The histrionics are quite amusing.
I have never said that texting while driving is OK. I don't support it. I don't do it. My issue is the overreach and faultiness of the ordinance. Looking up a contact, dialing a number, and then transitioning the phone from your palm to your ear is just as dangerous. So why not restrict that too? Why create such a huge loophole that the only real (and even then, largely flawed) way to prove is search/seize/subpoena?
It's people like you that are going to (literally) pay. Pay for the additional city attorneys, the time wasted by LEOs on people who know that this 'law' is ripe for exploitation.
To be completely honest, I would be fine with a blanket clause that said 'no mobile device may be used in your vehicle unless its operation is hands-free.'
That's what they do in California, New York, and 10 other states, and it is essentially infallible. Our podunk ordinance has more holes than Obama's economic policies.
Depending on the type of phone you have, changing the song playing requires two taps of the home button and one tap on your screen. You don't even have to look down.
You say, "Anything that requires you to have a phone in your hand, is an action that limits your ability to drive." Fair enough. Would you also agree that having a drink or some sort of food in your hand also limits your ability? Should we go ahead and make that illegal too? But, I mean, a hot coffee takes more calculation to drink than a bottle of water ... or a BBQ sandwich vs. a Chick-Fil-A (without pickles?) sandy.
According to Forbes (April 2013 "Forget Phones Or Fast Food, More Drivers Cause Their Own Distractions In Crashes" @landsnark) the NHTSA says that 62% of distracted driver accidents are caused by daydreaming and 12% by "Cell phone use (talking, listening, dialing, texting.)"
How the hell are we going to legislate daydreaming? Sensors in the car that detect how often your eyes blink? A Clockwork Orange style mind control?
I'm just saying.
If you are so afraid of the big bad world and all the selfish people zooming around out there greedily keying 'LOLs' and 'LMAOs' then ride the damn CARTA. On second thought, I get the feeling that society overwhelms you, so maybe you should refrain from coming out of your (pedestrian) home at all.
Seriously, how can you not grasp that this ordinance is not just about 'texting' and driving? It's also about using your GPS or listening to music. Can I still talk to SIRI? Tweet? Instagram? Vine?
Do you honestly think a police officer can definitively tell the difference from somebody typing a phone number and typing a text message? How is my thumbing through my contact list (permitted) different than looking for a song on my Spotify playlist (not permitted?)
Also, as far as your misplaced harangue towards vehicular privacy is concerned, my thoughts on invasion of privacy were referring to the police feeling as though they have a right to know what I am doing on my phone, no matter where I am. You know, the fourth amendment and all that jazz.
I think there's a simple solution to combating this ordinance; require the officer to subpoena your cell phone records (they can only determine if you were texting -- not changing songs, or typing on your GPS) ... even if you are guilty. Eventually the police and city are going to grow weary of the paper work/cost and the ordinance will be minimally enforced.
FWIW, I don't support texting and driving, but I also don't appreciate the cavalier approach the city has taken in sliding this restriction into place. To me it's a blatant invasion of privacy.
Thanks, Chris. My apologies. Now that you've seen what I originally wrote, I would hope that somehow that particular story would receive some overdue justice ala http://deadspin.com/5983592/im-down-for-dr…
Original post (with statement in question redacted):
The author of this article needs to openly disclose that she is currently employed by the College of Charleston. (*which has since been added)
Personally, I don't remotely understand how any sort of congratulations are due to an institution that harbored a sexual predator for nearly two decades (paying him quite well, too, I might add.)
Then again, the CofC has a history of turning a blind eye to the inproprieties of its staff, at the peril of its students. An example from recent history is that of Robin Bowers, a former psychology instructor, who was caught sending inappropriate messages to students as early as 2005 and found with 'questionable' material on his campus computer back in 2003, but not terminated until December 2007 AFTER he had actually engaged in a sexual relationship with a (female) student nearly a year before (Fall of 2006!) Bowers sued the college claiming a lack of due process and eventually lost.
There are other instances where the College was ironically quick to step in and neutralize threats to their reputation whilst remaining wholly negligent to the glaring flaws which allowed these predators in the door in the first place, thereby allowing the vicious cycle to repeat itself.
Let's not even get started on the school's gross inability to control rape, correctly investigate, and punish offenders amongst its student population.
Someone needs to be held accountable, Allison. Stop acting like such a petty shill and be the one to start a movement.
Well, my comment was deleted, and I'm not exactly sure why (CityPaper, feel free to contact me via the e-mail in my profile with an explanation,) as all of the information I posted is publicly available on the Internet.
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper