Telecommunications Policy

Study: Cell Phone Bans Don't Improve Road Safety


More surprising, the study was actually sponsored by auto insurers.

The study, released Friday by the Highway Loss Data Institute, examined insurance claims from crashes before and after such bans took effect in California, New York, Connecticut and Washington, D.C.

The organization found that claims rates did not go down after the laws were enacted. It also found no change in patterns compared with nearby states without such bans.

Adrian Lund, the group's president, said the finding doesn't bode well "for any safety payoff from all the new laws."

Six states and the District of Columbia ban talking on a hand-held device for all drivers, while 19 states and the District of Columbia ban texting while driving, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association.

The Highway Loss Data Institute, an affiliate of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said its findings "don't match what we already know about the risk of phoning and texting while driving" and said it is gathering data to "figure out this mismatch."

It said one explanation could be an increase in the use of handsfree devices in places with bans on handset use while driving.

That's true of talking on a cell phone. Not sure how you can use a hands-free device to send a text message. But I'd imagine that with texting bans, a big problem is that the laws really aren't enforceable.

Also, I hate to say "I told you so," but . . . okay, that's a lie. I don't mind saying it at all.

So I told you so.

(Thanks to Patrick Geisler for the tip.)

NEXT: The People's Historian?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Highway Loss Data Institute, an affiliate of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said its findings “don’t match what we already know

    1. The Highway Loss Data Institute, an affiliate of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said its findings “don’t match what we already know about the risk of phoning and texting while driving” and said it is gathering data to “figure out this mismatch.”

      What we “already know“?


      We will prove ours is the true religion, reality be damned.

      1. This study only says that the laws have no effect (which is pretty predicatable). It does not at all address the dangerousness of texting while driving. It is pretty hard to argue that texting while driving is not more dangerous than doing nothing but driving and keeping both hands on the wheel. I suspect that there is no effect because no one heeds the new laws.

        1. Hence Radley’s point about enforcement.

          Paging reading comprehension coach, Thread two.

    2. I think the University of East Anglia can help them out of their data predicament.

  2. Actually, I am a little surprised at this. I thought there would be some effect, just not as much as the proponents claimed there would be.

    I’m not going to claim the study is conclusive, but if the data held up in other studies, it would imply one of several things:
    1) Using cell phones while driving does not materially increase the risk of an accident; or
    2) People have converted en masse to hands-free phones and those phones are just as distracting as regular cell phones; or
    3) People who once used cell phones but haven’t since the ban have found other things to distract themselves; or
    4) People are ignoring the bans.

    Or some combination of these.

    1. Aresen,

      Here’s another possibility:

      The actual number of accidents caused by a distraction from cell phone use was not statistically significant, but the number of OVERBLOWN and OVEREXPOSED cases in the media was high enough to make people believe that using the cell phone while driving is a big problem.

      1. You are right.

        However, based on the number of drivers I still see using their cell phone while driving despite the ban here in British Columbia, I would say that, assuming* the pruported increased risk caused by driving while using a hand-held phone is true, that 4) is more likely.

        *I am not going to grant that assumption, BTW. I think the risk was overblown.

        1. Are in Vancouver, Aresen? That’s the only place in Canada I’ve ever visited, I’m ashamed to say. Well, there and some little beach town down by the border. Same trip up from Seattle.

        2. People do 4) BECAUSE they know the risk was overblown.

          It’s called a triumph of common sense over legislating.

          1. People do 4) because they are assholes.

            1. People use the phone in their car for that reason anyway.

      2. Possible, but patently unlikely. Hell, I nearly got run off the road to day by a jackhole yapping on his phone. It surely isn’t the first time. Indeed, I would estimate 50% of my “near misses” on the road are caused by someone talking on their cell phone.

        I doubt these bans are being seriously enforced or followed, leading to statistically insignificant effects.

        1. …which are statistically indistinguishable from the statistically insignificant effects of seriously enforcing or following these bans.

        2. And you’re sure, just sure, that those same people wouldn’t have almost hit you were they not talking on cell phones? That’s why we have statistics. The plural of “anecdote” isn’t “data.”

          1. The plural of “anecdote” isn’t “data.”

            I’m writing that one down.

        3. Another point: You also have a confirmation bias going here. You never notice the nine times someone yapping on their cell phone doesn’t pull out in front of you, or doesn’t make a lane change into you because they looked before they moved. But you’ll notice the one time they do almost hit you every time.

          Which isn’t to say that responsible cell phone usage while driving is actually nine times more common than irresponsible; that’s just a number I pulled out of my ass. Whatever the ratio, the point still holds. Which is, again, why we have statistics: to control for human cognitive blindness.

          1. If someone does something stupid and pisses me off, the second thing I look for is a hand by their ear (the first is to double-check that everything is safe).

            The kind of bias you are trying to indicate might happen is actually pretty unlikely, as I actively have to look in order to make a determination. It is difficult, if not impossible, to just pick up this information inadvertently, in which case confirmation bias is likely.

            Remember, the order runs:

            1: Did someone do something dumb and almost cause an accident?

            2: Am I pissed?

            3: Are they using a cell phone?

            Assuming #1 and #2, the odds of #3 being yes are about even from my experience (and yes, I started tracking it in my head…it is 45/98 in the last ~2 years).

            1. I am not surprised that you missed the point Chad.

              What Grylliade said was that you don’t pay attention to the 90% of times someone may be talking on the phone & driving perfectly fine. When someone doesn’t cut you off or do something that makes you nervous on the road, you don’t actually tend to pay much attention to them. And why should you? They aren’t a threat or a problem to be dealt with.

              But for an alternative anecdote, I’ve been talking on cellphones & driving since I was 16 and have never been in an accident. Not worried about it.

            2. and yes, I started tracking it in my head…it is 45/98 in the last ~2 years

              Satire at its finest

        4. You were nearly run off the road because your Prius had achieved its maximum operating speed of 50 mph.

          The person on the phone was likely bitching about the Prius in front of them doing 50 in a 70, in the left lane no less.

          1. Now now, take it easy on Choad. He was probably just hypermiling. Tailgating two inches off a semi’s bumper helps saves gas AND the planet.

            1. My apologies, it’s just that I drove for 6 hours today in bad weather. No shortage of Choads out there with their hazard lights on because it’s raining or with their blinker on for 5 miles.

          2. I drive around 65th percentile speed, and have better acceleration than any other vehicle than I have ever owned. wtf are you talking about?

            1. I’m talking about your car, clearly.

              Wasn’t talking about acceleration.

              But it’s good your Prius can out accelerate a Geo Storm.

            2. I drive around 65th percentile speed

              Bravo! for whoever is writing this. It’s hilarious.

        5. Maybe if you would stop driving that gay smart car, people wouldn’t want to run you off the road.

  3. Luckily they haven’t yet banned commenting on blogs using your web-enabled cell phone while dr

    1. Look out You idi

  4. Disappointed!

  5. The study, released Friday by the Highway Loss Data Institute, examined insurance claims from crashes before and after such bans took effect in California, New York, Connecticut and Washington, D.C.

    So the data cover how many months or years? The article doesn’t say. One is reminded of smoking-ban advocates who claim that their legislation has resulted (one year later) in fewer heart attacks. This study probably says more about civil disobedience than efforts to enforce commonsense driving techniques. Distracted driving is the major (but certainly not the only) cause of auto accidents. So what have we learned? You can’t legislate against stupidity. And teenage drivers.

    1. How long it usually takes to crush a car after texting? Like, I texted yesterday – will my chances to crash grow in a year, five years?

    2. You can legislate for stupid teenage drivers. Make drivers licenses dependent on good grades. But we’d need better schools first, methinks.

      Not that I think this idea is any good or would take off.

  6. Here’s the thing: people avoid accidents, probably at about the same rate from almost any distraction, including cell phones.

    For example: the drivers here in Seattle, and the Northwest in general, are just…terrible. I mean awful. Total lack of situational awareness, no knowledge of blind spots, inability to park, inability to merge, general temerity while driving, and more. These people would get run off the road in 5 minutes in NYC.

    I see incredibly stupid, dangerous shit all the time because of the terrible driving, but accidents seem no more common than elsewhere. Why? I’m guessing that people tend to have similar accident avoidance rates because…no one wants to get in an accident.

    1. If you draw a line from Miami to Atlanta to Toledo to Seattle, I’ve driven a truck in a whole bunch of what is under that line. My favorite big city to drive in is L.A. The absolute worst is Seattle with Dallas/Ft.Worth being a close second.

      1. I’ve been here almost a year and am still amazed daily at how bad the drivers here are. Granted, I am comfortable driving in the worst NYC scenarios having lived there for years, so I’m a bit of an outlier, but Seattle is unreal. People will sit and wait behind a vehicle that has stopped in the middle of the street, with no indication of why or when it move again, and just…wait. Until it moves. It’s astounding. They have no impulse to go around; they just…wait.

        1. I know what you mean, but I still find your comment funny.

          “I’m from NYC, and these Seattle drivers are TERRIBLE! I mean, they’re behind a stopped car and they just wait! They don’t even honk or roll down their window and yell at the moron or anything!”

          1. While I am completely guilty of yelling at people and being a general NYC driving asshole, the waiting I’m talking about will occur when there are multiple lanes. So some guy will be turning left from the left lane and can’t go because of oncoming traffic; and there will be a line of 10 cars behind the guy even though the right lane is there and open for them to pull over in to so they can go past. But they just wait. It’s really just amazing. They will literally sit there until the light turns red, and then when it turns green again, continue to wait. It blows my mind.

            1. “turning left from the left lane … and there will be a line of 10 cars behind the guy even though the right lane is there and open for them”

              The left lane is the fast lane.

            2. My NYC driving experience:

              1. Everyone has broken bumpers (parallel parking).

              2. Traffic lights and lane markings are invisible.

        2. Your comment on the lack of situational awareness is spot on. It seemedto be combined with a certain timidity in stressful driving situations and a complete disdain for common courtesy. Oh, and they haven’t ever heard of defensive driving.

          1. The situational awareness thing is the worst part, because it makes you really watchful since they’ll change lanes without any forethought (is there someone in my blind spot? What’s a blind spot?), or pull out of a parking space without looking, etc.

            And you’re right about the courtesy thing. They’ll just go down a one way, one lane street at .025 miles per hour looking for parking without the least consideration that there are people behind them who might want to drive, oh, a normal speed.

            1. I don’t think “normal speed” means what you think it means, Epi, if you’re driving faster than most everyone else.

              Normal in Seattle is what people in Seattle do, not people in NYC.

              1. That’s mostly true, Prole, but someone crawling along way more slowly than regular street speed because they’re looking for a parking spot in Belltown, on a side street where no one can go around them, is incredibly rude and frustrating.

              2. Prol, if you are driving faster than the norm in Seattle, you are going waaaaay too damn fast.

            2. See, the looking for parking is an example of them practicing situational awareness. Apparently they are unable to go above idle speed while doing so.

              PNW drivers have 2 states of mind:
              1) Being aware of their surroundings
              2) Actually accelerating / turning / merging / moving the vehicle

              Unfortunately they can’t do both at the same time.

            3. I call it driving scared. “Type A”

              It’s one thing to be a defensive driver and another to endanger others by failing to drive with the flow traffic, or failing to merge with traffic in a fluid manner.

              Some of these drivers make lane mergers seem like it’s an aircraft carrier landing in 40 mph crosswinds.

              Then there is “Type B”

              I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen a small vehicle weave in and out around one or more large trucks, often in bad weather.

              I can’t help but wonder if they are suicidal. Their life and likely that of others is in the truck drivers hands.

      2. Why Fort Worth? People are so polite here.

      3. Pacific Northwest is awful. Oregon plates indicate a car to avoid and pass as soon as possible.

        1. Oregon…and BC plates. Don’t get caught behind them, ever.

          Out here is the only place I’ve ever been where you’ll have a three lane highway and there are three cars, one in each lane, ALL DRIVING THE SAME SPEED. And no one can get past. And they are completely oblivious. And they often have Oregon plates.

          1. Yup. There are times when being big as a house and 40 tons can be big fun. One of those three will make a lane available for me. I guarantee it.

        2. No wonder they aren’t allowed to pump their own gas.

  7. I for one was utterly unsurprised when this article showed up on the front page of the paper last week.

    The wildly improbably benefits that supporters of such laws claimed we would see are telling enough: You don’t lie like that if you have some actual truth to offer.

  8. Having used both a handheld phone and a bluetooth earpiece while driving I can’t say that I could tell a difference in my level of distraction while using them. I would guess that to be the likeliest of the possibilities that Aresen suggested above. Just my personal experience though.

  9. God, Christ, Jesus Chad! Just eat soem exploding panties would you?

  10. I’m sorry, but when you get in a car onto a public road, you have a responsibility to other drivers. Seat belt and helmet laws are a joke, because you only risk hurting yourself. But being a person that has had the joy of calling the ambulance when a 17 year old kid texting took out two guys on a motorcycle, I don’t care about the results. The law is just.

    1. As it was said above the same 17-yo kid could do the same while not texting – winking to a passer-by or smiling to another driver, you name it. The problem is not with texting, problem lies with the drivers.

    2. I’ve had cars hit several times over the years by teenagers, none of them texting. You do know that the accident rate for teenagers is really, really high because they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing, yeah?

      1. One of the things teenagers do not know is that you should not be doing something like texting while driving. That teenagers are more accident prone does not mean that texting while driving is a good idea.

    3. I don’t care about the results. The law is just

      And here is the friggin liberal mindset in a nutshell.

      1. Ain’t it just.

      2. I thought blindly obeying the law was within the conservative domain.

        1. That misses the point, but you could be on to something. Maybe these laws bug conservatives so much because they think they’ll have to follow them, while liberals assume the law is meant only for idiots who can’t multitask the way they can.

          (Libertarians, of course, just hate being told what they can and cannot do.)

      3. I thought the liberal mindset was the opposite of that. “I don’t care if the law is just or constitutional, give me what I want.”

  11. Most distracted and dangerous place to drive is the Post Office parking lot the day Social Security checks arrive.

  12. I personally almost got run off the road by someone changing the station on their radio. The nuns in the backseat almost dropped the orphans onto the litter of puppies I was transporting. Therefore, I am proposing that we make it illegal to change stations while driving. You either leave the dial where it was when you first put it in drive or you pull over to the side of the road to find the latest from Lady Gaga.


      1. ? I don’t give a fuck about whales so go hug a tree ?

    2. Once got talked in to driving across three states for some puppy and kitty rescue thing. I needed the radio to drown out that shit.

    3. You listen to distracting music in the car? Madman.

    4. Wait, here in MN our Supreme Court just confirmed that you can get a DUI by just sitting in your car with the keys on the console (even if the engine was cold and wouldn’t start).

      With your legislation, would I now have to worry about getting ticketed if I tried to change the radio station in my car if I merely happened to have the keys in my pocket?

      1. That’s just crazy. So now, if I come out of the bar drunk and decide to be responsible and sleep it off in the car before going home, I am DWI? Why don’t they just get it over with and outlaw booze? Or cars? Or sleeping? Christ!

      2. First of all, that’s the DUI law in PA as well. So don’t think you cheeseheads are anything special.

        And about my legislation, there’s more. If you are a pedestrian and listening to The Cars on your iPod and go to switch tracks, you are ticketed. And if you switch to C.W. McCall’s “Convoy”, that’s interstate commerce and now the feds are involved.

        These are just common sense laws, people.

        1. Fist, I’m sort of with you, but you need to tighten up the legislation.

          For instance, can I listen to Gary Numan’s “Cars”? After all he is preaching about being safe in your car. I think that would be OK.

          The Beach Boys and Jan & Dean are also problematic. I would think under your law, anyone servicing a MP3 player with these songs on it should be required to report the owner to the Authorities.

          And PS. Cheeseheads are from Wisconsin. We let a few of the smarter ones across the St. Croix to work at our menial jobs, but they are required to go home each night.

          1. I couldn’t think of the derogatory name for Minnesotans. Is there one? (I’m amending my legislation to force states to put those derogatory names on their license plates.)

            As far as tightening the law up otherwise, we’ll just leave it up to the police and prosecutors to interpret as needed.

            1. Derogatory name for us Minnesotans? Why would such a name exist?

              When you are surrounded by the Cheeseheads, Iowegians, So & No Daks* and Canadians you look so good in comparison that no one thinks to denigrate you.

              Granted, only a very few people have actually seen a living person in either of the Dakota’s, but if you actually met one you’d agree we shine in comparison.

              We are so polite that we bowed out of the Super Bowl this year because we felt so bad for the Saints. Thats the kind of people we are.

  13. It could be that people are doing like I am and just ignoring the law, and thus not having any change in accident patterns.

  14. Rest assured, no stupid law is going to stop me from yappin on my cell while I drive. I use a bluetooth headset!


    1. Found

  15. Has anyone bothered to investigate whether auto accidents increased when hand-held cell phones came into popular use? Wouldn’t that be relevant to determining whether there truly is a correlation between cell phone use and accidents?

    1. My guess, without looking at any actual data, is that accident rates continued to decline when hand-held cells came into use, continuing the decades-long safety trends of safer cars combined with drivers who aren’t first or second-generation drivers.

    2. It may not have accidents per se, but other drivers noticing that people who were driving 5 mph below the speed limit, not maintaining lane discipline, and making sudden turns almost always had a hand to their ears.

      1. All that occured before cell phones were invented.

        People are not great drivers, cell phone or not.

        Being that accidents have been dropping, one could attempt to make the arugement that some of those you mentioned might have crashed without the cell phone to their ear.

    3. In 1995 there were 1.72 deaths for every 100 Million passenger miles driven, by 2007 there were only 1.36 deaths (21% drop); accidents total have dropped by 0.7 Million in that time period as well.

      At that same time cell phone subscription has risen by 800%.

  16. Actually, my fear is that the result of this study will be a demand for more anti-cell-phone laws on the pretext that the laws we have are “ineffective.”

  17. Do emergency vehicle (police, ambulance) drivers communicate via radio during high speed manuevers?

    Just asking.

  18. Utterly unsurprising; the laws are absurd on their face. The ban here in Oregon, as other places, only bans using a hand-held device. But why would anyone think that the distracting part of a cellphone conversation is the physical act of holding the phone to your head with one hand? That seems complete nonsense. You can still have your hand on a cheeseburger, soda, mp3 player, or up your date’s skirt for that matter and it’s all legal. Somehow the law presumes something magically makes you a worse driver when it’s a tiny cell phone in your hand, and not the actual conversation (which is distracting but so is talking the the idiot in the passenger or back seat).

    The fact is the law was driven by people’s anecdotal stories of almost being hit by someone yapping on a cell phone. But as others noted, they don’t see the thousands of times they weren’t hit, or the many times a near accident was because the other driver was yapping at a passenger instead of keeping his thoughts on his driving.

    1. damn media and it’s 24 hour news cycle…

    2. “”But why would anyone think that the distracting part of a cellphone conversation is the physical act of holding the phone to your head with one hand?””

      Because your hands should be at 10 and 2?

      I’m waiting for the ban on chewing gum and driving. Because, hey, if you can’t walk and chew gum, you shouldn’t be allowed to drive and chew gum.

      The laws are absurd. It’s all about daddy government dictating the terms to his kids driving habits.

  19. “the other driver was yapping at a passenger instead of keeping his thoughts on his driving.”

    Passengers shut up for a minute when a truck slides into your lane unexpectedly. And telling your passenger something doesn’t mean your hands and face are focussed on the conversation (unlike texting).
    As a doctor with substantial statistical training, I suspect the issue here is the difficulty of picking up differences in rare catastrophic outcomes (false negative results). My anecdotal evidence is also pretty significant. I understand the plural of anecdote is not data, but a bunch of high profile cases here (someone driving straight into a cyclist and killing him while sending text messages) mean that we can’t do a large scale randomised controlled trial. There are lots of medical interventions that have never been trialled because commonsense/anecdote suggests that it would be too unsafe to proceed. Personally I use bluetooth and don’t text or email…

    1. But again, that doesn’t explain why it is only the act of holding the phone to your ear that is illegal, as if that somehow adds significantly to the distraction. It simply does not. Certainly no more, and probably less, than eating or the other examples I gave. It is the talking that causes 99% of whatever distraction there is and I’ve seen plenty of drivers talking to passengers who were distracted just as much as any cellphone conversant, if we’re going to use the anecdotal stuff. And I’d suggest that whether a passenger stops talking when a truck pulls out is immaterial.

      No, the reason it doesn’t show up in the statistics is because they banned the relatively trivial act of holding a cellphone and left the multitude of other distractions untouched.

      Besides, as others have noted, if talking on a cellphone were that much more distracting than all the other activities people engage in while driving, wouldn’t the massive explosion of cell phone use over the last 10-12 years have made that danger completely obvious? The fact that there aren’t good statistics supporting any kind of problem in the first place should be a sign of this trivial laws uselessness.

      1. “”But again, that doesn’t explain why it is only the act of holding the phone to your ear that is illegal, as if that somehow adds significantly to the distraction.””

        Are you searching for some sort of reasonableness to their law making?

        Good luck. Using reason with lawmakers is like talking Chinese to Mexicans. It’s just too foreign.

  20. Two kids in back seat are waaaaaay more distracting than any call I might make on a hypothetical cell phone. In fact, I could be texting, typing an email, and reading the NYT while driving and that would still be less distracting than having two kids in the back of the car.

  21. This is hard to believe. I always know when I’m driving around someone using their cell. They can’t stay in their lane and they drive slower than everyone else around them. Hey, maybe that’s it – they’re drive so slow the rest of us can swerve to avoid them.

  22. Here’s a graphing exercise suitable for any fifth grader…
    First plot the increase in cellphones in use on a time scale from about 1990 til now – it is a very steep positively sloping curve – from about 2 to 2 billion in 20 years.

    got that?

    Now plot the accidents per 100,000 driven on the same time scale. this is a negative sloping line – accidents have declined, driving is measurably safer.

    Isn’t it a pretty graph?

    Now whenever some micro-level study suggests that cell phone use is a major cause of auto crashes, scratch your head and wonder how this could be consistent with the macro level data you just graphed.

    When some “scientist” explains that accidents per 100K miles would have diminished even further were it not for the effect of cellphones, resist the urge to smack him upside the head and say “you moron, we’re talking about incredible growth in cellphone usage over that time period…you really believe that other factors were enough to negate that impact?”

    Now having dealt with one public health crisis, turn your attention to global warming and vaccines causing autism…

    1. correlation vs causality, in this case there isn’t even any correlation..

  23. Translation:

    We will prove ours is the true religion, reality be damned.

    If you wished to ascribe good motives you could translate this as “When we study the effects of cell phone use on driving skills directly when find a clear and population wide reduction of skill. Accordingly we expect that a ban on cellphone use should result in safer streets, and we are puzzled about why it doesn’t seem to.”

    Of course, several possible reasons leap to mind:

    * People may be flagrantly violating a difficult to enforce law, so that actual cell phone use isn’t going down.
    * Risk compensation. ‘nuf said.
    * People not distracted by their phones may be finding other ways to distract themselves.

  24. Why is anyone surprised that insurance companies fund these types of studies? They have a substantial financial interest in ascertaining how the actual probability of losses are changed by various laws.

  25. The laws are entirely pointless. Other studies have shown that hands-free cell phones distract the driver just as much as holding one.

    1. much like blow jobs…very distracting while you’re driving, but so much fun none the less…

  26. In Connecticut, drivers routinely ignore the cell phone law. So the existence of the law doesn’t imply a change in behavior.

    1. It depends on frequency of enforcement. If it’s a secondary offense, people will ignore it. If the cops did month long ticket blitzes, you will see a change in habit.

  27. I actually think there’s a difference between talking on the phone and talking with somebody in the passenger seat.
    In my experience passengers (adults at least) react to the actual traffic situation and shut up when appropriate. Somebody on the other end of a phone has no way the see what’s going on at your end and consequently will just keep on yapping.

  28. If you drive while talking on your cell phone, you drive like a little old lady. You may not think that you drive like a little old lady, but you do.

    Apologies to little old ladies for the analogy.

    1. What’s the alternative? I’d rather deal with a pack of the Grey Angels, than with a bunch of guys driving like teen-aged boys (too much speed, lots of lane changes and aggressive behavior).

      1. until they drive into your store front that is…

        1. Which is funny because the only time an old lady ever accelerates abruptly is when she is aimed at a convenience store.

          At all other times she accelerates so slowly that only global warming keeps glaciers from overtaking her car and crushing it.

  29. Well, this is stupid. You know that laws like this are not intended to actually alleviate problems, but rather to let bureaucrats pretend they are “doing something”. You have to get over this idea that government exists to address problems and to make life better.

    1. Exactly.

  30. Typical government intervention: it doesn’t accomplish what it’s cheerleaders claimed it would.

    Typical cheerleader response: “Well, it’s because…the law isn’t tough enough! We need MORE intervention! And more rigid enforcement! And more draconian punishments!”

    I don’t expect this case will be any different.

  31. As with so many of the ‘safety’ laws, they’re designed more to tap us as revenue streams; they count on us not arguing that driving whilst talking makes us safer.

  32. can you say “voice recognition software”?

  33. There is one explanation to this; Most people are ignoring this law, after the ban I still see the same ammount of people daily driving and talking on their phones. It’s not that Cellphone use while driving isn’t dangerous, it’s that people are still talking on the phone while driving.

    It’s not that drug use isn’t dangerous, it’s that people are still doing them, even after prohibition therefore dying.

    That’s why education is better than prohibition.

  34. bestpriceforsales powershot s90 but virtually every camera in the upper-end point-and-shoot arena offer these “Features” which further serves to make the S90 nothing special. I’m now waiting for the Leica X1,

  35. There are many other factors that we should look after apart from banning cell phones. Cell phone ban ma affect safety but the impact would be nearly negligible.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.