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?"

6 of 709 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Accelerometers in phones? by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  2. Original data by goodmanj · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:Simple solution by blixel · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?"

  4. Re:Considering by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  5. Re:FYI by boneclinkz · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  6. Re:because it's a distraction and dangerous? by JustinOpinion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.