Texting Bans Fail as U.S. Drivers Ignore Rules, Insurer-Funded Study Says

[ZombieHorde]

By Natalie Doss - Sep 28, 2010 8:27 AM MT

Bans on texting while driving fail to reduce crash rates, according to a study by the Highway Loss Data Institute, a group funded by the insurance industry. Crashes increased in three of four states it surveyed where driver texting was banned, according to the group’s statement released today. The study focused on collision claims in the states before and after they enacted bans. Flouting the law is the likely reason the rules don’t work, researchers said.

Laws against texting from mobile phones have been enacted in 30 states since 2004, and almost half of them this year, the group said. The Obama administration has called for a federal law outlawing driver texting. More than 5,800 traffic deaths were tied to distracted driving in 2008, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. “Texting bans haven’t reduced crashes at all,” said Adrian Lund, president of the Highway Loss Data Institute and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, in the statement.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the results were misleading. They don’t match up with his agency’s research showing that deadly distracted driving declines when laws are strictly enforced, he said in a statement.

The Highway Loss Data Institute study covered four states that prohibited driver texting in 2008 and 2009 -- California, Louisiana, Minnesota and Washington. Lund said that the bans may worsen the problem as drivers moved their phones out of sight to avoid detection, shifting their eyes farther from the road. Young drivers are more likely than older people to text while driving, the study said. Texting rose 60 percent, to 1.6 trillion in 2009, from 1 trillion messages in 2008, the institute said.

--------------------------
The whole story is included, but here is the link http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-28/texting-bans-fail-as-u-s-drivers-ignore-rules-insurer-funded-study-says.html

Your phone addiction is becoming ridiculous.

[slackmaster]

1. I hate people who don't pay attention to traffic while driving

It's the biggest pet peeve in my life.

[speppin]

2. Its like stop smoking-its a long term education public health issue and process that

will take time as did wearing seat belts, car seats for babes and kids etc etc.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. There needs to be more airing of that devastating public service ad that they show in Great Britain.

It is gory, explicit, bloody and horrifying. But so are the results of the accidents that people have while driving and texting/talking. If being sickened by the ad saves even one life, it will have been worth it.

EDIT:
Here it is..

http://jalopnik.com/5342582/british-police-create-graphic-anti+texting-video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0LCmStIw9E

[ZombieHorde]

19. The psa is awesome. nt

[COLGATE4]

10. I agree it's a long term issue but the key is aggressive

enforcement by the cops. Until Michigan made not using a seat belt a primary offense (it was secondary before, meaning they had to stop you for something else and then they could ticket you for not using a seat belt) the seat belt use percentage was fairly low, compared to most states. Once is became a primary offense and cops started with "Click it or ticket" seatbelt use increased significantly. Until cops start aggressively ticketing people who text while driving it's not going to drop.

[BrklynLiberal]

3. Heard about this on radio this AM. One of the interviewees said what is happening is that

drivers are trying to hide the phone from the cops, so they hold it lower...and have to be even more distracted to use it...and therefore it appears that the ban is increasing accident rates. What is increasing accident rates is the stupidity and stubbornness of people who feel they cannot live without being in constant touch with SOMEONE!!!
It is illegal to use phone and drive in NYC. I wish I had $10 in my hand right now for every driver I have seen with a phone to their ear...including policemen WHILE DRIVING IN THEIR SQUAD CARS, and sanitation men turning corners at 40 mph, using one hand to drive one of those HUGE street brushing machines. One of the latter almost ran down me and my dog a few months ago. Took the vehicle number and called the local sanitation garage...for all the good that might have done...

[Tansy_Gold]

5. If insurance companies don't cover drivers who text

that might change things.

IOW, get in an accident and there's evidence of texting or other intentional distraction, you lose your insurance or go into a high-risk, high-premium pool. Restricted license -- work/school only.

As I've said before, I work for insurance companies, with 95% of what I do involving contested claims. The auto insurers have the power to change this behavior simply by withdrawing coverage and/or hiking rates for those who can't control themselves. It's done for drunk drivers all the time.



TG, NTY

[gratuitous]

11. That occurred to me as well

I believe wireless device activity can be monitored well enough that a presumption of DWT can be made from company records. Denial of coverage or assignment to a high risk pool might do the trick, coupled with an aggressive public education program (media public service announcements and other events to raise awareness).

[left coaster]

6. It's beyond ridiculous. It's a public menace.

Time to install some kind of scrambling device in vehicles that renders cell phones useless, while the vehicle is in motion. Enough already.

[ZombieHorde]

20. Agreed. nt

[Winterblues]

7. Perhaps ignoring this particular Law should carry a much stiffer penalty..

Like some actual jail time... It is a deadly activity, just as drunk driving is..Be serious about it or forget about it. It makes a joke out of the whole situation..

[arbusto_baboso]

8. When I see a driver texting or talking on their cell...

I honk my horn at them repeatedly and give them a few rude gestures. They need to know they are doing wrong and that others don't fucking appreciate it.

I get most of 'em to stop, at least for the moment.

[slackmaster]

9. I just honk, and I use my horn a lot.

Rude gestures don't make the situation any better.

[arbusto_baboso]

14. Who says I'm trying to make it better?

[slackmaster]

17. At least your rudeness is consistent across all subjects

:hi:

The only lawful reason to use your car horn in California is to avoid a collision. I consider that to be better than allowing one to happen because of another driver's inattention.

[billlll]

12. this cd get you in bad conflict Some nuts out there are hairtrigger

I value every DU'er.

Hope you stay out of random quarrels and so

fight texting by agitating for
Other curbs...eg laws or scramblers.

Stay safe, co-DUer.

[WolverineDG]

13. I've almost been t-boned twice by idiots texting or yapping on their damn phones

while pulling out of parking lots!! One was pulling out of a parking lot onto the access road of a highway! :banghead: :nuke:

And while people are shocked about this, some still get miffed when I tell them I don't answer the phone while I'm in the car. What, do they think they're too good to use voice mail? :wtf:

dg

[billlll]

15. SCRAMBLERs best idea so far

Only for txt

Or also voice

Put in car at factory

[Buns_of_Fire]

25. That's been my thought for a while, too.

The electronics to interrupt cell phone transmission has been around for a while, and is pretty cheap. I'd like to see it tied in to the transmission selector -- if in "P", the scrambler is OFF and calls/texting/whatever can proceed; if in any other gear, the scrambler is ON and the driver's just going to have to wait to find out if Buffy and Ted are getting back together.

I know that stuff can be wired through the gear selector -- the automatic trunk opener in my car won't work unless the selector's in "P", for example.

But there may be other things to overcome:
(1) What about a passenger? Are they to be deprived of their usage, too?
(2) What would such a scrambler do the normal operation of the radio and other electronics within the vehicle?
(3) IIRC, interference with a cell phone transmission is prohibited by law.

Now, it could be that the scrambler is only mandated to be used if a person has been convicted of celling-while-driving -- like those gadgets for convicted DUI people that you have to blow into before the car will start. But to mandate that, they've got to be caught first -- no easy task.

So, technologically it can probably be done -- but can it be done legally? And if so, how? (IANAL, needless to say.)

What we probably need is a better class of driver. Other than that, I got nothin' other than to suggest maybe we ought to just shoot 'em (which is probably against the law, too, dammit).:shrug:

[yodermon]

16. what is the legal definition of Texting? n/t

[ZombieHorde]

21. I am not sure, but I imagine the legal definition is similar to the colloquial definition. nt

[yodermon]

22. well it's orders of magnitude more distracting to *actually enter text*

into a device (and that include dialing) than to just scroll thru a list of messages (or a webpage), for example.

Wondering if the law(s) distinguishes b/t those 2 activities.

[ZombieHorde]

24. Good question; I don't know. nt

[Sheepshank]

18. laws only work if they are enforced

...after a crash, statistical data collection doesn't count as enforcement.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

23. Lots of Darwin awards.

In Texas they made it illegal to yak on a cellphone while in a school zone. However, I think that's the only law we have about cellphone use. I cringe when I see some soccer mom in a giant SUV, taking a too-tight left turn in front of me, phone glued to her ear.