$2000 fine: texting while Driving

EastCoastMojo wrote: How about this: You have an accident while texting you don't get to have a drivers license for 2 years? Second offense you go to jail.

This deserves to be quoted.

grafmiata wrote: Could not agree with you more, Curmudgeon. Thank you!!!

You still need to GTFO my lawn.

aircooled wrote: How does a cop PROVE you were speeding? He SAW you do it. (They of course would need to be in a position to see it, otherwise I am not sure how you could give someone a ticket) I am not sure proof is an issue here. You would have to go with the "O.J, the cops are out to get me" defense if you wanted to defend against that.

Same way they prove you were speeding, they say so in court.

Curmudgeon wrote: Here's a news flash for those dumbasses who truly believe it's a multitasking thing: if you are multitasking it means you are not doing ANYTHING well.

More importantly, it requires you to not only take at least one hand off the wheel, but your eyes off the road. I'm a master multitasker and I only tried texting and driving once in slow moving traffic. That was enough for me to figure out that it was a dumbass dangerous thing to do.

Curmudgeon wrote: In case there are those who doubt it can be proven, a few years ago the guy on the train who was texting some kids and ran into another train claimed he was not texting. Bzzzt- his cell phone records show that he sent a text about two or three seconds before the crash. Stone. Cold. Busted. I applaud the fines; hopefully some of these dumbE36 M3s will accept that it's a stupid thing to do. Hell, I can alwas tell when some dumbass is texting, there's a big 'knot' in the traffic around them as they weave or run under the prevailing speed. Here's a news flash for those dumbasses who truly believe it's a multitasking thing: if you are multitasking it means you are not doing ANYTHING well. Now GTFO my lawn.

uhh, that guy died, along with a bunch of people on his train and the other one. they checked his phone records to confirm that he had been texting. not a real high survivability being in the front window of the lead car.

I am against the ban on texting. Not because it is a bad idea, but because it is too narrow. I have an iPhone, so I can browse the web, compose emails, make calendar appointments, read a book and much more while driving. The ban should be on USING a smartphone for anything other than talking handsfree and with voice command for dialing and looking up numbers.

mazdeuce wrote: What do we do about the cops texting? I see at least one a week driving along looking at his phone.

that or doing stuff on the laptop. while driving. seen it several times. not to worry though. they're professionals.

Although it certainly won't stop the problem completely, the possibility of a large fine will prevent some folks from texting while driving. I'm frequently in L.A, where talking on the phone without a hands-free device is illegal. I see way fewer folks using their phones while driving out there than I do in other places where there are no restrictions.

Heck even I figured out how to use the bluetooth in the last press car I had out there, as I didn't want to be hassled by the cops.

I see it as a step in the right direction. We've put a ton of emphasis on drunk driving, and it has reduced fatalities tremendously. Now kids don't think it's "cool" to drive while drunk anymore. (this was not always the case) If we can demonize texting while driving in the same way, we can chip away at the problem.

I also believe the interactive touch-screens in cars should only have their inputs active while the car is stopped. This will become more and more important as technology proliferates in modern cars.

come on man......you can check your Facebook AFTER you are done driving!

For all the people mentioning that they just need to look to see when any texts were sent, what about speak to text? I use it all the time. Hit the mic button, say what I want texted, and send.

aircooled wrote:

poopshovel wrote: I don't know how many speeding tickets you get a year (I average about 1.5,) or where you live, but yeah, "I observed the defendant..." doesn't mean E36 M3 in court. No points on my license, btw.

So how do they prove you ran a stop sign? They have to have video of it?! I don't think so.

They don't. I got out of that one too, and the attorney CLAIMED THEY HAD VIDEO! HA! Documented here a while back.

Boy, you guys must just lay down and take it huh? If the judge won't throw a ticket out of court, request a jury trial. "I saw him driving fast" WILL NOT FLY IN FRONT OF A JURY. Neither will "I saw him texting." A court-appointed lawyer can handle that one lickety split.

When you get in front of a judge for a ticket, his goal is to get you to admit guilt and GET THE MONEY with the least amount of time and effort. They'll do the good cop/bad cop thing. Either the judge or the cop will try to intimidate and frighten you, and the other will act like your best buddy, usually resulting in a "Just sign this and we'll knock the fee down to 'x' and call it court costs with no points." - which is usually a pretty good deal.

And again, I SERIOUSLY doubt any PD ANYWHERE is going to go requesting phone records and E36 M3, unless there's a fatality involved. Please, prove me wrong.

Strizzo wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: In case there are those who doubt it can be proven, a few years ago the guy on the train who was texting some kids and ran into another train claimed he was not texting. Bzzzt- his cell phone records show that he sent a text about two or three seconds before the crash. Stone. Cold. Busted. I applaud the fines; hopefully some of these dumbE36 M3s will accept that it's a stupid thing to do. Hell, I can alwas tell when some dumbass is texting, there's a big 'knot' in the traffic around them as they weave or run under the prevailing speed. Here's a news flash for those dumbasses who truly believe it's a multitasking thing: if you are multitasking it means you are not doing ANYTHING well. Now GTFO my lawn.

uhh, that guy died, along with a bunch of people on his train and the other one. they checked his phone records to confirm that he had been texting. not a real high survivability being in the front window of the lead car.

That's right, he did die. Maybe I was thinking about the kids he was texting to.

On the same general subject: wasn't texting involved in that NYC ferry crash a while back? Or is the investigation still going on?

It's getting to the point where it may be an automatic thing; if an officer sees someone texting and driving, he/she may be able to pull them over and immediately check their phone records, probably by getting the number and contacting the cell phone carrier. Not really much different from pulling someone for not having their seat belt on or for having an out of date sticker on their license tag, etc.

Having been in a couple of courtrooms when a cop says he/she observed you speeding, they will say 'I observed (car) driving at a high rate of speed and (corroborating evidence).' If they say 'by mechanical means' it means they caught up to you and checked their speedometer and yes that will stand up in court. Saw it happen a couple of times.

Up here in Boston a couple of years ago we had a guy that used to be a girl texting his/her girlfriend while driving a train. He/she lived and was prosecuted. Had another lady train operator that didn't make it in another texting while train driving incident. Personally I don't get the whole texting thing. Why spend three minutes typing something that can be said in 10 seconds.

Seems to me that this is already covered under "distracted driving" and therefore is a waste of time. It is really about law makers trying to show they are doing something about something people are complaining about.

Realistically, they need to go back to the lobbyists and tell them that their concerns are already covered under existing laws and they will work with local law enforcement to increase patrols for impaired and distracted driving.

Finally, as an Oregonian I have to point out the current state of the Oregon State Patrol, which is woeful to say the least. Without more boots on the ground, this will go nowhere since the city cops mostly leave the interstates alone and are too busy beating mentally challenged homeless folks to death or fondling co-workers and getting away with it.

poopshovel wrote: And again, I SERIOUSLY doubt any PD ANYWHERE is going to go requesting phone records and E36 M3, unless there's a fatality involved. Please, prove me wrong.

As you are well aware, no one can prove you wrong until there is a test case.

My opinion is different than yours. With a $2000 bill on the line for every infraction, I think PD will be falling over themselves to to get phone records as often as possible.

But it doesn't matter. Your claim was no one could prove someone was texting. This is patently false. It is easy to prove, through multiple methods. The only question is whether or not the police choose to utilize appropriate means and methods.

BTW, you are the only person who has suggested it would go to court with only an officer's testimony as proof. I doubt it would.

And no, I don't roll over. But I DO have a better driving record than you.

There was a lotta flak raised when anti-texting laws were first enacted over if and how the PD could have access to the accused's phone and records to prove the infraction. IIRC, many (including legals) argued that opening a personal phone should not be included in a personal or vehicle search.

That was several years ago. Googles may be in order to update.

here's the second piece to the puzzle:

http://www.katu.com/news/local/To-protect-evidence-of-a-crime-police-can-seize-your-cellphone-191323791.html?m=y&smobile=y

poopshovel wrote:

aircooled wrote:

poopshovel wrote: I don't know how many speeding tickets you get a year (I average about 1.5,) or where you live, but yeah, "I observed the defendant..." doesn't mean E36 M3 in court. No points on my license, btw.

So how do they prove you ran a stop sign? They have to have video of it?! I don't think so.

They don't. I got out of that one too, and the attorney CLAIMED THEY HAD VIDEO! HA! Documented here a while back. Boy, you guys must just lay down and take it huh? If the judge won't throw a ticket out of court, request a jury trial. "I saw him driving fast" WILL NOT FLY IN FRONT OF A JURY. Neither will "I saw him texting." A court-appointed lawyer can handle that one lickety split. When you get in front of a judge for a ticket, his goal is to get you to admit guilt and GET THE MONEY with the least amount of time and effort. They'll do the good cop/bad cop thing. Either the judge or the cop will try to intimidate and frighten you, and the other will act like your best buddy, usually resulting in a "Just sign this and we'll knock the fee down to 'x' and call it court costs with no points." - which is usually a pretty good deal. And again, I SERIOUSLY doubt any PD ANYWHERE is going to go requesting phone records and E36 M3, unless there's a fatality involved. Please, prove me wrong.

You don't live in NC, SC, or Ga. Fact, without even looking.

In reply to J308:

Poopers lives in Georgia.

Osterkraut wrote: In reply to J308: Poopers lives in Georgia.

Well I stand corrected. I guess things have changed since 1992, when I got my last ticket in that god-forsaken state. Railroaded I was. Officers word, good ole boy network... I had no chance, and nothing was "proven" in court, believe me. Maybe enough 040's have been through the courts that the judicial system has given up fighting?

SC, I got smacked for something similar.

NC, they will definitely not give a damn about proving your guilt. They'll cite you and you better lawyer up for the most simple infractions.

I guess a better comeback would have been that not all states allow jury trials for traffic citations. And I should also point out that if you LOSE a jury trial, court costs go up between 5-10x, turning a $2k fine into a $3k+ fine.

gay slur...

le sigh