State Senator Jim Hammond
Post Falls Senator Jim Hammond has introduced Senate Bill 1274 to ban texting while driving. According to the legislation’s Statement of Purpose, “Driving is an activity that requires full concentration. Composing, reading, and sending text messages compromises that concentration.”
I agree with the language in the Statement of Purpose. However that language is contradicted by Hammond’s language in the legislation itself: “…except that texting by persons driving law enforcement, fire or emergency medical vehicles shall be exempt while engaging in the course and scope of their duties.”
Apparently Hammond knows what the rest of us don’t: Emergency vehicle drivers possess super-human powers that enable them to simultaneously fully concentrate on both operating an emergency vehicle and texting. That should reassure the person killed or injured after being hit by an emergency vehicle driven by a texting public safety worker engaged in his duty.
Not the most flattering photo of the next NIC president. Looks like a good republican who just found out how NIC violated the Idaho Constitution when it bought what is now its new commercial property. Jim can expect a lot more candid photo opportunities in the future.
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — February 14, 2012 @ 6:33 pm
More big government bushwa. Inattentive driving statutes already exist. This is just grandstanding to the MADD crowd. Jim is a Republican only because the district he lives in votes that way. He is at heart a big government socialist.
Comment by Pariah — February 15, 2012 @ 8:11 am
Police and fire authorities can stop traffic for their purposes and the need for text data can alter the outcome of an emergency episode greatly. I am sure the law does not allow them to drive recklessly while texting their significant others about dinner. And the equipment they use for official text transmissions is not the 2.5 square inch digital phone but is commonly a full sized screen and keypad that is ergonomically arranged for ease and safety of application. No law should hamstring the official duties of these front line personnel.
Comment by Wallypog — February 15, 2012 @ 8:45 am
Wallypog,
The law explicitly limits the unlawful texting to messages created “via handheld wireless devices.” If MDTs in public safety vehicles are already thereby excluded, the public safety exemption is unnecessary, superfluous. Hammond’s poorly worded law allows public safety personnel to use the handheld digital phone while saying its use by all others is unlawful.
Comment by Bill — February 15, 2012 @ 8:58 am
Bill…… Are you certain that no fire or police authority ever texts using handheld devices while conducting official business?
Comment by Wallypog — February 15, 2012 @ 10:15 am
Wallypog,
I’m reading your question literally and may be misunderstanding it. I’m reasonably sure some of them do use text messaging for official business. If they’ve parked their vehicle and it’s out of gear so they are no longer driving (though they are in physical control), I really don’t care if they do it. I’d say the same about private citizens doing precisely the same thing. The representation that public safety officials should be exempt because conducting official business is irrelevant, because they are still distracted or not regardless of the content of the text message.
The law proposed is badly worded, partly because it applies only to “handheld wireless devices.” So if I put a cellular telephone (“handheld wireless device”) on a pedestal mount in my vehicle, it is no longer handheld and I am no longer noncompliant if I text while driving. I can hold an iPad in my hand, so it is a handheld wireless device if it’s in my hand. I can even hold a MacBook in my hand, so it too is a handheld wireless device if it’s in my hand. They, too, have a full sized screen and keyboard that is ergonomically arranged for ease and safety of application.
If the legislative intent is as stated in the Statement of Purpose, then making an exception based on job description contradicts the Statement of Purpose because it fails to reconcile how public safety employees are somehow better able than other citizens to drive while distracted. I’ve been retired for a while, but I don’t know of too many public safety vehicle driving courses that teach and certify their employees or students to drive while texting.
Comment by Bill — February 15, 2012 @ 10:45 am
Bill…. I have no doubt that legal speak is often poorly worded. Regulations are written in so many layers as to illicit migraines (if not tumors). In this matter I see portable text tools as just an additional source of potentially valuable data. If solo these people already have digital devices. So a portable device would be redundant and used by a secondary rider or only in needed situations. Leaving them accessible to emergency personnel does make sense. They’re the least likely to abuse them, the best trained to use them safely and the ones who may benefit from the most.
Comment by Wallypog — February 15, 2012 @ 1:30 pm
Wallypog,
Public safety workers are no less likely to abuse them and they are no better trained to use them than people in public transportation, public utilities, parcel delivery services, etc.
The reality is that the exception is unnecessary for any purpose other than to make it easy for the police to exercise differential and preferential enforcement for certain people and against others. Hammond wants the cops to feel good that they don’t have to cite people with whom they work closely. That is political pandering.
Comment by Bill — February 15, 2012 @ 4:02 pm