U.S. bans truckers, bus drivers from texting while driving

[unklejman]

If you have legislation in the works to ban texting while driving in your state, be sure to fight it as hard as you can so if the federal government tries to ban it you have a leg to stand on to fight it through state sovereignty.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012602031.html

The government Tuesday formally barred truckers and bus drivers from sending text messages while behind the wheel, putting the federal imprimatur on a prohibition embraced by many large trucking and transportation companies.

"We want the drivers of big rigs and buses and those who share the roads with them to be safe," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "This is an important safety step, and we will be taking more to eliminate the threat of distracted driving."

LaHood has made the effort to curtail driver distractions a centerpiece of his tenure as the nation's top transportation official. Some saw his announcement as a step that might ultimately fuel a push to ban cellphone use by all drivers.

LaHood's announcement followed a study released in July by Virginia Tech's Transportation Institute that found that when truckers text, they are 23 times more likely to be involved in a crash or near miss.

Although both houses of Congress are considering bills restricting texting and 19 states have banned the practice, LaHood said existing rules on truckers and bus drivers give him authority to issue the prohibition. LaHood said drivers of commercial vehicle caught texting could be fined up to $2,750.

"It's an important first step," said Jonathan Adkins, spokesman for the Governors Highway Safety Association, a coalition of state highway safety directors. "It's will start a cultural shift away from texting and cellphone use. We'd like to see a ban on all cellphone use by drivers of commercial vehicles."

Texting and cellphone use have been banned in many major commercial fleets, including FedEx's 43,000 vehicles and the 100,000 used by United Parcel Service.

Enforcement of LaHood's ban is so problematic that it might prove more symbolic than practical.

"The enforcement problem here is enormous," said Russ Rader of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. "It's not clear this is going to make any difference on the road in terms of crashes."

Rader said the challenge for police officers is daunting.

"How does anybody spot a trucker or any driver on the road who is using some device that they're holding below window level?" Rader said.

Vernon Betkey, chairman of the GHSA and a retired Maryland State Police trooper, acknowledged the challenge and said he hoped federally funded demonstration projects in Connecticut and New York might develop better enforcement tools.

"Right now, law enforcement has to be somewhat creative," Betkey said. "A driver constantly looking down while they're driving might be a clue, or you might have some lane departures."

Last year, President Obama banned federal employees from texting while driving government vehicles and from texting in their own cars if they use government-issued phones or are on official business.

With LaHood leading the effort, supported by mounting evidence of the danger, Adkins predicted that this year could see an effort to ban cellphone use by all drivers.

"At some point we'll have to address that issue," Adkins said. "We think 2010 will be the year when we do something about distracted driving. We can't remember a secretary every taking the issue of highway safety so seriously."

Statistics released two weeks ago by the National Safety Council indicated that 28 percent of traffic accidents occur when drivers are talking on cellphones or sending text messages. The nonprofit council said that texting was to blame for 200,000 of the crashes, while cellphone conversations caused 1.4 million. Those numbers come in the context of federal statistics that show that about 812,000 drivers are using cellphones at any given moment during daylight hours.

In announcing the ban Tuesday, LaHood pointed to data compiled by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration last year, which show that drivers who send and receive text messages take their eyes off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds out of every six seconds while texting. At 55 mph, he said, that means that during that time, the driver travels the length of a football field, including the end zones, without looking at the road.

 

[The Patriot]

Companies should be doing this, not the Federal Government. If Greyhound, for example, wants to set such a policy, or a trucking company like Swift Transportation wants to set such a policy, they have the right to. The only business the government has(not the federal Government, but states and municipalities) is to set up say a manslaughter statute and prosecute it if indeed the trucker hurts other people. The only business the government has is in protecting life, or prosecuting against those who recklessly or intentionally take life.

That said, even though it may be "illegal", I and most people I know still talk on their cell phones back in California even though it is illegals. Head sets are so damn inconvenient.

 

[Keller1967]

Companies should be doing this, not the Federal Government. If Greyhound, for example, wants to set such a policy, or a trucking company like Swift Transportation wants to set such a policy, they have the right to. The only business the government has(not the federal Government, but states and municipalities) is to set up say a manslaughter statute and prosecute it if indeed the trucker hurts other people. The only business the government has is in protecting life, or prosecuting against those who recklessly or intentionally take life.

That said, even though it may be "illegal", I and most people I know still talk on their cell phones back in California even though it is illegals. Head sets are so damn inconvenient.

That would make sense if we had private roads, but we don't. If we are going to grant government access to build our roads and manage our roads, this should be expected. The roads are the government's business after all.

I get really tired of people trying to apply free market ideas to government institutions, not you in particular.

 

[nobody's_hero]

If it isn't a criminal act such as piracy, treason, or counterfeiting, the Federal government has no constitutional authority over it.

Of course, if it is piracy, treason, or counterfeiting, you can bet that the Federal government is involved.

 

[Zippyjuan]

If Greyhound or a trucking company institutes a rule such as no texting- how do they find out if their employees are violating it? Put cameras in their cabs to watch what they are doing? Meanwhile the truck just swerved to avoid that car in front of it and sideswiped your mother or daughter. Distracted driving (including texting or using a cell phone) is as dangerous as driving under the influence. If they have their own private roads they can text to their hearts content but they are sharing the road with others in what can be a very deadly weapon if not operated properly. Would you rather have to try to sue to get money for an injured family member (costing you both time and money besides the grief) or would you rather have the person stop putting you and your family at risk?

If your neighbor had a gun and was randomly shooting it all over the place with the risk of possibly being shot yourself would you complain or would you say they are exercising their right to bear arms and let it go?

Sure the government should not protect us from all risks. But in the case of something like a shared roadway rules of proper use of the road are necessary for the road to work smoothly and not endanger other users needlessly.

As a person who shares that road, I don't mind my risk of getting run over reduced.

 

[jbuttell]

What I find so frustrating about a lot of these so called safety laws, is the redundancy and what seems to be a lack of real analysis to see how effective the law is after passage.

With cell phones being so dangerous, there should have been a dramatic increase in the number of accidents as the ownership of cell phones grew. On the other hand, after the law passage, a signifiant decline in accidents should be measureable. Perhaps this was the case, however I unfortunately never found satisfactory information to back this up. I also highly doubt the average joe thought more about the subject than what the media generally feeds them, which is that an ordinary citizen has no need for a phone while driving. Of course, police are highly trained, so of course they can drive while operating a hand operated communication device....

Perhaps I'm mistaken, and please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm in CA), but police officers have the authority to ticket you for driving, regardless of why you're driving unsafely. So what has this law really done other than make the average guy conceal the device while operating to avoid being seen by an officer? I suggest that laws like these actually change people's behavior for the worse, encouraging them to spend more time watching out for the law than watching the road.

I'm not against all laws of the road, but I'm highly suspicious of laws that typically are introduced because a few people 'feel' it's better for the greater good. Seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, mandatory airbags in new cars etc.

The last thing police need is another reason to pull people over.

 

[unklejman]

As a person who shares that road, I don't mind my risk of getting run over reduced.

Tell us this when you are pulled over and ticketed for looking down in your car.

 

[LittleLightShining]

They're trying to do this here. We already have a law on the books here for negligent operation, which should sufficiently cover any vehicular crime committed while distracted.

 

[gls]

Recklessly driving any type of vehicle is already illegal in all 50 states. The only reason for these types of laws is to give police more power.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Recklessly driving any type of vehicle is already illegal in all 50 states. The only reason for these types of laws is to give police more power.

That ^^^ +1776

 

[MelissaWV]

If Greyhound or a trucking company institutes a rule such as no texting- how do they find out if their employees are violating it? Put cameras in their cabs to watch what they are doing? Meanwhile the truck just swerved to avoid that car in front of it and sideswiped your mother or daughter. Distracted driving (including texting or using a cell phone) is as dangerous as driving under the influence. If they have their own private roads they can text to their hearts content but they are sharing the road with others in what can be a very deadly weapon if not operated properly. Would you rather have to try to sue to get money for an injured family member (costing you both time and money besides the grief) or would you rather have the person stop putting you and your family at risk?

If your neighbor had a gun and was randomly shooting it all over the place with the risk of possibly being shot yourself would you complain or would you say they are exercising their right to bear arms and let it go?

Sure the government should not protect us from all risks. But in the case of something like a shared roadway rules of proper use of the road are necessary for the road to work smoothly and not endanger other users needlessly.

As a person who shares that road, I don't mind my risk of getting run over reduced.

Actually, I am wondering why it is that a bus driver would have their personal cellphone on them. It seems like the companies themselves could have policies, and enforce them by having bus drivers leave their cellphones at home, or by having a radio in the vehicle and that's all. Why do people have to be accessible all the time? If there's an emergency, they can get ahold of you via your dispatcher. No cameras are needed for enforcement of this rule.

Truck drivers are far more likely to injure you because they're sleepy than anything else, yet there is no law against sleepiness. You are not going to be pulled over to check your alertness level based on the hour of night. Now, if someone begins swerving, or driving like crap, I don't mind them being pulled over. I don't care what the reason is, either, because they are clearly demonstrating that they have no idea how to handle that massive, dangerous automobile they are driving around. It really does not matter to me if they are drunk, high, eating a cheeseburger, texting, or all of the above at the same time; if they are driving like crap, they need an enforced "time out."

Having said ALL of that, I do find it interesting that some of the same states going out of their way to ban texting while driving are still going out of their way to institute things like turn-by-turn directions via text message. The state does not want you to text and drive, but if you get lost, please turn on your cellphone and text us so we may distract you with directions. I wonder if inputting information into your GPS, or so much as turning the volume up/down counts as texting for the purpose of some of these laws. I also wonder why the people that are to enforce this ban often have a laptop or built-in equivalent glowing next to them as they drive (I see them gazing at the screen at stoplights and during interstate straightaways).

Ultimately, these laws really are redundant.

 

[ProBlue33]

Sorry guys but I agree with the government on this one. I have seen too many people texting and not looking at where there driving. Texting is infinitely more dangerous than talking on the phone while driving. Driving with your knee while looking down with both hands texting is worth a ticket. It's just too dangerous.
Sometimes we need laws to stop the stupidity. I know Ron says we have to put up with foolish stuff with liberty, but if it's going to endanger my life on the road it goes to far. Sort of like drunk driving

 

[MelissaWV]

Sorry guys but I agree with the government on this one. I have seen too many people texting and not looking at where there driving. Texting is infinitely more dangerous than talking on the phone while driving. Driving with your knee while looking down with both hands texting is worth a ticket. It's just too dangerous.
Sometimes we need laws to stop the stupidity. I know Ron says we have to put up with foolish stuff with liberty, but if it's going to endanger my life on the road it goes to far. Sort of like drunk driving

So... since driving while eating a cheeseburger and changing the channel on the radio and reading is not illegal, that's okay? Why not cover this all by simply issuing a law against "driving while distracted" which has various degrees depending on the severity of the action that drew the officer's attention?

Nah. Instead, all texting while driving (even if you're stuck in 0 mph traffic, or at a really long red light) is illegal.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Like I said earlier, it's the unconstitutionality of it that should strike a nerve. No doubt that this law comes from the all-encompassing "interstate commerce" clause, which is just one more abuse to serve as icing on the cake. We don't need any more abuses of that clause.

I know of some city ordinances that prohibit talking on a cell phone while driving. The bottom line is that the Federal government needs to butt out. It needs to stick to those issues spelled out in the Constitution: Piracy, Treason, and Counterfeiting.

 

[gls]

Reckless driving is already against the law. If someone is swerving all over the road and a cop sees it they will be pulled over and likely cited. It is sad to see some people who supposedly care about liberty so willing to give it up for the illusion of safety. This is about nothing more than granting police additional powers over the individual, and increased revenue generation for the state.

 

[BlackTerrel]

I'm not against all laws of the road, but I'm highly suspicious of laws that typically are introduced because a few people 'feel' it's better for the greater good. Seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, mandatory airbags in new cars etc.

I agree about those. Honestly, anyone who reads the statistics and still rides a motorcycle without a helmet or in a car without a seatbelt is a moron. But they're only putting themselves at risk and we don't need laws about it.

I don't however, have an issue with laws against texting or against driving under the influence because those harm other people.

 

[BlackTerrel]

So... since driving while eating a cheeseburger and changing the channel on the radio and reading is not illegal, that's okay? Why not cover this all by simply issuing a law against "driving while distracted" which has various degrees depending on the severity of the action that drew the officer's attention?

I think that's even more subjective - which gives the police more power.

 

[Southron]

Seems pretty unenforceable to me. Much harder to see in a truck or a bus unless you are in another one.

 

[Matthew Zak]

Actually, I am wondering why it is that a bus driver would have their personal cellphone on them. It seems like the companies themselves could have policies, and enforce them by having bus drivers leave their cellphones at home, or by having a radio in the vehicle and that's all. Why do people have to be accessible all the time? If there's an emergency, they can get ahold of you via your dispatcher. No cameras are needed for enforcement of this rule.

As a bus driver, I can tell you, not only does the company already have that rule, but so does the school district it works for. There's already two levels of authority on this, the government, as somebody mentioned, just wants more power and control.

Ultimately, these laws really are redundant.

So very true.

 

[KCIndy]

Truck drivers are far more likely to injure you because they're sleepy than anything else, yet there is no law against sleepiness.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but New Jersey passed a law specifically aimed at truckers last year that made it illegal to drive "while tired." Go figure how they're going to enforce that.... And unfortunately more states are looking at passing similar laws.

I drive a truck, so I guess I'll confess to having a bias here. But if... IF an anti-texting law is going on the books nationally, I wish it would be comprehensive and cover automobiles as well. There are any number of times I've had to dodge a car that has swerved out of its traffic lane because... you guessed it... the driver is sending a text message. (I could really go on here - I've seen people driving while watching a DVD player propped on the dash, or reading a newspaper folded over the steering wheel... arrgh!)

Personally, I don't text - I've never understood why it's so popular. By the time I can type a message on a keypad, I can easily slip on a hands-free headset and use "voice dial" to make a phone call.