Michigan's Texting Ban: One Step Forward, Too Many Steps Back

140 THOMAS M. COOLEY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 28:1states are having the opposite effect intended: crashes are increasing. 101 Thesupporters of the texting ban are not without their retort, however.Representative Gonzales, as the sponsor of Michigan’s ban, has been aloud voice supporting the measure. 102 In response to the argument that otherlaws already address distracted driving and a texting ban is unnecessary,Gonzales stated that the texting ban “gives an extra tool for a police officeror state trooper to pull somebody over as a primary offense and discusswith them their erratic driving.” 103 As Gonzales explains, the texting lawallows police to pull a driver over if they suspect a texting violation;whereas before, police would have had to follow and observe drivers untilthey committed another traffic offense before police could pull drivers overto discuss their distracted behavior. 104 To address the Fourth Amendmentissue, Gonzales stated that “[t]here’s not going to be a confiscation of ahand-held device [by police]. . . . [T]hat would be a taking . . . under theConstitution.” 105III. BALANCING THE BENEFITS OF THE TEXTING BAN: ARE THEPROBLEMS WORTH THE MERE POSSIBILITY OF SAFER ROADS?Michigan’s texting ban is still too new to determine its actualeffectiveness in making roads safer, and only time and a comprehensive,comparative long-term study will truly reveal how successful the legislationhas been. However, without taking further steps to address the problem oftexting while driving, data collected from other jurisdictions with similarbans indicate that enforcement of Michigan’s anti-texting statute will, atbest, have no effect, and at worst, will cause roads to become moredangerous. 106 While many organizations advocate that banning cellphoneuse altogether is the only effective means to make our roads safer, the101. See Highway Loss Data Inst., Texting Laws and Collision ClaimFrequencies, HIGHWAY LOSS DATA INST. BULLETIN, Sept. 2010, available athttp://www.iihs.org/research/topics/pdf/HLDI_Bulletin_27_11.pdf [hereinafterHIGHWAY LOSS DATA INST., Texting Collision Claim Frequencies]. CompareMichigan’s ban, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.602b (2011), with California’s ban,CAL. VEH. CODE § 23123.5 (West Supp. 2011); Louisiana’s ban, LA. REV. STAT.ANN. § 32:300.5 (Supp. 2011); Minnesota’s ban, MINN. STAT. ANN. § 169.475(West Supp. 2011); and Washington’s ban, WASH. REV. CODE ANN. §46.61.668(West Supp. 2011).102. See The Frank Beckmann Show, supra note 10.103. Id.104. Representative Gonzales Shares His Opinions on Texting While Driving,THE MICHIGAN TALK NETWORK (Mar. 26, 2010) (on file with author).105. The Frank Beckmann Show, supra note 10.106. See Highway Loss Data Inst., Slight Crash Increases, supra note 7.