- Distracted Driving
|
|
NMA Position On Distracted Driving
Every state, to our knowledge has some form of law that addresses inattentive driving. The cause of the inattentiveness is largely irrelevant.
It doesn't matter that the driver is distracted by a conversation with another vehicle passenger, tuning the radio, eating a snack, or talking on a cell phone. If the level of distraction reaches a point that the driver is no longer safely and responsibly driving his or her car they are guilty of inattentive driving, and other violations that may result from their inattentiveness. Inattentive driving, in all its forms, can best be addressed through educational forums and to a limited degree, enforcement activities.
Ultimately, it has to be recognized that most people do not want to be involved in a traffic accident. If they are sufficiently and frequently forewarned that "inattentiveness" is the leading cause of all traffic accidents, the message may well take hold. Reinvesting public resources, that are now invested in "speed kills" campaigns and related enforcement excesses, into educational and public relations efforts focussed on inattentive driving would be a far more productive use of these funds.
Pre-emptive laws that make otherwise innocent harmless acts illegal are pervasive and endemic in the United States. The girth and range of pre-emptive state and federal statutes are so extensive that it is literally impossible for the average citizen to function from day to day without violating multiple laws and regulations. This is particularly true for those persons driving motor vehicles on public roads.
Most of these pre-emptive laws are put in place for one of two reasons. The first is the belief that by making the innocent and harmless act illegal it will eliminate the possibility that this act will lead to another, actually harmful act. For example, the carrying of a concealed firearm actually harms no one. However, most states and local jurisdictions prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms under the theory that preventing the possession eliminates the possibility that the firearm would be used to cause harm.
The second reason, and the underlying reason for making the harmless use of cell phones illegal by vehicle operators, is ease of enforcement. A blanket prohibition of cell phone use by vehicle drivers is far easier to enforce than are inattentive driving laws. This eliminates the need for exercising thoughtful discretion and reasoned judgment. The issue appears black and white. That the cell phone user was causing no harm and endangering no one does not have to enter the decision making process. The NMA opposes this type of politically expedient enforcement practice. Innocent, harmless behavior, in and of itself, should not be illegal.