There's No Way to Enforce a Texting While Driving Ban

Both the E-mailers and the ban proponents should use more common sense, says Radley Balko

October 13, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (16)

Radley Balko is senior editor for Reason magazine and a former policy analyst on civil liberties issues for the Cato Institute.

Forget flu season. Several times per year, America comes down with a national case of TOBAL-itis.

TOBAL is short for "There Oughtta Be a Law." Here's the progression of symptoms: Wrenching anecdotes about the effects of some alleged new trend make national news. A panic takes root in the media. Earnest editorialists scrawl urgent pleas for action. Politicians grandstand. Soon enough, we have our new law or regulation. It doesn't matter if the law is enforceable or may have unintended consequences. Nor does it matter if the law will have any actual effect on the problem it was passed to address. In fact, it doesn't even matter if the problem actually exists. The mere feeling that it exists is sufficient.

And so it goes with the panic over texting while driving. I'm not going to defend the act of clumsily thumbing out an E-mail while guiding a 2-ton, gasoline-loaded missile down the highway at 70 miles per hour. That's foolish. Nor will I argue there's some right to drive while iPhone-ing tucked into a constitutional penumbra. I will argue that we need to get over the idea that we can solve every bad habit with a new law. We can't, and this issue illustrates why.

Let's start with the alleged problem. Obviously, we have more people texting behind the wheel today than we did in, say, 1985. And undeniably, those people pose a threat. But it's hard to find definitive empirical support for the idea that our highways are awash in BlackBerry-spilled blood. Since 1995, there's been an eightfold increase in cellphone subscribers in the United States, and we've increased the number of minutes spent on cellphones by a factor of 58.

What's happened to traffic fatalities in that time? They've dropped—slightly, but they've dropped. Overall reported accidents since 1997 have dropped, too, from 6.7 million to 6 million. Proponents of a ban on cellphones say those numbers should have dropped more. "We've spent billions on air bags, antilock brakes, better steering, safer cars and roads, but the number of fatalities has remained constant," safety researcher David Strayer told the New York Times in July. "Our return on investment for those billions is zero. And that's because we're using devices in our cars."

Strayer would have a point if he were looking at the right statistics. But we drive a lot more than we did in 1995. Deaths in proportion to passenger miles are a far better indicator of road safety than overall fatalities. In 1995, there were 1.72 deaths for every 100 million miles traveled. By 2007, the figure had dropped to 1.36, a 21 percent decline. That's hardly remaining constant. But let's assume that even those numbers would be lower were it not for texting drivers. It's still far from clear that banning texting will make us safer. There are countless other driver distractions that we'd never think of banning, from having kids in the back seat, to eating or drinking while driving, to fumbling with the radio. Certainly, it's foolish to type out text messages behind the wheel, but what about merely reading from your phone?

Are you more impaired following MapQuest directions from your Palm Pre while driving than reading them from a sheet of paper? What if you're looking at a GPS navigation device that's only slightly larger than your cellphone? What if the GPS system is on your cellphone?

That brings us to the enforceability problem. Maryland just passed a texting ban, but state officials are flummoxed over how to enforce it. The law bans texting while driving but allows for reading texts, for precisely the reasons just mentioned. But how can a police officer positioned at the side of a highway tell if the driver of the car that just flew by was actually pushing buttons on his cellphone and not merely reading the display screen? Unless a motorist is blatantly typing away at eye level, a car would need to be moving slowly enough for an officer to see inside, focus on the phone, and observe the driver manipulating the buttons. Which is to say the car would probably need to be stopped—at which point it ceases to be a safety hazard.

Tags:
driving,
cellphones

Reader Comments Read all comments (16)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I'm off to check out this product. Thanks for the heads up!

Patrice of WA 5:48PM November 04, 2009

It's funny to hear about these new laws where the topic consists of such udderly rediculous situations. Is texting while driving safe? Absolutely not...and I am quite guilty of this. However, I just cannot see how law enforcement is going to be able to enforce this law. If I were to be pulled over and asked to relinquish my phone for this accusation, I would be inclined to refuse based on principle. Besides, distractability while driving can happen on so many levels besides texting. Is there going to be a law that says I cannot drive my children around? Trust me that is so much more distracting sometimes.

As with anything there is a risk you assume by getting behind the wheel, and there is no ultimate law that will protect everyone from an accident. That's why we call them accidents. I can't imagine the laws we will have in the next 10 years as technology seems to evolve quicker than our ability to socially control and accept the changes. More and more laws, until suddently we can no longer think for ourselves, as our laws will do the thinking for us. Forget teaching our children right or wrong...it will just be "the law".

Julia of OH 12:29PM October 20, 2009

I agree wholeheartedly on this entire subject. First, our lawmakers don't pass these new laws for us and our safety. They pass these laws for them and their high and mighty egos. They sit back and think what kind of new law can I introduce and have my name on it.

It is getting to the point that you can not even walk out your back door without risking breaking some kind of law. It has gotten to the point that you can be pulled over now for the silliest things that is not the main intention of the officer when the blue lights come on. They want a reason to check you out. They want to look in your vehicle.

My friend was pulled over at night, on a two lane road, by a cop going the opposite direction then turned around and pulled him over. It wasn't speeding as the reason. Get this now, it was for an expired tag. That cop has some better than perfect vision to spot a one inch wide sticker in the corner of a license plate by looking in his rear view mirror. That is hogwash.

Law enforcement today already has way more power than they deserve, or need, and they sure do NOT need any more.

Tom of GA 11:50AM October 20, 2009

advertisement

Latest Videos

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

House GOP 20 Week Abortion Ban Vote Was a Waste of Time

Abortion should be left up to the states.

The NSA, Guns and Privacy in the Obama Administration

The Obama administration’s needs to take a long look in the mirror after revelations about government surveillance.

Polls Show American People Hate Almost Everything About Politics

The American people are breaking up with politics.

Do You Believe NSA Leaker Edward Snowden or President Obama?

Should we take the word of the NSA leaker or Obama?

Obama, Boehner and the GOP Crisis of Leadership

It’s tough for anyone to lead when some in the GOP seem committed to their own destruction.

Obamacare Opponents Have to Keep Pushing Repeal

The way to repeal Obamacare is to hasten its ugly results.

Can Obama's Berlin Speech Match John F. Kennedy's and Ronald Reagan's?

The two famous Berlin speeches almost never were.

Reform Conservatives Need to Tackle Unemployment and Jobs

"Reform conservatives" are doing good work, but need to think about the ills of long-term unemployment.

advertisement