Texting while driving

[nuttylawprofessor]

So do people think we could actually enact a law that would be an effective deterrent? The research that I've seen on deterrence suggests that stricter DUI laws are not the reason we've lowered DUIs: public information campaigns are what actually changed people's behavior. I just don't know how effective such campaigns could be with a population that (1) firmly believes that they can effectively multitask and (2) believes they're invincible. That's why I suggest something like car forfeiture.

It's crazy to me that the texting/talking law wouldn't be a primary offense. Heck, if I'm not wearing my seatbelt, I'm the only one I've put in danger. Yet the cops can pull me over for that? But if I'm engaging in an activity that can and does kill and maim others, they can't? What the heck?!?!

 

[FireDancer]

So do people think we could actually enact a law that would be an effective deterrent? The research that I've seen on deterrence suggests that stricter DUI laws are not the reason we've lowered DUIs: public information campaigns are what actually changed people's behavior. I just don't know how effective such campaigns could be with a population that (1) firmly believes that they can effectively multitask and (2) believes they're invincible. That's why I suggest something like car forfeiture.

It's crazy to me that the texting/talking law wouldn't be a primary offense. Heck, if I'm not wearing my seatbelt, I'm the only one I've put in danger. Yet the cops can pull me over for that? But if I'm engaging in an activity that can and does kill and maim others, they can't? What the heck?!?!

I think it is a combination of the campaigns and the stricter laws. A DUI is very expensive. There are the court costs evolved (fines, attorney, etc) along with the increased insurance premiums and the mandatory "happy camp" they send you to. I think the biggest win that comes from the campaigns is the stigma that is placed on people who have had a DUI. When some cities around here (Cleveland) started enacting laws against talking on the phone a lot of people I know stopped using their phones in those cities because of a fear of the ticket and fine.

As for the justification for texting while driving (multitasking) there are a lot of people who believe they are very good at driving drunk too.

 

[TheDisneyGirl02]

while texting is a huge problem, I drive 45 miles to work every day and have seen people on the road eating cereal in the morning, reading newspapers, putting on makeup, shaving, you name it. I think the police should be able to pull over and ticket all of those people. Steering with your knees while you hold a bowl and a spoon in your hands to eat to me is no safer than texting.

Those activities are worse in some cases than texting or talking on the phone.

Just to play devil's advocate:

If someone is smoking in his/her car and gets into an accident, should the penalty be the same as if he/she would be talking on the phone? Just wondering what other's opinions are regarding that.

 

[2Kds2K9]

What if the penalty was forfeiture of your car? Too harsh?

How about forfeiture of the PHONE. That would be more harsh to most. (at least the teenagers.)

I am so against texting and driving!

 

[MrsPete]

I think it is a combination of the campaigns and the stricter laws. A DUI is very expensive. There are the court costs evolved (fines, attorney, etc) along with the increased insurance premiums and the mandatory "happy camp" they send you to. I think the biggest win that comes from the campaigns is the stigma that is placed on people who have had a DUI. When some cities around here (Cleveland) started enacting laws against talking on the phone a lot of people I know stopped using their phones in those cities because of a fear of the ticket and fine.

As for the justification for texting while driving (multitasking) there are a lot of people who believe they are very good at driving drunk too.

You're exactly right. When I was a kid, I was aware that MANY adults drove drunk -- my father included. No one thought it was a GOOD thing; no one actually talked about it; it was just considered a little character flaw, a small risk, something that lots of good people did on occasion.

It was while I was in middle school/high school that drinking and driving really came under attack. Over the course of a couple years, public opinion on this topic swayed. I think my generation was fairly easy to sway; we were young enough never to have really questioned whether this was a good thing or bad thing. The current generation of young people never had to be swayed; designated driver has always been a part of their consciousness.

But you're right: You have to hit people in multiple ways. Finaical, legal, and social pressure.

 

[Mickey'snewestfan]

Did you actually see her texting while driving as the accident happened? She could have been texting someone to let them know she had been in an accident after the fact.
That being said, if you get into an accident while texting I think it should be penalized the same way as a DUI.

I agree, texting WHILE driving should be totally illegal. But if were in an accident, the first thing I'd do is let my family know. Unless she was driving away from the accident while texting (hit and run?) I wouldn't judge her.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Couldn't the driver you passed have been texting AFTER her accident, maybe trying to get help?

Did you actually see her texting while driving as the accident happened? She could have been texting someone to let them know she had been in an accident after the fact.

I agree, texting WHILE driving should be totally illegal. But if were in an accident, the first thing I'd do is let my family know. Unless she was driving away from the accident while texting (hit and run?) I wouldn't judge her.

Call me old-fashioned (and, really, I don't see ANY need to use a cell phone in any mode while driving), but - wouldn't it make astronomically more sense to CALL someone? You know, actually dial some numbers and speak some words - whether to a parent, or to a 911 operator? How can texting EVER be considered the fastest way to contact someone - or rather, at least, the fastest way to get a response from someone???

 

[pls5286]

We have a law here in Ga currently being debated called Caleb's law. It is in remberance of a young man in my home town who was driving and texting (19 yrs old) and swerved out of his lane and hit a pick-up truck pulling a horse trailer head on. He was killed instantly. There were two injuries in the horse trailer. One was medivaced, one had minor injuries and recovered. Both have recovered from the phyisical injuries. This accident occurred less than a week before Christmas. This young man was a popular athlete in the community an was well known. His family is leading the push for this law. 11 alive recently covered the Great Hangup at our High School with his younger sister speaking.

 

[luvmy3]

Call me old-fashioned (and, really, I don't see ANY need to use a cell phone in any mode while driving), but - wouldn't it make astronomically more sense to CALL someone? You know, actually dial some numbers and speak some words - whether to a parent, or to a 911 operator? How can texting EVER be considered the fastest way to contact someone - or rather, at least, the fastest way to get a response from someone???

I wasn't saying it was the fastest or best way, just that maybe thats what the driver was doing. I happen to agree with you, I hate when my dd texts me when she knows I'm sitting at home next to the phone. Last week she finished practice early and instead of calling me, she texted me My cell was sitting in my car because I thought she would have the good sense to call me on the home phone since I told her I would be home if she needed me. Maybe we really are old fashioned

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Call me old-fashioned (and, really, I don't see ANY need to use a cell phone in any mode while driving), but - wouldn't it make astronomically more sense to CALL someone? You know, actually dial some numbers and speak some words - whether to a parent, or to a 911 operator? How can texting EVER be considered the fastest way to contact someone - or rather, at least, the fastest way to get a response from someone???

In some circumstances, a person cannot answer their phone and talk--but a txt will get to them quietly. It isn't that it is faster--but sometimes it is more convenient.

I have had some days where DH is unreachable via calling--and something mega important came up that I needed to talk with him ASAP--so I'd send him a quick test to call me b/c of XYZ and then he'd call me within a few minutes.

Or sometimes--I'd call him and he wouldn't pick up b/c he couldn't--and then same thing, txt him if it is of paramount importance.

 

[MiniGirl]

How about forfeiture of the PHONE. That would be more harsh to most. (at least the teenagers.)

I am so against texting and driving!

I was thinking the same thing. LOL!!! Forget the car. Make 'em get rid of the phone.

There have been several instances where I have almost been hit by people who were texting. They swerve into my lane (or keep going straight when the road curves) and were headed straight for me. I could see them holding the phone up above the steering wheel, so I know they were texting or checking the internet or something. In 2 instances, I had to stop my car and hit the horn to get their attention. In the 3rd, I actually ended up pulling off to the side of the road. I don't THINK the person would've hit me, but it was pretty close.

 

[CaliforniaDreamin]

In NC, it recently became illegal to text and drive, no matter what the age. 18 and under cannot talk on a cell while driving. I wish they would extend this law to ALL drivers. And I do think accidents resulting from texting or talking on a cell should be treated as DUI's. Actually, I think any "distracted" driving should warrant a ticket. Eating, putting on makeup, etc. I think a study was done not too long ago that said eating while driving was just as dangerous as drinking while driving. The only think that stinks about all this, is there is no way to have traffic stops like they do for drunk driving. If you see a stop ahead of you, all you have to to is hang up. And it might be harder for a cop to prove in court that the distracted driver was doing anything distracting at all. No proof. Their word against the driver.

 

[Eeyores Butterfly]

I was on my way into work this morning and got behind a pick up that was literally incapable of staying within the boundaries of his lane for more than 1 second. It looked like he might have been on his cell phone, but I'm not sure. He was crossing lines like nobody's business and also going kind of slow. I tried to pass him and he almost ran me off the road!

I did call the highway patrol on him. I don't know for sure that he was on the phone, but it kind of looked like it. Whatever was going on, he should not have been on the road.

 

[kaytieeldr]

In some circumstances, a person cannot answer their phone and talk

Okay, yeah, in most cases - but doesn't it make sense when you have a car accident to call the police or 911 first?

 

[luvmy3]

Okay, yeah, in most cases - but doesn't it make sense when you have a car accident to call the police or 911 first?

Yes, but you could send a text to a family member or friend if thats the way you normally communicate with them. I think that texting has pretty much replaced calling.

 

[rie'smom]

What if the penalty was forfeiture of your car? Too harsh?

If it happens a second time, yes.

Loss of diving privilege for one year.

For a 1st offense, after that, loss of driving privileges forever.

How about forfeiture of the PHONE. That would be more harsh to most. (at least the teenagers.)

I am so against texting and driving!

They'd get another phone.

 

[MrsPete]

I was on my way into work this morning and got behind a pick up that was literally incapable of staying within the boundaries of his lane for more than 1 second. It looked like he might have been on his cell phone, but I'm not sure. He was crossing lines like nobody's business and also going kind of slow. I tried to pass him and he almost ran me off the road!

I did call the highway patrol on him. I don't know for sure that he was on the phone, but it kind of looked like it. Whatever was going on, he should not have been on the road.

Makes me think of a situation I was in years ago (before we had cell phones): My husband and I shared a car, and we were driving to work together down a very long country road. A car pulled out in front of us, cutting us off, and things only got worse from there. The car swerved badly from side to side -- it actually ran off the road multiple times ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD. We said to each other, "Just wait. We're going to see an accident." This is such a twisty-turny road, it's just not the place for this. Although the driver was super-slow, we didn't dare to try to pass. I'm sure we would've been hit.

Sure enough, a few minutes later the little old woman who was driving this erratic vehicle SMASHED into the back of another car. Never even touched her brakes. The driver of the other car was a teenaged boy who didn't have his full license yet, and his father was with him. We gave them our names and said we'd be glad to serve as witnesses for them.

 

[MrsPete]

For a 1st offense, after that, loss of driving privileges forever.

The problem is that taking away a person's license doesn't prevent him from driving.

I realized the extent of this problem when (right out of college before I found a good job) I worked in the office of a small construction company. MOST of the employees -- yes, MOST of them -- had lost their licenses permanantly for DUI, yet they continued to drive around in their own vehicles and the company vehicle. For appearance's sake, the company hired one guy per crew who could legitimately drive, and HE was officially driving all the time -- even though that wasn't true. Of course, these people also had no insurance.

That job was quite an introduction to a world in which I certainly didn't live.

 

[stego]

the big news down here in central Texas has been the opening of the Metro rail line. As it turns out, the railway crosses roads at certain points (imagine that!). There have been a number of stories but one caught my eye:

http://www.kvue.com/news/Drivers-ignore-new-rules-near-tracks-89466967.html

I realized the point of this thread is texting while driving. But that is just another symptom of what is really going on: in a nutshell, rules don't apply.

I've recently thought to myself: I need to go by the DL office and ask for that: a general traffic rules don't apply classification.

Who am I kidding? No such thing exists but I can't tell that from other driver's behavior. It's only blatantly more obvious with the advent of the internet and the media.

I included the link because the inevitable will happen: large train, small car with "sense of entitlement". Well, there will be a consequence. The local law enforcement can ticket all they want...it won't change people's behavior.

 

[Tinkermommy]

My company sent out a new policy late last year on texting/emailing while driving. You are not permitted to do that will using a company device (cell phone or blackberry), on company time or using a company vehicle. If you have an accident and you are found to be texting/emailing, you can be fired.

I admit that I have done it, but I have really rethought this for the safety of everyone. Not to mention, I like my job!

Signed,
A reformed email driver!