<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Bike Intelligencer &#187; texting while driving</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bikeintelligencer.com/tag/texting-while-driving/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bikeintelligencer.com</link>
	<description>All bike, all the time</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 May 2013 01:18:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Distracted-Riding Legislation?</title>
		<link>http://bikeintelligencer.com/2010/03/distracted-riding-legislation/</link>
		<comments>http://bikeintelligencer.com/2010/03/distracted-riding-legislation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:32:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul Andrews, BI editor</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[distracted driving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hands-free driving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[texting while driving]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bikeintelligencer.com/?p=2390</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Should bicyclists who ride while jabbering be included in "distracted-driving" legislation?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s an interesting dialogue going on re whether cyclists <a  href="http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/03/03/advocates-concerned-that-cyclists-are-included-in-distracted-driving-bill/">should be included</a> in &#8220;distracted driving&#8221; legislation. Right now the issue centers on proposed legislation in California, but it could apply anywhere for that matter.</p>
<p>This is a tough call. I&#8217;ve answered the phone while riding myself. You think: Just a coupla secs, where&#8217;s the harm?</p>
<p>But come on. It&#8217;s seriously not a good idea. Cyclists jabbering on their cell phones while riding one-handed down busy city streets and highways certainly are putting not only their own lives at stake but those of others around them. A distracted rider could easily swerve or lose control or run a light or do any of the things drivers (and pedestrians for that matter) do while using a phone, causing a chain reaction of traffic leading to a catastrophe.</p>
<p>Moreover, cyclists campaign ceaselessly for equal access to streets and highways. That implies equal levels of responsibility.</p>
<p>Our take: Apply the law to cyclists. We can quibble over whether penalties should be lighter for cyclists because they pose less threat to others than a two-ton steel behemoth. But that&#8217;s petty and sidetracks the real issue, which is distracted driving (or pedaling or walking) as a threat to all transportation users. This is one issue not worth marginalizing cyclist&#8217;s influence and playing to the kook factor over.</p>
<p>In Washington State they can&#8217;t even get texting (by adults anyway) <a  href="http://www.bikingbis.com/blog/_archives/2010/3/4/4471832.html">completely banned</a> — you have to be doing something else wrong as well to be pulled over. Interesting that the law was framed to <i>The Seattle Times</i> as anti-business by — I&#8217;ll let you guess — a Republican!</p>
<p>Could it be to protect all the Microsofties on their torturous daily commutes to and from Redmond? D&#8217;ya think?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://bikeintelligencer.com/2010/03/distracted-riding-legislation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
