backtop


Print 49 comment(s) - last by YashBudini.. on Nov 18 at 4:59 PM


  (Source: orangecountyinjuryattorneyblog.com)
City says the law isn't about money

Many cities and states around the country have laws on the books that prohibit texting while driving or making a phone calls while driving without using a hands-free device. Some of the fines for things like texting while driving are hard to enforce since it can often be hard to see the driver using a phone to text.
 
In the city of Chicago, the fines for driving and talking on a phone without a hands-free device can cost the driver up to $500. Police in Chicago are issues hoards of tickets to drivers who disobey this law. The number of tickets issued is up 73% for driving and using a phone since 2006 when the hands free law first went into effect.
 
The number of tickets issued for using a mobile phone and driving in Chicago totaled 23,292 in a single year. The way the tickets for the offence are handled means that the city doesn't have to share the money with the county or state so all the revenue from fines goes into city coffers. In 2010, the money from the cell phone tickets added $2.2 million to the city's bottom line.
 
The Chicago Tribune quotes one driver ticketed for using a mobile phone named Alvin Wooten as saying, "It's pay short money now or pay long money later." He was referring to paying the smaller fine or risking the loss of an appeal in court and having to pay more. Wooten was stopped twice in one month for talking on the phone without an accompanying hands-free device. 
 
Wooten says he was using the phone on speaker but the officer, the same in both cases, ticketed him anyway. The county can't be happy that Chicago is handling the cases as ordinance violations and gets to keep all the fine proceeds. The result is a loss of about $858,000 in revenue for the county in 2010.
 
The city says, however, that the hands-free law is not about revenue.
 
While Chicago has gone on a ticket-giving rampage, similar measures in North Carolina haven’t proven to be as fruitful.

Source: Chicago Tribune



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

And you can bet that...
By Beenthere on 11/11/11, Rating: 0
RE: And you can bet that...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/11/2011 1:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not gonna lie, I talk in my car quite a bit. But then again, I have integrated Bluetooth so I don't even have to take my phone out of my pocket.


RE: And you can bet that...
By cubby1223 on 11/11/11, Rating: -1
RE: And you can bet that...
By Beenthere on 11/11/2011 3:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
...and so because you haven't had an accident YET, you foolishly some how believe that some how changes reality and the vehicular statistics that show increased accidents and deaths as a result of braindead morons texting and living and dying on their cellphones?

Really? You might want to look up the definition of DENIAL - before you or someone you know is injured or killed by a braindead moron.

Elimination of braindead morons is a public service. They are a blight on society. They willfully chose to be braindead and endanger other peoples lives with their irresponsible and often illegal behavior.


RE: And you can bet that...
By Dr of crap on 11/11/11, Rating: -1
RE: And you can bet that...
By invidious on 11/11/11, Rating: -1
RE: And you can bet that...
By bah12 on 11/11/2011 5:37:14 PM , Rating: 2
Wow never have I read a post so utterly ignorant.
quote:
Its not the government's job
It ABSOLUTELY is the governments job to regulate PUBLIC safety. Even a die hard libertarian would agree there. You are on publicly funded roads with other members of the public, YOU HAVE NO DAMN RIGHTS its a privilege.

quote:
Bad drivers drive bad, it has nothing to do with texting or talking. You cant measure or enforce attentiveness and that is the only statistic that matters.
Bullsh*t. Skill of a driver has absolutely nothing to do with anything if they are not looking at the road (you cannot react to which you don't see skill or no skill). Unless you are telepathic, and don't need your eyes for input, then looking down at a phone for any length of time, IS IN FACT extremely dangerous.

Attentiveness CAN be measured. Can you read a text without dropping focus on the road ahead? If you can then congrats your are the first of an advanced human step in evolution. However for the rest of us, science shows that you cannot do this. Therefore anyone who looks away from the road is not, by the very definition, being attentive. Sum those milliseconds up and it is 100% measurable.

You are attempting to defend the mentality that with enough "skill" you can predict what is going to happen when you look down for that 1/2 of a second, or that you will somehow "see both". Neither scenario is possible in our physical world, therefore if you have EVER looked away from the road (radios, noisy kids, anything) then you have introduced risk into the equation that is 100% outside of any skill you may have granted yourself.


RE: And you can bet that...
By stilltrying on 11/11/2011 6:07:45 PM , Rating: 1
Youre wrong and the courts declared so. Driving is a right and not a priviledge, read up before you shout stuff you know nothing about.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivingisrightnotpr...

plenty of court cases to back this position up. we shouldnt even be paying for plates, licenses, etc... the right to travel is an inalienable human right, declared by several court cases.

"better to be silent and thought a fool then to speak and remove all doubt"


RE: And you can bet that...
By stilltrying on 11/11/2011 6:10:20 PM , Rating: 2
Im not argueing the cell phone case but driving is defintiely a right on and not a priveldge


RE: And you can bet that...
By AssBall on 11/12/2011 2:07:30 AM , Rating: 2
Driving is NOT a right.


RE: And you can bet that...
By Ryrod on 11/12/2011 3:15:10 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Driving is a right and not a priviledge, [sic] read up before you shout stuff you know nothing about.


Not to nitpick, but driving is not a fundamental right. So, this is an incorrect statement.

quote:
we shouldnt even be paying for plates, licenses, etc...


We actually do and should have to pay for plates, licenses, et cetera because they are required by state law for us to be able to operate motor vehicles.

quote:
the right to travel is an inalienable human right, declared by several court cases.


This is correct. The US Supreme Court, which sets the baseline for rights, has said that travel is an inalienable human right. However, you seem to equate driving with travel and that is not the case. In no case has the US Supreme Court ever said that individuals have a right to drive. If you want to walk down a public street, that is your right, but if you want to drive a car, you better have the permission of the state you live in. After you get permission from your state, Art. 4 Sec. 1 kicks in and allows you to drive in all other states.


RE: And you can bet that...
By YashBudini on 11/18/2011 4:53:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Youre wrong and the courts declared so.

The same courts that said corporations are people too?

Sounds like logic from the 9th Circuit.


RE: And you can bet that...
By tayb on 11/11/2011 7:59:36 PM , Rating: 2
You really need to just calm down.

If talking on your cell phone while driving needs government regulation and involvement so does having passengers, eating, setting the air conditioner, turning on your wiper blades, listening to music, tuning the radio, manual transmission vehicles, etc. For crying out loud I've seen a guy practicing a TRUMPET while driving. A freaking trumpet!! Texting while driving is definitely dangerous as it takes your vision off the road but so do a ton of other things in the car that are PERFECTLY LEGAL.

The truth of the matter is that stupid people are stupid and they will get behind the wheel and do stupid stuff REGARDLESS of what is distracting them. You cannot and should not regulate against stupidity. More often than not you unnecessarily restrict the masses because of the whims of a few idiots.

And here is something you REALLy aren't going to like...

Banning texting while driving will NOT stop people from texting while driving. What it will do is cause people to try and HIDE their texting while driving. So instead of holding their phone up at the wheel and texting where they can at least see the road in their peripheral they'll do it down by their crotch so they don't get caught. Their eyes will be completely off of the road instead of partially off of the road.


RE: And you can bet that...
By Ryrod on 11/12/2011 3:42:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If talking on your cell phone while driving needs government regulation and involvement so does having passengers, eating, setting the air conditioner, turning on your wiper blades, listening to music, tuning the radio, manual transmission vehicles, etc.

Many states have laws regarding first time drivers (mostly 18 and under) and passengers. Some states say that you can't have a passenger with you in the car for your first year of driving unless they are family. This is meant to eliminate the distraction that comes with friends being in the car with you. As you get older and more comfortable with driving, your risk of an accident decreases, and these laws aren't as necessary.

In some instances, eating can be considered reckless driving and is cited if the eating severely impairs your driving ability to the point that you present a danger to those around you. This also applies to 'tired driving', which I have been pulled over for in the past, but never cited for.

Setting the air conditioner, wiper blades, listening to music, and tuning the radio should never distract you to the point that you must take your eyes off the road for a substantial period of time. Many people can tune their radio, turn on their wiper blades, and adjust their air conditioning without even taking their eyes off the road. Compare that to texting where most people can't remember where the buttons are well enough to text without looking at the phone.

As for listening to music, I've seen instances where the music is so loud that other drivers can hear the music 200+ ft away from the vehicle. In those instances, I've seen officers honk their horn and wait for a response, if the driver does nothing, officers will pull them over and warn them to turn the music down.

quote:
For crying out loud I've seen a guy practicing a TRUMPET while driving. A freaking trumpet!! Texting while driving is definitely dangerous as it takes your vision off the road but so do a ton of other things in the car that are PERFECTLY LEGAL.

At that point, the guy should have been cited for reckless driving, but I do agree with you. There are many things done in the car that are not outlawed that can be of similar dangerousness, but we still attempt to regulate those through other generalized laws, like reckless driving.

quote:
The truth of the matter is that stupid people are stupid and they will get behind the wheel and do stupid stuff REGARDLESS of what is distracting them. You cannot and should not regulate against stupidity. More often than not you unnecessarily restrict the masses because of the whims of a few idiots.

I agree with your statement, but we can and do regulate the stupidity. When people present a clear danger to others, through their actions, we authorize police to act. That is why we have endangerment laws and criminal negligence laws. These are meant to prevent people from acting stupidly and causing serious harm to others, especially when the victims have no ability to prevent the harm themselves.
quote:
Banning texting while driving will NOT stop people from texting while driving. What it will do is cause people to try and HIDE their texting while driving.

People will try to hide their texting regardless of whether we have the law or not. But trying to hide it makes it just as easy for officers to see. No one has an automotive gauge of any kind near their crotch. If an officer sees a person looking at their crotch, it gives them reasonable suspicion to either investigate further or to temporarily detain that person to further the investigation. Eventually, when they get enough citations, people are going to stop texting or talking on the phone because the financial incentive is going to be substantial, just like how it worked with seatbelt laws. Furthermore, even if the officer does not issue a citation, the embarrassment and the inconvenience of being pulled over will help to deter future violations.


RE: And you can bet that...
By Black1969ta on 11/11/2011 5:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
Beenthere, your arguement defeats itself, people like the OP that you are replying to and me don't have accident while talking on the phone because we have the brain capacity to multitask; whereas, the braindead morons you love to mention can barely drive with out the distraction of other cars on the road much less a cell phone, radio, etc...


RE: And you can bet that...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/12/2011 3:04:13 AM , Rating: 1
Oh here we go. Another perfect citizen who's never done ANYTHING wrong ever, playing the role of his brothers keeper over the Internet. Wanna see a fun statistic? 100% of the sanctimonious asshole loudmouths over the Internet getting in someones face about something are hypocritical douche-bags. There's a statistic for ya. If you tell me you've never done anything that had the potential to harm someone else, you're a goddamn liar.

And before you get all high horse on me too, I don't even have a texting plan. Why pay for texting anyway when I can run Skype, AIM, MSN etc etc on my phone for free? I feel texting will soon be obsolete because there are far better ways to send messages back and forth, that don't cost extra.

But the world isn't going to end because someone used their phone while driving. Just calm down there Judge Dread. When you equate this stuff with capital punishment and people being "blights" on society, you sound like a raving loon.


RE: And you can bet that...
By harshbarj on 11/14/2011 2:02:24 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but drivers that are on a cellphone are a hazard to everyone. Every driver that has almost hit me in the last 5 years has been on a cellphone, ALL of them.

When driving a vehicle it is the drivers sole responsibility to drive that vehicle with care and do so undistracted.


RE: And you can bet that...
By semiconshawn on 11/11/2011 3:52:55 PM , Rating: 1
Wow you are so scary. Pfft if you cant hold your phone up to your face and drive you are and idiot. Dont text surf whatever but talk cmon. Seriously though stop acting tuff in the Anand forums haha. If you pulled that threatening tuff guy crap here a law abiding gun carrying citizen would just kill you.


RE: And you can bet that...
By Shig on 11/11/2011 4:03:43 PM , Rating: 2
I live in Cook County IL, I assure you, it is all about the money.

Our state is broke and the only solutions our government comes up with is basically higher taxes on poor / stupid people. Hell, they want to put tolls on Lake Shore Drive...


RE: And you can bet that...
By seamonkey79 on 11/11/2011 4:57:10 PM , Rating: 2
It's so about the money that this, combined with the fact that even if you pay the parking meter they'll ticket you for some other offense... like my car was 1.5 inches away from the curb = spot violation at the discretion of the ticketing traffic officer... I kind of want to thank them, though, because with all of the junk that Illinois and Chicago have been putting in like this, I moved to the Tampa area and got a job that pays twice what I was getting in the Chicago area, for less work, and I have beaches...

Thank you Chicago!


RE: And you can bet that...
By jimbojimbo on 11/11/2011 5:06:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'd much rather they ticket the idiots on their cell phones than raise my taxes! Even though the numbers say they've given more tickets I still see tons of people driving holding their phones up. These people almost always never use their turn signals either since they're so "busy" and often stop in the middle of the road since their concentration is on the conversation instead of where they're going. I say double the fine!!


RE: And you can bet that...
By seamonkey79 on 11/12/2011 4:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
Most people don't use their turn signals, phone or not. Turn signals are extra special things that only other people should us so that I know what they're doing. I'm far too important to let anyone else know what I'm about to do.


RE: And you can bet that...
By semiconshawn on 11/11/2011 4:09:13 PM , Rating: 2
DT forums sorry


RE: And you can bet that...
By cruisin3style on 11/11/2011 4:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
I drive a stick and I talk on speakerphone all the time...if someone has a hard time talking and driving, it is because they were terrible at driving to begin with


RE: And you can bet that...
By Beenthere on 11/11/2011 4:26:54 PM , Rating: 1
I know it's a pity to waste a good bullet on these degenerates, but it's in the best interest of society. If they are dumb enough to text or talk on their cellphone while driving then they are dumb enough to kill someone.

These people should not have a driver's license or be operating a motorized vehicle if they refuse to abide by law and not text or talk while driving. Their mental illness is a serious affliction of epidemic proportion in the U.S. and of course they see nothing wrong with it...


RE: And you can bet that...
By Black1969ta on 11/11/2011 4:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
Amen!


RE: And you can bet that...
By tayb on 11/11/2011 7:50:43 PM , Rating: 2
There are morons driving cars recklessly every single day without a single distraction in their world. They are just crappy drivers.

What I would really like to see is if these tickets had ANY measurable effect on traffic accidents. I would bet a whole lot of money that there is NO correlation.


RE: And you can bet that...
By YashBudini on 11/18/2011 4:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I would really like to see is if these tickets had ANY measurable effect on traffic accidents.

We really need an arse tax instead of taxing everyone to death. This is as close as we're going to get.

Example:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/li_man_wearing_...


Kay?
By Cybercat on 11/11/2011 1:07:28 PM , Rating: 2
Pulled over for using a cell phone on speaker? They run a fine line with that hands-free rule.




RE: Kay?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/11/2011 1:09:17 PM , Rating: 2
He probably still had it in his hand, holding it out in front of him. I've seen plenty of people do this while driving.


RE: Kay?
By MozeeToby on 11/11/2011 2:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's silly anyway, most of the research that has gone into it indicates that there's little to no difference if you're hands free or not. Talking over a phone is inherently distracting, driving with one hand is not.

And before people say "what about talking to a passenger" the fact is that the research shows there's something different about talking over a phone. There are a few theories, the most common being that a passenger will shut up and even point out things the driver may have missed. Another theory is that when on the phone your brain is subconsciously trying to create a model of the person you're talking to, imagining what their body language and facial expression are like.


RE: Kay?
By CU on 11/11/2011 4:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
My theory is the test was some how flawed. In my experience if the results don't make sense, then more than likely the test is flawed. Did they try monitoring people's brain activity to prove their subconsciously create the person theory. Or, observer passengers being quite and pointing out things the driver missed?

Also did they test CB's? Trucks and police officers have used those for years. Do we ban them also? Or did they test to see how long you have to talk before you get distracted? Any test about eating while driving? To me eating seems like the biggest distraction. Lets ban that also. That should go over well with the fast food industry.


RE: Kay?
By JediJeb on 11/11/2011 4:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
I used CBs for years before mobile phones and honestly I do think there is a difference. It is more like two one way conversations instead of a regular two way conversation on a phone. On a CB only one person can talk at a time so you aren't trying to listen and talk at the same time.

But is also comes down to an individuals skills at doing multiple complicated tasks at the same time. Think of fighter pilots flying at extreme speeds while talking on their radios, monitoring their instruments, being aware if everything around them and what is far out in front of them. These pilots excel at this, but how many people could qualify to be one? Most normal drivers I see around me can't even figure out that stopping at the first white stripe at an intersection will trigger the light, instead they pull all the way up past the crosswalks and wonder why they sit there forever waiting for the light to change.


RE: Kay?
By AerieC on 11/14/2011 1:18:54 PM , Rating: 2
You make a good point. Also, think about police in high-speed chases who have to coordinate via radio.

I think much of the reason why these kinds of laws exist is not because everyone who talks on a cellphone (or radio) will cause an accident. There are probably many, many people on the roads who can talk on the phone/CB/radio/etc. and have no problems paying attention to driving (trying to text while driving, however, is always stupid no matter how good you are at multitasking). They aren't the problem, and they aren't the reason these laws exist.

The laws exist because there are people who just cannot talk on the phone and pay attention to something else at the same time. They are a danger to everyone else out there. The problem is, there's no way to single these people out and make them put down the cell phone, so our only real option is to make a law that applies to everybody.

The really unfortunate thing is that there's no real way to prevent people from using cell phones while driving. We can only punish after the fact--which is often too late to really make a difference.


Good
By IcePickFreak on 11/11/2011 1:09:55 PM , Rating: 2
Hang up your damn phone and use that lever on the left side of the steering column for a change.




RE: Good
By jimbojimbo on 11/11/2011 5:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
I ride a bike to and from work and usually if someone turns without a turn signal it's either
a.) Someone in a BMW, Lexus, Mercedes thinking they're too good for it
b.) Using a cell phone
c.) Both
Since I'm right on the side of the road I rely on those turn signals to tell me what to do and the a-holes who decide to turn right in front of me without signaling deserve their car scratched!!


RE: Good
By lagomorpha on 11/11/2011 10:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
When I worked in Naperville over the summer I started to wonder if new BMWs even came with turn signals any more. I can easily picture someone taking one into the dealer and complaining, "the side keeps blinking. How long will it take to repair?"


RE: Good
By Owls on 11/12/2011 12:51:40 AM , Rating: 2
Just to counterpoint, I see far more bikers who like to weave in and out of traffic than people who fail to signal. I personally give way to bikers due to how dangerous and erratic they are. It evens out though, since we get a decent supply of organs at least.


RE: Good
By YashBudini on 11/18/2011 4:59:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hang up your damn phone and use that lever on the left side of the steering column for a change.

Another way to complete that sentence is:
quote:
Hang up your damn phone, you're not that important.


2012?
By MrTeal on 11/11/2011 12:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
You should probably post up what Chicago's fiscal year is, since the article sounds a little silly as written.




RE: 2012?
By MrTeal on 11/11/2011 12:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
Nevermind, the article is silly. This data is from 2010, not 2012 as written several times in this piece.


RE: 2012?
By AssBall on 11/11/2011 1:08:15 PM , Rating: 1
It doesn't really matter, the whole state and esp. Chicago are some of the most morally corrupted people on earth.


Proofread Fail
By apmonte on 11/11/2011 1:11:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Police in Chicago are issues hoards of tickets to drivers who obey this law.

Why are police in Chicago issuing tickets to drivers who OBEY the law?




RE: Proofread Fail
By lagomorpha on 11/11/2011 2:06:39 PM , Rating: 2
Because it's more profitable than only issuing tickets to people that break the law. This is the Chicago Police Dept we're talking about.


RE: Proofread Fail
By semiconshawn on 11/11/2011 4:24:08 PM , Rating: 2
Dude that is a brilliant comment. I posted or Id uprate that. Its not just Chicago.


Money
By ender707 on 11/11/2011 5:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
"added $2.2 million to the city's bottom line"

By removing $2.2 million from the hands of otherwise law-abiding citizens who would have spent it in the local economy...good work!




RE: Money
By fallglo on 11/11/2011 8:25:24 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm something that is never mentioned in this argument is the fact that police and firemen both drive and talk on the radio at the same time. How is this any different than a person talking on a radio or phone.


County?
By lightfoot on 11/11/2011 1:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The county can't be happy that Chicago is handling the cases as ordinance violations and gets to keep all the fine proceeds.

What right does the county have to the proceeds from a fine related to a CITY law? Does the county also get pissed that they don't get a cut of the city sales taxes? If it also violates county law, the county sherriff should be enforcing that law, not the city police.




By jimbojimbo on 11/11/2011 5:03:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Wooten says he was using the phone on speaker but the officer, the same in both cases, ticketed him anyway.

Whether it's in speaker mode or not if you're holding it you deserve a freakin ticket!! Quit your wining and just don't talk on the damn phone when you drive. How easy is that?




"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki