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."

Whatever happened to common sense?

Whatever happened to common sense?

Re:Whatever happened to common sense?

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:

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 [wa.gov]

You should have clear vision i

Re:

So no one drives a stick in WA?

Re:Whatever happened to common sense?

A man driving a lorry in the UK who was sending a test message to his girlfriend and killed another driver received 5 years in prison back in 2001. Not paying due care and attention to the road has long been a crime in the UK and more recently this has been extended to no use of mobile phones unless you make use of a hands-free kit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1166267.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Whatever happened to common sense?

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?

I used to think most drivers had at least a modicum of common sense until the other day when I was out having a smoke in front of my local bar and watched a lady in her 50s literally brushing her teeth while driving westbound on 45th. She was doing all of about 5 miles an hour and there was a huge line of cars behind her. When she got pretty much in front of where I was standing, she came to a complete stop (a good couple hundred feet before the light) and really started to brush. She was completely and totally oblivious. The guy behind her looked like he was about to explode, compounded by the fact that I yelled out to him: "She's brushing her fucking teeth!". He turned a color of red I haven't seen before and started honking wildly. It took the lady a good 20 seconds to finally realize she had backed up traffic all the way back to I-5. The absolute best part was that she sped up for several yards until she was right behind another car and then HONKED at that car for not going fast enough. I wished for something Darwinian to happen, but alas, god must have been busy that day.

Re:

a lady just like that killed two friends of mine on their motorcycle.

she wasn't brushing her teeth, instead she was wrapping a gift for her grandchild's friend, and talking on a hand's free.

it was out in the suburbs and she pulled her car out from a side s

Re:Whatever happened to common sense?

[quote]I wished for something Darwinian to happen, but alas, god must have been busy that day.[/quote]

Am I the only one that sees the irony in this statement? God carrying out Darwins theories? Im sure those intelligent design nuts wont like that one bit...

Re:

A few years ago, I saw a guy playing a PLAY STATION that was sitting on his dash while driving, going about 10 miles an hour in a 45 zone. Using his wrists to steer while he had the controller in both hands...

Needless to say, I had to make a U-turn to driv

Re:

Why, yes, I do!

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

Re:Whatever happened to common sense?

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.

Re:Whatever happened to common sense?

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:Whatever happened to common sense?

And how many bartenders do you know that DON'T smoke? I would say that the VAST MAJORITY of bartenders are smokers (and, of course, drinkers). This argument is totally and completely baseless. Don't like the smoke? Go work for a non-smoking bar. Want to smoke, go to work for a smoking bar. It's not hard.

Re:Whatever happened to common sense?

Hey, you know what? I am a smoker (obviously) and I can't stand the smell of smoke (rather, I can't stand the smell of other people's smoke). I am sympathetic to your cause except for one thing: There were plenty of places in Seattle (and throughout Washington) that were non-smoking. It's not like someone chained you to a barstool in a smoky bar.

This is a First Amendment Issue!!!

This is just more liberal do-gooding and interference with our everyday lives. This is by the same people who want to ban smoking [shelleytherepublican.com], force our kids to learn junk science [shelleytherepublican.com], and stifle honest [shelleytherepublican.com] American [shelleytherepublican.com] toil [shelleytherepublican.com].

We can only pray, before these nannying socialists force us to use inferior and dangerous [shelleytherepublican.com] operating systems [shelleytherepublican.com].

Re:This is a First Amendment Issue!!!

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!!!

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!!!

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!!!

"It has been proven that talking on the cell phone while driving is almost as bad as driving drunk."

Do you have a link to support this? I've been trying to defend my morning beer on the drive to work, and having the data to say "hey! it's as safe as talking on the phone!" would be great.

Thanks!

Re:This is a First Amendment Issue!!!

Actually theres a study out that equates driving while on the cell phone being 400% more likely to get into an accident.

Forbes Article [forbes.com]
400% more likely claim supported by Berkely Lab [lbl.gov] Of course there is the psudeo-science of the Mythbusters as well where they placed a sober driver on the cell phone and a 'drunk' but under the legal limit of 0.8% blood alcohol level and put them both on a closed course and had them navigate it. They did it both sober with no distractions as a control as well I believe. Turns out they both did equally bad. I am not saying it is a perfect experiment (such would require more than 2 test cases) but it does illustrate that distraction or inebriation = bad for driving ability regardless of the exact percentages involved. and another article from The Straight Dope [straightdope.com]

Re:This is a First Amendment Issue!!!

Tell me this [shelleytherepublican.com] 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:

yep, it is a satirical site, but a quite realistic one.

Re:Whatever happened to common sense?

Television.

And In Other News...

Frankfort, KY - Kentucky deputy director of the Department of Motor Vehicles, Melvin P. Snitzonpants has announced a new program to stop drivers from chewing their toenails, making love and shoving coins up their noses while driving.

"It's a serious problem

Re:Killing the Dangerous Drivers

Jeff Gordon, is that you?

Re:

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 j

Reckless driving

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

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

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:

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

Re:Reckless driving

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:

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 re

Re:

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

Re:

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

Re:Reckless driving

I would add that the offender should be forced to txt someone while the phone is being run over. A few broken digits should help them with their pennance.

Re:Reckless driving

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.

Its actually disturbing

That there was a need for the State ban such moronic behaviour in the first place.

This is all Bill Gates' fault! ;-)

He said a long time ago we have to get rid of the keyboard. He STILL hasn't done it. Dammit, Bill, or billg, or whatever you want to be called, because you didn't get rid of the keyboard all these nice people are going to jail. Oooooh, I could pinch you!

I keed. I keed.

Why do they even NEED to ban this?

This reminds me of the time I got a free dashboard sun-shade at Road Atlanta one year. (These are the accordion-fold things you sit on the dash and stretch out across the entire windshield to help keep the sun from getting the interior of your car too hot in the summer).

It had a safety label: "Do not drive with sun shade in place!"

Re:

Joke: ----------->
You:       0
          /|\
           |
          / \

Cel Phone = **EVIL**

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:Cel Phone = **EVIL**

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

Even at that, you'd have to limit the access driver has to his or her genitals.

....I used to have a truck that rode pretty high, I've seen things.

I am on BOTH sides of the issue

I am guilty of the offense and I also believe it's a potentially deadly and definitely stupid thing to do.

Never mind texting

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.

I can drive safely while texting

I have done it, many times. I read blogs, email, etc. on my phone, studied for tests, read magazines, and so forth while driving too. I even change clothes -- everything except my boxers -- while driving. I've done so regularly for years. And how many accidents have I had?

Zero.

It comes down to prioritization and common sense. I didn't say I read *efficiently* while driving -- I certainly don't operate anywhere nearly as quickly on my reading/writing/etc. while driving as I do when I'm not engaged in driving. I check the road ahead of me and to the sides once every second or two, then glance down at my text to be read, get a line or sentence, then look up again at traffic while I process that line/sentence. I don't do these things at all in severely-inclement weather: snow, ice, heavy rain, high winds. Nor do I do them in situations where traffic conditions are changing rapidly: at high speed with lots of merging traffic, in crowded downtown streets with lots of pedestrians, along twisty mountain roads, etc.. I do it primarily in bumper-to-bumper, stop-and-go, sub-10 mi/hour traffic where, if an accident were to occur, it almost certainly would not be serious.

The simple fact is that we are not all created equal and we do not all evolve equally-fast or in the same directions. Some people are competent to perform actions which are dangerous if managed poorly, while others are not. I'm not competent to do something as dangerous as landing an airplane -- but plenty of trained pilots are; the mentally insane (as the VA Tech shootings exemplified) are not competent to use firearms safely, and nor are (IMO) people convicted of any violent crimes - but most other people are, or would be with sufficient training & education.

A better approach, rather than banning an activity outright, would be to test an individual's competence to perform the activity. An outright ban is too broad and inspecific [econlib.org]; it has all the surgical precision of the Bush administration's "it's for national security" argument used to justify its actions...

Re:question....

They can get a court order to subpoena your phone records. Or if your provider is Verizon, they can just ask for them.

Re:question....

The ONLY exception would be dialing 999 (911) for an emergency which is also the reason why you cannot stop driving (for example a guy shooting at you from a car behind or such.

Usually you just raise the rear bullet proof shield and activate the oil jets causing your villaneous enemy to skid and crash in this scenario. Dialling 999 would just totally ruin your credibility within the secret agent community

Re:

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

Re:Amazing how defensive some people get

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.