Study: distracted driving laws don't stop crashes

[rsn 135]

Study: distracted driving laws don't stop crashes

WASHINGTON – A new study from the insurance industry finds that state laws banning wireless calling or texting while driving have not resulted in fewer vehicle crashes.

The study, conducted by the Highway Loss Data Institute and released Friday, examined insurance claims from crashes before and after such bans took effect in California, New York, Connecticut and Washington, D.C.

The organization finds that claims rates have not gone down after the laws were enacted. It also finds no change in patterns compared with other states without such bans.

The Highway Loss Data Institute, an affiliate of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, says its findings "don't match what we already know about the risk of phoning and texting while driving" and says it is gathering data to "figure out this mismatch."

duh

[Peikko 1,575]

Laws don't change behaviour in and of themselves. One of the big problems is that there is no peer pressure to adhere to traffic laws. They are seen as silly, intrusive and 'not applicable to me'. Those who consistently flout traffic laws are seen as latter day heros, not irresponsible and selfish. Until that changes, accidents will continue to happen unabated.

[rsn 135]

Laws don't change behaviour in and of themselves. One of the big problems is that there is no peer pressure to adhere to traffic laws. They are seen as silly, intrusive and 'not applicable to me'. Those who consistently flout traffic laws are seen as latter day heros, not irresponsible and selfish. Until that changes, accidents will continue to happen unabated.

Unenforceable laws especially do not change behavior. How on earth did the lawmakers assume that police would enforce such ridiculous laws?

[lucyrich 19]

Maybe that's because the laws aren't enforced. And they're pretty hard to enforce, to be fair.

In my state, it's been illegal to use a cell phone while driving for awhile now, unless you use it hands free. But almost every day, I see drivers illegally holding cell phones up to their ears. If the law doesn't result in a change in behavior, then it's not likely to result in a change in accident rates, now is it?

Never mind the fact that many studies seem to indicate that hands-free use of a cell phone is just about as distracting and dangerous as holding the phone up to your ear. So even if the law got everyone to switch to using hands free devices with their phones, it might not change accident statistics.

I don't know how they'll ever enforce a law against sending and receiving text messages while driving.

[Peikko 1,575]

Unenforceable laws especially do not change behavior. How on earth did the lawmakers assume that police would enforce such ridiculous laws?

I think it's called 'raising awareness' of an issue. Awareness has been raised. Now the fact that it is dumb & SELFISH needs to be drummed into the heads of the thick so that peer pressure not to do it increases. It has worked with seat belts and drink driving but it's taken a while.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

How about this for distracted?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8486842.stm

Remember what can happen to well intentioned laws when the wrong people get a hold of them.

This one has more details since i noticed the vids not working in the link above at the moment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotlan...est/8484978.stm

[Peikko 1,575]

That's not exactly conclusive proof that he was in proper charge of his vehicle. He has his day in court to prove it either way.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Sometimes, when I sneeze, I'm not in control of my vehicle for a split second. Should I get a "sneezing while driving fine"?

[Peikko 1,575]

Sometimes, when I sneeze, I'm not in control of my vehicle for a split second. Should I get a "sneezing while driving fine"?

It's not a slippery slope. There are things that people do when driving that are dumb because you can't possible drive with the safety of other road users in mind while you are doing them. Using a cell phone comes under that category. When peer pressure sways in the direction that that is dumb, less people will do it, and accidents will fall. Having it as a fineable offense raises awareness. Big Brother is not watching you, you will not get arrested for sneezing while in control of your vehicle.

It is true however, that the police can and will use specific offenses in order to stop people that they have some other suspicion about. They do that with all the current laws that are in place.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It's not a slippery slope. There are things that people do when driving that are dumb because you can't possible drive with the safety of other road users in mind while you are doing them. Using a cell phone comes under that category. When peer pressure sways in the direction that that is dumb, less people will do it, and accidents will fall. Having it as a fineable offense raises awareness. Big Brother is not watching you, you will not get arrested for sneezing while in control of your vehicle.

It is true however, that the police can and will use specific offenses in order to stop people that they have some other suspicion about. They do that with all the current laws that are in place.

We'll see. I don't have much faith in what your saying if this man's case is true.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

they do almost no enforcement in California from what I can tell which probably accounts for the lack of an effect on number of crashes

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

they do almost no enforcement in California from what I can tell which probably accounts for the lack of an effect on number of crashes

lol don't tell my boss that he's had 3 fines in a year!

I'm actually for these laws btw IF lawmakers and police use common sense.The fact of the matter is using a phone in a car is more dangerous then driving drunk and ironically our laws weigh one as a misdomeanor and the other is a petty fine.

However, a lot of laws can get really twisted, such as the teen sexting cases which can turn woman taking photos of their own bodies into sex offenders that effectively ruins their lives (not sure how these cases are turning out)

Or the stupid "zero tolerance" policies that lack common sense when young children bring something fairly innocent to school and get expelled.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Sousuke

[Peikko 1,575]

We'll see. I don't have much faith in what your saying if this man's case is true.

The operative question being, is what he believes happened, is in fact the whole truth.

[Ali G. 37]

The study is silly. How about comparing it to places that have had a cell phone in your hand while driving banned for 15 plus years, places that also have heavy fines and proactive enforcement. People need to remember that in various American states, a police officer cannot pull an individual over just for that. It has to be coupled with something else. Whereas, cell phone in hand is 3 demerit points off and a $200 on the sport fine in Vic, AUS. Therefore, damn straight you are going to think about the consequences if caught. Not to mention, your insurance may refuse to cover a claim, if you are at fault and holding your phone.

Proactive law enforcement regarding driving is why a state like Victoria with a population of 5 million, only has 300 or so deaths per year. Compared to the thousands that die in equivalent states here each year.

Sounds like Slim had something to do with this study..

Edited January 29, 2010 by Booyah

[MrsCat 6]

County of Hawaii new handsfree law took effect 01/01/10. I wish they would just call it what it is. A cash grab for cash strapped county. $97 for first offense. There are plenty of laws on the books to charge people who are driving in a dangerous fashion, or driving inattentively. Handsfree law just makes it easier to make a quick $97 without having to prove that someone was in fact a risk on the road.

I'm no safer on the road than I was on 12/31/09.