So if I pick up my kids play phone and pretend to talk on it (cause you know they call everyone and want you to talk to them) and an officer THINKS I was on my phone I can get a ticket?
CS ordinance banning cell phone use while driving
40,089 Views |
271 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by Clo004
I wasn't claiming to think anything about the law. I was telling a story that I witnessed.
Texting will be allowed at a complete stop, according to the law. That would seem to cover the obsessive compulsion to do it.
quote:Benham's the only one worth keeping around.
Mayor and Places 2, 3 and 4 are up for election in November.
Filing period is underway and ends Aug. 22.
quote:
I'll rely on my personal experience over a study. My observations of the reckless behavior are entirely too frequent. Thanks.
This rationale is a public administrator's dream.
quote:Hmmm, having a vivid imagination is usually a positive trait, but I would think telling an officer of the law you were only pretending might stretch your credibility. Real criminals have tried that with not so good results.
So if I pick up my kids play phone and pretend to talk on it (cause you know they call everyone and want you to talk to them) and an officer THINKS I was on my phone I can get a ticket?
quote:The issue is that they're already a law for this. It's already illegal:
I'm not sure of the exact statistics,but it seems I've heard that distracted driving is as bad or worse than drunk driving. That said, clearly seems prudent to enact a law to discourage a dangerous practice.
quote:
Sec. 545.401. RECKLESS DRIVING; OFFENSE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.
(b) An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by:
(1) a fine not to exceed $200;
(2) confinement in county jail for not more than 30 days; or
(3) both the fine and the confinement.
EVERYONE already knows that talking/texting while driving is dangerous. Any reasonable person (and especially a jury of ones peers) will agree that talking/texting while driving constitutes "wilful or wanton disregard for safety". If a person is texting (or talking) and driving and they swerve across lane lines, run a stop sign, drift off the road, or any other dangerous mistake, they're punishable with 30 DAYS IN JAIL.
So if the cops aren't enforcing the old law, why will they enforce this new one?
Also, seems to me that this ordinance DECREASES the penalty for texting & driving. Why do you want to go easy on them?
quote:No, and the example you gave is also a no.
The issue is that they're already a law for this. It's already illegal:
Right now, if you were to prosecute someone for using the phone, or texting while driving, you would have to prove that his specific act was dangerous. If you sneeze, you take your eyes off the road. How long exactly did the driver take his eyes off the road? What's the time limit that crosses the line between a sneeze and a phone call? What if the call was made while parked, and the driver NEVER took his eyes off the road. The general statement "all phone calls made while driving are reckless" doesn't work.
Can't win that way, which is why nobody now is prosecuted for using a hand held device while driving.
You missed my point.
I do that all the time! I try not to make it a habit, though.
Another pointless law passed by Kollege Station. Ranks up there with their more expensive utilities and property taxes. It will be useless, but will likely add revenue to the city coffers.
Dumb
Yup.
quote:
Another pointless law passed by Kollege Station. Ranks up there with their more expensive utilities and property taxes. It will be useless, but will likely add revenue to the city coffers.
Are you referring to Wind Watts?
Not exactly win-win watts, amiright?
I can say I am absolutely happy they passed this.
Can I still text on the Buell?
Orlando Ayala Cant Read
Joined:
May 17, 2004
Posts:
68,227
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
I can say I am absolutely happy they passed this.
Me too. As someone whose been personally affected by this in a tragic way im glad to see it in place. I know people in other cities where enforcement is rigid who feel like the law works.
FlyRod
Joined:
Jan 21, 2013
Posts:
9,831
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Another pointless law passed by Kollege Station. But will add revenue to the city coffers.
Amazing how before the end of your rant, you explain to us why your initial statement is dead wrong. I left the wrong statement at beginning and edited at the parts that don't matter and then left the part at the end that shows it is not a pointless law.
You are welcome in advance.
FlyRod
Joined:
Jan 21, 2013
Posts:
9,831
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If this were about saving lives they would be better served making certain drivers got on the bypass at the correct speed and to make certain drivers on said bypass drive the correct speed. This will hit a whole bunch of college kids in the pocketbook.
I see as many, if not more townies texting and driving, so the cost should be equally distributed.
Not sure what people you are taking to but the currently available rigorous studies indicate the opposite. And where hand free laws are heavenly enforced it leads to more dangerous behaviors. Most studies say the accident rate remains unchanged at best or are higher. I have yet to see any study that indicated that accident rates that are lower after hands free laws were put into effect. The problem is that for the few people who obey the law there are more people that don't, and take to hiding their phones when using them. This leads to larger times with eyes off the road and more risk.
I understand well intentioned politicians and emergency services personal wanting to do something about the problem. But right now the data indicates that the unintended consequence of legislated hands free use is a slightly higher accident rate.
In reality you can make a difference. I hate when people that KNOW I am driving text me things that they want immediate response to. Calling me if it need immediate response will lead me to exit and answer. If no immediate need email, but text is always tempting to respond even if a Y or N answer, and the distraction is started.
I understand well intentioned politicians and emergency services personal wanting to do something about the problem. But right now the data indicates that the unintended consequence of legislated hands free use is a slightly higher accident rate.
In reality you can make a difference. I hate when people that KNOW I am driving text me things that they want immediate response to. Calling me if it need immediate response will lead me to exit and answer. If no immediate need email, but text is always tempting to respond even if a Y or N answer, and the distraction is started.
quote:Yup. One thing that has remained consistent over the years, regardless of who is on council, is a desire to soak the college students.
If this were about saving lives they would be better served making certain drivers got on the bypass at the correct speed and to make certain drivers on said bypass drive the correct speed. This will hit a whole bunch of college kids in the pocketbook.
What other examples of the CSCC "soaking" college students have you witnessed, techno?
quote:The big one is the surcharge on the rates at CSU that go back to the general fund. One of the CMs stated this made sure students who don't pay property tax contributed their fair share to the city.
What other examples of the CSCC "soaking" college students have you witnessed, techno?
quote:Wait, none of the thousands of apartment complexes, duplexes, townhomes, mobile homes, and single family homes rented out to students (or owned by students' parents) receive a property tax bill? That's what CoCS believes?quote:The big one is the surcharge on the rates at CSU that go back to the general fund. One of the CMs stated this made sure students who don't pay property tax contributed their fair share to the city.
What other examples of the CSCC "soaking" college students have you witnessed, techno?
quote:quote:The big one is the surcharge on the rates at CSU that go back to the general fund. One of the CMs stated this made sure students who don't pay property tax contributed their fair share to the city.
What other examples of the CSCC "soaking" college students have you witnessed, techno?
That's ignorant. Student pay property tax in the form of rent.
quote:I know and I agree. But that's what the man said.quote:quote:The big one is the surcharge on the rates at CSU that go back to the general fund. One of the CMs stated this made sure students who don't pay property tax contributed their fair share to the city.
What other examples of the CSCC "soaking" college students have you witnessed, techno?
That's ignorant. Student pay property tax in the form of rent.
I went back and looked it up. It was Mooney who made the assertion in a chamber forum in 2011.
http://texags.com/forums/35/topics/1833087#r26735073
quote:
quote:
In the Chamber forum he only pointed out that since students rent so many residential units in town, they make a significant contribution to the general fund through the return on investment charge that is included in their utility bill.
It seemed to me that he thought renters don't pay property taxes, so this was a way for renters to pay their fair share. I am pretty sure that property owners don't 'eat' the property tax. Things are a lot different now than they were in the 90s-- money is very tight. Whether he meant it or not, he sounded like he thought they should pay more...very confusing.
http://texags.com/forums/35/topics/1833087#r26735073
To Techno...while our utility rates are high, our property tax rate is ridiculously low for the amount of services this city offers. It's the main reason our city government is in the shape it is financially with most city departments paying 10-15% less than comparable cities....while providing a higher level of service.
The income from utilities is by and far only going to CSU per state law. It doesn't effect the rest of the city departments.
Look at Bryan for instance. Their effective tax rate is some 20 cents per $100 valuation higher.
Side tangent, I know. But when I saw your comment about our property tax well, you're wrong. Sadly, we're funding a badly needed Police building through a negligable tax increases because of the false notion that our city government is loaded. It's sad that there's no way a bond election would pass, so it's coming to that. Our town has grown accustom suburbia luxury on rural income.
Oh yeah...and the new ordinance. Hypocritical. I in no way agree with an ordinance that asks officers to enforce something that they are required to do themselves. I also agree with Coucilman Benham's belief that it's a cultural issue that needs to be addressed another way.
The income from utilities is by and far only going to CSU per state law. It doesn't effect the rest of the city departments.
Look at Bryan for instance. Their effective tax rate is some 20 cents per $100 valuation higher.
Side tangent, I know. But when I saw your comment about our property tax well, you're wrong. Sadly, we're funding a badly needed Police building through a negligable tax increases because of the false notion that our city government is loaded. It's sad that there's no way a bond election would pass, so it's coming to that. Our town has grown accustom suburbia luxury on rural income.
Oh yeah...and the new ordinance. Hypocritical. I in no way agree with an ordinance that asks officers to enforce something that they are required to do themselves. I also agree with Coucilman Benham's belief that it's a cultural issue that needs to be addressed another way.
AgGunNut knocked it out of the park.
quote:Good discussion, thanks for commenting. I'm curious, what did I say about property taxes that I'm wrong on?
To Techno...while our utility rates are high, our property tax rate is ridiculously low for the amount of services this city offers. It's the main reason our city government is in the shape it is financially with most city departments paying 10-15% less than comparable cities....while providing a higher level of service.
The income from utilities is by and far only going to CSU per state law. It doesn't effect the rest of the city departments.
Look at Bryan for instance. Their effective tax rate is some 20 cents per $100 valuation higher.
Side tangent, I know. But when I saw your comment about our property tax well, you're wrong. Sadly, we're funding a badly needed Police building through a negligable tax increases because of the false notion that our city government is loaded. It's sad that there's no way a bond election would pass, so it's coming to that. Our town has grown accustom suburbia luxury on rural income.
Oh yeah...and the new ordinance. Hypocritical. I in no way agree with an ordinance that asks officers to enforce something that they are required to do themselves. I also agree with Coucilman Benham's belief that it's a cultural issue that needs to be addressed another way.
"Ranks up there with their more expensive utilities and property taxes."
OK, got it. I agree CS property taxes are a little lower than Bryan, although that margin will shrink a little with the proposed 2 percent increase, and may continue to shrink in the future with additional increases on top of rising property values.
Thanks for agreeing wIth everything else and engaging in a civil conversation. Blue star.
Thanks for agreeing wIth everything else and engaging in a civil conversation. Blue star.