Tomorrow, the Texas House Transportation Committee will consider several bills banning or limiting use of cell phones for talking or texting. Ironically, though you wouldn't know it from the MSM coverage, "Texting bans haven't reduced crashes at all. In a perverse twist,
crashes increased in 3 of the 4 states we studied after bans were
enacted," according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Shannon Edmonds at TDCAA said Friday that, of the four related bills on the agenda, "HB 63 is the one to watch; it will be amended in committee and probably voted out first." Governor Perry, regular readers know, vetoed similar legislation in 2011.
MORE: From the Austin Statesman, "A spokeswoman for Gov. Rick Perry, just hours after a tear-laden House
committee hearing on a proposed texting-while-driving ban, said Tuesday
that Perry continues to see education rather than regulation as the
solution for the increasingly widespread but dangerous practice."
I've always wondered how do you prove that as a police officer, prove I was texting someone? Pull them over and demand to see their phone? That's not going to go over real well.
ReplyDeleteWho believes they can drive and text? What about driving and mowing the lawn at the same time. Neither one makes any sense. Not much is more dangerous than trying to drive with both eyes on a little screen.
ReplyDeleteYou have to keep in mind the goal here. The goal is create more new laws. It matters not if reseach sopports the need for any new law.
ReplyDeleteIf a ton of steel is coming at me at 70-80 miles an hour, I don't care if the driver is reading comic books, War and Peace, or his text messages. I don't care if the driver can see me or is otherwise preoccupied. What steams me is that nasty men have as their goal to create more new laws. That's what bothers me.
ReplyDeleteI'm betting this bill is going to pass this time around. Some big hitters backing this bill.
ReplyDeleteThe bill had powerful backers last time, but Perry is still in office. If he vetoes it, it's moot.
ReplyDelete7:53, nobody disputes texting while driving is dangerous, just like eating fast food in the car. The question is whether passing a new law would solve or worsen the problem. The data analyzed by the insurance industry - which surprised even them - showed the states implementing bans saw increases in texting-related accidents.
ReplyDeleteI'm betting the govna' won't veto it again.
ReplyDeletePassage of this bill will circumvent requiring a warrant to prove a driver was on their cell phone in a school zone, while driving...
ReplyDeleteThe right questions are not being asked, "whobenefits and what kind of device will be pedaled to law enforcement to effectuate this law?" I'm not in support of the bill but to be on the safe side I am practicing turning off my phone while I am in the car. Just got a feeelin on this one.
If all bills that "don't make sense" were immediately cut out of the process, the lege could probably get all of its business done in 2 weeks or less.
ReplyDeletePassing new laws sans evidence supporting their need or efficacy is what the Lege does. Somebody gets his name on something that makes voters feel good. If it does more harm than good, so be it. It's politics. Rick Perry does very few things that I approve of. Vetoing that bill was one of them.
ReplyDeleteGFB said:
ReplyDelete"The data analyzed by the insurance industry - which surprised even them - showed the states implementing bans saw increases in texting-related accidents."
This is an incorrect statement of what the HLDI study looked at, and what was seen in the study.
The study did not look at texting-related accidents. The events that were analyzed were insurance claims for collisions as a whole - i.e., no breakdown by any contributory causes.
10:30, you're correct. It was accurately stated in the post but I mistakenly characterized the study @5:32 above. Good catch. That's what I get for responding at 5:30 in the morning.
ReplyDeletenobody disputes texting while driving is dangerous, just like eating fast food in the car.
ReplyDeleteDo you eat with your eyes?
"Do you eat with your eyes?"
ReplyDeleteNo, but people digging in a bag to find the last french fry tend to take their eyes off the road in the process. Could have used putting on makeup as an example, disciplining kids in the back seat, punching an address into the GPS, fiddling with the radio, or any other number of distractions that happen in the car.
I think it's smart to be reading my text messages and writing texts while trying to control a car. My right trumps the safety of other drivers.
ReplyDeleteNobody said it's smart, just that when they passed laws banning the practice the number of accidents increased. So the proposed law's dumb, too.
ReplyDeleteI'll respect Governor Perry if he vetoes this again.
ReplyDeleteHmm has an excellent point. What profits can be made of this?
Misrepresenting the study is very poor research. The perception of the study was a focus on texting. Now it's just insurance claims in general? Well, you fessed up. More than I can say for MSM or a politician.
12:53, the research was accurately portrayed in the body of the post, I just misstated it in a reaction comment - it's a blog comment, not a dissertation. Have you never misspoken? Either way, accidents increased in 75% pf states after texting bans were enacted, so there's no evidence passing a law on this will reduce accidents. In fact the available evidence says accidents are more likely to increase if this becomes law.
ReplyDeletePassing new criminal laws can't solve every social problem.
You know, I did write plenty about the study in this week's coverage for the DMN - going so far as to call the institute and get a fresh quote supporting your agenda here.
ReplyDeleteYou might check it out. I didn't get an email from you this time, so figured you must have missed it ;)