-
Sidebar Ads
-
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Email
Print
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo!Member Opinions:
By: theredbaron on 4/28/09
They're taking our civil rights! Socialism has come to Murfreesboro!
They're taking our civil rights! Socialism has come to Murfreesboro!
By: RaiderXpress on 4/28/09
Ok, so I'm all about safety and I am guilty of "texting while driving", but this is a little over the edge. EVERY defense for this is going to be, "Your Honor I was dialing a number, I wasn't texting." As if we don't have enough cluttering up the court system as it is. This is a ridiculous piece of legislation. This will likely be the new go to "probable cause" for pulling everyone over.
Joe Bag-O Doughnut’s pulled over for suspicion of "texting while driving".....The post will have to have a whole section dedicated to this so we can keep up with driver's that you should "steer clear" of.
As the kiddies say in their text's....
OMG LMAO.
Ok, so I'm all about safety and I am guilty of "texting while driving", but this is a little over the edge. EVERY defense for this is going to be, "Your Honor I was dialing a number, I wasn't texting." As if we don't have enough cluttering up the court system as it is. This is a ridiculous piece of legislation. This will likely be the new go to "probable cause" for pulling everyone over.
Joe Bag-O Doughnut’s pulled over for suspicion of "texting while driving".....The post will have to have a whole section dedicated to this so we can keep up with driver's that you should "steer clear" of.
As the kiddies say in their text's....
OMG LMAO.
By: ALP on 4/28/09
i agree word from word with "RaiderXpress".
i agree word from word with "RaiderXpress".
By: BigUnitRaider on 4/28/09
Absolutely, RX. How will the enforcement of this rule be done? Cops are now going to have to time how long you look down to see if you are texting or not.
I do not understand this.
Absolutely, RX. How will the enforcement of this rule be done? Cops are now going to have to time how long you look down to see if you are texting or not.
I do not understand this.
By: Geana on 4/28/09
ROFLMAOPIMP! No, seriously. Did this state ever enact a law mandating hands free cell phone equipment for drivers? I haven't seen it yet. From what I've seen on the road, the most dangerous drivers are talking on their cellphones. I see some yelling in their phones and slamming their steering wheels. I see others just cruising along, holding up traffic, (and oops! a stop sign!) -- suddenly slamming their brakes.
Oh well.
ROFLMAOPIMP! No, seriously. Did this state ever enact a law mandating hands free cell phone equipment for drivers? I haven't seen it yet. From what I've seen on the road, the most dangerous drivers are talking on their cellphones. I see some yelling in their phones and slamming their steering wheels. I see others just cruising along, holding up traffic, (and oops! a stop sign!) -- suddenly slamming their brakes.
Oh well.
By: barrettbear on 4/28/09
What did we do before cell phones? I really
can not imagine that "our rights" are being
jerked out from under us.
The object of this is to provide safety for
everyone while driving on our roads.
Who would want to get the call that their loved one has been killed in a traffic accident? All because people want to talk on phones, drink and drive, grooming theirself, loud music,etc.
What did we do before cell phones? I really
can not imagine that "our rights" are being
jerked out from under us.
The object of this is to provide safety for
everyone while driving on our roads.
Who would want to get the call that their loved one has been killed in a traffic accident? All because people want to talk on phones, drink and drive, grooming theirself, loud music,etc.
By: Macgyver on 4/28/09
So can I still surf the net on my phone and drive?
So can I still surf the net on my phone and drive?
By: attagirl on 4/28/09
This "crime" will be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I urge everyone to plead not guilty and make the state prove it.
This "crime" will be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I urge everyone to plead not guilty and make the state prove it.
By: devolver on 4/28/09
RaiderXpress: I couldn't have said it better.
and Macgyver, Tetris or Frogger on your iPhone are still OK.
RaiderXpress: I couldn't have said it better.
and Macgyver, Tetris or Frogger on your iPhone are still OK.
By: MyVoice on 4/29/09
its not your right to be able to drive, its a privilege. If you dont like the driving laws, dont drive. what scares me more than the people texting is some of the ridiculous replies you people put in these blogs. I can only hope that you all are the minority in our community.
its not your right to be able to drive, its a privilege. If you dont like the driving laws, dont drive. what scares me more than the people texting is some of the ridiculous replies you people put in these blogs. I can only hope that you all are the minority in our community.
By: vdanr on 4/29/09
I too think this is ridiculous. My concern is that legilators are busy coming up with redundant and repetitive "laws". If I'm not mistaken, there is already a law in the books that states someone can be stopped if they are distracted or their focus is not on driving (not sure of the exact wording). I would think they could use their time and our money more wisely!!
I too think this is ridiculous. My concern is that legilators are busy coming up with redundant and repetitive "laws". If I'm not mistaken, there is already a law in the books that states someone can be stopped if they are distracted or their focus is not on driving (not sure of the exact wording). I would think they could use their time and our money more wisely!!
By: attagirl on 4/29/09
It's called reckless driving, vdanr, and you are correct - the law is already on the books.
This law is nothing but a waste of time and just gives the cops another phony reason to pull people over.
It's called reckless driving, vdanr, and you are correct - the law is already on the books.
This law is nothing but a waste of time and just gives the cops another phony reason to pull people over.
By: Farmall on 4/29/09
People who accept everything without questioning it, scare me the most. It is not a good idea to play with your phone while driving, but its nobodies business. And if you cause an accident and tell the judge you were on the phone its possible you will be made an example of.
People who accept everything without questioning it, scare me the most. It is not a good idea to play with your phone while driving, but its nobodies business. And if you cause an accident and tell the judge you were on the phone its possible you will be made an example of.
By: matt73557 on 4/29/09
Jim Tracy is just trying to fill out his resume at the expense of taxpayers and civil liberties.
I want talking on the phone while driving banned.
I also want little doggie in my lap while Im driving banned.
I also want eating while driving banned.
Jim Tracy is just trying to fill out his resume at the expense of taxpayers and civil liberties.
I want talking on the phone while driving banned.
I also want little doggie in my lap while Im driving banned.
I also want eating while driving banned.
By: devolver on 4/29/09
MyVoice: Yes, you're right. Its a privilege, not a right. However, don't give me the "If you don't like the driving laws, don't drive" nonsense. If I don't like something, I'm going to be vocal about it and move to have it changed to my liking. Complacency isn't my gig, nor was it what this country was founded on. It's that attitude that allowed Hitler and Stalin to do the things they did. No thank you.
And most of the crashes that occur are caused by people who are unable to maintain control of their vehicle WHILE DOING NOTHING OTHER THAN DRIVING. No texting, no talking, no doggies, or eating, just terrible terrible drivers.
At the end of the day, I'd much prefer someone use their own good judgment instead of a law having to be passed. Is it a good idea to text while driving? Not really. Most people would agree, even those who do it.
I'd really like to see some numbers; how many more wrecks are there due to people texting... have there been studies?
MyVoice: Yes, you're right. Its a privilege, not a right. However, don't give me the "If you don't like the driving laws, don't drive" nonsense. If I don't like something, I'm going to be vocal about it and move to have it changed to my liking. Complacency isn't my gig, nor was it what this country was founded on. It's that attitude that allowed Hitler and Stalin to do the things they did. No thank you.
And most of the crashes that occur are caused by people who are unable to maintain control of their vehicle WHILE DOING NOTHING OTHER THAN DRIVING. No texting, no talking, no doggies, or eating, just terrible terrible drivers.
At the end of the day, I'd much prefer someone use their own good judgment instead of a law having to be passed. Is it a good idea to text while driving? Not really. Most people would agree, even those who do it.
I'd really like to see some numbers; how many more wrecks are there due to people texting... have there been studies?
By: life_is_short on 4/29/09
Some of you people are just plain crazy. Did we not all watch the drivers-ed videos that show anything distracting you while driving increases the risk of accidents? devolver, have you not read the studies? And more importantly, do we have to have studies and accidents to prove what common sense should tell us? Texting diverts your eyes and attention from driving. That fact alone should tell you the odds of an accident increase.
As for Sen. Tracy's motive, something tells me he remembers the high school kid killed in a single vehicle accident last year. He was texting his coach if I remember correctly. The whole point of government is to legislate because the public can't seem to use common sense most of the time. And when we fail to exercise common sense, we find someone to sue or blame. (isn't that why your coffee cup tells you it contains hot liquid?)
Think about it - we are about to graduate an entire generation that can text or type faster than they can write. It is the method of communication most 16 - 18 year old kids (and they are kids) prefer. Do you really want your child driving a car and texting? Or worse, do you want your child to be driving, obeying all the laws, being mindful as you have taught them....dying in an accident because some idiot had something so important to say it couldn't wait until they stopped the car? The other driver swerves into a lane toward your kid. Your kid swerves to avoid getting hit. Nails the curb, flips the car and is either dead or messed up for the rest of his or her life?
By the way, when your freedoms cross over and take away my freedom....which my safety is a very basic right.....then it is no longer simply about your rights.
Some of you people are just plain crazy. Did we not all watch the drivers-ed videos that show anything distracting you while driving increases the risk of accidents? devolver, have you not read the studies? And more importantly, do we have to have studies and accidents to prove what common sense should tell us? Texting diverts your eyes and attention from driving. That fact alone should tell you the odds of an accident increase.
As for Sen. Tracy's motive, something tells me he remembers the high school kid killed in a single vehicle accident last year. He was texting his coach if I remember correctly. The whole point of government is to legislate because the public can't seem to use common sense most of the time. And when we fail to exercise common sense, we find someone to sue or blame. (isn't that why your coffee cup tells you it contains hot liquid?)
Think about it - we are about to graduate an entire generation that can text or type faster than they can write. It is the method of communication most 16 - 18 year old kids (and they are kids) prefer. Do you really want your child driving a car and texting? Or worse, do you want your child to be driving, obeying all the laws, being mindful as you have taught them....dying in an accident because some idiot had something so important to say it couldn't wait until they stopped the car? The other driver swerves into a lane toward your kid. Your kid swerves to avoid getting hit. Nails the curb, flips the car and is either dead or messed up for the rest of his or her life?
By the way, when your freedoms cross over and take away my freedom....which my safety is a very basic right.....then it is no longer simply about your rights.
By: jt2324 on 4/29/09
HAHA i dunno why everyone is freaking out over this. People are STILL gonna text and drive just like people STILL speed and STILL run the red lights knowing there are cameras taking your picture. You just have to watch out when a cop is around and not do it while he/she is around thats all. Just because it will be against the law does not mean people will stop doing it obviously. It certainly wont stop me!
HAHA i dunno why everyone is freaking out over this. People are STILL gonna text and drive just like people STILL speed and STILL run the red lights knowing there are cameras taking your picture. You just have to watch out when a cop is around and not do it while he/she is around thats all. Just because it will be against the law does not mean people will stop doing it obviously. It certainly wont stop me!
By: barrettbear on 4/29/09
That which is hilarious, when you are talking or texting and you rear end someone at a red light. The first question to the driver in front of you, "why did you stop".
That which is hilarious, when you are talking or texting and you rear end someone at a red light. The first question to the driver in front of you, "why did you stop".
By: devolver on 4/30/09
life_is_short: no, I haven't seen the studies, please provide me some links. Also, you say "...do we have to have studies and accidents to prove what common sense should tell us?" Good point, to expand on it, Do we need LAWS to dictate what common sense should tell us?
life_is_short: no, I haven't seen the studies, please provide me some links. Also, you say "...do we have to have studies and accidents to prove what common sense should tell us?" Good point, to expand on it, Do we need LAWS to dictate what common sense should tell us?
By: devolver on 4/30/09
jt2324: The thing that upsets me the most about this is that it gives cops one more reason to initiate a traffic stop. They could easily say "it looked like you were texting on your phone" using that as an excuse to (otherwise) illegally detain you. THAT's what upsets me about this mess.
jt2324: The thing that upsets me the most about this is that it gives cops one more reason to initiate a traffic stop. They could easily say "it looked like you were texting on your phone" using that as an excuse to (otherwise) illegally detain you. THAT's what upsets me about this mess.
By: devolver on 5/1/09
life_is_short: I'm waiting.
life_is_short: I'm waiting.
By: vdanr on 5/1/09
So, when police officers are driving along trying to figure out if you are texting while driving or possibly doing something else, their focus and attention is not on the road!! If they pull you over and say, "it looked like you were texting" and then you say, "no I was eating my fries from McDonalds" or you say "no, I was turning my phone off", or you say "I was dialing a number on my phone". Either way it is a distraction which further proves that this is a bogus bill.
life_is_short: how much commen sense does it take to figure that one out????
So, when police officers are driving along trying to figure out if you are texting while driving or possibly doing something else, their focus and attention is not on the road!! If they pull you over and say, "it looked like you were texting" and then you say, "no I was eating my fries from McDonalds" or you say "no, I was turning my phone off", or you say "I was dialing a number on my phone". Either way it is a distraction which further proves that this is a bogus bill.
life_is_short: how much commen sense does it take to figure that one out????
By: vdanr on 5/1/09
oops, I meant to say it's a bogus and redundant law.
oops, I meant to say it's a bogus and redundant law.
By: life_is_short on 5/1/09
devolver, i'm sure your at least as smart as i am. i have no doubt you can find information and news stories regarding this problem on your own. and to answer your other questions, we clearly need laws to dictate what common sense should already tells us. let's see, drinking and driving laws, speeding laws, laws about stealing another persons property, laws about killing people or animals. the list could go on. actually it does. i believe most municipalities refer to it as the criminal code or something like that. if we did not need laws to help with what should be common sense, we would need much less government and lo and behold, we might just all get along!
devolver, i'm sure your at least as smart as i am. i have no doubt you can find information and news stories regarding this problem on your own. and to answer your other questions, we clearly need laws to dictate what common sense should already tells us. let's see, drinking and driving laws, speeding laws, laws about stealing another persons property, laws about killing people or animals. the list could go on. actually it does. i believe most municipalities refer to it as the criminal code or something like that. if we did not need laws to help with what should be common sense, we would need much less government and lo and behold, we might just all get along!
By: life_is_short on 5/1/09
and vdanr - i really don't think police officers will be stretching their necks to see if you're texting any more than they do now to see if you are wearing a seat belt. i would imagine it will come into play with probable cause, like swerving, looking down for an extended period of time, traffic accidents...things of this nature. you guys really don't give the boys in blue much credit around here.
and vdanr - i really don't think police officers will be stretching their necks to see if you're texting any more than they do now to see if you are wearing a seat belt. i would imagine it will come into play with probable cause, like swerving, looking down for an extended period of time, traffic accidents...things of this nature. you guys really don't give the boys in blue much credit around here.
By: devolver on 5/1/09
life_is_short: "devolver, have you not read the studies?" Please, show me what it is that YOU have read...
life_is_short: "devolver, have you not read the studies?" Please, show me what it is that YOU have read...
By: barrettbear on 5/1/09
If you are old enough to obtain a driver's license, then you are old enough to know the rules of the road.
Each individual knows what is distracting to them and what is not distracting.
Talking,texting,applying make-up,eating,
drinking, etc. in your personal vehicle should be your business.
If what you are doing causes you to run into
my vehicle, then it becomes the business of the insurance company.
I really do not see any checkpoints set up for "texting while driving" anytime soon.
If you are old enough to obtain a driver's license, then you are old enough to know the rules of the road.
Each individual knows what is distracting to them and what is not distracting.
Talking,texting,applying make-up,eating,
drinking, etc. in your personal vehicle should be your business.
If what you are doing causes you to run into
my vehicle, then it becomes the business of the insurance company.
I really do not see any checkpoints set up for "texting while driving" anytime soon.
By: devolver on 5/2/09
Of course there won't be checkpoints... you'd see it ahead and put down your phone.
Of course there won't be checkpoints... you'd see it ahead and put down your phone.
By: barrettbear on 5/2/09
That's right.
That's right.
By: vdanr on 5/4/09
life is short, I give the boys and girls in blue a lot of credit. I was an officer at one point and I know what it's like. My concern is not with the police officers doing their jobs. My concern is with legislators coming up with bogus and redundant laws. If someone can be cited for reckless driving then why get redundant and make this texting while driving law? Why not come up with one of these: no smoking while driving, no eating while driving, no applying make-up while driving, no kissing while driving, etc. etc. etc. Are there any current police officers on this blog that wish to give an opinion? Like I said, I just think this redundan.
life is short, I give the boys and girls in blue a lot of credit. I was an officer at one point and I know what it's like. My concern is not with the police officers doing their jobs. My concern is with legislators coming up with bogus and redundant laws. If someone can be cited for reckless driving then why get redundant and make this texting while driving law? Why not come up with one of these: no smoking while driving, no eating while driving, no applying make-up while driving, no kissing while driving, etc. etc. etc. Are there any current police officers on this blog that wish to give an opinion? Like I said, I just think this redundan.
Login and voice your opinion!