Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
because if it's not explicitly stated, people will continue to do it because they think they are safe drivers.
same reason they made a law specifically against DUI.
they are doing something that could potentially save lives. not to generate revenue through fines (although that may be an indirect result), not to piss us off with more restrictions.
I understand that point of view but I think that, at best, it's arguable how many people will stop doing it because it was stated explicitly in a law. So many things can *potentially* save lives but if that's the only excuse, then it's a poor excuse. Even though it's an extreme example, banning sugar can potentially save lives too...
It's much easier to prove that a person was drunk at the time then proving they were texting (unless an officer sees it). To prove that a person was texting would require the department to obtain a subpoena for that person's carrier... and who's to say that they didn't set it their phone to text in 30 minutes and they happened to be driving when it was sent off?
I would like to believe that it's about potentially saving lives... but I can't. If they were concerned about potentially saving lives then they would raise the driving age to 18 or make driving tests a real test, they would propose mandatory testing on the elderly, they would ban eating in cars, they would enact laws to curtail rubbernecking on highways, and i'm sure the list can grow...
edit: even though my statement makes it seem like the gov doesn't care about saving lives, i'm sure they do want to save lives. I just think it's a poor way of going about it.
