Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Policy

Indiana Bans Texting While Driving. But Web Surfing While Driving Is Still OK!

Peter Suderman | 7.1.2011 5:49 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

The state of Indiana has officially banned texting while driving. Starting today, it is illegal to use any "telecommunications device to type, transmit or read a text message or an electronic mail message" at the same time you are driving. Individuals caught violating the texting ban face a possible $500 fine.

But don't worry. It's still legal to post comments to Hit & Run from behind the wheel. The Indy Star reports:

Activities such as searching the Internet, playing games and making a playlist on your iPod all remain legal for drivers, who are prohibited only from texting and emailing. The law was watered down after Indiana lawmakers balked at a comprehensive ban on using handheld devices behind the wheel.

"We were just not able to get that done in the legislative session," said Sen. Travis Holdman, R-Markle, who had supported a full ban but agreed to sponsor the existing law. "This is the best that we could do," he conceded during a news conference Thursday to outline the new law.

Is there a point to passing a law that bans texting but not, say, a Facebook message or a blog post? If anything, it seems likely that banning just one form of mobile communications is likely to drive more people to attempt even more awkward, and possibly more dangerous, work-arounds. 

According to The Star's report, the Republican lawmaker behind the texting-only statute gave two reasons for focusing only on texting. First, he wanted to increase the chances that the law would pass constitutional muster. "The other challenge," he said, "is the swift evolution of technology." There's a simpler way to avoid constitutional challenges and avoid being overtaken by new technology: Don't regulate texting while driving at all! 

But what about the safety implications? Won't a texting ban make the state's roads safer? Dangerous driving is what's on the mind of one Indiana police chief: 

Bluffton Police Chief Tammy Schaffer said she routinely sees drivers sending text messages.

"We're not going to catch everybody that's texting," she said. "But maybe if we can catch a few we can make our roads a little bit safer."

Maybe. But there's empirical evidence to suggest otherwise. According to a study conducted by the Highway Loss Data Institute last year, texting bans haven't resulted in decreased vehicle crashes. And in three of the four states that HLDI studied, crash rates increased following the passage of texting bans. The working theory as to why is that once texting bans kick in, drivers simply hold their phones lower in order to avoid being seen by police, and thus avert their eyes from the road for longer periods of time. So Chief Schaffer may indeed see fewer people texting on the road thanks to the new law. But that doesn't mean they won't be doing it, or that her state's roads will be any safer. 

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Study: Menu Labeling Doesn't Impact Food Choices

Peter Suderman is features editor at Reason.

PolicyNanny StateTelecommunications PolicyAutomobilesTexting Bans
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (35)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. AlmightyJB   14 years ago

    I really need to stop coming here.

    1. DSK   14 years ago

      Know how you feel.

  2. Res Publica Americana   14 years ago

    Indiana used to one of those Texas-model states -- tolerable by standards of actual freedom, and good compared to most other places in America. According to a few friends, however, it's been getting worse. Any people from Indiana here to confirm that?

    1. Paul   14 years ago

      There's a text messaging law gap that has to be filled.

    2. tarran   14 years ago

      Indiana historically has been a big bastion of Progressivism - such a big bastion that at one time the Ku Klux Klan ran the place and the Nazis used Indiana's laws as a template for some parts of the Nuremberg laws.

      If they were a freer state for a time, they are probably regressing back to their mean of authoritarianism and meddling.

      1. Cabeza de Vaca   14 years ago

        Tarran,

        Are you referring to Indiana's eugenics laws?

  3. Fist of Etiquette   14 years ago

    So it's still legal to have sexual intercourse with your telecommunications device while driving then?

    1. rather   14 years ago

      Be safe and hygienic: put a condom on it

  4. rather   14 years ago

    She's reading morning links? Hell, no. She's reading my blog 😉

    1. Rock Action   14 years ago

      That's why her eyes are wide and her face bespeaks a slight horror mixed with disgust?

      1. rather   14 years ago

        Well, they usually look like this
        http://www.google.com/imgres?i.....108&ty=106

        1. Rock Action   14 years ago

          That is clearly the look of a woman who just found out that she will no longer be discussed at rctlfy.

  5. Paul   14 years ago

    Re: the alt-text.

    It looks more like she's reading one of Cavanaugh's late night posts where he's referenced himself into a corner.

    1. AlmightyJB   14 years ago

      Or Weiner just sent her a pic of his weiner

  6. Fake R. Dean Taylor   14 years ago

    I'm pertinent!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZL_tZxyBDo

  7. KDS   14 years ago

    She's reacting to the cop lights in her side mirror! But that's not to say one wouldn't have the same expression while reading rather's blog. I'm sure I did, the one time I read it.

    By the way rather, happy Canada Day.

  8. Davebo   14 years ago

    Is there a point to passing a law that bans texting but not, say, a Facebook message or a blog post?

    Yes, there is a point even concerning imperfect legislation.

    it seems likely that banning just one form of mobile communications is likely to drive more people to attempt even more awkward, and possibly more dangerous, work-arounds.

    Are you suggesting that due to the illegality of text messaging on the highways people will resort to tin cans and strings?

    As for the study by The Highway Loss Data Institute claiming such laws don't decrease vehicle crashes surely you could understand a bias there given the fact that the "Institute" only exists to justify auto insurance premium rates for... who exactly funds the Highway Loss Data Institute again?

    1. Ballchinian   14 years ago

      As for the study by The Highway Loss Data Institute claiming such laws don't decrease vehicle crashes surely you could understand a bias there given the fact that the "Institute" only exists to justify auto insurance premium rates for... who exactly funds the Highway Loss Data Institute again?

      Translation: I can't actually dispute the study on the merits, nor can I demonstrate that its findings were affected by bias.

    2. Apogee   14 years ago

      Why exactly would auto insurance companies be against legislation that gives them a reason to charge higher rates and refuse payout?

    3. adam   14 years ago

      Umm, you have the bias ass backwards. Auto insurance companies lobby for laws that make the roads/cars safer because it helps their bottom line.

  9. hazeeran   14 years ago

    Also no seat belt.

  10. The Immaculate Trouser   14 years ago

    I'll cop to having posted on websites while driving over 100 MPH on a highway.

    I'm pretty sure I wasn't wearing a seat belt, either.

  11. West Texas   14 years ago

    The benefit of technology advancing is that it gives busybodies even more ways to regulate our behavior. Yay!

    Don't forget Texas residents, this weekend is NO REFUSAL WEEKEND! If you've been drinking and a cop happens to capriciously pull you over for, say, an expired inspection sticker, YOU TOO can have your 5th (and 4th) Amendment rights trounced on and blood drawn at the traffic stop!

    Yay for the temperence movement!

    1. Philosoraptor   14 years ago

      Um, then, you know

      get your car inspected like you have to

      chump

  12. Paul   14 years ago

    By the way, it's legal in Washington State to talk on your cell phone without a hands-free device, as long as you hold it away from your face-- a-la a speaker phone.

    For real.

    1. Episiarch   14 years ago

      I did not know that, yet I was already doing it anyway to avoid a ticket. Awesome.

  13. Glenn Ammons   14 years ago

    Why not make the penalties for smashing your car into people and things severe and certain, instead of trying to regulate away every possible form of bad driving?

    1. Apogee   14 years ago

      Even better, why not actually train people to drive, as opposed to handing out licenses like candy?

  14. Hyperion   14 years ago

    When I lived there, and yes I hate to admit that I lived there, damnit, just forget that. But, anyway, they passed the seat belt law. If I remember correctly, if you were driving a passenger car, you had to wear the seat belt. If you were in a pick-up truck, you were exempt. Since 99.9% of all motorists drove pick-ups it didn't have much effect. Of course, the tornadoes blowing your pick-up and trailer off the face of the earth was a problem. If they would have just learned from progressives and passed a tornado tax instead...

  15. Skr   14 years ago

    In guessing google maps was the sticky wicket for the full ban.

    On another note, why did my iPod try to autocorrect the word ban as bam?

  16. Tulpa   14 years ago

    This law is also probably unenforceable, as someone who's texting while driving can just switch to the web browser and load Facebook onto their phone while they're being pulled over.

  17. Tulpa   14 years ago

    And of course the studies you mention only show that texting bans don't work due to unintended consequences, not that texting while driving isn't dangerous.

  18. db   14 years ago

    They will just subpoena your cell phone records and then add on charges of obstruction of justice and who knows what. And no, they won't care a whit that they've multiplied the cost of the prosecution beyond reason and diverted police and court resources from more important activities. That what the next federal police funding grant is for--paying for basic police services that were deferred in favor of bullshit like this.

    What's that? Your house was robbed? The manager at Best Buy says he's seeing a rash of customers coming in to replace their tvs and stereos that have been stolen from their homes? That's not a police problem. That's your insurance company's problem. Now excuse us; we have to go set up our big DUI checkpoint, which is located on the outbound lane of the road leading out of our dry town. Later, peon!

  19. Edwin   14 years ago

    Laws like this are the most common sense and basic and clearly legitimate laws around - there is no right to significantly endanger other people. You people are asses for whining about this shit

    then again, you guys are also so stuypid you think drunk driving should be legalized

  20. Seamus   14 years ago

    Fortunately, it's still legal to read the newspaper while driving in Indiana.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive

M. Nolan Gray | From the July 2025 issue

Photo: Dire Wolf De-extinction

Ronald Bailey | From the July 2025 issue

How Making GLP-1s Available Over the Counter Can Unlock Their Full Potential

Jeffrey A. Singer | From the June 2025 issue

Bob Menendez Does Not Deserve a Pardon

Billy Binion | 5.30.2025 5:25 PM

12-Year-Old Tennessee Boy Arrested for Instagram Post Says He Was Trying To Warn Students of a School Shooting

Autumn Billings | 5.30.2025 5:12 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!