textN laws Rnt wurkN

New texting laws aren't working
By Kelvin Wade September 30, 2010

Laws against texting while driving ran up against a tough opponent this week: the facts. The Highway Data Loss Institute, which is affiliated with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, conducted a study of texting bans in four states, including California. It found that not only did the bans not lower the number of accidents, crashes actually increased in three of the four states.

Researchers believe people have altered the way they text since the laws have been enacted. Instead of holding the phone up at eye level, people are holding their phones low to avoid tickets. Trying to beat the law is creating more of a distraction than if there were no ban.

While it's sure to dishearten Oprah and her No Phone Zone campaign, I admit that I'm a part-time texting-while-driving scofflaw. I sometimes read texts while driving. I will pull over to write a text but that's only because it's hard for me to one-handed text on a BlackBerry. But when I do read a text, I hold the phone low, just as I'm sure people who regularly flout texting laws do to avoid detection.

Just as surely as people will continue to talk on handsets (Tony), they will continue to text and drive. Why? Because it's easy and it's become a habit for millions of people. When that chime sounds indicating a new message has arrived, how many are going to pull over or wait until they've reached their destination to read it? And if the message requires a quick yes or no or 'OK,' how many aren't going to do it?

Of course, the do-gooders pushing the bans immediately criticized the new study. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood panned the studies, saying they were 'misleading' and flawed. But why should we expect them to listen to the results of this study? There have been multiple studies that have shown talking on a Bluetooth headset or handsfree headset is no safer than talking using the handset. The conversation is the distraction, experts have repeatedly said.

But lawmakers love the appearance of solving a problem so they rushed these laws onto the books in more than 30 states. If the goal was really to stop crashes caused by this distraction, lawmakers would've listened to the studies and flat out banned cell phone use while driving.

The studies' authors aren't arguing that texting while driving should be legal. They're saying that from what they've seen so far, the laws aren't working. They say better enforcement is the key to success.

But how is that going to be done? Last week I was driving somewhere I'd never been before so I used the GPS on my BlackBerry. While holding the phone and following the directions, I realized that to a cop looking at me it would appear as though I were texting.

A cop looking at a driver looking down won't know whether the driver is adjusting the radio, holding a cigarette or cup of coffee, using GPS or trying to find a phone number on his handset to talk to someone on his Bluetooth headset.

The only way to increase compliance is to increase awareness through campaigns such as Oprah's and public service education, and to make the penalties truly draconian. Bring texting fines in line with littering fines. With a $1,000 littering fine, you don't see many people tossing their trash out of their car window. But the anti-littering campaign took years to take root with the public. Texting will be much harder.

Let's face it, it's hard to enforce this law. And laws that are hard to enforce are routinely violated. Sad to say but on the road, when Fairfield's finest or CHP aren't around, too often we drivers act like students whose teacher has stepped out into the hall.

Now, as this study shows, it appears we've run smack dab into the Law of Unintended Consequences. We've taken something dangerous and made it more dangerous. Peace.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

ADDITIONAL NOTES: Man, did I step in it. I know I'm going to catch a little hell. That's alright. People are mad at me for admitting to reading texts while driving. Hey, I'm just reading them. I don't text. But mainly, it's because I can't one handed text on a Blackberry. With the iPhone, I could text and drive all day long. NOT that I'd advocate anyone texting and driving. That's dangerous.

I am yet to be convinced that reading a text message is any different than reading a letter while driving, which is something I've seen many people do.

My point is that we're focused on cell phones when we should be focused on distracted driving. I've seen people put on makeup, shave, eat, drink, smoke, change CDs, take photos, deal with children in the back seat and more while driving. And all of that is legal.

It irks me that reading a text is a ticketable offense. Here's the insanity. If I'm at a stop light, I can't read a text and write a text. But it's perfectly legal for me to scan through the address book on my phone to look for someone to call provided I have a handsfree headset. How is one more dangerous than the other? And I can scan through that address book while driving, not even stopped.

And it irks me that research has shown no difference between driving with a handset or headset yet that's totally ignored. If the legislature was serious they would ban all cell phone use by drivers. Period. But that's never going to happen.

My point in this column was to point out what an organization that SUPPORTS texting laws found: that they're not working. They're actually making the roads less safe because at least before, people held the phones up at eye level when texting.

Its going to take time for the public to get used to the bans. Drunk driving awareness is something that took time to catch on. Texting while driving is still a relatively "new" thing and it's not going to be eliminated overnight.