Landa (anonymous) says...

SERIOUSLY EMPORIA GAZETTE? THIS GUY SAID HE HOPES PEOPLE TEXTING WHILE DRIVING GET KILLED AND YOU PUBLISH IT??????? WOW. WHAT A CRAPPY PAPER.

March 22, 2010 at 3:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigRed (anonymous) says...

Landa,

That is not what he said. He said he hopes anyone opposed to such a law is hit and killed by a texting driver.

March 22, 2010 at 5:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigRed (anonymous) says...

FarmRaised,

I agree, we already have a law on the books called inattentive driving. No need for passing yet another law.

March 22, 2010 at 5:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

justaflushaway (anonymous) says...

You got to have a cop on the streets for that, I was from one side of Emporia to the other about 5 times to day and never did see a cop, Semi drivers texting, motorcycles sorry, (crouchrockets) weaving in and out of traffic, pot smoking, an not a damn cop anywhere to be seen, you got it together smith, you still only have two traffic cops on duty now?? you got new cars , you got new equipment, why are you using it, what happen to all the money, Where did you waste it??????JMO

March 22, 2010 at 5:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

BigRed, for once I agree with you. Believe he is pointing out the same that goes with a "drunk driver", many times they kill but aren't killed.

March 22, 2010 at 5:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

barefootin (anonymous) says...

Flush, the cops had a big day today, about three of them took the longest time checking someones backpack and car at 12 th and Congress today. Maybe they were pooped after all that.

March 22, 2010 at 7:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

solong (anonymous) says...

As new technology develops we sometimes need to adapt, this is to serious of an issue to leave gray areas. Texting while driving is very unsafe, everyone agrees, I feel the punishment for this should be clear and a message sent: If you text while you drive you will be severely fined and subsequent violations may result in jail time and or loss of your drivers license. Plain and simple, safety first.

March 22, 2010 at 8:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Ban all texting and cell phone use while driving and make it a serious crime, when doing so.

March 22, 2010 at 8:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

What the hay?

March 22, 2010 at 9:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...

Thanks Gary for raising the level of awareness and I know I'm guility of using my cell phone while driving but I haven't learned to text, I thought Tex was a cowboy. Anyway if you come to a fork in the road, take it.

March 22, 2010 at 9:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

No doubt texting while driving is a very bad idea, but I thought the same thing Landa, hoping that someone gets killed for any reason is a bit much!

March 23, 2010 at 5:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Blackshirt (anonymous) says...

"get killed themselves". Wow, that is quite a statement and makes me wonder what Mr. Lukert thinks of other people. What about the guy that gets the notice that his yard needs mowed? Does he want him to "mowed" down? I think that his statements are overboard and I am not really sure that they should have been allowed into the paper.

March 23, 2010 at 8:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

While approaching an intersection on a walk today, I was very glad I was paying attention as a guy was executing a turn in front of me while texting............if I had stepped out, he would've hit my child and me before he saw us.

That said, I don't wish him dead. I even hope for his sake that he never has to live with having killed someone else all for the sake of his perceived self-importance.

March 23, 2010 at 8:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bloomsbury (SC DIXON) says...

Without exception, the old-fashioned "beat cop" on foot reduces crime across the board. Several larger cities have tried it and even the detractors are impressed with just how effective it is against personal crime, property crime, graffiti, even speeding and drinking while driving. It's not a glamorous job, but with today's technology, they need back up or a cop in a car, they're just a short call away.

Every politician thinks it is their job to enact new laws. Forget it. It's time to enforce the laws we already have.

March 24, 2010 at 4:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bloomsbury (SC DIXON) says...

Wow, I guess we must explain everything. I meant a beat cop downtown, where the majority of infractions happen, particularly late at night. Downtown could easily be patrolled by one or two foot officers particularly in tandem with a pair of bike cops. There is a great deal of vandalism and other more serious crimes downtown late at night as anyone who runs a business or owns property can tell you. Of course it is not the ONLY area where increased police presents would be helpful, and I never meant to imply that. I recently talked with a couple of college students, females from other Kansas communities who live and spend their money in Emporia. They do not walk downtown after dark because of the constant harassment. People should be able to walk the main streets of a town this size with out fear of harassment or violence. Enough said. A beat cop would be a great deterrent. Again, do some research. Towns that have enacted foot patrols again, ranging from towns with populations ranging from a few hundred to metropolises like Chicago, have had amazingly positive results. It works.

March 25, 2010 at 1:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"increased police presents would be helpful"
It certainly would lift their spirits and it would show them that we appreciate what they do for the community. I'm going to have to do a little thinking about what I'm going to get them ........... hmmm? I'm thinkin' bullets. I think they'd like that.

March 25, 2010 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Foot patrol would be awesome along the main drags, with bike and car patrols providing secondary assistance and patrols in neighborhoods and larger expanses, but what this town REALLY needs?

A troubadour!!

March 27, 2010 at 12:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

I've been thinking about this off and on as well as holding off on giving my full opinion to see what happened with HCR, and though others' interest seems to have died down on it, I will go ahead and articulate my position on it.
Technically, driving under the influence could fall under the inattentive driving guideline as well, as we all know that our attentions are impaired while under the influence. So why was a law made specifically for that? Because people wouldn't police themselves on it and were causing a higher percentage of injuries and fatalities than other attention disruptions, with the most injury and death being to victims who were not impaired. Now, we have texting. I shared with you all how I was walking with my child and was put at risk by a texter who wasn't paying attention. The information is out there everywhere that texting while driving is bad and dangerous, but texters don't police themselves on it because they each think that they have better control and multi-tasking skills than the ones who cause accidents, much like the drunks who think they are okay to drive. So, a law sends the message of no tolerance to them in the same way it does to drunk drivers. Is it perfectly effective in stopping DUI? No, but the DUI criminal knows to expect the hammer of the law. So will the texting criminal. Is it a waste of money to make this law? Yes and no. In an ideal world, citizens would be respectful enough to hear and heed the no texting while driving advise and no money would have to be spent on a law. Since that's apparently not going to happen, the money expenditure becomes sensible where it otherwise wasn't.....same as with DUI laws. Initially, I was only for it because of my beliefs that protecting the sanctity of life is best for society as a whole (as the victims of moving violations can't knowingly choose not the be in that place at that time). Now that the HCR bill has passed, a law banning TWD offers some protection to me as a taxpayer as well. ☺
(cont)

April 5, 2010 at 12:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

(cont)
I found this in the December 2009 issue of Reader's digest, but, unfortunately, it isn't available online.
"Now they tell us? the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) just held a two-day summit aout the hazards of "distracted driving," which includes texting and talking on cell phones while at the wheel. But researchers knew the dangers back in 2003, when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) collected data showing that cell phone use had caused 240,000 accidents the previous year. Today the government estimates that more than 500,000 people were injured and 5,870 were killed last year in crashes involving driver distraction, in many cases because of cell phone use. "Years went by when lives could have been saved," one Californian legislator said. It took a Freedom of Information Act request by non-profit watchdog groups to uncover the NHTSA's findings. Turns out that more than six years ago, the agency's researchers drafted a letter warning that a crackdown on vehicular cell phone use was necessary to prevent future deaths. But DOT officials convinced them not to mail it and to bury the findings instead. Congress had warned the DOT not to lobby for new laws, and department officials worried that releasing the report could antagonize powerful lawmakers and jeopardize the DOT's funding. Utah and Alaska recently became the first states to pass laws threatening prison for texting motorists who cause fatality. Six states now ban handheld phone use by drivers altogether, and the number is growing. But why did so many people have to die before the message was received?"

This video was available online:
http://www.rd.com/video/dangers-of-te...

April 5, 2010 at 12:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )