Distracted Driving - another silly law

The whole idea of distracted driving seems to be on everyone's mind here in 2009. The legislature in Wyoming is trying to pass bills about using a cell phone and text messaging while driving, and now the City of Cheyenne is trying to do something similar.

It's all rather pointless when you really think about it, and this Libertarian has done some thinking about it.

Legislation like this is really just another preventive law hoping to improve driver safety by prohibiting some sort of root cause behavior that contributes to unsafe driving.

Okay, let me understand this. We pass a law about what you can't do while you're driving, and that's supposed to improve our ability to drive? I thought better drivers and better decision-making was the key to better driving.

The Real Distraction

I recognize clearly that text messaging is a potentially dangerous activity. It's difficult enough to enter a phone number, let alone enter a text message, so you'll get no argument here from me that text messaging can be a problem for those who choose to do it while driving.

But, why is it just text messaging? The Cheyenne ordinance originally had examples of distracted driving such as:

• changing clothes
• eating
• drinking

And what about slowing down to take a look at an accident? For me, this is the most highly distracting and annoying thing that drivers do. And, we've never seen fit to make that illegal.

The City Council of Cheyenne wised up a bit when they removed specific examples from their ordinance and recognized that any activity that distracts from the safe operation of a motor vehicle is a violation.

The also wised up a bit by recognizing that distracted driving wouldn't be a primary offense, but could be cited as a secondary offense if the distracted driving caused a primary offense (like carelessly operating a vehicle or causing an accident).

But wising up a bit just isn't enough. Let's look at how distracted driving law is really only a distraction from justice, appropriate enforcement, and good public policy.

First, we learned that driving is a "full time job" back in driver training school. Well, it isn't. There are many things that a driver does besides just driving. Look at all the instruments, mirrors and windows in a vehicle. The driver is supposed to look around and engage in other activities while he or she drives.

And, if distracted driving was such a problem, then why do we have sound equipment, navigational devices, cigarette lighters and ash trays in the car? It's clear people can do multiple things while driving.

Second, what might be distracted driving to one isn't distracted driving to another. Some women put their makeup on while driving. I've seen this for many years. Apparently some can handle multi-tasking of a complex nature while driving.

Third, the whole point of distracted driving law is to prevent dangerous driving, so let's focus on what is dangerous. We already have careless driving and reckless driving as offenses. Isn't that sufficient for enforcement purposes?

Let's focus on the way the driver is operating the vehicle with respect to safety, and not try to enumerate each activity that might be a root cause of hazardous driving.

What the Future Holds

Who is to say what is distracted driving? How do we recognize distracted driving? Isn't this just purely subjective judgment?

With these laws in place, I can just see what will happen at the scene of an accident. The police officer will look inside your car for objects that could have distracted you. Objects like a magazine, newspaper, a cup of coffee, a soft drink, or a makeup kit. If there is any indication that you were distracted at all with any of these articles, then you're getting a citation, whether or not you were the cause of the accident.

Likewise, when pulled over for any reason at all, you'll be issued a citation if there is a warm cup of coffee in your drink holder. It will be prima facie (on first appearance) evidence that you were engaged in distracted driving.

In California, when fault can't be determined at the scene of an accident, cell phone records are used to identify the guilty party. If about the time of the accident your cell phone was in use, bingo, you're at fault and issued a citation. Even if you weren't the cause of the accident.

This shows you how the tables are turning. You're guilty until you can prove that your cell phone use didn't cause the accident. Good luck with that!

How long will it be before these distracted driving laws morph into laws making it illegal to have things inside your car that might distract you? Things like makeup kits, magazines and coffee cups.

Don't think for a minute that this is at all far fetched! It most certainly is not.

We now have open container laws that make an empty beer, wine or liquor bottle in your passenger compartment illegal. It's just sitting there, whether empty or not, and it's illegal. You're not drinking it, but it's still illegal. You're not carelessly or recklessly driving, but it's still illegal. You're not intoxicated or otherwise under the influence, but it's still illegal.

This is what we'll get next when the distracted driving laws are recognized as useless. Remember, stupid laws beget more stupid laws. It's as though we try to change behavior by somehow smothering it with more laws.

Lawmakers seem to think that better laws aren't the answer - we just need more laws. That's about as logical as saying our lawlessness is due to a lack of laws. Just the opposite is true.

The Real Problem

The core problem is that some people are bad drivers, plain and simple, and we don't want to take bad drivers off the road. Whether they have a distraction or not, some folks just aren't cut out for driving. They should be on a bus or in another car with someone else driving.

Add to that the problem of substance abuse and distractions, and we really have many potentially dangerous situations out there on the road, but again, we don't want to take bad drivers off the road.

The Wyoming legislature is trying to pass an enhanced penalty bill that would require use of an interlock system for those convicted of driving while intoxicated. The interlock system is both breath and voice activated by the driver, and it detects whether the driver is sober.

The bill before the legislature recognizes allowing multiple offenses for driving under the influence, and one of the punishments is having to use an interlock system for as much as 5 years. Suspension or revocation of the driver's license isn't considered until conviction of at least the third offense.

This doesn't mean that it's the third time they have driven while intoxicated. That could be dozens of times. It only means it's the third time the offender is observed, caught, arrested and convicted in a court of law.

The focus of the law isn't license suspension or revocation (that comes into play after three convictions), it's just using the interlock. So, there you have it. We are so focused on driving as a right that can't be taken away, that we're willing to allow someone to drive a motor vehicle after they have been convicted of repeated drunk driving offenses.

We just can't say no, even to bad drivers. Even though 40,000 deaths a year on our nation's roadways are purely accidental in nature, we just can't say no. I continue to be amazed at how for some offenses we have "zero tolerance," and for others we just can't say no.

Here's an example: a driver pressed the gas instead of the brake and drove over and through scores of people in Washington Square Park in Greenwich Village in New York in 1992, killing four and injuring more than twenty, and no charges were pressed, and no drivers license was revoked.

Again, we just don't want to take anyone off the road, no matter what kind of a danger they pose. It's ridiculous! What's the point of licensing people anyway?

Lawmakers are Distracted

If we stopped trying to prevent bad behavior, and started penalizing bad behavior, we might be a bit more successful. People might even take their citizen responsibilities seriously.

Let's try to get our lawmakers focused on the real problem - bad drivers. We should be focused on better driver training and removing offending drivers from the road.

How many times have you said out load in a car to another driver: "You should not have a drivers license?" or "Where did you get your drivers license, out of a Cracker Jacks box?"

So, instead of trying to thicken the law books, how about we penalize bad drivers when they drive poorly, make bad decisions or cause an accident? It makes more sense to me.

A good libertarian principle here is to punish based on intention and consequences, the acts that are offensive or hazardous, instead of penalizing everyone for engaging in causative behavior that has the potential to result in adverse consequences?

Done with Distracted Driving, take me back to Stupid Laws