Skip to comments.Study: Law banning cell phones while driving doesn’t reduce accident rate
Posted on 07/26/2014 11:43:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Most Americans admit to being fry-dipping, cell-phone-gossiping, mascara-applying distracted drivers. A 2011 poll, reported in USA Today, showed 86 percent of us eat or drink in the car, more than half talk on the phone, and about 40 percent admit to the offenses of setting the GPS or texting. Many Americans, even in a state as conservative as Texas, want to be saved from their bad behavior by a ban on cell phone use in the car.
But are they really saving themselves? Though the laws are largely noncontroversial, they’re also hard to enforce, and increasingly look ineffective, according to studies of their real-life track records. A new study of California’s six-year-old cell phone ban, peer-reviewed and published in the journal Transportation Research examined crash data for the six months prior to California’s cell phone ban and the six months after.
“Our main result was that we found no evidence that the California cellphone ban decreased accidents,” Colorado University economics Professor Daniel T. Kaffine, one of the lead autors of the study, said in a statement. “This is surprising, because a lot of prior studies had shown that people who talk on cell phones, while driving, are just as impaired as people who are intoxicated.”
Along with Colorado School of Mines mathematician Bob Yu and Rand Corporation analyst Nicholas E. Burger, Kaffine looked at the six months from January 1 to June 30, 2008 as the “before” period and July 1 to December 31, 2008 as the “after period” to avoid overlap with a ban on text messaging that took effect on January 1, 2009.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Because stupid gonna be stupid.
Yeah we have had this law in California for quite some time and I have yet to see any reduction in people using cellphones while driving, or driving stupid.
The only purpose of laws is so that the authorities can find something to selectively enforce against you when you piss them off.
I don’t think cell calls while driving is as bad as made out. No doubt somewhat distracting however. Texting, on the other hand, has got to be downright dangerous. While texting, people walk off cliffs, into traffic, run into others, etc. This is well documented.
Hang up and drive.
They’re not enforced.
Great point. I ride a motorcycle. It's hard enough to get California drivers to notice and/or see me w/o having the added distraction of them being on their damned phones.
RE: Theyre not enforced.
In my part of the world, they’re enforced haphazardly.
You can get away with it by proving that the call was very important and could not wait.
the researchers are showing the evidence that, anecdotally, made my arguments on the subject over a decade ago
- a cop can always stop and ticket ANYONE for driving in a negligent or reckless manner and that negligent/reckless manner, no matter the cause, is the only legal cause the cop needs, and so the only necessary law is/was already on the books
so how often is someone stopped for driving while eating or drinking, loading/unloading their CD, adjusting their radio or GPS, putting on their makeup, putting on or taking off a shirt, or sweater, or jacket or a zillion other things that can lead to major driving errors - not very often
but just let someone be seen using their cellphone, no matter how responsibly, and THAT’s a legal issue
it’s not about insane driving practices, there are dozens of them; its about insane utopian laws that pretend to do what they cannot - stop stupid from being stupid
My personal experience isn’t documented, but I can tell you that if I see a driver weaving back and forth or driving very slowly-—sometimes in the passing lane-—it’s almost a given that the idiot is yakking on a phone. Yesterday a moron was slowly cutting in and out of lanes, once in front of a huge truck, without giving his signal. I knew he was on the phone-—and when I passed him, sure enough.
That doesn’t include the times I’ve almost been hit by people who can’t put the phone down long enough to drive.
I've even gone through a license check point with everyone in front of and behind me that I could see chatting away as the move up in line, not a one of the folks ahead of me stopped using their phone for any longer than it took to hand the officer their license and get it back. They were talking again as they drove off. If my license had been expired by two days I'd have had to call someone to come and get me and the car.
Which is the greater hazard? The outlawing of it was just another feel-good thing as far as I can tell.
Glad to hear they at least take a stab at it some places, though. A officer I'm friends with says three out of five accidents he works are at least in part caused by someone talking on their phone or typing with their thumbs and the people more often than not admit it. No fault insurance, so no problem.
If you were to be an invisible passenger with one of those drivers, I bet you would discover that when they are not on the phone they are doing something else that diverts their attention away from driving.
That’s the way those kind are.
They are not "impaired", they are inattentive. While at times could be just as dangerous, nonetheless is NOT the same thing. The terms are not interchangeable. The man should be sufficiently educated to be more precise in his use of language.
This all goes back to the early days of cell phones and the liberal response to them.
They were expensive and used mostly by businessmen and the 1 percenters.
Therefore, cell phones were a symbol of capitalism. So they must be banned.
Doing so today when they are the pacifiers of the masses makes no sense. But then, so does little of liberalism.
I refuse to be a passenger in a car when the driver “has” to text. Other activities that don’t require taking eyes off the road I don’t care about.
I’ve been talking on a cell phone driving since they first came out. Never a problem. This may not be true for everybody. Texting is dangerous even while walking.
I see it often as well, they are engaged in a phone conversation and slow to 50 MPH and become unconscious of traffic.
Does she mean, ‘Law Banning Cell Phone Use is Ignored”?
Because its largely ignored.
Yes, I don’t see talking as dangerous, but texting is a whole different story.
The majority of motorcycle related fatalities are caused by vehicle drivers not seeing motorcyclists and turning in front of or into their paths. Bikers have a saying, Loud Pipes Save Lives, and that is a fact.
If a newer motorcycle is running its headlight is on. That is for greater visibility. But vehicle drivers often do not see the light as it may be in their blind spot and that is where the loud pipes come in.
Far too many times while riding I have seen a driver just ahead of me look into his or her mirror, not see me and then start drifting into my lane. A loud rapping of my pipes and their actions were aborted. They didn't see me, they heard me, and a collision was avoided. Thats not to say I deliberately ride in their blind spots, I know better. Thats not to say I make excessive noise with my pipes either, I know better. But as a biker you sometimes find yourself in a drivers blind spot. And these incidents of drivers coming into your lane can happen before any adjustments to your position can be made. Loud pipes aren't just to be macho and have a loud bike, though I have no doubts some riders do so for that very reason.
There are no studies that I am aware of that confirm loud pipes do indeed save lives. But I have aftermarket pipes, and I believe the vast majority of bikers who also have them have them because we know based on our own experiences that at a minimum, loud pipes do prevent collisions which in turn saves lives.
And no one with a clue ever expected it to.
It did however produce a new revenue stream thanks to creating yet another way to extort money from people who are minding their own business.
And thus,the looters consider it a success.
And the argument will be that, if the law hasn’t had a positive effect, the law should be abolished - like how the immigration/border laws aren’t effective.....
Laws banning drug abuse don’t reduce the amount of drug abuse, either.
People pay as much attention to these laws as King Obama does to the US Constitution.
When we see a car wandering from lane to lane, running into the curb or sitting still at a green light we know there is a cell phone using scofflaw at the wheel.
I get just as occupied dipping my french fries in the ketchup container while driving. And losing that pickle in my lap while munching a hamburger.
No one is going to pry that hamburger from my cold dead hands when I’m hungry.
Yes, most likely. They’re clueless, self-absorbed, and incosiderate.
Every time I see it happen, I hold my breath, waiting for an accident to occur.
I have been hit by a shopping cart in the supermarket by someone on their cellphone.
Here’s hoping you gave him/her an earful.
Very simple way to stop people from texting and driving - simply charge a tax for each text message from a moving vehicle - maybe 25 cents.
Sure passengers may not like it too much, but they’ll always have the option to call if THAT IMPORTANT.
The person barely noticed me. They just went on their way yacking away.
Of course not. This law was never about safety in much the same way that gun control isn’t about guns. It’s all about control and providing new sources of revenue.
I didn’t read the whole thing — did they study the severity of crashes? The use of cell phones during fatal crashes?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.