Hey, it's just 11 lives lost this time, right?

Details.

Yep. It speaks volumes about the dangers of using a phone while driving. The driver may not have realized he was speeding and couldn't react quickly enough because he was distracted.

My son's school is on highway and posted with "no cell phones" through the school zone. You think anyone pays any attention? I can't tell you how many are speeding through the zone talking on the phone while the lights are flashing!

The San Antonio City Council's Public Safety Committee agreed Wednesday to push forward with a ban on texting while driving but signaled that a "more holistic" ordinance that addresses emerging technologies may be needed to better curtail distracted driving.

Details.

Making sure drivers keep their eyes on the road will require a network of tough laws, enforcement by police and personal responsibility, the government said Tuesday.

Details.

Much as I hate to inject a little rationality in this "there-oughtta-be-a-law-please" kinda thread this has become, I give you this:

Texting And Driving May Not Lead To More Crashes

Oh, come on. Is there really any defensible reason to allow texting while driving?

Now, I would include any cell phone use in the prohibitive law that I would draft. But it's a no-brainer that people's lives are worth more than the convenience of a quick conversation, no matter how dependent we may have all become on these devices.

I personally know three people, involved in three preventable accidents in the past couple of years that were directly caused by cell phone usage. I can personally attest to how my own attention to driving is lessened when I'm on the phone. I can relate incident after incident of seeing drivers driving so badly that I thought they were drunk, only to get close enough and see cell phones in the drivers' hands.

As always, an attempt to divert the focus of this discussion by pointing out other dumb things people do while driving is a distraction. Claiming that texting or blabbing drivers would just have been reading anyway is unprovable at best, and pointless at worst.

The plural of anecdote is not data. When deciding whether to enact or continue a law, isn't it a perfectly reasonable step to consider whether the law has actually had the desired effect in any region in which it has been active? I can't speak for whether this is a good study or not, but it still seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to consider.

And it's also reasonable to bring up other forms of distracted driving, since those have been allowed for decades. If you're saying that cell phones are of a magnitude worse and therefore should be preemptively banned, then it's perfectly reasonable to try to figure out what's worse about cell phones than other kinds of distracted driving. Laws are supposed to have a rational basis for distinguishing between similar behavior, right?

What we need is a statute that makes distracted driving an offense--regardless of the distraction. I agree that reading the newspaper, putting on makeup, reaching for things on the floor, taking your hands off the wheel, turning around to yell at the kids in the backseat, etc., etc., can be just as dangerous as talking on the cell phone or texting, when it's done while the vehicle is moving. There was a news story on TV here in Austin about two weeks ago discussing the fact that Austin PD has had several major and minor accidents in the past few months involving officers working on their in-car computers while the vehicle was moving.

Janette A

New study Texting bans "are associated with a slight increase in the frequency of insurance claims filed under collision coverage for damage to vehicles in crashes."

Oops turns out that study was junk that doesn't account for an increase in texting.

[This message was edited by D.Merritt on 10-01-10 at .]

I was listening to a story this morning on NPR's Morning Edition about the study that showed more accidents being reported following the passage of a ban on texting while driving. Apparently, many experts believe the increase is the result of drivers holding their cell phones down low so officers can't see them which causes the driver to have to take his or her eyes off of the road for a longer period in order to complete the text.

Janette A

A former VIA Metropolitan Transit driver was ordered to serve 30 days in jail Tuesday for what prosecutors have said is the first-ever reckless driving conviction in Bexar County related to texting.

Details.

The logical result of all this cell phone bashing:
Secretary of Transportation looks to technology to disable cell phones in cars

I, for one, shall not be a cheerleader for this creeping fascism.

The bashing is directed at the people choosing to create the distraction while operating a two-ton vehicle, not the cell phone. We managed to operate cars for nearly 100 years without making a phone call. Why the sudden need? Let's at least admit that it is a convenience (and often just a bunch of drivel) and not some emergency.

The use of a device to interfere with the signal does call into question the use of hands-free calls. And it would create an issue when the call is being made as an emergency.

I do like seeing cases in which a civilian calls in some crime, such as a DWI, while tracking another car.

And how would that affect the use of phones by passengers? Not all users of cell phones in the car sit in the driver's seat.

Well, I suppose it's a typically sledgehammer type solution to a thumbtack problem.

If it's even a problem, that is.

We managed to operate as lawyers for well over 100 years without computers. Why the sudden need? Most things in life are just a "convenience", but that doesn't mean they should just be thrown out. Absent a demonstrated need and a narrowly tailored solution (which this certainly isn't), people should be free to use the conveniences they choose to. People who want to stick to stone tablets are welcome to.

Using my computer (or my cell phone for that matter) while sitting at my desk doesn't threaten the safety of anyone. (Now, with my wife, that's another matter.) So, it is hardly helpful to compare the introduction of computers to desks with cell phones to cars.

The relative addition to the productivity of the world versus risk of harm would likewise not compare well. I actually do more work with my computer (as many of you complain) but have yet to kill anyone with a wrong keystroke, but I honestly don't think much productivity is added to the world by cell phone conversations in cars (especially those by teenagers) while injuries and deaths clearly increase.

There is a certain selfishness that coats this discussion. We want what we want when we want it. OK, I get it. And, as long as it doesn't hurt us, we seem to be OK with that approach. But, just as victims of DWI are more sensitized to the dangers, so are victims of cell phone distracted driving.

Something must be going on. Look how many jurisdictions have moved already to change how society thinks about the issue. And we are just beginning. There will be much more change over the next decade.

The point is that just because something is new and not a life necessity doesn't mean we can or should ban it at a whim. And the point isn't even that something shouldn't be done to prevent distracted driving. It's that in order to do something new to take away something that people are relying on, you need to show that there's a need for it and that it's a narrow focus to actually eliminate the problem instead of a whole bunch of other perfectly acceptable things as well. If someone is looking at child porn on a computer, we might suggest solutions that involve getting rid of or blocking the child porn sites, or even restricting a certain person's access if they're the problem. We wouldn't suggest an EMP pulse to take out all the computers in that person's office building. Both would stop the original problem, but one is a massive overreaction because it causes a lot of other problems than the one we set out to solve and affects a lot of people other than the one who was a problem. Stopping all people everywhere in every situation from ever using a cell phone while the car is active is a massive overreaction to the issue.

I agree with that, as it applies to passengers. I like that kids are quietly in the back texting rather than fighting.