Arlington bans texting and driving today.

[Geor!]

Yay police state! Shocking how many of you are willingly handing over your rights in the name of "safety". This is no different than the xray/molestation going on in airports in the name of "safety", or the unconstitutional wire taps in the name of "safety". Give them an inch, and they will take a mile. Pretty soon, you've got no rights left. But it's all ok, because it *might* save a life. Because we all know everyone will stop texting and driving, right? Yeah, that's going to happen....

That comparison has no merit. One is intrusive, the other is not.

[CJ]

Small price to pay for lives saved. That's the way I think about it.

What about banning guns? What about banning 5 gallon buckets? More kids die in 5 gallon buckets than accidental firearm accidents each year.

Narrow minded viewpoint. You don't think English voters knowingly participated in the loss of all of their rights, do you? They voted for things like this - all in good faith. Eating saturated fats is bad for you, even deadly... should we ban them? It's all relative buddy...

Now, in Arlington, you can no longer grab ANY item in your vehicle and look at it at any time. Because a police officer may very easily mistake it for a phone. And the ban is not about texting, it's about the cause... not paying attention while driving... What's next? Quick knee jerk thoughts have long term repercussions. The truth is in Arlington 9/14/11 you now have less liberty. Just like that - justify it all you want.

[Geor!]

What about banning guns? What about banning 5 gallon buckets? More kids die in 5 gallon buckets than accidental firearm accidents each year.

Narrow minded viewpoint. You don't think English voters knowingly participated in the loss of all of their rights, do you?

Guns both save and take lives. Car do the same, but how many people already die each year in car accidents that are not related to cell phones, if you want to compare death statistics.

A car can be a deadly weapon, do you agree? If you agree with that and feel that people should be allowed to text or basically do whatever the fuck they want behind the wheel of the car, then you should also be for people discharging firearms wherever and whenever the fuck they want to as well.

I don't like government poking its head in where it doesn't belong, but there is a function of government and its main function is to protect its citizens.

[KBScobravert]

This all started with not being able to have a beer in the drive through of your bank. Oh the slippery slope to save the children.

[Geor!]

What about banning guns? What about banning 5 gallon buckets? More kids die in 5 gallon buckets than accidental firearm accidents each year.

Narrow minded viewpoint. You don't think English voters knowingly participated in the loss of all of their rights, do you? They voted for things like this - all in good faith. Eating saturated fats is bad for you, even deadly... should we ban them? It's all relative buddy...

Eating saturated fats kills the individual, not others. How's that for relativity?

[Broncojohnny]

What about banning guns? What about banning 5 gallon buckets? More kids die in 5 gallon buckets than accidental firearm accidents each year.

Narrow minded viewpoint. You don't think English voters knowingly participated in the loss of all of their rights, do you? They voted for things like this - all in good faith. Eating saturated fats is bad for you, even deadly... should we ban them? It's all relative buddy...

Actually, why not ban swimming pools? A lot of kids drown in swimming pools. A hell of a lot more than die to guns.

We live in a fucking nanny state.

[71chevellejohn]

So does that mean they shouldn't allow bluetooth then? Or you can't talk to yourself in the car anymore? Where is the line?

No, my point was against his " call them" comment.

[HarrisonTX]

Small price to pay for lives saved. That's the way I think about it.

I bet this saves 0 lives.

[bcoop]

That comparison has no merit. One is intrusive, the other is not.

Uh, are you high? It's VERY intrusive. You're smart, are you too stupid to see it, or too biased? Which is it???????

[CJ]

Eating saturated fats kills the individual, not others. How's that for relativity?

Are the children and family members not victims? You will not will this fight, I promise. If you do want to continue it I will run it into the ground for all to see. You forgot to address the other two examples in that sentence.

[CexMashean]

Is there a loophole in the law for operating an mp3 player?

[Geor!]

I bet this saves 0 lives.

I bet you'd change your opinion if your wife/son/daughter were injured or killed by somebody texting and driving (not saying I've had a relative that has happened to).

[bcoop]

I bet this saves 0 lives.

This guy gets it. Safety my ass. This is just another ploy to generate more revenue. Period. End of story. Budget shortfalls. There is your real motivation. And don't even waste your breath saying govt doesn't enact new laws to help offset losses in revenue.

[Steve]

I bet this saves 0 lives.

I don't know about that. I'd say it will stop some serious road rage murders from the dumbasses who do text and drive in the fast lane, swerving around holding up traffic because they are driving too slow thinking they are driving safely. lol.


There is actually alot of accidents everyday because of texting. But banning people from communicating or limiting their speech is always a tricky thing in this country.

It also gives officers another cheap, free entry level way to stop people that can't be proven either way. Just another way for law enforcement to harass people playing the gray area.

[stevo]

Doesn't matter if there are loopholes or exceptions, if a cop in Arlington now sees you driving with a cellphone in your hand expect to get pulled over and get a ticket, with no defense to that ticket except your word against his.

Stevo