Coming soon from your concerned Austin City Council-a ban on texting while driving + 3 foot bicyclists buffer zone (Howe: house, to live)

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots

Hmm, I'm just wondering if that is the case. If it were then what you're saying is the laws we currently have on the books would be enough to ticket someone for using their cell phone, texting, or using a computer while driving?

I don't know enough about the legality of this to say it's true or not. You might be right.

Well, someone whose driving ability was impaired by whatever could certainly be pulled over and ticketed by the police for reckless driving, no matter what particular activity caused the problem, and isn't that the goal?

[oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Well, someone whose driving ability was impaired by whatever could certainly be pulled over and ticketed by the police for reckless driving, no matter what particular activity caused the problem, and isn't that the goal?

Yes, but I'm just visioning a courtroom where some lawyer is going to say, "where is it specifically written in Texas law"? I'm curious as to what is currently upheld under "reckless driving". All I'm saying is because it's a fairly new problem the reckless driving law may not cover it. I don't know.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots

Yes, but I'm just visioning a courtroom where some lawyer is going to say, "where is it specifically written in Texas law"? I'm curious as to what is currently upheld under "reckless driving". All I'm saying is because it's a fairly new problem the reckless driving law may not cover it. I don't know.

Per the Texas Transportation Code:

Sec. 545.401. RECKLESS DRIVING; OFFENSE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.

That appears to pretty much include any manner of driving a vehicle recklessly, whatever the particular action engaged in, be it texting or speeding or putting on make-up or whatever action is in "wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property" while operating a motor vehicle.

[oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Per the Texas Transportation Code:

Sec. 545.401. RECKLESS DRIVING; OFFENSE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.

That appears to pretty much include any manner of driving a vehicle recklessly, whatever the particular action engaged in, be it texting or speeding or putting on make-up or whatever action is in "wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property" while operating a motor vehicle.

Good point! Yes, I would agree with you. My next question would be have the police used this law in regards to texting, phone use, etc?

Thanks for the reference to the Texas law by the way.


Also, if the reckless driving law covers the above then why have a new, different law?

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots

Good point! Yes, I would agree with you. My next question would be have the police used this law in regards to texting, phone use, etc?

Thanks for the reference to the Texas law by the way.


Also, if the reckless driving law covers the above then why have a new, different law?

My point exactly! (Well, answered above when I pointed out that it keeps legislators employed, much as continually fixing roads that are just fine and buildling new ones keeps folks employed.)

[Sweeet Tea]

I have one last comment on this. By passing a law saying that texting is not allowed in school zones, in my opinion they have given permission to use a cell phone/texting anywhere else. So, the children are safer, but watch out everywhere else!

They have to be specific, otherwise people can argue it in court. "Sec. 545.401. RECKLESS DRIVING; OFFENSE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property"
This law is too vague, if this law covered texting, they wouldnt make one prohibiting it in school zones.

They have a law for drunk driving, since it affects ones ability to drive responsibly, so does texting, and in my opinion so does talking on hand held cell phones. Seat belt laws, passed for peoples safety.

Maybe the ones voting on this law love their cell phones more.

[nomore07]

Originally Posted by Sweeet Tea

I have one last comment on this. By passing a law saying that texting is not allowed in school zones, in my opinion they have given permission to use a cell phone/texting anywhere else. So, the children are safer, but watch out everywhere else!

They have to be specific, otherwise people can argue it in court. "Sec. 545.401. RECKLESS DRIVING; OFFENSE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property"

This law is too vague, if this law covered texting, they wouldnt make one prohibiting it in school zones.

Originally Posted by oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots

Yes, but I'm just visioning a courtroom where some lawyer is going to say, "where is it specifically written in Texas law"? I'm curious as to what is currently upheld under "reckless driving". All I'm saying is because it's a fairly new problem the reckless driving law may not cover it. I don't know.

Excellent points. If the existing law regarding reckless driving were considered sufficient to cover liability for accidents caused by cell phone use, why was another law passed banning the practice in school zones or by minors?

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

That appears to pretty much include any manner of driving a vehicle recklessly, whatever the particular action engaged in, be it texting or speeding or putting on make-up or whatever action is in "wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property" while operating a motor vehicle.

"Appears to pretty much include" probably would not withstand argument in court. What is the enforceable threshold for "wanton disregard" that can be reliably upheld, and not altered by any specific police department's or district's preferences? What happens if one supervisor decides he loves cell phones, and instructs his officers to "lay off"? The same violation occurring in different districts, or enforced by different officers, could lead to completely different outcomes. One violator would get a ticket for merely having a phone visible, while another causes traffic woes but keeps on driving.

Opinions are too varied for such a vague law to be enforced reliably and consistently. Does anyone here have enough legal background to determine if it could be upheld in court for this purpose? That law was likely written long before cell phone use became a common habit behind the wheel, and is probably vague enough for a skilled attorney to have a case tossed out.

Is a victim's family supposed to be consoled by political rhetoric and a conviction? How about preventing traffic fatalities in a city that already has traffic (and drivers) that are worse than other cities of similar size and population?

It's frightening that anyone would place a higher value on politics (or a phone call) than people's lives and property.

[oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots]

Originally Posted by nomore07

Is a victim's family supposed to be consoled by political rhetoric and a conviction? How about preventing traffic fatalities in a city that already has traffic (and drivers) that are worse than other cities of similar size and population?

It's frightening that anyone would place a higher value on politics (or a phone call) than people's lives and property.

And until someone experiences losing a loved one in a car crash related to someone putting on make-up, talking on their phone, drunk, drugged, texting...etc, etc, the majority will still scream, "BUT IT'S ABOUT ME AND MY RIGHTS!!!"

I drive through the "no cell phone zone" by the school on a daily basis, (Nadine elementary). I can tell you first hand I see people on the cell phone constantly while driving through there. Does the law apply to all ages? The sign does not say "minors" it says no cell phone usage or a fine of up to 200 dollars in the school zone.

Also, while on 79, I kid you not, I was beside a woman that was putting mascara on while driving.

I'm certain if I was a police officer I wouldn't last two weeks without being shot because someone would be mad and kill me because I wanted to enforce the law.

Seriously, that is where it seems we are as a society. The bullies call the shots, everyone else is afraid of getting sued, the perps celebrate, and the lawyers say "cha-ching".

Sometimes I think we should go back to the old west style of law, afterall...we are in Texas!

[TexasHorseLady]

By your reasoning, we would need laws to cover every single miniscule thing that someone might do "wrong". Now, I realize that some people would just love to see this - I refer them to a study of the history of the founding of this country and the principles upon which it was founded, THEN we can have a substantive discussion.

Again, see my comments above regarding job security for legislators created by passing more and more laws.

The law was written the way it was simply BECAUSE things change and new things occur that could fall under it. Legislators write the laws and jurists interpret them. Then precedents are set and that's how the laws are not "vague". (By the way, no matter how many laws you pass, even if you control every single aspect of everyone's lives, there is still going to be death and injury, even unfair death and injury, so don't fool yourself into thinking you can be protected in that fashion. I used to think that "society" wouldn't let me be hurt or killed - I realized that that was not possible by the age of 9. Risk is part of life, and you can't legislate it away.)

As for DUI laws, the law against drinking and driving is specifically because, by drinking, the person is no longer considered to be capable of driving in a safe manner OR making decisions regarding such and thus the law has more to do with not getting behind the wheel in the first place, not with what one does once one gets there. Different thing entirely.

This is not about something so minor as "political rhetoric", by the way (that has more to do with Republicans and Democrats). This has to do with the foundations upon which our kind of government (and country) is built.

There are countries where everything you do is monitored and controlled by law. That's not the United States (or wasn't, though some seem bound and determined to change that - THOSE are the real terrorists, in my opinion). If we are to run this country on fear and control issues, then we really ought to change the name and no longer call ourselves a democracy (though, of course, we're actually a republic anyway).

[oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots]

I'm sorry if you think I do not realize death and injury can, and does occur at any time. I'm very aware of "risk", life and everything that goes with it. However, I'm not blind to the reality that laws can, and do stop certain behaviors.

In a perfect world we would not need laws.

What I believe has happened here is the law doesn't have any teeth because of lawsuits, power, money and control.

And if we're going to speak about other countries...there are some countries where violence is minimal. People KNOW the consequences for breaking the law, doing wrong, killing someone, etc, etc. In some countries people actually THINK before they do wrong because they know what the consequence will be.

Here it's: well, I suppose if I break that law, do that wrong, kill someone...I'll get a lawyer, plea bargain, no consequence. If I have to go to jail I'll get out much sooner than expected. Even if I've killed a couple of people and I'm in maxi I'll still be able to make threats and communicate with the outside world because I'll have a cell phone, (see article in today's paper).

And if you have lot's of money...well, at the very worst you'll wind up in a country club doing "time" because you can't be with the "general population" because you're afraid of what they might do to you.


I'm diverting...I better stop now and get some work done around here.


Lastly, I'm not understanding what you're saying in regards to who the terrorists are.