Articles Posted in Motor Vehicle Accidents

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.