Phone and Text Bans On Drivers Shown Ineffective 406
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."
Re:Compliance Rates & Hands-Free Use (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Different Studies had different results? (Score:2, Insightful)
Despite those laws, monthly fluctuations in crash rates didn't change after bans were enacted, all though 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.
Study 1: Cellphone use is "linked" to a four-fold increase in crash injuries.
Study 2: There is a correlation between driving while using a phone and crashes.
Study 3: After laws banning cell-phone use were enacted, monthly fluctuations in crash rates didn't change.
These studies, as summarized in the summary, are not inconsistent. Fluctuations in crash rates need not change in order for the overall number of crashes to change. Injuries are not the same as conversation or even accidents, and a difference in the quantity of injuries may reflect something as simple as not holding the wheel with both hands. And you don't say the correlation is positive.
Okay, maybe the last is implied--but still, could we try to be a bit more specific before implying conclusions that would, if true, justify major policy changes?
Woman can't stop texting, wrecks 3 cars in 3 years (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [newsobserver.com]
Re:Compliance Rates & Hands-Free Use (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8479393.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Re:Compliance Rates & Hands-Free Use (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Bad drivers are still bad drivers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not too surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Compliance Rates & Hands-Free Use (Score:3, Insightful)
So, there should be tests. Depending on your score, you get to have (or not have) certain things in your vehicle. . .
And professional race car drivers should be able to drive 200mph (or whatever the average speed of their racing discipline) on the streets and highways. After all, they've demonstrated their ability to "handle" different levels of speed. Right?
Some folks should not be on the road. All folks should not be diving while using phone.
Re:Flawed study... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Woman can't stop texting, wrecks 3 cars in 3 ye (Score:3, Insightful)
For those that say you need a car to have a job and live all I gotta say is people, like the woman you mentioned, should have thought about that. The thing is though she doesn't have to think about it because her licence won't be taken away.
People like this woman will keep driving even after losing a license. They "need" to for blah, blah, blah.
There really is no rational remedy for habitual dangerous drivers in a car-centric society. We'd have to imprison them or roll out some universal means of preventing someone from driving a car without authorization (i.e. some kind of device in every car). Neither of those are practical, so we are left with moral suasion and the mayhem caused by people who are immune to it.
Seatbelt law enforcement varies state to state (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:1, Insightful)
WRONG!
Both are actually rights.
Driving is inherently tied to the right of free association. It is, in much of the US, the only means by which one may freely associate with persons of ones own choosing.
Cell phone use is, rather obviously, tied to the right to free speech.
Not enforced (Score:4, Insightful)
No one is afraid of being caught, at least in Cali. Everyone who did, still does - have a phone in their hands, and I've never seen anyone pulled over for cell phone use. Enacting laws that are not enforced is the first step in enabling the sense of "I can get away with it". Be it jaywalking or littering, if there is a law, it should be enforced, and the fines should include the cost of enforcement. Ultimately if the required cost doesn't justify the subsequent fine, then the laws need to be changed to reflect that. If law is about order, then the laws we abide by must be enforceable.
Also, correlation is not causation!! This cannot be emphasized enough. Regardless of whether the science is sound or not, if their results are just at the "correlation" level, then they are NOT VERY SCIENTIFIC. These are guesses with numbers, which is far far far from any proof or truth.
TFA is a thinking fail. (Score:4, Insightful)
what a fucking crock of shit, i see people taking their eyes off the road to send txt messages all the time. without a hands free kit you've only got one hand on the wheel and 1/2 your focus on the road. any god damn fool can see how that will end in disaster.
you know what would actually see a reduction in crashes? more cops on the road since that visible presence is the biggest deterent there is. if you think there's a cop around every corner that will book you for speeding/DYI/txting a lot less people will risk it.
Re:Not too surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
You'll see self-driving cars within a decade of cancer being cured.
If the only major cause of death is car accidents, people will wake up to the danger and accept automation.
Re:Not much change here (Score:3, Insightful)
Forfeit your license, your car, and spend a couple months in jail.
You are right! There used to be a time when people used to drink alcohol and drive their cars. Then new laws came about that made is so that you'd lose your license and spend a few months in jail. After that, no one ever drove while drunk anymore. Problem solved!
just ban cell phones entirely
They tried that with alcohol too! (From 1920 to 1933) It also worked like a champ! No one ever drank alcohol and crime sunk to all-time lows.
Re:Compliance Rates & Hands-Free Use (Score:3, Insightful)
You do not have the right to drive, hence the requirement for a driving test, and if you fail, you cannot drive.
You do not have the right to a cell phone either. In some parts of the country you can't even get cell phone coverage (read: various rural communities). If you have poor credit or no job or are just generally rude, a phone carrier can deny you access to their network.
Re:Compliance Rates & Hands-Free Use (Score:3, Insightful)
"Just because a behavior is banned doesn't mean people have actually stopped doing it."
It means the BAN is ineffective which is what is claimed. That much is undeniable.
LA County Sheriff above the law (Score:1, Insightful)
I really enjoyed seeing an LA county sheriff deputy driving his cruiser and using his cellphone in Marina Del Rey this summer... Classic!
Re:Compliance Rates & Hands-Free Use (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Compliance Rates & Hands-Free Use (Score:4, Insightful)
What this reduction in cellphone use but not crashes is indicating, is that the idiots who make calls in cars (whether or not they decide a $100 ticket is costly enough to be a disincentive) are the same self-absorbed and self-important assholes who pay too much attention to shit inside the car and are the most likely to crash under any circumstance. A ban on cellphone use makes big news and we see it putting fear into a lot of people who don't want to waste money. But they're still going to remain totally unconscious of other mundane laws that have been around for years forbidding things like vehicular manslaughter.
Re:Compliance Rates & Hands-Free Use (Score:3, Insightful)
You chose a terrible example. Greg is physically gifted, but he's already demonstrated his ability to endanger people's lives, including his own, by stupid behavior. Namely, he contracted AIDS by having unsafe sex.
Don't encourage people to think that their special gifts make them immune from accidents and that they can therefore take extra risks: a car can easily kill as many people as an unwrapped penis, and the people it kills are far more likely to be completely innocent of stupid behavior themselves.
Re:Time to repeal the laws then? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can sum up your post into two words: "knee jerk". As many people have pointed out already, the study certainly has not proved that the ban is and always will be ineffective. It just shows that, right now, people are still crashing just as often, but this will probably change as people get used to the idea that they can't use their phones while driving.
And besides, since you seem to implicitly trust studies, there was the original study(s) that said phones were dangerous while driving. Shouldn't your reaction be to find ways to make the ban more effective, rather than scrapping it?
Re:Probably because cell phone use isn't a factor (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Compliance Rates & Hands-Free Use (Score:3, Insightful)
Any activity where one must obtain permission before taking part in said activity is not a right, but in fact a privilege
This begs the question, what are civil rights, anyway?
Re:Compliance Rates & Hands-Free Use (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's not forget that drivers think they're better drivers than everyone else on the road.
Right. They think they are better not in the sense that they can equitably share the road with other motorists, but because they believe they are have l33t skills at handling their car and have cat-like reflexes that allow them to tailgate and whip around slower motorists with precision.
What they don't realize is that these qualities are exactly what a good driver isn't. Good drivers are defensive drivers who have a larger awareness of the roadway than just simply their selfish needs to get to point B as quickly a possible; good drivers tend to "share the road" with other motorists. Collisions are caused by conflicts in the roadway. Aggressive drivers who think they are good drivers cause more conflicts than defensive drivers. When you get two aggressive drivers causing a conflict at the same time, you have an accident. (I'm not saying that this is how all accidents happen, just preventable ones)
I think this also stems from people passing judgement on other motorists when they do something unexpected to them. They think they are a better driver because they are appalled at all these other drivers pulling out in front of them, driving too slowly in front of them, taking their time making a right turn, etc. They conveniently forget all the other times they pulled something stupid in front of someone else because they were either too busy focusing on getting to point B, or think themselves above other motorists. The automobile is a powerful psychological device that gives people their only opportunity for power trips, so to speak, since they feel powerless in the stresses of their life off the road.
Self Driving cars, huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars
They are called trains, if you call the person driving for you part of the train.
Re:Compliance Rates & Hands-Free Use (Score:3, Insightful)
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. :-)
All drivers have a responsibility for their own and the safety of others on the road. Personally, I have trouble estimating the position of the passenger side of my car to closer than six inches so I avoid situations where that would be necessary; if traffic is tight I'll slow down to avoid driving between wide vehicles. I find that when when thinking about programming or other complex problems, I tend to take longer to notice the slowing of a car in front of me so I habitually leave much more than the average (as observed) distance between my own and the car in front of me. I'm not opposed to driving and texting or talking on the phone or discussing politics with a passenger or eating, but when in traffic I don't text, don't take calls, don't discuss politics and don't eat.
I'm not certain that I cannot manage any of these things, but I am certain that I need more focus in certain situations and devote all that I have when it just might turn out to be necessary. I've been hit once (no major damage) by someone who couldn't stop in time and now if the driver behind me insists on tailgating, I slow, switch lanes or even pull off to avoid that danger.
I may not be a better driver than average. My record is clean but I know that there have been times that I avoided a wreck only by the grace and foresight of another driver. I strive to ensure that I can do the same. If I fail, then it will not be due to distracted driving. (I use my turn signal so that the other drivers around me know what I plan to do. Swerving into the lane from behind at high speed that I'm already pulling into while I'm signaling, particularly without using your own turn signal is bad form. Yes, I'm talking to you Mr. Maroon Corolla Driver on 635 in Dallas earlier today.)
I have a long and significantly varied daily commute. There are rural portions with little traffic and stop lights where, if cautious, I can safely engage in any of the "multitasking" behaviors that I described. There are also portions where the other desires have to be put off as my priority for staying safe is primary.
Tell a child to brush their teeth, and quit eating donuts and they'll eat cinnamon buns and pretend they brushed their teeth. Ban cinnamon buns and tell them they'll be grounded if they don't brush their teeth and they'll wet their toothbrush and switch to twinkies. One dentist trip and some education about what causes cavities and you'll have someone serious about their oral hygiene. The point is that trying to nanny people into making better decisions rarely works, particularly with adult children. All the nanny "don't do this or that" laws aren't improving people's actual desire for safety. Personally, the desire to stay safe is enough, but I get an extra reminder how important my record is every time I pay my auto insurance bill.
Flawed study (Score:3, Insightful)
I get the impression this study is flawed. Here's how:
It's data set is based on "Comparing insurance claims for crash damage..."
So the crash data would be mostly self reported. Now - before the ban - someone might report, "I was talking on my phone, and I hit the tree."
However, after the ban, they wouldn't admit doing anything illegal during the crash (since this could be a cause for non-payment) like talking on the phone, so they would be motivated not to report the phone call.
Some of you thought that there is a 'right' to drive. That is not a right found in the constitution. However, the federal & state governments do have the ability to: protect us from others, and protect us from ourselves. Just like they can require seat belt wearing in cars, and helmets for motorcyclists, they can proscribe what they deem to be safe practices while driving like: having a license, not being drunk, and not driving while distracted.
Re:Compliance Rates & Hands-Free Use (Score:3, Insightful)
your logic is flawed. You most certainly can take away a right. Or is going to prison actually considered losing the privilege of freedom?
Driving is a right just like everything else we consider our selves free to do. But like all our other rights it does have limits in a civilized society. We as a society have agreed that for safety reasons it needs to be regulated to some degree and that it can be denied if you fail to use it properly. Just like the right to free speech does have its limits when it is used incorrectly (liable and slander), to keep and bear arms (you're a felon, no gun for you) ... etc
Ask yourself this: when did driving become a privilege? when the first car was made? after 100 people owned them? a million? at what point did your right to purchase a product with your own money and operate it in a safe and legal manner go from something a free person does until he is told by society explicitly that he cannot, to something he is told explicitly that he can? When did that shift occur in history?