As it turns out, Perdue signed both of the “no texting” bills into law. So, what does this mean? SB360 prevents everyone, including adults, from using their phone to, “write, send, or read any text based communication, including but not limited to a text message, instant message, e-mail, or Internet data.” I’m assuming internet data means I can’t read Gawker while sitting in traffic. And to answer Nikki’s question, no, you can’t use your phone’s GPS program because that would require data. But apparently, it won’t prevent Thomas Wheatley from playing Enviro-Bear 2010 on his iPhone. Enforcement? HA. That’s for an entirely separate post.
Perdue Signs Texting Bill
by
Tags:
Comments
14 responses to “Perdue Signs Texting Bill”
-
I think it is practically unenforceable. Even if it’s a secondary charge to an accident, the ability to prove the charge will be tough. I mean, you can’t give a pee test for being online. So in the end, it’s publicity for those who voted for it to say “they did something”. They would probably be better off with a billboard campaign, but that actually costs money.
-
Not to mention, it’s an easy revenue generator.
-
“I just can’t imagine that a cop is going to see someone driving by, looking down into their lap, thinking they’re in the middle of thumbing out a text, and then pulling them over.”
Really? I can totally imagine it. Of course, I’m a former defense attorney, so I only saw people once they were pulled over. And the number of seat belt tickets + marijuana possession cases is more than you’d think.
-
As long as there’s nothing in the legislation that restricts Enviro-Bear, they can pass whatever they want. I monitored all of this session’s bills to make sure no one outlaws that game.
I’m wondering if this is going to be enforced more after an accident has taken place rather than while the crime is being committed. Say a cop responds to the scene of an accident where you bumped somebody from behind. He asks if you were texting. You say you were. He scribbles an extra ticket.
I just can’t imagine that a cop is going to see someone driving by, looking down into their lap, thinking they’re in the middle of thumbing out a text, and then pulling them over. Then again, I’ve told myself the same thing when I wasn’t wearing a seatbelt (stupid, I know). Only then a cop pulls me over and says, “I noticed you weren’t wearing a seatbelt. Here’s a ticket.” I now wear one all the time.
-
Yep.
-
I don’t think that’s accurate. If you cause an accident, there’s an articulable traffic-related reason such following too closely, failure to yield, or failure to maintain lane. Not to mention, driving while distracted is already an offense. In fact, my first trial in ’06 was a guy charged with, among other things, driving while distracted.
Texting while driving is what causes rear-end collisions (following too closely), side-swipes (failure to maintain lane) and people running through red lights because they’re not paying attention. All of these things are already illegal. The whole point is deterrence, to prevent people from engaging in behaviors which could cause already illegal actions.
-
… which isn’t much of a deterrent.
-
This really isn’t about ticketing in the absence of an accident. It is about violating a statute in the context of an accident.
-
Yeah, I don’t think the intent was to allow people to use the GPS on their iPhones. I suspect it is meant to allow Garmins and Tom Toms and so forth. Enforcement is going to be fun though, considering you can mount your iPhone to your dash (my husband does, and my boss, and several other people I know) and really for all intents and purposes, it would be hard for a cop to tell your device is a phone or a GPS.
-
I assumed you’d have to input the address, but I suppose you could do that prior to putting the vehicle in motion. My in-vehicle navigation system uses maps and voice, so is not text-based once the directions start; however, the Google Maps app on my BlackBerry requires you read the directions to see where to turn next.
-
Hm. Ok, I re-read the bill:
It does not include citizens band radios, citizens band radio hybrids, commercial two-way radio communication devices, subscription based emergency communications, in-vehicle security, navigation devices, and remote diagnostics systems, or amateur or ham radio devices.
I initially thought that “in-vehicle” modified “navigation devices,” but I’m not so sure. I wonder though, if it’s referring to hand-held navigation devices like Garmin or Tom-Tom.
-
navigation is not necessarily text-based.
-
The AJC says that using navigation devices is still legal. Seems murky to me.
Leave a Reply