Frequently Asked Questions

Cell Phone Legislation Proposed by Sen. Tracey Eide and Rep. Reuven Carlyle

Q: What would the legislation do?

A: The legislation would do three things:

1. It would strengthen the state’s ban on driving while texting and emailing, making it a primary offense rather than a secondary one—meaning that police will not have to wait for drivers to commit an additional violation before pulling them over for texting or emailing.

2. It would strengthen the state’s ban on driving while using a handheld cell phone from a secondary offense to a primary one.

3. It would ban teen drivers who hold an intermediate driver’s license from using all electronic devices. A violation of this ban would be a primary offense.

Q: Are there any exceptions for emergencies?

A: Yes. The legislation allows drivers to use cell phones to report illegal activity, summon emergency help, or prevent injury to a person or property.

Q: How much will a ticket cost?

A: The standard fine is $124. However, distracted motorists who cause a collision may be charged with a negligent driving infraction worth $550 or more if someone is seriously injured.

Q: Where do these fines go?

A: To deter police from pulling people over inappropriately, none of the money from a traffic fine goes to the police. By law, 36% of the fine goes to the local jurisdiction where the citation was issued, and 36% goes to the state’s Public Safety Education Account. The rest goes to the judicial information system, EMS and trauma care, auto theft protection, and traumatic brain injury awareness.

Q: Is this legislation motivated by a desire to raise revenue in a year when there’s a huge budget shortfall in Olympia?

A: No. The primary motivation for the legislation is the overwhelming evidence that cell phone use by drivers causes a high degree of distraction and significantly increases the risk of crashes. Budget analysts believe that the new legislation is revenue-neutral—that is, it would neither raise nor cost the state any revenue.

Q: How many collisions are caused by cell phone driving in Washington State?

A: The National Safety Council has released data showing that in 2008, 1.6 million crashes—more than a quarter of all crashes—were attributable to cell phone distraction. Based on this data, we can estimate that cell phone distraction caused approximately 32,000 crashes in Washington State in 2008. That’s 88 crashes per day.

Q: How much are these crashes costing the people of our state?

A: The Washington State Department of Transportation has shown that the comprehensive cost of car crashes in our state is more than $5.6 billion per year. Given that 28% of crashes are attributable to cell phone distraction, that means crashes involving cell phones are costing the people of Washington more than $1.5 billion a year.

Q: What evidence is there that primary enforcement is effective?

A: When they are backed by primary enforcement, bans on cell phone use have significantly reduced the rate of cell phone driving. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety sums up the evidence as follows: “After a ban was passed in the District of Columbia in 2004, driver handheld phone use dropped 41 percent. Nearly five years after the ban, the rate of hand-held phone use was 43 percent lower than would have been expected without a ban. Connecticut’s ban took effect in 2005. Hand-held phone use immediately declined an estimated 76 percent, and more than three years later use was 65 percent lower than would have been expected without a ban.” The Automobile Club of Southern California saw a similar effect in California: The ban produced a drop of 65 percent shortly after the ban went into effect. Ten months later, cell phone use remained 58 percent below where it was before the state implemented its law.

 Washington State’s experience with seatbelt laws also shows the value of primary enforcement. After the state’s seatbelt law was converted from a secondary offense to a primary offense, seatbelt use increased from 82% (2001) to 97% (2008).

Q: What have other states done with regard to cell phone driving?

A: The District of Columbia and 15 states have already made it a primary offense to text and drive. The District of Columbia and five states—California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Oregon—have made it a primary offense to talk on handheld cell phones while driving. Here is a link to a chart listing every state’s laws on cell phone driving: http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html

Q: What do police agencies think of the proposed legislation?

A: The Washington State Patrol and many local police agencies support the new legislation. They report that the current law is ineffective. In fact, police officers directing traffic in construction zones and at sporting events say they feel personally at risk from drivers talking on their cell phones or texting.

Q: Isn’t this just another case of trying to legislate away every potential risk?

A: No. Cell phone driving represents an unacceptably large risk and cost to the people of Washington State. Cell phone use while driving has been shown to be as dangerous as drunk driving. And it’s not a small group who use their cell phones while driving; more than 80 percent of drivers acknowledge that they talk or text. Strong drunk-driving laws, backed by primary enforcement, have significantly reduced deaths and injuries from impaired driving in Washington. The same approach will also work to reduce crashes caused by people who text or talk on cell phones while driving.

Q: What makes you think that driving with a cell phone is any worse than putting on makeup, eating a sandwich, or tuning a radio?

A: There is no question that there are many distractions in the car, but no driver distraction results in as many crashes as does using a phone while driving. Researchers tell us that there are three kinds of driving distractions. The first is visual—eyes off the road. The second is mechanical—hands off the wheel. The third is cognitive—when our mind is not fully engaged in the task of driving. Cell phones can cause all three types of distractions. The cognitive distraction is the most dangerous and longest lasting, because unlike visual or mechanical distractions, we are typically not aware that we are distracted. In addition, a cell phone conversation taxes not just auditory resources in the brain but also visual functions. That combination prompts the listener to create visual imagery related to the conversation in a way that overrides or obscures the processing of real images (such as traffic lights, stop signs, etc.).

Q: How is conversing on a phone different from talking with a passenger in the vehicle?

A: There are two important differences. The first is that a passenger in a vehicle is aware of the driving situation and can even serve as an additional look-out for hazards. If there is aneeded pause in conversation, it happens, and the reasons are evident to all parties. The second is that phone use seems to carry a certain obligation of immediacy. When the phone rings, we feel compelled to answer it—whether it is convenient, safe, or appropriate to do so or not. We become focused on the phone call and lose the situational awareness so necessary for safe driving.

Q: Isn’t this law bad for business at a time when our state economy can least afford that?

A: The fact is that there are hundreds of businesses all over the country which are rewriting their employee handbooks to prohibit the use of cell phones while driving. These companies have reviewed the research, recognize the danger, and are deeply concerned about the safety of their employees and those in the communities in which they operate. In a recent survey of National Safety Council members, 469 companies reported they have policies that prohibit all cell phone use while driving. Only seven companies reported a decrease in employee productivity, while seven times as many reported a productivity increase.

Q: If we already laws that punish careless and reckless drivers, why do we need laws that target cell phones?

A: Unfortunately, the state’s reckless-driving law has not been effective in convincing drivers to put down their cell phones. When our state recognizes that a specific driving behavior is represents a clear risk—such as driving under the influence, running a red light, or failing to stop when a school bus lets off children—then legislators pass laws targeting that behavior. A person violating any of these laws could surely be accused of reckless or careless driving. But our state has found that it’s more effective to single out these behaviors so as to leave no ambiguity for drivers or law enforcement officials—and to force people to think about that specific behavior and its consequences.

Q: Is this bill even enforceable?

Q: How many tickets have been written since the current law went into effect?

A: In the first year of the law, the Washington State Patrol wrote 1,600 tickets for talking on a cell phone and another 230 for texting while driving. The Washington State Patrol issues nearly 300,000 speeding tickets every year.

Q: Shouldn’t we focus more on making drivers aware of the current law?

A: Awareness of the law is not the issue. A recent survey conducted by EMC Research for the Seattle Department of Transportation found that 97% of those surveyed already knew that talking on a handheld cell phone is illegal. Research shows that increasing the level of awareness is not enough by itself to change driver behavior. Strong laws, coupled with sustained and high-visibility enforcement, do change driver behavior, reduce crashes, and save lives.