Posted: 2/18/2011 8:48:20 AM EDT
|
A measure that would ban texting while driving passed the state senate committee today and is on it's way to the full senate...
It's crap like this that the people are fed up with and only widens the already open door for more nanny state .gov intrusions into our privacy! Not to mention the only way to enforce this would be relinquishing your cellular device and an officer go through your text history-when you could just as easily be surfing the web on your phone or listening to your music device or lighting a cigar  making it look like you're distracted by use of a phone. Total bull
DON'T TREAD ON ME means stay the hell out of my life and property, and respect my privacy |
|
I disagree. I nearly got killed by a Texting driver last year on my bike. I ended up over the curb and in the grass before she ever looked up . . . . Thank got there was a sidewalk ramp or I would have sustained injury.
Texting has no place behind the wheel nor does people who read books at the wheel. Hands should be on the wheel. Eyes should be on the road. Arguing otherwise is pointless. It equates to shooting with a blindfold. Its shit you just dont do. |
|
But the point is: the government has no right to confiscate my phone and see if I'm guilty of texting while driving...
I ran a bike here for almost two years racking up almost 30,000 miles and trust me I don't like it when dumbasses text and don't pay attention. Next things in line would be helmet laws in cars, trucks, and bike because "it's for your own good". Your stance is quite knee-jerk and we as humans-not immortal and never making a mistake- must accept that $h!t happens and by taking to the road we all assume a degree of risk. "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." — Thomas Jefferson |
|
Quoted:
But the point is: the government has no right to confiscate my phone and see if I'm guilty of texting while driving... I ran a bike here for almost two years racking up almost 30,000 miles and trust me I don't like it when dumbasses text and don't pay attention. Next things in line would be helmet laws in cars, trucks, and bike because "it's for your own good". Your stance is quite knee-jerk and we as humans-not immortal and never making a mistake- must accept that $h!t happens and by taking to the road we all assume a degree of risk. "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." — Thomas Jefferson Bullshit. Driving a several thousand pound steel rocket warrets ones attention. Texting is the equivilant of typing on a computer. It requires concentration and at least one hand and for the vast majority ones eyesight to boot. Its not for their own good its for thiers as well as the good of others and is a legitimat fact. I guess you think the intoxicated should be allowed to freely drive about as well without fear of legal conciquence? |
|
Texting while driving isn't THE problem. Failure to pay attention to the task at hand is. Distracted/poor drivers will still remain distracted and those that lack "good" driving skils will always lack "good" driving skills. This type of law will accomplish nothing, honestly.
Some people feel they always have to be doing something while driving, and if they can't text they'll find something else to do. Oh, using cell phones that don't have hands free devices is prohibited on military installations. Guess what, this was passed probably close to two years ago, and it STILL HAPPENS. I see it multiple times every day of the week on Tinker. This does not need to be a LAW. |
|
Quoted:
Texting while driving isn't THE problem. Failure to pay attention to the task at hand is. Distracted/poor drivers will still remain distracted and those that lack "good" driving skils will always lack "good" driving skills. This type of law will accomplish nothing, honestly. Some people feel they always have to be doing something while driving, and if they can't text they'll find something else to do. Oh, using cell phones that don't have hands free devices is prohibited on military installations. Guess what, this was passed probably close to two years ago, and it STILL HAPPENS. I see it multiple times every day of the week on Tinker. This does not need to be a LAW. However by making it LAW it give the people the ability to hold those accountable for being a distracted poor driver . . . . Possibly and most likely saving the lives of many. Speeding is illegal as well but still people do it quite often and often get away with it. Its still however nice to see people keep civil speeds through the zones though now isnt it. With a speed limit in place some may do a few over but at least we dont have near the inconviences they have in Saudi or Kuwait roadways. Most all of it is going to be be at the officers discression anyway. If he notices you driving like a lunitick then now at least he has another tool to keep the roads a little safer and another way to remove these types from the road. Drunks and people under the influnce of driving distracted puts many people in danger. Its being addressed in the appropriate fashon for the times. Sadly it is necessary. |
|
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. Guess where this is from . . . . Its far more powerful than one mans quote . . . . This country is not founded for chaos. If certain things are not addressed as the times develope then the government we have is sadly no better than the one we left. |
|
Quoted:
Bullshit. Thanks for being a big boy Having actually read your reply and the CONTENT therein, I would assume you'll have the consistency to push for bans on books, radios, personal mirrors on visors, drinks, food, lip balm, or anything else that "causes" a driver to be distracted (in quotes because it's always the choice of the driver), and passengers since the absence of passengers statistically decreases the risk of an accident and decreases the degree to which the driver is distracted.... I'm talking common sense. How many freedoms are you willing to give up so you can feel all warm and fuzzy? Quoted:
This country is not founded for chaos. If certain things are not addressed as the times develope then the government we have is sadly no better than the one we left. By your reason, addressing things as the times develop means allowing the exertion of increasingly more control by our government over more aspects of our lives. You have to draw a line somewhere and stand for principles of freedom and if you don't understand this much then I'm not sure you will. |
|
Quoted:
snip . . . Having actually read your reply and the CONTENT therein, I would assume you'll have the consistency to push for bans on books, radios, personal mirrors on visors, drinks, food, lip balm, or anything else that "causes" a driver to be distracted (in quotes because it's always the choice of the driver), and passengers since the absence of passengers statistically decreases the risk of an accident and decreases the degree to which the driver is distracted.... There is already a law in place . . . §47-11-901b. Full time and attention to driving. The operator of every vehicle, while driving, shall devote their full time and attention to such driving. No law enforcement officer shall issue a citation under this section unless the law enforcement officer observes that the operator of the vehicle is involved in an accident or observes the operator of the vehicle driving in such a manner that poses an articulable danger to other persons on the roadway that is not otherwise specified in statute. Added by Laws 2003, c. 108, § 3, eff. Nov. 1, 2003. Amended by Laws 2010, c. 76, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 2010. §47-11-901c. Unlawful use of cellular telephone. A. It shall be unlawful for a public transit driver to operate a motor vehicle on any street or highway within this state while using a cellular telephone or electronic communication device to write, send, or read a text-based communication while the motor vehicle is in motion. B. Any person who violates the provisions of subsection A of this section shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). C. As used in this section: 1. “Cellular telephone” means an analog or digital wireless telephone authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to operate in the frequency bandwidth reserved for cellular telephones; 2. “Electronic communication device” means an electronic device that permits the user to manually transmit a communication of written text by means other than through an oral transfer or wire communication. This term does not include a voice-activated global positioning or navigation system that is affixed to a motor vehicle; and 3. “Public transit driver” means: a.any operator of a public transit vehicle owned and operated by the State of Oklahoma, any public trust authority, county, municipality, town or city within this state, b.any operator of a school bus or multi-passenger motor vehicle owned and approved to operate by the State Department of Education or any school district within this state, or c.any operator, conductor or driver of a locomotive engine, railway car or train of cars. D. This act shall not apply to railroads and railroad operating employees regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration. Added by Laws 2010, c. 218, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2010. |
|
If an LEO seizes your cell phone and goes through your calls and texts for a misdemeanor, it is an unwarranted invasion of your 4A rights.
So if it happens, take the cell phone away from him and then shove it up his arse with the ringer set to vibrate. Then call him from a payphone to give him a real buzz! 
|
|
All they have to do is compare the record of the time of day of the offense with the information provided by your cell carrier to prove you were using while driving. You WILL lose unless you can prove reasonable doubt that another occupent in the viehicle was using the device and you were not. Even if you did win your still going to be paying court costs and attorney fees. So long story short. Dont be an idiot.
Nowhere in our founding documents does it give any person more freedom than another. Nowhere in our founding documents does it grant unlimited freedom either. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
snip . . . Having actually read your reply and the CONTENT therein, I would assume you'll have the consistency to push for bans on books, radios, personal mirrors on visors, drinks, food, lip balm, or anything else that "causes" a driver to be distracted (in quotes because it's always the choice of the driver), and passengers since the absence of passengers statistically decreases the risk of an accident and decreases the degree to which the driver is distracted.... There is already a law in place for distracted drivers unless I am mistaken. It passed via an executive order from the govenor last year. Then tell me sir why in the hell do we need a NEW law which will net no effect? If an officer can pull you over for distracted driving, why does be need to know whether or not you were actually texting someone? You just shot yourself in the foot |
|
Quoted:
snip . . . You just shot yourself in the foot LoL I think you got that backwards. Perhaps you should reread the thead. BTW where is your link to this new law? I would like to read it. If there is anything new its likely to further expand upon the law already on the books. Ie make it sting that much more . . . to leave a more lasting impression. |
| Sadly the travesty here is not that personal freedoms have been overstepped but that not all people are responsible enough to know when its appropriate and when its not. The sad part is that it was necessary to make a legal measure to stop people from being outright dangerous to themselves and others because they are to incompetent to exhibit appropriate self discipline. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
BTW where is your link to this new law? I would like to read it. If there is anything new its likely to further expand upon the law already on the books. I could have sworn a no texting/talking on cell phone while driving law went into effect last fall. 
It did see the information I provided above. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
BTW where is your link to this new law? I would like to read it. If there is anything new its likely to further expand upon the law already on the books. I could have sworn a no texting/talking on cell phone while driving law went into effect last fall.
Silly thing! 
Don't you know this is a revenue issue, not a public safety concern! |
|
Either way you've established that you have no problem giving up little right after little right and I do...
I don't have a link and am not gonna go looking it up on my phone taking more time out of my work, but the principle of the thing exists: I do not want to open new doors for the gov to grace me with new restrictions upon my freedoms. I got the news from the KTOK today and that's all I know. I have no interest and have not argued about a specific code, but the principle. |
|
Fister why don't you read a law before you post it
See areas highlighted in red: Quoted:
There is already a law in place . . . Snip... §47-11-901c. Unlawful use of cellular telephone. A. It shall be unlawful for a public transit driver to operate a motor vehicle on any street or highway within this state while using a cellular telephone or electronic communication device to write, send, or read a text-based communication while the motor vehicle is in motion. B. Any person who violates the provisions of subsection A of this section shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). C. As used in this section: 1. “Cellular telephone” means an analog or digital wireless telephone authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to operate in the frequency bandwidth reserved for cellular telephones; 2. “Electronic communication device” means an electronic device that permits the user to manually transmit a communication of written text by means other than through an oral transfer or wire communication. This term does not include a voice-activated global positioning or navigation system that is affixed to a motor vehicle; and 3. “Public transit driver” means: a.any operator of a public transit vehicle owned and operated by the State of Oklahoma, any public trust authority, county, municipality, town or city within this state, b.any operator of a school bus or multi-passenger motor vehicle owned and approved to operate by the State Department of Education or any school district within this state, or c.any operator, conductor or driver of a locomotive engine, railway car or train of cars. D. This act shall not apply to railroads and railroad operating employees regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration. Added by Laws 2010, c. 218, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2010. Last time I checked I do not drive a vehicle owned by the state |
| You know, as much as I agree that the .gov should stay out of my life, I got to agree with Fister. There are to many people out there that are so incompetent and will go to great lengths to show how ignorantly stupid they are. Unfortunetly, they haven't made it manditory to take an IQ test for getting a DL. |
|
Quoted:
You know, as much as I agree that the .gov should stay out of my life, I got to agree with Fister. There are to many people out there that are so incompetent and will go to great lengths to show how ignorantly stupid they are. Unfortunetly, they haven't made it manditory to take an IQ test for getting a DL. So push for an IQ test. Not a blanket knee-jerk reactionary law that only decreases our freedom |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The thing that sucks about texting and driving is finding a place to put your beer!!  Speaking about sucks, it isn't a cold beer you usually have between your lips.
You need help with your sexual dreams!!!!!!! You should be dreaming about women!!!!! Not Ratt inverted while Nden holds his ankles!!!
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The thing that sucks about texting and driving is finding a place to put your beer!! Speaking about sucks, it isn't a cold beer you usually have between your lips.
You need help with your sexual dreams!!!!!!! You should be dreaming about women!!!!! Not Ratt inverted while Nden holds his ankles!!!
Forget the Nden. You and Rat gave new meaning to the term "reach around". 
|
|
Quoted:
Fister why don't you read a law before you post it See areas highlighted in red: Quoted:
There is already a law in place . . . Snip... §47-11-901c. Unlawful use of cellular telephone. A. It shall be unlawful for a public transit driver to operate a motor vehicle on any street or highway within this state while using a cellular telephone or electronic communication device to write, send, or read a text-based communication while the motor vehicle is in motion. B. Any person who violates the provisions of subsection A of this section shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). C. As used in this section: 1. “Cellular telephone” means an analog or digital wireless telephone authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to operate in the frequency bandwidth reserved for cellular telephones; 2. “Electronic communication device” means an electronic device that permits the user to manually transmit a communication of written text by means other than through an oral transfer or wire communication. This term does not include a voice-activated global positioning or navigation system that is affixed to a motor vehicle; and 3. “Public transit driver” means: a.any operator of a public transit vehicle owned and operated by the State of Oklahoma, any public trust authority, county, municipality, town or city within this state, b.any operator of a school bus or multi-passenger motor vehicle owned and approved to operate by the State Department of Education or any school district within this state, or c.any operator, conductor or driver of a locomotive engine, railway car or train of cars. D. This act shall not apply to railroads and railroad operating employees regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration. Added by Laws 2010, c. 218, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2010. Last time I checked I do not drive a vehicle owned by the state Feel free to use the laws provided in the cited text above to read through the hundred or so pages to find it. This should give you a good start. I only pulled some the text. Feel free to read on. http://www.drivinglaws.org/ok.php will provide you with when and what bill was used. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Texting while driving isn't THE problem. Failure to pay attention to the task at hand is. Distracted/poor drivers will still remain distracted and those that lack "good" driving skils will always lack "good" driving skills. This type of law will accomplish nothing, honestly. Some people feel they always have to be doing something while driving, and if they can't text they'll find something else to do. Oh, using cell phones that don't have hands free devices is prohibited on military installations. Guess what, this was passed probably close to two years ago, and it STILL HAPPENS. I see it multiple times every day of the week on Tinker. This does not need to be a LAW. However by making it LAW it give the people the ability to hold those accountable for being a distracted poor driver . . . . Possibly and most likely saving the lives of many. Speeding is illegal as well but still people do it quite often and often get away with it. Its still however nice to see people keep civil speeds through the zones though now isnt it. With a speed limit in place some may do a few over but at least we dont have near the inconviences they have in Saudi or Kuwait roadways. Most all of it is going to be be at the officers discression anyway. If he notices you driving like a lunitick then now at least he has another tool to keep the roads a little safer and another way to remove these types from the road. Drunks and people under the influnce of driving distracted puts many people in danger. Its being addressed in the appropriate fashon for the times. Sadly it is necessary. People talk about adding in "crimes committed with a firearm" onto the law books, well guess what, murder, aggravated assault, armed robbery, etc are already against the law? In my opinion you're lumping in a "new" law which already piggybacks on current laws. For example, things such as speeding, failure to maintain minimum speed, hitting other vehicles/objects/people, failing to yield, running red lights, following too closely, etc are already illegal! I'm not saying I condone people texting while driving, but I don't think we need a law prohibiting it. |
|
Quoted:
Still nothing about private citizens and texting... 
No private citizens are covered (along with all your examples of a distraction) under this blanket statute. Cite as: 47 O.S. § 11-901b (OSCN 2011) –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– The operator of every vehicle, while driving, shall devote their full time and attention to such driving. No law enforcement officer shall issue a citation under this section unless the law enforcement officer observes that the operator of the vehicle is involved in an accident or observes the operator of the vehicle driving in such a manner that poses an articulable danger to other persons on the roadway that is not otherwise specified in statute. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Texting while driving isn't THE problem. Failure to pay attention to the task at hand is. Distracted/poor drivers will still remain distracted and those that lack "good" driving skils will always lack "good" driving skills. This type of law will accomplish nothing, honestly. Some people feel they always have to be doing something while driving, and if they can't text they'll find something else to do. Oh, using cell phones that don't have hands free devices is prohibited on military installations. Guess what, this was passed probably close to two years ago, and it STILL HAPPENS. I see it multiple times every day of the week on Tinker. This does not need to be a LAW. However by making it LAW it give the people the ability to hold those accountable for being a distracted poor driver . . . . Possibly and most likely saving the lives of many. Speeding is illegal as well but still people do it quite often and often get away with it. Its still however nice to see people keep civil speeds through the zones though now isnt it. With a speed limit in place some may do a few over but at least we dont have near the inconviences they have in Saudi or Kuwait roadways. Most all of it is going to be be at the officers discression anyway. If he notices you driving like a lunitick then now at least he has another tool to keep the roads a little safer and another way to remove these types from the road. Drunks and people under the influnce of driving distracted puts many people in danger. Its being addressed in the appropriate fashon for the times. Sadly it is necessary. People talk about adding in "crimes committed with a firearm" onto the law books, well guess what, murder, aggravated assault, armed robbery, etc are already against the law? In my opinion you're lumping in a "new" law which already piggybacks on current laws. For example, things such as speeding, failure to maintain minimum speed, hitting other vehicles/objects/people, failing to yield, running red lights, following too closely, etc are already illegal! I'm not saying I condone people texting while driving, but I don't think we need a law prohibiting it. If it meerly spells it out removing any gray area and applying a more specific punishment for the cause then whats the problem? If anything adding in a law that specifically designates a different level of punishment is a good thing. That way they are not all simply lumped together and the lesser crimes stay the lesser crimes. Many of the examples you show above are often commited without a firearm. Since already against the law the person will be held to a degree of accountability. However adding into the text "committed with a firearm" opens the door for a more sever punishment of which would likely be a stronger detterant as well as a bonus to those law abiding gun owners rights. Take the young "street artist" who was cained years ago . . . Michael P. Fay. Bet thinks twice before ever doing that again . . . . HERE is Michaels story A stiffer penalty is needed in many areas of our law. By the inclusion of new wording it allows for new ways to deal with the crime in question. |
|
So then what will be the definition of texting while driving? Is it wrong to be reading texts (not sending) while driving? What if someone texts you, how is that your fault? What if you're dialing a number? What if what if?
As said earlier, what if you were using a non-texting device? You can what if this one to death. I'm just going to disagree with kyle on this one. again.
The real problem with texting patrick is that dan will also get the same buzz from the vibrating, and it'll knock all of dan's last few teeth out. 
|
|
On the side note of the story linked above. I find humor in that he turned to a life of drugs but not his carrer as a "street artist" lol
You can what if this one to death. I'm just going to disagree with kyle on this one. again.
The whole point of a good debate is to not agree is it not . . . . So then what will be the definition of texting while driving? Is it wrong to be reading texts (not sending) while driving? What if someone texts you, how is that your fault? What if you're dialing a number? What if what if?
As said earlier, what if you were using a non-texting device? Your question has already been answered by the above statutes. If you are observed to be to distracted in what your doing . . . . whatever that is then its grounds for a citation. Its pretty clear but apparently not quite clear enough . . . hence the purposed inclusion of new lauguage . . . . as to better make it clearer for types like you
ETA It still boils down to self disipline . . . If you dont have the self disipline to leave it alone and only pick up the crackberry (or insert other random smart phone etc here) when its appopriate then you will be disiplined by the people for being and idiot. 
|
|
Quoted:
ETA It still boils down to self disipline . . . If you dont have the self disipline to leave it alone and only pick up the crackberry (or insert other random smart phone etc here) when its appopriate then you will be disiplined by the people for being and idiot. So why give the give the .gov permission to look at your freaking phone? You do not get the freedom aspect of the argument against the law. If they can already cite you for distracted driving then why do thy need to see if you were actually texting, eating, sipping a soda, cleaning food off your shirt, etc.? You name it! It is an unenforceable encroachment of our rights. Idk why you can't see this
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
ETA It still boils down to self disipline . . . If you dont have the self disipline to leave it alone and only pick up the crackberry (or insert other random smart phone etc here) when its appopriate then you will be disiplined by the people for being and idiot. So why give the give the .gov permission to look at your freaking phone? You do not get the freedom aspect of the argument against the law. Where does it give the .gov permission? If they can already cite you for distracted driving then why do thy need to see if you were actually texting, eating, sipping a soda, cleaning food off your shirt, etc.? You name it! It is an unenforceable encroachment of our rights. Idk why you can't see this By introducing new laguage into the law it allows for a new set of punishmets that better suit the crime commited. It is quite enforceable. I am not you, and you dont speak for me or all of us here. I feel there are things that should be illegal and that laws are needed to set apart those that are morally corrupt as well as the unethical. I also understand and feel its appropriate that not every infraction of the law should be handled in the same manner with the same punishment. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Still nothing about private citizens and texting...
No private citizens are covered (along with all your examples of a distraction) under this blanket statute. Cite as: 47 O.S. § 11-901b (OSCN 2011) –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– The operator of every vehicle, while driving, shall devote their full time and attention to such driving. No law enforcement officer shall issue a citation under this section unless the law enforcement officer observes that the operator of the vehicle is involved in an accident or observes the operator of the vehicle driving in such a manner that poses an articulable danger to other persons on the roadway that is not otherwise specified in statute. Yes we are covered by distracted driving definitions... NOT specifying that if you so much as think about using your phone you'll be driving erratically... If someone is not driving erratically, there is no cause for contact by an officer, except for after an accident. No one has the right to confiscate my phone and open my history... Nor should the gov have the ability to pull my records. That is an unlawful invasion of my private records... ESPECIALLY without a freaking warrant... ETA: the new language would give the government a de facto permission to look at your phone history in order to prove your guilt... Otherwise it's unenforceable... |
|
Quoted:
Yes we are covered by distracted driving definitions... NOT specifying that if you so much as think about using your phone you'll be driving erratically... If someone is not driving erratically, there is no cause for contact by an officer, except for after an accident. No one has the right to confiscate my phone and open my history... Nor should the gov have the ability to pull my records. That is an unlawful invasion of my private records... ESPECIALLY without a freaking warrant... ETA: the new language would give the government a de facto permission to look at your phone history in order to prove your guilt... Otherwise it's unenforceable... Edit to address the above comment. They dont need your phone. They dont need to see your phone. They only need subponea your phone record from its carrier. Found it . . . ITS HB 1316 http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2011-12bills/HB/HB1316_int.rtf <––- give it a read As I pointed out before it gives them the ability to specifically address and impliment a punishment specifically relating to the use of cell phones while driving and texting . . . It does so by this . . . Wait theres more also a fine for (to include court costs) Any person who violates the provisions of subsection A of this section shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00).
. Any person who violates the provisions of subsection A of this section shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00).
WOW they are going after the youngsters . . . . B. Any person under eighteen (18) years of age who violates the provisions of subsection A of this section shall, upon conviction, be punished as follows:
1. For a first conviction, by a fine of not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) nor more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00); 2. For a second conviction, by a fine of not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00). In addition, the judge shall require the person to complete not less than forty (40) hours of community service; and 3. For a third or subsequent conviction, by a fine of not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) nor more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). In addition, the judge shall require the person to complete not less than eighty (80) hours of community service. The person shall also be subject to the cancellation or denial of driving |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The thing that sucks about texting and driving is finding a place to put your beer!! Speaking about sucks, it isn't a cold beer you usually have between your lips.
You need help with your sexual dreams!!!!!!! You should be dreaming about women!!!!! Not Ratt inverted while Nden holds his ankles!!!
don't include me an any of ya'lls manlove fantasies. as for texting while driving, I don't do that either, I got a cellphone to talk on, not type on. |
|
Quoted:
I don't know bout you Dan 
But Fister, no matter what, the original discussion as to whether or not it is right for the government to have another increase in authority is the debate... Not what a specific piece of Oklahoma code states You have never made that intention clear until now. If you want to debate that then by all means. . . . but you should really retitle this thread to reflect and edit your first post. Its pretty apparent that we are and were drawn into this thread by your title of "Texting while driving" followed by the opener of . . . A measure that would ban texting while driving passed the state senate committee today and is on it's way to the full senate... Just saying . . . . When a new thing pops up, and is then abused to the point where people start dying, then we have to find a solution to draw everyones attention. As pointed out before in previous posts . . . this really isnt "new" its meerly expanded upon with a new set of fines and criteria met. So in a way its actually a cap on what you could have been caught up in before. It hits the young adults the hardest and slaps the older generation to keep them in check as opposed to some of the greater fines that could have been handed down. |
|
I was in the Public Safety Committee when the bill was heard. Sen. Jerry Ellis (D, Idabel) and a very good friend and stand up man and a pro 2A guy proposed the bill. It limits only texting as last year's distracted driving law took care of much of the other stuff.
The delicate issue is how do you allow folks to use cell phones (which nearly everyone does) and make it safer. Texting is stupid while driving (and for me even at all) and I love the analogy about shooting blind. That said, I was one of the two votes against it in committee because the language did not sufficiently address whether an individual could be construed to be dialing or texting without taking the phone and that seemed to cover improper search of private property which requires a warrant. Jerry will tighten up the language and I will support if if the 4A can be protected. Not all laws are abhorrent to our freedom. We accept that lines are on the road. They restrict us but in reality make us able to predict the normal behavior of others on the road so we can all drive safely and at speed. We do the same thing at intersections with stop signs and stop lights. They restrict us and make us wait. But they offer freedom of movement by offering predictability. Texting is erratic. I do not believe it can be safely brought into driving when hands and eyes are both needed to do it. Consequently, and to borrow Abraham Lincoln, what cannot collectively be solved by the people, the government might have a role. Steve |
|
Steve I agree with you that not all laws are intrusions to freedom, but there are so many scenario variations and possibilities that can exist, there is no viable way this can ever be a non-intrusion of our 4A... A good what if is what if I have a passenger that also has a cell phone... You will now need to have subpoenas for both records because it is possible the driver was using a different phone... The requirement of phone records and such for proof that a person was driving erratically, distracted by use of a celular phone, adds no enforceability to pre-existing distracted-driving law, as a citation can already be issued for such erratic driving.
Thank you for your input
And keep up your good work at the Capitol Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know bout you Dan
But Fister, no matter what, the original discussion as to whether or not it is right for the government to have another increase in authority is the debate... Not what a specific piece of Oklahoma code states You have never made that intention clear until now. If you want to debate that then by all means. . . . but you should really retitle this thread to reflect and edit your first post. Its pretty apparent that we are and were drawn into this thread by your title of "Texting while driving" followed by the opener of . . . A measure that would ban texting while driving passed the state senate committee today and is on it's way to the full senate... Just saying . . . . When a new thing pops up, and is then abused to the point where people start dying, then we have to find a solution to draw everyones attention. As pointed out before in previous posts . . . this really isnt "new" its meerly expanded upon with a new set of fines and criteria met. So in a way its actually a cap on what you could have been caught up in before. It hits the young adults the hardest and slaps the older generation to keep them in check as opposed to some of the greater fines that could have been handed down. No sir, Fister. I started a discussion on whether the government should now have permission to invade our phone privacy, then you went down the road of what law is already on the books. Your analysis still proves my point that the new language is not needed to enforce erratic driving law already in place, simply because you can already receive a citation without pulling your phone records as proof to whether or not you were actually using your device... Contact by an officer is to be made after the officer witnesses a crash or erratic driving, and just as with many other laws, the cause of said crash or erratic driving does not make one bit of difference to the end result––- you still get a ticket! I simply don't want .gov to have yet another method of pulling my records arbitrarily. By reason of public good, then I'd assume supporters of this legislation would also support a ban on bare shin of beautiful women within 100 yards of a public roadway... Full hijab and burqas so I don't see a young lady and cause a wreck Seems ridiculous but this is the same reasoning... |