IN considering ban on hand-held phones while driving.

[chipbennett]

Way more inept drivers today. The driving behavior of someone using a phone, is damn near the same as a drunk.... speed up, slow down, rolling through lights/stop signs, weaving in and out of lanes, abrupt stops.
I support this law because it allows LE to stop people and tell them to knock it off. One of the worst accidents I ever worked was related to someone being distracted by their cell phone.

Don't reckless driving laws already exist? Can they not be used to pull over such erratic drivers? Rolling through a stop sign is also already illegal, is it not?

Why does the *specific reason* for the erratic driving matter?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Don't reckless driving laws already exist? Can they not be used to pull over such erratic drivers? Rolling through a stop sign is also already illegal, is it not?

Why does the *specific reason* for the erratic driving matter?

Reckless driving is a crime. I prefer to be able to issue a warning or citation than arrest. And while other elements may justify an infraction stop, that does not get at the crux of the problem - driving while using a cell phone. The act alone is safety issue to other drivers.

 

[chipbennett]

...that does not get at the crux of the problem - driving while using a cell phone. The act alone is safety issue to other drivers.

It is a safety issue for some, but not for all. Laws should deal with those who actually cause harm to others, not restrict the freedom of those who do not cause harm.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It is a safety issue for some, but not for all. Laws should deal with those who actually cause harm to others, not restrict the freedom of those who do not cause harm.

So wait until there is an injury to intervene? I guess that's a matter of opinion regarding if you want your law enforcement proactive give or reactive. I've arrested way more people being proactive.

 

[chipbennett]

So wait until there is an injury to intervene? I guess that's a matter of opinion regarding if you want your law enforcement proactive give or reactive. I've arrested way more people being proactive.

There is certainly a balance that must be struck. I believe that the vast majority of malum prohibitum laws (90% 95% 99%) do absolutely nothing to prevent harm, or to provide a net societal gain.

In general: yes. I believe that the government, and its agents, should not intervene until there is an injury (or imminent risk or probable cause of an injury).

 

[dusty88]

So wait until there is an injury to intervene? I guess that's a matter of opinion regarding if you want your law enforcement proactive give or reactive. I've arrested way more people being proactive.

You just said you've seen them weaving, slowing like a drunk. I believe you, because I saw someone like that on the interstate a few weeks ago. It concerned me enough that I called 911, but by the time they had the full info the driver was back on course and we had changed counties. (thus me thinking it was a distraction and not a drunk)

Why not pull over the person who is weaving, whether you have anything to ticket them for or not?

That serves more purpose than writing a ticket to someone who was merely caught with a phone, perhaps actually using pretty good awareness and prioritizing their driving over their conversation.

 

[rambone]

Police should have to abide by the exact same laws as the citizens. Too bad so many people are OK with naked hypocrisy and double-standards.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Police should have to abide by the exact same laws as the citizens. Too bad so many people are OK with naked hypocrisy and double-standards.

Should we? I think that topic deserves separate thread.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You just said you've seen them weaving, slowing like a drunk. I believe you, because I saw someone like that on the interstate a few weeks ago. It concerned me enough that I called 911, but by the time they had the full info the driver was back on course and we had changed counties. (thus me thinking it was a distraction and not a drunk)

Why not pull over the person who is weaving, whether you have anything to ticket them for or not?

That serves more purpose than writing a ticket to someone who was merely caught with a phone, perhaps actually using pretty good awareness and prioritizing their driving over their conversation.

Then perhaps we should arrest people that use phones and have a driving behavior similar to drunks. And actually, I have seen more fatalities, in recent years, due to drivers using a phone than being intoxicated. If people are ok with arresting people for phone use when driving erratically, then I can see not having a law specific to phones. How well do you think that will go over?

 

[olhorseman]

Police should have to abide by the exact same laws as the citizens. Too bad so many people are OK with naked hypocrisy and double-standards.

IMHO I would rather be on the road with a LEO who has had training and attained skills through the vast number of hours behind the wheel running over the speed limit than on the road with a 19Y.O. on the phone OMGing with their BFF running under the limit.

 

[chipbennett]

Then perhaps we should arrest people that use phones and have a driving behavior similar to drunks. And actually, I have seen more fatalities, in recent years, due to drivers using a phone than being intoxicated. If people are ok with arresting people for phone use when driving erratically, then I can see not having a law specific to phones. How well do you think that will go over?

Again: the issue is the erratic driving, and not the cell phone. Use of a cell phone by itself, unaccompanied by erratic or otherwise dangerous driving, does not constitute reasonable suspicion that the driver is impaired/distracted. On the other hand, lane-weaving, arbitrary speed changes, cutting off other drivers, and other forms of erratic driving DO constitute reasonable suspicion that the drier is impaired/distracted.

The cause of the distraction/impairment is irrelevant. The person could be talking on a phone, changing the radio station, dealing with unruly backseat passengers, drunk, getting road head, or simply driving in an intentionally aggressive/antagonistic manner. It is the erratic driving, and not the cause of the erratic driving, that poses a risk to other drivers, pedestrians, etc.

 

[dusty88]

Then perhaps we should arrest people that use phones and have a driving behavior similar to drunks. And actually, I have seen more fatalities, in recent years, due to drivers using a phone than being intoxicated. If people are ok with arresting people for phone use when driving erratically, then I can see not having a law specific to phones. How well do you think that will go over?

In line with this and what chipbennett said, I WOULD like to see people cited for erratic driving, failure to signal, driving slow in the left lane, and other disruptions that actually cause accidents.

 

[JollyMon]

Saying you may hurt someone while talking on the phones while driving, so lets ban talking on the phone while driving.... is the same as saying you may hurt someone with a firearm, so lets ban firearms.

 

[spec4]

Saying you may hurt someone while talking on the phones while driving, so lets ban talking on the phone while driving.... is the same as saying you may hurt someone with a firearm, so lets ban firearms.

I believe it is already illegal to shoot from a vehicle, especially while it is moving.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Saying you may hurt someone while talking on the phones while driving, so lets ban talking on the phone while driving.... is the same as saying you may hurt someone with a firearm, so lets ban firearms.

It's also the same as let's ban drinking alcohol/being drunk while driving. And the impairment is remarkably similar. So, does anybody have an issue if I start arresting people using phones while driving, if they exhibit the same driving behavior as an intoxicated person?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It's also the same as let's ban drinking alcohol/being drunk while driving. And the impairment is remarkably similar. So, does anybody have an issue if I start arresting people using phones while driving, if they exhibit the same driving behavior as an intoxicated person?

Honest question...texting and driving has been illegal for what, 2-3 years now? How many people get ticketed for that crime annually? The attention that activity takes, I would wager, takes much more than a phone call and requires a driver to have his/her attention off the road for a much longer amount of time. Yet, people still text despite the law.

 

[dusty88]

It's also the same as let's ban drinking alcohol/being drunk while driving. And the impairment is remarkably similar. So, does anybody have an issue if I start arresting people using phones while driving, if they exhibit the same driving behavior as an intoxicated person?

well, now that you mention it....

I definitely don't think having a "drink" in the car should be illegal

Cracking open your beer after work and taking a few sips before you make it home should be no different than having a Coke in the car. That's another law similar to this, unfair, and stupid. It presents an undeserved arrest opportunity.


Seems similar to me. Using my phone and driving appropriately shouldn't be a crime. If I'm behaving stupidly with it and driving dangerously then yes, that's a problem.

 

[bwframe]

Honest question...texting and driving has been illegal for what, 2-3 years now? How many people get ticketed for that crime annually? The attention that activity takes, I would wager, takes much more than a phone call and requires a driver to have his/her attention off the road for a much longer amount of time. Yet, people still text despite the law.

It's because the law has no teeth.

$1500 fine and 90 day loss of license + points for distracted driving is a start.
$100 bounty for anyone providing case winning video of offenders.

That'd stop 90% of distracted driving tomorrow.

Heck, I'll be set up as a rolling bounty hunter and you can bet I won't be alone.

 

[drillsgt]

It's also the same as let's ban drinking alcohol/being drunk while driving. And the impairment is remarkably similar. So, does anybody have an issue if I start arresting people using phones while driving, if they exhibit the same driving behavior as an intoxicated person?

I could get behind it if you are also going to arrest all the cops I see doing it as well. We could add on there no laptop use, no radar, no radio, better not drink your coffee, etc. You can't create a totally prophylactic society.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I could get behind it if you are also going to arrest all the cops I see doing it as well. We could add on there no laptop use, no radar, no radio, better not drink your coffee, etc. You can't create a totally prophylactic society.

Why not, if the person is operating a vehicle similar to an intoxicated driver, and is breaking traffic laws?