May 24, 2012

Increase in Accidents Since Ban on Texting

Risk Management (RIMS)

It has been well publicized that the increase in cell phone use while driving has led to an increase in traffic accidents. A study by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute showed that truck drivers who text while driving are more than 20 times as likely to be involved in a collision as nondistracted drivers. The study found that texting takes the driver's eyes off the road for 4.6 seconds -- long enough to blindly travel the length of a football field at 55 mph. To date, 30 states plus the District of Columbia have banned texting while driving and eight states have banned handheld cell phone use altogether.

With in an increase in bans, one would assume the number of auto accidents would decrease rapidly. In some states, however, that has not been the case. In California, Louisiana, Minnesota and Washington, accidents have increased since those states enacted a ban on texting behind the wheel, according to a Highway Loss Data Institute (HDLI) study. "Texting bans haven't reduced crashes at all," said Adrian Lund, president of both HLDI and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. "In a perverse twist, crashes increased in three of the four states we studied after bans were enacted. It's an indication that texting bans might even increase the risk of texting for drivers who continue to do so despite the laws." Increases varied from 1% more crashes in Washington (insignificant) to 9% more in Minnesota (statistically significant).

It is difficult to accurately quantify the true effect of cell phone use on collisions because officers must rely on drivers being honest about the cause of accidents. Many in law enforcement suspect that there are more collisions connected to cell phone use than is actually documented.

Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood called the study misleading, stating that his department's research shows that distracted driving laws could in fact reduce motor vehicle accidents. In his annual Distracted Driving Summit in September, he praised the growing number of states that have adopted laws banning cell phone use behind the wheel. But according to HLDI, and to the surprise of many, the efforts of LaHood and his department are for naught.

The situation is bound to worsen as society becomes even more dependent on immediate access to technology. Though the American Psychiatric Association has not yet diagnosed a technology addiction, some feel it is not far off. In fact, centers for internet and technology addiction are slowly becoming commonplace. The tech addiction may turn into an epidemic no state or federal law can stop.

__________

Emily Holbrook is editor of Risk Management.

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2012 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Risk Management Magazine  is the premier source of analysis, insight and news for corporate risk managers. RM strives to explore existing and emerging techniques and concepts that address the needs of those who are tasked with protecting the physical, financial, human and intellectual assets of their companies. As the business world and the world at large change with increasing speed, RM keeps its readers informed about new challenges and solutions....

212-286-9364

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.