"Homeless" Looking Officer Watching For Texting Drivers

[Prometheus]

Texting while driving accidents increase when states pass anti-texting laws.

As dangerous as it may be for some people to text and drive, when you make it illegal more people try and hide the fact they are texting so they put the phone down, below the dash and look DOWN.

Now no matter how distracting you think it is to have a phone between you and the road, at least a person still has peripheral vision to sense something happening. Looking down, you have nothing but lap and door handles.

As to busting people for texting while stopped? Total crock of crap. They should be commended for waiting till the vehicle was stopped before sending their message.

In any case, I voice text so it's not like I'm using my hands or looking down (my Jeep also reads my texts out loud so I don't have to look at the phone either) but at some point, I'm sure that'll be illegal and probably already is in some states.

 

[bwframe]

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.

Wait a minute. Aren't you going to call him an anti-gunner too?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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.

Well, you skipped this:

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?

So as long as I'm just stupid or careless, it should be legal for me to use you, your home, or your livestock as a backstop to my insufficient backstop?

Early in my career, I arrested a guy for shooting into the embankment of a busy interstate. He was not intending to harm any of the motorists driving by above his target. No harm, no foul?

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.

The law was written to be unenforceable. If they wanted an enforceable law, they could have simply copied the 'hands free only' laws that have been passed in other states. Instead they tried to do a please-everyone half measure, basically a law passed for show and not for function.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well, you skipped this:



So as long as I'm just stupid or careless, it should be legal for me to use you, your home, or your livestock as a backstop to my insufficient backstop?

Early in my career, I arrested a guy for shooting into the embankment of a busy interstate. He was not intending to harm any of the motorists driving by above his target. No harm, no foul?



The law was written to be unenforceable. If they wanted an enforceable law, they could have simply copied the 'hands free only' laws that have been passed in other states. Instead they tried to do a please-everyone half measure, basically a law passed for show and not for function.

OK, I did move past that one without addressing it. Launching projectiles which are not controllable once launched in the direction of others is still different than continuously operating a machine, safe function of which may or may not be affected by the pre-crime under consideration. If bullets or arrows/bolts had brakes and steering mechanisms, and were being ridden by the operators, the comparison may be more fitting.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

OK, I did move past that one without addressing it. Launching projectiles which are not controllable once launched in the direction of others is still different than continuously operating a machine, safe function of which may or may not be affected by the pre-crime under consideration. If bullets or arrows/bolts had brakes and steering mechanisms, and were being ridden by the operators, the comparison may be more fitting.

I think you're reaching trying to draw the line that fine. Projectile or not, the point is increased risk to the community by the offender's actions. That said, the whole point of distracted driving laws is I'm operating a great big projectile and unaware that I should be braking/steering when I need to be braking/steering so it is uncontrolled as long as I'm distracted. The fact I happen to be in it doesn't mean I'm in control of it.

Do you think it was fine the guy was shooting at the interstate embankment with cars driving above his target? No intent. Bullets (or arrows) follow physics, as long as he was careful and aimed correctly nobody was in any danger...right? Pre-crime when I arrested him?

 

[ljk]

I don't even read text while I'm driving, so that's my opinion:

 

[dusty88]

Well, you skipped this:



So as long as I'm just stupid or careless, it should be legal for me to use you, your home, or your livestock as a backstop to my insufficient backstop?

If actually firing your crossbow or other weapon, that comparison is more like the driver "weaving" in traffic who hasn't yet hit anyone. Setting up the target in the backyard but never using it is more like the texting driver who is not driving dangerously in any other way. Are we going to prosecute someone for what is sitting in their yard if they never actually engage in dangerous activity?

 

[BE Mike]

Texting while driving accidents increase when states pass anti-texting laws.

As dangerous as it may be for some people to text and drive, when you make it illegal more people try and hide the fact they are texting so they put the phone down, below the dash and look DOWN.

If your facts are correct, this would be a good basis for a movie. It would be funnier than "Dumb and Dumber", but the ending would be sad, as some carnage would result.

 

[steveh_131]

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?

We're talking about regulation, not individual self defense. If you cause someone to be in fear for their life, they maintain every right to kill you. This is a great incentive not to go around planning murders and pointing guns at people.

Let's keep in mind that you're comparing two very different things. Actions that demonstrate an intent to harm another person are quite different than actions that demonstrate potential for an accident.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

We're talking about regulation, not individual self defense. If you cause someone to be in fear for their life, they maintain every right to kill you. This is a great incentive not to go around planning murders and pointing guns at people.

Let's keep in mind that you're comparing two very different things. Actions that demonstrate an intent to harm another person are quite different than actions that demonstrate potential for an accident.

I see you also skipped over the hypothetical and the real incident where the actions were causing potential for an accident. I'll let you scroll back up thread and address them if you like.

Quick question in the mean time, assuming you are not engaged in criminal activity yourself are you more likely to be killed or seriously injured in a criminal event or in a traffic event?

 

[gtpilot21]

Seeing this picture must makes me laugh. I think the whole reason they put this into affect is just another reason to pull you over. It's just like a speed limit sign. There is a sign posted and 95% of the people still speed.

 

[jamil]

I'll weigh in on the side that says there is a line to draw. But I'd draw that line much closer to "no harm" than probably BBIs would.

BBIs, As far as the "backstop" question, it's really not a good example the way IoF zealots have explained it. As soon as the arrow from your crossbow crosses the plane of the property line, you've violated the owner's property rights, therefore, "harm".

But your example of shooting towards the embankment of a highway is a very good example. The risk of grave harm is high enough, and the legal consequences are effective enough that having such laws effectively reduces the risk of harm. You see the moron shooting into the embankment, you arrest his ass. Afterwards, no more risk caused by that idiot.

As far as texting and driving, I really wish people wouldn't. You're driving a damn car for crying out loud. Pay attention to the road and others using it. Should we make it illegal to do? Well, how practical has that been?

If the law says you get a ticket with a hefty fine for texting while driving, might as well beat off. You're not making anyone any safer. They'll still do it. I'd rather laws be pragmatic. If it's just an excuse to fine people, or just to say you've done something about the problem, why have the law?

I can certainly see making the laws such that it's easier for victims to successfully sue texters for causing accidents. But what good is it to fine just one of the bazillion people who text and drive? You're not really making anyone safer. Heck, when they drive off after you hand them their ticket, they'll post the experience on their FB while driving.

It's not a solution. I think it is a law for no real reason other than because "principle".

 

[churchmouse]

I'll weigh in on the side that says there is a line to draw. But I'd draw that line much closer to "no harm" than probably BBIs would.

BBIs, As far as the "backstop" question, it's really not a good example the way IoF zealots have explained it. As soon as the arrow from your crossbow crosses the plane of the property line, you've violated the owner's property rights, therefore, "harm".

But your example of shooting towards the embankment of a highway is a very good example. The risk of grave harm is high enough, and the legal consequences are effective enough that having such laws effectively reduces the risk of harm. You see the moron shooting into the embankment, you arrest his ass. Afterwards, no more risk caused by that idiot.

As far as texting and driving, I really wish people wouldn't. You're driving a damn car for crying out loud. Pay attention to the road and others using it. Should we make it illegal to do? Well, how practical has that been?

If the law says you get a ticket with a hefty fine for texting while driving, might as well beat off. You're not making anyone any safer. They'll still do it. I'd rather laws be pragmatic. If it's just an excuse to fine people, or just to say you've done something about the problem, why have the law?

I can certainly see making the laws such that it's easier for victims to successfully sue texters for causing accidents. But what good is it to fine just one of the bazillion people who text and drive? You're not really making anyone safer. Heck, when they drive off after you hand them their ticket, they'll post the experience on their FB while driving.

It's not a solution. I think it is a law for no real reason other than because "principle".

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Winner^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[BE Mike]

Stricter drunk driving laws and enforcement over the years have cut the drunk driving related accidents in half, according to MADD. It is called deterrence. If the penalties are great enough, many people may think twice about driving and texting. Some people will continue to violate the law, then whine about being caught and the huge penalties.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Stricter drunk driving laws and enforcement over the years have cut the drunk driving related accidents in half, according to MADD. It is called deterrence. If the penalties are great enough, many people may think twice about driving and texting. Some people will continue to violate the law, then whine about being caught and the huge penalties.

How far do you run with this before North Korea becomes your kind of place?

 

[BE Mike]

How far do you run with this before North Korea becomes your kind of place?

Too many bicycles there!