Ah, surveys you can prove anything!

how exactly do you enforce a "no texting" ban? how can you tell if someone is texting or reading a note on their screen or changing a song? reading is still legal, right?

Thing is, you SHOULDN'T be doing it in the first place.

Granted, I can't stop you from being an asshole and endangering other people's lives.

@dandimar:

Not really...while driving. Your eyes should be on the road scanning for dangers 100% of the time. If you do take your eyes off the road, it should be for like a second at most. You should be anticipating dangers and calculating what other people may do, whether it is logical or not.

Reading, texting, watching tv, playing video games while driving? It's just plain nonsense. You are in control of 1.5-2 tons of metal hurtling down the road at 60 mph. The slightest mistake could end up killing hundreds of people.

@dandimar:

Reading is not necessarily legal: every jurisdiction ahss some kind of provision that would cover, say, reading a novel behind the wheel. In an extreme case it would be "reckless driving," but lots of jurisdictions have statutes like "driving with undue care and attention."
I think the value in an explicit ban is not so much that it newly outlaws a behavior, as it is in making a clear, bright-line rule about what constitutes distracted driving.

They're released a survey without any of the methodology to back it up.

Hey, I can do that too...

80% of consumers think surveys are wrong!

@dandimar: I don't see any reason it should be if texting is banned.

This type of law is a feel-good law. Impossible to enforce.

I've encountered more than my share of idiot assholes on the road, and I think that legislation is probably futile. We need both of the following: (1) Far stricter standards to obtain (and to maintain) a driver's license, and (2) For those who want to be able to text, read, and sleep while behind the wheel, fully automated driverless cars.

@dandimar: I've thought about that as well. It seems that the devices need locks on them to prevent texting while driving. Most phones have some sort of GPS (or the location can be determined via pings), I'd think they could sense if the phone is moving, say over 15 mph, and disable the texting functions. Then again, this would prohibit passengers and people using public transit from texting as well. Tough call, what's the point of legislation if it can't be enforced?

@segfault: I totally agree with number one. My driver's test was a freakin joke. I turned left, went down a straight road, backed up, and passed. Never even went into traffic.

There should also be far stricter penalties for traffic violations, and less "warnings" given by cops.

I say this not as a reckless teenager, though I used to be one. I say it on the other side as a 28 year old who recognizes the danger he was to himself and others.

Consumerist needs to survey public support for a Death Penalty for texting drivers.
The only reason I'm uncertain if it wouldn't win is it'd be neck-and-neck with the "Dip driver caught texting in McDonald's Fry Oil until squishingly pink then drawing him/her, then quartering using a herd of feral cats wearing piano wire harnesses. Then throwing in a landfill filled with salt and broken glass" option.
...Not that I've thought about it much. Nope, not at all.

I couldn't really discern from the article, but are they pushing a Federal ban on texting while driving or bans at the state level? I would fully support state or municipality level bans, but vehemently oppose a Federal ban.

@dandimar: I vote snipers.

@segfault: It won't stop most people, no, but if it can be proven you were texting at the same time you caused an accident, it's another charge you can be hit with.

I have a buddy who's a lawyer and his client was just in a car accident. He rearended a guy. Most of the time the person in back is the one responsible since the driver in front doesn't have eyes in the back of his head. However my buddy's client swore the guy in front slammed on his brakes and swerved. They subpoenaed the guy's cell phone records and found out he'd sent a text about 10 seconds before the accident. Not only did my buddy's client not have to pay but he actually had the guy in front pay for the damages. My buddy's boss said this was the first time in 40 years he'd ever known the person in front to have to pay for the person in the rear's damages. My guess is that more and more insurance companies will start checking cellphone records; if they can prove you were texting at the time of an accident they will not pay the claim.

@Saboth: but probably won't...

count me in to favor the ban on texting and cell phone use.

When I receive a call n my cell while driving ,I pull into a parking lot or off to the side to talk, I drove trucks(1.5 million miles)for 20 years and have seen more things happen due to distractions than you can believe
it would fill a book and then some..

@dandimar: I think the two ways this would be most easily enforced are: 1) the cop spots you texting and busts you on the spot, or 2) if you are in an accident and suspected of texting while driving, the police subpoena your phone records at the time of the crash. It may be a little hard to perform 1), but I think 2) would at least be a deterrent for people not to text while driving.

@dandimar: i'm not sure how the rules in CT are phrased, but basically it's against the law to not have 2 hands on the wheel at all times (unless you're in a stick shift) and your eyes on the road. it was their way of making the cell phone lobby happy. the companies complained that talking on a cell phone is no more distracting than putting on makeup, eating etc, so the state went fine, it's all illegal.
the only one that's primary enforcement is the cell phone one (i think). if you're seen on a cell phone, you can get pulled over for it.

Can we get this law passed for walking and texting as well? People wander around like zombies now.

I fully support this ban so long as I'm still allowed to eat tacos and ribs behind the wheel, apply eye drops, receive fellatio, and listen to Howard Stern.

(all this technology specific legislation... sounds a lot like the Old People That Can't Handle Technology vs the Whipper Snappers That Are Having Way Too Much Fun.)

@johnfrombrooklyn: There are many cases when the person in front is liable for an accident, randomly cutting across traffic and causing an accident for one, reversing into a vehicle.. as stupid as that is.. I have seen it happen twice (once was a parked car.. the other was guy in rush hour, reading a paper, and trying to shift at the same time when traffic started moving.. apparently he put it into reverse....)

Also, there are some states that are no fault, ie you pay for your damage, he/she pays for his/hers no matter who caused the accident...

@Trai_Dep: I like where your head is at, Trai_Dep.

I'm not so much arguing what is right and what is wrong. Doing ANYTHING other than focusing while driving is dangerous and risky. But when it comes to putting the matter to law, I'm glancing over the issue of right and wrong. The issue is enforceability. Is the law one that can be consistently and fairly applied to citizens? How do you clearly, explicitly outlaw a driving distraction? How do you classify the offense?

Example: your two toddlers are fighting in the back seat of your car and you take your eyes off the road to see what they are doing and yell at them. You broke focus while driving, you broke the law. But how could someone in another car tell if you did?

I don't have the answers to these questions. Snipers do sound good, though.

@dandimar: This is what I was saying yesterday. I can easily delete my text history before the cop gets to my car, and going through the court system to get a warrant/subpeona is ridiculously expensive. Unless the tickets for texting are more than enough to pay for all the extra manhours they have to go through to prove it, I just don't think this is going to work. Who even has police with extra time like that in this economy?

@TinkishDelight:

Having defended clients in traffic court, they would never, ever go to the trouble of trying to subpoena a texting history (well, maybe for a vehicular manslaughter, or the like...) The way these kinds of convictions are obtained (and the vast majority of traffic cases end in conviction) is simply through the testimony of the officer. In that respect, this would be no different than obtaining a conviction for, say, an unsafe lane-change. The cop testifies he saw it, the driver testifies he didn't do it, the judge rules (usually siding with the cop).

@dandimar: The issue is enforceability. Is the law one that can be consistently and fairly applied to citizens? How do you clearly, explicitly outlaw a driving distraction? How do you classify the offense?

Example: your two toddlers are fighting in the back seat of your car and you take your eyes off the road to see what they are doing and yell at them. You broke focus while driving, you broke the law. But how could someone in another car tell if you did?

This this this!!! I've texted at stoplights (yeah yeah I know) but I was also hit the other day while completely stopped by a lady digging through her purse. How is that combatted? I think someone mentioned NJ having a "carless driving" law. I think something like that would be far more realistic.

Does anyone really think this is going to do ANY good? Talking on the phone and driving is banned in Australia.. but you see just as many people chatting on the phone.

Guys.. this is stupid. We have way too much "there ought to be a law" syndrome these days. We need to look at reducing our legislation foot print not expanding it recklessly. I personal find an obtrusive, nanny government more of a risk to my freedom than people texting and driving.

@Applekid:
Well, the idiot texting kid who sideswiped me certainly couldn't "handle technology." Count me in on this one.

@TinkishDelight: careless driving. though carless might be an issue as well

@treimel: But they're not likely to even see the phone unless they're directly next to you. If you're behind or at the side you just see someone bent over.

@Trai_Dep: ooh, kitties!

@TinkishDelight:
Well, I see them sometimes. But yes, the overall point conceded: this would be more difficult to detect than most things.

@treimel: Well sure. And not everyone can handle shaving and making milkshakes and writing a musical while driving. We don't really need laws specifically targeting actions and instead need laws telling poeple (and that kid that sideswiped you) to stop messing around because they mess around too much.

@Esquire99: Wouldn't that cause more confusion for drivers?

"Ok we just made it out of Maryland (no texting) into right wing Pennsylvania (texting and I can carry my concealed weapon, awesome!)" For something like this I almost wonder if it'd be easier to just a nationwide ban?

@Hooray4Zoidberg: NPR had a doctor on a few months ago claiming that they've seen a spike in the incidence of injuries while walking and texting. Suffice it to say people don't pay attention and end up rolling ankles or falling down stairs.

@segfault: i would suggest some sort of program to promote awareness of just how dangerous texting while driving is, but that seems about as futile as a wholesale ban on it. Just from the comments here it seems that the people who text and drive believe they are perfectly safe when THEY do it, it's just "those other idiots" who can't do it.

RecordStore has a point though. While you might not be able to get pulled over for it, if it can be proven that texting while driving was the cause of your accident there would be a law in place as an extra penalty.

@Esquire99: I'm not trying to make this sound like I'm being a jerk or anything because I'm seriously curious: what are your reasons for supporting a ban at the state level but being completely against one on the federal level?

@mazzic1083:
I have no doubt that it would be easier. That said, that doesn't mean that's how it should be done. The Constitution reserves most lawmaking and enforcement functions to the states and this should fall squarely within the states' rights. While the interstate commerce clause gives the Feds the power to regulate activities that affect interstate commerce, and that power has been construed incredibly broadly, it's my belief that a Federal ban would trample the rights of the states.

I wouldn't have a problem with them tying the ban to certain Federal funding of state programs, as that at least gives the states the ability to opt-out if they don't want to ban it.

@GuinevereRucker: If you denied below-average drivers licenses there would be massive unemployment and most drivers on the road would be illegal and likely to hit-and-run, evade police at high speed, etc.

@dandimar: Distracted driving is a ticket I've heard of. It could apply to just about anything including bozos checking their email while driving to a woman putting on makeup to a teenager bobbing her head to the radio.

@z4ce: Talking is one thing, it's a mainly passive activity. But sending text mails, emails, fooling around with apps, etc. is an active activity. Speed+distraction+idiot driver to begin with=dead pedestrians and/or children it's just that simple.

@korybing:
It's purely a Federalism argument. See my other response for a little more detail.

@Applekid: @mazzic1083:

Um...Pennsylvania is a right wing state? That's news to me.

Besides...they've done this before with the "Click it or Ticket law"; I'm sure they can accomplish the same thing through the existing state dmv compact.

@Applekid: I was with you on everything until... Howard Stern?!
Whoever your designated oral service provider is, hang on to them. If they can perform their function while you're listening to Howard Stern, they're exceptional.
Or you've some interesting fetishes.

@nstonep: Talking on the phone, unfortunately, isn't a passive activity, and it demonstrably removes your attention from the road. It's less dangerous than texting, but it's still endangering everybody around the phone user.

@Applekid: For argument's sake, though--the same thing could be said about DUI, so would you favor repealing those specific laws? I think this falls more into the DUI category in that its combination of prevalence and danger puts it well ahead of the other driving risks, and it therefore has earned its own category.

@korybing: But then again, if Cops can pull you over for not wearing a seat belt, talking on a cell phone, having a monitor on in the front seat, etc. What makes you think they wouldn't be able to pull you over for fooling around with a smartphone while driving.

I believe their favorite reason is "reckless driving" though if there's a "distracted driving" statute they'll use that.

You know...maybe the problem would be alleviated somewhat if more people drove manuals; you'd have to be a REAL idiot to try and drive and text while switching gears.

Texas has recently banned drivers using cell phones in school zones. Unfortunately many municipalities cannot enforce it until they find money for signage.

@thrillwill:

I'm sure that's exactly the thought that went through the minds of all of those thousands of people that have had major accidents.

@z4ce: Of COURSE texting is low on your list of driver's annoyances. After facing off against Humungus every commute, inappropriate cellphone use must rank pretty low.
PS: Is it true that every Aussie tire changing kit contains a 14" Bowie knife instead of a wrench? Doesn't that mar the chrome on your tire rims?