Do We Need This Specific Law?

Legislators in New Jersey are set to put the finishing touches on a law that would make it illegal to text message while driving. I would assume that inattentive driving is already against the law and that if a police officer saw a person texting while driving that he could write a ticket. But, given the stupidity of the general public and the nanny state of government, NJ is about to get a law that will soon be picked up by other states looking for a way to increase revenue under the guise of public safety.

Perhaps the NJ law comes because of allegations that the Governor’s driver was using a Blackberry when he wrecked the car (the fact he was doing over 90 mph contributed nothing to the accident?). I don’t know but I will agree that people who use text messaging while driving are nuisances and are dangerous. It does not mean there should be a separate law for them. Is there a separate law that says a person may not read while driving, or have sex while driving, or any other thing that causes people to lose focus?

I remember driving from Anniston to Birmingham to catch a plane. As I was driving along I noticed that up ahead all traffic was moving to the left lane and it looked like there was some problem with the right. That lane was really moving slowly as people tried to move over. I made my way past the obstacle which turned out to be a jackass driving 30 mph with his hands over the steering wheel typing on a Blackberry. I really don’t think a special law was needed to hammer this guy for what he was doing. The thing that is needed is for people to get caught. All the laws in the world would have made no difference that day (unless he had an accident and they could prove what he was doing) because there was no cop to stop him.

We do not need laws for stuff like this. Common Sense indicates that one should not text message while driving so people should not be doing that.

Unfortunately, common sense is not that common.

Big Dog

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

5 Responses to “Do We Need This Specific Law?”

  1. Bosun says:

    Washington States is doing the same thing, along with the new booster seat law:

    Safety seat law at a glance

    Infants: Must remain in a rear-facing car seat until they are 1 year old or weigh 20 pounds. (Safety experts advise parents to keep older babies in rear-facing seats until they reach the seat’s weight limit, as this is the safest way for them to ride.)

    Preschool: Children ages 1 to 4 or weighing 20 to 40 pounds must ride in a forward-facing child-safety seat with a harness. (Experts recommend keeping children in a seat with a harness as long as they fall within the height/weight limits for the seat.)

    School-age: Children 4 to 7 years old (until their 8th birthday) must be in a booster seat in vehicles equipped with a lap and shoulder belt unless they are taller than 4 feet, 9 inches. Children old enough or tall enough for a seat belt must wear it correctly — it shouldn’t be tucked under a child’s arm or hit him on the neck. If the belt doesn’t fit well, kids should continue to sit in a booster.

    Preteens: Children under 13 years old must sit in the back seat where practical.

    Adults: The driver is responsible for properly securing all children under the age of 16.

    Source: Safety Restraint Coalition (; RCW 46.61.687

  2. Jo's Cafe says:

    Weekend Specials 5/12-5/13…

    Weekend Specials for 5/12-5/13 … Enjoy!

  3. Redoubt says:

    I have no use for laws that fill in for common sense but… if we lived in a world where even a nominal majority of people possessed and utilized that commodity, there’s be no market for the bureaucrat who writes them to begin with. In fact, the worst political types would never find their way into office because we’d all be smart enough to vote for someone else.

    I do not feel that anti-texting laws would fall into the same category as those regulating… say, seatbelt use because we only hurt ourselves if we fail to buckle up. In fact, it is the insurance lobby that paid for seat belt laws… as well as mandatory insurance laws.

    Unfortunately, the idiots that text while driving are just as apt to take out my wife and kids as they are to smack into a light pole.

    I hate bureaucracy… but so long as morons threaten the lives of my family on the highway, it’s either those laws or… legalizing terminal ‘retirements’ so when we see an idiot about to happen, we can act to protect our families from them.

  4. Big Dog says:

    All points well made but if we already have laws dealing with inattentive or reckless driving, shouldn’t we use them?

  5. tj says:

    becaus its a law dosent mean the idiots will stop texting
    they are still as likely to kill someone …