[JJ]

http://autos.aol.com/article/one-tow...6pLid%3D182952

[raydad]

More useless, "feel good" legislation. Wonder if the cops will close their laptops and turn their radios off so they won't be distracted while driving.

[14Red]

I actually like this legislation better than no texting and driving. There are many things that are distracting drivers (eating, reading, putting on makeup).

[cross_block]

Reading billboards, road signs, listening to the radio, talking to others in the car, talking on the cell phone......

[fbgom]

The deer by the side of the road, the dog running loose, the people jaywalking, the car running the yellow light...

So many distractions, so little time.

As much as you'd like this to be "feel good" legislation you might as well call it what it is; revenue enhancement with a little warrantless search thrown in for good measure. You suspect someone of having drugs in a vehicle full of college age kids, but observe no other traffic offenses or probable cause for a stop? BINGO! That driver looks a little distracted...better pull him over.

Back to the drawing board.

[14Red]

So be it. The innocent have nothing to hide.

[BG Warthog]

This is just plain ridiculous. Auto manufacturers keep adding gizmo and gadgets to make their vehicles more 'entertaining' (that is, distracting). So now the driver can get pulled over for using the features on the car???

[fbgom]

14Red...Are you suggesting that having nothing to hide means that you should be willing to be subject to random searches at any time for no reason? Do you trust that power to be used responsibly and not abused? Or do you simply think you can get by with not caring because you don't think you'll be affected?

Not trying to bash...just asking.

[14Red]

I like our constitutional rights as much as anyone. But you have to give the authorities probable cause to pull someone over. How many times have you seen drivers going down the road with their head down?? They are texting. Under current laws, you can't pull someone over for that unless they speed, have an accident or do something else that warrents pulling them over.
Why is it that when rules are stiffened, people use the "revenue enhansement" card?? Maybe they just want to make it safer?? Maybe they just want people to stop rear ending each other because they aren't paying attention anymore?
If I get pulled over and they want to do a search, go ahead, again, I have nothing to hide. Unless you can't carry Mt. Dew in the car?

[Wingman3]

Originally Posted by 14Red

So be it. The innocent have nothing to hide.

That can go for anything then.... if the innocent have nothing to hide then you'd be willing to give me your Social Security Number, ATM pin, and Birth date correct? If you have nothing to hide then post it on the Huddle and let that information out there.

[Wingman3]

Originally Posted by 14Red

I like our constitutional rights as much as anyone. But you have to give the authorities probable cause to pull someone over. How many times have you seen drivers going down the road with their head down?? They are texting. Under current laws, you can't pull someone over for that unless they speed, have an accident or do something else that warrents pulling them over.
Why is it that when rules are stiffened, people use the "revenue enhansement" card?? Maybe they just want to make it safer?? Maybe they just want people to stop rear ending each other because they aren't paying attention anymore?
If I get pulled over and they want to do a search, go ahead, again, I have nothing to hide. Unless you can't carry Mt. Dew in the car?

Even with this law on the books will it stop people from texting while driving? No. Even if you can get pulled over just for texting

How many times have you been on a long drive and zoned out only to be startled back to reality by the rumble strip? Or how many times have you missed a turn or exit because you were thinking about something while you were driving? Hvae you ever talked on your phone while driving? Talked to people in the car? Changed the radio? Picked up a cig you dropped (for those that smoke)? Looked to see what time it was? Those would all be distractions. And we all know that just being distracted slightly can cause an accident or keep you from preventing being in one yourself.

The police might as well just pull everyone over on every block and have "distraction check points"

If governments "really wanted to make things safer" they should just outlaw the auto completely and have us go back to horse and buggy, the speeds are less and the horses would be able to avoid some accidents if the person isn't paying attention.

How many conversations have you had while driving with people in the car, or how many times were you the distraction to someone else? Do you still have nothing to hide? And do you have those SS, ATM and birth dates plastered on your dash or car to show you have nothing to hide?

[14Red]

All great points wing, but I just think at some point, it's got to stop. Most people have to physically look at their phone while texting/ or reading a text. We all know the police won't pull people over for eating, drinking or changing radio stations, but if you see a person looking straight down while driving, you should be able to pull that person over. If someone was driving with a blindfold on, you want to stop them, wouldn't you?

[Wingman3]

I can't find the article/stats anymore but I do remember that when text banning laws are enacted that the results are similar to putting up red light cameras, accidents increase. For the red light cameras, the number goes up because people hit the brakes and tend to stop on yellows for fear of getting a ticket while the person behind rear ends the person in front of them because they thought they were going through the light. When the texting ban is enacted accidents increase because people still text but they hold the phone down on their lap "so they won't get caught" which takes any periferal vision off the road. When there was no ban, the phone would be more up in front of them, giving them some vision of the road. Some attention here is better than none.

I personally haven't texted while driving in years, I'll either wait until I've arrived at my destination or have the passenger text for me.

It's been illegal to drink and drive for much longer than texting has been a capability with a phone and there are still drunk driving deaths. In any case all people just need to make better decisions.

[Wingman3]

Saw a few intersting quotes from a few council members in an article on fox news...

This is definately a way to inhance revenue not about safety, because if the driving habits won't change if the law is passed or not, then why pass a law? Just to appear you're doing something or that you "care?"

“I don’t think the way people drive is going to change significantly whether the law passes or not,” McComber said, “and I’m a lot more concerned about how I’m going to balance the budget for 2013.”


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/...#ixzz21fAbCgvj

Then this one...

“This isn’t about banning people from eating or drinking while driving, but preventing them from trying to do both while steering the car with their knees or thighs,” McComber said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/...#ixzz21fB48Ufa

The law is so vague, that each officer will have to determine if the driver is distracted. Steering with your knees... ok... using one hand to eat the burger but steering with the other? One office could think that's distracted driving while another thinks it's ok. The enforcement can't be consistent. This is different than a speed limit being enforced... there is at least a measurable limit to how fast you can go. Some officers enforce it strictly, while others may let people go 5-10 mph over, but when you're pulled over you know that no matter how much over the limit you were over the limit.

Here there could be 2 officers, and 2 drivers that are both following the speed limit, one eating with both hands and the other with just 1 while driving. Both are "technically" distracted but the 2 hander is pulled over while the other is able to continue.

Now you can fight the ticket on principle and maybe 1 judge agrees you're not distracted and the city now is on the hook for court costs, while another judge decides against the driver but in the next case he could side differently.

Not to mention this could open up profiling cases against the police if they are continuously pulling over high school and college kids just because they may look down when they pass a cop, but when looking at the cell phone there were no messages sent or received or calls.

This from the chief...

“From outside the car, an officer can’t tell if someone is sending a text message or dialing a phone number, so the state law essentially unenforceable,” Conner said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/...#ixzz21fEmMqDW

So somehow they're able to determine other things are distractions? How is this ordinance anymore enforcable than the state law?

[fbgom]

If the goal is to increase safety, (or cut down on unsafe driving if you like), why not just enforce the existing law?

Ohio Revised Code 4511.20 Operation in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property. (Reckless Operation)

(A) No person shall operate a vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar on any street or highway in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property.

(B) Except as otherwise provided in this division, whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to one predicate motor vehicle or traffic offense, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of two or more predicate motor vehicle or traffic offenses, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree.

Are people more likely to pay attention because there is another local ordinance that says essentially the same thing?