Kentucky Bans Texting

 

Vermont also

No texting for any driver in Vermont, cell phone usage for drivers under the age of 18 is prohibited. It is a good thing.....

Hate to Disagree, but.. It Would Depend On The Situation..!!

wpd909 wrote:

No texting for any driver in Vermont, cell phone usage for drivers under the age of 18 is prohibited. It is a good thing.....

What about emergencies.. and what constitutes a emergency? What may be a emergency to one may not be a emergency for another.. which brings up the question: "How do you prove what is or isn't a emergency?"

Nope.. Sorry..!! Can't go along with it. If you're in a accident using a cell phone.. that's one thing, but if not.......

That's just like the guy I read about that was arrested for DUI.. but he wasn't driving! Had one too many so he decided to sleep it off in the bar parking lot. He was sleeping in the car with the car NOT running and NO keys in the ignition. Cops checked to see why there was a vehicle parked there late at night and found him.

Sure the Legal/technical law said he was DUI because he was in the situation and circumstances that he was.. but come on!! All they had to do was take his keys and tell him to pick them up at the station in the morning. At least he was trying to do the right thing by sleeping it off.. but once again it seems like some cops just don't have any compassion or common sense.

I'll bet my last bottom dollar $$$$ if it had been one of their buddies in blue they would have overlooked it.. if not taken him home in the squad while the second officer drove his car back. Now THAT'S been done before!

Nuvi1300WTGPS

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

What was the final outcome?

Nuvi1300WTGPS wrote:

.......

That's just like the guy I read about that was arrested for DUI.. but he wasn't driving! Had one too many so he decided to sleep it off in the bar parking lot. He was sleeping in the car with the car NOT running and NO keys in the ignition. Cops checked to see why there was a vehicle parked there late at night and found him.

So what was the final outcome for him? Did the court provide a more fair judgment?

In a perfect world you should be observed actually driving to be "driving", but as long ago as 40 years my state has had a law that technically defined driving as being in/or close to the driver's area of a vehicle with the keys in your possession. (I know this because 42 years ago I took advantage of the fact that there wasn't such a law shock )

Sounds like more of a case about no use of discretion in the application of the law, or a poorly written law itself.

We all need to give & take, so I prefer fighting for well thought out and written laws, and requiring common sense use of discretion in these gray area situations.

--
It's about the Line- If a line can be drawn between the powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.

Why not pull over to the side of the road?

Nuvi1300WTGPS wrote:

What about emergencies.. and what constitutes a emergency?

Having tried to respond to a text message by trying to type a simple "Ok", I found that I was very distracted and weaving on the road. This led me to conclude that I was unable to text while driving and simply pulled over to the side of the road and entered the "Ok" and sent it.

I was almost run down in my own neighborhood several days ago by a teenager who had drifted over to my side of the road while texting. I had to pull off the road and stop while she - at the very last minute realized I was still directly in her path.

This law I have no problem

This law I have no problem with, at all. Myself, I may have my phone on, but I will not answer it unless I've pulled off to the side of the road. Even talking on the phone is dangerous, regardless of whether you have a headset or not.

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

It amazes me how quickly we

It amazes me how quickly we become reliant on new technology. It wasn't that long ago no one had a phone to talk in the car with. I did not need it then and I do not need it now. I do like the idea of being able to call if there is a wreck or the car conks out. Nothing is so important that it cant wait a few minutes to discuss.

--
John B - Garmin 765T

Texting

With the number of bluetooth options while driving plus the preferred option of pulling over- texting should be banned in all states.

golferbob

I am in 100% agreement with golferbob's statement. Bluetooth and pulling over are always options - getting into a very serious accident can and will happen if you don't.

With the license to drive comes a responsibility. If someone ignores that responsibility they are a danger to themselves and ME and do not qualify for the license.

As of Aug 1 2010 Louisiana

As of Aug 1 2010 Louisiana will have same law. No one under 18 can use a cell while driving and no one can text while driving.

Absurd

That situation is ridiculous, what constitutes a DUI? I always thought it meant DRIVING Under the Influence.

Nuvi1300WTGPS wrote:
wpd909 wrote:

That's just like the guy I read about that was arrested for DUI.. but he wasn't driving! Had one too many so he decided to sleep it off in the bar parking lot. He was sleeping in the car with the car NOT running and NO keys in the ignition. Cops checked to see why there was a vehicle parked there late at night and found him.

Sure the Legal/technical law said he was DUI because he was in the situation and circumstances that he was.. but come on!! All they had to do was take his keys and tell him to pick them up at the station in the morning. At least he was trying to do the right thing by sleeping it off.. but once again it seems like some cops just don't have any compassion or common sense.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

Ridiculous

The ban should read no cell phone or texting at any time by anyone, no matter what their age.

--
Alan-Garmin c340

Was that an urban myth?

DrewDT wrote:

That situation is ridiculous, what constitutes a DUI? I always thought it meant DRIVING Under the Influence.

Note that we have no link to any article giving information about the story

Obama Plan

I heard the prez made a statement no fed employees can text and drive.

I believe the entire country should ban texting and possible cell phone use. Is it really that big a deal to pull over. Even blue tooth people are looking at who called or looking away to dial.

Just pull over!!! Why chance it we all need to slow down!

--
Flip Garmin Street P.330 Garmin 255WT Garmin LM50

Meet your maker!

My son told me he saw a small billboard sign outside a church last week that said "Honk if you love Jesus. Text if you want to meet Him." That would make a great bumper sticker. Texting while driving is suicidal and homicidal.

--
jpo

Back seat DUI

Nuvi1300WTGPS wrote:
wpd909 wrote:

That's just like the guy I read about that was arrested for DUI.. but he wasn't driving! Had one too many so he decided to sleep it off in the bar parking lot. He was sleeping in the car with the car NOT running and NO keys in the ignition. Cops checked to see why there was a vehicle parked there late at night and found him.

Sure the Legal/technical law said he was DUI because he was in the situation and circumstances that he was.. but come on!! All they had to do was take his keys and tell him to pick them up at the station in the morning. At least he was trying to do the right thing by sleeping it off.. but once again it seems like some cops just don't have any compassion or common sense.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

Doesn't seem to matter if you're passed out in the front seat or the back seat!
http://www.gazette.net/stories/06092010/montnew180948_32553....
http://www.gazette.net/stories/06162010/montnew182337_32552....
Mark

Most States

are passing laws as such.

--
John_nuvi_

Thanks for the link

baumback wrote:

Doesn't seem to matter if you're passed out in the front seat or the back seat!
http://www.gazette.net/stories/06092010/montnew180948_32553....
http://www.gazette.net/stories/06162010/montnew182337_32552....
Mark

Seems to be the case of an officer who overstepped. Not quite an urban myth but close to it.

Ridiculous Drunk Driving Laws

I can easily see why laws were passed that way. Someone was driving drunk and sped away from the police. He parked in a secluded spot and turned his engine off. His lawyer said "You can't arrest him for drunk driving because he wasn't driving. His engine was off!". Municipalities are then forced to pass "ridiculous" laws stating that anyone in a car with keys is considered driving.

Some drunks get away with not fairly being convicted of DUI and other innocent people that do the right thing and sleep it off have to suffer for it.

Just pull over

If there is an emergency, pull over otherwise it's in violation of the law.
All we need now is 49 other states to get some nads and do the same, then enforce it.
No Texting - No Cell Phones to the ear, which is real easy to see and catch.

Not that I condone drunk driving because I don't! However a dunk at least attempts to act sober, but still drives bad.
A cell phone user is totally oblivious to how badly they are driving, as people pass by them because they are driving at a snails pace and not even thinking about whats going on around them.

If you need to use your Phone pull over and use it, don't jeopardize someone Else's life. Even for an emergency.

--
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.

More 'nads' than you thought.

BobDee wrote:

All we need now is 49 other states to get some nads and do the same, then enforce it.

15 states have passed something for cell phones. 39 for texting.
http://www.iihs.org/laws/cellphonelaws.aspx

Like I said, if they are well written it's a good thing. If it's knee-jerk as usual then, well then it's status-quo.

--
It's about the Line- If a line can be drawn between the powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.

first texting. next

first texting. next breathing ..

--
DriveSmart 50, DriveSmart 60, nuvi 2595, nuvi 3760,

You're Kidding Right?

nansoutey wrote:

first texting. next breathing ..

I realize you are being sarcastic but your analogy makes no sense. Texting, talking on your phone, putting on makeup, etc all represent unnecessary / voluntary distractions that can create extremely hazardous situations. Breathing is involuntary and is not a distraction unless you are hyperventilating in which case you should pull over as well.

Hey, new here...

BUT... as a former driver's ed teacher...
NO texting, or even talking on the phone, whether hand held or not!
For some reason, people think they can multitask.. Guess what folks, it's a lie!
In order to do anything WELL, you have to pay attention. Driving is already multitask't drive worth a darn.

Next time you're on the phone... in the middle of the conversation... look up and see where you were concentrating.. average person... 6-10 feet... generally, even less than that. Now put yourself in a car, you're looking at the front of your car and not the road.

Yeah, I get a bit upset, I also ride a motorcycle.
"Not seeing" is NO excuse for killing someone.
Technology is great, but we're totally letting it ruin our lives.
Take care and watch out for idiots. They are not watching out for you!
Mary aka Krashdragon

I kind of agree with this.

I kind of agree with this. Texting should never be allowed; it's dangerous. However, how is looking at a GPS for an address or whatever any different? One must still take his/her eyes off the road.

Also, what if the kids (under 18) use a bluetooth? Is that not safe enough? I don't know the answer to that, but I wonder if it was considered or used in making the decision.

Do you drive and text? It sounds like it!

nansoutey wrote:

first texting. next breathing ..

Sorry but that is a asinine statement, You do know the difference between voluntary and involuntary don't you?

--
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.

Just like red light cameras

WOW. I had no idea my post would stir up so many strong opinions! I just thought folks would like to know about the change in KY laws in case they were driving through the state. Good / bad, agree / disagree it's the law. Break the law and get caught and you pay the fine or spend the money and time fighting it in court. Easier to just comply.

Just a little extreme>>>

alanrobin1 wrote:

The ban should read no cell phone or texting at any time by anyone, no matter what their age.

how about no radio, no talking to your passenger...no thinking about work...I love extremists they make my Draconian seem so normal wink

--
"You can't get there from here"

As long as they take the cell phone the first time and the>>>

avandyke wrote:

Under 18, no cell phone use - over 18, no texting while driving.

http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=82914

car the second I am fine with this...most teens are bad enough drivers without the distractions...

--
"You can't get there from here"