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?"

Comments

Re:Accelerometers in phones?

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Why do people always immediately go to the restrictive solution? How about speech-to-text instead of forcing a feature disabled...

Dont hate, educate

[thechemic]

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.

Re:Dont hate, educate

[idontgno]

And when the unthinkable happens, it's someone else's fault.

"Dammit, it's not my fault! What was that old lady doing in the street, anyways!"
"She was crossing the street. At a crosswalk. With an active "Walk" signal. And you ran the red."
"It's a street. Pedestrians NEVER BELONG IN THE STREET. It's not my fault, and she had it coming!"
"And the young mother with the baby in the stroller, on the sidewalk beyond the intersection, that you ran over too?"
"That's not my fault either! It's the old lady's fault for making me go up on the sidewalk!"

I think I'm exaggerating. But I can't really be sure.

Re:Dont hate, educate

[wjousts]

The problem with education is that I think 95% of people (a completely made up statistic) would agree that texting while driving is dangerous and a bad idea.....except when they do it. They are exceptional drivers and can effectively multitask three or four things at a time while operating a couple of tons of steel traveling at 65 mph. Other people though? They're the real danger on the road.

People have an exaggerated confidence in their own abilities.

Re:Dont hate, educate

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'm exaggerating. But I can't really be sure.

Okay, then I'll not exaggerate. I had a friend who tailgated horribly. She drove less than half a car length behind the car in front of her no matter what. Any lane, any speed, any condition. Eventually she totaled her car, in the rain. Why? "Because the car in front of her stopped too fast." In her mind, it wasn't her fault. Last time I rode with her, she was still tailgating everyone. Twice the car in front of her drove off in the shoulder when there were puddles, splashing her car with mud. The second time she said, "I think he did that intentionally." I said, "Probably because you're tailgating." She said, "That couldn't be it." Idiot. Dangerous idiot.

Punish results, not behavior

[captaindomon]

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.

Re:Punish results, not behavior

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with purely after-the-fact punishment is that humans are very poor judges of risk, especially as it applies to long-term activities and/or rare events. Stiff penalties for causing accidents while driving will do little to persuade most people. The deterrent seems remote and unlikely, whereas the benefit of texting-while-driving is immediate and obvious. They will continue to text while driving, and each time they successfully get home without killing anyone, their behavior is reinforced.

And of course just about everyone will assume that they are members of that narrow class of people that can legitimately text-and-drive in a safe manner.

It's not enough to only "punish them when they cause problems" when we're talking about relatively rare events with extremely large consequences (killing another human). We have to, as a society, agree to restrict ourselves to let a desirable activity (driving) occur in a safe manner. And this means things like awareness campaigns and penalties for probably-unsafe behavior that hasn't caused any particular harm (getting caught texting). Making the penalties more short-term and palpable is the only way to have a meaningful deterrent, given the way that humans tend to think.

Re:Punish results, not behavior

[mapkinase]

That's how punishment for a crime usually works: first crime, then punishment. Alternatively, it's just Minority Report.

because it's a distraction and dangerous?

[Chirs]

Studies have shown that it's not the act of holding the phone that is the problem, but rather the fact that you're concentrating on something other than the road.

Granted, speech-to-text would be less of an issue than talking because you can pause while doing some tricky driving, but you're still going to be thinking about the message you're composing rather than on your driving.

Re:because it's a distraction and dangerous?

[Anonymous Monkey]

The only fix for this is if people started caring more about the lives of others and there own life. Love thy neighbor is the only long lasting fix that will work. Too bad most people don't do it.

Re:because it's a distraction and dangerous?

[negRo_slim]

Better ban talking to people in the car with you as well. and car radios. And thinking about things you plan to do that day.

How about we just ditch the cars period? Build our homes close to where we work and play, walk a bit more... man up some as a society. I dunno, just a thought!

Re:because it's a distraction and dangerous?

[Wansu]

  Better ban talking to people in the car with you as well.
and car radios.
And thinking about things you plan to do that day.

Yes the bigger problem is distracted drivers. I've seen people reading paperback books, newspapers and stapled together papers at the wheel. I've seen people eating serious sandwiches, combing their hair, applying make-up and changing clothes. And of course there are people that daydream at the wheel. I saw one woman having a midlife crisis in a mid-sized Chrysler.

It's not practical to try to legislate away all the possible distractions. Instead, how about we charge the people who cause accidents and if they were distracted, note that. If someone demonstrates a pattern of distracted driving, take their license. They are every bit as dangerous as a drunk driver.

Re:because it's a distraction and dangerous?

[rainmouse]

And thinking about things you plan to do that day.

Yes the bigger problem is distracted drivers. I've seen people reading paperback books, newspapers and stapled together papers at the wheel. I've seen people eating serious sandwiches, combing their hair, applying make-up and changing clothes. And of course there are people that daydream at the wheel. I saw one woman having a midlife crisis in a mid-sized Chrysler.

Clearly driving is just too easy and minds wander too much. If we made roads more challenging like crazy golf courses we might fix the problem (and create new fun problems to solve).

Re:because it's a distraction and dangerous?

[JustinOpinion]

Better ban talking to people in the car with you as well.

As it turns out, talking over a phone is more distracting than talking with someone sitting in the car.

There are multiple reasons:
1. Someone in the car with you can and will respond to the dynamically-changing environment as you do. If something unexpected happens, they will usually stop talking.
2. In fact, someone in the car may notice something important, and notify the driver (either by shutting up or pointing it out), thereby partially mitigating the distraction they cause by talking.
3. A phone conversation requires more of your attention because you have to make up for the deficiencies of the data channel (phones have lower audio quality than real life, you can't read their body language (even out of the corner of your eye, you can get a feel for a person's mood), etc.).
4. Shared context makes communication more efficient, thus requiring less mental effort (this is why, even in this day and age, people generally want to meet face-to-face).
5. Studies have shown that it takes humans more mental effort to think/interact with people/data they believe is remote as compared to people/things they think are local. In one study, they measured reaction times and errors in a driving simulator when people were either using an "in-car GPS" giving them instructions or a "satellite data-feed" giving them instructions. Even though both sets of instructions were identical (including latency, etc.), the mere perception that the "satellite data-feed" was non-local caused people to devote more mental effort to it, which increased driving accidents. A non-intuitive result, perhaps, but human mental machinery is finely tuned not for the tasks we currently expect it to perform.
6. Initiating and finishing a phonecall requires much more attention than stopping/starting a conversation with someone sitting beside you. (Unlike fidgeting with a radio, answering a phonecall requires immediate action not at a moment of the driver's choosing.)

People engage in a variety of activities while driving. All of these secondary activities induce distraction and thereby increasing driving risk. There is a valid debate to be had about where to draw the line with respect to distractions. But it is fairly well-established that talking on a phone while driving, and certainly texting while driving, are more dangerous than talking to a passenger while driving. So it may indeed be reasonable and consistent to ban reading books, texting and making phonecalls while driving... but not banning listening to the radio or having conversations with passengers.

Re:because it's a distraction and dangerous?

[camperdave]

Wrong solution. Ditch the drivers instead.

Re:because it's a distraction and dangerous?

[operagost]

Thanks, Stalin. I'm sure you'll find someone to sell all those now-useless cars to (that's step 2, "???"). Please don't forget to seize everyone's personal assets and liquidate the undesirables, as well.

Re:because it's a distraction and dangerous?

[MartinSchou]

The only fix for this is if people started caring more about the lives of others and there own life

I don't think so.

It's about perceived risk. It seems much riskier to fly than to drive a car, because you have no way of preventing an accident yourself (you're just a passenger), whereas in the car you are the driver and could easily avoid an accident, because you're a great driver.

Ever notice how, as a passenger, you're always a lot more worried about driving than you are as the driver? I'm almost willing to bet, that if you sent people out onto a seemingly dangerous test track, they'd be more nervous in general when they're passengers than they'd be when driving themselves.

Even if you put them into a car driven by the best driver in the world.

Re:because it's a distraction and dangerous?

[hairyfeet]

That is the whole problem with trying to foolproof society, we just keep making bigger fools. I remember reading last year about cops in Florida (isn't it always Florida?) busted a woman for driving like a nut at 70+ while shaving her pubes and driving the car with her feet. I'll never forget what the arresting officer said "I thought I'd seen it all when I busted a guy trying to shoot up while driving down this stretch last year, but I gotta say, this tops it."

So maybe instead of banning we should make those that want the "right" to text and drive take a test to prove they are capable? Because I've known those that can do multiple tasks and actually be good drivers, whereas I've known others that I still can't understand how they got a license in the first place. But you'd think we'd learn after our 80 year+ drug war than banning don't do squat except make people sneaky, just as in TFA.

Re:because it's a distraction and dangerous?

[FatRichie]

**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.

Re:because it's a distraction and dangerous?

[Homr Zodyssey]

Next thing you know, they'll illegalize getting road-head from a hitch-hiker. That's not the America I want to live in!

Re:Accelerometers in phones?

[Tumbleweed]

Sense vehicular motion (including vibration) and shut down the texting function while in motion.

This would screw over the passengers. And when the passengers are kids that you're trying to keep quiet while you're driving, this also screws the driver.

Plus, people will just hack their phones to get around that. Outlaw texting in cars, and only outlaws will text in cars.

Original data

[goodmanj]

Ugh. A slashdot article linking to some dude's blog post linking to the Christian Science Monitor's discussion. Can't *someone* link to the original study by the Highway Loss Data Institute?

Here's the HLDI's summary, with graphs:

http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr092810.html

Links to more details on that page. It's actually a pretty interesting analysis, if you go beyond the lede.

Re:Simple solution

[blixel]

A Speech-to-text system in your car -- or built into your phone, that's the better solution...

Person says "lol, omfg. u r so right"

Speech-to-text system says "I'm sorry. I didn't understand that. Please say again."

Person says "L - O - L. O - M - F - G. You - are - so - right."

Speech-to-text system says "I think you said "Laura oh my friendly good."

Person interrupts saying "NO YOU STUPID FUCKING TEXT TO SPEECH FUCKER. I SAID LOL AS IN LAUGH OUT LOUD GOD DAMN YOU. OMFG STANDS FOR OH MY FUCKING GOD YOU FUCKING RETARDED PIECE OF MOTHER FUCKING SHIT!"

Speech-to-text says "You want to call your mother. Is that correct?"

Re:Accelerometers in phones?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

There is no reason passengers should be prohibited from talking on phones nor texting, though.

Sure there is.... Why should I be ignored and listen to my teenager talk to her friends on the phone. ;)

Seperate the streets into texting and no-texting

[Cro Magnon]

Then after the texters have killed each other off, re-open their roads to the non-texters.

Re:Considering

[Bill_the_Engineer]

there is no a single good study that actually show how dangerous...

A report by the National Safety Council found cell phone use leads to about 1.6 million crashes a year. About 200,000 of those accidents are caused by texting while driving. Studies show teenagers are especially prone to text and drive.

Link is Here.

Re:Sufficient punishment to disuade?

[fred fleenblat]

there really isn't any punishment that will dissuade context-dependent behavior like this. people just aren't smart enough to grasp that it's okay to send texts, and it's okay to drive, but not both at the same time. that just doesn't fit into their heads. hold on a minute i have to make this left.

Re:The solution?

[ikarous]

You presume that:

1. Driving while using a cellphone is genetic or otherwise hereditary and thus selectable against. 2. People doing so will be eliminated at a higher rate than people who drive sensibly (There's nothing stopping one idiot in a truckzilla from taking out a family of 7 in a minivan when they blow through a red light doing 90).

I presume nothing, other than that I clearly should include joke tags in the future.

Re:Accelerometers in phones?

[mlts]

How about we have some expressways that are completely computer controlled? Punch in a destination, hand control to the computer, let it merge the vehicle, handle the distances between cars, slowing cars down a tad to get people in, etc. I'm sure a central computer can handle moving vehicles on a freeway a lot better than a thousand drivers with their individual reaction times can.

Re:FYI

[boneclinkz]

I don't usually text and drive, unless I've been drinking.

And in other news

[HereIAmJH]

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.

The problem with that...

[hellfire]

... Is the person who is on the other side of the accident, obeying traffic rules and minding their own business when some idiot blows a red light because they were too busy texting and then is killed. Traffic accidents are incredibly traumatic, physically, mentally, and emotionally. I know a friend who had an accident that wasn't her fault, but is still making payments on her newly purchased car because the insurance company paid her for the value of the car, not the value of the loan. And death is forever, so punishment after the fact is little solace to the teenager last month who plowed into a family SUV last month in my home town and killed the passenger all because he was too impatient to wait behind a car driving in front of him around a curve on a backroad.

Your same logic could be applied to people who speed or run redlights. Sure don't ticket them until they have an accident after running a redlight. The problem with your idea is that people already think they are fantastic drivers and could not possibly get into accidents. Then they get into an accident and the damage is done. Sure don't ticket that guy driving drunk until he kills a nice happy family of four or something that looks equally gruesome and heartwrenching on the 11:00 PM news.

To me, the obvious answer to car accidents is public transportation, and I'm sure that these rules are not helping very much because it's very hard to enforce before an accident anyway. However, if we continue to insist on cars as the way we get around in the US, then we all have a vested interest in making them safe by insisting on enforcement of rules that protect every driver as best we can. I'm not saying the anti-texting laws are effective, I'm just saying punish only on results is not as effective as you think.

Compare Drinking while Driving

[natoochtoniket]

We know that texting-while-driving is far more dangerous than driving while drunk.

We have decided, as a society, that driving while drunk is so dangerous that we have made it illegal, and impose stiff penalties. It isn't just illegal to drive while drunk. It is illegal to have an open container in the car. This is based on the reasonable assumption that, if there is an open container, the driver may take a drink and become impaired.

I think it would be reasonable to decide, as a society, that texting-while-=driving is so dangerous that we should impose stiff penalties. And, it shouldn't just be illegal to drive while texting. It should be illegal to have an open texting device in the car. If there is an open texting device, the driver may look at it and become impaired. Many times, I have seen a teenager say "look at this", and hold his/her phone out so that another person can read it. If that other person happens to be a driver, the drivers attention is taken away from the driving.

I really don't have any problem with drivers who decide to kill themselves, other than perhaps that I get stuck paying part of the cost of the emergency services. I have a really big issue with drivers who try to kill me, by swerving their vehicles toward mine while driving at a high rate of speed. Recently, that has happened several times each day.

Re:Compare Drinking while Driving

[Chowderbags]

I think it would be reasonable to decide, as a society, that texting-while-=driving is so dangerous that we should impose stiff penalties. And, it shouldn't just be illegal to drive while texting. It should be illegal to have an open texting device in the car. If there is an open texting device, the driver may look at it and become impaired. Many times, I have seen a teenager say "look at this", and hold his/her phone out so that another person can read it. If that other person happens to be a driver, the drivers attention is taken away from the driving.

The same logic could apply to books. Can't let little Johnny have his picture book open in the car, the driver might look at it! Heck, just think what would happen if the driver took his eyes off the road and looked at their speedometer. Clearly we should ban speedometers. For that matter, drivers might look at scenery around them. We should either ban scenery or put all our roads in tunnels. (WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?(except while driving))

The better solution is to just enforce current reckless or careless driving laws. We don't need to play whack-a-mole with every new technology.

Better solution?

[mea37]

Easy. Instead of writing new laws targeting the specific act (texting while driving), enforce the existing laws that address the underlying reason it's a problem (distracted driving). That way the presence or absence of a phone isn't a factor, so concealing the phone has nothing to do with anything. If someone isn't paying attention to the road, ticket them.

Re:Accelerometers in phones?

[netsavior]

They should invent some like speech to text then text to speech interface, one fast enough to work in real time then people would be able "talk text" one another in real time as if they were having a conversation with spoken words instead of text characters. Man, if someone invented that, it would revolutionize communication. SOMEONE TEXT ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL STAT!