It’s the Driving, Stupid

…or that this is really that big of a deal.

There is plenty of evidence it’s a big deal – if you think death is a big deal.

The epidemiologic evidence is very clear that talking on celly while hurtling along obliviously in 3000 lbs of steal is about 4 times as dangerous as paying full attention to what you might be about to run into.

I haven’t read that articles specifically on texting, but intuitively I would guess it’s much, much worse.

The driving age should be 18, for starters. This alone could produce a sea change in behaviors. Parents who don't want to drive their kids everywhere would have to make sure their kids took transit. Families would start valuing houses closer to bus lines and train stations. Bicycles would be an option for more young people. Bus service to schools (both school bus and transit) would increase. Most importantly, a couple extra teenage years of riding transit creates a habit. Many of those kids will keep riding transit, and texting, and enjoying its other advantages, and considering transit availability when renting an apartment or buying a house.

As an added benefit, you reduce the number of teenage kids getting into car wrecks for other reasons too. Some would still get in cars with older friends, or drive illegally, but for the most part you'd eliminate a major cause of death among 16-18 year olds.

“I’m not sure what the practical approach to Thompson’s take is, but it’s a canny observation.”

No, it's idiotic. We don't have Tokyo or Berlin transit systems, but we do have young people driving cars and texting at the same time. It is clearly dangerous to others and themselves.Even after 20 or 50 years we have transit, it should still be illegal to text and drive.

Perhaps in countries where it is illegal to drink and drive people don't need a law to tell them texting and driving is stupid. Or perhaps attention to driving laws already covers the issue.

Canny my ass.

Are you a parent? Probably not – you try to get your kids where they need to go on schedule with transit as is…not happening….

List of countries where cell phones including, I presume, texting is banned

Australia Yes Banned in all states – fines vary though.
Austria Yes Fines vary – up to US$22 per incident
Bahrain Yes Offenders face fines – possibly prison
Belgium Yes Phones can be used without a hands-free unit when the car is stationary – but not while in traffic (such as at traffic lights)
Brazil Yes Ban imposed Jan. 2001
Botswana Being debated The attorney general is drafting the legislation
Canada Variable Banned in Newfoundland (Dec2002) fines up to C$180 – Banned in Québec (Apr 2008) fines up to C$100.
Chile Yes
China Yes Reported to be covered by general “good driving practice” legislation.
Czech Republic Yes
Denmark Yes Ban imposed July 1998 – US$60 fine for infringements
Egypt Yes Fines of about US$100 per offence.
Finland Yes Ban imposed January 2003 – US$55 fine for infringements
France Yes Banned 2003, EUR40 fine per infraction
Germany Yes Ban imposed Feb. 2001 – usage allowed without a hands-free unit only when the engine is switched off. Fine of €40 per infraction
Greece Yes
Hong Kong Yes
Hungary Yes Not often implemented by the police
India – New Delhi Yes New Delhi – Ban extended to ban all use of cell phones when driving, including use with a hands-free unit – July 2001
Andhra Pradesh – Ban now enforced with prison sentences

Ireland Yes Banned, with a US$380 and/or up to 3 months imprisonment on a third offence. Handsfree kits allowed, although that is subject to review.
Isle of Man Yes Banned since July 2000
Israel Yes
Italy Yes Fines of up to US$124 per infraction
Japan Yes Ban imposed Nov. 1999
Jersey Yes Ban imposed Feb. 1998
Jordan Yes Ban imposed Oct. 2001
Kenya Yes Ban imposed late 2001
Malaysia Yes
Mexico Partial Ban in Mexico City
Netherlands Yes Fines up to €2,000 or two weeks in jail
New Zealand Being debated Under debate – consultation being sought from interested parties
Norway Yes Fines of over $600 per infraction
Pakistan Partial Banned in Islamabad
Philippines Yes
Poland Yes Fine of PLN200 ($100) – can be higher if contested.
Portugal Yes
Romania Yes
Russia Yes Ban imposed by Prime Minister – March 2001
Singapore Yes
Slovak Republic Yes
Slovenia Yes
South Africa Yes
South Korea Yes Ban imposed July 2001 – US$47 fine + 15 points on the license.
Spain Yes
Sweden No
Switzerland Yes
Taiwan Yes If the driver is using a reflective screen on the car, local privacy laws forbid stopping the car for violating the ban.
Thailand Yes Bill proposed in May 2000
Turkey Yes
Turkmenistan Yes Signed into law with effect from May 1st 2003, by President Saparmyrat Turkmenbasy
UK Yes Banned from December 2003
Zimbabwe Yes Ban imposed in Sept 2001, announced via official news agency only though, so not confirmed

I'm not a parent, but it's funny you should mention that. I have the teenage son of a friend in town right now. Yes, I needed a car to get him to Evergreen (he's in town checking it out), but otherwise all's good—out to dinner, out to a civic event last night, pick up from the airport, show tonight, Burke-Gilman today—we've been fine without a car.

Let's spend a few billion for making every vehicle and every road drive by wire in the Puget Sound. Everyone could text, surf and talk to their heart's content.

So because your friend's teenager can hang with Uncle Josh for a few days, that means we don't need a law against texting while driving?

Cognitive dissidence – Earth to Josh – because kids will keep texting even if illegal, we shouldn't make it illegal.

People will kill pedestrians even if it is illegal, so we shouldn't have a law against killing pedestrians. Is that the logic?

Even if we started today, and to some extent we are, it will be decades before that is a reality for anywhere except for Seattle itself. Even if you build the system its still going to be years for development to catch up.

Plus the whole idea of Europe and Japan as car free paradises is false. Yes in many major cities, but there are still a lot of cars in those places. Japan for example has about 550 cars per 1000 people compared to the US at 750. Less sure, but not what people seem to think.

I am still waiting for some evidence that these bans work or that this is really that big of a deal.

I think your beef is with Clive Thompson, not me. I thought it was a provocative editorial.

I did hear from my friend's son about taking the subway to school everyday.

An ideologue is one for whom the solution is always the same, regardless of the problem. At various times transit has been promoted as a solution to poor driving practices, obesity, peak oil, radical Islam, and depression. A more sensible approach recognizes that transit can provide mobility for some segments of the population and reduce energy consumption, but is not a panacea to society's ills and that it is necessary to work within the context of present reality, which is that the automobile is an important aspect of our lives and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

You said it was canny. Is the kid going to take the subway to Evergreen -;)

But then, you can't see very far.

We can build the future any way we want to. If things like death rates aren't our main focus (which is fine, we have to choose priorities), this won't be a reason to stop building roads. But I have a feeling that not rebuilding 520 would save more lives than this anti-texting law.

I did say “canny.” I'd never thought about it that way before, so it spun my head around a bit.

However: I also said it was “dramatic” (euphemism for histrionic) and admitted I didn't know what the practical approach was.

Good conversation starter anyway. ; )

There are things that Sarah Palin says that I never thought of before, but I wouldn't describe them as canny. I'd say they were just plain dumb like this idea why texting shouldn't be banned or isn't a problem. -;)

Texting while driving is as dangerous as driving under the influence, if not more, and how exactly would not rebuilding 520 save lives?

The ban on texting while driving should be enforced – for teenagers and everyone else.

Dumb post, Josh.

Texting is a temporary distraction, intoxication is not. Texting while say at a stop light or going straight on the freeway is not that dangerous. Doing it while driving though downtown at 5:30pm is. I cannot be undrunk when I need to react, I can stop texting very easily.

hey texting while driving is no big deal, I mean HEY LOOKOUT WATCHA DOING CHANGING LANES AAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIII

Giffy,

True, but the figures don't lie – texting while driving is indeed actually more dangerous than driving drunk (and if you think it isn't dangerous at freeway speeds you're deluding yourself).

Where did anyone get the idea that only teens text? Raising the driving age to 18 isn't going to take care of the texters who are 35.

Okay so make it legal while stopped, and legal to honk at the texter at the light.

The headline would have been as good without the coma: It's the Driving Stupid rather than It's the Driving, Stupid.

Your proposal may be viable in Seattle, but it would have disastrous consequences in suburban and especially rural areas. Serving the mobility needs of teens is not an important enough policy goal to justify a massive expansion of transit service nor is it important enough to parents to radically alter their housing choices. The result is twofold: 1st, teens will experience significantly reduced mobility, limiting their social options and more importantly, their employment options. For lower income households, part-time income from teenagers is a vital source of family income. Many low-income teens work in order to save money for their own college education and study after study has shown that young adults that work part time in their teen years are more mature and responsible as they enter adulthood. 2nd, this policy gives teens a strong incentive to befriend older teens (over 18) in order to expand their mobility, which could have any number of unintended consequences.

Finally, it is driving experience, not age that is the primary determinant of safety. Banning driving by those under 18 will only make 18 year olds drive the way 16 year olds do today. Does it really make sense to have people learning to drive at the same time they are dealing with all the other challenges of adulthood and independence? If anything, we should begin driver training earlier and have an elaborate program to build up teen drivers experience and skill before they reach the age where they need to drive on their own.

I am, however, strongly in favor of significantly expanding transit options so that fewer teens (and adults) have to drive, but until those alternatives are in place, restrictions on driving are not a viable policy option.

I agree…driving is over. It will be replaced by self-guided automobiles in the next 10 years. Independently guided with advanced computers and perceptual software will make the steering column disappear. Personal transit will supersede all “mass” modes.

Many of those studies are incredibly poorly designed. Yes it is dangerous to text and say weave around children like Erika posted about a while ago. It would also be dangerous to talk to a passenger or adjust the radio while doing the same. That does not mean it is dangerous in all cases. As cell phone usage, including texting, has increased dramatically we have not seen a rise in accidents. In fact accident rates are down.

There is also no evidence of any effect from these kind of bans. States with them and without them have little difference in rates and rates have not changed with the implementation of bans.

Last month a 45 year trucker watching porn on his laptop killed a woman in a stalled car on I-90 near Buffalo, NY. The road was clear, no snow, little traffic…he was distracted when his 18 wheeler plowed into her car. If it is not texting it will be something else. There are too many stupid drivers and no real solutions.

You forgot the most important reason teens needs cars at 16…blow jobs while you're driving. No one ever got laid on a bus.

Walking has been promoted as a solution to obesity and depression, not transit.

The solution in the case of the stupid truck is no computer use by a driver.

Re texting, you can adjust a radio (by listening to it) and talk to a passenger (obvious how to do that) with your eyes on the road. Can you text with your eyes on the road? Accident rates down — where, and indeed if they are, what are the other factors? And just why have all those countries banned cell phones/texting? There are some things that don't really need to be over-thought, and texting while driving is one of them.

These solutions are so simple, it seems that people are willfully stupid to ignore them. Keep your eyes on the road! You won't die if you don't text/surf for 30 minutes; you and others may die if you do.

How wrong you are . . . about the bus, that is.

Funny I come across your comment today just after hearing a story on NPR about teens lacking a connection in their frontal lobe (I think!) which makes them more likely to make rash and selfish decisions. While listening to that, I was thinking, “why do we give these kids the ability to drive when making stupid mistakes is biologically a given?”

Your other point about access makes some sense, but in the long run is hogwash. As someone that grew up in the 'burbs taking public transit everywhere, I can tell you that once you get out from behind all the excuses to drive it is possible not to, no matter where you live.

I guess to those that see driving as the only solution to the problem of getting somewhere, those must be the same: not using a car.

Hi, I have visited your website,it was good as it has lots of information about part time jobs.
PART TIME JOB