New Distracted Driving Law

[TechnoWeenie]

Cops don't have to obey this law.

Yup.

We need tint laws for safety, people need to be able to see where they're driving! (cops exempt, because apparently they have better eyes than everyone else)

SBRs are unsafe and only used by criminals (until recently, only cops had them)

No one can safely drive while talking/texting/drinking coffee, but let's make sure cops can use their keyboard and mouse (touchscreen) to send emails on their MDCs @ 60 MPH

AR15s were ONLY designed to kill a large number of people at one time, that's why only police should have them (California)


etc etc. We're either equal or we're not....

[TechnoWeenie]

Saw a King County Sheriff talking on his cellphone while driving today in Burien. I took my phone out to get a pic, then realized holding my phone was illegal.

I broke the law today

Wah! I'm tellin!

I'd venture to say that the first person who's smart enough to raise a 1A claim for taking pictures while driving, should all but invalidate that portion of the law....We are ALL 'press', and taking pictures is 'protected speech' under 1A.... Shit, one could even claim that penalizing texters interferes with their rights to speak freely..

[leadcounsel]

How are going to respond when the LEO asks for your phone password to "gather evidence," such as your activity log?

I'm for small government, but entirely for this law. And a person would probably have to demonstrate he was not using his phone. I suspect cops will have some form of way to video or show, or testify.

I see an alarming number of people messing with their phones, eyes totally off the road. In my neighborhood, where kids are often riding bikes on the street, I saw a lady fly down the road with her eyes straight down for the entire time I could see her.

You don't have a right to drive, and you're handling a deadly weapon. Pay attention or lose your privilege to drive. It's that simple.

[TechnoWeenie]

And a person would probably have to demonstrate he was not using his phone.

1. Kinda hard to prove a negative.
2. Presumption of innocence, how does that work again?

[WaJim]

And a person would probably have to demonstrate he was not using his phone.

2. Presumption of innocence, how does that work again?

It doesn't in all cases.....ever been audited by the Tax Man?

So there's precedent....

[leadcounsel]

And a person would probably have to demonstrate he was not using his phone.

1. Kinda hard to prove a negative.
2. Presumption of innocence, how does that work again?

Cop has RAS or PC to believe driver committed an infraction. Impounds phone pending search warrant.
Can also subpoena phone records.

Do you really want to play that game? Doubt it.

Or you can admit you did it, take the fine, and get on with your day a more responsible person not putting the public in jeopardy because you're checking Tinder.

[TechnoWeenie]

And a person would probably have to demonstrate he was not using his phone.

1. Kinda hard to prove a negative.
2. Presumption of innocence, how does that work again?

Cop has RAS or PC to believe driver committed an infraction. Impounds phone pending search warrant.
Can also subpoena phone records.

Do you really want to play that game? Doubt it.

Or you can admit you did it, take the fine, and get on with your day a more responsible person not putting the public in jeopardy because you're checking Tinder.

Thank you for showing why more gov't is never the answer...

Next thing you know, they'll start taking ALL phones as 'evidence' during a distracted driving stop, then search it, then declare what a great tool it is to get drug dealers, etc off the street.... Pretext stops... now gonna be used to start searching phones... way to go...

Good thing pretext stops are illegal in WA...

[Sinus211]

[leadcounsel]

And a person would probably have to demonstrate he was not using his phone.

1. Kinda hard to prove a negative.
2. Presumption of innocence, how does that work again?

Cop has RAS or PC to believe driver committed an infraction. Impounds phone pending search warrant.
Can also subpoena phone records.

Do you really want to play that game? Doubt it.

Or you can admit you did it, take the fine, and get on with your day a more responsible person not putting the public in jeopardy because you're checking Tinder.

Thank you for showing why more gov't is never the answer...

Next thing you know, they'll start taking ALL phones as 'evidence' during a distracted driving stop, then search it, then declare what a great tool it is to get drug dealers, etc off the street.... Pretext stops... now gonna be used to start searching phones... way to go...

Good thing pretext stops are illegal in WA...

Blah blah blah. So the alternative is to continue to let drivers on their phones and texting kill tens of thousands of people in car accidents annually? Go look at car accident photos. They are horrific.

Driving is taken far too casually. Yeah, you have rights and freedoms in this nation. But one of them isn't do drive like a sociopath self centered asshole putting hundreds of people's lives and their loved ones' lives at risk while on the roads.

Do you also condone drugged or drunk driving, and is that a person's "right" in your book?

http://fortune.com/2017/02/15/traffic-deadliest-year/
by Kirsten Korosec

2016 data shared Wednesday from the National Safety Council estimates that as many as 40,000 people died in motor vehicles crashes last year, a 6% rise from 2015. If those numbers bear out, it would be a 14% increase in deaths since 2014, the biggest two-year jump in more than five decades.
It also means that 2016 may have been the deadliest year on U.S. roads since 2007, the NSC says.Crashes result in the very real cost of human life. But there are also millions more who are seriously injured—an estimated 4.6 million in 2016 according to NSC—and a financial cost to society as well. NSC estimates the cost of motor-vehicle deaths, injuries, and property damage in 2016 was $432 billion, a 12% increase from the previous year. Those costs include losses in wages and productivity, medical expenses, property damage, employer costs and administrative expenses, the NSC says.

So, irresponsible distracted driving kills over 1000 people per day, injures 12,000 per day, and causes 1/2 trillion in property damage annually, much of that absorbed by you and me - people who pay insurance premiums.

Being on your phone and driving is a leading cause of distracted driving. I've had enough of it. It's not the boogyman you think it is. It's not akin to drinking a water, or changing a radio station. I've been in the car or otherwise seen people who are texting/talking while driving and they literally are looking at everything except the road for long periods. I've also watched other cars veer quite outside of normal traffic patterns while clearly texting and driving.

If not police, who would you like to monitor traffic? Are you suggesting a form of "self help?" So, like, if someone murders your wife because of negligent driving, you just go assassinate them for it? Or, do you think maybe a more 'proactive' approach like shooting distracted drivers is the answer? You seem to complain a LOT about police and law enforcement, but never offer to go do the job or offer any solutions. What is your SOLUTION to distracted drivers?

Mine is MASSIVE fines on a first instance followed by revocation of driving privileges thereafter.

Last edited by leadcounsel on Sun Jul 23, 2017 7:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[WaJim]

Welp, next thing you know drinking coffee in a moving vehicle comes under the heading of Distracted Driving....

Then chewing gum, picking boogers etc.....







Too bad common sense couldn't be enforced.

Slip off the grid occasionally.....good for the soul.

If its too much to be unavailable then All cars can be equipped with bluetooth.

Last edited by WaJim on Sun Jul 23, 2017 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[leadcounsel]

Welp, next thing you know drinking coffee in a moving vehicle comes under the heading of Distracted Driving....

Then chewing gum, picking boogers etc.....

Too bad common sense could be enforced.

This is an enforcement of common sense. Long overdue. You should not be holding your phone or texting while driving. And other things, like eating and drinking in fact can be secondary distracted driving offenses if it raises to that level in the view of an officer. I suspect if you're getting pulled over you were breaking some traffic law, anyway. People need to stop driving like it's the last day on earth.

This month I've once experienced and a second time watched some jerk literally pull suicide maneuvers on a 2 lane highway. I was going 45 (the speed limit) and he punched up to 90 to pass me, missed me by a foot, zipped around me, and missed the oncoming car by maybe 1 second. A week or two later I saw someone do the same thing again, while I was out on a run. Lunatics like that need to be off the roads.

[Old Growth]

I was going 45 (the speed limit) and he punched up to 90 to pass me, missed me by a foot, zipped around me, and missed the oncoming car by maybe 1 second.

Sorry about that.

I was in a hurry. I had to get my phone payment delivered in person to avoid it being turned off.

[Selador]

Welp, next thing you know drinking coffee in a moving vehicle comes under the heading of Distracted Driving....

Then chewing gum, picking boogers etc.....

Too bad common sense couldn't be enforced.

Slip off the grid occasionally.....good for the soul.

If its too much to be unavailable then All cars can be equipped with bluetooth.

Guess I'm gonna have to stop driving...

[Alpine]

Honestly I wouldn't mind people being on their phone if they could handle it without fucking up. Some can't. However does that mean we all live under a law because of that?

It's weird.

[Selador]

To be honest, instead of a new law that puts everyone under the same thumb, I'd rather see regulations that add hard time if it can be proven that texting contributed to an accident or death...