Distracted driving law eludes Idaho once again

It appears a “distracted driving” law has escaped Idaho for another year.

Despite heavy lifting from several agencies, including AAA, a bill in the Senate likely will not be heard and another was voted down by the House this week.

HB141, sponsored by Rep. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, failed on the House floor this week on a 22-48-1 vote.

Opponents had concerns that the language was too vague to prevent texting behind the wheel and would have been difficult to enforce.

“AAA has been working for two-and-a-half years now to get a texting ban enacted in this state,” AAA Idaho Spokesman Dave Carlson said. “We had expected this bill would be the one. Unfortunately, the bill narrowly addressed electronic devices involved in distracted driving — without referencing or mentioning texting.

“It would also have not made texting while driving illegal, unless the driver was driving in a manner that shows he/she was not driving with ‘due care.’”

Police would have been able to stop those suspected of texting while driving and issue a $75 fine if they believe the law had been violated.

The measure said if distracted driving caused by use of a hand-held mobile device contributed to an accident, the penalty would have been up to $300 and 90 days in jail.

Post Falls driver James Bensen said he’s surprised an anti-texting bill hasn’t been approved in Idaho when it has in most other states.

“I believe it would have a lot of support, even from students,” he said. “It seems like a natural. It’s pretty much a known that cell phones distract drivers and distracted drivers are prone to accidents.”

AAA attempted to work with Hagedorn on the House bill, but changes the travel organization felt would have made it pass were not included in the final bill. An amendment that would have made it clear that texting while driving would be a violation was turned down.

“That amendment would not have changed the enforcement mechanism, but it would have satisfied some of the concerns that a law regarding texting specifically would have been addressed,” Carlson said.

Carlson said the bill would have relied on a secondary enforcement mechanism, essentially requiring an officer to see that the driver is demonstrating undue care. That could include another moving violation, including something like an improper lane change. That’s a secondary law, and only four of the 30 state laws have secondary enforcement mechanisms.

Insurance companies, the Idaho Sheriff’s Association and prosecutors worked on the bill, the third anti-texting bill killed by the House in the past two years.

On the Senate side, SB1025, a bill drafted but not heard, would have been preferable to AAA because it included a definition for texting and would have made a violation illegal. However, due to the lateness of the session, that bill likely will not be heard, Carlson said.

Some local governments, including the Coeur d’Alene City Council, have expressed interest in a distracted driving law if the Legislature doesn’t approve one.