Perry vetoes Texting-While-Driving bill (Tyler, Howe: credit, rain, doctor)

[Cathy4017]

Originally Posted by cinnamon_toast

I don't believe that texting while driving is as dangerous as eating, drinking (non-alcoholic beverages) and talking. So that argument doesn't fly with me.

You have to take your eyes off of the road frequently to text, besides the fact that cell phone screens are often difficult to read in a sunny vehicle.

It's much easier to drink a coke while driving than it is to text, and far less distracting. Eating, depends on what it is.....talking, easier than any of the above.

But having said that, we DON'T need a law against texting. Common sense would dictate that it's dangerous (at least I'd hope so).

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by cinnamon_toast

I don't believe that texting while driving is as dangerous as eating, drinking (non-alcoholic beverages) and talking. So that argument doesn't fly with me.

So, what you're saying is, when presented with actual statistics that indicate that, at the present time, those activities are a factor in many times the number of fatal accidents as cell phone activity of any kind is, you decide not to believe the statistics that disprove your preferred viewpoint. Good to know when going forward in a discussion like this; facts are irrelevant.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by aliveandwellinSA

Your right to text while driving shouldn't trump my right to live.

And, if you'll read the thread, you'll note that no one is saying that it does or should or that texting while driving should be legal, merely that a law is already in existence that makes it illegal.

[L210]

The statistics have more to do with what people are doing more. Distracted driving kills more people than drunk driving, but no one is going to argue that drunk driving is safer than distracted driving.

[cinnamon_toast]

Originally Posted by cinnamon_toast View Post
I don't believe that texting while driving is as dangerous as eating, drinking (non-alcoholic beverages) and talking. So that argument doesn't fly with me.

Let me clarify, what I meant was texting is MORE dangerous than these other activities. (perhaps with the exception of eating a chicken-fried steak dinner while driving )

[BestintheWest]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

And, if you'll read the thread, you'll note that no one is saying that it does or should or that texting while driving should be legal, merely that a law is already in existence that makes it illegal.

Simply making a point. Is that okay with you?

[doctorjef]

The statute dealing with reckless driving doesn't make texting while driving illegal unless sufficient case law accrues that establishes that the courts will reliably hold persons stopped because of texting while driving as prima facie guilty of reckless driving. Yet I doubt that the police would automatically stop people they see driving and holding a cell phone, and if a person has a crash while texting it may difficult to prove up that part of the case without a confession or eye witness. Further, the texting aspect is really moot at that point, and without a law against texting while driving there is much less basis for educating young drivers and the public in general; you can't have an admonition analogous to "Buckle up -- it's the law". Opposition to a law against texting while driving is merely a perverse form of idealism.

[TexasHorseLady]

Or, it's recognition that the law already exists and the real problem is enforcement of it and that making lots and lots of micromanaging laws is nothing more than busy work and doesn't address the problem at all.

It's entirely possible to educate people about what they should not do in a vehicle. Heck, there's a campaign just as catchy as "Buckle Up, It's the Law" out there right now against texting while driving - these folks don't need a law to depend on to do that, they're being proactive about it instead of waiting for Daddy or Mommy to make it a specific law.

And, again, if you want a law specifically against texting, in order to have any credibility you're going to have to want equally against anything and everything else that qualifies as "distracted driving", especially if the other things that constitute distracted driving are responsible for more accidents than using your cell phone in any way, shape or form is, to date.

I mean, the idea is to get rid of accidents, right? So why the resistance to making eating, drinking, talking to ANYONE in the car, etc., when those are shown statistically to cause more accidents than using a cell phone while driving, if they aren't already covered under current law regarding reckless driving and distracted driving? Could it be that they cut a little bit too close to home and there's a certain amount of hypocrisy and bandwagoning going on here?

[doctorjef]

The Texas legislature presumably reflected the political will of the majority in passing an act that the governor then undemocratically vetoed. There is a majority will to legally suppress the practice of texting while driving; not so in regard to talking to passengers or eating while driving. It doesn't matter whether you consider that to be inconsistent logic. Some states have indeed put further controls on young drivers, for example making it against the law for young drivers to carry passengers or multiple passengers under a certain age. This is because distracted driving is of the greatest concern - and most likely to occur - with adolescent drivers. My point, then, is that in some jurisdictions the law has actually evolved to suppress the opportunity for young novice drivers to talk to others - at least to their age peers - while driving. This isn't merely busy work but rather is an attempt to address the tendency of young drivers to be especially careless and hence potentially dangerous drivers.

[TexasHorseLady]

I was thinking about this just now, and it occurred to me that one of the reasons that anyone at all thinks that it's okay for them to text and drive is because it's clearly okay for them to do all the other things that lead to distracted driving (and are statistically significant in accidents), like eating, drinking, putting CD's in the CD player, changing the radio station, talking to passengers, disciplining children - all those things that some of you, no matter how high these things rate as a factor in accidents, clearly think are just fine. People have been acclimated to thinking that things that really aren't, if you look at the statistics, safe to do in a moving vehicle that you're driving are "okay" because "everybody does it". Of course, that increases the statistical rate of being a factor in a fatal accident for all of these things simply because they are done so often.

So, by arguing that somehow it's okay to be distracted by everything else that you want to do in your car, you're sending the message that texting while driving (and certainly talking on the phone while driving) are just fine. And actually increasing the accident rate by encouraging all those behaviors rather than doing the responsible thing and acknowledging that they are all a serious problem.

All because you don't want to criticize the things that you, yourself, like to do in your vehicle.