Utah Law Punishes Texters As Much As Drunks In Driving Fatalities

The NY Times reports on legislation in Utah which harshly penalizes people who cause fatal car accidents while texting. Instead of merely facing a fine, offenders may now get up to 15 years in jail — the same as drunk drivers. "In effect, a crash caused by such a multitasking motorist is no longer considered an 'accident' like one caused by a driver who, say, runs into another car because he nodded off at the wheel. Instead, such a crash would now be considered inherently reckless. 'It's a willful act,' said Lyle Hillyard, a Republican state senator and a big supporter of the new measure. 'If you choose to drink and drive or if you choose to text and drive, you're assuming the same risk.' The Utah law represents a concrete new response in an evolving debate among legislators around the country about how to reduce the widespread practice of multitasking behind the wheel — a topic to be discussed at a national conference about the dangers of distracted driving that is being organized by the Transportation Department for this fall."

Re:I have no problem with this.

[phoenixwade]

Yup, not much else to say - Utah got this one right.

This Legislation Needs More Youtube Justification

[JoshDM]

All the way from Europe [youtube.com]! (warning, graphic scenes!)

This was all over the news this week. I love that video. Every driver's ed class should show it. In full.

Re:This argues for more public transportation

[east coast]

Being a Pittsburgh suburbanite I can tell you why...

I once looked into the bus system to get me back and forth to college. This college is about 30 miles from where I live in the most direct street route possible. Do you know how long it would take to get to using a bus? About 2 hours. This isn't taking into consideration that:

• The nearest bus stop is about 20-30 minutes from my home (on foot)

• The bus isn't going to arrive just as my class starts.

• The bus isn't going to be there just as my class ends.

• No weekend service.

• The latest the bus runs up to my home town is 10pm. That means no classes after 8 pm. That means no night school. I'm a working guy.

Put all of this together and my best case scenario using public transportation it would take me about 5 hours a day to get from my doorstep to were I am going to/from. This doesn't include all the other times I would be spent waiting on a bus before and after class. Work was no different except that it was faster to get there. Even in that case I would have shown up to work 45 minutes early and not been able to get home until 3 hours after work. 4 hours of standing around versus driving myself? I'll drive myself. Public transportation for suburbanites is abysmal.

Paying attention while driving is important.

[ncmathsadist]

I am glad to see someone is cracking down on this foolishness. Whenever I drive, I see people in their cars paying attention to anything BUT the road. Inattentive drivers don't go promptly when the light is green, and create traffic backups. They go 45mph on the fast lane of interstates.

Driving is dangerous. It demands ALL of your attention. Texting and phoning while driving is risks everyone's lives. You don't ever want to see me on a civil jury in a "texting while driving" case. Insurers, quake now. Texters and yakkers, up your liability limits and buy an umbrella policy.

These malefactors endanger everyone for a little convenience and entertainment while driving. How typically thoughtless.

Re:Another dumb law with no way to prove one was

[Hatta]

You don't think cell phone providers keep logs?

Re:I have no problem with this.

[lysergic.acid]

Ah, the imprecision of language... Look up the definition of " involuntary manslaughter [wikipedia.org]."

Re:This Legislation Needs More Youtube Justificati

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's another, this is the true story of a Utah teenager that killed two people while texting & driving:

http://ut.zerofatalities.com/#texting [zerofatalities.com]

Disclaimer: I work for the company that put this together.

Re:I have no problem with this.

[commodore64_love]

The "3%" statistic comes from the Washington Examiner, which got its numbers from the CBO. To put it briefly - most people who believe they are "uninsured" are actually eligible from government programs like Medicare, COBRA, and SCHIP. A lot more people (about 20 million) are wealthy enough to get insurnace but don't want it (like me).

That leaves just 3% of Americans who *want* health insurance but are not covered either privately or by government. The "86%" number comes polling data performed by Time Magazine.

Re:I have no problem with this.

[schweini]

Actually in Germany we (used to?) have a similar law: it is legal to drive with relatively low BAC, and if you get stopped by a routine control operation, that's fine. But if you get stopped because your were driving in a way that might seem "adventurous" (stuff lke running a yellow light, speeding, weird manouvers) with the same low BAC level, you'd get fined.

Re:I have no problem with this.

[janeil]

Well put. But another very simple reason why receiving a call is dangerous is that studies repeatedly show that they are! Research finds that using a cell phone, including hands-free cell phone use, seem to impair driving reactions and response time as much as alcohol impairment. Whether one thinks they're driving impaired is a non-issue.