Articles Posted in Distracted Driving

The New York Times reported recently on efforts by the federal Department of Transportation to tighten rules governing distracted driving in Oregon and elsewhere in the nation. According to the newspaper, the department wants to make a temporary ban on texting by long-haul truckers permanent. Safety advocates, however, say those rules do not go far enough.

According to the Times, the real concern among highway safety groups focuses on the in-cab computers that have become standard equipment in much of the nation’s trucking fleet. “We want the department to continue down this road of looking at the devices that are highly distracting and take action to curb those as well,” the paper quoted Judith Stone, president of Advocates for Highway Safety, saying.

The department is currently gearing up to take public comments about making the texting rule permanent, but is reported to be receptive to input on a broader ban. Onboard computers are a common sight in the cabs of large trucks. These often combine the features of commercial GPS units with links to dispatchers at a trucking or shipping company’s headquarters.

A new high-tech device represents an early – though almost certainly not the last – attempt to solve the problem of distracted driving via technology. An application called “Textecution” can, when installed on a compatible smartphone, disable texting, email and web surfing functions while the owner is driving.

According to the tech site TMC News the application is currently available only for handsets running Google’s Andriod operating system, though versions for other platforms are anticipated. The site reports that the application is being marketed to parents as a way to promote safer driving habits among teens. A number of studies in Oregon and nationwide have shown distracted driving – specifically texting or talking on the phone while behind the wheel – to be a growing problem. The legislature has sought to crack down on Oregon distracted driving by banning texting by Oregon drivers, as well as the use of phones without a hands-free device.

As TMC points out, in its early form Textecution has some bugs that may need to be worked out. It reportedly uses a phone’s GPS capabilities to determine whether the phone is in a moving vehicle. That does not, however, make it capable of distinguishing between a phone whose owner is driving the car and one whose owner is merely sitting in the passenger seat (or riding on a bus).

In another sign of the speed with which distracted driving has gone from a fringe issue to center stage, the US Department of Transportation moved Tuesday to ban bus drivers and drivers of large trucks from texting while operating their vehicles, according to media reports. The measure will exist above and beyond the Oregon distracted driving law that went into effect this month.

The New York Times reports that the ban is effective immediately and that violators will “face civil or criminal fines of up to $2,750.” Here in Oregon distracted driving, including texting and the use of hand-held cellphones behind the wheel, has been illegal since the first of the year. Similar bans exist in about a dozen other states as well as the District of Columbia. The federal government is able to go beyond these state laws because of the authority it possesses to regulate the trucking industry at the national level.

In addition to cellphones the new rules also cover the dashboard computers long-haul drivers use to communicate with their dispatchers. The move comes partly in response to an increasing body of statistical evidence of the dangers posed by distracted driving. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has been an increasingly vocal opponent of distracted driving since taking office last year.

Oregon’s new distracted driving law helped earn the state the state a ‘Green Light’ – the highest rating – in the annual report card issued by Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. For 2009 the group added a ban on texting while behind the wheel to its list of recommended state-level legal and safety measures. Oregon’s distracted driving law, which bans texting, was signed into law in 2009 and came into force this year.

Overall, Advocates judged states by the number and strength of 15 different legal areas associated with highway safety. Oregon was one of ten states (plus the District of Columbia) to earn the ‘Green Light’ designation.

Rising awareness of Oregon distracted driving and other highway safety issues was a key feature of the state’s politics last year. As the new law takes effect it raises separate questions about how it will be enforced by the state’s courts and what that may mean for drivers or pedestrians injured by an Oregon distracted driver.

With the stroke of midnight and the beginning of 2010 Oregon joined the growing list of states restricting the use of cellphones by people driving cars. In Oregon and around the country distracted driving has emerged over the last two or three years as a serious issue of public concern. The interesting question may, in fact, be why it took so long for this to happen. As the New York Times link below indicates, concern about the issue is not particularly new. AAA issued its first warning that drivers ought to pull over before picking up the phone in 1984 (yes, 1984).

Oregon’s new distracted driving law requires drivers to use a hands-free device, such as a Bluetooth headset, when making and receiving calls. Telephone use by drivers under the age of 18 is banned entirely. Also banned (for drivers of all ages) is texting while behind the wheel. More details about the new law can be found here.

While there have been a number of media reports during the last few weeks of brisk headset sales around Oregon, it will probably take some time before the real impact of the Oregon distracted driving law becomes clear. Anecdotal evidence from other states with distracted driving laws indicates that enforcement regimes vary widely (for example: New York, one of the first states to enact a distracted driving law, has a reputation for relatively relaxed enforcement while Washington DC is said to be unusually strict).

The new Oregon distracted driving law that comes into effect Friday has been getting a lot of attention over the last week. This weekend, however, the state’s leading newspaper raised serious questions about whether the law already contains a fatal flaw.

An editorial in the Portland newspaper The Oregonian points out that the Oregon distracted driving law requiring drivers to use a hands-free device if they are talking on the phone while behind the wheel contains an exception for people “operating a motor vehicle in the scope of a person’s employment if operation of the motor vehicle is necessary for the person’s job.” The paper says the language was inserted at the insistence of business lobbyists, but worries that “necessary for a person’s job” is not defined anywhere in the legislation.

The loophole, the paper notes, “may well be big enough for real estate agents, contractors, FedEx drivers and just about anyone who needs a car for work.” Interpretation of the provision will lie with Oregon’s courts, and it may take some time for legal judgments under the new law to offer Oregon distracted driving attorneys guidance on what “necessary for the person’s job” means in practice.

On January 1 Oregon joins the ranks of states banning texting while driving as well as the use of a hand-held cellphone. A recent blog and accompanying discussion on the New York Times website, however, asks an intriguing question for Oregon distracted drivers: are you willing to acknowledge that your own behavior behind the wheel is a problem?

The Times cites a recent survey conducted by the AAA Foundation. As the paper paraphrases the results: “essentially, many people believe, ‘I can do it safely, but you’re a menace.’” This attitude, of course, is hardly confined to the question of telephone use. How many people do you know who are actually willing to say ‘I’m a bad driver’?

Examining this attitude is especially timely. Though the new Oregon distracted driving law allows for primary enforcement (i.e. the police can pull you over just for talking on a cellphone – they will not need to look for some other initial violation, such as speeding or driving recklessly) the fine for violating the law will be relatively low ($90). Moreover, in most states that already have these laws few people, in practice, get ticketed just for using a phone.

A timely reminder for this holiday weekend comes from USA Today travel columnist Bill McGee. His headline says it all: “Distracted While Driving? Pull Over!” The law, as he notes, is only part of the issue. Oregon is among the growing number of states that have banned texting and use of hand-held cellphones while driving. But it is worth remembering that aside from endangering yourself, your passengers and everyone else on the road distracted driving can leave you open to a significant Oregon personal injury judgment if a court finds you liable for an Oregon personal injury accident. As I’ve noted elsewhere on this blog, such a finding can take place even if the police do not issue a citation at the scene of the accident.

McGee cites some sobering statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, such as the fact that “distraction was a factor in 12% of all fatal crashes in 2004, but rose to 16% in 2008.”

The good news is that recognition of the problem is widespread. An Insurance Information Institute survey last summer found that 80% of respondents supported a ban on texting while driving. For handheld cellphone use the figure was 67%. Even allowing for the fact that an insurance industry survey might be tilted toward a ban (texting leads to more crashes; more crashes lead to more claims), the logic behind the data is hard to argue with.