Deseret News | 91% of Utahns support texting law

Reader comments
91% of Utahns support texting law

Too Many Laws | 6:30 a.m. March 26, 2009

The problem with this law is that it is trying to legislate common sense and opens a can of worms for the police. How do they know if you are dialing a phone number (not illegal) or texting before they pull you over? I have seen people reading books and driving and doing all sorts of stupid things. We cannot legislate against every stupid thing people will do. We need to educate people as to the dangers and trust that they will be smarter when they understand the consequences.

Now that they have the law in place, I hope judges who convict for this make them watch 4 hours of shows like the Dr. Phil show on texting etc to drill it into their heads what kinds of risks they are taking.

Inconclusive | 6:55 a.m. March 26, 2009

I concur with the ban on texting while driving, although there should be an allowance for when one is stopped in traffic and can safely text. I'm not convinced that the oft-cited research from the U is accurate enough to dictate a complete ban on cell phone use while driving. Go ahead and dig into the studies and you'll see that there are several confounding variables that aren't addressed, as is typical in these types of studies. Too often the press culls the headlines they want from the study without reading it in detail and the public gets a slanted view of what the study results were. Not everyone can juggle, play the drums, or even walk and chew gum at the same time. I'm in favor of a test that determines whether or not one can talk on a cell phone and drive safely at the same time.

question | 7:21 a.m. March 26, 2009

Why don't we prosecute driving impaired by your cell phone to the same extent that we prosecute driving impaired by alcohol? Either way, you are choosing to endanger others. And there's arguably less excuse for texting while driving. Alcoholism has a physiological basis. What's the pressing need for texting while you drive?

Comments continue below

Dave | 7:41 a.m. March 26, 2009

I love how the article cites fatalities in a particular accident which was a result of texting. Implied is the concept that with this new law, we'll never have to worry about that again.

Yet go into the Trib and you'll see yet another accident (with injuries but happily no deaths) caused by a drunk driver. Which, as we know, has been illegal for quite some time, and still happens, all the time.

My point?? Distracted driving is already illegal. The guy who killed two people while texting was still able to be found guilty of vehicular homicide even without a texting law. Had a cop seen him swerving around beforehand, he'd have had cause to pull the guy over and ticket him.

So, tell me what this law changes?

Nothing. It's a feel-good law. It's redundant to laws already on the books. And it will be ignored by people who didn't care beforehand about driving safely and still don't. And people will still die.

But, hey, at least you get to feel like you did something. Even if you didn't.

Randall | 7:47 a.m. March 26, 2009

Of all the senses,
the common one,
is the most rare.

What are most laws if not legislating common sense?

If everyone in society were capable of using common sense we would probably have only 10% of the laws that are on the books.

bob | 7:47 a.m. March 26, 2009

91% of us use phones will driving, including texting or reading messages.

to bob | 7:58 a.m. March 26, 2009

Then 91% of you are choosing to drive impaired. The stigma for drunk driving may be worse, but the principle is pretty similar.

zoo mom | 7:59 a.m. March 26, 2009

The legislature should have gone 1 step further and made it illegal to be on a cell phone while driving. Talking on a cell phone still diverts some of your attention from the road, thus making you an impaired driver. Let the passenger be on the cell phone texting or talking. And if it's an emergency, take the chance of getting a ticket. Too many people think they can drive safely and talk at the same time (sorry moms and teens) but it's been proven that is not so.

I will | 8:06 a.m. March 26, 2009

TEXT NO MORE, FOREVER...NNNNNNNOOOOOOTTTTTTT!!!!!!!

cant hear ..must text | 8:11 a.m. March 26, 2009

im deaf.. i notice alot of hearing do alot of texting too... we deaf have to text, because cant hear the cell phone...

understand the new laws... must obey them to prevent any car accidents may hurt u or other drivers.. pls be responsable!!!

PULL OVER THE SIDE OR PARKING LOT AND READ AND TEXT!!!!

Re: Too many laws | 8:16 a.m. March 26, 2009

Making anyone watch that much Dr. Phil is banned by the US Constitution under cruel and unusual punishment.

Anonymous | 8:26 a.m. March 26, 2009

maybe we should ban listening to radio or talking to someone in the passenger seat. How about banning children in the back seat, what a distraction.

Spike | 8:36 a.m. March 26, 2009

What a bunch of complainers. If someone willingly takes their eyes off the road to text resulting in an accident they deserve to be held liable. We don't police ourselves so legislation is the result. Your whining about this law is as hollow as whining about having to wear seat belts, obey the speed limit, or anything else which promotes safety in vehicles. Save your silly anti-government garbage and use your brain.

Tech Freaks | 8:48 a.m. March 26, 2009

This "Now Generation") bunch of idiots with the "me first and I'm the most important person alive attitude" drive me nuts. Where has any part of sanity and manners(called up bringing) gone? Greed, greed, me, me, seems to have completely taken over.

there's | 8:54 a.m. March 26, 2009

just too many movie stars with out the money!!!Snap out of or the big director will end the show!!

floridian | 9:13 a.m. March 26, 2009

What I think is being missed by those who think the law does nothing is the following. Let's say there is a fatality resulting from a vehicle accident. As the law enforcement official(s) inspect the
vehicle(s) involved they find a cell phone that may have been in use at the time of the accident. They can then check the cell phone records (probable cause)and determine if texting was taking place. If it was then the appropriate prosecution could take place, no?

John Charity Spring | 9:14 a.m. March 26, 2009

@Too many laws and Tech Freaks
You both make good points. There is no question that this whole issue is a result of the public school system's failure to teach old fashioned values such as common sense and respect for others. Our school system has become obsessed with teaching the politically correct view that there is nothing wrong with immediate self-gratification, regardless of the consequences to self or others. There was a time in this Country when there would have been no question that this irresponsible dangerous behavior would not be tolerated. It is truly depressing that almost 10% of our society disagrees.

Lethal Weapons | 9:42 a.m. March 26, 2009

People's lives are at stake every time they share the road with an impaired or distracted driver. Whether it's DUI, cell phone use, kids screaming in the back seat, the result is the same: a driver navigating a potentially lethal weapon down the road without being in complete control of the vehicle.

Most people, fortunately, get away with it, without causing serious harm to people or property.

On the occassions where irresponsibility leads to a serious accident, we need laws that can be used to punish irresponsible drivers.

As for enforcing the no texting while driving law: a citation, isn't a guilty verdict. The alledged texter can certainly go to court with phone records in hand to prove that they were in fact NOT texting.

Anonymous | 9:52 a.m. March 26, 2009

I think this law should apply to law enforcement reading their lap top computers. I have seen many many times these guys get very distracted while looking at their laptops, and thats just as dangerous.

Another law? | 10:06 a.m. March 26, 2009

I agree that driving while texting is bad. But is a seperate law really necessary? Aren't there other charges already in existence that cover this sort of thing?

Highways only | 10:16 a.m. March 26, 2009

By the way, the ban applies only to highways. Here's the language of the bill:

"a person may not use a handheld wireless communication device for text messaging or electronic mail communication while operating a moving motor vehicle on a highway in this state."

re: Highways only | 10:34 a.m. March 26, 2009

lots of "highways" run straight through cities; in fact, just about every city in Utah has at least one highway running through it; if you check the maps you'll see that most of the main thoroughfares are highways; don't assume that just because you're driving in a city that the no-texting law doesn't still apply

merich39 | 10:37 a.m. March 26, 2009

I can remember a not so distant time when there were no cell phones. people lived their lives without ever once making a call or texting while driving. the legislature should completely ban the use of cell phones while operating a moving vehicle. if you have an emergency call to make, pull your car off the road and stop. someone asked how are these laws to be enforced and the answer is simple. every call and text message has a time stamp on it. if a driver is ticketed for using a cell phone while driving, that driver's cell phone usage records will substantiate the validity of that ticket. someone else commented they have seen drivers reading books, shaving, putting on makeup and other such dangerous driving distractions, and why aren't those activities outlawed. well, those activities should ALSO be illegal. but the fact they are not yet, doesn't invalidate the argument for outlawing the use of cells phones while driving. certainly, the use of cell phones while driving is much more prevalent than the other dangerous activities mentioned.

sally | 10:51 a.m. March 26, 2009

Although I see peopole texting,a lot..mainly young girls.. but, the ones that have almost run into me the most often are talking and trying to make a turn or changing lanes without really paying attention. I wish I had a device that could interrupt their transmission ...

Well, ya gotta remember...those guys have to control, control, control. They are inposing their values and thoughts on everyone, they're the lords and you are the serf, so if you don't like it..quit electing them...oh wait....you were told to vote for them..hhmmmm??? quit being sheep, the voting booth is private, ...for now.

re: bob | 11:20 a.m. March 26, 2009

"91% of us support the texting law."

"91% of us use phones will driving, including texting or reading messages."

Therefore, 91% of us know what we're doing is wrong, but don't care; cause it's all about me!

most Utahns | 11:38 a.m. March 26, 2009

can't even chew gum and then they come to the big city...road rage is the result of bad texting for sure!!we're heading for totalian stuff...but some of these small towns already have that in place...it's those places where one hears the sound of "dueling banjo"!!!

senescence | 11:39 a.m. March 26, 2009

I wonder what the average age is of those who want to outlaw cell phone use while driving? My 16 year old daughter can text one handed without looking at her phone. I can't, so I only text while at a stoplight...which just might happen to be on a highway.

91% support | 1:36 p.m. March 26, 2009

the new law and the other 9% are idiots.

re: senescence | 1:44 p.m. March 26, 2009

Is there actually an "average age" for using common sense?

re: sally | 1:45 p.m. March 26, 2009

91% of Utahn's agree that texting while driving should be outlawed; if you are one of the very few who have a problem with the law, maybe you should find another place to live where the citizens are more "tolerant" of texting drivers...

good luck!

Anonymous | 1:56 p.m. March 26, 2009

One of the biggest problems is everyone is going to do something stupid in the course of driving. So, you'd better be fully covered above $25,000. Somewhere between $300,000 and $500,000 and all the way down. If your agent is only selling you a fully covered policy for $25,000 down the books, you have an agent concerned more for their job than for your best interest and you had better get a new agent.
The other thing is you'd better wear seatbelts. Perhaps that's why the man was killed. I wish in every story where they talk about someone being killed, they'd state whether the person was wearing their seatbelt. Seatbelts save lives!

Talklater | 2:05 p.m. March 26, 2009

I certainly agree with the idea of total ban on the use of cell phone while driving.

On the hands, is there a law against kissing while driving.

Kissing,necking or sexual acts definitely cause distraction on the driver and interfers with his/her driving skills in a heavy and moderate traffic.

washcomom | 2:17 p.m. March 26, 2009

This law is a start, but reality is the fact where we really need to get off the phone and just drive.

Maybe they should outlaw drinking water, or soda, or eating while driving. How about talking with someone next to you? Listening to the radio? People need to just wisen up that driving a vehicle requires alot of responsibility, and we need to be attentive to all possible distractions and reactions on the road.

Common sense | 2:43 p.m. March 26, 2009

Will we need to install an automatic kill switch in autos which shuts down the engine if a cell phone is used inside? I hope not, but I've had too many idiots swerving at me in traffic trying to dial or talk or text. Citizens need to engage their common sense before more people are hurt and killed.

Make that 92%` | 2:46 p.m. March 26, 2009

I was getting on the freeway and just texted my support for this bill.

Mike K. | 3:02 p.m. March 26, 2009

To those that think that this is legislating common sense. Sadly the majority of laws are nothing more than legislatign common courtesy and common sense since some people are too self centered and too oblivious to do the right thing. This is nothing new and long after we're gone the legislature will still be creating laws due to peoples lack of concern for their fellow man.

Pretty much everyone knows that robbery, theft, vandalism, murder, etc are wrong and yet we still have laws regardsing those actions. The law sets specific punishments for the people that chose to ignore the rights of others and in this case it needs to be spelled out.

Jan | 3:21 p.m. March 26, 2009

I am so sick of people who can't put down their techy toys long enough to drive. They have to be on their stupid cell phones; they have to catch any and all texts; they have to eat; they have to read; Geez. Why not just drive. That's all you have to do. If you can't figure out that texting could maybe be a possible hazard while you're driving, then you are totally stupid!

Beep! | 6:13 p.m. March 26, 2009

C U N JL, K?

Jan its because | 10:53 p.m. March 26, 2009

it is so important that it can't wait.

Motorcycles | 1:17 a.m. March 27, 2009

So many laws for the automobile. How about we actually make laws regarding motorcycles? People don't even have to wear a helmet while riding on the freeway on a motorcycle! What's more dangerous...texting in a huge Utah automobile (suburban/tank) or riding 80 mph on the freeway on a motorcycle with no helmet? Shoot, I bet I could still text while motorcycling because this law probably doesn't cover that.

Utgopgrl | 12:39 p.m. April 21, 2009

Wouldn't it be amazing if government didn't have to mandate common sense?

Maybe these decisions should be left up to the people of the state, rather than to legislators.

What's next- no listening to the radio while you're driving because it's a 'distraction'? Or maybe 'no passengers with the ability to speak allowed in a vehicle while it's being driven'?

Hmmm....

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.