Transportation Secretary LaHood calls for September 'distracted driving' summit?
A recent study from Virginia Tech showed that texting while driving makes you 23 times more likely to get into a crash and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is looking to address the problem head-on with a September summit to study distracted driving. LaHood plans to to use the summit with law enforcement, safety advocates and transportation officials to come up with a series of concrete steps to curtail distracted driving. The Los Angeles Times reports that LaHood would like to ban text messaging, though the Secretary says enforcement and education is key.
The Senate is already looking at the possibility of a nationwide ban on text messaging while driving. Since states typically mandate such laws, the federal government is looking to enact a set of restrictions that states will have to enforce, or risk losing 25% of their federal road improvement funding.
While a ban of text messaging would likely curtail such behavior, we're wondering how such a law could be properly enforced. It would likely be difficult for officers to know definitively if a driver was text messaging while driving, unless the phone is confiscated or phone records are checked. Of course, the same could also be said for areas in which talking on the phone while driving is illegal (without a hands-free device), and we haven't heard of any major legal challenges issued on that front.
[Source: The Los Angeles Times | Source: Michael Smith/Getty]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Luis 9:59AM (8/06/2009)
I think it's a matter of officer's visually enforcing the law. You cannot rely on phone records because many of us have bluetooth built-in and are completely hands-free. I think visual checks and a "nationwide" ban is ok though, but of course it will be up to the states to develop enforcement policies.
Reply
Paul 2:09PM (8/06/2009)
Personally, I think the fine for talking on the phone (not hands-free) should be at least $250. Texting (yes, that includes email), $500. I've witnessed three accidents caused by cells and texting and I can't count how many near-misses I see, daily.
You get that much money on the line and two things happen, quick: 1) Municipalities will start enforcing the law (the $25 fine in CA isn't enforced because of this), and 2) drivers will learn how painful it is to be a distracted driver.
Don't like it? Tough. The rest of us don't like living in fear of soccer moms and teenagers twittering our lives away.
Azrckcrawler 10:37AM (8/06/2009)
Who needs enforcement, fix it at the source. Most new phones have some sort of GPS built into them. Simply change the phones software to disable texting (sending and receiving) if they are moving faster than 10mph (or whatever speed seems appropriate).
Reply
Erik 10:49AM (8/06/2009)
I dunno man, I'd be pretty annoyed if my texting was disabled while I was riding the bus, or riding in the passenger seat.
don 4:34PM (8/06/2009)
great idea! re: GPS switches used in txt messaging.
Zamafir 10:05AM (8/06/2009)
No testing eh? That's fine, I'm under the age of 50 and spend most my idle time on the phone replying to emails, chatting on aim/facebook/google, updating and connecting with people on facebook, and commenting here some times. All of which aren't covered, wonderful. Can we get someone to champion bills like these that, you know, uses phones like Americans do in 2009 and not 1999? I can see it now "do you know why I pulled you over?" "because I was replying to an email, which isn't txting" "oh. Um. Move along"
Reply
Kumar 10:26AM (8/06/2009)
I'm guessing that's why LaHood wants to call it a distracted driving summit, instead of a texting-but-not-updating-your-facebook-page-while-driving summit.
What would be superb is if states could get a waiver from the whole 'no funds unless you ban texting' if those states introduce a driver education program that goes farther than the typical 'red means stop, green means go, here's your license' programs in most states.
zamafir 10:51AM (8/06/2009)
I think that's a good start, but the trouble is, kids won't care. Part of the reason we have such atrocious driving over here is that whole selfish mentality, not letting people over who use their blinker in California for example. It's not even being distracted, it's just plain not understanding how to drive on the road with more people then one selfish individual. But we can't mandate responsibility.
Maybe a mandatory phone records check as part of car insurance investigations. Then i'd wager most would be a little more averse to texting if they new their insurance might be compromised. Granted it wouldn’t relate to my point but not everyone has a crackberry/iphone/pre
akboss302 12:08PM (8/06/2009)
Re:Zamafir
You're spot on with the selfish driving attitude, and you brought up one of my biggest driver's peeves. I always signal when changing lanes, and when people see that and speed up to block me out, drives me nuts! Then the guy that just jams his way from lane to lane is fine...crazy. If someone goes out of their way to signal and wait patiently, let them in! Its
skablaw 10:06AM (8/06/2009)
Yes, texting while driving, or doing anything while driving except just driving, is going to contribute significantly to your likelihood of getting into an accident, but there is virtually no way that this can be fairly enforced given the current capabilities of mobile phones.
When I get pulled over for "texting," how am I going to demonstrate to the officer that I was actually just changing songs on my iPhone, or toggling between "map" and "list" on the Google Maps app, or hitting the "end call" button? This is going to open up the floodgates for law enforcement to rake in millions of dollars a year on spurious "texting" charges that, in spite of their meritless application, will be virtually indefensible in court.
What really needs to happen is for this country to put extremely harsh penalties in place for people who are found at fault in collisions. This business of getting into a fender-bender and just exchanging insurance information needs to stop. If when someone rolls into me at a stop light they got a ticket for $2,000, I guarantee you everyone would back off and space out appropriately. There are plenty of people who do nothing but cling to 2 and 10 and stare straight ahead the whole time they're behind the wheel, but because they drive like idiots they're 10 times more likely to cause a problem than a skilled driver replying to the office on their Blackberry. Penalize people who actually cause accidents, not people who can handle themselves in a car.
Reply
zamafir 10:52AM (8/06/2009)
Part of the point is that you're still more likely to crash if you are just changing tracks or just using google maps or doing anything that takes your attention away from the road ahead of you. But i agree. Damn near most accidents are avoidable.
Sean 7:30PM (8/06/2009)
If you're doing jack on your iPhone aside from hitting 'next' without looking at it, chances are you're distracting yourself pretty good.
Kumar 10:18AM (8/06/2009)
The insurance industry is going to love this one.
Get caught for texting while driving - you're premiums just doubled. Crash while texting - we just impounded your car and took your first born.
Reply
Erik 10:20AM (8/06/2009)
I agree that no one should ever text while driving, but a law against it would be about as easy to enforce as a law requiring everyone to wipe with their left hand.
"risk losing 25% of their federal road improvement funding"
This is TOTAL BULLSH|T. If the federal government wants to take lawmaking rights away from states, at least they can be straightforward and honest about it and say "states no longer have the right to make their own traffic laws." I am sick of the federal govenment strong-arming the states in this backhanded manner so they can take away legislative rights and still technically be able to say "states can make their own laws"
Reply
ojfl 10:24AM (8/06/2009)
I agree Erik. This power grab by the federal government needs to stop. I am not against these laws but as you stated it is a local matter. When I heard about it on TV I really thought to myself, is this not a Republic? We do not even have the same speeding laws in the country and now we will have federal "attention" mandates?
Luis 10:27AM (8/06/2009)
Um, the Federal government has the power to control funding, and have raised the drinking age to 21 and encouraged seatbelt laws through this mechanism. If a state doesn't want to have a texting ban, that's fine, but they also forgo Federal highway dollars.
Erik 10:45AM (8/06/2009)
You think I don't know that Luis? Just because it has been done in the past does not make it OK. I am calling BS on this de facto federal legislating. The federal money should not have strings attached, especially strings that are attached to the hands of the states' lawmakers. At a Tennessean, I have paid as much as into the federal highway pot as any other American, and it is only fair that my state get as much out as any other state. Our local laws have nothing to do with it. I will say though that I am proud that Tennessee has the balls to stand up to the Fed and say NO to the open container ban they are trying to push on us, even if it is costing us millions in highway dollars.
Paul 2:21PM (8/06/2009)
As a Tennessean, you've paid FAR LESS than what your state takes in federal highway spending. Tennessee is a net "leach" on federal money. States like California, NY and Mass get the shaft for their taxes, as much of it is diverted to poorer states.
Also, the federal government has no right to just "take" lawmaking rights from states! They can and always have used the power of the purse to persuade states to conform to a uniform set of rules. Uniformity is hugely important in driving laws and this issue is hardly one that States (or any reasonable person) is bound to resist: It's a cash cow for fines (the "stupid tax") and it's plainly the right thing to do.
In this case, the federal government has a strong case to defend public safety. If individual states fall victim to telecom lobbyists, we'll have a patchwork of laws that will make driving laws a morass of confusion.
bvia 10:45AM (8/06/2009)
in other words, "they're 10 times more likely to cause a problem than a skilled driver twisting the top off his 5th beer of the drive."
Remember that a "distracted driver" is about as safe as a .08 BAC driver...
Reply
skablaw 10:56AM (8/06/2009)
Statistically, sure, but not absolutely. Maybe you drive like you have a 0.08 BAC, but I don't so why am I being punished for your inability to multi-task?