New Study Shows Texting Bans May Make Roads Even More Dangerous
from the unintended-consequences... dept
For many years we've questioned the wisdom of various "distracted driving" laws -- such as bans on talking while driving or texting while driving. It's not -- as some people have accused -- that we think texting or using a mobile phone is a good idea while driving. We don't. In fact, it seems to go without saying that trying to send a text message while driving is one of the dumbest things you can do, and I'm amazed that anyone even considers it. My concern has always been that I don't believe the laws work. And, now, it appears that we have some more evidence to support that. A new study has shown that state laws banning driving while texting have not reduced accidents, and in some cases may have even resulted in more accidents. How could it have increased accidents? Because people who want to text anyway -- especially unskilled young drivers -- begin holding their phones lower to avoid detection, making it that much more difficult to control the car and be aware of their surroundings. The study compared before and after stats in states that implemented texting-while-driving bans, and then also compared the findings to neighboring states that didn't have such laws.This seems like a classic case of politicians not understanding unintended consequences. Politicians love to ban stuff, but they never take into account the actual response to those bans, and just assume that if the law bans something people will stop doing it. Instead, they may continue to do the action in an even less socially acceptable way -- and that can put a lot more people in danger.
The article quotes someone who makes the point that I've been trying to make for years:
"The trouble is that texting and using a cellphone while driving is definitely hazardous. Nobody argues that. The danger in putting all the emphasis on laws is that it is being done to the exclusion of something else that would be more effective."No one is arguing that texting while driving is a good thing -- just that these laws aren't helping (and may even be making the problem worse). Instead of pretending we live in a perfect world where if something is banned by law, people will stop doing it, why not focus on looking for solutions that actually make people safer?
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: distractions, driving, texting, unintended consequences
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Let's fix the problem completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's fix the problem completely.
Mandate Faraday cages be put into every vehicle.
No texts. No calls. Just driving sans the make up application, newspaper reading, music tuning, and other "eyes off the road" distractions. My favorite being vehicles equipped with Sync.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's fix the problem completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's fix the problem completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's fix the problem completely.
Why should the state care who is to blame when they can just get money from both parties?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's fix the problem completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's fix the problem completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's fix the problem completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's called "grandstanding".
2. An *actual study* of the consequences? Who cares?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we need a whole other law for non-voice, non-interpersonal communication "data input"...and it just keeps going...and going...and going.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We could get cops out running the roads and paying attention to how people drive instead of sitting, watching a speed readout.
In Pittsburgh, it's not speeding that causes the most problems, it's cutting people off, tailgating, illegal turns (irresponsible construction schedules). Excessive speeding can be a problem, but going that fast is rare and can be picked up by a rolling cop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
what really needs to happen here is the human race needs to take one for the universal team.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And they then build all kinds of tenuous arguments about how speeding is the *cause* of all kinds of accidents. But it's not a cause, it's a multiplier. But we ignore the causes, because thats *hard* to enforce.
Now with red light cameras, they have a cheap tool for enforcing red light infractions. We see efforts to abuse that tool too.
Oh, and the enforcement is always related to revenue.
They do not enforce all the other infractions which are more dangerous.
How did we get on this tangent..? Oh, yeah, TXT and driving is bad, and should be enforced with existing laws. Corporations and parents can "police" their staff and kids by using technological tools, like the one that I'm about to pimp for my client, Aegis Mobility:
http://www.aegismobility.com/home/index.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately, the law did nothing to curb the activity. I've not actually heard of anyone getting a ticket for it. And I still see people talking on their cell phones while driving just about everyday.
There are some people who can't drive well to begin with. They don't need another distraction. Unfortunately, if all of their driving experiences are near-misses and the laws aren't enforced, they'll keep on doing it.
But what's the solution? Turn citizens into profiteering vigilantes by getting people to turn in fellow drivers for the promise of a cut of the ticket? Big Brother is watching you because Big Brother is everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Swerving into other lanes is, of course, awful. And no competent driver should ever hit the rumble strip unless avoiding an accident or navigating construction areas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nope. It's as dangerous as speeding. It's not the speed that usually causes the accident, it's the variation between the speeds of the cars on the road that cause an accident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What are people supposed to do if they want to obey the law and also be safe? Is the variance in the speed more the fault of the person obeying the law or the person breaking it?
I, personally, think that in those situations the speed limit is unreasonable and unsafe, and should be raised. But that doesn't seem to be happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Au contraire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Driving
Actually there is. By driving slower than all the traffic around you, you become more of a hazard than a speeder.
It's basic fluid dynamics-- laws of physics and all that.
It's roughly analogous to a river. Even fast-moving water will move with smooth tranquility until you stick a big old boulder in the middle of it, then you get chaos and a raging rapid. A slow-moving driver in a river of fast traffic is that chaos-causing boulder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Driving
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Driving
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Driving
That's fine, but don't claim it's "safer" to drive 20 mph slower than everyone else, because it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or perhaps we should have everyone that does not talk on their phone taking pictured of the people who are?
I think we need to make the penalties worse. Studies have shown that talking on your phone reduces your capacity to control your vehicle as much as being legally drunk. Why not make the penalty the same? Take the license, put the driver in jail, mandate counseling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The not-so-smart person will have their cellphone down in their lap thinking they're being all sneaky about it and they don't notice the guy in front of them slam on their brakes, and smash.
It sucks because at least when they used to hold it at eye level, I wasn't held up in traffic and late getting places as much as I am now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In reality there is no alternative
Really, the only other way to do this is to either ignore it or mandate changes directly into the cars or cell phone devices. And that just isn't going to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In reality there is no alternative
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Automated solution:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Automated solution:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Automated solution:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Automated solution:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Automated solution:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Automated solution:
A "safety service" that could be purchased by parents or employers for their field force can detect when the user is moving at road speeds, on roads, and the behavior is that of a person in a passenger vehicle. At that point, the system assumes the person is a driver, and redirects calls to a automated attendant who explains "The person you are calling is driving, please leave a message or press 9 for emergency pass-through." Similarly, text messages would just queue up, and outbound calls would be blocked. But an over-ride is build in and actually very easy to activate.
However, the over-ride also triggers a message to the parent or employer indicating that the user over-rode the system, so that the parent or employer can ask for a good reason.
Can it be hacked? Well, if it's just a phone app, or something your teenager can reach, then yes. But if it is built into the network like out_of_the_blue suggests, then not so much.
Commercial solutions can have a positive impact WITHOUT LAWS. Not only would parents and field force managers use it, but insurance companies are serious about the possibility of offering discounts to their policyholders who activate such a service. Car wrecks cost money and have very negative economic "utility". This is the kind of problem that the market and technology CAN solve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Automated solution:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Automated solution:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Within one mile, commits all of the following: 1) speeding; 2) at least two of the following: failure to obey traffic control device, passing on the right off of paved roadway, following too closely, lane violation, failure to yield right of way; and 3) creating an immediate hazard for another vehicle or person.
Seems to about sum up anything you would do while distracted to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The people are the problem ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The people are the problem ...
These are simple infractions, not actual crimes, hence the people are not criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The people are the problem ...
A long time ago, would you have called Rosa Parks a criminal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The people are the problem ...
I meant to suggest that laws should be questioned. Frequently. And some laws just aren't right. Kilroy's blind adherence to law for law's sake is civic irresponsibility, IMHO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Motorcycles
I now feel less threatened driving in the bar district after last call than I do during rush hour.
Driving while impaired, I don't think it matters if it's alcohol or screaming kids or your phone. you should lose you license on the spot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Motorcycles
> screaming kids or your phone. you should lose
> you license on the spot.
The problem is the issue of proof. It's easy to scientifically prove impairment with alcohol and drugs via breath/blood tests. How do you prove someone was driving impaired with a cell phone (or that the kid in the back seat's behavior rose to the level of impairment)? Unless the cop directly witnesses the use of the cell phone, there's no testable way to determine impairment. And even witnessing a kid in the backseat isn't going to prove that the driver was impaired because of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Motorcycles
It's called 'Call Records'. Any police force can get these with a warrant and show exact times a call was being made or texts being sent.
Then it's just a matter of match the call/text times with the accident/pull-over times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Motorcycles
Also, you must prove that exact phone was in the car at the time, AND the SIM card has not been cloned. Basically, this is an unworkable burden of proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Motorcycles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Motorcycles
> warrant and show exact times a call was being made or texts
> being sent.
That only works for crimes. You can't get a warrant for an administrative violation, which is what most traffic offenses are these days.
Even so, that only works for cell phones. It doesn't do anything to address all the other distracted driving scenarios, like screaming kids, talking to passengers, fiddling with the radio, eating and drinking, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Motorcycles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Motorcycles
Most children are prone to screaming from time to time, that would make every mother or father lose their license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps we should penalize the consequences...
How about we repeal ALL the "distracted driving" laws and pass a new one that adds a citation/ticket for "accident due to distracted driving". It would not be a primary offense that you could get pulled over for, but a supplemental ticket at the scene of an accident on top of any other offenses (i.e. speeding, failure to maintain lane, etc). It could carry a large fine ($1000... $5000?) + points against the drivers license + automatic assumption of fault for insurance purposes.
The idea is not necessarily to prevent the action, but to make the consequences of causing an accident due to distracted driving so extreme that people will stop and think about whether or not the penalties are worth the risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps we should penalize the consequences...
> laws and pass a new one that adds a citation/ticket
> for "accident due to distracted driving".
Again, issue of proof. How does a cop responding to an accident know whether it was caused by a person on a cell phone (or tuning their radio or distracted by screaming kids, etc)? The mere possession of a cell phone in the vehicle can't meet that standard. Short of a direct eyewitness or a court later subpoenaing the person's cell phone records, there's no way to prove that the wreck was caused by cell phone distraction. And even if you go to those lengths, that only works if the person was making a call. All the other stuff, like fiddling with the radio, etc. can't be proven against the person at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Perhaps we should penalize the consequences...
I'm really asking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps we should penalize the consequences...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IT'S NOT THE LAWS, IT'S THE ENFORCEMENT.
I believe the same study showed that areas that had higher enforcement of the distraction laws had a reduction in accidents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Plenty of people have already given ideas on how to properly solve these and other possible issues without adding laws to our already bloated books.
My personal favorite so far is the pink AC that posted just before you.
"IT'S NOT THE LAWS, IT'S THE ENFORCEMENT."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Texting while driving can be hidden, the phone can be turned off or put away before the cop gets there, the law is pointless. Drinking while driving cannot be turned off, that law is not pointless.
If we keep this texting while driving law, I demand we create individual laws for each and every single possible thing that can distract a driver. I demand laws for talking to passengers, yelling at children in the back seat, putting on makeup, brushing hair, adjusting the radio, scratching your nuts, eating, reading a book, reading a newspaper, smoking, winding down the window, looking at the wreck, shaving, honking at good looking women, solving math problems, reading billboards, looking at driving directions, driving drowsy, driving angry, am I pissing you off yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My main point isn't that texting while driving isn't a big problem, my main point is that this is just a reaction, not action. The law is fairly worthless. The cop has to see the person doing it and even then it can be argued. If a cop sees someone driving erratically and pulls them over, they can't write a "texting while driving" ticket if they find a cell phone in the front seat.
If we actually want to keep people safe we could just enforce the laws we already have. If we do that we don't have to worry about the next thing that may become a problem, it's already been solved. That's all that I'm saying, that's all that Mike's saying. The only problem with that idea is politicians can't create a brand new problem to be solved every election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I was annoyed with the concept that this law is creating worse drivers because they're looking down instead of up while texting. The law would ban either way of texting and if a few people wait to glance at their phones when it goes off in the car because of the possiblity of being caught, I'm happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point of the article is that the law didn't stop people from texting while driving, they're just (possibly) doing it in a more dangerous way then before.
You asked for a solution other then the law, we gave it to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Masnick is consistent in judging things by the actual outcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personal Responsibility is the forgotton key
I think at heart most people are good, and probably realize the danger to some degree that their actions pose to themselves and others, but don't think that anything can really happen to them. That is where the danger lies. We need to teach people to take personal responsibility for their actions. In fact, there are technical ways that can help in that regard as well. (Disclosure, I am an author of an app that helps in that regard) On Android, for example, there is an application called DriveSafe, that helps people to put the responsibility in their court by choosing to remove some of the temptations to text and drive. The application silences notifications of an incoming text message, and even will respond to the sender that you are busy driving and not able to see their message. That way you can choose to remove temptation, without having to worry about people thinking you are ignoring them, or what ever thought may cause people to hesitate.
Now obviously, that application won't solve all of the problems that exist, but until people start to learn other behaviors, etc. it can help. But the most important thing is people learn to take accountability for their actions, good and bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It hasn't stopped
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ridiculous, Clueless, and Unoriginal Spin
Here's something crazy. Maybe the laws don't work because they're NOT ENFORCED, and they're not enforced because enforcement is NOT MANDATORY?! Ever think of that? In California cops can't even pull a texter or cell user over unless they're breaking some other traffic law. And when they do pull them over, the fine is $50. Who cares?
Make the offense PRIMARY, change the first offense fine to $1000, and double it on each additional offense. Then come back and tell me how many people are hiding the phone under the wheel. The fine here for littering is over $1000 for crying out loud.
And for those who want to use Nirvana fallacies to argue this, such as that it doesn't solve problems with people crashing because they're playing Jenga and other such nonsense, what say you about removing the drunk driving, speeding, and reckless driving laws because they don't solve those problems either? Give me a break.
These laws exist because "me me me" Americans won't do what's right without being dragged by the scruff of the neck. They don't work because the fox is guarding the henhouse and the judges and lawmakers are breaking them too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ridiculous, Clueless, and Unoriginal Spin
The governmemnt only wants the quick money from the tickets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ridiculous, Clueless, and Unoriginal Spin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr092810.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think that the ban is ignorant and the most reckless drivers I have seen texting and driving are the older folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I usually don't talk on the phone while driving... Last time I was out of state, I had it mentioned that talking on the cell while moving was illegal.
The attempts to avoid 'detection' were far more dangerous than just talking, lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Butler
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the many studies, that show ?
They testing this with many drivers, in driving simulators, with many many runs of the same 'circuit'. They were times, and random incidents occured in each run.. A very good test.
The people doing those test, were required to drive without mobile phone distractions, with passenger distraction, with phone, talking and texting.
IN ZERO CASES, was any of the test subject able to respond as fast or FASTER when talking of texting on a mobile.
Very little change when talking to a passenger, and massive delays with trying to text.
NO ONE DID AS WELL OR BETTER when trying to use a phone, and the effect of trying to text was measured (and tested) to be equivalent to driving on a high level blood alochol content.
And just putting out a new law will not immediately stop the incorrect and dangerous actions, it will take time, it will take education (get that you guys, an education), and awareness.
All these things will come in time, its the same as seat belts, when they first came out there was an outcry with all sorts of crazies complaining, but statistics show that seat belt's and seat belt laws have saved thousands of lives.
It will take some time for you Americican to work it out, and catch up with most other countries who this is a "NO BRAINER".
It is clearly more dangerous to text while driving, and its a risk to others and not just yourself.
And making laws agaist it, makes good sense, and it will save lives, and people will work out, (most will) that it is dangerous, to yourself or a small child, and with the laws against it, you might work out its dangerous a bit earlier, take appropriate and responsible action.
If you think your personal rights exceeds the rights of those around you, justifying known dangerous activities then you do not deserve to be a part of any community.
Do you get that ??
You right to text does not trump the right of that 6 year old child you could of avoided if your reaction time was a few miliseconds quicker..
I hope the message was not to your 6 year old child.. !!!
Mike, trying to justify your personal freedom by claiming a law trying to make the community safer is somehow bad.
And making the stupid claim that a law would somehow increase the problem is just ridiculous.
You should be ashamed Mike, really its a bad look.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the many studies, that show ?
Like Darryl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the many studies, that show ?
Nice job pulling at the heartstrings with the 6-year-old story, but try actually getting the facts straight next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why exactly cant we just start enforcing the existing laws we have on the books rather than making new ones?
oh yeah, because of grandstanding politicians thats why.... silly me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh and for your amusement...
http://www.kval.com/news/tech/103947448.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wide Band Jammer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Texts and Darwin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
textine & driving
So we can discount these conclusions for now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a little common sense...??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If laws are not the proper way to address thus problem then what solutions do you propose? The worst possible alternative would be accept unnecessary deaths in the name of liberty. Such dark age thinking is significant regress anathema to progress. Continual improvement is the great idea of modernity and has been one it the key driversof private and public success.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]