2013 stats, Texting/Driving

[SeaJay]

Either you put it away where you can't see it or touch it while driving, or you are part of the problem no matter how much you try to talk your way around the fact that you are a big problem on the roads. Perhaps as big a problem as that drunkard who is driving around with a BAC of 0.15 or higher.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: Al

Originally Posted By: grampi

Or all of this could be avoided by just producing cell phones that don't work when inside a vehicle with the ignition on...

Probably not as simple as you think. It would have to be added to the automotive system and the phone. And then you have the problem of the phone possibly not working when a vehicle passes. And then of course you have the issue of emergency vehicles using it and even proximity problems with all cell phones. And of course all this costs money..nothing is free. How much are you personally willing to pay to impliment this? Just indicating that it is not a simple solution nor one that can easily be implimented without research to insure that one solution does not leat do other problems. Nice to bat around suggestions on a forum and we all do it. But its not just a simple thing.

Okay, so there are a few hurdles. Do we just throw our hands up and say this is too difficult to accomplish, or do saving lives really matter? Again it's about priorities...

 

[dnewton3]

Regarding the "criminalization" topic, it's not how Webster defines it that matters. It's how each State defines it. And all States that I know of define a "crime" as that which can result in incarceration, either prior to the case being tried, or as a "reformative" measure after the case. Civil laws such as "ordinances" and "infractions" cannot result in incarceration. Crimes are typically broken down into "misdemeanors" (incarceration up to 1 year in most States), and "felonies" (incarceration over 1 year). Civil laws are typically broken down into ordinances, citations and the like and cannot result in incarceration before or after the trial. What I am discussing is that if we believe that texting while driving is so dangerous that it's equivalent to OWI and other forms of "reckless driving", then why would it not be "criminalized" where on-scene arrests are a mediation act and reformation (punishment) is available as a sentence? I am not advocating for such; just offering the view of logic in that we attempt to avoid hypocrisy and/or emotional responses, and stick to facts and common sense, with as much "fair is fair" tossed in for good measure. Example of IN Code: Title 34 in IN Code is for "Civil Law" matters Title 35 in IN Code is for "Criminal Law" matters In "Civil" law code, there is chapter 6 of definitions. Nowhere does the word "crime" appear to be defined. In "Criminal" law code, there is chapter 5 of definitions. The word "crime" is clearly defined, as seen immediately below: Crime defined: IC 35-31.5-2-75"Crime" Sec. 75. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), "crime" means a felony or a misdemeanor. (b) "Crime", for purposes of IC 35-40, has the meaning set forth in IC 35-40-4-3. (includes a delinquent act) Felony delineations: IC 35-50-2-4 Class A felony; Level 1 felony Sec. 4. (a) A person who commits a Class A felony (for a crime committed before July 1, 2014) shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between twenty (20) and fifty (50) years, with the advisory sentence being thirty (30) years. In addition, the person may be fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000). IC 35-50-2-4.5 Level 2 felony Sec. 4.5. A person who commits a Level 2 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between ten (10) and thirty (30) years, with the advisory sentence being seventeen and one-half (17 1/2) years. In addition, the person may be fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000). IC 35-50-2-5 Class B felony; Level 3 felony Sec. 5. (a) A person who commits a Class B felony (for a crime committed before July 1, 2014) shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between six (6) and twenty (20) years, with the advisory sentence being ten (10) years. In addition, the person may be fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000). (b) A person who commits a Level 3 felony (for a crime committed after June 30, 2014) shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between three (3) and sixteen (16) years, with the advisory sentence being nine (9) years. In addition, the person may be fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000). IC 35-50-2-5.5 Level 4 felony Sec. 5.5. A person who commits a Level 4 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two (2) and twelve (12) years, with the advisory sentence being six (6) years. In addition, the person may be fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000). IC 35-50-2-6 Class C felony; Level 5 felony; commission of nonsupport of child as Class D felony Sec. 6. (a) A person who commits a Class C felony (for a crime committed before July 1, 2014) shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between two (2) and eight (8) years, with the advisory sentence being four (4) years. In addition, the person may be fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000). (b) A person who commits a Level 5 felony (for a crime committed after June 30, 2014) shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between one (1) and six (6) years, with the advisory sentence being three (3) years. In addition, the person may be fined not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000). Misdemeanor delineations: IC 35-50-3-2Class A misdemeanor Sec. 2. A person who commits a Class A misdemeanor shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of not more than one (1) year; in addition, he may be fined not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000). IC 35-50-3-3Class B misdemeanor Sec. 3. A person who commits a Class B misdemeanor shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of not more than one hundred eighty (180) days; in addition, he may be fined not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000). IC 35-50-3-4Class C misdemeanor Sec. 4. A person who commits a Class C misdemeanor shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of not more than sixty (60) days; in addition, he may be fined not more than five hundred dollars ($500). As you can see, in Indiana Code, "Civil" matters do not even use the word "crime" in the statutes. However, "Criminal" acts are defined as those which can result in incarceration, and are delineated at the one-year mark (felony vs. misdemeanor). In fact, even the person is referred to differently. Civil cases attach "respondents", whereas criminal cases attach "defendants". Even the matter of defining the person's nature to the case is different. In synopsis ... "Crime" results in the potential of jail (misdemeanor) or prison (felony) incarceration. "Civil" laws (ordinances, in fractions, etc) have no threat of incarceration. The words might change slightly from state to state, but the concept is linear across all. Crimes land you behind bars. In all the States that I'm aware of, having researched many over the years, "Civil" statues do not result in incarceration. In all the States that I'm aware of, "Crime" statues can result in incarceration prior to and/or after the trial. And so, my point of contention in this thread topic is that if we believe that texting while driving is so dangerous that it essentially constitutes a reckless act (not unlike OWI or aimlessly firing a gun in the air at no particular person), then why would we be hypocrites and not "criminalize" the act of texting while driving (and all it's associated functions)? Maybe because it's darn near impossible to administer? Changing a radio station in a car takes minimal eye time, and with today's steering wheel controls, perhaps no time of eyes off the road; generally not dangerous. Changing tracts on your i-phone while trying to navigate to the right icon and then through the sub-menus takes more eye time from the road. However if you can integrate your phone into the wheel controls, it would be the same as "in car" electronics. In essence, it becomes nearly improbable for officers to effectually enforce this at the street level, because we truly would have difficulty in establishing a probable-cause basis for interceding in the public format. We can perhaps pull you over, but how do we know if you were "texting" or just zooming in your GPS, or changing a song track? My point to all this? Here's my OPINION ... The genie is out of the bottle and will never find her way back in. The best we can hope for is public awareness campaigns and personal shaming via peer pressure. That's about all that will come of it, IMO. I would personally be fine if we used the GPS function in all phones to disable their communication functions (all of them) once they were moving faster than 5mph. Us old folks remember getting along just fine without having mobile electronics; we found our way using printed paper maps, and used the radio for music, and actually interacted with other human beings in a meaningful manner; but I acknowledge (begrudgingly) that these are the ways of the dinosaur.

 

[oldmaninsc]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

My point to all this? Here's my OPINION ... The genie is out of the bottle and will never find her way back in. The best we can hope for is public awareness campaigns and personal shaming via peer pressure. That's about all that will come of it, IMO. I would personally be fine if we used the GPS function in all phones to disable their communication functions (all of them) once they were moving faster than 5mph. Us old folks remember getting along just fine without having mobile electronics; we found our way using printed paper maps, and used the radio for music, and actually interacted with other human beings in a meaningful manner; but I acknowledge (begrudgingly) that these are the ways of the dinosaur.

I agree. Thank you for your rational thinking to a very emotional topic. The only thing I would ask - what if an accident occurs in which at least one party was texting? Should it then be a criminal offense? I say yes - much like many people get by driving while intoxicated, but if they have an accident or fender bender they are usually charged with a criminal offense. Here in California we have laws against texting and driving, but I really think it is rarely enforced probably because of what you mentioned, that is it is very difficult for to enforce. I have seen people driving while texting, but don't know of anyone who has ever got a citation or even pulled over for it. I think it would be interesting to see how many if anybody on this forum has ever been pulled over for it? Personally I just don't do it - my life and the life of others are so much more important than reading or replying to a text message. My youngest daughter has a new Corolla that reads the incoming texts to her when she receives them which I think is a cool feature. I often leave my phone in the car when the wife and I go out to eat. I hate seeing a table of people - all on their cell phones and to be honest, it's not only young people who do this. I've seen people my age and older doing it as well. Ode to the old days!

 

[555]

Lobbyists working for cell companies will never allow hefty penalties until it's disastrous and by then the damage is done.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

And so, my point of contention in this thread topic is that if we believe that texting while driving is so dangerous that it essentially constitutes a reckless act (not unlike OWI or aimlessly firing a gun in the air at no particular person), then why would we be hypocrites and not "criminalize" the act of texting while driving (and all it's associated functions)? Maybe because it's darn near impossible to administer? Changing a radio station in a car takes minimal eye time, and with today's steering wheel controls, perhaps no time of eyes off the road; generally not dangerous. Changing tracts on your i-phone while trying to navigate to the right icon and then through the sub-menus takes more eye time from the road. However if you can integrate your phone into the wheel controls, it would be the same as "in car" electronics. In essence, it becomes nearly improbable for officers to effectually enforce this at the street level, because we truly would have difficulty in establishing a probable-cause basis for interceding in the public format. We can perhaps pull you over, but how do we know if you were "texting" or just zooming in your GPS, or changing a song track?

Yep, that's the whole problem ... trying to definitively determine someone was texting or playing with their phone when they caused a wreck. It would be like going to an accident scene where a totally intoxicated person caused the crash, but you'd never be able to really determine if they were actually intoxicated at all. Obviously, if an officer saw someone actively on the phone while driving that's a pretty cut and dried situation. It's a huge problem without a real good fix. I see all kinds of TV commercials about the dangers of texting while driving - they are trying to make young people think twice about using their phones while driving. I think they need to start showing those gruesome accident scene videos again in high school as part of the driver's education to burn total carnage into the brains of the addicted cell phone youth. And yeah, it's just not the youth (although texting and driving is on of the highest causes of their deaths these days), but also lots of people of any age are still doing it. But grown adults should have enough common sense to realize how stupid and dangerous it is.

 

[Nyogtha]

dnewton3, I believe Webster's and other sources cited would disagree with you saying it doesn't matter how Webster's defines criminalization. The fact you choise to break it down differently than standard conversational English is your own thing. It is againzt the law in San Antonio and Texas and therefore meets the formal recognized definition of criminalized. I didn't see any commentary on your review of the actual posted info on these laws, after such links were posted. Are you still in disbelief?

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Nyogtha

dnewton3, I believe Webster's and other sources cited would disagree with you saying it doesn't matter how Webster's defines criminalization. The fact you choise to break it down differently than standard conversational English is your own thing. It is againzt the law in San Antonio and Texas and therefore meets the formal recognized definition of criminalized. I didn't see any commentary on your review of the actual posted info on these laws, after such links were posted. Are you still in disbelief?

1) it really does not matter what "I" think; it only matters what the States have in their statutory code 2) I'll directly address your concern for TX laws later in this post. What you posted was TX DMV dribble. In contrast, I will go to the source; the TX State repository for statutory laws. What I did is prove my point; that most states (IN my example because that's where I live and serve) have a specific meaning set forth, and the state codes will most often have their own "definitions" to clearly describe what they mean. There's an entire chapter in Indiana criminal code devoted directly to definitions. They don't need nor rely on Webster, or any other dictionary. Webster does not define, delineate or make statutory laws; they only help understand the generalities of the language and nothing more. Two totally different concepts you clearly are not able to distinguish. Example: "person" defined by Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person clearly refers to a singular entity but... "person" defined by TX motor vehicle law (note that this is the DIRECT TX statutory code and not some lame DMV link) http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.541.htm#541.001 (4) "Person" means an individual, firm, partnership, association, or corporation. Clearly this not only can mean an individual, but other entities of business and multiplicity. IOW "person" in TX transportation law can mean private or corporate status, and single or multiple entities. That is a far cry from what Webster shows. Further, TX delineates punishment of crimes in a manner not unlike IN, and other states: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/pdf/PE.12.pdf Misdemeanors up to 1 year; Felonies over 1 year. Here is TX Code for driving and texting: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.543.htm#543.001 And I quote (note - the underlined area is of my enhancement to draw your attention to the specific topic.): Sec. 543.004. NOTICE TO APPEAR REQUIRED: CERTAIN OFFENSES. (a) An officer shall issue a written notice to appear if: (1) the offense charged is: (A) speeding; (B) the use of a wireless communication device under Section 545.4251; or (C) a violation of the open container law, Section 49.031, Penal Code; and As you can see, the officer is required ("shall" is the term used; a term generally accepted to mean legally compelling) write a ticket/citation/infraction (or whatever word you'll accept), but he is NOT to arrest and incarcerate. And here is the electronic device info: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.545.htm#545.4251 You can also see the phrase " ... the operator is subject to a fine ..." used repeatedly in the TX code regarding use of electronic devices while driving. Not incarceration (as a crime), but "fines" as a matter of civil punishment. I see absolutely nothing in TX Statutory code that indicates a person will go to jail or prison for texting while in the course of driving prior to involvement in accident at-fault. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/ Hence it's not "criminal" in TX to text and drive because you cannot be incarcerated for it, as noted above; you cannot be preemptively arrested because it's not a "crime" (misdemeanor or felony). I, and the States of Indiana, Texas, and many others, define "crime" as that which can/will result in preemptive or punitive incarceration; not "civil" responses of lighter note involving infractions and ordinances. You are wrong; Webster is inapplicable; there's really no other way to see it logically. However you wish to process this illogically is up to you.

 

[Nyogtha]

I find you defining my posting a link to the actual City of San Antonio ordinance, as well as answering your question that the state rule is known as HB 36, to be "TX DPS drivel" to be as full of inaccuracy as your take on authorities of the English language. It shows you're not HONESTLY paying attention to what has been posted, much less by whom, which is the height of illogic.

 

[Nyogtha]

See links at end of quoted post for factual matters. "TX DPS drivel" in your eyes is interesting, clearly you choose to have your own definition for that as well. It's cllear your regard for honest facts if presented by others is non-existant and emotionally driven.

Originally Posted By: Nyogtha

Originally Posted By: Nyogtha

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Originally Posted By: Nyogtha

It's criminalized in San Antonio, and I think all of Texas now, to be using any electronic device requiring touch while driving other than a navigation aid. I think the fine is $250. I always set to hands-free voice commands on my phone & Garmin personally, and have steering wheel controls for my entertainment system. I still see plenty of people with their phone to one ear, or texting with one hand while driving. Some of the first words from the 19 year old young lady whose BMW rear-ended my wife's Mustang were "I wasn't using my phone, I swear!" School zones have signs prohibiting all cell phone use within the school zone, I don't see that enforced at all.

Could you cite the TX statute? By "criminalizing" I mean it as defined by that which can involve incarceration. Not just "fines". I would find it odd that TX currently has made it a crime to use a cell phone. For clarity, a "civil" matter can only result in fiscal penalties. (infractions that results in fines). Crimes can result in arrest and incarceration both prior to hearing and as corrective action (punishment).

I certainnly can't off the top of my head, I'm not in law enforcement nor an attorney as shown in my profile. However anyone interested enough that has the skills to post on BITOG has the skills to research this. You should note my post shows I only know for sure within city limits of San Antonio, road signs are up for this just like seperate road signs in school zones. Happy hunting!

Well turns out it's simple enough even layman me can see it's HB 62 reported in yhe media for state-wide ban on texting while driving. https://m.mysanantonio.com/neighborhood/...aw-12218486.php Here's the related City of San Antonio rule. SA RULE LINK Merriam-Webster diagrees with your definition of "criminalize" BTW, indicating I used the term properly to begin with. https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/criminalize

 

[ZeeOSix]

It's either allowed (legal) or not allowed (illegal) by law ... regardless of the terminology used. If illegal, the punishment imposed by law is associated with the seriousness of the "crime" in the eyes of the law makers ... just like any other man-made laws in society.

 

[dnewton3]

Nyogtha - Cities, towns and such do not make laws of a criminal nature; only the State can. What you linked for SA is a local ordinance; non criminal in nature. Texting while driving is not a "crime" in TX, nor any other state that I'm aware of. It's a civil infraction. The topic induced, to which I was speaking, is that of whether texting (and related) should be criminal in a preemptive nature; should you be arrested for such, not unlike OWI? That is the topic of a "crime" as defined by TX state law. Your loose use of the word "crime" is of no consequence in TX; despite your incessant objections, it's not a crime. It's not a State crime; nor is it a local crime. It's an infraction/ordinance/etc, being civil in nature. Why you cannot seem to grasp that is beyond me, but I'll allow you the last rant.

 

[Nyogtha]

Perhaps global authorities on the English language cited have a broader viewpoint than yourself, with your definition of "drivel" and lack of concern who you choose to fire off at. Guess allowing me the last " rant" would be equitable since I did not post the first "rant". It's certainly more equitable than you claiming proprietary ownership of a thread as you have done with me before. For the topic at hand, this specific case in which more timely intervention from law enforcement might have prevented a fatality, nationally broadcast, has really helped galvanize public position on this topic. Many, if not most, would hesitate to call these additional facts "drivel", but not everyone is the same. https://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/video/d...ng-911764547972 As shown in my prior posted links, some law enforcement agencies are going on record that the law on this in Texas is unenforceable.

 

[Garak]

Just as an aside, out of interest, up here, our law dictionaries sometimes define criminal law as laws (that can be punitive, and all the other goodies) passed by the federal government only. So, failing to wear a life jacket up here is technically a criminal offence, but it certainly will never go on your criminal record. The provinces are delegated, though, to enforcing and prosecuting the federal Criminal Code, but not, generally speaking, the other federal statutes (i.e. life jackets, drugs). The latter is especially true with prosecution.

 

[brianl703]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Cities, towns and such do not make laws of a criminal nature; only the State can.

Depends on the state.

 

[brianl703]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Cities, towns and such do not make laws of a criminal nature; only the State can.

For example, in Virginia: Class 2 misdemeanor is criminal in Virginia.

 

[4WD]

Our city will only ticket in school zones … they push lots of bond elections for projects doing me little/no good … would be happy to see them raise money city wide on texting … they have plenty units roaming already … and give tickets for loud music at noon time just 100m from a (Friday night lights) stadium

 

[Nyogtha]

Webster's Law Dictionary, a fixture at every law school worth visiting shows the legal definition as well as word origin bring circa 1956 at this link. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criminalize When another publication with an alternate interpretation achieves the circulation and status of that publication I'll give it equal credence. I'm going to be very careful playing Scrabble in the future with consensus of opponent(s) on what reference works will be used to arbitrate disagreements. Crossword puzzles, not so much, they're much more straightforward

 

[ZeeOSix]

Rant Master

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: brianl703

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Cities, towns and such do not make laws of a criminal nature; only the State can.

For example, in Virginia: Class 2 misdemeanor is criminal in Virginia.

I see that here: https://library.municode.com/va/manassas_park/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COCI_CH15NO But there's also this: http://www.robertslaw.org/challenging-local-criminal-ordinances-in-virginia/ "Perhaps most significantly, the Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that local governments may not criminally prohibit private nuisances. White v. Culpeper, 172 Va. 630 (1939). “[U]nless the statute in question is one which in some way provides for the public safety, pertains to the public health, or concerns the public morals, it is not a valid exercise of the police power.” Perhaps most significantly, the Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that local governments may not criminally prohibit private nuisances. White v. Culpeper, 172 Va. 630 (1939). “[U]nless the statute in question is one which in some way provides for the public safety, pertains to the public health, or concerns the public morals, it is not a valid exercise of the police power.” Normal HUMAN conversation is deemed to exist generally at 60 dB; the code you quote sets the daytime limit of "noise" at 60 dB and the nigh-time at 55 dB; it's nearly impossible to exist as a human and not violate that ordinance. Few cars (save el vehicles) could even pass that standard if they had to accelerate away from a stop sign, given engine/tire noise. * subsection 15-5(8); A screaming child would be subject to arrest; or perhaps the parent thereof! * subsection 15-4(b); An A/C outdoor condenser unit is exempted (typically 70 dB or so), but your outdoor stereo can only be 60 dB during the day and only 55 dB at night? You are correct; it's a "crime" to make noise in Manassas. It's also one that would likely be struck down if challenged fervently. The VASC has ruled that "private nuisances" statues cannot be criminally prohibitive. I'll agree that there does exist a law of "criminal" nature at the local level, if you'll agree that's actually unenforceable according to the Supreme Court of Virginia.