nanny-state fail

[Azazello1313]

Researchers at the Highway Loss Data Institute compared rates of collision insurance claims in four states — California, Louisiana, Minnesota and Washington — before and after they enacted texting bans. Crash rates rose in three of the states after bans were enacted.

[Delicious_bass]

Researchers at the Highway Loss Data Institute compared rates of collision insurance claims in four states — California, Louisiana, Minnesota and Washington — before and after they enacted texting bans. Crash rates rose in three of the states after bans were enacted.

This is one of the comments someone made...

 

Are you kidding?

Reader comment on: Texting While Driving Bans

 

Submitted by Lummox JR (United States), Sep 28, 2010 15:40

 

I'm as big an opponent of nanny statism as the next guy, but I'm fully behind bans on using cell phones and texting while driving. The reason: I've seen people drive while doing these things. It's vastly different from fiddling with the radio or A/C, largely because those are usually well-positioned and people are familiar with the locations of the controls, and they require neither the use of both thumbs nor engaging the language centers of the brain. Talking to a passenger or reading billboards are a little better analogy, but they still don't involve a separate act of hand-eye coordination on top of it. Texting, or holding a cell phone to your ear while on a call, involve multiple regions of the brain by necessity.

 

As for unintended consequences, fine, let's say there is a risk of the ban causing more crashes because people who are already behaving badly behind the wheel and know it are likely to do something even dumber to try to cover it up. Solution: Increase the fines and penalties to the point where they are finally reluctant to engage in their stupid behavior in the first place, or can be banned from the road. A drunk driver may try to hide his beer when he sees a cop, which is just as risky as lowering a phone, but I don't hear anyone clamoring to repeal DWI laws.

 

The science behind this is dubious anyway. There are multiple factors involved in crashes and the article makes no mention of whether the study simply looked at distracted-driving crashes or all crashes, let alone if they even tried to separate that out by cause of distraction. Although 11 states passed bans last year, the study only picked four of them to look at. It's still possible their overall conclusion is right, but given the behavior I've seen from texters compared to people who change radio stations frequently, I'm all for bringing the hammer down on the texters. There are different levels of distraction and from a simple neurological standpoint it's more than fair to single out texting as a problem.

...and it pretty much sums up how I feel on the subject.

[Azazello1313]

This is one of the comments someone made...

 

...and it pretty much sums up how I feel on the subject.

 

I kind of agree, but if the result of banning it is MORE crashes, that doesn't seem to be an effective policy.

[Clubfoothead]

Well if banning texting causes an increase in crashes then we should consider requiring texting while driving to lower the number of crashes.

 

Somebody get me a ballot while Sarah! makes sense.

[Delicious_bass]

I kind of agree, but if the result of banning it is MORE crashes, that doesn't seem to be an effective policy.

And I would agree with that, too.

 

The problem is distracted driving (no matter what the distraction is). Unfortunately, you cant really prove someone was daydreaming nor changing the radio station or oogling some chic jogging down the street. They can prove someone was texting or otherwise using a cell phone, though. And with the boom of mobile devices/texting and their popularity amongst young, inexperienced drivers, I think people in power felt that was a place they had to try to put something(that could be proven) in place to discourage it.

[yo mama]

I kind of agree, but if the result of banning it is MORE crashes, that doesn't seem to be an effective policy.

You're TOTALLY missing the point. Who cares if it prevents crashes so long as municipalities can write more tickets in connection with the infractions and, thus, generate much needed revenue.

 

Seriously. If we're going to tax people, we might as tax those who are doing stupid things that are - without question - detrimental to everyone around them and should be discouraged. This is effectively a tax that no one will oppose. And it *might* save a few lives if/when people are conditioned to quit texting while they drive. I mean, did you think the results would be instantaneous? The (noneconomic) social benefits might not come to fruition for another generation. Kind of like how not smoking while you're pregnant didn't take instantaneous effect after the first surgeon general's warning got put on cigarettes. It took a couple decades, but (most) people eventually figured it out.

Edited September 29, 2010 by yo mama

[Savage Beatings]

How about if we only issue drivers licenses to those people who can demonstrate the ability to drive while distracted? Right now the only qualification seems to be having a face for the photograph.

[cre8tiff]

Well if banning texting causes an increase in crashes then we should consider requiring texting while driving to lower the number of crashes.

 

Somebody get me a ballot while Sarah! makes sense.

 

 

How about if we only issue drivers licenses to those people who can demonstrate the ability to drive while distracted? Right now the only qualification seems to be having a face for the photograph.

 

I think you have captured the seriousness of this thread perfectly.

[Ursa Majoris]

Well if banning texting causes an increase in crashes then we should consider requiring texting while driving to lower the number of crashes.

I love good logic.

[Azazello1313]

Well if banning texting causes an increase in crashes then we should consider requiring texting while driving to lower the number of crashes.

 

Somebody get me a ballot while Sarah! makes sense.

 

I just hope they never "deregulate" Josh Gordon, because making that illegal has really worked awesomely.

[Clubfoothead]

I just hope they never "deregulate" Josh Gordon, because making that illegal has really worked awesomely.

 

deregulate in quotes?

 

[Jimmy Neutron]

You're TOTALLY missing the point. Who cares if it prevents crashes so long as municipalities can write more tickets in connection with the infractions and, thus, generate much needed revenue.

 

This.

 

My new home state is a fine example of this thievery.

[Ursa Majoris]

This.

 

My new home state is a fine example of this thievery.

Wisconsin only exists to shake down Minnesotans.

[yo mama]

This.

 

My new home state is a fine example of this thievery.

It's not so much thievery as a "sin tax."

[Yukon Cornelius]

Wisconsin only exists to shake down Minnesotans.

[muck]

It's not so much thievery as a "sin tax."

 

Related to this, the lottery is a tax on people who can't do math. I've always found it ironic how many states use lottery revenue to help pay for their schools...

Edited October 1, 2010 by muck

[ABearWithFurniture]

Most people who text while driving are stoned and they are only driving 35 MPH. If you take away their texting and they are just driving stoned then they tend to speed up to 45 and even 50 MPH...and that's when they become a menace.

[BeeR]

I kind of agree, but if the result of banning it is MORE crashes, that doesn't seem to be an effective policy.

I know how insane this sounds to some, but perhaps statistics don't always tell the whole story or even paint an accurate picture.

 

Or more to the point: implying that driving is safer when texting is allowed is so stupid there isn't a word that accurately describes how stupid it is.

 

OK "liberal" comes close but you know what I mean.

[Jimmy Neutron]

It's not so much thievery as a "sin tax."

 

I don't know - $495 speeding and red light tickets seem like thievery to me. Not to mention my buddy getting pulled over on his bike for, "not fully securing a loaf of french bread" in his saddle bag. An officer seriously took the time to pull him over and gave him a warning. Random loaves of frech bread littering CA roadways must cause more accidents than you'd think.

[ABearWithFurniture]

I don't know - $495 speeding and red light tickets seem like thievery to me. Not to mention my buddy getting pulled over on his bike for, "not fully securing a loaf of french bread" in his saddle bag. An officer seriously took the time to pull him over and gave him a warning. Random loaves of frech bread littering CA roadways must cause more accidents than you'd think.

 

Everyone hates the French...