Not the way it works with lawyers though -- lawyers thrive on ambiguity and vaccuum. The more explicit the laws, the less you give lawyers to do -- well, trial lawyers to do. Then the profession just shifts over to compliance with the legal fields rather than litigation.

You leave ambiguity and any lawyer worth his/her salt can argue the case home from either side, and the really good ones from both sides at once. And they will. In the courts.
 
Bricklayer said:
Oddly, waiting until a) somebody kills some innocent person, destroying their life and the lives of their family;l and b) then dropping the hammer on the perp and destroying the perp's life, and the life of his/her family before taking any action does not appeal to me nearly so much as having a direct, unambiguous law on the books to prevent it all from happening in the first place.

Human nature being what it is, if there is ambiguity, wiggle room, cloudiness, people are always going to assume it won;t apply to them, won't happen to them, that they are in the right, etc. You put something explicit down, its much harder to ignore. They banned cell phone talking while driving, I guarantee you that the number of people willing to risk that activity plummeted when that happened.
Click to expand...
How many fatal accidents are actually caused as a result of driving while texting? Obviously its a ridiculously stupid thing to do, but I'd like to see some proof that its a major threat to the road going public at large and not just another method to allow police officers to make more traffic stops.
 
Don't know the background, or how reliable the study is, but this article mentions that a driver is 10 times more likely to leave their lane while texting than someone not texting.

http://www.independentmail.com/news/2008/jan/03/clemson-study-shows-texting-while-driving-well-dum/

Again, as it stands now you absolutely pulled over for texting while driving. They can pass a law all they want, but cops are citing people for it every day.

Personally, I think that passing the law, while a step in the right direction, would be a nightmare to enforce. Remember, the officer (or me, if you hire a damn attorney for your traffic ticket) has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were driving. How easy is that going to be to prove unless you are holding the phone high enough for him to see. When I've texted while driving I certainly don't wave it in the air for everyone to see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top