The most Popular Posts of the past seven days.
Feb 28, 2009
Text x 2,272. A month!
The Washington Post reported last week that teens with cell phones text and average of 2,272 times a month. If teens sleep eight hours a day, that works out to five or so per hour. No wonder parents can't communicate. Maybe they should text their kids. He wasn't a teen, but I saw a young man texting while driving in heavy traffic in Montgomery today. Legislators are considering a bill to make that a driving violation. There was also the story today about the woman given a ticket in Ohio for talking on her phone and nursing her baby while driving. She told police she wasn't going to let her baby go hungry. At least she wasn't texting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To enact a law making illegal the composition of text messages (aka "texting") is unnecessary. Alabama's LEOs (Law Enforcement Officers) have sufficient leeway/discretion to enforce existing laws that penalize drivers for unsafe operation of a motor vehicle.
ReplyDeleteFor example, considering the implications of the following two laws motorist/driving laws (cited immediately below this paragraph), it would not be a stretch to use either one or both of them to cite drivers "texting" while driving.
Code of Alabama 1975
Section 32-5A-190 - Reckless driving.
(a) Any person who drives any vehicle carelessly and heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard for the rights or safety of persons or property, or without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property, shall be guilty of reckless driving.
Section 32-5A-170 - Reasonable and prudent speed.
No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing.
The operation of our or any government and it's governance over us requires thoughtful consideration. That thoughtful consideration is called philosophy - the ideas about how our government ought to operate. Given such due regard,
We do not give driver licenses to children. We give driver licenses to adults. Adults do not have to be told "do not do this, do not do that, do not do the other," etc., ad nauseum. With adulthood comes responsibilities, on a personal level and corporate societal level. All societies expect, demand and require adult actions from adults. For the greatest part, adults do not have to be told what to, or what to not do. Children however, do have to be told what to do, what not to do, and how or how not to do certain things. Children do not have as good judgment or reasoning as adults. We do, however give graduated driver licenses to those young adults (also known as teens) whose judgment and discernment is growing.
On a philosophical level, it is impractical and unnecessary to enact a law for every possible circumstance or situation. That's where good judgment and adult responsibilities come into the picture.
The key phrases applicable in this issue in the two preceding laws are "without due caution and circumspection" and "having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing." If a driver, by their own actions, creates a hazard, they should cease such actions that create the hazard, or pull off the road and stop driving until the hazard has passed. Case in point, driving while sleepy. Is it against the law? No. Do we need a law that says we should not drive while sleepy? No! And in the case of "texting," the driver is creating the hazard and should pull off the road until that "texting" session is complete. To not do so would be to operate their vehicle "without due caution and circumspection," therefore making their actions reckless.
If a driver operates a vehicle in an unsafe fashion (which means that their operation of it jeopardizes and place themselves or others at unnecessary risk), then they should be cited and penalized.
The bottom line is not necessarily "texting" or even cell phone usage, drinking coffee, twiddling with the CD/radio. It is distraction. A driver could be distracted by a screaming baby in the back seat. Will we outlaw babies in the back seat?
No! We penalize the driver's behavior that is inherently unsafe and excessively risky to the extent they place themselves or others in danger of harm.
Alabama's LEOs presently have sufficient discretion to cite drivers whom operate their vehicles in such a fashion that endangers themselves and others.
A well-fashioned libertarian argument. As with many things, it's a question of where you draw your line. At what point is a dangerous (to OTHERS) behavior so prelevant that a specific law against it is needed? If the regulations you cite can be used legally to prosecute those texting drivers, all's well. Alas, if adults would act like adults, we could eliminate the need for an ocean of laws and rules. Thanks for the comment!
ReplyDelete