Washington Traffic Law Blog : Washington Traffic Lawyer & Attorney : Jon Zimmerman Law Firm : Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma

I've written before on Washington's new cell phone law that makes it lawful for the police to pull over and cite a driver for holding a cell phone or other wireless communication device to the driver's ear while driving.  The law does not ban speech or talking on a phone with a handsfree device while driving.  

While the police used to need another reason (a primary offense to stop a driver), the new law that takes effect on June 10, 2010 allows the police more power to stop drivers, as the Washington Legislature made a cell phone infraction a primary offense after the Legislature failed to do so earlier in the legislative session.  

One of the upsides of the new law is that it will probably not have a tremendous effect on the poor, who are probably less likely to own vehicles and cell phones.  Parents who want their children to not use cell phones while driving will be pleased to know that the new law prohibits any cell phone use while driving for drivers under the age of 18.  

One of the downsides, however, is the new law's dubious effect on public safety, as Erik Lacitis reports in the Seattle Times.

As reported by Lacitis, studies have shown that the problem with driving stems from driver distraction distraction and not whether a driver is holding the cell phone or speaking into a handsfree device.   

Senator Tracey Eide (D-Federal Way), believes the new law will save lives as drivers talking with a handsfree device will be able to have two hands on the wheel while being able to look left and right.

Washington State Patrol Chief John Batiste believes that under the old, secondary offense law, drivers showed outright defiance.  3,000 tickets were apparently not enough in the last two years, and Batiste states that the WSP will be enforcing the new law starting June 10, 2010.   

It's difficult to ascertain whether the new law will encourage more talking on cell phones with handsfree devices and, possibly, increase injuries and deaths or whether the new law will actually save lives by decreasing collisions.  

Washington has had a primary offense seat belt law since 2002, and NHTSA reports that in 2008, Washington's seat belt use was the third-highest among U.S. states at 96.5 percent, trailing only Hawaii and Michigan.  While seat belt use reduces deaths from auto collisions, only time will tell whether a law restricting the manner of talking on a cell phone will decrease the loss of life.  

For now, drivers in Washington should know that starting June 10, 2010, police officers from Blaine to Bellevue and Seattle to Spokane will be enforcing the new law and issuing a lot of tickets.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Yesterday the Washington House of Representatives reversed itself by passing the Washington Senate's version of a cell phone/texting bill, which the Governor is expected to sign.  

What does this mean to drivers in the State of Washington?  It means that if the bill becomes law (and it's really more a matter of when than if), police officers will be able to stop motorists who are holding cell phones and/or texting while driving without witnessing another offense.  Current law allows the police to issue traffic tickets to motorists for holding a cell phone or texting only if some other primary driving infraction (e.g., speeding, improper lane change) is being committed at the same time.  

Proponents think the new legislation will save lives; opponents see government intrusion and wonder why other activities such as smoking, eating, and putting on makeup are not similarly made primary offenses.  

As an attorney who deals with traffic offense cases every day, while I strongly support measures that make roadway users safe, I also believe in providing the driving public with incentives--especially economic ones--that will make drivers alter behavior in a positive way. 

The new legislation, while making cell phone and texting infractions primary offenses, prohibits the offenses from becoming part of a driver's record that is available to insurance companies.  Here, the Legislature creates a monetary penalty for the offenses, but says "hey, we don't want this offense on a driver's record, because even though we think this type of driving is so outrageous, and there is a major safety issue here that we must spend a ton of time with in this legislative session, we don't think it's really worth telling the public about or insurers."  Instead, the Legislature sends the following message:  the conduct is so unsafe that we don't want anyone to know the people who perform this unsafe behavior, so we will not punish through insurance increases anyone who breaks the law and we will not reward those who choose to obey the law.  

There's a reason that the word "law" is in the word "flaw."  The Legislature could have done a much better job by passing a bill that actually helps people who obey the restrictions obtain better insurance premiums.  After all, if the conduct is so dangerous, than clearly risky drivers ought to assume a greater financial burden.  But the Legislature didn't care about that, and instead chose expediency over substance, a common theme in this session.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks