Sonny Worried Texting While Driving Ban is Unenforceable
Decatur Metro | June 2, 2010Well THIS is an interesting way to frame this debate…
For the first time since the news broke five days ago, Governor Sonny Perdue spoke on why he might veto the adult texting-while-driving ban currently at his desk.
“I’ve got some concerns over the enforceability of that,” Perdue said at a news conference today
The governor has until June 8th to sign all bills into law. The bill in question is S.B. 360, also known as Caleb’s Law. It bans texting while driving for anyone 18 and [younger]; the problematic area is the part that makes it illegal to “read any text based communication.”
Here is Perdue’s example to describe why enforcing that part could be an issue.
“If I get my e-mails and I pick up a smart-phone and read my e-mails, I’m violating the law. But if I print out my e-mails and I have a sheet of paper driving [and look at it], then I haven’t violated the law.
“So those are some of the concerns, and none of this business is black and white.”
The governor was quick to point out that he has not yet made up his mind on the matter.
If I could get past my suspicion that Sonny’s position actually has more to do with preserving an individual’s right to do whatever over the safety of others, I would ask, how important a factor is “enforceability” in determining the validity of a law?
P.S. 11alive made a big fat error and said that S.B. 360 pertained to adults 18 AND OLDER. It’s actually 18 and YOUNGER. Therefore I edited the quoted text above.
h/t: Political Insider
Latest from Decaturish
Just another example of total lack of leadership on any subject exhibited in the past 7 1/2 years.
Not true – he showed exceptional leadership in declaring that he would veto any legislation that legalized Sunday alcohol sales. I wish he’d have checked his backbone at the door for that one.
But Sonny wanted us to work on our time management skills.
Yeah, and what about his “prayer for rain”??? Obviously that worked, because it started raining and hasn’t really stopped. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21680340/
The texting ban is an unnecessary law. ‘Driving while distracted’ covers a multitude of sins, all ages, and includes texting, reading a map, swatting the kids in the backseat, or fiddling with the stereo. Have the police start enforcing that law instead.
What is the “driving while distracted” law? And is it proactive or only evoked after an accident has occurred?
The current code section for “driving while distracted” is:
§ 40-6-241. Driver To Exercise Due Care; Proper Use Of Radios And Mobile Telephones Allowed
A driver shall exercise due care in operating a motor vehicle on the highways of this state and shall not engage in any actions which shall distract such driver from the safe operation of such vehicle, provided that the proper use of a radio, citizens band radio, or mobile telephone shall not be a violation of this Code section.
Note that it specifically allows the “proper use” of a cell phone. And yes, it is only ever invoked criminally when the police respond to an accident. It’s probably cited more by plaintiff’s lawyers in complaints for auto accident personal injury cases. I would bet there were less than 10 tickets written statewide for this offense least year in cases where there was not an accident.
So then a texting ban is not redundant, is it?
Nope, not really redundant. However Sonny is right about the enforcement problem. Whether that’s his real concern, I have no idea, but most cops will tell you that they’d be reluctant to enforce it. You can’t ban texting or otherwise reading a mobile device without completely banning cell phones, or at least going to a hands-free-only law.
If I got ticketed for “texting”, I would just argue that I wasn’t texting but rather I was looking for a number to call. That’s not texting and that is certainly “proper use” if a cell phone. Sure, they can subpoena my cell phone records and prove their point, but they can’t get the folks in Recorders Court to do their jobs as it is so good luck with convicting me. I’m not endorsing texting while driving, just illustrating the difficulties with such a law. I’d prefer they just keep 40-6-241 and delete the provision about proper use of a cell phone. If you’re using a cell phone, reading a book, eating, shaving, whatever, if you’re distracted, you’re distracted. Unfortunately, they only real proof of distraction is an accident.
Texting while driving should be banned. Period. I bet it would make everyone’s commute much faster.
Re Sonny’s assertion that “If I get my e-mails and I pick up a smart-phone and read my e-mails, I’m violating the law. But if I print out my e-mails and I have a sheet of paper driving [and look at it], then I haven’t violated the law.”: But portable printers are not ubiquitous in cars and implicated in accidents the way cell phones are.
Subjectively, my experience is that texting–which involves putting wide fingers on tiny keys that are spaced closely together –is a lot more distracting that talking on the phone by speakerphone or earpiece. However, I have no objective evidence to back that up and I believe I’ve run across evidence that just speaking on the phone, not even holding it or manipulating it, is risky during driving. Which makes me wonder–why isn’t listening to the radio dangerous? Especially inflammatory talk radio!
yes, there is data showing that on phone hand-free leads to as much distraction as hand-held (when tested in a lab, not number of accidents or anything in vivo).
re: talk radio, ha! yes, very distracting.
If I get my e-mails and I pick up a smart-phone and read my e-mails, I’m violating the law. But if I print out my e-mails and I have a sheet of paper driving [and look at it], then I haven’t violated the law.
Thank you, Dr. Science.
As a matter of pure logic, he’s clearly right that it doesn’t make a lot of sense to ban the reading of a text message but not a printed page. If you are distracted by reading, then it doesn’t matter if you’re reading a text or a printed e-mail.
That said, pure logic is only worth so much. Practically, it does seem quite unlikley that someone would print a stack of e-mails with the object of reading them while driving home. It seems quite a bit more likely that drivers will routinely be distracted by texts, as opposed to printed words. So there would seem to be a reason to treat texts differently, and I am not sure he’s really giving the distinction its due.
My question is, how much of a difference will this law make even if passed? Let’s face it, texts or no texts, many people simply don’t pay attention while driving. If they are not texting, they’re busy fishing french fries from the bottom of a Wendy’s bag, fitting a 72 ounce cup in their cup holders, reading the displays on the dash or GPS, gabbing with friends, or simply daydreaming. Texting is just a part of that larger problem.
or simply daydreaming
or yawning or sneezing! Just being tired is a distraction as well. There’ve been times during the afternoon rush hour traffic when I’ve driven x number of miles and have no memory of having done so. I’ll be sitting at a light maybe a mile from home and think to myself, “wow, I don’t remember how I got here.” Clearly, I know which route I took but not the actual process of getting from start to near finish.
yes, there was a research paper years ago that showed medical residents who have been up for 36 hrs straight have the same driving response time as a drunk driver does…
Sitting Pugs, you were not day dreaming, you had an absence seizure. I used to get them all the time in high school on the way home from softball practice. I could remember from a certain point, but after that, I couldn’t remember how I got home. I was told by doctors that they are absence seizures. My 8 year old daughter was just diagnosed with partial seizures, where she is fully conscious, however, seizures are hereditary.
Can you text while fishing? As in Sonny’s “Go Fish Georgia!” campaign.
Or fish while driving? Talk about distracting!
Where is the class on Distracted Defensive Driving??? Or is it Defensive Distracted Drivinging???
I’m distracted…
Isn’t the real issue around teens and texting and driving? Not that adults don’t cause accidents too…but maybe we should just change the driving age to 18. Perhaps their little fingers will be weary of texting by that age. (Wishful thinking)
Sonny’s brain makes my brain hurt. Doesn’t Mrs. Sonny watch Oprah?
Although the “free” market is slowly moving to dissolve the car culture in general…
http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=144155
It would be nice for the Governor to show some leadership or at least make it look like he was concerned about this real public health & safety issue.
I normally cringe when I see these scare quotes around free, but in this context, you are right. The market for cars is anything but free, since Uncle Sam owns GM and propped up Chrysler for good reason.
Dang. I meant no good reason.
The linked article was timely too. It lays out the decline of car ownership or desire among U.S. youth (and the realization by the autoindustry that it is already dead.)
If our new college grads don’t drive or want to own a car, how long do you think the heavily taxpayer subsidized free ride and prioritization that automobiles currently enjoy will last?
Indeed. That article is a post in itself!
I think it’s a bit overstated that technology has caused the significant decline in driving by the younger generation. I’m sure it has an impact, but I would say that moving back to the cities has a lot more to do with it.
Whether you move back to the city so you can text on the train is another story.
That crotchety old stars and stripes-wearin’ coot also built the interstate highway system as I recall.
Why do drivers continue to text knowing that it is such a dangerous practice? I have had many close calls with texting drivers who drift into my lane or sit at stop lights that have turned green. If I can get their attention I give them the “hang up and drive” hand salute, which most find shocking.
Regarding the Governor’s comment: only unenforcable because many police officers are standing around texting.
Why do drivers continue to text knowing that it is such a dangerous practice?
_________________________
An interesting question. The trial lawyers would have us believe that tort liability should make drivers be more careful, and I believe that if you cause an acident while using a cell phone, you are exposed to punitive damages. Yet no one seems to care. Cell phone use and texting by drivers is absolutely routine. In fact, as you say, many people are shocked and/or offended when told they shouldn’t be driving and texting in the first place.
I have no problem texting while I’m driving. It’s all the cars honking at me that gets distracting.
Caleb had no problem with texting or driving either. Then he swerved into another lane and was killed in a head on collision. Stop being dumb and pay attention while you’re driving. It shouldn’t take passing a law to make people be smart about driving, but apparently it does.
While I am not condoning texting while driving in any way, there is an argument to be made that unenforceable laws should not be enacted. The cost to the taxpayers when these tickets/convictions are appealed is just money we can’t afford, especially during these tough times.
Vermont and Kansas gov’nurs just signed laws similar to this. Just my two cents, but wasn’t the seatbelt law unenforceable? Sometimes under 18 drivers will obey the law; sometimes not, but if we continually pound the educational message that texting while driving is dangerous, and ILLEGAL …perhaps we will get through their thick skulls…frankly, just keep your eyes on the road, hands on the wheel …butt in the seat ….(I feel a country song comin’ on …)
shiny side up…
Dirty Side Down
hell, how bout just enforcing the existing laws?! oh, i dunno, reckless driving? if the cops would just enforce the speedlimit, running red lights and stops signs, and reckless driving, that’d probably take care of a bunch of problems. as a bicycle commuter, i’m getting really fed up with the way ppl drive.