Talk:Texting while driving

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Krystal.albritton.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 May 2019 and 24 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sheeba94.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sy2520, Oliviamorton. Peer reviewers: Tsoppe.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

I am anonymously disputing the NPV (Neutral Point of View) of this article. Specifically, making a wiki about TEXT messaging specifically of all the possible distracting activities begs the question and reflects the mainstream media's bias against new technology. Are cell phones any MORE or LESS distracting than say, eating, yelling at a child, or adjusting the radio? Until such research is cited, factoring ALL typical distracting behaviors while driving, the NPV status of this article is in dispute.

An analogy: Having an article for "Texting while driving" makes as much logical sense as having an article specially for "Sex while driving."

A possible cause is the wiki itself was created by: User:Sebwite. A look at his personal site shows he may have created this site as a way to advertise his web design services to businesses who would profit from paying someone to make such a wiki.

Feedback appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.236.117 (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear anon. Unfortunately, it's a rather poor analogy. People learn to drive. People learn to have sex. It's pretty obvious that (for most people) these two activities are best enjoyed in separate situations. They are not really compatible behaviours. People have been driving for generations, and have been having sex for perhaps a little longer. But mobile phones are new, and are designed to be mobile. They offer novel opportunities for mixing communication with moving around. And moving around involves driving. But the danger of mixing the two is not obvious. Especially for new drivers. Texting, because it involves reading and writing, is just much more distracting than simply conversing. In any case there are plenty of comparative distractor studies if you care to look. Although, admittedly, none that I know of that have used having sex as a comparison. But the field is still wide open, buddy ... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Anon: Regardless of whether the focus on texting while driving is 'fair' or not, texting while driving (vs distracted driving in general) is the subject of a large number of laws in various states and countries, is a focus of groups and organizations that work for road safety, is the focus of a number of research studies, and is a focus of law enforcement and insurance companies. Whether or not you personally believe it deserves to be singled out as a particularly dangerous activity, many people and groups across the world have identified it as such. This specific topic is the subject of a very large number of specific laws in a very large number of jurisdictions. That is all we need for notability and all that is needed to justify this article.

If you'd really like to address this issue, the solution would be to do some research, find some sources, and create a section of the article about "texting while driving in the context of distracted driving" or "critics' view of texting while driving laws" or that type of thing. Bhugh (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There are few suggestions in this particular section of this article that I would like to propose. The author states, "Technology definitely contributes to safe, undistracted driving." The author uses several software programs that are available that control the ability to text and drive, but there is no supporting evidence or research that these programs make operating phones while driving safe, and the author is stating that you can use a cell phone safely. This is technically a criticism of "texting and driving bans", but the information is not presented in a clear, organized way. The next question is, "what defines a safe or good reason for texting while driving?". The reasons and justifications are based on the perspective of those who feel the need to the text. There is no supporting evidence or definitions of "safe texting". Furthermore, the author briefly mentions the topic of receiving messages, but I would add that another criticism of the bans against texting and driving would be the fact that one can receive a text message without their permission- does the act of reading the text message, or the fact that the notification sound of a text message can also be a distraction, make the driver at fault or one who has broken the law?Trovb5 (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You have some good points, Trovb5. But drivers who wish to have as few distractions as possible will learn to prevent the possibility of such, e.g. by locking phones away or at least turning them off. But you are right, there is currently a gray area about receiving text messages as opposed to sending them. Certainly in the legal sense. I think it has been assumed for this article that "texting" means "reading and sending texts in a text conversation"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is badly out of date. For example, the fine is now $10,000.00 in Alaska for texting while driving. Laws have been changing rapidly. In New York State, for example, from -- NEW YORK STATE'S MOBILE PHONE and PORTABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICE LAWS

New York prohibits all drivers from using portable electronic devices.

Illegal activity includes holding a portable electronic device and:

   Talking on a handheld mobile telephone
   Composing, sending, reading, accessing, browsing, transmitting, saving, or retrieving electronic data such as e-mail, text messages, or webpages
   Viewing, taking, or transmitting images
   Playing games

The law defines the following terms as:

(a) "Portable electronic device" shall mean any hand-held mobile telephone, as defined by subdivision one of section twelve hundred twenty-five-c of this article, personal digital assistant (PDA), handheld device with mobile data access, laptop computer, pager, broadband personal communication device, two-way messaging device, electronic game, or portable computing device.

(b) "Using" shall mean holding a portable electronic device while viewing, taking or transmitting images, playing games, or composing, sending, reading, viewing, accessing, browsing, transmitting, saving or retrieving e-mail, text messages, or other electronic data.

Exceptions to the Laws

   When the driver uses a hands-free mobile telephone, which allows the user to communicate without the use of either hand.
   Using a handheld electronic device that is affixed to a vehicle surface.
   Using a GPS device that is attached to the vehicle.
   When the purpose of the phone call is to communicate an emergency to a police or fire department, a hospital or physician's office, or an ambulance corps.
   When operating an authorized emergency vehicle in the performance of official duties.

Violation Penalties and Fines — The penalty for a violation of this law shall be 5 driver violation points and a fine, as described below. This is a primary law, which means an officer may stop you if you are observed using a hand held device. It is illegal for drivers to use handheld electronic devices while their vehicle is in motion.

   For offenses committed between October 5, 2011 and May 31, 2013, the violation carried three driver violation points.
   For offenses committed on or after June 1, 2013, this violation carries five driver violation points.

On July 1, 2013, the following changes to the cell phone/texting laws for drivers with a probationary license, Class DJ, Class MJ or a learner permit took effect:

   Conviction will result in a mandatory 60-day driver license or permit suspension.
   A second such conviction within six months will result in:

       a revocation of at least 6 months of a probationary license, or
       a revocation of at least 60 days for a Class DJ or MJ driver license or learner permit.

Effective, July 26, 2013 fines for mobile phone/portable electronic device use while driving increased.

   For a first offense, $50 to $150.
   For a second offense committed within 18 months, $50 to $200.
   For a third or subsequent offense committed within 18 months, $50 to $400.

The surcharge for these violations that occur on or after July 26th is up to $93.

For texting and cell phone violations that occurred before July 26, 2013, the fines were:

Cell phone violation - Up to $100 Texting violation - Up to $100

The surcharge for these violations that occurred before July 26th was up to $85.

On October 28, 2013 the following changes to the mobile phone/portable electronic device use law for Commercial Drivers (CDL) take effect:

   A motor carrier must not allow or require their drivers to use mobile phones/portable electronic devices while driving.
   A mobile telephone used by a person operating a commercial motor vehicle shall not be deemed a "hands-free mobile telephone" when the driver dials or answers the mobile telephone by pressing more than a single button.
   Commercial drivers are prohibited from making a phone call or using a portable electronic device while the vehicle is temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic control device, or other momentary delays.
   An operator of a commercial motor vehicle who holds a mobile telephone to, or in the immediate proximity of, his or her ear while the vehicle is temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic control device, or other momentary delays is also presumed to be engaged in a call.
   An operator of a commercial motor vehicle who holds a portable electronic device in a conspicuous manner while such vehicle is temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic control device, or other momentary delays is presumed to be using the device.

-- Laws have been rapidly changing in other states as well. Editors should be more vigilant with this article. dkliman (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are aware of where laws have changed, please update the article accordingly. This is hardly a deliberate "POV" issue. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Sweden

This is the news today from Sweden - 22nd December 2012 - http://www.svt.se/nyheter/sverige/inget-forbud-mot-sms-under-bilkorning - Here they have decided that everyone in the world is wrong and its okay to text and drive. You will have to use Google Translate to understand it if you do not understand Swedish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.252.132 (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Review

The article briefly discusses remedies, i.e. bluetooths, to address the problem of texting and driving but what programs are out there to educate the public, in particular teens about the safety of texting and driving. Was there any research done, in particular areas where the "notible crashes" were to see if the city/town/county implemented any education programs? The article does not mention that police officers have computers in their vehicle. Are they exculed from the law. Hope these suggestions help. Suzanne10 (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

North Dakota law went in effect today.

http://www.valleynewslive.com/story/15183750/nd-ban-on-texting-while-driving-takes-effect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Copy paste

The thing that made me say that is the [#] w/o links throughout the article:Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM} 04:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ohio bans texting

In the state of Ohio, a new law came into effect on August 31, 2012 which bans texting while driving. While the main article does mention this, it only refers to a news article as the citation when the Ohio BMV website seems to be a better sitation. The map in the main Wikipedia article indicates that Ohio has no texting laws at all (the state has no coloration). http://bmv.ohio.gov/texting_ban.stm -- 64.18.43.44 (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit to opening paragraph

Removed citation to Allstar study involving 10 participants, because it lacked statistical significance. Also removed reference to increasing risk of accident by 23x, since that is a misrepresentation of the findings of the remaining citation. I don't know if my wording of the sentence sounds quite right, and could be done better by someone else, however making a mountain out of a mole hill is not keeping with a neutral pov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonivy (talk • contribs) 19:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

POV Dispute

I've added a tag because of the non-neutral point of view of the article. It seems to need some heavy editing, verification of sources, and rewriting. Is there such a thing as an expert in "texting while driving" that could edit this page? If not, it may be appropriate, given the very specific nature of the topic, to mark the article for deletion. Jon Ivy (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I've never made a comment on a Wikipedia article before. I was looking for encyclopedia-type information on texting while driving and the risks of accident. This seemed more like a high school civics paper defending the practice of texting while driving, which is great for people learning how to make pro-con arguments, but not so helpful for a researcher. Steve Froikin. June 22, 2017.

Color-coded Map of United States contradicts information in the 'Existing Laws' section below it

The map appears to be out of date--or at least it contradicts information in the 'Existing Laws' section below it. A specific example is the state of Alabama. The 'Existing Laws' section states that texting is banned for all drivers, but the state is colored yellow on the map, indicating that only novice drivers are banned from texting. Image should probably be updated or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.185.18.72 (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

map updates

Yeah, the map is out of date. Also, I would consider making a separate color code for states where texting and driving is just a secondary offense. So, for example, states where is is a primary offense are red, states with it as secondary are orange. I tried editing it myself, but I couldn't figure it out. 2602:306:CC4D:8B0:D821:9BCF:BC2:3729 (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion?

Since this article has been marked for the non-neutral point of view of the article, needs heavy editing, verification of sources, and rewriting which I have been trying to work on, but I'm no "texting while driving" expert and I think it would take a lot of work to edit it to have a neutral point of view, heavy editing,verification of sources, and rewriting I think it should be deleted, so it can be completely rewritten from scratch. What do you guy and girls think? Kaos28 (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No. Ok, it may need more sources. But could you show us a single example of where you believe it to be "non-neutral"? People get killed because they text while driving. Most of them are young drivers. Those are two unpalatable, but perfectly verifiable, facts. How can you make those facts "more neutral"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it needs more sources and I'm not the only one who thinks it need to be more neutral, someone anonymously stated that they were disputing the NPV (Neutral Point of View) of this article and user Jonivy tagged it for not having a non-neutral point of view and the other problems make it proposed for deletion. Kaos28 (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

...so, just one single example? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Example of what? Kaos28 (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

... of where you believe it to be "non-neutral"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe the entire research section is "non-neutral" Kaos28 (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Why? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of any reply, I have deleted the PROD template, which is for non-controversial deletions only. If you still feel it's a valid proposal, please raise WP:AfD here. However, in the absence of any explanation of where the supposed "non-neutrality" lies, the POV template should also be removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't the first one to say it was non-neutrality nor did I add the POV template, but since there is no conscientious on deleting it I will try my best to improve this article. Kaos28 (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

There certainly is no consensus. And your intention to improve the article is much appreciated. It would still be useful if those who think there is a "POV" or "non-neutrality" here, could clearly indicate where they believe it is. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I want to make this article better and I wasn't trying to cause any issues and I guess when I said there was "non-neutrality" I was going with what other said, but now looking over the article as I try to improve it I see no neutrality issues.Kaos28 (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Texting bans in the United States section

I have removed the section called "Texting bans in the United States" section as it did not provide any references, but feel free to re-add if you can provide references to what is posted and that it could also instead of being it's own section be added somehow to section 2.8 United States under the Laws by location section Kaos28 (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like somebody to please change the map so that New Mexico shows hand-held device ban for all drivers. Here's proof that it exists, http://m.koat.com/news/statewide-texting-ban-begins-tuesday/26742624. It specifically says "texting and talking" is banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.149.146 (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Automatic sending

Another thing I want to raise in the article, is in which USA states where the act of sending the message is prohibited, rather than triggering the message sending. For example, if you set up, while at home, a SMS message to be sent after a delay of 20 minutes, and you then go out driving, the timer will expire and cause a text message to be sent. Or the automatic setup on certain phones to auto-reject calls with a automatic "I'm driving" text message. In the locations that allows hands-free texting, its not a concern, but those that ban all usage, what happens with such "automatic triggers" then? Sebastiannielsen (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

GPS in Massachusetts

The source just added says this:

"The new law appears to create an exemption for that behavior. However, police officers may stop motorists if the typing looks like texting, and the officers may issue $100 citations. They have been instructed to use discretion and to make decisions based on their experience and training, said David Procopio, a spokesman for the State Police.

Also, if officers do not wish to cite GPS users under the texting law, they could choose to write $35 citations using an existing law that covers a wide range of “unsafe operation,’’ a blanket provision that can be applied to anything from wearing headphones while driving to operating a truck with an unsecured child in the truck bed.

The Registry of Motor Vehicles said the use of GPS applications on smartphones is not a violation of the law.

Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed NPOV tag Feb 2015

Based on section "Discussion", where nonNPOV was first claimed in May 2011, followed by the placement of the NPOV tag in the section "POV Dispute" in August 2013, and then more discussion in the section "Delete?" in June 2014, where NPOV was asserted and not disputed, and no more NPOV discussion in many months, plus many more references are now included, 1.5 years later I'd say it is time to remove the tag. The tag should be a temporary call for editors to help resolve differences, not a permanent eyesore. Blainster (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Other offences

Does this article include using your phone to surf the web, using a GPS app, taking a selfie ? And are there offences too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.103.25.136 (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Internet

Since most mobile telephones now have Internet, this is now far from restricted to just texting. J 1982 (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Texting and driving laws in US states.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Winona State University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)