Text-and-Drive Bans Don't Matter, Study Finds

Text-and-Drive Bans Don't Matter, Study Finds

Brennon Slattery

Jan 29, 2010 8:17 am

Talking on the phone is so 20th century -- texting is where it's at.
And that's why loads of drivers take to the great open road smooshing
their QWERTY with nimble thumbs. That sounds like the worst idea I've
ever heard, and the U.S. government (mostly) agrees. As of January
2010, 19 states along with Washington, D.C., have banned texting while
driving. But now the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) -- a project
sponsored by insurance companies, of all entities -- claims that
despite anti-texting-while-driving laws, crash rates are not affected.
Wait, what?

The HLDI compared collisions of 100 insured vehicles per year in New
York, Washington D.C., 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...
Crash rates compared to nearby places without texting or handheld
phone bans also didn't change." (It should be noted that most of the
states that have banned texting still treat it as a "secondary
offense," meaing the cops can't stop you for it, but can write you up
in conjunction with another transgression.)

An earlier study conducted by the HLDI reported that cellphone use was
directly linked to four-fold increases in crash injuries. In 2009,
Virginia Tech conducted a study that found texting while driving
increased crash risk 23-fold. These stomach-turning figures lit a fire
under the Federal government, which tried to ban texting while driving
all across the board. The bill, called the ALERT Drivers Act (for
Avoiding Life-Endangering and Reckless Texting by Drivers Act), was
introduced in August 2009 and has stalled in committee, where it will
probably die.

These figures confused even the HLDI, which said in a statement:
"Reductions in observed phone use following bans are so substantial
and estimated effects of phone use on crash risk are so large that
reductions in aggregate crashes would be expected." Seems to me that
if the figures don't match up, it's time to scuttle that rat back into
the lab rather than release it and call it science.

To add irony to the silly blunder, the HLDI study comes on the heels
of a ban on texting for bus and truck drivers. This big-deal ban looks
a little feeble standing next to what's being touted as a legitimate
study from a reputable research organization.

As always, studies need to be taken with two whopping fistfuls of
salt. Notice that this particular study only looked at 100 cars --
hardly enough to gather substantial data leading beyond a flimsy
hypothesis. And, for you conspiracy theory types, it's worth
reiterating that this study was funded by insurance companies, suits
that profit off this kind of stuff. It's important to keep an eye on
these studies -- and, of course, that guy in the other lane who is
clearly typing LOL OMG BFFL.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/18814...nl_dnx_h_crawl

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." > wrote:

>A few small adjustments to the law will solve the problem:

>1) Make texting while driving a primary offense.

>2) Make on he spot confiscation of the phone (for evidentiary
>purposes,of course) mandatory.

Why the 11,981 separate clauses to ban all the things that are
distractions from driving, when all one needs to to regulate against
discretionary, distracting activity? Such a thing can apply to all
vehicle occupants and those in proximity of the carriageway.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | We must plan for freedom, and not only for
X against HTML mail | security ,,, only freedom can make security
/ \ and postings | more secure. -- Karl Popper

Ablang > wrote in
:

> Text-and-Drive Bans Don't Matter, Study Finds
>
> Brennon Slattery
>
> Jan 29, 2010 8:17 am
>
> Talking on the phone is so 20th century -- texting is where it's at.
> And that's why loads of drivers take to the great open road smooshing
> their QWERTY with nimble thumbs. That sounds like the worst idea I've
> ever heard, and the U.S. government (mostly) agrees. As of January
> 2010, 19 states along with Washington, D.C., have banned texting while
> driving. But now the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) -- a project
> sponsored by insurance companies, of all entities -- claims that
> despite anti-texting-while-driving laws, crash rates are not affected.
> Wait, what?
>
> The HLDI compared collisions of 100 insured vehicles per year in New
> York, Washington D.C., 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...
> Crash rates compared to nearby places without texting or handheld
> phone bans also didn't change." (It should be noted that most of the
> states that have banned texting still treat it as a "secondary
> offense," meaing the cops can't stop you for it, but can write you up
> in conjunction with another transgression.)
>
> An earlier study conducted by the HLDI reported that cellphone use was
> directly linked to four-fold increases in crash injuries. In 2009,
> Virginia Tech conducted a study that found texting while driving
> increased crash risk 23-fold. These stomach-turning figures lit a fire
> under the Federal government, which tried to ban texting while driving
> all across the board. The bill, called the ALERT Drivers Act (for
> Avoiding Life-Endangering and Reckless Texting by Drivers Act), was
> introduced in August 2009 and has stalled in committee, where it will
> probably die.
>
> These figures confused even the HLDI, which said in a statement:
> "Reductions in observed phone use following bans are so substantial
> and estimated effects of phone use on crash risk are so large that
> reductions in aggregate crashes would be expected." Seems to me that
> if the figures don't match up, it's time to scuttle that rat back into
> the lab rather than release it and call it science.
>
> To add irony to the silly blunder, the HLDI study comes on the heels
> of a ban on texting for bus and truck drivers. This big-deal ban looks
> a little feeble standing next to what's being touted as a legitimate
> study from a reputable research organization.
>
> As always, studies need to be taken with two whopping fistfuls of
> salt. Notice that this particular study only looked at 100 cars --
> hardly enough to gather substantial data leading beyond a flimsy
> hypothesis. And, for you conspiracy theory types, it's worth
> reiterating that this study was funded by insurance companies, suits
> that profit off this kind of stuff. It's important to keep an eye on
> these studies -- and, of course, that guy in the other lane who is
> clearly typing LOL OMG BFFL.
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/18814...ont_matter_stu
> dy_finds.html?tk=nl_dnx_h_crawl
>

They'd matter if the penalties were severe. A $25 fine and no points is a
joke.