The Difference Between "Oral" and "Verbal" Overturns Alaska No Texting Law

Magistrate Jennifer Wells in Kenai ruled that the state law that sponsoring legislators thought bans texting is too ambiguous.  The Anchorage Daily News reports:

The Kenai case involves Tyler S. Adams, 21, who was charged in May with texting while driving. Adams sought to have his case dismissed, which Wells did in October citing the ambiguous language in the law. Earlier this month, she declined to reconsider her decision.

So, what is the problem?  The law (see complete law below) says:

(a) A person commits the crime of driving with a screen device operating if
(1) the person is driving a motor vehicle;
(2) the vehicle has a television, video monitor, portable computer, or any other similar means capable of providing a visual display that is in full view of a driver in a normal driving position while the vehicle is in motion; and
(3) the monitor or visual display is operating while the person is driving.

"Screen Device"?  The dilemmas of trying to be specific enough to cover what you want to cover, but broad enough to not get left behind by new technology.

This does sound like they are talking about some sort of a television-like monitor or computer "that is in full view of a driver in a normal driving position" which makes it sound like it's mounted.  What about GPS?  Well that's covered in the exceptions as are a number of other such mounted screens used by different professionals as part of their work:

(c) Subsections (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to
(1) portable cellular telephones or personal data assistants being used for verbal communication or displaying caller identification information;
(2) equipment that is displaying only
(A) audio equipment information, functions, and controls;
(B) vehicle information or controls related to speed, fuel level, battery charge, and other vehicle safety or equipment information;
(C) navigation or global positioning;
(D) maps;
(E) visual information to
(i) enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of the motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle; or
(ii) allow the driver to monitor vehicle occupants seated behind the driver;

So, clearly the legislators had to be very careful to identify screens they meant to outlaw and those that are ok.  The problem cited by the newspaper article was the use of the word "verbal."


Language is a tool for communication.  Good tools should be used for their intended purpose.   You can often use a good bread knife, say, to cut other things it wasn't intended for, like string, and get the job done.  But when you go back to the bread it doesn't do that job as well.   The same is true for words and grammar.  For most everyday uses there is enough context that using a close, but different word, can get the meaning across.  But if you do that enough, people forget the original meaning of the word, and you've lost a precision tool. When you want to use it for its precise meaning, people no longer know that meaning.

In this case we have the word verbal which means precisely "related to words." 

The Kenai case involves Tyler S. Adams, 21, who was charged in May with texting while driving. Adams sought to have his case dismissed, which Wells did in October citing the ambiguous language in the law. Earlier this month, she declined to reconsider her decision.

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2011/12/25/2233718/driver-texting-law-challenged.html#storylink=cp

From kerryr:

Q:  Do I use verbal or oral?
A:  Verbal is the more generic term, and means 'related to words', whereas oral in this context means 'using speech'. The distinction is somewhat blurred these days, but if you mean something spoken, use oral.

Example:

• We had an oral contract.

• I gave an oral presentation.

• We have a verbal agreement.
  (The agreement could be spoken or written.)

 So, the exception written in the law is for 'verbal' communication, which could be either oral or written.  If the lawmakers had written 'oral' perhaps there would be no ambiguity here.  The bill was first introduced in 2005 and passed finally in 2007. It makes an exception for Cell Phones and  Personal Data Assistants (PDA's).  That suggests to me that reading small handheld computer screens was allowed in the law.  And from PDA to text messages?  Yes, there's a difference between thumbing a message and reading it.  But I don't think the law goes there. 

The magistrate, it appears to me, made the right call.  The law is ambiguous.  If one looks at the DMV's Driving Manual (p4 and inside back page), there is nothing about texting.  Cell phone use is listed as something that could be distracting, but not forbidden:

• All parents should consider other restrictions, which may help their young driver have a safer beginning experience as an independent driver. Cell phone and stereo use should be discussed as well as eating and drinking while driving. Any activity, even conversation, can take the focus off the driving experience, causing distractions, which can lead to violations and crashes.  (p. 4)

• Driving is not just getting behind the wheel and taking off down the road. Driving involves many other issues

• Privilege - Driving is a privilege, not a right. 

• Distracted Driving - The use of cell phones, eating, grooming, playing the radio or CD player extremely loud, or other activities while driving contributes to crashes.  (Inside back cover)

And the search found nothing about texting.  But the the Manual says at the very beginning:

The purpose of this manual is to provide the reader with a general familiarity with the principles of safe and lawful operation of a motor vehicle.
The contents of this manual are NOT intended to serve as a precise statement of the Statutes and Regulations of the State of Alaska pertaining to the opera- tion of a motor vehicle and should not be understood by the reader as such.
REV. 01/2010 Printed 01/2010

But it seems texting and cell phone use happen frequently enough that when there is a new law, it should be in the manual. 

I would also observe that I went into this with a story line about the difference between the two words.  And that's basically what I've written.  But as I got more into it, I suspect that it wasn't simply the use of 'verbal' that caused the magistrate problems.  The fact that cell phones and particularly PDA's are exempted suggests that reading text was not prohibited.  Should I drop the post because it's not exactly the story I had in mind?  I think this paragraph is probably better than dropping the post altogether.  It allows me to make my point about why using the right language is important and it also let's me make a point about how reporters and bloggers can write the story they looking for and not the one that is really out there. 

Here's the complete statute:


Alaska Statute Section 28.35.161
Driving a motor vehicle with a screen device operating; unlawful installation of television, monitor, or similar device.
(a) A person commits the crime of driving with a screen device operating if
(1) the person is driving a motor vehicle;
(2) the vehicle has a television, video monitor, portable computer, or any other similar means capable of providing a visual display that is in full view of a driver in a normal driving position while the vehicle is in motion; and
(3) the monitor or visual display is operating while the person is driving.
(b) A person may not install or alter equipment described in (a)(2) of this section that allows the images to be viewed by the driver in a normal driving position while the vehicle is in motion.
(c) Subsections (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to
(1) portable cellular telephones or personal data assistants being used for verbal communication or displaying caller identification information;
(2) equipment that is displaying only
(A) audio equipment information, functions, and controls;
(B) vehicle information or controls related to speed, fuel level, battery charge, and other vehicle safety or equipment information;
(C) navigation or global positioning;
(D) maps;
(E) visual information to
(i) enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of the motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle; or
(ii) allow the driver to monitor vehicle occupants seated behind the driver;
(F) vehicle dispatching and response information for motor vehicles providing emergency road service or roadside assistance;
(G) vehicle dispatching information for passenger transport or freight or package delivery;
(H) information for use in performing highway construction, maintenance, or repair or data acquisition by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities or a municipality; or
(d) Subsections (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to devices and equipment installed in an emergency vehicle. In this subsection, "emergency vehicle" means a police, fire, or emergency medical service vehicle.
(e) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under (b) of this section that the equipment installed or altered includes a device that, when the motor vehicle is being driven, disables the equipment for all uses except those described in (c) of this section.
(f) A person who violates (a) of this section is guilty of
(1) a class A misdemeanor, unless any of the circumstances described in (2) - (4) of this subsection apply;
(2) a class C felony if the person's driving causes physical injury to another person; (3) a class B felony if the person's driving causes serious physical injury to another person; (4) a class A felony if the person's driving causes the death of another person. (g) A person who violates (b) of this section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.