IDS2: The Safe Roads Act [Statute]

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: SJoyce

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This is the law this bill would repeal:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

How is repealing this law suppose to make our roads safer, exactly...?

[Donerail]

No one denies that texting while driving is unsafe, and I'm all for enhanced driver education - but the empirical evidence seems to say that such bans don't actually do anything, and may even increase accidents. As such, this is just clogging up our books.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I think that before we go about removing this from our books entirely, we should ask ourselves: are these laws being enforced in the first place?  Indeed, the link you provided, SJoyce, says that there is a short-term reduction in accidents shortly after these laws are passed which suggests that drivers react to the law itself getting passed only to return to their texting habits when the law is forgotten.  I think that if such laws were enforced, there would be much less of a chance of someone breaking them, so is it so much the law itself we should worry about rather than how it's applied on the roads?

[Donerail]

I think that before we go about removing this from our books entirely, we should ask ourselves: are these laws being enforced in the first place?  Indeed, the link you provided, SJoyce, says that there is a short-term reduction in accidents shortly after these laws are passed which suggests that drivers react to the law itself getting passed only to return to their texting habits when the law is forgotten.  I think that if such laws were enforced, there would be much less of a chance of someone breaking them, so is it so much the law itself we should worry about rather than how it's applied on the roads?

I don't see how we can effectively enforce such a law unless you ban all use of a cell phone while driving.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I think that before we go about removing this from our books entirely, we should ask ourselves: are these laws being enforced in the first place?  Indeed, the link you provided, SJoyce, says that there is a short-term reduction in accidents shortly after these laws are passed which suggests that drivers react to the law itself getting passed only to return to their texting habits when the law is forgotten.  I think that if such laws were enforced, there would be much less of a chance of someone breaking them, so is it so much the law itself we should worry about rather than how it's applied on the roads?

I don't see how we can effectively enforce such a law unless you ban all use of a cell phone while driving.

Isn't that how we do it already?  I mean, I think there are times when using a cell phone while driving is necessary for emergency situations, but how often is this the case?  At the very least, we should penalize the inappropriate use of a cell phone if it leads to an accident.

[Donerail]

I think that before we go about removing this from our books entirely, we should ask ourselves: are these laws being enforced in the first place?  Indeed, the link you provided, SJoyce, says that there is a short-term reduction in accidents shortly after these laws are passed which suggests that drivers react to the law itself getting passed only to return to their texting habits when the law is forgotten.  I think that if such laws were enforced, there would be much less of a chance of someone breaking them, so is it so much the law itself we should worry about rather than how it's applied on the roads?

I don't see how we can effectively enforce such a law unless you ban all use of a cell phone while driving.

Isn't that how we do it already?  I mean, I think there are times when using a cell phone while driving is necessary for emergency situations, but how often is this the case?  At the very least, we should penalize the inappropriate use of a cell phone if it leads to an accident.

Our current law appears to only criminalize its use for texting, not for other purposes - like calls or GPS.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

SJoyce, what do you think of this amendment?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I rather like the amendment. In principle, I don't know that we should prohibit people using cell phones if they can manage to do so without causing harm to others.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Mr. Speaker?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Members, we will now vote on the following amendment.  Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.

[CatoMinor]

Aye

[Supersonic]

Nay.

[Donerail]

AYE.

The amendment has passed.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     One thought that occurred to me, to stimulate further discussion on this bill, is what if someone gets into an accident using a cell phone and is cleared of any criminal liability, but winds up with a judgment against them in civil court. Is that something we would want to also cover with this law?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

     One thought that occurred to me, to stimulate further discussion on this bill, is what if someone gets into an accident using a cell phone and is cleared of any criminal liability, but winds up with a judgment against them in civil court. Is that something we would want to also cover with this law?

Can you give us an example of how that could happen?  I'm not entirely sure how such a scenario would play out.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     One thought that occurred to me, to stimulate further discussion on this bill, is what if someone gets into an accident using a cell phone and is cleared of any criminal liability, but winds up with a judgment against them in civil court. Is that something we would want to also cover with this law?

Can you give us an example of how that could happen?  I'm not entirely sure how such a scenario would play out.

     Criminal convictions are held to a higher burden of proof than civil judgments, since the matter at stake is higher; someone could spend months or years in prison, after all.

     Looking at the amendment that the Legislature just added to this bill, I notice the word "misuse", which brings up a gray area. Suppose a passenger in a vehicle has a stroke and the driver attempts to phone 911 while having no realistic possibility of stopping (say the vehicle is in the fast lane on the freeway), causing an accident as a result. I am not a legal expert, but I would guess that that is a potential gray area there.

     Considering what I said earlier about different standards of proof, it's possible that the driver would not be convicted, but still be taken to civil court and lose. As such, the question that I am supposing is do we want to consider civil penalties as well?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

     One thought that occurred to me, to stimulate further discussion on this bill, is what if someone gets into an accident using a cell phone and is cleared of any criminal liability, but winds up with a judgment against them in civil court. Is that something we would want to also cover with this law?

Can you give us an example of how that could happen?  I'm not entirely sure how such a scenario would play out.

     Criminal convictions are held to a higher burden of proof than civil judgments, since the matter at stake is higher; someone could spend months or years in prison, after all.

     Looking at the amendment that the Legislature just added to this bill, I notice the word "misuse", which brings up a gray area. Suppose a passenger in a vehicle has a stroke and the driver attempts to phone 911 while having no realistic possibility of stopping (say the vehicle is in the fast lane on the freeway), causing an accident as a result. I am not a legal expert, but I would guess that that is a potential gray area there.

     Considering what I said earlier about different standards of proof, it's possible that the driver would not be convicted, but still be taken to civil court and lose. As such, the question that I am supposing is do we want to consider civil penalties as well?

I personally don't think any court, civilian or criminal, would interpret 'misuse' to include calling 9-1-1 during an emergency, but defining the term to exclude that situation could be of use.  Would you prefer we specify what 'misuse' is, or should we amend the bill to specifically protect the accused against civilian penalties?  I personally think the first option would be sufficient, but I'm not sure how to word an amendment that will do the latter.

(Pardon me for that.  I'm not a legal expert, either. )

[Associate Justice PiT]

     One thought that occurred to me, to stimulate further discussion on this bill, is what if someone gets into an accident using a cell phone and is cleared of any criminal liability, but winds up with a judgment against them in civil court. Is that something we would want to also cover with this law?

Can you give us an example of how that could happen?  I'm not entirely sure how such a scenario would play out.

     Criminal convictions are held to a higher burden of proof than civil judgments, since the matter at stake is higher; someone could spend months or years in prison, after all.

     Looking at the amendment that the Legislature just added to this bill, I notice the word "misuse", which brings up a gray area. Suppose a passenger in a vehicle has a stroke and the driver attempts to phone 911 while having no realistic possibility of stopping (say the vehicle is in the fast lane on the freeway), causing an accident as a result. I am not a legal expert, but I would guess that that is a potential gray area there.

     Considering what I said earlier about different standards of proof, it's possible that the driver would not be convicted, but still be taken to civil court and lose. As such, the question that I am supposing is do we want to consider civil penalties as well?

I personally don't think any court, civilian or criminal, would interpret 'misuse' to include calling 9-1-1 during an emergency, but defining the term to exclude that situation could be of use.  Would you prefer we specify what 'misuse' is, or should we amend the bill to specifically protect the accused against civilian penalties?  I personally think the first option would be sufficient, but I'm not sure how to word an amendment that will do the latter.

(Pardon me for that.  I'm not a legal expert, either. )

     Ultimately, the limits of something like "misuse" has to be worked out by the courts, and making it more convoluted usually leads to more litigation rather than less. I think a Good Samaritan clause would be sufficient.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I will assume sponsorship.

How about this amendment?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this definition sufficient?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I think that should work.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This shall be the final text of the bill barring further amendments:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would anyone like to add anything, or are we ready to vote?

[Enderman]

I'm ready to vote.

I second the motion.