TexasCHLforum.com

...betcha he beats it...that "rationale" would get him a Saturday or Sunday ticket, too...sounds like they're hooooongry out there in the big town...

chuckybrown wrote:A few weeks ago I had a friend get a "talking on a cell phone" ticket in a school zone out in Katy. On a school holiday. Cop told him that the holiday didn't matter, he was in a school zone during zone hours.

He's not gone to court yet.....

In 2009 HB 55 was passed to standardized the verbiage and rules for those cities which choose to enforce restrictions on school zone cell phone usage. Texas Transportation Code 545.425 defines the requirements and says nothing about the zone being in effect at the time.

However, TTC 541.302 (13) says:

"School crossing zone" means a reduced-speed zone designated on a street by a local authority to facilitate safe crossing of the street by children going to or leaving a public or private elementary or secondary school during the time the reduced speed limit applies.

So, I think my argument would be that per section 541.302 of the Transportation Code the school crossing zone is only in effect during times listed when the reduced speed limit applies, which is when the lights are flashing or school is in session between those hours on the sign. Otherwise, it is not an active school zone and thus 545.425 is not applicable.

IANAL

sjfcontrol wrote:You are prohibited from using cell phones entirely -- even hands free -- in school zones in McKinney.
And yet you can drive with children in the car -- a MUCH bigger distraction, IMO.

(So don't get caught singing along with the radio (or talking to yourself) -- might get nabbed! )

Just an FYI, but this is not correct. Originally McKinney did ban all cell phone use. However, since 2009 you can use hands-free and even hand-held when the vehicle is stopped. You can read McKinney's press release about the ordinance at http://tinyurl.com/72bft6q.

...thanks for the good references, KeithB...this topic will become more frequent, I think...easy money for the cities...plenty of absent-minded drivers trying to make a living...

Although there are valid reasons behind this law, I mostly see it as more rights lost in the name of protecting children.

glbedd53 wrote:The new law will require that both hands must be visible at all times while driving in a school zone.

alot of people will have to put down there beers while driving through a school zone now, if this is true... just sayin.

Also, as a side note, the ticket for cell phone use in a school zone is not enforceable if the aforementioned school zone is not posted.

txjim42 wrote:I sure wish someone would come up with a solution for cell-phones/driving in general. Today I was sitting at a red-light, in a school-zone and watched in amazement as a woman not only drove through a red-light doing around 20mph but she nearly ran over the elderly crossing-guard standing in the road... All without ever noticing the crossing guard, the light or probably anyone/anything else around her while she continued to yammer on at the phone stuck to the side of her head. Thankfully the old guy was paying attention and didn't step in front of her...

This is a reckless driving problem. There already is a solution for this problem. Take her license away until she completes some remedial driving classes, at a minimum. I don't care why she was driving like this (phone call, deep meditation, in the midst of a jealous rage, etc). The fact is that she needs to be taken off the roads for a while regardless.

Keith B wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

Commander Cody wrote:I see nothing wrong with the stop. The police man thought you were texting, you told him you were not texting... done deal.

The policeman THOUGHT.....

Not a very high bar you're setting...

A policeman can THINK whatever they want.... they cannot act without PROOF
It requires PROOF to exceed the burden set forth in the 4th Amendment.

It is NOT, IN ANY way OK for anyone to stop me while driving my car because they are unable to see both of my hands.
The day this becomes the law is the day America is lost forever.

OMG.! I'm becoming a Libertarian.!

Actually, they can. All that is required to make the stop is reasonable suspicion. In this case, I believe he had that. However, he should have asked IF the OP was texting or not and allowed for an explaianation instead of just assuming that was what he was doing.

I don't agree that there was reasonable suspicion that the OP was violating a law. The LEO couldn't see both of the drivers hands and the driver was looking down. Well, he could have been doing alot of things. He could have been cleaning something. He could have been changing the radio station. He could have been texting. He could have been fashioning a homemade bomb. He could have been cleaning a spot on his pants. He could have been doing hundreds of different things. Some of those things are crimes, so it is OK for the LEO to detain him for questioning? I think this is dangerous logic.

If a man is driving with kids in the car, he could be a sexual predator who just kidnapped the kids. Better detain him for questioning as well. Don't forget the guy driving alone in his car (car may be stolen but not reported yet, you never know).

I think that the bar is ridiculously low in this case.

What it comes down to is, the law shouldn't punish people for actions that don't harm/hurt/infringe other people and/or other people's rights, but should punish such harms, hurts, and infringements in proportion to the injury inflicted upon such.

I wonder how the "no cell phones, period" thing would work with an in-dash blutooth system. Are you on the phone, or working the radio? And if it's "no communication devices, period," then we ought to disable cops' service radio mics while they're in-motion, too, right? I mean, that's even MORE of a distraction than a phone, as you have to use one hand for it, AND pay enough attention to frequency courtesies so you don't "step" on someone else when you transmit.

Let's stop trying to legislate and criminalize trivialities and stupidities. You can't fix stupid with a law, and you won't stop inattentive drivers by banning individual distractions.

rp_photo wrote:Although there are valid reasons behind this law, I mostly see it as more rights lost in the name of protecting children.

You're absolutely right. As we've seen here, it's a reason for a peace officer to interrupt your travel, do a visual search of your vehicle, and question you about your activities, just because he couldn't see your hands while your vehicle was stopped at a traffic light where whatever you were doing with your hands (texting or otherwise) had zero impact on public safety... an unreasonable intrusion, and a waste of time.

I think the Founding Fathers would be astounded at some of the crap we put up with these days, in return for a false perception of increased safety.