Fairfaxian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LetsRock Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fairfaxian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > > Even LOOKING at the display of your phone
> is
> > > > considered "texting". You don't have to
> > > actually
> > > > try to input anyting.
> > >
> > > Not in Virginia. The offense requires that
> you
> > be
> > > entering multiple characters as a means of
> > > communication or reading a text message or
> > email.
> > >
> > > See Va.Code s.46.2-1078.1:
> > >
> >
>
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+co
>
> >
> > > d+46.2-1078.1
> >
> >
> > So I am correct. See the part about "reading a
> > text message or email". That is what I mean by
> > "looking at the display".
>
>
> First of all, you're missing the point. It
> doesn't matter whether what you thought in your
> head was actually correct; it matters that what
> you said is incorrect and misleading, as written.
>
> If "reading a text message or email" was what you
> meant, that's what you should have said. That is
> not legally or practically equivalent to the
> original statement: "even LOOKING at the display
> of your phone is considered texting."
>
> First: There are plenty of reasons beyond
> "reading a text message or email" to look at your
> phone's display (checking your weather app,
> monitoring your GPS app, checking to see if your
> car's clock is running fast or slow, playing Angry
> Birds, etc.). Those things are not covered by
> that statute. Therefore, nothing about your
> statement "even LOOKING at the display of your
> phone is considered texting" was correct. It
> misstates the law and misstates the culpability of
> someone who's checking to see if it's going to
> rain later.
>
> You might counter that it's feasible that a driver
> who was distracted by a non-text, non-email app on
> his or her phone might be charged under another
> statute (perhaps Virginia's general reckless
> driving provision, s.46.2-852,
>
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+co
> d+46.2-852), and maybe that's right. However, it
> doesn't implicate the "texting" statute, so saying
> that it "is considered texting" is not accurate,
> either.
>
> I'm not saying you're dumb or bad. I was just
> trying to clarify a (certainly unintentionally)
> misleading statement you made.
Fair enough. I classify "looking" the same as "reading". I should have been more clear.