/usr/web/www.marshallindependent.com/wp-content/themes/coreV2/single.php
×

Distracted driving laws: score one for the human race

For every action there’s a reaction, which is something I’ve been told is true in physics and have noticed as a basic standard for major political issues.

Distracted driving has caught the attention of the general public, slowly but surely over about the past decade. In fact it’s getting a lot of attention in 2019, to the point that lawmakers in St. Paul are considering new legislation to restrict it.

In the 21st century life is very different from the 1950s, when people began to enjoy the open road, interstate highways, and roadside attractions. Back then it was a pleasure to be driving down a highway, as shown in songs like Bobby Troup’s “Get Your Kicks on Route 66.”

It was perfectly acceptable to smoke a cigarette while driving. Ash trays and cigarette lighters were standard features in most cars for many years.

Eating in the car was not a bad thing either. It made the automobile seem almost like a home away from home. There were parking booths at drive-in restaurants, but using them was an option rather than a mandate. Someone could just as easily decide to munch on a hamburger or navigate around a slowly melting ice cream cone and still keep an eye on what lies ahead.

Shaving, brushing teeth, combing hair and even reading a newspaper or road map while driving were never quite as acceptable, but nothing was ever done about it on a statewide basis. It was left to the motorist to decide. Ultimately it was left to a law enforcement officer to decide if necessary whether or not a driver was using appropriate judgment given the location and traffic level.

It was more likely to be OK on a quiet street or road, somewhere quiet enough for the chance of hitting another car or pedestrian to be minimal. It might easily have been different in a downtown urban one-way or a freeway during rush hour.

Now the standards have changed, and therefore the rules are likely to change.

It was clear last week when I noticed a motorist who somehow had a cigarette pursed to the lips, a cell phone propped to the ear with a shoulder and a hand on the wheel all at the same time. I’m not kidding. It happened right here in Marshall, and it wasn’t a movie scene at Marshall 6.

And no, the driver didn’t look like a teenager or college student. It was a reminder that mobile devices could influence how people in a wide age range function behind the wheel, how reaction time might be slowed when something unexpected presents itself.

The reaction that’s emerging is to update laws in ways that reflect changes in routine daily behavior. The mobile device holds high regard among most people in the 21st century. It’s acceptable to pay close attention to calls and texts even while participating in face to face situations.

Some of that was also true with the telephone. When a land line rang, people stopped what they were doing to answer it. An employee expected to multi-task answered it then as they answer now, even if a customer needed to wait a minute or so to check out.

Once mobile devices began to go everywhere, that decision to prioritize had to be made more often. It’s interesting that the first serious limitation for talking and texting is likely to result from how it’s coming into conflict with another society-changing type of technology.

The automobile has even more of a history of shaping daily routines. It’s just as firmly ingrained into how most people manage to get things done. If a choice has to be made, almost everyone will choose to put getting where they need to go physically ahead of immediately responding to an electronic message.

The need to choose appears likely to become the new standard. Something that often ranks high on a wouldn’t it be nice list is the idea that (wouldn’t it be nice) if we could just have laws people had to follow “unless they know what they’re doing.” Obviously that would never work. Almost everybody would automatically put themselves in the category of people who know what they’re doing.

With distracted driving, examples keep adding up that have shown how someone wasn’t careful enough. Those actions have produced a reaction.

It’s a good way to react. Instead of resorting to road rage, people who’ve been negatively impacted by a distracted driver have peacefully advocated for strict guidelines.

They’ll mean being able to enter a busy parking lot or commute to work through a dozen or more traffic lights with more assurance that other drivers are not glued to the wrong machine.

Over the long haul, that’s a way of putting our best foot forward.

Newsletter

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

COMMENTS

[vivafbcomment]

Starting at $4.38/week.

Subscribe Today