Why We Don't TEXT And DRIVE....

GNBRETT

Registered
not dead but hurt bad and destroyed their car which had no insurance. young girl driver. one ejection and the others had to be extricated....:whistle:

IMG_0714.jpg


IMG_0712.jpg


IMG_0713.jpg


IMG_0719.jpg
 
The ejection was lucky to have lived and that's why we don't text and drive or drive or ride without seatbelts
 
Man I see this everyday, someone on the phone or texting right beside me. Today a lady was on her phone and having a very heated argument with her cell phone and all I could do was shake my head and get away from her, I think I am becoming jaded to this and that is very sad.
 
I can see legislation forcing car manufacturers to install a device that will block the signal if the car is running and in gear. The shame of it is you can tie phones into most newer vehicles with bluetooth and talk through the car or talk and text. I see them go by all the time with their heads down, not a care in the world.
 
When on the bike, I would ride next to the driver who is on the phone, use my air horn liberally and lots of left hand gesturing.

On a different point, I think it matters little whether a driver is talking on the phone while holding it with one hand or using a hands free device. It is a distraction of the type where a person mentally is somewhere else - can look right at an object on the road and not see it, because it just doesn't register in his/her brain. That's why talking on the phone at all is a bad idea, and should be limited to when absolutely unavoidable, and even then making it as short as possible.

Some people can handle a distraction while still maintaining a good level of attention to the road, others don't. In practical terms, I would promote a class teaching people how to maintain attention on the road while talking on the phone. This would be an honest and practical approach as opposed to making something into law which clearly doesn't work, and will not work.

No discussion about texting. Driving with the eyes closed is probably safer than texting while driving.
 
Thats a nasty mess. I don't understand the thought process justifying the use of a phone to text while driving, what does it take to get the message across? More senseless deaths?
I don't get nasty w/ people I see doing it, it's not my place to correct their behavior. Besides, ya never know what whack job thats sporting a handgun would do in that situation and there are plenty of them out there.
By the way it is illegal to text while driving here in Florida....However, you have to be pulled over for something else before you can be sited for it.
Because that makes a whole lot of sense...:whistle:
 
I'm glad this came up again as it was discussed once before. Here in Alabama they have passed a No texting while driving law. At that time, it was a new law and I had said one of many of the issues people are having with it was that Law Enforcement and Emergency Personnel were exempted from this law. At that time I was tasked with proving that and I said I would. And here you go. In Paragraph #4, last sentence. Will state's new texting ban stop drivers from sending messages? | al.com

Further even law enforcement takes issue with this exemption. http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=2274&issue_id=122010

"These mandates vary widely in the acts outlawed, the drivers covered, and whether enforcement is primary or secondary. However, virtually all of those laws that apply to all drivers exempt law enforcement officers from their coverage; this includes the president’s executive order and the sample texting while driving law.

As their experience increases, police officers may come to regard themselves as invincible. Well intended laws that allow officers to engage in hazardous behavior from which others are forbidden to participate may contribute to that feeling, do more harm than good to officer safety, and contribute to the perception that officers engage in hypocritical behavior by enforcing the same prohibitions against driving while texting or making handheld cell phone calls that they appear to flout. Interestingly, the average age of police officers accidentally killed in 2009 was 35 years old with 9 years’ service; between 2000 and 2009, it was 38 years old with 10 years’ service. Drivers aged 30 to 39 years accounted for the largest group of reportedly distracted drivers in fatal crashes involving cell phone distraction.

Recognizing the perils of distracted driving, law enforcement leaders are especially concerned about the safety of those whom they lead and have developed effective policies to permit officers to more safely discharge their duties. In that vein, the state of Washington enacted legislation, effective June 10, 2010, to make texting and handheld cell phone use a primary offense. Even though law enforcement is exempt from this legislation, the Washington State Patrol proactively applied it to its troopers by agency order.9 Furthermore, the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) mandated, as of October 4, 2010, hands-free voice communication for its troopers, although the state of Florida has not enacted a statute in this regard.10 Finally, the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming, enacted last year an ordinance allowing only hands-free cell phone use, from which its police officers were not exempted."

I am in total agreement that texting while driving is dangerous. No exceptions.
 
oh god here you go again talkn out of ur ass....:whistle: cops are exempt because they have to use their cell phone all day long communicating with each other because you can't tie up the radio when priority one calls need to be dispatched.

yes cops have to use their phone to and from calls daily when conducting narcotic surveillance's or communicating with each other on suspect info. or maybe they shud send smoke signals to each other....:whistle: sensitive information can and is picked up by scanners from drug dealers and organized gangs so no Tom you can't communicate via radio all the time. but you know this already....

as usual you have a way of twisting what the police do and think their "Special" and the law shud apply to them while their working and in the performance of their duties. sorry Tom but once again ur wrong and makn a complete fool out of urself once again.

you make it sound like cops are texting their girlfriends all day while driving and working lmao. he's a news flash for you..... cops actually drive while they work. I know thats probably a great surprise to you but its true.....:whistle:

I'm glad this came up again as it was discussed once before. Here in Alabama they have passed a No texting while driving law. At that time, it was a new law and I had said one of many of the issues people are having with it was that Law Enforcement and Emergency Personnel were exempted from this law. At that time I was tasked with proving that and I said I would. And here you go. In Paragraph #4 last sentence. Will state's new texting ban stop drivers from sending messages? | al.com

Further even law enforcement takes issue with this exemption. Police Chief Magazine - View Article

These mandates vary widely in the acts outlawed, the drivers covered, and whether enforcement is primary or secondary. However, virtually all of those laws that apply to all drivers exempt law enforcement officers from their coverage; this includes the president’s executive order and the sample texting while driving law.

As their experience increases, police officers may come to regard themselves as invincible. Well-intended laws that allow officers to engage in hazardous behavior from which others are forbidden to participate may contribute to that feeling, do more harm than good to officer safety, and contribute to the perception that officers engage in hypocritical behavior by enforcing the same prohibitions against driving while texting or making handheld cell phone calls that they appear to flout. Interestingly, the average age of police officers accidentally killed in 2009 was 35 years old with 9 years’ service; between 2000 and 2009, it was 38 years old with 10 years’ service.7 Drivers aged 30 to 39 years accounted for the largest group of reportedly distracted drivers in fatal crashes involving cell phone distraction.8

Recognizing the perils of distracted driving, law enforcement leaders are especially concerned about the safety of those whom they lead and have developed effective policies to permit officers to more safely discharge their duties. In that vein, the state of Washington enacted legislation, effective June 10, 2010, to make texting and handheld cell phone use a primary offense. Even though law enforcement is exempt from this legislation, the Washington State Patrol proactively applied it to its troopers by agency order.9 Furthermore, the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) mandated, as of October 4, 2010, hands-free voice communication for its troopers, although the state of Florida has not enacted a statute in this regard.10 Finally, the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming, enacted last year an ordinance allowing only hands-free cell phone use, from which its police officers were not exempted.11

I am in total agreement that texting while driving is dangerous. No exceptions.
 
Ummm the laws are about texting while driving, not talking on the phone while driving. We are allowed to still do that. :whistle:

And I didn't write either of the links. :whistle:
 
Ummm the laws are about texting while driving, not talking on the phone while driving. I am allowed to still do that. :whistle:
if you knew wat u were talkn about which clearly you don't the texting laws apply to cell phone and texting use as well. its the same statute Einstein! yes its quite easy to talk into an iPhone and it texts the info for you. Iphone are issued by the police debt. to supervisors who use them all day and night long.

maybe you shud try reading what u post next time. but in case you missed it ill point it out for you....."effective June 10, 2010, to make texting and handheld cell phone use a primary offense."
 
Ummm yes that's correct. In some states its a primary offense and in others it's a secondary offense. That only allows the citation to be issued as a primary cause rather than a secondary one added to a primary cause.

And this affects the exemptions how? :whistle:

The definition in Alabama: Section 1. (a) For purposes of this act, the following words have the following meanings:

(1) WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION DEVICE. A handheld cellular telephone, a text-messaging device, a personal digital assistant, a stand alone computer, or any other similar wireless device that is readily removable from a vehicle and is used to write, send, or read text or data through manual input. The term "wireless telecommunication device" does not include a device which is voice-operated and which allows the user to send or receive a text-based communication without the use of either hand except to activate or deactivate a feature or function.

(2) WRITE, SEND, OR READ A TEXT-BASED COMMUNICATION. Using a wireless telecommunication device to manually communicate with any person using text-based communication, including, but not limited to, communications referred to as a text message, instant message, or electronic mail. The term does not include reading, selecting, or entering a telephone number or name in a cell or wireless telephone or communication device for the purpose of making a telephone call.
 
another news flash for you..... this happened in Connecticut not Alabama....

in some states? there are (4) states that list it as a secondary offense vs. a primary offense so its not SOME states in nearly ALL states. so in ur pathetic attempt to mislead people into thinkn cell phone/text usage is a secondary offense in most places ur wrong as usual.

regardless cops are exempt for a valid reason which is to perform their duties as law enforcement officers. and once again you can talk into smart phones and they will text for you.

Ummm yes that's correct. In some states its a primary offense and in others it's a secondary offense. That only allows the citation to be issued as a primary cause rather than a secondary one added to a primary cause.

And this affects the exemptions how? :whistle:

The definition in Alabama: Section 1. (a) For purposes of this act, the following words have the following meanings:

(1) WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION DEVICE. A handheld cellular telephone, a text-messaging device, a personal digital assistant, a stand alone computer, or any other similar wireless device that is readily removable from a vehicle and is used to write, send, or read text or data through manual input. The term "wireless telecommunication device" does not include a device which is voice-operated and which allows the user to send or receive a text-based communication without the use of either hand except to activate or deactivate a feature or function.

(2) WRITE, SEND, OR READ A TEXT-BASED COMMUNICATION. Using a wireless telecommunication device to manually communicate with any person using text-based communication, including, but not limited to, communications referred to as a text message, instant message, or electronic mail. The term does not include reading, selecting, or entering a telephone number or name in a cell or wireless telephone or communication device for the purpose of making a telephone call.
 
LOL. So we need to define what SOME means? 4 is some. Some states don't even have laws against it at all. Someone ;whistle: said I was talking out of my azz when I said LEO was exempt back when this first got discussed. It was a brand new law that had just been passed here. First I am the dubazz because I say LEO was exempt but it wasn't in print at that time. Now I'm the dumbazz because it is now in print. :rofl:

Doesn't matter if its primary or secondary, LEO is exempt. Why? Well because you think you may need to text while driving. And you have all the reasons you want to come up with as to why.

I may need to text while driving as much as you do. My reasons are irrelevant.

Either way I am the one talking out of my azz :rofl:

And umm P.S. again it states in our law here in section one, see right there above this, that voice operated text messaging is not the same as manual texting, and NOT regulated by this law.

I'm sure I'm wrong again. Somehow.
 
If GNBRETT could take the emotion out of his reactionary post long enough to read what TallTom is saying, it's essentially this, and correct me if I'm wrong TallTom, but the action of texting while driving IS UNSAFE, PERIOD.

There's very little argument here, IMHO and far too many are hurt/killed every single day because of this one stupid action by far too many. In fact, if you read some of what TallTom posted up there, stats on cops hurt/killed "involving cell phone distraction" is a sad reality here, so arguing for the ability to do something like this is kind of silly. If there's an emergency need for it, sure, I can see it, however, before cell phones the ability to contact others for backup existed so the arguments are invalid. I tend to believe the passion in your replies GNBRETT, with all due respect, kind of seem to stem from a place of "do as I say, not as I do" and citizens don't tend to just fall in line with that line of thinking, not when the technology didn't exist for so long prior to now. Safety is one thing, and it should be paramount, so if the laws are on the books and in place for the betterment of all drivers, the argument FOR police and rescue to do unsafe texting while driving will eventually, I believe, also fall by the wayside. All it'll take is that one really bad incident where an innocent bystander is killed because a cop was texting, the legislation will be put in place and your rules will change. It would be nice, and proactive, to be on the side of just doing what's safest and finding alternative ways to do what's right, wouldn't you think?

I say this with nothing but respect for the field of enforcement, but sometimes the arguments seem utterly invalid; there are alternatives to the problem, and sometimes there are just people that do it because they can but shouldn't...

Texting while driving will always be stupid, end of story, I don't care who you are...
 
*shaking head* Oh Vabs. Now you've done it. You now have a bad attitude.

Yes texting while driving is BAD. COPS are already distracted by radios, observing other cars, responding to their laptop alerts, and various other parts of their job. Assuming that they can safely text will end up costing lawsuits by the millions as the leadership in Law Enforcement is already becoming sensitive to, for good reason.

The author of the article in The Police Chief Magazine, Richard J. Ashton, Chief of Police (Retired), Frederick, Maryland; and Grant/Technical Management Manager, IACP, is there trying to point out that some of these laws are not helping the image of LEO. They are no safer than we are if they text and drive. PERIOD. They have about 8 ways to communicate that is tried and true tested means and there for a reason. Texting isn't one of them.
 
*shaking head* Oh Vabs. Now you've done it. You now have a bad attitude.

Yes texting while driving is BAD. COPS are already distracted by radios, observing other cars, responding to their laptop alerts, and various other parts of their job. Assuming that they can safely text will end up costing lawsuits by the millions as the leadership in Law Enforcement is already becoming sensitive to, for good reason.

The author of the article in The Police Chief Magazine, Richard J. Ashton, Chief of Police (Retired), Frederick, Maryland; and Grant/Technical Management Manager, IACP, is there trying to point out that some of these laws are not helping the image of LEO. They are no safer than we are if they text and drive. PERIOD. They have about 8 ways to communicate that is tried and true tested means and there for a reason. Texting isn't one of them.

It's kind of like sitting in the doctor's office when your obese doc walks in to tell you "Ummmmm, you need to lose weight" :hide: :rofl:
 
Back
Top