Texting And Driving

[mrjarrell]

Radley Balko goes head to head with gun hater Carolyn McCarthy on the issue. Who wins? I'm with Radley on this one.

Balko:

Forget flu season. Several times per year, America comes down with a national case of TOBAL-itis. TOBAL is short for "There Oughtta Be a Law." Here's the progression of symptoms: Wrenching anecdotes about the effects of some alleged new trend make national news. A panic takes root in the media. Earnest editorialists scrawl urgent pleas for action. Politicians grandstand. Soon enough, we have our new law or regulation. It doesn't matter if the law is enforceable or may have unintended consequences. Nor does it matter if the law will have any actual effect on the problem it was passed to address. In fact, it doesn't even matter if the problem actually exists. The mere feeling that it exists is sufficient.
And so it goes with the panic over while driving. I'm not going to defend the act of clumsily thumbing out an E-mail while guiding a 2-ton, gasoline-loaded missile down the highway at 70 miles per hour. That's foolish. Nor will I argue there's some right to drive while iPhone-ing tucked into a constitutional penumbra. I will argue that we need to get over the idea that we can solve every bad habit with a new law. We can't, and this issue illustrates why.
Let's start with the alleged problem. Obviously, we have more people texting behind the wheel today than we did in, say, 1985. And undeniably, those people pose a threat. But it's hard to find definitive empirical support for the idea that our highways are awash in BlackBerry-spilled blood. Since 1995, there's been an eightfold increase in subscribers in the United States, and we've increased the number of minutes spent on cellphones by a factor of 58.
What's happened to traffic fatalities in that time? They've dropped—slightly, but they've dropped. Overall reported accidents since 1997 have dropped, too, from 6.7 million to 6 million. Proponents of a ban on cellphones say those numbers should have dropped more. "We've spent billions on air bags, antilock brakes, better steering,cars and roads, but the number of fatalities has remained constant," safety researcher David Strayer told the New York Times in July. "Our return on investment for those billions is zero. And that's because we're using devices in our cars."
Strayer would have a point if he were looking at the right statistics. But we drive a lot more than we did in 1995. Deaths in proportion to passenger miles are a far better indicator of than overall fatalities. In 1995, there were 1.72 deaths for every 100 million miles traveled. By 2007, the figure had dropped to 1.36, a 21 percent decline. That's hardly remaining constant. But let's assume that even those numbers would be lower were it not for texting drivers. It's still far from clear that banning texting will make us safer. There are countless other driver distractions

More at the source.

McCarthy:

As a member of Congress, I work to pass comprehensive, common-sense legislation that will benefit average Americans. With the same fervor I had when I was first sworn in to office in 1997, I seek common ground on issues that I believe will make our country stronger and safer each and every day. I had always known of the dangers of distracted driving, and it should come as no surprise to the American public that when are preoccupied with tasks that take their eyes off the road and hands off the wheel, it most certainly creates unsafe and potentially fatal scenarios on the roadways.
On the heels of extended national coverage regarding the increased incidence of distracted driving, I was shocked to learn that only a handful of states ban and driving. It was with this in mind that I was proud to introduce, along with my colleague, Rep. Nita Lowey of New York, H.R. 3535, the Avoiding Life-Endangering and Reckless Texting by Drivers Act, a bill that would set in place guidelines that would lead to a nationwide ban on writing, sending, or reading text messages while operating a moving vehicle.
Today, we are all fully adept in multitasking. With the advent of "smart" devices that provide access to E-mail, , the Internet, and more, individuals are becoming increasingly reliant upon mobile technology in their everyday lives. Frankly, it is rare to walk a few blocks without seeing someone using a hand-held device while performing another task. These devices have their benefits; I myself own one, and much like the countless across the country, I have seen it evolve into a nearly indispensable device that keeps me abreast of important developments in real time.
Unfortunately, as these devices continue to evolve and become more affordable, their inappropriate and unsafe use continues to grow as well. I firmly believe that there is a time and place to be texting, but one situation where there is no excuse to be manipulating a hand-held device is while operating a moving vehicle.
Almost as rapidly as these devices have developed, so, too, have hands-free and voice-activated technologies, each of which is designed to give individuals increased mobility and attentiveness while communicating. In line with this, the legislation that I introduced would exempt the use of voice-activated and vehicle-integrated devices. Explicitly, the bill directs the secretary of transportation to establish minimum texting-while-driving standards of protection that state legislatures must meet, while also allowing states to establish stricter standards as they see fit. And much like the laws that established the legal age to consume alcohol and blood-alcohol concentration limits for drivers, the bill would withhold a percentage of federal highway funding from those states that do not comply.

More at the source.

The law will be unenforceable. Of course that won't stop enforcers from doing it to raise revenues. Is it unsafe? Yeah, but so are many other things.

 

[ATF Consumer]

good post...and I think they also need to pass a law about running with sissors.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

I agree that we do not need additional laws to pad the governments pockets, however, we do need to tie the results of a person's actions to his decisions.

As a possible example, a person who texts while driving and has an accident should lose their insurance coverage and pay all expenses of the accident out of their pocket. Also, any resulting lawsuit should be based on strict liability. You do the action and something bad happens, you get nailed for the results. This way, we're not forced to take on the repercussions of others poor decisions.

This same line of thinking could be transitioned to those who chose not to wear seat belts in cars or not wear helmets on motorcycles. I'd like to hear more thoughts on this.

Radley Balko goes head to head with gun hater Carolyn McCarthy on the issue. Who wins? I'm with Radley on this one.

Balko:
More at the source.

McCarthy:
More at the source.

The law will be unenforceable. Of course that won't stop enforcers from doing it to raise revenues. Is it unsafe? Yeah, but so are many other things.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

As a possible example, a person who texts while driving and has an accident should lose their insurance coverage and pay all expenses of the accident out of their pocket. Also, any resulting lawsuit should be based on strict liability. You do the action and something bad happens, you get nailed for the results. This way, we're not forced to take on the repercussions of others poor decisions.

Others' poor decisions such as:

• Driving with distracting passengers (drunks, kids, etc.)
• Driving with a loose animal in the vehicle
• Driving with unsecured internal or external cargo
• Driving at night
• Driving at dusk
• Driving during rush hour
• Driving with the sun at your back
• Driving without sunglasses
• Driving with sunglasses which block peripheral view
• Driving without prescription glasses
• Driving in the rain
• Driving in the snow
• Driving on ice
• Driving on bald tires
• Driving with inadequate brakes
• Driving with poor suspension
• Driving with a misfiring engine
• Driving with a cheeseburger
• Driving with hot coffee
• Driving with a lit cigarette
• Driving while shaving
• Driving while putting on makeup
• Driving while fixing hair
• Driving while tired
• Driving while intoxicated
• Driving while affected by allergies
• Driving while on medication
• Driving with a stiff/sore neck
• Driving with poor eyesight
• Driving with slow reflexes
• Driving a vehicle you're unfamiliar/uncomfortable with
• Driving a trailer without training
• Driving with fogged/frosted windows
• Driving with lights off
• Driving with a cracked windshield
• Driving while adjusting radio/heat/seat/mirror
• Driving while concentrating on a conversation (passenger/bluetooth/phone/CB radio)
• Driving while singing along with radio
• Driving while reading a map
• Driving while using GPS
• Driving in an unfamiliar city
• And finally...Driving while reading/sending text messages

Now, can you tell us all why we need a special law against just texting?

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Others' poor decisions such as:
...
...
...

Now, can you tell us all why we need a special law against just texting?

I agree 100%. This is the argument I make every time the "ban texting" crap comes up.

-J-

 

[Trevorreplys]

Ehh I kind of think there should be a law against texting while driving. I see people texting at stop lights all the time also while just cruising down the road. If its that important like directions to your friends house or something why not just call them? If its not directions why are you typing to them while driving a car.

 

[Astrocreep]

Yes, every time we turn around, government is finding new ways to intrude into our lives.
As Paco B. Pointed out, the list of potential (and ridiculous) hazards can get out of control.
I guess the worry is that some day the safety freaks will insist that guns are just too dangerous and government will try to grant their wishes. Don't see that happening any time soon though.

Texting while driving is always aggrivating when I see someone doing it.
Very dangerous, and I wish it would be treated just like other forms of impaired driving. Any activity that requires you to look away from the freakin' road while driving for any extended period of time shouldn't be legal.

Regarding the draconian punishments of driving offenses: I would rather see people lose their license / insurance / etc over having young children unsecured in child seats while driving than just about anything other than impaired driving.
Little kids don't know any better and when they're standing up in the back seat, they turn into little meat missiles when there's a crash.

 

[rambone]

This has no business being discussed by federal congress. It should be left to the states to decide. Our congress has a case of "SHNBRA."

(States Have No Business Regulating Anything)

 

[hoosiertriangle]

That is an excellent response. The point is that the results of reckless or negligent actions should not be forced on the innocent. My suggestion was to classify certain activities as falling under strict liability. To clarify for any who aren't familiar with tort law, liability for most things is defined under a negligence standard (would a reasonable person do this), if not then negligent. That is a moderately tough standard to show in a trial. Strict liability says that for somethings (usually inherently dangerous things) no finding of negligence is necessary. By shifting the resposibility linking mechanism from criminal to civil, the monies go to those hurt by the actions and not the government. Thus, the government has no incentive to increase its power by enacting additional similar statutes.

What I understand you to articulate is complete government withdrawal. No proscription by statute that X is criminal or even falls under strict liability offense. Just leave it all to good old tort system of negligence. If that is the case, then price for this is forcing me to pick up the cost of defense and injuries from the offending party through higher insurance premiums and medical costs. Am I understanding your correctly?

Thanks,

Others' poor decisions such as:

• Driving with distracting passengers (drunks, kids, etc.)
• And finally...Driving while reading/sending text messages

Now, can you tell us all why we need a special law against just texting?

 

[Paco Bedejo]

That is an excellent response. The point is that the results of reckless or negligent actions should not be forced on the innocent. My suggestion was to classify certain activities as falling under strict liability. To clarify for any who aren't familiar with tort law, liability for most things is defined under a negligence standard (would a reasonable person do this), if not then negligent. That is a moderately tough standard to show in a trial. Strict liability says that for somethings (usually inherently dangerous things) no finding of negligence is necessary. By shifting the resposibility linking mechanism from criminal to civil, the monies go to those hurt by the actions and not the government. Thus, the government has no incentive to increase its power by enacting additional similar statutes.

What I understand you to articulate is complete government withdrawal. No proscription by statute that X is criminal or even falls under strict liability offense. Just leave it all to good old tort system of negligence. If that is the case, then price for this is forcing me to pick up the cost of defense and injuries from the offending party through higher insurance premiums and medical costs. Am I understanding your correctly?

Thanks,

No, what I advocate is simply allowing investigators to determine risk factors & let any civil trials base their determination upon which drivers were taking what risks at the time of the accident. There are already fines for "unsafe driving". Some of us can text safely while driving, others can't even adjust their cruise control without wrecking. Applying blanket behavioral rules is not helpful.

 

[Indecision]

Although I agree that it's dangerous, it shouldn't be illegal, and if it were, it's completely unenforceable.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

You addressed the issue about courts and lawsuits, but what about shifting of increased insurance and medical premiums onto the innocent?

No, what I advocate is simply allowing investigators to determine risk factors & let any civil trials base their determination upon which drivers were taking what risks at the time of the accident. There are already fines for "unsafe driving". Some of us can text safely while driving, others can't even adjust their cruise control without wrecking. Applying blanket behavioral rules is not helpful.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

You addressed the issue about courts and lawsuits, but what about shifting of increased insurance and medical premiums onto the innocent?

Business is business. Insurance is gambling. I don't propose to control such things.

 

[Beau]

Ehh I kind of think there should be a law against texting while driving. I see people texting at stop lights all the time also while just cruising down the road. If its that important like directions to your friends house or something why not just call them? If its not directions why are you typing to them while driving a car.

What's wrong with texting at stop lights? I usually wait until I'm stopped to send or check a message.

I think it is nothing but a feel good law. There is really no way to enforce it. Sure LE passing by a car may be able to write a few tickets but other than that it's pointless. What's next cameras pointed at the driver that record to a black box?

 

[Panama]

We DO NOT need a new law!

There is already a law that is enforceable, and, it covers all the above, it is called "Reckless Driving"!
Personally, I don't give a whippin' flip what anybody is doin' while driving, if they can drive and do it safely.

There is the catch though, if you can't keep it in your lane, and drive safely down the road with mothers, kid's, grandparents, wives, fathers and ME driving the same road right next to you, then there's the problem.

No new law needed.
Either enforce the laws we have, or just open season on reckless selfish morons! I am O.K. with either.

 

[mrjarrell]

What's wrong with texting at stop lights? I usually wait until I'm stopped to send or check a message.

I think it is nothing but a feel good law. There is really no way to enforce it. Sure LE passing by a car may be able to write a few tickets but other than that it's pointless. What's next cameras pointed at the driver that record to a black box?

Many new cars already have a black box that records your actions and is able to be accessed by law enforcers when they investigate. A camera would just be an added feature. MADD will likely call for it soon and their allies will give it to them to use against you.

 

[DWFan]

When I first got my driver's license, there were two sure ways of flunking the driving test...not fastening your seat belt and not keeping two hands on the steering wheel.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Maria Shriver, First Lady of California and wife of "The Governator" just got busted by the television show/website TMZ twice for her driving and talking on her cell phone.

The Governor left word with TMZ that she "will be dealt with swiftly", or some comment like that. Yeah, that's what I felt, too.

 

[packing_preacher]

For some people, just driving!