Georgia Cop Issues 800 Tickets To Drivers Texting At Red Lights 1440
McGruber writes "WSB-Television, Atlanta, tells us that Gwinnett County police officer Jessie Myers has issued more tickets for texting and driving than any other officer in the state. Officer Myers said he sees most people typing away on their phones while waiting at red lights. 'Most people think they're safe there,' Myers said. However, he said it's still illegal. 'At a red light, you're still driving, according to the law. You're on a roadway, behind (the wheel of) a car, in charge of it, with a vehicle in drive,' Myers said. Myers also tickets drivers using navigation apps. One driver said she was just using her phone's GPS. The law forbids that and Myers issued her a ticket. "That's right. You can't use your navigation while driving. Unless it is a GPS-only device, such as Garmin or Tom Tom, something that is not used as a communication device,' Myers said."
Which is why I always put my car in [P]ark (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is why I always put my car in [P]ark while stopped at traffic lights.
(I live in Cobb County, 2 counties over from Gwinnett and have received a ticket for "texting while driving")
You're not legally driving if your car is in park.
And I beat the ticket by forcing the cop to produce the dashcam footage. You could clearly see my reverse lights light up as the car was shifted from Park to Drive.
In fact, having a car in Park is one of the few exceptions written into the law.
Re:Which is why I always put my car in [P]ark (Score:4, Interesting)
Uhmmm, I don't have P on my gear shift.
Does having P on your gearshift give you an extra break with the law?
If you can't control yourself ... (Score:4, Interesting)
... you shouldn't be in control of a piece of heavy machinery (in this case an automobile).
Before red-light gadget users argue that they are in control of their habits, ask yourself why you're texting at a red light. It only takes a couple of minutes to remove yourself from the flow of traffic, do the texting, and safely reinsert yourself into the flow of traffic.
Re:The map one was prickish. (Score:5, Interesting)
What, so now the cop has to see which app on your tiny screen you were using when he saw you? If it's colored a certain way, it's OK, but if it's colored differently it's not OK? And if I am pulled over texting-while-driving, do I just need a double-click-the-button app to pop up the maps quick so I can tell the cop I was just using a map? I don't disagree with the cop tagging someone for using the map app in that way, because it would be impossible to enforce it any other way.
However, I think a lot of driving laws are stupid "pre-crime" kinds of laws that should be revisited. Speeding, drunk driving, texting, etc., none of those actions actually causes harm. They only increase risks, such as the risk of increased injury in an accident due to higher speeds, or the risk of actually getting into an accident because you're distracted or intoxicated. But the only thing that actually causes harm is an actual accident. If you cause an accident that causes minor injury to another, you should get about five years in jail. If your accident seriously injures another person, you should get 10 years. If your accident takes another person's life, you go to jail for life. If those were the laws, and they were enforced, people might actually think before they try something stupid. That way each person would be responsible for their own actions at all times. If you're on an isolated country road, with no cars visible for miles in any direction, why not drive 120 MPH? If you're in a tight city street, with the potential for pedestrians to pop out in front of you from between parked vehicles, you're risking jail if you don't essentially crawl slowly through the neighborhood. You limit your own behavior because you're responsible for the consequences of your actions.
Of course, that would require people to think and to take responsibility for themselves, two things that most people suck at.
Re:jerk (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, I was at a stop light once and the woman next to me was texting. I crept my car forward a couple of feet, she saw me accelerate, thought the light was green, and she proceeded to accelerate as if the light were green - right into the intersection without even looking up.
People get engrossed in their phones and don't pay attention - even at a red.
Re:jerk (Score:5, Interesting)
It is not the job of police to enforce EVERY law. The concept is called "selective enforcement" and result in things like cops issuing warnings, issuing a verbal scolding, or choosing not to cite at all for some things.
One question is often asked at interviews for police work is, "You catch your mother speeding. Do you give her a ticket?"
The proper answer is, "no". Departments don't want people who would give their own mother a speeding ticket. Contrary to popular belief, departments want thinking human beings, not robocops.
What's funny about this is that if you were asked this for a job at a corporation, the proper answer would be "yes". So, you are supposed to be willing to sell out you're own mother for capitalism but not if she breaks the law.... :-P
Re:jerk (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be willing to bet that 90%+ of these texters while stationary also do it while moving.
Then it'd be just as straightforward to catch them while moving, as it should be. And a lot easier for them to pull over under those circumstances, as well. I've seen people get lit up by a cop while stopped at a red light...who then panicked and pulled forward into the intersection to almost cause an accident.
Re:jerk (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Interesting)
This type of enforcement is making it "safer" for the texters to do it while driving ... harder for this asshat to catch them.
Dammit, that's a good point. I always forget about unintended consequences. Ugh!
Re:jerk (Score:5, Interesting)
I will say this again: Throw out that stupid outdated "United States Constitution" and write a new one. We're way too far into broken hacks on top of hacks in this alpha-quality code to keep running it in production. One of the very large and obvious defects in this code is the complete failure to implement a good process for creating laws.
Every law should have a simple, plain-language English scope statement written at the top as a preamble. Every single bill. That states the goals of the law and the scope. If technically possible, the scope statement should be written originally in Latin and/or Ancient Greek; it is acceptable to write part of it in Latin and/or ancient Greek to solidly clarify certain descriptive portions while referring to the English portions of the law that specify technical concepts too new to translate into Latin and/or Ancient Greek properly.
An English scope statement will leave you with stupid shit like "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" ending in arguments on whether "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" references the National Guard or the actual individual citizens. A large part of that argument is over whether or not the meaning in 1780 was different from the way we'd interpret this sentence today. That is: a sane, rational, and learned person might generally interpret this to reference the People as a body and thus allow them to have their state raise a military force not under jurisdiction of the Federal Government; however, a sane, rational, and learned person *in* *1780* might correctly read this as that every individual person has the legal right to carry any weapon he wishes.
Latin and Ancient Greek are well-understood dead languages. Sanskrit is also well-understood and dead, but less generally accessible: as little as 50 years ago, Latin and Ancient Greek were both standard core education in America; they still are in some public and many private school systems. A firm working grasp of both Latin and Ancient Greek were necessary to enter top-tier colleges several decades ago. Statements written in these languages have exactly one interpretable meaning, or can be made to have exactly one interpretable meaning; that meaning won't change with linguistic drift over time, as with English, and we won't have to speculate over whether or not a sane, rational person in 1780 meant that each individual should have guns or that the people should be able to raise a non-Federal military force because the specific meaning is right there in clear Greek.
As for actual laws, it should be a 100% bullet-proof legal defense that the law is invalid because it doesn't accomplish its scope. The scope says the law attempts to implement certain measures and for a certain purpose; if either the measure implemented in the part of the law you broke isn't in the scope statement *or* the action you took doesn't fit with the reasoning behind the law (for example: operating your cellphone GPS while parked at a light does NOT pose a danger to others through distracted driving increasing the risk of mis-operating a moving vehicle), the law is not applicable and has no standing.
Remember: The law must satisfy the scope as explained in Latin and Ancient Greek. Any conflict in the English scope statement with these is overruled by these. The Latin and Ancient Greek must not conflict with one another. The Latin and Ancient Greek may be partial clarifications and explanations of the English scope statement, explicitly yielding specific parts of the English scope statement to interpretation. They may even cite that a certain part of the English scope statement cannot be sufficiently explained in Latin or Greek, put bounds on the scope, offer guidance, and yield remaining interpretation as does not run afoul of these bounds and guidance. The full text of the law is in English, but is not valid outside the bounds of this scope.
Are we cool yet?
Re:jerk (Score:5, Interesting)
we've been handing out driver's licences like crackerjack toys for decades, so we've got complete and total morons behind the wheels of cars.
Sure, but if you're going to make it harder to get a license you also need to give people other options for getting around. I live in Vancouver. A few weeks ago I was talking to a woman from Omaha who had moved to suburban Vancouver and she was amazed that she didn't really need a car. She could do everything she needed to do on public transit, with the occasional taxi thrown into the mix. In Omaha that wasn't possible - You simply needed to have a car (or so she said). So if you're going to make it harder to get a license (and by extension take some people off the road) you need to concurrently fund public transit.
Re:jerk (Score:0, Interesting)
In the UK you now have to do a hazard perception test where you basically watch a video on a pc and click when a hazard appears - different test for motorcycle and car - whilst not perfect it is better than your USAian tests when combines with the theory test and the practical test (ant for motorcycles compulsory off road training before they can get on the road)
Re:jerk (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously? As an honest reply to this (okay, I admit, I just got trolled) traffic cops are there for several reasons.
A) Revenue collection. I'd be dishonest if I didn't admit that up front.
B) Keeping traffic close to speed limits. Yeah, the definition of "close" varies from cop to cop, and that makes it hard for a driver to drive with a lot of confidence of just how fast you can drive without getting a ticket. I hate that. I'd like an up front admission of "The speed limit is 70, but we won't ticket anyone doing under 82 unless they are otherwise driving unsafely". We'll never see that. Besides, "driving unsafely" is hard to define, but it's easy to give the guy changing lanes unsafely a speeding ticket, and it punishes unsafe behavior about as well (which means, not very) as a reckless driving ticket does, but it takes less to defend in court.
C) Being nearby when there is an accident. A nearby traffic cop is a first-responder for a traffic accident, and that job saves lives. They also do care-and-comfort during and after accidents. You look in any highway patrolman's trunk, and you'll find a teddy bear to be given to the little kid that survived a traffic accident (whose parent maybe didn't).
Most good traffic cops (and almost all Highway Patrol) regard speeding tickets as a way to get traffic to slow down so when there is an accident, there will be fewer deaths. In their job, it's always "when" and not "if" there is an accident. Energy is mass times velocity squared, remember.
Doing A lets the state pay for more cops to be around for C. Can't really tell you if I like that trade-off or not.
And yeah, none of this stops me from being pissed when I get a speeding ticket. Don't they have something better to do than bug me when I'm not hurting anyone?!?! ;)
Re:jerk (Score:5, Interesting)
Georgia law(O.C.G.A., or Original Code of Georgia Annotated; O.C.G.A. 40-8-91 (a)) requires that law enforcement vehicles used to enforce traffic laws be marked with, at the very least, four inch block lettering on the driver and passenger side, indicating the agency that operates the vehicle, and lettering on the deck lid(trunk) indicating the same. All other law enforcement vehicles, namely "unmarked" vehicles, are prohibited from initiating traffic stops, save for true exigent circumstances. Sadly, there are a few states that allow or tolerate unmarked law enforcement vehicle enforcement traffic law.
Virginia was the worst, from what I witnessed on my trips between Georgia and Washington, D.C. There were many areas where multiple "unmarked"(no agency markings, or any markings, and no lights mounted outside of the vehicle) vehicles were lined up, waiting to initiate stops for what seemed like every 10 miles, or so. That is inviting major risk where it can be easily avoided.
I do have a serious problem with some of the actions of the officer discussed in the aforementioned article. O.C.G.A. 40-6-241.2 doesn't broadly cover "operating a motor vehicle", unlike other O.C.G.A. Title 40 laws do. If a driver is at a point of rest, even with a motor vehicle that has its motor in active operation and the vehicle's transmission is set in a gear that allows for forward or rearward locomotion, there is no legitimate reason to cite said driver for operating a mobile phone, or other device not exempted by 40-6-241.2("...citizens band radios, citizens band radio hybrids, commercial two-way radio communication devices, subscription based emergency communications, in-vehicle security, navigation devices, and remote diagnostics systems, or amateur or ham radio devices."). Once the vehicle is in motion, the driver would be in violation of O.C.G.A. 40-6-241.2(unless the driver is one of the "special people" exempted by that law.
I am an ex-law enforcement officer in the State of Georgia. I arrested more than a few people for DUI without the vehicle being in motion during any of the time I, or any other law enforcement officer observed the violation(most traffic violations have to be observed by a law enforcement officer in order to stop and/or cite for the offense). So, I understand the distinction between driving, in the practical sense, and the legal view of being in control of a motor vehicle. This law isn't as broad as the officer believes it to be.