From the USDOT:

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood Announces Federal Ban on Texting for Commercial Truck Drivers

 

U.S Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced federal guidance to expressly prohibit texting by drivers of commercial vehicles such as large trucks and buses.  The prohibition is effective immediately and is the latest in a series of actions taken by the Department to combat distracted driving since the Secretary convened a national summit on the issue last September.

 

“We want the drivers of big rigs and buses and those who share the roads with them to be safe,” said Secretary LaHood.  “This is an important safety step and we will be taking more to eliminate the threat of distracted driving.”

 

The action is the result of the Department’s interpretation of standing rules. Truck and bus drivers who text while driving commercial vehicles may be subject to civil or criminal penalties of up to $2,750.

 

"Our regulations will help prevent unsafe activity within the cab,” said Anne Ferro, Administrator for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). “We want to make it crystal clear to operators and their employers that texting while driving is the type of unsafe activity that these regulations are intended to prohibit."

 

FMCSA research shows that drivers who send and receive text messages take their eyes off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds out of every 6 seconds while texting.  At 55 miles per hour, this means that the driver is traveling the length of a football field, including the end zones, without looking at the road.  Drivers who text while driving are more than 20 times more likely to get in an accident than non-distracted drivers.  Because of the safety risks associated with the use of electronic devices while driving, FMCSA is also working on additional regulatory measures that will be announced in the coming months.

 

During the September 2009 Distracted Driving Summit, the Secretary announced the Department’s plan to pursue this regulatory action, as well as rulemakings to reduce the risks posed by distracted driving. President Obama also signed an Executive Order directing federal employees not to engage in text messaging while driving government-owned vehicles or with government-owned equipment.  Federal employees were required to comply with the ban starting on December 30, 2009. 

 

The regulatory guidance on today’s announcement will be on public display in the Federal Register January 26 and will appear in print in the Federal Register on January 27.

 

The public can follow the progress of the U.S. Department of Transportation in working to combat distracted driving at :  www.distraction.gov.

 

END

I'm all for this ban and would like to see it applied universally-- but I wonder if there's an exemption for the text-messaging systems through which all these trucks are controlled.  Sometimes you just can't pull over.

Commercial drivers don't text on the road.  This is akin to making a law penalizing a lumberjack for sawing his arm off.

a local nyc ruling on limiting signage distraction

 

 

02/03/2010 05:19 PM

Appeals Court Uploads City Limit On Roadside Billboards

By: NY1 News

 

 

A federal appeals court ruled today that the city can limit the number of billboards along its roadways and parks.

 

Companies that market billboards argued the city's rules for sign placement violated the First Amendment.

 

The court said the city's restrictions are reasonable and that is all that is required to defeat a First Amendment claim.

 

Lawyers for the companies have yet to comment on the ruling.

 

more + video link:

http://www.ny1.com/1-all-boroughs-news-content/news_beats/transit/113122/appeals-court-uploads-city-limit-on-roadside-billboards/

"U.S. roads have become markedly more dangerous in recent years. In 2021, motor vehicle crashes killed nearly 43,000 people. That’s up from about 33,000 in 2012, and a 16-year high...

 

"More than half of respondents said they “always” or “often” read or send text messages while driving, 43% said they watched cellphone videos always or often while driving, and more than a third said they always or often drove while engaged in a video chat..."

 

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-07-06/we-are-killing-people-how-technology-has-made-your-car-a-candy-store-of-distraction

Good news in Ohio on distracted driving

 

I despise all of the accidents and deaths caused by people using electronic devices. I saw extra fines and extra jail time would be appropriate.

This bill is scary.....its just the type of cover cops need to justify selective enforcement, or worse.

1 hour ago, TheCOV said:

I despise all of the accidents and deaths caused by people using electronic devices. I saw extra fines and extra jail time would be appropriate.

This bill is scary.....its just the type of cover cops need to justify selective enforcement, or worse.

If you want an effective, unbiased accident-deterrent, speed cameras are the way to go.  But freedom, or something.

32 minutes ago, Foraker said:

If you want an effective, unbiased accident-deterrent, speed cameras are the way to go.  But freedom, or something.

 

I know of at least one Ohio community that installed them and then uninstalled them not long afterward because of popular revolt.

 

Edit: Apparently more than one, despite the age of this article: https://ww2.motorists.org/blog/9-cities-where-citizens-voted-to-ban-ticket-cameras/

They're even less popular than red light cameras with the public. 

38 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

I know of at least one Ohio community that installed them and then uninstalled them not long afterward because of popular revolt.

 

Edit: Apparently more than one, despite the age of this article: https://ww2.motorists.org/blog/9-cities-where-citizens-voted-to-ban-ticket-cameras/

 

Maple Heights and Cleveland:

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2014/11/cleveland_maple_heights_voters.html

 

In Maple Heights, the city claimed that some massive percentage of the tickets were being written to non-residents.  To a point that didn't make sense and suggested that different standards were used for residents and non-residents, an equal protection violation.

1 hour ago, GCrites80s said:

They're even less popular than red light cameras with the public. 

People don't like when they get caught breaking the law, and they can easily relate to something like speeding or red light runs. So of course they don't want penalties for rules and laws they might offend. But all those other laws they think affect others besides themselves are a-okay and should be fully enforced. Laws for thee but not for me!!

On 1/3/2023 at 1:08 PM, GCrites80s said:

They're even less popular than red light cameras with the public. 

People want to break the law and get away with it. They're entitled. 

Ohio's distracted driving law went into effect on 4/4/23

https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/phonesdown#:~:text=As of April 4%2C 2023,they can pull you over.

So... I see a lot of photos on this site, usually of construction projects, where the pictures are obviouly taken from a car that is moving and in the roadway. I don't mean to call any specific people out, I see it all the time on UO, but as a forum that seems to take road safety fairly seriously, those posts strike me as setting a bad example. I know there is the chance that the photgrapher is a passenger, but I think it looks bad. Especially with the above referenced distracted driving law taking effect.