4 ms·

Are Texting-While-Driving Laws Making our Streets Less Safe?

10 points by cwan 16y ago

Sarvin 16y ago
Maybe texting isn't the cause of most accidents. Maybe people simply replace the outlawed bad behavior with an equally bad but legal behavior. Maybe we should stop wasting everyone's time with see useless laws; I'm pretty sure we already have a law based on reckless driving.
- imgabe 16y ago
  Exactly. Why outlaw texting, but not outlaw eating? Or applying mascara? Or reading the newspaper? Or searching for a cd that's slid underneath the passenger seat? If we're going to expect legislators to spend time enumerating every possible activity that could cause an accident, they're not going to have time to do anything else. You know what the real impetus behind laws like this is? Insurance companies. What should happen is if someone causes an accident while driving irresponsibly, they should be held liable in civil court and get sued for damages. If that happens, though their insurance company has to pay. Hence, the company lobbies to get things like this made illegal and thus legitimately excluded from being covered by the insurance policy.
  - pyre 16y ago
    Or you could amend 'reckless driving' laws to specifically include things like texting, etc.
- allenp 16y ago
  I don't think distracted driving falls under the reckless driving laws - I think it is "driving without due care and attention."
arethuza 16y ago
Every time I see a discussion of texting-while-driving I think of this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0LCmStIw9E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0LCmStIw9E
balding_n_tired 16y ago
Or maybe the laws aren't enforced. Using hand-held phones behind the wheel is outlawed in DC, but widely practiced. I doubt you can stand on a moderately busy street in Washington for five minutes and not see a driver holding a phone to his ear.
- blasdel 16y ago
  The cost of pulling over cars in city traffic is incredibly high. In downtown Seattle the police ignore automobile moving violations as a matter of policy. I've seen a guy with a car full of rowdy passengers turn the wrong way down a 4 lane one-way throughfare almost hitting a cop car head on, and all the cop cared about was getting him going the right way. On the other hand, they will apply the full motor vehicle code to bicyclists, and they actively ticket pedestrians for jaywalking.
notahacker 16y ago
regardless of whether the law is effectively enforced or whether text-messaging is very rarely a factor in accidents, I find it hard to think of any reason why texting-whilst-driving _shouldn't_ be illegal
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  If you have a law that does absolutely no good, why should it exist? The politicians should have to excuse their impositions upon us, we should not have to excuse our private behavior.
  - naz 16y ago
    What if having a law against murder didn't decrease the murder rate? Texting while driving is obviously a bad thing and it should be illegal.
    - TallGuyShort 16y ago
      Murder isn't a very good analogy in this case. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I think texting should be legal, but they make a fair point: if texting is illegal, people still do it, but in a way that takes their eyes even further off the road. The same can't be said of murder - a law against murder doesn't increase the risk of someone getting murdered. Drugs might be a better analogy - making a drug illegal doesn't eradicate the use of the drug. Even if it decreases use, it will just push a lot of people underground, which might make the situation even less controllable. It sounds ridiculous to say drugs should be legal, but the consequences of specific laws against them do need to be carefully considered if the end goal really is to improve society as a whole. Ultimately, I think the only real solution is their last point: as a whole, we really need people to start realizing how dangerous it is to text while driving, and how severe the consequences are.
    - chc 16y ago
      That is illogical. The purpose of laws is not to fit your ideas of propriety — their purpose is to either prevent bad things from happening or mitigate the damage when bad things do happen. A law that does not do this is a failed law — at best an embarrassment to our legal system, at worst a cause of unintended harm. And yes, I'll go that far: If outlawing murder were ineffective at curbing murder, it would be incumbent on us to come up with a better solution. Standing on principle while people die is neither moral nor practical.
smokey_the_bear 16y ago
Maybe people are holding the phone lower while they text to hide it. So their eyes are farther off the road.
cma 16y ago
Never mentions whether it is on crashes-per-mile basis or just total crashes; around the time period they are referencing I remember a bunch of headlines like this: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008034444_gasprices05.html http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008034444...
mcknz 16y ago
Places that have $1000 littering fines are usually pretty clean. Changes will start when states issue $1000 citations for phone/keyboard use. Maybe 2x that if you cause an accident.
rdj 16y ago
My concern with texting-while-driving laws is how do they get enforced. Do your phone records automatically get handed over to law enforcement if you are in an accident?
presidentender 16y ago
Apply the same line of thinking to drunk drivers - maybe if they were allowed to drive obviously drunk, they'd go much slower. 5 in a 25 will get you pulled over as it stands, so our drunk drives 30 and figure on blending in - with, which reduced reaction times, causes accidents. So in some cases, perhaps drunk driving laws could be making drunk drivers more dangerous.
- chc 16y ago
  You're not applying the same line of thinking. Their article starts with a study; your comment starts with a "maybe." If you actually had evidence that people drive drunk just as frequently but more dangerously because of drunk driving laws, that would be something.

10 points by cwan 16y ago

Maybe texting isn't the cause of most accidents. Maybe people simply replace the outlawed bad behavior with an equally bad but legal behavior. Maybe we should stop wasting everyone's time with see useless laws; I'm pretty sure we already have a law based on reckless driving.

imgabe 16y ago
Exactly. Why outlaw texting, but not outlaw eating? Or applying mascara? Or reading the newspaper? Or searching for a cd that's slid underneath the passenger seat? If we're going to expect legislators to spend time enumerating every possible activity that could cause an accident, they're not going to have time to do anything else. You know what the real impetus behind laws like this is? Insurance companies. What should happen is if someone causes an accident while driving irresponsibly, they should be held liable in civil court and get sued for damages. If that happens, though their insurance company has to pay. Hence, the company lobbies to get things like this made illegal and thus legitimately excluded from being covered by the insurance policy.
- pyre 16y ago
  Or you could amend 'reckless driving' laws to specifically include things like texting, etc.
allenp 16y ago
I don't think distracted driving falls under the reckless driving laws - I think it is "driving without due care and attention."

arethuza 16y ago

Every time I see a discussion of texting-while-driving I think of this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0LCmStIw9E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0LCmStIw9E

balding_n_tired 16y ago

Or maybe the laws aren't enforced. Using hand-held phones behind the wheel is outlawed in DC, but widely practiced. I doubt you can stand on a moderately busy street in Washington for five minutes and not see a driver holding a phone to his ear.

blasdel 16y ago
The cost of pulling over cars in city traffic is incredibly high. In downtown Seattle the police ignore automobile moving violations as a matter of policy. I've seen a guy with a car full of rowdy passengers turn the wrong way down a 4 lane one-way throughfare almost hitting a cop car head on, and all the cop cared about was getting him going the right way. On the other hand, they will apply the full motor vehicle code to bicyclists, and they actively ticket pedestrians for jaywalking.

notahacker 16y ago

regardless of whether the law is effectively enforced or whether text-messaging is very rarely a factor in accidents, I find it hard to think of any reason why texting-whilst-driving _shouldn't_ be illegal

jacoblyles 16y ago
If you have a law that does absolutely no good, why should it exist? The politicians should have to excuse their impositions upon us, we should not have to excuse our private behavior.
- naz 16y ago
  What if having a law against murder didn't decrease the murder rate? Texting while driving is obviously a bad thing and it should be illegal.
  - TallGuyShort 16y ago
    Murder isn't a very good analogy in this case. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I think texting should be legal, but they make a fair point: if texting is illegal, people still do it, but in a way that takes their eyes even further off the road. The same can't be said of murder - a law against murder doesn't increase the risk of someone getting murdered. Drugs might be a better analogy - making a drug illegal doesn't eradicate the use of the drug. Even if it decreases use, it will just push a lot of people underground, which might make the situation even less controllable. It sounds ridiculous to say drugs should be legal, but the consequences of specific laws against them do need to be carefully considered if the end goal really is to improve society as a whole. Ultimately, I think the only real solution is their last point: as a whole, we really need people to start realizing how dangerous it is to text while driving, and how severe the consequences are.
  - chc 16y ago
    That is illogical. The purpose of laws is not to fit your ideas of propriety — their purpose is to either prevent bad things from happening or mitigate the damage when bad things do happen. A law that does not do this is a failed law — at best an embarrassment to our legal system, at worst a cause of unintended harm. And yes, I'll go that far: If outlawing murder were ineffective at curbing murder, it would be incumbent on us to come up with a better solution. Standing on principle while people die is neither moral nor practical.

smokey_the_bear 16y ago

Maybe people are holding the phone lower while they text to hide it. So their eyes are farther off the road.

cma 16y ago

Never mentions whether it is on crashes-per-mile basis or just total crashes; around the time period they are referencing I remember a bunch of headlines like this: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008034444_gasprices05.html http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008034444...

mcknz 16y ago

Places that have $1000 littering fines are usually pretty clean. Changes will start when states issue $1000 citations for phone/keyboard use. Maybe 2x that if you cause an accident.

rdj 16y ago

My concern with texting-while-driving laws is how do they get enforced. Do your phone records automatically get handed over to law enforcement if you are in an accident?

presidentender 16y ago

Apply the same line of thinking to drunk drivers - maybe if they were allowed to drive obviously drunk, they'd go much slower. 5 in a 25 will get you pulled over as it stands, so our drunk drives 30 and figure on blending in - with, which reduced reaction times, causes accidents. So in some cases, perhaps drunk driving laws could be making drunk drivers more dangerous.

chc 16y ago
You're not applying the same line of thinking. Their article starts with a study; your comment starts with a "maybe." If you actually had evidence that people drive drunk just as frequently but more dangerously because of drunk driving laws, that would be something.