Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
I caught this in the morning this week by accident–it is important. Watch it all.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
I caught this in the morning this week by accident–it is important. Watch it all.
I observed a teenager texting while driving last week. She was so oblivious to other vehicles that she almost caused a serious accident when she cut another driver off near an intersection.
You’re right, Kendall. This is an eye-opener. It’s really scary. Every state ought to ban texting while driving, ASAP.
David Handy+
I once saw a woman in the left lane on I-285 in suburban Atlanta applying mascara. Texting is just as stupid. If you must text, pull into a parking lot.
When they finally get around to “the law”, let’s ban everything while driving except driving….smoking, using the telephone in any form, watching VCR (yes, some do), and taking your eye off the road to look at the person to whom you are talking……how many times have you been riding with someone and they have to look at you to talk to you…not good……
At the conclusion of my latest physical exam, my doctor pointed to my iPhone and said, “There’s your greatest health risk. Don’t text, email, or talk while you drive.” End of exam.
THe only way I would be watching MSNBC would have to be by “accident.”
David H and others… I would be curious to hear how these anti-texting laws play out in practice (in the states that have passed them). How exactly do they get enforced? That’s an honest question by the way… I am not trying to mock the idea or imply there is no way the laws could work.
But when I compare them to DUI laws, they sound different. When a policeman pulls someone over for suspicion of drunk driving, there are objective ways to prove that the person is in fact wasted. But when the cop pulls the person suspected of texting over, it becomes an essential HISTORICAL question. Not “are you drunk right now as I the cop talk to you” but WERE you texting 3 minutes ago.
I get nervous when we empower police to pull people over and purely on the basis of what the cop thinks he saw in a brief flash of time as you passed him (he thinks he saw you texting) you get convicted of a crime — no objective measures of any kind needed. No radar guns, no breathalyzer, no walking in a straight line, and so on. I am also nervous about empowering the state to seize phone records purely on the basis of what a cop thinks he might have seen.
On the other hand, I certainly agree that texting is outrageously dangerous. It’s just that I don’t necessarily believe that “there outta be a law” is the solution to all questions of bad behavior in life.
Your thoughts?
I do believe that texting leaves a time line record. The problem would be that it could be produced in court, and if the record shows one was texting – guilty….but – if the record did not indicate texting at the time in question, seems to me the party could sue for false arrest…..anyone know if I am right about time line record?
You are definitely right, Dee… texting certainly leaves a time stamp.
But here are the things that make me nervous. First off we’d have to agree as a society that any time a police office thinks that you might have used your cell phone while driving, the state has the right to seize all phone records registered in your name and/or seize all mobile devices in your car and/or person at the time of the alleged incident. That alone makes me really nervous. Part of our identity as Americans is having a very high regard for privacy and private property and freedom. Historically we set the bar VERY high for what the state has to prove before it can seize or search private property. Naturally there’s a lot you can accomplish in a police state — incidents of rape, murder, theft and so on were indeed much lower in say the USSR during the 60s and 70s than they were in the US. But traditionally Americans say that we are willing to endure a higher incident of social irresponsibility if it means having strong protections for privacy and individual freedom.
Secondly even such seizures of phone records would be ambiguous. Suppose you really were texting at the time — but you were doing it on a phone not registered in your name. The phone records would “prove” you were innocent. Or suppose the cop was wrong, but by accident your wife used your joint phone to send a text at that time.
Again, I am curious how these laws have been framed in the states where they have been enacted.
Thanks for your thoughts, Dee!