Denton City Council bans texting while driving

UNT90 · May 9, 2014

When people - by law or their own will - feel obligated to ignore their texts and thus keep hands and eyes on the road, the roads are safer.
Am I alone here, or does UNT90 have some magical texting powers that do not take away from his driving focus at all? I must learn this power.

Hands and eyes don't matter unless your mind is engaged in the activity.

And yes, I can text, eat a hamburger, talk to my passenger, and drive all at the same time.

No problem.

Censored by Laurie · May 9, 2014

And it makes people feel great.
It's all about how people FEEL and nothing about solving an actual problem.

Actually...laws in general do this. So does religion, television and heroin.

I would ask what it is you would suggest to address the actual problem...but of course this isn't actually about the law with you...just your belief in the over-reach of big government, infringement on your 'murican civil liberties and I'm sure, somehow, the Constitution. It's getting boring. If you're going to continue on these rants, how about you grow a pair and just declare yourself an anarchist.

does UNT90 have some magical texting powers that do not take away from his driving focus at all?

Short of the apparent emotional attachment to his phone of a 14 year old girl, no.

MeanGreenTexan · May 9, 2014

Pretty much every driving law is enforced liberally and subjectively, save for times of crack-downs like DWI checkpoints and speed-traps...and are meant to promote awareness and serve as a deterrent for dangerous driving practice.
Texting while driving is dangerous. It baffles me why anyone would be against what will effectively serve as a deterrent for a dangerous practice. Stating that there are other dangerous activities that take place in a car isn't a logical argument against a law that discourages another dangerous activity. More than likely, Denton will be keen to enforce this for a month or so...issue a few dozen tickets in a brief period of time then scale back...again...creating common sense awareness and deterrent.
Most states up here in the Northeast have no hand-held cell use laws...no texting and calls from hands-free devices only. Sure...I still pass plenty of people on their phones (though, I doubt many so douche-y as to be driving and posting paragraphs to a message board), but I promise people for the most part are more conscious of the act because of the laws.

True story.

Once, I was in D.C. on business and was driving my rental car back to my hotel talking to my wife on my cell. As I pulled up to a red light, a police officer pulled up next to me. I look over at him and he's staring me down like I looked like Osama Bin Laden or something. I gave the the good ol' Southern 'Sup-nod' and turned back to watch for a green light and chatting w/my wife. Then, you know that feeling you get when some creepy person is watching you? It was that same cop. I looked back over at him, his eyes now staring at me like I have WMD's in the backseat, and he mouths "hang it up. NOW."

Now, whenever I go to use my phone in the car, I think of a big, scary cop staring at me, but I do it anyway.

UNT90 · May 9, 2014

Actually...laws in general do this. So does religion, television and heroin.
I would ask what it is you would suggest to address the actual problem...but of course this isn't actually about the law with you...just your belief in the over-reach of big government, infringement on your 'murican civil liberties and I'm sure, somehow, the Constitution. It's getting boring. If you're going to continue on these rants, how about you grow a pair and just declare yourself an anarchist.

Short of the apparent emotional attachment to his phone of a 14 year old girl, no.

Actually, there is nothing you can do. People just don't want to accept that because it doesn't make them FEEL good. It has nothing to do with politics, believe it or not.

Enjoy your non-enforceable, feel good law. It will have zero effect on anything.

Quoner · May 9, 2014

Trying things that make sense, yes.
Creating laws the the law enforcers violate every hour of every day and are unenforceable?
No.

Sweet - no more speed limits!

forevereagle · May 9, 2014

Actually, there is nothing you can do. People just don't want to accept that because it doesn't make them FEEL good. It has nothing to do with politics, believe it or not.
Enjoy your non-enforceable, feel good law. It will have zero effect on anything.

Why even have laws? Most are only partially enforceable at best.

UNT90 · May 9, 2014

Sweet - no more speed limits!

Works for Germany.

And speeding is enforceable.

forevereagle · May 9, 2014

Works for Germany.
And speeding is enforceable.

Some of the time. But I would argue that the vast majority of the time it is unenforced.

Green P1 · May 9, 2014

Usually I don't look directly at the my passengers and finger them with one or both hands while driving. If I plan on doing that I park somewhere quiet.

This guy closed the thread down like a page ago. Why are you goobers still posting?

LongJim · May 9, 2014

That doesn't sound like less government involvement, just not new laws.

I would say writing a new law, putting it into effect, enforcing (?) it, applying judicial judgements for it, etc., etc., etc., is a lot of government involvement. Again, why not enforce the laws already designed to deter impaired driving, rather than force police to "catch" a texter who has not committed any other violation? How does one do that? Video camera? Satellite surveillance?

forevereagle · May 9, 2014

I would say writing a new law, putting it into effect, enforcing (?) it, applying judicial judgements for it, etc., etc., etc., is a lot of government involvement. Again, why not enforce the laws already designed to deter impaired driving, rather than force police to "catch" a texter who has not committed any other violation? How does one do that? Video camera? Satellite surveillance?

It takes a lot of government involvement regardless of what we choose to implement. Just getting a road with signs, lights, lane markers, etc. takes a lot of government involvement. Police are out patrolling and looking for other violations, why not have them look for this as well? Even if they don't write a single ticket, people are now aware that it is something that is being looked at so it will deter some from doing it and make the roads a little safer. Just because it is difficult to enforce does not mean that it is not a worthwhile pursuit. There are many laws that are difficult and extremely costly to enforce, yet we keep them on the books.

UNT90 · May 9, 2014

I think we should only be allowed to drive if we are wearing a swim suit, have a head control device that never let's the chin drop below perpendicular to the roadway, a vehicle that only operates when it senses 2 hands on the wheel, a governor on the motor for speed control, all radios banned from vehicle installation, a soundproof partition quandranting off each seating area to prevent in car conversation, and eyelid holder openers to ensure you don't fall asleep.

The perfect safe vehicle for all you government loving pansies out there.

Edited May 9, 2014 by UNT90

Quoner · May 10, 2014

You need us

I think we should only be allowed to drive if we are wearing a swim suit, have a head control device that never let's the chin drop below perpendicular to the roadway, a vehicle that only operates when it senses 2 hands on the wheel, a governor on the motor for speed control, all radios banned from vehicle installation, a soundproof partition quandranting off each seating area to prevent in car conversation, and eyelid holder openers to ensure you don't fall asleep.

The perfect safe vehicle for all you government loving pansies out there.

You need people responding badly to feel alive, don't you?

emmitt01 · May 10, 2014

So stupid is this law. The distraction is in your head, not in your hands.
Just a feel good law to hopefully influence young people not to do it. Enforcement is practically non-existent in Arlington.
Ironically, the police who would enforce this law have a huge texting machine in their patrol car called an MDC. They use it while driving constantly. Police administrations make a wink and nod policy saying you can't use it, but at the same time tell you response times must come down. Basically, the policy is there only to shield the city from liability and police supervision from responsibility. It is practiced by no one in the department, including Sgts. and Lts. And EVERYONE knows it.
So, it would be the height of hypocrisy for officers to enforce these terrible laws, and most realize it. I wouldn't trust the ones that don't.

I'll be sure to let my officer who is lying in a Baylor hospital bed right now because he was rear ended LAST NIGHT (while blocking traffic with all of his lights on) by a lady who was texting while driving that things are ok because deterence doesn't work. Should I tell him that his torn ligaments in his neck hurt less because the law is "silly" or because we're all hypocrits? Please be specific.

But, hey, I'm just some dumb ol' cop hypocrit. It's not like researchers have proven a rise in traffic crashes and fatalities because of texting...

"Many studies have clearly demonstrated the risks related to texting while driving. One study shows texting and driving raises the probability of a crash eightfold, while another shows it increases a truck driver’s chance of being in a crash by a factor of 24. Researchers call texting a “perfect storm” of danger because drivers take their hands off the steering wheel, and their eyes and minds are off the road.

Read more: Driving Today: Do Anti-texting Laws Work? http://www.drivingtoday.com/features/archive/texting_while_driving/index.html#ixzz31HCUufbT"

And it's not as if deterence minded laws are worth-while absent 100% success, right? I mean the death penalty hasn't reduced the number of serial killers, a legal drinking age hasn't stopped underage drinking and the presence of big red octagons that say "STOP" hasn't stopped intersection crashes. Let's just scrap them all because all they do is make us "feel good".

Oooor, could it be, that you're simply arguing yourself in circles yet again?

Edited May 10, 2014 by emmitt01

GreenMachine · May 10, 2014

The govt can't do the simplest of things, why ask them to do more. You pansies that think corporations are evil, please explain how politians are less corrupt.

emmitt01 · May 10, 2014

I would say writing a new law, putting it into effect, enforcing (?) it, applying judicial judgements for it, etc., etc., etc., is a lot of government involvement. Again, why not enforce the laws already designed to deter impaired driving, rather than force police to "catch" a texter who has not committed any other violation? How does one do that? Video camera? Satellite surveillance?

I'm no rocket scientist but I'd suggest pulling over the texters that I pass by, in a marked squad car, at least 10 times a week. Believe it or not they never see me coming because they are, surprise, not paying attention to the road.

GreenMachine · May 10, 2014

I'm no rocket scientist but I'd suggest pulling over the texters that I pass by, in a marked squad car, at least 10 times a week. Believe it or not they never see me coming because they are, surprise, not paying attention to the road.

What about pulling over the drunk mayors, child molesting cops, corrupt city council members, where does that fall in importance? Just curious.

emmitt01 · May 10, 2014

What about pulling over the drunk mayors, child molesting cops, corrupt city council members, where does that fall in importance? Just curious.

Oh, we leave those people alone. Haven't you heard, we never pick on "real criminals".

Any other flippant questions you'd like to ask or have your stroke symptoms subsided?

GreenMachine · May 10, 2014

Oh, we leave those people alone. Haven't you heard, we never pick on "real criminals".

Any other flippant questions you'd like to ask or have your stroke symptoms subsided?

yes, one more question, have you always been an asshole or just since becoming a pig?

emmitt01 · May 10, 2014

of course, being the smart-ass that you are, you couldn't answer a staight up question with a straight up answer.
Since you got a degree from the easiest degree on earth, i will ask again in layman's terms, is texting while driving more serious than corrupt Mayers, more serious than cops that beat their wives, more serious than politicians that abuse their positions? How serious is texting while driving?

Let me answer in even simpler terms. It's far less severe than the examples you listed...even us dumb ol' cops know that.

Now, let me get well above your head. We are able to, gasp, enforce a wide array of laws...sometimes simultaneously. And, try not to let me lose you here, enforcing one doesn't magically preclude us from enforcing another. Let me spell it out...the 5 minutes it takes to write a citation isn't automatically the same five minutes I would have spent arresting a crooked "mayer".

If laws were only valid based on their relative heinousness and the importance of preventing the prohibited act then the penal code would be quite slim. I mean, shouldn't we just outlaw murder, child molestation, rape and the like? Tax fraud, DWI and burglary all pale in comparison, no?

Gosh, this whole logic thing is so liberating for a mental midget with a badge like me. Or maybe my "easiest degree on earth" prepared me well to take a MENSA member like you behind the proverbial woodshed.

If anyone needs me I'll be beating my wife but not texting while driving.

Edited May 10, 2014 by emmitt01

GreenMachine · May 10, 2014

Let me answer in even simple terms. It's far less severe than the examples you listed...even us dumb ol' cops know that.
Now, let me get well above your head. We are able to, gasp, enforce a wide array of laws...sometimes simultaneously. And, try not to let me lose you here, enforcing one doesn't magically preclude us from enforcing another. Let me spell it out...the 5 minutes it takes to write a citation isn't automatically the same five minutes I would have spent arresting a crooked "mayer".
If laws were only valid based on their relative heinousness and the importance of preventing the prohibited act then the penal code would be quite slim. I mean, shouldn't we just outlaw murder, child molestation, rape and the like? Tax fraud, DWI and burglary all pale in comparison, no?
Gosh, this whole logic thing is so liberating for a mental midget with a badge like me. Or maybe my "easiest degree on earth" prepared me well to take a MENSA member like you behind the proverbial woodshed.
If anyone needs me I'll be beating my wife but not texting while driving.

nice John Wiley Price response. Lots of BS with absolutely no intelligent meaning. Play your stupid cop games with others but you are very transparent. Glad you are only a cop.

emmitt01 · May 10, 2014

nice John Wiley Price response. Lots of BS with absolutely no intelligent meaning. Play your stupid cop games with others but you are very transparent. Glad you are only a cop.

As concession speeches go that was original.