Text and drive in Cleveland, $100.00 fine with sliding scale for next ticket

 

Police only need to suspect your texting to pull you over! as of 12:00am Sunday morning. Of course it will be up to a judge to find you guilty if you fight the ticket.

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

texting

Although I frequently text while driving, I have to agree that this law isn't too bad of an idea. Texting is probably the most dangerous thing you can do while driving... while I'm texting and driving I often take my eyes off of the road... I fear for the safety of the drivers next to me.

--
Garmin 885T

Enough laws already?

I still don't understand why we need specific laws for this when officers can already issue citations for reckless or inattentive driving. The problem is not that they're texting, it's that they're driving badly because they're not paying attention, and we can already deal with that. Enforcing our existing laws would do more good than adding new ones that address a specific technology.

Texting while driving

This is one law that I hope will have an effect on how people are distracted while on the roadways.
The one thing that scares me a bit is that the officer can demand your cellphone to verify whether you were texting.
Where does safety, civil rights and all the other criteria draw the lines?
George Orwell is looking like a Prophet.
Big Brother is watching you;

But the greatest of all is; Jesus is coming soon!!!

--
Being ALL I can be for HIM! Jesus. Kenwood DNX9980HD Garmin 885t

Gotta agree....

bwarden wrote:

I still don't understand why we need specific laws for this when officers can already issue citations for reckless or inattentive driving. The problem is not that they're texting, it's that they're driving badly because they're not paying attention, and we can already deal with that. Enforcing our existing laws would do more good than adding new ones that address a specific technology.

I gotta say I agree. I don't get the need for the new law either.

Unfortunately, this is one quirk in our system. How do you judge your congresscritter/state legislator critter/city council critter if they're NOT invovled in promoting / passing a law? True, sometimes preventing things from changing/"getting worse" is good, but that means they have nothing on the official record to say they did.....

The real power of this law

The real power of this law is in trying to get the publics attention to the problem.

It will also allow them to pile on multiple offences.
First you will get your texting ticket. If you are a jerk to the officer then the careless driving ticket piles on etc......

--
Nuvi 3790LMT, Nuvi 760 Lifetime map, Lifetime NavTraffic, Garmin E-Trex Legend Just because "Everyone" drives badly does not mean you have to.

How make a "law"

onestep wrote:

The real power of this law is in trying to get the publics attention to the problem.

It will also allow them to pile on multiple offences.
First you will get your texting ticket. If you are a jerk to the officer then the careless driving ticket piles on etc......

And there is true face of this "law". Some frustrated idiot in uniform have new way to "teach respect for uniform to civilians". And that what law supposed to be? How this is different from school bully unloading his frustration on kids that can't fight back? But I think there is a reason, why police used to be called "peace officers" and now is "law enforcement".
And this is the first sign that country is sliding towards police state: if some uniformed "law" enforcement officer is talking to you just shut up, don't look at him, be totally obedient and thank him for not shooting you one the spot.

blah

grzesja wrote:
onestep wrote:

The real power of this law is in trying to get the publics attention to the problem.

It will also allow them to pile on multiple offences.
First you will get your texting ticket. If you are a jerk to the officer then the careless driving ticket piles on etc......

And there is true face of this "law". Some frustrated idiot in uniform have new way to "teach respect for uniform to civilians". And that what law supposed to be? How this is different from school bully unloading his frustration on kids that can't fight back? But I think there is a reason, why police used to be called "peace officers" and now is "law enforcement".
And this is the first sign that country is sliding towards police state: if some uniformed "law" enforcement officer is talking to you just shut up, don't look at him, be totally obedient and thank him for not shooting you one the spot.

No farce here. You need to show the law some respect, or expect to be in serious trouble. Fine with me. and grzesja, dont expect anyone HERE to bail you out next time you get arrested, or testify for you at trial...

really?

skunkape wrote:
grzesja wrote:
onestep wrote:

The real power of this law is in trying to get the publics attention to the problem.

It will also allow them to pile on multiple offences.
First you will get your texting ticket. If you are a jerk to the officer then the careless driving ticket piles on etc......

And there is true face of this "law". Some frustrated idiot in uniform have new way to "teach respect for uniform to civilians". And that what law supposed to be? How this is different from school bully unloading his frustration on kids that can't fight back? But I think there is a reason, why police used to be called "peace officers" and now is "law enforcement".
And this is the first sign that country is sliding towards police state: if some uniformed "law" enforcement officer is talking to you just shut up, don't look at him, be totally obedient and thank him for not shooting you one the spot.

No farce here. You need to show the law some respect, or expect to be in serious trouble. Fine with me. and grzesja, dont expect anyone HERE to bail you out next time you get arrested, or testify for you at trial...

Are You in so called "law enforcement" and I just touch a nerve here? wink
You are mistaking respect for law with bulling people just because somebody has uniform and gun and he can do it. As much as we are required to obey the law it even more should be respected by those, who were hired to uphold it.
Your reasoning is as funny as what you here from fraudulent politicians, who never know that taking bribes and favors are illegal. For them of course, as it is illegal for "regular" people.
And so far I was under impression that law means that on trial you have to testify according to truth and not to personal liking somebody or his opinion. But I may be behind times, as more and more often you read about perjury by "law" enforcement people, who rarely get punish for it.
And wearing any kind of uniform doesn't entitle you to respect. Respect is something that you have to earn, as any other person.
And yes, I have police officers in my family and they are well respected by people not because they were uniform but because they work hard to earn this respect. And they don't think, that uniform entitles them to unload their frustration on public, just because they can.

Wow

grzesja wrote:

And there is true face of this "law". Some frustrated idiot in uniform have new way to "teach respect for uniform to civilians". And that what law supposed to be? How this is different from school bully unloading his frustration on kids that can't fight back? But I think there is a reason, why police used to be called "peace officers" and now is "law enforcement".
And this is the first sign that country is sliding towards police state: if some uniformed "law" enforcement officer is talking to you just shut up, don't look at him, be totally obedient and thank him for not shooting you one the spot.

I can see you are a very respectful person, If you break the law you get whats coming to you, even if it's a speed camera. Texting is now against the law, do it in Cleveland get a ticket, mouth off to the officer go from there.
I myself like the law!
And if you want to be a person that doesn't obey the law where does that behavior stop. See you hit it right on the head, they are LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, and that's what they do enforce laws for you to abide by, whether you like them or not.

people can't have it both ways, they cry if a camera gives them a ticket for breaking the speed limit or running a red light, and want a Officer to give them the ticket not a camera, then when a officer gives a ticket, it's Some frustrated idiot in uniform going to "teach respect for uniform to civilians"

You know what?
All you have to do is, obey the laws and go though your life, believe it or not, the cops are not waiting for "grzesja" to set you up and make you look like a fool, by breaking the laws or even trying defend breaking the laws does that for you.

I would love to be a fly on the wall when you touch a nerve of the cop when you break your next law! Nothing a "edit" wouldn't fix.
I would pay for that experience!

http://law.onecle.com/texas/criminal-procedure/2.12.00.html

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

I AM NOT a Moderator

I am not a moderator, and I can respect everyone's thoughts and opinions, but it seems that this forum, which is meant to garner collaberation for the various GPS units that we purchase and love to love or love to hate, it is becoming a place where we have to dodge knives, slurrs, billy-clubs and various other comments that cause us to bring out a side of us that is usually kept hidden until someone throws hot water over your head.

I can see merit is all of the comments, but at the end of the day, love it or hate it, the law is the law and we are to OBEY the law.
I know that BobDee was just stating a current event that affects us, but we should not stoop to lows by throwing barbs at each other.

Remember the song from the group "WAR" "Why can't we be friends?"

--
Being ALL I can be for HIM! Jesus. Kenwood DNX9980HD Garmin 885t

I agree

PastorMC wrote:

I am not a moderator, and I can respect everyone's thoughts and opinions, but it seems that this forum, which is meant to garner collaberation for the various GPS units that we purchase and love to love or love to hate, it is becoming a place where we have to dodge knives, slurrs, billy-clubs and various other comments that cause us to bring out a side of us that is usually kept hidden until someone throws hot water over your head.

I can see merit is all of the comments, but at the end of the day, love it or hate it, the law is the law and we are to OBEY the law.
I know that BobDee was just stating a current event that affects us, but we should not stoop to lows by throwing barbs at each other.

Remember the song from the group "WAR" "Why can't we be friends?"

The moderator of this site agrees with you, she does not like the negativity in this thread.

Miss POI

New Board

Would it be possible to create a separate board for these type of volatile threads? They definitely don't combine well with the "Welcome" threads!!

Then don't text

awkuan wrote:

Although I frequently text while driving, I have to agree that this law isn't too bad of an idea. Texting is probably the most dangerous thing you can do while driving... while I'm texting and driving I often take my eyes off of the road... I fear for the safety of the drivers next to me.

I don't understand how you could say texting is the most dangerous thing you can do but you still do it!

I just don't understand people like you.

--
Nuvi 50LM Nuvi 2555LM

Jailbird

grzesja wrote:

Are You in so called "law enforcement" and I just touch a nerve here? wink
You are mistaking respect for law with bulling people just because somebody has uniform and gun and he can do it. As much as we are required to obey the law it even more should be respected by those, who were hired to uphold it.
Your reasoning is as funny as what you here from fraudulent politicians, who never know that taking bribes and favors are illegal. For them of course, as it is illegal for "regular" people.
And so far I was under impression that law means that on trial you have to testify according to truth and not to personal liking somebody or his opinion. But I may be behind times, as more and more often you read about perjury by "law" enforcement people, who rarely get punish for it.
And wearing any kind of uniform doesn't entitle you to respect. Respect is something that you have to earn, as any other person.
And yes, I have police officers in my family and they are well respected by people not because they were uniform but because they work hard to earn this respect. And they don't think, that uniform entitles them to unload their frustration on public, just because they can.

No I am not in law enforcement.

TO be honest, your rant sounds like the typical rant of a repeat offender. Just can't take you seriously because you sound like a jailbird

A Rant

miss poi wrote:

The moderator of this site agrees with you, she does not like the negativity in this thread.

Miss POI

SOrry if i sound negative, but there are certain things I must admit to being very intolerant of. THis guy just hit one of them.

I'd like to relay an event that happened to me, to illustrate my point, if you dont mind listening.

The backstory is this. I was in college in a rural area just outside Little Rock, and one weekend I got held up at gunpoint and had my wallet taken. A few days later, i made a foolish mistake, foolish on a couple levels. COuldn't sleep, was up late, hopped in the car, with no ID, to go drive around and get a little fresh air. GOt pulled over doing 55 in a 40, at 3am on a saturday. Now if i had been paying attention to what I was doing, i never would have gotten pulled over. No reason to complain about the police officer. ANd this is where it gets interesting. It COULD be said the cop was hassling me, but considering the fact I had no i.d., with out of state plates, and I was similar to the descripion of a murder suspect in a neiborhing state, the 4 police cars that ended up pulling up behind me were well within their right to check me out, and be ready with their weapons, as I could see them doing in my rear view mirror.

I've never been arrested, and I realize that the one time i COULD POSSIBLY claim the cops were harassing me, there were very legimate reasons for them to be aggressive in checking me out.

I'll admit there are many legimiate complaints that could be lodged against our laws, but my experience with people who complain about police as bullies are people who have been arrested multiple times, and been convicted many of those times.

Anyway, thanks for reading the rant, and feel free to comment..

i hate ppl that text while

i hate ppl that text while driving, its the most idiotic thing.. just get a bluetooth headset and call someone if its so important.

Gotta agree

hyperfire21 wrote:

i hate ppl that text while driving, its the most idiotic thing.. just get a bluetooth headset and call someone if its so important.

I gotta agree, mostly.

Ever see someone changing clothes on the road? onlyu seen it once....but...

BOGGLE!

I agree with the law that

I agree with the law that say you can't be texting while driving (never done it and never will), I just have a problem with how its being implemented.

A simple solution to this

A simple solution to this issue would be a fedral ban on cell tower hopping. Once a phone/device connects to a tower it stays with that one until the connection is dropped or the call ended.

--
Nuvi 3790LMT, Nuvi 760 Lifetime map, Lifetime NavTraffic, Garmin E-Trex Legend Just because "Everyone" drives badly does not mean you have to.

New laws are needed for this

bwarden wrote:

I still don't understand why we need specific laws for this when officers can already issue citations for reckless or inattentive driving. The problem is not that they're texting, it's that they're driving badly because they're not paying attention, and we can already deal with that. Enforcing our existing laws would do more good than adding new ones that address a specific technology.

You need laws for this because many people don't understand or agree that texting while driving is dangerous. They will argue-- and the ones who can afford it will find good attorneys to argue-- that they can safely text while driving, and a few judges will agree.

There was a time when drunk driving wasn't illegal, either.

--
JMoo On

seems to me that the only

Seems to me that the only people that think this thread is negative are the texters themselves.

Just obey the laws, and you won't have any problems, laws are for everyone, no one is lurking for you and those cameras can't tell the difference between you and me, unless your breaking the law. then I appreciate your donation to my fine city. I say Donation because it's your choice to break local laws, whether you like them or not.

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

Texting

What worries me is the comment that police only have to "suspect" you are texting to pull you over. I can imagine all sorts of abuse by police because of this type of latitude - if it's true.

a half decent lawyer could deal wit that...

spullis wrote:

What worries me is the comment that police only have to "suspect" you are texting to pull you over. I can imagine all sorts of abuse by police because of this type of latitude - if it's true.

Hoinestly, i think even a halfway decent lawyer could handle that easily. Or even a layman probably. If you get pulled over based on that, and get a ticket, supoena the cop to show up and explain why he suspected you of texting. There are still some basic probable cause requirements, and the cops still have to show that probable cause even when they can pull you over on Suspicion, but you MUST go to court and demand they show it. Thats the big downside - people have become passive and don't demand their rights.

judge will decide

BobDee wrote:

Police only need to suspect your texting to pull you over! as of 12:00am Sunday morning. Of course it will be up to a judge to find you guilty if you fight the ticket.

But if you look at ticket (at least in illinois) it says for example: if you pay ticket without contest it will be $70, but "if you go to court $275 AT MINIMUM".
And I contested a few times parking tickets in Chicago and it was a lottery: even if you got evidence that you didn't actually broke a law they uphold a ticket. Sometimes I wasn't sure if they really know anything about law.
As example: I parked in Chicago downtown around midnight. Near parking meter. On meter was sticker that read: "paid parking 8am-9pm" and price for parking time. There is no sign prohibiting parking outside paid time. I got ticketed for not paying for parking! So I contested ticket. I got nice set of pictures of place and parking meters with all stickers. And what i get: ticket was uphold as valid, because as I was told, if there is parking meter you have to pay, regardless of any stickers on meter.
So as you see, even if you ares innocent it doesn't mean you will win. And prices for court are being set so high so you will not even think about going there, even if you are perfectly innocent.

law for everyone...

BobDee wrote:

Seems to me that the only people that think this thread is negative are the texters themselves.

Just obey the laws, and you won't have any problems, laws are for everyone, no one is lurking for you and those cameras can't tell the difference between you and me, unless your breaking the law. then I appreciate your donation to my fine city. I say Donation because it's your choice to break local laws, whether you like them or not.

Bob it is not a problem with law itself but with the way it being used. And more and more often it is becoming cash cow for government to cover their waste of public money. Especially in this case it's not like cop has to prove that you were actually texting, but he just "suspect" (or "think") that you were and it is on you to prove that it isn't happened.
Can You imaging security guard at store "suspecting" you for chocking other customer in this store and all the sudden you are defending yourself in court from charges of assault? Charges based only on "say so" of security guard.
Of course with good lawyer you can win, but I don't think that most of people can afford lawyer for every appearance before judge on "say so" of policeman. That's why cost of defense are so prohibitive, so paying ticket is way cheaper than fighting it, even if you are innocent.

Doesn't get any easier to figure out.

grzesja wrote:
BobDee wrote:

Seems to me that the only people that think this thread is negative are the texters themselves.

Just obey the laws, and you won't have any problems, laws are for everyone, no one is lurking for you and those cameras can't tell the difference between you and me, unless your breaking the law. then I appreciate your donation to my fine city. I say Donation because it's your choice to break local laws, whether you like them or not.

Bob it is not a problem with law itself but with the way it being used. And more and more often it is becoming cash cow for government to cover their waste of public money. Especially in this case it's not like cop has to prove that you were actually texting, but he just "suspect" (or "think") that you were and it is on you to prove that it isn't happened.
Can You imaging security guard at store "suspecting" you for chocking other customer in this store and all the sudden you are defending yourself in court from charges of assault? Charges based only on "say so" of security guard.
Of course with good lawyer you can win, but I don't think that most of people can afford lawyer for every appearance before judge on "say so" of policeman. That's why cost of defense are so prohibitive, so paying ticket is way cheaper than fighting it, even if you are innocent.

The officer still has to prove you were texting, if your not texting you have nothing to worry about. if you were , well the pay the fiddler, and my garbage pick up thank you.

I don't understand this mentality, that laws are to protect me from those who choose to break them, the reason they created the laws in the first place.

* Don't speed, don't get a speed cameras ticket
* Don't run red lights, don't get red light camera Tickets
* Don't Text, don't get a texting ticket

Can't get any simpler than that!

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

He was just joking... Ummm... I think...

awkuan wrote:

"Although I frequently text while driving," "I fear for the safety of the drivers next to me."

You crack me up....

glad

BobDee wrote:

The officer still has to prove you were texting, if your not texting you have nothing to worry about. if you were , well the pay the fiddler, and my garbage pick up thank you.

I don't understand this mentality, that laws are to protect me from those who choose to break them, the reason they created the laws in the first place.

* Don't speed, don't get a speed cameras ticket
* Don't run red lights, don't get red light camera Tickets
* Don't Text, don't get a texting ticket

Can't get any simpler than that!

I'm glad to agree with you for once. Most (and I'll stress MOST) things like traffic laws are pretty straight forward and reasonable. There are laws that can be legitimately criticized, but texting while driving, isn't one of them...well unless they start passing out 90 day jail terms for it maybe...

Legislating desired behavior is doomed to fail

dagarmin wrote:

You need laws for this because many people don't understand or agree that texting while driving is dangerous.

You're right, may people don't understand, however, I believe that a new law is an ineffective way to correct that. Despite DUI laws, some people still drive drunk, because they don't believe they're impaired. Many states have seat belt laws, but people are still ticketed because they don't want to wear them. Laws don't correct behavior problems; they only give the police the power to intercept someone caught engaging in the prohibited behavior. Educating people, showing them how dangerous their choices are, is much more effective across the entire population than the selective nature of enforcement.

Count "no" votes

skunkape wrote:

Unfortunately, this is one quirk in our system. How do you judge your congresscritter/state legislator critter/city council critter if they're NOT invovled in promoting / passing a law? True, sometimes preventing things from changing/"getting worse" is good, but that means they have nothing on the official record to say they did.....

Count "no" votes. I interpret those as "I'm not sufficiently convinced that this is a good idea." I'm particularly scared by "yes" votes when the legislation is so long that nobody could have read it before the vote.

blah

bwarden wrote:
skunkape wrote:

Unfortunately, this is one quirk in our system. How do you judge your congresscritter/state legislator critter/city council critter if they're NOT invovled in promoting / passing a law? True, sometimes preventing things from changing/"getting worse" is good, but that means they have nothing on the official record to say they did.....

Count "no" votes. I interpret those as "I'm not sufficiently convinced that this is a good idea." I'm particularly scared by "yes" votes when the legislation is so long that nobody could have read it before the vote.

Sadly, it seems to have become way too easy for people to start screaming "obstructionist!"

Full pay, day off.

Quote:

Hoinestly, i think even a halfway decent lawyer could handle that easily. Or even a layman probably. If you get pulled over based on that, and get a ticket, supoena the cop to show up and explain why he suspected you of texting. There are still some basic probable cause requirements, and the cops still have to show that probable cause even when they can pull you over on Suspicion, but you MUST go to court and demand they show it. Thats the big downside - people have become passive and don't demand their rights.

I agree with you that it's an easy one to fight. Especially if you have a gps that supports bluetooth. Just say you have no reason to text since your car is set up for hands free calling.

But you're going to make the cop's day. Well, maybe not where you live, but anywhere in Ontario, the cop will thank you at the end of the hearing. You just brought him to the court house for a half hour visit. He gets a full's day pay but get's the day off. The cops here write stupid tickets just for this reason. They hope you'll bring them in so they get a day off with pay. For example, my neighbour got a ticket for not buckling her dog in to the seat. Too bad pets are considered property and there is no law stating property needs to be buckled to a seat.

--
Jesus died for your sins. If you don't sin, Jesus died for nothing.

Texting Hazards

awkuan wrote:

Although I frequently text while driving, I have to agree that this law isn't too bad of an idea. Texting is probably the most dangerous thing you can do while driving... while I'm texting and driving I often take my eyes off of the road... I fear for the safety of the drivers next to me.

If you want to see a movie that depicts the hazards of texting while driving watch 7 Pounds with Will Smith and Rosario Dawson.

No, I don't think so.

a

No, I don't thin they are needed

dagarmin wrote:
bwarden wrote:

I still don't understand why we need specific laws for this when officers can already issue citations for reckless or inattentive driving. The problem is not that they're texting, it's that they're driving badly because they're not paying attention, and we can already deal with that. Enforcing our existing laws would do more good than adding new ones that address a specific technology.

You need laws for this because many people don't understand or agree that texting while driving is dangerous. They will argue-- and the ones who can afford it will find good attorneys to argue-- that they can safely text while driving, and a few judges will agree.

There was a time when drunk driving wasn't illegal, either.

It doesn't matter if they agree or argue, anymore then if they agree or argue about running a stop sign.

Inatentive driving is a violation in most, if not all states. Prove of inatentive driving is the officers testimony that the car was weaving, failing to stay in lane and/or failure to maintain a consistant speed. No different then when he testifys you ran a stop sign.

I totaly agree with some of the previous posters that the law is not needed and is redundant

Lastly, how is that a city, Cleveland, is passing laws on motor vehicle operations. Every state I'm familiar with reserves the right to regulate motor vehicles statewide. If they didn't, driving across a state could subject you to a hundred different laws with some of them in conflict with each other.

If you think $100 is a deterrent...

When Texting Kills, Britain Offers Path to Prison

In Britain you can go to prison for up to 4 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/technology/02texting.html?...

Think it might get some attention from those that think it's OK?

--
ɐ‾nsǝɹ Just one click away from the end of the Internet

Actually It Can Get Simpler Than That..

BobDee said in part..

BobDee wrote:

I don't understand this mentality, that laws are to protect me from those who choose to break them, the reason they created the laws in the first place.

* Don't speed, don't get a speed cameras ticket
* Don't run red lights, don't get red light camera Tickets
* Don't Text, don't get a texting ticket

Can't get any simpler than that!

As I said in the subject line: "Actually It Can Get Simpler Than That.." Maybe a little common sense should be used by the COP when evaluating the situation before a ticket is handed out.

* Don't speed, don't get a speed camera ticket.

Have you ever thought that just maybe there was a "VALID" reason why a person might be speeding, but with the up most of caution while doing so? (I guess that takes care of your "Don't Speed" theory doesn't it?)

* Don't run red lights and get red light camera Tickets.

See my above answer to "Don't Speed". Just substitute speed/speeding with run(ing) red lights.

* Don't Text, don't get a texting ticket.

Ditto for this one also.

Let me give you a good example of where common sense by the COP wasn't used. There have been times when a driver has been arrested for drunk driving, even though at the time of the arrest, the driver was in his driveway and on his own property.. and NO, his wasn't chased there by the COPs who arrested him.

Just because there's a law, it doesn't necessarily mean there might be situations/circumstances in which it's necessary to break it!

Nuvi1300WTGPS

Nuvi1300WTGPS@Gmail.com

--
I'm not really lost.... just temporarily misplaced!

i couldn't never figure why

i couldn't never figure why people drive and text all at the same time? IMO it's worse then driving drunk.

Prove?

BobDee said

Quote:

The officer still has to prove you were texting, if your not texting you have nothing to worry about. if you were , well the pay the fiddler, and my garbage pick up thank you.

I disagree. The officer just swears in court that he observed the motorist texting. His word is all the proof the court needs.
I do feel that the law is just however. Where I live no such law exists. I will not ride with one of my sisters because she is always looking at her phone and not paying attention. I fear for the safety of her grandkids.

--
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w

Texting and young girl

A couple of weeks ago I was with my wife while she was getting her license renewed. This young girl (probably 17) was called up to the counter and she was asked if she was over 18. She replied that she was not. The deputy registrar informed her that since she was under 18 and was getting her driver's license, she would need a parent present. She called her father and sat down in a chair. It was then that I noticed she was texting. Not with one phone but with two. She went from phone to phone. This went on for approximately 15 minutes until her father arrived. She even continued to text while walking up to the counter. I told my wife that she would continue to do that while driving and it would not surprise me if she was not in an auto accident within 6 months of getting her license. The thing about it was this; she saw absolutely nothing wrong with it.

--
It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible. ----George Washington

These laws are already

These laws are already outdated. Texting is but one thing you can be distracted with on a smart-phone. And how do you prove distracted driving in general. i suppose they should just start issuing tickets for accidents like they used to do when the local police actually did that for the party at fault. Around Maryland, they only even stop for an accident if there is real injury involved as I understand it. maybe if they don't have to stop people for supposed texting, they will have the time to 'work' an accident, and give tickets to people who actually cause them?