A Massachusetts man was cited this week under the state's new law banning texting while driving.Gotta give props to the guy, though. He owned right up to it - and was promptly ticketed. I suppose that the NHSP could subpoena the cell phone logs and determine if a text was sent at the exact moment of the citation (or thereabouts), but is that really an effective use of police time? Texting while driving is stupid, foolish, and dangerous; however there's a multitude of other perfectly good laws to charge someone with should they cause an accident because of their distracted driving.
Pelham police said an officer noticed that the driver of a vehicle that passed him Monday morning had his cell phone propped on his steering wheel and appeared to be using it to text.
As usual, follow the benjamins:
The penalty for texting and driving is $100.Yeah. "Public safety" my hairy Italian ass.
That is all.
9 comments:
It's reckless driving!!! I hate these moronic no-texting laws. Call it what it is, and get the typically bigger reckless driving fine.
Oh, but wait, if you cite someone multiple times for reckless driving they might lose their license (as they damned well should). But you can't shear a dead sheep. Bastards.
Sorry for the mini-rant, and thanks for inducing the blood boil.
I didn't know that NH had a nanny-state "no texting" law. Frack! Guess I should put away the phone while I drive. I wonder if "I wasn't texting officer, I was googling" would do anything?
I dislike the laws.
If you want to improve public safety, how about fining/penalizing those folks that are in or cause an accident and then double it if they are using a cell phone?
Or bring back public flogging -- start with the drunk drivers who cause accidents.
See if that does reduce traffic 'accident's quickly
Bob, the idea is to fine people so that they stop the bad behavior before they cause an accident. Well, that's the theory, anyway.
Of course, he could be charged (in MA) with Driving to Endanger, which is a misdemeanor, not a civil infraction. I'm sure that NH has a similar crime.
I generally don't much care for this type of law, but texting is far worse that just talking on the phone. Texting occupies your mind, your eyes, and your hands and you need at least two of those to drive reasonably.
Almost being T-boned while on a response this morning by a moron who was texting doesn't improve my frame of mind either. It's bad enough that they're drunk, have the windows rolled up with music blasting at 1,000 mega decibels, now they have something else to distract them.
TOTWTYTR,
I understand the theory but question if it is effective and if supporting stuff like this doesn't put us in the same camp as the gun control crowds.
Their justification is the same....make it stop before the bad behavior.
We see how well that has worked; not just with firearms, but alcohol and the war on some drugs.
Dallas is dealing with a maroon that drove drunk and killed a mom and daughter; injured the dad and 2 other kids.
He has been convicted 3 times before of DWI.
The penalties aren't high enough so let's change that.
Let's get rid of the excuses
If you drive distracted for the following reasons (cell phone, radio, eating, reading novels, etc) and cause a crash -- 6 months in jail.
If you cause a fatality -- 10 to 25 years in jail - No early release.
How many people want to risk such draconian punishments?
Solution...
Close app, open up Google maps. And explain to the officer you were just using your GPS.
--
I tend to be anti cell phone bans.
As I drive better talking on a cell phone than 90% of the population does in general.
And if cells should be banned, so should truckers talking on their CB radios while driving (I lived in CT on I-95, and the vast majority of serious accidents I saw involved truckers driving like sports cars.)
--
It's only reckless if you're driving recklessly.
Sorry, I've probably got over 100,000 miles driving while talking on a cell phone without an accident. Heck, I don't even have a moving violation.
That said, there are many who are incapable of talking and driving. It doesn't matter if it's on a cell phone or to a passenger.
"Texting while driving is stupid, foolish, and dangerous...should they cause..."
Change "texting" to "drinking"; how's that read now?
I'm no fan of nanny laws, but impaired operation is just that. Waiting for the accident to happen really isn't the answer.
Double Trouble,
There are some people who can have a drink or two and be safe enough to drive.
There are some people who can text and drive and be safe.
What should we do? Enforce draconian laws that remove radios, CD Players, conversations from the car?
Should we require alcohol detecting interlocks on all cars sold?
however there's a multitude of other perfectly good laws to charge someone with should they cause an accident because of their distracted driving.
Jay's point and mine - is we already have sufficient laws on the books (sounds like the pro-gun argument, eh?); let's use those to enforce the consequences of a bad decision -- not create new laws that one stop anyone.
Seen on a bumper sticker:
"Honk if you love Jesus. Text while driving to meet him today."
Post a Comment