Replies

Anti-cellphone bills are feel-good rubbish. The bottom line is, if you get distracted for whatever reason and you cause an accident, you are guilty of not controlling your vehicle. Special laws do not change this. These specific laws are like the hate crimes laws elevating "hate murder" over "regular murder".

If you are capable of using a cellphone and driving at the same time, that should be enough. It's up to the driver to make the judgement and to pay any consequences. The special laws are a slippery slope. What next, a law against driving if you did not get enough sleep (insomnia)? How about outlawing a stereo in automobiles? How about outlawing CB's in semi-trucks? (incidentally, most truck craashes are caused by the cars surrounding them and not the trucks themselves)

Once again, we blame the object (cell phone, hand gun) instead of the person responsible for the event (crash, getting shot).

Maybe we should outlaw women wearing suggestive clothing within sight of a roadway lest a fellow turn his head and get into an accident. Maybe women should wear burkas (sp?). After all, this kind of distraction can be larger than a cellphone ;-)

1. Even though cell phones are not the primary culprit in traffic accidents, they have become the focus of attention in recent years because they are the one "distraction" that is both clearly visible from outside the vehicle (hence, the ability to enforce restrictions against using them) and is always fully within the driver's control at all times (i.e., as a distraction it is not something that simply "happens" to the driver during the course of a trip).

2. The laws against cell phone use in a car are idiotic because there is no reason to distinguish between a driver using a cell phone and a driver eating a sandwich or applying makeup at a traffic light. Many states may already have a law on the books requiring drivers to keep both hands on the steering wheel at all times. This was why the New Jersey State Police were able to initiate their campaign against aggressive driving a couple of years ago -- any motorist who "flipped the bird" to the driver of the unmarked police cars that were used in this effort was immediately pulled over and cited for violating that statute.

I remember one "backup" on 635 in Dallas. On a side note, saying "backup on 635" is usually being redundant.
Anyway, the slowdown was for a car on the shoulder. A woman was standing in front of her car.
That was the reason for the slowdown. God forbid that there would be something happening on the other side of the freeway. The rubbernecking would have been disastrous.

I don't know how many times I have come up on slowdowns because there was an incident on the other side of the interstate.
That's many places in the USA, not just Dallas.