This Texting While Driving is really starting to get to me!

[RHenriksen]

For a nicely focused view of drivers who text, ride a motorcycle. There you are, in a state of elevated awareness because second by second you're actively involved with your fate. The tragic comedy of drivers and cell phones is crystal clear.

And very personal.

[Abraham]

I agree with TAM's perspective regarding fining.

I also think prison will not completely stop texting while driving once out of prison, but I think it'll be the most effective measure in slowing it down.

Yeah, I know, I sound over the top with my prison sentence idea, but it'll keep some of em off the road, for a little while.

[lildave40]

I work out side sales so I have alot of seat time. One day after watching a lady rear end another car while texting I decided to take count on who was texting while driving. While my wife drove I started keeping tally. in one day I saw over a hundred people either looking at there phone or typing on there phone. The other scary thing I saw was women putting make up on. I even saw one person holding a plate in his hand eating while texting while speeding down the highway.

[steveincowtown]

If someone hurts me or my family while texting and driving they will need an ambulance, not an attorney.


I honked at an LEO the other day that was texting and he chirped his sirens at me. We were beside each other at the next light and he let me know he was conducting work on his mobile phone. I informed that he can conduct any kind of work he wants, as long as he did in his lane. He gave me a grumble and rolled up his window.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Texting and driving are a deadly combination that nothing will stop or even significantly curtail. As TAM said, it's caused either by addiction, irresponsibility or both.

As a lawyer and former LEO, I want to look at the new law from an enforcement perspective -- it won't work. There's no way for an observing LEO to determine a person is texting as opposed to dialing their phone, entering an address in Google Maps, punching up a song to play through the car radio, etc. If the driver is stopped and tells the LEO (or refuses to answer the texting question) he/she wasn't texting, then there will be no basis on which to issue a citation. Sure, the LEO can ask to see the phone, but the driver is not required to give it to the officer. If they do and the phone is locked, the driver isn't required to give the officer the password. The LEO will be powerless to do anything, unless he/she has grounds for a warrant. Absent aggravating circumstances, that's not going to happen.

I fear the only thing the new texting law will accomplish is the opening of Pandora's Box. Get ready folks, other laws to prevent illusory "distracted driving" will be introduced in coming sessions. Eating, drinking (coffee, water, anything), listening to the radio, talking to passengers, driving with children in the car, have all been falsely claimed to create a dangerous condition by distracting the driver. As a pilot I find claims that people aren't capable of multi-tasking to be as silly as the Flat-Earth people. Granted, some pilots are better than others as is the case for drivers. But the lowest common denominator philosophy is dangerous ground when dealing with restrictive laws.

Remember, most people in Salem were thrilled when the first witch was burned, but . . .

Chas.

[RogueUSMC]

Remember, most people in Salem were thrilled when the first witch was burned, but . . .

Chas.

Exactly...

[treadlightly]

Distracted driving is inexcusable but there is another side to the coin.

When I've run late for meetings or appointments, I'm usually flogged for running late. I get that, but it's given me a little insight into the demographics of slackers.

There are two classes of people who walk into a meeting late. There's the undisciplined fellow who had things to do that were more important to him than your time, and there is also the guy who worked harder than anyone else to get there on time. His arrival marked the earliest possible instance he could show up.

I'm not saying punctuality isn't a hallmark of a productive person, but on the other hand every time a manager is hard on someone for showing up late, it's a little vote for more multitasking behind the wheel.

Of course, don't text and drive. On the other hand, if the minute weren't so unforgiving maybe we would have less carnage on the highway.

Yeah, I know. No way that could happen.

[SewTexas]

the new texting law has so many exceptions people were laughing at Zafferini as she was reading it. I can't standing texting and driving, remember I live right next to New Braunfels, but a cop can't tell if a person is texting, picking a spot of lint off their pants, or scratching a mosquito bite. If the the officer sees them and stops them, all the person has to do is say that they had reason to think it was an emergency, and the officer can't do a thing about it. There are lot's of other loop-holes, too....I just remember the "had reason to think it was an emergency" one.

[bblhd672]

Texting and driving are a deadly combination that nothing will stop or even significantly curtail. As TAM said, it's caused either by addiction, irresponsibility or both.

As a lawyer and former LEO, I want to look at the new law from an enforcement perspective -- it won't work. There's no way for an observing LEO to determine a person is texting as opposed to dialing their phone, entering an address in Google Maps, punching up a song to play through the car radio, etc. If the driver is stopped and tells the LEO (or refuses to answer the texting question) he/she wasn't texting, then there will be no basis on which to issue a citation. Sure, the LEO can ask to see the phone, but the driver is not required to give it to the officer. If they do and the phone is locked, the driver isn't required to give the officer the password. The LEO will be powerless to do anything, unless he/she has grounds for a warrant. Absent aggravating circumstances, that's not going to happen.

I fear the only thing the new texting law will accomplish is the opening of Pandora's Box. Get ready folks, other laws to prevent illusory "distracted driving" will be introduced in coming sessions. Eating, drinking (coffee, water, anything), listening to the radio, talking to passengers, driving with children in the car, have all been falsely claimed to create a dangerous condition by distracting the driver. As a pilot I find claims that people aren't capable of multi-tasking to be as silly as the Flat-Earth people. Granted, some pilots are better than others as is the case for drivers. But the lowest common denominator philosophy is dangerous ground when dealing with restrictive laws.

Remember, most people in Salem were thrilled when the first witch was burned, but . . .

Chas.

Pandora's Box is already cracked and falling apart. In New York state legislators are mulling a law that will allow police to attach a device to cell phones at the scene of an accident and download the data to determine if the driver was texting at the time of the accident.
https://www.policeone.com/police-produc ... -advances/

[Jusme]

Texting and driving are a deadly combination that nothing will stop or even significantly curtail. As TAM said, it's caused either by addiction, irresponsibility or both.

As a lawyer and former LEO, I want to look at the new law from an enforcement perspective -- it won't work. There's no way for an observing LEO to determine a person is texting as opposed to dialing their phone, entering an address in Google Maps, punching up a song to play through the car radio, etc. If the driver is stopped and tells the LEO (or refuses to answer the texting question) he/she wasn't texting, then there will be no basis on which to issue a citation. Sure, the LEO can ask to see the phone, but the driver is not required to give it to the officer. If they do and the phone is locked, the driver isn't required to give the officer the password. The LEO will be powerless to do anything, unless he/she has grounds for a warrant. Absent aggravating circumstances, that's not going to happen.

I fear the only thing the new texting law will accomplish is the opening of Pandora's Box. Get ready folks, other laws to prevent illusory "distracted driving" will be introduced in coming sessions. Eating, drinking (coffee, water, anything), listening to the radio, talking to passengers, driving with children in the car, have all been falsely claimed to create a dangerous condition by distracting the driver. As a pilot I find claims that people aren't capable of multi-tasking to be as silly as the Flat-Earth people. Granted, some pilots are better than others as is the case for drivers. But the lowest common denominator philosophy is dangerous ground when dealing with restrictive laws.

Remember, most people in Salem were thrilled when the first witch was burned, but . . .

Chas.

This has been my argument against a texting ban all along. First, it's all but unenforceable, but it is also begins the slide (or speeds it up) towards more totalitarian laws.
Criminalizing something that should be common sense, doesn't prevent anything, if common sense is not used in the first place. There are laws that require drivers to have insurance, wear seat belts, get their vehicles inspected, etc. All of these, are things that should be done, by common sense drivers, but they have not prevented one accident, forced people to maintain their vehicle, or carry insurance, if they were not pre-disposed to do those things in the first place.
I don't do any of those things, for fear of being ticketed, I do them for my own safety and peace of mind. My kids learned very quickly while I was teaching them to drive, that there is nothing on their cell phone that can't wait until they stop. I have told them, that even if it is my wife or I calling, if they answer while they are driving, they won't like what we have to say to them. Everyone who knows me, knows that if they text me and I don't reply, it's because I'm driving, including my boss, and SWMBO. JMHO

[Jusme]

Texting and driving are a deadly combination that nothing will stop or even significantly curtail. As TAM said, it's caused either by addiction, irresponsibility or both.

As a lawyer and former LEO, I want to look at the new law from an enforcement perspective -- it won't work. There's no way for an observing LEO to determine a person is texting as opposed to dialing their phone, entering an address in Google Maps, punching up a song to play through the car radio, etc. If the driver is stopped and tells the LEO (or refuses to answer the texting question) he/she wasn't texting, then there will be no basis on which to issue a citation. Sure, the LEO can ask to see the phone, but the driver is not required to give it to the officer. If they do and the phone is locked, the driver isn't required to give the officer the password. The LEO will be powerless to do anything, unless he/she has grounds for a warrant. Absent aggravating circumstances, that's not going to happen.

I fear the only thing the new texting law will accomplish is the opening of Pandora's Box. Get ready folks, other laws to prevent illusory "distracted driving" will be introduced in coming sessions. Eating, drinking (coffee, water, anything), listening to the radio, talking to passengers, driving with children in the car, have all been falsely claimed to create a dangerous condition by distracting the driver. As a pilot I find claims that people aren't capable of multi-tasking to be as silly as the Flat-Earth people. Granted, some pilots are better than others as is the case for drivers. But the lowest common denominator philosophy is dangerous ground when dealing with restrictive laws.

Remember, most people in Salem were thrilled when the first witch was burned, but . . .

Chas.

Pandora's Box is already cracked and falling apart. In New York state legislators are mulling a law that will allow police to attach a device to cell phones at the scene of an accident and download the data to determine if the driver was texting at the time of the accident.
https://www.policeone.com/police-produc ... -advances/

Even that is "after the fact" enforcement. The same thing can be done through subpoena. I believe that this will be overturned as unconstitutional, since no due process can be afforded, for anyone involved in an auto accident, and even then, cannot be shown to be conclusive evidence of the cause. A shortcut of due process, is not going to prevent anything, and them comparing it to ignition lock breathalyzers, is more than just a stretch for justification.
If an officer believes that someone is texting, stopping them and forcing them to hand over private property, for the purpose of self incrimination, will not fly. Cell phones, are not contraband. Drivers are not even required to disclose that they have a cell phone in their possession, and a warantless search, without probable cause, will not pass the smell test, in court.
Don't get me wrong, I am just as frightened, and angry with those who I see putting lives at risk, with their behavior, but this law, in my opinion, will do little to prevent it. I see it like Charles said, as a "gateway" to more laws, when this one fails to achieve the desired results. The freedom to travel, will become so restrictive, that it will be meaningless.
You simply cannot legislate common sense behavior. There will be a few, people, who will, at first, obey the law out of fear, but then resort back to their old habits. JMHO

[Charles L. Cotton]

. . . Criminalizing something that should be common sense, doesn't prevent anything, if common sense is not used in the first place.

Oh that's good, very good. I'm going to use that line.

Chas.

[SewTexas]

. . . Criminalizing something that should be common sense, doesn't prevent anything, if common sense is not used in the first place.

Oh that's good, very good. I'm going to use that line.

Chas.

that is brilliant!

[nightmare69]

I haven't received any training on how to enforce this new texting and driving ban as of yet. I don't see how it's going to work other than stroking citations and letting the offender hash it out in court. Someone could easily say, " I wasn't texting, I was changing my music.". I guess our lawmakers thought this law would be enforced through the honor system of our citizens.

IMO, if you're going to ban texting and driving then extend the same cell phone law we have now during an active school zone. Otherwise we are left shooting in the dark trying to prove they were texting. I'll just stick with failure to maintain a single lane of traffic.

[The Annoyed Man]

This is really part of a larger discussion. We pretty much all want a safer world. Who wouldn't? But, increased safety always comes with a cost. When it comes to mechanical systems, it comes with the increased cost of manufacturing/maintaining those systems. It's unavoidable, but many people are willing to pay a little extra for that extra safety, because that safety is what they are looking for in the market place, and they understand the cost/benefit analysis. In the cases where they are not willing, the free market affords them opportunities to buy products that are possibly less safe, but cost less. In the firearms world, S&W M&P and Glock both produce versions of a pistol with and without external safeties which are otherwise identical to one another. The ones with the safeties probably cost little more than the traditional models, but some will be willing to pay the extra for the perceived extra safe use. Virtually all of Subaru's advertising right now is centered on the safety of their vehicles, and protecting our loved ones. But again, that is the market at work, and we are talking about the cost of things, not human behavior. And nobody is being forced to buy the products that have the additional safety features built in. They have a choice. That's called "freedom to choose".

When it comes to human behavior, what we are really talking about is potentials. The odds probably approach 100% that any single individual driver will be involved in at least one MV accident during his/her driving lifetime - anything ranging from simple stuff like backing into a light pole or a parking lot fender-bender, to being in a multi car pileup with fatalities - even if they didn't cause the accident themselves. Thank God that most of them are relatively minor accidents where nobody gets seriously hurt. But when one drives drunk or while texting, the longer one exhibits that behavior, the more that the odds approach 100% that they will cause a dangerous accident with serious injuries and fatalities. We also know from experience that the serially negligent are not likely to reform their negligent behavior because of the threat of punishment.

On the surface, it makes sense to want to pass laws that we hope will either deter toxic behavior before it happens, or punish it after the fact. But, we know that layer upon layer of laws usually doesn't achieve the end. Despite plenty of laws to the contrary, people still murder, steal, cheat, rape, evade their taxes, abuse their children, commit acts of terror, and drive drunk and/or recklessly. As gun owners, we know for a fact that all the gun laws in the world do not stop criminals from using guns inappropriately. But we ALSO know another thing: that adding layer upon layer of gun laws only curtails the liberties of the law-abiding.

Think for a moment of Ben Franklin's famous quote that "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" (which is often quoted out of its original context anyway, but that's another story). Certainly, the sentiment is true, but most of us are perfectly willing to compromise that idea in very specific ways with nearly universal consensus. We agree to pay taxes to support the national defense. We may disagree about what the extent of that means, but the general notion - that we pay taxes to support national defense - is something that only the most lunatic fringes deny. Those taxes are compulsory, and the gov't has the power to enforce them at the muzzle of a gun, so we each lose a little bit of liberty in exchange for the security of being able to provide for the national defense (and that actually speaks to the origins of Ben Franklin's quote). But the agreement among the people to surrender that small amount of liberty in exchange for the security of a free state is nearly unanimous, because it doesn't really impinge on our behaviors. On the other hand, there is at least half of the country that doesn't think that they should have to pay for the other half's abortions; so to the extent that they are forced to do so against their will, they lose liberty to maintain something in which their is no compelling national interest, and which is irrelevant to their own behaviors. So for those who affirm that we should all be forced to pay for the abortions of others through our taxes, they are willing to trade away someone else's liberty for the security of not having to pay for their own abortions. And that is an injustice to those who are required to pay against their wills. My point is not to rail against abortion (although that's certainly something I'm willing to talk about anytime anyplace), but rather to point out that layers of laws which seek to regulate individual behaviors rather than to serve compelling national interests have the effect of crushing individual liberty.

As other has pointed out, this is a slippery slope. Too much can go wrong. If an officer see you looking down momentarily, he has know way of knowing if you're texting, brushing a crumb off your lap, trying to flick a booger off your finger, or just having a good scratch. There are loopholes for the accused that render the law virtually meaningless. And in most cases, there's simply no way for an LEO to prove the assertion without setting a torch to your 4th Amendment rights (what's left of them since the courts got involved in adjudicating what it means....). We also can fairly accurately forecast from experience in other areas, like driving while impaired, that most offenders are going to go on like this law doesn't exist. Then we'll fine them more, but they'll keep doing it. Then we'll revoke their licenses, but they'll keep driving. Then we'll shut down their verizon accounts, and they'll buy burner phones. It goes on and on and on.

So we left with the larger existential questions:

1. Are we willing to trade away individual liberty in order to have a safer society?
2. If yes, how much liberty are we willing to give up?
3. What are the unintended consequences (something to which very few people ever give any consideration) of adding layers of laws?

I have no problems with laws against the commission of murder, or assigning very strong sentences to offenders. The state has a compelling interest in preserving the lives of its citizens, and for all kinds of reasons. When you murder someone, they are dead. Period. But driving while impaired, or driving while texting, are charges of potential harm. The drunk could conceivably make it all the way home without running into something. Ditto the texter. If we criminalize all behaviors which have the potential for harm to someone else, then how long before society decides to forbid the carrying of firearms in public? After all, people are killed by negligent discharge of a firearm with some regularity. But we don't punish people for the potential of harm when it comes to carrying firearms. We punish them for actually causing harm, if/when it actually happens.

I'm on the fence about drunk driving, but I think you can put that in the same cateogry as "waving a gun around" while drunk - behavior that has a high degree of risk to others - so there is some wiggle room there when it comes to the liberty/safety continuum. Texting is harder to make the case for it. But either way, very few people don't know it is dangerous........and almost nobody who does it is actually deterred by the threat of punishment.

Personally, I'm willing to live in a somewhat more dangerous world, if it means that I will enjoy more liberty; if it means that Amendments 1 through 10 to the Constitution continue to have actual meaning in my life.