State lawmakers would have you believe they're doing something pretty spectacular by passing a ban texting while driving. Are they? We don't know. The problem is there's no data that show that a ban on texting actually decreases accidents. We also don't know whether a lack of a ban increases the number of accidents.
According to the Idaho Transportation Department, there were about 25,000 accident statewide in 1999. Ten years later, amid the increase in cell phone use, texting and GPS devices, the number of accidents in Idaho has remained constant at about 25,000 per year. That's while there's been a significant number of new cars registered in the state and new drivers licenses issued.
If you ask the transportation department staff to tell you how many vehicle crashes were caused by texting while driving, cell phone use, kids in the backseat or anything else, they can't. The reason is that's not data that's collected right now. The department can tell you that about 20 percent of accidents in 2008 were caused by inattention or distraction, but of that how many accidents were caused by people fiddling with their cell phones, trying to send a text message or updating their Facebook statuses at 55 miles an hour? And how many were caused by people trying to eat lunch or tune the radio? We just don't know. However, says the transportation department, the state will soon start gathering that data.
But lawmakers aren't willing to wait. A bill before the state Senate would clearly say that it's a crime in Idaho to be texting while driving. Texting, under the draft new statute, means "engaging in the review of or manual preparation and transmission of written communication via wireless devices" except when that's being done by law enforcement personnel. The bill passed the Senate Transportation Committee on a unanimous vote.
Such a statute raises a legitimate enforcement question. How can a police officer tell that the driver of a vehicle is texting? An officer would have to be able to see into a vehicle and know what's going on below the horizon of the car window -- from across the road or down the street.
I've asked several police officers to explain to me how they'd enforce this law, and the answer is they can't.
"It's unenforceable," one officer told me flat out. Unless officers pull someone over and observe a driver texting as they approach the vehicle, or the person admits to texting, it's going to be awfully difficult for officers to enforce the statute, he said. Seeing a phone in the passenger seat or in the driver's lap proves nothing. Officers publically say that a texting ban is a "tool in the toolbox" to keep the traveling public safe, but apart from that, no one really knows how it will work or if it will work.
Were the Legislature to wait until after the transportation department has quantifiable information, we might be able to know if such a ban were needed, and if so, whether the law actually had an impact or not.
Comments
TEXTING WHILE DRIVINGSubmitted by Francis525 (not verified) on Wed, 03/03/2010 - 01:12.
» - reply
I can't believe anyone but an addicted "texter" would care if there are any statistics regarding accidents. Apparently there are plenty of statistics based on the reports I have seen. I think it is idiotic and selfish for anyone to be texting and driving. I saw some female on Dr. Phil and she had no intention of stopping and kept her eyes off the road for up to 90 seconds. A lot can happen in 90 seconds. I think they should be treated like DUI drivers which is lock them up and throw away the key.
Now I have mixed emotions to talking on cell phones (even though I don't own a cell phone) as that can end up being a slippery slope where "big brother" decides we can't eat in our cars, listen to the radio, look at a passenger or any of a number of things that is done by our multi-tasking abilities. Texting is something completely different as it usually takes more time away from paying attention to the road than the 2 second glance down to the volume control on the radio.
Texting while drivingSubmitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 03/06/2010 - 20:10.
» - reply
Texting while driving should be illegal. It is inattentive driving, if not even reckless driving, and laws should be initiated to reflect this and be enforced. If a person has been drinking, they are given a DUI test for blood alcohol levels. How hard is it for a police officer to check a cell phone to see if it was being used at the time of an accident? I was recently rear ended after sitting in my car for a minimum of 20 seconds behind other stopped vehicles. I feel that if the person who had hit me had their cell phone checked, it would show they were possibly on their phone.As it is, this person will likely get away with no reprimand, even after my hospital stay and thousands of dollars of my money is spent on medical and mechanical expenses.
another study ???Submitted by Hubert (not verified) on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 10:50.
» - reply
This should be a slam dunk and you think we should study this? I agree with the legislators on this one
Texting while drivingSubmitted by FedUp (not verified) on Mon, 03/01/2010 - 23:04.
» - reply
We already have a law about inattentive driving. Let's enforce it - apply it when needed and forget this stuff of simply adding another layer of laws to what has already been created to solve such problems. Just passing another law does not make us any safer. Its only strict enforcement of existing laws that will help.
As an example: How many dog laws does your community have? Do you still have dog problems? Of course you do because they don't enforce what is already on the books. This will be the same thing.
Banning stupiditySubmitted by BRJ (not verified) on Mon, 03/01/2010 - 10:58.
» - reply
Yes, I am wholly in favor of banning stupidity. If the actions in your vehicle don't allow you to focus your attention on the road, you are endangering yourself and the public. I don't believe that there is a middle ground for texting; you can't do it without being sufficiently distracted from your driving duty. That's common sense. Luckily, since driving is not a right, we can take it away from those who spend more time texting in a car than they spend actually driving it.
If you are operating a motor vehicle, your responsibility is not just to yourself, it is to every other motorist and person on the road, every family in every minivan on their way to soccer practice and every couple taking a stroll on the sidewalk. I don't care how much more exciting eating taco bell is while going 55 mph, if it is taking your attention off the road, then don't do it. Black and white.
Underlying PremiseSubmitted by Bill McCrory (not verified) on Mon, 03/01/2010 - 09:45.
» - reply
The underlying premise of the proposed ban on text messaging while driving is that the process is a major distraction. Yet as they always do, legislators write in exemptions for public safety employees.
Why?
If the process of manipulating a keyboard while watching or glancing at a screen is distracting for people not in public safety, why is it any less distracting for public safety employees? In spite of what the uninformed commenters and equally uninformed legislators may think, public safety employees are not taught to drive while texting. It is not part of their training. They are no less susceptible to distractions than any other citizen.
Very tragic, obviously, isSubmitted by Wayne Hoffman on Mon, 03/01/2010 - 00:26.
» - reply
Very tragic, obviously, is Kassandra's case. However, I just read a very sad story about a young adult who was killed because he was distracted talking to his friends in a vehicle. Read another story about a man who was distracted and seriously injured in an accident because he was paying too much attention to the radio/CD player. Maybe we should ban all of those things, too.
Reckless and irresponsibleSubmitted by BRJ (not verified) on Fri, 02/26/2010 - 13:55.
» - reply
Please do everyone a favor and conduct a minor ammount of research before posting something as reckless as this.
Please note the case of Kassandra Kerfoot, 18, who died when she drove her ford mustang into oncoming traffic on Eagle Road this past December. Police found her phone with text messages dating from the time of the crash.
So, that's at least one death that could have been easily prevented. So, actually, I would reasonably conclude that texting has dramatically increased the number of fatal road accidents in Idaho.
There point is that there absolutely no reason why texting while driving should remain legal. Regardless of how difficlut it is to enforce, it should be banned because it is a fact that it constitutes reckless endangerment. And how many more parents have to bury their children before you have enough "data" to conclude that texting is indeed worthy of legislation banning its practice whilst operating a motor vehicle?
This post is rather obnoxious coming from someone who likes to toot the common sense horn so often.
You need to get your factsSubmitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 05/08/2010 - 02:58.
» - reply
You need to get your facts straight. The messages were 4 minutes BEFORE her crash. She could have been doing anything at the time, and quite frankly it doesn't matter. We loved and love her still. The guilt from the person receiveing the texts (although 4 minutes before crash) is overwhelming and devastating. She will be missed immensely..... always....If we want to fight for a law, let's fight for seatbelts.
With love for Kassy...
Reckless and Irresponsible?Submitted by Daniel (not verified) on Sun, 03/07/2010 - 15:51.
» - reply
If Cassandra was texting she was already breaking the law. Idaho Drivers Manual currently states:
Inattentive Driving: While driving, you must give your full attention to the safe operation of your vehicle. Failure to do so may cause you to be cited for inattentive driving.
That statute, if she was texting, did not stop her so what exactly do you believe a specific law will be likely to stop? I don't have a cell phone that I can text on and if I make a call I pull over while I dial and if the call needs me to pay attention I don't drive until the call is completed.
Isn't it also reckless to make a law without complete intention and knowledge of the consequences?
Tooting the "Common Sense" horn?Submitted by Daniel (not verified) on Sun, 03/07/2010 - 15:05.
» - reply
Common sense should tell you that it is next to impossible to pass a law for an activity that is not easily discerned by the external observer (sic police). Common sense should tell you that make such a law viably enforcable it will be necessary for law enforcement to require the surrendering of a wireless communication device when demanded. That has farther reaching implications than merely texting. Will there be a limit to the information gathered by law enforecemt when they survey the communications on a wireless device? If someone has texted a threat to someone earlier in the history displayed on a wireless device be protected? Common sense should tell you that the inattentive driving statutes on the books now are sufficient to convict a person of any activity which has caused an accident if it is observed. Freedom takes many avenues in our society and the restriction of a liberty may take on far reaching unintended consequences.
Long live Common SenseSubmitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 03/13/2010 - 16:13.
» - reply
I totally agree with this comment. Most people don't think about the long lasting consequences of banning something. When restricting freedom, you should always take a good long hard look at how this kind of ban could be used in the future. Banning texting doesn't really fix the problem of inattentive driving. Think about it, 20 years ago very few people wore seat belts. Laws were put in place saying people were required to wear seat belts. Today, most people wear their seat belts. Was it the law that changed people's behavior? I don't think so. Have you ever heard a mother telling here children to make sure they wear their seat belt so they don't get a ticket? No. Mother tell their children to wear their seat belts because they want them to be safe. It wasn't the law that changed behavior, it was education. People have learned over the last 20 years that it's just smart to wear a seat belt, therefore more people wear them. Teaching people about he dangers of inattentive driving will do far more towards making the roads safer than any law ever will.
Post new comment