Published: Monday, June 11 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT
Meanwhile, in Utah, our legislators don't have the courage to write some
laws that would keep us all safer. They reluctantly restricted teenagers from
talking and texting, but not adults.Why?
No amount of persuasion or punishment will change this. An interesting article
in this Sundays New York Times explains the evolutionary need that social media
meets and the constant need we have for social connection. Technology got us
here (they text while driving because they can), and only technology will get us
out of this.
Re: "Final wake-up call?"Not even close!The
abject hypocrisy of legislators feigning indignance over teen texting, while
financing cynical political campaigns with blood money from the
"hospitality" industry would be laughable if it weren't so sad.This is merely another hustle to squeeze more campaign
"donations" -- "investments" would be a better word -- from the
cell phone industry.Politicians apparently believe they're not
paying their "fair" share.
Adults text and drive too, nearly as often as teenagers.We need to
do something about it and if stiff sentences are what it takes then I'm all
Good comments. I think pragmatist is right. Most likely it will require
technology to truly address the issue. Here in CA where texting and talking are
banned for everybody, I still see adults talking on cell phones while driving,
and know some who text while driving. Perhaps laws can reduce the number who
text/talk but it doesn't eliminate all activity.
Harsher sentences on texting and driving won't do a thing. A) Texting by
itself is NOT a crime. B) Texting while driving should fall into the category
of reckless driving, or manslaughter in this case. Making laws about
texting and driving is just another way to fill our jails with stupidity.
Disable cell phones in cars before we build prisons to hold texting teens and
adults. Lets think it through people,Because we all know that the
harshest sentence (death) dosn't stop people from committing murder. SO
why would this work. Harsher sentences are proven NOT to work.
Re: one old man Ogden, UT"Meanwhile, in Utah, our legislators
don't have the courage to write some laws that would keep us all
safer."We already have a distracted driver law in Utah that
isn't being enforced. Laws don't keep us safer unless they are
enforced and obeyed.
It is technologically possible to eliminate this threat to life without any laws
that require enforcement, without any costs to the taxpayer, and with near
perfect performance.Cell phones can be made fully or partially
inoperative in a moving environment by the manufacturer of the phone. Use of the cell phone while moving can be detected and registered by the
phone company equipment. If our government has the means of
protecting our citizens from danger and fails to do so, is this malfeasance if
government? Should the phone company and the government be held to
be complicit in the harm done by an “attractive nuisance”?
True, Rifleboy. The question is WHY are they not enforced? Lobbying influence?
Re: one old man Ogden, UT"True, Rifleboy. The question is WHY are they
not enforced?"The last time I checked the Utah State Legislature
doesn't issue traffic citations. There are a lot of laws that aren't
enforced as any illegal alien will testify. If the police weren't so busy
with the crimes they commit I'm sure they could zero in on the distracted
I'm curious. This editorial piece stated that "Utah is one of 39
states that bans texting and driving among ALL age groups [emphasis mine]."
But "@one old man" and others alluded this applies only to teenagers and
not adults.Is the editorial wrong on this point?
It appears that some people didn't even read the article. Taken directly
from the article, "Utah is one of 39 states that bans texting and driving
among all age groups."Also, it's impossible to legislate
stupidity. I see cops on their cell phones and actually typing on their
computers while driving all the time. You can make all the laws you
wish but they will do nothing to stop people from their own stupidity.Stop trying to take away my freedoms and liberties in the name of safety. I
think someone really smart said something similar to that a long time ago. ;)
15 years? That seems to be a longer suspension than is handed out to drunk
drivers who are found guilty of manslaughter. Maybe I'm wrong (perhaps
someone Knows of DUI cases with a harsher sentence) but it seems a little
backwards to issue a 15 year suspension to a tester but only make a drunk driver
install a breathalyzer. Why not force the man to use a phone that deactivates
Put your phone out of reach while you are driving, therefore taking away the
temptation. No phone call or text is so important that it can't wait. If
you need to use your phone, find a safe place to stop. In the old
days, (the 1980's) when we were away from home, we were unavailable.
Somehow, we survived not being constantly connected via phones or computers.
While I don't advocate going back to those days, I do wish we would spend
more time living in the moment, visiting with those actually in the room (or
car) with us, and less time checking for updates on our phones.I'm
afraid we are missing out on a lot.
How can technology prevent the driver from using his cell phone but still allow
passengers to use their phones? That would be the best solution if we could find
a way. Concerning punishment for distracted driving, jail time isn't the
best answer. But, perhaps denial of driving privileges for several years might
help people get the message.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments