Deseret News | Texting while driving penalty could be akin to DUI

Reader comments
Texting while driving penalty could be akin to DUI

realm of Ridiculous. | 6:13 p.m. Feb. 6, 2009

What is the difference between eating a big mac and texting, or scrolling through contacts and texting, or paying attention to your dog or child? all of these activities require the driver to take his eyes off of the road and divert his attention to something other than driving. what about looking for a radio station or adjusting the air conditioning. there is a significant difference between texting and using alcohol. to make it a criminal offense is not appropriate. make it a non-criminal fine. make the fine $100 and increase it for a second offense. but don't criminalize a behavior that is not criminal and is indistinguishable from other similarly distracting activities.

Drunk Texter | 7:21 p.m. Feb. 6, 2009

WONDERFUL! It's about time they punish these clowns!
I can't believe any human being with a brain would text when driving anyway. Whats next? Online-gaming on cell phones while driving after we ban texting?
The only people more stupid than the laws broken are the law makers. They make laws that allow more stupidity in the future.

This is ridiculous | 7:32 p.m. Feb. 6, 2009

Mr. Ray's bill sounds the most reasonable - all the others are obviously written or conceived by old folks who don't understand the new technology.

We should take SMALL STEPS and then look closely at crash, injury and death data before making sweeping, wacky rules that are likely unenforceable and will make law enforcement a nightmare for the citizens they are supposed to "protect"

Comments continue below

Roobah | 2:19 a.m. Feb. 7, 2009

It's rather misleading to say this "Class A or B misdemeanor" bill or "class A or class 3 felony" is just like getting a DUI. When you are pulled over for a DUI, you go to jail... mandatory jail time is served. Mandatory court appearances and loss of driving privileges and possible loss of job. Multiple convictions result in extended prison time. To convict someone so severely for "texting" demonstrates a lack of awareness about "texting". SURE, someone who is careless enough to NOT pay attention and cause severe injury to another deserves to pay a penalty, perhaps even a criminal penalty -- like gross negligence -- but a high level misdemeanor (class A AND B cases go to DISTRICT COURT NOT justice court) is a high level criminal offense. Do we REALLY want to clog up our court systems with 100s or 1000s of "excessive texting while driving" cases? Why not just issue the 3 times you're a lifer at the Point of the Mountain? How about implementing THAT if you "want to teach a lesson". I think some legislators think they think, but fail to engage brain when figuring out how this will affect the typical Utahn

never texted | 4:58 a.m. Feb. 7, 2009

How will they know the difference between phone use and text use?

Why do we need a stimulant bill?

All these text fines could pay off the debt of California and Utah.

Inatention laws | 5:27 a.m. Feb. 7, 2009

There is already laws on the books prohibit inattentive driving. Eating a big mac, drinking your soda, eating your fries, doing your hair and make up, caring for children, reading a book or map, and cell phone use are all illegal. And they are all hasardous acts to yourself and other drivers, so don't think they are not criminal. Inattentive driving is irresponsible driving and not being in control of your vehicle. Cell phone use is the most prominent abuse of driving privilege and is the most hazardous. States have been ignoring inattentive driving for long enough and it is time to enforce the law and make it a criminal offense with very high fines, more than a DUI. Drivers complain about how others drive but don't want to participate in driving safety. Safety and responsibilty of driving on the road is every ones responsibilty. Multi tasking and driving is in every way a safety violation endangering more lives and vehicles. We should have legislation force the enforcement of drug use and driving and get some DUI convictions for drug users (prescription and illegal drugs), also a major hazard.

CaliforniaReader | 6:32 a.m. Feb. 7, 2009

The laws we have here are just as bad. I was almost hit crossing the street by a woman who was using her cell phone. What did we do before these things? We waited til we got home and made the call. I have one for work, but we are required NOT to use it during travel time. That's why there is CallWaiting. And with the tiny keys, how can most people see the road and the keyboard? I hope that someone does make a mistake and cause an accident just to prove to these people how dumb it is to drive and text/talk with the phone.

Kitchy | 7:36 a.m. Feb. 7, 2009

Now, when are we going to join other states and stop cell phone use while driving all together. Hill AFB does not allow cell phone use while driving and many states do not. I believe most people think they are more capable than they are and I've seen many close calls and even accidents due to cell phone use. That should be included in the bill in my opinion and I am old and I do know how to use current technology. So there! Ha!

Phoebe | 8:18 a.m. Feb. 7, 2009

Dear "This is ridiculous": They've already done the research. They already have the data. Even talking on a hands-free cell phone causes a driver to be as impaired as a drunk driver. This bill is way past due and will save lives.

Dear "Inatention laws" | 9:00 a.m. Feb. 7, 2009

Yeah, we have those laws - and they're great. They protect texting driving.

If you remember, just a few weeks ago, a texting driver got a 60-day sentence after he killed two men.

May I hope that all texting drivers are in your area, not mine.

utah rose | 9:24 a.m. Feb. 7, 2009

There are too many people texting and causing accidents the last few months. You can't stay attentive and text at the same time.

There are people who are being killed due to this, so I agree with making this a law as well as driving while using a cell. Either turn the thing off, or pull to the side of the road if you must do this.

Only problem is I don't believe we have enough people to enforce it. Perhaps if the insurance companies wouldn't pay for an accident if the driver was texting or talking on a cell, this would stop.

And stress this while driving with your kids or when they are taking drivers ed. If necessary, buy them a phone with no such abilities, only able to make calls and receive them in case of an emergency.

jd | 9:30 a.m. Feb. 7, 2009

People will always use their phones while driving, just like they eat and talk to passengers.

Teacher | 9:31 a.m. Feb. 7, 2009

I think this bill is a great idea! Now if we could get some of these people on capital hill to take up children texting and using their cell phones in school! Cell phones and texting distract these kids' "minds and hands" and seriously inhibit their ability to learn. Even the preoccupation of wanting to text when their cell phones are in their pockets is enough to inhibit the learning process.

I suggest we put cell phone scramblers in the schools!

U of U | 9:31 a.m. Feb. 7, 2009

Already provided the information on using a cell phone to talk and driving. Now add the further risk of looking down at your phone while you send and recieve messages and at a guess your going to reduce your reaction times and driving ability by a factor of 10.

Recently I witnessed a young woman run a red light and hit another car at Creek road and 20th east. She sent both of those people to the hospital, and she was texting. When the officers came she told them the light was green for her even though several of us stayed to tell the cops what we saw. She finally admitted she was texting while driving after we all gave our description of events to the cops.

People killed, people severely injured, University studies showing the dangers and the self absorbed texters want everyone to let them keep on doing it. It reminds me of when we were trying to get strict drunk driving laws passed. The bars and the people who drove drunk were all about taking it slowly, and doing more studies and stating that it was not really a problem.

DumbBlond Road Block | 9:32 a.m. Feb. 7, 2009

A texting fool almost run me and my family off the freeway last evening. These people need to be ticketed and STOPPED!!! I have noticed that it usually takes these women at least two lanes of the road to text a whacked message to their worthless boy friends.

Blaine Nay | 9:48 a.m. Feb. 7, 2009

At least one of these bills also prohibits the use of two-way radios wile driving and there is no exception for emergency services such as police or firemen! Far too much legislation involves far too little careful thought.

Threat to privacy | 9:55 a.m. Feb. 7, 2009

Sen. Hillyard's bill punishes those who pull over and text. The bill uses the term "on a highway" ... nothing about the vehicle being in motion.

Jim Olsen is rightly concerned, as this bill criminalizes those who pull over and text.

And if an officer pulls you over and sees your cell phone, that officer will ask to look at your cell phone and see when (and who) you've you've been sending text messages to recently. (You have the right to verbally refuse consent to this search.)

Existing Utah Code 41-6a-1715 already punishes distracted driving ... up to 90 days in jail and a $750 fine, plus restitution if someone's injured.

Thank you for another lost liberty, Utah legislators.

Ben | 9:59 a.m. Feb. 7, 2009

I think they should make it illegal to consume donuts in a car. Let law enforcement police themselves a little

TOO MUCH BIG BROTHER | 10:18 a.m. Feb. 7, 2009

Welcome to big government police states and giving overzealous cops another thing to arrest you for. Welcome to Big Brother. Class B Felony?! Are you kidding me? Name a single Utah death that has ever occurred because of texting. It hasnt happened, because if it had it would have made the headlines for months. Too many prohibitive laws. Legislature, you don't need new laws to justify your existence. Just fund education and balance the budget. That is a job that is plenty large for you to accomplish. Leave regular laws to cover inattentive driving. Shame on you Lyle and Phil, you're both bright enough to know better.

Utah Norton | 10:29 a.m. Feb. 7, 2009

It is not expected that everything we do should be banned or approved by the legislature. However it is common knowledge of the loss of ability to text/talk on cell phone and be a safe driver. I have nearly been run over by texters and cell phone users. I have a cell phone and it is never used by the driver when the car is in motion. When a car runs a red light, fails to go with a green light after a stop, or is crossing the lanes painted on the roadway you can almost rest assured "that person is on the phone or is attempting to use the phone".

@too much big brother | 10:42 a.m. Feb. 7, 2009

OK, you wanted to know who, here it is. James A. Furfaro, 38, of Logan, and Keith P. O'Dell, 50, of North Logan are the latest victims in THIS state. People are being killed everywhere by careless self absorbed people texting. Next time I recommend that you dont ask for information that is way to easy to provide.

crazy | 11:13 a.m. Feb. 7, 2009

Texting while driving KILLS!!!

Gordon | 11:31 a.m. Feb. 7, 2009

All this would be great except...did not the state lay off 42 troopers? There is not enough law enforcement officers to handle all this.

No One of Consequence | 11:51 a.m. Feb. 7, 2009

Of course this will work. Pass a law and instantly people change their behaviors....or not.

Speeding, running stop signs and stop lights, failure to yield, distracted driving; all are illegal already, but laws are only obeyed by those who are inclined to obey them. The real problem is selfishness.

So why not outlaw selfish, self-centered, boorish, foolish and stupid behaviors. Then the legislature can take a year off next year because they will have fixed everything.

@No one of consequence | 12:04 p.m. Feb. 7, 2009

Sorry, same arguements were made about the drunk driving laws.

Its not a panacea and it will take time but the drunk driving laws have reduced drunk driving fatalities and accidents by a substancial amount. The same applies here.

At first most of the people that text and drive wont change their behavours and will complain that it doesn't work. But as people become aware and more and more people are cited, and arrested, and lose their drivers license for this it will make an impact.

Admittedly, just as there are still some people that insist on drinking and driving there will be people that insist on texting and driving. but they will eventually become a small minority and the odds are that eventualy they will be caught and arrested.

Missing Part | 1:00 p.m. Feb. 7, 2009

While texting during driving is distracting it is fundamentally different from drunk driving in a way that has not been mentioned yet. Sending a text message might take 15 or 20 seconds. Yes this is a distraction and the driving probably impaired during this time. However, a drunk driver is dangerous for the entire time they are driving. This doesn't mean that people should be texting but it is a major difference between texting and dui and should be noted.

If you want to make texting a crime fine (the difficulties have been documented above) but don't try to say that it is the same as drunk driving.

jr | 1:36 p.m. Feb. 7, 2009

It has been proven that the train engineer in California was on his cell - a co-engineer had complained to officials of his usage - there was a nasty train wreck and people severly injured , dead because of his selfish act. We have had accidents with deaths based on cellular users - we survived before the cell phone, we can survive again

@Missing Part | 2:21 p.m. Feb. 7, 2009

Fact: Texting while driving kills(see above)
Fact: Texters do not send a single text, this includes while driving, but carry on entire conversations thru texts, before, during, and after the time they are on the road. See the news stories about the guy who killed the two listed above for an example. he continued to text even after the accident.
Fact: Most drunk drivers think they are fine and are unimpaired, just like texters.

The only difference between the two is that right now if a drunk kills someone he usually goes to prison for years, If a texter kills someone he does community service and maybe a week in the county lockup

Linus | 3:05 p.m. Feb. 7, 2009

It is the Constitutional duty of government to protect our lives, our liberty, and our property. My right to liberty does not preempt your right to life. The right to life comes first.

My wife and I were watching a youthful, female driver yesterday while we waited at a light. She was turning the corner while talking on her cell phone. I mentioned to my wife how amused the girl seemed to be. Suddenly she removed her only driving hand to do some enthusiastic "talking" with her free hand. There was NO hand on the steering wheel.

Our legislature is way behind the curve on legislation that responds to technology and those nuts who think the constitution protects every right they grant themselves. Because I want my life protected, I wish the legislature would pass laws enabling law enforcement officers to ticket and fine every driver they see doing ANYTHING distracting while they are operating a moving auto, such as: eating, applying make-up, programming a GPS units, talking on a cell phone, reading, studying maps, opening mail, getting dressed, grooming, admiring themselves in the mirror, tending babies, swatting flies, etc. etc.

Responsible vs Irresponsible | 4:41 p.m. Feb. 7, 2009

There will always be those who are responsible, who use good judgment, who think before they act, and who care about other people.

On the other hand, there will always be those who are irresponsible, who use poor judgment, who act without thinking, and who only care about themselves.

Laws protect the former from the latter. And laws protect the latter from themselves.

The former get what I'm saying. The latter don't. That's because there's something missing in the latter...something in the area of the brain.

It is too.... | 6:04 p.m. Feb. 7, 2009

bad that because of no common sense, laws has to be created.

xscribe | 6:49 p.m. Feb. 7, 2009

To the "Ridiculous" folks: The research is out there about the difference of talking on a phone and brain behavior, and eating or fiddling with a radio, which are bad enough. Just ask your local brain expert, so you can be enlightened. Why they are stopping at texting is the question that should be asked. The law should be no use of cell phones in a vehicle, period. Even talking hands free uses uses that same brain function, which is why no cell phones is the best route.

um... | 11:52 a.m. March 13, 2009

like it is really going to do anything...

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.