Scoppe: Bad Senate deal on texting can produce good law

05/12/2014 9:00 PM

05/12/2014 5:26 PM

ON A BUSY day last month that muted the media coverage, the Senate for the first time ever passed a bill to restrict using a cell phone while driving.

Now, in a twist not often seen around the State House, the House needs to fix the bill.

The reason the overwhelming majority in the Senate was able to overcome a handful of libertarian obstructionists and get the bill passed was that it does less than it seems. Or perhaps more — in a bad way.

In return for instituting a statewide ban, it would wipe off the books several local bans on texting while driving that have higher penalties and lower restrictions on enforcement.

That tradeoff would be worth making if, like those local bans, S.459 applied to all drivers. It does not. It applies only to people driving with a beginner’s permit or a conditional or special restricted driver’s license.

Even a ban on inexperienced drivers would be a huge step forward — an embarrassingly inadequate one, at least when it comes to texting while driving, but still a huge one — if it were simply that.

But wiping out perfectly good local bans on texting while driving in return for a statewide ban that applies only to a tiny minority of drivers is not a step forward. It is a step backwards. A step our state must not take. It’s such a bad step that Sen. Paul Thurmond, who at one point convinced nearly every member of the Senate to back a complete ban, voted against the bill, explaining that he “can’t support a Bill that would eliminate (preempt) the hard work of the municipalities in my jurisdiction, without addressing the issue that they were able to resolve.”

The idea of imposing restrictions only on inexperienced drivers was developed back when the most dangerous thing people did with cell phones was to talk on them. Since most studies don’t take into account how drivers modify their behavior when they’re on the phone, the evidence wasn’t conclusive enough to convince many reasonable lawmakers that we should ban cell phone use.

But the evidence always has been clear that inexperienced drivers — particularly teens, the bulk of such drivers — had no business talking on the phone while they were driving. They’re so uncertain behind the wheel and have such immature judgment and are so easily distracted that we limit the number of friends they can have in the car with them.

Even a novice-drivers ban was too much for our legislators, though, so we did nothing as cell phones morphed from talking devices to texting devices. Addictive texting devices. Texting devices with small screens and smaller keys that require visual concentration and command most users’ constant attention.

Of course, there’s no way to argue that texting while driving is ever safe. It is a simple matter of physics: Our eyes can’t focus two places at once — on the tiny screen with tiny letters and on the highway. More experienced drivers might have better judgment and might be less likely to text while they’re driving, but they’re no safer while they’re texting than younger drivers.

Yet this simple concept failed to register with our legislators, so as the rest of the nation cracked down on the deadly combination of texting while driving, we did nothing.

In desperation, Sens. Vincent Sheheen and Luke Rankin proposed trying that no-cell-phones-for-young-drivers bill again, and in order to get the bill out of committee, they agreed to wipe out all the local bans on texting while driving. Which is a very, very bad deal.

Meantime, on the very day that the Senate was passing its poison-pill bill, the House approved an actual ban on texting while driving. Under H.4386, it would be illegal for anyone, regardless of age or experience, to “use a wireless electronic communication device to compose, send, or read a text-based communication while operating a motor vehicle on the public streets and highways of this State.”

Critics have complained that the penalties in the House bill are too low — a fine of just $25 — but that ignores what we know about laws: If people believe a law is legitimate, they will obey it simply because it is the law. Our safety belt law carries a similarly low penalty, but use has skyrocketed since lawmakers finally allowed police to start enforcing it. And the House bill would allow police to enforce the texting ban.

The House bill also wipes out local texting bans, some with higher penalties, but that’s OK, because we get something more valuable in return: a statewide ban on texting, which makes enforcement easier and compliance more likely and coverage complete.

It’s not a perfect bill, but it’s a good bill, and now that the Senate has passed a bill, the hurdle has been lowered to getting this good bill into law. All the House needs to do is amend the Senate bill with the language in the House bill and send it to the Senate, where it will arrive near the top of the Senate’s agenda. And then all the overwhelming majority in the Senate will need to do is refuse to let the Senate pass over that bill but instead insist on taking it up, and agree to the House changes.

There is absolutely no good reason we can’t have a texting ban in South Carolina before the Legislature goes home in three weeks.

Ms. Scoppe can be reached at or at (803) 771-8571. Follow her on Twitter @CindiScoppe.

About Cindi Ross Scoppe

Cindi Ross Scoppe


Cindi Ross Scoppe has covered state government and the General Assembly since 1988, first as a reporter and now as an editorial writer. She focuses on tax policy, public education, election and campaign finance law, the relationship between state and local government, the relationship between the people and their government, the judiciary and the executive branch of government. Cindi has received numerous awards from the S.C. Press Association, including being named S.C. Journalist of the Year, editorial writer of the year and columnist of the year. She also has been honored by “Governing” magazine, the Inland Press Association, the American Bar Association, the National Commission Against Drunk Driving, the Humane Society of the United States and the S.C. chapters of Common Cause, the American Civil Liberties Union and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Cindi is a member and serves on the Stewardship Committee and the Altar Guild and as strategic visioning coordinator of Columbia’s Church of the Good Shepherd, the Anglo-Catholic parish in the Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina. She is a lover of cats and a baker of cakes and volunteers with the parish's annual mission work trip to Appalachia. She grew up on a tobacco farm just outside Burlington, N.C., and graduated in 1985 from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, with a degree in journalism and political science. Before joining The State in 1986, Cindi worked for The Fayetteville Observer and The (Raleigh) News and Observer. Email Cindi at or call her at (803) 771-8571.

Editor's Choice Videos

Join the Discussion

The State is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Terms of Service