Surprise: Laws Banning Cell Phone Use While Driving Don’t Actually Prevent Crashes

  •  January 31, 2010

I’ve always opposed laws against cell phone use (texting and/or talking) while driving. Not because I’m in favor of unsafe or distracted driving. I’m not. Rather, because these laws are all but unenforceable and they’re unlikely to have an impact on road safety.
And, indeed, studies now show that these laws don’t make our roads safer.
As I’ve already said, if you’re driving while distracted, be it because you’re using your cell phone or fiddling with the radio or talking to someone else in the car, that’s already illegal. And you can already be held liable for that if you crash.
Plus, enforcing these laws are all but impossible unless we trample the presumption of innocence. You’re driving. Cop pulls you over because you’ve got your cell phone to your ear. You go to court, it’s your word vs. the cop’s. Given that our courts require that defendants be presumed innocent until proven guilty and that their conviction be “beyond a reasonable doubt” how could anyone be convicted for this offense if they challenge the ticket?
Again, these laws are silly knee-jerk reaction to a perceived public “crisis” ginned up by people with too much time on their hands.

Tags: , ,


«
»
  • http://Array sayanything-130

    The study you refer to also says:

    “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.”

  • sayanything-41696

    I’m not a fan of sticking it to the cops. They’re doing a generally fine job, and I appreciate all the cops in my area. If a cop causes an accident, a.) it’s rare; b.) it was while performing a job. My analogy would be: it’s different when a construction worker on the job breaks a window by accident than it is when an angry teenage boy breaks a window just being a dick.

    Revenue? Sorry. That doesn’t muster up the rage in me that you hope it will. Every traffic statute is a tax you don’t have to pay! A traffic ticket is a tax on being an assh*le. When I think of it that way, it’s a cause I can get behind!

  • robert108

    Good analysis! It is always necessary to remind crusaders that coincidence does not prove causality.

  • sayanything-2

    Except to generate revenue, that is a motivator for this crap.

  • sayanything-2

    It is not about safety, it is about revenue generation, always has been. If it was about safety you would get 5 years in prison for the first offense, be executed on the spot for a second.

  • sayanything-2

    And another brainfart from ollie. Why is no one surprised?

  • robert108

    Wrong again! If it’s associated with impaired driving, reckless driving or any sort of collision(they’re not “accidents”), it’s a felony. In some States, if you’re alone in the car, not doing any obviously impaired driving, and happen to get stopped for some other reason, it might be a misdemeanor if they find you have alcohol.

  • RKae

    “You go to court, it’s your word vs. the cop’s.”

    God almighty. Um… EVERY arrest (or simple stop) is your word against the cops. We’re becoming a brainless society where a jury refuses to convict anyone unless there’s clear surveillance video of the crime, and everyone complains when cameras are installed on street corners.

    Make up your minds, people!

  • sayanything-2

    Several people have brought up the seatbelt issue. I remember when the whole seatbelt law crap started, there was a continual cacophony from government and law enforcement that not wearing a seatbelt would never be used as probable cause to pull people over. Now it is the primary probable cause used for pulling people over.

    And that is all this is, a way to make money for municipalities and states, nothing more.

  • sayanything-1321

    Just what I expected from you, Rob.

  • sayanything-5371

    Most states allow talking as long as a hands free device is used. Drivers are still driving while distracted so the accident rates haven’t changed. The problem is on a phone your attention is somewhere else, not on your driving.

  • lioncourt

    I think it was a misdemeanor for a long time.

    If you didn’t hurt someone you got off with a small fine.

    The first one is a misdemeanor in most states now and in some states it is always a misdemeanor.

  • sayanything-5371

    Cops cause accidents because of driving while distracted too. We have had several who ran stop signs and t-boned someone while they were dicking around with their computer. There have been rear-enders where the cop was on the phone. If I get in an accident and the other driver caused it I’m subpoenaing her cell phone records and suing her azz off.

  • sayanything-4124

    So, the only dangerous activity you have ever seen is using a cellphone? You have never seen somebody swerve into a lane because they were screwing around with the radio? Reading a map? Eating? Turning their head towards a person they are talking to? Looking back at their children? Trying to figure out how to use the GPS? reaching into a bag to grab their burger? Spilling their drink on their lap and using both hands to try and grab the drink? Dropping something on the floor near the gas pedal and reaching around trying to get it?

    I am not talking about texting, or drinking or driving, as being on the same plane with the things I mentioned above. What I am saying is talking on a cellphone(NOT texting) is no more dangerous than any of the things I mentioned above.

    Should all of those be illegial?

  • sayanything-2

    Oh, yea, and I am waiting for RadioShack to start selling handheld cellphone blockers. THAT will be a great day in human history!!!!

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Daydreaming…….

  • sayanything-2

    Its not about safety, it is all about the Benjamins. And it will never be banned, because it is not about safety.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    If cell phones were actually dangerous to use when you drive it’d be obvious
    that there would be a rise in the number of accidents during the time that
    cell phones became ubiquitous. There is no trend and therefore no reason
    for the government to interfere.

  • sayanything-130

    You guys are amazing. You would jeopardize human lives for political reasons.
    I ran off the road into the shoulder area while looking for a button on my cellphone. No accident, luckily. I was guilty of dangerous driving. Luckily there was no kid riding a bike on the shoulder. I now have a handsfree cellphone system in my car. Look around you; how many people do you see driving and trying to turn the steering wheel with one hand with a cellphone in the other hand? How many millions of Americans are dialing or blabbing on their cellphones instead of focusing on the road, pedestrians and cyclists? Safety and laws that promote it are not a “leftist” fabrication. It’s just plain common sense. Texting is as dangerous as driving blindfolded. We saw what happened when a railroad engineer caused a major train crash because he was texting and missed some warning signals.
    The National Transportation Safety Board (which I guess you would regard as a leftist, fear-mongering, anti-American agency) recommended that “The federal government should require surveillance cameras in nearly all locomotives, to allow railroad managers to see if engineers are texting or talking on cellphones, sleeping or admitting unauthorized visitors.”
    Intelligent officials are calling for those measures in freak’n locomotives, and brainless wingnuts would be against similar safeguards in automobiles!!

  • sayanything-130

    FOOD FOR THOUGHT:

    ҉ۢEach year, 21% of fatal car crashes involving teenagers between the ages of 16 and 19 were the result of cell phone usage. This result has been expected to grow as much as 4% every year.
    •Almost 50% of all drivers between the ages of 18 and 24 are texting while driving.
    •Over one-third of all young drivers, ages 24 and under, are texting on the road.
    •Teens say that texting is their number one driver distraction.”

  • sayanything-130

    You want a ban with no enforcement? If you don’t like fines, how about jail as a deterrent?

  • sayanything-2

    The problem is that law enforcement has under cut its own credibility, that is why people do not trust them.Again, it is all about the money, not safety.

  • lioncourt

    Cop pulls you over because you’ve got your cell phone to your ear. You go to court, it’s your word vs. the cop’s.

    Record the time of the stop vs the call log on the phone. It is no longer “your word against the cops.” Several studies have shown that driving while using a cell phone is about as dangerous as driving drunk. There is good reason it should be illegal.

  • AKA WOOF

    Just needs some kind of electro-techno enforcement techniques.

    Drunk driving wasn’t considered much of a crime untill recently.

  • sayanything-130

    “There is no trend and therefore no reason
    for the government to interfere”

    No Trend? I guess it just depends on who’s reporting. I’ll repeat what I pointed out to Rob:

    “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.”

  • http://workhomebusiness.org/ Jake

    Some laws are for those who refuse to employ common sense. That fatal train crash in L.A. a while ago, due to a texting engineer demonstrated the downside of distraction even with no steering wheel.

    A bumper sticker:

    Honk if you love Jesus, text if you want to meet him

  • sayanything-2

    Plain as plain, seatbelts DO NOT keep people safe. Morons hop in a vehicle, slap on the seatbelt and SHAZAM they are invincible and no harm can come to them, so they drive like f**king idiots, cause accidents, and kill&cripple thousands of innocent people. Cause and effect. Seatbelts make peole think they can not be hurt in an accident, so they do not drive in a safe manner. Period.

    And none of this is about safety, it is about generating revenue.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    I would disagree with that.

  • bob1956

    Case in point about Revenue Center based CRAP LAWS: In Dallas TX the city is disabling Red Light Cameras due to not generating enough REVENUE to cover their costs to operate. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-redlights_15met.ART.North.Edition1.468120d.html When it was thrust on the city as a SAFETY / LIFE saving need. This is nothing more than revenue generating CRAP that makes you feel good to read about until your ticketed by an unjust CRAP LAW.

  • lioncourt

    Wrong again! If it’s associated with impaired driving, reckless driving or any sort of collision(they’re not “accidents”), it’s a felony.

    In California, unless there is an injury your first three DUIs are misdemeanors.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Why don’t you send him to one of your reeducation camps?

  • robert108

    When the real world data contradicts the “studies”, you reject the studies, not the real world.

    I’m sure these “studies” use the same approach to data that the AGW data fakers used to promote their leftie agenda.

    Duh.

  • robert108

    “Several studies have shown that driving while using a cell phone is about as dangerous as driving drunk. There is good reason it should be illegal.”

    There was no public outcry, and the public never got to vote on this matter; it’s just another example of lefties using bogus “studies” to force something on the public that they don’t want. It’s probably more about revenue enhancement than anything else. You lefties think you can cure everything with a law, even when the people don’t want it.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    So they weren’t ever about safety.

    Quelle Surprise!

  • AKA WOOF

    I think it was a misdemeanor for a long time.

    If you didn’t hurt someone you got off with a small fine.

  • sayanything-2

    So you agree that cell phone use while driving is as bad as drunk driving? Cause that is where, monetarily, this is going. It is all about stealing money, not safety.

  • sayanything-2

    Somebody in Dallas is a real f**kup, DC is raking in money like it was going out of style with their cameras, both redlight and speed cameras. I got a speeding ticket in DC, 06:42, 45 in a 35, and there were cars in front and behind me, all going the same speed. A very profitable Saturday morning for our Nation’s capital, yes indeedy.

  • sayanything-2

    I have watched far too many people texting walk into objects that are clearly visible, and chattering on the phone is just as bad as texting. And if they are actually worried about safety it would be banned, not fined.

  • RKae

    AKA WOOF’s point was that it wasn’t “much of a crime,” which is true. Drunk drivers used to get off with a “Go home and sleep it off, pal.”

  • sayanything-130

    Yeah, but:

    “Looking at the crash reports, in 2006 67% of the people who died in car crashes in North Dakota were not wearing a safety belt. Many of those people would probably be alive today if they had just taken the time to fasten their seatbelts.”

  • sayanything-130

    “Doesn’t change the fact that this law isn’t making the roads safer.”

    Yeah? Who says? Read your own post:

    “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.”

  • robert108

    “Drunk driving wasn’t considered much of a crime untill recently.”

    Maybe not on your planet, but it has always been on this planet.

  • sayanything-4124

    Anybody who is a parent and has driven with a child in the backseat know how distracted you can become. You are alone, and in the backseat your baby starts screaming like they have cut off part of their finger, you reflexively whip your head around too look back at them.

    I don’t have texting on my phone, and I have never texted, so it seems incredibly dangerously to me while driving, and doesn’t seem to be anywhere in the same league as talking on the phone, but I wonder if it is any worse than looking down to mess with your radio, or your built in gps, etc?

    Eating is just as dangerous as talking on your cellphone, and if talking on your cellphone is dangerous enough to be outlawed, then it doesn’t seem like hands free is any different.

    I think we have all seen somebody driving next to us, or maybe swerving into our lane because they dropped a frenchfry, or try and take a drink of their pop while holding their burger in the other hand.

    If you outlaw cellphones, then it seems you have to outlaw radios, gps, children, dogs, food, etc. They all seem to be on the same par.

    Texting and drunk driving are different to me. I have ZERO tolerance for drunk drivers…zero.

  • sayanything-1317

    States started illegalizing drunk driving in 1911.

    The only way that’s “recent” is if you compare it to all human history. And considering that cars are about as “recent” as drunk driving, you don’t have much of a point unless you think that lawmakers should have crystal balls.

  • Christopher_Renner

    You’re missing the point – whether or not cellphone use is dangerous, the law in question isn’t doing anything to make things safer.

  • sayanything-1317

    That in and of itself is nothing more than a series of assumptions, and is no different than the Obama “saved or created” numbers. There’s no evidence that can be provided, because, without the program, things would’ve been far worse!

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    You guys are amazing. You would jeopardize human lives for political reasons.
    I ran off the road into the shoulder area while looking for a button on my cellphone. No accident, luckily. I was guilty of dangerous driving.

    A) The study this post links to indicates that these laws aren’t actually making the roads safer.

    B) No law is going to stop people from driving while distracted.

    Try reading the post next time.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    God almighty. Um… EVERY arrest (or simple stop) is your word against the cops. We’re becoming a brainless society where a jury refuses to convict anyone unless there’s clear surveillance video of the crime, and everyone complains when cameras are installed on street corners.

    I don’t think there’s anything brainless about having a heavy skepticism of the agents of the government.

    And I say that as the son of a 25 year law enforcement veteran who also believes that these laws are BS.

    By the way, I saw a cop today drive over a curb because he was too busy fiddling on his computer. Should i have made a citizen’s arrest? Or is it ok when they do it?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    The enforcement angle brings us back to the fact that these laws are
    pretty much unenforceable.

    Look at the seatbelt laws. Here in north Dakota we’ve gotten more
    draconian about seatbelt…but traffic fatalities have actually gone
    up.

    These laws rarely have their intended impact. Which is why they’re a
    waste of time and money.

  • psaltriparus

    These laws aren’t making the roads safer because they aren’t being enforced. If they were being enforced, they would *reduce* the number of people driving while distracted, which would make our roads safer to some degree, but would not stop it entirely.

    Talking on a cellphone is, in my estimation, far less dangerous than people texting and/or twittering/facebooking on their phones as they drive. You can at least keep your eyes on the road while talking, whereas those other activities require you to look at your screen and keypad most of the time. I would say that’s at least as dangerous as driving drunk. Most drunk drivers are at least looking at the road. Or roads, as the case may be.

    If you’re going to outlaw TALKING on a phone, however, then you absolutely have to outlaw eating & drinking, lighting cigarettes, fumbling with radio buttons, CD’s, and mp3 players, applying makeup, popping zits, brushing hair, and conversing with others in your car, as each of these activities is at least if not more distracting. You would also have to outlaw uncaged pets in the passenger compartment.

    Obviously, none of these things are going to be outlawed, so clearly the motivation for outlawing cellphone use is something other than safety. Probably a combination of knee-jerk reaction by older, anti-cellphone grumpy people, and revenue generation.

  • sayanything-8767

    People driving erratically with cell phones in their ears irritate the hell out of me along with those who have them go off at inappropriate times, who bring them to golf courses, who call me up just because they are bored standing in line at the bank, who conduct purchasing transactions with another person while jabbering on the phone with a “thousand-yard stare” on their rude faces. The cell phone is a freaking curse. So are land-line phones for that matter, but oh well.

  • psaltriparus

    Hmm. I’d have to see a little more information about your seatbelt laws in ND to see if that’s a valid point.

    Your traffic fatalities have actually gone up since enactment of your stricter seatbelt laws? Ok, I’ll assume that’s true. But surely you don’t mean to infer cause; the seatbelts didn’t cause the additional fatalities, right? Therefore, something else did (assuming the increase is actually significant and not just a statistical blip). Perhaps a population increase, lowering of a drivers license age, raising of speed limits, or some other factors. Thus, even though fatalities have gone up over that time period, the seatbelts didn’t cause them, and it’s perfectly logical to assume that fatalities may have (probably would have) gone up even MORE without the stricter seatbelt laws.

    I’m not disagreeing with your overall position on cellphone laws; I’m just noting that your seatbelt law example is probably out of place in this conversation, mainly out of boredom.

  • SteveCan

    Serious enforcement is what’s needed … $ 500 fine and loss of “device” 1st offense.

  • sayanything-4642

    i suggest eating in the car be made against the law. I also suggest radios be removed. In addition, i propose nobody be allowed to drive their kid in their car alone. they shoudl be required to have anther adult with them.

    these kind of laws are fukking stupid. we already have laws to punish folks if they are doing something in their car that put others in jeopardy. use the laws we have.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    So? I’ll bet “fiddling with the radio” and “putting on makeup” and “talking to other occupants” can all be linked to car crashes too?

    Doesn’t change the fact that this law isn’t making the roads safer. And that distracted driving is already illegal.

  • psaltriparus

    And likewise, it is nothing more than an assumption that seatbelt laws don’t make roads safer, because the so-called “evidence” (increased fatalities) isn’t evidence at all, since there’s obviously no causal link or any other correlation between passage of such laws and increased traffic fatalities. If you get to put forward baseless assumptions to support your position, then so do I.

  • psaltriparus

    So is everyone here who is opposed to passing and enforcing laws against driving while texting also opposed to laws against driving while intoxicated? Given the choice, I’d ride with a drunk driver over a texting driver every single time.

  • sayanything-1317

    Well, it doesn’t prove causality. What is does prove is that seat belt laws DON’T accomplish the goal of reducing traffic fatalities.

    http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/920710.html

    Indeed, it seems that when such laws are enacted, fatalities go up. It seems confusing, but it is happening nonetheless, which really puts down the idea that these laws save lives.

  • psaltriparus

    I’m not seeing how you can reach those conclusions without additional data. Just because fatalities have gone up since the laws have been enacted (two independent and unrelated events) does NOT mean the laws aren’t reducing fatalities, because you’ve not accounted for the possibility (nay, virtual certainty) that fatalities would have increased MORE without such laws on the books.

    If you concede that the laws did not cause the additional fatalities, then you must logically also concede that fatalities would have increased anyway, had such laws never been passed. From there, we must ask ourselves how many people are now wearing seatbelts that would not have worn them but for the new laws. Let’s say, just for argument’s sake, that 25% more people wear seatbelts as a result of the new laws. (that’s absurdly low; we have strict seatbealt laws in my state, and I don’t know ANYONE who doesn’t wear a seatbelt anymore) So if 1 out of 4 drivers, and thus 1 out of 4 people involved in a potentially fatal crash, is now wearing a seatbelt when he wouldn’t have been prior to these new laws, it’s absurd to think that the new laws haven’t saved at least some lives. Even if these seatbelt laws have saved ONE human life, they’re probably worth it, because buckling up isn’t THAT much of a nuisance. Besides, when people get killed because they aren’t wearing seatbelts, it impacts all of us by causing insurance rates to increase.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development