Remember that summer pastime of filling balloons with water and then tossing them at each other to keep cool on hot afternoons. One thing about a water balloon, if you push on one side, it will squish out somewhere else until it bursts.
Countermeasures to address driver distraction often act like that squishy water balloon. Dealing with one problem may cause others to crop up.
For example, a recent headline reads "Texting Ban for Drivers Increases Crash Rate". The 2010 study from the Highway Loss Data Institute found that crash rates actually rose in three out of four states after texting bans were put in place.
How could this be? Surely a texting ban shouldn't cause crashes to increase.
There are probably several reasons for the increase, but one factor appears to be that some drivers responded to the ban by moving their phone out of sight when they were texting. The increase in crash risk is caused, in part, because drivers' eyes are diverted from the road for longer periods of time. The longer a driver's eyes are off the road, the greater the chances that they will get into a crash.
This illustrates the problems we face in dealing with a complicated problem like driver distraction. Well-intentioned laws can have unintended consequences. So outlawing texting while driving (an activity that is significantly worse than driving at the legal limit of intoxication for alcohol) could cause people to engage in even riskier behavior.
The moral of this story is that attempts to use laws or technology to try to deal with impaired driving can have unintended consequences. It does NOT mean that we shouldn't outlaw texting while driving - we should, in fact, have laws that prohibit this activity. But we need to be careful to make sure that the laws end up making crashes less likely to happen. We also need to have strict enforcement and education campaigns to help deal with the problem. For now it appears that attempts by some drivers to covertly text may end up offsetting the benefits of legislation.
Login or Register to post comments
Neil
In response to Bud about making phones inopperable while moving. What about riding on public transportation. A person should be able to use a phone while sitting safely on a bus, train, or taxi. nu
Elin
What about texting at a red light? I would tend toward that being ok, and compromises between people having to put off that text until they are at their destination and texting while actually driving. But do people get fined according to the new laws for that?
Bud
The answer is simple, require cell phone manufacturers to program the devices so they are inoperable when moving. This will even have the added benefit of rendering cell phones inoperable if use while walking; have you ever been bumped into by someone walking but not looking where they were going because they were using a cell phone? As cell phones have GPS capabilities built in, it is simple technology to render them inoperable while in motion.
Richard
All this talk about banning texting when there are so many other forms of distraction (as many have noted before) is useless. Laws made to limit distraction have very little effect. What would be more effective is the requirement for better driver training. Teaching defensive driving and the need for full attention while driving would go a lot further towards minimizing accidents. This applies to both teen drivers and veteran drivers. I see a lot more driving problems with middle aged drivers talking on the cell phone or doing makeup or eating than I do with those texting - all need to pay attention to what they're doing and a proper education would contribute greatly to that end.
Rich
I don't know if this is possible to do. It is claimed that the way to reduce drug abuse is to "legalize" and control drug availability, similar to the way alcohol availability is managed. So is there a way to manage texting's availability? Moving and texting at the same time seem to be dangerous unless you are a passenger. Is there a techie way to detect the motion of someone texting? Anyway, alcohol control involves taxes, age restrictions, etc. It's available, but it's not freely available, because it may cause harm.
Steve
Cell phone record checks should be mandatory for every accident, and, if the phone was in use, there needs to be punishment, liability associated with the act and maybe loss of license.
Doug Potts
It's not Texting that's the problem. Lack of focus and discipline by drivers is the problem. You can get in an accident just as easily by: a. engaging in a discussion with a passenger b. trying to find a good radio station c. eating your meal d. picking a song from your iPod e. trying to find out where the noise in the dash is coming from f. watching an episode of The Office on your phone g. looking at the GPS display In my business, I HAVE to look for ALL the unintended consequences of a decision, or I will have done my job poorly. For legislators, bad laws make for more income for their lawyer friends. There is a law in Dallas that prohibits the use of wireless communication devices within an active school zone. The unintended consequence of this law is that you can't (legally) listen to the radio, nor can an alarm on your cell phone go off, nor can you receive texts or calls...I'm not saying read them or answer them, I'm saying you can't have your phone respond to them in such a way as to indicate to you such an action has occurred.
Teddy Knight
Water balloons can be deadly, if thrown from a car in motion at the windshield of a car in motion. The broken glass and the impact on the driver are about the same as any missile hitting the windshield, and the consequences to the passengers of a free-wheeling vessel are the same.
Bill Mihalovits
As eluded to earlier, technology may be the answer. Get the car manufacturers and phone manufacturers together so that you can't text unless your car is in Park or the parking brake is set, or some other means to ensure the vehicle isn't moving while the driver is texting. Education won't work unless people see consequences to their actions. We all know that drinking and driving is illegal and stupid, but we still have an appallingly high number of people doing that. The same goes with texting, putting on makeup, and all the other things people do while driving.
Nick Lutwyche
Lots of luck with "Educating" drivers. Even the traffic cops in their cruisers turning through intersections around here have mobile phones stuck to their ears. As for enforcing the PA law that requires headlights to be used in rain and snow - forget it . The number of times I've nearly been T-boned by invisible, silver vehicles hidden in a cloud of spray in heavy rain because the drivers did not have any lights in use ;"hey, I can see all right, what's your problem" seems to be their attitude. I recently rode my motorcycle home from work on a rural, 2 lane road, behind half a dozen cars. The driver of the one in front of me seemed to go to sleep at every red light and needed an audible reminder that the light was now green. When I was able to pass the (female) driver on a stretch of 4 lane road, I saw that she had a paperback book propped up on the steering wheel which she was reading. Such instances can be seen on a daily basis in the Philadelphia area.
Don Niemi
I agree with the suggestion that insurance companies could help reduce distracted driving by withholding or greatly reducing payments to drivers who were operating a cell phone -- whether texting or talking. Maybe some wise company will see an opportunity in offering lower insurance rates to drivers who commit to not using cell phones while driving -- and offering a special higher rate for people who want to be guaranteed they'll have coverage if their cell phone use results in an "accident." Drivers talking on cell phones scare me ... when I'm walking my dog and they crowd me off our neighborhood streets ... when I'm riding a bike and they drive as if I'm invisible ... when I'm driving on an expressway and wonder why the car ahead of (or beside) me constantly changes speed and weaves from side to side. Using a cell phone while driving is like Russian roulette, except that you're aiming the gun at those around you -- other motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. Three cheers for Ray LaHood's campaign!
george
The ban is fine except one problem you might have over looked is that you would have to fine every cop and politician, every firefighter, you name it. Some of you people are living in a dream world; you want to punish everyone because of a few. You find something that will work that won't punish everyone, and I'm all for it.
Leon Hautala
The fastest way to become more awake is to talk to somebody. If you are alone and groggy, the cellphone can be real lifesaver by allowing one to become awake in mere seconds. Payphones have become extinct, and, in many places, it is impossible to find a place to park to get out and find a phone. As for texting, many phones have voice recognition and can vocalize messages. Am I doing something wrong by talking with a cellphone instead of manually entering questions? Remember the Startrek episode with the guy who had an apartment full of computer gear who hired the hot girl in a miniskirt as a secretary and then showed her how to type by voice commands? Well, my cellphone is smaller than a pack of cigarettes and vocalizes messages and does a swell job of imitating an angry girl friend when verballizing directions. One question: I was on an interstate highway and the electronic/digital message signs had messages warning me not to text. Isn't that texting? I was reading an electronic sign while driving. Shouldn't they get rid of the electronic signs?
Nat Lerner
Tim is closer to right though I wish educators the best of luck. We accept about 40,000 motor vehicle deaths a year - equivalent to more than one 911 every month - and call them "accidents". Talk of road safety is such hypocrisy until this statistic is eliminated or serious efforts are made to reduce it.
p s seshadri iyer
I think it is a good thing NOT to ban the texting. Let us educate the drivers the risk of distraction which will make them more responsible citizens.
Todd Spotti
Here in California texting in cars is banned. The fine? $20. Big Deal. Texting has actually increased since the law went into effect because no one takes the fine seriously and the cops couldn't be bothered with enforcing the law. The fine needs to be raised to something like $1000 to get people's attention and change their "habit" as texting and cell phone use is a type of addictive behavior.
Dara Maguire
In response to your blog referring to textual distractions while driving. I have recently arrived here from Europe. I was and still am appalled at the idea that drivers see driving as an incidental act in transporting their car from one location to the next. Drivers do not drive their cars, they aim them. I have heard tales of teachers correcting homework on the interstate while going to work. Others put on make-up, eat breakfast, change clothing. These acts may be safe for a passenger as long as they do not distract the driver, but they are NO WAY suitable acts for the driver of a car. Driving a car is a serious task that requires focus and concentration. No distraction is worth it. No driver should do anything except driver. Both hands on the wheel, both eyes on the road, feet close to or on the pedals. In that way one can react immediately and safely to any change in the environment.
Chuck Jones
Cars have become nothing more than super-posh parlors, catering to a driver's every whim. Make it a bit more difficult. Do away with automatic transmissions and power steering. Can't be done? Of course it can, and would have the added benefit of making cars far smaller and fuel-efficient.
Gayle in NY
Chuck Jones has good point. Why are so many gadgets being added to American cars? So you can surf the net while driving? Talk about being distracted. Keep the screens in the _back_ seat for the kids, don't move them up to the front. I think an investment into driver education will help. I went through "traffic school" in California, once, to reduce the effect of a ticket on my record, and found the experience did alter my driving--for the better.
Irlandes
Hey, I got a great idea. Let's pass millions of laws outlawing everything and tossing everyone in jail. Surely everyone will live happily ever after, right? So, imagine you are driving in western Nebraska on a quiet day, and there are no other cars within sight. Same rules, right? Right. I have driven over 1/4 million miles since I retired. I do eat and drink in the car as I drive across the country. But, only when I am alone on the highway. When there is a car within 1/8 mile, or an entrance or exit ramp, the food stays where it was. The problem is not what people do, but when they do it. Talking on the cellphone when no cars are near is not the same as doing it in a metropolitan area surrounded by cars and pedestrians. Yet, you advocate more sweeping control which will apply to everyone, every place in the country. Great Scott. So, how often does government control actually make things better?
Tim
Educate the driver? Wow...where have you been for the past 100 years? We attempt to educate the driver about DUI and where has that gotten us? I stand by my theory that if the cops started to enforce the 'smaller' offenses more often, the larger ones would not be committed as often. Just like with your children, if you pay attention to them and help them when they are making small mistakes, the bigger ones are less likely to happen because we have instilled in them the ability to think....an art lost long ago to all but a precious few. Now, if only we could get those precious few to run the country....
Robert
How about removing the "right" to a cell phone for violators of no-texting/no-talking-while-driving laws? Each offense is entered into a database that the cell phone companies would have to check before they sell you service -- and they'd have to cut off service for new entries in the database. Sure, miscreants could borrow someone's phone, but you'd think the prospect of being banned from cell phones altogether would be a powerful deterrent. Teenagers would *die* if they had no cell phones - of course, they're dying anyway with cell phones in their hands while they drive! The other thing that would be nice is for owners/managers of businesses to tell their employees that using a cell phone while driving on company business is a firing offense -- and mean it. The worst offenders, I believe, are the go-go salespeople and executives who think they always have to be in constant contact -- usually on phones provided by their companies! A little good corporate responsibility in enforcing good social behavior would go a long way.
K.Tooke
Enacted laws do not make a dent.There is not enough enforcement for any bad driver behaviors. Catching a device user is a matter of rare chance. Device distracted drivers are also impaired with "hands free". Multi-tasking is an illusion. The brain works in packets- one at a time. It is only brain speed that creates the illusion of multi tasking. Safe driving and outside the car communication is impossible. The brain spends too much time trying to imagine the other end of the communication- Read the book BRAIN RULES. How do we save ourselves from the "I'm special crowd"? The answer-INSURANCE COMPANIES. Write the policy so that if your device is determined to be ON at the time you are involved in an wreck that causes damage injury or death. The other party will be covered by your insurance, BUT YOU WILL NOT BE COVERED. In fact your deductible could increase substantially.. Insurance companies should benefit as all us who will be safer on the road from drivers who are so focused inward or out of the car that they literally do not register what is going on around them. What say insurance industry?
Richard Hubbard
Tooke may be onto something, BUT... 1) how do you get INS comp's to do that without more GOV regs, 2) what constitutes "ON" and 3) how do they know unless they have access to your private info? Talk about unintended consequences. Also, in the unlikely event that the "war on drugs" has taught us anything, it should be that having private industry do the work of law enforcement is a BAD idea.
Patrick
There is a lot of 'feeling' and speculation here. Here are some data provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Traffic fatality per vehicle miles traveled (VMT) declined 8 percent between 2007 and 2008. In fact the 2008 rate of 1.25 fatalities per 100,000,000 (100 Million) VMT is the lowest ever recorded. People injured in a crash also o declined by 5.8% in 2008. As of the report dated June 2010 the expected numbers for 2009 is expected to continue to improve in these areas. Between 2005 and 2009 vehicle traffic crash fatalities actually declined almost 22%. And all Police reported crashes dropped 3.5% between 2007 and 2008. Regardless of age or driver experience statistics show marked improvement. Unfortunately, (because I do both) motorcyclist and pedal cyclist fatalities were some of the few categories that showed an increased during 2008. Admittedly this does not help the unfortunate few who were killed or injured driving, however, something is obviously working. Rather than increasing fines (which often is just another tax to reduce state and local deficits). Would it not be prudent to determine what has caused this remarkable decline and do more of it? It seems that improving what works is a faster way to success than yet another governmental knee jerk reaction. Technology & education from the proper usage of child restraints to seat belts, air bags, helmets, and ECS equipped cars saved over 18,000 lives in 2008 alone. Maybe the answer to safer roads continues to be in technology and education.
Wes
Basically we in America are morons when it comes to such matters. If we are perfectly willing to put up with owning hand guns for "protection" and slaughter ourselves as well as driving around loaded on alcohol contiunually, why should we worry about such trivial things as being totally distracted while sending such momentous messages to our "friends" that "I'm driving to the grocery store." We are willing to put up with almost anything that results in our injuries and death as long as it doesn't interfere with our freedom to act like total idiots. Only in America comes to mind, somehow.
Danny
If texting is as serious as DUI then it needs to carry the same severe penalties to disuade it from happening! Only makes sense doesn't it?
RagDollCatter
What needs to happen: anyone causing an accident while texting (or drinking, etc.) should have their car insurance coverage revoked, their health insurance taken away, and made to pay for all damages, even if it means total bankruptcy. No amount of "freedom to text" justifys taking a person's life or their property in an avoidable accident.
buddhabill
Maybe its urban legend but I heard once that in Sweden if you are busted for DWI, you go to jail right then and there for a year. Period. No bail, etc. Either your Blood Alcohol was over 1.0 or not. Here, how many times do you read of a drunk driver with 5 priors finally killing somebody? If driving while distracted is more dangerous than DWI, it needs to be a CRIME. I'm guilty of it, but would I if it meant a $1000 fine first time, $5000 second time jail 3rd time? Nope.
Jeff M
I just wish they could put short range jammers to kill reception inside the car. Make them pull over and shut the car off if they need to make a call or text!
Bone Head
They need to invent a hands-free voice texting device. There is a theory that says the reason talking on a cell phone to someone is not as safe as talking to a passenger next to you is that the passenger tends to stop talking when you are doing something such as going on an on-ramp or negotiating an intersection, a hands free voice text system could allow the driver to stop paying attention to the text and replay the text, or even better, to flip a switch to turn the text off, when full attention is required. I would bet that most texting accidents involve rear-end collisions. Drivers need to keep their eyes on road. I agree that looking at your cell phone and reading and typing should be illegal, and holding a cell phone up to your head to talk while driving is also a very bad thing to do.
Steven
K.Tooke is right. As others have pointed out, education isn't enough and enforcement of draconian laws isn't practical. We need common sense insurance policies that use financial incentives to reward responsible driving habits and penalize those who engage in risky behaviors.
Kris
Re: Sweden. It is not an urban legend. Get caught driving after having just one drink (i.e. glass of wine, etc.) and you're done. No exceptions. .02 is the legal limit. Higher than that and you don't want to think about it. Unfortunately, they don't have the same attitude towards cell phone use - yet! Cell phones are a 'convenience', not a necessity. Using them anywhere at any time someone feels the impulse is not a "Right" guaranteed by the Constitution. I have informed my family and friends that I will NOT answer my cell phone in the car - period. No exceptions. The phone is for MY convenience, not the caller's. As for texting - in the amount of time it takes you to type the message, you could have dialed and left a voicemail, or - horrors - actually talked to me, if I was not behind the wheel, that is. I can't think of ANYTHING that could be so important that potentially endangering others on the road is justified.
Jim
K.Tooke and others are right. Economic penalties by insurance companies are the only way to reliably alter this behavior. But you don't need a government regulation to require them to do that. You need to grant them immunity from litigation since they know what will happen it they proceed without. It can be made palatable for the population by being specifically directed at texting, not bluetoothing.
Admitted Idiot
I once got hit by a pickup truck backing out of a driveway, and the driver (who was in the fault and cited), said he saw me, but thought I would slow down. How could I--I was looking at my cell phone, dialing a number, and never saw him. Hang up and drive. I do now. And my vehicle never was the same again, which serves me right.
Howard
I was nearly killed by a woman in an SUV last week. I was crossing a street where the traffic was supposed to stop at a stop sign. She was texting, didn't stop at the stop sign, and swerved in my direction onto the wrong side of the road just as I stepped off the curb. I didn't get her license plate number so there wasn't anything I could do. Now maybe her text message was truly urgent; I don't believe that people would do something so risky just to tell their friends that they were driving to the grocery store. But people need to understand how dangerous this is. Education is valuable indeed, and I hope my experience helps educate other readers of this blog. That said, motorists should be ticketed for driving-while-texting, and because cell phones keep call records, a citizen spotting such behavior could blow the whistle on them and there'd be evidence for the police to find.
Barbara
Dara Maguire says: "I have recently arrived here from Europe. I was and still am appalled at the idea that drivers see driving as an incidental act in transporting their car from one location to the next." SO TRUE! My husband and I were in Germany a year ago and were a little apprehensive about driving on the "no speed limit" autobahn. I have NEVER FELT SAFER. In spite of the high speeds in the left lane, it works very well because slow vehicles stay to the right (they NEVER pass on the right) and people yield to the higher-speed vehicles. Everyone follows the rules and it works beautifully. Since we returned, I'm appalled at the chaos on American highways where people drive like maniacs in the right lane and dog it in the left lane. Slow drivers (like me) on the right, fast drivers on the left - if we all did it, it would work very well. When we rented the car in Germany, the man behind the counter said, "You'll notice there are no cupholders in German cars. When we Germans drive, we drive. We don't eat, drink, use our cell phones, or do anything else." AMEN!!
Thomas
A huge portion of the decline in fatalities and injuries has to do with safer cars and safer roadways, not safer drivers. Air bags, ABS brakes, anti-rollover technology, better tires, roadway lighting and marking are all bigger factors than drivers. As a matter of fact, failure to deal with a factor that is as bad or worse than DUI drivers undermines the DUI argument, which is driven by a moralistic and almost religious fervor more than it is by a genuine concern for safety.
Mike
I was nearly killed on two consecutive Tuesdays this past spring. At 3pm I was crossing a marked crosswalk "Cars must stop for pedestrians in crosswalk") with my kids after school, and we were already halfway across. (Under the conditions at the time, we were able to see that there were no cars about 60 yards down the road but no more. A car coming along (speed limit 20 during school hours) could have easily stopped in time, but this car (license plate "Mangal") blasted through, only stopping 30 yards later out of shame. She was on the phone. Next Tuesday, a Peapod truck came through my green light at 9pm, full speed, blowing his red light. I couldn't see if he was on the phone or not but I couldn't imagine how else he could have spaced out so much. If my stopping distance had been any greater than it was...