Oregon wants to hit texting drivers with $2000 fine

[ShootSpeeders]

You should give up, your position is inane and without merit. Perhaps the car you drive does not have preset buttons on the steering wheel or in the radio itself, most today do have the steering wheel button. .

Preset buttons on the radio are common but on the steering wheel is rare. THINK

 

[percysunshine]

There are more texters in Oregon than their are drivers.

The logical conclusion to the problem is to levy a texting surtax to cover the cost of medical care for those injured by texters who happen to be driving.

 

[dblack]

There are more texters in Oregon than their are drivers.

The logical conclusion to the problem is to levy a texting surtax to cover the cost of medical care for those injured by texters who happen to be driving.

Or make them carry texting insurance.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

What's the penalty for scrolling through an i pod while driving?

Drinking coffee while driving

Applying make up while driving

Shaving while driving

Eating while driving

Etc.

Yeah. It's called 'reckless driving'. It's already against the law pretty much everywhere. But, we no longer trust our police and courts to make such judgements, so we rely on blanket provisions that ban specific activities (and by omission authorize others) and situations that might not be hazardous at all. Apparently we'd rather have the law micromanage our lives rather than trust our judges to judge.

It's tough to get convictions for vague terms like "reckless driving". That's why we need laws banning specific activities. THINK

 

[percysunshine]

There are more texters in Oregon than their are drivers.

The logical conclusion to the problem is to levy a texting surtax to cover the cost of medical care for those injured by texters who happen to be driving.

Or make them carry texting insurance.

Good point. Same concept. Like the surcharges on the electric bill.

 

[dblack]

What's the penalty for scrolling through an i pod while driving?

Drinking coffee while driving

Applying make up while driving

Shaving while driving

Eating while driving

Etc.

Yeah. It's called 'reckless driving'. It's already against the law pretty much everywhere. But, we no longer trust our police and courts to make such judgements, so we rely on blanket provisions that ban specific activities (and by omission authorize others) and situations that might not be hazardous at all. Apparently we'd rather have the law micromanage our lives rather than trust our judges to judge.

It's tough to get convictions for vague terms like "reckless driving". That's why we need laws banning specific activities.

We can't make law based on the convenience of prosecutors. But let's look at your this rationally. What, in general, would give a cop reason to suspect the driver of a car is texting? Most commonly, it will be because the driver is driving recklessly - swerving, erratic speed, etc... In any case, the observable reckless driving is what we're trying to prevent.

It's not the texting itself that presents a danger to other drivers. It's the driver who's not paying attention to their driving.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

There are more texters in Oregon than their are drivers.

The logical conclusion to the problem is to levy a texting surtax to cover the cost of medical care for those injured by texters who happen to be driving.

HAHAHA. Do you also want to legalize drunk driving and just raise everyone's taxes to cover the enormous medical costs due to drunk drivers??

You criminal coddling liberals are priceless!!!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

We can't make law based on the convenience of prosecutors. But let's look at your this rationally. What, in general, would give a cop reason to suspect the driver of a car is texting? Most commonly, it will be because the driver is driving recklessly - swerving, erratic speed, etc... In any case, the observable reckless driving is what we're trying to prevent.

It's not the texting itself that presents a danger to other drivers. It's the driver who's not paying attention to their driving.

You're another of these silly libs who want to leave drivers alone until they actually endanger someone. Why don't you take the same attitude towards guns?

 

[dblack]

I do.

 

[Carla_Danger]

That's just not true. And it's not the same.

I agree. Further, texting requires both an active concentration and extensive manipulation which severely impairs one's ability to drive safely. Listening to a radio is passive activity at best.

I give up. You don't even understand the issue. It's not the listening it's ; it's taking your eyes off the road to change the station.

Don't take your eyes off the road to change the station. You should do what I do, and have your music planned before you take a trip, whether it be short or long. I just take 5 CD's burned by me and have hours of music I enjoy. It's really very simple.

 

[yidnar]

I say lets also make text driving a felony with all the consequent loss of rights and job opportunities that entails. Text driving is super-violent and far worse than things like tax evasion or drug possession that are routinely charged as felonies.

Tough Talk-and-Text Deal for Drivers: A $2,000 Fine

Wednesday, 13 Feb 2013 11:54 AM

Motorists in Oregon who text while they drive may soon pay dearly for it — with lawmakers mulling a whopping $2000 fine for offenders.

"You don't have to drive much to see people texting," state Sen. President Peter Courtney told The Oregonian newspaper. "It's everywhere. It's going on all the time. It's just unbelievable."

Two bills to boost fines have been introduced in the legislature as statistics show hundreds of car accidents are the result of people texting on their cellphones or chatting on them without using a hands-free device.

Four years ago, Oregon passed a law slapping drivers who text or talk with a maximum $500 penalty. But there’s a good chance that amount will be substantially boosted to at least $1,000 and as much as $2,000.

texting is more dangerous than drunk driving. fine the shit out of them.

 

[editec]

I say lets also make text driving a felony with all the consequent loss of rights and job opportunities that entails. Text driving is super-violent and far worse than things like tax evasion or drug possession that are routinely charged as felonies.

Tough Talk-and-Text Deal for Drivers: A $2,000 Fine

Wednesday, 13 Feb 2013 11:54 AM

Motorists in Oregon who text while they drive may soon pay dearly for it — with lawmakers mulling a whopping $2000 fine for offenders.

"You don't have to drive much to see people texting," state Sen. President Peter Courtney told The Oregonian newspaper. "It's everywhere. It's going on all the time. It's just unbelievable."

Two bills to boost fines have been introduced in the legislature as statistics show hundreds of car accidents are the result of people texting on their cellphones or chatting on them without using a hands-free device.

Four years ago, Oregon passed a law slapping drivers who text or talk with a maximum $500 penalty. But there’s a good chance that amount will be substantially boosted to at least $1,000 and as much as $2,000.

Ouch!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[]texting is more dangerous than drunk driving. fine the shit out of them.

It's also more inexcusable. DUIs can say they didn't know they were drunk and sometimes that's true, but texters always know they are doing something extremely dangerous to others.

 

[ABikerSailor]

[

We can't make law based on the convenience of prosecutors. But let's look at your this rationally. What, in general, would give a cop reason to suspect the driver of a car is texting? Most commonly, it will be because the driver is driving recklessly - swerving, erratic speed, etc... In any case, the observable reckless driving is what we're trying to prevent.

It's not the texting itself that presents a danger to other drivers. It's the driver who's not paying attention to their driving.

You're another of these silly libs who want to leave drivers alone until they actually endanger someone. Why don't you take the same attitude towards guns?

Actually, we have left people alone until the actually endangered someone with guns.

Wanna talk about Colorado?

How about Sandy Hook?

Me personally? I believe that anyone buying a gun should have a full background check, and if found wanting, get told that they can't buy one.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
Me personally? I believe that anyone buying a gun should have a full background check, and if found wanting, get told that they can't buy one.

Background check for what.? Do you really think it's right that non-violent criminals like tax evaders cannot buy guns while super-violent and deadly criminals like drunk drivers can?

 

[ABikerSailor]

[
Me personally? I believe that anyone buying a gun should have a full background check, and if found wanting, get told that they can't buy one.

Background check for what.? Do you really think it's right that non-violent criminals like tax evaders cannot buy guns while super-violent and deadly criminals like drunk drivers can?

Well, checking to see if they've been arrested for any violent crimes (domestic abuse, assault, etc) is a good start.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
Me personally? I believe that anyone buying a gun should have a full background check, and if found wanting, get told that they can't buy one.

Background check for what.? Do you really think it's right that non-violent criminals like tax evaders cannot buy guns while super-violent and deadly criminals like drunk drivers can?

Well, checking to see if they've been arrested for any violent crimes (domestic abuse, assault, etc) is a good start.

So you agree drunk drivers should lose all gun rights? So do i but that's not how it's done. Any felony no matter how small or non-violent means your gun rights are gone. There are thousands of felons in america whose crime was so minor they got straight probation and never did a day in prison but their constitutional right to guns was taken away forever. OTOH very few drunk drivers are charged with a felony so they keep their gun rights despite the extreme violence of their crime.

This business of which criminals lose their gun rights needs to be re-examined.

 

[Connery]

My son and I were almost in a car accident by some crazed woman who was texting while in heavy traffic on a highway on my way to NYC. She did not even stop with the goddamn phone after she almost rear ended a tractor trailer in a second incident. $2000 fine not enough....

 

[ABikerSailor]

Background check for what.? Do you really think it's right that non-violent criminals like tax evaders cannot buy guns while super-violent and deadly criminals like drunk drivers can?

Well, checking to see if they've been arrested for any violent crimes (domestic abuse, assault, etc) is a good start.

So you agree drunk drivers should lose all gun rights? So do i but that's not how it's done. Any felony no matter how small or non-violent means your gun rights are gone. There are thousands of felons in america whose crime was so minor they got straight probation and never did a day in prison but their constitutional right to guns was taken away forever. OTOH very few drunk drivers are charged with a felony so they keep their gun rights despite the extreme violence of their crime.

This business of which criminals lose their gun rights needs to be re-examined.

Really?

If you commit a felony, that means you've done a heineous enough crime as to be noticed by the federal government.

You really think that felons who are gentle should be allowed guns?

I don't.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

If you commit a felony, that means you've done a heineous enough crime as to be noticed by the federal government.

.

HAHAHA. What an incredibly ignorant thing to say. You think all felonies are federal crimes??? Most felons were prosecuted by the states and the feds had nothing to do with it. My Gawd you're stupid!!!!!