There’ll be no more texting while driving in Alaska, starting today.
Under legislation passed by the Legislature during the last session and signed into law by Gov. Sean Parnell on Thursday, it is now a crime to drive while texting.
Bill sponsor Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Haines, said the goal is not only to protect drivers from their own bad decisions, but to protect the public as well.
“The idea is to save lives, my life, your life — it is the innocent who usually get killed anyway,” he said.
The Legislature tried to ban texting while driving once before, but found its effort overturned by a judge who said the law wasn’t specific enough.
House Bill 255 specifies typing on electronic devices is banned, but doesn’t go so far as to ban all cell phone communications, which some legislators had wanted. The bill differentiates between texting, and dialing a cell phone, which remains legal.
Thomas said there was no political agreement on cell phone usage while driving, but there was widespread agreement among legislators that it was simply not safe to ever text while driving.
“When you are texting, your reaction time is slower even than when you are drunk, you are 20 times more likely to get into a crash or collision when you’re texting,” said Rep. Les Gara, D-Anchorage, co-sponsor of the bill with Thomas.
Thomas said when drivers have an urgent text, they should pull over or wait until they get to their destination.
That’s not much of a delay anywhere in Southeast, including his hometown, he said.
“For Haines, it is easy,” Thomas said. “You get out 4 miles and there’s no cell phone service anyway.”
The bill had strong support from Southeast legislators, with Reps. Peggy Wilson, R-Wrangell and Beth Kerttula, D-Juneau, both co-sponsors.
Rep. Cathy Muñoz, R-Juneau, sponsored a bill to ban cell phone usage while driving. While that bill failed, she also supported Thomas’ bill.
Thomas said he had expected criticism from folks fearful of losing their right to text, but said there is a growing recognition that there is simply no safe texting while driving.
“I think the people would rather have a misdemeanor violation (for texting while driving) than have a felony assault if you kill somebody while you are texting,” Thomas said.
Part of the bill is to change the mindset that texting while driving is OK, Gara said.
“People do think it’s a social thing, texting while driving, but we have to change the mindset like we’ve done over the last 20 years with drunk driving,” he said.
The bill bans a driver from communicating via a computer display or cell phone on which they are either typing or reading a visual display, the bill says.
That’s only while the vehicle is in motion, Gara said.
House Bill 255 passed overwhelmingly, but it took until the last day of the session to do so. There were only six “no” votes, five in he House and one in the Senate.
Thomas said that the late passage showed it would not have been possible to expand the bill to also cover talking on a cell phone and still win passage.
“We knew that if we had tried to address that, our bill would have died,” Gara said.
• Contact reporter Pat Forgey at 523-2250 or at patrick.forgey@juneauempire.com.
Comments (36)
Add commentYeaaaaa!
Yeaaaaa!
Penalty?
Curious what the penaltys will be.
THANK YOU!
This is such great news! I hope the penalty is stiff!
Promotion Campaign
I would recommend the JSD implement a campaign to promote this new legislation. Perhaps a lesson plan could incorporate how this came to pass - the impacts of texting while driving, the legislative process and the passing of legislative law.
This is a great law....BUT
how exactly are police going to determine when I am texting as opposed to changing the song on my iphone? It already allows talking on the phone and even dialing.....so how will they prove actual texting was happening?
Waste of Session
I don't see how cops will pull people over effectively/justly.
The cop either has to go by the fact that a device is in FOV of the driver, which is fine if it's for navigation etc. Or the cop has to focus on what the driver is doing with their phone, rather than focusing on the road (the problem this is out to fix).
I think it's a silly thing to have law enforcement actively enforce as a primary offense. I'd prefer that it have been a secondary offense that would require another cause for a traffic stop.
Not sure:
I believe it will help police after the fact “accident” unfortunately. They can look at the phone transmissions and see if you were texting or making a call. Then they can hit you with a larger fine or jail time.
Don't think they would be
Don't think they would be able to search your phone without a warrant....
curiosity...?
Out of curiousity, let's say a driver is going down the road and is somehow in an accident. Either by their negligence or another's fault. JPD shows up and finds an individual has a cell phone but it is password protected. What will happen if the driver refuses to give up the password, especially if it is a minute phone that does not track who the owner is? How will they determine what the phone number on the phone is? Will they have to obtain a warrant to do so?
I'm for the legislation, I'm just unclear how they will handle such a situation.
Freedom is UnAmerican?
Doesn't the reckless driving law cover distracted driving by texting (or anything else)? The so called representatives forgot to include in the law the authority for police to stop anyone for any reason and search the entire contents of the car and download all information from electronic devices in that car. Whatever happened to a Constitutional America with a Bill of Rights? The Govenor and the Representatives no doubt have either never read the founding documents or just do not care. What else would our worthy government overseers deem illegal? A crying child in a car, music to loud, talk radio, sipping a drink? Why not mandate cars that could only travel at 15 mph with large rubber bumpers thus making it virtually impossible to cause any serious harm? If their ultimate interest is safety then how does one know where to stop with new laws? I am not a texter, never have been and never will be but I am against dangerous driving and I am against tyrannical government masquarading as government looking out for everyone's safety.
Constitutional Rights
I'm very familiar with the Bill of Rights. I'm not sure where in the Constitution it states that texting isn't an issue for State government. In fact, the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Sure, Section 8 does not give Congress power over this issue so it cannot be a federal one. Unless there is something in our State Constitution that prohibits this law then I see it as reasonable. And on the Freedom of Speech issue, it doesn't remove your freedom to speech. You can speek anywhere, anytime. You just cannot be driving a moving vehicle while you do. You simply need to pull over.
apples and oranges...
The act of reading a sentence and interpreting it then responding by typing another sentence into a tiny keypad is an entirely different league of distraction as simply punching a button in a car to change the station, or grabbing a coffee cup to take a sip (which I'm able to do without taking my eyes off the road).
In my opinion this is not tyrannical legislation nor does it impede freedom of speech. With new technology and new complex problems arising in our world, I believe we need to address legitimate concerns to public safety, and texting while driving is one of them.
Wren and Mistymtn response
There is a fact of life in this nation called creeping totalitarianism. It happens in very small steps. This is done by circumstance and design. Totalitarianism should be guarded against every time it is observed.
Please see the 9th and 14th amendments. See also Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) for jurisprudence on this subject. Basically it has been interperted as a protection against infringement on personal liberty.
If you can drink a cup of coffee while driving that is good but what if the lid falls off and hot coffee spills on your hands and lap? Can everyone be as skilled as you? No doubt some people can multi-task with amazing degrees of ability but this law treats everyone as if they have the lowest degree of ability.
There are so many things that technology brings and among them is distraction. We cannot expect Law Enforcement Officers to have X-ray vision, precognition or the ability to read minds. That is why the most rational and enforceable law is reckless driving. The Officer need only observe reckless driving. Apply rational judgement as to the level of danger of the recklessness and act accordingly. Using this as a guide we can keep the roads generally safe and safeguard our freedoms.
TopCaster
Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Sorry, 10th Amendment still applies. This is not abridging on your rights. Oh no, might have to pull over your car. The right to make this decision is reserved to the States respectively.
Amendment 14: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Constitution, does not provide for protecting your right to texting while driving. There is not an Article of the Constitution which states, Right to Text While Driving. If you get a text, you have every right to respond. Just pull over.
The 10th Amendment applies here: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This is a clear case of individual States being allowed to pass their own laws. Clear case of State sovereignty. If the Federal Government passed legislation along these lines it actually would be completely wrong as the Constitution doesn't give them the power to do so.
Wren
You are accurate in the sense that States have a right to pass laws in their own fashion but it does not allow them to infringe on any rights enumerated and implied in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. There is also the question of what rights the People retain as opposed to State rights. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The rights of the People among others are Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Hapiness. Should we not insure that these rights are secured to the greatest extent possible and to the extent that one individual does not harm another? Again the reckless driving law is sufficient for this task without anything more restrictive.
TopCaster is right
Distracted driving should cover the gamut. Apparently the bills sponser Bill Thomas feels that it is alright to READ texts just dont type one. Thomas said "when drivers have an urgent text, they should pull over or wait until they get to their destination". Well until I read the text, I will not know if its urgent or not. And yes,creeping totalitarianism is a real thing we should all worry about. Silly little thing, these cell phones. 30 years ago it was spys,secret service and ceo's who had them but probably didnt really need them. Now we are addicted to them like a junkies needle. Breaking our addiction will be just as hard.
Texting
Texting should include all drivers. It is distractive. And that includes JPD and AST. Why can text on their phones and laptops while driving and other drivers can't. What makes them better drivers? They aren't.
TopCaster
Where I would agree that creeping totalitarism does exist, it doesn't remove powers reserved for the State's. Other issues reserved to the State's are education, whether or not drugs are legal (never mentioned in the Constitution and reinforced when referencing 18th Amendment Prohibition and 21st Amendment removing 18th Amendment), and laws incuding murder, rape, gambling, etc, unless these crimes are taking place having to do with State borders giving them federal jurisdiction.
Creeping totalitarism is a very real thing. I believe the issue with creeping totalitarism has more to do with the federal government trying to govern States and individuals regarding health care, the Patriot Act, and the new legislation bannng protesting anywhere the Secret Service is. The reality is State Sovereignty is guaranteed by the 10th Amendment. The States and communities need to be put back in charge of their own rights.
I would also argue that "Life" comes before "Liberty". When you are yelling at your legislators from the street, nobody gets hurt. That is speech. When you are driving on the road going 55+ mph, the life of the other driver comes before your right to text. But now we are going into a philosophical debate rather than the black and white I believe in within the Constitution.
I would concede to you that this should be covered by reckless driving. But, people are ignorant to the fact that this can even cover it. I believe this law goes more towards keeping the cases in court to a minimum as it will be clear cut and not up to the judges discretion. People will also understand that this is against the law when with reckless driving it's pretty vague and people might not understand that texting can be considered reckless driving. If I were hit with a reckless driving citation for simply texting while I'm going down the road you would see me in court. But now if I get a citation for texting while driving, it is pretty clear cut and I will take my licks.
"Studies have shown that
"Studies have shown that about 25 percent of all auto accidents are caused by cell phone use—drivers either talking, surfing the Internet or texting. But Officer Jon Fritz of the Montgomery Police Department thinks that number may be low."
from here: http://montgomery.patch.com/articles/demonstrating-the-dangers-of-textin...
"Thirty students ages 15-19 participated in the study. Nearly 60 percent had been driving less than a year. Using simulators, the teens drove under three conditions: 1) without a cell phone, 2) texting with the phone hidden so they had to look down to see texts and 3) texting with the phone in a position of their choice. The simulators recorded unintentional lane shifts, speeding, crashes/near crashes and other driving infractions.
The result showed the teens consistently drove worse when texting, regardless of whether the phone was hidden. The young drivers drifted out of lanes more often while texting (mean of 13 times with the phone in a position of their choice, 17 times with the phone hidden and less than three times when not using cell phone). They also had more near crashes with other cars and pedestrians without being aware of these mistakes while texting (four for both cell phone positions vs. two without a cell phone).
The total number of driving infractions while texting was higher, too (18 with the phone in a position of their choice, 22 with phone hidden and five with no cell phone).
"These data demonstrate that there is no 'safe' or 'better' position that makes texting less dangerous," said Glade Inhofe, the high school student who is the lead author."
from here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120429085411.htm
And there are many others... there is a specific danger that has been demonstrated over and over directly because of cell phone use and texting specifically. This puts the public in danger and making laws to try and curb the problem is a reasonable response.
DouglasAK
I COMPLETELY AGREE!
Unfortunately, do you actually believe they would enforce this anyhow? Officers get to do what they want, drive drunk and their buddies give them rides home after getting pulled over, etc. If I totaled my vehicle backing into a pole they would at a minimum give me a careless driving citation. There would be no "investigation". But no, not an officer at JPD.
It would be nice to see something in the paper about an officer getting caught breaking the law. Just give me a speeding ticket, dui, whatever, just so I can believe they don't have favoritism amongst their own. Because we all know they commit crimes of stupidity just like the rest of humanity.
I do agree that the JPD
I do agree that the JPD should hold to the same standards and that they should not be allowed special privledges to text and drive simply because they're JPD.
And no, I'm not sure how they're going to enforce this one.. it is unfortunate as you said.
Benjamin Franklin
Quote "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Harsh words but that is how history has turned out 99% of the time. If a people are taught to think only in terms of safety then freedom will be the sacrifice. Like I said in my original post "Freedom is (has become) UnAmerican".
Topcaster
hit the nail on the head , good comments.
@wren
"It would be nice to see something in the paper about an officer getting caught breaking the law. "
Um... Did you miss the article about the shootout on Black Wolf Way? Or the articles about Brian Ervin, convicted sex offender?
wfischer and TopCaster
It would sure be difficult to cover up a sex offender or a shootout in a populated neighborhood. I'm talking about the normal crimes every day citizens are charged with such as traffic citations and dui's.
Nice quote from Benjamin Franklin. The issue I have is with the Constitution. You know, the document he helped draft. As we get hung up on things like 225 years of precidence and people thinking they knew exactly what the founding fathers believed the document gets altered. Hence all the questions regarding the Commerce clause.
People argue the founding fathers believed this or that or the intent was this or that. People say that government should be able to control all aspects of life because of its intent. People also say all our founding fathers were Christians and fail to understand that many, including Benjamin Franklin, were Freemassons which were actually chastised by the Christians. In fact, Benjamin Franklin was a Grand Master in that organization.
The Constitution was written to be followed, not to sway with all the arguments people throw out. Precidence based on bad court determinations lead to more and more bad governance. Believing we knew what they were thinking leads to more as I wasn't alive 225 years ago doing lunch with them nor was anyone else I know. I also didn't attend the churches they did. They wrote the document to be followed, not so that people could talk about intent. Refer to the 10th Amendment yet again. State Sovereignty is a very precious thing. States can pass their own laws, plain and simple.
Your right to "Liberty" does not come before my right to "Life". And FYI, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness does not grant any powers or limitations to government. It is simply a statement in the Constitution. The Articles in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the parts of the Constitution that outline the rights and powers of government.
I did notice you've moved off of your Constitutional arguements and are now argueing philosophically quoting one-liners from founding fathers rather than quoting the Constitution, the complete text they drafted. Please show me in the Constitution where the State does not have the power to pass this law and I will stand corrected.
FYI, I'd almost bet we're on the same page regarding a lot of things. We are obviously both conservatives and believe in Liberty. Because of the research I have done on the Constitutionality of illegal immigration, which the Constitution clearly outlines that States have the right to enforce immigraion policy, I have to side with State Sovereignty. I believe we both believe in small government. We just differ on this issue, but both believe in personal freedom and personal responsibility. But I also believe that individual States have the right to govern themselves as long as it does not infringe on national or state constitutions.
Wren
We probably do agree on much. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were more a limitation on Federal Powers and as you have astutely pointed out the 10th Amendment ascribes the States all the sovereignity that is not yielded to the Federal Government. Certainly in this day and age we see power grabs from the States and the People by the Federal Government on an unprecendented scale. The States powers to establish their own sets of laws are obvious at times such as the Civil War where some States abolished slavery while others retained slavery.
Wherein does the power of the People reside? You have discarded parts of the Constitution's Preamble as merely observations but "holding truths self-evident" does not require any complex academic endeavour or seance with authors of the founding documents (one can also read the Federalist Papers for some insight). Wherein States are sovereign so to are the People. Resolution of the two may reside in elected officials representing the sovereign People, but then if the State of California decided to elect a dictator would such a circumstance go unanswered? If the States derive their just powers from the People then we must ascertain what are the rights of the People. It is true that life precedes liberty in that preamble statement for a reason just as everything in that document was well considered and should be taken in totality.
If ultimate safety for each soul is the primary impetus for laws then how is it then that a Second Amendment provides for arms? A most dangerous machine if ever there was. Keep this in mind that "texting" does not imperil you, recklessly operating a dangerous device such as an automobile does. Just as a firearm does not imperil you but someone pointing it at you and shooting does.
To put it simply the rights of the People trump the rights of the State because the State derives its powers from the People. Laws passed in any State should preserve the rights of the People in fullest measure. Debating the Peoples rights would bring us back to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights most assuredly.
Correction: The Declaration of Independence from which the statement "We hold these truths to be self evident...... is concommittant with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and all three should be taken in totality.
Technology should be part of the Text and Drive solution...
I read that 94% of drivers think Text and Drive is lethal but over one third still do it. What to do? I think legislation has value in raising public awareness in forums like this one but it will be difficult to solely legislate our way out of this issue. I just read that over 3/4 of teens text daily - many text more than 4000 times a month. New college students no longer have email addresses! They use texting and Facebook - even with their professors. Tweens (ages 9 -12) send texts to each other from their bikes. This text and drive issue is in its infancy and its not going away.
I decided to do something about distracted driving after my three year old daughter was nearly run down right in front of me by a texting driver. Instead of a shackle that locks down phones and alienates the user (especially teens) I built a tool called OTTER that is a simple GPS based, texting auto reply app for smartphones. It also silences those irresistible call ringtones while driving unless you have a bluetooth enabled. I think if we can empower the individual then change will come to our highways now and not just our laws.
Erik Wood, owner
OTTER app
do one thing well... be great.
Actually, being a rude,
Actually, being a rude, idiotic, clueless moron who thinks the road is there only for them to use, is more of a danger to people then texting while driving.
I won't even answer my phone if I'm driving, let alone try and text while driving. However, that doesn't stop the above mentioned idiots from causing accidents.
Just because this is now a law doesn't really mean anything to those who already don't obey the current laws.
It's a good law
Thank you Beth Kerttula for your continued awesome leadership. This is a good law.
I never text and drive, but I can pick out a car that is. And it's usually a teenager slowing down, speeding up, swerving. When I pass them, they are looking into their laps and smiling lol.
Teens should lose their license for an entire year if they are caught texting and driving.
once again hmm
so how does one go about telling ther difference if one is texting while driving or inputing a phone number?