Texting and Driving

Ruth Sheehan wrote a column in our local newspaper about Texting and Driving.

This is my reply to her column. I attempted to post the complete reply on the site, but it was truncated so I am publishing it in its entirety here.

Ruth Sheehan wrote of her desire to be free to text, apply make-up and eat while driving. It is her belief that to ban texting will allow for more of our personal habits to be attacked by our legislators and to allow the government's prying into our personal lives even more.

Until now, I have not noticed a Libertarian streak in her columns. She must be desperate to keep texting (and applying make-up) while driving available to all. I tend toward being a Libertarian, but once my actions begin to endanger others, that is when I must alter what I do. Unfortunately, the general public does not feel obligated to give up their cell phone use while driving and it is time for some laws to stop them from putting others' lives at risk.

May I ask, how many NRA gun carriers text while shooting? How many police officers text while pulling their gun? An automobile is no less a weapon than a gun. And not all multi-tasking goes well together.

In less than two days driving in Raleigh, I had to take evasive action to avoid serious accidents due to driver's texting or using cell phones. Yesterday my husband had to swerve out of our lane into another lane due to a phone user pulling out in front of us. It would have been a serious accident if he had not taken over half of the next lane and others had not given him the room. And I have no doubt that I would be either in the funeral home or in the hospital recovering from serious injuries. The same day we also witnessed a woman backing out of a parking space with a phone stuck to her ear. Four people walking had to step back quickly to avoid her and we had to stop in our vehicle. The driver never even realized we existed.

Using Ms. Sheehan's logic, I don't really know why we should have laws against driving while intoxicated. After all, some people can hold their liquor more than others. And it is only a few of these who may endanger others' lives. Cell phone use, both talking and texting, has become an addiction. And it can be just as dangerous when used while driving as an individual driving while drunk.

Ms. Sheehan, I am not buying that research that has been done by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. I can drive down Capital Boulevard every day and see dozens of near misses of accidents and an occasional accident due to drivers using the cell phones. I don't know where UNC is doing its research, but it definitely is not on Capital Boulevard. My eyes tell me more than any research numbers do.

Vehicle insurance companies should make it a campaign to ban cell phone use while driving. They stand to benefit on more than one level. They should realize a better profit and also show their concern for their customers.

With the heavy traffic in Wake County, we need all of our attention to be focused on driving when behind the wheel. I suggest that we put down those cell phones. Eat before leaving or take time while stopped to enjoy the food. Keep the kids in the car seats and seat belts on. If they are acting out regardless of age, do as I did when my children were young. Pull over on the side of the road, cut off the car and instruct them that the car does not move until their behavior changes. This will only have to be done a couple of times in this hot summer weather before they get the message. Put the radio station on NPR 91.5 before starting the car. Don't worry about your make-up if you don't already have it on. Better to make it to your destination without it than to make it to heaven with perfect lipstick and mascara.

Bonus information for you. Read this article to see how people feel about bad drivers.
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/anchorage/story/774084.html

Raleigh---Most Political City

There is an article in Men's Health magazine that ranks Raleigh as the most political city in the country. The rankings were based on percentages of active registered voters, income donated to the current presidential election, ballots counted, campaign spending, votes cast in the 2008 primary and recent elections for governor and Senate.

I wondered why I feel like I fit in here just fine. I have no problem speaking my mind and attempting to engage people in talking about politics in the proper setting. Still it is not often that I hear people who really try to hear views from different sides. May Raleigh become a place where people really talk about the issues and all the sides listen to each other.

Driver's License Requirement continued...

I have obtained some additional information about the statute requirement for signatures on affidavits about sexual offender regulations. See previous post here.

This appears to be the part of the statute that gives DMV the authority to request the affidavit. (1) If the Division finds that the person is currently registered as a sex offender in another state, the Division shall not issue a drivers license to the person until the person submits proof of registration pursuant to Article 27A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes issued by the sheriff of the county where the person resides.(2) If the person does not appear on the National Sex Offender Public Registry, the Division shall issue a drivers license but shall require the person to sign an affidavit acknowledging that the person has been notified that if the person is a sex offender, then the person is required to register pursuant to Article 27A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes.(3) If the Division is unable to access all states' information contained in the National Sex Offender Public Registry, but the person is otherwise qualified to obtain a drivers license, then the Division shall issue the drivers license but shall first require the person to sign an affidavit stating that: (i) the person does not appear on the National Sex Offender Public Registry and (ii) acknowledging that the person has been notified that if the person is a sex offender, then the person is required to register pursuant to Article 27A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes. The Division shall search the National Sex Offender Public Registry for the person within a reasonable time after access to the Registry is restored. If the person does appear in the National Sex Offender Public Registry, the person is in violation of G.S. 20-30, and the Division shall immediately revoke the drivers license and shall promptly notify the sheriff of the county where the person resides of the offense.

I have lived in Raleigh for over five years. DMV had no reason whatsoever to request that I sign that form. Their systems were up and running when I was renewing my license.

It is my belief that if one is a convicted sexual offender he/she is the only one who should be subjected to any requirements of registering. The existing laws already cover this.

I do not believe that it is my duty to proclaim that I am not a sexual offender, or even be asked to sign a statement that I know what the law is. This requirement opens up the possibility that any government agency may be assigned to notify any citizen who goes to a government office of various laws or statutes. The citizen could be required to sign that he knew of a particular law and it may have nothing to do with the agency involved or his reason for going to a particular office.

Every law abiding citizen's rights are violated with this "assumption of guilt". I also maintain that this is not equal treatment due to the fact that every person who moves to North Carolina is not required to go to DMV and sign any document of this sort.

Unfortunately, it looks like we have senators and representatives who make laws with no regards to the rights of their constituencies. I will let them know why this statute needs to be repealed.

NC Senators vote to give sheriffs access to pharmacy records

In today's newspaper, an Associated Press article reports that North Carolina Senators approved a bill to allow the county sheriffs to review pharmacy records while investigating illegal use or sale of prescription drugs. Sheriffs could share the information with other law offices and federal SBI agents. I have sent an email to every state senator, representative and to the governor on my thoughts on this bill. I also wrote a letter to the News & Observer.

I am beginning to wonder if we have a single public official who realizes what their job really is.

Anyway, here is a close variation of the letters that I sent to our public officials.

"From my understanding of Senate Bill 4 (= H745), it appears that a sheriff or any other federal or SBI agent may review pharmacy records without anyone appearing before a judge or magistrate to determine that a search warrant is justified. I understand your desire to catch those illegally obtaining and selling drugs. But no one should be privy to such information without a search warrant. Medical records include information that is considered the most private personal information by most citizens.

When broad sweeps are done of reviewing pharmacy records without probable cause and a judge or magistrate has not authorized these searches, then everyone who is innocent has been stepped on. It does not matter that the authorities do not share the information with anyone except other law enforcement officials. It is wrong that anyone should be able to get this information without just cause.

I shall be sending this letter to the newspaper and to all of my representatives. I ask that you consider the consequences of this bill when it crosses your desk."

It's not just in Alaska....

I've had several emails inquiring about this blog entry . Most wanted to know what I was required to sign at DMV to renew my driver's license. I filed a complaint with the ACLU, but so far I have had no reply from them. When I asked how long it would be before they could investigate, they said they are understaffed and it may take six months. This is what I wrote to them. Recently I sent it to The News & Observer in Raleigh, NC to see if they had a reporter who would want to do a story on it.

I went to the DMV at 9701 Capital Blvd. to renew my driver's license on or about January 3, 2007. After waiting for over two hours and in the process of paying for my renewal, I was given a form which is a registration requirement for certain offenders (sex offenders) and was told to sign it. I was running late and signed it so I could get my driver's license and make it to pick my husband up on time. As I was driving away, I wondered, "What has renewing a driver's license got to do with sex offenses? Why did I sign the form without asking for their authority to require my signature?"

I called (919) 570-1016 and asked if someone could read the form I had signed and asked if I would have been refused a driver's license if I had not signed. I was told that I would have to sign it and that every person who comes in for service whether for driver's license or identification purposes would be required to sign it.

After the form was read to me over the phone, I stated that I could not see anything in it that required DMV to get this signed before I received a license. It was only information on the convicted sexual offender's requirements to register with the sheriff within 10 to 15 days of moving to the county or state.

I asked for the statute number and also for documentation that DMV was required by law to obtain this signed form. I was given the statute number of 14-208.7. I told her that this did not seem right as being a sexual offender had absolutely nothing to do with the driver's license and ability to drive. I told her that I could understand why there are laws about driving while intoxicated and how that can be used against your driving record. However, unless a sexual offender was using a motor vehicle in association with the sexual offense, it is not even related and I have never seen a statement in the driver's manual that connected the two.

With this type of encompassing power, it could end up that every single law that is passed must be signed on by every person who frequents a government agency even if nothing related to their department or in their jurisdiction. That in itself would be discriminatory as every citizen would not be required to sign every form. Furthermore, we are not a police state. We are to know the law and ignorance of the law does not insulate us from being punished for violating the law.

The DMV employee said that I should call another number and talk to a supervisor or she would have the supervisor call me. In the meantime, I read the NC statute related to the issue. The supervisor returned my call that day, but I was not home. I took the caller ID number (919 570-1032) off of my phone and called her the next day. She stated the same information as the first employee. She stated that it is their job to get these forms signed. When I stated my reasoning that this should not be as it is, she said, "We require everyone who gets any service at DMV to sign the form." I said, "What if I had refused to sign it?" She responded, "We can refuse to give service." She then attempted to justify this one form by saying that DMV also registers people for voting. I asked if someone refused to register to vote, do they refuse him/her a driver's license? She said, "No."

I must say that the three employees that I spoke to were all very professional and all understood where I was coming from. Two stated, "I am just doing my job."

It is my suspicion that DMV has been appointed for this role or has accepted this role as most sex offenders have driver's license and it is an easy method to be certain that sex offenders cannot say they do not know the law. There are better methods to accomplish this without infringing on the civil liberties of innocent citizens. If sex offenders are required to register with the sheriff, then that is where it should end. Otherwise, the law should say that they need to register with DMV. Still, I and all other North Carolina law-abiding citizens should not even be bothered with this form. I would like to see the DMV be required to destroy all signed forms due to violating our civil liberties.

I will post to the blog if anything comes of this. Of course, something will. My husband will probably cause a big commotion when he goes to renew his driver's license in June.