All contents copyright ©, Drive and Stay Alive, Inc., 2003 onwards, unless specified otherwise. All rights reserved.

IMPORTANT: click here to read the DISCLAIMER

New Hampshire is the only state that does not require adult motorists to wear seat belts, but it does ticket drivers for eating, drinking, talking on a cell phone or fussing with their makeup while behind the wheel.

The state whose motto is “Live Free or Die” passed the nation’s first law against distracted driving in 2001. Since then, every state has looked at ways to keep drivers’ minds on the road, but lawmakers in most states are choosing to focus more narrowly on restricting cell phone use while driving.

Under New Hampshire’s law, drivers face fines of up to $1,000 if police find that any distracting activity caused to an accident, according to Peter Thomson, who heads New Hampshire’s Highway Safety Agency. [Italics added by DSA]

In other states, the list of illegal distractions is shorter, including 38 states that prohibit drivers from watching television. Eleven states and the District of Columbia have laws restricting cell phones while driving, while 19 states also track mobile phone involvement in auto crashes.

Cellular communications companies and even some road-safety advocates argue that limits on cell phones miss the mark, saying New Hampshire’s approach is better.

“If you’re going to have a law, it should cover all distractions,” said Jonathan Adkins of the Governors Highway Safety Association, the nonprofit association that represents state road safety offices. But a bill to punish distracted driving was voted down in a Maryland Senate committee this year, and similar bills in the Tennessee House and Senate are, so far, stuck in committees....

Full story, from the Arizona Capitol Times

 DSA Comments 

New Hampshire appears to be leading the way on this issue, but in terms of road safety it is a limp lead in a lack- luster race.

If politicians feel they have any responsibility whatsoever for helping to keep innocent people alive in what may currently only be referred to as the annual carnage of American road crashes, what possible use is it handing down measures that only allow court action when a person has already crashed?

Talk of invading personal liberties may be based on a sound ethos but does anybody think the founding fathers had it in mind that innocent people should die so that others could thoughtlessly -- nay, brainlessly -- exercise those personal liberties?

IF deaths through negligently distracted driving are to be reduced then the only way to do so is to empower law enforcement officers to cite drivers who are phoning, reading, shaving, eating, nursing a pet on their lap, putting on makeup, etc., while driving (as primary offences, just as the wearing of seat belts should be).

As with medicine and crime, prevention is better than "cure."

Oh, and as for the 12 states where it remains lawful for drivers to watch television, while driving, what can one say? It sounds like a contradiction, but "speechlessness" is the word that springs to mind.

Eddie Wren, Executive Director, Drive and Stay Alive, Inc.