"Homeless" Looking Officer Watching For Texting Drivers

[IndyDave1776]

Ah, but accusations must be proven in court! Officers can't be everywhere and after an accident happens that is the result of texting, I'd like the officer to be able to prove it in court. I'm not so much worried about the idiot texting as I am concerned about the victims.

Why the hell does it make any difference? If a person causes an accident, deal with it appropriately. It doesn't make any difference whether he was texting, fell asleep, was reading his mail, or playing with himself. He either is nor is not responsible for causing an accident.

AAs long as you don't mind allowing the victim to sue those who do so into the poor farm.

That doesn't sound like a fair statement. Appropriate financial responsibility is a foregone conclusion. Making the next five generations of the victim's family independently wealthy is something else completely.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Why the hell does it make any difference? If a person causes an accident, deal with it appropriately. It doesn't make any difference whether he was texting, fell asleep, was reading his mail, or playing with himself. He either is nor is not responsible for causing an accident.

I agree with IndyDave on this. Laws seem to beget laws. Can we please stop? This is the same type of rationale that anti-gunners use to go after "high capacity clips" or how we end up with "hate crimes". Assault is assault. Murder is murder. A car wreck is a car wreck. If you're responsible for the accident, does it make any difference what you were doing to cause it? Will eliminating "high capacity clips" stop murders?

 

[bwframe]

We already have a law in Indiana against texting while driving. What we need to do is give it some teeth and advertise it.
No reason for cops to take away their time from enforcing the left-lane-luker law. The texting law can be enforced after the fact.

If an accident can be determined the result of a texting distracted driver, the fine will be $1500 and mandatory documentation notification to the BMV and the culprit's insurance company. Problem solved.

 

[IndyDave1776]

We already have a law in Indiana against texting while driving. What we need to do is give it some teeth and advertise it.
No reason for cops to take away their time from enforcing the left-lane-luker law. The texting law can be enforced after the fact.

If an accident can be determined the result of a texting distracted driver, the fine will be $1500 and mandatory documentation notification to the BMV and the culprit's insurance company. Problem solved.

Why? How are you more severely harmed in an accident caused by someone who is texting than you are in the same accident caused by someone for any number of other reasons including plain stupidity without any secondary causes?

Why do we need to be so vengeful regarding texting but not eating, drinking, reading, talking to passengers, fussing with children, shaving, reading, playing with the radio, applying makeup, trimming fingernails, or engaging in sexual activity (which, once again, I have had the misfortune to witness happening on the highway)?

 

[bwframe]

Why? How are you more severely harmed in an accident caused by someone who is texting than you are in the same accident caused by someone for any number of other reasons including plain stupidity without any secondary causes?

Why do we need to be so vengeful regarding texting but not eating, drinking, reading, talking to passengers, fussing with children, shaving, reading, playing with the radio, applying makeup, trimming fingernails, or engaging in sexual activity (which, once again, I have had the misfortune to witness happening on the highway)?

Because, as stated up thread, texting takes much much more time and attention than all of the other distractions mentioned (maybe even combined .)

Anyone one without the sense to refuse text while driving needs an education. My recommendation would do that through their wallet. That will work.

But hey, I'm plenty open to expanding these strict and expensive penalties to all distracted driving, so long as it includes the most dangerous problem facing us on the roadway, texting while driving.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Because, as stated up thread, texting takes much much more time and attention than all of the other distractions mentioned (maybe even combined .)

Anyone one without the sense to refuse text while driving needs an education. My recommendation would do that through their wallet. That will work.

But hey, I'm plenty open to expanding these strict and expensive penalties to all distracted driving, so long as it includes the most dangerous problem facing us on the roadway, texting while driving.

And, as also stated up thread, it doesn't make a difference. The collision either did or did not happen. Deal with it at the level of harm actually having been done.

I will agree with you that texting and driving is a terrible idea. I wouldn't do it even if there were no consequences in the universe other than the elevated chances of hitting something/someone. That doesn't justify state-sponsored theft over a pre-crime in which no harm has been done to any victim.

While we are talking about fines, do you really think it is reasonable that if YOU get caught talking on the phone while driving, no big deal, but if I do, the fines add up to fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000.00)? Tell me, if we go down this path, where is the limit? You proposed $1500 for texting. I am already sitting on nearly ten times that for talking. Why not make it $50K, or $100K? Becoming homeless would teach someone a good lesson, wouldn't it? After all, the republic died quite a while back. Big Brother has spoken. Comply or else.

 

[Dirtebiker]

You don't agree?

Changing the radio station is as dangerous as texting? No, I don't agree.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Changing the radio station is as dangerous as texting? No, I don't agree.

While I would tend to agree that texting is more intensely distracting than fiddling with the radio, it is still irrelevant. Either harm was or was not done. Everything else is a matter of detail.

 

[dusty88]

Because, as stated up thread, texting takes much much more time and attention than all of the other distractions mentioned (maybe even combined .)

Anyone one without the sense to refuse text while driving needs an education. My recommendation would do that through their wallet. That will work.

But hey, I'm plenty open to expanding these strict and expensive penalties to all distracted driving, so long as it includes the most dangerous problem facing us on the roadway, texting while driving.

I'm with you on the sentiment against texting and driving.

But why tie the accident to the texting ? I kind of agree with the hate crime analogy here. If someone beats you while keeping their mouth shut, do they deserve less punishment than the person who called you a racist name why they did it?

If someone rear ends you because they drive to work to sleepy that day and/or they didn't bother fixing their brakes, and the accident results in permanent injury to you, does that person deserve less consequence than (for example) someone with a similar accident who was found to have possibly hit "y" and "send"?

In some cases, the texting may be the entire cause of the accident (certainly driving with their head down, sending repeated messages is). In other cases, the text might have taken less distraction than the legal maneuver of looking at your nav and pushing 1 button.

It's just not the appropriate parameter for punishment.

 

[Dirtebiker]

No....we can not do that because it is OK to be distracted and drive.
I read it on Ingo.

Oh God, I just channeled Kirk.....

You need a Catholic priest!

 

[churchmouse]

You need a Catholic priest!

The Holy Water....It burns.......

 

[longbow]

I hang my iPad on my steering wheel when driving. I have 4 g. So I'm not breaking the law unless I'm also texting....

 

[bwframe]

And, as also stated up thread, it doesn't make a difference. The collision either did or did not happen. Deal with it at the level of harm actually having been done.

I will agree with you that texting and driving is a terrible idea. I wouldn't do it even if there were no consequences in the universe other than the elevated chances of hitting something/someone. That doesn't justify state-sponsored theft over a pre-crime in which no harm has been done to any victim.

While we are talking about fines, do you really think it is reasonable that if YOU get caught talking on the phone while driving, no big deal, but if I do, the fines add up to fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000.00)? Tell me, if we go down this path, where is the limit? You proposed $1500 for texting. I am already sitting on nearly ten times that for talking. Why not make it $50K, or $100K? Becoming homeless would teach someone a good lesson, wouldn't it? After all, the republic died quite a while back. Big Brother has spoken. Comply or else.

I'm guessing the stiff penalty has worked on you. At the very least, you are truly cognizant of your phone usage penalty and thus extremely careful with it, if you ever push the limit at all. We need that same mentality taught to the general driving public. A general driving public that has been raised without manners, common courtessy, or regard for their fellow man.

I chuckled thinking about this thread when I made a quick afternoon run into Btown today. I literally had to take evasive driving action twice to avoid being in accidents with distracted drivers. There was no time to sort out their distraction. I passed 23 car string of left lane bumper to bumper traffic on the wrong side while driving the 46 bypass, then another dozenish the same way on 37.

People won't learn unless we educate them and they won't be educated without stiff penalties for their ignorance.

 

[BE Mike]

Why the hell does it make any difference? If a person causes an accident, deal with it appropriately. It doesn't make any difference whether he was texting, fell asleep, was reading his mail, or playing with himself. He either is nor is not responsible for causing an accident.

Dave, I consider texting and driving to be nearly as big a problem as driving under the influence of drugs and/ or alcohol. When they are on the road, they are a huge hazard to the general public. Since these folks can't or won't control themselves, they need to be stopped and punished accordingly, but not after they have damaged others' property or injured/killed an innocent person(s). Prevention is the key to public safety. IMHO, people cannot multi-task. Safe driving requires full attention to the effort. It is also not a right, but a privilege.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Dave, I consider texting and driving to be nearly as big a problem as driving under the influence of drugs and/ or alcohol. When they are on the road, they are a huge hazard to the general public. Since these folks can't or won't control themselves, they need to be stopped and punished accordingly, but not after they have damaged others' property or injured/killed an innocent person(s). Prevention is the key to public safety. IMHO, people cannot multi-task. Safe driving requires full attention to the effort. It is also not a right, but a privilege.

The same argument could be used for a gun confiscation. It is unreasonable to wait for someone to gun down a school full of kids, we need to stop it before it happens and innocent people are killed. Guns are a huge hazard to the general public. Gun owners can't/won't control themselves as evidenced by the existence of incidents like Columbine, Sandy Hook, et. alia.

Are you really sure you want to punish pre-crime?

As for the right/privilege argument, you apparently aren't old enough to remember when that started. My grandfather explained to me how it had been considered just as much a right as any other freedom of movement/travel until the 1950s when it suddenly received much fanfare as a 'privilege'. It seems to me that passively accepting this definition based solely on the absence of specific constitutional attention can be a very dangerous idea, especially if you consider the Ninth Amendment to be correct in principle, in which case, as a matter of principle, it should be applied at the state level as well, incorporation status notwithstanding. Accepting this in my reckoning amounts to coming down on the wrong side of the "What should be do?/What can we get away with doing to people?" argument.

 

[Goodcat]

I damn near called the local ABC57 TV station over the weekend. A idiot was texting and driving like a moron in heavy traffic near the mall in heavy traffic while driving. Even cut a car off with a improper lane change. I still regret not doing it.

What was their screen name?

 

[bwframe]

I am acutely aware of the fact that some goddamned busybody with a badge can bankrupt me for doing something he would never have any indication I was doing without looking in my windows (in other words, if it caused erratic driving, it would be different, but then again, if that were the standard rather than literal highway robbery, they would simply ticket dangerous acts while driving). Before this was regulated, I never had any issues stemming from multitasking. Then again, I was also selective about how much multitasking I would or would not do depending upon circumstances, i.e., driving down a vacant, straight, level interstate is entirely different than driving on 465. I would also add that I take great umbrage at the fact that this is applied selectively to one subset of the population. Further, we on one hand are told that the superhumans should not be bound by the same laws as everyone else because they are 'professionals' and on the other I get treated like a f*cking 3 year old for being labeled a 'professional'. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

The same argument could be used for a gun confiscation. It is unreasonable to wait for someone to gun down a school full of kids, we need to stop it before it happens and innocent people are killed. Guns are a huge hazard to the general public. Gun owners can't/won't control themselves as evidenced by the existence of incidents like Columbine, Sandy Hook, et. alia.

Are you really sure you want to punish pre-crime?...

My friend, you are obviously quite jaded by your work environment on this subject. Comparing texting while driving enforcement to gun control?

 

[IndyDave1776]

My friend, you are obviously quite jaded by your work environment on this subject. Comparing texting while driving enforcement to gun control?

Yes, I am. Pre-crime as a principle applies equally to both of those as well as a good many other things. My work environment is not the source of being jaded, although its peculiarities do tend to rub a lot of nonsense in my face. The basic problem is that once you move the bar for punishment from actually harming others to punishment on account of others deriving fear of some type from your actions, possessions, or state of being, you have opened the door to an insidious regime of tyranny in which anything that someone else finds frightening can be outlawed ranging from simple prohibition to draconian retribution for having harmed no one. Laws against specific acts of multitasking while driving are based entirely upon possibilities, not actual results, driven by the fears of others. Laws against guns are derived entirely from the fears of uninvolved parties, not the actual actions of the people being infringed upon. Should we also be fined for not shaving since some children are afraid of men with beards?

Once you move past a naive idea of 'reasonable' infringements which spring from the same well as "This is America. That can't happen here," you are left with the unfortunate truth that the line of division is at either allowing or disallowing government overreach. There is no such thing as limiting government to an 'acceptable' level of overrreach. It is either prohibited or the door is open, and it is perpetuated by convincing people to believe in the myth that it can be limited to 'reasonable' levels.

 

[bwframe]

Yes, I am. Pre-crime as a principle applies equally to both of those as well as a good many other things. My work environment is not the source of being jaded, although its peculiarities do tend to rub a lot of nonsense in my face. The basic problem is that once you move the bar for punishment from actually harming others to punishment on account of others deriving fear of some type from your actions, possessions, or state of being, you have opened the door to an insidious regime of tyranny in which anything that someone else finds frightening can be outlawed ranging from simple prohibition to draconian retribution for having harmed no one. Laws against specific acts of multitasking while driving are based entirely upon possibilities, not actual results, driven by the fears of others. Laws against guns are derived entirely from the fears of uninvolved parties, not the actual actions of the people being infringed upon. Should we also be fined for not shaving since some children are afraid of men with beards?

Once you move past a naive idea of 'reasonable' infringements which spring from the same well as "This is America. That can't happen here," you are left with the unfortunate truth that the line of division is at either allowing or disallowing government overreach. There is no such thing as limiting government to an 'acceptable' level of overrreach. It is either prohibited or the door is open, and it is perpetuated by convincing people to believe in the myth that it can be limited to 'reasonable' levels.

The reason there are new laws to control the terrible behavior of many drivers is large amount of drivers witnessing and victims of this deadly dangerous behavior. As witnessed by the numbers of people posting in this thread to confirm such, this is still a huge issue.

Regardless of your individual professional problems, this massive texting while driving problem continues to exist and will continue to have innovative methods adapted to enforce these laws.

With all due respect, I have never been a fan of the use of the "that's the same as the anti-gunners" as an unrelated attempt to hush up opposing opinion on a gun owner forum.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The reason there are new laws to control the terrible behavior of many drivers is large amount of drivers witnessing and victims of this deadly dangerous behavior. As witnessed by the numbers of people posting in this thread to confirm such, this is still a huge issue.

Regardless of your individual professional problems, this massive texting while driving problem continues to exist and will continue to have innovative methods adapted to enforce these laws.

With all due respect, I have never been a fan of the use of the "that's the same as the anti-gunners" as an unrelated attempt to hush up opposing opinion on a gun owner forum.

You are sorely missing the point if you believe that. The foundation of traditional common law rests on the notion that if there is not an identifiable victim, a crime has not occurred. Your being afraid of [texting, guns, vehicles capable of exceeding 60mph, whatever else] is not a justifiable argument that a crime has occurred. This rests on the same underlying argument used against guns--a problem I would expect you of all people to understand. You are succeeding at convincing me that you operate not on principle but on preference and opinion.

I find it disturbing that you first find no problem with having different laws for different people and second that you have no problem with intrusive laws in which punishments up to and including potential lifelong financial ruin for doing something that does not harm but rather offend the sensibilities of someone else. At a level of logic and principle, that puts you in the same basket with the anti-gunners, just with a different set of preferences and fears that you believe to deserve legislation against the fear rather than against actual harmful behavior.

Innovative methods? Rather than peeking in windows and imposing thousand or multi-thousand dollar fines for administrative violations, how about letting manslaughter charges, for example, stand as a deterrent. In the wonderful world of mandatory sentencing and requiring a law for even the most remote of contingencies, we have forgotten that we already have plenty of useful criminal law and those wonderful devices of aggravating and mitigating circumstances available.