Bill to Offer Incentives to States That Ban Texting While Driving

This story appears in the Nov. 2 print edition of Transport Topics.

WASHINGTON — Several senators introduced legislation last week that would offer incentives to states that ban texting while driving, an issue Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said has become his cause.

LaHood told the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Oct. 28 that the Department of Transportation was working aggressively on regulations that would, among other things, ban messaging by commercial drivers.

The Senate bill was introduced by committee Chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and five other members.

“The centerpiece of this legislation is a grant program for states who prohibit texting while driving,” Rockefeller said at the hearing on distracted driving, adding that the dangerous activity was very pervasive, making it difficult to root out.

The House highways subcommittee held its own hearing on driving distraction on Oct. 29, during which Randy Mullett, vice president for government relations for Con-way Inc., said “legislation alone will not solve the problem.”

Rockefeller said that driving while distracted by cell phones or texting was “the grossest kind of negligence and, yet, it’s a part of our lives,” and conceded that even with the law, drivers may continue to text behind the wheel.

“I don’t know how you change cultural habits,” Rockefeller said. “And I am skeptical about being able to change people’s behavior simply by passing a law. Irrespective of that, we’re going to do it.” His bill would provide grants to states that ban all cell-phone use by teenagers and require the use of hands-free phones by all drivers.

LaHood told members of the Senate committee that DOT was working “aggressively and quickly to evaluate regulatory options” and would initiate rules to limit texting while driving commercial vehicles.

One such rule would “consider banning text messaging and restricting the use of cell phones by truck and interstate bus operators while operating the vehicle,” he said.

After the hearing, LaHood told Transport Topics that such a ban also could include limits on the use of in-cab communications units by the drivers because “they’re distracting.”

LaHood said that DOT officials “have so many rules we are doing, but I [have said] this one is important and they are the most important to me, so we’re trying to put together

a timetable.”

Besides laws and regulations, both Rockefeller and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski said that technology could be used to limit the devices’ ability to send or receive messages.

However, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said, “Frankly, I don’t know that there’s going to be a technology that addresses this.”

Genachowski said that technology alone probably couldn’t stop people from texting; it would require a comprehensive effort including education and enforcement.

Mullett, testifying at the House panel, said, “Public attitudes and perceptions will need to change, and any legislation will have to apply to all drivers on the highway.”

Mullett testified on behalf of American Trucking Associations, which last month endorsed a bill introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) that would strip federal highway funds from states that do not ban texting.

Schumer, also a co-sponsor of the incentives bill, said his bill was “slightly different” from Rockefeller’s measure, which he said “focuses on carrots . . . while our bill utilizes sticks.”

“The best way to go is both carrots and sticks,” Schumer said. “My hope and belief [is to] . . . have a bill that combines the best of both worlds.”

At the House hearing, LaHood said he believes in “the carrot and the stick approach.”

However, support for a federal action approach was not universal.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said that “if forced to choose, I would choose the carrot . . . but I would also suggest that we might want to let the states continue to work on this for a while longer.”

Wicker said he had confidence in the states’ abilities, “so I would choose the third approach and that is to continue letting them make their own decisions.”

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), the top Republican on the commerce committee, said the incentives bill, of which she was a co-sponsor, was the right approach because it “respects states’ rights.”

Rockefeller said he didn’t want to get into the philosophical issues of what the federal or state role is, telling the panel, “I don’t really give a hoot about states’ rights or federal rights. I give a hoot about results.”