• Sep 28th 2010 at 4:02PM
  • 40
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has just released new findings related to texting-while-driving laws and their effectiveness – the results of which are quite surprising. The Highway Loss Data Institute, an affiliate of the IIHS, compiled claim data for four states; California, Louisiana, Minnesota and Washington. Each state has enacted a ban on texting while driving, and this study examines data for the months before and after the laws went into effect. Earlier this year, the HLDI released data relating to the banning of hand-held cell phones and how those laws had zero effect on crash rates. Its new research refines that study to show that texting bans have produced a more alarming result. In three of the four states examined, crashes increased by three to four percent after the laws were enabled.

Adrian Lund, President of the IIHS and the HLDI, believes the laws do not take into account the overall problem of driving while distracted but merely focus on one aspect of it. Lund states people texted before the laws came into effect and they're likely doing so after. Drivers may now be texting in ways so as not to get caught doing do, such as lowering their phones and thus drawing their eyes down away from the road. Lund also states that he knows texting while driving is dangerous and there is a crash risk associated with it, but the bans are clearly not reducing that risk.

Not everyone agrees with the IIHS study, however. AAA released a statement today that states, "It is not realistic to expect that simply enacting a law to ban texting while driving will have a large, immediate impact on crash totals in a state in the first months." The release goes on to add that in addition to laws, public outreach, high-visibility enforcement, substantial penalties and, most importantly, adequate time are needed before a positive effect can be seen. In other words, holds your horses, IIHS. Likewise, The Detroit News D.C. Bureau Chief David Strickland reported live via Twitter from a Senate Commerce meeting today that National Highway Traffic Safety Administration chief David Strickland said he has questions about the IIHS study and that NHTSA still wants to get at the worst kinds of distracted driving, not just texting, adding that a bee or insect in the car has been shown to be the most dangerous kind.

So are drivers in these states merely making texting while driving more dangerous by lowering their phones out of view? The IIHS research indicates this might be the case, or the uptick in accidents might just be a correlation and not causal. Either way, automakers are developing more complex systems to take these tasks out of the equation eventually. The Ford Sync system and the upcoming UVO unit from Kia will answer and read your texts for you. OnStar is also working on a way to integrate Facebook into GM vehicles. These ideas sound silly but they may help reduce our need to grab that phone so we can keep our eyes on the road.

Full release available after the jump.

[Source: IIHS | Image: Getty]
Show full PR text
News Release | September 28, 2010
Texting bans don't reduce crashes; effects are slight crash increases

ARLINGTON, VA - It's illegal to text while driving in most US states. Yet a new study by researchers at the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) finds no reductions in crashes after laws take effect that ban texting by all drivers. In fact, such bans are associated with a slight increase in the frequency of insurance claims filed under collision coverage for damage to vehicles in crashes. This finding is based on comparisons of claims in 4 states before and after texting ban, compared with patterns of claims in nearby states.

The new findings, released today at the annual meeting of the Governors Highway Safety Association, are consistent with those of a previous HLDI study, which found that banning hand-held phone use while driving doesn't cut crashes. HLDI is an affiliate of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

HLDI researchers calculated rates of collision claims for vehicles up to 9 years old during the months immediately before and after driver texting was banned in California (January 2009), Louisiana (July 2008), Minnesota (August 2008), and Washington (January 2008). Comparable data were collected in nearby states where texting laws weren't substantially changed during the time span of the study. This controlled for possible changes in collision claim rates unrelated to the bans - changes in the number of miles driven due to the economy, seasonal changes in driving patterns, etc.

"Texting bans haven't reduced crashes at all. In a perverse twist, crashes increased in 3 of the 4 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," says Adrian Lund, president of both HLDI and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

HLDI's new findings about texting, together with the organization's previous finding that hand-held phone bans didn't reduce crashes, "call into question the way policymakers are trying to address the problem of distracted driving crashes," Lund adds.

California - Collision claims per 100 insured vehicle years, by month before and after texting law for all drivers, compared with Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon

"They're focusing on a single manifestation of distracted driving and banning it. This ignores the endless sources of distraction and relies on banning one source or another to solve the whole problem."

Louisiana - Collision claims per 100 insured vehicle years,by month before and after texting law for all drivers, compared with Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas

Month-to-month fluctuations in the rates of collision claims in HLDI's 4 study states with texting bans for all drivers didn't change much from before to after the bans were enacted. Nor did the patterns differ much from those in nearby states that didn't ban texting for all drivers during the study period. To the extent that the crash patterns did change in the study states, they went up, not down, after the bans took effect. Increases varied from 1 percent more crashes in Washington to about 9 percent more in Minnesota (the result in Washington isn't statistically significant).

Minnesota - Collision claims per 100 insured vehicle years, by month before and after texting law for all drivers, compared with Iowa and Wisconsin

Young motorists are more likely than older people to text while driving. In all 4 of the study states, crashes increased among drivers younger than 25 after the all-driver bans took effect. In California, Louisiana, and Washington, the increases for young drivers were greater than for drivers 25 and older. The largest crash increase of all (12 percent) following enactment of a texting ban was among young drivers in California.

Washington - Collision claims per 100 insured vehicle years,by month before andafter texting law for all drivers, compared with Idaho and Oregon

"The point of texting bans is to reduce crashes, and by this essential measure the laws are ineffective," Lund points out. He cautions that "finding no reduction in crashes, or even a small increase, doesn't mean it's safe to text and drive, though. There's a crash risk associated with doing this. It's just that bans aren't reducing this crash risk."

An Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study that relied on driver phone records found a 4-fold increase in the risk of injury crashes associated with phoning. A study in Canada found a 4-fold increase in the risk of crashes involving property damage. The crash risk associated with texting hasn't been quantified as precisely, but it may be comparable, if not greater, than the risk associated with phoning.

"Neither texting bans nor bans on hand-held phone use have reduced crash risk," Lund says.

Noncompliance is a likely reason texting bans aren't reducing crashes. Survey results indicate that many drivers, especially younger ones, shrug off these bans. Among 18-24 year-olds, the group most likely to text, 45 percent reported doing so anyway in states that bar all drivers from texting. This is just shy of the 48 percent of drivers who reported texting in states without bans. Many respondents who knew it was illegal to text said they didn't think police were strongly enforcing the bans.

"But this doesn't explain why crashes increased after texting bans," Lund points out. "If drivers were disregarding the bans, then the crash patterns should have remained steady. So clearly drivers did respond to the bans somehow, and what they might have been doing was moving their phones down and out of sight when they texted, in recognition that what they were doing was illegal. This could exacerbate the risk of texting by taking drivers' eyes further from the road and for a longer time."

Using a driving simulator, researchers at the University of Glasgow found a sharp decrease in crash likelihood when participants switched from head-down to head-up displays. This suggests that it might be more hazardous for a driver to text from a device that's hidden from view on the lap or vehicle seat.

Texting in general is on the increase. Wireless phone subscriptions numbered 286 million as of December 2009, up 47 percent from 194 million in June 2005. Text messaging is increasing, too. It went up by about 60 percent in 1 year alone, from 1 trillion messages in 2008 to 1.6 trillion in 2009.

The District of Columbia was the first US jurisdiction to ban all motorists from texting. This was in 2004, and since then 30 states have followed suit. Nearly half of these bans have been enacted in 2010.

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 4 Years Ago
      This is nothing new .. it was known months ago that there is ZERO correlation between texting and accidents. Yes I was amazed too.

      The people in the "know" say that bad drivers will blame everything but themselves for bad driving. Tell them to stop texting and they start eating, or smoking, or shaving or looking at the scenery -- or maybe they are high half the time. Who knows; but they end result is that it the problem is the driver and not the text messaging.

      Remember too .. legally, you are very smart to blame something besides yourself for the accident. Kind of like how people will blame bad behaviour on drinking and not themselves.

      For me .. I did text message; but I knew it was very distracting, so did it at lights etc (or would just pull over it it was going to be a conversation). Now I have to actually TAKE calls which is FAR more distracting as I cannot pause it when the light is green, or when in situation requiring more attention. Also, calls make me have to think, or make me mad when it turns out to be someone I do not want to talk to -- or would avoid talking to when driving. etc.

      If you have ever been with someone smoking while driving .. it is WAY more dangerous then texting -- for one they are burn themselves (particularly young people), and they can be too mellow enjoying the "drag".

      Oh well .. the old red light camera thing .. it sound logical so people will endorce it.
      • 4 Years Ago
      I am very happy that these states have banned texting while driving. I wish more states would follow suit. And I wish more states would ban talking on cell phones while driving too, UNLESS they have a hands free device. But I guess children will be children. I guess the next step, since people don't give a crap about safety, is to install a program into new cell phones that takes advantage of the gps and ONLY allows 911 phone calls only when the gps detects movement on roadways. Then people will be complaining about that I guess. I would imagine lawsuits will increase with the additional accidents. And since texting in these areas is illegal, the police will check these phones and find evidence of texting during the accident.
        • 4 Years Ago
        'allows 911 phone calls only when the gps detects movement on roadways'

        ..I applaud the idea, but it wouldn't work because passengers could be the ones using the phone. Like people in the back of a bus, taxi, or limo where it really would not be a safety issue.
        • 4 Years Ago
        "And I wish more states would ban talking on cell phones while driving too, UNLESS they have a hands free device."

        Why? I think having a conversation even on a hands free device could distract you from what's on the road enough to potentially hurt you or somebody else.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Surprising? No, this isn't surprising at all. People want to do what they want to do while they're in their own car, and they're going to do it no matter if it's allowed or not. If I want to text my buddy I'm going to text my buddy damn it, and you're not going to stop me short of having a cop ride shotgun everywhere I go. That of course would be an invasion of privacy so good luck with that.

      I'm 22 and I'm already more logical than the idiots writing these laws. It's ridiculous. All these laws do is reduce a person's willingness to take responsibility for their own actions, and knowing that something isn't allowed makes people defiant. It's pretty basic science.
      • 4 Years Ago
      New wireless rule: Any text message must pass spell check for it to go through.

      That should pretty much eliminate the problem.
      • 4 Years Ago
      I bet the new laws do offer a great profit potential for trial lawyers and insurance companies though.
      • 4 Years Ago
      I loved the semi driver I saw the other day turning the corner talking on the cell with his left hand. Turning and grabbing a gear with his right as he made the corner.

      I laugh at these laws as they can not enforce them till after the accident.

      I have been a victim of them once already.
      • 4 Years Ago
      I'll just say, in lieu of a rant, that we'd see less texting and driving if the punishment included execution.
      • 4 Years Ago
      ..because they're not being enforced at all.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Basically... It is just a difficult law to enforce. The worst thing, however, is states where it is a secondary offense. That basically just has no point at all.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Let me reiterate when i say 'speeder'. I mean someone who is going slightly over the speed limit, not doing 60 in a 35 zone or something like that.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Well doesnt help when police officers who are supposed to enforce these laws are in the same pile of drivers who text while driving and also talk on their cell phones while in their cruisers on duty.
        • 4 Years Ago

        The problem is that nobody is taking it seriously.
        Yet the cops are all too eager to catch people going 5mph over the speed limit in their speed traps.

        I think someone not looking at the road and using a hand ( or two ) for something else is much more dangerous than a speeder.. don't you?!

      • 4 Years Ago
      also! grass is green-sky is blue
        • 4 Years Ago
        AND the law didn't go into effect yet. On 9/30/2010 it goes into effect! In Boston / MA anyway...
      • 4 Years Ago
      I can see it now: new cars coming with features that must deactivate your cell phone or else the car won't start.
      • 4 Years Ago
      80% percent of all rear end collisions (the most frequent vehicle accident) are caused by driver inattention. I doubt if we'll ever stop the madness so I got one of these from sparebumper.com - to reduce whiplash and protect my family.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Forget trying to enforce ridiculous laws, just up the consequences. If your license was suspended for 3 months for rear-ending someone then perhaps people would pay more attention.
    • Load More Comments