genec

As far as I am concerned, Utah is the first state to enact a reasonable law with regard to texting drivers.


https://www3.signonsandiego.com/stori...ext/?uniontrib

Utah comes down hard on drivers who text

By Matt Richtel

NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

2:00 a.m. August 29, 2009

LOGAN, Utah — In most states, if somebody is texting behind the wheel and causes a crash that injures or kills someone, the penalty can be as light as a fine.

Utah is much tougher.

After a crash that killed two scientists — and prompted a dogged investigation by a police officer and local victims' advocate — Utah passed the nation's toughest law to crack down on texting behind the wheel. Offenders now face up to 15 years in prison.

The law, which took effect in May, penalizes a texting driver who causes a fatality as harshly as a drunken driver who kills someone. In effect, a crash caused by such a multitasking motorist is no longer considered an “accident” like one caused by a driver who, say, runs into another car because he nodded off at the wheel. Instead, such a crash would now be considered inherently reckless.

“It's a willful act,” said Lyle Hillyard, a Republican state senator and a supporter of the new measure. “If you choose to drink and drive or if you choose to text and drive, you're assuming the same risk.”

The Utah law represents a concrete new response in an evolving debate among legislators around the country about how to reduce the widespread practice of multitasking behind the wheel — a topic to be discussed at a national conference about the dangers of distracted driving that is being organized by the Transportation Department for this fall.

Studies show that talking on a cell phone while driving is as risky as driving with a .08 blood alcohol level — generally the standard for drunken driving — and that the risk of driving while texting is at least twice that dangerous. Research also shows that many people are aware that the behavior is risky, but they assume others are the problem.

Treating texting behind the wheel like drunken driving raises complex legal questions. Unlike drunken drivers, who can be identified using a Breathalyzer, there is no immediate test for driving while texting; such drivers could deny they were doing so, or claim to have been dialing a phone number. (Many legislators have thus far made a distinction between texting and dialing, though researchers say dialing creates many of the same risks.)

If an officer or prosecutor wants to confiscate a phone or phone records to determine whether a driver was texting at the time of the crash, such efforts can be thwarted by search-and-seizure and privacy defenses, attorneys said.

Prosecutors and judges in other states already have the latitude to use more general reckless-driving laws to penalize multitasking drivers who cause injury and death. In California, for instance, where texting while driving is banned but the only deterrent is a $20 fine, a driver in April received a six-year prison sentence for gross vehicular manslaughter when, speeding and texting, she slammed into a line of cars waiting at a construction zone, killing another driver.

But if those prosecutors want to charge a texting driver with recklessness, they must prove the driver knew of the risks before sending texts from behind the wheel.

In Utah, the law now assumes people understand the risks.

The law “is very noteworthy,” said Anne Teigen, a policy specialist with the National Conference of State Legislatures. “They have raised the bar and said texting while driving is not just irresponsible, and it's not just a bad idea — it is negligent.”

Teigen said legislators throughout the country were struggling with how to address threats created by new technology, just as they once debated how to handle drunken driving.

Under Utah's law, someone caught texting and driving now faces up to three months in jail and up to a $750 fine, a misdemeanor. If the person causes injury or death, the punishment can grow to a felony and up to a $10,000 fine and 15 years in prison.

Alaska is the only other state that takes a similarly tough approach to electronic distraction, Teigen said.

A law passed there in 2007 makes it a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison if a driver causes a fatal accident when a television, video monitor or computer is on inside the car and in the driver's field of vision. (The law applies to phones used for texting, but not to phones used exclusively for calling or to some other devices, such as GPS units.)

The Alaska law, which is less focused on texting than Utah's, resulted from a 2003 crash in which a driver, who prosecutors said was watching a movie on a video monitor perched on his dashboard, killed two motorists.

These tougher penalties can lead to prickly legal questions.

John Wesley Hall, who just stepped down as president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said police might have difficulty proving a driver suspected of texting was not merely dialing a phone. And, he said, there are serious privacy and search issues raised when an officer wants to confiscate a phone.

“The police have no business going into my phone,” he said.

James Swink, the Cache County attorney, expects such challenges but says that police in some cases could simply get phone records later, as in the Utah case, in which the driver, Reggie Shaw, 19, initially denied he had been texting during the crash.

More broadly, Swink said, drivers in Utah are now on notice that texting while driving is inherently reckless. And as drivers across the nation become more aware of that notion, he said, judges and prosecutors will feel more comfortable asking for big penalties. He said the Shaw case helped to pave the way.

“Once the word is out there,” he said, “it will become easier for judges to lower the big boom.”

Union-Tribune

In the Union-Tribune on Page A1

UnsafeAlpine

Good for Utah.

JBHoren

BS

It's all after the fact -- it's PUNISHMENT, rather than PREVENTION. Seems Utah (and the rest of [the] US) prefers to wait until someone(s) have been killed, and only then to slap the murderer with a fine/jail-time. What does that do for the family of those s/he killed? Hell, they don't even give the fine to the family!

No end to the narcissism.

Mr. Fly

+1.

With mounting evidence that texting on a cell phone while driving is at least as bad as driving drunk, it's simply unbelievable that no one has enacted laws that reflects this knowledge. If one can be heavily penalized for driving while drunk (regardless of harm to persons/property), why shouldn't one be at least as heavily penalized when caught texting and driving? It's easy enough to ask for phone records once the cell phone number is known and police cruisers have cameras with timestamps on the images.

CA for instance just enacted a no texting/talking while driving law. However, it's a toothless tiger - The law calls for fines of $20 for the first offense and $50 for subsequent convictions. We might as well just slap their hands and wag our fingers at the offenders.

CFXMarauder

Good to see states stepping up the penalty but Id like to see phones that will not operate if the internal GPS reads it as movinganything above 3-5 mph..Have the dang thing give an alert so that the operator knows they have a call or text and can pull over to receive it..

mondaycurse

Agreed, and I think cell phone jammers should be installed in all cars, but it's still a step forward from the slap on the wrists most states give.

Ngchen

So what would you suggest? Banning texting all together?

DX-MAN

Have all engines (and the upcoming wave of electric motors) cast the jamming field, so the phone won't work while the car is running. Having the jammers work within a 15-20 foot radius, wired to the accessory bus in the car, would do that. Don't try to tell me the tech isn't out there to do it, either...............

CB HI

Good idea, so when I try and call the police about a hit and run while I am bleeding, each passing car knocks out my cell phone.

JBHoren

Interesting suggestion.

I spent 25 years in Israel, during which time I didn't own a car and traveled solely by public transportation (bus). One of Life's Little Pleasures was the one-and-a-half-hour ride between Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv, during which time I could read, daydream, or just doze-off. Then came the mid-1990s, when cellphones were introduced, and inter-city bus rides became a horror, with loud, one-sided conversations assaulting us, which sometimes lasted the entire trip! (as an aside, cellular technology was invented at Motorola Israel).

Are cellphones evil? No, but people sure can be (or, at least they sure can act evil, on occasion).

Is texting necessary? Doubtful. Some will say that it fills the void when it might be inappropriate to talk on a cellphone, such as during a lecture or concert. Others (myself included) would say that too much of a good thing is just Too Much, and that the "cons" outweigh the "pros".

Sadly, too many people are unable to control themselves; too many people cannot enjoy "the sounds of silence", and require external stimulation (too often, at the expense of others' peace of mind). We've seen that many people are unable or unwilling to adapt their behavior to changes in situation; so, perhaps their ability to utilize certain technologies should be limited or taken away.

I would be perfectly happy if SMS messaging (texting) was disabled in moving vehicles (if not altogether).

You can't "put the genie back into the bottle", but you can remove both the genie and the bottle, so that others don't have access to them.

Sorry for the long-winded answer...

IR Baboon

I always wonder to myself when I see these people, talking or texting, "are they really that lonely?" Don't people want to get away from the constant contact that we are subjected to daily? One of the greatest parts of my ride is the feeling of separation that I get from my fellow man for a few minutes every day.

And then I get mad when they almost run me down...

waldowales

I have texting disabled on my phone. My friends know to pick it up and call me, I'll either answer or call them back. I just don't understand why people go to all the trouble of pecking away at those dinky little keys, when one number on the speed dial gives you a voice connection.

Digital_Cowboy

What about the passengers who might want to use their cell phones for talking or texting? Or who want to watch a movie on a portable DVD player or play with a computer? If it could be targeted to just the driver's seat then it would be a good thing. But everyone else in the car shouldn't have to be "punished" because it's dangerous for drivers to do it.

Digital_Cowboy

When I asked this question at my LBS one of the mechanics explained it as being better then the "silence" between sides of a regular conversation. Didn't make any sense to me, but that's what he said.

ItsJustMe

For me, texting has a lot of advantages. If I'm in a meeting or riding, I don't have to pick it up now, 5 minutes from now will do. If my daughter is in class, she'll get the message later. Things get across clearly, and the recipient doesn't need to find a piece of paper to write something down right now. Also the coverage at our house is horrible and voice calls often don't go through, but a text will usually get there within 10 minutes or so.

All that said, I don't touch the phone for any reason while I'm driving. I do when I'm a passenger though, so I'm not all that in favor of disabling phones moving at speed. I've called 911 to report accidents and dangerous stuff while a passenger in a car that just passed the situation too.

Feldman

Tough beans; if passengers are limited to books and the radio so be it. Besides, most drivers can use a navigator these days. And, BRAVO UTAH.

kabersch

That's the way our justice system is designed. We have our freedom to do what we choose, then we are supposed to pay the consequences. Doesn't always work that way, but we all try. 'Prevention' leads to someone else deciding what is good for me. I like our current way.

I think the Utah law is a reasonable way to address this problem. It should include bicycle riders on the road, too. I have seen riders talking on a cell phone while riding. It's scarier than a driver on a cell phone!

ItsJustMe

And when I'm navigating to a new place, nothing is more useful than to be able to call the person we're meeting while we're on the road.

Digital_Cowboy

As "ItsJustMe" pointed out there are times when the passenger in a car can use their phone to call 911 to report either an emergency or unsafe driver, but if ALL phones in a car are disabled then they can't do that.

genec

New technology can restrict cell phone use while moving...

https://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/147827

Digital_Cowboy

But can it restrict it so that only a small area is effected like say the driver's seat?

tatfiend 

So pull over and phone!!!! What is the delay, a minute or so?

Personally I feel that all multitasking while driving is both dangerous and stupid. And considering that only something like 5% of normal trips are made with more than the driver aboard a car or SUV the inconvenience to passengers is minimal and IMO acceptable if it helps avoid accidents.

Digital_Cowboy

That minutes delay could conceivably be the difference between life and death for a person injured in an accident. It is also quite possible that there isn't anyplace that where it is safe for a motorist wait a minute and pull over.

Picture a two or more lane interstate, a car spins out and goes off the road into the trees or water. If someone behind the car that spun out attempted to stop they could cause another accident. Would it not be safer for a passenger to dial 911 and relay the information so that help could be dispatched?

intx13

People that suggest banning text messaging or requiring that all motor vehicles include mobile phone jammers are ludites. Text messaging on mobile phones (and more generally, instant messaging in general) is a new(ish) technology and it's going to take some time for it to adapt and evolve with the generally accepted rules of social conduct. You'd think people would understand by now that attempting to "fix" technological problems with broad legal solutions never, ever works. Seriously, require that all car manufacturers (in the world?) install mobile phone frequency jammers? C'mon.

In Asia, text messaging is a major form of communication. Your bank will text your account balance to you. You can make a reservation at a restaurant with a text. Movie theaters text ticket confirmation numbers (then you flash your phone at the door, showing the message, and in you go). Society's rules of conduct have grown to accomodate texting in these countries. Phones are turned off in movie theaters, texting is not acceptable during a face-to-face conversation, and texting while driving is no more common than it is over here (warning: anecdotal evidence!).

The point is that society needs to learn to adapt to texting, and to the general increase in mobile communication of all forms. I don't think it's a terrible crime to glance at an incoming message at a red light to check the address of your destination. But drivers do need to understand how to use their phones responsibly while on the road.

That said, I think Utah's move is a good one (although the privacy implications are a concerning disadvantage). Texting while driving, leading to an accident, is provably dangerous and should be taken seriously by the courts. But the "we've got to STOP the technology!" approach never works; technology marches on.

deep_puddle

i live in utah and my friend was killed by a driver that was texting.
https://www.hangupsavealife.com/index.html

people need to learn to unplug themselves. we are way too dependent on talking to people all the time.