Police officers across Michigan prepare to enforce texting while driving ban
When Michigan's ban on texting while driving takes effect Thursday, police will be able to pull over motorists solely for using their cell phones to send or look at text messages or e-mails.
Some in law enforcement say the similarities between dialing a cell phone, which remains legal, and texting, which will cost drivers $100 for a first offense, will make the ban difficult to enforce. Others, however, say it will be relatively straightforward for officers to spot and ticket violators.
Washington State Patrol trooper Brandy Kessler checks a driver's registration before issuing her a $124 ticket for driving while talking on a cell phone on June 10 in South Hill, Wash.
Drew Perine | The News Tribune
Officers already see people trying to juggle driving with texting or e-mailing, said Michigan State Police 1st Lt. Matt Bolger, who handles legislative outreach and helps educate police agencies about new laws. With new power to ticket those drivers, he said the message about the law should be clear.
"If you haven't been texting, you have nothing to worry about," Bolger said. "If you have been, you need to stop."
Bolger is scheduled to review new laws, including the texting while driving ban, at a meeting this week of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police. Tom Hendrickson, the association's executive director, said the group supported the legislation but there are concerns it will be difficult on police.
"If you view a motorist who you think is text messaging, are they dialing? It is going to be extremely difficult for law enforcement to apply that," Hendrickson said. "If a traffic stop is made and a motorist says they were not texting but dialing ... what is law enforcement to do?"
It is doubtful, Hendrickson said, that police would have access to a driver's cell phone records to confirm that they were texting. Given that a violation is a civil infraction that carries a $100 fine the first time and a $200 fine for a subsequent offense, the effort to check likely wouldn't be worthwhile.
In Ann Arbor, the City Council has been working on a local ordinance to ban the use of cell phones while driving. The council has decided to hold off on voting on any local legislation until what's happening at the state level becomes more clear.
Like the change to laws requiring seat belt use, it will take time before the text messaging ban leads drivers to stop fiddling with their phones, but social pressure is increasing, said Paul Green, a professor at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute who studies the effects of distractions for motorists.
"Laws cause changes to what is socially acceptable," Green said. "The public recognizes the risks associated with texting is much greater. It is more socially acceptable to say to people: 'Don't text.'"
Texting will be a primary offense, meaning police may pull over motorists just for using cell phones to send text messages. And no points would be added to a driver's record for a violation of the text messaging ban. The law taking effect does not ban using cell phones to make calls while driving.
Brett Pehrson, Coldwater's public safety director, said his department plans to make education about the texting law part of its driver safety education in schools. And he's hopeful that motorists will begin to better understand the dangers of cell phone use while driving.
"There's no doubt, at times it will be difficult to enforce," Pehrson said. "If they're in violation, officers don't have a whole lot of time."
Capt. Rick Walters of the Holland Police Department said it's hard to tell how aggressively the new law will be enforced. In some cases, he said that will depend on individual officers as well as main priorities while on patrol, such as 911 response. But texting, like drunken driving or lack of seat belt use, is a public safety issue, he noted.
"It's going to take law enforcement some time to adjust," Walters said. "It's going to take a while for the public to adjust."
Regardless of how strictly police enforce the ban, local departments and the state are rolling out efforts to educate the public about the law. Billboards going up around Michigan remind drivers to hold off on text messaging, carrying the phrase "txt back L8R" and one of two accompanying messages: "OR PAY $100" or "IT'S THE LAW."
The billboards are part of the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning's "Thumbs on the Wheel" campaign, which kicks off Monday and will include a televised public service announcement. The potential fine likely will help motivate drivers to refrain from texting, said agency spokeswoman Anne Readett.
When Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed the texting legislation in Detroit in April, Oprah Winfrey was watching via satellite as part of a broadcast of "The Oprah Winfrey Show." Winfrey, with a campaign that started in January, has raised the profile of fight against distracted driving.
"It's changing the social norm," Green said of the increasing public awareness. "That is very hard to do."
Comments
ogel1209
Thu, Jul 1, 2010 : 12:06 a.m.
PLEASE BAN TALKING ON CELL PHONES ALTOGETHER!! BANNING TEXTING WHILE DRIVING IS ONLY A START. GET WITH THE 21ST CENTURY AND JOIN THE MANY OTHER STATES THAT BAN TALKING ON A CELL PHONE PERIOD WHILE DRIVING. ANN ARBOR IS ALWAYS SLOW TO MOVE ON LAWS THAT EXIST IN OTHER STATES. IT IS VERY DANGEROUS TO TALK ON CELL PHONES WHILE DRIVING. HOW MANY DEATHS HAVE TO OCCUR BEFORE OUR STATE "GETS IT"???
Dreama
Wed, Jun 30, 2010 : 11:54 a.m.
I am profoundly deaf and I have been texting for over 9 years. I have not gotten into a car accident while texting. Not even once. I know I am a good driver. I did drive all the way here from California while texting. No problem. I do not think it is fair to me that they ban texting while driving. I mean look at hearing people. They are using the cell phone to make the phone calls while driving. What's the difference? I want to be able to use texting so I could communicate my daughter's father. If the plan has changed or meet at somewhere else. I cannot just pull over everytime he replies. It would waste my time and gas for doing it. What if I want to let my friends know that I am coming over while driving and texting at same time? I can't make the phone calls.
Ricebrnr
Tue, Jun 29, 2010 : 9:16 a.m.
No you don't legislate stupidity away. What actually happens is you reduce the freedom of responsible people. In the end, stupid people will continue to be stupid and responsible people will be limited. Don't suppose you need some examples?
Rasputin
Tue, Jun 29, 2010 : 8:10 a.m.
Until you have been rear-ended by someone who was texting, you'll never understand. In addition, he was in denial when the cops showed up. It is a great law and yes, you legislate stupidity away.
Brad
Tue, Jun 29, 2010 : 7:57 a.m.
So you think there are a lot of other things (iPods, screaming kids, billboards, whatever) that are just as distracting? Great. Don't do those either then.
dading dont delete me bro
Tue, Jun 29, 2010 : 5:29 a.m.
i'm getting the shakes (withdrawl) just thinking about it...
Ed B
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 10:59 p.m.
Doesn't it seem odd that billboards promote awareness about this law? Don't billboards result in distracted driving? Why not ban them? Distracted driving is already an offense. Others have already listed the host of other activities irresponsible drivers engage in. Communities that have banned hands-on cell phone use have yet to see a reduction in accidents (see Psychology Today). Shouldn't society promote general responsibility and accountability instead of trying to legislate against every individual act of stupidity? Not paying attention while driving for whatever reason is ticketable...
Ed B
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 10:42 p.m.
It seems odd that there will be billboards used to communicate this new law. Doesn't reading billboards distract the driver? It certainly requires taking your eyes off the road. For that matter, changing the radio station, adjusting the heater/ventilation, putting on make-up, eating, checking on a child in the back seat, a loose pet,... Come on, people need to be responsible and cognizant of the tasks at hand. Isn't distracted driving already an offense? Have communities that have banned hands-on cell phone use seen a reduction in accidents? I have yet to see a study that indicates that but I have seen a study that shows no effect (see Psychology Today).
sbbuilder
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 7:26 p.m.
Some people are great at multitaskng, some aren't. Some people can safely manage multiple tasks (driving, talking on the phone, checking the map, talking to passengers etc.), while others can barely manage to use their turn signals while driving. Why lump every body in the same lowest common denominator group? Why don't we make a list of the worst factors to distracted driving, and if you are in an accident and found to be engaged in one of those activities, you get an extra fine, and your insurance goes up? That takes care of the people who shouldn't be doing anything else than driving, and leaves alone those who can do multiple things. Suppose you are an officer and you've just ended your shift. While on duty, you've been on the radio multiple times, perhaps engaged your siren and lights, checked stuff on the computer etc. Now you're on the way home, and you can't even text 'home in a few minutes'. Stupid. Really dumb. I don't even have texting on my phone. Can't stand it. I have it blocked. So, I'm gonna mess around with the rules a bit a pretend to be texting away while driving real slow in front of, well,...
Subroutine
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 5:59 p.m.
I agree with this law, as I find it annoying when people are texting while driving. Just as non-smokers agreed with the law to prohibit smoking in any public place. Just another law to give lawmakers something to do. The private sector could take care of both of these nuisances, but we today need our government to watch over us. Lame.
rreidannarbor
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 5:54 p.m.
Maybe someone in the 50 comments posted already mentioned this but what about someone using their ipod, connected to their accessory port (available on most newer cars) and rifling through their music catalog while driving. Its likely equally distracting especially on a tiny ipod nano screen. I think the intent of the law is great. I do think it will be hard to enforce. If they had this law in Arizona would the first question asked by the officer be "I noticed you were texting while driving. Can you please show me your proof of US citizenship".
Woman in Ypsilanti
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 4:50 p.m.
On a side note: Could you have picked a photo that was more creepy? Sheesh! When I first looked at the one in this article, it looked like the cop had the guy's head on a platter. I know it is a clipboard and the driver's head reflected in the rear view mirror. Was that an editorial choice to emphasize that the police is going to take an "off with their heads" approach to texting and driving?
Woman in Ypsilanti
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 4:47 p.m.
One good thing this law has going for it even if it is difficult to enforce is the message behind it that texting while driving is dangerous. I never would have even thought of it because I don't make a habit of texting. But some time ago there was a lot of media coverage of studies that showed that talking on the phone while driving was dangerous and that caused me to end that habit.
Soothslayer
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 2:30 p.m.
This is too specific and dangerous for cops because they have to be along side of you watching what you are doing (and not the road ahead) which is unsafe for them too. Anyway here are some ways to get out of this because its too specific. Honest officer I wasn't texting/e-mailing I was... 1) checking GPS directions on my web phone 2) finding a phone number of my long lost college roomate from my phone directory 3) answering one call and someone called so needed to look at the phone to see who it was (call screening) and then ignore it 4) changing my ring tone to "Tenderoni" 5) playing (name any of 300,000 iPod/iPhone apps) 6) picking a new music/video playlist on my iPod/iPhone This is a SILLY SILLY LAW. Looking away while driving is just plain unsafe alltogether. How bout just pass a stronger "Distracted Driver" law worth a $100 fine and A HALF POINT (because they are GOING to cause an accident and are behaving dangerously) if a driver appears distracted instead of having to be so darned specific about it. "Distracted Driving" would be much more enforceable for cops and they can use the existing car cameras (may need to add 2 cameras to catch side views) to record the motorists actions as they: weave, delay, drive erratically, look down frequently, appear to put on makeup, look for something in the back seat, fiddle with objects (coffee, cigarettes, newspaper, etc), go after kids in back seat, focusing on electronic device (ipod, iphone, cell phone, etc). I'm worred that the effect of this law will further ENDAGER cops and other motorists safety because to enforce this too specific law cops will need to observe what the other drivers activities are for far too long to ENSURE they are texting/emailing and not just dialing a number, etc. and even if they are pretty sure they are texting/emailing the motorist can still contest it because its so hard to prove. If the real goal is safety of everyone (cops included) why not require cell phone manufacturers to send a software update to all phones to simply black out certain features while the cell phone is in motion as most GPS now and can "know" when they are moving. Manufacurer responsibility (they are the ones making money on this) + a "Distracted Driving" law = Problem solved.
Ignatz
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 1:32 p.m.
@jgold47: You're driving skills aside, please get off the phone and don't contribute to to mayhem on the roads.
jgold47
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 1:23 p.m.
seems like a misguded law, with good intention but 0 enforcability. What if I am just holding my phone in my hand (a bad habit I know) and not texting or calling? My blackberry is probably more difficult to dial a # on then send a message. Reckless drivers, driving distracted for ANY reason should be the target, not specifically texting, etc... If I was a cop I would pull over everyone who is driving erratically, including: people on cell phones who cant talk and drive, people eating, shaving, doing the nasty, with young kids in the car, watching TV, listening to conservative radio, Asians on North Campus(yup I said it), and people from Ohio (not apologizing). BUT ONLY IF THEY ARE DRIVING POORLY AS A RESULT OF IT. I have been using a phone and driving since the mid 90's, and never had a ticket or an accident or anything even close with the 30K miles a year I drive.
Spencer Thomas
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 1:03 p.m.
Can we get a link to, or actual details of the law? As I recall, the proposed AA law banned use of the phone while stopped at a light, etc. You were supposed to pull over to the side and stop driving before texting. Is this true of the state law? Why are there no such details reported or linked?
AAite
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 12:53 p.m.
Does the law only apply in a moving vehicle? Can you text at a stop light?
John of Saline
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 12:31 p.m.
Future texting transcript: "Drvg to wk now. Ctch up w you ltr!" "Wt; cop flashing lts @ me.???" (10-minute delay) "OMG! Jst got a tckt! Wht a jerk!" "Drvg awy from jerk cop nw." (5-minute delay) "Guess that lght ws RED. Wting for jaws of life. Stll up for a cfee aftr wk?"
notinypsi
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 12:24 p.m.
Think it would be fitting for PO to text you a ticket.
Ricebrnr
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 11:36 a.m.
Where's the "it's a stupid unenforceable law option"? When are people going to learn that you can't legislate stupid away?
debling
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 11:20 a.m.
A step in the right direction. However, a total ban on cell phone use should follow. This would be easier to enforce and save more lives. Sadly however, Washtenaw county is not really serious about enforcing distracted driving laws and holding people accountable for their actions. When NICHOLAS WAHL of Clinton, MI (and current student of Grand Valley State University) killed cyclist Timothy Pincikowski on July 28, 2009 on Maple Road in Pittsfield Twp. (http://www.annarbor.com/news/motorist-sentenced-to-probation-in-bicyclists-death) all he received was a small fine a bit of probation. Oh, that will really teach the public to be careful.
Speechless
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 11:19 a.m.
As even NPR's 'Car Talk' guys have said over the years, if you're behind the wheel of a moving vehicle, just drive. Do nothing else. It's the very least you can do to help protect the well-being of everyone around you. While maneuvering in busy city traffic, I find that mere small talk with passengers causes an unwelcome diversion, since it then becomes harder to give the necessary full attention to traffic conditions — to remain aware of what's happening around all four sides of our moving vehicle. As it is, being a good urban driver requires constant mult-tasking, without doing anything else other than the act of driving. Barring a very rare emergency, it's insane enough when drivers talk into cell phones while driving on city streets, let alone when they tap out text messages. That we've allowed this to go on for so long indicates just how casually we accept dangerous, deeply narcissistic behavior. Relatively speaking, I'd feel safer on the roadway when surrounded by stoners rather than by active text messagers. Lighting up a not-medically-approved joint while staying at home is one example of a victimless crime. It's not a victimless situation when you plow into other vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, skateboarders or neighborhood kids while conversing via your cell about shopping lists or last night's game.
ChunkyPastaSauce
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 11:13 a.m.
The people who felt compelled to text while driving are just going to hold the phone lower in the car...... clearly not a good thing.
SonnyDog09
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 11:03 a.m.
Oprah says that we need this law to "save teh children." No one can counter such an argument. Accept it and move on.
Dorothy
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 10:21 a.m.
We moved here five years ago from a state that banned talking on cell phones while driving. As a driver you fell much safer, I think the ban should be total use of cell phones while driving.
friend12
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 10:18 a.m.
It will be almost impossible to enforce. It does give police an open ended excuse to pull anyone over. That is very dangerous, but, worth it to save even one life.
5c0++ H4d13y
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 10:14 a.m.
This is very easy to enforce. Here's how it works. Driver stops at a red light and starts texting. Light turns green, rather than putting the phone down the driver goes. Officer pulls person over and writes ticket. You just have to open your eyes and see what people are doing. It's not driving. Just last Friday while waiting to cross huron a driver was one his phone, picked up his shaver then proceeded on a green light with no hands on the wheel. Should we all toss our hands in the air an yell, "Unenforceable!" and allow the killers to continue? This might require the police to actual police work rather than camp out at speed traps and no turn on red money makers. But then their work may have a positive impact rather then just make money for the city or county. But in Washtenaw county the answer is yes considering bicyclists count for nothing in the eyes of the court. Bicyclists count less than a goose or a dog in Washtenaw. So tune your radio or illegally pass. It's all okay as long as a bicyclist gets killed.
SeaEagle
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 9:48 a.m.
An unenforceable law that will find its best use as a tool for police profiling. This law would be great if it would actually reduce distracted driving, but there's no practical way that the law itself will. Analogously, the government steadily increased the laws against drunken driving for decades, but there wasn't a marked decrease in drunk driving until it became socially unacceptable.
brian
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 9:44 a.m.
djm12652 - Well the paper trail won't always work because I could very well be typing a text message or email with my phone and see a cops lights and then just cancel the message before I send it. I don't see how this is going to work properly. I 100% agree that you should not text while driving, but i don't see how they can prove what I am doing. I use my phone as an ipod in the car. I also use it as a GPS and just to make calls. As I use a touch phone the motions I would make to do any of these things would look exactly the same to someone outside of my car. I personally believe that if you are going to ban texting you need to ban using phones at all in the car unless it is hands free. As someone else noted, is typing a 7 digit phone number safer than a few characters of text? It is the same thing so why not just ban everything.
JSA
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 9:41 a.m.
Ah, it appears I have been censored once again by identifying people with no concern for others and extremely limited intellectual capabilities with non profane but accurate identifiers because it might offend them. Here it is pure and simple, texting and cell phone use should be banned while operating a motor vehicle. A kill switch should be installed, if possible, to kill the engine of those who feel it is acceptable to kill and maim others. There will always be distractions but these are avoidable distractions and might help to reign in those who feel their business gives them the right to endanger others.
djm12652
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 9:33 a.m.
I'm always amazed at people saying it would be difficult to prove if someone was texting. If a driver were to fight the texting ticket, they better be prepared to produce their phone/data usage statement to prove they weren't texting. And as we all know [just ask Kwame] phone/data records are available...and as a long time driver, I don't get how anyone can text while driving as it is...oh yeah, I forgot, when I went to driver's ed in the 60's, we weren't taught to steer a heavy mass of metal with our knees...
Ignatz
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 9:06 a.m.
Wouldn't it be simple matter for the person under suspicion to show the officer that he/she was making a phone call rather than texting? Aren't these records kept on the phones themselves and can be easily shown? Actually, I'm not at all concerned if someone gets pulled over for "just" making a call. Until the our lawmakers decise to further protect us from the selfishness of others, that will have to do.
Marcus
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 9:04 a.m.
It's about time! I'm a motorcyclist and we need citizens in their vehicle to have full attention on the road. I see too many vehicles not driving correctly and it's because they are distracted on their cell phones. Motorcyclists already have it hard with vehicles not noticing us on the road. This just adds one more thing to be distracted. Thanks for the new law!
Marcus
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 9 a.m.
It's about time! I'm a motorcyclist and we need citizens in their vehicle to have full attention on the road. I see too many vehicles not driving correctly and it's because they are distracted on their cell phones. Motorcyclists already have it hard with vehicles not noticing us on the road. This just adds one more thing to be distracted. Thanks for the new law!
Rasputin
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 8:51 a.m.
Thank you thank you thank you! Finally, UM students will no longer be able to operate motor vehicles while texting.
Mick52
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 8:48 a.m.
I'm with justcarry on this one. Our legislature in in their infinite lack of wisdom has put a law on the books that will be impossible to enforce. How is a PO suppose to tell the difference in a driver texting or dialing a phone number? This could lead to officers pulling over a vehicle when no violation actually occurs. Are we going to get into verbal arguments with officers over what we were really doing with our phones? To defend yourself, you will likely have to know the exact time you were pulled over and take your phone bill to court with you to show the magistrate what you were doing at the time of the traffic stop. And you will be required to have the portion of the bill that shows your text messages log too. In order for this to make any sense at all, the law should have restricted use of a phone completely while driving. And perhaps toss in a few of those other distractions Slug brought up. It is any wonder why, with the current leadership in Mi, the state is the 48th most successful in the country? Oh well at least Jennifer got to get all touchy feely with Oprah.
cibachrome
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 8:42 a.m.
I would like to see cell phone using drivers surrounded by horn blowing cars so that the person on the other end of the line can tell their conversation is affecting others in a dangerous manner. Until enough cell phone blockers are available, the law is a joke. I'm pretty sure a lawsuit will be filed by a driver pulled over for texting when they were just dialing. It will probably be a UofM Law School graduate, eh?
Canuck
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 8:35 a.m.
@ slug, Just because there are many potential driving distractions does not mean society shouldnt attempt to reduce the risk to other (innocent) drivers, pedestrians, etc., by making the worst among them illegal. As per your list, many of these should also be considered to be putting others at serious risk when done in a MOVING vehicle and hopefully one day they will be made unlawful as well. @Tax Treeders, Nanny State might be an appropriate tag if the law was merely intended to protect people from themselves. Unfortunately, distracted drivers harm/kill others. In my view, individual freedoms end the moment an innocent bystander is put at risk because of another individuals ill-conceived or thoughtless behavior. Operating a 3,0005,000 pound piece of metal/plastic travelling at high speeds and just inches from countless others doing exactly the same thing in a complex muddle of roadways, signs, traffic lights, obstacles, pedestrians, bikers, etc., should be a serious business. One small misstep and someone can pay dearly.
Forever27
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 8:33 a.m.
For all the people crying Nanny-state about this. There wouldn't need to be a law if people would be responsible to begin with. There has been enough of a problem with this issue to necessitate a law. I'm all for personal liberty and not having the government in every facet of society, however sometimes it's needed, and this is one example of that.
bs
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 8:25 a.m.
tdw.. if you're using a modern browser, it probably has a spell checker built in....
evenyoubrutus
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 8:21 a.m.
Can someone explain to me how the officer is supposed to prove that someone was texting/reading a text? I agree that it is dangerous and people should not do it, but it sounds to me like this law gives officers the right to just write someone a ticket with no evidence whatsoever. If they catch someone speeding, they have a radar-gun that documents a person's speed. But how are you supposed to challenge a ticket for this in court? You simply say to the judge "I wasn't text-messaging, I swear!" and the judge lets you off? I doubt it.
tdw
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 8:18 a.m.
First, for those of you who think the police are over burdend its not like they will ignore seroius calls to write texting tickets.Second,most of the other distractions mentioned can be ticketed its just a matter of inforcement. Why can't A2.com add a spell check for people like me? I't can't be that hard
justcary
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 8:09 a.m.
We need laws, but this legislation is a fail: it lacks backbone. It completely ignores research (even TALKING, even HANDS FREE, is as dangerous as DUI), perhaps because legislators cannot imagine giving up their Blackberrys on the commute to Lansing. Dialing is ok, texting not? I could dial 890-123-4567 and be okay, but text "no" and be subject to a fine? We'll see if this makes Michigan roads any safer.
marzan
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 7:59 a.m.
I like how on one hand people say it's completely impossible to watch for police to watch for people who are texting and driving and on the other everyone says they see people do it all the time. My childhood baby sitter's husband was just killed two weeks ago by someone who was texting and driving. I am glad that there is a law against it. Scream nanny state all you want. Keep up the social pressure too. It's not acceptable to look at another screen to type something out while driving.
native girl
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 7:45 a.m.
Driving should be first priority while your vehicle is moving, especially when considering that we do 70 mph on the highway here in Michigan. I don't know about you but I wouldn't want a friend or family member to be hit by someone who was trying to catch up with their emails behind the wheel of the car. Texting, eating, putting on makeup and watching tv should be banned while driving. Yes, people have televisions in their car too. Where does it stop?
xmo
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 7:37 a.m.
With state budgets shortfalls, jobless rate at 15-20 plus % why do our elected officials waste their time on laws like this?
Jenn Cornell
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 7:26 a.m.
@slug, I hate to say it, but I agree 100% with kids in the backseat. I see parents turning around, staring in the rearview versus straight ahead and all other manner of silliness while driving with kids in the car. Distracted driving is just that... I'm not sure it's fair to say some distractions are worse. I think we just ignore calling out/ chastising/ regulating some of those distractions.
Forever27
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 7:16 a.m.
This is a great law. On friday while walking home from work i was almost hit in the crosswalk because a person ran a red light for the left turn while looking down at his phone.
Marshall Applewhite
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 7:15 a.m.
Viva Granholm! The woman has done such a great job as Gov., I'll support anything that she chooses to sign into law!
dading dont delete me bro
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 7:14 a.m.
@slug, don't forget: shaving (yes shaving, mostly men, but i've seen some women (ew)) newpaper reading. will i have to lock my cell in the trunk, back, or other unaccessible area of my vehicle? (i.e. like a handgun)
slug
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 7 a.m.
Silly Law and a waste of good resources. Texting is just one of many other and older issues of distraction that are experienced all the time around here, including: - makeup application (seen way too often!) - GPS (highly distracting for me) - book/newspaper reading (witnessed a lot on M14) - coffee & cig in the AM (esp. since you can't smoke anywhere else now) - sign language to passengers (seen more than once in town) - finding favorite songs on iPod/mp3 player - talking and gesticulating wildly to friends/family - child(ren) in back seat (the worst distraction thus far) - texting and cell phone use until we ban children as passengers, texting is just one of many evils.....
Tex Treeder
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 6:51 a.m.
Impossible to enforce and open to abuse by officers ticketing motorists. Remember how the seatbelt law was originally never supposed to be a primary offense that a driver could be pulled over for? That changed a couple of years ago and everyone applauded. Well, not everyone. Some of us still think the legislature pulled a fast one. It's easy to see how this new legislation will spread to talking on a cell phone, then hands-free talking. Nanny state, here we come.
dading dont delete me bro
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 6:48 a.m.
this is a good law, but aren't our officer's over burdened already?
bs
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 6:18 a.m.
In most cases, this will be difficult to enforce and will take an officer's time and energy that could be used to address more serious issues. Distracted driving is an problem, but it is not limited to cell phones (texting or talking), the list is endless, intelligence can't be legislated, those individuals whose judgement is so poor as to cause accidents will continue to do so, law or no law..
SalineFan
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 6:16 a.m.
I applaud the ban and want it to include talking. A distracted driver is a distracted driver. Text... just talking... my life is in your hands... get off the phone. I think hands free is okay.
Ignatz
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 5:39 a.m.
This is definitely a step in the right direction. I hope the legislature moves the other foot forward by making it illegal to talk on the phone while driving. It makes me wonder why they didn't do so already.
Stephenb1707
Mon, Jun 28, 2010 : 5:27 a.m.
I own a business in Europe. They have had the ban for over a decade. The difference is it includes talking on a cell without wireless. Text was added a few years ago. Now the fines can get up to $960.00(US) for multiples. I travel a lot and people slow down as soon as a get a text without thinking and cause havoc and most do not realize it. I applaud the law.