State Bans Texting While Driving

netbuzz writes "The state of Washington yesterday became the first in the nation to ban text-messaging while driving. The law could use sharper teeth, but it's a natural and necessary progression of the movement to clamp down on those who find the need to constantly communicate more important than the safety of their fellow travelers."

Comments

Reckless driving

[b0s0z0ku]

Texting while driving is reckless driving IMHO. Charge them with *that* instead of a new, more minor, traffic offense. The fines and demerit points for reckless driving are _steep._

-b.

Re:Reckless driving

[Antony-Kyre]

I can think of no excuse whatsoever to justify texting while driving. Sure, cell phones are dangerous while driving, but at least there are counter-arguments. In my opinion, people who text while driving should probably have their license suspended. I cannot believe they're doing the $101 fine in my state.

They fine people $101 for not wearing a seatbelt, which is only risking the lives of those in the car, but when it comes to endangering others, they use the same amount for a fine. If they're going to fine texting while driving, they should at least make it $500.

(Talking on cell phones while driving is dangerous. Some times "near-misses" occur, meaning it never gets recorded statistically speaking. It is a distraction.)

Re:Reckless driving

[ScrewMaster]

I think it's like writing a term paper while smoking pot. You just think you're writing great paper. Problem is, a failing grade on the expressway is fatal.

Re:Reckless driving

[Score Whore]

So what distinguishes a cell phone from having a conversation with a passenger? Or someone trying to find the right station on the radio. Or smoking a cigarette (assuming you are not just hanging the butt from your mouth and letting it ash all down your front.) Or trying to shush their screaming kid in the back seat. Or fishing around in a bag of fast food for a hamburger. Or trying to tip the last bit of coffee out of your spill-proof mug. Or listening attentively to their GPS navigation system. Or attempting to decipher driving directions scribbled on a napkin. Or listening to their books on tape.

The problem isn't cell phones or texting. It's people not being engaged with the task of driving.

If your only concern is safety then it makes more sense to lower the speed limit to 25 MPH and eliminate any car larger than a golf cart than it does to fine/ban cell phones.

Re:Reckless driving

[Antony-Kyre]

Conversing with a passenger isn't the same as conversing on a phone studies have shown.

I think most of the other things you mentioned are problems, and I wish people would use more common sense. However, texting while driving has to be more dangerous than those others ones I imagine, because it is much more distracting.

Re:Reckless driving

[hankwang]

So what distinguishes a cell phone from having a conversation with a passenger?

The fact that the passenger tends to shut up if s/he sees that the traffic requires full attention. I agree that some of your other examples are pretty dangerous, since they require that the driver takes his eyes off the road for a couple of seconds. But

Or listening attentively to their GPS navigation system

this doesn't even close. While listening to the navigation system, you have to focus all your attention to the road to realize what left turn it is talking about. Theoretically it is possible that you overlook a pedestrian that way, but it's far less likely than when you have to imagine a situation that you are discussing with someone over the phone, let alone watching the screen of your cellphone.

Re:Reckless driving

[Score Whore]

I've not seen any references to the studies you are referring to. However, one difference would be when the other party in the car happens to be a driver, is paying attention, and pauses in the conversation when the situation calls for it. It would also depend on the reason for the conversation. A cellphone call has a point (perhaps not an important point, but there is a reason somebody dialed the phone) and you're going to be giving it attention, while idle chit-chat with your passenger is just politeness done with half your mind. Compare cell phone calls with important conversations occurring while driving.

I think someone fishing around under their seat trying to feel for change they just dropped is as distracted as someone texting. At least a person texting will pretty much always hold the phone up in their line of sight, while someone groping for something is likely to take their eyes off the road in order to get a quick situation report on where the quarter for the tollway is and where their hand is.

Re:Reckless driving

[Score Whore]

I think it comes quite close. Because it's not just the rare pedestrian you might hit. It's all the other cars on the road. It's every action being a distinct response to the computerized voice and eyeballing the map on the tiny LCD screen. Or even if it's trivial to decide which turns to be taking, if you're braking and changing lanes at the last second you're much more of a risk to others than if you are already aware of where you're going and are making lane changes well in advance of when you need to, braking with proper lead time. Or when you miss the turn the navigation system suggested and now you're doing the mental scramble trying to calibrate your driving with the updated directions for your system.

And another distraction to tweak our collective nerd noses: war driving.

Re:Reckless driving

[Achromatic1978]

Have you used a satellite navigation system? You don't barrel down the freeway at 60mph and the system pipes up at the last second, "in 100 ft, take the exit on the right".

"In five miles, you will take exit 164 on the right"
"In two miles..."

"In one mile..."

"In five hundred yards..."

"In two hundred yards...

"In one hundred yards, take exit 164 on the right and stay in the left lane. Then turn left."

Does that constitute sufficient lead time?

Re:Reckless driving

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Tell that to the driver who's deaf spouse has just had to deal with their injured baby at home and can't use a telephone.

And getting themselves killed on the way home is going to help how, exactly?

Seriously, even in the case of your rare and contrived-sounding example, what is so difficult about pulling over somewhere safe and considerate before texting back?

Another law

[Anonymous Coward]

to ban something that was already illegal
reckless driving, not in control of a vehicle
iam sure there are plenty of laws that say if you are driving a vehicle in a manner that presents a danger to other you can be prosecuted, same reason as watching TV or reading a book while driving is reckless

question....

[jimfinity]

how exactly are they going to know if you are texting? there are just about a hundred million things you can do with modern phones these days. what about taking videos/pictures/checking your voicemail/dialing/etc. etc.

all of these things require typing stuff in your phone, right?

Cel Phone = **EVIL**

[rueger]

The law could use sharper teeth, but it's a natural and necessary progression of the movement to clamp down on those who find the need to constantly communicate more important than the safety of their fellow travelers."

Nonsense. There are already laws on the books which deal specifically with driver inattention. They have been there for some sixty or seventy years.

Why is it that anything involving a cel phone demands a special law prohibiting it? It's all feeling rather moralistic.

Tell you what, I'll let you ban cel phones in cars if you'll also ban coffee, donuts, makeup, radios, small children, pets, smoking, chewing tobacco, notepads, newspapers, and passengers, all of which can distract a driver.

Once every car contains only one hermetically sealed individual we should be 100% safe.

Re:Whatever happened to common sense?

[MoonFog]

The problem with texting while driving is that it usually put OTHERS in danger because your driving will be affected. Common sense is not so common unfortunately, and texting while driving does not only affect you, but also others around you.

Re:Whatever happened to common sense?

[Antony-Kyre]

Washingtonians should know they shouldn't text and drive. Page 20 in the PDF file (page number on the paper, not the PDF viewer's page number). Notice how "hands" is plural.

http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/driverguide.p df

You should have clear vision in all directions, all controls should be within reach, and at least one-third of the steering wheel should be between your hands.

Great, Another Backwards-looking law

[Chandon Seldon]

Sure, texting while driving using today's technology is pretty stupid. It takes forever, and it definitely distracts from the road.

But... this law probably doesn't specifically ban "text messaging on a hand-held cellular telephone using a numberpad based text input method", instead it probably bans all text messaging while driving. I'm sure some of you will say that "anything that distracts from the road is unacceptably dangerous, I'm willing to trade your freedom to use new technologies in the future for a warm feeling of safety now". Well - I'm never willing to make that trade. I can think of a number of interfaces that would make text messaging way safer than a kid in the back seat, and I don't need to have my ability to use that technology nanny-stated away today.

Re:Great, Another Backwards-looking law

[Vegeta99]

When's the last time you saw a cop go the speed limit?

Never mind texting

[pytheron]

I have a few friends that have the affliction of not being able to talk to someone without looking at them. Whilst they are driving, this leads to very scary scenarios. There are a couple that I refuse to be a passenger with now based on these experiences ! It seems that some people just don't understand that you have a responsibility on the road. Not only are you putting your passengers lives at risk, but also you are maybe risking destroying the family of the person you just hit.

Most people come up with the non-excuse "I've never had an accident, I'm a good driver". Remember whilst this may be true,the person in front of you may be an awful driver, so you will need to apply your full attention at all times.

Amazing how defensive some people get

[freeweed]

1. Using a cellphone and/or texting is far more dangerous than drinking a cup of coffee. People have done research into this - these devices are just about as dangerous as being legally drunk. We don't ban coffee drinking in cars because while a small minority becomes a hazard while drinking it, EVERYONE is a hazard when using their phone. See #3.

2. We had reckless driving laws already, but we still passed impaired driving laws. Why? Because it's a lot harder to automatically say "hey, he's texting, he's reckless". With a law like this, there are no ifs, ands, or buts. No defense. You're caught, you pay. No "but really, Sir Judge, I'm not actually a reckless driver when I text" (which, incidentally, is how people used to get out of impaired driving charges - until we made a law specifically for the behaviour).

3. To those that honestly and truly believe THEY are safe drivers when using a cellphone and/or texting, please, just stay off the damn road. I've been nearly hit by you far too often.

4. It's about damn time we started seeing laws like this. Of course we shouldn't need them, but in my experience 90% of the bad drivers on the road are either yakking on their phone, or texting, or in some cases both. Seriously, how hard is it to just (GASP!) go without talking to your sister for a few minutes? We invented voicemail for a reason!

Re:Amazing how defensive some people get

[QuoteMstr]

People have done research into this - these devices are just about as dangerous as being legally drunk.

I, for one, am automatically suspicious of arguments that begin with "people have done research." Who are these anonymous people? Where was the research published? Has it been repeated? You're appealing to a nonsense authority.

With a law like this, there are no ifs, ands, or buts. No defense. You're caught, you pay. No "but really, Sir Judge, I'm not actually a reckless driver when I text".

Are you saying that someone shouldn't be able to present an argument? The point of a common law system like ours is the ability to adapt the law to the facts of a particular case. By passing laws like this, we simply limit the judge's ability to do his job. As a result, we'll have coarser justice. If a judge is letting people off for texting while driving and the people really disagree with that, then that judge will be replaced. And who knows? Someone might indeed deserve to be cleared of the charge.

4. It's about damn time we started seeing laws like this. Of course we shouldn't need them, but in my experience 90% of the bad drivers on the road are either yakking on their phone, or texting, or in some cases both. Seriously, how hard is it to just (GASP!) go without talking to your sister for a few minutes? We invented voicemail for a reason!

And I bet 90% of the bad drivers you see are listening to music. Let's ban that in cars too. The fact is that when you notice that somebody is driving badly, you tend to look for someone to blame that driving on.

For example,

• "Oh, he's driving like that because his car has rust spots and doesn't care about it."
• "Oh, he's driving like that because he's black."
• "Oh, she's driving like that because she's a woman. Them women can't drive."
• 
  
  • 
    
    But you don't notice all the poor, black, or female people who are in fact excellent drivers. The same idea applies to cell phones. Most people can drive well and use cell phones responsibly. You just don't notice these people.
    
    Furthermore, it won't change the fact that society as a whole accepts the practice, and that the law is the work of a vocal minority. I live in New York, and we've banned cell phone conversations in cars for some time now. Yet people think of it as wrong in the same sense that driving five miles per hour over the speed limit is wrong -- that is, not morally wrong at all.
    
    Contrast that with how people feel about drunk driving -- if you tell friends you drive drunk, they'll give you the look they'd give you if you told them you killed kittens as a hobby. The difference is that drunk driving is a real danger.
    
    *sigh* In more general terms, the law should reflect the morality of society as a whole. When someone not wrong is made illegal, the credibility of the law is diminished. People lose respect for all laws, not just the ridiculous one. They become cynical; participation in government drops as people feel that they can't affect their own government. The government abuses that cynical indifference to grab even more power, and the cycle repeats and repeats until we live in an authoritarian police state. It's happened before and it's happening again.
    
    If these kinds of driving things really are wrong enough to warrant laws of their own, then the public needs to be educated FIRST. If they don't clamor all over their legislators to pass the law on their own, then perhaps the law isn't needed in the first place.

Re:This is a First Amendment Issue!!!

[holistah]

I was going to mod this up, but I figured it would just get modded back down, so I figure I'll throw in my 2 cents as well. While I do not agree entirely with your post, I do agree with the spirit of it. No good can come from passing a ton of these laws to try and think of every single dangerous thing a person might do. They will not stop people from doing them, they are not enforceable, and they are such a wide net that they will in fact punish innocent people. All the activities they want to outright ban because they are "dangerous" such as driving while talking on a cell phone, or texting, or while the driver has had no sleep, are not always for all people at all times dangerous activities. Furthermore, there is no way they can list them all, or enforce an entire list of them all. If the activities truely are dangerous, they fall under reckless driving. If a person is being reckless, which can be determined by visually seeing the amount of control a driver has over their vehicle, punish that. That covers everything. It covers if they are talking on the phone, texting, eating a sandwich, putting on makeup, EVERYTHING. The goal is to stop people who don't have control over their vehicle from endagering others, so why not directly address the issue??? It makes NO sense to try and ban everything that could lead to reckless driving, when all they have to do is enforce the current reckless driving law! Common sense on the correct way for these lawmakers to achieve their goal aside, by trying to go after the activities that lead to unsafe driving, you are taking away freedoms. You are taking away freedoms in the name of "the greater good". If there is another way to accomplish a goal without taking away freedoms, it must be done. This is another clear example of trying to control people, in order to stop them from doing bad things. It never works. You must go directly after the people doing the bad things or you will never win. Trying to nip it in the bud by controlling people is not right, and if that isn't enough of a reason not to do it, it also won't work.

Oh and by the way, this is not "liberal" as you say. True liberals are on the side of liberty, which this clearly is not. Just the same, true conservatives would not do this either, because there is nothing conservative about passing more and more laws on the same exact subject. This is the doing of people who do not really fall on either side. They are extremists, totalitarians, or quite possibly just people without common sense. Personally, I like to think there is no devious motivations behind these stupid laws. I think they are just that, stupid.

Re:This is a First Amendment Issue!!!

[Tuoqui]

If you want to exercise your first amendment rights pull off to the side of the road and do it.

It has been proven that talking on the cell phone while driving is almost as bad as driving drunk. I can only imagine how much worse 'texting while driving' is.

Remember that you have your rights only up until you become a danger or menace to society. And since society as a whole is not apparently capable of something called 'common sense' we have to legislate common sense unfortunately for the people who are 'common sense deficient' to put it in policially correct terms as not to offend people by calling them what they really are *cough*STUPID*cough*

Re:This is a First Amendment Issue!!!

[iangoldby]

Tell me this is a parody, someone please! Please, won't someone? It is a parody, isn't it? I mean, surely not even in America... Come on, someone... it's gotta be a parody, right?...

Re:This is a First Amendment Issue!!!

[koxkoxkox]

The only problem with your solution is to define reckless. It will be at the appreciation of the policemen, so the punishment will depend on the hour of the day, the fact that he was hungry, that his girlfriend dumped him, that his boss told him he was too merciful ... It already happens with the current laws but would be far worse with only a vague and undefined law about "reckless" behaviour.

You prefer to have a total faith in the capacity of the policemen to judge if an action is reckless. They are only persons too, so they are not perfect.

I much prefer to have some railings, limiting their freedom, but also protecting people from abuse. That's why laws have to be precise, to reduce the part of interpretation.

If only people could think a little bit by themselves and not act only out of fear of the punishment ... Laws like this one would not be necessary.

Re:This is a First Amendment Issue!!!

[Xiph1980]

it's got to be....

We should be glad that there is one responsible company who has decided to put an end to this mess: News Corporation, the great company responsible for Fox news has decided to put in a bid of $5Bn for Dow Jones, the company that owns the Wall Street Journal. That may seem an awful lot to pay for a bunch of angry liberals with a grudge against the U.S. Economy, but knowing those guys, its bound to be a smart move. I just hope they bring the same level of morality and respect for the Truth that Fox News is famous for to the world of business.

I mean, whoever can take that serious needs a good checkup :)
In the words of.... I think it was Jon Steward of the Daily Show, but I can be mistaken...
Fox news shows you both sides of the story. The President's side, and the Vice President's side.

Also, if you look at the Linux story, it's so full of bullshit.... well, it speaks for itself :)
http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/category/educa tion/technical/linux/

Re:Killing the Dangerous Drivers

[Dun Malg]

I believe in using Darwinism to eliminate the drivers... I am a former race-car driver.... When I notice that his eyes have glanced away from the road, I immediately apply the brakes....In most cases, his car slams into the concrete barrier. In some cases, the car flips upside down.... Out of 37 encounters of this kind, 25 resulted in fatalities. All 37 resulted in a serious accident. Spare us your fantasies. Do you know how we know you're making shit up?

I videotaped the whole encounter with a camera pointing out of the rear window. The point of the camera is to provide videotaped evidence that I have not broken any traffic laws. In all 37 encounters, I gave the videotape to law enforcement. No charges have ever been filed against me. Sweet. Huh? Not only would the police be suspicious the first time you handed them a tape from an unexplained camera in your rear window, but by the second or third time, you'd definitely be in jail. Did you know that the person behind you is not automatically 100% responsible if you apply your brakes and there is an accident as a result? Obviously not. For example, a common insurance fraud scheme is to load a car with people and take it out on the interstate and drive in front of a big truck. A second car, driven by an accomplice, intentionally "cuts off" the first car, giving them an excuse to slam on their brakes. The truck, unable to stop, rear ends the car full of people, who all then file bogus injury claims. These people go to jail all the time. How? Often they load their trunk with old tires, in the mistaken belief that it will cushion the impact from the truck. Also, a bit of investigation often shows that one or more of the "victims" had been in similar accidents in the past. So you see, a history of such incidents and a suspicious detail like tires in the trunk or a FUCKING CAMERA out your back window will pretty much land you in jail the first time there's a fatality.

Re:Whatever happened to common sense?

[lawpoop]

Here too in the US, we have laws against "reckless driving" and "reckless endangerment". Cops can use these charges as sort of a carte blanche for any kind of dangerous driving. But those charges take some interpretation or perspective. A defendant might argue, "Yes, I was texting, but I was in control of my vehicle; I wasn't endangering anybody". A law specifically banning testing while driving is harder to defend against.

Re:Whatever happened to common sense?

[Pantero Blanco]

Personally it's not that big of a deal for me since I usually smoke outside anyway, but what really pisses me off are the do-gooders (see some of the other posts in this thread) who don't believe that a bar owner should have the right to make a bar smoking or non. Seattle had quite a few non-smoking bars before the new law and yeah, they were pretty busy. But the inescapable truth of the whole matter is that even though a fairly small percentage of Seattlelites smoke, that amount increases drastically among people who drink. Most of the bars I go to are somewhere between 50-75% smokers. Why in the world can't they have an environment to do what they want to do?

As a non-smoker, I absolutely agree! The bartender/bar owner should be able to just post smoking/non smoking on the door, and tell anyone who wants to work there that there will be smoking if there will be. If people don't like it, they can go to a different bar.

I'd rather risk getting cancer than the socialist disease.

This law sucks

[LamerX]

Here's why it sucks. Washington also just passed a law banning talking on cell phones while driving. This law, you can get pulled over if an officer sees you talking with the phone up to your ear, in other words it's a primary offense. This means if you're looking ahead, and actually can drive while talking, you'll get a big fat ticket.

The texting while driving bill makes texting while driving a SECONDARY offense. This means if you are looking down at your phone, typing out a message, NOT LOOKING AHEAD, you CANNOT get pulled over! You can only get ticketed if you've been pulled over for another offense.

So what message is Washington state trying to send here? It's NOT okay to look ahead at the road while on the phone, but it IS okay to send a text message and look at the screen instead of the road, so long as you're not swirving. Never mind the HUGE increased risk of accident.

I expect texting while driving to increase here pretty soon.

Re:Whatever happened to common sense?

[Mr2001]

The problem with that analogy is smoking is a legal activity performed voluntarily by millions of people, including many business owners and employees, and exposure to second-hand smoke is far less dangerous than, say, climbing too high on a ladder.

Re:This is a First Amendment Issue!!!

[gustafsd]

Yes its a parody. The sad part is that, as an European, i had a hard time trying to figure out if it was real or not. I think this is one of Americas largest problems. That site sums up the European view of Americans quite well. By most European people you Americans _as a group_ are considered stupid. Sure, everybody understands that not all Americans are stupid and American universities are actually considered some of the best. But when someone says "..those stupid Americans..", which actually happens quite a lot, nobody disagrees. I think you agree with me when i say this is not a good thing for America.