• Based on the severity of the accident, I'm sure the officer chose not to give a citation since the 17 year old rolled the vehicle and could have been killed. Sounds like this was a high impact collision. Perhaps the officer believes the 17 year old will learn a lesson from the experience and thought he would have endured enough.

    January 3, 2011 at 2:35 p.m.
  • There are several charges I can think of to use. The kid needed a ticket. If you cause a wreck you need a ticket. That is the only way to teach the public how to drive properly. Driving is not a right! You have to have a license to drive legally. Tests and insurance are involved. If you can't follow the rules of the road then you need to be punished if it be a warning for a burnt out bulb to murder for killing someone with a car. Let the punishment fit the crime. Be it civil or criminal it is still a crime (a burnt out bulb, etc.).
    The cops do have a tough job to do! All the training and split second, life and death choices must be a mind blower. To the police department..... Please start ticketing these reckless drivers before they kill someone. Hit them where it hurts, the pocketbook!

    January 1, 2011 at 5:19 a.m.
  • sound like a cop whom I was able to get his panties into a wad. So if your wife/husband was rear ended and lets say your kids or grandkids in the car, ticket or no ticket? When it comes to a wreck, what is the deciding factor for issuing a ticket or not? Does it take someone to cause a person to seriously be injured to get one? What about a texting kid who is already a inexperienced driver? In this case, he was the only one affected. But a lot has to do with the time of day. Not so many out at 4 am. But what about 4pm on Navarro? Ticket or no ticket? I'm not saying take away from a officer's discretion, but lets add some common sense to the equation. As for the kindergarten cop comment. It was not name calling but the "kid" looked every bit of 15, unsure of himself, and not very well trained. I agree with YOMUDA, only penalizing these people will change their habits.

    December 31, 2010 at 5:28 p.m.
  • I still don't know where to stand on this issue. There have always been distractions while driving and there always will be. I understand texting while driving is dangerous and widespread in all age groups, but so are a lot of other things. Music has always been a factor, from radio dials to 8 tracks to cassettes to cds to mp3 to dvd players. What about the people who put on makeup, the lunch eaters, remember the notepad that used to hang off the vent, book/newspaper readers, even talking to your passenger is a distraction. Why not ban it all? Where is the line drawn? I don't know. We've all been guilty at one time or another. AND if a law passes banning texting and driving, how do you prove it? Will they have to get a court order for phone records? All they have to say is, I wasn't texting, I was playing games on my phone.
    Why is spell check highlighting 'texting' ?

    December 31, 2010 at 4:09 p.m.
  • Packersfan asked "And is there a curfew for minors here in Victoria? Or is 17 too old for the curfew?"

    Yes 17 is to old for the curfew. The curfew is for 16 and under.

    Packersfan said "Some of you may disagree, but I firmly believe anyone who is considered at fault in a accident should be cited?"

    This is a great country we live in and we are all free to believe what we want and to disagree with others as well. Believing in something however does not make it so. If you do not like the fact that to issue a ticket or not should be left up to the issuing officer than feel free to speak with your law makers and have them take that option away.

    Packersfan said " But heaven for bid my family and I go out to eat and drive home on Navarro b/c I may get stopped again by some kindergarten cop for my license plate light out."

    Again if you don't like a law, speak with your law makers. Last I checked it is illegal to drive a vehicle with the license plate light out. Until that law is changed, Police will be allowed to stop you for it. Now I ask you did you get a ticket or a warning for the license plate light? I bet you only got a warning, but if you succeed in geting the officers abilty to choose between writing a ticket or a warning, you might not be so lucky next time.

    Packersfan resorted to name calling and showing his ture personality by calling our local police "some kindergarten cop"

    Police have a tuff job. Criminals don't have a neon sign on them say they are a criminal. Police have to use experience and skills to catch the criminals. A traffic violation like a license plate light although minor, is a chance to stop a person and see what they are up to. Are they drunk, wanted, do they have a license, etc. If everything checks out they send you on your way, but if packersfan has his way about taking the choice of the officer away to issue a citation or not, maybe everyone will get tickets even for this minor violation.

    December 31, 2010 at 4 p.m.
  • Some of you may disagree, but I firmly believe anyone who is considered at fault in a accident should be cited? Almost in other Texas city will write you a ticket if you cause a wreck. Why doesnt our police dept? The majority of the accidents that make the paper end with no citations being issued. IMO this is not a frivolous ticket. Unlike speed traps where revenue is a big factor, this is not. That accusation could easily be shot down. But heaven for bid my family and I go out to eat and drive home on Navarro b/c I may get stopped again by some kindergarten cop for my license plate light out.

    December 31, 2010 at 2:29 p.m.
  • Why no ticket? Although texting is only illegal in school zones, what about not driving in a single lane? And is there a curfew for minors here in Victoria? Or is 17 too old for the curfew?

    December 31, 2010 at 2:25 p.m.
  • Wouldn't it be interesting if the insurance companies began to refuse to pay for damages caused by people texting while driving? That might be a more effective way to stop the practice than passing a law.

    December 31, 2010 at 11:53 a.m.
  • No citation? How are people going to learn if they are not penalized for breaking the law?

    December 31, 2010 at 11:47 a.m.
  • born2Bme,

    What police department?

    December 31, 2010 at 9:13 a.m.
  • technology has gotten us so far hasnt it? wonder what i did back in 1986 when i was 17 without a phone to text or even caller id to see who was calling.

    December 31, 2010 at 8:30 a.m.
  • yeojj,

    Earlier, the title said 17, but the article said 16. I guess someone corrected it.

    December 30, 2010 at 11:26 p.m.
  • born2Bme: he was 17................

    December 30, 2010 at 11:22 p.m.
  • My response is in two parts:

    1. I'm glad he wasn't seriously hurt.

    2.-------------------------------------------- I am unable to post this for fear------no-----------IT WOULD be a violation and IT WOULD be deleted!
    ---------------------oh well--------------------------------------------------

    December 30, 2010 at 10:30 p.m.
  • "I thought there was a ban on texting WHILE DRIVING." <---the comment is coming in more clearly.

    December 30, 2010 at 9:51 p.m.
  • "I thought there was a law against texting." <-- looked into the future and saw this comment.

    December 30, 2010 at 9:49 p.m.
  • It seems we'll be hearing about EVERY SINGLE fender bender involving texting until the nanny staters get another law on the books.

    December 30, 2010 at 9:47 p.m.
  • i hope the driver has a fast and healthy recovery.

    i thought this town had a teen curfew ?

    December 30, 2010 at 9:42 p.m.
  • At least he was close to the hospital.

    December 30, 2010 at 8:56 p.m.
  • did he text 911?

    December 30, 2010 at 8:01 p.m.
  • What was a 16 yr. old boy doing out at that time of the morning, texting in the dark?

    If police don't start cracking down on this kind of thing, it is never going to get better.

    December 30, 2010 at 7:58 p.m.