Texting While Driving: Regulate or Empower & Educate?

by on August 28, 2009 · 17 comments

Texting while driving is generally a bad idea, since it involves taking one’s hands off the wheel and eyes off the road. While not wearing your seatbelt in a car or a helmet on a motorcycle probably only risks your own life, there’s a good argument to be made that distracted drivers put the lives of others at risk. The WSJ reports that 17 states have banned texting while driving outright. But is such regulation really the best way to address the problem?

Technological Empowerment. The WSJ highlights innovative technological solutions that:

  1. Block calls and texts while the user is driving; OR
  2. Let drivers “speak” their texts using voice-to-text technology.

Those who consider even hands-free cell phone use unsafe will probably insist on the more draconian blocking solution—and want government to mandate it! Such mandates would indeed probably be more effective than relying on the police write tickets to drivers they see texting while driving (especially since such offenses, like calling while driving, usually require some other, more serious offense before an officer can pull over a driver). But do we really need the government telling us when we can use a technology that really might be essential in certain circumstances, or totally safe in others (say, when we’re behind the wheel but stopped at a long light or in a traffic jam)?

The fascinating thing is that these solutions need not be mandated by government: At least some users will actually pay for them! Why? Because, sometimes we’re better off by being able to “bind” our future selves—just as Ulysses asked his crew to tie him to his ship’s mast so he could enjoy the Siren’s enchanting song without giving in to their spell. Similarly, these texting-blocking technologies empower users in three senses:

  1. Some users know they shouldn’t text while driving but—like smokers and people who casually pick their noses—just can’t stop, so they want external discipline;
  2. Others just want the monthly discount on their car insurance; and
  3. Parents want to make sure they can discipline their children, who have a hard time resisting the impulse to pick up the phone.

Obviously, there are limits to how far reasons 1 and 3 can go.  Reason #1 requires at least a desire to change: As the young playboy Saint Augustine prayed, “Lord, make me chaste—but not yet!” Reason #3 requires private sector paternalism in the most literal sense. But reason #2 requires nothing more than the self-interest of users and insurance companies, which can happily coincide with road safety given the right technology. I suspect this solution is much more likely to be effective than simple government mandates, much as insurance company discounts for having smoke detectors, fire extinguishers and sprinkler systems in your home or office are probably more effective at promoting such technologies than the threat of a fine from a government inspector.

Education. Here, as elsewhere, the “less restrictive” alternative to regulation isn’t technological empowerment alone, but empowerment in combination with education. As Adam said in 2007 of anti-cell phone effort: ”Banning In-Car Technologies Won’t Work.”

The proper solution here is education, not regulation. During driver training education, teenagers and other new drivers need to be taught the importance of keeping both hands on the wheel and their eyes pointed straight ahead at the road. Operating a vehicle is serious business with serious repercussions if you ignore basic rules of driving safety. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have access to communications / entertainment devices while in your car. We just need to teach new drivers how (and when) to use them properly. For example, set up playlists in your iPod and start them running before you pull out of the driveway. And program the preset buttons on your car stereo or satellite radio device so you can switch stations without looking. If you have to scroll to find something new to listen to, try to do it when you’re at a stop light, not when you’re driving down a busy street with a lot of pedestrians around.

If governments really want to “do something” for road safety, they should build awareness of technological empowerment solutions, especially among parents and kids. They can also fund public service announcements like this one, which is not for the faint of heart:

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

  • MikeRT

    All that is needed is for an enterprising prosecutor to go after a bunch of these drivers and throw the book at them when they harm others.

  • mdb002

    Since, a great number of those that text while driving would be young, I think an education campaign would have limited effect.

  • http://techliberation.com/author/berinszoka/ Berin Szoka

    Really? Did you watch that video? It's pretty sobering.

    I think the Ad Council's recent campaign to educate drivers—especially young drivers—on the dangers of “impaired driving” has been very effective, by showing in powerful visual images that the practical consequences of “buzzed” driving may be exactly the same as the consequences of drunk driving.

    I'm not saying that a law against texting while driving might not be appropriate or helpful. Again, unlike mandatory seatbelt laws, this isn't just about risking one's own life. But to be sure, education and empowerment have to be part of the mix, and to think criminalization or fines alone will solve the problem is just naive. As with most problems, we should start with a “layered approach,” not a “lawYered approach.” That means asking what education and empowerment tools are available to address a problem before rushing to simple solutions like bans or mandating some silver bullet technological solution.

    Insurance discounts will probably do more to drive innovation in this space than simple prohibitions. Of course, government could create an enormous demand for a particular technological solution by simply mandating that it be pre-installed on all cars or phones, but once you do that, you discourage further innovation. Writing a regulatory mandate that isn't technology-specific might, in theory, minimize this problem, but what would that actually look like in practice?

  • http://www.techliberation.com Adam Thierer

    This new game is also a useful educational tool:
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/07/19/t…

  • http://www.aheram.com Jayel Aheram

    How dare you suggest an alternative to a potential revenue stream for the state?

  • http://techliberation.com/author/berinszoka/ Berin Szoka

    Good point, Jayel: legislators (especially at the state and local level) certainly have a strong incentive to prefer solutions that bring in money (like banning an activity and writing tickets for violations) over solutions that either rely on users (pure empowerment) or that require spending (like funding public service announcements and education campaigns).

  • http://techliberation.com/author/berinszoka/ Berin Szoka

    Yikes! I really thought I was better at multi-tasking, but I didn't so well on that game. That's a useful example of how to use new media tools to reach young drivers in particular.

  • http://techliberation.com/author/berinszoka/ Berin Szoka

    A friend comments on Facebook: “You you give me that video in every drivers Ed class, I'll buy into education, otherwise let's put a stop to it as a matter of public policy and interest.”

    Two reactions:
    1) Showing that video in every driver's ed class is exactly the kind of education campaign I'd like to see, not just on libertarian principle but because I think it's likely to be a lot more effective than simply banning texting while driving!
    2) The key question here is how we “put a stop to it.” If simply banning solved the problem, we wouldn't be wasting money, shredding our civil liberties and devastating inner cites and minority communities to fight our idiotic “War on Drugs.” Prohibition simply isn't the silver bullet most people assume.

  • http://techliberation.com/author/berinszoka/ Berin Szoka

    Yikes! I really thought I was better at multi-tasking, but I didn't so well on that game. That's a useful example of how to use new media tools to reach young drivers in particular.

  • http://techliberation.com/author/berinszoka/ Berin Szoka

    A friend comments on Facebook: “You you give me that video in every drivers Ed class, I'll buy into education, otherwise let's put a stop to it as a matter of public policy and interest.”

    Two reactions:
    1) Showing that video in every driver's ed class is exactly the kind of education campaign I'd like to see, not just on libertarian principle but because I think it's likely to be a lot more effective than simply banning texting while driving!
    2) The key question here is how we “put a stop to it.” If simply banning solved the problem, we wouldn't be wasting money, shredding our civil liberties and devastating inner cites and minority communities to fight our idiotic “War on Drugs.” Prohibition simply isn't the silver bullet most people assume.

  • http://www.iSpeech.org/ CyGuy

    One thing we’re all forgetting here is that texting while driving is already illegal under current distracted and reckless driving laws as well as cell phone bans. I think the current texting while driving ban is just to specifically point out the dangers to teenagers, and educating young drivers about the dangers of texting while driving is certainly the best way to reach them.

    It’s not just teens we have to worry about though. I was stopped waiting for traffic to clear so I could make a left hand turn when I was rear ended by a business man who was reading an email while cruising along at 50 MPH! The back third of my car was crunched up, I chipped my L3 vertebra and was in physical therapy for over half a year, so I have a very personal interest in this subject.

    Technological solutions will be the best way to combat the texting and emailing while driving problem. Lots of companies are scrambling to create solutions, like DriveSafe.ly that automatically reads text messages and emails out loud while you drive. Education is the second most effective method because it is limited to younger individuals getting their licenses for the first time. Law enforcement is necessary, but highly ineffective. There are people in jail because they ran over someone because they were texting while driving, but for some reason this doesn’t deter people from continuing this bad habit.

  • http://manreo.freewhost.com/sitemap.html Romase

    site best

  • http://techliberation.com/2009/11/15/apple-empowering-users-to-sell-their-attention-to-advertisers-for-free-stuff/ Apple Empowering Users to “Sell” Their Attention to Advertisers for “Free” Stuff — Technology Liberation Front

    [...] I’ve noted, “sometimes we’re better off by being able to ‘bind’ our future selves—just [...]

  • http://blog.pff.org/archives/2009/11/apple_empowering_users_to_sell_their_attention_to.html The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog

    Apple Empowering Users to “Sell” Their Attention to Advertisers for “Free” Stuff…

    Why do (most) stores have walls? Because, obviously, walls are generally (at least in the developing world) a cost-effective technology for enforcing the value exchange that stores offer customers: products or services for customers’ cash. Open-air ma…

  • drivesafely1

    I don't touch my mobile to read text messages and I always drive with full concentration. I listen to my incoming text messages with http://www.drivesafe.ly/ mobile application.

  • drivesafely1

    I don't touch my mobile to read text messages and I always drive with full concentration. I listen to my incoming text messages with http://www.drivesafe.ly/ mobile application.

  • http://techliberation.com/2010/10/09/is-it-really-practical-to-ban-all-talking-while-driving/ Is It Really Practical to Ban All Talking While Driving?

    [...] Educate drivers about safer vehicle operation & proper technology use.  For more on that, see Berin Szoka’s excellent post, “Texting While Driving: Regulate or Empower & Educate?” [...]

Previous post:

Next post: