Noticed the senate killed all these city specific "laws"....
FJB
So can we talk on our cell phones in CS yet?
7,580 Views |
36 Replies |
Last: 6 yr ago by Stucco
I personally like it, there's a high correspondence between poor driving and texting/yakking on a stupid phone.
FFS every car made in the past 5 years has built in hands free.
Stop being poor, or technologically ignorant.
FFS every car made in the past 5 years has built in hands free.
Stop being poor, or technologically ignorant.
No. It has only passed the Senate. The House hasn't even sent it to committee.
I hope the House does nothing. The statewide ban fell way short of being effective.
I hope the House does nothing. The statewide ban fell way short of being effective.
Thanks Bubba
FJB
16 bucks plugs into your cig lighter uses blue tooth. Can be used for hands free cell phone use.
https://goo.gl/YYQj3E
https://goo.gl/YYQj3E
It has passed both houses and has been signed by the governor.
There are plans to address some issues with it in special session, but it will become law on 9/1/17.
There are plans to address some issues with it in special session, but it will become law on 9/1/17.
the statewide ban has been signed. What they are trying to fix in the special is a fix that eliminates the various myriad jungle of individual local bans. Example...AgGunNut said:
It has passed both houses and has been signed by the governor.
There are plans to address some issues with it in special session, but it will become law on 9/1/17.
In CS you can use your phone and text while stopped at a red light but in Austin they are running stings at red lights putting a cop up in a truck to see folks taxing while perfectly still and busting them. Austin's local ban outlaws even use while stopped. It is a needed fix to make the law uniform. It was inadvertently left out of the original bill.
Correct. And with preemption comes taking away the ability for a municipality to rely on ordinances to fix the short comings of the law. The new law is pretty weak. It only addresses texting and driving, not use of wireless devices. I'm for uniformtity but preemption will have good and bad coming with it.
Does the law include a provision where I can zing an apple at the heads of other drivers that have their faces buried in their phones on the road?
Good. Phones and all other forms of technology are evil.
I can still read my novel or write my essay while driving, right?
I can still read my novel or write my essay while driving, right?
Was there any mention of driving while Fido sits in your lap and licks your face? I think having a mutt do that would be considerably more distracting than a smartphone.
Has anyone noticed the stupid disconnect on CoCS pets & motor vehicles laws? You have to have your pet in a kennel or tied in if they're riding in the back of your truck but they're free to roam if they're inside the passenger compartment. Aren't they more likely to injure the driver and/or passengers in a wreck when they become clawed projectiles? At least in the truck bed, the pet is the only one hurt once they become said projectiles.
Has anyone noticed the stupid disconnect on CoCS pets & motor vehicles laws? You have to have your pet in a kennel or tied in if they're riding in the back of your truck but they're free to roam if they're inside the passenger compartment. Aren't they more likely to injure the driver and/or passengers in a wreck when they become clawed projectiles? At least in the truck bed, the pet is the only one hurt once they become said projectiles.
We obviously need more laws. Because with laws, people don't do bad or stupid things anymore.
One law for the entire state. Keep these rogue cities and nanny state ideas from getting out of hand.
FlyRod
Joined:
Jan 21, 2013
Posts:
9,712
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Abbott does just about everything he can to centralize government.
It's not really stopping it... was behind some idiot on access road between barron and Rock prairie swerving in his lane... passed him and saw him with his face in his phone.
They need to also outlaw eating while driving, putting on makeup, changing the radio chanel, and talking to a passenger as all are distracting to the driver.
The first two, yes.
I can't wait for autonomous cars so all this is behind us.
People will still find something to complain about.
Edit: if you accidentally click flag on a post is there not a way to unclick it? Seems I've done it several times now.
Edit: if you accidentally click flag on a post is there not a way to unclick it? Seems I've done it several times now.
Would still encourage police to enforce distracted driving laws. On the way to work this morning, a woman in the left "PASSING" lane was putting on makeup, slowing down and drifting into the right lane coming inches from hitting a truck. Luckily she was able to finish putting on her makeup while driving through the construction zone, because blush is more important than watching out for construction workers and heavy equipment.
Yup. Makeup, talking, and other distractions are dangerous too. We just have to "do something" about the current SJW boogeyman.
Opposing the boogerman.
I'm just about convinced this won't be truly addressed until autonomous vehicles are prevalent.
The problem is talking/texting on a phone is far more prevalent and done for a much longer period of time than all these things, with the possible exception of talking to a passenger, combined. That is why this is an issue. Try losing a loved one and see if your stance changes.Quote:
They need to also outlaw eating while driving, putting on makeup, changing the radio chanel, and talking to a passenger as all are distracting to the driver.
Yes- hands free
The problem is municipalities should not just make up laws, they are not law makers, that's what the elected officials in Austin do.
I use hands free and I am 100% against texting and driving,. However, I am 100% against the People's Republic of College Station making up rules and regulations on a whim.
So Carpe, I'm neither technically ignorant and far from poor.
I use hands free and I am 100% against texting and driving,. However, I am 100% against the People's Republic of College Station making up rules and regulations on a whim.
So Carpe, I'm neither technically ignorant and far from poor.
agree 100%. Not a legit function of a city..along with plastic bag bans, minimum wage garbage, creating protected classes, private property infringements ( tree cutting)..and many more.aggiepaintrain said:
The problem is municipalities should not just make up laws, they are not law makers, that's what the elected officials in Austin do.
I use hands free and I am 100% against texting and driving,. However, I am 100% against the People's Republic of College Station making up rules and regulations on a whim.
So Carpe, I'm neither technically ignorant and far from poor.
Quote:
The problem is talking/texting on a phone is far more prevalent and done for a much longer period of time than all these things, with the possible exception of talking to a passenger, combined. That is why this is an issue. Trying losing a loved one and see if your stance changes.
aggiepaintrain said:
The problem is municipalities should not just make up laws, they are not law makers, that's what the elected officials in Austin do.
I use hands free and I am 100% against texting and driving,. However, I am 100% against the People's Republic of College Station making up rules and regulations on a whim.
FlyRod
Joined:
Jan 21, 2013
Posts:
9,712
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Look Out Below said:The problem is talking/texting on a phone is far more prevalent and done for a much longer period of time than all these things, with the possible exception of talking to a passenger, combined. That is why this is an issue. Try losing a loved one and see if your stance changes.Quote:
They need to also outlaw eating while driving, putting on makeup, changing the radio chanel, and talking to a passenger as all are distracting to the driver.
The argument of prevalence is a legitimate one assuming it's backed up by evidence.
I'd be careful about using the loved one argument. Laws should not be made using an emotional basis. Saying that someone can't reasonably argue in this case unless they lose a loved one to texting and driving is like saying they can't reasonably argue about the details of murder laws without having a loved one murdered. We have to separate ourselves from emotions and make the laws that protect the most rights for the most people regardless of how we feel.
As of right now, I'm for more enforceable reckless driving laws that allow police to act if reckless driving actually occurs, regardless of the cause. The example used earlier of someone swerving into another lane is a good one. Unless there was an obstacle in the road, I don't care why the person swerved. The swerving is the offense, not the texting. Ticketing someone who's texting and driving perfectly feels a bit like thought police.
Approximately 10% of traffic fatalities are caused by texting and driving -- not putting on makeup, not changing the radio channel, not talking to a passenger. That is WAY too many.
When you are stopped at a light, look at the drivers in the cars around you and behind you. How many are buried in their phone? How many put it down once you start driving away? It is a problem.
The evidence is there if you open your eyes and observe.
When you are stopped at a light, look at the drivers in the cars around you and behind you. How many are buried in their phone? How many put it down once you start driving away? It is a problem.
The evidence is there if you open your eyes and observe.
I don't have to be stopped at a light to see people looking at their phones--the driver who rolled the right turn on red this morning wasn't looking for me (approaching the crosswalk) or oncoming traffic. No, I had an up close view of the side of a head and a phone.
I can see how texting while driving could be interpreted as reckless driving in and of itself. I'm not completely opposed to texting and driving laws. It just feels a little like penalizing someone for something they haven't done yet. Something like getting arrested for burglary because you were walking down the street with a duffel bag, crow bar, and ski mask.
I'm just a little uneasy about the whole concept when we could be ticketing people when they actually drive recklessly, swerving, sitting stopped at a green light for a certain amount of time, etc. Or like the rolling stop described above - that is a traffic violation already and could be ticketed.
I'm just a little uneasy about the whole concept when we could be ticketing people when they actually drive recklessly, swerving, sitting stopped at a green light for a certain amount of time, etc. Or like the rolling stop described above - that is a traffic violation already and could be ticketed.