New Distracted Driving Law

[Forged]

I'm sick of these idiots on the roads, wasting MY time and putting everyone in danger. They sit at stop lights checking their FB. They fly through intersections. They speed. It can be drastically reduced by this... and I say good.

No offense, but you're delusional if you think one more law is going to make a damn bit of difference in people's irresponsible behavior.

this.
i'm sitting at a red light as we speak


jk. but fact. more laws does not equal more protection. did we all forget about 594? ammo tax? political vouchers? should i keep going?

[leadcounsel]

I'm sick of these idiots on the roads, wasting MY time and putting everyone in danger. They sit at stop lights checking their FB. They fly through intersections. They speed. It can be drastically reduced by this... and I say good.

No offense, but you're delusional if you think one more law is going to make a damn bit of difference in people's irresponsible behavior.

Really? So, you just prefer anarchy and let people act like selfish fools with no consequences?

For example, do you think rape laws deter at least some rapes? Do drunk driving laws deter at least a % of drunk drivers?

If you think laws don't alter behavior, I've got a bridge to sell ya.

[leadcounsel]

Murder is bad. Maybe we should make some more laws against that too.

Probably be as effective as 594 or the 25 foot smoking ban.

Or the opposite. Make murder totally legal and let's see how things change.

Can folks not understand how laws do indeed change behavior, or at least put bad actors in positions to stop doing it, learn, or pay consequences?

This apparently is a level of understanding folks here aren't grasping.

Google the term "negligence per se." It is a default negligence if a person has an "accident" while violating the law designed to prevent that very accident. It makes prosecuting those bad actors much easier for what would otherwise just be "accidents."

For example, two cars go through an intersection and collide. Hard to figure out who is at fault since both claim they had a green light. Now, change the law and put DUI in place. One driver is drunk. Then that driver is arguably at fault due to "negligence per se." Not hard to see this applied to this hands free law. You're involved in an accident with unclear facts or liability. But turns out you were on your phone. Bam. Negligence per se.

Again, none of the crying over government encroachment or revenue or whatever is at all compelling on this point. You may as well be arguing in favor of DUIs. Same thing.

Last edited by leadcounsel on Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[edogg]

My neighborhood is 25mph, and always has kids and adults walking and biking and skateboarding on the shoulder. There is no sidewalk.

Yesterday, I'm in front of my house at the end of the driveway. On my bike, dog leash and dog ready to go for a ride/run. There are a few 10-15 year old kids on bikes next door, at the edge of the road where they tend to ride and play.

As is often the case, this trashy woman flies by at 35mph or more. Two adults in the drivers seat, and several kids in the back. She doesn't bother slowing or swerving for any of us, and has her monster sized cell phone stuck to her head with her arm holding it up.

She was on her phone, and hence IGNORING all of us at edge of the road. Didn't bother slowing or swerving at all.

I hope she gets a ticket as with everyone else breaking this law. I hope they all get tickets and ultimate big fines and in the end lose their licenses. I 100% support the law. I walk and bike enough to see the real threat of these distracted morons making their important calls and texts to order a pizza and check their FB status... while killing ordinary folks out walking their dogs.

I'm sick of these idiots on the roads, wasting MY time and putting everyone in danger. They sit at stop lights checking their FB. They fly through intersections. They speed. It can be drastically reduced by this... and I say good.

Sounds like this idiot would probably drive like a maniac with or without a cell phone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[leadcounsel]

Maybe this is a great way for LEO to smack her with some heavy fines to make her pay attention.

[Guns4Liberty]

I'm sick of these idiots on the roads, wasting MY time and putting everyone in danger. They sit at stop lights checking their FB. They fly through intersections. They speed. It can be drastically reduced by this... and I say good.

No offense, but you're delusional if you think one more law is going to make a damn bit of difference in people's irresponsible behavior.

Really? So, you just prefer anarchy and let people act like selfish fools with no consequences?

For example, do you think rape laws deter at least some rapes? Do drunk driving laws deter at least a % of drunk drivers?

If you think laws don't alter behavior, I've got a bridge to sell ya.

I prefer dangerous liberty over peaceful servitude.

If you think one more law is the solution to irresponsible driving - an ambiguous, difficult-to-enforce law at that - I've got oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.

[AR15L]

The last three posts show why this "new" law is BS.
Distracted driving has been on the books for as long as I can remember but NEVER ok rarely enforced.

Money grab...

End of story.

[Forged]

The last three posts show why this "new" law is BS.
Distracted driving has been on the books for as long as I can remember but NEVER ok rarely enforced.

Money grab...

End of story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGIxAcyMa9E

[TechnoWeenie]

I regularly have people driving 50+ on my 25mph road....

Don't get me started on Canyon.....

On my way to dr. Appt... Lady in left lane doing 20 under... Swerving... Almost sideswiped me.... Yup ... Texting...let off 200W of both Whelen and FedSig airhorn.... She never even looked up.... I had to turn left... Bitch almost rear ended me.... Despitee being 1/4 mile in front t of her when I changed lanes... Then waited at the light for a good 10 secs or so.....

Please explain what would be bad about ripping the pbone from her hands and smashing it on the ground?

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

[DGM33]

FWIW, Auburn PD just posted this on their facebook feed:

There has been a lot of worry and concern about the secondary offense prong of the new distracted driving law. It is very possible that people you know are posting mis-information or that your media sources are not sure of what to expect. The "dangerously distracted" prong is a "secondary offense" which means that the officer has to witness you commit a primary infraction in order to write you an infraction for the secondary infraction. Our seatbelt law used to be a secondary offense for example. A real life example for this law would be that if you are eating a cheeseburger, and it spills on your lap and you look down to clean off your lap and while you look down you crash into the car in front of you, THAT is dangerously distracted. Or maybe you are driving down the road doing your make-up and while you are looking in your mirror you leave your lane of travel and almost hit another car, a pedestrian or even strike a curb, then THAT is dangerously distracted.
Driving down the road, enjoying your coffee or a snack does not automatically kick in this offense unless the officer believes that the actions you were taking within the car led you to commit other infractions that were inherently unsafe.
This law does not apply to private property areas such as parking lots or other non-government owned property.
We also need to remember that Auburn and many other cities have had their own municipal laws/ordinances for Inattentive Driving that covered this "dangerously distracted" prong for the past several years so in essence there is really no change here, just a new state code articulating the offense.
As an example to this, we had a collision a few months ago where a driver admitted that the reason he crashed was that he was distracted by watching the ducks play in some water and that traffic suddenly stopped in front of him. That driver was issued an infraction for Inattentive Driving which would now fall under the dangerously distracted prong of this new law.
Ultimately, it is our goal to make sure that all of us drive in a safe and responsible manner. Statistcs show that distracted drivers are 4x more dangerous than an impaired driver and that you are 23x more likely to be involved in a collision while distracted.
Our officers noticed a huge decrease in observing phone activity yesterday so it appears that so far, we are all making an effort to drive safer and save lives. We want to thank you for making an impact by putting your phone away while driving.

[TechnoWeenie]

So, if the judge throws out the primary ticket does the secondary become nullified. Ie a judge finds you weren't speeding, that in effect invalidates the stop, which means he shouldn't have pulled you over in the first place, making thr secondary infraction now invalid... Right? You'd think so, but I doubt it....

[edogg]

FWIW, Auburn PD just posted this on their facebook feed:

There has been a lot of worry and concern about the secondary offense prong of the new distracted driving law. It is very possible that people you know are posting mis-information or that your media sources are not sure of what to expect. The "dangerously distracted" prong is a "secondary offense" which means that the officer has to witness you commit a primary infraction in order to write you an infraction for the secondary infraction. Our seatbelt law used to be a secondary offense for example. A real life example for this law would be that if you are eating a cheeseburger, and it spills on your lap and you look down to clean off your lap and while you look down you crash into the car in front of you, THAT is dangerously distracted. Or maybe you are driving down the road doing your make-up and while you are looking in your mirror you leave your lane of travel and almost hit another car, a pedestrian or even strike a curb, then THAT is dangerously distracted.
Driving down the road, enjoying your coffee or a snack does not automatically kick in this offense unless the officer believes that the actions you were taking within the car led you to commit other infractions that were inherently unsafe.
This law does not apply to private property areas such as parking lots or other non-government owned property.
We also need to remember that Auburn and many other cities have had their own municipal laws/ordinances for Inattentive Driving that covered this "dangerously distracted" prong for the past several years so in essence there is really no change here, just a new state code articulating the offense.
As an example to this, we had a collision a few months ago where a driver admitted that the reason he crashed was that he was distracted by watching the ducks play in some water and that traffic suddenly stopped in front of him. That driver was issued an infraction for Inattentive Driving which would now fall under the dangerously distracted prong of this new law.
Ultimately, it is our goal to make sure that all of us drive in a safe and responsible manner. Statistcs show that distracted drivers are 4x more dangerous than an impaired driver and that you are 23x more likely to be involved in a collision while distracted.
Our officers noticed a huge decrease in observing phone activity yesterday so it appears that so far, we are all making an effort to drive safer and save lives. We want to thank you for making an impact by putting your phone away while driving.

So even Auburn PD recognizes that this is a useless law that makes something illegal that's already illegal. Ridiculous...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Old Jim]

So, if the judge throws out the primary ticket does the secondary become nullified. Ie a judge finds you weren't speeding, that in effect invalidates the stop, which means he shouldn't have pulled you over in the first place, making thr secondary infraction now invalid... Right? You'd think so, but I doubt it....

That would not invalidate the RS or PC the officer had to make the stop. Fruit of the poison tree would not apply. Sorry.

[TechnoWeenie]

For example, two cars go through an intersection and collide. Hard to figure out who is at fault since both claim they had a green light. Now, change the law and put DUI in place. One driver is drunk. Then that driver is arguably at fault due to "negligence per se."

Uhhh....no... That's not how any of this works. Sober people can't run red lights? Your logic is seriously flawed.

You may as well be arguing in favor of DUIs. Same thing.

Yup, and I support terrorism because I didn't like the patriot act...

A lovely straw man if I ever saw one....

[Selador]

I wondered how long it was going to be before someone with a dog in the fight pointed out the strawman in the room.