Wednesday, February 22, 2017
My Account  | Login

Monday, December 30, 2013
It’s time to stop texting charade

What’s the difference between a driver who’s drunk and one who’s reading a text message on their cell phone?

There’s at least a fair chance that the drunk has their eyes on the road. ...

Sign up to continue

Print subscriber?    Sign up for Full Access!

Please sign up for as low as 36 cents per day to continue viewing our website.

Digital subscribers receive

  • Unlimited access to all stories from on your computer, tablet or smart phone.
  • Access, view our digital edition or use our Full Access apps.
  • Get more information at
Sign up or Login

What’s the difference between a driver who’s drunk and one who’s reading a text message on their cell phone?

There’s at least a fair chance that the drunk has their eyes on the road.

The issue of texting while driving has again been brought into the public discourse following a series of fatal accidents in the region, including a hit-and-run in Amherst a week ago that police say happened while the driver was paying attention to his cell phone.

Texting while driving is already a crime in New Hampshire.

Except it’s not, really.

The truth is, New Hampshire’s distracted driving law contains huge loopholes and weak penalties.

The law states that: “A person operating a moving motor vehicle who writes a text message or uses 2 hands to type on or operate an electronic or telecommunications device, is guilty of a violation. A person does not write a text message when he or she reads, selects, or enters a phone number or name in a wireless communications device for the purpose of making a phone call.”

In other words, the state views texting like a speeding ticket and the law explicitly sends the message that it’s OK for drivers to take their eyes off the road to punch in phone numbers or names to make a call. Just make sure you only use one hand. And if drivers get caught texting? They get whacked for a whole hundred bucks, maximum.

Phone-driving is not a personal liberties issue like seat belts and motorcycle helmets. A motorist who eschews the motorcycle helmet or seat belt may put him or herself in greater danger if they crash, but the risk to others from their choice is usually negligible.

Punching the buttons of a phone while driving heightens the risk to others, even if the act is legal.

Whether it’s texting, dialing somebody’s number or reading an incoming email, it amounts to the same thing – inattention.

It has now reached the point that, every time there’s a fatal accident that police say doesn’t involve speed or alcohol, we all look at one another and make the same assumption: “Texting.”

We say it’s time to end the charade and give the people of New Hampshire a distracted driving law that wasn’t written by the cell phone and telecommunications companies.

We’ll readily concede that phone usage isn’t the only form of distracted driving, and distracted driving isn’t the only threat that motorists face. For instance, the Everett Turnpike from the Bedford tolls to the Massachusetts line is a particularly lawless stretch of highway, punctuated by motorists recklessly weaving in and out of traffic at speeds that would make the most callous Boston driver blush. We think people drive that way because they perceive the road to be underpatrolled and believe they can get away with it. They’re usually right.

Then you have GPS, satellite radio, email and assorted other apps and functions. Today’s vehicles and phones have become so technically sophisticated that there are countless ways to divert a driver’s attention from the highway, not to mention those who do it the old-fashioned way and apply makeup, eat, drink and read while they drive.

But just because highway dangers take many forms is no reason to let cell phones off the hook. They are a threat on a par with drunken driving and need to be treated that way, regardless of how smooth and friendly their lobbyists might be.

There is strong evidence that people are dying because drivers take their eyes off the road to use their phones. Are those lives the price we’re willing to pay for technological freedom? That’s the message the law seems to convey, but we think that’s a price too steep.

New Hampshire needs a real distracted driving law – a hands-free provision that treats reading messages, emails or dialing phone numbers as the technological equivalent of drunken driving. This is where we find out which of our elected officials stand with the phone industry, and which stand on the side of public safety.

We can’t stop every instance of phone-driving, but we can close those state-sanctioned loopholes that send the message that it’s OK to pay attention to your phone instead of the road. And once we strengthen the laws, we can make enforcement a priority on a par with DUI.

It’s a cause that should be taken up forthwith by lawmakers and the governor.

Because doing nothing makes about as much sense as legalizing drinking and driving.