Articles Posted in Distracted Driving

A fascinating article published in Slate a few days ago raises some intriguing questions regarding Oregon distracted driving laws and some of the latest technologies making their way into our cars and onto our cellphones.

The article focuses on Siri, the computerized ‘assistant’ bundled into the latest version of the iPhone. As the author notes, “Apple advertises Siri as a way to get stuff done while you’re otherwise occupied,” and notes that the company’s videos show people using the application while, among other things, driving.

The legal question for Oregonians and others raised by the article is simple: do distracted driving laws, like Oregon’s, which ban texting while driving extend to a text-by-voice service? “Voice texting could be illegal in many places,” the piece notes, because of wording in the relevant legislation that makes “it illegal to ‘send’ texts,” or, in some cases, prohibits any form of electronic communication. “Each of these versions would make Siri-based texting verboten, because even if you dictate a message, you’re still, technically, sending some kind of electronic communication.”

Legislators in Salem hope to close what has emerged as a significant loophole in Oregon’s year-and-a-half-old distracted driving law. As almost everyone knows by now, talking on a cellphone while behind the wheel is illegal in Oregon unless one is using a hands-free device.

As The Oregonian details, however, many judges are taking a broader view of one particular provision of the 2009 law than its authors intended. The Oregon distracted driving law contains an exception “allowing drivers to go on talking on their handheld cellphone – as long as they are driving for work and ‘acting in the scope’ of their employment,” the paper notes.

The legislators who wrote the law tell The Oregonian their idea was “to make exceptions for police, firefighters and others who truly need to make calls on the move.” As it turns out, however, courts have given that phrase a much wider interpretation. In many places, its effect has been to give a free pass to anyone who simply tells the judge they were making a work-related call. As a consequence, some police officers tell the paper they have stopped even issuing distracted driving citations to anyone who claims when pulled over to have been on the phone for work.

An article published in the New York Times this week indicates that cell carriers are now looking at technologies designed to prevent distracted driving. The technology is not new per se (see this blog post, and this one from last spring); what is changing is its embrace by the companies we buy cell service from. The Times notes that this may be happening, in part, because fewer and few customers pay for their calls by the minute any more. For cell carriers margins are now found, instead, in applications and other value-added services.

Call-blocking technology usually works to prevent distracted driving here in Oregon and elsewhere by linking a piece of software to a phone’s GPS function. When the software detects the phone being in motion it automatically sends all incoming calls to voice mail and texts to an archive. In some extreme versions it simply disables the phone entirely.

The technology has an obvious appeal to parents worried about teens falling victim to distracted driving while behind the wheel. There is also, the newspaper indicates, quoting a T-Mobile spokesperson, a segment of the adult population “who know they get distracted while driving and feel responsible enough to themselves that they want help.” Designers have been working to overcome potential barriers to use: notably ways for the phone to remain usable when its owner is a passenger rather than a driver, and for other applications, such as GPS-enabled directions to remain functional.

As we head into the New Year’s Eve weekend one of the nation’s largest cellphone companies is taking a proactive stance against distracted driving. AT&T has released an 11-minute video documentary, entitled “The Last Text,” to raise awareness of the dangers of texting behind the wheel as we head into the final weekend of the holiday season.

The video can be viewed at both of the source links below, as well as on YouTube. It is part of a broader anti-texting publicity campaign sponsored by AT&T under the umbrella title “It Can Wait.” The documentary “features stories about people whose lives were adversely affected by texting behind the wheel,” according to a report in USA Today.

Oregon, of course, has had a distracted driving law in place for almost exactly one year. That law makes texting by drivers illegal under pretty much any circumstances but, as I noted in a post just last week evading the ban is relatively easy and the fine for getting caught ($90) is relatively low. The Oregon distracted driving law is still too new for any significant body of data to have been gathered concerning its enforcement.

A terrible story from California this week reminds all of us that distracted driving laws – be they here in Oregon or elsewhere – cannot, by themselves, stop some people from behaving destructively. To be effective, the laws require enforcement by police and the accountability provided by courts.

According to a report by the Los Angeles TV station KTLA, a 20-year-old Glendale woman now faces vehicular manslaughter charges “after allegedly running a stop sign and killing an elderly pedestrian while texting on her cell-phone.” The station reports that the pedestrian, an 80-year-old man, was thrown into the air and died of the head trauma suffered as he landed on the sidewalk. The accident took place in September. Police arrested the driver a few days ago after concluding a three-month investigation.

California’s laws on cellphone use by drivers are similar to Oregon’s (in some respects they are actually stronger: California explicitly bans cellphone use by school bus drivers in all circumstances, a provision the Oregon distracted driving law omits). Like California, the Oregon distracted driving law also allows for “primary” enforcement, meaning that offenders can be pulled over solely for breaking the ban on using a handheld phone or texting while driving. The question we have to ask is how often this actually happens (texting, in particular, is relatively easy to hide by simply holding the phone low enough that it is difficult or impossible for an officer glancing through the driver’s window to see).

An Associated Press story, reprinted in The Oregonian, offers a gut-wrenching reminder of the dangers of Washington and Oregon distracted driving.

According to the news agency, a couple and their 8-year-old nephew all died when the husband lost control of his SUV on I-182 near Richland. The report quotes the Washington State Patrol saying the driver “was on the phone moments before” the vehicle “swerved off the road and rolled seven times.” The couple’s three children – ages 10, 8 and 2 – were also in the SUV. The older children were injured and received treatment at area hospitals. The toddler was unharmed.

Washington, like Oregon, has a distracted driving law that forbids use of a handset while behind the wheel. Though both states laws allow for “primary” enforcement (i.e. you can be pulled over just for being on the phone. In some other states distracted driving enforcement is “secondary” meaning that some other alleged violation – such as speeding – has to be the initiating factor in a traffic stop), we all know that it is relatively easy to skirt distracted driving laws when there are no law enforcement officers in sight.