Veto of that stupid texting bill?

Who would of thought I might be applauding Sonny for his defense of freedom….

With regard to SB360, the texting while driving ban:

“I’ve got some concerns over the enforceability of that,” Perdue said at a news conference….

… the problematic area [of the bill] is the part that makes it illegal to “read any text based communication.”

Here is Perdue’s example to describe why enforcing that part could be an issue:

“If I get my e-mails and I pick up a smart-phone and read my e-mails, I’m violating the law. But if I print out my e-mails and I have a sheet of paper driving [and look at it], then I haven’t violated the law.

via Political Insider with Jim Galloway | ajc.com.

I didn’t know about about “text based communications” provision. I regularly check GA Navigator on my iPhone while driving. Apparently looking at the map is ok, but clicking on the icon for trouble to find out the problem is not ok.

Another stupid law, introduced by stupid legislators, and passed with a go-along to get-along mentality.

40 comments

  1. Doug Grammer says:

    I didn’t like that proposed law. We already have a law against distracted driving. What will be next, banning drive through services a fast food places because people may eat and drove at the same time? I sometimes use my cell phone for it’s GPS and mapping services when driving.

  2. gopgal says:

    “Just because thievery is inevitable, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t punish thieves.”

  3. GAPoliticsisfun says:

    Yet we have candidates touting their decades on legislative experience as qualifications for being governor. They spew out stuff like this and think that is what it takes to lead the state.

    It’s about trust. You can’t trust someone who used his office to ensure that his sweet heart deal didn’t go out to bid. You can’t trust someone who used his office to steer contracts to his private architecture firm.

  4. I still think it’s unworkable. While the Governor has a point, I think the better point is how do you verify someone was reading or engaging in text based communication while driving? There are circumstances when you can, but what about the other times?

    • Exactly. What about all the e-mails I get overnight that I choose to read while sitting in traffic? Their timestamps and the related data traffic would be at 2am, 3am, etc. But if I’m reading it at 7:30 am, there’s not necessarily going to be a data connection at that time.

      • hannah says:

        “Sitting” at a traffic light or stopped in traffic is not driving. On the other hand, text is not dependent on the medium and reading maps or GPS instructions should be covered by the prohibition. Unfortunately, it’s not possible to enforce positive directives such as “keep your eyes on the road.” That’s why dangerous behavior has to be prohibited and punished when someone is injured.

  5. chefdavid says:

    wow another bill that Mullis voted for. I guess when you sponsor 242 bills it is hard to get it right all of the time. Thank you for voting against this Rep. Martin Scott.

  6. Tiberius says:

    Right or wrong, the press will crucify Perdue if he vetoes it. Local NBC will dedicate BOTH the 6:00 and 7:00 pm news to the Perdue veto. They will roll out the girl who lost her brother and who lobbied at the Gold Dome. She will cry or ask over and over again “why…?” Pictures of the dead brother on the news…

    Someone right now is probably planning on having her make an appearance at Perdue’s Dome office to make a personal appeal. It will be a bloody mess.

  7. ACConservative says:

    Sonny’s argument is stupid and logically invalid.

    In the interest of public safety, we need a ban on texting while driving in this state. In terms of enforceability, its really really simple. If someone is weaving in and out of lanes and posing a hazard to fellow drivers… they should be pulled over and cited.

    Cops shouldn’t drive around just looking for drivers that have a phone up in front of their face, they should be pulling over drivers who are creating unsafe conditions on our roadways.

    We need provisions like those in California, that allow for the police to pull your phone records if they suspect text messaging contributed to the accident you where involved in.

    That way, if Sonny gets in a wreck because he’s texting Bert about seeing Sex in the City 2, you better believe he’ll receive additional fines for texting while driving to insure that he doesn’t do it again.

    We need a new bill. We also need Sonny to spare us his flawed logic.

    • Mozart says:

      If you pass a law, do you instantly believe everyone will start following it? How many people get ticketed for speeding every single day since speed limit laws were passed?

      • gopgal says:

        Again, “Just because thievery is inevitable, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t punish thieves.”

        • Mozart says:

          GOPGAL, apparently you are a Big Government gal who believes all laws are good because they are all, in some way, designed to help people.

          • ACConservative says:

            Mozart, you’re committing a logical fallacy by bringing up speeders, but I’ll entertain you anyway.

            Do people go faster than the speed limit? Yes, I know I do.

            When speeders are creating a hazard on the roadways are they pulled over? Yes.

            People will still text while driving. This law will punish and teach a lesson to those who make the roads less safe by distracting themselves with text messaging.

            Should we throw out our DUI laws simply because a number of people drive while intoxicated despite the fact its illegal?

            Sonny’s argument is inherently stupid because he relies on the same shoddy logic that you do. By the way, if Sonny gets an e-mail while he’s driving, why can’t he wait until he arrives at his destination in order to check it.

            • Perhaps that e-mail has something to do with what he has to do at his destination? Or perhaps it’s a change of venue and he needs to change destinations?

              If you want to increase penalties for causing an accident because someone was text messaging, fine. But don’t create a way for the government to fine me for simply checking my e-mail while driving.

              • LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

                Then pull over and read the frickin’ email.

                So many whiney malcontents crying about how they’re “inconvenienced” by a public safety measure.

                Oh the horror, what did we all do before PDAs?

        • gopgal – so are you saying “Just because texting is inevitable, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t punish texting.” ?? Either way, I’m not sure I get your point.

      • ACConservative says:

        Yes. In addition you’d be charged for texting while driving. Just like if you were pulled over for driving drunk… you’d get a DUI and a failure to maintain lane/driving recklessly charge.

        • So how do you know the person was texting when they swerved? What if they were reaching for a V8 or something else?

          Phone Records work some of the time, but when you live in the part of the state outside Atlanta – you know that sometimes when driving your phone will send and recieve messages minutes after you clicked send. I don’t text while driving unless I’m at a red light – but I can’t begin to tell you how many messages I will have when I get home today that all say “Stored at such and such time, recieved at such and such time.”

  8. BuckheadConservative says:

    So technically, under this law, oggling the billboards on I-75 through middle Georgia would be illegal. Unless they remove the text. Which is fine by me.

  9. Tiberius says:

    Texting while driving is unbelievably (sp?) stupid yet I’ve done it. If you are part of a certain age group, its has become part of the American driving lifestyle. This law isnt going to change anyone’s habits, even those kids in high school who sign a not-text pledge for NBC’s cameras.

    I agree with the above post, it shouldnt be illegal on its own but if a cop sees someone driving recklessly and they find out your were texting, add a charge or a fine, whatever. In a dream world, if you are hurt b/c you were texting, no public funds should be spent in a hospital but that will never happen.

    • Dave Bearse says:

      The law alone may not have much effect, but add an additional $100 every six months in premiums for a couple of years to the $200 fine, and it will get many people’s get attention.

      Minors that rack up a couple such tickets will get see an even larger increase. Maybe such that they will no longer be driving on and Mom and Dad’s policy, unless the folks got the money to back up their who care’s attitude.

  10. iamnotasocialist says:

    Look– I will admit to have TWDed. But the thing is that every time I have done it, I have narly comically hit another vehicle. It has been proven through many tests that texting while driving is dangerous, and I think a ban on it is good.

    As for the enforcability, I don’t think that was the point. Not everyone will be caught, but the hope is that those that do spread the word, yadda yadda. I think it was a good law, and I think it needed to be done.

Comments are closed.