Here in the fabulous state of CA, we have a TWD (texting while driving) law which penalizes you if you are caught and I do believe it is half as severe as DUI.
It is a legitimate problem here because drivers are not only blatantly rude in the areas of So. CA, but on top are oblivious and inconsiderate and when you call them on it they either play dumb, blame you, "flip the bird", or yell back at you for being too uptight--if not outright road rage confrontations. Add in texting and you have even more problems.
It is a law addressing a legitimate and serious problem. Now having said that, I think it ought to be state-to-state ONLY at the MOST.
Though it seems our next door neighbor NV is beginning to consider it and for good reason: Las Vegas gets morons from around L.A. who come up there to party and have a good time and thought it's ok to text while driving down there since there is no laws against it.
Similarly up north, Carson City and Reno are getting just as sick of it b/c they are the near-valley cities to the sierra mountain areas like Lake Tahoe, and have direct highway veins to Sacramento and central CA themselves (which are *NUTS* around the holidays). Since those areas are a bit more rural between 2 state capitals, there is less road space. Grid-locked traffic + claustrophobia is already bad enough, now it has texting juxtaposed into it.
All around it for hundreds of miles of road you have people coming from all over to be in the areas of Sacramento CA to Reno NV.
NV is otherwise pretty bare and unpopulated--yet their population majority of a mostly conservative state are beginning to consider it.
Over here on the western side of America it seems people are content to try to buck the system at every turn and nearly every time eating their words in one form or another because of it. If not ending up hurt or killed in a crash.
My opinion, I think addressing somehow it is worth the time where the problems persist, this is a problem afterall. The hows and whys of application are what I am willing to hear reason with.
Totenkopf, mimartin, you both know I am rightward leaning. However this is a growing problem that gets harder and harder to deny. So then try to convince me that CA's new law to address and combat this problem is overkill. It's still too early yet to look at any statistical data on how effective this law actually is/has been.
I am willing to hear you out, though: Redundant laws and dings for $$$ through fines and stuff like that are something I won't abide from a simple freedom point of view.
Originally Posted by mimartin
Galveston County Texas is set to ban texting while driving.
I for one believe this proposed law is almost as ludicrous as texting while driving. Isn’t there already laws governing safe driving? If someone is recklessly driving while texting, can’t the police officer already give them a citation for reckless driving? If they were honest they would tell the truth, this is merely a tax increase in the disguise of public safety.
I agree. But what about when people continue to ignore it and the problems it causes?
And no, I do not text or read text messages while driving. I do not even talk on the cell phone unless driving down some back country deserted county road.
I don't even have a cell phone.
I have been around to many auto fatalities in my life to risk contributing to that number. I just think there are already laws covering this type of behavior and this is merely opening another revenue stream.
I don't condone it b/c of similarly being around injuries and fatalities, and moreso bailing vehicles out of ditches and snow berms.
So then, what would you do differently with existing laws to get the message through to particularly dense people who seem to refuse to "get it"?
If you disagree then please explain the last line of the article.
No, I agree it's a total money grab--and lying utter BS through their teeth. That's why I want
you to convince me of another way to do it that would be effective because statistics don't lie, nor do the victims' families, or graves for that matter.
For Extra: What would you tell Nevadans, whom are seriously looking into adopting these laws, to consider as an alternative?