Federal legislators considering ban on texting while driving

[digital-entropy]

Just saw this article and I thought I'd pass it along. Looks like it would implemented similarly to the federally mandated minimum drinking age -- if states don't ban texting while driving, they'd find 25% of their federal transportation funding withheld.

WASHINGTON — States would be required to ban driving while texting or face the loss of highway funds under legislation being pushed by a group of Democratic senators.

Aimed at reducing driver distraction and highway deaths and injuries, the proposal follows a series of studies showing the dangers of drivers taking their eyes off the road to operate the handheld electronic devices.

Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have passed laws making texting while driving illegal.

"The federal government ought to pass a law banning this dangerous and growing practice to protect the millions of Americans on our nation's roads. It is a matter of public safety," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who was to unveil the legislation Wednesday along with Democrats Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Kay Hagan of North Carolina.

In a study released earlier this week, the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found that when drivers of heavy trucks texted, their collision risk was 23 times greater than when not texting. Dialing a cell phone and using or reaching for an electronic device increased risk of collision about six times in cars and trucks.

The Virginia Tech researchers said the risks of texting generally applied to all drivers, not just truckers.

The legislation would require states to ban texting or e-mailing while operating a moving vehicle or lose 25 percent of their annual federal highway funding. It would be patterned after the way the Congress required states to adopt a national drunken driving ban.

The transportation secretary would be required to issue guidelines within six months of the measure being signed into law, and states then would have two years to approve the bans on texting and driving.

States could recover highway funds by passing the legislation following the two-year period.

The bill would target the activity in a moving vehicle and not prohibit a driver from texting or e-mailing in a stopped car.

Personally I think this will be a great thing. Recent studies are showing that the risk of accident goes up considerably if you text and drive.

[robby]

Can't applaud it enough.

[Skootz Kabootz]

Win. Win. Win. Win. Win. Win. Win. Win. Everything about the idea is good but implement it by the end of day today! Forget the wait.

[beeporama]

I can understand why some people are against this, but it's one of those cases where you aren't just endangering yourself, but others. Those of us who will sustain grievous injury rather than a mangled side door if you blow through a stop sign after a quick glance are especially well-served by this.

[ScooterDave]

When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.
Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.

[Syd]

I don't have any problems texting while riding. Maybe it's the 16" wheels on the HD.

[robby]

http://www.kspr.com/news/talkback/44551607.html

[ericalm]

When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.
Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.

Very clever. As per yesterday's discussion, let's try to limit the discussion to this topic and not our broader views on politics, the state of the nation, our freedoms, lack thereof and so on.

For instance, here's info on the VT study from the NYT:
"In Study, Texting Lifts Crash Risk by Large Margin"

The first study of drivers texting inside their vehicles shows that the risk sharply exceeds previous estimates based on laboratory research — and far surpasses the dangers of other driving distractions.

The new study, which entailed outfitting the cabs of long-haul trucks with video cameras over 18 months, found that when the drivers texted, their collision risk was 23 times greater than when not texting.

The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, which compiled the research and plans to release its findings on Tuesday, also measured the time drivers took their eyes from the road to send or receive texts.

In the moments before a crash or near crash, drivers typically spent nearly five seconds looking at their devices — enough time at typical highway speeds to cover more than the length of a football field.

Even though trucks take longer to stop and are less maneuverable than cars, the findings generally applied to all drivers, who tend to exhibit the same behaviors as the more than 100 truckers studied, the researchers said. Truckers, they said, do not appear to text more or less than typical car drivers, but they said the study did not compare use patterns that way.

Texting and talking on the phone (without a hands-free device) while driving are banned in CA, but the both are still widespread. Yesterday, I passed a car with a "Dollar Driving School" sign on the door. The driver was tap tap tapping on her phone. Nice.

[digital-entropy]

Texting and talking on the phone (without a hands-free device) while driving are banned in CA, but the both are still widespread. Yesterday, I passed a car with a "Dollar Driving School" sign on the door. The driver was tap tap tapping on her phone. Nice.

Sadly I don't think the police bother enforcing the law. I don't have enough fingers to count the number of drivers I see each day who are dialing or texting.

[Syd]

Texting and talking on the phone (without a hands-free device) while driving are banned in CA, but the both are still widespread. Yesterday, I passed a car with a "Dollar Driving School" sign on the door. The driver was tap tap tapping on her phone. Nice.

Sadly I don't think the police bother enforcing the law. I don't have enough fingers to count the number of drivers I see each day who are dialing or texting.

Well, you shouldn't be counting on your fingers when riding anyway!

[jijifer]

I think it was Kaos who pointed out the law here in CA is passive (he may have used a different term) and that's to say you can't cite or pull over someone for using a non-handsfree device here in CA. If you have other cause to pull them over AND they were on the phone, then they can be cited in violation.

That pisses me off to no end, what's the point if they law has no teeth?! Grrr
so probably states will be issuing similarly passive laws - they've got to cause an accident to be in violation.

[Sombre-clair]

Texting while driving is already illegal here in utah, which is pretty sweet I think. Here if you get caught it's a Class C Misdemeanor and you get a $70 ticket. However if it causes an accident, it's a Class B which can include a higher ticket, possible jail time or lisence suspension. AND if it cause injury or death you get the book thrown at you

[digital-entropy]

That pisses me off to no end, what's the point if they law has no teeth?! Grrr
so probably states will be issuing similarly passive laws - they've got to cause an accident to be in violation.

Now THAT is ridiculous. Why don't we change the DUI laws so that you can drink and drive as long as you don't cause an accident! But it does explain why people seem to do it all the time.

[ericalm]

I think it was Kaos who pointed out the law here in CA is passive (he may have used a different term) and that's to say you can't cite or pull over someone for using a non-handsfree device here in CA. If you have other cause to pull them over AND they were on the phone, then they can be cited in violation.

That pisses me off to no end, what's the point if they law has no teeth?! Grrr
so probably states will be issuing similarly passive laws - they've got to cause an accident to be in violation.

That's not the case in CA—you can be pulled over. See the Q & As here:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/cellularphonelaws/

Of course, first offense is a $20 ticket. Subsequent fines: $50. So it's toothless anyways. Most Angelenos would gladly fork over $20-$50 in the unlikely event they get stopped for this.

According to a MC rider in VA, the texting law there only gets enforced in the event of a crash and has to be supported by cell records.

[naptime]

im all for it.


i have 15 employees.

2 of them are aged 21

13 of them are aged 16-18


of the 13 that are 18 and under...... 9 have been involved in some sort of accident, where they were at fault, because they were texting. none of them were "on the phone" they were all in the act of texting.

three of them, scraped the center guard rail on the highway.
2 of them scraped the right guard rail on the highway.
3 of them rear ended another car.
and 1 of them, was steering with his knee, lost control, made a far too quick swerve to the left, and flipped & barrel rolled his 4 day old mustang.

of the 9 that have been involved in accidents while texting... i would say that at least 8 of them , still do it.

[ScooterDave]

When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.
Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.

Very clever. As per yesterday's discussion, let's try to limit the discussion to this topic and not our broader views on politics, the state of the nation, our freedoms, lack thereof and so on.

Sorry, I thought I was keeping it on topic. I deemed the article as an alert that yet, one more personal freedom was being removed from us in the name of the greater good. I will pay more attention next time.

[jfrost2]

I dont think there is much of a right to complain about this. It's like drinking and driving, dont do it.

Texting makes you 23 times more likely to get into an accident, so why bother doing it? I've been nearly hit by teenage girls texting while driving, if they paid more attention to the road around them, those incidents wouldnt have happened.

[jijifer]

I think it was Kaos who pointed out the law here in CA is passive (he may have used a different term) and that's to say you can't cite or pull over someone for using a non-handsfree device here in CA. If you have other cause to pull them over AND they were on the phone, then they can be cited in violation.

That pisses me off to no end, what's the point if they law has no teeth?! Grrr
so probably states will be issuing similarly passive laws - they've got to cause an accident to be in violation.

That's not the case in CA—you can be pulled over. See the Q & As here:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/cellularphonelaws/

Of course, first offense is a $20 ticket. Subsequent fines: $50. So it's toothless anyways. Most Angelenos would gladly fork over $20-$50 in the unlikely event they get stopped for this.

According to a MC rider in VA, the texting law there only gets enforced in the event of a crash and has to be supported by cell records.

Sho Nuff. I remember googling it after this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=11034&highlight=secondary+infraction

remember being stunned to read that yes, it was a secondary infraction in CA but now, for the life of my googling skills, I can't find that again.

I wish, wish, wish, the cops on the 101 would stop folks for this. I guess speeding is a more lucrative ticket. Oh, and the time my 09 reg sticker was stolen from my car, unbeknownst to me, and got the privilege of getting it replaced and submitting proof the court. YAY! for the eagle eye THAT cop!

[jfrost2]

[pyrocpu]

Grim reaper... awesome...

SMSing is difficult for me in a car. Heck, I don't even want to have my phone to my head, even in the very rare instances I'm driving an automatic transmission car! I can operate three pedals at once in a car, place my car within 1 inch of where I want it on the track, but I can't coordinate driving and operating a mobile phone. As such, I stopped doing so, NINE years ago.

The only time I will do so is IF I have my headset (originally wireless headsets in the late 90s and earlier this decade; obviously Bluetooth now) on my head. It's not safe for me otherwise--I get really flustered. I'm super glad this law will be enacted; however as others have mentioned, it needs teeth. If it were a $100 first fine, $200 second fine, $300 for 3rd, etc., sure the constituents might complain, but it sure would stop a LOT of people doing it. A measly $10-50 fine won't do anything!

[jfrost2]

There's new applications on certain phones from speech to text where you can speak to the phone with a bluetooth headset or talk directly into it, and it converts to text.

This probably wont catch on anytime soon or go main stream because everyone would look at you in public when you physically say "lol" instead of laughing for real. Imagine 'roflmaowtf" said out loud.

[ericalm]

Sho Nuff. I remember googling it after this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=11034&highlight=secondary+infraction

From that previous thread:

Folks, let's try to leave out political ideologies out of this discussion. We really don't need to get into our individual interpretations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

It's like a mantra by this point! Maybe I am actually a bot. Hm…!

[cmac]

Just recently a friend of mine from back in high school, his dad hit a girl who pulled out in front of him on his motorcycle. She was on her cellphone and did not see him. He only had 15ft to stop and the bike just couldn't do it. He is now paralyzed from the neck down and will not make it for a very much longer. This was just a month ago or so. Now, my friend has no family what so ever except a brother because he was born in Germany and the man hit was his step father. Can that one text or one phone call really not wait? Drive and ride safe guys.

[Buddy_wannabe]

I find it kind of sad that they have to spend time and money on making it a law about something that people should have enough common sense to not be doing in the 1st place.

[gearhead]

you know some of you guys text while riding

[digital-entropy]

you know some of you guys text while riding

Of course! I can accelerate, brake, and turn with one hand. Why NOT text with the other?

[naptime]

you know some of you guys text while riding

i have..... at stop signs/traffic lights.


and yes, i will admit, i have been known to answer the phone while riding, and tell them to hold on while i pull over.

i have also, on one or two occasions...... actually riden with one hand and talked on the phone with the other.... while riding at a slow speed, maybe around 15-20.. anything faster and there is too much wind they cant hear you anyway lol.


now dont get me wrong.. i know full well that its dangerous, and cerainly ranks up among the stupidest things to do on a scoot, but yeah, i've done it.


and i'm betting i'm not the only one.

[kneil67@yahoo.com]

passed in NH 100 bill fine