New distracted driving laws are meant to incentivize safer driving | Letter

While I generally agree with comments submitted to the Kirkland Reporter by Mr. Jeff Jared, I must take exception to his complaint published in the Aug. 11 Letters to the Editor section about the superfluous nature of Washington State’s new distracted driving law. As a criminal defense attorney in Kirkland, he should know better. A recent posting by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSHA) and The Advertising Council (The Ad Council), provided the following statistics:

Distracted driving is a dangerous epidemic on America’s roadways. In 2015, there were 3,477 people killed and an estimated additional 391,000 injured in motor vehicle crashes involving distracted drivers.

A 2015 Erie Insurance distracted driving survey reported that drivers do all sorts of dangerous things behind the wheel, including brushing teeth and changing clothes. The survey also found that one-third of drivers admitted to texting while driving and three-quarters saying they’ve seen others do it.

Ten percent of fatal crashes, 15 percent of injury crashes and 14 percent of all police-reported motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2015 were reported as distraction-affected crashes.

The “general negligence” and “reckless driving” laws currently in force provide the means for law enforcement to cite motor-vehicle operators for those infractions; however, they are punitive in nature and often enforced after the fact. The recently enacted distracted driving law is intended to be preventive in nature. Over the past 40 years manufacturers of motor vehicles have incorporated new technology that has relieved operators of the incentive to pay attention that was required of drivers who learned to drive in the 1950s and before. It is, therefore, not surprising that a large majority of “younger” drivers, who learned to drive in these modern vehicles, are easily distracted.

How many of us have observed a motorist in an adjacent vehicle oblivious to a changing traffic signal or weaving in and out of their traffic lane while talking or texting on a cell phone? Since the current statutes or publication of distracted driving-related accident statistics have failed to deter these unsafe and dangerous practices, it is clear that there needs to be an additional incentive. A perfect example of this situation is the passage of the seat belt law, which met with similar resistance, but clearly incentivized the motoring public to buckle-up and saved countless lives.

Mike Main,

Kirkland

More in Letters to the Editor

Big Oil’s ‘Kool-Aid’ | Letter

Voters drank Big Oil’s “Kool-Aid” on Nov. 6 and rejected Initiative 1631.… Continue reading

For unsolvable problems | Letter

For unsolvable problems The key to solving any problem is to understand… Continue reading

Non-addictive pain management | Letter

Dear high school student, If you get your wisdom teeth removed, take… Continue reading

A faithful response to hate | Letter

In response to the fliers recently posted in the Kirkland area by… Continue reading

Hate has no home here | Letter

Recently it was brought to my attention that fliers promoting racism and… Continue reading

Proposition 1 will focus on property crimes | Letter

Kirkland is proposing an important measure to advance public safety services in… Continue reading

Kavanaugh should be rejected | Letter

I find Republican caviling at the Brett Kavanaugh hearings baffling. For just… Continue reading

Concerns regarding Bridle Trails growth | Letter

We live north of the Bridle Trails Shopping Center and we would… Continue reading

Family Literacy Night was a huge success | Letter

I am writing today to say how excited I was to read… Continue reading

Global warming and Drive Throughs

Why don’t we hear anything about busy drive througs for coffee, fast food, drug stores and banking?

Private schools are not a solution to mass shootings | Letter

This letter is a response to “Don’t ban guns, ban government schools”.