"Homeless" Looking Officer Watching For Texting Drivers

[churchmouse]

Get it.

I hope so.

 

[dusty88]

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.

How about texting while at a stoplight?

That may create an annoyance, but not a danger.

 

[churchmouse]

How about texting while at a stoplight?

That may create an annoyance, but not a danger.

No danger. It is an annoyance as you say.

If there are vehicles behind you at the light it is just the right thing to do to get as many through on the green as possible.

Again.....just use the laws that are in place to cover this. Reckless driving pretty much covers any accident caused by "Distracted" driving for what ever reason the driver is off in La-La land.

 

[IndyDave1776]

How about texting while at a stoplight?

That may create an annoyance, but not a danger.

That is an excellent point, but I am satisfied that we need to take a few steps back. The basic problem is how much government overreach is acceptable. In a way, I can understand our INGO neighbors who would probably consider themselves supporters of liberty, yet in reality support intrusive, overreaching, iron-fisted government with cutouts for their own personal hobby horses, in this case, the Second Amendment, at least within the parameters they may prefer to exercise it. I have been there before myself, with the high water mark at about 12 years old. I was well on the way to a better understanding by the time I was finished with high school, and by my mid twenties pretty thoroughly disabused of the notion that having a government wielding that kind of power and honestly believing that I had any real freedom were mutually exclusive as under such conditions, and freedom is only one vote of legislature from extinction.

Also frightening is the lack of understanding of the matters of principle upon which a free republic must necessarily rest, including the acceptance of people having the right to choices not necessarily compatible with our own opinions of right and proper with the cost of not accepting that right being a trip right back to the point of having no rights but rather living on the revocable and conditional privilege that the government can end at any time when it decides that our personal cutout from the iron-fisted micromanagement of our lives is no longer compatible with its needs/goals/gratification of the day.

 

[dusty88]

No danger. It is an annoyance as you say.

If there are vehicles behind you at the light it is just the right thing to do to get as many through on the green as possible.

Again.....just use the laws that are in place to cover this. Reckless driving pretty much covers any accident caused by "Distracted" driving for what ever reason the driver is off in La-La land.

Yeah, I agree.

The specific texting law is just as likely to punish someone who isn't driving dangerously.

 

[bwframe]

...Reckless driving pretty much covers any accident caused by "Distracted" driving for what ever reason the driver is off in La-La land.

If it really did, we wouldn't be talking about this, now would we?

 

[dusty88]

If it really did, we wouldn't be talking about this, now would we?

Clarify what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that because potential charges don't prevent all accidents, that additional preventative charges will prevent them?

 

[steveh_131]

If it really did, we wouldn't be talking about this, now would we?

Murder, manslaughter, etc. pretty much covers any gun violence occurrences, yet we still have to talk about gun control all the time.

 

[Gluemanz28]

How about texting while at a stoplight?

That may create an annoyance, but not a danger.

Not a danger at the light but when the light turns green and they still have their heads down texting, Churchmouse and I are laying down on our horns for the texter to move along so that everyone possible can get safely through the intersection. Then they will more than likely continue the texting while driving if they didn't finish the text or to read the reply.

Another rant is the people that go through the light after it turns red. I can see this if you are already out in the intersection (which isn't legal but everyone does it including me) and need to clear it. I have noticed that at least one and sometimes two more cars will go through that are still behind the white line where they are supposed to stop. I believe a lot of this is because of distracted drivers not paying attention at traffic lights. It is not just texting but it is the biggest causing issue that I see on a daily basis.

The drivers are frustrated when its their turn to go and they see two or three cars keep going after the light turns red. The cars behind in the line then do the same to the next group waiting to go. It just seems to snow ball and continue to get worse.

Ok rant over.

 

[ccomstock001]

Not a danger at the light but when the light turns green and they still have their heads down texting, Churchmouse and I are laying down on our horns for the texter to move along so that everyone possible can get safely through the intersection. Then they will more than likely continue the texting while driving if they didn't finish the text or to read the reply.

Another rant is the people that go through the light after it turns red. I can see this if you are already out in the intersection (which isn't legal but everyone does it including me) and need to clear it. I have noticed that at least one and sometimes two more cars will go through that are still behind the white line where they are supposed to stop. I believe a lot of this is because of distracted drivers not paying attention at traffic lights. It is not just texting but it is the biggest causing issue that I see on a daily basis.

The drivers are frustrated when its their turn to go and they see two or three cars keep going after the light turns red. The cars behind in the line then do the same to the next group waiting to go. It just seems to snow ball and continue to get worse.

Ok rant over.

I was taught in drivers ed that you are allowed to go through once the light turns. I don't like it when everyone else thinks they get to go too. And I really hate the people who have to turn right in front of you when the light turns green.

I have no problem with checking your phone at a stop light I do it on occasion with if someone were to stop me I would tell them I'm not driving I am sitting at a light.

 

[bwframe]

Clarify what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that because potential charges don't prevent all accidents, that additional preventative charges will prevent them?

Murder, manslaughter, etc. pretty much covers any gun violence occurrences, yet we still have to talk about gun control all the time.

I'm a proponent of stiff expensive penalties for accidents resulting from proven texting while driving. Enforcing the laws we already have, if breaking them results in an accident, with a large fine and BMV/insurance notification.

Otherwise, enforcement doesn't need to change. If an officer witnesses erratic driving that can be associated with texting, he may issue a citation accordingly. Indiana officers state that strict enforcement of OUR texting while driving law is difficult at best prior to bad results.

 

[churchmouse]

If it really did, we wouldn't be talking about this, now would we?

My point is that we do not need any "New" laws to cover activity that as mentioned above, may cause someone that is operating their vehicle safely to be targeted.
Target laws are just another level of punishment like "Hate" crimes. Of course they hated the person, that is why they were stomping on them. This action is already covered so why a target law. If you are driving erratically find out why. DUI is a separate issue in my eyes but this to could be seen by many as a Target Law.
I am not pushing the issue stated in the OP. Just saying that maybe the sting being ran is a push.

 

[bwframe]

My point is that we do not need any "New" laws to cover activity that as mentioned above, may cause someone that is operating their vehicle safely.
Target laws are just another level of punishment like "Hate" crimes. Of course they hated the person, that is why they were stomping on them. This action is already covered so why a target law. If you are driving erratically find out why. DUI is a separate issue in my eyes but this to could be seen by many as a Target Law.
I am not pushing the issue stated in the OP. Just saying that maybe the sting being ran is a push.

It is my understanding that in Indiana you can text legally while the vehicle is stopped at a light. The sting wouldn't be possible in Indiana.

 

[Bill of Rights]

It is my understanding that in Indiana you can text legally while the vehicle is stopped at a light. The sting wouldn't be possible in Indiana.

Are you sure of this? As I recall, someone sitting behind the wheel at a school, even with the car off, was considered to still be operating the vehicle under the old law that prohibited the possession of a firearm on school grounds unless the person in possession of it was licensed and neither the person nor the gun ever left the vehicle while on that hallowed ground...

If that's so, would not the driver of a vehicle in gear at a light, still running on the public roads, also be operating the motor vehicle?

I don't know the answer, but I would like to.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[KLB]

My point is that we do not need any "New" laws to cover activity that as mentioned above, may cause someone that is operating their vehicle safely.
Target laws are just another level of punishment like "Hate" crimes. Of course they hated the person, that is why they were stomping on them. This action is already covered so why a target law. If you are driving erratically find out why. DUI is a separate issue in my eyes but this to could be seen by many as a Target Law.
I am not pushing the issue stated in the OP. Just saying that maybe the sting being ran is a push.

We have soooooo many laws already that no one can know them all. Hate crime, gun crime, etc all need to go.

Texting laws seem like another law designed to give another excuse to stop people to generate "interactions"and collect revenue.

I personally won't text while driving. My attention stays on the road and the surrounding vehicles. There is too much stupid crap going on to lat my attention wander away from the task at hand.

 

[BE Mike]

It is my understanding that in Indiana you can text legally while the vehicle is stopped at a light. The sting wouldn't be possible in Indiana.

How many times does the light have to change colors for the driver to be considered distracted?

 

[churchmouse]

How many times does the light have to change colors for the driver to be considered distracted?

Car lengths.........

 

[bwframe]

It is my understanding that in Indiana you can text legally while the vehicle is stopped at a light. The sting wouldn't be possible in Indiana.

Are you sure of this? As I recall, someone sitting behind the wheel at a school, even with the car off, was considered to still be operating the vehicle under the old law that prohibited the possession of a firearm on school grounds unless the person in possession of it was licensed and neither the person nor the gun ever left the vehicle while on that hallowed ground...

If that's so, would not the driver of a vehicle in gear at a light, still running on the public roads, also be operating the motor vehicle?

I don't know the answer, but I would like to.

Blessings,
Bill

NO MORE TEXTING WHILE DRIVING IN INDIANA | Allen Wellman McNew Harvey, LLP | Greenfield, Indiana

NO MORE TEXTING WHILE DRIVING IN INDIANA
by Kevin G. Harvey June, 2011


Indiana has become the 32nd state to ban texting while driving. The new law, which becomes effective July 1, 2011, provides for assessment of fines of up to $500 for violators. There was an effort in the legislature to completely ban the use of cell phones while driving, but that prohibition did not make it into the final version of the law. The new law does not appear to ban texting while sitting at a red light, although if you try to send one then the people driving behind you will still likely expect you to begin moving as soon as the light turns green. The law specifically prohibits typing and sending a text while driving, while it does not appear to ban reading a received text while driving.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Reasonable minds can differ on where the line is drawn, but if the criteria is only "actual harm" then I could plan to murder you, even point a firearm at you, and since you've suffered no harm we all go on our merry way if I don't break the shot. If you shoot me, aren't you taking "pre-crime action" since I've yet to cause you harm? I could set up a crossbow target and a 2'x 2' backstop with your house or backyard directly behind it and start winging bolts at it. Do you need to wait for a bolt to hit you or your house before you've suffered harm? Or is the risk so unacceptable as to become criminal?

I don't really care about the texting and driving law. As written, it's nearly unenforceable. However the "pre-crime" argument doesn't really resonate with me. We have criminal recklessness, pointing a firearm, attempted (insert crime), etc. laws for a reason and they are well established. There are certain actions that simply present a level of risk, without any redeeming reward, that they are criminalized to attempt to deter people from doing them.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Reasonable minds can differ on where the line is drawn, but if the criteria is only "actual harm" then I could plan to murder you, even point a firearm at you, and since you've suffered no harm we all go on our merry way if I don't break the shot. If you shoot me, aren't you taking "pre-crime action" since I've yet to cause you harm?

I would consider this not to represent a fair comparison by virtue of one critical difference: In the issue at hand, we are discussing an activity that is not connected by purpose or intent to anyone who may consider himself threatened. By contrast, if you were to carry out your scenario, you have intent, a dangerous situation deliberately engineered to endanger me specifically, and have presented a reasonable expectation that without action taken by someone else, you fully intend to follow through with the action. By contrast, the guy texting, fiddling with the stereo, using a butter knife to apply cheese spread to Ritz crackers, or playing checkers with his passenger has done absolutely nothing to indicate intent to harm anyone.

Just for fun, I will point out another flaw: For those who will multitask under the circumstances of not having anyone else near them, but not in traffic, they suffer the additional threat of being much more likely to get caught since a passing officer will not be distracted by a crowd, even though such a person cannot be argued by even the strongest nanny state supporter to represent a threat to anyone while the poster child 'target' is far more likely to get away with it.

Now, back to another problem: Explain again please how taking a set of stated problems which are already illegal, complaining that those laws are not effectively enforced, and then crying for more laws which will potentially target people who are NOT causing the stated problems are magically going to be enforced.