Sioux Falls City Council Considering Texting Ban

According to The Associated Press, The Sioux Falls Council is considering placing a ban on texting , tweeting and Facebooking while driving. I am tentatively in favor of the ban, although I have heard some sensible arguments against it. 

Some of my conservative friends argue that it is just another example of governmental intrusion in private affairs. I would argue that when a private action puts members of the public in danger, it ceases to be private.  And in this case, I would put concerns over safety over concerns over privacy – though I am certainly willing to entertain arguments against that position.

Jim Sollisch of The Christian Science Monitor brings up another argument. Some people, he says, argue that texters are so addicted to using their phones, that a ban will not stop them. Instead, say this arguments proponents, “they’ll put the phones deeper in their laps to avoid detection and the result will be an increase in accidents.”

While Sollisch says such an argument sounds crazy, he notes that statistics from The Highway Data Loss Institute seem to lend evidence to this argument. Apparently, 3 out of 4 states that adopted texting bans saw an increase in texting-related incidents. Interestingly, he reports that in Minnesota, “accidents actually increased 9 per cent after the texting ban went into effect.”

I support the ban anyway. I’ve never been particularly fond of the “people will do it anyway” line of reasoning. Some people will do almost anything no matter what the consequences are. Some people will kill, some people will steal, some people will rape. But I still think there ought to be laws against such things.

For one, it’s important not to condone such behavior. For another, it’s important to create ways in which victims of such actions can seek restitution. If theft were made legal, for instance, it would be hard for the victim to obtain any sort of compensation from the perpetrator.

Furthermore, making  actions illegal does often serve as a strong deterrent, particularly when the punishment for committing an offense is strong and well enforced.

Sure, many people might continue to text and drive regularly if all they faced was a small fine. But what if the fine was a significant amount? What if texting and driving came with a $5,000 fine and people were stopped regularly for the act? Or what if it could earn you jail time? I suspect that the number of incidents of accidents caused by texting and driving would go down. Therefore, at least for now, I think The Sioux Falls City Council is right to consider the ban.

-MF

Comments

[duggersd]

The problem with your reasoning is you have to ask where do you stop? How many people read a newspaper while driving? What about people who shave or apply makeup in the mirror while driving? Are you going to ban changing radio stations in the car while it is moving? What about eating? How many of us have had to make a sudden correction in steering while grabbing a french fry? Do you have a child in the back seat that needs you to turn around and say something? All of these are things that can lead to accidents. Most of us are guilty of at least one. If I happen to be changing a radio station and hit another vehicle or God forbid hit a pedestrian, I am already at fault and in a chargeable offense. So what does a ban do? I see it as just another one of those feel good things that have no real effect on behavior. I believe making people accountable for their actions is a better course. The ban does not do that.

[DDC]

How do you enforce a texting ban? How do you prove that an individual was texting while driving? Do you authorize strip searches of drivers to determine if they are in possession of a cell phone? Do you then authorize the government to pull complete records to determine if they were actually texting while they were driving? Do you require cell phone companies to log log every interaction that happens on a smartphone and make that information available to every LEO at all times? What if a 15 year old girl gets
pulled over using their phone while driving and they claim to not possess a phone, do you strip search them on the side of the road or haul them down to County and force them to get naked for looking down while driving?

Texting bans are impossible to enforce without gross civil liberty violations.

[larry kurtz]

Derek, Dougie: it's like old home week!

Screw the cops. Since I was 16 I've rolled numerous spliffs while driving down Cliff past the Pen in Sioux Falls: after 40 years of it I've gotten pretty good, too.

[Miranda]

Thank you all for your comments.

DuggerSD: That's a fair point. It would probably be impractical to legislate against every driving distraction. I'm not sure, though, that that means we can't legislate against any of them. We do, after al, already legislate against driving while under the influence. Perhaps we could draw the line at distractions that demonstrably caused a significant increase in accidents. (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500163_162-5274193.html)

DDC: While I agree that there is a potential for abuse here, I don't think a ban would necessarily entail anything like strip searching. Sometimes, it's very easy to tell when someone is texting and driving. You can see them looking at their phones, punching away at buttons. In cases where texting while driving is clearly distracting a driver from the road, I think it would
be appropriate for police to pull that driver over.

[Kody K]

So here is a question: what is the difference between having a phone in my lap and texting or trying to adjust my seat or digging in a bag? It looks the same. My uncle got pulled over earlier this summer for "hugging the white line." If some BS like that can be considered a good reason to pull someone over, more BS will be soon to arrive with this. I better tell my mom to quit digging in her purse!

[tedp]

I assume it will still be legal to talk on a cell phone while driving, since this is a ban on "texting". How will law enforcement be able to discern whether one is texting or dialing a phone number? I certainly don't want to lose the ability to talk on a cell phone while driving. I think laws like this are difficult to enforce and best not enacted.

[duggersd]

Miranda:
I'm driving down the road and notice I get a text from my wife. I read it and decide to answer it. While answering it, I ram into a stopped vehicle. Will I be ticketed? Will my insurance have to cover the victims damage? If the answer is yes, then what does the ban on texting do? It is already against the law in some form or the other.

[DDC]

Miranda,

What happens when a cop pulls someone over for texting while driving and the person says they don't have a cell phone? How can you prove that someone was texting or checking Facebook?

If someone is driving dangerously, the police already have cause to pull them over. Enacting an unenforceable ban will do nothing to improve safety.

[Bill Fleming]

If you make it illegal, because it's dangerous, law abiding people won't do it.

Pretty simple.

But leave it to geniuses like duggersd and DDC to make it complicated.

[duggersd]

Right, Bill. Make it illegal and law abiding people won't do it. That would explain why nobody ever gets arrested for DUI. Nobody is ever arrested for smoking marijuana. Nobody ever gets arrested for making meth at home. Nobody ever gets arrested for speeding. Yes, all of these people would not be law abiding. I suspect you are not law abiding either I am willing to bet you might be over the speed limit once in a while. There is no such thing as a law abiding person. There is nothing complicated in what I have pointed out. Leave it to Bill to muddy the waters.

[Bill Fleming]

That was just plain stupid, DuggerSD. No other word for it.

[duggersd]

The only thing stupid was your comment, Bill. I only took your "law abiding" to its natural conclusion. If it is against the law to text while driving then a person who does so is not "law abiding". My only point in this whole thing is a law is not necessary. People who cause accidents while texting already can be fined and held liable for damage. So what is the point of a law? Funding?

[Bill Fleming]

The point of the law would be that if we made it illegal, law abiding people would stop doing it, and in the process, who knows how many lives would be saved. Certainly some. Again, not rocket science.

[duggersd]

Bill, by your logic then we should make it illegal to change a radio station while driving, tending to a crying baby while driving, yelling at that jerk that cut you off, or anything else that does not involve keeping your eyes on the road. Law abiding people would stop doing it (although there is not such thing based upon your description) and who knows how many lives would be saved. Certainly some. Again, not rocket science. I maintain this is just one of those feel good things that will have very little if any effect. People who are concerned already do text while driving. I believe studies so far have shown such laws ineffective.

[Bill Fleming]

Maybe you should stop defending your addiction, duggerSD. You're being really transparent.

[Bill Fleming]

http://textinganddrivingstatistics.com/
It's not enough to say "there are already laws against reckless driving." That doesn't make any of the dead less dead. People like duggerSD may continue to break the law, yes, but that doesn't mean we don't need the law.

[Miranda]

DDC,
I suppose you'd enforce it much like you'd enforce seat belt or speeding laws. Since other states have already banned it, we can look at what they do for examples.

http://www.register-herald.com/local/x1501682451/Texting-ban-enforcement-begins-on-July-1

If an officer observes someone texting while driving, they can stop them and ticket them. It's as simple as that.

I suppose someone who felt they were wrongly stopped could, if they desired, present their own phone records or alternative evidence to prove their innocence, but I don't think strip searching or subpoenas would be necessary.

[duggersd]

Bill, first of all, I am not defending my addiction and you have know knowledge of it in any way shape or form. I know that elderly people do not like texting very much and find it very confusing. Perhaps this is the reason for your animosity towards it? Is this why you pick on texting but not other things? Sounds hypocritical. Sounds liberal, but I repeat myself. Some of the phones can make the print bigger if that helps. I have never defended texting. But this is the only way you can make an argument. You changed what I have said. The laws against texting will cut down on very few people. People are distracted doing all sorts of things. Even you are and you know it, but do not want to admit it. The only thing this law would do is increase coffers.

[Bill Fleming]

Denial. It's not just a river in Egypt anymore, is it Barnes. LOL.

[duggersd]

Keep laughing oh he who cannot see the print of his phone. Seriously, try making the print bigger. Many of the newer phones can do it. Keep making stuff up. That is the only way liberals have an argument. Keep cool, buddy.

[Bill Fleming]

Dugger, if you want to prove your point to us, research the following:

Look up the death rate on the highways prior to the institution of stronger, more specific laws dealing with Driving Under the Influence and compare them to the death rates we have currently. You will no doubt find that stricter laws, specifically targeted at reducing drinking and driving have been effective in reducing the number of deaths there. I'm sure a smart educator like yourself will have no problem finding this information.

Next entertain the hypothesis that something similar would be true regarding texting and driving because people by and large tend to obey the laws of the land. And to the degree "legal" texting and contributes to the death toll on the highways, making it illegal would reduce that death toll.

This is the only argument I have made, and will ever make. My observation about your possibly being an addict comes from your defense of addictive behavior while driving and your attempts to minimize the deadliness of that behavior and the effects of laws designed to reduce that danger to society at large. If instead, you are not an addict and are just being stupid and stubbornly argumentative I aplogise. That would mean you are perhaps then not an addict, just an idiot.

[Bill Fleming]

p.s. My iPhone4 has a feature that allows me to text by talking. She can also do anything else I want done as it pertains to the function of the instrument. I use it occasionally, (not while driving, although I could. I'm connected to the audio in my car system via bluetooth). The kids and grandkids love it that I text them. I tell them I prefer talking.

[duggersd]

Bill, I only maintain that in this case, we are not going to see a significant decease. Granted, if you fine someone $1000 for the first offense and higher and take away a license, you might see a decrease. But we are not talking about that. We are talking about a little fine that will be difficult to enforce. A DUI is not that hard to pick out. Texting will be much more difficult. My other point is if you are texting and cause an accident, you will already be fined. So the texting thing is nothing more than a feel good measure that will have very little if any effect. BTW, I suspect education has had more to do with DUI deaths than fines.
One other thing, since you like to correct grammar from other people, I would think that a grammarian such as YOU would know better than to use the phrase "such as yourself".
Now about your addictive behavior to make stuff up......

[Auto Insurance Agents In Binghamton, NY]

It is best in the admirable article. Agree with your conclusions and future updates will be welcomed. Keep writing. . Thank you. Auto Insurance Agents In Binghamton, NY

[Lee]

I want to get tickets to Richard III , 2 pm manitee. It seems like that ought to be possible on July 9, 16,17, 30 & Aug. 6. But some of these dates appear to conflict with As You Like It dates. Please clarify. Thanks, FB

[Rakesh]

. WOW man me too! I really want to try and start clnliag again! Especially for business discussions. Must Break Habi.. err maybe next week lol.2. Same! Both online articles and magazines and my stack of books I need to be training on!3. Mmmhmm.. But I've taken the first step and have been working out twice as much now (which basically means now I actually go to the gym lol!)4. Oops, guess #3 was my #4.5. If you want to ship to SA, TX i'll buy some of that stuff!! We need poker tables here!6. damn I need to clean my apt right now.. GRR.7. Great Job!! Even though I thought you shot already shoot a lot.8. Grrr, same here, same here. 9. Same again!!!

[BreemDa]

Today, my local fire department, and shfriefs department, recreated a DUI Accident with members of the drama class, some of them hagging out of the car with very nicely done fake blood, and even glass shards in their faces. It was very believable, and really made a great impact, it was fake, and the image is still burned into my head. What a horrifying thing this kind of careless action can cause :/