New Data Shows No Decrease In Crashes After Driving While Yakking Laws Were Implemented
from the how's-that-working,-then? dept
We've been suspicious of whether or not "driving while yakking" laws actually do any good. There are already laws against reckless driving, and picking out specific driving distractions doesn't seem likely to change things, since people just switch to other distractions. A study back in 2006 found that driving while yakking laws don't make the roads any safer, and a brand new study has apparently surprised researchers in showing no impact whatsoever on crash data even as studies show that fewer people are holding phones to their ears while driving (thanks Chirag). Now, there could be plenty of reasons for this -- such as that people are just switching to ear pieces which can be just as dangerous. Or it could be that common claims about driving while yakking leading to more accidents are wrong. Or it could be more complex, with other variables having an impact, but which is hidden in the data. Either way, it certainly seems worth investigating more seriously. If the goal is better road safety, then we should make sure that the laws actually lead to that result. If they don't, then it's important to understand why not.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: accidents, crashes, distractions, driving, driving while yakking
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"So let's plan to meet at...
dead air..
"... sorry, there was a cop, I had to put the phone down. So, let's plan to meet at 8"
Oh man, that law is SOOOO effective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why oh why
Other than legislators needing to pretend like they did something important, I mean...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why oh why
What difference does a headset make? That's kind of like saying that the dangerous part of drunk driving is having the drink in your hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why oh why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why oh why
I thought that was the point ... head set or not makes no difference in the crash data. Therefore get rid of the requirement or no yakking at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Holding the phone isn't the distraction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd say...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd say…
And you'd be right for the wrong reason.
Drunk driving laws didn't change how often people drove drunk. The cultural change from believing that driving drunk was OK to believing that it was really not OK (but some still do it) was the effective part and was mostly achieved through public education efforts.
That cultural change wouldn't have worked had it been legal to drink and drive, though.
Aside: The research on the effects of taking a phone call and driving is pretty conclusive. The experimental designs I've seen used are sound and simple, and the conclusions have really high validity scores. What we're seeing here is the result of a lack of political will: nobody wants to ban cellphone use entirely so hands-free is touted as an OK alternative, despite the research resoundingly showing that there's no difference between using a handset and using a headset while driving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd say...
I didn't give a reason.
The cultural change ... was mostly achieved through public education efforts.
That cultural change wouldn't have worked had it been legal to drink and drive, though.
I think the same could be expected to apply to phoning while driving, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd say�
I wonder if their testing assumed that everyone was tailgating while yakking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd say�
I don't think that's true. Look at smoking, especially smoking around kids. It's still legal but it is now a cultural taboo, so it happens much less often. Education and other incentives (or disincentives like increased taxation on cigarettes) are far more effective than legislation/prohibition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Goal
The real goal is revenue generation.
If the goal were safety, my town would not change a speeding ticket to a parking ticket, so they can keep all the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laws and enforcement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laws and enforcement
We have the "staffing", we don't have the willingness to enforce. Don't expect cops to be real eager to enforce laws that they, themselves, drive around violating in plain view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laws and enforcement
If all the laws on all the books were enforced all the time, everyone would be in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Laws and enforcement
Of course, laws are for the little people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laws and enforcement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re
I tried it once when I got my first cell phone and never did it again. Seriously, I was handling the car like a drunk driver. I could see how this would be a problem, and am surprised it doesn't show up in the math.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re
- Maybe we should all snap to attention and salute ?
"Usually a woman"
- Wow, sexism much ? There is data that says you are wrong.
"I tried it once when I got my first cell phone and never did it again."
- Cellphone, the gateway drug. At this point in your post I began to think you were being sarcastic in a refer madness sort of way.
"show up in the math"
- What ? I don't understand this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: re
Some can drive drunk, some can't.
Laws shouldn't be made just based on a certain percentage of the public's abilities.
That's right: if I can drive drunk, why shouldn't I be allowed to do so?
If you drive correctly, who cares?
Correct again. What should blood-alcohol-level have to do with it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It doesn't take much more than a couple of days of better or worse weather in a given time period to change the numbers dramatically. The methodology used to determine the number of people on the phone is somewhat suspect as well, as it is essentially a "drive by" survey on an entrance ramp. There is no indication that entrance ramps are the area where the most "on the phone" accidents were happening.
One other thing that is missing is that use of a cell phone often won't get cited or won't be reported in anything but the most serious of accidents, so it is hard to judge just from police reports how many people were talking on the phone when an accident occurred.
These sorts of things could swing numbers in all sorts of directions. Were cell phone related accidents under reported in the past, and now over reported because of new laws? Are people who put down the phone now more likely to be distracted by the radio, their Ipod, or whatever? Are distracted drivers just distracted drivers?
It's hard to draw a real conclusion from the data, which makes the title of this post somewhat misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No there's nothing at all misleading about the title. The data does indeed show no decrease in crashes.
The only thing that's misleading is your comment - most of which turns out to be a rather smelly mixture of red herrings and straw men.
Most of the points you make are either undermined by the methodology of the researchers or attempts to refute claims that no one is actually making.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The result is NOT surprising
The worst aspect of the mobile phone ban is that it has resulted in trigger happy policemen prosecuting people for all kinds of "distractions". The latest and silliest of these can be found here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8484978.stm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Driving Habits are Numerous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Driving Habits are Numerous
Because there are so many more people who don't want to give it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not true
The problem is that the law IS NOT enforced in any way by cops, unless they're (cops) having a bad day or need an excuse to pull someone over for further inspection.
Hell, I even see COPS driving with cellphones glued to their ear.
Those stats are bs. It doesnt work BECAUSE ITS NOT BEING ENFORCED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not true
Bzzzzt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell phones and accidents
But let's consider - how about conversation itself? What about the parent trying to control the disorderly children in the back seat, or the daughter driving while the mother argues with her. Or the father and son arguing about which football team deserves to win the Superbowl?
It is not the cell phone. It is the conversations, the distractions and changing the law to point a finger at one item is not the issue or the answer.
And to be honest, I do not see a law that can eliminate this, other than driver self discipline.
This conversation was interesting enough to cause me to post. Which means I joined. You folks are onto something, and I believe if you take it to it's max, you will discover the problems, as someone already pointed out, is not the phones or the radio or the CDs.
It's the drivers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cell phones and accidents
The reason mobile phones have been targeted is because phone conservations have been shown to be more distracting than conservations with other passengers and thus a more serious problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cell phones and accidents
Close, but not the root cause.
The root cause is following too close.
Given:
1. People are not perfect and they will become distracted by any number of things, a cell phone is just one of them and I doubt it is the most distracting.
2. Elimination of all distractions is near impossible.
Because of the distraction, whatever it is, the driver reaction time increases significantly. When this coincides with a traffic anomaly, possibly a large deceleration, then there is a very high collision probablility when the driver is tailgating.
The problem is, few people realize this and take appropriate action. They are more concerned with the possiblity of some other driver getting in front of them. I'm sure you see this every day, and most likely have participated in the game. Automobile collisions are not an enjoyable experience and I highly recommend drivers to take their responsibility seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Numbers Schmumbers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Numbers Schmumbers...
Is it the bumper sticker
Maybe the adolescent occupants are all in uniform
In addition, am I to suppose that in your experience the men you have witnessed driving while yakking are better at multitasking ?
What more anecdotal evidence can you provide in support of your sexism ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Darwin
In the business world it is called "risk assessment" which basically says "do you want to take the risk if there is no possible offsetting reward"? The reward can be anything from financial gain, to work efficiencies, to going home to your family alive and uninjured. The risk can be anything from financial loss, to injury, to death. Even wild animals have an innate understanding of this, the reward of eating against the risk of disabling injury or death. Guess which one takes precedent most often?
So nature takes care of this. What nature does not seem to take care of is that these distracted bozos are usually holding up traffic flow and pissing off the drivers who are paying attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Darwin
Or killing *other* people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can personally guarantee that I can drive better drunk than with my kids in the backseat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They know that, we know that. Its not even worth posting about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Cell Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wha ... LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wha ... LOL
Stress reliever, you know, like a military battlefield jack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1: lack of compliance with the law
2: lack of enforcement of the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did I spell that correctly ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1: lack of compliance with the law
2: lack of enforcement of the law
No there is just one reason.
3: Blaming drivers and making laws is the wrong approach altogether.
This is because human nature guarantees that 1 will never happen and lack of resources rues out 2.
The way forward is technical measures combined with driver education to pesuade people to use them.
Things that have worked to reduce deaths and accidents:
1 Better car design.
(Safety cells, better handling and braking, ABS, pedestrian friendly front ends, seat belts, airbags)
2 Better road design (crash barriers, runoff areas, removing blindspots, removing solid obstacles from strategic points, refuges at junctions)
Things that will work in future if we can get over the pointless blame game.
Automated emergency braking esp. for heavy vehicles.
Look ahead road and traffic hazard warning information made available to drivers. Possibly with automated collision avoidance built in.
Traffic calming robots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Kidding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enforcement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Driver Training
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heres why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Heres why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That model doesn't work for texting, however. You can check cell tower logs to see if someone was talking when the accident happened, but if you are texting while driving, then have an accident before you hit SEND, there's no way to tell.
People will actually WALK INTO me while talking and walking. I can't imagine that driving is any better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I heard the other day that you're 8 times more likely to be killed walking drunk than driving drunk. I wonder if walking while using a phone is similar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Bottom line: Driving or walking while impaired increases your risk of death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it is on a per-mile basis and from the book “SuperFreakonomics" by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]