Texting While Driving is Dangerous; Should it be Illegal?
If you like to text while you drive, here's a word of advice: Stop!
At least that's what a first-ever study of the risks of texting while driving says. The surprising results indicate that when drivers are texting, their risk of getting into a crash is a whopping 23 times greater than when not texting. That far surpasses the dangers of other driving distractions.
The entire study by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute will be released tomorrow. But The New York Times has a preview on its Web site. The study involved putting cameras in the cabs of long-haul trucks for 18 months, and analyzing the video. The study says behavior by truckers is very similar to everyday drivers.
Perhaps the most disturbing statistic is that 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.
Compared with other sources of driver distraction, “texting is in its own universe of risk,” said Rich Hanowski, who oversaw the study at the institute.
Tom Dingus, director of the Virginia Tech institute, said the study’s message was clear: “You should never do this. It should be illegal.”
Only 14 states currently ban texting while driving. Legislators in some states have rejected such rules, while lawmakers in other states say they need more data to determine whether to ban it. Should this study will be the one that gets them moving?
In another study due to be released tomorrow, a survey by The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found that 95% of drivers say texting while driving is unacceptable. Yet 21% still do it.
22-year-old Robert Smith is of one them. “It’s convenient,” he told the Times. “I put the phone on top of the steering wheel and text with both thumbs.”
Smith does acknowledge the risks. "(Sometimes) I’ll look up and realize there’s a car sitting there and swerve around it. I’m pretty sure that someday it’s going to come back to bite me.”
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I wanted to comment upon Utah's making texting
while driving an offense comparable with OWI/DWI...How about a new abbreviation--OWD [Operating While Distracted]? In other words,
OWI=DWI=OWD...Proof cud be eyewitness testimony
police dash-cam, intersection cam, cell records
etc...I firmly agree with 'country','kayaker',
and 'tek'--distracted driving is in the same
boat as driving while drunk...Aaron..
I ride bike for fitness, enjoyment, and competition. I train on public roads because it is the only option. Today I was almost hit head-on by some stupid b---- who swerved into my lane because she had her head down, and her right hand holding something. This was on an "S" curve!!!! The fine for texting should be $1000.00 and revokation of the licence. By the way, bicyclists have exactly the same rights as motorists, except where specifically prohibited, in every I have lived.
My previous blog entry this month already answers this question, in a larger context than was intended here:
http://vulcantourist.info/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=176
If you're gonna outlaw texting, you'd better also outlaw yakking passengers in the interest of fairness.
My larger point, of course, is that we've gotten ourselves on a course of outlawing behaviors which, of themselves, are not criminal but which MIGHT LEAD to a criminal or antisocial consequence. There is an increasingly longer list of these laws. Is that right? Doesn't that sound a bit too much like the events in the movie Minority Report? In outlawing a behavior which isn't actually criminal or dangerous to the common welfare, are we "presuming facts not in evidence" and presuming guilt before a crime against society has even been committed?
We already have laws to deal with the actual criminal and antisocial acts. We DO NOT need to specifically outlaw behaviors which merely might be precursors to those acts.
purpose 1.: to regulate behavior. Everybody knows it does not effectively prevent the behavior, such as texting while driving. BUT,,
Purpose 2.: to affix blame and punnishment to those who committed the act. THis can and does act as a deterrant - to what degree is unknown, but we can not simply allow irresponsible behavior to kill innocent people without consequences.
Perhaps you mean that the offense of "reckless driving" already includes texting.. OK. but there needs to be consequences serious enough to fit the result of the behavior. A $200.00 fine and two marks on the license is NOT enough punnishment for killing a responsible, law -abiding bicyclist. I will look at your blog....
Everyone knows the risks of driving when you are distracted. Understand that if your actions cause HARM you will be held accountable. More "laws" never solve anything.
Trying to Legislate Common Sense would be about as effective.
For those who say in traffic jams and/or red lights it's fine to text. Well I've seen people get so engrossed in their texting they miss the switch from red to green light.
Recent studies (presumably the one this debate is based on) indicate that talking on the phone isnt so bad as talking keeps your eyes on the road, its things like dialing, reaching for the phone and texting (which ups your chances of getting in a crash by 500-600%!)
Really we don't need a dozen different laws to cover crap. So what if someone is watching a porno while driving? They're certainly distracted and people have been busted up here in Ontario for such. What places need is a general 'distracted driving' statute which will cover past, present and future distractions drivers may have. At least until we have reliable auto-piloting motor vehicles anyways. Then you can sit around and text while letting the vehicle's computer do the driving for you.
The reason that cellphones and texting devices
are so dangeroud is the 'both-ways-at-once' at tention they demand of drivers--as opposed to
the simplex [one-way-at-a-time] traffic one can
manage by saying 'stand-by!' and returning to
driving, almost fulltime..Texting adds visual
demands which adversely affect safe operation.
Be like the cops and dispatch truck drivers who transport hi-value loads, documents, etc.
in the sometimes unmarked 'straight' trucks
with sleeper cabs: 1. Talk over a cellphone as if it was a mobile radio microphone, controlling the conversation. 2. If you must text, be like the pros--pull off in an appropriate place, set your brakes and work ur
tect party full time. Tell 'em you are driving
and cannot text while in traffic...Aaron Allen
Of course it should be illegal.
Futhermore, the law needs to be enforced, or it's meaningless.
This should not be illegal. I can't understand why this is even a question. You should be able to call, text, put on make up, bathe, run on a treadmill, and any other stupid, idiotic, irresponsible, dumbass thing you want. Just as long as you don't complain when somebody runs you off the road and beats you like your parents apparently never did. [/sarcasm]
Not only would creating this extra unnecessary law be extra and unnecessary, how could cops enforce it? Why create a law that can't be enforced or would cost too much to actually enforce it? coughcellphonesseatbeltsetccough
Absolutely ridiculous. The answer is simple: if they get in an accident, they pay for it.