When does it stop?? Will we be allowed to change the radio station anymore? How about speaking to the person in the passenger seat? Why not outlaw that as well? Why does this take precedence over the millions of other more important legislation and problems that we have?
I'll tell you why. This is simply another way to line the pockets of the insurance companies. This will affect the middle and lower class people the most - not the wealthy people whom Mr. Wisniewski represents in his Land Use Law Practice. As a lifelong Hudson County democrat and a strong believer in the role of government, I find this disgusting.
I'll tell you why. This is simply another way to line the pockets of the insurance companies. This will affect the middle and lower class people the most - not the wealthy people whom Mr. Wisniewski represents in his Land Use Law Practice. As a lifelong Hudson County democrat and a strong believer in the role of government, I find this disgusting.
1
One big reason I am counting the days until I can finally leave New Jersey is the driving. How is it awful? Let me count the ways. Terrible roads, poor signage, drivers who can't or won't drive correctly, road rage, no repeat vision tests, high auto insurance, people breaking driving laws all the time, speeding., bad road drain, lack of planning and planners, and people who think tailgating is a funny big joke. That is on a good day.
1
I left New Jersey in 1979 and returned South.
Never had I seen such terrible roads and drivers with attitudes. It's been years since I been there and I hope to never to be there ever again.
Never had I seen such terrible roads and drivers with attitudes. It's been years since I been there and I hope to never to be there ever again.
2
Threatens a way of life?! Ha!! Not when your ignorance and arrogance puts everyone else in jeopardy! Jail them all for first offense and take away the vehicle permanently! Problem solved! No one needs to text or talk on the phone while driving! EVER. Just like DUI DWI. Make the laws stricter, NOT weaker. Stop listening to the corporations and republican'ts and their ilk.
Nothing anyone needs to do when driving except drive! If you cannot find the fanbelt, you should not be on the road. Remember, it is a machine and it is up to the driver to control the vehicle not the other way around! Once you let the machine decide, there is a huge problem and that person(s) must never be allowed on the road whatsoever. Take a taxi or walk instead! Simple. Common sense. Problem solved.
Nothing anyone needs to do when driving except drive! If you cannot find the fanbelt, you should not be on the road. Remember, it is a machine and it is up to the driver to control the vehicle not the other way around! Once you let the machine decide, there is a huge problem and that person(s) must never be allowed on the road whatsoever. Take a taxi or walk instead! Simple. Common sense. Problem solved.
2
Not long ago, driving on the NJ Turnpike, passing Newark, this guy was eating a hero, with both hands, looking out his window as I passed him.
It's not limited to NJ of course, a few years back on 695 going around Baltimore, this guy was eating a foot long sub, looking at me as I passed, while his wife, in the passenger seat, was steering the car for him.
It's not limited to NJ of course, a few years back on 695 going around Baltimore, this guy was eating a foot long sub, looking at me as I passed, while his wife, in the passenger seat, was steering the car for him.
1
When my son was practicing driving (we live in NJ), I was teaching him how to recognize distracted drivers. We were behind a car that was weaving a bit, and then switched lanes without signaling. On top of that, their rear wiper was on intermittently -- and it was a sunny day. So I pointed all that out as signs of distracted driving. We pass the car (I was driving at the time), and my son looks in and reports that the driver was picking their nose with one hand and texting with the other. Not five minutes later a semi careened across two lanes in front of us to get to an exit. Not signaling, of course. Classic Jersey.
4
Are these people so sure that they are great drivers that they're willing to risk killing their neighbors children because it's a God given right to drive? The neighbors might disagree.
4
Or is it a way of death?
1
Worth weighing in, just in case some of the foolishness crosses the Hudson. Distracted driving is too broad. Existing law works fine. Folks should not text while driving, but NJ also has some absurd traffic and while sitting in bumper to bumper one needs diversions. This kind of legislation is driven by the chronic complainers of the world.
Meanwhile, I am disturbed by distracted driving, but usually the problem is GPS. Folks don't know where they are going until the computer tells them what to do, and it shows. I call it driving without intent (DWI). GPS, however, is probably not going anywhere.
Meanwhile, I am disturbed by distracted driving, but usually the problem is GPS. Folks don't know where they are going until the computer tells them what to do, and it shows. I call it driving without intent (DWI). GPS, however, is probably not going anywhere.
2
No offense, but what your comment fails to take into consideration, is that while people are sitting still in stalled traffic, no cops can drive up to them to give them a ticket. Nobody ever gets tickets while in standstill traffic on highways.
Distracted driving kills thousands of people a year, just like drunk driving. We complain about it because it's inexcusable and deadly. If that annoys you, I really don't care, but you haven't made an argument against this new legislation.
Distracted driving kills thousands of people a year, just like drunk driving. We complain about it because it's inexcusable and deadly. If that annoys you, I really don't care, but you haven't made an argument against this new legislation.
3
New Jersey already has laws to cover "distracted driving". The current law being considered is just another way for the politicians in Trenton to avoid dealing with property taxes, and other important issues. At some point the voters in this state will kick these bums out and get someone who will work for the people who live here, not for themselves. I'm a Democrat and find myself voting against the Democratic candidate because they are worthless in the State House.
3
How can police enforce this law if they continue to ignore the one forbidding dark tint on front seat windows? It's nearly impossible to see acts of distraction taking place. There can’t possibly be as many NJ drivers with lupus (exempted category) as there are NJ cars with front seat tint.
Then there's this from the AAA:
"Loud Car Stereos – A Dangerous Distraction." Yet allowed up to 50’ in NJ.
Then there's this from the AAA:
"Loud Car Stereos – A Dangerous Distraction." Yet allowed up to 50’ in NJ.
From someone who lives in NJ - The entire state needs a reality check. They are not entitled to be so selfish as to drive a moving vehicle and put my life in jeopardy because they can't wait to send a text or are too busy doing anything other than what they should be and that is focusing on the road in front of them, to the side of them, and occasionally behind them. Take some responsibility for your fellow man!
3
It has been documented that distracted driving (including texting) is more dangerous than driving drunk. The difference is the stigma attached to alcohol. I have a proposal. If people are outraged at penalties for distracted driving saying it is their private space to do with as they please, then we will decriminalize drunk driving. It's only logical. My car is an extension of my home and I can legally drink to my heart's content in my own home. If you think driving drunk is a criminal act you must also consider distracted driving a criminal act. Both are very dangerous and can harm other people.
11
Law enforcement in NJ couldn't care the slightest bit. They already use the vagueness of laws to encroach on people's freedoms. I would totally be for this regulations if I had faith that law enforcement would use this regulation to make our roads safer and not use it as a revenue generation system. Case in point: I-95, the NJ turnpike, the single most important road in the state is a free for all as far as speed goes. Going the limit, which is 65 mph actually feels unsafe because everyone else going faster and not just a little bit faster, a LOT faster. Law enforcement if present, doesn't do anything unless its a certain time of the year and their ticket quotas are up for review.
The problem isn't the lack of regulation, it's the lack of enforcement. Granting more rights to the law enforcement isn't going to solve the problem, it'll only create a new one where the few troublemakers in their ranks will now have the ability to make significantly more trouble for the average resident.
The problem isn't the lack of regulation, it's the lack of enforcement. Granting more rights to the law enforcement isn't going to solve the problem, it'll only create a new one where the few troublemakers in their ranks will now have the ability to make significantly more trouble for the average resident.
2
For the sake of all beans roasted, ground and brewed, the dawn of a new type of drinking straw shall be borne.
Yes. At least a slight safety difference between drinking through a straw and drinking directly from the cup.
I'm sure we all would agree that certain specific activities are distracting to drivers and should be prohibited. But this proposal doesn't do that. Rather, it leaves to police to decide, on an ad hoc and likely inconsistent basis, what is “unrelated to the operation of the vehicle" and "interferes with the safe operation of the vehicle.”
Does taking a sip of water qualify? How about taking a sip of water when stopped at a red light (which is considered "operation of the vehicle" as long as the motor is still running)? Small children riding in the backseat can be distracting -- or even an infant sleeping in a car seat, as drivers tend to glance more often in the rear-view mirror in such a case. Is this now prohibited?
And then there's the “unrelated to the operation of the vehicle" question. Does this mean that reading a newspaper is prohibited, but reading a map while driving is not? That programming the radio is prohibited, but programming the GPS is not? The latter examples both clearly relate to the operation of the vehicle.
Citizens have a fundamental right to be placed on notice of precisely what conduct is prohibited, and what conduct is not. Whether they've broken the law is not left to the spur-of-the-moment whim of a police officer. A law that fails to give such notice is "void for vagueness" under the Constitution.
By leaving out the specifics, Mr. Wisniewski isn't doing his job. He's taken a vague, unenforceable position and run for the hills.
Does taking a sip of water qualify? How about taking a sip of water when stopped at a red light (which is considered "operation of the vehicle" as long as the motor is still running)? Small children riding in the backseat can be distracting -- or even an infant sleeping in a car seat, as drivers tend to glance more often in the rear-view mirror in such a case. Is this now prohibited?
And then there's the “unrelated to the operation of the vehicle" question. Does this mean that reading a newspaper is prohibited, but reading a map while driving is not? That programming the radio is prohibited, but programming the GPS is not? The latter examples both clearly relate to the operation of the vehicle.
Citizens have a fundamental right to be placed on notice of precisely what conduct is prohibited, and what conduct is not. Whether they've broken the law is not left to the spur-of-the-moment whim of a police officer. A law that fails to give such notice is "void for vagueness" under the Constitution.
By leaving out the specifics, Mr. Wisniewski isn't doing his job. He's taken a vague, unenforceable position and run for the hills.
5
In my neighborhood I see a number of people ostentatiously talking on cell phones when their cars have Bluetooth so that they don't have to. Texting behind the wheel is ridiculous; what's so urgent it can't wait? I've even been rear-ended on a main thoroughfare by someone yelling into his hand-held cell phone--but had a chance to put it away before the police came.
That said, this law is probably unconstitutionally vague and leaves too much to the discretion of law enforcement people who already have a very full plate, including ad hoc social work in noisy and violent family disputes, drug offenses, violent crimes, etc. It's difficult to drive around at 30 mph and see through car windows of other cars moving at the same speed--either parallel to you or going in the opposite direction--to notice in a split second what a person is doing alone. It is far, far easier to observe erratic driving--failure to keep in lane, tail-gating, even speeding, or issue tickets for failing to signal properly. (How many accidents are caused by people turning left suddenly without a signal? In the absence of comprehensive inspection for more than exhaust CO2, how to you prevent people from driving with only one headlight or non-functional tail-lights?)
It could lead to abuses such as targeting drivers whose only offense seems to be Driving while Black.
In a state which had no problem legalizing casino gambling, why not simply legalize and regulate prostitution by willing adults and taxing it?
That said, this law is probably unconstitutionally vague and leaves too much to the discretion of law enforcement people who already have a very full plate, including ad hoc social work in noisy and violent family disputes, drug offenses, violent crimes, etc. It's difficult to drive around at 30 mph and see through car windows of other cars moving at the same speed--either parallel to you or going in the opposite direction--to notice in a split second what a person is doing alone. It is far, far easier to observe erratic driving--failure to keep in lane, tail-gating, even speeding, or issue tickets for failing to signal properly. (How many accidents are caused by people turning left suddenly without a signal? In the absence of comprehensive inspection for more than exhaust CO2, how to you prevent people from driving with only one headlight or non-functional tail-lights?)
It could lead to abuses such as targeting drivers whose only offense seems to be Driving while Black.
In a state which had no problem legalizing casino gambling, why not simply legalize and regulate prostitution by willing adults and taxing it?
I can see the need to ban texting while driving - your eyes are off the road for a prolonged period of time - but some places see this as an opportunity to ban phone calls while driving too, which is ridiculous. You hit one button to pick up a call, one button to end a call. This certainly isn't any more 'distracting' than changing your radio station. Dialing when you're stopped at a light shouldn't be a problem either but there are, unfortunately, a number of people who think that intense sort of nanny-state scrutiny is just fine too.
2
Jenn - "...but some places see this as an opportunity to ban phone calls while driving too, which is ridiculous."
I know of no place within the tri-state area that bans "HANDS-FREE" phone calls. It's only when one takes one hand off the wheel to hold a phone up to one's ear that a violation occurs.
I know of no place within the tri-state area that bans "HANDS-FREE" phone calls. It's only when one takes one hand off the wheel to hold a phone up to one's ear that a violation occurs.
I wonder how many of the New Jersey drivers carping about the proposed distracted driving rules have lost a loved one or family member who was killed in an auto accident caused by a distracted drive.
2
Politicians love their names in the press that's a given. How many more reasons do police need to stop folks on the road or else where? Who in NJ has not witnessed police and politicians flouting these nanny and other laws? Frankly, I have little faith in the stats put forth by folks with a agenda such as this or any other nanny law. Attention and money grabbing behavior at work here. A side note. We returned from fishing the Sandy Hook area and at the marina was a " NJ wildlife ranger" in a full military type outfit external ballistic vest, tactical pants and gear belt with his measuring stick checking if the fluke people caught were long enough. Lot's of kids there that looked uncomfortable standing there while he questioned their parents while rummaging through the coolers. I mentioned to him that he may be a little overdressed for this party, he didn't appreciate this by his facial expression. We should spend more time checking the behavior of the law makers. Think Xanadu project and such.
1
"Threatens their way of life?" Seriously? I am a chiropractor who, in the last two weeks, have had three healthy patients involved in rear end collisions, ALL of which were caused by texting drivers. They have threatened my patients' way of life, as, in all likelihood, the patients will suffer permanent ramifications including lifetime pain, loss of mobility, and loss of income. Also, in this ADD society, I see drivers changing lanes without signaling, going 30mph in the left lane of a highway (yes, they were texting), going through red lights, just to name of few. Bravo to the new law.
2
A big YES to this! Now, make the test for a driver's license also include a basic knowledge of mechanics, basic first aid, and a thorough knowledge of the Law, as is done in other countries where people are more sensible. Driving should never be a right, but a privilege awarded to those who will be responsible, and prove it by a thorough test and background check. Naw! We'd rather kill 30,000 plus each year than buck up to a bit of responsible action.
3
Start with cell phones! Any driver holding a cell phone in his or her hand or possessing a docking station (other than GPS) for texting or checking email, gets an automatic $100 ticket. Double it on the second offense and after the third, suspend the license.
2
Great to see across Canada designated pull offs for texting, etc. Typically sensible and certainly doable in the US.
2
This is not a law, only a petty democrat's reach into our liberty, taxing citizens to pay for corrupt and incompetent politicians' lavish lifestyles.
1
Why does Mr. Wisniewski think that the existing laws against careless driving don't cover exactly the scenarios he claims to be worried about? The only difference seems to be the $800.
2
Excellent!
Now let's get the Bluetooth connections out of our vehicles. Handsfree doesn't save us from the mind's distraction, and we know this.
Now let's get the Bluetooth connections out of our vehicles. Handsfree doesn't save us from the mind's distraction, and we know this.
5
The law should focus on effect rather than cause and it should be clear and unambiguous. If a car enters the lane to its left and to its right by more than 6 inches during a 3 minute time span it should be ticketed. If speed varies by more than X amount it should be ticketed. Its hard to prove distraction or non distraction. The law should focus on the objective movements of vehicles which distraction causes.
The penalties for distracted driving need to be severe, such as a 1 year suspension of one's license. People do not have the right to put other people in danger just because they want to text, call, put on makeup, etc. Time for people to stop trying to cram 70 minutes of effort into 60 minutes and start planning ahead and adding time to their schedule.
13
I cannot believe that NJ law enforcement would not use as a blanket law to pull over anyone they want for any reason. Distracted? Oh, yes you were! How can you prove you were not distracted? You cannot. There is no breathelyzer for distraction.
8
They should have to PROVE that you were distracted. Video cams?
Sure, but even if law enforcement is just pulling over anyone they want for any reason, it's reducing accidents and thus fatalities. Maybe it'll get drivers to change their abysmally unsafe practices. Ticketing drivers is always a good idea, because the more we can stop people from driving at all, the more life expectancy our species gets (driving is a major source of pollution and thus climate change).
1
At least this article nails the root cause of all this -- sprawl development that makes driving a requirement and not a choice.
In my Drivers Ed class, it was made clear that driving is a privilege and not a right. Anyone engaging in dangerous life threatening behavior, like distracted driving, should have that privilege revoked.
In my Drivers Ed class, it was made clear that driving is a privilege and not a right. Anyone engaging in dangerous life threatening behavior, like distracted driving, should have that privilege revoked.
2
Yes, thsi is needed, and I amsurely guilty of driving distracted! However, the police will use this 'primary' offense as a means to pull anyone over for any non specific reason, approach a vehicle allegedly with 'probable cause' and commence perorming the ubiquitous motor vehicle stop! New Jersey's police already have the lack of a seat belt, the handicpped placard hanging from the reav view mirror, the cell phone, all as lawfully insignificant minor MV infractions, as primary infractions for which they can use a probable cause to pull someone over! When 98% of all contact in this state withthe criminal justice systems starts at the Motor vehicle stop, this is not the best idea in our current 'police state' of affairs!
I am confident this vague proposal will be abused by the police against all minoritys, late at night when no other persons are driving, and against kids all in the name of lawful pursuits by the police! Safety yes, result, a money grab for the municipalities coffers in hte form of more fines, more penalties, more points, more court appearances.......
Oh, now i get it... its just another NJ police state money grab, a tax all against those who have to call the baby sitter, after they are putting on their make up while rushing to work, eating a driving, from their first job to their second job, or on their way to pick up the kids and trying to manage all that comes with today's multi-tasking world!
Or just a money grab!
I am confident this vague proposal will be abused by the police against all minoritys, late at night when no other persons are driving, and against kids all in the name of lawful pursuits by the police! Safety yes, result, a money grab for the municipalities coffers in hte form of more fines, more penalties, more points, more court appearances.......
Oh, now i get it... its just another NJ police state money grab, a tax all against those who have to call the baby sitter, after they are putting on their make up while rushing to work, eating a driving, from their first job to their second job, or on their way to pick up the kids and trying to manage all that comes with today's multi-tasking world!
Or just a money grab!
I have lived in NJ for 20 years, and I'm on my way out. If it isn't the roads it is the drivers. I don't think this law will make a bit of difference, there are so many laws on the books for driving that people already ignore with huge consequences. To that point, why not enforce the laws we already have? We have careless driving and reckless driving which are pretty vague and broad and reckless has the potential for jail time from some quick googling.
I just think we do not need more laws, more confusion, more mess, we need to use what we already have better and be much more strict.
In Maine, if you are caught speeding you get an automatic suspension. I love this idea, I drive slower in Maine.
I just think we do not need more laws, more confusion, more mess, we need to use what we already have better and be much more strict.
In Maine, if you are caught speeding you get an automatic suspension. I love this idea, I drive slower in Maine.
5
So in a state that once was famous for it's racial profiling of drivers they want to give police more power to pull people over for next to know reason?
Outlaw specific acts or you're asking for abuse. It's bad enough that police in many states can charge you with "resisting arrest" with no underlying charge that you're being arrested for.
Outlaw specific acts or you're asking for abuse. It's bad enough that police in many states can charge you with "resisting arrest" with no underlying charge that you're being arrested for.
1
It's nothing new. About 25 years ago, before cell phones, I was caught in a massive traffic jam on Route 1 at rush hour. I was absolutely immobile for over 15 minutes. I looked to my right, and saw a driver reading a book. Another driver was knitting. And in front of me, a man had drumsticks and was hitting licks on his steering wheel.
5
If you drive, then just drive. It's a 100% commitment activity.
17
No it isn't. You also need to breathe.
Am I allowed to listen to the radio? Sing? Talk with a passenger? Take a sip of water from a bottle? Scratch my nose? Sneeze? Blink? Smoke? Read the Amber alert sigb overhead? See the Homeland sign and memorize the 800 number? Adjust the A/C?
Am I allowed to listen to the radio? Sing? Talk with a passenger? Take a sip of water from a bottle? Scratch my nose? Sneeze? Blink? Smoke? Read the Amber alert sigb overhead? See the Homeland sign and memorize the 800 number? Adjust the A/C?
I can understand eating a donut or drinking coffee in the car. Commute two or more hours daily and you have a serious time crunch.
But spooning up yogurt? Shaving? Applying mascara? Reading the newspaper or a report? (All are real things my husband and I have seen on I84 at 70 miles and hour.)
Driving is a privilege, not a right. And driving with the idea that we need to protect ourselves and others is a responsibility. If we cannot act within that responsibility, then we need some negative reinforcement. Drivers, grow up.
But spooning up yogurt? Shaving? Applying mascara? Reading the newspaper or a report? (All are real things my husband and I have seen on I84 at 70 miles and hour.)
Driving is a privilege, not a right. And driving with the idea that we need to protect ourselves and others is a responsibility. If we cannot act within that responsibility, then we need some negative reinforcement. Drivers, grow up.
10
Thank you. A sane response. Very well said.
The real issue is that almost all traffic safety enforcement is actually designed to raise revenue, not make the roads safer. If we want to have safe roads we should put police in unmarked vehicles and have them actually drive on the roads so they can observe and pull over aggressive, recklessly operated vehicles. Instead most enforcement involves hiding a stationary police car at a blind spot on a highway or road and issue speeding tickets. While speeding is a safety problem, I would much rather ticket drivers who weave in and out and tailgate than someone who does 73 mph on the NJ Turnpike. Unfortunately you can issue a lot more tickets and collect a lot more money issuing speeding tickets.
5
USA lawmakers should take into serious consideration a deep revision how driver license is a kind of "give it away" piece of document instead of passing a serous written test and a ridiculous driving test.
I have an Italian license taken 35 years ago. No negative records of whatsoever during my driving life.
Four years ago after moving permanently to USA I had to take the driver license again.
It was a kind of a joke. 20 questions with 6 wrong answers allowed. One of the six could be a vital knowing for my security and for the pedestrians too. No way. No obligation to take driving lessons but only a lousy five hours lesson at any driving school watching a movie of the '60...no comment...and after a month you are ready to go...where?
At the end nobody cares. It is just business. You got license, the you can lease a car or rent it. Pay a parking, get a fine, buy gas, pay tools...so it must be easy...otherwise city earning and budget base mostly on these fees might collapse.
When I see everyday US drivers on the road I fell embarrassed. Mirrors that not useful addiction on the doors.
What it does mean a 55 miles speed limit when quite everybody drives more than this? A police control? Like winning the power play. Same chances.
Pedestrians who come across your way when they have a deep red signal in front? Screaming a you maybe?
Sum all these, but at the business is business and nothing will change.
I have an Italian license taken 35 years ago. No negative records of whatsoever during my driving life.
Four years ago after moving permanently to USA I had to take the driver license again.
It was a kind of a joke. 20 questions with 6 wrong answers allowed. One of the six could be a vital knowing for my security and for the pedestrians too. No way. No obligation to take driving lessons but only a lousy five hours lesson at any driving school watching a movie of the '60...no comment...and after a month you are ready to go...where?
At the end nobody cares. It is just business. You got license, the you can lease a car or rent it. Pay a parking, get a fine, buy gas, pay tools...so it must be easy...otherwise city earning and budget base mostly on these fees might collapse.
When I see everyday US drivers on the road I fell embarrassed. Mirrors that not useful addiction on the doors.
What it does mean a 55 miles speed limit when quite everybody drives more than this? A police control? Like winning the power play. Same chances.
Pedestrians who come across your way when they have a deep red signal in front? Screaming a you maybe?
Sum all these, but at the business is business and nothing will change.
6
Italian drivers (in Italy) do not enjoy the best reputation in the world. You seem to imply that an Italian driver is safer and EU driving requirements are tougher. I will say this; Scandinavian (and other international) drinking and driving laws ( way worse than 'distracted' ) are WAY tougher. Norway, first fine, $1000-$1500. Here's the kicker, BAC blood alcohol level, US .08 to .10 depending on the state, Norway .05 soon to be .02 Sweden .02 RUSSIA .02.
Everyone is opposed to distracted driving but eating a banana in a traffic jam is not dangerous. Where you draw the line is the problem and drivers in New Jersey know the police will draw the line where it brings in the most money.
3
Something needs to be done. I see people texting regularly. But you need to get in people's heads, so they think twice -- therefore the law would need to be widely publicized to work. This must be important to me because I never use the word "therefore".
4
OK, I like safety too. But I am leary of leaving it up to an officer/trooper who;
1) is having a bad day
2) needs to make his quota
3) just want an excuse to stop me
4) Really likes to lord it over people
deciding all on his own, that I am "distracted". Hey no problem stopping those who are on the phone and reading the paper, etc. But what if I am adjusting my mirrors or eating a banana, as mentioned in the article? I see a need to tighten up what exactly is meant by distraction. I would suggest however including all the rubberneckers who always need to gawk as they craaawwwlll pass something going on the other side of the road.
1) is having a bad day
2) needs to make his quota
3) just want an excuse to stop me
4) Really likes to lord it over people
deciding all on his own, that I am "distracted". Hey no problem stopping those who are on the phone and reading the paper, etc. But what if I am adjusting my mirrors or eating a banana, as mentioned in the article? I see a need to tighten up what exactly is meant by distraction. I would suggest however including all the rubberneckers who always need to gawk as they craaawwwlll pass something going on the other side of the road.
6
With its emphasis on the ridiculous behaviors of middle class suburban drivers, this piece, like many others in Times, leaves little doubt on what the paper's "official" stance would be, and it invites readers to join in.
In considering the proposed law, perhaps we should bear in mind issue s the Times has focused upon in its news coverage agenda-setting: traffic stops by police of poor and minority drivers and onerous fines. If enacted, this vaguely written law would give police wide-ranging discretion to cite drivers. Largely upon the say-so of an officer, a driver could be fined $800--nearly two and a half weeks of labor under NJ's minimum wage. Of course failure to pay would mean additional fines and warrants.
In considering the proposed law, perhaps we should bear in mind issue s the Times has focused upon in its news coverage agenda-setting: traffic stops by police of poor and minority drivers and onerous fines. If enacted, this vaguely written law would give police wide-ranging discretion to cite drivers. Largely upon the say-so of an officer, a driver could be fined $800--nearly two and a half weeks of labor under NJ's minimum wage. Of course failure to pay would mean additional fines and warrants.
1
Every time I come back from a road trip, I don't even a sign to tell me I'm in NJ. Worst drivers on the East Coast.
As someone who does the reverse commute from NYC to NJ I see it every day - especially the fender benders in slow/stopped traffic. Too many people ramming into the back of the car ahead, effecting traffic for miles around them just so they can answer a text, twitter, or what ever the heck they need to do.
There needs to be some technology created that disables phones within a certain proximity of the drivers seat while the car is in gear. Need to text/call/whatever? Pull over and put the vehicle in neutral.
As someone who does the reverse commute from NYC to NJ I see it every day - especially the fender benders in slow/stopped traffic. Too many people ramming into the back of the car ahead, effecting traffic for miles around them just so they can answer a text, twitter, or what ever the heck they need to do.
There needs to be some technology created that disables phones within a certain proximity of the drivers seat while the car is in gear. Need to text/call/whatever? Pull over and put the vehicle in neutral.
9
This law requires brighter lines as to what behavior is actually illegal. Otherwise, it gives NJ a license to raise funds through abusive enforcement, like some small town in Missouri funding its annual budget by ticketing people for driving while black/poor.
3
True. This law is another money grab from people who already leave the state because they can't afford to live here. There are enough laws to cover this. With this law you could get a ticket for scratching your nose. Another useless law from useless politicians. Sure we needed laws for a state dirt, a state animal, and a state insect. Give me a break!
The law as written is too vague and gives far too much discretion to the police in what is a "distraction". I would anticipate that this results in over enforcement against minorities and a lot of friction between the public and the police. A better alternative may be to specify the behaviors that are banned.
9
Anyone -- outside New Jersey -- who has had to "interact" while driving with cars with New Jersey plates knows how spot on Mr. Wisniewski is.
As for the "Second Amendment" rights of drivers, the more inconsiderate among us need to understand that others also have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Regarding distracted pedestrians (especially joggers), there is nothing more dangerous in traffic than pedestrians who are paying attention to their head sets (and are therefore oblivious to there surroundings, which could include sirens). There are plenty of parks and gyms where you can jog and not put your life and that of other's at risk.
As for the "Second Amendment" rights of drivers, the more inconsiderate among us need to understand that others also have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Regarding distracted pedestrians (especially joggers), there is nothing more dangerous in traffic than pedestrians who are paying attention to their head sets (and are therefore oblivious to there surroundings, which could include sirens). There are plenty of parks and gyms where you can jog and not put your life and that of other's at risk.
4
Fines do not ever work effectively. It's too easy to write a check and not learn the lesson, even for people who have a tough time putting the fine-money together. Community service, working with people who have been maimed by cars, cleaning up after a car accident might have more of an impact on a careless driver. The tangible results of their irresponsibility right in front of them.
4
Make the penalty loss of licenses for 6 months. After taking mass transit for six months folks would appreciate the privilege of driving and stop the nonsense.
8
Not to worry. Robot-driven cars will prevail in the near term. Then we can argue about what the software says about whose life has priority...the driver's or "the opposition" (e.g. pedestrians, bicyclists, other cars, animals, etc). As for the necessity of this new law...doubtful given the fact that the current law already prohibits people from driving unsafely...no need to count or list the specific ways people can act carelessly...the list is endless.
As for New Jersey, I've driven in all fifty states and in my experience New Jersey is the only one where people routinely make right hand turns from the far left lane and vice versa. And this habit appeared in the '60s long before cell phones and drive-through anything. Maybe Eve was thrown out of the Garden for distractedly eating an apple while driving?
As for New Jersey, I've driven in all fifty states and in my experience New Jersey is the only one where people routinely make right hand turns from the far left lane and vice versa. And this habit appeared in the '60s long before cell phones and drive-through anything. Maybe Eve was thrown out of the Garden for distractedly eating an apple while driving?
4
Although billboard ads, by definition attract drivers eyes, and thus are an unsafe distraction, the head of NJTpk admitted that in writing yet permitted more of them.
Eye catching ads cause drivers doing anything “unrelated to the operation of the vehicle, in a manner that interferes with the safe operation of the vehicle.”
Other motorists right to life supersedes free speech (which voice is not the print distracting every driver.
Lets up the low gas tax to pay for safer roads, for stricter law enforcement against voluntary distractions, for removing all billboards, and maybe recover the $25million Christie gift to donald ducking taxes and tax returns.
Eye catching ads cause drivers doing anything “unrelated to the operation of the vehicle, in a manner that interferes with the safe operation of the vehicle.”
Other motorists right to life supersedes free speech (which voice is not the print distracting every driver.
Lets up the low gas tax to pay for safer roads, for stricter law enforcement against voluntary distractions, for removing all billboards, and maybe recover the $25million Christie gift to donald ducking taxes and tax returns.
4
Regarding billboards, it's amazing that more and more states allow the LED moving image types. An old-fashioned printed bill board is one thing, but brightly colored chasing imagery, especially at night, is surely far, far more distracting.
2
Jersey is one of the most densely populated states in the country. Being a life long resident who has travelled on business to over 25 other states and rented cars to drive on their road systems, I can attest to the fact that we have some of the nerviest drivers I have ever encountered. Tailgating, going 15 to 20 over the speed limit, passing on the right, running stop signs, and zig zagging in and out of traffic is something any Jersey resident will witness even on short trips. Combine that with the famous Jersey attitude and any trip can be an adventure. Now with all the distractions available things have become even worse. Oh and by the way we have some of the highest insurance rates in the country. for good reason. In the last 15 years I have been involved in 3 accidents . In each case the other driver caused the accident because they were distracted. I have the police reports to prove it. Mr. Wisniewski, go for it.
14
It's not an accident if someone causes it.
We've all seen people driving while holding their phones in front of them atop the steering wheel. This distraction among many others combined with speeding is a deadly combination.
8
New Jersey had better start with enforcing tinted window regulations. Otherwise, the easiest way to duck being fined for distracted driving is to make yourself impossible to see.
Easy peasy.
Easy peasy.
9
It seems like the law is so subjective and discretionary: when does a sip of coffee become a distraction? Minority drivers are already subject to pretense stops http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/us/racial-disparity-traffic-stops-driv... and let's not forget Castiles: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/17/us/before-philando-castiles-fatal-enco... and are unfairly targeted and profiled. How about loud music, I am sure driving driving around listening to Wagner at volume other drivers can her it will be ok as opposed to Immortal Technique.
Can't wait for self-driving cars: put the auto-police industrial complex out of business.
Can't wait for self-driving cars: put the auto-police industrial complex out of business.
1
$800, how about $8,000? These people are more than inconsiderate they are potential killers. The fine must really hurt or it wont work.
11
Excessively high fines do not actually work for when you price out most people what you create is a situation with even more law breakers, i.e, those who can't pay the fine. Next, cue in the "minorities will be hardest hit" line (in actuality it will be the poor and middle class regardless of race, but no matter) and you create a system doomed to fail. Punishments must be reasonable to work.
Ask the victims of distracted drivers who lived and the families of the victims who did not whether they believe distracted driving should carry severe penalties. Driving a vehicle is not a right. It never was. It is a privilege. That privilege should be revoked for all who refuse to obey the rules. It is not a game. It is a matter of life and death.
23
No one's "Texting" is as important as anyone's life/health.
Make it a $ 10,000 fine and confiscation of car and drivers' license.
Make it a $ 10,000 fine and confiscation of car and drivers' license.
6
Isn't it interesting how folks will get all up in arms about safety whenever there is any kind of high profile accident or attack that has a very, very small chance of ever happening to someone, but then go right out and start blabbing on their phones while driving which has a much much higher chance of killing them or someone else they may run into!
1
I keep reading about texting. There's plenty of laws now for texting while driving. The police don't enforce them as it is. There's laws against talking on the phone, not only is it not enforced but the police do it themselves. This really is crazy. "No officer I wasn't eating, yes you were." "No officer I wasn't drinking coffee, yes you were. " So if the cops pull you over for not using your blinker, which is a major problem, and another thing that is not enforced, then they can add six more charges to the ticket if they feel like it or don't like you. You can get in an accident while changing a radio station, or reaching for a CD. Should we outlaw that too. How about driving when it's raining ? How about singing in the car.? Didn't they try to ban smoking in your car. This bill is enough for me to vote against the sponsor if I lived in that county. Overreaching, nanny state, money grab, that's exactly what this is. What we should do is outlaw stupid, than anyone supporting this nonsense would be under house arrest.
Orange, NJ
Orange, NJ
3
I am surprised that there isn't already a law for that in place. Here in Spain there are laws against driving distracted. I have had discussions with my brother in law in the US about this as he feels it is an infringement on his liberties. He is convinced that he can drive while texting without causing danger. I am always surprised of the concept of freedom that some of my compatriots have. For me, we should only be free to do what we like while we are not risking the well being of our fellow citizens.
11
Distracted driving is like shooting a loaded gun in public. It is only a matter of time before you hit someone. Come on N.J. Get with it and increase the fines and include arrests and jail time.
2
It's a good idea. Alas, like most good ideas it'll be abused and no doubt drivers will be pulled over by local police on the pretense they were driving while distracted when they were doing no such thing. That's how good ideas get ruined and people become very skeptical of anything like this. A pity!
1
This isn't just a New Jersey problem of course.
We already know, as mentioned in the article, that noone obeys these laws. Raising the stakes to $800 wont make any difference.
Run a cable down the center of the road that blocks cellphone usage. Period.
And to the doctors and others who say they need their phones to be available, I say buy a pager.
The solution is so simple, yet noone will step up to it.
We already know, as mentioned in the article, that noone obeys these laws. Raising the stakes to $800 wont make any difference.
Run a cable down the center of the road that blocks cellphone usage. Period.
And to the doctors and others who say they need their phones to be available, I say buy a pager.
The solution is so simple, yet noone will step up to it.
2
Sure! Holier than thou laws against distracted driving and yet every year each new model car has more screens ( gps for instance) more entertainment options and more outlets in the car to plug smartphones, computers and other distracting gadgets into than the year before.
Why doesn't the federal or state governments simply outlaw that? What's that you say? Big auto lobbyists and campaign money won't permit it.
I love hypocrisy in government. More distracting screens, bigger screens and better screens are okay, but woe be tied if you take a bite out of an onion bagel with a smear while stopped at a red light! That'll be 800 smackers!
Why doesn't the federal or state governments simply outlaw that? What's that you say? Big auto lobbyists and campaign money won't permit it.
I love hypocrisy in government. More distracting screens, bigger screens and better screens are okay, but woe be tied if you take a bite out of an onion bagel with a smear while stopped at a red light! That'll be 800 smackers!
6
100% behind this and red light cameras too. Anything to make it safer to drive without having some moron hit or kill you because they are on their phone or can't leave earlier is great.
4
I am all for this law. Anything to increase safety on the roads here is much needed.
5
Go ahead, make my day and kill yourself any way you choose, but don't take me, my friends or family with you!
Don't people realize that distracted driving threatens OTHER people. It's not about taking away your rights, it's about protecting the rights of others.
As a pedestrian and cyclist, I've nearly been mowed down by drivers while they're engaged in things other than driving more times than I can count.
Don't people realize that distracted driving threatens OTHER people. It's not about taking away your rights, it's about protecting the rights of others.
As a pedestrian and cyclist, I've nearly been mowed down by drivers while they're engaged in things other than driving more times than I can count.
6
I agree with you. Me too in regard to near misses, and we are the alleged speed demons not following rules. Our current Mayor believes Bike Lanes are for tourists to walk 4 deep, baby strollers, Uber parking, Pedicabs... Not a word is said, the law never enforced when it comes to a biker's near death experience because some dope is texting. Very one-sided. Police officers under De Blasio are instructed to not enforce the law.
The worse! I live in Manhattan and nearly every time I witness a car speeding excessively down a narrow street or pulling into the crosswalk, taking sharp corners when pedestrians have the right of way, driving or pul;ling over in the bike lane....always New Jersey plates on the car. I wish they would ban them from driving to Manhattan all together. Their suburban swag is pitiful and dangerous, keep it on the other side of the Hudson.
4
The statute is too vague. Also, being distracted depends on the driver's state of mind, abilities, etc. What might be distracting to one driver, is not distracting to another. I'd much rather the police crack down on bad driving.
1
Turn key, push pedal, do anything but actually drive or pay attention is a huge part of the problem. It just makes it so easy to be irresponsible and careless. Get rid of automatics and just have stick shifts, people should have respect and expertise to drive thousands of pounds of metal moving at a fast clip! Although I wouldn't mind no cars and better public transport.
A fine is a great idea (license suspension for serial abuser) but it does smell of a revenue river and it is a valid concern that "police officers will take advantage of the bill’s intentional vagueness to abuse their traffic-stop powers.". Too many tragic stories of broken tail-lights to ignore that possibility.
A fine is a great idea (license suspension for serial abuser) but it does smell of a revenue river and it is a valid concern that "police officers will take advantage of the bill’s intentional vagueness to abuse their traffic-stop powers.". Too many tragic stories of broken tail-lights to ignore that possibility.
You know, I kind of have to admit it! I like the idea of banning automatic transmissions!!! Hahahaha!! Lets go back to manual transmissions when we actually had to pay attention and drive the car!! Try texting or eating a banana while you're downshifting through the gears. Try talking on your cell while your trying to up clutch from a stand still on a steep hill after a red light!!
But seriously, there is just so much wrong with this drivel of legisaltion. Start with Mr. Wisniewski's desire to append his name to a bill and take it to the end of another regulation to regulate things that are already regulated.
Of course we all need to be careful out there, lives are at stake! Unfortunatly this proposal does nothing to promote carefull driving. But Hey!! Anything that might help close the NJ State and local budgets has always been the way do things in Nj, no matter how silly they are.
But seriously, there is just so much wrong with this drivel of legisaltion. Start with Mr. Wisniewski's desire to append his name to a bill and take it to the end of another regulation to regulate things that are already regulated.
Of course we all need to be careful out there, lives are at stake! Unfortunatly this proposal does nothing to promote carefull driving. But Hey!! Anything that might help close the NJ State and local budgets has always been the way do things in Nj, no matter how silly they are.
I've often thought of making a sign to hold out my window that states:
GET OFF YOUR CELL PHONE that I could use when I'm driving.
Normally, on all highways when I see swerving, I either try to pass them or stay far back. If I pass them, 99% of the time, it's cell phone use, not coffee.
The suburbs are even worse- moms in Suburbans, Tahoes, and vans regularly on phones with kids in their car seats- I think the bill should stick to cell phone use and drop the coffee drinking.
GET OFF YOUR CELL PHONE that I could use when I'm driving.
Normally, on all highways when I see swerving, I either try to pass them or stay far back. If I pass them, 99% of the time, it's cell phone use, not coffee.
The suburbs are even worse- moms in Suburbans, Tahoes, and vans regularly on phones with kids in their car seats- I think the bill should stick to cell phone use and drop the coffee drinking.
3
"In 2014, for the fifth straight year, distracted driving was the top cause of fatal crashes in New Jersey."
The evidence is incontrovertible; distracted driving is highly fatal.
Vince Capano : “The next thing, they’re going to be outlawing sneezing or coughing. Where does the line start?”
The line starts with evidence, common sense and public safety, Vince --- not with brain farts.
The evidence is incontrovertible; distracted driving is highly fatal.
Vince Capano : “The next thing, they’re going to be outlawing sneezing or coughing. Where does the line start?”
The line starts with evidence, common sense and public safety, Vince --- not with brain farts.
35
Maybe - if this worked out - it would lead to lower insurance rates - - - It won't eliminate all distracted driving, as anyone who has found themselves zoned out while driving can confirm - but might decrease the worst offenses. It'll all be in how it is applied. Fairly, uniformly or with extreme favoritism - or not at all. Sometimes it appears - in NY or anywhere - that texters and obvious cell phone users pay no attention to the laws or to other traffic or pedestrians despite not only fines, but serious points on the license.
8
Having driven 18 wheelers for 20 years, I have seen some whacky behavior from drivers all across the country and all I can say is how safe do you think motorists would feel if semi-drivers were engaged in the same type of behavior?
56
We have the same types over here, who think they have the right to text, turn around and talk to their children, put on makeup and all the other activities some of your American drivers do. As a result, "accidents of undeterminable cause" have increased in number, so much so that there are plans to examine cell phones or iPads as to when they were last used.
What gets to me is this idea of "my freedom is being infringed on." Hey, if you want to risk knocking your brains out or being crushed in an accident, by all means, keep on doing whatever you think is appropriate and enjoy your freedom, but do it where you don't risk other people's lives. Oh, and provide well for your family's future as you are so anxious to leave them behind.
What gets to me is this idea of "my freedom is being infringed on." Hey, if you want to risk knocking your brains out or being crushed in an accident, by all means, keep on doing whatever you think is appropriate and enjoy your freedom, but do it where you don't risk other people's lives. Oh, and provide well for your family's future as you are so anxious to leave them behind.
3
I see semi-drivers on the phone every single day and yes, I think it should be a capital crime
2
New Jersey, being the hodgepodge of local government and petty fiefdoms that it is, is perfect for a money grab like this, since there are so many commuters. Police can aggressively pull over drivers, but tickets would depend upon where the drivers live. Drivers who live outside the municipality would receive an $800 ticket. Drivers who live within the municipality (i.e., voters) would receive just a warning. That way, only outsiders bear the cost of paying fines, and the constituents of each municipality's mayor and town council have no reason to complain about their own town's police.
10
Laws that are unequally applied are inherently unconstitutional.
How 'bout you just stop eating lunch at the wheel?
I've driven on highways all over this region, and once down to Key West, and once to L.A. from here. In L.A. they have no idea how to drive when it rains. But In NJ, I've had some of the most hair-raising, nerve-wracking highway driving of my life. Perhaps partially because the signage is lousy, people make sudden moves and random drifts over lane-lines all the time.
So I think this is a good idea, and I'd approve of it even if it was Christie's. If they don't like it, well maybe they'll appreciate the lowered highway death tolls.
So I think this is a good idea, and I'd approve of it even if it was Christie's. If they don't like it, well maybe they'll appreciate the lowered highway death tolls.
26
More than 30,000 people die every year because either they or someone in another car are driving while drunk, high, using their phone, turning around to talk to someone in the backseat, putting on makeup, eating, etc. Drivers unlike gun owners are not granted the right to drive in the Constitution but they’re even more fanatical and more protected. If you shoot someone and kill them you will go to jail but if you make a turn at an intersection and kill a pedestrian you might get a $250 ticket for failing to yield but probably not, as long as you aren’t intoxicated and you stay at the scene. There should be a federal law that if you drive while distracted you get a $1,000 fine the first time and your car gets seized the second time.
Accidents are at present the 4th leading cause of death in the US and the leading cause of death for those between the ages 1 to 44. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration say that highway crashes alone have an annual price tag of around $871 billion in economic loss and social harm, with speeding accounting for $210 billion of that figure.
In 2010, over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. That is 1% of the 112 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among US adults each year.
There is no sane argument to drive while distracted and large fines might be the best way to get the attention of drivers who don’t seem to have the common sense to do the right thing.
Accidents are at present the 4th leading cause of death in the US and the leading cause of death for those between the ages 1 to 44. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration say that highway crashes alone have an annual price tag of around $871 billion in economic loss and social harm, with speeding accounting for $210 billion of that figure.
In 2010, over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. That is 1% of the 112 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among US adults each year.
There is no sane argument to drive while distracted and large fines might be the best way to get the attention of drivers who don’t seem to have the common sense to do the right thing.
35
Well there's already laws against driving intoxicated, talking on the phone, texting. Driving while distracted, can you please tell me how many things would be covered under your law? Let's see no talking, no eating ... chewing gum, playing the radio or cd, sight seeing? How about looking at girls, or guys. Singing, driving in the rain? How about if your loved one leaves you and your heartbroken, is that distracted? Thinking? Giving someone the finger who cut you off? Adjusting your seat? Putting on your seatbelt? Well I guess I leave it up to you to make the list.
3
r- Why should you be putting on your seatbelt or adjusting your seat while driving? That should be done before you even start the car, not on the road. Sight seeing? How about keeping your eyes on the road. If you want to sight see, pull over or let someone else drive.
You are (allegedly) in control of a ton or more of steel and aluminium, rolling down the road at 60+ mph. Anything which takes your mind off the awesome responsibility that should concern you over that is a reprehensible act, and should be banned for the safety of those others on the road who you are endangering.
You are (allegedly) in control of a ton or more of steel and aluminium, rolling down the road at 60+ mph. Anything which takes your mind off the awesome responsibility that should concern you over that is a reprehensible act, and should be banned for the safety of those others on the road who you are endangering.
Well, r, it's an interesting list you come up with, and very realistically any one of your examples could directly be the cause for which someone else looses their life. So maybe YOU can give it a little more thought and come up with a list that you can live with, given that it might be you in that car or in the car that gets hit or maybe it's a loved one that looses their life.
1
No problem with this. Too much texting still going on.
42
Sounds good to me. The only reason people are against this is bc they know that they are engaging in this dangerous behavior and don't care that they are risking harm to themselves and others.
42
In one article a couple of years ago when this question was raised, the reaction of one woman was, I quote "No way I'm giving up texting while driving. I'll just save up enough money to pay the fines."
1
Nonsense. The reason people are against it is that the law is vaguely written, with a high fine. This WILL lead to local municipalities using this law as a money grab. Furthermore, it will be a basis to pull over people of color for driving while black, which is only distracting to certain police officers! A law that is not uniformly applied, is by its lack of uniformity, unconstitutional.
2
For some yes, but I think there is legitimate concern about the usual - very broadly written statute that then gets applied in absurd ways, such as the case (albeit in the UK) of the banana eater. Few reasonable people would doubt that texting, reading the paper, etc. is a hazard that should be dealt with, but it is a measure of how trust in government and its systems have eroded that people just don't trust those in power to behave in what most would deem a reasonable manner. Therein lies the challenge.
2
That vast numbers of drivers are distracted is obviously to anyone who observes any roadway, and the consequences are predictable: vehicle collisions with other automobiles, pedestrians, and property. The unwillingness of drivers to obey speed limits and traffic safety laws is shameful, and too often the people most seriously effected aren't the reckless drivers, but those they injure or kill. It's high time that state governments step up enforcement and penalties for reckless driving.
22
It is so frightening to drive and observe so many other drivers disobey safety standards, red lights, pedestrians, tailgating and the King of all offences Road Rage. Everyone seems angry and affronted by other drivers while they refuse to yield, zip along in the right lane even when they see that the right lane ends, and then feel you should allow them to squeeze in in front of you when the lane ends. It has reached a point where you simply cannot take a red light for granted and risk being screamed at or get horn blasted if you don't move forward on a yellow light.
This is exactly why they make limos people! Geez!
8
As bad as things are in New Jersey, things could be worse. According to 2015 census data, residents of Maryland and New York spend more time driving to work. And New Jersayans rank ninth for total miles driven per year: http://247wallst.com/special-report/2016/07/08/states-where-people-drive...
1
Supporters here of this ill-advised draconian law may give comfort to its sponsors in the NJ legislature. But people from New York, California, and North Carolina aren't registered Democrats in New Jersey. And I show up at election time.
2
Ill-advised? I sincerely hope that you won't be mourning a friend's or famil member's death one day, because a distracted driver has run into him or her. And what this has to do with Democrats or Republicans is beyond me. The law applies to all. I'm waiting for the first person to begin bawling that it is his constitutional right to text while driving....
2
"reaching down to pick up dropped food"
March 11, 2013. 16-year-old Tenzin Drudak was struck and killed when a car lost control and mounted the sidewalk. The driver lost control while reaching for a carton of milk. The driver was ticketed for driving without insurance.
March 11, 2013. 16-year-old Tenzin Drudak was struck and killed when a car lost control and mounted the sidewalk. The driver lost control while reaching for a carton of milk. The driver was ticketed for driving without insurance.
61
Your post is purposefully misleading. There are no articles which describe the final charges, or the disposition of those charges, or against whom the charges were brought in this case. For all you know he was charged with manslaughter, but you don't. Please correct me if I'm wrong. You can do this by providing a link to the article which reports that the driver was ONLY charged with driving without insurance and nothing else. For clarification, the article must unequivocally state that no other charges were ever brought. Otherwise one might think that because you didn't provide a link you might be purposefully misleading people.
I agree that distracted driving is terrible and I think penalties for it should rival drunk driving. You are providing the kind of misinformation that people on sites like Facebook propagate as news to the detriment of all. We need real information.
I agree that distracted driving is terrible and I think penalties for it should rival drunk driving. You are providing the kind of misinformation that people on sites like Facebook propagate as news to the detriment of all. We need real information.
1
I lived and commuted in NJ for 30 years. I got tennis elbow from tossing tokens on the Parkway. If I couldn't have eaten breakfast in my car, I wouldn't have survived the traffic jams. Get real!
7
so if someone else eating breakfast crashed into your car and killed you or a family member, I guess you'd be ok with that?
8
Wisniewski, the representative from Redflex, the red light camera company, and the old-fashioned AAA are both struggling to remain relevant. Yet another money grab from the drivers of New Jersey who already pay the highest car insurance rates and tolls in the country.
5
Isn't the REAL issue drivers who text, look at screens on cellphones, or get so involved with their cellphones conversations that they become "distracted" or even oblivious to safe driving?
I regularly see drivers in NJ and NYC who are so totally wrapped up with their phones that they change lanes right next to you, blow though yield and 'zebra' crossings and almost hit pedestrians, cyclists, or other cars, or otherwise dangerously. And when you look, you almost always see cellphones in their hands or their gaze directly down to a screen and not on the road ahead (or behind).
Why not simply significantly increase the penalties for (already-illegal) cell phone use while driving so fear of penalties deturs people? Eating a banana is one thing, interpreting "distracted driving" is another, but stopping motorists driving badly with a cell-phone or device in their hand is what's needed!
In terms of "live free or die," how about letting OTHER drivers live free and NOT die because of bad driver's recklessness?
I regularly see drivers in NJ and NYC who are so totally wrapped up with their phones that they change lanes right next to you, blow though yield and 'zebra' crossings and almost hit pedestrians, cyclists, or other cars, or otherwise dangerously. And when you look, you almost always see cellphones in their hands or their gaze directly down to a screen and not on the road ahead (or behind).
Why not simply significantly increase the penalties for (already-illegal) cell phone use while driving so fear of penalties deturs people? Eating a banana is one thing, interpreting "distracted driving" is another, but stopping motorists driving badly with a cell-phone or device in their hand is what's needed!
In terms of "live free or die," how about letting OTHER drivers live free and NOT die because of bad driver's recklessness?
80
Considering that using the phone while driving is at least as dangerous as driving with a .08 BAC, why not make the penalties equivalent?
38
Vox *** you hit it on the head " interpreting " what is distracting, that is exactly right. The laws are already on the books for the main things that drivers are doing ... texting, talking on the phone, excessive speeding, not using your blinker, etc They just have to be enforced..
2
New Jersey was once known the Garden State. We have since morfed into the Nanny State.
9
Adults who refuse to regulate their behavior and who endanger, injure and kill, need more than nannies. They need meaningful punishment.
107
use the existing laws against distracted driving then, don't create new ones that give police even more opportunities to violate people's rights under the guise of "safety"
9
I agree with your sentiment. But, I do think that drivers who maim and kill, through their own fault, should lose their licenses for life and face very stiff penalties.
People seem to forget that the people who are killed in car accidents do not get a second chance at life, nor do their families and friends get another chance to see them.
People seem to forget that the people who are killed in car accidents do not get a second chance at life, nor do their families and friends get another chance to see them.
7
NJ overcharges for riding train or bus, has minimal gas taxes, and some of the most unruly drivers I've ever encountered in the U.S. In the most densely populated state in the country, transit should be 1st priority and very cheap, and drivers must be taught, with expensive fines, that driving is a privilege and very dangerous. 3,000 people were killed on 9/11 and the entire world changed forever; 3,000 die in traffic EACH YEAR from distracted driving and NJ auto-enthusiasts whine about police "overreaching" with regs to prevent this carnage. Get your priorities straight, NJ!
66
NY refused to contribute to a needed train tunnel. Hundreds of cyclists and pedestrians are killed by some of the most incompetent/dilletante drivers I've ever encountered in the US. People go everywhere on mass transit because everything in NYC is never more than a few miles away, and then decry car culture in the rest of the country. It's not just about bashing Jersey.
1
No one should be surprised this is being discussed now for New Jersey. Fines should be geared towards those who firmly believe the world revolves around them. I can't stand to see a car swerving in front of me only to find out the driver was texting, talking on the phone, eating from a plate, driving with their feet/elbows or sightseeing. They may not care or feel it is a major infraction since what they are doing is much more important than driving responsibly. I'm sure the individuals/families who they endangered, killed or maimed have a different perspective on this egotistical behavior.
While I understand we live in a "free" country, it doesn't mean your freedoms should supersede the right for others to live safely. True freedom, one without rules or consequences, would be complete anarchy (i.e., Children of Men).
While I understand we live in a "free" country, it doesn't mean your freedoms should supersede the right for others to live safely. True freedom, one without rules or consequences, would be complete anarchy (i.e., Children of Men).
51
Doesn't distracted driving also threaten a way of life, namely being alive itself?
86
Driving means staying in control of your vehicle at ALL times. Any activity that prevents this needs to be dealt with. I see examples of distracted driving every time I walk out... defensive walking is essential if you don't want to get hit by someone rolling across the stop line while texting. Cell phones and make up kit turns drivers into dangerous individuals.
49
The fine should be $1000 for the first offense when texting or speaking on a hand- held phone. $2000 for second offense - third offense confiscate the car/truck and lose their license for life .
Once these are enforced you will a drastic change. People will think twice knowing what the consequences are!
Once these are enforced you will a drastic change. People will think twice knowing what the consequences are!
94
Studies have established that non-hand-held phones are as dangerous as hand-held phones. The danger is in the distraction, not in holding the phone. The person on the other end, unlike a passenger, doesn't know to stop speaking when the driver must concentrate on the road.
42
People who have 1,000, 2,000 to throw away will not change their tune (and some who don't, won't either). How many celebrities have been arrested for DUI or distracted, dangerous driving, just to do it again and again and again?
There has to be another solution. Cars are way too easy to pretend to drive, maybe we could start there and make it much more difficult so people have to concentrate.
There has to be another solution. Cars are way too easy to pretend to drive, maybe we could start there and make it much more difficult so people have to concentrate.
You are using the baseball 3 strikes and your out example. Why give 3 chances for someone to be killed?? First time caught $2000 fine (yellow card). Second time caught - lose license for 3 years (life is quite harsh).
1
I love this proposal. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and way too many people severely abuse this right and take it for granted. It should be highly regulated because the abuse of this privilege is a direct threat to public health. Not to speak of the fact that we should be aggressively working to phase out individually owned and driven cars as the default daily mode of transport for a myriad of other reasons (making them less appealing is one way).
As a runner, cyclist and motorist myself I can't even count how many close calls I have had with texting drivers - in addition to the one who - while at a stop sign - drove right into me while T- bone style while I was crossing on my bicycle (had right of way, thought I made eye contact w/ sunglassed driver - before she promptly returned to her phone). I walked away with a dinged bike and scuffed legs because thankfully the driver was starting from a stop and hit me at around 5 mph. The friends I have who have had worse interactions with distracted drivers have worse to show for it.
As a runner, cyclist and motorist myself I can't even count how many close calls I have had with texting drivers - in addition to the one who - while at a stop sign - drove right into me while T- bone style while I was crossing on my bicycle (had right of way, thought I made eye contact w/ sunglassed driver - before she promptly returned to her phone). I walked away with a dinged bike and scuffed legs because thankfully the driver was starting from a stop and hit me at around 5 mph. The friends I have who have had worse interactions with distracted drivers have worse to show for it.
67
You love this proposal although I guess you didn't read it. It is not about Texting ( which you use as you example twice ) or talking on the phone. There are already plenty of laws against that. This is a vague overreaching proposal that can't even be interpreted let alone enforced.
2
Not to mention the morons engaged in using cell phones while CYCLING : /
I don't think even Lance Armstrong, a professional cyclist with unbelievable handling skills, would be dumb enough to attempt it ! Yet I routinely see 14/16 year olds do it.
I don't think even Lance Armstrong, a professional cyclist with unbelievable handling skills, would be dumb enough to attempt it ! Yet I routinely see 14/16 year olds do it.
4
We can't have law that leaves its application in the hands of what an officer thinks at any given time, or its interpretation in court of what a judge perceives to be legislative intent.
Oh yes, there is a very real problem of people driving while being distracted, but coming up with such a response as this is certainly not the answer. After all, there are people who can eat, drink, smoke, tune the radio, adjust temperatures, etc., and drive quite safely. And then there those who cannot even talk on a hands free system without being distracted to the point of being a danger to is all. After all, the problem is not what your hands are doing, it's what your brain is not doing. We all know people who cannot even walk and talk at the same time without bumping into things and wandering into traffic. Maybe that will be the next thing that the government will look into...