Senate GOP Continues to Resist Sanctions-Based Distracted Driving Rules

The Senate environment committee’s senior Republican yesterday joined his counterpart on the commerce panel in criticizing legislation that would withhold federal highway funding from states that fail to crack down on distracted driving, casting doubt on Congress’ ability to approve any punitive approach to reining in texting and cell phone use by drivers.


At transport safety hearing in the environment panel — which is working on a new six-year infrastructure bill that could see action in the upper chamber this year — Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) ruled out any attempt to use federal money as leverage in encouraging stronger state safety rules.

"What I oppose is forcing a one-size-fits-all Washington solution on
all states … that withholds highway funds from states that do not
enact specific laws," Inhofe said.

In response to environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) assertion that "we have seen tremendous cooperation on the safety part of this bill," Inhofe added that "if there’s any division up here …  it’s going to be over the role of the states."

Inhofe’s comments follow questions raised by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), the commerce committee’s senior GOP member and co-sponsor of a competing bill that uses federal grants as an incentive to coax states into passing new distracted driving laws.

"I don’t think we should get into states rights," Hutchison said in November.

The concept of yanking federal funds from states that fail to rein in drivers’ texting and cell phone use is modeled after seat-belt and drunk-driving laws passed in recent decades. Guarding against drunk driving is far from a moribund issue, however; Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) used yesterday’s hearing to press the Obama administration on his proposal to require the installation of ignition interlocks for six months in the cars of convicted drunk drivers.

The interlocks are small sensors that test a driver’s breath for alcohol before permitting them to start their vehicle. After Lautenberg cited Centers for Disease Contol (CDC) research that found rearrests of convicted drunk drivers dropped by 73 percent after the installation of interlocks in their cars, U.S. DOT No. 2 John Porcari agreed that the devices could soon be in wider use as a road safety tool.

  • Eric McClure

    States’ rights? The right to drive like an idiot while texting, endangering the lives of everyone else on or near the road? That’s a states’ rights issue?

  • Learn why Lautenberg’s interlock proposal is misguided.

  • Jass

    “”What I oppose is forcing a one-size-fits-all Washington solution on all states … that withholds highway funds from states that do not enact specific laws,” Inhofe said.”

    Ok, then lets repeal the forced 21 age requirement.

    Instead, do a simple calculation:

    Do what you want to make the roads safer. If that means making the drinking age 19, but heavily enforcing distracted driving, then do it.

    States should be able to use any number of tools to make streets safer. These tools include raising or lowering the drinking age, banning the use of cell phones, more DUI checkpoints, more speed checkpoints etc etc.

  • jon

    Jim Imhofe is more of an all out nutjob than Michele Bachmann. Why is it whenever I hear of crazy opposition to anything commonsense this guy’s name is front and center?

    It makes a hell of a lot more sense to withhold highway money over distracted driving than over the general drinking age. Highway money effects highway users, hence why distracted driving rules effecting highway funding make sense. Highway money should not have an effect on non-driving activities like alcohol consumption.

  • Bolwerk

    If you want to do something about underage use of automobiles while driving, make the driving age 21 and the drinking age 16. That gives five years of prep time.

    I was in Philly during the 2000 Republikan convention, and Inhofe asked me if he had the right platform. Yuck!

  • Maria Harlow

    Something really needs to be done in this area. There are far too many people driving while texting and talking on the phones these days. What is really alarming is that this type of inattentive driving behavior is common place on many major highway loops during rush hour traffic…while driving at excessively high speeds. Should this even be a federal issue? Who knows. If you let the states resolve it, then maybe something will get done.


Stark Divisions Between Dems and GOP on Climate Impacts of Transportation

How polarized are the two political parties on key questions about transportation policy and climate change? As you can imagine, the answer is “very.” The senior Democrat and Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee — California’s Barbara Boxer and Oklahoma’s Jim Inhofe, respectively — each wrote an opinion this week for the Eno Center for […]

Senior Dems Release New Distracted Driving Bill as LaHood Testifies

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) today unveiled his plan to take an incentive-based approach to distracted driving as Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood testified on the Obama administration’s campaign to end the use of electronic devices behind the wheel. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) (Photo: Wired) Rockefeller’s bill, co-sponsored by three Republicans […]

With New Rule, Feds Forget Their Own Best Ideas on Street Design

Antiquated, car-oriented road design guidance is losing its vise grip on our cities. Other manuals are challenging the dominance of the “design bible” issued by AASHTO, the coalition of state DOTs. But the federal government might be missing an important opportunity to enshrine street safety for all modes. Over the past few years, the Federal Highway Administration […]