Texting While Driving Now Legal In Colorado -- In Some Cases (kdvr.com) 95
Fines for texting and driving in Colorado have jumped to $300, but according to the fine print, the increased fine only applies to drivers who are texting in "a careless or imprudent manner." Therefore, drivers who are texting in any other manner are still within the law. FOX31 Denver reports: Before the new legislation, any texting while driving was illegal. Tim Lane of the Colorado District Attorney's Office confirmed the softening crackdown on all texting and driving. "The simple fact is that if you are texting while driving but not being careless, it's no longer illegal," he said. What constitutes "careless" driving is up to the discretion of each individual law enforcement officer. Cellphone use of any kind is still banned for drivers younger than 18. Teens caught with a phone in hand while driving will be slapped with a $50 fine.
insurance bump (Score:2)
Re: insurance bump (Score:1)
It is 100% illegal here even if it is turned off (Score:2, Informative)
I live in Ontario, Canada, and we are not allowed to even hold our unpowered cellphones [ontario.ca] while stopped at a red light, let alone text on it.
Re:It is 100% illegal here even if it is turned of (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather live in a socialist nanny state then get T-Boned by some damn fool texting his way straight through a red light.
Shucks, that nanny state might come in handy at the hospital for patching you back up after an accident like that.
In Trump country with the GOP in charge, first responders will be checking your credit rating before even bothering with expensive equipment like the jaws of life. Hell, you might not even be worth the foam to put the fire out - let it burn out on its own, haul off your dead ass together with your ruined car, send the towing bill with the collection agency after your next of kin.
Re: (Score:3)
Why are you holding a powered down cell phone at a red light?
Re: It is 100% illegal here even if it is turned o (Score:2)
To hit the power putton and turn it on?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah! But then you would be holding a powered on cell phone which is illegal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no possible legitimate reason for a driver to be holding a cell phone at a red light. The drivers behind you do not want to have to hit their horn to make you move when the light changes, nor do we want to bet our lives on the idea that you'll definitely release the phone when you start driving. You're impeding traffic at best, attempting murder at worst. Powering down the phone is simply a trick people do when they see the cop coming to try to get out of a ticket, so of course it's illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no possible legitimate reason for a driver to be holding a cell phone at a red light.
Maps.
The drivers behind you do not want to have to hit their horn to make you move when the light changes
It's rude to make them wait an extra couple seconds. Minor rudeness isn't a police matter. If you want people to routinely have to face police enforcement for minor rudeness, that makes you a bad person. You make life worse for the people around you.
Good people don't want the police to threaten and detain and fine innocent people for following map directions on their phone.
Mind your own business and stop being a jerk.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is forcing them to break the law [wordpress.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
The only reasons I ever touch my cell phone at red lights are:
1. maps
2. music. (i have car playlists but sometimes my phone fails to start playing them)
For the second case, I try to use voice commands as much as possible.
My car supports hands free for texting and calling but not to manage some of the other functions of my phone.
Re: (Score:3)
If someone texts me, I'll wait until I am stopped at a red light and then quickly glance at the message.
There is nothing wrong with that.
Your frothing-at-the-mouth hyperbole is ridiculous. "Attempted murder"? Here's a dollar, go buy a sense of perspective.
Re: (Score:3)
I was being half-snarky... the GOP health bill hasn't passed yet.
But for real, the Canada thing simply means that a cop is empowered to DO something if he sees a driver with a cell phone in his/her hand while driving, and the driver can't weasel out of it simply by claiming it was turned off, requiring the cop to prove he could tell whether it was on or off from the vantage point of his cruiser.
It's just a legal attempt, democratically passed, to get around the fact that cell phones impair drivers as much a
Re: (Score:2)
Holding a powered down cellphone in a car. I can think of a few reasons to do that:
- An empirical study into the effects of driving one handed.
- Depression induced by an addiction to you phone that is off while you're driving.
- You left your fidget spinner at home.
- You have a degenerative brain disease.
- You're trying to cover up the fact that you were texting while driving and you're a fucking idiot.
Unless you're doing number 1 on a closed circuit in a controlled fashion you have no business playing with
Re: It is 100% illegal here even if it is turned o (Score:2)
Huh... I kinda agree. Distracted driving is statistically on par with drunk driving.
What I find curious is how they set the law up to, specifically, allow the officer to use their own discretion. I can only imagine that the legislators are smoking weed.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want real socialism, you'll have to go to the EU.
No country in the EU is anywhere close to socialism. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. Some countries in the EU are by some measures more capitalist than America. For instance, many northern EU countries have privatized their post offices. Sweden has voucherized primary education. "Social democracy" is not socialism. It is capitalism with benefits. If you want real socialism, you'll have to go to Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism is the peoples ownership of the means of production. It can be through government, it can be other ways such as worker owned co-ops.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Buzzed on legal weed and texting (Score:4, Informative)
Nope - can't legally consume ganja or be stoned while driving.
Q: Is there a legal limit for marijuana impairment while operating a vehicle?
A: Colorado law specifies that drivers with five nanograms of active tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in their whole blood can be prosecuted for driving under the influence (DUI). However, no matter the level of THC, law enforcement officers base arrests on observed impairment.
https://www.codot.gov/safety/a... [codot.gov]
I'm not sure if "whole blood" is a term commonly used, but that's apparently 5 ng/ml which some argue is too low of a limit. I have no idea how "stoned" 5 ng/ml of blood feels like just as it's difficult for a drinker to know their BAC beyond an educated guess.
It's still wisest to err on the side of caution because cops are looking for stoned drivers.
And take note that this is not a test for metabolites that most employment drug screens test for that can stay in your system for weeks. They're measuring actual THC.
I think this law is too vague, but I think it was meant to allow people who may be stopped (at a red light, rail crossing, stuck with their foot on the brake or pulled over safely on the shoulder) to send a text or adjust their GPS or whatever.
BS... (Score:4, Interesting)
In my opinion any law that is that subjective should be considered unconstitutional since it can easily abused by individual law enforcement to harass those they do not like.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be referring to the principle of a law being arbitrary and capricious [thefreedictionary.com], but laws are very rarely struck down on these grounds.
More likely, someone with a good lawyer appeals a conviction based on what satisfies "careless or imprudent", cites that there's nothing to be cited, and therefore no basis for establishing the existence of "careless or imprudent", the judge shrugs and throws out the conviction. Once this catches on, cases will be dismissed outright unless a cop presents evidence that's
Sounds like an officious cop's bill of rights. (Score:4, Insightful)
Suck up to the cop and maybe you'll get a pass; piss him off and you've just coincidentally committed a serious but ostensibly unrelated crime.
And unless they collect information on people "carefully and prudently" texting and driving (whatever the hell that is) we'll never know whether the law is the same for everyone... but I have a sneaking suspicion that it won't be.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
found the race baiting liberal.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually not a big Trump fan. I find some of the things hes doing good and some bad, like anybody in office. They're not perfect but damn sure better than her majesty.
Naw, this just lets them do BAU (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. You get one of these tickets now, you go to court and the cop has to make his case that you were "careless and imprudent" to a judge. Before, all he had to tell the judge was that you had a phone in your hand.
So who got caught? (Score:4, Funny)
So which politician got caught?
Lawyers injecting confusion and doubt (Score:3, Insightful)
Since it is so easy for government, lawyers and judges to interpret what someone was thinking and capable of.
I think this is just trial lawyers looking to make money when people die because of others carelessness and stupidity, but as long as the lawyers make big bucks. After all government is just what you can buy.
Re: (Score:2)
So instead of having a simple concise law that can be enforced! NO texting while driving. We now have a useless law that brings in carelessness and intent.
Person in this county got a lawyer to fight him riding a motorcycle without a helmet.
Lawyer got the court to admit it couldn't define what a proper helmet was and the law struck down till it came to a discession.
So one summer we all drove without helmets but carried them when we crossed county lines.
The court came back that fall that as long as it had a DOT sticker/label it was proper.
Would not work (Score:4, Insightful)
The point of having a law that bans texting while driving is to prevent accidents, not to punish people who cause accidents.
Therefore, having a law worded to ban only "careless or imprudent manner" is effectively pointless for prevention.
No idiot who is going to cause an accident will believe beforehand that they are going to do so. That is why accidents are called "accidents".
Re: (Score:2)
California has a law against texting or using your phone while driving. People generally do it anyway. No accidents are prevented.
Why shouldn't we be able to defend ourselves in court by saying we were texting while safely stopped at a red light?
Re: (Score:2)
But jerks still want you to be fined for it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But you are, because you're taking your attention away from the traffic.
I read a small anecdotal story somewhere, I think it must have been on bash.org or Not Always Right or something like that, about a guy who, when he saw someone at a red light looking at their phone in the lane next to him, would start suddenly creeping forward. As he said, "I haven't caused an accident yet, but I'm getting there".
Re: (Score:2)
Are you the jerk who was besides me texting at a red light and when the left turn green came on and he saw the car besides him moving he drove into the middle of the intersection and disrupted all the left turning drivers. You're right that the speeds are usually low enough that actual accidents are usually prevented but it is still an arsehole move.
Bad enough when the traffic doesn't start moving until the light is yellow due to some entitled bastard having to finish texting.
Re: (Score:2)
All that complaining and nothing about safety. Bad manners aren't a police matter.
Re: (Score:2)
No, accidents are called accidents because there's no criminality [citylab.com].
Re: (Score:2)
No, collisions are defined as accidents when there is no criminality by the NYPD. That doesn't change the definition of the word "accident" which is any incident that is caused unintentionally or unexpectedly.
Hands-free and eyes-free? (Score:2)
Is hands-free and eyes-free texting okay? Sometimes, in the car, I say, "Siri, read my text messages," and she does. And then I might say, "Siri, text Jane Doe, I'm on my way home now, be there in ten minutes, send," and she sends it.
My hands are on the wheel and my eyes are on the road 100% of the time. Is that considered "texting and driving"?
And if that's a problem, how is it different from talking on the phone via car Bluetooth? Or talking to a passenger? Or listening to the radio?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's a lot different from listening to the radio, since music typically is just a background activity, and even if you are listening to news / talk, you don't have to respond. It's really a question of how much concentration is required to talk vs. send a text, and whether that concentration distracts you from your primary responsibility, which is to drive the car safely.
In my opinion, even this type of texting takes more concentration than talking, since people tend to start talking without really
Re: (Score:2)
Great comments, thanks.
For what it's worth, Siri reads back the text before asking if you'd like to send it. If you don't respond, the text is abandoned. Great feature, that way you can ignore Siri entirely if you spot a road hazard, or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's a lot different from listening to the radio, since music typically is just a background activity, and even if you are listening to news / talk, you don't have to respond. It's really a question of how much concentration is required to talk vs. send a text, and whether that concentration distracts you from your primary responsibility, which is to drive the car safely.
Uh, music is more than just a background activity to a lot of drivers. And a lot of people yell back at talk radio. Of course, you are too attentive to the road to notice what other drivers are doing, right?
Got a new car with a touch screen factory radio. It takes more attention to select music or a podcast through it than to do the same from my phone, but the radio is safer to use because, well, just because, right?
How about some numbers [nhtsa.gov]? In 2015, distracted driving was a factor in 10% of accidents an
Define "texting while driving" (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet California treats both cases equally. Oddly enough, I have a magazine in my car that I read while stopped at a red light. This is fine and dandy. So, um, What's This Feature?
Re: (Score:2)
Have you EVER received a text that was of such urgency that it could in no way have waited until you got to your destination?
Re: (Score:2)
I check texts when at a red light.
You're an idiot who should be paying attention to what is going on around you and not holding up traffic or being in a situation where you're unable to respond to a change in road conditions (e.g. an emergency vehicle coming through, someone turning a corner too tight, or the light changing).
Here's an idea: You're not that important. You're especially not important if someone decides that you're not even worth a phone call. Check your texts when you get there, or have someone call you on a hands free.
Re: (Score:2)
I check texts when at a red light. I do not check them barrelling 80 MPH down the freeway.
So you're the arsehole causing the traffic jam by sitting at a green light with your head buried in your phone.
There's a reason they're treated equally, you're a danger in either situation.
Ambiguous laws stink (Score:1)
- Streamlined penal code
Article 1: ”it is illegal to do things that a police officer finds reprehensible”.
The end.
Having ambiguous laws that effectively leave most of the decision to the discretion of law enforcement is a great way to confuse everybody, signal that those laws are not that important, make police jobs more difficult, increase the risk of corruption, and foster resentment and suspicion of double standards.
Hey, lawmakers, how
Nice job Colorado (Score:2)
It's nice to see a government where citizens are sometimes respected and treated like adults. Texting while stopped at a stop light is safe.
Levying fines against stop light texting is unjust and treats citizens like cattle to be randomly milked for money.
What kind of jerk wants their fellow citizens fined for no legitimate purpose?
Re: Nice job Colorado (Score:2)
Signs of corruption... (Score:2)
This can only mean a few things: either judges or politicians are willing to bend the laws to keep texting and driving without any care for public safety. There are no other reasons to make ambiguous laws that goes against what studies have already proven.
Stupid law (Score:2)
How many people who text (or yak on the phone) while driving ever think "Holy crap, this is dangerous! I am a normal human being, and am not well suited to be doing this. It is clearly unsafe."
I would bet almost none. They all think that they are somehow superior to everyone else and can do it safely.
And then when they kill a dozen people, they are all "I'm so sorry."
Sorry officer... (Score:2)
Me: I was merely texting while driving in a way that is pathologically reckless and needlessly put people peoples lives at risk. Can I go now?
Officer: You're in Colorado, of course you can.
hmm... (Score:2)
What's with their fines? (Score:1)
How many people do you know (Score:2)
...who have never texted while at a red light, or called someone while driving, or otherwise used a cell phone in an illegal way?
Before you raise your hand and say, "I don't," watch out. Really? Never?
OK, my 75-year-old father never has. Maybe you're like him. But I doubt it.
Maybe the law is just catching up with reality.