Can someone explain how this is going to work? My understanding is that it is a secondary offense (if that is the correct term), so an officer needs to pull you over for something else. Are they going to ask to see my cell phone in order to determine when I last sent a text message? Does the vehicle need to be in motion? Is it OK to text while stopped at a red light?

I agree with the intent - texting while driving is much worse than just talking - but it seems like a tough law to enforce.

The law should be hands free only. How difficult is it to figure out how to work a speaker phone?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2009 09:41AM by Lurker..

Speaker phone texting?

I read that it will be enforced via hypnosis and that the penalty will be execution. Of course, I was reading it in Mandarin Chinese, which i don't read or write.

Is 'texting' a broad term for any cell phone activity that is not voice communication? What about using Google Maps for directions or all of those iPhone utilities? Can my daughter use iTunes on her iPhone while driving?

Why did they need to pass a law on this anyway? Aren't there already laws in VA for "distracted driving" or whatever its legal term they want to call it? (asking a question.. I really don't know).

What the fuck do you think it means dumbass, keywords are text and drive, so any sort of text input while driving, on an I pod you select a text for a song so yeah, do that and your busted

Is this a new VA law?

I hope not, I practically live in my car for work...

ffxn8v Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is this a new VA law?
>
> I hope not, I practically live in my car for
> work...

As of today.

Darn!

But... it is a secondary offense...

What other new laws go into effect today?

Any repealed?

Its the fucking law boy what part of that don't you understand? Primary or secondary your STILL FUCKED, shit for brains never drive correctly anyway

Scum

Cop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its the fucking law boy what part of that don't
> you understand? Primary or secondary your STILL
> FUCKED, shit for brains never drive correctly
> anyway
>
> Scum


example why nooooooobody likes cops. im gonna text and drive more. its 2ndary so them pigs cant pull u over just for that

Excuse me, I'm old....but what the fuck is so mesmerizing about texting?

I could see maybe a kid texting in class where he/she can't talk, but why else would somebody text? Why not just call the bastard? And if they ain't there, leave a message?

Obviously, I've never texted....seems like a lot of trouble to hit "5" three times for this letter....hit "4" twice for that letter. I know they have fancy phones with keyboards and all, but WHY, what am I missing?

Dwight. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> example why nooooooobody likes cops. im gonna text
> and drive more. its 2ndary so them pigs cant pull
> u over just for that

Want to make a bet on that? I've got news for you, texting while driving or doing anything that takes your attention away from driving has been illegal in Fairfax County for years. The new "texting" law is only new to the Virginia code and it may be a "secondary" offense (which is stupid and takes the teeth out of the law anyway), but the following Fairfax County code is a primary offense. If the FCPD see you texting while driving, they won't need any other reason to stop you:


Section 82-4-24. Operator to give full time and attention to driving.
No person shall operate a motor vehicle upon the highways of this County without giving his full time and attention to the operation of the vehicle. ((3-13-63; 1961 Code, § 16-85.)

really? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dwight. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > example why nooooooobody likes cops. im gonna
> text
> > and drive more. its 2ndary so them pigs cant
> pull
> > u over just for that
>
> Want to make a bet on that? I've got news for
> you, texting while driving or doing anything that
> takes your attention away from driving has been
> illegal in Fairfax County for years. The new
> "texting" law is only new to the Virginia code and
> it may be a "secondary" offense (which is stupid
> and takes the teeth out of the law anyway), but
> the following Fairfax County code is a primary
> offense. If the FCPD see you texting while
> driving, they won't need any other reason to stop
> you:
>
>
> Section 82-4-24. Operator to give full time and
> attention to driving.
> No person shall operate a motor vehicle upon the
> highways of this County without giving his full
> time and attention to the operation of the
> vehicle. ((3-13-63; 1961 Code, § 16-85.)



Section 69.234 - Felonious cock-sucking with an attempt to swallow the evidence.

> Want to make a bet on that?

i text everytime im on the road. pigs can suck myd. they cant catch me

Dwight. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Want to make a bet on that?
>
> i text everytime im on the road. pigs can suck
> myd. they cant catch me


I know you're just egging on "really?", but the cops CAN catch you.

Don't forget, you can never outrun a radio. Or a helicopter.

Dwight. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cop Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Its the fucking law boy what part of that don't
> > you understand? Primary or secondary your STILL
> > FUCKED, shit for brains never drive correctly
> > anyway
> >
> > Scum
>
>
> example why nooooooobody likes cops. im gonna text
> and drive more. its 2ndary so them pigs cant pull
> u over just for that


im not a fan of the cops either, but this is a good law. texting while driving can be as distracting if not more so than driving drunk. Its just fucking stupid, i dont care what the fuck you do to yourself, but as soon as it puts my life in danger, or someone i know, than its time to stop it.

and by the way, all of you who say that this being a secondary offense "takes the teeth out of it", it really doesnt. If a cop sees you texting, he can find any fucking excuse he wants to pull you over, he could say you were going 1 mph over the speed limit.... its not hard to find someone doing something illegal



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2009 05:06AM by Kenny_Powers.

So, he pulls you over, then what? He can't prove you were texting unless you're stupid enough to hand him your phone.

I'm not a fan of the preventative-type laws. Sure some people may be distracted by texting but, FUCK ME JESUS, some people get distracted by changing their radio or turning on their AC. We can't just start (keep) outlawing everything because it is potentially dangerous. What ISN'T potentially dangerous? And furthermore, Susan, where will it end?

I think texting while driving (talking on the phone, speeding, etc...) should be an add-on offense in the event of an accident. It wouldn't be hard to tell if you were texting around the time of impact, and if it was discovered you were texting it would be an added offense. I think that would be a more effective deterrent to people who DWT(Drive While Texting) than just banning texting all together.

Kenny_Powers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> im not a fan of the cops either, but this is a
> good law. texting while driving can be as
> distracting if not more so than driving drunk. Its
> just fucking stupid, i dont care what the fuck you
> do to yourself, but as soon as it puts my life in
> danger, or someone i know, than its time to stop
> it.
>
> and by the way, all of you who say that this being
> a secondary offense "takes the teeth out of it",
> it really doesnt. If a cop sees you texting, he
> can find any fucking excuse he wants to pull you
> over, he could say you were going 1 mph over the
> speed limit.... its not hard to find someone doing
> something illegal

If your driving with 2 earbuds in your ear, they can ticket you.

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not a fan of the preventative-type laws. Sure
> some people may be distracted by texting but, FUCK
> ME JESUS, some people get distracted by changing
> their radio or turning on their AC. We can't just
> start (keep) outlawing everything because it is
> potentially dangerous. What ISN'T potentially
> dangerous? And furthermore, Susan, where will it
> end?
>
> I think texting while driving (talking on the
> phone, speeding, etc...) should be an add-on
> offense in the event of an accident. It wouldn't
> be hard to tell if you were texting around the
> time of impact, and if it was discovered you were
> texting it would be an added offense. I think that
> would be a more effective deterrent to people who
> DWT(Drive While Texting) than just banning texting
> all together.
>

The libertarian side of me agrees with you -- but in the same logic, drunk drivers shouldn't be targetted either, unless they cause an accident.

Texting while driving has been shown in studies to be way worse than driving drunk. I heard in one study that compared drunk drivers with people texting while driving that the texting driver was 87% worse in reaction times, avoidance actions, etc, than the drunk driver.

Drunk driving is demonized and heavily policed because it is profitable. Once they figure out how to get federal funding and huge fines and everything else out of texting that they've gotten from drunk driving, I suspect it will be just as big of a "public menace" and we'll see checkpoints and special texting patrols, and possibly even a MATD organization (Mothers against texting drivers).

Maybe if there was a heart-wrenching after-school special about the heartbreak and loss of a mother whose daughter was senselessly killed by an irresponsible, socially reprehensible texting-driver, who went on to form a non-profit that she was the highly-paid president of, but then later was arrested for texting-while-driving herself, we'll see a serious effort to combat this menace.

(I'm being facetious about the whole non-profit MADD type organization, but I really do believe that texting while driving should be vehemently and even violently policed.)

If that's the case, then drunk driving should fall into the same Add-on category. I think drunk driving is retarded, but I also think setting an arbitrary limit is unfair... Especially if texting is more dangerous. If someone is swerving, pull them over and arrest them. If they cause an accident, crucify them (if they are over the limit). But sobriety checkpoints are bullshit and are in no way designed for public safety.

You are right that they are regulating primarily for profit. That wouldn't bother me as much if they just admitted it. It bothers me that they do it under the guise of public safety.

But my frustration elevates to pure concern when I think of what else may be prohibited in the future under the guise of public safety.

Bottom line, I think regulating more and prohibiting more is counterproductive. It's not making us any safer and it definitely isn't giving me incentive to abide by the laws. I doubt I am alone...

It would be nice to see more "progressive" laws and to move away from the black and white, right and wrong type, laws.

For example, an endorsement on your license that allowed you to speed. You would have to take some sort of "Advanced Driver's Ed" course that, upon successful completion, would allow you 10-15MPH over the speed limit. If you got pulled over, simply show the endorsement that states you are qualified to safely operate your vehicle at high-speeds and be on your way.

Of course, this is all a pipe-dream. I have every doubt that this would ever happen.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The libertarian side of me agrees with you -- but
> in the same logic, drunk drivers shouldn't be
> targetted either, unless they cause an accident.
>
> Texting while driving has been shown in studies to
> be way worse than driving drunk. I heard in one
> study that compared drunk drivers with people
> texting while driving that the texting driver was
> 87% worse in reaction times, avoidance actions,
> etc, than the drunk driver.
>
> Drunk driving is demonized and heavily policed
> because it is profitable. Once they figure out
> how to get federal funding and huge fines and
> everything else out of texting that they've gotten
> from drunk driving, I suspect it will be just as
> big of a "public menace" and we'll see checkpoints
> and special texting patrols, and possibly even a
> MATD organization (Mothers against texting
> drivers).
>
> Maybe if there was a heart-wrenching after-school
> special about the heartbreak and loss of a mother
> whose daughter was senselessly killed by an
> irresponsible, socially reprehensible
> texting-driver, who went on to form a non-profit
> that she was the highly-paid president of, but
> then later was arrested for texting-while-driving
> herself, we'll see a serious effort to combat this
> menace.
>
> (I'm being facetious about the whole non-profit
> MADD type organization, but I really do believe
> that texting while driving should be vehemently
> and even violently policed.)

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not a fan of the preventative-type laws. Sure
> some people may be distracted by texting but, FUCK
> ME JESUS, some people get distracted by changing
> their radio or turning on their AC. We can't just
> start (keep) outlawing everything because it is
> potentially dangerous. What ISN'T potentially
> dangerous? And furthermore, Susan, where will it
> end?
>
> I think texting while driving (talking on the
> phone, speeding, etc...) should be an add-on
> offense in the event of an accident. It wouldn't
> be hard to tell if you were texting around the
> time of impact, and if it was discovered you were
> texting it would be an added offense. I think that
> would be a more effective deterrent to people who
> DWT(Drive While Texting) than just banning texting
> all together.
>
> Kenny_Powers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > im not a fan of the cops either, but this is a
> > good law. texting while driving can be as
> > distracting if not more so than driving drunk.
> Its
> > just fucking stupid, i dont care what the fuck
> you
> > do to yourself, but as soon as it puts my life
> in
> > danger, or someone i know, than its time to
> stop
> > it.
> >
> > and by the way, all of you who say that this
> being
> > a secondary offense "takes the teeth out of
> it",
> > it really doesnt. If a cop sees you texting, he
> > can find any fucking excuse he wants to pull
> you
> > over, he could say you were going 1 mph over
> the
> > speed limit.... its not hard to find someone
> doing
> > something illegal


i agree with the idea of personal freedoms, but again, as soon as something stops endangering only my life, and starts putting others lives at risk, it stops being about personal freedoms and it takes on a whole different twist.

If I walk my dog in your neighborhood, that has a potential to endanger you, or your family's, life. My dog's leash could slip out of my hands and run in front of your car causing you to swerve into a tree.

I am just concerned about what kind of precedent all of this prohibition (for lack of a better word) is setting....
Where does the regulation end?

(I know it's a far-fetched example, forgive me)

Kenny_Powers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> i agree with the idea of personal freedoms, but
> again, as soon as something stops endangering only
> my life, and starts putting others lives at risk,
> it stops being about personal freedoms and it
> takes on a whole different twist.

ofcoarse there is an undertone of danger and death around every corner, and in every action we take. But there is such a thing as calculated risks, some things are more dangerous than others. If you have a dog that is very passive, you may have a 1% chance of having it attack someone, however, if you have an overly aggressive dog, the chance may be as high as 50%. In which case, the owner should have known better than to have it around someone, and would (and should) be held fully accountable if their dog injurs anyone. The same logic applies to texting while driving.

The regulations will never end, I agree that everyone should be able to do pretty much anything they want as long as it doesnt effect anyone else. Thats how it should be, atleast in concept. But we live in a society where we have a million plus people living within close proximity to each other. There are simply too many people to have unrestricted freedoms. It sucks, but thats how it has to be.

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If that's the case, then drunk driving should fall
> into the same Add-on category. I think drunk
> driving is retarded, but I also think setting an
> arbitrary limit is unfair... Especially if texting
> is more dangerous. If someone is swerving, pull
> them over and arrest them. If they cause an
> accident, crucify them (if they are over the
> limit). But sobriety checkpoints are bullshit and
> are in no way designed for public safety.
>
> You are right that they are regulating primarily
> for profit. That wouldn't bother me as much if
> they just admitted it. It bothers me that they do
> it under the guise of public safety.
>
> But my frustration elevates to pure concern when I
> think of what else may be prohibited in the future
> under the guise of public safety.
>
> Bottom line, I think regulating more and
> prohibiting more is counterproductive. It's not
> making us any safer and it definitely isn't giving
> me incentive to abide by the laws. I doubt I am
> alone...
>
> It would be nice to see more "progressive" laws
> and to move away from the black and white, right
> and wrong type, laws.
>
> For example, an endorsement on your license that
> allowed you to speed. You would have to take some
> sort of "Advanced Driver's Ed" course that, upon
> successful completion, would allow you 10-15MPH
> over the speed limit. If you got pulled over,
> simply show the endorsement that states you are
> qualified to safely operate your vehicle at
> high-speeds and be on your way.
>
> Of course, this is all a pipe-dream. I have every
> doubt that this would ever happen.
>

All I can say is, NO SHIT!

If cops can drive as fast as they want under the premise that they are better trained, and we all know that our traffic laws are progressively getting worse to accommodate all the poorly skilled drivers on the road, then why are good drivers penalized for bad drivers?

I love the german model. Drive as fast as you want, as long as your vehicle and tires are up to the task. If you display any behavior that isn't "good driving", they can pull you over for reckless or failure to pay full time and attention, etcetera.

On most roads, I can safely drive 20 mph over the speed limit, on a few occassions, easily 50 mph more. I've had rental cars that I didn't feel safe doing that, and stuck with the speed limit.

It really should be about skill and equipment, not dumbing us all down along with the slow-witted fools who get confused whenever there are more than 3 cars on the road or a light changes from red to green and they have to spend a few seconds pondering whether it really is the right color of green.

Kenny_Powers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> however, if
> you have an overly aggressive dog, the chance may
> be as high as 50%. In which case, the owner should
> have known better than to have it around someone,
> and would (and should) be held fully accountable
> if their dog injurs anyone. The same logic applies
> to texting while driving.

Yes! I think you are seeing my point about preventative laws. In this situation the owner gets penalized AFTER the dog caused harm and not a moment sooner. I hate the fact that people are penalized because they COULD cause harm. I wish the same logic applied to DWT and all the other preventative laws. What, are we living in "Minority Report"?

>
> The regulations will never end, I agree that
> everyone should be able to do pretty much anything
> they want as long as it doesnt effect anyone else.

What if it has the POTENTIAL to affect someone else?

> Thats how it should be, atleast in concept. But we
> live in a society where we have a million plus
> people living within close proximity to each
> other. There are simply too many people to have
> unrestricted freedoms. It sucks, but thats how it
> has to be.

That's how it has to be now... That's not how it has to be forever. We shouldn't continue to be afraid of everything...

Edit: HTML FAIL



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2009 04:07AM by Harry Tuttle.

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kenny_Powers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > however, if
> > you have an overly aggressive dog, the chance
> may
> > be as high as 50%. In which case, the owner
> should
> > have known better than to have it around
> someone,
> > and would (and should) be held fully
> accountable
> > if their dog injurs anyone. The same logic
> applies
> > to texting while driving.
>
> Yes! I think you are seeing my point about
> preventative laws. In this situation the owner
> gets penalized AFTER the dog caused harm and not a
> moment sooner. I hate the fact that people are
> penalized because they COULD cause harm. I wish
> the same logic applied to DWT and all the other
> preventative laws. What, are we living in
> "Minority Report"?

By this logic then, you have absolutely no problem with someone driving drunk because they COULD POTENTIALLY cause harm. It just isnt logical. Again there are degrees of risk associated with everything, and the risk associated with texting while driving is actually higher than just driving drunk.


>
> >
> > The regulations will never end, I agree that
> > everyone should be able to do pretty much
> anything
> > they want as long as it doesnt effect anyone
> else.
>
> What if it has the POTENTIAL to affect someone
> else?
>
> > Thats how it should be, atleast in concept. But
> we
> > live in a society where we have a million plus
> > people living within close proximity to each
> > other. There are simply too many people to have
> > unrestricted freedoms. It sucks, but thats how
> it
> > has to be.
>
> That's how it has to be now... That's not how it
> has to be forever. We shouldn't continue to be
> afraid of everything...
>
> Edit: HTML FAIL

Its not the same. You may be afraid of sharks and you may be swimming in the ocean next to one and not even know it. You have a chance to be killed by one, but its not the same as jumping in a tank with sharks at feeding time. There is a greater risk associated with one than the other. It's not an illogical fear like being blown up by a terrorist, this fear has roots based in truth.

i guess we can agree to disagree on this, atleast we can have a logical discussion about it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2009 04:46AM by Kenny_Powers.

Kenny_Powers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> By this logic then, you have absolutely no problem
> with someone driving drunk because they COULD
> POTENTIALLY cause harm. It just isnt logical.
> Again there are degrees of risk associated with
> everything, and the risk associated with texting
> while driving is actually higher than just driving
> drunk.

Like I said earlier, if someone's swerving or driving unsafely (regardless of their alcohol content); pull them over, test them, punish them appropriately. I don't think a number tells you if you're drunk and I definitely don't think cops should be allowed to set up check-points wherever they please. I just don't think it's as black-and-white an issue as you'd like to make it.

>
>
> Its not the same. You may be afraid of sharks and
> you may be swimming in the ocean next to one and
> not even know it. You have a chance to be killed
> by one, but its not the same as jumping in a tank
> with sharks at feeding time. There is a greater
> risk associated with one than the other. It's not
> an illogical fear like being blown up by a
> terrorist, this fear has roots based in truth.

So should swimming in the ocean be illegal? After all, it's a law that all adults wear their safety buckles while in a moving vehicle...

>
> i guess we can agree to disagree on this, atleast
> we can have a logical discussion about it.

Yeah, I'm getting tired and I have this nagging feeling that I'm repeating myself. It's nice to disagree on something and not be accused of being someone else...

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kenny_Powers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > By this logic then, you have absolutely no
> problem
> > with someone driving drunk because they COULD
> > POTENTIALLY cause harm. It just isnt logical.
> > Again there are degrees of risk associated with
> > everything, and the risk associated with
> texting
> > while driving is actually higher than just
> driving
> > drunk.
>
> Like I said earlier, if someone's swerving or
> driving unsafely (regardless of their alcohol
> content); pull them over, test them, punish them
> appropriately. I don't think a number tells you if
> you're drunk and I definitely don't think cops
> should be allowed to set up check-points wherever
> they please. I just don't think it's as
> black-and-white an issue as you'd like to make
> it.

In that case, then you agree with this law, as it is a secondary offense. If you are texting while driving and show signs of driving dangerously (swerving speeding etc) then they should be pulled over and charged the same as they would with driving drunk. A cop cannot see if you are drunk and pull you over to test you unless you show signs of driving dangerously, in the same way a cop cannot pull you over for texting without you showing these same signs.

>
> >
> >
> > Its not the same. You may be afraid of sharks
> and
> > you may be swimming in the ocean next to one
> and
> > not even know it. You have a chance to be
> killed
> > by one, but its not the same as jumping in a
> tank
> > with sharks at feeding time. There is a greater
> > risk associated with one than the other. It's
> not
> > an illogical fear like being blown up by a
> > terrorist, this fear has roots based in truth.
>
> So should swimming in the ocean be illegal? After
> all, it's a law that all adults wear their safety
> buckles while in a moving vehicle...

in this case you are only endangering your own life, which im all fine with. The same way i dont think attempting to commit suicide should be against the law, its kind of assinine.
>
> >
> > i guess we can agree to disagree on this,
> atleast
> > we can have a logical discussion about it.
>
> Yeah, I'm getting tired and I have this nagging
> feeling that I'm repeating myself. It's nice to
> disagree on something and not be accused of being
> someone else...


lol, are you spunky?