Texting is now illegal in South Carolina
#31
03-12-2010, 09:42 PM
I disagree with the law. It is pointless to have a law against texting but allow someone to read the paper, put on make up, eat cereal, with milk, out of a bowl, read a book. Why discriminate? If you look at it from a constitutional stand point, It is just another way to take away a freedom. Now, if you chose to abuse a freedom, Causing an accident doing ANYTHING that distracts you from driving, then a hefty penalty would be in order. We have too many laws as it is, more laws means less freedom.
Most or all of the other activities you mentioned can be included in the Driving While Distracted offense.
Any distraction can be a problem, but numerous studies have seemed to indicate that cell phones are in a category by themselves. Comparing them to listening to the radio, eating or other activities might seem like a valid talking point, but they are just not in the same league.
And, someone sarcastically mentioned that the "roads were safer" before the advent of cell phones -- my guess is that, all other things being equal, yes they were!
The new laws address a specific, increasing hazard, and are just another tool for LEOs to use. If they make a few bucks for the State, there is a simple way to avoid the fines....
#32
03-13-2010, 12:41 PM
Road Master
Avoidable distractions which courts will consider when sentencing motorists include:
- using a mobile phone (calling or texting)
- drinking and eating
- applying make-up
- anything else which takes their attention away from the road and which a court judges to have been an avoidable distraction.
The offenses carry prison sentences of:
- up to five years for causing death by careless driving
- up to two years for causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured.
#34
03-13-2010, 11:59 PM
Road Captain
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: carolina
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
now instead of texting with the phone up where they can see it, everybody is holding it down in their lap texting, so as usual making a new law has made it even worse. Not to mention it's impossible to enforce
#36
03-14-2010, 01:20 PM
Statistically speaking, the roads today are the safest they have been - ever.
The reason they can target phones (and not something else just as distracting) is that they have solid evidence through subpoenaed phone records.
Is using the phone a distraction? Yes, it is. Is cell phone use one of the highest distracting activities? I would say categorically, yes. To this end, it appears to make a lot of sense to target cell phone users.
But, I'd put this in the same category of reducing test score bars to gain a better pass rate: you may achieve an objective, but you have actually changed nothing.
People need to be better educated on the repercussions and responsibilities of driving; that it is a dangerous activity. You cannot educate through legislation - substituting legislation of education, yet this is is precisely what is happening in everything today, effectively creating an ignorant populace which demands an even greater array of laws to keep them 'safe'.
I petitioned the SC Speaker of the House, Bobby Harrell, to not pass this law; alternatively, pass a minimal fine but increase the penalty for property or bodily injury.
Such a law is ironic - if people are 'educated' through this law that text/driving is dangerous, it simply reinforces the notion that anything not against the law is not dangerous. Even so, regardless of fine or panalty for text/driving, this will be meaningless in any distracted driving accident.
Having said all that, this does not diminish the fact that distracted/impaired driving is the worst thing that one can do while driving. Texting/driving is just one instance of distracted driving. Tragically, all preceding accidents which occurred through distracted driving are basically not on the radar (there are close to zero accidents due to distracted driving) simply because it cannot be proved. Not so with texting (there's a tell tale fingerprint).
Even speeding - going faster than a posted speed limit - is not necessarily, in and of itself, dangerous: something else must occur or be in effect for speeding to contribute to a death or injury. A single distraction, on the other hand, can cause multiple situations which compound into an 'accident'. Speeding and distraction have historically fallen to speeding as the mitigating factor in an accident ("...speed was a factor in the accident..."). An uneducated populace read this as "The accident was caused by speeding", hence speeding perceived as the problem than needs addressing.
[As a side note, should an accident occur on a road where the limit is 55 mph, two cars traveling in opposite directions, traveling at 50 mph - under the speed limit - will impact at 100mph With vehicles of equal mass, this is equivalent to running into a brick wall at 100mph, albeit with the crumple zone of two cars instead of one. Traveling at 65, a 130mph impact. In both cases, the 'speed' is the killer - but not the cause. Yet in the latter, speed will be given as a mitigating factor, or even a cause. In neither case is speed the *cause* of the accident].
In a cell-phone accident, the phone will be given as the cause, yet the very same accident can be caused by any number of distractions. By focusing on cell phones we give a free pass to everything else.
To me, this has made the roads more unpredictably dangerous; people will use their cell phones regardless because of this accepted widespread need for twitteresque social interaction, and mechanisms will be created which simply bypass the laws and give an apparent 'use this device and you will be safe'.
To that end, I'll leave with this link to a video. While it implies (quite obviously an understatement) that cell phones are tragically dangerous, the most compelling issue is that the perpetrator appears to have no inkling that his actions had such a serious repercussion. This latter ideal, I think, is the issue that must be addressed: we need to be held accountable for our actions as a general rule, and not through legislation of a specific action.
http://abatesc.com/web/Latest/textin...-than-dui.html
The reason they can target phones (and not something else just as distracting) is that they have solid evidence through subpoenaed phone records.
Is using the phone a distraction? Yes, it is. Is cell phone use one of the highest distracting activities? I would say categorically, yes. To this end, it appears to make a lot of sense to target cell phone users.
But, I'd put this in the same category of reducing test score bars to gain a better pass rate: you may achieve an objective, but you have actually changed nothing.
People need to be better educated on the repercussions and responsibilities of driving; that it is a dangerous activity. You cannot educate through legislation - substituting legislation of education, yet this is is precisely what is happening in everything today, effectively creating an ignorant populace which demands an even greater array of laws to keep them 'safe'.
I petitioned the SC Speaker of the House, Bobby Harrell, to not pass this law; alternatively, pass a minimal fine but increase the penalty for property or bodily injury.
Such a law is ironic - if people are 'educated' through this law that text/driving is dangerous, it simply reinforces the notion that anything not against the law is not dangerous. Even so, regardless of fine or panalty for text/driving, this will be meaningless in any distracted driving accident.
Having said all that, this does not diminish the fact that distracted/impaired driving is the worst thing that one can do while driving. Texting/driving is just one instance of distracted driving. Tragically, all preceding accidents which occurred through distracted driving are basically not on the radar (there are close to zero accidents due to distracted driving) simply because it cannot be proved. Not so with texting (there's a tell tale fingerprint).
Even speeding - going faster than a posted speed limit - is not necessarily, in and of itself, dangerous: something else must occur or be in effect for speeding to contribute to a death or injury. A single distraction, on the other hand, can cause multiple situations which compound into an 'accident'. Speeding and distraction have historically fallen to speeding as the mitigating factor in an accident ("...speed was a factor in the accident..."). An uneducated populace read this as "The accident was caused by speeding", hence speeding perceived as the problem than needs addressing.
[As a side note, should an accident occur on a road where the limit is 55 mph, two cars traveling in opposite directions, traveling at 50 mph - under the speed limit - will impact at 100mph With vehicles of equal mass, this is equivalent to running into a brick wall at 100mph, albeit with the crumple zone of two cars instead of one. Traveling at 65, a 130mph impact. In both cases, the 'speed' is the killer - but not the cause. Yet in the latter, speed will be given as a mitigating factor, or even a cause. In neither case is speed the *cause* of the accident].
In a cell-phone accident, the phone will be given as the cause, yet the very same accident can be caused by any number of distractions. By focusing on cell phones we give a free pass to everything else.
To me, this has made the roads more unpredictably dangerous; people will use their cell phones regardless because of this accepted widespread need for twitteresque social interaction, and mechanisms will be created which simply bypass the laws and give an apparent 'use this device and you will be safe'.
To that end, I'll leave with this link to a video. While it implies (quite obviously an understatement) that cell phones are tragically dangerous, the most compelling issue is that the perpetrator appears to have no inkling that his actions had such a serious repercussion. This latter ideal, I think, is the issue that must be addressed: we need to be held accountable for our actions as a general rule, and not through legislation of a specific action.
http://abatesc.com/web/Latest/textin...-than-dui.html
Last edited by OceanTwo; 03-14-2010 at 01:21 PM. Reason: Fixed at least on error...there may be more...
#37
03-16-2010, 12:38 AM
Road Captain
There are too many 'specific' laws and way to ‘lenient’ penalties. But this is the way of lawyers. So first, kill all the lawyers.
If you deprive someone of property, regardless of how you did it, there should be a penalty.
If you hurt someone, regardless of how, you should be punished.
If you kill someone, you should be killed. (Oh yeah, enact this law after you kill all the lawyers).
Now this is too simplistic and will raise a few concerns, but if your life depended on it, I mean really depended on your safe driving – would you not be more concerned.
Just a thought.
But more practical is the education of drivers. We in the US spend literally billions and billions to make safer roads and cars, but not a single dime to make safer drivers. Again, the perception that driving is a ‘right’ not a ‘privilege’.
Another thought.
One more thing. IMNSHO – you kill someone while driving impaired, however you got there and you forfeit your life. No exceptions.
Yes, I am a bit draconian.
…gene
If you deprive someone of property, regardless of how you did it, there should be a penalty.
If you hurt someone, regardless of how, you should be punished.
If you kill someone, you should be killed. (Oh yeah, enact this law after you kill all the lawyers).
Now this is too simplistic and will raise a few concerns, but if your life depended on it, I mean really depended on your safe driving – would you not be more concerned.
Just a thought.
But more practical is the education of drivers. We in the US spend literally billions and billions to make safer roads and cars, but not a single dime to make safer drivers. Again, the perception that driving is a ‘right’ not a ‘privilege’.
Another thought.
One more thing. IMNSHO – you kill someone while driving impaired, however you got there and you forfeit your life. No exceptions.
Yes, I am a bit draconian.
…gene
