Stefanie wrote:
Generally speaking, I support bans on using any handheld devices/materials while driving on public roads...

Decius wrote:
Do you include "stopped at a red light" in your definition of driving.

In theory, no. In practice (in the application of law in the real world), yes.

Decius wrote:
I have a phone that happens to have my email, the web, sms messages, and maps on it. Occasionally I will glance at my email, or sms, or the map, or the mobile compatible web page the state runs to inform people about traffic accidents and traffic conditions, while waiting for a light to change, or while stuck in traffic. I fail to see what is dangerous about this and I fail to see how it differs from looking at a map. I don't understand why I should be pulled over and fined $150 for this. I don't know what arguments to present to defend that position as I have no idea what could possibly be dangerous about it or why anyone would think that it was dangerous. Hence my list of questions.

I drive the I-24 Nashville-Murfreesboro rush hour on a daily basis, so I know something about being stuck in traffic. Yesterday, there was a wreck, and it took me ninety minutes (4:30 to 6:00) to drive ten miles. That happens quite often. Also, Nashville and Murfreesboro have their share of traffic lights, especially Murfreesboro. I understand, as well as anyone else, the concept of "down time" while operating a vehicle. Your frustration is not lost on me.

If you're at a complete stop because of a red light, a train crossing, a wreck that has traffic backed up, etc., it might seem, on the surface, that it's really not dangerous to make a phone call or send a text message, read a map, eat a hamburger, fix your makeup, etc. Maybe in a fantasy scenario with responsible operators who will never screw up, it might even work. The reality is that, even when your vehicle has stopped, it's still on a public road, the engine is still running, and it's still (supposed to be) in gear. Another reality is that many humans, many of which are licensed drivers, can often be careless, easily distracted, and/or just plain stupid.

Sometimes, the act of starting and stopping, often with other vehicles directly in front and behind yours, is when you need to be paying the most attention. If you're distracted between the red and green lights, you might not notice some important things going on during your down time.

For example, if yours is the first car at a red light, and you aren't paying attention because you're texting, applying mascara, trying to tame your unruly kids, or whatever, you might look up, see that the light has turned green, and punch the gas pedal, before you even notice that a pedestrian is still crossing, or that another driver ran the red light, or any number of other things. Maybe Decius or Stefanie wouldn't be that distracted (again, in theory), but enough drivers would be distracted for it to be a legitimate concern when crafting the language in the law.

For another example, my vehicles have been rear-ended in lines of stop-and-go traffic many times over the years. Why? Because the drivers behind me weren't paying enough attention, for whatever reason. Distracting activities such as texting increase the chances that drivers won't be paying attention.

Unfortunately, the laws have to be written to address the competent and the incompetent, alike. That's why we're hampered by speed limits on interstate highways. I agree with you that it's unreasonable to single out texting (if that's what the law in question does) from among other equally distracting activities, but I disagree that exceptions should be made for times when your vehicle is at a stop while still on the road. Even if Decius is alert, responsible, and competent at all times behind the wheel, we can't realistically expect such exemplary behavior from all other drivers out there.

Or, maybe I'm completely wrong. :)

RE: Texting while driving ban a challenge to enforce, authorities say  | ajc.com