PSA: 7/1/20 indiana hands free driving

[jwamplerusa]

I've had more people try to take me out while putting on makeup drinking their morning mocha, or possibly something stronger, and otherwise just flat not paying attention then I think I have with people texting and driving.

keep in mind I have a time frame of reference that predates cell phones and texting, so yeah there's that.

As with seat belt laws, required insurance, and a whole host of other things; government needs to quit trying to be a nanny state and remember that they are there only to do the minimum. Do no harm, excess useless mostly pile it on laws, do harm. Men should have few laws, and breaking them should be dealt with harshly.

 

[jkaetz]

I've had more people try to take me out while putting on makeup drinking their morning mocha, or possibly something stronger, and otherwise just flat not paying attention then I think I have with people texting and driving.

keep in mind I have a time frame of reference that predates cell phones and texting, so yeah there's that.

As with seat belt laws, required insurance, and a whole host of other things; government needs to quit trying to be a nanny state and remember that they are there only to do the minimum. Do no harm, excess useless mostly pile it on laws, do harm. Men should have few laws, and breaking them should be dealt with harshly.

Sadly there is a good portion of the population that must be told what to do and governments are happy to do so.

 

[IndyBeerman]

I think you'll find most of the people unhappy with the law don't use devices while driving. I don't. I won't even take a call hands free while on a highway.

In fact, I hate it when people do use them. While driving into Chicago for work, I would have problems with people doing so regularly. It would be great to magically make it all go away.

How many people do you think even know this law exists?

So here we go again, just proof that people want to biotch about something not affecting them. People like that will complain about any and everything regardless of the issue, more than likely because they think life sucks and want everyone else to hear them roar so a pitty party can be thrown for them.

I still remember years ago on the day the texting law went into effect, a person in Richmond drove their vehicle into a building or something and was ticketed. I'm a firm believer anyone doing something that takes their
attention off the road reading/texting/putting on makeup/getting dressed while driving should get a distracted driver ticket. Imagine how much rear end collisions would drop if people paid more attention. You'd be amazed on how many people drive their car under the trailer of a tractor trailer in front of them. Those DOT bumpers are decapitators.

 

[two70]

For everyone bi**ching about having to go hands free, no one is keeping you from being able to make or receive calls, it's not a money grab. It's a safety issue. Would never had come to this if people would have been responsible enough to pay attention while driving a 3,000+ pound missile down the road. People are trying to do way to many things while driving a vehicle down the road and not doing the main thing while behind the wheel.

Paying attention to what's in front and around them while driving.

The only thing it has to do with safety is the illusion thereof. If it were really about safety then hands free devices would be banned as well since having a conversation while driving is just as distracting whether you're holding the phone or not. We've had a law against texting and driving for quite awhile and there is very little enforcement, why would we expect this to be any different? It's hard to imagine that officers do not have far more important things to do with their time.

 

[Hookeye]

I live by a busy edge of town road. 4 lanes. Medical down the way, food the other.
See tons of people on phones as I try to leave the addition.
Mostly women, young to middle aged.
Usually looking down at the phone, it resting on bottom of the steering wheel.
Really noticeable at night LOL (way less traffic though).

If I get a call I just pull off the road, try for a parking lot, and take the call.
Sitting on the side of the road, good chance some drunk or phone fugger will hit ya.

 

[Hookeye]

Phone teen got the ol lady's Jeep last yr, not bad but a couple K damage. No injuries.

 

[KLB]

So here we go again, just proof that people want to biotch about something not affecting them. People like that will complain about any and everything regardless of the issue, more than likely because they think life sucks and want everyone else to hear them roar so a pitty party can be thrown for them.

I still remember years ago on the day the texting law went into effect, a person in Richmond drove their vehicle into a building or something and was ticketed. I'm a firm believer anyone doing something that takes their
attention off the road reading/texting/putting on makeup/getting dressed while driving should get a distracted driver ticket. Imagine how much rear end collisions would drop if people paid more attention. You'd be amazed on how many people drive their car under the trailer of a tractor trailer in front of them. Those DOT bumpers are decapitators.

I don't want any more nanny laws. Each time they pass one they are emboldened to pass the next one.

So really anything other than watching the road with both hands on the wheel? Changing the radio station, eating, drinking, talking to a passenger, yelling at the screaming kids, all are distractions as well. I want people to pay attention, but I don't want the police pulling people over for not doing so.

Just as people still speed, this law will not stop people from driving distracted. People are dumb.

 

[Gabriel]

I'm driving right now.

 

[Hop]

Indiana Code 2020 - Indiana General Assembly, 2020 Session

IC 9-21-8-59    Use of telecommunications device while operating a moving motor vehicle     
Sec. 59. 
     (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), a person may not hold or use a telecommunications device while operating a moving motor vehicle.
     (b) A telecommunications device may be used in conjunction with hands free or voice operated technology.
     (c) A telecommunications device may be used or held to call 911 to report a bona fide emergency.
     (d) A police officer may not, without the consent of the person:
          (1) confiscate a telecommunications device for the purpose of determining compliance with this section;
          (2) confiscate a telecommunications device and retain it as evidence pending trial for a violation of this section; or
          (3) extract or otherwise download information from a telecommunications device for a violation of this section unless:
          (A) the police officer has probable cause to believe that the telecommunications device has been used in the commission of a crime;
          (B) the information is extracted or otherwise downloaded under a valid search warrant; or
          (C) otherwise authorized by law.
     (e) The bureau may not assess points under the point system for a violation of this section occurring before July 1, 2021.
As added by P.L.185-2011, SEC.4. Amended by P.L.191-2014, SEC.1; P.L.100-2020, SEC.3.

THAT'S why I bumped this thread up. That text is not the same as what I found on another in.gov page.

Look at the different wording.

I found:

IC 9-21-8-59 Use of telecommunications device while operating a moving motor vehicle

Sec. 59. (a) A person may not use a telecommunications device to:
(1) type a text message or an electronic mail message;
(2) transmit a text message or an electronic mail message; or
(3) read a text message or an electronic mail message;
while operating a moving motor vehicle unless the device is used in conjunction with hands free or voice operated technology, or unless the device is used to call 911 to report a bona fide emergency.
(b) A police officer may not, without the consent of the person:
(1) confiscate a telecommunications device for the purpose of determining compliance with this section;
(2) confiscate a telecommunications device and retain it as evidence pending trial for a violation of this section; or
(3) extract or otherwise download information from a telecommunications device for a violation of this section unless:
(A) the police officer has probable cause to believe that the telecommunications device has been used in the commission of a crime;
(B) the information is extracted or otherwise downloaded under a valid search warrant; or
(C) otherwise authorized by law.


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[bwframe]

I'm driving right now.

See now, that 's exactly the problem with the nanny laws. There are plenty of folks with the ability to drive and do whatever safely.

The penalty should be on those folks that actually caused the accident from their distracted driving. It should have some teeth too, enough to deter the bad behavior.

$5000 fine, suspended license until fine paid, insurance company and employer notification, subject to civil suit for damages.

That kind of fine could apply to everyone on the road.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

See now, that 's exactly the problem with the nanny laws. There are plenty of folks [STRIKE]with[/STRIKE] that think they have the ability to drive and do whatever safely.

The penalty should be on those folks that actually caused the accident from their distracted driving. It should have some teeth too, enough to deter the bad behavior.

$5000 fine, suspended license until fine paid, insurance company and employer notification, subject to civil suit for damages.

That kind of fine could apply to everyone on the road.

FIFY... The truth is, they don't. But I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[Gabriel]

THAT'S why I bumped this thread up. That text is not the same as what I found on another in.gov page.

Look at the different wording.

I found:

IC 9-21-8-59 Use of telecommunications device while operating a moving motor vehicle

Sec. 59. (a) A person may not use a telecommunications device to:
(1) type a text message or an electronic mail message;
(2) transmit a text message or an electronic mail message; or
(3) read a text message or an electronic mail message;
while operating a moving motor vehicle unless the device is used in conjunction with hands free or voice operated technology, or unless the device is used to call 911 to report a bona fide emergency.
(b) A police officer may not, without the consent of the person:
(1) confiscate a telecommunications device for the purpose of determining compliance with this section;
(2) confiscate a telecommunications device and retain it as evidence pending trial for a violation of this section; or
(3) extract or otherwise download information from a telecommunications device for a violation of this section unless:
(A) the police officer has probable cause to believe that the telecommunications device has been used in the commission of a crime;
(B) the information is extracted or otherwise downloaded under a valid search warrant; or
(C) otherwise authorized by law.


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

That is the older version that went into effect in 2011. It only covers texting and emailing while driving. I never saw it enforced due to the fact that you could be doing literally anything else with your phone and you weren't breaking that law.

 

[Tombs]

It's been that way in a commercial vehicle for about 6 years now. Instill see drivers with the phone to their ear on a daily basis.

In commercial driving settings, maybe not OTR, at least back when I was doing it professionally...

You had to juggle a CB radio, company radio, and a phone while driving an 8 speed. And it was a requirement as part of keeping your employment that when the boss calls, you answer. If you pull off the road to take the call, you might as well be ready to start filing unemployment, because you're going to **** the customer off for wasting time. I just about lost my job when I got stuck between sites because of an extremely long train.

Back then texting and driving could be done reasonably since you didn't have to look at a phone to know what you were typing. With touch screen phones that's impossible.

I can't imagine anything important enough being discussed outside of a commercial setting to warrant driving with a phone glued to your head, though.

But yeah as BWf said, I fully agree with the enforcement being on the prosecution side of things if the individual causes an accident. Just like how I feel drugs should be treated. Though, someone too drunk to drive reasonably is a pretty obvious issue and reckless driving is already illegal, so not exactly hard to agree with enforcement of that.
I think cops, for the most part, already apply the law in a very reasonable way on these issues anyway.

I do not have a **** ** for “cops.” Just that I would like to see law enforcement set a positive example. For those living in caves who may not be aware of the law, observing law enforcement practicing this may lead those to believe there is nothing wrong in do so. If you’re butt hurt because I pointed it out that was not my intent. I was merely hoping that our local police force would understand they are constantly scrutinized and must do their best to set a good example. If folks are speeding, running red lights, etc. they are breaking the law. The same applies to law enforcement if not following traffic laws themselves. The difference is a citizen has no power to cite infractions or arrest. Simple fact.

In a lot of professional situations, laws like this aren't necessarily even possible to follow. You have no idea what that cop may have been on the phone for, may have been speeding for, or may have been blowing a light for.

Sometimes the potential ticket is a lot cheaper than the alternative.