I've written an editorial that suggests texting is killing our kids and that parents should be able to block texting in cars for minors. The rationale is young drivers are more easily distracted than those with more experience. According to the AAA, 46% of those who drive are distracted by text messaging. Since 80% of crashes are caused by distracted drivers, texting is quickly becoming as much of a killer for teens as drunk driving. Almost 100 teenagers have been killed in the New York Metro area alone over the past 5 years in accidents that involved texting while driving.
And, this situation is getting worse. In just two years texting went from an average of 65 text messages a month to over 357. Teenagers account for the biggest increase. Those 13-17 went from 231 per month in 2006 to 1,742 a month in late 2008. 18-24 year olds were the next highest texting population - from 265 - 790 over the same period.
My solution? Allow parents to jam texting in their childrens' cars while the cars are running and have as heavy a fine for texting while driving as you would for drunk driving for youth. Insurance agencies have higher rates for folks under 25 because of the propensity for an accident. Perhaps that should be the cutoff. My question to you is -- what do you think?
1. Is this a good idea in general?
2. Should there be an age specific timeline for fining?
3. Given that the group coming into climbing behind the wheel over the next few years (13-17 year olds in the study) text over 1700 times a month on average this is going to be quite a problem. What other options would you recommend to address the rising number of text related accidents?
And, this situation is getting worse. In just two years texting went from an average of 65 text messages a month to over 357. Teenagers account for the biggest increase. Those 13-17 went from 231 per month in 2006 to 1,742 a month in late 2008. 18-24 year olds were the next highest texting population - from 265 - 790 over the same period.
My solution? Allow parents to jam texting in their childrens' cars while the cars are running and have as heavy a fine for texting while driving as you would for drunk driving for youth. Insurance agencies have higher rates for folks under 25 because of the propensity for an accident. Perhaps that should be the cutoff. My question to you is -- what do you think?
1. Is this a good idea in general?
2. Should there be an age specific timeline for fining?
3. Given that the group coming into climbing behind the wheel over the next few years (13-17 year olds in the study) text over 1700 times a month on average this is going to be quite a problem. What other options would you recommend to address the rising number of text related accidents?
Texting while driving is dangerous for anyone but especially for people who lack driving experience. There should be fines for anyone texting while driving.
I agree with Gary.... texting while driving is dangerous at any age and should be against the law. The term I have heard for those who cannot resist texting while driving is "intexticated". Appropriate, eh?
I agree that texting is dangerous while driving.
This web site had an article in May about textng and teens driving: "http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20090505/teens-all-thumbs-when-texting-and-driving">Teens all thumbs when texting and driving. Seems that the teens did not do so well when they were not distracted and, of course, made more errors when texting.
The other thing I saw yesterday was a young driver with a handheld video game -- and yes, he was playing while he was driving across the Tarentum bridge.
In my opinion, driving is a "visual" task and non‐driving activities that draw the driver’s eyes away from the roadway, such as texting and phone dialing, should always be avoided.
Texting should be banned in moving vehicles for all drivers. Texting while driving has the potential to create a crash epidemic if texting‐type tasks continue to grow in popularity as the generation of frequent text message senders reach driving age in large numbers.
The primary risk associated with phone use in general is answering, dialing, and the texting tasks that require your eyes to be off the road.
In my opinion, all cell phone use should be banned for newly licensed teen drivers.
I think teens tend to engage in cell phone tasks much more frequently, and in much more risky situations, than adults. To me, this seems to indicate that teens are more likely to get into a related crash or near crash event than their adult counterparts.
Yes, texting while driving is dangerous, and yes teens are much more guilty of it than adults. However, the solutions some have suggested I find worrisome. First, 'jamming' texting while in the car would also 'jam' other communications, and I'm not sure that is a good idea. There are many valid and safe uses of cell phones in cars (with hands-off and voice-activated systems, and for you GM owners, possibly your On-star system) that would no longer be available for teens (actually for all drivers and passengers since I doubt a jamming system could be built that could recognize when a teen was in the driver seat and nowhere else in the car). Wouldn't that be a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water?
If it can't (or shouldn't) be stopped electronically, that leaves the option of banning texting, which in reality means creating sufficient disincentives (read punishment, either legal or personal) to discourage the activity. Disincentives are fine, but some of the suggestions again are worrisome. For example, the penalties in PA for drunk driving right now call for jail time at either the second or third offense. I'm not sure we should go that far for texting while driving. Consider, in drunk driving situations the driver is continually impaired during the entire driving experience. As bad as texting is, it is at least a short term event, not a continuous (well for most I assume it's not continuous) event. And, yes, I know the current assessment is that the two actions are equally dangerous while occurring, but in terms of total risk to the driving public, I don't think they compare. So, I'm not sure I see jail time as an appropriate disincentive.
Finally, banning cell phones for newly licensed drivers I assume means banning for all time, not just while in a car. As a parent of three recent teens, I can say I greatly appreciated being able to contact my kids via cell phone on many occasions when they were out and about. I would hesitate to eliminate that convenience for parents of teens now, particularly during that vunerable time when they first start driving.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that I am in favor of disincentives, by family or legally (personally I prefer the ones implemented at home), but I think they require more consideration than some of the ideas proposed here.
I would agree that texting is dangerous for most people when driving. That doesn't mean I don't partake, but I can see it's apparent dangers. As for fines, I don't know how effective this would really be and how it could be proven unless the police were to cite the time that they were pulled over, and check with the phone company. In this case, it may become a more costly expenditure and potentially not possible.
As far as a jammer in the car, I suppose that would make it impossible for anyone to text while in the car. If I'm not driving, I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to text in the car. Also, unless they come out with some new technology that allows text only to be blocked and not all cellular transmissions, this could create more of a problem. Many people are given cell phones by their parents, or invest in one themselves just because of safety issues and needed to have a way to communicate with someone in case of an emergency. To take that possibility away would be simply foolish.
I think awareness is the key. I know many people who can carry on a conversation, read a book, text someone, and watch television at the same time and absorb it all (exaggerating of course, but some are incredibly gifted at multi-tasking.) For most people, it is just the distraction of the conversation that causes them to be unsafe, not actually looking at the phone. I know many people who can text without looking, but it may still be distracting because their mind is somewhere else.
We many times complain about more government interference in our personal lives and I don't think this is the key. Wreckless driving is wreckless driving and should be punished. But pulling someone over who is driving perfectly fine because you think they maybe just might have a cell phone in their hand seems like an exercise in futility.
Great comments. Thanks for responding. Wish I had done this before I wrote the piece. Intexicated...now that is great. Ron, I think the technology is such that it is just texting on phones, but I'm not sure so that would have to be figured out. Ben got me thinking about seatbelts. A campaign to wear them appears to be paying off. However, the question with cell phones is whether the addictive behavior associated with them would make an awareness campaign ineffective. Right now, they are finding that even in states where it is illegal, folks are still getting on their phones to text. After all, they are intexicated (love that one Deb).