It soon could be illegal to text and drive in this town.
On Monday, three of four members of the Police, Legal and Judicial Committee, including Mayor Billy Swails, voted to ban text messaging while driving.
The mayor called for a public hearing on the issue at a council meeting April 13.
Statistics show texting behind the wheel distracts drivers, Swails said.
“It’s not about your liberties. It’s about safety.”
Here’s something I posted on a T19 thread about texting last June. I have edited it slightly but my concerns and questions are still the same:
I would be curious to hear how these anti-texting laws play out in practice (in the states and communities that have passed them). How exactly do they get enforced? That’s an honest question by the way… I am not trying to mock the idea or imply there is no way the laws could work.
But when I compare them to DUI laws, they sound different. When a policeman pulls someone over for suspicion of drunk driving, there are objective ways to prove that the person is in fact wasted. But when the cop pulls the person suspected of texting over, it becomes an essential HISTORICAL question. Not “are you drunk right now as I the cop talk to you†but WERE you texting 3 minutes ago.
I get nervous when we empower police to pull people over and purely on the basis of what the cop thinks he saw in a brief flash of time as you passed him (he thinks he saw you texting) you get convicted of a crime—no objective measures of any kind needed. No radar guns, no breathalyzer, no walking in a straight line, and so on. I am also nervous about empowering the state to seize phone records purely on the basis of what a cop thinks he might have seen. Even if there is an accident, how likely is it that a text message will have been provably sent within 1-5 seconds of impact? In all likelihood, if texting was a factor in the accident, then the text message was being composed but hadn’t yet been sent, so there won’t be a record of it.
On the other hand, I certainly agree that texting while driving is outrageously dangerous. It’s just that I don’t necessarily believe that “there outta be a law†is the solution to all questions of bad behavior in life.
Our city council in Erie, PA, recently passed a law outlawing cellphones and texting while driving–but it’s a secondary offense. You have to be doing something else illegal first (like driving erratically). Once busted for that, you can also be fined if you were using your cell phone, too.
William Shontz
[url=http://theleca.org ]The Lake Erie Confessing Anglican[/url]
Same here in California.
How does the officer prove you were texting? Or is any proof required? Is he just allowed to say he thinks he saw you doing that?
WSJ published a new study a couple weeks ago showing that all these cell phone laws have had absolutely no effect good or bad on # of car accidents in states where it’s illegal. More laws does not equate to better behavior. You libertarians out there will love this one: http://on.wsj.com/bZ0ZUp.
#4 It is trivial to prove someone was texting if the police are allowed access to the phone company records. It is even more trivial if they have access to the logs from the cars computer. Then they can prove that the person was texting and driving at the same time. The only question is under what circumstances are they allowed to access the data?
Yup #6… that’s exactly the question. The idea of the state being able to reach into some of the most private records you have (who you communicate with and when) — which invades not only your privacy but also that of the people you may have called — and all because the state believes you might have sent a text message while you were driving — that’s disturbing.
Naturally there are legitimate situations when this kind of invasion is worth it: murder investigations, trying to bring down a child porn ring or a drug operation, etc. But because one cop thinks you texted somebody while you were driving by him — do we REALLY want to give the State that kind of power?
And yet, as John A observes, I’m not sure how else you prove it.
John, do you know how these antitexting laws work in practice? It sounds like several states may have them now.
#7: Texting has been around long enough that research overwhelmingly shows that texting while driving impairs a person at least as much as drunk driving. The laws need to be on the books, and they need to be able to be enforced, because public safety really is at stake. However, if it becomes easier to access personal information such as to whom and when a text was sent (I’m picturing a computer gateway that cell phone companies might be required to set up for police organizations), surely it will be abused. I do not know much about cell phone technology and how such information is stored, but a solution could be to allow police easy access to exact times when a text is opened (possible already on a few cell networks) and when a text is sent, without revealing the numbers involved. We do need to be able to enforce these laws. Texting while driving, I believe, will only get worse as more teenagers who drive have cell phones.
It is easy enough to prove that someone has been sending text messages – the cell phone itself records the date and time of text messages. You do not need to get into telephone company records.
On the other hand, it also records to whom the message was sent – and that does raise privacy issues. Indeed, when one accesses the log of calls and messages, all the calls and messages are listed, so the officer can have knowledge of quite a few communications – and the message itself is accessible. This is not a good situation.
Beginning late last year it is now illegal in North Carolina to send or read test messages or email on the phone while driving — that is, while the car is moving. The driver can check or send messages while the car is at a full stop. It’s not clear to me how this will be enforced. Probably it will mostly add extra charges after an accident, and perhaps it is hoped that the law will be a deterrent to the practice. Texting while driving is just as nuts as reading a book, or applying mascara (which I have observed women doing).
Certainly we are all agreed that texting while driving is very bad and it would be a good thing if possible to reduce it.
The whole question is How. And as I say, from my end it’s an honest question, it’s not rhetorical. if there is a way to do it that is effective, low cost to implement, and which doesn’t sacrifice liberty and privacy, then I’m interested to hear about it! Utah B (#8) speculates in a helpful manner about how this might conceivably work.
Does anyone know the concrete details of how the different states are actually implementing these laws?
Many thanks to SandiegoAnglicans (#5) for the WSJ piece.
This federal 3rd circuit case is addressing the privacy issue. It may make it to the Supreme Court
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/84290122.html
Here in England it is illegal to use a phone in any way while driving. It is a law that is generally obeyed, although there are those who flout it. Given how crowded the British roads are you would be a fool to not have at least a hands-free set up. What is more curious is here in Cambridge where the bicycle reigns — and it is not unusual to see students either talking on their phones while riding alone, or even texting, oblivious to their own danger and that of any cars around them!