Phone and Text Bans On Drivers Shown Ineffective

shmG writes to share news of a recent study on the impact of laws which ban the use of cell phones while driving. There appears to be no reduction in accidents as a result of these laws. "The HLDI compared collisions of 100 insured vehicles per year in New York, Washington DC, Connecticut, and California — all states with currently enacted roadway text bans. Despite those laws, monthly fluctuations in crash rates didn't change after bans were enacted, [although] there were less people using devices while driving. An earlier study conducted by the HLDI reported that cellphone use was directly linked to four-fold increases in crash injuries. Also independent studies done by universities have shown correlation between driving while using a phone and crashes."

Comments

Re:Compliance Rates & Hands-Free Use

[ak_hepcat]

Meh.

Different people can handle different levels of distraction. This is proven.

So, there should be tests. Depending on your score, you get to have (or not have) certain things in your vehicle,
like radios, heaters, people, pets, phones, etc.

Really, some folks should not be on the road, even if all they're doing is 10-and-2, eyes sweeping.

Re:Not too surprising

[cstdenis]

The kind of people who crash due to texting and driving, and the same kind of people who will keep texting and driving regardless of the law.

Woman can't stop texting, wrecks 3 cars in 3 years

[TimHunter]

Here's a story from my local newspaper about a 20-something woman who's totaled 3 cars in the past 3 years because she was texting while driving. Apparently she learned this from her dad, who is unable to spend 2 hours just driving and must spend the time on the phone and doing his email.

Why isn't she in jail? Why aren't we treating driving-while-texting the same way we treat driving while intoxicated? Do we have to wait until she (or her dad) kills somebody? http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local_state/story/301086.html

Re:Compliance Rates & Hands-Free Use

[ascari]

Couple of things come to mind:

1. Ability to handle distraction is not a constant like, say your eye color. It varies with the circumstances. One day you might handle lots of distraction at the level of a fighter pilot, but the next day have the flu or you're hung over and probably shouldn't be on the road even if you're doing it 10-and-2, eyes sweeping.

2. Whatever happened to equality in the eyes of the law, justice is blind and other such misguided populist notions?

3. I remember reading about a study where people rated themselves in terms of their driving skills. Nobody said "I'm a below average driver", even that the statistical probability of that being the case is very low. (Read: I bet you really, really suck at driving, dude. :-)

Re:Compliance Rates & Hands-Free Use

[RobVB]

California's ban has been in place for a year and a half now, and I still regularly see people driving while talking on their phones. So hand-held phone use has reduced in these areas. How much?

Perhaps more importantly, what kind of drivers have stopped using their phones while driving? I'd assume a lot of generally responsible drivers (who may not have known about or believed in the dangers) stopped using their phones, while those "inconsiderate" drivers who don't care about other people still race across pedestrian crossings, not even aware of the "bonus points" they're raking in because they're too busy talking to whoever it is that's so important about whatever it is that just can't wait.

There are benefits

[tthomas48]

There are some benefits. If a driver slams into me talking on a cellphone and there's a ban in my area, it's going to immediately move to a ticketable offense and therefore their insurance is going to pay to fix my car.

Whereas if they're talking on a cellphone and there's no law banning it then I have to prove they couldn't drive before I get my insurance money.

Re:Woman can't stop texting, wrecks 3 cars in 3 ye

[jayveekay]

Replace the steering wheel airbag in her car with a 6 inch metal spike, and the problem will fix itself with the next totalled car. :)

Re:Not too surprising

[Areyoukiddingme]

It sounds good in theory, but I'll reiterate what I said when the Robocar article came around. Robocar failed to address it, and so has everybody else. For that to happen, there would have to be a major shift in the liability regime. In particular, liability would lodge with the logical actor, namely the car manufacturer. Can you imagine the howl from GM if anybody managed to seriously propose that GM be liable for car accidents involving their vehicle? ALL accidents involving their vehicle? Sure, they're liable for design flaws already, and for manufacturing flaws like "the wheels came off", but to expand that to the minute-by-minute navigation of the vehicle? The swarm of lobbyists that would descend on Washington to crush that idea would be of locust proportions. Every manufacturer would unleash the swarms, and whoever proposed it would probably die in a car accident. :P

Maybe someday there will be some sort of widely deployed fully automated transportation. It won't look much like cars on roads though.

Re:Not too surprising

[smellsofbikes]

This doesn't surprise me too much. One interesting fact it does indicate is that the people who very conscientiously obey the law are not strongly represented in those who are in accidents.

Personally, I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars. Our communications technology is at a point where it's a serious waste of a human being's time to be driving, and that economic fact is going to be really hard to fight with law.

I'd love for self-driving cars to happen, but I seriously doubt it ever will. Not because of technology limitations, but because of liability: the first time someone manages to provoke a wreck with a self-driving car, the companies responsible for designing its hardware and software will be sued out of business because they have deep pockets. The military will have self-driving aircraft, ships, and trucks for decades and we'll still be driving our own cars. It would take an act of Congress to change this.

Seatbelt law enforcement varies state to state

[name_already_taken]

In Illinois enforcement of the seat belt law is a primary enforcement activity and the cops do pull people over for it.

I used to buy police cars from the county sheriff's department and I never got over how many people I would see reaching to put on their seatbelt when they saw my car coming down the street.

If I was a cop, I wouldn't have known they weren't wearing the seatbelt until they reached for it most of the time, so it was very amusing.

Re:Compliance Rates & Hands-Free Use

[R3d M3rcury]

Agreed. For example, I used to drive drunk all the time and I never had an accident or hurt anyone. So for 20 years of my life, I've never had an accident after drinking. Therefore, I think that I've proven that I can drink and drive and the government should give me a special waiver.

I also have this special amulet that keeps tigers from eating me. I've had it all my life and I've never been eaten by a tiger...

Re:Probably because cell phone use isn't a factor

[timmarhy]

your data is a total failure, because the only time people at fault in an accident will admit to anything is when they have no choice due to overwhelming proof. given the option of admitted they were talking on the phone, or claiming the other car was speeding/cut them off/did something else random, which do you think they are going to claim?

all you have succeed in doing is proving it's difficult to CATCH people who cause accidents due to cell phone use. it's bloody obivous that to anyone with 1/2 a brain that yammering away on the phone with one hand on the wheel is dangerous, and there is NO need for it. call them back ffs.