By Jamey Dunn
Following up on yesterday’s blog post about a study on texting-while-driving bans, here is some info on enforcement in Illinois:
Enforcing the texting-while-driving ban can be difficult. However, Illinois state troopers are writing tickets for the offense.
Scott Compton, a spokesperson for the Illinois State Police, said the low rate of tickets issued for texting while driving in the early months of the ban was due in part to police giving the public time to become aware of and adjust to the new law.
As of September 19, Illinois State Police officers have issued 344 tickets and 353 warnings for violations of the ban. 3,401 tickets and 2,056 warnings have also been issued for talking on a cell phone in a school or construction zone — a restriction that passed at the same time as the texting ban.
These numbers illustrate the difficulty police officers can have determining if a driver is texting. Chatting on the phone is easy to spot, but texting can resemble other legal activities, such as using a global positioning system for directions.
“It’s pretty difficult to see that in an interstate setting. … However, if the officer is going in the same direction of the car, you can tell if they’re texting. … And believe it or not, a marked state police car does get passed on the interstate,” Compton said.
According to Compton, it is less difficult to nab texting drivers in town at slower speeds. People sending text messages while stopped at stoplights and stop signs make easy targets, as well.
Compton said police officers have to be sure the driver is texting to make a traffic stop for that reason. The decision to write a warning instead of a ticket for any kind of illegal cell phone usage is up to the officer. He said “aggravating circumstances,” such as a driver passing through a school zone filled with children while talking on the phone, often increase the chances of getting ticket.
Showing posts with label texting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label texting. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Study: Texting bans ineffective
By Jamey Dunn
A study released today found that bans on texting while driving did nothing to reduce traffic accidents, and some states with the ban actually saw an increase in wrecks.
The Highway Loss Data Institute, a nonprofit research group backed by more than 80 insurance companies nationwide, analyzed collision claims from California, which has had a texting ban since 2009, and Louisiana, Minnesota and Washington, which have all had texting bans since 2008. Illinois, which has had a ban on texting while driving since January 1, was not a subject of the study.
The institute compared insurance claims data with stats from before and after the bans, as well as with those of neighboring states that did not have bans. Researchers also considered other factors that can affect collision rates, such as seasonal changes in traffic. The instance of collisions did not go down in any of the states; in fact, it went up a small amount in three of the four states studied. The largest increase was 9 percent in Minnesota. According to the study: “If the goal of texting and cell phone bans is the reduction of crash risk, then the bans have so far been ineffective.”
Anne Fleming, a spokesperson for the Highway Loss Data Institute, said the study is not intended to downplay the dangers of distracted driving but instead to take a stark look at what methods help to prevent it.
She said she hopes officials will “at least accept the results of the study. This doesn’t mean that cell phone bans are useless.” However, she said legislators should not think they have solved the problem by enacting a ban.
Fleming added that difficulties enforcing the law might result in drivers simply ignoring it. A different survey conducted by the institute found texting-while-driving bans did little to stop people from the practice.
But Chicago Democratic Rep. John D’Amico, a sponsor of the Illinois law, said police in the state are making strides when it comes to enforcement. He said if some officers are out on the roads looking only for people texting, they have a much better chance of writing tickets. “It’s not hard to spot. It almost looks like they are drunk drivers.” He said if people start to hear the law is being enforced, they may curb their texting.
The study theorizes that drivers may feel enough threat of being pulled over to try to hide their texting but not enough to stop. That may also contribute to the small increase in accidents after the ban took effect in the four states studied.
From the report: “This unexpected consequence of banning texting suggests that texting drivers have responded to the law perhaps by attempting to avoid fines by hiding their phones from view. If this causes them to take their eyes off the road more than before the ban, then the bans may make texting more dangerous rather than eliminating it.”
Fleming said while enforcement is difficult, education efforts will not solve the problem on their own. “We know from a long history in the field of highway safety that education alone does not work.”
She said solutions could include new technologies such as sensors that help drivers avoid collisions or devices that could block drivers from using cell phones except in emergencies.
Chicago Democratic Sen. Martin Sandoval, another sponsor of the Illinois law, agreed that new technologies might hold solutions for the country’s dangerous addiction to texting and talking on cell phones while driving.
“I think legislation that bans cell phone usage while driving are appropriate reactions to this new social dilemma. … If you look at the big picture, I think we have enacted a number of serious measures that are significant. When it comes to changing peoples’ social behaviors, that’s very difficult to regulate, and it’s very difficult to enforce with limited resources,” he said.
Sandoval said people will probably find a way around any law against using their cell phones while driving, so instead, he would like to see the automotive industry make safer options, such as hands-free calling, standard on vehicles.
However, D'Amico said a ban on using cell phones while driving would be a better solution. Illinois currently bans drivers from talking on phones in school and construction zones. He compared a possible ban to laws against driving while intoxicated, which have become more strictly enforced, causing the drunken driving to elicit more of a social stigma than it did in past decades. He said people will eventually see using a cell phone the way people see driving drunk now, and will say: “‘Boy I can’t believe we used to be allowed to do that.’”
Fleming said another study from the institute found hands-free options to be just as dangerous as standard cell phones. However, the same study also found cell phone bans to be ineffective in cutting accidents. Fleming acknowledges that such results are disappointing to those interested in improving driver safety. But, she said, if police can find better ways to catch violators in the act of texting or talking on the phone, bans could help make roads safer.
“We want to keep looking at these laws, and we do want to see whether there are ways to enforce it. … We know from previous policies if we can enforce them, they would help.”
Check back tomorrow for more on enforcement of the texting-while-driving ban in Illinois.
A study released today found that bans on texting while driving did nothing to reduce traffic accidents, and some states with the ban actually saw an increase in wrecks.
The Highway Loss Data Institute, a nonprofit research group backed by more than 80 insurance companies nationwide, analyzed collision claims from California, which has had a texting ban since 2009, and Louisiana, Minnesota and Washington, which have all had texting bans since 2008. Illinois, which has had a ban on texting while driving since January 1, was not a subject of the study.
The institute compared insurance claims data with stats from before and after the bans, as well as with those of neighboring states that did not have bans. Researchers also considered other factors that can affect collision rates, such as seasonal changes in traffic. The instance of collisions did not go down in any of the states; in fact, it went up a small amount in three of the four states studied. The largest increase was 9 percent in Minnesota. According to the study: “If the goal of texting and cell phone bans is the reduction of crash risk, then the bans have so far been ineffective.”
Anne Fleming, a spokesperson for the Highway Loss Data Institute, said the study is not intended to downplay the dangers of distracted driving but instead to take a stark look at what methods help to prevent it.
She said she hopes officials will “at least accept the results of the study. This doesn’t mean that cell phone bans are useless.” However, she said legislators should not think they have solved the problem by enacting a ban.
Fleming added that difficulties enforcing the law might result in drivers simply ignoring it. A different survey conducted by the institute found texting-while-driving bans did little to stop people from the practice.
But Chicago Democratic Rep. John D’Amico, a sponsor of the Illinois law, said police in the state are making strides when it comes to enforcement. He said if some officers are out on the roads looking only for people texting, they have a much better chance of writing tickets. “It’s not hard to spot. It almost looks like they are drunk drivers.” He said if people start to hear the law is being enforced, they may curb their texting.
The study theorizes that drivers may feel enough threat of being pulled over to try to hide their texting but not enough to stop. That may also contribute to the small increase in accidents after the ban took effect in the four states studied.
From the report: “This unexpected consequence of banning texting suggests that texting drivers have responded to the law perhaps by attempting to avoid fines by hiding their phones from view. If this causes them to take their eyes off the road more than before the ban, then the bans may make texting more dangerous rather than eliminating it.”
Fleming said while enforcement is difficult, education efforts will not solve the problem on their own. “We know from a long history in the field of highway safety that education alone does not work.”
She said solutions could include new technologies such as sensors that help drivers avoid collisions or devices that could block drivers from using cell phones except in emergencies.
Chicago Democratic Sen. Martin Sandoval, another sponsor of the Illinois law, agreed that new technologies might hold solutions for the country’s dangerous addiction to texting and talking on cell phones while driving.
“I think legislation that bans cell phone usage while driving are appropriate reactions to this new social dilemma. … If you look at the big picture, I think we have enacted a number of serious measures that are significant. When it comes to changing peoples’ social behaviors, that’s very difficult to regulate, and it’s very difficult to enforce with limited resources,” he said.
Sandoval said people will probably find a way around any law against using their cell phones while driving, so instead, he would like to see the automotive industry make safer options, such as hands-free calling, standard on vehicles.
However, D'Amico said a ban on using cell phones while driving would be a better solution. Illinois currently bans drivers from talking on phones in school and construction zones. He compared a possible ban to laws against driving while intoxicated, which have become more strictly enforced, causing the drunken driving to elicit more of a social stigma than it did in past decades. He said people will eventually see using a cell phone the way people see driving drunk now, and will say: “‘Boy I can’t believe we used to be allowed to do that.’”
Fleming said another study from the institute found hands-free options to be just as dangerous as standard cell phones. However, the same study also found cell phone bans to be ineffective in cutting accidents. Fleming acknowledges that such results are disappointing to those interested in improving driver safety. But, she said, if police can find better ways to catch violators in the act of texting or talking on the phone, bans could help make roads safer.
“We want to keep looking at these laws, and we do want to see whether there are ways to enforce it. … We know from previous policies if we can enforce them, they would help.”
Check back tomorrow for more on enforcement of the texting-while-driving ban in Illinois.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Texting bans head to the governor
By Hilary Russell
Drivers would be banned from texting while driving if Gov. Pat Quinn signs HB 71 into law. It passed both chambers, most recently in the House by a vote of 96-25. Quinn has 60 days to approve or veto it before it automatically becomes law.
Rep. John D’Amico, a Chicago Democrat, sponsored HB 71, which prohibits the use of cell phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), portable computers or any device that allows users to write, read and send an electronic message.
The bill does, however, exclude global positioning devices built into cars, as long as the devices are used only for getting directions. The bill also excludes law enforcement, emergency vehicle operators and drivers reporting emergencies. Commercial vehicle drivers also would be allowed to use electronic devices, provided they’re no larger than 10 inches by 10 inches.
Drivers also could use electronic devices as long as they are hands-free or voice-activated. And they could still pull over and text while parked on the side of the road.
Cell phones banned in school and construction zones
Another bill that passed both chambers would ban the use of cell phones in school speed zones and construction zones. The House approved HB 72 by a vote of 96-21.
The bill, also sponsored by D’Amico, would allow construction workers to use wireless phones. And using cell phones during emergencies would be exempt from the ban.
Drivers would be banned from texting while driving if Gov. Pat Quinn signs HB 71 into law. It passed both chambers, most recently in the House by a vote of 96-25. Quinn has 60 days to approve or veto it before it automatically becomes law.
Rep. John D’Amico, a Chicago Democrat, sponsored HB 71, which prohibits the use of cell phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), portable computers or any device that allows users to write, read and send an electronic message.
The bill does, however, exclude global positioning devices built into cars, as long as the devices are used only for getting directions. The bill also excludes law enforcement, emergency vehicle operators and drivers reporting emergencies. Commercial vehicle drivers also would be allowed to use electronic devices, provided they’re no larger than 10 inches by 10 inches.
Drivers also could use electronic devices as long as they are hands-free or voice-activated. And they could still pull over and text while parked on the side of the road.
Cell phones banned in school and construction zones
Another bill that passed both chambers would ban the use of cell phones in school speed zones and construction zones. The House approved HB 72 by a vote of 96-21.
The bill, also sponsored by D’Amico, would allow construction workers to use wireless phones. And using cell phones during emergencies would be exempt from the ban.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Texting while driving ban put on hold
By Hilary Russell
A bill that would prohibit texting while driving, even if drivers are stopped and the ignition is turned off, drew heated debated in the Senate today. The measure is being revised. The sponsor, Sen. Martin Sandoval, said he would call the bill for debate again soon.
Sandoval, a Chicago Democrat, opted to pull the bill before lawmakers could vote on it so he could clarify whether drivers would get in trouble for using the GPS functions on their cell phones, texting while idling in traffic jams or texting while sitting on the side of the road.
The devices in question include cell phones with text messaging capabilities and personal digital assistants (PDAs). Navigation systems or devices that are built into automobiles would be exempt from penalty. The bill also would exempt emergency care employees.
Sandoval said he intends to alter the bill to ensure drivers would not be penalized for using their navigation systems on their phones. Sandoval said as long as drivers used their GPS devices solely for the purpose of navigation, they would not be ticketed.
Sen. Mike Jacobs, an East Moline Democrat, cited a statewide poll that showed more than 75 percent of those polled thought texting while driving should be banned. But, he added, it's another story if you're the one getting pulled over and ticketed.
Sen. James Meeks, a Chicago Democrat, questioned how a police officer would differentiate between texting and making a phone call because the same buttons are used to accomplish different tasks. He said Sandoval's measure would give too much latitude to law enforcement. “Now we're giving the police the right to examine individual motorists' cell phones to try to ascertain whether they were sending a text or making a phone call,” he said, later adding, “This is very dangerous.”
One of the main issues opponents have with the current bill is what defines the actual operation of a motor vehicle. Sen. Matt Murphy, a Palatine Republican, agreed that the intent of the bill was to minimize distracted driving. But he wasn't convinced that a driver stuck in gridlock on the interstate could be classified as a putting other vehicles in danger if he or she decided to send a text message.
A bill that would prohibit texting while driving, even if drivers are stopped and the ignition is turned off, drew heated debated in the Senate today. The measure is being revised. The sponsor, Sen. Martin Sandoval, said he would call the bill for debate again soon.
Sandoval, a Chicago Democrat, opted to pull the bill before lawmakers could vote on it so he could clarify whether drivers would get in trouble for using the GPS functions on their cell phones, texting while idling in traffic jams or texting while sitting on the side of the road.
The devices in question include cell phones with text messaging capabilities and personal digital assistants (PDAs). Navigation systems or devices that are built into automobiles would be exempt from penalty. The bill also would exempt emergency care employees.
Sandoval said he intends to alter the bill to ensure drivers would not be penalized for using their navigation systems on their phones. Sandoval said as long as drivers used their GPS devices solely for the purpose of navigation, they would not be ticketed.
Sen. Mike Jacobs, an East Moline Democrat, cited a statewide poll that showed more than 75 percent of those polled thought texting while driving should be banned. But, he added, it's another story if you're the one getting pulled over and ticketed.
Sen. James Meeks, a Chicago Democrat, questioned how a police officer would differentiate between texting and making a phone call because the same buttons are used to accomplish different tasks. He said Sandoval's measure would give too much latitude to law enforcement. “Now we're giving the police the right to examine individual motorists' cell phones to try to ascertain whether they were sending a text or making a phone call,” he said, later adding, “This is very dangerous.”
One of the main issues opponents have with the current bill is what defines the actual operation of a motor vehicle. Sen. Matt Murphy, a Palatine Republican, agreed that the intent of the bill was to minimize distracted driving. But he wasn't convinced that a driver stuck in gridlock on the interstate could be classified as a putting other vehicles in danger if he or she decided to send a text message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
