I know I spend a lot of time in this blog talking about things like truth, faith and the future of our nation's politics, but today's blog is about something much more important -- TEXTING WHILE DRIVING.
In 2009, (according to distraction.gov where I got most of this info*) there were 30,797 fatal crashes in the United States, which involved 45,230 drivers. In those crashes 33,808 people died.
(*Also utilized textingwhiledriving.org)
In 11 percent of those accidents, the drivers were distracted. While solid data on what distracted each one was not available, it's more than likely that some percent of that 11 percent were texting.
Because of all the untold death and destruction caused by this activity, many state governments have taken the first steps toward ending this menace to society.
My state of birth, Ohio, just Tuesday passed House Bill 99 that, according to the bill, “prohibits drivers from using an electronic communications device to write, send or read a text-based communication while the vehicle is in use.”
Ohio's law is a nice first step, but it is too weak. A one time offender will only need pay $150 and will be on their way.
In fact, even Utah, allegedly the state with the strongest law isn't doing enough. Offenders there who are found to have been texting while driving will face a misdemeanor charge and up to three months in jail and a fine of up to $750. If a text messaging driver causes a Utah car accident, the consequences are much worse: up to 15 years in prison and a felony on their record.
These feeble attempts by state governments are a blight on our nation. Think of the children.
So I offer a modest proposal on how to curb this scourge of distracted driving.
Since texting is the worst offense, I believe that it, like murder, should be chargeable in degrees.
For example:
First degree texting: Reading a text while driving or sending a reply of one word or less.
This would be a crime punishable by a $500 fine the first time, and a $1,000 fine the second time.
Second degree texting: Sending a text longer than one word while driving. First time offense, $5,000 and 180 day suspension of driver's license. The guilty would also have to attend a class where the mothers of children who died in car accidents describe the dangers of texting while driving.
Third degree texting: Engaging in an exchange of more than two text messages while driving. Because of how unbelievably distracted someone is in this situation, it is only fair to apply the same types of charge associated with the attempted murder of however many people are on the same road in a one mile proximity to the guilty party. It is a felony with significant jail time. Upon release, the guilty would be given an ankle bracelet, and specialized license plates showing their offense. On top of that, they would have to go door to door and tell all their neighbors that "I tried to kill everyone on the road because I thought texting while driving was more important than safety."
Now obviously this would be just the beginning. An outright ban on cell phones being turned on in a vehicle, under pane of death, might be a better idea.
We also need punishments for the following offenses which are still legal while driving:
1. Shaving
2. Applying makeup
3. Listening to music
4. Speaking with other passengers in the car
5. Thinking about things in one's head
You see, until we as a nation ban all these things, there can be no safety on our roadways. If just one person can be saved by applying outright bans to everything, it will be well worth it.
God bless America. Land of the safe.
I think it's a fair assessment to say texting is more dangerous than speeding. After all, the persons attention is diverted by reading and typing. At least a speeder is probably paying more attention to the road. Therefore, not only is it reasonable to fine a motorist for texting, it is reasonable to fine them at a rate equal to or greater than speeding.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have to say Utah's laws on texting while driving sound far too absurd.
So Matt, do we then pass similar laws for the things I list above? They all provide distraction. Let's not forget eating and drinking.
ReplyDeleteI believe each of these situations should be evaluated individually as opposed to this "all-or-nothing" gelatinous monster you wish to turn them in to - all in your attempt to trump me, of course.
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to trump you, I was making that point with this blog before anyone commented on it.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that a texting while driving law is a a waste of taxpayer time and money and served primarily to get more money into the hands of police dept/highway patrols etc.
I don't think texting while driving is a good thing. It should be discouraged, like my dad always discouraged me from eating while driving. It can be a problem, but the case by case basis should be by the person. Some people can eat and drive safely, some can text and drive safely. Those people shouldn't be punished because others can't figure it out.
Luckily, we don't have to delve into the philisophical aspects of "nanny state" laws, since we're probably all on the same page that they are sometimes necessary. If anyone disagrees with that assessment, they should be prepared to argue against drunk driving laws. Those are pretty well established, so I'm reasonable sure - despite the fact that some people out there may manage to get themselves hoem safely while being totally trashed behind the wheel - that we're all on the same page.
ReplyDeleteSo, if this is strictly about policy, then the question becomes when and how do we write legislation to limit dangerous behavior? Does texting qualify? How should it be deterred? I've often thought about a law where one is punished only if their dangerous behavior actually caused an accident. However, I don't think that's an adequate deterrent. A person is inclined to believe that they can text and drive safely until they are proved otherwise. Once the damage is done, the law has no benefit other than perhaps sending some more money into the coffers of law enforcement.
I feel that laws against texting skirt a little too close to frivolous. I also feel like policy is never going to adequately keep up with new technologies and new dangers. However, I can't bring myself to fault lawmakers for trying. The design and execution may need some work, but the intention is good.
The intention may be good, but I agree it's too close to frivolity and it can't keep up.
ReplyDeleteI think that in the case of texting while driving it should be something in between preventative law and post-incident law.
How about, if you are pulled over, say for swerving or speeding or other dangerous acts, AND you were texting, then there are higher penalties.
As it is though, how much are we going to let the government say is dangerous in our cars? I'm sure if they did a study, they'd show an involved conversation with a live person in the car is close to as dangerous as one with someone on the phone and that's already illegal in some places.
I believe the level of risk should be an important factor in assessing what to make illegal.
ReplyDeleteNow, there have only been a few studies done on the performance of drivers who text, but the ones that do exist all demonstrate the same thing. The reaction time of someone texting while driving is significantly worse than that of a drunk driver (at the legal limit).
This is certainly not the type of problem we should choose to just ignore. Sure, perhaps a legal ban is not the answer we need, but I wouldn't fault a politician for pushing legislation when considering the data at hand.
I also challenge those studies. I've seen the drunk driving simulators and what not and if they do the texting tests on those, I don't buy it.
ReplyDeleteIt's like the people that made that thing have never had any booze and this is what they think it looks like to a drunk.
But I concede, I shouldn't be mad at politicians over this. I will say again though that look at the numbers, the amount of wrecks and deaths tied to this isn't negligible, but it's not the epidemic problem it's being made out to be. It's some percent of 11 percent of crashes. Could be 2, could be 10.
They don't use a drunk driving simulator. They actually get the test subjects drunk for these experiments. "Car and Driver" even went as far as to use real cars for their tests.
ReplyDelete