Text Messaging While Driving - Read This

Man, it is about time the law starting going after these idiots that text message while driving. :twak:

I was getting ready to leave a parking lot the other day and some female stopped her car right in front of me blocking me from leaving. Then I could see her cell phone and she was texting. I had to blow my horn to get her the hell out of my way. :mad:


Source: San Jose Mercury News
Woman gets 6 years in prison for fatal crash caused by her texting-while-driving

Link to Article (http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12073742)



Another one.



Source: Philadelphia Inquirer
Jail for Pa. man in text-messaging crash case

Link to Article (http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/pennsylvania/20090404_ap_jailforpamanintextmessagingcrashcase.h tml)

Excellent post, as long as they don't ever go after smoking and driving to make it fair I'm cool with that because really the only time a smoker could mess up is if he drops a cigarette and tries to pick it up while going down the road but I'll just leave it and try to pull over somewhere if that happens, I drive an old truck and don't really care about a burn hole in the carpet though. Rarely ever happens anyway I'm just afraid of that law coming because of how they are doing smokers now with the restaurant laws and the taxes going up sky high.

In NY many counties are adopting bans on texting while driving rather than waiting for the State to gets it's act together an fashion a law to cover all the counties at once. A couple years back an off duty cop killed a pedestrian in a crosswalk and seriously injured another by running them over . It was discovered he was texting while operating his vehicle.
The problem still remains however is hat you can have the best written law in the world but it all boils down to enforcement. There are so many complaints from the public that law enforcement doesn't do enough enforcing and ticketing in regards to the "no cell phone while driving laws" so what good would adding "no texting" to it?

Due to recent media attention in Georgia, they are beginning to crack down on teenage drivers using a cell phone while driving. I guess they think that will eliminate some of the teenage highway carnage. :dunno: I don’t think this is an age issue, it is just as dangerous for an experienced driver to use a cell while driving. I see this everyday, cars coming at me across the center lane while the driver is holding a cell phone in one hand and gesturing with the other, like the person they are talking to can see their gestures. Anytime I see someone driving down the highway using a cell phone, my defensive driving skills kick in automatically & my posterior muscles tighten. Some of these drivers are not qualified to drive even with both hands on the steering wheel. :shakehead

I don't smoke in my car but really no comparison between smoking versus texting while driving. Smoking doesn't take much thought process and almost an automatic action versus manipulating a keypad and viewing the display and trying to steer. Plus the cell phone becomes incriminating evidence against you due to the call logs. At least with a cigarette you can flick it out the window and even swallow it if necessary. :lol:

Speaking of cops setting a bad example. I see a lot of younger cops using their cell phones without hands free operation. And I agree the laws are worthless without enforcement. In most cases it is too late because a fatality or injury is involved.

I don't know how other state's laws banning cell phone use while driving are written, but in NY "emergency personnel" are exempt from most of he provisions , including the requirement for hands free devices. You can imagine the public's view of this , especially all you seem to see now is cops driving down the road chatting away on their phones. Their excuse for the way the law is written is that these personnel may have "sensitive" communications that can't be broadcast, such as he location of a domestic disturbance, or other sensitive info related to a crime in progress.
Just this past week in our town there were two separate major accidents involving fire department SUVs. One occcured when the chief's SUV slammed into a compact car with a preganant woman and child aboard. And the other occured when another fire dept. SUV drove into an intersection at a high rate of speed at 4 pm in the afternoon and was T boned by a schhol bus with kids aboard. Now the media is reporting that both accidents are going to take weeks to determine who was at fault, but many know the fire depts. will most likely be exonerated and no tickets will be issued to them, although many witness accounts to both scenes say they were at fault or a major contributor to the accident. I wonder if any of the fire dept personnel were texting or using a cell phone just prior to the collision?

I see no problems with law enforcement or first responders using cell phones with or without hands free as long it is authorized or official business and government property. Personal cell phones should be excluded. Also, they still have their two way radios to use. I've noticed cell phones interfere with two way radio communications too.

A few years ago we had an EMS driver cited for causing the accident at an intersection and being negligent. The law requires them to drive safely and defensively and not assume their sirens and lights protect them from accidents or free to go through red lights. They have to slow down and make sure an intersection is clear before proceeding. Plus lawsuits will still be brought and the matter litigated in civil court. Most states have a tort claims act that will allow you to legally sue a governmental entity for wrongdoing or negligence. I guess let a jury decide.

I believe Tennessee has banned cell phone use while driving for those under 18.
And up in Fort Cambell it has been completly outlawed.

I see no problems with law enforcement or first responders using cell phones with or without hands free as long it is authorized or official business and government property. Personal cell phones should be excluded.
:iagree: As long as the use of the cell phones while driving is for business use only. It's hard to immediately tell from looking at the passing police car if the cop is on "official business" on the phone,(especially if it appears they are laughing or joking while on their call.) And those reports after any accident don't really seem to clarify if the cop or first responder was on a personal or official call,Many people in our area claim a lot of that info is "covered up" or buried far into the report. Also many residents wish that the officials would use the hands free devices as required by law, since they have to.

A few years ago we had an EMS driver cited for causing the accident at an intersection and being negligent. The law requires them to drive safely and defensively and not assume their sirens and lights protect them from accidents or free to go through red lights. They have to slow down and make sure an intersection is clear before proceeding.
On the flipside of that, we have a problem that has been manifesting itself for many years where drivers are refusing to pull to the side to allow an emergency vehicle with it's lights and sirens operational to pass. It's like their lives are more important as keeping on their schedule. It has been known for many years as a common courtesy , although not written into law, to allow volunteer firefighters responding to a call using a flashing blue light , to pass to be able to get to their emergency. Over the past decade or so, this courtesy has pretty much gone by the wayside as most drivers ignore them and refuse to yield. Like some people say, those who refuse to yield better hope that the emergency personnel aren't responding to a fire at their house or an emergency situation involving a loved one.

Plus lawsuits will still be brought and the matter litigated in civil court. Most states have a tort claims act that will allow you to legally sue a governmental entity for wrongdoing or negligence. I guess let a jury decide.
Just the other day a news report came out concerning something like this. Apparently in NY , you cannot sue or hold liable a public employee or agency which causes damages to your property while they are performing their job, even in cases of negligence. A family was at a rest stop on the Thruway during the winter when they stopped at a stop sign before proceeding. A Thruway employee operating a snowplow, backed into their vehicle causing damage. The driver admitted his guilt and the family found out the Thruway, along with other state agencies are not liable in situations like that, so they will have to pay for the repairs out of their own pocket.
Story about that situation here: http://www.9wsyr.com/content/news/real_deal/story/Thruway-wont-pay-for-accident-The-Real-Deal/qm8uF3JCHU6MWpcNLcRIBg.cspx

Just the other day a news report came out concerning something like this. Apparently in NY , you cannot sue or hold liable a public employee or agency which causes damages to your property while they are performing their job, even in cases of negligence. A family was at a rest stop on the Thruway during the winter when they stopped at a stop sign before proceeding. A Thruway employee operating a snowplow, backed into their vehicle causing damage. The driver admitted his guilt and the family found out the Thruway, along with other state agencies are not liable in situations like that, so they will have to pay for the repairs out of their own pocket.

Story about that situation here: http://www.9wsyr.com/content/news/real_deal/story/Thruway-wont-pay-for-accident-The-Real-Deal/qm8uF3JCHU6MWpcNLcRIBg.cspx

Interesting article Tom. It figures in your state. :rolleyes: Sad small claims issue involving governmental vehicles in New York are handled that way. Note that the article didn't say they could not get redress. They could have sued the governmental entity itself - Thruway Authority but that could be time consuming and cost money unless they find an attorney that will take the case on a contingency basis.

In contrast in Texas no problem. See Link. Also, if it involves a vehicle from a U.S. Federal agency you can sue under the Federal Tort Claims Act. In my area you have more of a chance of a Border Patrol Agent or Customs Agent running into you than a snowplow. :lol:


Texas Tort Claims Act (http://www.tml.org/legal--q&a/2005February.pdf)


Someone mentioned Fort Campbell, KY and cell phone use. It is the same at all U.S. DOD installations now which includes all forts and bases regardless of branch of service. No use of cell phone unless hands free device or you are stopped (safely parked).

Of course, the Post Commander could make it more stringent.

They could have sued the governmental entity itself - Thruway Authority but that could be time consuming and cost money unless they find an attorney that will take the case on a contingency basis.


You got that right on the part about being costly and time consuming to attempt to sue the Thruway Authority. They have grown so large and hard to deal with, especially since they took over the state canalway system years ago. They just got through a couple years back passing a 3 year plan to hike tolls on the roadway in '08,'09'and '10. Traffic counts and revenues are down and this is their attempt to raise more revenues :shakehead: not understanding that the toll hikes will further drive more people to find alternate routes. They really don't have any oversight and after an audit by the State Comptroller 2 years ago it was found that the Authority wasted too much money and there were many areas they could cut back and save money, thus there would be no need for any rate hikes. Even then Governor Spitzer asked them to either delay or cancel the rate hikes and follow the recommendations of the Comptroller. They literally told him to go f**k himself in no uncertain terms and went ahead with their plans.There have been attempts to get rid of the Authority but none seem to meet with success. And we wonder about the state of affairs here in NY.
( BTW the Thruway was built in the 1950's with bonds that were to be paid off with tolls in 1996, thus making the Thruway toll-free. But that never occured to the angerment of most residents. The Authority found excuses such as high maintenance costs, and the future need to rebuild portions and upkeep to maintain the collection of tolls.)

I read an article the other day that "hands free" cell phones are shown to be no safer than hand held cell phones.

What about taxi cab drivers should they also be exempt? their job requires them to use the phone while driving. They can also be some of the worst drivers without being on the phone. A cab driver caused a rear end collision with one of my drive students because he was running a stop sign we then had to slow for him at!

What about taxi cab drivers should they also be exempt?


Nope. Commercial entities are liable under basic simple or gross negligence torts.

Plus they should have auto insurance.

So BNaylor, are you for outlawing talking on your cell phone while driving, or just texting while driving?
I will often answer my cell in the car if I'm not on the freeway or in the middle of a turn with no problems, but I will rarely make make a call (I never text), and at that it would be on a slow quiet road and preferably parked.
What gets distracting (as these articles show) is looking away from the road to push the keys on your phone, not the talking so much.
The important thing to remember is that your priority is driving and seeing whats on the road, not talking on the phone, many people forget this.

So BNaylor, are you for outlawing talking on your cell phone while driving, or just texting while driving?


Thanks for the question. I am for banning cell phone use in a car while driving period! If it is something we weren't born with then it is something we really don't need today. :lol:

Thanks for the question. I am for banning cell phone use in a car while driving period! If it is something we weren't born with then it is something we really don't need today. :lol:

Well, that is a valid point, but then you get into the argument, eating, drinking, putting on makeup and every other activity should be outlawed while driving. That just won't happen.:rolleyes:

Well, that is a valid point, but then you get into the argument, eating, drinking, putting on makeup and every other activity should be outlawed while driving. That just won't happen.:rolleyes:

Like Bob, I agree that talking on a cell phone should not be allowed at all while driving. I guess many people forget what it was like 15+ years ago when most people had no cell phones, how did we get along without them all that time? :lol: (Also those people that seem to talk 24/7 on one while doing most any activity. how did they get along without one? Unless all this talking they're doing is to make up for all that time before nobody had one.)
As for the other distractions listed they don't pose as much (well except reading a newspaper I suppose ) a risk as texting, IMO. Drivers have been doing that way longer before cell phones arrived on the scene . It'd be interesting to look at stats for accidents and the causes to see how much cell phone use was attributed as the cause versus other forms of distraction, and the fatality rate.

Like Bob, I agree that talking on a cell phone should not be allowed at all while driving. I guess many people forget what it was like 15+ years ago when most people had no cell phones, how did we get along without them all that time

:werd:

Thats why they will all be on Prozac by the time they are 40. :lol:

Ugh! I'm one of those people that texts and drive at the same time. Stupid habit.

I was just thinking this: How long do you suppose it'll be before some car manufacturer comes up with the idea to put a keypad in the steering wheel of their cars so drivers don't have to use a separate device to text? ( Similar to the radio controls in the steering wheel like in some Pontiacs.) :screwy: :lol: I know it will probably never happen, thankfully, but I'm sure some designer has already made some plans and designs "just in case".I can imagine the public outcry if it is proposed.

If I go on a trip of any size I just use my bluetooth headset while I am in the car. And while I refuse to where it outside of my car in fear of getting jumped for trying to look 'trendy' it does come in useful when driving a car that is a manual. Honestly, I just bought it for my PS3 but it works wonders on the road. :D

This is another topic that pisses me off if only because all it takes is common sense to prevent unnecessary accidents and incidents.

The state of Illinois (where I live) has also banned cell phone usage - that's ANY usage - by individuals under 18 years of age, which I think is a good idea. However, to the rest of us, it still requires using some brains.

I know some people who would say "I'm good at it - I won't get into any accidents," which irritates me, because no one can be certain of something like that.

The best way? Wait until you're a stop light or parked. If it's that important, pull into a parking lot or off to the side of the road.

The state of Illinois (where I live) has also banned cell phone usage - that's ANY usage - by individuals under 18 years of age, which I think is a good idea.




Does that include cars that are equipped with bluetooth as well? I just heard about this from my bro back home (Chicago) and he told me they passed a new law.

I don't like talking on a cell while driving, even with a headset.

I can't imagine texting and driving, but I see people trying to do it all the time. That is ignorant, foolish, and downright dangerous. :nono:

There's a reason those bans are enacted. NY state requires hands free use, but I see people all over the road acting as if they never heard of the regulation.

I NY state requires hands free use, but I see people all over the road acting as if they never heard of the regulation.

:lol:

People in New York are bad or inconsiderate drivers anyways so you can imagine how bad they are using cell phones or Blackberrys. I can't stand driving there but I'll have to do that in May. :mad:

BTW - New Jersey isn't much better.

:lol:

People in New York are bad or inconsiderate drivers anyways so you can imagine how bad they are using cell phones or Blackberrys. I can't stand driving there but I'll have to do that in May. :mad:

BTW - New Jersey isn't much better.

Nor is Massachusetts. I remember my brother was transferred in his job at Digital to Mass. back in the early 1980's and he remarked how bad the drivers were there compared to NY.
Not to take the topic in a different direction but I read a letter in the Editorial section of our daily paper this morning concerning the texting while driving ban, and they said an equally bad problem is those drivers who allow their pets to ride up in front with them, mostly sitting on their laps. And we're not talking those little "ankle-biters" but also full size dogs. I've seen some drivers distracted by their pets and have even come close to being hit by some turning and cutting it too close to my vehicle because the dog was in the way of their ability to steer properly.
I believe there was a Bill in the State Legislature a few years back to try and address this issue, requiring pets to be secured in one form or another in the vehicle. But I believe it either didn't get enough support or there was too much complaints from pet owners against it.

Oh I forgot to mention with the exception of Tom. :tongue:

BTW - My dog is way too big to ride in my lap. :lol:

Does that include cars that are equipped with bluetooth as well? I just heard about this from my bro back home (Chicago) and he told me they passed a new law.
This includes headsets.

The idea is that conversations are just as distracting as texts, no matter how you're having them.

:lol:

People in New York are bad or inconsiderate drivers anyways so you can imagine how bad they are using cell phones or Blackberrys. I can't stand driving there but I'll have to do that in May. :mad:

BTW - New Jersey isn't much better.
QFT Those bastards come down here every year, and are a public nuisance. They do tons of stupid shit, like intentionally trying to run people off the road in order to change lanes in heavy traffic, and don't even realize they are doing anything wrong/stupid.

Thanks for the question. I am for banning cell phone use in a car while driving period! If it is something we weren't born with then it is something we really don't need today. :lol:

Spoken words of an all-around conservative. :lol: With that mentality we wouldn't even have electricity. :iceslolan Like I said, I will talk while driving assuming it isn't rush hour with my headset in the car as I feel in some cases it is necessary.

I've used my bluetooth a lot while driving. Definitely easier than trying to hold a phone, steer and shift all at once. lol... As for texting... Well... I think we are all guilty of doing it at least once before. :grinyes:

Spoken words of an all-around conservative. :lol: With that mentality we wouldn't even have electricity. :iceslolan Like I said, I will talk while driving assuming it isn't rush hour with my headset in the car as I feel in some cases it is necessary.
What's wrong with that? Maybe we should ban electricity.... damn voodoo magic.

I've used my bluetooth a lot while driving. Definitely easier than trying to hold a phone, steer and shift all at once. lol... As for texting... Well... I think we are all guilty of doing it at least once before. :grinyes:
Only an idiot would text and drive, when they can simply use bluetooth and call the person, and safely discuss whatever they want to.

Now, reading and posting on AF while driving....... that's different, what other choice do you have? :icon16:

Now, reading and posting on AF while driving....... that's different, what other choice do you have? :icon16:

The essentials of life.

I don't like to even text when I am sitting on a couch. The only time I will ever text is when it is absolutely necessary. I hate when people try and go through 20 text messages in hopes of sparking up a conversation that would take upwards of 30 minutes when they could just call me and have a conversation in less than 30 seconds.

I don't like to even text when I am sitting on a couch. The only time I will ever text is when it is absolutely necessary. I hate when people try and go through 20 text messages in hopes of sparking up a conversation that would take upwards of 30 minutes when they could just call me and have a conversation in less than 30 seconds.

That crap drives me nuts too. I've had people send me texts that I'm not in the mood to talk to. So either I don't reply or I give them a one word reply in hopes of that ending it. Usually they start asking if I'm mad at them or don't wanna talk to them or blah blah blah. Mostly I have this problem with women... Now there are several people I can text all day long with no problem. However if I'm not in the mood to talk to a certain person, they just don't seem to get the hint... Phonecalls like that are worse than texts IMO.

I've never bothered to text, but I don't really have a need to. I figure they make these phones with audio capability for a reason. :evillol:

This includes headsets.

The idea is that conversations are just as distracting as texts, no matter how you're having them.

So next it will be against the law for a driver to talk to passengers! :screwy:

So next it will be against the law for a driver to talk to passengers! :screwy:

In some instances it should. :lol:

Actually in my area,(don't know how it is in other areas,) it is against the law to have more than a certain number of occupants under the age of 18 if the driver has a learners permit, or is newly licensed up to a certain point thereafter. The lawmakers,along with other groups who supported the bill felt that too many young occupants in a vehicle is a great distraction.

Same here in Texas Tom. Provisional drivers license and the driver under whatever age is limited on how many passenger can be in the car. The law was popular in Texas because there were so many under age 18 multiple fatalities or injuries in car accidents involving the same car or accident.

Yes thats the "graduated licensing" law it's here in Oregon as well. It also restricts minors on the times they can drive ( not after 11:00 P.M. or near there)
in fact, in Oregon for the first six months of being licensed NO passengers under 18, except for family member (it's OK to seriously hurt or kill kid brother, but not friends):evillol: is allowed for those under 18.

I don't know how other state's laws banning cell phone use while driving are written, but in NY "emergency personnel" are exempt from most of he provisions , including the requirement for hands free devices. You can imagine the public's view of this , especially all you seem to see now is cops driving down the road chatting away on their phones. Their excuse for the way the law is written is that these personnel may have "sensitive" communications that can't be broadcast, such as he location of a domestic disturbance, or other sensitive info related to a crime in progress.
Just this past week in our town there were two separate major accidents involving fire department SUVs. One occcured when the chief's SUV slammed into a compact car with a preganant woman and child aboard. And the other occured when another fire dept. SUV drove into an intersection at a high rate of speed at 4 pm in the afternoon and was T boned by a schhol bus with kids aboard. Now the media is reporting that both accidents are going to take weeks to determine who was at fault, but many know the fire depts. will most likely be exonerated and no tickets will be issued to them, although many witness accounts to both scenes say they were at fault or a major contributor to the accident. I wonder if any of the fire dept personnel were texting or using a cell phone just prior to the collision?


some pheonix cop hit someone while typing on the computer and driving.

texting and drving is f*cking stupid anyways and i can say ive never done it:nono: