New Florida anti-texting law goes into affect 10-01

There were huge studies done here...and texting is the equivalent of .08 alcohol where as the radio playing registers 0. Non interactive sound is not a problem, but a two way conversation can register .05.

 

Can you say 'selected sample?' The people who've had accidents texting aren't going to be posting about that....

All that 'no accident' means is that you've been lucky so far.

You guys sound just like any other group of addicts insisting other guys may be messed up, but YOU can handle it!

 

So, you support laws banning anything that might distract drivers? Because that's all texting really does, right? And why do current laws not suffice? That's how we deal with people who cause accidents, right?

Seems to me the issue is people actually endangering others via their driving. Someone texting in and of itself does not imply they are a menace on the road.

 

Sometimes people have to be told that a stupid behavior is a danger to others.

There are people who can successfully eat and drive without becoming a threat to others. There are non who can drive drunk or text without being a threat to public safety.

 

Yes, it does. You cannot observe your device and the road simultaneously.

I hear the same argument from idiots who think they can drive properly at .09 BA.

 

that same argument can be applied to eating, having kids in the car, the radio.... so do you suggest we ban ALL of that, too.... or just the behaviors you personally don't agree with? Cuz I will bet money you are guilty of eating fast food in your car while driving, or fiddling with GPS or your radio...

 

The vast majority (like 99%+) of times people text while driving it does not result in any accident. Why do you suppose that is? I'll tell you. It's because you don't actually have to observe the road in a robot-like, constant manner. And no one does. That's why nearly all cases of distracted driving result in nothing happening. And why are you so fixated on texting when countless other things will also distract people? And why aren't current laws enough to handle the problem?

 

I'm going to fall back to the 22 years accident free again, to disprove your "none" qualification.

Careful with ALL or NONE qualifications.... pretty easy to find one exception in anything.

- - - Updated - - -

because the other distractions are the ones he participates in.

 

My buddy hit someone after reaching down to grab a CD he dropped. But that's completely legal, so no ticket there. He got a ticket for "following to close", which is not really accurate, but that is the standard ticket here when you rear end someone.

At the end of the day you cannot really prove anyone was texting because you cannot search their phone and apps, e-mail, GPS, YouTube, etc. are all completely legal to do. So the law is not worth the paper it's printed on.

 

This is another example of that freedom this country is supposed to be so famous for.....

 

Lots of people text while driving. Lots of people text repeatedly and indefinitely while driving, which is different than occasionally adjusting controls or munching a sandwich. Lots of people, apparently, are in denial about how dangerous this practice it. Emphasis on curtailing this trend, and reforming attitudes in this area, seems appropriate.

 

Do you want to text and drive?

 

But there is nothing you can do about it. Hiding a phone from the police is super easy and even if they see you they have no way to prove you were texting. Plus, nearly all cases of texting while driving won't be seen by the police anyway. They can't be everywhere, you know. So if it's the danger you are really worried about my suggestion would be to not drive. Because no law will fix the problem. You are just as likely to be hit with or without the law. It's just feel good legislation amounting to nothing.

 

the fact that some people may be able to 'get away' with texting and driving does not make the practice less dangerous. Hopefully, the law and safety campaigning will, over time, curtail the practice.

 

I often question the validity of "person died while texting" commercials.... Sure, they may have been texting and driving, but if yahoo didn't blow through the stop light and t-bone that person who died.... See what I mean.


if I'm texting and a drunk driver hits me and kills me.... which statistic are you going to classify my death as... a drunk driving statistic, or a texting stat? Or do you just use whichever is convenient to your agenda at the moment.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with education.... but adding a law that can't be enforced is a waste of time, resources and money

 

good thing you don't make the laws then...

you are saying that ALL texters while driving people are bad drivers. ALL. I don't have to do any thing except find one person who texts and drives who has a perfect driving record to disprove that.


and that's me.

no, my attitude is focus on enforcing reckless driving laws, and everyone, no matter what the reason, is targetted, including your texting while driving targets.

If I'm really a reckless driver, it will result in me getting pulled over. But careful, it may also get you for eating your big mac....

 

I want useless laws off the books and focus on real issues.

To me, the issue isn't specific to texting and driving. It's distracted driving and writing a law that only focuses on "typing on your handheld device" like FL just passed ignores that people who eat big macs while driving, or changes their pants while driving. If you correctly word the law.... it covers EVERYTHING.

Focusing on JUST TEXTING is too narrow and short-sighted, because when the next big technological gadget that comes along, does.... a new law will have to be added.

 

ok, how about I promise to just text a little, to match the time you are distracted from driving. I guess that's where the acceptable amount of time to be distracted is.... at your levels.... lol


and this whole time, all you've preached is it just takes one split second. So eating a sandwich is just as dangerous as texting according to the split second theory.


I enjoy your backpedeling... you've painted yourself into a corner because you have been shown to be a hypocrite....

 

exactly. Most states have exceptions in the law.... exceptions like "voice to text" options. So even IF a cop could just get your phone and search it for time stamps (and I know they can't), and even if they saw you sent a text at a time you were driving.... there is no way to tell if it was a voice to text style text message, or a typed text message.

but it's ok... donquixote99 feels safer with this law on the books. And I'm sure the sponsor of the bill can appeal to him when it's time to get re-elected

 

More snivelling. Most people do not bother with hands-free gear on a cell phone, then shriek like spanked babies when they get pulled over. If anything, the law is too weak in that it does not allow a search for cell phones and such after somebody does something stupid in addition to using the device.

 

you have no concept of private property rights, do you.

you probably would be the first one to cry to the ACLU if your phone got searched illegally by cops.


lol

 

My cell phone, if I bother to carry it, stays in a buttoned shirt pocket even when I am not driving.

There is no violation of rights if the police have probable cause to pull you over if they secure all relevant evidence of your state of mind.