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 08-29-2009, 10:34 AM
 
85 posts, read 207,046 times
Reputation: 39

Advertisements

Integrated bluetooth + voice dialing + speakerphone + Jott.com | Voice-to-Text Notes, To Dos & Reminders. Voicemail-to-Email and Text Message. Update Salesforce with a Phone Call. = problem solved.

Bikes and cars don't mix.

Typing and driving don't mix.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-29-2009, 11:06 AM
 
3,787 posts, read 6,982,617 times
Reputation: 1761
As far as being able to "prove" someone is texting...wouldn't that be fairly easy since everything we do on the computer leaves a track? Just saying that if someone got pulled over for being on their computer while driving would that information be available for that specific timeframe?


Seems to me it would be pretty clear to distinguish between looking at a map of the area at a quick glance vs texting someone. Texting takes concentration, quickly glancing at a map requires the same amount of attention, (I would argue) that looking at your speedometer does, or looking in your rear-view mirror.

As far as entering an address for the tom-tom, that should be done pulled over as well.

It's like we're driving on the road with blind mice. I say outlaw the phone too while we're at it.

DRIVE and keep your focus, you're suppose to be driving. Drivers ed isn't to learn how to text while driving, or talk on the phone while driving, or put on makeup while driving, or whatever it is people do instead of drive.

Last edited by oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots; 08-29-2009 at 11:15 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2009, 08:38 PM
 
804 posts, read 1,961,447 times
Reputation: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingugly View Post
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.
Great idea, kingugly. I'll drive next to you with chips, salsa, and a remote control to change the movie. Make sure you have a big truck so you can fit a big screen

Why worry about accidents anyway. Apparently political ideology and rantings are enough to cushion vehicles from colliding with 3000lbs of metal. We're fortunate to have so many residents with psychokinetic powers
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2009, 08:40 PM
 
804 posts, read 1,961,447 times
Reputation: 459
Just caught this story...

TV: Round Rock parents test cell phone ban | News for Austin, Texas | KVUE.com | Local News (http://www.kvue.com/news/local/stories/082709_kvue_cell_phone_ban_round_rock-tg.12263d087.html - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2009, 08:00 AM
 
8,231 posts, read 17,285,637 times
Reputation: 3696
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
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.
Thoughtful post.

I agree with the goal of outlawing texting while driving- but it does open the door to making 'illegal' a myriad of things that involve the same level of distraction. Tuning a radio station, putting on makeup, looking at a map, talking to someone in the backseat, eating, even driving when tired...all of those things can contribute to a lack of focus while driving. Do we need a law for each of those things??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2009, 08:04 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,958 posts, read 45,290,059 times
Reputation: 24739
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimimomx3 View Post
Thoughtful post.

I agree with the goal of outlawing texting while driving- but it does open the door to making 'illegal' a myriad of things that involve the same level of distraction. Tuning a radio station, putting on makeup, looking at a map, talking to someone in the backseat, eating, even driving when tired...all of those things can contribute to a lack of focus while driving. Do we need a law for each of those things??
Plus, it opens the door to a myriad of laws against things unrelated to driving - once you open that door because of something you, personally, don't like, a lot of people don't seem to get that you're almost certain to be smacked in the face with it yourself sooner or later, because you've decided that government should, indeed, be our nannies and make sure that no harm ever comes to us or, for that matter, in some cases that we're never even offended.

A law against unsafe driving is one thing. A law that is so specific is something else entirely, and needs to be examined very carefully for unwanted precedents it might set.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2009, 08:15 AM
 
Location: Lake Arlington Heights, IL
5,479 posts, read 12,225,411 times
Reputation: 2847
Let me throw this wrench into the debate: A driver's license is a priveledge, not a "right". It is licensed and controlled by the state. In some areas the city or village exerts control by issuing a local registration via a city sticker or city tag. So if it is licensed by the government, controlled by the government, is a priveledge (not a right) doesn't the government have the right to control the laws associated with having a valid license? I understand the feeling of "how much is too much", but the alternative is to skip driving and walk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2009, 08:33 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX!!!!
3,757 posts, read 9,043,170 times
Reputation: 1762
Quote:
Originally Posted by cubssoxfan View Post
Let me throw this wrench into the debate: A driver's license is a priveledge, not a "right". It is licensed and controlled by the state. In some areas the city or village exerts control by issuing a local registration via a city sticker or city tag. So if it is licensed by the government, controlled by the government, is a priveledge (not a right) doesn't the government have the right to control the laws associated with having a valid license? I understand the feeling of "how much is too much", but the alternative is to skip driving and walk.
Bingo! That is where the state derives its authority.

And honestly, the notion of a nanny state implies the state protecting us from ourselves. That means things like gambling, drug use, requiring adults to use seatbelts, smoking etc. The state outlawing texting is protecting pedestrians and other drivers from morons that aren't smart enough to realize that an activity like texting requires way too much attention to be done safely while driving. And as far as making putting on makeup illegal while driving, absolutely. That's another thing that cannot be done while keeping one's eyes on the road. If it were only a question of people killing themselves while doing stupid things on the road, then the nanny state accusation might apply. However, since innocent bystanders can be harmed and killed, I have no problem with the government coming in instituting safeguards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2009, 09:07 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,958 posts, read 45,290,059 times
Reputation: 24739
The point is, the more micromanaging the state does, the more the attitude of "nanny state" becomes acceptable.

A law against reckless driving? Absolutely! Laws against: texting, cell phone use, talking to a passenger (you do know that studies have found that hands on or hands off, it's the conversation that's the distraction, not the phone in and of itself, right?), eating, drinking a soft drink, changing the station on the radio, having kids in the car (want to talk about a distraction?), checking a map, putting on make-up, adjusting one's seat belt while moving, and so forth and so on? Unnecessary if the law already in existence is enforced, and nothing more than job security for legislators and a false sense of security for those who think that everything everyone else does needs to be monitored and regulated so that all danger can be wiped out of the world and we'll never ever ever die.

Last edited by TexasHorseLady; 08-31-2009 at 09:07 AM.. Reason: Typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2009, 09:18 AM
 
Location: In the sticks of Colorado County
178 posts, read 457,850 times
Reputation: 81
An observation on the 3' law and a question about the texting.

I'll bet the 3' ordinance will make for an interesting courtroom session when someone with the cash and time contests a ticket and uses one of the better law firms to do so. Can't you just see some poor APD officer being put through the wringer by being made to explain how he made his "measurement". Maybe some courtroom theatrics like him/her being asked to demonstrate that ability in the courtroom. I'm betting APD will shy away from writing up all but the most blatant encroachments.

How does a law specifically outlawing a certain activity, in this case texting while driving, affect a similar but unspecified activity? OK, so we have a law saying we can't text while driving, but not specified are eating a big Mac, doing one's nails, putting on makeup, reading a novel, etc. Seems to me the law makes doing them while driving more "acceptable" - after all, they weren't specified.

I'm wondering if just ratcheting up the consequences and liability of causing an accident because of negligence might be more effective. The same could be done with accidents involving bicycles or pedestrians. Motorcyclists are well aware of the lack of liability when an accident occurs due to a motorist's negligence. There are cases across the nation where a motorcycle rider is killed or maimed because an automobile driver failed to yield or ran a stop sign or light and the result was the driver only paid a fine for the traffic infraction.
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