Showing posts with label safety. Show all posts
Showing posts with label safety. Show all posts

Monday, May 2, 2011

Fight the Driver Texting Ban - Email Gov Daniels!

UPDATE: I TOLD YOU SO.
"Police struggle to enforce texting law" - WISH-TV
(10 June 2012)


Fellow Hoosiers,

The Indiana legislature has delivered a bill, HB 1129, to Governor Daniels' desk that would attempt to prohibit drivers from texting while driving. We must not let this ill bill become lousy law! Below is a copy of the letter I submitted to the governor using the form on his website, here: http://www.in.gov/gov/2631.htm

If you're wondering why we all need to oppose laws of this nature, read my letter! Also, you might refer to my post from the last legislative session wherein I answer that question, here: http://bit.ly/doGvRc



02 May 2011

Governor Daniels,

This letter is a plea for an ear to hear regarding HB 1129, the Driver Texting Ban.

In May 2009, you delivered the commencement address at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. As I sat in my cap and gown, anxious to receive a paper validating my years of hard work, dreaming of the days to come in the new, "real" world I'd soon enter, your words gave me pause and have, in fact, never left me. I'm sure you have your address notes around somewhere for all the specifics, but the point you drove home was that our cities, counties, State, and nation are in dire need of more technical people speaking up about the issues we face. And so I am compelled to weigh in upon the matter of the Driver Txt Ban recently delivered to your desk: you absolutely must prevent HB1129 from becoming State Law!

There are several reasons to fight such legislation, but I only want to cover three of the best ones: enforceability, effectiveness, and accountability.

This law cannot be enforced without gross violation of personal rights. Since there are numerous - and legal - reasons to be interacting with a modern phone while driving, it is impossible for a law enforcement officer to develop any probable cause on a driver using a phone. A driver could just as easily be looking up a restaurant nearby, reviewing a shopping list, choosing a song or audio book, obtaining directions, et al., ad nauseum, and an observing officer would be absolutely unable to know if the driver is in violation of the law unless he first violates the driver's 4th amendment protection from illegal searches and seizures without a warrant or probable cause, or he convinces the  driver to waive his 5th amendment protection from saying something stupid. If passed, this law WILL contribute to the widespread violation of our enumerated rights, and, to add insult to injury, each violated driver will have to pay hundreds of dollars afterwards! Forgive the crude analogy, but this concept is akin to being being forced to pay your rapist for his "service."

Laws of this type have not proven effective elsewhere. Arizona Democratic State Rep. Steve Farley, who was the first legislator in the country to introduce a bill that would ban texting while driving, has noted that "hands-free" legislation has not proven successful [1]. The California DMV also notes that keeping phones out of a driver's hand doesn't make the road safer [2].  More frustratingly, our own "Criminal Justice Institute Traffic Safety Division Director Ryan Klitzsch says it’s as much an informational campaign as an effort to crack down on distracted drivers" [3]. Passing a bill which would, if law, violate the rights of every citizen out of compliance therewith is the worst possible way to embark upon a public education campaign.

It is not for the People of Indiana to decide which distractions a driver can handle and which he cannot. In a free State, a driver is able to determine for himself what his own limitations are. No law can be appropriately tough on some and loose on others; at least, no law that focuses on the minutiae over the true issue can. A ban on texting utterly ignores the danger of drivers doing any of the other millions of things modern phones can do! To truly make the roads safer, the use of the phone altogether must be banned. But we cannot stop there, either: how could a driver focus on the road if his passenger is talking? Or if he is listening to music? God forbid the driver be a parent with misbehaving children in the car! Or reading an actual book! No, each driver must take the personal responsibility to make such decisions on his own, and he must be held accountable for those decisions. But this bill does not achieve this goal in an American way.

Governor, I won't even start to get into the discussions about the "nanny state." I'm sure you have heard them all before. Furthermore, given your success in your current office, I know you understand and embrace responsibility at a governmental and a personal scope. I implore you to send this abusive, misguided albeit well-intentioned, and un-American bill back to the drawing board. Similar bills have been defeated before in our Legislature; we can't allow this one to make it into law this time either. 


Links for sources
[1] http://bit.ly/aVKlv8
[2] http://bit.ly/lTkm5u
[3] http://bit.ly/lsI2mw

Additional reading: in the last legislative session, I penned the following article fighting the idea of a driver texting ban and even presented a much more viable and less intrusive approach to improving road safety and decreasing the leading cause of accidents--driver distractions.
http://bit.ly/doGvRc

Thursday, June 24, 2010

The Importance of Owning a Gun for Home Defense - Especially if You Have Children

"I've never seen anything this bizarre, except on TV. It couldn't and shouldn't have happened here in our community, but it did."
~Vigo County Sheriff Jon Marvel
WTHI, Terre Haute, IN


And that’s the way it goes. You never expect it to happen to you; you think it is so unlikely that it isn’t worth the trouble to prepare for it. But the fact is, it is going to happen to somebody, and you have no control over whether it will be you to whom it happens. Now, you tell me, as a parent, is it really worth the risk?

In this post
It happened to somebody.
It could have happened to you.
It could have been worse.
It could have been better.
Ways to make sure it is better if it happens to you.
Closing entreatments.


It Happened to Somebody Else
An event unfolded yesterday about which I feel compelled to share some thoughts.

Yesterday afternoon I was in the gym, and the local news was on one of the TVs on the wall. I didn't have any headphones, so I couldn't hear what was being said, but from the headings on the station I learned that a woman in the region had tried to kidnap a baby and that somebody had been stabbed. On the drive to work this morning, I finally found out what had happened.

A Vigo County, IN woman, Stephanie Foster, with a history of miscarriages had recently been faking another pregnancy. She was determined to obtain a child for herself, so she contrived a little plan. She began reading birth announcements in the newspaper looking for a child to kidnap and claim as her own. She selected a boy born to Ashley and Michael Speer of Prairie Creek, IN. With her target determined, Foster proceeded to gather more information about the family; Foster found the Speer's home address and phone number online.

On the afternoon of Wednesday, 23 June 2010, Foster came to the Speer's home with a toy gun and a hunting knife. Under the pretense of using their phone, Foster gained access to the home while the father napped. The assailant stabbed the mother repeatedly, attempting to steal the Speer's infant son. Awakened by the struggle between his wife and an attacking madwoman trying to steal his son, Michael Speer emerged from a nearby bedroom and attempted to subdue the stranger. He was stabbed, as well. As Michael pinned down the intruder, Ashley was able to dial 911.

Michael Speer was taken to the hospital to be treated for his stab wounds; he has already been released. His wife had to be air lifted to a hospital in Indianapolis, where she was initially in critical condition; she has been upgraded to stable condition. The assailant is in the Vigo County jail without bond. She faces preliminary charges of attempted murder, armed robbery, aggravated battery, and attempted criminal confinement (aka "kidnapping", I think).

Obviously, this is a horrible situation. While it could've been a whole lot worse — the month old boy could be an orphan right now — it could also have been a whole lot better if the family, especially the father, had been properly prepared.


It Could Easily Have Been You
Twas chance that this family was selected instead of yours

You may think to yourself that this is one heck of a story, "but it won't happen to me." Is it really worth the risk? Stop a moment here. To how many families does this apply: "The only reason it didn't happen to you was that a madwoman picked a different name out of a hat." Now, do you realize that there are crazy people everywhere? It doesn't matter if you live in the sticks, in the ghetto, downtown, or in a sexy suburban scene. There are crazy people everywhere. And one day, your name may be pulled from a proverbial hat by one such person, just as the Speers discovered.


How It Could Have Been Worse
Some sadder endings to this report

This section is perhaps superfluous, but I decided to add it anyway since it'd be so short.
  • A father could have had to bury his wife and infant son.
  • A mother could have had to bury her husband and infant son.
  • A mother and father could have had to bury their infant son.
  • A baby boy could have grown up with a madwoman, perhaps ever on the run from authorities.
  • A baby boy could have grown up in foster or adoptive homes and would have had to be told someday how a madwoman murdered his parents when he was born. ("Was it my fault mommy and daddy died?")

  • Every one of these is heart wrenching. Would you wish this upon any man, woman, or child? This is the stuff Lifetime movies are about! (I mean, aren't they? I'm actually not positive because I most assuredly do not watch Lifetime. Blech!) Every possible situation listed would be worse than what actually happened. And every possible situation listed was an equally possible outcome yesterday. The Speers were fortunate.


    How It Could Have Been Better
    Some ideas for how YOU can make sure that it will end better for you than it did for Michael and Ashley Speer.

    It is my personal opinion (and I'll admit, I think this is the correct opinion and that everyone should share this opinion) that it is the duty of a husband to provide for the safety of his wife, and that it is the duty of a father and mother to provide for the safety of their children. On this hierarchy, the father carries the most responsibility.

    The most effective tool at the disposal of men and women in this era to provide for safety of those in their charge is the firearm. The father should have been prepared. He should have had a gun in the house. Why didn't he?

    Perhaps the couple had simply never given a thought to the possibility, to the idea of being prepared for something crazy. If they simply never considered it, since the father carries the most responsibility, yesterday's events reveal a failure on his part. To be less politically correct, I'll be blunt: if there was never thought to be prepared for this (or for "anything"), then this is Michael's fault.

    Perhaps the reason he wasn't prepared was that his wife thought he was crazy or unreasonably and illogically fearful. "What‽ You want to have guns in the house with a BABY‽ Are you crazy‽" And that is a rough situation to be in, when the very ones a father has a duty protect refuse to allow him to have the tools with which to fulfill his duty. To be less politically correct, I'll again be blunt: if there had been talk of preparing but Ashley wouldn't let Michael own a gun, then this was Ashley's fault. And it nearly cost her own life.

    (To be clear, I have no idea why they don't have a gun, but those are two of the most common scenarios.)

    On a somewhat lesser charge, the mother should have been more careful. Why did she open the door for a stranger? Well, to be fair, women tend to have more tender hearts to strangers who show up with a good story and "just need to use your phone." But this is a urge that must be carefully managed. Even I, as a Christian, do not forsake situational awareness and basic self-preservation instincts when fulfilling my mandate to love my neighbor. Evil exists in this world, and it is not our calling to sacrifice our lives rather than fight it. (But lets not get started on that aspect here; I have a blog planned to address that later.)

    The point is... if you're going to invite a stranger into your home, try to make sure there is a safe distance maintained and that you have the ability to repel an attack if need be. If you can't repel a potential attack, you better think twice before admitting a stranger to your home. If you don't keep a gun in your home, you better be VERY strong before you let a stranger in.

    Finally... when a father is awakened to hear struggling in within his home, his first thought better be to make sure his family is safe (okay, maybe second, after putting on pants, but that's iffy). And, again, unless you are a bull of a man, you better have a gun at hand because there is no better way to provide that safety to your beloved wife and children.

    If I am ever awakened by the sounds of a struggle and find my wife being savagely attacked, stabbed, and bleeding, a righteous rage will fill me, and the attacker will have several bullet wounds in short order, with more ready to be handed out if the first volley does not immediately terminate the attack on my family. How DARE you come into MY home and attack MY wife and threaten MY child‽ I submit to you, this is the correct response for any husband and father, even for any man.

    From what I've heard, I believe Michael did the right thing at this point. But the attack could have been terminated more quickly, and probably without Michael being stabbed, if he'd emerged from his bedroom with a firearm.

    As a corollary to the theorem that the husband and father should be armed, I recommend that a mother also arm herself out of love for her children and her own desire to protect them. Had Ashley been armed when she answered the door, this could have been ended even sooner, and she could have saved herself a flight to Indianapolis and a stay in critical condition.


    What Will You Do?
    Closing thoughts and entreatments
    Hopefully you have come to the realization that something this insane could happen to you — do you think Michael and Ashley ever had this nightmare? I would bet money that they fully expected last night to be an average evening, like any other, like you will probably have tonight and tomorrow night, and all next month. But you simply cannot predict or prevent atrocities like this; all you can do is prepare.

    There are stats and there are stories. There are books and there are tales. There are memories and there are tragedies. The records are there to be found if you are willing, and they will bear witness to the fact that there exists no better tool of home defense and self defense than a firearm.

    This isn't based on a made-up story. This happened yesterday. In Indiana. This IS real life.

    If you are a husband and/or father and haven't thought of preparing yet, it's time you start thinking about it.

    If you are a wife and/or mother and are withholding the proper tools from your husband, it's time you rethink that.

    If your wife is withholding the proper tools from you, it's time you start trying in earnest to help her understand.

    It's your job to protect yourself, your wife, and your children. Is it really worth the risk to be unprepared?

    Sunday, May 23, 2010

    Deterrent Effect of Defensive Handguns

    A year and a half ago, I applied for my lifetime Indiana License to Carry Handgun (LTCH) in preparation for becoming one of the citizens who goes about his daily business prepared for the type of occasion I hope never happens. A person who is close to me had been such a citizen for several years already; since this person may wish I do not reveal publicly that he carries, I shall refer to him as Noah. Based on Noah's experience in the field of carrying a handgun daily for self-defense, and on his familiarity with my character, attitude, and general youthful foolishness, he strongly advised me to read a book by Massad Ayoob before I get a gun and start carrying it daily. In fact, his recommendation was so strenuous that he told my parents not to let me purchase or carry a gun until I had read this book.

    Without question, I read the book and almost immediately agreed with Noah's opinion that I *needed* to read it before carrying. In fact, I agree with his opinion so much that, even now, I advise new shooters to also read the book first. It is paramount to the safety of all citizens that those who carry have the correct mindset, and Ayoob's book is an excellent tool for building that mindset (among the myriad other lessons he teaches in it).

    Six months after I applied for my LTCH, and 4 months after it arrived in the mail, I got my first handgun. In the year since then, my collection of firearms has grown, as has my proficiency and familiarity therewith. I've applied myself to learn as much as I can about the safe, legal, and ethical use, handling, and storage of guns, ammo, and accessories for various purposes. As I come upon the 1 year mark, I thought it would be appropriate that I re-read Ayoob's book. I knew there would be more things I'd be able to pull from it as a result of my continued learning. (Shoot, when I read it the first time, I already knew I was going to have to read it again because there's just so much to soak up.)

    Today I read a chapter that so perfectly demonstrates why I chose to carry a gun that I want to share it with you. It is perhaps the shortest chapter in the book, only a couple pages, so I'm going to share its entirety with you. I encourage you to read this chapter to help gain understanding in the matter if you've ever questioned, "Why would you want to carry a gun?" Moreover, read the whole book.

    ====================
    "In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection". Ayoob, Massad. 1980. Massad F. and Dorothy A. Ayoob, Publisher.
    (Amazon link)

    Chapter 10: Deterrent Effect of Defense Handguns

    I have often said that in a situation where the law-abiding citizen is criminally threatened with physical harm, the great saving force of the self-defense handgun will be demonstrated more in its psychological deterrent power than in its ballistic stopping power.

    I don't deny the fact that there will be terrible moments when the intended victim will have no choice but to pull the trigger. But if the timing is right, and if the assailants are of the typical mettle of a mugger who wants an easy score and doesn't want to shed any of his own red blood to line his pockets with someone else's green money, the sight of your blue steel may be enough to turn some faces white and some spines yellow, and let you go on living your life uninterrupted in its own placid colors.

    For instance, it is a cold February night. I am leaving a Holiday Inn located on the outskirts of what is listed in the FBI reports as one of the most crime-free cities in America. It is cold, bitter cold, with a savage Nor-Easter blowing. I button my topcoat over my suitjacket as I walk through the darkened parking lot to the very edge, where I had to leave my car. Alone in the car-filled lot is a young man in a thin pea-jacket, smoking a cigarette, lounging against the hood of a sedan.

    On this night, in this weather, it is not a place to relax for a smoke. I look around the lot, wondering whom he is waiting for. There is no one to be seen.

    I glance back at the young man, and he is already looking at me, and our eyes meet. I nod to him, the instinctive gesture of one human being meeting another in a lonely place. He turns sharply away, looking fixedly at nothing, and draws on his cigarette.

    Alarm bells ring in my subconscious. Something is wrong here. The same instinct makes my right hand unbutton my topcoat and my suitcoat, to give that hand access to the Smith & Wesson Chief's Special in its speed rig on my right hip. I feel the frigid wind knife through my chest. You shmuck. I think to myself, if you get pneumonia and die, they'll list your cause of death as paranoia. I keep walking. The young man, directly in my path, keeps looking away.

    I pass within a few yards. And, suddenly, he moves.

    The half-smoked cigarette (I remember it had a brown filter) is thrown to the ground, and with a violent sweep of his arm ("Marines, let's go!") he gestures towards a car in the parking lane behind him. And now a lupine face comes from behind a fender, its eyes on mine as the young man's are now, narrowed and hungry.

    And they lunge. For me.

    I am two people. One of me watches in fascination, never before having seen a human face in a frenzy that would draw the lips so far back from the teeth that the gums are showing. The other of me, without really thinking about it, draws the .38.

    And, voila, another revelation. Never before, except in cartoons, have I seen people come skidding to a halt on the heels of their shoes, with their toes pointed skyward and their hands flailing for balance.

    We stand looking at each other for a long moment. They can't see the wicked tips of the hollowpoint handloads in the chambers, and wouldn't recognize them if they did, because this is before the day when ACLU bleated to the world about Super Vel and police brutality. The gun isn't even pointed at them, just held casually at a 45° angle. But they know what it is, and they look at me with surprise. "No fair," they seem to be thinking. "You're not supposed to pull steel!"

    I give them a big grin, partly because I often respond to stress situations with a touch of hysterical laughter, and partly because I can't think of anything relevant to say.

    Then, I walk to my car, backwards, watching them with an occasional glance over each shoulder for a third mugger, who either isn't there or knows enough not to jump on somebody with a piece.

    And then I get in my car and drive away.

    It has been a long time since that happened to me. I often wondered if I was wrong in not trying the citizen's arrest number (I didn't become a cop until later). I wondered if I left them out there to pounce somebody else.

    But I knew then that it was their two words against my one, and I knew they hadn't come up to me to bum a cigarette, it might have been hard to convince a judge of that in a town where there supposedly isn't any street crime. I'd rather think that I scared enough out of them and they gave up trying to mug a straight stranger who just might be "walking heavy."

    Not long after that, I was in a major metropolis that doesn't try to hide its street crime problem because it can't. In broad daylight, I was accosted by a man-woman mugger team. The woman's deliberate staggering into me was supposed to throw me off balance and into the arms of her male friend. But I had worked with enough good judo teachers to stay on my feet, turn, and wind up facing her boyfriend with her on the other side.

    He didn't brandish his knife like in "Blackboard Jungle" or "West Side Story." He just drew it. It was a fixed blade, a kitchen knife I think.

    Matter-of-factly, with a big grin, he showed it to me.

    Matter-of-factly, with a big grin, I showed him a four-inch .38 revolver.

    Rather urgently, he shoved the bare knife back into his belt, and I hope he slashed himself. He raised his hands in a conciliatory gesture ("Don't shoot, we're all friends here, heh heh . . .") and waved at the woman behind him to cross the street as he back pedalled himself. He stopped grinning, turned to her with his eyes widening now, and made a desperate "get the hell out of here" gesture. Then he looked back at me and grinned even wider as he continued his backward movement.

    I grinned back and put the gun inside my sportshirt again. He turned and fled.

    I did not try to apprehend him. I wasn't a cop then, either. And that city didn't give gun permits to out-of-state travellers, or, for that matter, to its own crime-plagued citizens. He would have gotten a free lawyer. I would have spent some time in their local clink and would still have a felony bust on my record. If I hadn't had the gun, he probably would still have gotten off with his free lawyer, and I would have wound up in the hospital and would still have the scars. Or maybe the worms would have eaten the scar tissue by now. Either way, it was easier to walk away whole with no blood on my hands. And none of mine on anyone else's.

    It was some years later, and this time I was wearing a police uniform. The call came over the radio, and I hit the lights and siren. A drug-crazed suspect had forced his way into a suburban home on the edge of the community I patrolled.

    He was gone when we got there, but he had already left a residue of fear that would never go away. He'd had the wife down on her living room couch when the husband, hearing her screams, grabbed his Walther .32 auto from his night-table drawer and ran to her aid.

    The guy heard him coming, and threw himself to his feet to take the husband. The guy was big. Then he saw the pistol . . . and got small.

    He backed out the door screaming threats, covering his face like a vampire in a late-show movie cringing from a crucifix. By the time the husband had chased him out, his wife had run to the bedroom closet and fetched the loaded 12-gauge. As the druggie stood on the lawn screaming obscene threats at the homeowner, the latter fired a round of birdshot into the air, and the attacker fled into the woods.

    During the hours that followed, as I and a contingent of brother officers stalked the suspect through the woods, I reflected on the value of that little .32 automatic in that man's night-table drawer. We'd had a decent response time—we were on the scene less than a minute after getting the hysterical phone call—but as I crept through the pitch-black woods that night, listening to the sound of the bloodhounds, I couldn't help but wonder what might have happened if he hadn't had that little gun. I admit, I didn't reflect on it too much at the time, because I was more preoccupied with the sounds and movements around me as I still-hunted the brush with a Kel-Lite flashlight going on-and-off in one hand, and a Colt .45 automatic in the other. But I knew damn well that without that little .32, we might not have gotten the call until it was too late.

    Later that night, when the thing was (bloodlessly) ended, that man came up to me and said, "Officer, my wife is afraid they're going to arrest me for threatening him with a gun. They aren't, are they?"

    That gave me something to reflect on, too. I remembered those incidents back before I started wearing a badge, and how my first thought was that "they" could arrest me for defending myself against violent assault. At that moment, I was glad I'd taken the call as R/O (responding officer or reporting officer).

    I put my hand on the guy's shoulder. I told him he wouldn't be arrested. I told him to come in to the police station Monday morning and see about getting a "carry" pistol permit. And then I gave him the address of a friend of mine who runs a police equipment shop, and promised him a discount on something bigger than a .32 automatic. Somewhere in between came a lecture on trusting the frail hook-and-eye lock on his screen door.

    Wanna few more? I've got files full, and thank God, only a few of 'em happened to me. But the documentation is there, with me and a lot of other people, most of 'em cops: when an innocent person is menaced by a violent criminal who doesn't give a damn for any life but his own, the very presence of a firearm is often enough to turn the situation around, to make the attacker say, "Whoa! I didn't bargain for jeopardizing my life instead of yours!"

    I reiterate: the very presence of a citizen's gun, as they rightfully say in the Armed Citizen column in AMERICAN-RIFLEMAN, often prevents bloodshed on either side. You'd think the ACLU and similar groups would appreciate that more than they do.

    Despite all the junk "rape defense manuals" and similar pop lit, there's only one way you can talk a violent criminal out of harming you once he's picked you for a victim. What you have to do, is hit him with a deep, existential question, something that will make him re-examine and re-evaluate his own personal values and life style, his own hopes and dreams, as related to the moment at hand. It can even be phrased without words.

    A question like, "You don't want me to have to shoot you in the face with this .38 Special, do you, scumbag?"

    Wednesday, February 3, 2010

    Why There Should Be No Ban On Texting-and-driving



    That video is gut wrenching. Were you even able to watch its entirety? The part that hurts me the most is seeing the little girl asking "Why won't Mommy and Daddy wake up?" and the little infant with an empty stare while emergency personnel frantically check for a pulse because I see in them my two nieces, ages 8 months and 6 years, who lost their mother when my sister Rachel passed away suddenly 8 months ago.

    The accident depicted was caused by a teenaged girl texting while driving. So how could I possibly still oppose a legal restriction against texting while driving? There are many reasons, but let me discuss three of them:
    1. Such a ban can not be well enforced.
    2. "Texting" isn't the cause of accidents.
    3. I have a better idea to handle the issue.

    For the sake of discussion, let us consider HB 1279 which passed in the Indiana House yesterday (02 FEB 10). You should click that link to get more details on the specifics and definitions, but this is the main part of the bill:

    A person may not use a telecommunications device to transmit a text message or electronic mail message while operating a moving motor vehicle unless the device is used in conjunction with hands free or voice operated technology.


    1. Non-Enforceability
    Law enforcement officers (LEOs) have no legal way of determining if you are texting.

    In Indiana, using your wireless phone to make phone calls while driving is not illegal. In fact, Indiana does not even have a hands-free law regarding placing calls. Neither is there any restriction on using the GPS, music player, camera, or even game features that most modern phones include. These facts demonstrate that there are legal reasons to be looking at your phone and pressing buttons (or touching the screen) while driving.

    So, a LEO may visually observe you pushing buttons on your phone while driving, but this is not sufficient to pull you over under the proposed law. This is different from Indiana's "Seat Belt Law" which specifically allows LEOs to stop a driver under Indiana Code 9-19-10-3.1.

    Suppose that you have already been pulled over. A LEO may very well want to find out if you were in violation of the "Texting While Driving Law", but he cannot. If the officer asks you if you were texting, the Constitution of the United States protects you from answering. If the officer asks (or even "orders") you to produce your phone for inspection, the same Constitution protects you from unreasonable search and seizure without 1) a warrant or 2) probable cause.

    There are two very important things to remember. The first is that under United States law, the exercise of your Fifth Amendment right is not an admission of guilt and cannot be used as such. The second is that, since there are legal reasons to be pushing buttons (or touching the screen) of a phone, the fact that you were doing so does not provide probable cause for a search or seizure of your phone, and neither does refusing to tell the LEO if you were texting develop probable cause.

    So, without probable cause or a warrant to search your wireless phone (or a subpoena for your phone records), there is no legal way for an officer of the law to determine if a driver was to be in violation of the "Texting While Driving Law". I must note that this does not apply to drivers foolish enough to waive their 4th and 5th Amendment protections by either admitting guilt or producing the evidence of guilt without a warrant.

    June 2012 Update: Indiana passed a law banning texting while driving. Now, after several years, hardly any tickets have been written because… cops say they can't enforce it. "Police struggle to enforce texting law" - WISH-TV.

    2. The Real Cause of Accidents
    The real cause of accidents is not texting or even using a wireless phone; it is driver negligence.

    The results are in. They can be read all over the internet, and they are seen and heard on the news. But many people have misinterpreted those results.

    The following sources produce statistics and quotes you've probably heard before.
    1. Cell Phones and Driving: Research Update. December 2008. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
    2. Highway Officials: National Ban On Texting While Driving. SeriousAccidents.com (Car Accident Lawyers)
    3. Teen Driver Menace: Text-Messaging: Studies Show Texting While Driving Is Epidemic. ParentingTeens.com
    4. Teens Admit Text Messaging Most Distracting While Driving. Students Against Destructive Decisions.

    The overriding theme is that there are many things which distract drivers from the road, and that one of the most common distractions these days is the use of a cell phone, especially for sending and receiving text messages. (Side note: HB1279 would only ban sending messages, not receiving and/or reading them, while driving.) So, you see, texting isn't really the cause; instead, the main cause is that drivers are paying more attention to something other than driving. Let's brainstorm a moment here.

    Possible distractions to drivers:
    • Reaching for a moving object inside the vehicle.
    • Looking at an object or event outside of the vehicle.
    • Reading a book or newspaper.
    • Applying makeup.
    • Doing or fixing hair.
    • Eating.
    • Taking a drink (assume non-alcoholic).
    • Talking to passengers.
    • Dealing with your kids in the back seat (lost toy, fighting, spill, potty accident, sick, etc.)
    • Changing a CD, tape, radio station, song, or volume.
    • Just listening to music, even if you don't change or adjust anything about it.
    • Sexual activity (let's not be naïve, it happens).

    And, of course, some other things that can adversely affect a driver's ability to safely operate a motorized vehicle:
    • Emotions and state of mind.
    • Cough syrup.
    • Lack of sleep.
    • Body aches and injuries.
    • Drunkenness.
    • Gender. (OK, just kidding on that one;)

    The evidence in all studies to date has demonstrated that a driver whose attention is not focused on driving puts himself at a MUCH higher risk of being in a collision. (Note that I do not call it an "accident". One thing I learned in Driver's Ed is that there are very few accidents; it is almost always somebody's fault.) Whether that driver's attention is diverted by a phone, an iPod, CD player, GPS, or passengers is really irrelevant. No matter what causes that distraction, it is the responsibility of the driver to make sure that his vehicle does not hit anything. Thus, you see that most accidents result from driver negligence—neglecting to fulfill his responsibility to keep his vehicle from hitting something.


    3. A Better Approach
    Regulating distractions doesn't work. Regulating driving will.

    Consider the findings of the attorneys at SeriousAccidents.com (source 2, above).
    The percentage of car accidents attributed to dialing a cell phone is nearly identical to the number associated with talking or listening on a cell phone or bluetooth headset.


    Again, the results are in. When cellular phones were just beginning to gain popularity, it became evident they were becoming a distraction to drivers. Many states enacted legislation requiring drivers to use "hands-free" devices if they wanted to use a cell phone while driving. But that did not help. Even Arizona Democratic State Rep. Steve Farley, who was the first legislator in the country to introduce a bill that would ban texting while driving, has noted that "hands-free" legislation has not proven successful.

    What are legislators to do? Should they doggedly continue down the list of possible distractions and attempt to regulate each one, hoping that success will be found once they've all been banned? No, certainly not. This would be a waste of tax-payer money, since they'd be wasting time, on our dime, writing laws that are too difficult to enforce, infringe on our rights, and, most importantly, have little positive effect in solving the actual problem!

    Listen, folks, I don't know if I've made it clear yet, but I'm not saying people should text whenever they want. And I don't believe that people should drive when they are drunk or high.

    I've never been drunk, and thus never driven while drunk, but I've driven while I was way more sleepy than was safe. Studies have shown that driving while sleep-deprived can be as dangerous as, or more than, driving drunk. So why is driving tired not illegal too? Well the easy answer is that it cannot be easily measured such as your BAC can be measured, even though some people are not drunk at .08 while others are drunk well before then.

    The laws are tackling the issue the wrong way. We should come up with a better way to handle this.

    Let us create a "Distracted Driving Law" that is based on your driving, not what you're doing. Distracted driving tickets could be issued for, among other things:
    • Not going at a green light.
    • Swerving (which is already a reason to suspect drunk driving).
    • Merging into somebody.
    In fact, there are already several things in the Indiana Code that are classified as "reckless driving". Let's add to that.

    Behavior that is generally indicative of being an impaired driver should be banned rather than each and every single little thing which could possibly contribute to impaired driving. In Indiana, one of the drivers in a collision is assigned fault (which is as it should be, in contrast with Michigan's no-fault policies). An appropriate piece of legislation may impose penalties for being the at-fault driver beyond the current status quo of simply being financially responsible for any damage caused to person or property.

    We could do away with the current drunk driving laws, this proposed "Texting While Driving Law", and a flurry of other similar laws, both current and future. It doesn't matter what the heck you are doing in your car if you are able to maintain proper control of its velocity, path, and destination, i.e., speed, direction, where it goes, and where it ends up. But so help you, if you screw up, you're in deep poo-poo.

    Legislating the driving itself also allows the law to be flexible to people of various skill levels. Can you barely chew gum and drive in a straight line? Better not chew and drive. Are you a big, burly, bartender who knows he can have four beers in an hour without even getting a buzz? Fine, if you can keep the car on the road and not hit anything; THAT is what is important, not your BAC nor bottle count.

    And need I mention that this doesn't infringe on your personal rights? No illegal searches. No need to pull somebody over and give them a hard time on suspicion alone. The LEO can clearly observe if the vehicle is being operated in a reckless manner. This is much more easy to enforce.

    Finally, this approach lets us stop writing laws about it! Thirty years ago there were no laws about texting and driving, or even using a phone while driving, because they weren't relevant. But suppose that laws had been written as I have suggested. In that case, the old law would still be relevant today because it was focused on the way a driver operates the motor vehicle on the roadway rather than what the particular distraction of his generation is.




    Come on, folks. Don't let your legislature enact another "feel good" law with demonstrably little effect on stemming the real problem. Instead, let us encourage them to use some common sense and write a better law.

    Click here to email your Indiana legislators. Tell them you oppose this bill, and all others like it, not because you think texting and driving is safe, but because it is a foolhardy approach to establishing roadway safety.




    Further Reading
    A Penchant for Controlling Others - Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. - Mises Institute
    ~ Angry White Boy ~ » Indiana House Bill 1279 – Nanny State Legislation
    Do Not Make New Laws – Enforce the Ones We Have (Texas)

    Tuesday, January 12, 2010

    ATTN: Hoosiers. Support Senate Bill 25 - "Parking Lot Bill"

    UPDATE! A law to this effect has been enacted!

    HB 1065 was signed into law by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels on 18 March 2010.
    News release on IndyStar.com
    Digest of HB1065 on IN.gov

    HB 1065 included provisions that protect Hoosiers from Katrina-style weapons confiscation in time of emergencies, among other emergency powers protections. In addition, the bill, which takes effect on 1 July 2010, prevents employers from banning legally possessed firearms from being stored in locked vehicles on company property. Both of these protections are important for the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms protected by the constitutions of the United States and of Indiana.

    ------------------------
    Original post follows
    ------------------------

    My fellow Hoosiers,

    On Tuesday, January 12, Senate Bill 25 passed out of the Senate Committee on Corrections, Criminal, and Civil Matters by a vote of 8 to 3. SB 25, sponsored by NRA Board Member and State Senator Johnny Nugent (R-43), will now head to the full Senate for a floor vote.

    This legislation would prevent a business from adopting or enforcing a policy or rule that prohibits an individual from legally possessing a firearm that is locked in the individual's private vehicle while the vehicle is in or on the business’ property. Twelve states have already enacted similar legislation to protect their law-abiding citizens from being wrongfully terminated for exercising their Second Amendment rights, and it is time Indiana did the same.

    This is a bill that all citizens who are concerned for their own personal safety should support. To that end, I encourage you, fellow Hoosiers, to contact your state senators and encourage them to vote in support of this bill. I have already done so, and you are free to use the letter I drafted if you would like to, or you may feel free to compose your own; either way, just show your support for the bill!

    Click here to contact the senator for your district.

    Dear Senator [NAME]:

    I am contacting you, as my representative in the Indiana Senate, to encourage you to vote in support of, and to work with all diligence to otherwise lend your support to, Senate Bill 25.

    Senate Bill 25 would prevent a business from adopting or enforcing a policy or rule that prohibits an individual from legally possessing a firearm that is locked in the individual's private vehicle while the vehicle is in or on the business’ property. Twelve states have already enacted similar legislation to protect their law-abiding citizens from being wrongfully terminated for exercising their Second Amendment rights, and it is time Indiana did the same.

    This is extremely important to Hoosiers who legally own and transport a firearm from their residence to place of business where said firearm may not be welcome due to company policy. Citizens concerned for their safety while in transit to and from their place of employ are then forced either to break company policy, at risk of job loss, or to forfeit their inherent right to bear arms recognized and protected by the constitutions of the State of Indiana and of the United States of America, at risk of life, limb, and/or property loss.

    With these considerations in mind, please remember to vote in SUPPORT of SB 25.

    Thank you.


    Sincerely,
    Your Name
    Your City, IN



    Caleb.