Never has something gotten so under my skin as the soon-to-be “effective” Indiana law prohibiting texting while driving. I have already written about the Safety in Texting While Driving where I detailed why it can be safe for some people to do that.
Today I want to throw all of that aside – disregard that this is a 'texting' issue – and focus solely on respect for the law.
The foundation of our representative democratic republic is respect for the rule of law which must be maintained if the Republic is to survive. Indiana, as all states, has a model Code of Judicial Conduct which establishes rules and guidelines for judges to follow.
The purpose of this is twofold, to ensure that litigants receive fair and impartial treatment from the court but also to instill and foster a sense of faith and trust in the judiciary by society at large. The courts are where we find ourselves in times of dispute amongst each other or when we have been accused of a trespass against society.
If we lose faith in the judiciary then there can be little incentive to use the judiciary to settle our disputes. In essence, judicial corruption effectuates anarchy. Similarly, as a country of laws, not men, we must have faith in our legislators also. Since the government derives its power from the people it is mandated that it obtain the consent of the governed before imposing obligations or restrictions upon the people.
Our Constitution provides that laws must be equally applicable and not single out particular people or classes of people for punishment or restriction without a compelling governmental interest – for the good of society. When laws become arbitrary and capricious we lose faith in the rule of law. Again in essence, oppressive or unjust laws effectuates anarchy.
This is where I find myself when confronted by this anti-texting while driving law. It is wholly unjust, oppressive and offensive to the very rule of law. Law should not be based upon a knee-jerk reaction, a fanciful whim or as a declaration to a particular interest group that “something is being done”. This is the reason that the framers of the Constitution have made it an extremely difficult challenge to amend the Constitution.
To better understand how this law is so unjust I will provide a hypothetical scenario with the same elements of the texting while driving issue.
At the entrance to roller coasters are signs indicating that riders must be at least 48” in height to ride. This is universal throughout all amusement parks. The purpose for this is to keep occupants from slipping out from under the lap bar.
Tragedy strikes three amusement parks one summer as a rider at each somehow comes out of the car and plummets to his or her death. Investigations occur at each and although much remains unknown someone discerns that the reports do show a similarity between all three riders – each was 61” in height.
Immediately there are calls for legislative action to ensure that these tragedies are not repeated the following season. Youths converge on the Statehouse and lobby for laws to make the rides more safe . Legislation is hastily crafted and introduced. Ultimately a bill is passed that provides these provisions; 1) That new measuring sticks must be mounted at the entrance to each ride with a red zone between 60.5” and 61.5” – riders in that height range will be banned from riding, 2) Those who violate this law shall be fined $500, and 3) That no law enforcement officer may require a suspected violator to be measured.
So now everyone can feel good. The class of people and the actions (61” in height) that led to these tragedies has been outlawed. I contend that it has not.
Instead I ask – If some 60.5” thru 61.5” riders slipped out from under the lap bar then why allow anyone under 60.5” to ride? I think society would be best served to look at the entirety of the situation in a logical manner and craft an effective law that will protect the populace.
Here is a continuation of the hypothetical based upon the principle of logic. Riders who are 61” likely fall into the category of adolescents – those thrill seekers who push the limits, test the boundaries and make us parents exclaim “What were you thinking?” I contend that the rides are safe for riders 48” in height and above but that some reckless youths did not follow the safety guidelines posted in the loading area.
I proposed that further investigation be done and then legislation crafted.
Upon reading the investigative reports and further interviews with witnesses it was determined that these riders who died had been playing a game wherein they raise the lap bar and try to use their strength to hold on. The smaller and younger riders do not try this and neither do the older, taller and wiser riders.
They had managed to hold the bar down in such a manner as to keep if from engaging the locking mechanism while fooling their less than attentive ride attendant from realizing this. I then crafted a law that contained these provisions; 1) That all roller coasters shall be fitted with lap bar devices that are electronically locked and may not be put into motion unless such device affirms that all bars are locked in the downward position, 2) That ride attendants receive training in properly securing ride occupants and observing unsafe behaviours, and 3) That state inspectors be allowed on the premises to inspect the rides at any time during operating hours to ensure compliance.
I hope that this illustration has provided you with enough information to see that one solution is a viable and effective means to ensure riders safety while the other is a ridiculous knee-jerk reaction made without proper consideration of the facts and not written in a way that can achieve the desired outcome. In short, that one of these responses you will find to be stupid and make you think these regulators have no clue and these safety measures aren't to be taken seriously.
This now brings us back to the substance of the texting while driving law.
Sending, receiving or reading a text on a mobile device while driving is prohibited. A law enforcement officer may not inspect the device to discern if any of that was happening.
However, the law does not prohibit the use of these devices for phone calls. Neither does is outlaw using these devices to access “apps”. For those not so technically savvy an “app” is short for application which on these devices may be a game, weather radar, restaurant guide, dictionary or just about anything that can be viewed and perused. This law simply targets one medium of a much wider problem – negligent and unskilled drivers allowing themselves to be distracted while driving.
For laws to be respectable there should be a logical connection between purpose, language and results. Here the purpose is to reduce injuries and deaths in automotive collisions for which distracted driving is a contributor. The language does not cover distracted driving but instead narrowly focuses on receiving, reading or writing text messages only. The law also fails to include any reasonable method of enforcement thereby making it superficial at best.
The result here is that we have legislators who caved into pressure to do something, abused the legislative purpose, passed a law that will have no effect, created distrust in the law-making process and authority, and ultimately may have endangered people. For that, I feel they have not respected the position that they embody nor the purpose for which the legislative process exists.
This law should be challenged at every attempt to enforce it. Ultimately it should be repealed and instead the focus should be on improving driver skills and holding those who fail to maintain due diligence while driving accountable for their actions.
What I find most dangerous about this law and the abuse of the legislative process is how and when it will be applied to our children. If a majority of our legislators and the governor can be so careless as to pass a law like this – with no logical basis – then what can they possibly do with the custody of our children? For it is this thought that comes forth from the anti-texting law and truly infuriates me.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions. 
No comments:
Post a Comment