The Canadian Automobile Association is proposing a ban of all distracting electronic devices for new drivers. It's an interesting approach -- instead of a global ban on cell phones, for example, this ban would target only new drivers.
"It is also our hope that a preventative measure like this one will create a generation of motorists who recognize the severe implications of driver distractions -- and work towards reducing them where they can," Flewelling said.
It looks to me like they've done a pretty good job of taking the relevant research into account. For example, we've discussed research indicating that even hands-free cell phones impair driving ability, and Canada's recommended ban is for all electronic devices, not just handheld phones. However, a key issue is the degree of distraction in a conversation: as conversations get more difficult, driving skills deteriorate. I'd like to see more emphasis on the level of distraction in driver-education programs.
One key point of this plan is to promote awareness of the problem of distractions while driving. We've found differing results on whether that can be helpful. The first linked study indicates that some people, especially older women, are unable to compensate for the distraction of driving with the phone, while the second study shows that older drivers overall are safer while driving with distractions.
I don't drive with a cell phone, and I wouldn't allow my kids to do it either, but I'm often skeptical of uniform bans on technologies in the interest of "safety." At the most basic level, every individual driver is responsible for his or her own safety. If we try to micromanage every aspect of driving, will overall safety actually be improved, or will drivers be more distracted while they look for ways to circumvent the system?
- Log in to post comments
I read the news article in the link above. I do not know if the article is poorly written, or the law is poorly written, but the definition of electronic devices is very broad. I have two reactions:
1. I am sympathetic to what they are trying to do. I was aghast a few days ago when I saw a 50-ish, slightly overweight woman, dressed in business attire going through a busy intersection at about 45mph on one of those Honda scooter type motorcycles. She was talking on a cell phone. I mention her sex, age, weight, and dress because she looked like my mother, who would likely be afraid to ride on one of those scooters under any conditions, much less through busy intersections talking on a cell phone. I also ride motorcyles --- an experience that has heightened my appreciation for concentration on the roads.
2. Operating a car, itself, is operating an electronic device. I recently bought a new car. I have radio and cruise control buttons on my steering wheel. Even setting the thermostat for climate control is using an electronic device. I was not fortunate enough to be able to get a car with one of those new GPS navigation systems, but I like them.
By the way, my new steering wheel controls WERE a distraction for the first weeks, but my operation of them is becoming more automatic with use. Does this mean that I am as safe with them as without them? I think I am, but I am not sure.
Word your headlines more carefully, please.
A proposal by the Canadian Automobile Association hardly justifies a headline of "Canada looks to ban ...".
tkillian, I think your second point brings up an important problem with nearly all driving/cell phone studies: namely, that these studies are typically conducted in an environment that's completely novel to the participants -- a driving simulator or at best an unfamiliar car.
Adding the extra wrinkle of a cell phone or a difficult verbal task will detract significantly from the driving experience, perhaps more so than when someone is driving their own car.
Scott, your point is taken, but I don't think most of our readers would know what the CAA is. Clearly if the CAA is proposing it, then Canada is seriously considering it, which is what I was getting at with "looks to." However, if other readers object, I'll change the headline.
Dave Munger writes:
At the most basic level, every individual driver is responsible for his or her own safety.
And from that statement Dave Munger questions the apporpriateness of a ban on the use of electronic devices while driving.
If the driver were only putting him/herself at risk, then I'd agree (and if there were no costs being foisted on society). But a driver is also responsible for the safety of others in his/her vehicle, including children. And a driver has a significant degree of responsibility for the safety of those in nearby vehicles and nearby pedestrians. And because of this web of responsibility, society as a whole has an interest that includes banning certain types of behaviors if the danger they expose others to (or the costs they expose society to) exceed some threshold.
The conclusion you draw from your quoted statement are rather odd. Does society has an interest in prohibitions against driving while under the influence, driving at excessive speeds, tailgating, etc.
The fact is the vast majority of automobile accidents result from bad choices made by drivers, not because the vehicle or highway infrastructure fails them. According to the CDC, 2/3 of fatal accidents result from aggressive driving. Add to that inattentive or distracted driving and you're at a pretty high percentage.
Not true ... you have a moderately bizarre notion of the influence of the CAA, I suggest.
And "Canada" could not do this even if our federal government wanted to - this sort of thing is provincial jurisdiction, not federal. It's much like saying "US looks to change x ..." where x is something that's in the jurisdiction of each individual state.
"US looks to change x ..."
If I saw a Canadian headline with such a claim and it turned out that x was something that was a state jurisdiction, I'd figure the headline was just making a simple generalization, not projecting a "bizarre notion" of how influence and/or American government works. But as I said, if other readers agree with you, Scott, I'll change the headline.
Of course it does, but these are readily observable and enforcible offenses. As tkillian points out, cars themselves are full of "technology," from radios to heaters to DVD players. Trying to come up with a reasonable way of enforcing how such technology is used by a particular population of drivers is nearly impossible. Instead, I think education and enforcement of existing laws would be preferable.
Here's an interesting scenario: A doctor on call has her pager on, in case of a medical emergency. She's driving and her beeper goes off. Does she look at the beeper, commiting a crime but possibly saving someone's life faster? Or does she wait until she's out of the car to look at the pager, which would take longer and delay medical care for someone, but would be legal?
I haven't heard the police forces volunteering to rip out their car radios to improve their driving!