Making laws to reduce dangerous driver distractions

So, you’d think it would be a simple thing for states to pass laws prohibiting texting. It’s pretty obvious that texting and driving aren’t compatible activities. The data shows a 2,200% increase in crash risk. And multiple polls show that drivers favor regulations against texting while driving.
 
But it’s not that simple. Vehicle and consumer product safety is mandated by federal agencies, as are laws regarding mass transit and commercial driving between states; indeed Secretary LaHood announced new regulations regarding train, bus, and truck operators at the conclusion of the Driver Distraction Summit in Washington, D.C. In contrast, driving laws regarding individuals are controlled at the state level. A federal law, like the ALERT Drivers Act legislation supported by Senators Chuck Schumer, Bob Menendez, Kay Hagan, and Mary Landrieu, can push states to pass laws through sanctions such as withholding federal highway funds if states do not pass bans on driving while texting.
 
Two state legislators who were panelists here, Senator Bruce Starr from Oregon and Representative Steve Farley from Arizona, stated that there are disadvantages to federal laws using the “stick” approach of withholding highway funds  rather the “carrot” approach in offering incentives to push the passage of state laws. A top-down federal approach raises the hackles of some state legislators, who feel they were the ones elected to represent their constituents, not some senator from another state.
 
There is also a concern that texting laws would be very difficult to enforce. This notion was dispelled by Major David Salmon, the director of the traffic services division of the New York State Police. New York was the first state to legislate a hand-held cell phone ban. Last year, 8 percent of the tickets issued in New York were for for cell phone use while driving. As Major Salmon put it, state troopers can be very resourceful at figuring out how to enforce laws, so doing so would unlikely pose a problem.
 
One important point: it was stressed by numerous presenters that for any law to have a bite to it, it needs to be a “primary” law. That means that a law enforcement officer can pull you over for the primary task of being on a phone or texting, rather than being charged as a secondary offense to some other traffic violation.
 
Many different parties, from vehicle manufacturers to insurance companies to the electronics industry, back state laws against distracted driving. But there is one very important component missing. If you want laws to help protect you against distracted driving, contact your state legislators. Most polls show wide support for legislation, but it was made clear at the Driver Distraction Summit that direct contact from constituents can make a big difference in getting laws passed. 

—Tom Mutchler

For more information on distracted driving see our related reports:
Choosing words wisely in the distracted driving discussion
Distracted Driving Summit: The hands-free debate
Defining the problem: Casting a wide net over driver distraction
Automakers agree to ban
Anti-texting video to scare drivers straight
Using wireless communication devices while driving
Cell phone use and driving laws
Dangers of cell phones while driving
Should cell phone use by drivers be illegal?
Texting while driving
Talking in the slow lane

Comments

[Cale]

I've read that many schools, hospitals and government agencies are using texting as a primary means of getting "alerts" out to people that attend school or have a need to be informed of breaking events. I wonder if laws can be created that are flexible enough to allow people to receive important text messages while driving, as opposed to sending them. From what I've read in the recent blogs, it seems that there is a significant difference between the level of distraction that receiving and sending entail.

[Paul Rivers]

...and what about the cop who thinks I was texting, when I was simply holding onto my phone for the gps? Or checking my phone to see who was calling?

[Tom Mutchler]

Cale, depending on the study, there is a difference between actively dialing a phone and participating in a conversation. Not handling the phone - searching around the car for it, seeing the buttons, reading the small screen - is a help.

Reading a text message would still require a lot of that manipulation of the phone, resulting in a lot of eyes-off-road time.

[Cale]

Tom, thank you for your response. I did some more research and am encouraged to find that Ford supports the ban on texting, favoring their proprietary in-car communications system, Sync, which can replay text messages verbally. Perhaps this sort of technology will help doctors, emergency response personnel, and the like, get vital text messages without having to take unnecessary risks behind the wheel. http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/messaging/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=219700734

[Jeff Bartlett - Consumer Reports]

While I agree there can be some benefits to text-to-speed solutions, it isn't surprising that Ford supports its own technology. This is a tricky issue to wrestle through, but on an individual basis, pls don't text and drive.

[Byron Horn]

There is no need for specific laws relative cell phones or any other new technology that has come along over the past few years. I recall over twenty years ago a Washington state trooper ticketed a motorist on the I-5 freeway in the Seattle area for "inattention". The driver was drinking a cup of coffee.
I don't understand why, seemingly, so many of today's law enforcement officers aren't simply using existing laws relative this problem.
(Retired police captain)

[Cale]

Byron, Great comment! The reason for the legislation seems to be in the modest hope that new laws will curb the used of cellphones for texting without the need for enforcement. If our current laws (I live in the WA state) banning the use of handsets while driving are any indication, enforcement will be very lax.

[Tom Mutchler]

Byron, that is a good point. States could utilize the negligent driving laws that many of them already have on the books. Three states have "distracted driving" laws that make it an additional penalty to violate traffic laws (or crash) while doing non-driving-essential actions. That could be cell phone use, texting, or a wide variety of other actions.

But as I mentioned in the blog above, there are questions if making the distraction the secondary offense (first you break the law/crash, second issue is the distraction) makes the leglislation weaker and less effective.