What A Jerk.

[SilverEagle]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/politics/texas_legislature/article/Texas-ban-on-driver-texting-vetoed-1429579.php

[UNT90]

http://www.mysananto...oed-1429579.php

Actually a good decision by Perry. It was an unenforcable, feel-good law to begin with.

What was next, a law against talking to a passenger while driving? Changing the radio while driving? Putting on makeup while driving? Looking in your glovebox/wallet/purse while driving?

All of these are equally distracting. You can't legislate all stupid and dangerous human behavior.

Edited June 19, 2011 by UNT90

[SilverEagle]

Actually a good decision by Perry. It was an unenforcable, feel-good law to begin with.

What was next, a law against talking to a passenger while driving? Changing the radio while driving? Putting on makeup while driving? Looking in your glovebox/wallet/purse while driving?

All of these are equally distracting. You can't legislate all stupid and dangerous human behavior.

Well then, lets repeal all the drunk driving laws.

Edited June 20, 2011 by SilverEagle

[curtisdaa]

Actually a good decision by Perry. It was an unenforcable, feel-good law to begin with.

What was next, a law against talking to a passenger while driving? Changing the radio while driving? Putting on makeup while driving? Looking in your glovebox/wallet/purse while driving?

All of these are equally distracting. You can't legislate all stupid and dangerous human behavior.

True it would be difficult if not impossible to enforce. But some one explain this to me, Perry used the veto saying the the government should not "micromanage". Yet, earlier he signed a bill that required a woman wanting an abortion to get a sonogram and listen to the heartbeat of the fetus.

Is this not the state micromanaging?

[Green P1]

Yes he is.

[Censored by Laurie]

Actually a good decision by Perry. It was an unenforcable, feel-good law to begin with.

What was next, a law against talking to a passenger while driving? Changing the radio while driving? Putting on makeup while driving? Looking in your glovebox/wallet/purse while driving?

All of these are equally distracting. You can't legislate all stupid and dangerous human behavior.

Well, I mean, nothing is illegal until you get caught. Rape laws, in theory, are nothing but feel good laws by you definition if you have a good disguise or a secluded place for the body.

Give me one circumstance where NOT having this law could be a GOOD thing? Yes...it is a difficult, if not impossible thing to enforce, but the illusion the law creates is enough to help keep people safe...same goes for seatbelt laws, speed limits. Flawless? Certainly not...but practical to have on the books and completely pointless to veto.

BTW, in Connecticut it is illegal to use one's cell phone while driving...and other neighboring states...New York, Massachusetts...have laws against texting and what's called "distracted driving." Again, is it difficult to enforce? Of course...but I promise you on the rare occasions I talk on my phone in my car I am very aware of whether or not a trooper or local officer is in the vicinity. These are effective deterrents.

[UNT90]

First, I damn sure ain't defending Slick Rick, as I think he is the ultimate politician and only vetoed this law because he is considering a run for political office.

But you can't legislate every poor driving decision. Obviously, some driving decisions are worse than others (DWI, speeding, etc...) and need laws in place to attempt to keep people in line, but you can't get into micromanaging attention span when it comes to driving. There are just too many distractions that can lead to accidents (which almost always happen because of distractions).

Besides, if you become distracted by texting or something else and have an accident that is your fault, I will promise you that you have violated many other traffic laws for which you can be issued a ciatation (and are far easier to prove). Also, if an officer notices that you are texting, it's probably because you have violated some other traffic law during the process.

I'm sure some of you are happy with the current law that states that you can only be on the cell phone in a school zone if you are operating hands free. Nevermind that the distraction is in your head and not your hands and this law does nothing to protect children from the still distracted blue tooth user. Completely worthless law, but it sure makes people feel good (you know, because of the children and all).

If you want to be consistent, eliminate using cell phones completely in vehicles, or allow their use completely. Anything else and you are just creating feel good legislation.

Personally, I think people should be responsible for their actions, and that people who use cell phones responsibly in vehicles shouldn't be punished for those who don't.

[MeanGreenTexan]

Well, I mean, nothing is illegal until you get caught. Rape laws, in theory, are nothing but feel good laws by you definition if you have a good disguise or a secluded place for the body.

Give me one circumstance where NOT having this law could be a GOOD thing? Yes...it is a difficult, if not impossible thing to enforce, but the illusion the law creates is enough to help keep people safe...same goes for seatbelt laws, speed limits. Flawless? Certainly not...but practical to have on the books and completely pointless to veto.

BTW, in Connecticut it is illegal to use one's cell phone while driving...and other neighboring states...New York, Massachusetts...have laws against texting and what's called "distracted driving." Again, is it difficult to enforce? Of course...but I promise you on the rare occasions I talk on my phone in my car I am very aware of whether or not a trooper or local officer is in the vicinity. These are effective deterrents.

...which, in turn, would keep you more focused on the road as well. I totally agree with this sentiment.

[UNT Five&Dime]

<snippy snip snip>

Personally, I think people should be responsible for their actions, and that people who use cell phones responsibly in vehicles shouldn't be punished for those who don't.

Personal responsibility is great, except when other people's lives are at risk. If John Doe is only going to kill himself trying to dial his phone while driving in a school zone, let him. But if he's going to plow over my hypothetical third grade son walking home, I got a problem.

[UNT90]

Personal responsibility is great, except when other people's lives are at risk. If John Doe is only going to kill himself trying to dial his phone while driving in a school zone, let him. But if he's going to plow over my hypothetical third grade son walking home, I got a problem.

So then you would be in favor of repealing the seat belt law? And you realize the current law does nothing to stop John Doe from plowing down your hypothetical 3rd grader, right?

Again, the main problem I have with this non-law is that it is yet another non-consistent encroachment on personal freedoms.

[Travis]

What was next, a law against talking to a passenger while driving? Changing the radio while driving? Putting on makeup while driving? Looking in your glovebox/wallet/purse while driving?

All of these are equally distracting. You can't legislate all stupid and dangerous human behavior.

While I understand what you are trying to say, this is actually a fallacy argument.

I also see how this is difficult to enforce. However, we can and do legislate stupid and dangerous behavior. Simply because people get hurt. And since we love the preservation of life so much, laws like this make sense.

I am all for being the author of my own life and trying to halt government's imposition in many ways. But, I am not quite sure if this is one of those things. The seat belt law is one that I see a better argument for your philosophy than the texting one.

[SilverEagle]

Maybe the automobile has become such an integral part of just about every american family that we regard it as an inalienable right to own and operate. But I regard the operation of a vehicle in the weight range of 3000 to 7000 lbs on a public road a privilege not a right.

That makes it subject to any sort of governmental regulation regarding it's safe operation as far as I'm concerned.

[UNT Five&Dime]

So then you would be in favor of repealing the seat belt law? And you realize the current law does nothing to stop John Doe from plowing down your hypothetical 3rd grader, right?

Again, the main problem I have with this non-law is that it is yet another non-consistent encroachment on personal freedoms.

Well, yes and no. A 16 year old in no way has the mental maturity to make the decision as to wear a seltzer belt while driving or not. Guidance from an adult may help, but they may not get the proper advice. So, legislation may protect them. A 9 year old passenger definitely can't make that decision so the law may force a parent to buckle then up.

But, a 42 year old is capable of fully understanding the need for wearing a seat belt. I believe the law impacts them in no way. They're going to wear one or not regardless, and I don't care either way.

Reducing the possibility that my hypothetical child is hit on accident because of something preventable is a good thing.

[FirefightnRick]

I agree that having it on the books MAY??? have served as a deterrent to some, but overall it wouldn't have made enough difference because there is such widespread negligence on the road already.

To me, if legislators want to help make the roads safe we need to adopt a few requirements used in Europe, mainly Germany.

1. Raise the standards and training requirements to receive a drivers license so that it will return to what Silver says it should be, a priviledge, not a right. Raise the expense and fees for them. Include a mandatory witnessing of an actual autopsy, for example? The standards right now are so pathetically easy that we might as well get drivers licenses out of a cracker jack box.

2. Adopt the "Drive Right" rule for the highways.

3. Reduce the speed limits on free access highways and roads. There's not a damn single good reason a water truck or gravel hauler(or any thing for that matter) should be allowed to travel 70 mph down a two lane road or divided highway that is dotted with free-access crossovers and driveways.

4. Tougher punishments for repeat DWI offenders. Get rid of the stupid sobriety check devices being installed in repeat offenders auto's.

Rick

Edited June 20, 2011 by FirefightnRick

[UNTFan23]

3. Reduce the speed limits on free access highways and roads. There's not a damn single good reason a water truck or gravel hauler(or any thing for that matter) should be allowed to travel 70 mph down a two lane road or divided highway that is dotted with free-access crossovers and driveways.

Rick

Anyone dealing with the Transportation/Logistics industry would fight your proposal to the grave.

Your proposal would add another 15 minutes per 70 miles driven. So you just increased the amount of time someone spends on the road for the same distance they have to travel. Hopefully we don't have tired truck drivers running off the road because we added 1 hour 45 minutes to what would have been 7 hour drive (490 miles) if they maintained a constant speed of 70 MPH.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Actually a good decision by Perry. It was an unenforcable, feel-good law to begin with.

What was next, a law against talking to a passenger while driving? Changing the radio while driving? Putting on makeup while driving? Looking in your glovebox/wallet/purse while driving?

All of these are equally distracting. You can't legislate all stupid and dangerous human behavior.

---Enforcing it in general may have been difficult... but enforcing it after an accident had occured would not have.... The fact that the law existed would have stopped many from doing it and made the roads safer. I believe in freedom but your freedom stops when you endanger the lives of others.

---Do you also think that driving though a neighborhood at any speed you want is ok. That limits freedom as well. That isn't all that easy to prove either... the radar gun could have on someone else couldn't it or even be faulty.. as happened to me once... They dismissed my ticket later in the day when they decided it was faulty.

.

Edited June 20, 2011 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[FirefightnRick]

Anyone dealing with the Transportation/Logistics industry would fight your proposal to the grave.

Your proposal would add another 15 minutes per 70 miles driven. So you just increased the amount of time someone spends on the road for the same distance they have to travel. Hopefully we don't have tired truck drivers running off the road because we added 1 hour 45 minutes to what would have been 7 hour drive (490 miles) if they maintained a constant speed of 70 MPH.

Let them bitch all they want. We have reduced the speed limits before and for certain areas should do it again. The highway system varies all over the country. In certain ares of New Mexico you can drive over 70. But in Fort Worth you can't drive over 60 within the city limit interstate regions. And you can't drive over 65 on a Texas interstate after night.

And I don't know of a gravel hauler/water truck having to travel 490 miles. Maybe you do? But this needs to be addressed in Texas especially for roads like 377 between Fort Worth and Granbury. The highway is littered with crossovers and thousands of access points by cross roads and business driveways. 70 mph for this road is too high. Same for 170 between Cleburne and Weatherford. It used to be a fairly deserted roadway. Not any more. Our local volunteer fire departments servicing these areas are seeing people slaughtered left and right every week it seems. The crosses litter the sides of the roads where families have left reminders of their dead.

Rick

[UNT90]

But this needs to be addressed in Texas especially for roads like 377 between Fort Worth and Granbury. The highway is littered with crossovers and thousands of access points by cross roads and business driveways. 70 mph for this road is too high.

Rick

70 MPH is too high for trucks, but not passenger cars. Have the speed limit adjusted for vehicles of a certain weight.

I would LOVE it if the state troopers that work this stretch of road would enforce the impeding traffic law for everyone traveling 60 MPH in the fast lane on a 70 MPH roadway. One of the greatest causes of pack driving, which is one of the biggest cause of accidents.

And I'm in a hurry, damn it!!

[UNTFan23]

Let them bitch all they want. We have reduced the speed limits before and for certain areas should do it again. The highway system varies all over the country. In certain ares of New Mexico you can drive over 70. But in Fort Worth you can't drive over 60 within the city limit interstate regions. And you can't drive over 65 on a Texas interstate after night.

And I don't know of a gravel hauler/water truck having to travel 490 miles. Maybe you do? But this needs to be addressed in Texas especially for roads like 377 between Fort Worth and Granbury. The highway is littered with crossovers and thousands of access points by cross roads and business driveways. 70 mph for this road is too high. Same for 170 between Cleburne and Weatherford. It used to be a fairly deserted roadway. Not any more. Our local volunteer fire departments servicing these areas are seeing people slaughtered left and right every week it seems. The crosses litter the sides of the roads where families have left reminders of their dead.

Rick

I was thinking of regular 18-wheelers carrying every days goods like groceries and baby diapers. Slowing speeds down only delays the delivery of goods to be sold everywhere. It would likely increase inventory costs by hundreds of millions of dollars for everyone that ships things via 18-wheelers due to inventory arriving later at a store by 1 or more days.

This would be invisible to you Rick but to my company it is a pretty big deal. It likely wouldn't impact the prices we charge our customers but it will impact the company's bottom line in the long run.

Sometimes the best of intentions have the most unintended consequences.

[UNT90]

Sometimes the best of intentions have the most unintended consequences.

Windmill talk, anyone???

[Army of Dad]

Let them bitch all they want. We have reduced the speed limits before and for certain areas should do it again. The highway system varies all over the country. In certain ares of New Mexico you can drive over 70. But in Fort Worth you can't drive over 60 within the city limit interstate regions. And you can't drive over 65 on a Texas interstate after night.

And I don't know of a gravel hauler/water truck having to travel 490 miles. Maybe you do? But this needs to be addressed in Texas especially for roads like 377 between Fort Worth and Granbury. The highway is littered with crossovers and thousands of access points by cross roads and business driveways. 70 mph for this road is too high. Same for 170 between Cleburne and Weatherford. It used to be a fairly deserted roadway. Not any more. Our local volunteer fire departments servicing these areas are seeing people slaughtered left and right every week it seems. The crosses litter the sides of the roads where families have left reminders of their dead.

Rick

I think they did away with that last legislative session (not in force yet).

[HoustonEagle]

I think they did away with that last legislative session (not in force yet).

Perry has moved on to more important matters

[UNT90]

Perry has moved on to more important matters

Expect an announcement of a Presidential bid at any moment. All these issues to to make it look like he is the smaller government, tea party candidate.

What he is is a poor man's version of John McCain, without the good personal character.

This country needs a true conservative party... badly...

[Censored by Laurie]

Expect an announcement of a Presidential bid at any moment. All these issues to to make it look like he is the smaller government, tea party candidate.

What he is is a poor man's version of John McCain, without the good personal character.

This country needs a true conservative party... badly...

Pure posturing by the good-haired govnah.

Also, I actually agree with your last sentence.

[houstonmeangreen]

Well, I mean, nothing is illegal until you get caught. Rape laws, in theory, are nothing but feel good laws by you definition if you have a good disguise or a secluded place for the body.

Give me one circumstance where NOT having this law could be a GOOD thing? Yes...it is a difficult, if not impossible thing to enforce, but the illusion the law creates is enough to help keep people safe...same goes for seatbelt laws, speed limits. Flawless? Certainly not...but practical to have on the books and completely pointless to veto.

BTW, in Connecticut it is illegal to use one's cell phone while driving...and other neighboring states...New York, Massachusetts...have laws against texting and what's called "distracted driving." Again, is it difficult to enforce? Of course...but I promise you on the rare occasions I talk on my phone in my car I am very aware of whether or not a trooper or local officer is in the vicinity. These are effective deterrents.

Sir...I believe you are wrong on fthe rape, etc. not being illegal until you get caught.....maybe like the difference between "law" and "evidence".