![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (34)
Share link
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Furl
Reddit
GoogleThe measure sponsored by Republicans Rep. Jon Lundberg of Bristol and Sen. Jim Tracy of Shelbyville imposes a $50 fine for reading or writing text messages while driving.
The action would be considered a nonmoving traffic violation, which means no points would be added to a person's driving record.
It exempts certain officials -- such as officers of the state, campus police officers and emergency medical technicians -- when performing their duties.
Opponents argued that law enforcement may not be able to tell whether drivers are texting or dialing and that texting is already covered under the state's distracted driving law.
Tracy told the Times-Gazette earilier this year that the bill came about through comments from his constituents and through a House member who asked him to take up the cause in the Senate.
Tracy told The Associated Press that two of his constituents have died in accidents related to texting while driving.
The deaths happened within the last couple of years, he said. In one incident, he said a motorist who was texting crossed the center line of a highway and struck another vehicle. The other death happened when a teenager on his way to school texted his girlfriend to say he was going to be late, Tracy said.
"He never made it to school," he said. "He ... went off the road and hit a tree."
Law enforcement says the bill, specifically banning texting, will give them the tools to enforce banning this form of distracted driving. Under the legislation, a violation would be a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of $50. The legislation also prohibits the Department of Safety from assigning a point value for the driver's license suspension or revocation for violation under the proposed law.
"Texting is an extremely dangerous form of distracted driving," Tracy added. "When drivers take their eyes off the road to read or send messages, they pose a great danger to all who cross their path. Hopefully, this measure will provide the warning needed to help stop this practice and in turn, it will make our roads safer."
Tracy, a Republican, represents the 16th District, including all of Bedford County and part of Rutherford County.
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please
Another waste of time in the legislature. But at least Jimbo can get his picture in the paper again.
Obviously this bill is aimed at younger drivers...I don't know how many times I have been nearly run down by some kid texting while driving. I think it's a good law, but I don't know how they are going to enforce it, and it's not like there's much of a penalty.
Im not belittling the 2 dead that died over a 2 year period BUT ... what about the 25 Americans that are murdered DAILY by illegals ??????
When are we going to start enforcing existing laws??
We sure dont need new laws just a leader who is willing to enforce them.
It's too bad we can't mandate common sense instead of forbidding specific forms of foolishness.
I've seen drivers feed a baby on the back seat,talk on the phone,read a map or the paper,use the steering wheel as a drum,have intense conversations,apply cosmetics,shave and even give themselves a perm (!) while driving.
Why can't these activities be done while the vehicle is off the road and in park?
(Pauses at a street light don't count.)
Driving means having both feet on the pedals,both hands on the wheel,an eye on the road (plus one on the dash) and total concentration on the task at hand.
Anything less is just an attempt at negligent homicide and a way to cripple or kill the careless driver and anyone around him.
The act of getting out on the road is a vow to avoid making mistakes and being vigilant enough to deal with hazardous conditions and any mistakes made by others.
That applies to pedestrians,bikers,passengers and,especially,those operating vehicles.
We shouldn't have to ban inappropriate acts one at a time.
We shouldn't have to minimize the consequences of breaking the rules to get any punishments at all.
A fifty dollar fine and no points is a small price to pay for a choice that could result in immeasurable tragedy.
So this is the law now...Hmmmm how soon is it going to be that I am not allowed to look at my GPS while driving? What good is a GPS if I am not allowed to look at it I don't need it unless I am driving. How will an officer tell if I am viewing the GPS from my phone or reading a text message?
dianatn , how did you drive before gps hit the market? pull over to the side of the road and look at it or text while you are stationary. not driving.......
I drove just fine Thank you...It kind of defeats the purpose of a GPS to pull over on the side of the road.
I think this is a law for after the fact. The only way they are going to be able to check if a person was texting while driving is if there is probable cause. Which is after an accident has occurred. Then if a cell phone is in the car that the records of that cell phone be pulled with a warrant to check the times of the text. I cant see how the police will be able to discern if a person was dialing the phone or sending a text, or is dialing the phone also included in the bill?
I have to agree with Bob. More people are killed by illegal immigrants that can't read the signs and aren't licensed to drive than have been killed by people texting. Why can't Senator Tracy get some legislation regarding that started?
Or better yet, get some legislation REQUIRING the local law enforcement to ENFORCE laws that already exist!
I agree about using the phone while driving. I pull off to the side if I have to make a called or rec'd one, that I really need to get. But what about the police the state and county. They have there phone up to there ears while they drivng. They know better drivers than we are. So they need to stay off the phone while they driving also. Years ago people talk on C.B.'s Radio and drove down the road, to me I don't see any differnet. If you need direction you was on the C.B. same with phone. They want you to buy the phones now they tell you have and when to used them.
I agree with most of you... this was another waste of time by this year's Legislature, and a chance for Jim to get some press. Have they done anything substantial this session? They have tackled issues to allow us to take guns in bars and ban us from texting while driving. Big Whoop. No discussion on immigration reform, the growing meth problem, improving our infrastructure.... things that actually matter.
Reminds me of a quote.
In a state where corruption abounds, laws must be very numerous.-Tacitus
(It exempts certain officials -- such as officers of the state, campus police officers and emergency medical technicians -- when performing their duties.)
Driving while texting is dangerous for anybody, because they do have to take their eyes off the road as well as their hands while texting. This law should apply to anyone driving while texting including state officers, campus police officers, and especially emergency medical technicians when performing their duties, they can cause accidents too.
I agree exempting certain officials from this law is about as stupid as the law itself. Why would any of these officials need to text while performing their duties?? They can call someone just like anybody else can but honestly they shouldnt even need to call anybody while performing a duty b/c they do have the scanner as a way of communication as far as how to get to an accident or somethin if they get lost. This is probably a result of certain officers not liking this law and not wantin to pass it so they made an exception just for them to agree to it! I can see why officers wouldnt like this law b/c I dont know how many times I have seen someone go speeding right by a cop and they are on their cell phone not even paying attention to what is goin on as far as the roads and safety of others!
id like to know how they can prove that u are texting while driving. i mean, the police could claim you were doing it but in reality , you could go to court and claim they were mistaken. i dont see this going very far in courts. as someone with a bachelors in political science, it would definitely be hard to prove this type of thing is going on unlesss you are involved in an accident
There are currently laws that prohibit distractions while driving. Anything that distracts your attention from the task at had, which is driving safely, is against the law while operating a motor vehicle in the state of Tennessee. This law is merely a dog and pony show for a special interest group that is upset over the deaths of a few people. If they were changing the radio station, or putting on make-up, or reading the news paper when they were killed in an accident they would still be dead. There is already legislation covering this. Yes I agree this was a waste of tax payer money to appease a loud few, when there are more pressing issues that need to be given their attention. This bill is no different than the waste of time spent on the hate crimes bill. If a person is murdered, or killed in an accident they are no more dead because the person who murdered them hates gays, or if they were killed in an accident because the person driving the other car was using a cell phone. They are still dead, and the individual perpetrating ether crime should be held responsible under the laws that are already on the books. We just need a government and a judicial system that willing and obligated to upholding the laws we currently have. It's as if there is a push in the politics of this country that everything we have in place needs to be redefined. If you change the name of a rock to, say for instance; car, its still a rock. A distraction is a distraction, and murder is murder, a physical attack on someone is still an attack, no matter the motivation. If we need stiffer penalties then increase the fine or the prison sentence. The hate crimes bill is a slap in the face to every person who has lost a family member or friend to a violent crime, when a person who kills someone because of, gender identity or sexual preference, is given a stiffer sentence, than the person who killed their loved one. Just for the fact that there loved one did not happen to be gay or transgender. There is something inherently wrong with this.
(id like to know how they can prove that u are texting while driving. i mean, the police could claim you were doing it but in reality , you could go to court and claim they were mistaken).
The phone would be taken as evidence, it will have what you were doing on it at the time the officer pulled you over, or at the time of a wreck. So yes they would have proof.
(The hate crimes bill is a slap in the face to every person who has lost a family member or friend to a violent crime, when a person who kills someone because of, gender identity or sexual preference, is given a stiffer sentence, than the person who killed their loved one.)
Hate crimes is targeted to a "Group", not just an individual. Just the same as attacking 3 people will get you a stiffer sentence than attacking one person. As well as the level of violence, shooting someone will give you a stiffer sentence than going up and puching someone in the face. The motive of violence is not singled out or directed at one person, but at and toward a group of people.
If one is killed because he is gay, as I have stated before, he no more dead than a person who is killed by a random drive-by. Would not the dive-by victim be a victim of a hate crime? The shooter killed someone just because the person happened to be in the spot the shooter aimed. The crime is inherently evil, and the perpetrator would have to a hateful person to do such a thing. Would that not be a hate crime against humanity? If a man decides that he is going to kill the next person that comes out of a particular department store. Is that victim a victim of a hate crime? The killer has something against the group of people that shop that store. I have nothing against anyone gay or straight, black or white, Jew or Gentile. But to put ones death above another is discrimination. What I am is against kowtowing to special interest groups. That's all this is. We have laws against genocide, the extermination of people based on their beliefs, or ethnicity. If a man kills another because of his sexual preference or because the person is transgender I believe that the hate crimes would have been covered under this law.
This law is a waste of paper. By the way Mr. Tracy there's an imigration problem
mom of 3...all you would have to do was set the phone down inside your car console before the police came up on you and then they would not have proofof anything except a phone sitting there! lol. im amused at u
Actually the police can subpoena your phone records and it will state whether or not you were texting at the time that the police pulled you over. Anyone with any intelligence would know that and you don't even need a bachelor in political science as someone claims. LOL!
I am sure the people whining about this law are the worst offenders of it . . . already I have almost been hit twice by someone who was texting or messing with their phone this past month alone.
If this law helps save one person then I am for it because really . . . should anyone be texting while driving anyway. It is common sense not to do but evidently we have way too many people who lack common sense.
Why bother having your phone records subpoenaed when all they would have to do is look at your out messages?
And fact is I may be whining about this law because I think it is a stupid law but I do not text while driving. I do good to text when I can look at the phone full time.
It was already against the law to do anything in your car that is a distraction. That is like making it against the law to put your child outside in the snow without any clothes on, there's already laws for that it is called neglect. If they start picking out certain things and making laws for that one thing ...they will be doing nothing but sitting around making individual laws. I can't wait for the law that says you can't eat your Big Mac while driving nor can you adjust your radio station or change your CD.
lol at u all. dont think anyone would go to extremes to subpoena phone records lol. i d just set my phone down or shove it in the console. it would actually be an illegal search to search my phone while sitting there. they could only go beyond hands reach from outside the car window unless you are given permission. im amused at both of you
Be amused if you wish but it takes less than 10 minutes for an officer to get a Probable Cause warrant to search you or your car or your phone for that matter.
That's right, and they may give you a stiffer sentence for having to go through all that. ROFL.
Actually the police can subpoena your phone records-by-jaxspike
Actually the police can subpoena your phone records-by-Dianatn.
Mommy_of_2_girls, what jaxspike and Dianatn. both said would be proof of evidence. I honestly don't think they would be randomly pulling people over for this (but you never know, they might), I do believe that it will be looked at should a person cause a wreck. And I have a feeling it will draw more money to the charge; one charge for wreckless endangerment, and another charge for driving while texting, plus possibly others. "More Revnue".
If one is killed because he is gay, as I have stated before, he no more dead than a person who is killed by a random drive-by.-by-docudrama.
Docudrama, I understand what you are saying, and somewhat agree to a small degree. It really depends on each individual case (IMO). I do not think all cases should be dealt the same way. I think alot would ride on premeditation, motives, as well as the degree of violence that took place.
I'm definitely not a lawyer, law maker, or a judge, but I can see some hate crimes that could fall in the same category as jealousy violence, (POSTAL WORKERS coming back for revenge), and even some of the crimes where students come back to school to shoot teachers and other students. Gangs targeting other gangs, elderly, and inicent people. Now days, their is more things in the mix now. Lord help us all.
http://www.wkrn.com/global/story.asp?s=1...
http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?ps=...
I have three kids that are in the car with me about 95% of the time if I can handle that distraction I think I can handle looking down at my phone!
Our commenting system is anonymous. Please do not attempt to publicly identify other commenters. By the same token, be aware that commenters may not be who they claim to be or may have connections to a story which they have not disclosed.
I just attempted to e-mail someone to explain our position on this issue and the e-mail was rejected, saying that person's account had been suspended.
In general, when we remove a comment we have a reason for doing so, related to our Terms of Service. Do not re-post the same content. While the first post may have been an unintended violation of our Terms of Service, a followup post repeating the offending content is more likely to be considered intentional. Contact us directly if you're not sure why your post was deleted.
Sorry John that was me. I understand. How do I send you my new email address. Would you get it if I clicked "Respond to Editor" and filled that out and sent it?
I got my email address updated now. Changed carriers, sorry.
lol. diana. u got no room to talk. u lost your job at duggers office for stealing his furniture! lol. hilarious! u crack me up!