Slashdot Mirror
Could Anti-Texting Laws Make Roads More Dangerous?
An anonymous reader writes "A new study has found that various state laws that ban texting while driving might actually make the roads more dangerous. If that seems counterintuitive, it's the laws of unintended consequences at work. The theory is that the laws don't do much to stop people from texting while driving — but instead, leads them to try to hide the activity more. That is, they end up trying to text with the phone held lower down to avoid it being detected. But, of course, that also takes their eyes even further off the road. The study itself looked at texting-related accidents both before and after 4 different states implemented such laws, and also compared them to neighboring states with no such laws. The results suggest the laws certainly don't help and in some cases appeared to make the situation worse. So if the laws don't work, what is a better solution to preventing texting while driving accidents?"
Sense vehicular motion (including vibration) and shut down the texting function while in motion.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
It is better to change people thru inspiration and education rather than by force and control. Always has been, always will be. However, if the states launched an education campaign about texting & driving dangers, that would be an expensive, not an income from citations. Also, our precious insurance companies wouldnt be able to jack your rates up nearly as high.
Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
Write people an extremely hefty fine if they are involved in an accident while texting. Make it easier to convict them on involuntary manslaughter charges if they were texting at the time they hit a pedestrian. If people can safely text, great. If not, punish them when they cause problems. This is the same as any other distraction while driving - you can think about other things than the road while driving legally (work problems, family problems, etc). If you can still safely drive, great. If not, you pay the piper when you hurt someone else.
Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
One thing about this study: the laws are only a year or so old in most states. In my experience, people tend to ignore minor laws until they get caught, then change their behavior to avoid repeat offense penalties. There hasn't been enough time for the average texting addict to get busted and possibly break the habit.
Let's look back on this in a year or two before we make a final verdict.
I sometimes wrestle with th question of whether or not dangerous behaviors should be punishable at whatever level it takes to make people stop doing them.
For example, we know texting while driving is dangerous, based on stastics. It significantly risks other people's lives. Also, any sane person should know it's just a dumb idea.
So would it be just, or a good idea, to simply have a thre strikes rule for this? First strike - no driver's license for 6 months. Second strike - a public caning. Third strike - execution or banishment to Wasilla, AK (offender's choice).
Similarly for dealing dangerous drugs, or drunk driving.
Why is it that when the repeat offenders play a game of chicken with the law, it's always the non-offenders that blink and let the offender get off with light punishment? (I'm thinking of drunk drivers with many, many offenses.) Why can't these repeat offenders be given threats of penalties so serious that it actually curbs their behaviors that endanger others?
Catch someone texting while driving - impound their car and tow it away. We already do this for people who are too drunk to drive. This just does the same for people who are too stupid to be allowed to drive.
Take the phone away too.
Studies have found that laws prohibiting bank robberies have failed to reduce the number of thefts while making them more dangerous for innocent bystanders. Police officer's attempts to enforce those laws have only encouraged criminals to carry weapons.
While I think it is ridiculous to write a law to make prosecuting every little driving distraction easier, the fact is the law is there. If people are attempting to be more discreet while still violating the law, the problem isn't that this makes them more dangerous. The problem is that the penalties are not severe enough to stop the behavior.
Example: I'll drive 5 over on the interstate because I know the chance of getting a ticket is slim. I won't drive 5 over in a school zone. The risks are higher and the penalties are nasty.
Another day, another update to a Google android app.
I was on a walk at night several months ago and a woman drove by with the dome light on in her car. With the inside of her car being perfectly illuminated against the darkness, I could clearly see that she was reading a book. This was especially scary, as she was driving through a school zone in a neighborhood with many children and few lights (reduced light pollution, I think is the goal). I would expect that if she had driven by a cop, she would have been pulled over and sited for reckless endangerment. Why should this be different for texting?
They'll be more easily caught though, because they'll be swerving all over the road.
Some drunk driver the other day was convicted of murder instead of manslaughter because he'd already had a DUI conviction, knew that driving under the influence could lead to someone else's death, chose to drive while drunk anyway and killed someone. Just run a "Don't drive while texting" PSA campaign and then punish infractions severely and punish deaths caused by people who were texting VERY severely and people should get the idea pretty quickly. It's a pity about all those innocent bystanders who are going to die before people realize that the consequences of doing this will too severe for them to risk doing it, though.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
**The solution is to allow texting, but increase severity of penalties when the driver is texting while **committing another offense.
EXACTLY THIS!
There will always be those that cannot handle the responsibility of multitasking, and they should be punished when they are proven incompetent. If they can't handle the car, they get it taken away: at first the license, if again, then the vehicle, if again, then jail.
This is why drunk driving laws are ineffective... first is a fine, then maybe another, then maybe a license suspension, then maybe another fine, then maybe a few days in jail.
Get SERIOUS with these offenders, and people will start to consider the consequences more seriously.
My fear is that if texting is outlawed, next comes cell phone usage (already in some locations) then eating while driving, then talking passengers, etc. Driving the long, open, boring roads of the Midwest, I depend on talking with others and snacking just to stay awake. But I'm smart enough to know that driving comes first... I set things aside when I'm in town, or if road conditions are tough... but by virtue of REALLY needing to concentrate on the road, I don't need those other things to keep me alert. And if I can't get my priorities straight when I'm driving and cause an accident because of it... I expect to get in REAL trouble.
And braking time is only a tiny portion of what controls whether you have an accident. Drunk drivers also swerve all over the road, then drive off the road and hit things. Most drunk driving accidents are not caused by traffic in front of them coming to a complete stop and them taking too long to respond. In fact, that occurs so rarely on most highways that it's almost completely irrelevant.
The fact is that reaction time only matters when something goes catastrophically wrong. Good drivers (read: sober) can generally take other precautions to avoid getting into situations where their reaction times will matter. Thus, if you are driving correctly (leaving proper distance between you and the car in front of you, etc.), driving while talking on the phone is no more dangerous than driving without talking on the phone.
Distractions are sometimes avoidable, sometimes not. If people don't know how to properly compensate for the level of distraction, distractions will continue to cause accidents, but this need not be the case. What we need to be doing is educating people on how to properly drive when distracted instead of just teaching them the laughably unrealistic and overly simplistic rule that they should avoid distractions. Distracted driver training should be a mandatory part of every driver ed curriculum. The basic rules are:
If you do all of these things religiously, they will more than make up for any deficit in attention caused by talking on the phone.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Over the last 15 years cell phone use has gone from nearly nothing to nearly saturation but the accident rate in that time has gone DOWN. Not up, DOWN. If cell phones made us what ever ridiculous percentage they're saying today more likely to have a wreck the rate surely would have gone UP. It went DOWN. Folks will claim that vehicle safety improvements resulted in fewer accidents. I'd say, prove it. Anti-lock brakes didn't lower the rate. And we're talking accidents, not injuries, so seat belts and air bags don't enter in to it.