Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-28-2009, 02:21 PM
 
434 posts, read 1,076,104 times
Reputation: 155

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff View Post
I find it outrageous that people look to the government to protect them from every danger with new laws, and want their neighbors to experience larger and more aggressive fines for breaking these laws...
it's the job of the government to protect citizens from dangers such as drunk drivers. who else could you look to? and what's wrong with wanting repeat lawbreakers to pay big fines?

Quote:
but don't want the government to make sure that the private insurance companies provide their neighbors with healthcare.
1. what gives you that idea?
2. why should I want the government to ensure private insurance companies provide health care to my neighbors? it's unconstitutional to force private companies to provide health care, other than those set forth in a contract. And if my neighbors want something from the government, let them lobby for it. Why must I get involved?

Quote:
Everyone hates congress, but keeps reelecting THEIR congressman...
no, not everyone. and not everyone votes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-28-2009, 09:43 PM
 
3,787 posts, read 6,963,765 times
Reputation: 1761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennibc View Post
Pedestrians do have the right away but bicyclists are not pedestrians. Were you walking or riding your bike?
Good point. By law people on a bike are not considered pedestrians? I've always thought they were.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2009, 09:49 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,131,087 times
Reputation: 27718
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots View Post
Good point. By law people on a bike are not considered pedestrians? I've always thought they were.
A pedestrian is a person traveling on foot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2009, 10:07 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX!!!!
3,757 posts, read 9,024,574 times
Reputation: 1762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennibc View Post
Pedestrians do have the right away but bicyclists are not pedestrians. Were you walking or riding your bike?
I guess I should have written "right of way" D'oh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2009, 10:12 PM
 
10,130 posts, read 19,789,612 times
Reputation: 5815
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
A pedestrian is a person traveling on foot.
But a bicycle is powered the same way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2009, 10:52 PM
 
3,423 posts, read 4,414,114 times
Reputation: 3632
Quote:
Originally Posted by satxguero View Post
While i agree with giving bicyclists safety and space should the city ban texting while driving?

Ban on texting while driving to be discussed Thursday (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/08/25/0825texting.html - broken link)
Where does the city of Austin derive the authority to adopt such an ordinance?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2009, 11:23 PM
 
1,961 posts, read 6,099,449 times
Reputation: 571
My favorite is when a car decides to come out of a parking lot crossing sidewalk and shoulder without looking until they are just about to enter the traffic lane. I have had to slam on my brakes more than once to slide to a stop and knock on the drivers window to wave "hello". A jogger or kid on a skate board can get run over pretty easy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2009, 11:25 PM
 
139 posts, read 349,610 times
Reputation: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Where does the city of Austin derive the authority to adopt such an ordinance?
Probably from that pesky "keeping people safe" motto of the police department.

All of you people defending texting while driving: Let me know when it's cool to watch movies while driving. I have some flicks I need to catch up on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2009, 12:06 AM
 
10,130 posts, read 19,789,612 times
Reputation: 5815
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Where does the city of Austin derive the authority to adopt such an ordinance?
Well, if the city can tax you, and the city can arrest you, and the city can take your land, well... they pretty much have the authority to do anything they want. Provided it doesn't violate the constitution or federal law. I don't think banning texting or requiring drivers to keep a buffer zone would violate either one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2009, 09:21 AM
 
3,423 posts, read 4,414,114 times
Reputation: 3632
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingugly View Post
Probably from that pesky "keeping people safe" motto of the police department.

All of you people defending texting while driving: Let me know when it's cool to watch movies while driving. I have some flicks I need to catch up on.
I'm defending the concept of forcing Austin to recognize the limits of its authority. I'm not promoting "texting while driving". It's no more appropriate for Austin to create such an ordinance that it is for you to create your own personal ordinance and start threatening people whose conduct you don't agree with. If you're going to promote elimination of texting then why not promote a ban on cell phone use?

What's different between "texting" and dialing a number or entering a number into your phone address book? Certainly the wireless transmission of a text message is not the proximate or actual cause of any accident. Since you are promoting criminalizing this conduct, how about defining "texting"? Now think about proving that the cited individual was doing something other than entering names into an address book, scrolling through menu options, or dialing a phone number.

The proposed ordinance also seeks to criminalize "viewing the Internet on a cell phone or other portable electronic device while driving a vehicle". Now "viewing the Internet" is a problematic description, but let's go with the attempts of the city council to criminalize "connectedness". How does connectedness inherently create a greater risk of accidents? How about all the cars with navigational systems in them? Is there a difference between viewing "Google® Maps", "Mapquest®", etc. on a cell phone or viewing a map on your navigational system? Does the fact that the portable device that one is viewing has voice communication or Internet communication capabilities somehow trigger a risk that doesn't exist when viewing a portable or built in navigation system that doesn't have the ability of connecting for voice or Internet communications? Is it "texting" if you are entering an address to a web server rather than communicating with a natural person? Is it texting if the device itself appends headers onto any communication (voice or data) for the purpose of routing through a network? Is it going to be legal to view a map but illegal to view any other content? This would appear to be criminalizing conduct based upon either the content or source of the information. Will the city council also criminalize utilizing a navigation system irrespective of whether it is on a portable device or built-in? Why would it be okay to use a TomTom® or Garmin Nuvi® that has downloaded a map from the Internet but not legal to use a cell phone that obtained a map via the Internet for navigation? Is it somehow "legal" if the data is provided in a form that is not itself a web page (i.e., define "viewing the Internet")? Does it become a crime based upon when the web page or content was downloaded? If you are using a specific service such as AT&T's GPS map service, is that "viewing the Internet on a cell phone or other portable electronic device"?

Why not pass city-specific ordinances relating to the application of makeup, use of a cordless shaver, presence of a "child-view" mirror, or anything else that inherently interferes with 100% attention to the road while driving? If it was "okay" for cities to adopt any regulation that they wanted to impose on traveling through their jurisdiction, then you would be subjected to a patchwork of ordinances that each city has adopted to "protect" the public. There are limits on any political subdivision of the state (even the city of Austin) with respect to implementing such ordinances for the very purpose of avoiding the creation of a random patchwork of ordinances affecting travel on public thoroughfares throughout the state.

It's fine for people to debate criminalizing the conduct of others in order to "protect" themselves, but it seems to me that Austin is attempting to exceed the bounds of its authority to create a criminal ordinance like this. I'm neither promoting nor defending any of the driving or bicycling conduct above. However I am challenging the authority of the city of Austin to implement such an ordinance. The city of Austin is already limited in the regulation it can impose over traffic in public thoroughfares. You also have obvious problems defining the crime without running afoul of constitutional limits (state and federal) on the authority of the city of Austin.

There will undoubtedly be challenges and rightfully so. I look forward to the city of Austin expending resources trying to prove that someone was "texting" or "viewing the Internet" when challenged. Remember, dialing a number, scrolling through an address book, or entering text or numbers on your phone (in the absence of "sending" them) is not a crime as the ordinance has been described to-date. The city of Austin will be obligated specifically when challenged to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused has engaged in the conduct complained of and set forth in the ordinance. The ordinance can also be generally challenged on constitutional grounds. In the interim, this will solely be about generating revenue for the city of Austin through the use of intimidation of those accused under the pretext of protecting the public.

Last edited by IC_deLight; 08-29-2009 at 10:33 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top