Can Oprah Do What Driving-While-Yakking Laws Can't?
from the alternate-means dept
There's been a big push by politicians across the country (and around the globe, as well) to enact laws that ban the use of cell phones while driving. While using your phone while driving isn't a great idea, neither are these laws. They attack a very narrowly defined distraction, which is really just a small part of a bigger problem: overall unsafe driving. There are many other activities that are dangerous distractions to a driver, but going after each of them, one by one, is inefficient, when the real focus should be on making people more safe drivers in general. It also doesn't really help that these laws may not be effective in making roads any safer, and that their real focus is revenue generation, not public safety. Now, Oprah has jumped into the fray, devoting an entire episode of her show to the issue, and pushing viewers to sign a No Phone Zone pledge that says they won't drive while yakking or texting. So far, she's collected more than 300,000 pledges, and while they certainly aren't a guarantee that people will stop using their phones while they drive, that figure does illustrate Oprah's broad reach and her ability to shine some light on issues. Building awareness through educational campaigns like this, that have the goal of actually changing behavior, may be much more effective in actually making the roads safer than narrowly targeted laws that punish behavior after the fact.
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: driving while yakking, oprah, peer pressure
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm all for this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm all for this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm all for this
That's not what Carlo said. He called it "a very narrowly defined distraction". Sure, it's a fine point, but use of the term "little" implies that Carlo was trivializing the issue of driving while using a cell phone. I don't think he's saying that it's a little problem. It's actually a big problem, but one that happens to already be covered by existing laws. There's no need for additional laws that target specific examples of things that are already covered by other laws.
Do you think it's a good use of a politician's time to enact the same law over and over every time a new gadget comes out because (they think it) makes them look good to the public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even more importantly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PSA
(Would it cost some money for these PSAs? Sure, but I think you could make the case that the production and publishing costs would be much less than all of the wasted time caused by the blowhards in government.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PSA
This isn't Google Wave. We only see what you type after you click "submit". You don't need to alert us when emergencies interrupt your typing, because by the time we read your alert, the emergency has passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: PSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A pledge that's not worth the air it's breathed out with.
That pledge will be broken with the first incoming call.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A pledge that's not worth the air it's breathed out with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A pledge that's not worth the air it's breathed out with.
You make it sound like it requires some herculean expenditure of will power not to answer a phone that is ringing. If you're driving and you don't have a headset, then don't answer the phone. Simple.
BTW, I'm not saying that it doesn't affect a lot of people or even that I'm trying to exclude myself from this, but there seems to be this irresistable, Pavlovian urge to answer a ringing phone. And I would say that this urge is almost completely unrelated to the actual chances of getting an emergency phone call. I'm not some Luddite that thinks people who have cell phones are self-centered, pompous assholes, but come on people, the caller will understand if you don't answer because you're driving. That's what voicemail is for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A pledge that's not worth the air it's breathed out with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A pledge that's not worth the air it's breathed out with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A pledge that's not worth the air it's breathed out with.
I call bullshit! You have ABSOLUTE control...it's called "The Power Button".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A straight-forward market-based solution
- No coverage will be provided if it can be shown that a mobile communication device was in use at the time of (or within X seconds) the incident.
In other words: If you were talking, texting, or browsing when the accident occurred, your insurance company would provide you with no coverage.
It would not force people to modify their behaviors, but it would provide a very powerful incentive to behave in accordance with your best financial interests.
Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A straight-forward market-based solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A straight-forward market-based solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A straight-forward market-based solution
Yes, it would change behavior all right, but maybe not in the way you suggest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are already laws that cover texting, talking, having sex, applying make-up, picking your nose. picking your crotch, and/or anything else that leads to a failure to devote your full time and attention to the road.
More specific laws are publicity stunts for politicians paid for by our taxes instead of their campaign money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make Handsfree Required Equipment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Make Handsfree Required Equipment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
time to prove oprah wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And I'm the crass one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry. I'm from Chicago and I have to hear about this pompous assclown ALL THE TIME. If Oprah was on fire, I wouldn't piss on her to put her out....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If anyone honestly thinks Oprah, PSAs, or some pledge that most people will effortlessly forget about in a month will actually resolve any problems, rethink human behavior. You can throw around buzzwords all you want - "we need to treat the problem, instead of the symptom" - the problem of bad driving will never be solved, and to suggest this is fairly disingenuous.
Forgetting the last sentence entirely, how can you call this a symptom of a larger problem? We already know you can't fix a bad driver, hence the problem then lends itself to the fact we are allowing people to text and yak while they drive. I'm all for using common sense, but most people don't have this handy feature, and if we need a law to jolt people in the right direction, then by all means. I'd rather rely on legislation than Oprah's feel-good pledge, because I can actually use legislation in court when I get t-boned at an intersection. See how that works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are already laws that cover texting, talking, having sex, applying make-up, picking your nose. picking your crotch, and/or anything else that leads to a failure to devote your full time and attention to the road.
More specific laws (such as the one highlighted in the post) are publicity stunts for politicians paid for by our taxes instead of their campaign money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How do you figure? I think what you mean is we are not willing to fix bad drivers. Have rigorous driver education and testing that makes it difficult to get a driver's license (with periodic retesting), and severe penalties such as vehicle impounding or jail time for driving without a license, and maybe the bad drivers wouldn't be driving any more.
I understand this is how it works in places like Germany, but in America driving is almost considered a right. See what happens to any politician or public official who tries to start such a program here. Death threats wouldn't surprise me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell Phone Laws
There are really a bunch of stupid people in this world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cell Phone Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hasn't anybody heard of Citizen Band Radios?
There are even those who can text without looking at the screen! There are also those who can't drive safely at fifteen miles an hour with blinders on! For unsafe drivers there are already laws on the books, for safe drivers who are offended by the trampling of their first amendment rights by those who just want to take the easy way out, (they may not want to pay to put in new "No Cell Phones In School Zones" signs) there are class action lawsuits similar to the ones that were brought against communities that tried to ban CB's when they first became popular. A few people will get very very rich and the rest of us will get one more lesson in why we should never pass one extra law, simply because every law diminishes the effect of all other laws and makes people question why they follow laws at all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just arm the pedestians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The research shows otherwise. Talking to people who are in the car is much, much safer than talking on a phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give the police the discretion to decide on infringement, that a judge can overrule on a case-by-case basis.
So,
Secure children & animals.
Get an auto-answer/voice activated bluetooth device or divert to voicemail with SMS notification (that you can pull-over to read when safe).
Keep the stereo to a level where emergency vehicle sirens can still be heard.
Don't block the rear vision mirror without some alternative to see what's behind you.
Just all common sense realy.
Making more and more indivdual specific laws, invites looking for loop-holes.
A driver needs to take responsibility for the deadly weapon of which they are in control, NO ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
I don't watch Oprah, but boy does she sound grating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
Speak for yourself, bozo. Some of us do exactly that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
have you ever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ireland is getting worse in this regard
The reason Gay Byrne is pushing is that he says that young drivers are pressured by their passengers into speeding. Which is bullshit. One of my friends is what you yanks would call a jock basically. He does get tanked with the lads every now and then, but he's the safest driver I know. He has the non-alchoholic stuff if he knows hes driving and not once has he gone over the speed limit. He's 21 years old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
easy solution
Back in the days (oh crap that makes me sound old) before power steering, you NEEDED to keep your hands on the wheel... sure there were other problems back then (drink driving etc) but people were less likely to pull stupid crap because you had to fight with the wheel to do it, it wasn't a trivial one handed swerve to cut in, it generally took 2 hands to make sudden movements/sharp turns..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a motorcycle rider...
But then again, I am guilty of some of these things when I am in my car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
revenue generation is reasonable
If revenue must be raised, this can be a good way of doing it. Overall there will always be a proportion of people paying. Yet the apparent burden is reduced, since for any individual payment is voluntary. It is a tax that, as side benefit, incentivises good behaviour.
The mechanism is sensitive to numbers and conditions, so it needs careful application, but it does seem a valid technique.
(Bring on the robot cars!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honestly, though, compare this to the whole MADD/drunk driving thing. I don't have numbers at hand to back this up, but I'm pretty sure that we've had dui laws on the books for ages. But, it wasn't until MADD and extensive public education campaigns became widespread that drunk driving became socially-unacceptable. And peer-pressure can be a better motivator than law enforcement for a lot of people.
Similarly, I think it is much better to put money and effort into educating people on the dangers of driving while distracted. Make it a moral social issue, and people will change their behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Last year, my friend and I were almost sideswiped by a woman one lane left of us who was texting away. She looked up and corrected in time, but it was close!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]