TexasCHLforum.com

TxLobo wrote: I very much want the FCC to make an exception to the 1934 Communications Act so they can repeal that part in there:

"willfully or maliciously interfering with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized" to operate. In fact, the "manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless transmissions is prohibited" as well.

because I want a Jammer so badly.. for work, for the movies, for my house, for when dining out with my wife... for when I'm standing in line and I have to listen to some loudmouth talking on their phone, holding a 'private' conversation in public.

They make multi-band jammers that you stick in a pocket that run off a rechargeable battery pack.

My friend has used a couple, for legitimate work purposes (He works for a 3 letter govt organization.) I am told that they work decently well in a small radius.

As much as I agree with you that those scenarios are annoying.. you couldn't repeal that part of the act without opening a whole can of worms, in 1000's of different ways.

being that 'authorities' can now place GPS tracking devices on your vehicle (without any warrant), I've been tempted to pick one of the quad-band jammers...I have nothing to hide, but I will sure shootin' protect my privacy.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
As I've mentioned before, while I would have no problem making texting while driving illegal, it wouldn't stop there; I can guarantee that. Those who would like to control every aspect of our daily lives have wanted to outlaw talking on cell phones while driving and a texting ban is just the first step toward that goal. We are already starting to hear the occasional call to ban GPS units in cars like we do TV screens visible to the driver. This position ignores the fact that it much safer for a driver to glance at a GPS screen and/or get audible directions, than it is for them to try to read a map or handwritten directions while driving.

Chas.

Hmmm.. I see the point, it sets precedent. Be careful with that argument though, it could be construed as the "slippery slope" fallacy. just being the advocate

Why the need for more laws anyway. What happens if a cop sees you driving in an unsafe manner now? What if you're weaving while you're putting on make-up? How about driving while reading a book? So then what about if you're weaving while texting? That's not already covered?

glbedd53,

I agree with your assessment.

My observation is that many on cell phones while driving can safely handle the distraction, but those who can't as witnessed by me are a more or less constant.

These folks are the ones that terrify me.

A guy swept through a stop sign just yesterday and came close to running me over while I was on my bicycle.

Guess what he was doing.

Yep, I know. My wife was read ended by a kid that just got his licence and he admitted he was texting. Wife was in a school district van, stopped to turn left. He never even hit his brakes, never saw them. Just some minor injuries, her and two other women in the van, one year old van was totaled. The problem I see with outlawing driving and texting, it's hard to prove. I don't know what it will take to stop it but it needs to stop. It's the biggest reason I won't even consider getting on a motorcycle anymore.

Society managed for how many thousands of years without cell phones?

I agree. And yet, when I can't find my cellphone in the morning, I panic. And so does my family. We've come to expect almost instant communication and 24/7 availability.

That is not pro or con for DWTk or DWTx, but I understand it. I too, try to pull off when I make a call, but not always when I receive one (except when the phone is in my jeans pocket under the lap belt!

Just remember, the cop who pulls you over would have probably entered your tag number into his computer while driving 60mph.


Hypocrite much?

glbedd53 wrote:Why the need for more laws anyway. What happens if a cop sees you driving in an unsafe manner now? What if you're weaving while you're putting on make-up? How about driving while reading a book? So then what about if you're weaving while texting? That's not already covered?

The problem for me is that the reckless driving citations are a fraction of what they should be. For all practical purposes, enforcement of reckless driving as a whole is non-exisitent. Go to any municipality and look at the log of citations. Speeding citations are by far and away the biggest volume of citations - because it is the easiest to enforce. I suspect that getting convictions for reckless driving is just too difficult for most cities and towns to pursue. I agree that we don't need more laws but we sure need enforcement of the ones that we have.

There is a huge difference between speeding and reckless driving. Going 5, 10, maybe even 15 mph can be perfectly safe and is dependant on many conditions. Reckless driving is inherently unsafe and should be penalized higher. Some dipwad doing 50 in a school zone is different than someone flowing with traffic 70 in a 55. Rolling right at a stop sign with high visibility all directions/no traffic is different than blasting thru a red light westheimer at fondren during lunch. Like a lot of other laws there are differing levels of offense, as their should be. Otherwise you get "zero tolerance" and that has worked so well in the schools.

The innocent driver or passenger who is injured or killed by a distracted texting driver might differ with those who say there should be no legislation on cell phones in cars. And I've heard of DWI offenders who claim they aren't really that affected by alcohol.

What I want to know.... is On my morning commute to work.... who are all these people talking to?

I frequently see Tons of people on their phones at 6am.... are they calling other commuters or something? Having some sort of Commuter-Conference-Call?
I mean... who is on the phone at 5-6am? Seriously?

The women on the phone, doing their makeup in the mirror are the worst... HEY LADY, THE LIGHT'S GREEN! GO!

atticus wrote:The innocent driver or passenger who is injured or killed by a distracted texting driver might differ with those who say there should be no legislation on cell phones in cars. And I've heard of DWI offenders who claim they aren't really that affected by alcohol.

The point here is not about whether or not there is a a problem but whether or not having another law is going to do anything towards solving it. Your DWI is a perfect example about why many of us feel strong skeptism towards a legislative solution. The DWI laws are tough, yet there is still a borderline epidemic of those hard core individuals who habilitally drive drunk, even with multiple convictions on their records for DWI. The deterrent effect of the law is about non-existent. The punishment effect of the law seems to have little result om curbing the behavior. I, too, have attended Defensive Driving classes (I was there for insurance rate reduction, not a citation) and have heard multiple time DWI offenders state that alcohol doesn't affect them. Though many of them were in the 20-30s, they seem to harbor attitudes that one would generally relate to teenagers.

We should have learned from Prohibition that there is not a legislative solution to what some believe are the ills of society. I strongly agree that texting/cellphone talking by some while driving is very dangerous. I also believe that tailgating and other distracted practices while driving are also very dangerous. I have yet to see any law that effectively addresses any of it and don't believe that a cellphone/texting law would be any better.