×
all 75 comments

[–]wil_i_am_scared_of_u 10 points11 points  (2 children)

Are there currently any laws in Florida against distracted driving? If so, does that make this law redundant?

[–]GreatThingsTB 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's currently a secondary offence, meaning you can't be pulled over solely for it but it can be added on to anotehr citation.

Here's the current statute.

[–]PopeADopePope 3 points4 points  (2 children)

How many young redditors are about to learn that lobbying isn't a bad thing, and actually protected by the first ammendment?

How many do you think will have their minds blown by this fact?

[–]Mark_Merwitzer[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

How many young redditors are about to learn that lobbying isn't a bad thing, and actually protected by the first ammendment?

Lobbying isn't a bad thing at all. What is often terrible is compensated lobbying, where that said lobbyist has connections with many PACs that can raise money for campaigns. I believe that Citizens United V FEC definitely made it harder for people to communicate with their government, if they do not have access to large sums of money for political campaigns.

How many do you think will have their minds blown by this fact?

That is partly why I am doing this AMA!

[–]Incognit0ne 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unpaid lobbying* 9/10 of them can still shove it up their ass

[–]nmutrpredditor9 7 points8 points  (3 children)

How did you become a lobbyist? What do you do?

Texting while driving is bad, keep up the good fight!

[–]Mark_Merwitzer[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

How did you become a lobbyist?

I became a lobbyist when I first I walked into my county-commissioner's office. I had the goal of doing a ban at a local level, but I quickly learned that Florida prohibited local regulation of texting while driving. Anyone can be a lobbyist, all you have to do is heavily advocate for an issue and you are a lobbyist by definition. I am working with an organized coalition, and therefore am a lobbyist.

What do you do?

As Chairman of the Palmetto Bay Youth Community Involvement Board as well as an intern for a Miami-Dade County Commissioner, my platform enabled me to solicit support from local governments and neighboring youth councils. I attended numerous government and youth council meetings across Miami-Dade County to educate my community on the dangers of texting while driving, and the ineffectiveness of the current law. After gaining their support, I spearheaded an urging to have the state legislature make texting while driving a primary offense. Having others acknowledge the problem is a major step to solving it. This victory caught the eye of the politicians within the community citing their desire for primary enforcement. With support for the urging from the youth and local municipalities, I brought the issue to the next level: my county government. I communicated my push to make texting while driving a primary offense and for the first time, the county made this cause a top legislative priority. Through presentations and frequent contact, I secured the county’s support for two years in a row. With the backing of Miami-Dade County, it was time for me to take the fight to Florida’s Capital, Tallahassee. As challenging as it was to meet with state politicians, I convinced a Senator and a House Representative to sponsor a bill to change the current law to a primary offense. After they filed the bill, I reached out to State Representatives and asked for their support. I also presented in front of numerous House and Senate Committees, as seen in the proof.

Texting while driving is bad, keep up the good fight!

Thank you for your support!

[–]flpolguy 1 point2 points  (1 child)

He's not a lobbyist. They have to register, and he's not registered. He's just someone who is really, really into a particular issue.

https://www.floridalobbyist.gov/LobbyistInformation/GetLobbyistPrincipal

[–]Mark_Merwitzer[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I am not legally required to register because I am not working for compensation. By lobbying I am going by what I have been dubbed by local sources and the dictionary definition.

[–]ChangeMyViewer 5 points6 points  (15 children)

Do you have any evidence that issuing citations for texting while driving will actually cause people to text less while driving? Or is this just another way to siphon hard-earned money from working class people? How would you even prove this kind of thing in court, as it seems like it would be easy to deny and hard to prove that someone was actually texting while driving instead of doing something else?

[–]Mark_Merwitzer[S] 7 points8 points  (12 children)

Do you have any evidence that issuing citations for texting while driving will actually cause people to text less while driving? Or is this just another way to siphon hard-earned money from working class people? How would you even prove this kind of thing in court, as it seems like it would be easy to deny and hard to prove that someone was actually texting while driving instead of doing something else?

Great questions! I actually had these questions come up multiple times in committee hearings. Let me break down your questions.

Do you have any evidence that issuing citations for texting while driving will actually cause people to text less while driving?

To be honest, there are many conflicting studies at the moment. This issue has not been studied very well. But what I can tell you is when Florida switched their seat-belt law from a secondary to a primary offense, compliance rates skyrocketed. Switching a law to a primary offense has proven to work in the past. Further, I have a study that shows that car-related hospialization rates decrease with texting bans.

Or is this just another way to siphon hard-earned money from working class people?

Bit of a loaded question here. But no one is forcing that person to text while they drive. If someone does not want to have their money "siphoned" away from them, all they have to do is follow an easy law.

How would you even prove this kind of thing in court, as it seems like it would be easy to deny and hard to prove that someone was actually texting while driving instead of doing something else?

My favorite question of the bunch. In committee, a Florida Highway Patrol Chief testified on how this law will be proven in court. It is pretty easy for a trained highway officer to know when someone is entering numerous characters onto a mobile device. All they have to do is issue the citation and testify in court about it. If the case turns into a police officer's word versus a defendant's, the court may subpoena the defendant's time stamps of their text messages and phone usage. For the sake of privacy, only the time stamps will be used in court. Further my proposal prohibits a police officer from looking at someone's phone on scene without a warrant, in compliance with Riley V California.

[–]FireHurtingJuice 2 points3 points  (4 children)

My favorite question of the bunch. In committee, a Florida Highway Patrol Chief testified on how this law will be proven in court. It is pretty easy for a trained highway officer to know when someone is entering numerous characters onto a mobile device. All they have to do is issue the citation and testify in court about it. If the case turns into a police officer's word versus a defendant's, the court may subpoena the defendant's time stamps of their text messages and phone usage.

This is the only thing I have a problem with. I use my phone for music all the time. If I was pulled over, I'm not going to argue. Just write me for whatever you'd like to write me for please. But then you will have an officer say they saw me texting, even if I wasn't. How is that fair? How can they prove that? Seriously.

Furthermore, text messages aren't the only way people message eachother. People use Snapchat and Facebook Messenger all the time. You aren't going to see those messages from your carrier.

I just don't know the solution.

[–]Mark_Merwitzer[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

That is one of the main things I have been working on. I am currently working with the bill sponsor to make it so you can voluntarily enter the time stamps of your phone records into evidence to prove your innocence.

[–]FireHurtingJuice 0 points1 point  (1 child)

This is a complicated issue. I don't agree with everything you're pushing, but it is goddamn patriotic that you are doing what you're doing. It's a good feeling to be part of the process, right? There are so many people who whine on Facebook and yet wouldn't even consider writing their legislators. That's because what you're doing is difficult. It's people like you that are willing to change the laws. So thank you.

[–]Mark_Merwitzer[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your kind words and support!

[–]ikonoclasm 2 points3 points  (6 children)

If the case turns into a police officer's word versus a defendant's, the court may subpoena the defendant's time stamps of their text messages and phone usage. For the sake of privacy, only the time stamps will be used in court. Further my proposal prohibits a police officer from looking at someone's phone on scene without a warrant, in compliance with Riley V California.

Okay, so what do you do about SnapChat? There is no record of the conversation.

[–]Mark_Merwitzer[S] 2 points3 points  (5 children)

Okay, so what do you do about SnapChat? There is no record of the conversation.

No law is perfect and I am not an expert on the enforcement side of the proposal, hence why I cited the Florida Highway Patrol Officer. I would imagine that there would be other ways to prove the violation in that case.

[–]ikonoclasm 2 points3 points  (4 children)

I have a hard time imaging FHP will be able to do what Federal law enforcement hasn't been able to accomplish. If you can't address enforcement, all you're doing is penalizing SnapChat's competitors.

[–]Mark_Merwitzer[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I have a hard time imaging FHP will be able to do what Federal law enforcement hasn't been able to accomplish.

Can you link me to what you are referencing? Would be much appreciated.

[–]ikonoclasm 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I did some digging for you and found SnapChat's information about what they log for law enforcement.

https://storage.googleapis.com/snap-inc/privacy/lawenforcement.pdf

You said the officer wouldn't be able to look at the phone, but then they wouldn't be able to obtain the user ID, which is necessary for obtaining the logs. They'd have to get a subpoena to look at the phone to get the username to get the subpoena to request the log from SnapChat. That's a lot of footwork to get a single timestamp for a ticket. You'd be wasting a lot of LEOs time by making that sort of enforcement a requirement.

So while they may be able to obtain it (hopefully within the 31 days that SnapChat retains the info on their servers), is it worth the expenditure of taxpayer dollars for the various officers of the court and judge to get the information? My opinion, and I suspect most LEOs will agree, is a resounding no.

[–]Mark_Merwitzer[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

From my understanding, the defendant usually pays the court costs if found guilty, so there would be minimal burden on taxpayers in this scenario.

[–]ikonoclasm 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Time is a cost. How many police officers are going to want to spend time running down the timestamp of some asshat kid that was using SnapChat? He just won't show up at court and the ticket will get dismissed. I get what you're going for, but by focusing on something that's difficult to prove, you end up wasting law enforcement's time. The only option I see is to expand the scope and use video evidence from the dashboard cam as proof.

[–]182ndredditaccount 3 points4 points  (1 child)

How it gets proven in court is the officer says so and you pay up, just like every other traffic offense.

[–]poopypeepee24 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s why this law is a joke and another restriction on what we, the people can do in our day to day lives. This law will only give police more leeway in pulling over people, and they can merely claim they “thought” you were texting and driving.

[–]AlbertFischerIII 2 points3 points  (9 children)

Would the proposed law cover other uses of a phone while driving? Like using your GPS or using it to listen to music? Or just texting?

[–]Mark_Merwitzer[S] 2 points3 points  (8 children)

The proposal distinctly allows GPS usage while driving. What is prohibited under the proposal is "entering multiple letters, numbers, symbols, or other characters into a wireless communications device or while sending or reading data on such a device for the purpose of nonvoice interpersonal communication, including, but not limited to, communication methods known as texting, e-mailing, and instant messaging."

[–]w1n5t0nM1k3y 2 points3 points  (2 children)

In Ontario the law prohibits holding an electronic device while driving. So you can key stuff into the gps/phone if it's mounted to your dash, but holding the phone is against the rules, whether you are talking, texting, crushing candy, or just reading something. Very easy to enforce. If they see you holding the phone, you're automatically guilty.

[–]Mark_Merwitzer[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

That is the ideal law. The first step is to make texting while driving a primary offense, then reform other areas of the statute.

[–]poopypeepee24 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If this is your ideal law, you’re going to have a lot of pissed off people. Mounting your phone to your dash is stupid, I certainly don’t want to do it, and plenty others agree with me. This bill is garbage.

[–]poopypeepee24 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So when I’m changing a song in my car or looking at my GPS I’ll still be pulled over and harassed, when all I’m doing is minding my own business. Golly gee; I sure do love giving powerful police officers MORE power!

[–]AlbertFischerIII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very interesting. Thank you!

[–]Zerratt 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Isn't the main issue here probable cause and search and seizure? How is an officer conducting a traffic stop supposed to determine if you entered multiple characters into your device without possession of the device? Can't you just politely decline to hand over your phone?

[–]kaydub88 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm writing my senator and congressman to be in opposition to this law. This is a gross overstepping of what law enforcement should be allowed to do. We don't need to give officers a free ticket to pull whoever they want over, and that's what this is.

[–]Mark_Merwitzer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isn't the main issue here probable cause and search and seizure? How is an officer conducting a traffic stop supposed to determine if you entered multiple characters into your device without possession of the device? Can't you just politely decline to hand over your phone?

Riley V California protects someone who does not want to hand their phone over to a police officer. The current bill makes it clear to the person being pulled over of their rights.

How is an officer conducting a traffic stop supposed to determine if you entered multiple characters into your device without possession of the device?

Just like any other infraction, they can clearly see it.

Can't you just politely decline to hand over your phone?

Yes.

[–]182ndredditaccount 2 points3 points  (6 children)

How is a cop looking through a window supposed to distinguish between someone texting and someone doing any of the hundreds of other legitimate things someone can do on a phone?

[–]fiteol_kh 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Most states have some policy on using handheld devices while driving. I know it's banned in the state of VA and MD, at least.

[–]182ndredditaccount 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Only 15 states ban handheld devices and those laws predate the ubiquitous use of cell phones as navigation devices and should be repealed.

[–]Mark_Merwitzer[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

legitimate things someone can do on a phone

There are no legitimate things someone can do on there phone while driving except for calling 911 and using it for navigation purposes. Doing anything on a phone except for those things is an unneeded distraction and a safety hazard.

distinguish between someone texting and someone doing any of the hundreds of other

The law states that "A person may not operate a motor vehicle while manually typing or entering multiple letters, numbers, symbols, or other characters into a wireless communications device or while sending or reading data on such a device for the purpose of nonvoice interpersonal communication, including, but not limited to, communication methods known as texting, e-mailing, and instant messaging." This law goes beyond the scope of texting and allows the police officer to issue a citation when they see a violator doing anything with their phone that is prohibited in the statute. Further, there will be a lot of training for police on how to properly enforce this law.

[–]182ndredditaccount 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I know what the law says. You didn't answer the question. How can an officer tell if you're using your phone for navigation, which the law allows, or reading a text, which the law prohibits? He can't.

[–]adamMatthews 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Could be something similar to what we have in the UK.

Our law says that to use a phone while driving you have to have it mounted on the dashboard and has to be hands free access like voice command.

If you need to adjust a navigation app you either have to use voice commands or pull over and do it while the car is stationary, otherwise it's a £200 fine and six penalty points. You lose your licence if you get six within two years of passing your test, or twelve within three years otherwise.

The new driving test has a twenty minute drive following a satnav, and if you touch the device while moving you'll fail the test and not get your licence but if you go the wrong way and later correct the mistake there's no punishment so if the device is playing up it's best to just ignore it and stop somewhere safe.

[–]Zerratt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like this law. I guess my flip phone isn't gonna cut it though.

[–]MattyXarope 1 point2 points  (9 children)

What stance do you take on the fact that motorcycle owners don't need to be insured (except for personal injury insurance) and don't have to wear a helmet yet not wearing a seatbelt is a primary offense?

[–]Mark_Merwitzer[S] 0 points1 point  (8 children)

motorcycle owners don't need to be insured

I have not looked into the issue that much. But what I do know is I was involved in an accident and was found not at fault. The lady had the minimum amount of coverage and was not able to cover all the damages. I know from first hand experience that if someone does not have good insurance, the person who is at fault is going to have to come out of pocket for the damages. Often times, people are not in the best financial position to pay those kinds of damages, causing the victim to have to come out of pocket if they want their vehicle fixed. I do not believe someone should have to come out of pocket because of someone's lack of insurance.

don't have to wear a helmet

If someone does not want to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, that is on them. The only people they are causing a danger to is themselves. Now if they get hit by someone and get skull damage, I do expect their damages be paid out to them in full. It was their decision to take the risk of not wearing a helmet.

[–]MattyXarope 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Do you support not wearing a seatbelt being a primary offense?

[–]Mark_Merwitzer[S] -1 points0 points  (6 children)

I ideologically believe that it is the state's duty to protect it's people. So yes, I support the current seatbelt law. I have seen data where compliance rates as a primary offense went up and fatalities in motor vehicles also declined.

But I can see where someone is coming from when they disagree. If someone wants to be an idiot and only endanger themselves, they should have every right to.

[–]twoom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your arguments contract themselves. Someone not wearing a seatbelt is acting as much an idiot and endangering only themselves as someone who chooses not to wear a helmet. So you must also support a law requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets.

[–]MattyXarope 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I don't disagree I just think it makes no sense when clearly not wearing a helmet is more dangerous.

[–]Mark_Merwitzer[S] -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Well cars come factory equipped with seatbelts while motorcycles do not come with helmets. A helmet law would be a difficult mandate for many cyclist to follow.

[–]MattyXarope 0 points1 point  (2 children)

And yet in Florida it is illegal to not wear a bicycle helmet at a certain age.

Source

[–]Mark_Merwitzer[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Kids generally make poorer decisions than adults and a kid should not risk their life just because their parents let them.

[–]MattyXarope 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah but when there is liability involved as an adult in a car vs motorcycle crash I believe that if seat belts are required then helmets should be too. Remember the legal age to drive a car is 16 in most states, with 15 being the age when you are able to drive provisionally.

[–]W9CR 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Can you provide proof of your Florida lobbyist registration? I can find no record of your name on https://floridalobbyist.gov/

[–]Mark_Merwitzer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not legally required to register because I am not working for compensation. By lobbying I am going by what I have been dubbed by numerous local sources and the dictionary definition. Thank you for your question.

[–]ThomasTheWarpEngine 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I'm probably late to the party and won' get a response, but it's my opinion that making it illegal will have the added effect of people trying to be "stealthy" with their texting, therefore moving the phone farther from their line of sight of the road, and having the unintended consequence of making these diehard texting drivers more dangerous to themselves and others.

What's your response to this?

[–]Mark_Merwitzer[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

unintended consequence of making these diehard texting drivers more dangerous to themselves and others.

What's your response to this?

I really do not think people are that smart and methodical when they subconsciously pick up their phone to text while they drive. Usually if the person committing the infraction is being "stealthy" and causing a danger, it is likely that they could be pulled over for unintentionally violating another law. Secondly, police departments have been getting stealthy too.

[–]ThomasTheWarpEngine 1 point2 points  (0 children)

First off, I appreciate the response. I didn't expect one tbh.

I drive an Isuzu box truck, so it's easy to get a glimpse of what people are doing in their cars while driving, and when I see someone doing something dumb, I usually see that their phone is in/near their lap, and that their bad driving is a product of them having to divide their attention between the phone and the road.

If they're at a stop light, such as is easy to assume in the link you provided, I don't see the problem so long as they're not holding up traffic. I'd much rather be around people that wait for a stop light to check their phones than while at speed. This seems like just another revenue generation tool for police rather than something done for public safety.

I have my phone mounted up on the dash, fairly close to the windshield, and it feels much safer than before I had the dash mount, seeing as I no longer have to turn my head to look at Waze. Before I had the mount, it sat either in my lap or on the center console, where I had to divert my attention from the road just to check it.

Anyways, I'm being long-winded, so in the name of brevity, I think that this is unnecessary and that people that just cannot wait for a safer time to check their phone will wind up keeping the phone out of their line-of-sight of the road, thereby increasing the likelihood of them causing an accident rather than keeping it in their line-of sight. Prohibition of various things/actions just doesn't work, so while it's a great idea in theory, I think it will backfire. A possible solution I could possibly see working would be harsher penalties if an accident is caused by texting while driving, but not penalizing texting and driving on its own.

[–]MartyConlon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How hard is high school when you're this uncool?

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Users, please be wary of proof. You are welcome to ask for more proof if you find it insufficient.

OP, if you need any help, please message the mods here.

Thank you!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]2cool4life 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Do you think that self driving cars will help?

[–]Mark_Merwitzer[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, the less room for human error the better. As a matter of fact, the current proposal has an exception for autonomous vehicles.

[–]fiteol_kh 0 points1 point  (1 child)

How do you think users can work to get this going in other states? As someone that walks around often (to work, for groceries), I see SO many people texting while driving. Do you think that this is the right first step? Or do you think that insurance companies also need to make policy as well? Also, if it comes down to a time stamp- what's to say that people couldn't be using the "voice" feature to text?

Here in VA any handheld device use is banned- though I'm not sure what the statistics are for how many people actually get caught and/or pulled over for this. I know even with voice to text, you technically have to have your phone in your hand, and be in a message, and THEN click the microphone to do it, but still. Not sure how specific the ban is. Doesn't seem effective to me, which is sad and frustrating. BAN THE TEXTING WHILE DRIVING!!!

[–]Mark_Merwitzer[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How do you think users can work to get this going in other states?

This is already a primary offense in most other states. I would encourage someone to call their state representative and ask them for a full handheld ban if they are already in a state that bans texting while driving, but not handheld use.

Do you think that this is the right first step?

Yes, this is only a first step to a handheld ban.

Also, if it comes down to a time stamp- what's to say that people couldn't be using the "voice" feature to text?

If people were using their voice to text, they would not be pulled over in the first place. This is why I would eventually like to see a full handheld ban.

[–]W9CR 0 points1 point  (1 child)

How will you feel when this law is used as a dragnet and people are murdered by the police over it?

[–]Mark_Merwitzer[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

An ill-intentioned police officer already has a plethora of legal justifications to use as a pretext should harassment be their intention.

[–]opie_is_a_poop -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

I'm stoned to my gills, doyoy support marijuana?

[–]Mark_Merwitzer[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I support legalized, taxed, and regulated marijuana. With that said I also believe we need to have more mental health outreach and better funding for rehab institutions.

Edit: A word

[–]opie_is_a_poop -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Wow, what a textbook responce, almost as i u were government