Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Texting Ban NOT a Race Issue

Early this week in the Des Moines area, an anonymous robo-call went out to an unknown number of residents urging them to contact Representative Ako Abdul-Samad (D-Des Moines) and Representative Rick Olson (D-Des Moines) and ask them to oppose the texting ban bill. The call was not opposed to the bill because it infringes on civil liberties, or the usual arguments the opposition makes, but because it will allegedly give police officers another means for racial profiling.

Click here to hear the call on WHO’s website.


John Ulczycki, of the National Safety Council, said they have seen this argument made before when other states have tried to pass a texting ban, but it simply is not true. As the robo-call speaker claims, this bill will enable officers to pull a driver over for being a certain race, but allege the driver was texting.

While this is an unlikely scenario, if racial profiling is occurring, that needs to be addressed in a separate bill. Representative Abdul-Samad agreed in saying officers who engage in racial profiling have other issues and serious “social ills.”

The proposed ban on texting, HF2456 and SF2321, will prohibit drivers from typing or sending a text message or email while driving. The goal is make roads safer for Iowans. The National Safety Council would like to see the bill include a ban on “reading” text messages as well.

“While there are many sources of driver distraction, there is heightened concern regarding the risks of texting-while-driving. The act of composing, sending or reading text messages interrupts drivers’ cognitive attention, causes vision to be directed away from the road, and compromises manual control of the vehicle.”

Naturally, if there were 200,000 accidents a year as a result of eating a BigMac while driving, laws might be promulgated for that. In the meantime, the ban on texting while driving will make our roads safer. It is not a tool for officers to engage in racial profiling.

[At 2:30pm Tuesday the HF2456 is up for debate in the House.]

No comments:

Post a Comment