Perry vetoes texting-while-driving legislation

[El Barto]

https://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7615732.html

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry vetoed legislation on Friday that would have banned texting while driving because he views it as "a government effort to micromanage the behavior of adults."

State law already prohibits drivers under age 18 from texting or using a cellphone while driving.

"I believe there is a distinction between the overreach of (the texting ban bill) and the government's legitimate role in establishing laws for teenage drivers who are more easily distracted and laws providing further protection to children in school zones," Perry said in his veto message.

Perry vetoed 24 bills — a large dropoff from the 83 bills he vetoed in 2001 in his first legislative session as governor.

Former House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, authored the texting-while-driving-ban bill - HB 242 - that Perry vetoed.

"I was sorry that it was vetoed, but I'm sure he had reasons," Craddick said.

Craddick said he "absolutely" plans to pass a texting-while-driving ban again when lawmakers meet in 2013.

"It's another tool for law enforcement to save lives of people on the highways of Texas and the streets of Texas," he said.

In his veto message, Perry agreed that "texting while driving is reckless and irresponsible." The governor said he prefers information and education campaigns to dissuade drivers of all ages from texting while driving.

Read more: https://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7615732.html#ixzz1Slw8mxy3

I definitely understand when people say the government should stay out of our business.  I usually agree, in fact (though plenty of people take it way too far).  This really baffles me, though.  If it's not the state's place to prevent people from doing reckless and dangerous shit, then what's the point?  There a ton of state laws that prohibit me from doing similarly reckless things.  Hell,  I'm not even allowed to walk down the street shooting my gun in the air to celebrate new years anymore.  I'm not sure what makes this any different from all the other public safety related laws.

I can certainly understand that he want's to pass himself off as a prototypical small government republican right now,  but doesn't this seem an absurd way to do so?

[MasterShakezula]

I can certainly understand that he want's to pass himself off as a prototypical small government republican right now,  but doesn't this seem an absurd way to do so?

Yes, it is.  But the thing is, he knows that he has his fair share of people who believe in him, and well, they're so well tripped-up in the "small government FTW" festivities that they'll accept any sorta thing that seems close enough to that ideal, regardless of how stupid or even in this case, harmful these plans are. 

[Chino]

By vetoing something that applies to virtually everyone, no matter how small, he looks like a good guy. He has to  pick something that targets not only the majority, but pleases them as well. He can let the smaller things slide that only affect small minorities and won't really hurt him on a large scale (I am not using minorities in a racial sense). I agree that the texting while driving thing is crap. I believe it is just a way to fine you if no other legitimate reason is found. I text while driving all the time. I have my phone on my windshield like a gps and it is actually very easy to text without taking my eyes off the road. Not to mention I use the voice to text option all the time while driving.

[El Barto]

Dude, there is no way you're going to try and say that you don't compromise any safety when you text, is there?  And by the way,  cops down here rarely write for that.  You don't get a ticket for using your cellphone unless you're an extraordinary knucklehead.  There's tons of ticket writing for $$$, but that hasn't been one of their interests.  Speeding and redlight cameras are much more lucrative. 

The thing passed the House with 28 yeahs, and 3 nays.  It was drafted by his own Lieutenant Governor, and had good support.  As has been pointed out,  he's already got a base that doesn't care what he does, so there's no need to try and tow the hardline for them.  This just doesn't make a lot of sense.

[MasterShakezula]

Dude, there is no way you're going to try and say that you don't compromise any safety when you text, is there?  And by the way,  cops down here rarely write for that.  You don't get a ticket for using your cellphone unless you're an extraordinary knucklehead.  There's tons of ticket writing for $$$, but that hasn't been one of their interests.  Speeding and redlight cameras are much more lucrative. 

Pretty much the same situation in CA.  I don't think I've ever seen a person get pulled over for cellphone use, whether by voice or by keypad. 

[Chino]

In CT there are no traffic cans or automatic ticketing. Cops out here pull people over for cellphone use constantly. I got stopped for rolling a stop sign a few weeks ago. For no reason he asked to see my phone. I wasn't texting, but out of principle I pulled out the battery and handed it to him. They love cell phone violations out here.

[MasterShakezula]

In CT there are no traffic cans or automatic ticketing. Cops out here pull people over for cellphone use constantly. I got stopped for rolling a stop sign a few weeks ago. For no reason he asked to see my phone. I wasn't texting, but out of principle I pulled out the battery and handed it to him. They love cell phone violations out here.

How much cash do they pack in per person communicating via telephone while simultaneously transporting themselves via automobile?

[El Barto]

In CT there are no traffic cans or automatic ticketing. Cops out here pull people over for cellphone use constantly. I got stopped for rolling a stop sign a few weeks ago. For no reason he asked to see my phone. I wasn't texting, but out of principle I pulled out the battery and handed it to him. They love cell phone violations out here.

Cops down here love to search people's phones incidental to arrest,  but tickets written for using them while driving have been surprisingly low.  

Irrelevant, though.  Perry isn't arguing that it was a cash-grab.  He's arguing that the state has no business telling people they can't devote half their attention to their phones while they're driving, and he's full of shit on that count.  

[MasterShakezula]

Irrelevant, though.  Perry isn't arguing that it was a cash-grab.  He's arguing that the state has no business telling people they can't devote half their attention to their phones while they're driving, and he's full of shit on that count.  

Yes.  Though I think it's also him pandering to his choir, getting them riled up in the "small gov." craze, and all.  I mean, seriously, would anyone who knows enough think the Repubs are really representing the average Joe?

[ricky]

it doesn't matter.


in reality, even if it was passed it wouldn't really do much. it would be difficult to enforce, and the law itself would dissuade very few. 

[El Barto]

...and the law itself would dissuade very few. 

Yeah,  I suppose you're right.  Traffic laws are only effective when you actually have a cop in your view.  If it weren't for the fact that I really distrust them,  and I'm almost always up to something naughty myself,  I'd just as soon always have cop driving near by me so that people would actually use their fucking turn signals for a change. 

(a much worse consequence of everybody and their dog talking on cellphones now is that nobody has a hand free to use their signals--dirty rotten bastards)

But again, not the point.  There's a principle here, and that's what I'm on about.  The notion that our idiot governor thinks that it isn't the state's place to pass laws related to public safety.  Personally,  I'd kind of like to know where the money trail is in all of this. 

[rumborak]

I'm always of the opinion that the best incentive would be via the insurances. You texted or called within half a minute prior to the accident? The insurance won't cover for you.
Same thing for other lifestyles of people, e.g. (non-genetic) obesity or smoking. Jack up the premium. If that's your lifestyle, then also pay for the consequences.

rumborak

[MasterShakezula]

I'm always of the opinion that the best incentive would be via the insurances. You texted or called within half a minute prior to the accident? The insurance won't cover for you.
Same thing for other lifestyles of people, e.g. (non-genetic) obesity or smoking. Jack up the premium. If that's your lifestyle, then also pay for the consequences.

rumborak

I think that's a really good idea!

[El Barto]

I'm always of the opinion that the best incentive would be via the insurances. You texted or called within half a minute prior to the accident? The insurance won't cover for you.
Same thing for other lifestyles of people, e.g. (non-genetic) obesity or smoking. Jack up the premium. If that's your lifestyle, then also pay for the consequences.

rumborak

It wouldn't be a deterrent, though.  Nobody ever thinks they're going to be in an accident.  Plus,  I really don't want my insurance company to know what I'm up to at every given moment.  How many excuses to deny coverage do we want to give them?  "I'm sorry Mr. Barto, but the air pressure in your right, rear tire was 3 pounds low.  We won't be covering that accident you had."  Hell,  I wouldn't even allow On-Star in my car.

[j]

Cops down here love to search people's phones incidental to arrest,  but tickets written for using them while driving have been surprisingly low.  

On a slightly tangential note, I get the impression that cops down here *are* more likely to pull you over and ticket you for something else you're doing if they see you're on the phone or texting as well.

-J

[William Wallace]

I know only irresponsible assholes hate laws aimed at protecting everybody, but Perry may be right about this. One study found that the laws aren't doing anything to reduce accidents caused by texting. So maybe the bans are unnecessary, or at least need to be rewritten and properly enforced. 

[El Barto]

I know only irresponsible assholes hate laws aimed at protecting everybody, but Perry may be right about this. One study found that the laws aren't doing anything to reduce accidents caused by texting. So maybe the bans are unnecessary, or at least need to be rewritten and properly enforced. 

How do you know that this law wasn't rewritten to take that into consideration?

Personally,  I agree that laws like this aren't hugely effective since nobody cares about traffic laws unless they see a cop,  but there's still a principle involved here.  Nearly everybody outside of Chino thinks that trying to text and drive at the same time isn't a good idea,  and I'm puzzled why it's not the state's place to, at least ostensibly, outlaw it. 

Cops down here love to search people's phones incidental to arrest,  but tickets written for using them while driving have been surprisingly low. 

On a slightly tangential note, I get the impression that cops down here *are* more likely to pull you over and ticket you for something else you're doing if they see you're on the phone or texting as well.

-J

I haven't heard anything about that, but it makes perfect sense.  Cops invariably write/don't write based on how they feel about any given driver.  Most of us tend to be annoyed by people who are chatting/texting rather than driving.  If I were a cop,  I'd certainly be more inclined to hassle one of them  than Joe Random.

[Perpetual Change]

I've been in tons of cars with people who were texting while driving. I've never felt safe in any of them.

[William Wallace]

I know only irresponsible assholes hate laws aimed at protecting everybody, but Perry may be right about this. One study found that the laws aren't doing anything to reduce accidents caused by texting. So maybe the bans are unnecessary, or at least need to be rewritten and properly enforced. 

How do you know that this law wasn't rewritten to take that into consideration?

I don't. That study is from last year so it's entirely possible. But I'd like to see if they actually did take that research into account when passing the bill. Knowing that politicians do things based on intent (e.g. this laws is meant to reduce accidents, so it will), I'm skeptical about their awareness of the science, especially since it contradicts the decision they made.

Personally,  I agree that laws like this aren't hugely effective since nobody cares about traffic laws unless they see a cop,  but there's still a principle involved here.  Nearly everybody outside of Chino thinks that trying to text and drive at the same time isn't a good idea,  and I'm puzzled why it's not the state's place to, at least ostensibly, outlaw it.

It's not that the states are overstepping their authority. But since you agree that laws of this nature are usually ineffective, wouldn't you also agree that there's more to legislation than the government's authority to enact it? Legality is certainly important, but if a law won't do what it's intended to do, what's the point of passing it?

[El Barto]

Because the law has the potential to improve things, even if only minutely,  and it doesn't seem to harm anybody (except possibly the telecoms that make $10 a month from millions of texters). 

[Orbert]

I always figure it's for liability.  If two cars get in an accident, and between the cop and the two drivers, it's not clear whose fault it is, that can be a problem.  No one gets a ticket, and the insurance companies have to fight it out.

But if one of them was texting at the time, and it's illegal in that state, then we have a clear loser.  The driver who was texting gets the ticket, problem solved.