Will A Ban on ‘Texting While Driving’ Reduce Accidents?

In examining accidents, the intuitive response by policymakers is to look at the immediate cause and subsequently apply restrictions on it.

And this applies to “texting while driving”, where the underlying belief is--just ban ‘texting while driving’ and accidents will go away.

Simple antidote right?

Well, a study demonstrates that this socialist “feel-good-to-do-something-about-it” policy is nothing but nonsensical fairy tale, with even more vicious consequences (other than restricting one’s liberty).

From the Cleveland Leader, (bold highlights mine) [Hat tip: Professor Don Boudreaux]

Laws that ban the practice of texting while driving are designed to keep drivers' attention on the road and avoid accidents, but new research published Tuesday by the Highway Loss Data Institute suggest otherwise. Laws banning texting while driving may actually increase the risk of road crashes, according to the study.

The HLDI research showed that crash rates rose in three out of four states after texting bans were implemented

Adrian Lund, president of HLDI and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says:

"Texting bans haven't reduced crashes at all. 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."

Lund added that the findings "call into question the way policymakers are trying to address the problem of distracted driving crashes", and said that the increased crash rates were due to drivers responding to the regulations by moving their phones lower down and out of sight when sending a text. This increases the risk of a crash because the driver's eyes are diverted further from the road and for a longer time.

So, the unintended consequences appear to be worse than the desired the goal of reducing accidents or that the costs of the policy seems greater than the intended benefit.

So what’s wrong with the policy?

It basically overlooks human response to circumvent or go around regulations.

Of course, there are other possible ramifications: this law could be used to harass the public, increase the incidence of extortion and corruption, increase taxpayer costs of applying the law (bureaucracy), selective implementation of the law, curtail personal liberty and etc…

In short, the end does NOT justify the means.