Texting and Driving Bill

[Seamus McBundy]

Our Gov apparently vetoed a bill banning texting while driving. In his statement to defend his position he states the following reason...

"Texting while driving is reckless and irresponsible. I support measures that make our roads safer for everyone, but House Bill 242 is a government effort to micromanage the behavior of adults. Current law already prohibits drivers under the age of 18 from texting or using a cell phone while driving. I believe there is a distinction between the overreach of House Bill 242 and the government's legitimate role in establishing laws for teenage drivers who are more easily distracted and laws providing further protection to children in school zones.

The keys to dissuading drivers of all ages from texting while driving are information and education. I recommend additional education on this issue in driving safety and driver's education courses, public service ads, and announcements, and I encourage individuals and organizations that testified in favor of the anti-texting language included in this bill to work with state and local leaders to educate the public of these dangers."

A government effort to micromanage the behavior of adults? Regardless of your position on the Sonogram bill, how can he justify requiring a woman to do or watch or hear something before getting an abortion? How is that not micromanaging?

 

[Uninformed]

Texting while driving is illegal where I live. It seems impossible to enforce, however. And there are other issues that are totally ignored like using bluetooth in the car and then having to press a button on the phone to reach the right extension. Is there a specific law that prevents eating while driving or putting on makeup while driving? I thought the law was non-specific regarding reckless driving. Is this incorrect? The sonogram stuff is totally irrelevant.

 

[Seamus McBundy]

I do believe there is something against wreckless driving. My point was not whether either of these two bills were good or bad public policy. Rather, it was my intention to seek clarity on the Gov's reasoning for passing the sonogram bill and not the texting bill. More specifically, I questioned how could he use the argument for one and not apply the same logic for the other?

 

[Ag with kids]

I disagree with the logic on the sonogram bill...

However, with regard to the texting bill, there is evidence that these bills do not reduce crashes, and in fact may INCREASE the incidence of them, rather than decrease them...

 

[Crockett]

"it was my intention to seek clarity on the Gov's reasoning."

Seamus: How long have you been an optimist?

I think we could apply the governor's reasoning to from everything from stopping at red lights to driving sober. "Damned do good gubmint tryin to tell me how to live."

Maybe I'm the only one, but I used to enjoy drinking a beer on the drive home after work on Fridays. The state passed a law against it and I quit. It probably wasn't the smartest thing to do back when I did it, but changing the law changed my behavior. I think texting while driving is way the hell more dangerous than one beer.

 

[Horns2005]

The reasoning is stupid in the face of prior legislation, but I'm not sure if the law can actually be enforced.

Mostly, I've just seen the cell phone ticket added on to people who were already speeding or some other form of reckless driving. The number of old ladies swerving in traffic has definitely gone up in my experience, and all I can see is a small glowing rectangular screen glowing from their steering wheel area.

 

[general35]

texting while driving is more dangerous than drinking while driving imo.

 

[accuratehorn]

Perry refuses to micromanage the behavior of adults, unless it is any behavior abhorrent to the religious right. Makes a lot of sense.

 

[Seamus McBundy]

Im waiting, mainly out of curiosity, to see if someone would try and defend the Gov on this.

 

[Uninformed]

I did. I think texting laws are the type of laws that make people feel warm and fuzzy but do little good. Sometimes these laws are led by liberals and sometimes they are led by Republicans so there is always a good bit of hypocrisy.

 

[Seamus McBundy]

You're right Uninformed. There is hypocrisy on both sides. No one party is immune. I am just focusing on Perry sicne he is representing the entire state and may run for president.

 

[hornpharmd]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[AustinTejasFan]

"government effort to micromanage the behavior of adults."

But the prick won't allow the voters of this state to even have a vote on casino gambling.

 

[Texanne]

I wish the Guv would have vetoed himself. HE'S the main problem with this state.

Sorry, gotta go ... the light just changed.

 

[CanaTigers]

Laws of this ilk are silly ridiculous ways to generate more revenue and justify hiring more law enforcement to spend even more funds than it generates.

Nothing should be illegal until it has an effect on someone else and then they should have mandatory sentences. That would be a much better deterrent.

Just like the massive mess with alcohol laws unless there is a definite punishment people will take their chances.

 

[Horn6721]

Cana
'"Nothing should be illegal until it has an effect on someone else and then they should have mandatory sentences."

Do you think there have been no serious accidents due to inattention of people texting?

 

[hornpharmd]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[hornpharmd]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[dheiman]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[LoveHorns]

It would help if you actually understood the sonogram bill and not just the talking points from it's opponents.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[LoveHorns]

Btw, I would also point out that one of the arguments made against this law in the Legislature, from the more liberal members, is that police officers can pretty much stop anyone, for any reason they want, under the guise that they thought they were texting. With such high probability of the driver having a cell phone on them in the car, it makes the claim of an "unlawful stop" pretty hard to prove.

 

[dheiman]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Well, if we're talking about outlawing all activities that contribute to wrecks...

When I was growing up, that included changing the music on my stereo and having an animated conversation with the person in the passenger seat.

I've seen issues with people eating in their car, putting on makeup in their car, dealing with their kids in the car, dropping something into the floorboard in their car, looking at a map in the car... so why aren't we doing anything about those things?

If I pull up to a stop light, I should be able to do whatever I want to do in my own car provided it's not obscene. (I probably opened the floodgates for fun on that comment, but I figured I'd rather do a pre-emptive strike than have someone bring it up later...)

The point is that like anything else, we're taking away liberties of responsible people for the purpose of hitting the lowest common denominator.

And btw, the idea of comparing drinking to texting is ridiculous. Texting does not impair motor functions... actually it may, but they probably need to study that - it definitely impares social skills and verbal ability. But if I stop at a light and send a quick text, I can start right back up again and be completely unimpared. Not true of alcohol.

 

[Ag with kids]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Seamus McBundy]

Lovehorns, you're right. I should have read the bill to clearly understand what is required and what is not. I see there is no requirement for the women to view the sonogram, but they would still be required to have the sonogram correct? Are there any circumstances in which a woman would not be required to have a sonogram before an abortion (Not talking about rape or emergency situations)?

It also states that a doctor give a verbal description. Can she opt out of that too? Or can she only object to viewing the sonogram?

 

[JohnnyM]

AwK - It's an interesting study but the article provides little evidence that links crash rates with texting bans. It should also be expected that immediately after a ban, people may try to "game the system" and end up less safe. I would bet that reduces over time, as people just learn to accept the rule. The study doesn't link crash rates to texting other than comparing ban states to no-ban states. There could possibly be other factors involved rather than simply texting bans.

There is no logic (that I'm aware of, but feel free to provide some) that one could apply to suggest that texting while driving is actually SAFER than not texting while driving. The bill and the movement is aimed not at making the activity illegal, but by actually getting people to stop doing it. If there end up being MORE accidents, it's not the law's fault - it's us. Do you think fewer people would text and drive if there was not a ban? Again, I don't think that would be a logical step.

Before I get too far off topic though, I think we actually agree. I would think (correct me if I'm wrong) that you support efforts to get people to stop texting and driving. You don't necessarily support this effort because laws banning texting haven't had the desired effect in many states, according to your study. You don't actually think texting while driving is safer, you just think this is the wrong way to go about changing behavior.

I somewhat agree, although I don't know a great alternative. I think ultimately we will innovate our way around much of the problem, and I think it's nearly fruitless to try and get people to have fewer distractions in the car. People just aren't going to put their phone down, so we need better ways to use the phone. I think legislation could actually act to foster innovation in these categories - although I would hate to ever see someone use that argument in favor of the legislation. It's just a byproduct.

 

[CanaTigers]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Ag with kids]

In reply to:

---

---