A House bill looking to ban texting while driving in Indiana on its own may not be very effective in preventing drivers from
using their cell phones in the car, according to a policy brief from an Indiana University research center.
Laws regulating cell phones while driving aren't doomed to fail, but they need to be reinforced with campaigns designed
for target audiences, according to Matt Nagle, a research analyst at the Center for Criminal Justice Research and author of
the brief. Older drivers tend to be deterred by the threat of law enforcement, but younger drivers are more influenced by
their peers, who say it's acceptable to use a cell phone while driving.
Drivers under the age of 18 already can't use a cell phone while driving in Indiana, thanks to a new ban that took effect
in July 2009.
House Bill 1279, which is currently in the Senate Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure, would make it a Class C infraction
if someone sends a text or e-mail while behind the wheel, unless they are using a hands-free or voice-operated device to send
the message.
The brief, "Cell phones and driving: A review of legislation, risk perception and mitigation tactics," cites several
studies that show the risk of having an accident when using a cell phone while driving is much greater than for those who
don't.
Nagle noted that many drivers in Indiana are often alone in their cars and research has shown those drivers are more likely
to talk on their phones.
"Without publicity campaigns to highlight the risks and without enforcement to provide a punitive deterrent, drivers
may be inclined to continue this driving behavior," according to the policy brief.
The brief is available online.
on Facebook & Twitter
Back to Top
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.
Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone
John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.