No Behind-the-Wheel Texting?

When you're driving you should be paying attention to controlling that 3000 lb weapon. And nothing else.

When you're driving you should be paying attention to controlling that 3000 lb weapon.

Steve, you are absolutely on target there. As a retired truck driver who used to control one of those 80,000 lb Weapons of Mass Destruction, I can tell you there is nothing scarier than looking over at the driver in the next lane with his Road Atlas open on the steering wheel, Qual-Com transmitter on top of it, Cell Phone to his ear, going 70 MPH in traffic. If you guys in the 4-wheelers could see what we do in the 18-wheelers, it would be enough to make you quit driving.

Then again there were some low cut blouses in convertibles that made me envious of the truckers.

I support requiring that all cell phones with GPS capability be automatically switched to a mode that only permits 911 calls when the GPS detects motion above 15 MPH. One could then permit public transportation vehicles (busses, trains etc.) could provide internal cell links that would override this safety lockout. Technology can be easily controlled.

So your a back seat passenger in a car, using your mobile phone for data traffic, plugged into your laptop, and your doing some business work while the driver is driving down the road.

Should you be banned from using your mobile phone if the car is in motion, mind you, your not in any way in control of the car.

Why is it that legislation has to be passed to prevent people from doing that which should be common sense? YES! I would support a ban (not total) on cell phone use by drivers, but only while they were actually driving. I still approve of "hands free" phones. That leaves the driver free to hold a cup of coffee in one hand and a cigarette in the other. People just don't have common sense.

It doesn't matter if you're using a cell phone hands free or not. It's the act of listening to someone talk on the phone that diverts 85% of your attention away from the road. Essentially people treat talking on the phone as important and the driving is the distraction.

What I like the best is a tow truck driver, texting and talking on a cell phone at the same time, hitting another car then driving his tow truck into a swimming pool.

Listening to the radio is not more distracting than any other surrounding noise.

Kids in the car is less distracting then talking to someone on the cell phone while driving because you are actually focused on talking on the phone for long periods at a time. The rest are just momentary distraction.

It's the act of listening to someone talk on the phone that diverts 85% of your attention away from the road.

I absolutely refuse to believe that listening to someone on the phone is different than listening to someone on the radio or listening to someone in the seat next to you. I have heard it suggested that the issue is that while talking on the phone you are only participating in verbal communication and that so much of our communication is non-verbal that you have to dedicate more brain power to completely understanding what is being said, I can accept this theory, but then again cell phones wouldn't really be any different in this respect than talking on a CB or to someone in the backseat that you can't see. Should we ban drivers from opening their mouths? Maybe mandate headphones that only allow them to hear the sounds coming from the car and the road around them? Of course that leads to 'highway hypnosis', maybe we should just not let anyone drive at all ever, then we'd all be safe. Sorry about the sarcasm, I'm a bit passionate about this concept because I feel it is taking focus away from where we need to be looking.

I am wholly convinced that the emphasis on cell phones as the reason for our automotive nightmare is a bit of statistical mumbo jumbo that is probably benefiting someone's career path, and that the real problem is that most people think driving a car is the same as riding a horse... i.e. a horse won't let you ride off a cliff unless you are really trying to. There is a reason that, for at least a time, the safest cars on the road were also the most likely to be involved in an accident... 'My car is the safest on the road, I don't have to worry about accidents' ... CRASH

Talking on the phone is not the problem, eating your lunch is not the problem, the problem is failing to properly prioritize your mental resources and this failure is most likely the result of poor training. If driver training involved being in a 'controlled' crash at as little as 40 miles an hour you can bet your sweet bippy more people would pay attention to what they're doing because most people learn after they have to dig their Levi's out of their butt. This isn't a very practical plan, but I'd stake everything I have that it would be more effective at reducing accidents than telling people not to talk (on the phone) or we're gonna slap their little hand. "Blood on the Highway" used to be effective for this purpose, but we are all too inured to ketchup on film and it no longer has the visceral effect upon most people that it once did; I bet if you gathered up all the driving safety films from the 50's - 70's you could organize a cult following akin to the Rocky Horror Picture Show and have people rolling in the aisles.

All my rambling aside, we have too many ignorant people behind the wheel who have no real concept of the actual potential consequences of 3000lbs of steel hurtling down the highway at 80 mph, they aren't afraid because the government requires the auto makers to make cars that are 'safe' (mine has 4 stars... ooh) but doesn't require the drivers of these 'safe' cars to know anything more than how to recognize a road sign and parallel park, and they only have to know that long enough to pass the test once, if that long. Maybe instead of griping at all the rubber-neckers trying to get a look at an accident we should put up big jumbo-tron screens along the highway and provide live footage so we can all get a taste of the consequences and have that visceral understanding of the danger that we need in order to temper our innate over-confidence.

Politicians don't want to make it hard to get a driver's license because people with cars are good for the economy and telling them they aren't good enough to drive is bad for getting re-elected; that is the problem.

I'm with you Ron. The mountain of legilation required to ban every possible distracting behavior behind the wheel would be overwhelming. While we are at it, why not legislate against shaving, eyebrow plucking, nose picking, day dreaming, and listening to engrossing music or radio shows?

It is simpler to legislate in favor of driving responsibly, then to train traffic law enforcement engineers to treat texting or irresponsible cell phone use as "careless" or "wreckless" driving. These laws are already on the books, so it's easier and faster to implement.

In the workplace, it pays to keep specifications and procedures as simple as possible and to a minimum. The same holds for legislation.

If a distracted driver was only capable of harming themselves, then I'd be happy to let nature take its course. But most of the time the distracted driver survives as others die.

How about mandatory viewing of this public service announcement, part of a drivers-safety program for high school students in Wales, on the hazards of texting while driving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I54mlK0kVw

'nuff said.

This is what suspected "behind-the-wheel texting" did for me when my son was driving my truck.

I have noticed that over time, the only group of people who are not singled out as a danger to other road users are smokers.

They have tried to pass legislation here in Oz that smoking people should not be allowed in cars with young children.

Here in Oz, the EPA will not chase after a driver/pasenger who is suspected of "Ashing" only of throwing their butt from the car, "Ashing" is the term used of smokers flicking their ciggy ash off their cigarette

Last fire season, during the worst of the bush fires, "Smokers" are permitted to still ignite their cigg's in the open, and some spot fires were started by lit butts thrown from their moving cars.

Now, yes texting while driving is bad, it causes some car accidents, but not all, there are many other factors that can be also looked into.

smoking (above) drinking, eating, singing (tapping your hands on the wheel in tune with the music isn't really in control) sex (in its many forms) dangling 1 hand/arm from the drivers window (I'd actually like to see all those who do this, have their arm amputated, as they surely don't need it)

Gidday, I reckon anyone who is stupid enough to "text" whilst driving should be taken off the roads. However, in Queensland (and I assume all other Australian states 'cause QLD only copies) it is also illegal to use a hand held mobile whilst driving and this even applies when stationary on one of Brisbane's Motorway Carparks, which I find typical of public servant stupidity. However, one can chat away to one's pleasure if you have a hands free unit. Sorry, but I think even talking on a hands free is deadly and should only be used to answer a call and tell the caller to wait while you pull over or you'll call then back.

I often find myself waiting to hear the news or traffic report and something requiring my concentration comes up whereby I don;t even hear the radio and miss what I was waiting for entirely. Concentration on the task in hand should be of paramount importance to all drivers, but they don't teach that when you sit for a licence.

Texting at the wheel while driving is a no-no!

There is NO justification for Texting while driving. Simple as that.

Any States who think otherwise, have Asinine Legislators.

I wonder sometimes if the Unites States of America is a single Country or a series of smaller separate ones when there is Legislation put forward and only 17 States say YES?

Without exception, there is more than enough stopping places that can be utilised for messages or phone calls!!!

Zero respect for anyone, and I do mean anyone who feel they are beyond the Law. Southern States take note!

There is no room for 'redneck' actions on the road. Because you perhaps thinking in a 'redneck way' could just as easily be hurt or WCS, (Worst Case Scenario) be killed. Think about it, and then think how your loved ones would feel if they did not have you and or WCS, that you were responsible for 1,2, 3, or more deaths? Frightening isn't it?........................... And was/is that message really so important?

Take care, and no offence intended OK?

Yes, the States do have seperate powers from the National government, and it is a good thing.

And BTW I have lived and traveled to most states in the union: One of the reasons some of the so called 'redneck states' may not have inacted legislation is that so far not enough of their citizens have common sense (see your quote) enough, not to text while driving. But we do need to be concerned about tourists, so they should be on the ball. And yes I really do appreciate your concern for my families well being,thank you, innocents should not be hurt by the thoughtless actions of others.

The reason why any Redneck state wouldn't pass such a law is because Rednecks consider texting to be pussy and won't mess with them. Since Rednecks aren't texting they don't see any reason to bother with it.

Robert, well put. I am with you.

We are in fact a country of little countries, in people, land and laws. Melting pot is a fine description. The Federal govt was supposed to be an island of control within a sea of rights (States & individuals). What we have now is the reverse because of the overly broad interpretation of the Commerce clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) of the constitution. We lose liberties with every law written. We are quickly becoming subjects....... again.

Last time I checked I lived in the United States of America, not the sovereign country of Pennsylvania. Remember the Civil War made us one big country with states under it.

The Federal Government sets up the guidelines kind of like the bare min. that should be followed. Then the states follow suit. I deal with four different Federal Agencies and 7 different state agencies. The state regulations usually trump the feds 9 times out of 10. They use the Federal regulations and Laws as guide lines. These guide lines try to protect all the citizens in all the states. Since the interstate system set-up in the 50's was designed to transport a large number of people and goods over a long distance there is an affect on all the states. Since it is USDOT's job to protect the interest of the individuals on these systems plus help support the other transportation systems in every state, they have every right to dictate how their money should be used. If the state don't like this petition your state refuse all federal money coming in. Try and support your systems on your own since that the way the founding father foresaw the 21st Century. We'll see how far your state's influstructure lasts with out any help. Unit we live divided we fall. Good luck professor.

Just as one can't legislate to enforce morality (at least in the U.S.), one can't legislate to ban stupidity. _{(and stop looking at me while I'm driving...)}

The Federal Government came down heavy handed in the early 80's over the drinking age. Some states it was 21 and other states it was 19. The Federal Government wanted all states to change their drinking age to 21 or face heavy penalties.

I can understand the need to take such action. When we cross the border into another State we are giving implied consent to the laws of that State and it's too easy for people to run foul of the law because they are unaware of that little rule.

I suggest that the States should be lobbied to enact the laws; 17 have already done it on their own!!! Why take away more states rights???? Just remember, first the states rights, then the unalienable ones. If you don't understand unalienable, please research the original Documents of this country, and the people who wrote them. See for your self what they have represented to the American for so long.

I am an advocate of road laws;as example, I don't think driving on the wrong side of the road is an unalienable right. What I am saying is in a broader context, ie trying to make people think instead of react. Who should enact such a law, the States!; as I advocated by suggesting lobbying the 33 other states (17 already have the law on the books), not the Federal government. It is usurping our powers as 'We the people' when it does that. If we allow the national government to overtake the States rights, what is keeping them from coming after our individual (Bill of Rights) and UNALIENABLE (Basic first words of the country) ones? Wake up America and be Americans!

Problem is that people and the state governments are too stupid to in-act any of this laws. PA has been trying to pass similar laws for the passed 6 years for hands-free cell phone and they aren't any closer today as they where back then. I figure at least another 36000 individuals will have to die before the states get off their collective butts. Some times they need a stick in the back-side. If taking away highway money will do it then I'm all for it.

Not only do we need a cellphone app that prevents use of a cellphone while a vehicle is moving, we need another app that detects the presence of other people--like in a restaurant or theater--and keeps the phone from ringing, texting, or receiving or starting phone calls.

How would you deal with truckers and police who are talking on the radio? I realize the police have special driver training, but they too can become distracted.

With a radio, you don't have to enter any numbers.

Not only are numbers and text not entered on tiny screens, but the whole world does not have access to send a policeman a BS offer from a Nigerian banker that just got your phone number.

G'day, in Victoria, Australia, using a CB radio whilst driving has been an offence since two way radios came out, early seventies at the latest. In actual fact, any activity that requires a hand to be used (ie holding a mike etc.) has always been illegal. I think it was classifies under "driving without due care and attention).

While I understand, and agree with the intent of the "texting ban while driving", I just have a few comments, and questions.

The other day, (about the time the law went into effect), I was stopped at a red light.

A person was supposed to call me, when suddenly I remembered that my phone was set on silent.

So, I changed it to vibe and then ring while at the light.

Suddenly, I thought, Oh Shit, someone watching me, or especially a cop, would surely think I was texting, and suddenly I felt the terrible guilt of breaking the law..:o(

Seriously, how is one to prove their innocence, (I would NEVER Text while driving, because I never text while not driving)

(Incidentally, according to CR4 spell check, texting is NOT a word)

Also, what about those poor rich people who can afford to live in Los Angeles, and have horrendously long drive times commuting?

Or will Arnold pass a "special" law for those people that says, no Texting, but you can e-mail from the computer on your lap??

Hey, I just thought of a great solution to all these concerns..

Voice/speech controlled texting/e-mailling/surfing/power point making software...

Now, all you software geeks, get busy, if they don't already have it..

You seem to be missing my point. I have no problem with the less risky cell phone use or the more distracting text mail in a stationary vehicle. So your switching of a cell phone setting while at a stop light would be fine. But once a driver starts to move a ton or more metal fast enough, I don't want the driver to communicate with anyone that cannot see what he/she is doing. By preventing the technology from permitting a link during motion, the social stigma of not taking anyone's call will drop. By controlling the technology, a police officer does not have to make a judgement call what one is doing with a cell phone in a car. By still permitting a true emergency (911) link though a real life critical call can still be made. Besides, if you were really that important, you'd be in the back of the limousine that was granted a professional driver local cell override.

Texting is a problem because you take your eyes off the road for a short period of time to send a message.

People talking on a cell phone are watching the road but are not paying attention to anything else going on around them for an extended period of time.

Traffic schools are teaching that talking on a cell phone takes 85% of your attention away from the road. That is why there is so many accidents involving cell phone usage while driving, so much so that the government feels the need to intervene.

A perfect example is someone driving slowly talking on the phone oblivious to the fact that there are 10 cars lined up behind them.

Or the person that turns left in front of you without even looking for on coming traffic.

If you don't have a problem with that then maybe you're one of those people.

I wont ever try it! I have trouble texting even when sitting in an arm chair.

Let me tell you another thing, even woman cant multitask while texting. I leave important announcments until my wife is texting (she does about 20 a day).

Dear I am going to buy a SUV. ok beep beep beep . . .

Hands free should also be banned, How can any one concentrate on the conversation while driving? One of the two will get neglected.

Geez, you seppo's seem to be plagued with the same standard of driving as Aussies. The problem is, it is too easy to get a licence and the emphasis of driver training is "passing the test". Despite what various state government's "say" they do not have the political fortitude to require ptoper training. This would mean subsidising training.

However, better training is required. Too many idiots are allowed to continue unabated.

In addition, you have your psychologists doing "statistical studies" that allegedly show that "advanced driver training leads to overconfidence and an indulgence in risky behaviour". The do NOT seem to know the difference between advanced (skid pan) training and defensive training; and I don't think they want to. Statistical analysis always has a pre-ordained out come, simply due to the questions asked, the data used and how this information is interpreted. In Australia, I know of many statistics that relate to the road toll that are absolute rubbish and that is using existing data to uncover the lies.

Of course, if it was made more difficult to get a licence, more peoply would drive unlicenced and this would bring the responsibility of third party insurance cover back to the state government. Any thing that will cost government's money is not enacted, is it?

As a State's Rights fanatic I abhor almost any federal regulation of this kind... however; having said that, anyone who texts/reads/applies makeup/... while driving should promptly have their drivers license REVOKED!!!

I don't think the real problems lie with the quantity or quality of our laws. The real problem is with the quantity and quality of our drivers. Too many people with no actual drivers education are poured out onto our highways every day. If driver's education were treated like Industrial Safety education, and having a license was perceived not as a right but as the privilege that it is, things would rapidly improve as probably more than half our current driving population would find that they aren't competent to have a license and would therefore be denied access to their shiny new death machine until they actually learned what it means to DRIVE a car on the street. Too many people think driving means starting and steering the car. Driving is a very complicated endeavour, especially on our overcrowded streets, that requires the ability to assess and react to potential situations; most drivers can't even deal with what is actually happening 50 feet in front of them, let alone where they're going to be in 3 seconds, 5 seconds, 10 seconds...

As an example, while I was living in Georgia they passed legislation saying that anyone 16 years or older could receive a driver's license if they met the following criteria: The candidate must have had 40 hours of driver training and they must pass a driving test... ok, that sounds (nearly) sufficient, except that the proof of this training could be that your parents sign an affidavit saying THEY gave you 40 hours of driver training. First off, who trained them to train drivers? and what's to stop them simply signing on the dotted line. And the test... the test is hard to fail; I have a friend who tried to fail but failed to fail in spite of, among other things, running two stop signs and nearly getting in an accident. Two years later the state legislature was working on legislation to prohibit anyone under 18 years of age from getting a license at all because there was "too high an incidence of accidents among drivers under the age of 18"... umm... duh...

I moved out of the state of Georgia at this point so I can't tell you what came of their efforts to make the highways safe... let's just say I'm not confident they succeeded.

As for a total ban on cell phone use... I don't see that cell phones are that much different than a CB, or talking to someone in the backseat for that matter, especially when a 'hands-free' unit is used... yes, I'm sure you can provide me a tome of statistical data to verify that cell-phones are the greatest evil ever, but be forewarned I will call upon my friends in the math world to lend me a volume from the Encyclopedia Debunkus Statisticus and then we can have a conversation on reality versus statistical manipulation.

As for penalizing states for non-compliance... well, they tried it with the 55mph speed limit with moderate success. Though the biggest impact of this policy that I experienced was in the quality of the roads... ok, sounds good, since the state that doesn't comply gets crappy roads... but who really drives on those roads? Interstate traffic is just that, interstate. If you deprive a state money for their roads then interstate traffic that needs to go through that state is negatively impacted which impacts ALL of us. Sounds like a lose-lose plan to me... Let's focus on improving peoples abilities, not on how to penalize them for being ignorant.

You mean like the woman in South Korea that had been taking the written driving test since 2005 and finally passed the test after taking it over 900 times?

Now she's finally got her license.

Let's hope she finally got her license because she finally learned how to drive, and not because they got tired of seeing her smiling face every day...

A British Cabinet Minister is currently facing prosecution charges for using a hand-held mobile telephone while driving, which is illegal in the UK.

How about that for leadership?