Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Texting While Driving

Sunday, February 21st, 2010

I should state up front that I do not text message while driving nor do I promote it. But, as somebody who knows a lot about cognitive limitations and technology, I have started to take a stand against the ill-informed policy that our politicians have been promoting. In particular, a bill is making it’s way through the Iowa House. My specific anger about the bill centers around one senator, Herman Quirmbach. Somehow I got on his email-list and generally his stances are pretty run-of-the-mill but he has really stepped up his ignorance on the text messaging issue. Following is most of my rebuttal to a recent email:

______________________________________

I agree that people should not be texting while driving, however there are many problems with enacting a law against it. I have responded inline…

On January 26, the Senate Transportation Committee heard testimony about the dangers of distracted driving from Colonel Pat Hoye, chief of the Iowa State Patrol, and researchers from the University of Iowa and the National Safety Council.

I may as well point out that, of those people, at least Colonel Hoye stands to gain from the legislature thinking the roads are unsafe and from laws that expand police power.

Their presentations confirmed what is increasingly clear to all who use our roads:  distracted driving has become a dangerous epidemic.

I use our roads (a lot) and I don’t think this is increasingly clear. Fatal accident rates have been decreasing every year and I would much rather drive today than 30 years ago. This is largely due to advances in highway and automobile engineering. It is hard to point to any traffic laws that have made the roads demonstrably safer.

Studies show texting to be the most dangerous distraction because it requires both eyes and hands.

I haven’t seen any studies that claim that use of the eyes and hands are the reason that distracted driving is unsafe. It is no secret that hands-free cellphone use is no better than holding the phone and studies have shown this.

Texting while driving can increase the chance of a crash by as much as 23 times

The “23 times” number came from a Virginia Tech study on long-haul truckers. There are many reasons why these results can’t generalize to personal vehicles. For example, big trucks present a rollover hazard which should increase death rates and truckers are at the wheel for longer periods of time so their cognitive resources may be lessened. I know you are just relaying the propaganda as it was presented, but as a fellow academic-type you can certainly understand that it is dishonest to use the results in this way.

and can impair drivers in the same way alcohol does.

I barely drink but this comparison is scary. Drinking and driving laws in this country are way out of whack. They are all based on misleading data from the NHTSA and MADD. MADD (in the words of their founder) has become a prohibitionist organization. Drunk driving laws currently carry excessive punishments that have no relationship to the impact on society. These punishments are extremely damaging to people who don’t have the resources for legal battles yet rely on their vehicles for their employment. It is frightening that politicians are playing this card because the last thing I want is to see the system demonizing cellphone users the way it does drinkers.

I hope that this year we can pass a bill to ban texting while driving, and some additional restrictions on cell phone use may also be in order.

I realize this may be a politically strong move. Naive voters will naturally agree with all of the things you’ve just said. However, I think that this is poor policy. Look at all of the states that outlawed cellphone use while hands-free kits remained legal. Those legislators gave the people a false sense of safety but they didn’t really improve safety at all. Creating reactionary laws on a technology by technology basis is naive and such laws will always be one step behind the technology du jour. Distracted driving laws already exist in most states and I assume Iowa is no different. Adding additional laws makes the legal system less accessible and legitimate enforcement more difficult.

I wonder how such a ban could even be enforced without casting a very wide net. Would the police have the power to pull anybody over who glanced downward for a few seconds? Will law enforcement attempt to confiscate phones for evidence? Will the prosecutor subpoena phone records? It may sound paranoid, but the truth is that these scenarios are the only way that such a charge would ever stick in a fair court if somebody decided to fight it. I don’t think it’s ethical to write laws with the assumption that nobody will bother to challenge them.

_____________________________________________

Senator Quirmbach sent out another email the other day, illustrating that he is either clueless or is just pandering to people’s fears. I didn’t send him these responses but I have included some rebuttals below:

__________________________________________

Taking your eyes off the road and your hands off the wheel are dangerous habits. By restricting texting while driving, we can save lives and make Iowa roads safer for everyone.

Sure it’s not good to take the hands and eyes away from the road, but the cognitive resources are really what causes accidents. Don’t dumb this down for me, senator. Also if studies have shown that cell-phone bans don’t decrease accidents then how do you figure on making the roads “safer for everyone?”

At any given moment, one percent of drivers on the road are texting. Those drivers can be as much as 23 times more likely to crash, putting everyone on the road at risk.

I rebutted this above. This number is probably high because it applies to long haul truckers. Also this sounds more like propaganda than telling me about an issue, senator.

Senate File 2321 would make it illegal to write or send a text-based message unless the vehicle is stopped and off the roadway. The use of GPS devices will still be permitted, and if you get an urgent message, you may still read it.

So it sounds like you’re going to outlaw just enough to make people feel safe but not really tackle the cognitive issues. What text message could possibly be so urgent? What if my GPS device is a phone? If I enter an address into my phone, that sounds like text to me. What if I use one of the phones that allow hands free text messaging? What if the person on the other end has a phone that reads text messages to them? What would make that different than just using the phone for voice? I realize that the bill has more detail that answers some of these questions, but basically your law was obsolete before it was written because it will do nothing to make the roads safer. Remember, using the thumbs has not been shown to cause accidents – diverting cognitive resources has.

For one year after the law goes into effect, officers will issue warnings to violators while the Department of Transportation and the Department of Public Safety step up efforts to educate the public about the dangers of texting while driving.

For what reason? This education really sounds like propaganda to convince people that you aren’t all screwing around down there in Des Moines. If you write a good law, it should be enforceable on day 1.
_____________________________________

I don’t text message while driving, but I would love to be the lucky defendant that gets to fight one of these tickets in court. I agree that this is bad stuff and that people should keep their eyes, hands, and minds on the road. If we have decided that this is a large enough problem to legislate on, let’s be comprehensive. We shouldn’t single out specific technologies. Technology is a moving target and we will never make the roads safer with the current approach. This is likely a larger problem with our society. I don’t know how to fix it, but people need to start thinking of driving as a task that is important on its own, warranting proper attention.

The right way to go now is probably to make sure that distracted driving laws are comprehensive enough. I don’t want to regulate everything like California tried to do (radio, smoking, etc…). I’d like to see a law that makes it performance-based so that if a person swerves because they were adjusting the radio they would get the same penalty as a person who did so because they were sharpening their skates. This is really the only way to improve safety with a fair, technology-independent approach.

Fired Up!

Wednesday, January 9th, 2008

I have been really lazy at updating this, but every so often there are things that I want to share…

As many of you know, I was a precinct captain for Barack Obama in Iowa. As you probably can also imagine, business was great last week. It was really a fun time and it is amazing what we accomplished. I met Obama twice and saw him a seven events total. One of the things that I like is his accessibility. He spent a lot of time in Iowa and he usually found time for group photos and handshaking.

The caucus was crazy. At the first count in precinct 4-3 (my precinct), Obama was the only viable candidate with 81 out of 160 people in his corner. After a long time for realignment, we ended up with 93 people, earning 5 delegates for Obama. Edwards scrapped together enough people for 2 delegates and Richardson got 1 delegate. It was really a great experience for individuals like myself to be involved in something with the potential to make such a big impact on the choice of the next president of the United States.

I like Barack Obama because I think he will actually make decisions based on what is best for the country as opposed to who funded his campaign. We need to get rid of special interests in Washington and we need a president who is willing to say what needs to be said, even when it’s unpopular.

Now we need the rest of the nation to follow Iowa’s lead. It is unfortunate that he didn’t beat Clinton in New Hampshire but, in reality, he did pretty well there considering what he is up against and what many people expected.

Since when did facts mean anything?

Monday, June 20th, 2005

Today I was at the coffee shop and I picked up a section of the Arizona Republic. An editorial from the Boston Globe caught my eye. It pretty much says everything I have been meaning to say regarding conservatives and their willingness to look past the facts. The facts are unimportant. All they have to do is muddle the science. Here is the article. Note: It is necessary to sign up to view Boston Globe content. I have never had a problem with spam from them, so I recommend it.

No Important Issues to Work On?

Friday, June 17th, 2005

I was reading cnn.com just now and I saw that Jeb Bush is doing further investigation into the Terri Schiavo case. First they all wanted an autopsy to prove that her husband abused her or that she was capable of recovering. As you probably know, the autopsy report came out the other day. The republicans were wrong. Every single thing that they said when trying to keep her alive was incorrect. Her brain was half the size of a normal brain and she was blind. But, as with White House foreign policy, facts mean nothing. The republicans immediately attacked the doctors who performed the autopsy, saying they shouldn’t make such statements. Are they going to start threatening doctors now like they did to judges last month? Are they going to start condoning attacks on doctors like they did last month to judges? Anyways, we are getting off the point. The point is that, since facts mean nothing to republicans, they are now going to continue to find ways to make life miserable for Michael Schiavo. So they will just keep investigating. If they never get a result they are looking for, then they will just keep investigating forever. However they probably will get whatever fact they are looking for, because republicans aren’t very scientific. They will just threaten people in the right positions until somebody twists the facts the way they (and the media) like.