My first reaction to hearing there was a bill in the Wisconsin state Legislature seeking to ban text messaging while driving was this: ROTFLMAO! OK, not really, but let's look at the proposed bill seriously for a second.
The bill is authored by state Sen. Alan Lasee, R-De Pere - who is the I-wear-a-cowboy-hat-in-my-photo"" Lasee, not Frank the ""I-believe-black-kids-are-having-sex-in-high-school-hallways"" Lasee, aka ""I-want-to-cut-all-funding-to-the-UW-Law-School"" and ""I-want-to-give-teachers-guns"" Lasee. Sorry, back to being serious.
Many states, including New York, Connecticut and New Jersey, have already placed restrictions on cell phone use while driving and, in May 2007, Washington was the first state to specifically ban texting. Since texting is more prevalent among teenagers, an August 2006 Teens Today survey asked young people what specifically distracts them while driving. Unsurprisingly, 37 percent said texting was extremely or very distracting.
""It does not take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion that text messaging is one of the most dangerous things that one can do while driving,"" Lasee said in a press release.
I'm not sure what those other 63 percent of teenagers were thinking, but Lasee is right - texting and driving is borderline impossible. I've done it before and now
I avoid it because it is so hard to concentrate on the road. Since young drivers are already at risk, and most of the texters out there are young, this bill makes sense... at least in theory.
The problem comes in enforcement. If a police officer drives next to a person using a cell phone and pulls them over for texting, how can that officer prove the driver was actually texting? What if instead the driver was searching through his or her phonebook to make a phone call? Although it's still distracting, it is not texting, and the officer should not be able to issue a ticket without sufficient evidence.
We must also consider the hefty fine, which is up to $400 for a first-time offender. Even though the maximum fine would rarely be assessed, if I received a ticket for the aforementioned scenario, I would go to court and fight because, guess what, I'm not paying $400 for searching my phonebook, which is entirely legal. This could potentially clog up the court system with superfluous cases.
Furthermore, there is already an inattentive driving law on the books that says a driver ""may not be so engaged or occupied to interfere with the safe driving of the vehicle,"" which also carries a maximum fine of $400. It seems redundant to pass a law to address texting when a current law could already be used to punish offenders.
This does not mean the bill isn't worthy of consideration, it only means we must look at it more realistically. Texting while driving is potentially a big problem, as shown by the tragic deaths of five girls in New York this summer caused by a driver who was texting. By passing this bill, or amending the current law to reflect text messaging, the legislature would send a clear message to Wisconsin drivers: Don't text and drive.
Even if the law is impractical to enforce, the possibility of excessive punishment should be enough to prevent most drivers from texting. In rare cases where a driver is clearly texting and it affects their driving, then police can issue a ticket, but they must avoid ambiguously enforcing the law.
As Lasee points out, almost 2,600 deaths per year are attributed to cell phone use, according to a Harvard study.
Ultimately, drivers must take it upon themselves to change their habits, but sometimes states have to push them along.
Next on the agenda: A bill prohibiting Wisconsin drivers from wearing funny hats (including cowboy hats) while on the road. You know what I'd do if I ever saw Lasee in that hat while driving? ROTFLMAO!
Erik Opsal is a senior majoring in journalism and political science. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com
