TheAgitator.com
Study: Cell Phone Bans Don’t Improve Road Safety
Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010More surprising, the study was actually sponsored by auto insurers.
The study, released Friday by the Highway Loss Data Institute, examined insurance claims from crashes before and after such bans took effect in California, New York, Connecticut and Washington, D.C.
The organization found that claims rates did not go down after the laws were enacted. It also found no change in patterns compared with nearby states without such bans.
Adrian Lund, the group’s president, said the finding doesn’t bode well “for any safety payoff from all the new laws.”
Six states and the District of Columbia ban talking on a hand-held device for all drivers, while 19 states and the District of Columbia bantexting while driving, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association.
The Highway Loss Data Institute, an affiliate of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said its findings “don’t match what we already know about the risk of phoning andtexting while driving” and said it is gathering data to “figure out this mismatch.”
It said one explanation could be an increase in the use of handsfree devices in places with bans on handset use while driving.
That’s true of talking on a cell phone. Not sure how you can use a hands-free device to send a text message. But I’d imagine that withtexting bans, a big problem is that the laws really aren’t enforceable.
Also, I hate to say “I told you so,” but . . . okay, that’s a lie. I don’t mind saying it at all.
(Thanks to Patrick Geisler for the tip.)
“The Highway Loss Data Institute, an affiliate of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said its findings “don’t match what we already know about the risk of phoning andtexting while driving” and said it is gathering data to “figure out this mismatch.””
Hmm…The data doesn’t confirm what we think we know to be true. Must be something wrong with the data then.
I have to say I’m puzzled by this result. For many years I burned about 3000 minutes a month in cell phone charges, many of those minutes behind the wheel of a car. I know there were several times when the phone got tossed on the floor as I worked to extricate myself from some sort of emergency situation, but I still didn’t see a risk in using my phone in the car.
When I started riding a motorcycle year round, I quickly learned that I could pick out those on cellphones and steer well clear of them. How did I know who was on a cellphone? They were the ones who were driving worse than the drunks.
If I had to guess at a reason for these results I would guess that it’s because the bans are being ignored.
Adrian Lund, the group’s president, said the finding doesn’t bode well “for any safety payoff from all the new laws.”
Not that that will result in the repeal of any laws…
Anyone else see the progressive auto insurance commercial with Oprah in it? We’re doomed haha.
Let’s model our cell/texting laws after our DUI laws. You can be stopped for little or no reason. Your cell phone can be checked for recent evidence of texting or talking. Should it be determined that you have been naughty, your phone will be immediately confiscated along with your driver’s license. You will have no opportunity to consult a lawyer.
//Not sure how you can use a hands-free device to send a text message.//
What’s the difficulty? A text-to-speech system reads the message, and a voice-recognition system composes a reply. Given the noise level of a car, composing a full message might be difficult, but having a system recognize a few key words or phrases like “Yes”, “No”, “Be home soon”, etc. should not be difficult.
I was driving down the highway and realized I was lost. I got out my garmin and started entering the address where I wanted to be. It crossed my mind that I was doing the equivalent of texting. But since it wasn’t a cell phone it was legal? Or was it? I grew up in VA and they had a moving violation called ‘failure to pay full time attention while driving’ which would have made what I was doing a violation, as well as texting, talking on a cell phone, shaving my beard, playing a tuba, or anything else you could possibly imagine that might cause a wreck. Does there really need to be a separate offense for every instrument in the orchestra?
#2 Timothy, exactly. Don’t be puzzled though, the bans being ignored/unenforceable are behind the result, indeed. But yes, exactly on the riding/can tell part…even hands-free, it’s just obvious. The only real solution, as I’ve said about ANY driving fault, is make the punishment so bad that people actually learn to drive. I don’t care whether the negligence on your part is in the area of ability, or attention, or non-drunkenness, or what…you hit me it’s still the same to ME. Corollary, of course, is it ain’t a crime if you DON’T cause an issue…drunk, whatever. No victim, no crime.
I noticed once when I was on the Golden Gate Bridge (or in might have been the Brooklyn Bridge in NY) that they had signs on it that warned pedestrians that there is an ordinance that punishes those caught defacing the bridge. That made me wonder if they had a separate ordinance like that for every piece of government property. Or maybe it was ok to deface other government structures…
I use VLingo. I’ve found it to be pretty handy, especially when driving.
http://tinyurl.com/5h7zqj
well in fairness to the hands free texting. Android (google’s mobile OS) is pushing the forefront of speech to text software. They’ve come a long way and it’s possible to send a hands free text. Although I should point out it’s not the most practical way to send a text and it’s only available on android 2.1, so…a really small part of the market.
off topic, nitpicky, and bordering on trolling – but i couldn’t help noticing http://tinyurl.com/5f7zqj has more characters than http://vlingo.com
please continue your regularly scheduled discussion.
:-D
The bans are useless. What I want to see is actual punishment for people who kill someone while driving recklessly, whether texting was the reckless part or not.
I suspect some people are ignoring the bans, but these results could also be validating some of the research out there that suggests hands-free cell phone usage is just as distracted as normal use while driving. Either way, the insurance study isn’t a big surprise.
I wonder if enforcement could make a difference? Here in Chicago we have a cell phone/driving ban, and no enforcement. I would not expect much change under that situation.
Well, the bans are useless because there is virtually no enforcement; in other words, there is no significant decrease in cell phone use after such bans are implemented. Thus, there is no effect on accident rates.
“At this early stage in our work against distracted driving, no one should be discouraging strong nationwide efforts to make our roadways safer,” LaHood wrote. “Unfortunately, a study released by the Highway Loss Data Institute casts doubt on the reality of this epidemic.”
Comedy gold. Of course, in a properly ordered society, we only release the results of studies that support the conclusions the government has already reached.
I remain highly skeptical of claims that using a hands-free phone is more distracting than a human passenger that you can, you know, take your eyes off the road to look at.
Here’s an interesting take on our transportation secretary’s reaction to this study: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/02/how-dare-they-tell-us-the-truth/
I especially like that LaHood brings up the study that found distracted drivers are worse than drunk drivers… but doesn’t bring up that it found drunk (exactly .08 blood alcohol) drivers are no worse than sober ones.
The thinking is that a passenger sees what is going on in the car, knows when to pause, knows when to let the driver concentrate on something, but a cell phone conversant doesn’t.
Not sure that I completely buy this, but I can understand why they might make the case.
On a somewhat obliquely related note…
Back on one of the previous threads where Radley linked to a little spy cam review, I ordered one of those cameras, mostly as kind of a toy. Today I clipped it to the sun visor in my car and pointed it out the windshield for the drive to work. I suppose I might forget about it if I did it routinely, but I found myself driving more carefully since, by recording my driving, I was essentially providing evidence against myself if I caused an accident.
I might add that, since it picks up sound, it also makes you more self conscious of cussing about some news story you’re listening to on the radio….
I think having my wife in the car adds to the safety, like when she suddenly shouts, “Dave, Dave, DAVE!” in quick succession followed by, “Look out for that bus!”
We did some studies on this in my lab in grad school. Yes, that’s exactly how it works.
Allowing hands-free devices makes these bans useless. Ditto for failing to enforce the bans. Those two factors account for the ineffectiveness of the bans.
Does this constitute a sufficient argument against the bans? Probably, in practical terms.
In general, I agree with the motorcyclist above: it’s easy to spot drivers on cell phones, because they’re the most reckless drivers on the road. OTOH, I saw an old guy in a Lexus zip down a city street while reading a book the other day. What’s the solution to bad drivers? I’m generally in favour of harsh punitive measures for anyone whose distraction contributes to an accident, but even that policy will be underinclusive: many bad drivers create dangerous road conditions without actually being directly involved in any resulting accidents. This is a huge problem (in terms of number of deaths per year, it outstrips “terrorism” and other violent crime by several orders of magnitude) with no easily enforceable solution. My only strong feeling on the issue is that the punishments dished out when somebody gets caught red-handed (DUI, talking on a cell phone behind the wheel, or any other form of voluntarily undertaken impairment resulting in an accident) should be extremely severe: lifelong revocation of driving privileges should be the bare minimum sentence.
‘More surprising, the study was actually sponsored by auto insurers.’
It shouldn’t be surprising. Insurers may in many cases be complete assholes who skirt the borders of illegality when it comes to paying out claims, but on the risk mitigation side their incentives align very nicely with ours and they are pretty much on the side of the angels. Case in point, you can (if you are a small manufacturer) get a free consultation with an insurance company rep, who will offer recommendations on how to make your workplace safer. They don’t want to pay workman’s comp claims any more than you want to see an accident.
In the case of this study, it doesn’t surprise me that insurance companies would want accurate information on the effectiveness of these measures. If nothing else, it would inform their decisions on how to spend their lobbying budget.
I understand it’s difficult to enforce in every circumstance, but there are enough drivers who flout the law with the phone at their ear and driving as though they’re plastered. If the police would enforce the most blatant violations, you’d likely see a change in behavior.
Enforcement of cell phones are probably easier than just choosing to prosecute recklessness, as some advocate. “Recklessness” is a much more subjective standard and more likely to lead to police abuse.
There are a lot of distracted drivers out there; husband & I were driving down an expressway with traffic at 60mph & higher when I looked over at the car next to us and the driver was playing her guitar & driving with her knees.
I think lawmakers will use this study to the same degree they use info that red light cameras make intersections less safe. It is irrelevant. Revenue generation is revenue generation. Its impact on us or our safety could not matter less.
Interesting though, an insurance study also found that hands-free cell phones are just as distracting as handhelds, so the same study that supports Radley’s position is probably intended to support a complete ban on all cell phone use while driving.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012900053.html
Do cell phone bans get politicians elected? If so, then they work.
I think lawmakers will use this study to the same degree they use info that red light cameras make intersections less safe. It is irrelevant. Revenue generation is revenue generation. Its impact on us or our safety could not matter less.
-Chris in AL
Absolutely, this has nothing to do with safety, none of the so-called rules ever do, they are nothing but a money grab and gives the police a reason to pull someone over. If it was about safety, then as Michaelk42 |has stated there would be harsher penalties for all distracted driving not just the ones that make the news that politicians beat the drum on. E.G. You run a red-light and kill someone you are likely to get at worst a manslaughter conviction, you run the same red light after having a drink and some DA may try to convict you for murder. In either event, person dead, in one instance they will say if you were sober you could’ve avoided the collision, yet in either case a person is dead and would you really care if the person who did it was sober. I think not!!
I wouldn’t be surprised if it were hands free devices. Here is how the logic would work:
1. Ban hand held devices.
2. People buy hands free devices.
3. People now have hands free devices and this makes talking easier and new toys are fun.
4. You have more people talking while driving which is the real problem.
5. More accidents.
6. Since people have both hands on the wheel now (in theory) this mitigates 5 resulting in no statistically significant change in the rate of accidents.
You’d need to disentangle these different effects which can be hard to do.
There ought to be laws like the one Duncan mentioned which place a stiff fine on doing anything which takes your attention away from the road, and turns into jail time if by doing so you cause serious injury or death to another driver, passenger, or pedestrian. The law would only be enforced when an accident occurs, or as an add-on violation for someone who is stopped for speeding, careless driving, etc.
This problem is very difficult, because using a cell phone when driving really does harm people other than the cell phone user, because it really does cause accidents, for all the reasons mentioned above. So the fundamental requirement for a law against doing something — it harms someone other than the doer — is met. But the practical requirement for enacting and enforcing a law — enforcement can be achieved with reasonable efficiency at a low enough cost — is not met. As Radley says, it is unenforceable.
I think the best hope is to get the information out and make use of market mechanisms. For example, everyone is increasingly aware that in a liability case about an auto accident, cell phone usage by a driver would be treated as relevant and would be bad for the driver. As a result, many companies have imposed bans on their employees using cell phones in company vehicles. This isn’t driven by a law banning the practice: The companies don’t want to be on the wrong end of a big judgment. Or suppose that someone developed an in-car cell phone jammer, and auto insurance companies offered discounts for cars which were so equipped.
About handsfree: I work in the phone industry, and I’m also expert in the nature of human language (BA and MA in Linguistics). As some people have noted already, a person in the car is less distracting than a person on the phone, because the person in the car is also aware of the driver’s immediate environment and that affects his/her behaviour. But there is another factor that most people are not aware of: All telephones transmit only about 1/5 of the auditory information that we can actually hear. Consequently, a vast amount of the redundancy that is built into human language is lost. This forces our brain to work much harder to analyze and decode the message. We are not consciously aware of this, but I am confident that it takes brain resources away from whatever else we are doing — such as driving.