BOL Round Table

I hope the state does a better job of enforcement than what goes on here (Louisiana). Louisiana recently passed a law banning texting while driving as a secondary offense (had to have committed some other unlawful act in order to be ticketed for texting). A few months later, this was pushed to a primary offense, meaning the mere act of texting while driving shall result in a ticket. As recently as this week, I drove along side a teenager, likely with little driving experience, texting away on a stretch of I-20 in morning traffic. The police officer to her immediate left traveling in the same direction did nothing. Because of her distraction and resulting speed fluctuations, I maintained speed and went around, only to notice the cop was texting away himself. I easily see a dozen people texting away during my daily commute.

Frankly, a ban on texting while driving is short changing the overall big picture of safety. If safety is truly the issue, bans on making non-hands-free phone calls, eating, radio manipulation, sorting through CDs, applying makeup, etc. must also be enforced. Otherwise, it is hard to see this as a law purely based on safety. It all comes down to being a distracted driver. And, while most of us think we can multitask quite well while driving, that just isn't the case for the vast majority of people, despite the type of distraction or mitigating features (hands free calling) used. A few tests have shown that hands free calls are not quite as dangerous as making a call without a hands free system, but it is still more dangerous than no call at all.

So, while I applaud the effort, I can't help but think it is flawed logic with more to be done.

Recently, while driving, I have been writing a novel on my phone titled "Driving". It's sci-fi thriller and social study encompassed into one. Will this be limited by the new text law?

The whole point is that this new law/ban will stop nobody. I text and drive occasionally and will continue to do so. The chances that you just happen to be texting and driving with a cop beside you have to be slim. Hell in over 10 years of driving, I go over the speed limit everyday and also hardly ever wear a seatbelt and I've only gotten 2 tickets. Did it stop me? Nope

This is a money making tactic. It is not about actually giving a crap about the citizens of Alabama.

It should be banned!. Mobile telephones in general, and texting specifically, is the absolute worst thing that has to the safety of driving, since they first put wheels on to make wagons and buggies. Period, end of facts.

Over three times as many people are killed annually by "legal" pharmaceutical perscription drugs (used as prescribed) as are killed in traffic accidents. Moreover, the number of people killed by the pharmaceutical drugs is increasing every year while the number of traffic fatalities have been steadily dropping. So if we extend the rationale proposed by some in this thread to pharmaceutical drugs, we should be clamoring for our government to pass a law making those illegal as well . . . right???

The bottom line is this: how many lives will be saved by this law??? The answer is probably zero. That is so because it is very unlikely to have an effect on the behavior of drivers.

How much power and wealth will be transferred from the honest hard-working citizens of this state to a greedy and criminal state government??? Lots, which is what this law is all about, and in that vein I have no doubt this law will be a tremendous success.

100,000 Americans Die Each Year from Prescription Drugs, While Pharma Companies Get Rich

http://www.alternet.org/health/147318/100,000_americans_die_each_year_from_prescription_drugs,_while_pharma_companies_get_rich/

Traffic fatalities fall to lowest levels since 1949

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/12/08/traffic-fatalities-fall-to-lowest-levels-since-1949/

You need to conduct a bit of research on the history of crime and punishment. If there is no victim there is no crime, thus texting (or any other activity for that matter) is not a crime unless it infriges on the rights of another.

With respect to this law, are you willing to testify under oath in every "texting" case brought before a court in this state that you were the victim of a crime??? If your answer is no, then no crime has been committed against you.

That is simply wrong. Victimless crimes include prostitution, drug use, gambling, driving underage, consuming alcohol underage, assisted suicide, censorship, and the list goes on and on.

And as far as someone who needs to do research, perhaps you should do research on what is considered crime in a constitutional state. In a constitutional state, the legislatures elected by the sovereign define what is a crime. A crime is NOT the same as a tort. A tort requires a victim, a crime does not.

10th Amendment

The duty of government is to protect and defend the rights of its people, NOT to keep them safe!!!

Moreover, if the government truely had a genuine concern for the safety of its citizens (which it does not), it would ban most if not all pharmaceutical drugs and fast food restaurants. Why doesn't benevolent government do that??? Simple. There's no profit in it for them. If fact, quite the opposite. It is a money loser for government and the politicians.

This law is yet another shameless power grab by the government. It makes the government more powerful and the citizens of this state weaker, and that is a tragedy.

Once again, you don't know what you are talking about. State governments have and have always had (since their original inception as colonies) the power to create laws that are reasonably designed to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals of its citizens. This power, through the 10th amendment was retained by the founders and only limited to the extent enumerated by the constitution (and state constitutions).

To deny the states this power is extraordinarily radical and cuts against thousands of years of western thought concerning how society binds itself together.