Speed Trap Ahead » News/Web

Rosebud, Texas Police Officer Fired Amidst Local Sign Controversy

admin — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:26:25 +0000

A Central Texas police officer was fired Monday and could be in more hot water.

The Rosebud Police Officer was fired for working outside city limits against orders. It’s a rule he had reportedly broken multiple times.

On Saturday, the officer reportedly tried to take down a controversial speed trap sign along Highway 77 put up by some residents to warn drivers.

The signs were first put up that Friday as way for Rosebud Signs owner Bobby Bailey to combat what he thought was a police department giving out too many tickets. Rosebud residents helped pitch in and pay for the signs.

“The city was trying to more or less turn the town into a little evil town,” Bailey said. ”We want it to be like nice little Rosebud Texas, like it’s always been.”

The officer got into a heated exchange with one of those residents who helped Bailey with the signs.

“He told me the sign was impeding traffic,” John Borden, Rosebud resident, said.

Rosebud Police Chief Kenneth Proctor confirmed the incident.

“Evidently he confronted one of the owners there, or who put the sign up, and asked him to remove the sign,” Proctor explained.

The sign was on private property and outside the city limits. Chief Proctor said the confrontation about the sign was not the reason for the firing.

The officer is planning to appeal his firing, but it will be up to the Falls County District Attorney’s office to file any criminal charges.

Chief proctor also said while he doesn’t think his city is a speed trap, and has cut down on giving out tickets, he’s in favor of the signs.

News Channel 25 talked to that fired officer Monday night on the phone, he said he was directed by a supervisor to either ticket or arrest the people responsible for the signs. He thought taking it down would cause the least problems.

More signs may be put up on Highway 53, coming from Temple into Rosebud, in order to warn more drivers. Lights also may be added to the current signs so that drivers at night can see them.

(Source: http://www.kxxv.com)

Driver, 64, who flashed headlights to warn fellow motorists of speed trap hauled to court and fined for ‘obstructing police’

admin — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 03:48:41 +0000

Criminal record: Michael Thompson, seen here outside Grimsby Magistrates’ Court, believed he was doing his ‘civic duty’ by alerting drivers on the opposite side of a dual carriageway

A driver has been convicted of a criminal offence for flashing his headlights at oncoming motorists to warn them of a police speed trap ahead.

Michael Thompson, 64, believed he was doing his ‘civic duty’ by alerting drivers on the opposite side of a dual carriageway.

When stopped by a police officer Thompson disagreed with the suggestion that he was ‘perverting the course of justice’ and was then allegedly told: ’I was going to let you off with a caution – but I’m not now.’

Thompson denied wilfully obstructing a policewoman in the execution of her duty on July 21 last year, but was convicted after a trial at Grimsby Magistrates’ Court.

He ended up £440 out of pocket after being fined £175, ordered to pay £250 costs and a £15 victims’ surcharge.

Thompson of Grimsby, north-east Lincolnshire, told the court he was warning motorists for safety reasons.

He said he had been involved in an accident a year ago when two drivers in front of him braked sharply after seeing a speed trap and although he braked in time another motorist crashed into the back of his vehicle.

‘It is not an offence to warn people of a possible speed trap because of the danger involved with vehicles braking quite hard,’ he claimed.

‘It’s a civic duty to warn people. I flashed my lights. I had a very good reason to warn oncoming motorists, in my opinion. My first thought was:”This may cause an accident.”

‘I tried to warn vehicles that there was a speed trap. Because I challenged the officer he would not let me off with a warning.’

Thompson was pulled up as he headed out of Grimsby on the A46 at 10am. He claimed the officer involved was a ‘Rambo character’ who was acting like ‘Judge Dredd’ in using the law unnecessarily. The officer pictured here is using a speed gun on the A130 in Essex

The stretch of road outside of Grimsby where Thompson was pulled over. He denied willfully obstructing a policewoman in the execution of her duty on July 21 last year, but was convicted after a trial and ended up £440 out of pocket.

The trial took a morning of court time and three officers were involved in giving evidence for the case.

One solicitor at court criticised the decision to prosecute as a ‘ridiculous waste of taxpayers’ money’ and said the defendant, who represented himself, should be praised for his actions.

FROM NOT GETTING A SALUTE TO GPS WARNING SYSTEMS – A HISTORY OF AVOIDING SPEED TRAPS

The history of speed trap evasion dates back more than a century.

Helping motorists to avoid speeding fines was one of the main reasons for the Automobile Association being formed in 1905 – a year after speeding fines and endorsements were introduced into UK law.

The AA’s first patrolmen used bicycles to patrol the streets and warn motorists of police speed traps.

In 1910 a test case established that a patrolman signaling a driver to reduce speed in order to avoid a police speed trap was obstructing an officer.

The AA then developed a coded warning system that lasted until the 1960s. A patrolman (pictured) would salute the driver of a car displaying an AA badge, except in the presence of an approaching speed trap.

This warned the driver to reduce their speed in a way that could never be prosecuted by a court.

When radar detectors came into use in recent times they were thought to be banned under the 1949 Wireless and Telegraphy. But a High Court ruling in 1998 established that devices for detecting radar speed traps were lawful as they did not intercept a ‘message’.

The Road Safety Act which became law in 2006 was intended to clarify the law. It made clear that GPS-based speed trap warning systems were legal as they warned drivers of published camera sites and posted speed limits.

According to the AA, regulations under the act that would enable the Government to ban other radar detecting devices have not so far been enforced, although few such devices are currently on the market.

Defending the decision to prosecute, a spokeswoman for the Crown Prosecution Service said: ‘Cost is not a consideration in our decision to prosecute.

‘When a file is provided to the CPS from the police, it is our duty to decide whether it presents a realistic prospect of conviction and whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

‘In accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors a prosecution was deemed appropriate.’

Prosecutor John Owston told Thompson he was not trying to avoid an accident occurring. He said: ’You were doing it to warn them of a speed trap because as a motorist you don’t want other motorists to be caught speeding. You wanted to make sure that people who were speeding slowed down.’

Mr Owston added: ’The natural reaction of most drivers in those circumstances would be to brake. Your first reaction would be that there is some sort of hazard ahead and I will approach it at a lower speed.

‘You are causing people to brake to avoid going through a speed trap at an excessive speed and all it does then is allow people, when they are past it , to pick up speed again and speed on.

‘It’s not the speed trap that causes the accident it’s the idiot behind the wheel who brakes heavily that causes the accident.’

Magistrates rejected Thompson’s defence.

Presiding magistrate Jean Ellerton told him: ’We found that your flashing of your headlights was an obstruction, we found that you knew this action would cause vehicles to slow down and cause other motorists to avoid the speed trap and avoid prosecution.’

Thompson, a married man who is now semi-retired, said he was ‘disgusted’ with the verdict and intended to appeal.

He said: ’It’s a sad day for justice because the law is being abused. I flashed a vehicle for a good reason in the interests of safety.’

The offence of obstructing a police officer carries a maximum sentence of one month’s imprisonment and/or a £1,000 fine.

Andrew Howard, the Automobile Association’s head of road safety, said: ’It’s an unusual case, but I have heard of this happening before. There are lots of people who are not aware of this law.’

Mr Howard said ‘a lot of people would be upset’ to be prosecuted for such an offence.

Solicitor Anton Balkitis, a specialist in motoring law, said most motorists who flash at other drivers to warn them of a speed trap ‘think they are doing people a favour’.

‘It does seem somewhat ironic that they are actually encouraging people, by flashing their lights, to drive in a safe manner and yet to be prosecuted for that seems somewhat at odds with the purposes of the legislation,’ he said.

‘But it is an offence of obstruction and people do get taken to court for it so perhaps people need to be made aware of it.’

How and Why It All Came To This

admin — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 06:08:07 +0000

Ever since the Austin American-Statesman published an article about my website and dealings with Lakeway, I’ve had a lot of issues to think about and thoughts to ponder.

I’ve read many, many comments from readers of the Statesman, and various online blogs. Some comments were very supportive of my “Crusade” against “Speed Traps.” Others were quite critical in their tone. ( I really HATE the moniker “crusade”, BTW.)

Questions! There were myriads of questions to be answered. Who would answer them? Well, there were lots of opinions … and, you know, we ALL have one, if you know what I mean. People on the net were voicing their opinions, basically answering questions, perhaps, on MY behalf.

These were their opinions — most often NOT mine. I rarely post responses to forum comments, so I felt I needed to input MY two-cents-worth in my own forum, so — Here goes…

How did this all come about?

A friend and I were simply trying to learn how to create websites and determine what kind of site would produce the most traffic. I had recently moved to Lakeway, TX, and soon heard about the hard-handed enforcement of speed laws. Also on my mind was an “urban legend” story of a boy who held a “Speed Trap ahead” sign to warn drivers. Down the block, there was another boy holding a big jar labeled “Tips.”

The story about the boys led me to wonder whether such an act was even legal. Soon, I was on the net, researching applicable laws regarding “obstruction of justice” and other similar subjects. Come to find out, it was not only legal, but there were sections of Texas law (Sec. 38.05 (b) and 38.15 (c)) that actually decriminalized warning drivers of speed enforcement zones.

I decided to try the ” ‘Speed Trap Ahead’ warning thing.” So it began. This was how I could generate better web traffic — all just a friendly competition with my friend, blogging about issues that were on my mind while learning the basics of website generation. Phew!

Why keep at it?

I quickly learned that “speed traps” was a very popular subject. And I got lots of trafic! That was the point in the beginning, after all. Very soon, it became apparent that I had opened a BIG can of worms. My website quickly became a public information and discussion forum about all sorts of issues. I began including posts about Texas traffic laws, thus hopefully educating drivers and influencing their driving habits. I posted videos, blogged, answered emails, and read up on various subjects related to driving in general. Eventually, it became a convoluted creation of (1) a contest with my friend, and (2) a mission of learning and relaying to others the intricacies of Texas driving laws.

I’d really like to continue, but…

It’s getting late, and I have a phone interview with Houston news radio station KTRH tomorrow morning. Stay tuned for answers to more questions posed by supporters and antagonists alike. Cheers! Happy New Year!

Drive safely!

Article About SpeedTrapAhead.org in Austin American Statesman!

admin — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 01:04:53 +0000

Front Page!

Check out the article yourself; but, I just have to elaborate on a portion the reporter mentioned.

Yes, I AM un-employed. However, I have worked continuously for the past 30+ years without EVER being without a job or EVER accepting one cent from ANY government agency. I have only been out of work since early fall, when the company I worked for cut near half of its employee base, and sent our jobs to India, Malaysia, and Ukraine. (Thanks! LibreDigital, Inc.)

It’s been nearly two years since I’ve even been out on the roads wearing my shirt. And, I haven’t even been updating my website or writing blog entries during that time due to the civil lawsuit. I DON’T just sit around doing this instead of looking for a job. In fact, the whole sign holding/t-shirt wearing thing I did in the past, was WHILE I was working nights, often 50-60 hours a week!!

Anyway… I just had to add that little bit of clarification. Everything else is, of course, open to your interpretation as you see fit. Be sure to check out the numerous and varied comments at the end of the article.

Town of Sebastopol, CA Tries to Put The Brakes on Speeders

admin — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 20:18:21 +0000

Sebastopol, which glories in its well-deserved reputation for strict traffic enforcement, is launching a public relations program asking drivers to slow down when going through town.

Police issue more speeding tickets in Sebastopol than any other city of its size in Sonoma County. But that hasn’t stopped residents from complaining about traffic scofflaws.

“The No. 1 complaint is regarding traffic, mostly speeding cars, usually on neighborhood streets,” said police Chief Jeff Weaver. “If I was to add up all the complaints I get about thefts, drug use, gangs or violent crime, it would not equal traffic complaints.”

Since the department doesn’t have the staff to station police officers in the neighborhoods, the next best thing is to post signs asking people to drive slowly, Weaver said.

“The staffing is the same as in 1986. I still have 14 police officers. We don’t have the time to devote to traffic as we once did,” Weaver said. “If this helps fill the gap, great.”

As part of the program, expected to cost $640, signs and banners proclaiming “Slow Down Sebastopol,” with the city seal and police department shield, will be posted at the entrances to the city, on some civic buildings and in some neighborhoods.

In addition, Weaver said the city will install permanent electronic signs that read a vehicle’s speed in the eastbound lanes of Bodega Avenue in west Sebastopol, and a third portable reader will be available to put at areas where speed or collisions are a problem.

There will not be an increase in enforcement, but Sebastopol already writes more tickets than other small departments.

In 2009, the department made 7,144 traffic stops, many related to the burgeoning downtown tavern scene, compared to 6,004 in 2008, Weaver said.

Officers issued 334 speeding tickets, compared to 641 in 2008.

In comparison, in the city of Healdsburg, which has a similarly-sized department, officers made 2,982 traffic stops and wrote 45 speeding tickets in 2009.

In Cloverdale, officers made 1,933 traffic stops and wrote 67 speeding tickets in 2009.

Sebastopol has a reputation for aggressively enforcing speed limits, dating back to 1974, when the department hired an officer with traffic safety funds, Weaver said.

“For a long time, the Sebastopol police had a ruthless reputation for speed enforcement,” Weaver said. “I grew up in Santa Rosa and I knew that when you got to the Sebastopol city limits, you slowed down.”

That officer gave Weaver’s sister a speeding ticket when she was hurrying to church to play the piano, and he also gave the department’s current dispatcher a ticket, Weaver said.

“I love it,” Weaver said. “I am comfortable with the strict enforcement of the traffic laws because it saves lives.”

Digital Speed Cameras Target Queensland Motorists

admin — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:03:54 +0000

QUEENSLAND motorists could be nabbed for going just a little over the speed limit as new digital speed cameras allow police to lower their margin of error.

The introduction of digital speed cameras, which will replace outdated wet-film models from mid-year, will enable the “tolerance” figure applied in the policing of speed limits to be lowered.

That would result in tens of thousands more motorists being booked without any speed limits being changed. The tolerance, which acts as a legal buffer for inaccuracy, is the difference between the speed limit and the detection trigger on cameras and hand-held radars.

It is understood Queensland’s figure cannot be lowered with wet-film cameras because the ageing system cannot process the extra fines that would be generated. But digital cameras would create an advanced fine-processing system.

Police and the State Government will not publicly acknowledge a tolerance figure.

In 1998, the first full-year speed cameras operated in Queensland, the state’s road toll was below 300 – the only time it has been so low since 1955.

Road safety authorities believe that was no coincidence and it has ensured lowering the tolerance will be discussed this year. Other states have gone public with their moves. In 2002, Victorian police lowered the threshold to 3km/h, meaning drivers could be fined for doing 63km/h in a 60 zone.

Victoria’s top traffic officer Ken Lay said the reduction and the public debate it created was one of the main factors in that state’s road toll dropping by almost 100 in the following two years.

Queensland Police Commissioner Bob Atkinson would not comment on tolerance levels.

“What I’m asking people to do is actually not exceed the speed limit at all,” Mr Atkinson said.

Police Minister Neil Roberts said: “The speed limit is the limit, not a guide. One ‘k’ over the limit is speeding under Queensland law”.

Speedos err on safe side

DODGING a speeding fine won’t be as simple as blaming a faulty speedometer if snapped by one of Queensland’s new digital speeding cameras.

RACQ vehicle technologies manager Steve Spalding said speedo errors were usually on the safe side.

“The actual speed is less than the indicated speed in nearly every instance. It’s very rare to see a speedometer where it’s inaccurate the other way,” Mr Spalding said.

He said it wasn’t uncommon for drivers to have their speedometers checked after picking up a speeding fine but confirmation of faulty speedometers was rare.

Mr Spalding said drivers of aging vehicles could rest assured their speedo was as trustworthy as the newest cars.

“There are no other mechanical reasons why speedometer accuracy should vary during the life of the vehicle,” he said.

“But we do advise motorists to get the speedometer checked after buying a new or used car. If it’s new they can have it checked under warranty.”

It is the owner’s responsibility to make sure that a vehicle’s speedometer works properly.

EVERYBODY Loves Ticket Cameras!

admin — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:27:39 +0000

Ticket camera corporations like to put out press releases and pay for biased surveys that show that ticket cameras are well-liked by the general public. The reality is that this is far from the truth. This is borne out by the fact that no ticket camera program has ever survived a public vote.

Thankfully, speed cameras are fairly rare in the United States right now (and will hopefully continue to be) but in Europe — and particularly in the United Kingdom — they are being used extensively.

So, how has the public reacted in these countries? Take a look at this list below, which was compiled from the 2009 archives of TheNewspaper.com. Let’s just say they haven’t exactly received a warm welcome:

UK: Somerset Speed Camera Scorched (12/13/09)
Vigilantes destroy Somerset, UK speed camera with gasoline-soaked tire.

UK, The Netherlands: Speed Cameras Destroyed, Gift-Wrapped (12/6/09)
UK speed camera burns while Dutch cameras are gift wrapped on St. Nicholas Eve.

France, Germany, Italy: Speed Cameras Burned, Blinded, Bombed (11/29/09)
Three cameras in Germany, two in France and one in Italy were destroyed or damaged this week.

Dorset, UK Speed Camera Destroyed by Fire (11/15/09)
Vigilantes in Dorset, England take out a speed camera with a burning tire.

UK: Surrey Speed Camera Burned (10/25/09)
Vigilantes set fire to a speed camera in Surrey, England.

Speed Cameras Attacked in Finland, Poland and Wales (10/11/09)
Explosives destroy speed camera in Northern Finland, Welsh authorities report 102 camera attacks and Polish speed camera burned.

Louisiana and UK Speed Cameras Burned (10/4/09)
Fixed and mobile speed cameras damaged by fire in Bradford, UK and Westwego, Louisiana.

Speed Cameras Attacked in Italy, Germany, Kuwait, Poland (9/27/09)
Speed cameras smashed, traffic cameras shot, a speed trap hiding spot is destroyed in Italy, Germany, Kuwait and Poland.

Automated Enforcement Assaulted in Australia, France, Maryland, UK (9/13/09)
Speed cameras are spraypainted, toppled, shot and firebombed on three continents.

Speed Cameras Attacked in France, Ireland, Poland, The Netherlands and UK (8/30/09)
Speed cameras in France, Ireland, Poland, The Netherlands and UK are booed, blocked, burned, bombed, bent and boosted over the past week.

Camera Attacks in Tennessee, Australia, Italy, Latvia, Spain, UK (8/16/2009)
Speed cameras are shot, rammed, burned and smashed in Tennessee and throughout Europe this week.

Speed Cameras Taken Out in The Netherlands, Poland and the UK (8/9/2009)
Vigilantes act to stop camera ticketing in The Netherlands, Poland and the UK.

Louisiana, Poland, South Africa and UK Express Anger Toward Speed Cameras (8/2/09)
People in Zachary, Louisiana; Poland; South Africa and Swindon, England choose different methods to strike at photo enforcement.

UK, California and New York Destroy Traffic Cameras (7/26/09)
Traffic cameras smashed in Fremont, California; grabbed in New York City, New York; burned in West Yorkshire, UK.

Speed Cameras Disabled in Arizona, France (7/5/09)
Arizona freeway camera vans receive Post-It Note treatment while French cameras are burned and painted black.

Speed Cameras in UK, Germany, The Netherlands Swiped, Smashed, Scorched (6/7/09)
Vigilantes use a variety of methods to eliminate Scottish, British, German and Dutch speed cameras.

Australian Cops Block Speed Cameras, French, UK Vigilantes Destroy Them (5/31/09)
West Australian police block speed cameras while vigilantes smash French and burn UK cameras.

Speed Cameras Attacked in Germany, Italy, Poland, UK (5/24/09)
Vigilantes disable and destroy speed cameras located in Germany, Italy, Poland and Wales.

Tennessee Protests Speed Cameras, UK Burns and Poland Grabs Them (5/10/09)
Students protest speed cameras in Tennessee, while cameras burn in Lancashire, UK and are grabbed in Poland.

Cameras Burn in England and Germany (4/26/09)
Vigilantes incinerate a Lincolnshire, UK speed camera and damage another in Stade, Germany.

Vigilantes Target French, UK Speed Cameras (4/6/09)
Vigilantes burn speed cameras in France, UK. Anti-war rioters take time to eliminate a speed camera during NATO summit.

Vigilantes Destroy Speed Cameras in France, Italy, UK (3/8/09)
Two French speed cameras disabled, two Italian camera smashed and one UK camera is knocked over.

Vigilantes Attack Cameras in UK, Italy (3/1/09)
Spray paint disables a French speed camera while a burning tire destroys a UK camera.

UK, Italy Vigilantes Attack Speed Cameras (2/22/09)
Two speed cameras in the Isle of Wight, UK covered in paint while a speed camera in Lombardy, Italy is destroyed.

Belgian, British, Polish Speed Cameras Swiped (2/8/09)
Vigilantes grab speed cameras in Belgium, England and Poland.

UK and French Vigilantes Continue Attacks on Speed Cameras (1/25/09)
French speed camera attacked six times in a year while UK speed camera disappears.

Super Speeders: Breakneck Drivers Face Extra $200 Fine with new state law

admin — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 03:30:13 +0000

A New Year’s resolution to ease off the gas pedal could spare lead-foot drivers hundreds of dollars – and make roads safer.

Starting Friday, Jan. 1, a new state law in Georgia will tack on an additional $200 fee to any local fine received for a speeding conviction. The “Super Speeder Law” is aimed at “high-risk” drivers whose speed are deemed threats to fellow motorists.

Georgia averages one speed-related death a day, according to the official “Super Speeder” Web site.

“That makes speeding a habitual disaster just waiting to happen,” said Governor’s Office of Highway Safety Director Bob Dallas in a statement. “But it’s one of life’s bad habits that can and should be kicked.”
The added fine will be applied for any driver convicted of speeding at 75 mph or more on any two-lane road or 85 mph and over anywhere in the state.

Sheriff Richard King encourages motorists to drive safely.

“The best thing to do is to keep a watch on the speedometer,” he says. “If you watch your speed, you won’t have to worry about being a super speeder.”

Getting slapped with the new fee might feel like a double-whammy. A driver will get the initial speeding ticket from the local jurisdiction, only to receive a letter of notice for the state fine.

The state penalty must be paid within 90 days of the letter’s date. If a driver fails to pay the additional state fee, an additional $50 will be charged and the offender’s driving privileges and license can be suspended.

Fees collected through this new law are designed to pay for some of crash victims’ treatment. The funds could be used in the state’s trauma care hospital system, where approximately 60 percent of trauma patients are crash-related.

Final say of where the money is diverted is up to the state Legislature.

State safety officials hope the $200 “incentive” will remind more drivers to stick to posted speed limits and cut down risk for passengers and others.

Source: The Blackshear Times

Illinois Enacts New Traffic Laws for 2010

admin — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 02:37:21 +0000

About 100 new state laws are in effect right now and authorities aren’t letting any of them slip by

“Everybody I’ve run into or talked to has asked me about the new laws so the word is getting around quick,” said Senior Winnebago County Sheriff’s Deputy Anthony Moore.

About half of the new laws can be found under the Illinois Vehicle Code, that’s nearly 50 new traffic related laws. Among them, trucks are no longer held to a 55mph limit in most 65mph zones, uninsured motorists can be jailed rather than just fined, and Sergeant Doug Bushman tells us about the two we’ve all heard so much about.

“It’s now illegal to operate a motor vehicle and text at the same time, and it’s also illegal to use a cell phone in a school zone, in a construction zone or a maintenance zone.”

If you’re caught texting the consequences are similar to a speeding ticket, but if your cell phone use results in an accident, the charges get much worse.

“If people are injured or killed, and I find a cell phone in the car, then what I’m going to end up doing is getting a search warrant to be able to obtain information off the phone to find out whether or not they were on the phone at the time of the crash and if the are, then that will enhance the charges on it,” said Deputy Moore.

Some critics of the new cell phone laws argue that it’s just another way for the state to make money, but Deputy Moore says otherwise.

“If you think about it, next time you’re on your cell phone when you hang up your cell phone try to remember what you just passed and you probably won’t because people, act the same way a drunk acts, they can’t remember where they’re at or what they just passed.”

The Illinois Secretary of State’s office has a 68 page packet that covers most of the new laws.

You can access the packet, which includes most of the details and fine print, at:

http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/police/lawupdate0910.pdf

Source: WIFR.com

Austin’s New “Texting-While-Driving” Ban

admin — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:10:48 +0000

As of January 1st, 2010, drivers in Austin, TX cannot legally use cell phones for anything other than phone calls. That means no texting, no scrolling, no surfing, no navigating while driving on a public roadway unless you need to report an emergency.

There will be a one-month grace period, during which offenders will get off with a warning. After that, violations are Class C misdemeanors that could result in a $500 fine. Here are some answers to questions about the law.

How will the ban be enforced?

With difficulty. Officers will make stops based primarily on erratic driving, said Austin Assistant Police Chief Al Eells. Beyond that, police will have to catch a driver in the act to make a traffic stop. Because dialing a cell phone can look like texting, an officer will need to watch a driver for a “prolonged” period of time to make sure he’s actually texting, said Cmdr. Stephen Baker, who heads up Austin Police Department’s highway enforcement command.

Moreover, since the violation must also occur while the vehicle is moving, the observing officer essentially will have to be driving alongside a potential offender. Thus, for safety reasons, the opportunity to view driving-and-texting scofflaws will occur mainly in slower, city driving. “It’s going to be a lot of officer discretion,” Baker said.

What about the surfing/scrolling/e-mailing part of the ban: How will that be enforced?

Lightly. It will be difficult to distinguish whether a driver is, say, looking up a contact to dial (legal) or reading e-mail (illegal). “If a person is just holding a cell phone up in front of his face and reading it, we don’t make that stop,” Baker said. “There’s no way we’re going to be taking those to court.”

Will police take my cell phone and read my texts?

While prosecutors say such searches would be legal, Baker said Austin police won’t search anyone’s phone.

What if I’m from out of town and haven’t heard about the law?

Driver beware. Eells said the city will place informational brochures at places such as the airport and convention center. “Will that capture the guy traveling through Austin on I-35? Probably not,” he said.

Will anyone be arrested?

Not unless the driver refuses to sign a citation. A texting violation won’t go on the driver’s record, either.

How big is the problem locally?

Austin police report that since the beginning of the year, there have been 129 serious collisions in which cell phones have been implicated and 12 involving texting while driving.

Why is texting banned and not cell phones?

We’re not ready to give up driving and dialing. This year the Texas Legislature considered more than a dozen bills to restrict driving while chatting, but settled on only one: no cell phone usage in school zones.
“Our cars are different in Texas,” Rep. Joe Pickett, D-El Paso, told The Dallas Morning News in April. “We want to be able to carry guns, spit, chew, call on our cell phones or sharpen our knives while driving.”

Why have any bans?

Driving distractions have always been a problem, said John Lee, who literally helped write the book on the subject: “Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects and Mitigation.” He recently attended a conference where a presenter showed a video of a trucker talking on two cell phones and smoking while steering through a work zone with his knees. The current problem, said Lee, a University of Wisconsin professor, began when cell phones turned into computers. Unlike time-honored distractions such as adjusting the radio or screaming at the kids, texting and surfing mix cognitive, visual and physical demands that make it difficult to drive responsibly at the same time. “On the face of it, I can’t imagine why anyone would try to drive while doing it,” he said. Plenty of people do, though. On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Transportation unveiled a Web site on to the issue: www.distraction.gov. Starting Wednesday, federal employees will be prohibited from texting while driving government vehicles. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have banned texting and driving. Four of those bans also include prohibitions on Internet browsing and GPS navigation.

Is texting really dangerous?

Most likely. Stories abound of drivers jabbing at cell phones while drifting in and out of their lane – what police call “pinballing.” Some of the most avid texters – teenagers – are statistically horrible drivers anyway.
That’s why, in addition to the 18 states with outright bans, eight others – including Texas – prohibit young drivers from texting while behind the wheel. In July, a Virginia Tech Transportation Institute study that placed cameras in long-haul truckers’ cabs pegged the risk of texting while driving at 23 times greater than when not texting. A couple of weeks ago, a University of Utah study found that teenagers driving a laboratory simulator had a six-fold risk of crashing when they texted.

Still, “there’s a whole lot we still don’t know yet,” said Anne Fleming, a spokeswoman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a nonprofit research organization funded by insurance companies. For example, she said, though studies show that texting while driving increases risky behavior, that doesn’t necessarily mean more crashes.

She points out similar gaps in cell phone research. Federal statistics show that at any given time, 11 percent of drivers are using phones. The Insurance Institute studied crash records and found a four-fold risk of serious crashes among drivers using phones. Taken together, those findings would suggest a big rise in overall accidents. But, said Fleming, such stats haven’t shown up yet.

Am I part of the problem?

Not according to you. A 2008 American Automobile Association report revealed that 82 percent of motorists rated distracted driving as a serious problem. But more than half also admitted to talking on a cell phone while driving; 14 percent said they texted behind the wheel. Translation: “I’m a perfectly fine driver. The problem is with all the other nuts out there,” said Bernie Fette, public affairs officer for Texas A&M University’s Texas Transportation Institute.

Are other types of drivers prohibited from texting?

Under an emergency order issued in 2008 by the Federal Railroad Administration following several high-profile rail crashes, locomotive engineers cannot text while on duty. “We don’t have a steering wheel in locomotives,” said Connie English, state legislative director of the United Transportation Union of Texas. “But you still have to be observant.”

Don’t other activities distract drivers, too?

Sure. A Virginia Tech Transportation Institute study found 80 percent of all crashes could be linked to driver inattention, which includes distraction and fatigue. The institute has produced a continuum of distractions, from less risky to more, such as: checking your speedometer, talking on your CB radio, reading a book, personal grooming, looking at a paper map and using a calculator.

What about eating?

Potentially hazardous, depending on the comestible. In 2002, Hagerty Classic Insurance, which insures owners of classic and collectible automobiles, analyzed the issue after it kept hearing that “police reported seeing pizza or hamburger splattered all over the cars and accident scenes,” said McKeel Hagerty, the Michigan company’s CEO and founder. Its findings, based on statistics and interviews with law enforcement officials: Foods that spilled easily were more perilous because drivers reflexively try to clean up – particularly owners of collectible cars. No. 1 on the list was coffee. But the top 10 also included barbecue, chili and cream-filled doughnuts. No. 2? Hot soup. “Go figure,” said Hagerty.

How about talking with other passengers?

Distracting, at least for the young and chatty. Virginia Tech’s continuum showed talking to be low-risk. But when Texas A&M’s Texas Transportation Institute used a driving simulator to measure how teenagers drove while using cell phones or chatting with passengers, it found the latter to be more distracting. Why? “The driver was physically turning to talk to the other guys,” Fette said.

Dogs?

Possibly distracting, politically untouchable. In 2008 the California Legislature passed a bill prohibiting drivers from keeping pets on their laps, however, the so-called Paris Hilton bill was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Do laws restricting the use of distractible devices work?

Possibly. An October 2009 study by the Insurance Institute concluded that states with cell phone bans showed marked and sustained declines in the rate of use among drivers. That said, many drivers continued to use their phones illegally and others simply might have switched to hands-free devices – which research shows are nearly as dangerous.

Are there better solutions?

Rather than targeting a handful of the endless focus-diverting activities, Lee and others are working to develop in-vehicle sensors which, by tracking head or eye movements, activate an alarm whenever a driver is distracted.

Under Austin’s new law, can I use my fabulous new iPhone app to read the Statesman while driving to work?

Not legally.

Can I continue to read the indispensable print version while commuting?

Yes.

Source: Austin American Statesman