Milton Gibbs
618 Thornton Road, Lithia Springs, GA 30122
404-980-3185
Computer Science
North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University
Should There Be Stricter Laws About Distracted Driving?
One of the riskiest things you can do on American roadways these days is to drive while preoccupied. These days, multimedia systems, smartphones, and continuous communication are commonplace, which makes it simpler for drivers to become distracted while driving. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2023 alone, distracted driving resulted in an estimated 424,000 injuries and 3,522 fatalities (NHTSA, 2024). Although there are many different types of distracted driving, such as texting, eating, changing the radio, or chatting with passengers, texting while driving is still the most concerning since it combines visual, physical, and cognitive distraction. Stricter legislation against distracted driving is unquestionably necessary in light of these facts.
Stricter laws are justified because current penalties have not been enough to change driver behavior. Every state in the U.S. bans texting while driving, and 25 states ban any hand-held phone use while driving (Governors Highway Safety Association, 2025). However, enforcement varies widely, and many distracted drivers never face consequences. Because distracted driving often occurs out of sight of law enforcement and lacks immediate perceived danger by drivers themselves, stronger legal measures are necessary to deter risky behavior. For example, primary enforcement—where police can stop drivers solely for distracted driving—must be universal. Studies show that states with primary enforcement laws see higher compliance and reductions in cellphone use behind the wheel compared to states with only secondary enforcement (Borghini et al., 2018).
There should be more severe punishments in addition to tougher enforcement. For many drivers, distracted driving is a cost of doing business because most states have minimal fines compared to other significant traffic infractions. In contrast, states with strong enforcement have found success with more severe punishments, such as increasing fines, license points, and mandated distracted driving education programs. For instance, there was a discernible decline in the usage of hand-held phones in Washington State, where law enforcement officials have the authority to prosecute drivers for using hand-held devices under primary enforcement rules (McCartt et al., 2017). Stronger regulations with actual penalties let drivers know that driving while distracted is not a danger that can be tolerated.
Stricter regulatory requirements are useful in lowering risky driving practices, according to case law. The North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld a conviction in State v. Johnson where a motorist was found liable per se for texting and rear-ending another vehicle, highlighting the fact that laws against distracted driving establish explicit standards of care for drivers (State v. Johnson, 2022). This case demonstrates how legal clarity not only facilitates successful prosecution but also upholds cultural norms that driving is required by law.
Stricter legislation opponents may contend that drivers should be expected to exercise personal responsibility and that enforcement is challenging. In actuality, though, drivers frequently underestimate the extent to which texting and phone use impair their abilities. The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found that cognitive distraction persists long when the phone is off, so even if drivers believe they have “checked quickly,” they are still impaired (AAA Foundation, 2021). Strict legislation and enforcement help shrink the gap between what individuals think they can do and what is actually safe. Self-regulation alone cannot solve this human overconfidence.
Furthermore, teenage drivers are disproportionately affected by distracted driving. Drivers between the ages of 16 and 24 account for the largest percentage of fatal collisions caused by distraction, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2022). Additionally, this group uses smartphones and social media at the greatest rates, which raises the possibility of texting and driving. In addition to protecting vulnerable groups, stricter legislation would establish a cultural norm that puts safety above convenience.
Crucially, technology should be seen as a component of the solution rather than a hindrance to traffic safety. Nowadays, a lot of smartphone operating systems and third-party apps have driving modes that lock messaging and quiet alerts while a car is moving. Distracted driving rates may drastically decrease if manufacturers were mandated by law to incorporate safety measures like defaults. This is consistent with court rulings such as People v. Smith in California, where judges acknowledged the use of technology in setting reasonable standards of care for road safety (People v. Smith, 2023). A complete strategy that addresses the problem from both behavioral and systemic perspectives is produced by combining technology with more stringent regulatory restrictions.
In conclusion, our roadways are now less safe due to the increase in distracted driving, particularly texting and driving. The regulations in place are a good place to start, but they won’t be enough to alter deeply embedded behavior. If we are serious about lowering the thousands of fatalities and injuries that happen every year, we must enact stronger laws with primary enforcement, stiffer penalties, and the incorporation of technology-driven safety measures. Drivers need to be aware that their actions affect everyone on the road, not just themselves. It’s time for the law to take into consideration the actual risks associated with distracted driving and to hold drivers responsible in ways that safeguard the public and save lives.
Works Cited
- AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Distracted Driving Research. AAA Foundation, 2021.
- Borghini, Jennifer et al. “Law Enforcement and Distracted Driving in the U.S.” Traffic Injury Prevention, 2018.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Teen Distracted Driving. CDC, 2022.
- Governors Highway Safety Association. Distracted Driving Laws & Trends. GHSA, 2025.
- McCartt, Anne T., et al. Effects of Primary Enforcement Hand-held Phone Laws in Washington State. AAA Foundation, 2017.
- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Facts 2023. NHTSA, 2024.
- People v. Smith, California Appellate Ct., 2023.
- State v. Johnson, North Carolina Ct. App., 2022.