Articles Posted in Motor Vehicle Accidents

With the stroke of midnight and the beginning of 2010 Oregon joined the growing list of states restricting the use of cellphones by people driving cars. In Oregon and around the country distracted driving has emerged over the last two or three years as a serious issue of public concern. The interesting question may, in fact, be why it took so long for this to happen. As the New York Times link below indicates, concern about the issue is not particularly new. AAA issued its first warning that drivers ought to pull over before picking up the phone in 1984 (yes, 1984).

Oregon’s new distracted driving law requires drivers to use a hands-free device, such as a Bluetooth headset, when making and receiving calls. Telephone use by drivers under the age of 18 is banned entirely. Also banned (for drivers of all ages) is texting while behind the wheel. More details about the new law can be found here.

While there have been a number of media reports during the last few weeks of brisk headset sales around Oregon, it will probably take some time before the real impact of the Oregon distracted driving law becomes clear. Anecdotal evidence from other states with distracted driving laws indicates that enforcement regimes vary widely (for example: New York, one of the first states to enact a distracted driving law, has a reputation for relatively relaxed enforcement while Washington DC is said to be unusually strict).

The new Oregon distracted driving law that comes into effect Friday has been getting a lot of attention over the last week. This weekend, however, the state’s leading newspaper raised serious questions about whether the law already contains a fatal flaw.

An editorial in the Portland newspaper The Oregonian points out that the Oregon distracted driving law requiring drivers to use a hands-free device if they are talking on the phone while behind the wheel contains an exception for people “operating a motor vehicle in the scope of a person’s employment if operation of the motor vehicle is necessary for the person’s job.” The paper says the language was inserted at the insistence of business lobbyists, but worries that “necessary for a person’s job” is not defined anywhere in the legislation.

The loophole, the paper notes, “may well be big enough for real estate agents, contractors, FedEx drivers and just about anyone who needs a car for work.” Interpretation of the provision will lie with Oregon’s courts, and it may take some time for legal judgments under the new law to offer Oregon distracted driving attorneys guidance on what “necessary for the person’s job” means in practice.

On January 1 Oregon joins the ranks of states banning texting while driving as well as the use of a hand-held cellphone. A recent blog and accompanying discussion on the New York Times website, however, asks an intriguing question for Oregon distracted drivers: are you willing to acknowledge that your own behavior behind the wheel is a problem?

The Times cites a recent survey conducted by the AAA Foundation. As the paper paraphrases the results: “essentially, many people believe, ‘I can do it safely, but you’re a menace.’” This attitude, of course, is hardly confined to the question of telephone use. How many people do you know who are actually willing to say ‘I’m a bad driver’?

Examining this attitude is especially timely. Though the new Oregon distracted driving law allows for primary enforcement (i.e. the police can pull you over just for talking on a cellphone – they will not need to look for some other initial violation, such as speeding or driving recklessly) the fine for violating the law will be relatively low ($90). Moreover, in most states that already have these laws few people, in practice, get ticketed just for using a phone.