New OK Law

pet575 · Posted: May 06, 2015 7:53 am Post subject:

So, basically the "I can text and drive just fine" argument is just as valid as the "I'M A BETTER DRIVER WHEN I'M DRUNK!!" argument?

Got it. Makes complete sense. Let's let everyone decide for themselves how safe they are, including the following:

1. guy who thinks that doing 25 MPH on freeway is safe because SLOWER IS ALWAYS SAFER
2. guy who drives around traffic jam on shoulder at 45 MPH because traffic jams are unsafe and just an accident waiting to happen
3. guy who turns left in front of oncoming traffic because OH THEY'LL SLOW DOWN ONCE THEY SEE ME
4. guy who cuts over 2-3 lanes on freeway at last second to make it to exit ramp because EVERYONE WILL MAKE ROOM SO I CAN GET OVER.

<off to bang my head against my desk for engaging this thread>

Partyb · Posted: May 06, 2015 8:09 am Post subject:

Holy shizzle this takes the cake Okie. I'm not even going to try and debate against you b/c at this point I literally believe you have a serious issue with your ability to understand basic common sense. Now I know why you don't post on an actual site that focuses on such content; because you've probably been banned from all of them or chased off.

pet575 · Posted: May 06, 2015 8:34 am Post subject:

Also, when you willfully put other people's safety at risk with your conduct, you forfeit your freedoms and liberties that are connected with your conduct.

The "if the Founding Fathers knew about this...." argument IS getting a bit old, isn't it? Those people had no idea about things like cars, smartphones, the interwebs, and the incredible technology that exists today that causes our personal areas/boundaries/freedoms/whatever to constantly have blurred lines and significant overlap/infringement upon those of other individuals.

How does ANYONE know what those guys would think about some of this stuff? The biggest safety issue they had to deal with back then was someone's wooden teeth falling out and biting them. Or getting trampled by a horse.

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

I'm actually a bit surprised we have so many statists on this forum. I thought many of you were at least more of conservatives or even somewhat moderate in your thinking.

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

The actual text of the bill...

SUBJECT: Text messaging
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:
SECTION
1
. NEW LAW A new section of law not to be
codified in the Oklahoma Statutes reads as follows:
This act shall
be known and may be cited as the "Trooper
Nicholas Dees and Trooper Keith Burch Act of 2015".
SECTION
2
. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified
in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 11
-
901d of Title 47, unless
there is created a
duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor
vehicle on any street or highway within this state while using a
hand
-
held electronic communication device to manually compose, send
or read an electro
nic text message while the motor vehicle is in
motion.
B. Any person who violates the provisions of subsection A of
this section shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not
more than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00).
C
. The Department of Public S
afety shall not record or assess
points for violations of this section on any license holder's
traffic record maintained by the Department.
D
. The provisions of subsection A of this section shall not
apply if the person is using the cellular telephone or
electronic
communication device for the sole purpose of communicating with any
of the following regarding an imminent emergency situation:
1. An emergency response operator;
2. A hospital, physician's office or health clinic;
3. A provider of ambula
nce services;
ENR. H. B. NO. 1965
Page
3
4. A provider of firefighting services; or
5. A law enforcement agency.
E
. Municipalities may enact and municipal police officers may
enforce ordinances prohibiting and penalizing conduct under the
provisions of this section. The provi
sions of such ordinances shall
be the same as provided for in this section; the enforcement
provisions of those ordinances shall not be more stringent than
those of this section; and the fine and court costs for municipal
ordinance violations shall be the
same or a lesser amount as
provided for in this section.
F
. For the purpose of this section:
1. "Cellular telephone" means an analog or digital wireless
telephone authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to
operate in the frequency bandwidth
reserved for cellular telephones;
2. "Compose", "send" or "read" with respect to a text message
means the manual entry, sending or retrieval of a text message to
communicate with any person or device;
3. "Electronic communication device" means an elec
tronic device
that permits the user to manually transmit a communication of
written text by means other than through an oral transfer or wire
communication. This term does not include
a device that is
physically or electronically integrated into a motor v
ehicle or a
voice
-
operated global positioning or navigation system that is
affixed to a motor vehicle, or a hands
-
free device that allows the
user to write, send or read a text message without the use of either
hand except to activate, deactivate or initia
te a feature or
function
; and
4. "Text message" includes a text
-
based message, instant
message, electronic message, photo, video or electronic mail.
SECTION
3
. This act shall become effective November 1, 2015.

Partyb · Posted: May 06, 2015 12:07 pm Post subject:

How can we have a law against reckless driving Okie? In your brain I'm allowed to reckless drive as long as i don't hit anyone right? Just like i can drink and drive if I don't hit anyone?

How about Drivers' Licenses? Another infraction of my liberty! I should be able to drive with zero training as long as I don't hit anyone right?

DRIVING IS NOT A RIGHT, IT'S A PRIVILEGE that can be regulated and taken away.

It doesn't matter if wb.com'ers are conservative, liberals, or whatever...it's common sense & logic Okie, not political affiliation this time.

eeven73 · Posted: May 06, 2015 3:26 pm Post subject:

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

LOL

Seriously, I would say I'm kind of falling in between Libertarian and Anarchist these days.

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

Bottom line is government can NOT (legitimately) regulate any RIGHTS. The government can regulate your interaction with others only for the purpose of protecting the rights of everyone. Punching someone else in the nose causes injury to that person (a redressable grievance). A right to "text" does NOT infringe on your right to live. Texting does not cause the loss of your life. There is no need for a special law to address "texting". Any negligence of any sort that results in harm to another person is the common law answer that covers texting and any other form of "distracted driving". This new "law" does nothing more than add more unnecessary pages to an already bloated code that isn't even law to begin with.

"Driving" is a privilege, a regulatable commercial activity. I am not a "driver" or "operator" nor do I have any "vehicles". I travel in my automobile and all "transportation codes" do not apply to me. This is not my opinion, but has been upheld many times by supreme court decision, as well as upheld in lower courts.

Just a few examples:

"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

jjaszkow · Posted: May 07, 2015 4:47 am Post subject:

I cannot believe I am reengaging in this thread :/ .

Individuals who are texting while driving does infringe on what I feel is my right to safe passage while operating my motorcycle at highway speed. Instead, I have to vacate the lane that I am occupying because someone is staring at their crotch rather than the road and attempts to occupy the EXACT space that I am traveling in, therefore violating my right.

RampageWake · Posted: May 07, 2015 7:23 am Post subject:

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

jt09 · Ladies Man Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 22083 City: Austin

just for reference, oklahoma is the 46th state to ban texting and driving. texas is about to ban it as well.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/cellphonelaws/maptextingbans?topicName=Distracted%20driving#map

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

pet575 · Posted: May 08, 2015 8:28 am Post subject:

But if we are all free and have the right to do whatever we want, it is EVERYONE'S lane at all times. He can't be busted for traveling in "someone else's lane" because he is free to be in any lane he wants to. BECAUSE THOMAS JEFFERSON WOULD AGREE.

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

I think you have misunderstood what I've been trying to say. Once a person is floating into another lane, like his example, they are exhibiting negligence. At that point, the "damage" is being done. Maybe I didn't make that aspect of my point clear enough earlier.

jgriffith · Posted: May 08, 2015 10:43 am Post subject:

Wait so you are ok with laws against negligent behavior? And reckless endangerment?

Think about this a little before you condratict yourself again...

What about my god given right to be negligent, as long as im lucky enough not to hurt anyone else?

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

Re-read my previous post...it already answers the questions you just asked.

jgriffith · Posted: May 08, 2015 11:28 am Post subject:

I have read your posts...see the reference to you condradicting yourself

pet575 · Posted: May 11, 2015 9:26 am Post subject:

Contradiction abound, my friend. The government DOES have the right to limit your rights when the situation is right. There is an entire arm of "the law" referred to as Constitutional Law which covers this very thing, i.e., WHEN the government has the power to limit individual rights.

The cases you cite to are incredibly old and SEEM to mostly relate to the "right to travel on highways" and have no specific bearing upon things like driving while impaired. Drunk, high, or distracted while driving are all forms of being impaired. Another word for such conduct is "negligence." Let's all make sure that we understand that criminal conduct and negligence are NOT equivalents, though.

I will return to my point made previously. By your logic, lines painted on the roads to create lanes are inappropriately restrictive of freedom/liberties because the government doesn't have the power to do that. Under your premise, that lane belongs to nobody-it is free for all to use at their own will. Even if there is another vehicle in it that will be hit by you if you choose to enter that lane and freely exercise your freedom/liberty to do so. Such conduct, even if not criminal, would still constitute negligence.

By texting, you are DELIBERATELY engaging in an activity that impairs your ability to operate your vehicle. Such a course of action is negligent.

The reason for a law against this conduct is the same reason there are law for many activities. Laws reflect those under which a society operates and are set forth to discourage conduct that society deems unacceptable. These same arguments were heard when DWI/DUI laws were enacted in different states. There was an unwillingness to accept that chemical substances impaired one's ability to drive.

Why is this different?

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

pet575 · Posted: May 12, 2015 9:48 am Post subject:

So, by your second point, no laws against DUI are necessary because "negligence" covers that? Are we talking criminal negligence or civil negligence? Somehow, I think any response I have to whichever one you are talking about will circle back around to laws being made which reflect what society accepts/wants to make clear it will not accept.

The problem with using criminal negligence as the standard is that criminal negligence is usually defined to describe as a conversion of a lawful act into a crime when it results in personal injury/death.

So, under your logic, texting and driving would be considered a "lawful act" and a huge analysis on a case by case basis would have to be done to determine whether any person who ever texted and drove acted with such a flagrant and reckless disregard for the safety of others (or willful indifference to everyone else's safety). You DO see the problem that creates, right? You DO see the hole created there, right?

Society has determined that operating a vehicle while impaired by drugs/alcohol is unacceptable and so laws have been created to reflect that belief to remove this problem/hole in criminal negligence so that intent/disregard is NEVER an element in a case involving DUI. The law provides that the intent/disregard element has been established by the science of a BAC test. Certainly you can argue about the test results but if the test is deemed proper and the results say you are above the limit then intent/disregard is automatic under that law.

That current standard does not exist for a texting driver. Society has determined that a distracted texting driver is just as impaired as DUI-type driver. Continuing to have no law in place to REMOVE intent/disregard from the equation simply allows people like you to show up in court and say, "I didn't mean anything by it. I'm actually an excellent texting driver. I driver BETTER when I text, just like when I'm snockered."

jt09 · Ladies Man Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 22083 City: Austin

Partyb · Posted: May 12, 2015 2:40 pm Post subject:

"This is my second point, which I stated later on and made it seem like I am being contradictory. My point is that IF you think there should be a law to help with this issue, why does it need to be a different law? Shouldn't negligence or reckless endangerment already cover it?"

NO, b/c that argument can go for anything. Why do I need a drivers license, can't they just arrest me if I drive poorly/recklessly? Why can't I drive totally hammered, can't they arrest me IF I drive recklessly? Why can't I shoot my firearm off in a crowd, can't they just arrest me IF I hit someone? THERE IS SUCH A STRONG CORRELATION BETWEEN THE ACTION (driving and texting) AND THE RESULT (an accident that infringes on someone else's rights) THAT THE ACTION IS DANGEROUS PER SE! Moreover, you completely fail to recognize that driving is NOT one of your unalienable rights Okie, it's a privilege and "they" can regulate the eff out of it. I have a right not to have some moron texting at 75mph down the highway 2' from me, WTF don't you understand about that? It's an effing balancing test, and texting and driving loses. /thread

Frankly Okie, you don't even comprehend the most basic logic or premises of law or politics. Sorry to be so rude, but enough is enough.

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

pet575, I don't understand why you feel you need to classify and categorize the issue. The bottom line is no crime has been committed by simply texting while driving. In addition, there is already a law for negligence while driving, and was before DUI laws. So, if you really want to have impaired drivers punished by law, it already existed, even before DUI laws. Just continue to follow the precedent set by reckless endangerment and clarify what it is covered by.

The suggestions you make about societal norms and accepting of laws is a collectivist mentality. Would you still go along with societal acceptance of laws that reverted back to allowing slavery or prohibiting women from voting? I think not. We are not a democracy (collectivist/majority rules), we are a Constitutional Republic.

In Constitutional Law, it is my understanding any law that should be considered needs to have a victim and damage, right? (Corpus delicti?). When I text while driving, without causing incident, who is the victim and what is the damage?

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

eeven73 · Posted: May 12, 2015 6:33 pm Post subject:

You know it is kind of sadly impressive Okie isnt a troll.

Or if he is, dammit he world class.

Partyb · Posted: May 13, 2015 11:02 am Post subject:

How about this Okie, go drive and text, get caught and then you can fight the ticket on Constitutional grounds. If you are so concerned, actually do something instead of talking nonsense on a wakeboard forum. My guess is you do nothing.

Well, what are YOU going to do about this injustice?

Okie Boarder · Ladies Man Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond

jason_ssr · Posted: May 14, 2015 5:30 am Post subject:

I'm not a big text-and-drive guy, and the few times I have to read one in the car, my kids start shaming me (they are young and apparently this is a big safety topic at elementary schools). So, I don't really have a dog in this hunt. However, I am the guy who gets the shaft when these types of laws have unintentional side effects. I was driving to a office I had not been to before, and I was using the map directions on my phone. I usually just leave the phone in my lap and listen to the directions over my car speakers (bluetooth). Well, the car in front of me slammed on the brakes because we were entering a school zone. I tried to grab my sliding phone but only got a finger on it. So, I reached down and grabbed it off the floorboard as I crawl through the school zone. I put it back on map (I guess I closed it when I hit it trying to catch it) and laid it back on my leg. Red and blues and I get pulled over. Got a ticket for cellphone\text in school zone. I was neither on the phone, nor texting. The officer was not happy (not irate, but lectured me before I could get a word in). It was to the point I didnt feel like explaining would have helped my case.

While I think the spirit of the laws are good and with the best intentions, there are an infinite number of distractions in a vehicle. Heck If it was possible to quantify the number of deaths caused by dicking with the radio, I think the number would far surpass those of texting.

jt09 · Ladies Man Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 22083 City: Austin

that's THE EXACT REASON FOR THE LAW!!! just because it's worded as "texting while driving"?? the law here in austin encompasses all hands-on mobile device use, but everyone still refers to it as the texting law. buy a mount for $20 and you won't be trying to run over little kids the next time someone stops short.

chavez · RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006

This was an actual court case here in CA, and the guy looking at Google Maps (or whatever map program) was exonerated. He was cited for using his cell phone while driving.

However, if the guy was ticketed for "distracted driving" it likely would have stuck.

Story: http://goo.gl/ZL7xlr

It's even less than $20 now for a decent mount. I use this one from iClever and it was $10. Works great.