T Nation

Virginia Taking Photos of Texting Drivers

Just keeping you safe!

Pay close attention to the following:

“When someone is driving recklessly, quickly weaving and tailgating and not using turn signals, police officers can easily spot that. But how can an officer tell if a driver is texting or emailing when her phone is likely low in her lap, out of sight?”
-In other words, texting very well may not affect a driver’s ability, but funds are needed, and a reason is needed for extracting them from people who are not a danger to anyone.

"But under the law, other smartphone distractions aren’t banned. Typing an address into Google Maps, checking the stocks or scrolling through contacts to dial someone are unaffected. What about scrolling through an Instagram feed? The law isn’t clear, which is why Rob Poggenklass, an attorney with the ACLU of Virginia, said it is difficult to enforce.

Poggenklass said the photo a trooper takes is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the police want, they can put more time and resources into getting search warrants for phones and subpoenaing cellphone records.

‘I can’t see how they could get a conviction without using the photo to trick people into admitting they were texting,’ he said."
-DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE.

[quote]NickViar wrote:
-In other words, texting very well may not affect a driver’s ability, but funds are needed, and a reason is needed for extracting them from people who are not a danger to anyone.
[/quote]

Having seen the fucking insanity drivers preoccupied with their phone cause, I say bullshit to “very well may not affect”.

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
-In other words, texting very well may not affect a driver’s ability, but funds are needed, and a reason is needed for extracting them from people who are not a danger to anyone.
[/quote]

Having seen the fucking insanity drivers preoccupied with their phone cause, I say bullshit to “very well may not affect”.[/quote]

So you also believe that this law is totally unnecessary, and the enforcement techniques are ridiculous. If texting drivers cause “insanity,” then their actions are certainly already covered by law, right? What the article covers is a technique being used to enforce a rule specifically because violations of the rule too rarely result in observable problems.

Dang. I read the topic Virginia Taking Photos of Texting Drivers and thought finally a PWI thread that would have lots of pictures.

[quote]on edge wrote:
Dang. I read the topic Virginia Taking Photos of Texting Drivers and thought finally a PWI thread that would have lots of pictures.[/quote]

Don’t blame me for giving you false hope-the title I submitted was changed to what you see.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
-In other words, texting very well may not affect a driver’s ability, but funds are needed, and a reason is needed for extracting them from people who are not a danger to anyone.
[/quote]

Having seen the fucking insanity drivers preoccupied with their phone cause, I say bullshit to “very well may not affect”.[/quote]

So you also believe that this law is totally unnecessary, and the enforcement techniques are ridiculous. If texting drivers cause “insanity,” then their actions are certainly already covered by law, right? What the article covers is a technique being used to enforce a rule specifically because violations of the rule too rarely result in observable problems.[/quote]

I have personally seen field tests where texting while driving performs similar to operating a vehicle with a BAC of twice the legal limit. It kills people all the time. I know a guy on the fatal crash team who tells me about the texts seconds before the deadly wrecks. But it’s difficult to enforce. Very difficult, unless it’s painfully obvious.

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Just keeping you safe!

Pay close attention to the following:

“When someone is driving recklessly, quickly weaving and tailgating and not using turn signals, police officers can easily spot that. But how can an officer tell if a driver is texting or emailing when her phone is likely low in her lap, out of sight?”
-In other words, texting very well may not affect a driver’s ability, but funds are needed, and a reason is needed for extracting them from people who are not a danger to anyone.

"But under the law, other smartphone distractions aren’t banned. Typing an address into Google Maps, checking the stocks or scrolling through contacts to dial someone are unaffected. What about scrolling through an Instagram feed? The law isn’t clear, which is why Rob Poggenklass, an attorney with the ACLU of Virginia, said it is difficult to enforce.

Poggenklass said the photo a trooper takes is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the police want, they can put more time and resources into getting search warrants for phones and subpoenaing cellphone records.

‘I can’t see how they could get a conviction without using the photo to trick people into admitting they were texting,’ he said."
-DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE.
[/quote]

You know, think about this, we gun owners should get on the ball and start shooting out the cameras. If you think about it, this is the type of situation the 2nd Amendment was created for, keeping the government in check.
Problem is, I am to chicken shit to do it myself. I am scared of going to jail. My tail feathers would be primed for the raping. But hey, should somebody get the notion, have my support. I will sit here like a coward and root for you.

[quote]pat wrote:
You know, think about this, we gun owners should get on the ball and start shooting out the cameras. If you think about it, this is the type of situation the 2nd Amendment was created for, keeping the government in check.
Problem is, I am to chicken shit to do it myself. I am scared of going to jail. My tail feathers would be primed for the raping. But hey, should somebody get the notion, have my support. I will sit here like a coward and root for you.[/quote]

Yeah…I wouldn’t recommend that…especially since the cameras are being held by people. Governments are always held in check by what the majority wants. This was just posted to attempt to show how ridiculous the desires of the majority can be.

What can be done to counter the desires of the majority? I don’t know. It’s a lot harder to deal with millions and millions than it is to deal with one or a few ruler/s.

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I have personally seen field tests where texting while driving performs similar to operating a vehicle with a BAC of twice the legal limit. It kills people all the time. I know a guy on the fatal crash team who tells me about the texts seconds before the deadly wrecks. But it’s difficult to enforce. Very difficult, unless it’s painfully obvious.
[/quote]

Brett, let’s be honest and admit that texting does not kill anybody. The person texting may kill someone. Wrecks don’t happen because people were doing nothing wrong.

It’s one thing to ticket someone for crossing the double-yellow lines. It’s quite another to ticket someone for doing something that MAY result in him crossing the double-yellow lines.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” Which is now preferred?

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I have personally seen field tests where texting while driving performs similar to operating a vehicle with a BAC of twice the legal limit. It kills people all the time. I know a guy on the fatal crash team who tells me about the texts seconds before the deadly wrecks. But it’s difficult to enforce. Very difficult, unless it’s painfully obvious.
[/quote]

Brett, let’s be honest and admit that texting does not kill anybody. The person texting may kill someone. Wrecks don’t happen because people were doing nothing wrong.

It’s one thing to ticket someone for crossing the double-yellow lines. It’s quite another to ticket someone for doing something that MAY result in him crossing the double-yellow lines.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” Which is now preferred?[/quote]

It divides your attention. Thus causing some to drive reckless. It’s highly dependent on the individual situation though. Checking your voicemail or scrolling through your contacts to find a number also divides your attention.

I think I have pulled only a couple of people over for “texting”. It was cause and effect. They were sitting at a red right with their head in their phone, light turned green and they stayed put. I stopped them because they caused an unsafe condition, not merely because they were manipulating their phone.

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Brett, let’s be honest and admit that texting does not kill anybody. The person texting may kill someone. Wrecks don’t happen because people were doing nothing wrong.

It’s one thing to ticket someone for crossing the double-yellow lines. It’s quite another to ticket someone for doing something that MAY result in him crossing the double-yellow lines.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” Which is now preferred?[/quote]

Then drunk driving shouldn’t be an offense. After all, if they didn’t cause an accident while drunk driving then no harm done, right?

[quote]magick wrote:

Then drunk driving shouldn’t be an offense. After all, if they didn’t cause an accident while drunk driving then no harm done, right?
[/quote]

This is one of those areas where principle and reality divert.

In principle, no, if there is no accident, no harm and no victim, there shouldn’t be a punishment for DD. However, in reality, the fact being a DD creates such a tremendous increase in the possibility for those things to happen, it makes more sense to limit the privilege (driving) than to pursue the principle (not ruining people’s lives for potentially committing crimes.)

However, I think drunk stops (where the cops create a station everyone must drive through) are total bullshit and revenue generators that, honestly, are just looking to jam people up.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I have personally seen field tests where texting while driving performs similar to operating a vehicle with a BAC of twice the legal limit. It kills people all the time. I know a guy on the fatal crash team who tells me about the texts seconds before the deadly wrecks. But it’s difficult to enforce. Very difficult, unless it’s painfully obvious.
[/quote]

Brett, let’s be honest and admit that texting does not kill anybody. The person texting may kill someone. Wrecks don’t happen because people were doing nothing wrong.

It’s one thing to ticket someone for crossing the double-yellow lines. It’s quite another to ticket someone for doing something that MAY result in him crossing the double-yellow lines.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” Which is now preferred?[/quote]

I don’t think even Thomas Jefferson envisioned traffic on 495…

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Brett, let’s be honest and admit that texting does not kill anybody. The person texting may kill someone. Wrecks don’t happen because people were doing nothing wrong.

It’s one thing to ticket someone for crossing the double-yellow lines. It’s quite another to ticket someone for doing something that MAY result in him crossing the double-yellow lines.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” Which is now preferred?[/quote]

Then drunk driving shouldn’t be an offense. After all, if they didn’t cause an accident while drunk driving then no harm done, right?
[/quote]

Have fun with this. We’ve danced to this tune before…

[quote]magick wrote:
Then drunk driving shouldn’t be an offense. After all, if they didn’t cause an accident while drunk driving then no harm done, right?
[/quote]

Conversely, perhaps driving SHOULD be an offense.

I think that your question does bring up a more interesting one, though: Does it make sense to impose harsher punishments upon those whose actions may not have presented any danger(What about a guy who’s driving fine, gets pulled over for an expired tag, is dumb/trusting/friendly enough to roll his window down, give the officer a chance to smell the odor of alcoholic beverage about his person, and then submit to field sobriety tests from an officer who is an experienced DUI enforcer?) than upon those who actually acted in the way that we are trying to prevent with a DUI(running a stop sign, speeding, crossing lines, etc.)?

Should the punishment for a DUI really be harsher than for running a stop sign? If society believes that driving with some alcohol in one’s system is itself an offense, I can see holding a DUI offender in jail until he sobers up(the DUI offender will likely be unable to correct his action in a reasonable time frame for him to remain on the road), but how do we justify the next year of punishment, the classes, the harsher punishment for subsequent offenses, etc.?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

Then drunk driving shouldn’t be an offense. After all, if they didn’t cause an accident while drunk driving then no harm done, right?
[/quote]

This is one of those areas where principle and reality divert.

In principle, no, if there is no accident, no harm and no victim, there shouldn’t be a punishment for DD. However, in reality, the fact being a DD creates such a tremendous increase in the possibility for those things to happen, it makes more sense to limit the privilege (driving) than to pursue the principle (not ruining people’s lives for potentially committing crimes.)

However, I think drunk stops (where the cops create a station everyone must drive through) are total bullshit and revenue generators that, honestly, are just looking to jam people up. [/quote]

I do what? lol.

“being a DD creates such a tremendous increase in the possibility for those things to happen” I think DD is an inappropriate abbreviation for drunk driver. This statement made me laugh a little. DDs kill people, everybody better start drinking for safety.

If I were there (and was a car text-er) I’d change my phone background and lock screen to be an image of the texting screen. Then if I got pulled over they wouldn?t be able to say they didn?t just see the lock screen.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

Then drunk driving shouldn’t be an offense. After all, if they didn’t cause an accident while drunk driving then no harm done, right?
[/quote]

This is one of those areas where principle and reality divert.

In principle, no, if there is no accident, no harm and no victim, there shouldn’t be a punishment for DD. However, in reality, the fact being a DD creates such a tremendous increase in the possibility for those things to happen, it makes more sense to limit the privilege (driving) than to pursue the principle (not ruining people’s lives for potentially committing crimes.)

However, I think drunk stops (where the cops create a station everyone must drive through) are total bullshit and revenue generators that, honestly, are just looking to jam people up. [/quote]

I do what? lol.

“being a DD creates such a tremendous increase in the possibility for those things to happen” I think DD is an inappropriate abbreviation for drunk driver. This statement made me laugh a little. DDs kill people, everybody better start drinking for safety.
[/quote]

lmao… Good point.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If I were there (and was a car text-er) I’d change my phone background and lock screen to be an image of the texting screen. Then if I got pulled over they wouldn?t be able to say they didn?t just see the lock screen.[/quote]

That’s a good idea if one views being stopped and ticketed as desirable. The officer would still have probable cause to stop and ticket you. You could then go to court, perjure yourself(I guess you could state that your phone’s background is a texting screen and remain silent when asked questions, actually), and hope nobody could prove it. I think I’d stay away from that idea-if judges in most places are like they are here, I believe you would be easily convicted in general district court(although you could appeal and maybe, eventually, get a not guilty verdict…how much time is the average guy willing to spend fighting a minor ticket?).

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If I were there (and was a car text-er) I’d change my phone background and lock screen to be an image of the texting screen. Then if I got pulled over they wouldn?t be able to say they didn?t just see the lock screen.[/quote]

That’s a good idea if one views being stopped and ticketed as desirable. The officer would still have probable cause to stop and ticket you. You could then go to court, perjure yourself, and hope nobody could prove it. I think I’d stay away from that idea.[/quote]

I have a feeling they are going to stop people just for using their phones. Using it is a good way to get pulled over. This was meant kind of as a joke, as I noted, I don’t use my phone while driving. I don’t even answer phone calls.