New texting law enforcement starts (Lumpkin: buy, live, cars)

[axemanjoe]

Originally Posted by cityrover

another useless law.... chalk it up with adding seatbelts to trucks. nobody cares, nobody enforces it.

although i can wait to see the first person to ask the cop how he knew what he was doing on his phone in court. that will be interesting... on several levels

My point exactly, the due care law was all that was needed. Seems like the attack is on cell phones which are not the problem. The focus should be on foolish the driving actions on the part of some drivers, not an inanimate object. The women putting on make up and looking in the mirror doing 55 mph on the road scares me more that somene on a cell phone. I guess the "enlightened" legislators will want to outlaw make-up next. And the seat belt in pickups requirement was finally added this year. Now maybe, just maybe some more road improvements funds will come around here.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by axemanjoe

My point exactly, the due care law was all that was needed. Seems like the attack is on cell phones which are not the problem.

No...you're missing the point. Does the "due care law" provide an explicit definition of what "due care" is, and does that include not using cell phones? Have the courts upheld that definition? My guess is no and no.

Cell phones are ABSOLUTELY the problem. There is no "attack" on phones, but there should be an attack on people improperly using their phones while driving. Even if previous laws do address the problem, what is wrong with the legislature clarifying and narrowing the scope of the issue?

ANSWER: NOTHING

I just fail to understand how anyone can oppose a handsfree law. What reasonable and unselfish reason can people come up with? It's not anyone's "right" to use a cell phone while driving, and driving isn't a right, but rather a privilege licensed by the state. With all the evidence that using cell phones, especially w/o a handsfree, causes distraction almost as bad as DUI, what is the problem here?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6090342-7.html

[ToucheGA]

Some countries have banned cell phones in vehicles altogether. I heard of a study that showed that after a driver hangs up, his or her concentration is still imparied for several minutes, becuse he/she is thinking about the recent phone coversation.

I personally think a hands-free law is a good compromise.

[axemanjoe]

Originally Posted by neil0311

No...you're missing the point. Does the "due care law" provide an explicit definition of what "due care" is, and does that include not using cell phones? Have the courts upheld that definition? My guess is no and no.

Cell phones are ABSOLUTELY the problem. There is no "attack" on phones, but there should be an attack on people improperly using their phones while driving. Even if previous laws do address the problem, what is wrong with the legislature clarifying and narrowing the scope of the issue?

ANSWER: NOTHING

I just fail to understand how anyone can oppose a handsfree law. What reasonable and unselfish reason can people come up with? It's not anyone's "right" to use a cell phone while driving, and driving isn't a right, but rather a privilege licensed by the state. With all the evidence that using cell phones, especially w/o a handsfree, causes distraction almost as bad as DUI, what is the problem here?

Cell phones as dangerous as drunk driving | News Blog - CNET News

Hafta disagree with ya

40-6-241;

§ 40-6-241. Driver to exercise due care; proper use of radios and mobile telephones allowed

A driver shall exercise due care in operating a motor vehicle on the highways of this state and shall not engage in any actions which shall distract such driver from the safe operation of such vehicle, provided that the proper use of a radio, citizens band radio, or mobile telephone shall not be a violation of this Code section.

You guessed wrong, the judges have no problems or issues with this statute. I never had any go to trial out of the dozens I've written, all were dispo'd with a plea or paid the fine prior to the arraignment date.

My point is that the cell phone is not the problem, its the inattentive driving that some drivers engage in which needs to be addressed, which is addressed by this statute, it could be a cell phone, newspaper, make-up, you name it. Again, I;ve never had a problem wiht any of the cases I've made.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by axemanjoe

provided that the proper use of a radio, citizens band radio, or mobile telephone shall not be a violation of this Code section.

What part of that is unclear to you? It explicitly says that the "proper use...mobile telephone shall not be a violation of this section" which means that phones were specifically exempted from the statute when used "properly."

I'm not a lawyer, but I can read.

[axemanjoe]

Originally Posted by neil0311

What part of that is unclear to you? It explicitly says that the "proper use...mobile telephone shall not be a violation of this section" which means that phones were specifically exempted from the statute when used "properly."

I'm not a lawyer, but I can read.

Not just mobile phones "provided that the proper use of a radio, citizens band radio, or mobile telephone shall not be a violation of this Code section."

I'm havin trouble readin you. I dont see what you're having trouble realizing.


This law is very clear to me, I have no trouble interpreting this law and there are no problems to my knowledge with how it's been applied.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by axemanjoe

Not just mobile phones "provided that the proper use of a radio, citizens band radio, or mobile telephone shall not be a violation of this Code section."

I'm havin trouble readin you. I dont see what you're having trouble realizing.


This law is very clear to me, I have no trouble interpreting this law and there are no problems to my knowledge with how it's been applied.

Sorry...you have completely lost me. The previous statute that references "due care" explicitly exempts cell phones and other communication devices and references a very subjective and nebulous standard of "proper use" and you're fine with that but not with the legislature being clear and explicit about handsfree use or a ban on cell phones. Do I have it correctly?

Can you say forest for the trees? What is the deal? Most LEOs welcome as many tools as possible. You want to confine yourself to a very subjective and what seems like an iffy statute. What is wrong with the legislature clarifying in absolute terms? You're acting as if there is some cost to them passing a more explicit and narrow statute.

WOW..... . I'm done here. Put a fork in this thread.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by axemanjoe

My point exactly, the due care law was all that was needed. Seems like the attack is on cell phones which are not the problem. The focus should be on foolish the driving actions on the part of some drivers, not an inanimate object. The women putting on make up and looking in the mirror doing 55 mph on the road scares me more that somene on a cell phone. I guess the "enlightened" legislators will want to outlaw make-up next. And the seat belt in pickups requirement was finally added this year. Now maybe, just maybe some more road improvements funds will come around here.

I see your point, and I agree. That makes sense.

[axemanjoe]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Sorry...you have completely lost me. The previous statute that references "due care" explicitly exempts cell phones and other communication devices and references a very subjective and nebulous standard of "proper use" and you're fine with that but not with the legislature being clear and explicit about handsfree use or a ban on cell phones. Do I have it correctly?

Can you say forest for the trees? What is the deal? Most LEOs welcome as many tools as possible. You want to confine yourself to a very subjective and what seems like an iffy statute. What is wrong with the legislature clarifying in absolute terms? You're acting as if there is some cost to them passing a more explicit and narrow statute.

WOW..... . I'm done here. Put a fork in this thread.

Mr. Neil, its a TRAFFIC CODE, it applies a standard of proper use while driving in trafic. Proper use can therefore be established by a display of proper driving. It bans improper driving. So when I see someone nearly running into teh back of a vehicloe, of swerving off the roadway, both because they are not paying attention to driving and more attention to what they are doing, that's improper use of the radio, CB or phone.

[testa50]

Originally Posted by neil0311

No...you're missing the point. Does the "due care law" provide an explicit definition of what "due care" is, and does that include not using cell phones? Have the courts upheld that definition? My guess is no and no.

Cell phones are ABSOLUTELY the problem. There is no "attack" on phones, but there should be an attack on people improperly using their phones while driving. Even if previous laws do address the problem, what is wrong with the legislature clarifying and narrowing the scope of the issue?

ANSWER: NOTHING

I just fail to understand how anyone can oppose a handsfree law. What reasonable and unselfish reason can people come up with? It's not anyone's "right" to use a cell phone while driving, and driving isn't a right, but rather a privilege licensed by the state. With all the evidence that using cell phones, especially w/o a handsfree, causes distraction almost as bad as DUI, what is the problem here?

Cell phones as dangerous as drunk driving | News Blog - CNET News

Your source doesn't make any differentiation between hands free and handheld, so you're going to have to provide much better evidence than that.

The study, published in the June 29 issue of Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, found that drivers talking on cell phones, either handheld or hands-free, are more likely to crash because they are distracted by conversation.

From what I've heard, studies have largely shown that the use of hands-free and handheld cellphones is similar in terms of danger and distraction, and this one would seem to agree. The dangerous element isn't holding the phone up to your ear (should you be banned from eating a banana while driving? smoking a cigarette?). It's that cell phones draw drivers' attention in a profoundly different way from other distractions, even when compared with radios or chatting with passengers. They have also studied the rate of eye movements and found that the differences are negligible when using hands free and handheld.

Mobile phones and driving safety - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The above wikipedia article is actually pretty good and goes over the very study cited.

A passage:

Driving while using a handsfree cellular device is not safer than using a hand held cell phone, as concluded by case-crossover studies,[17][18] epidemiological,[1][2] simulation,[4] and meta-analysis[6][7]. The increased "cognitive workload" involved in holding a conversation, not the use of hands, causes the increased risk.[19][20][21]

So I really don't understand why someone would be so adamant about banning handheld cell phones, or thinking that hands-free is going to be a major cure.

Also worth noting:

A recent study from the Highway Loss Data Institute published in February 2010 reviewed auto claims from three key states along with Washington D.C. prior to cell phone bans while driving and then after. The study found no reduction in crashes, despite a 41% to 76% reduction in the use of cell phones while driving after the ban was enacted. [8] [9]

If your argument is that the only reason handhelds shouhld be banned is to make enforcing the texting ban easier, then you're committing a classic policy blunder: passing a bad law because you're failing to enforce a good law.