By on July 12, 2011

Transportation Secretary and Supreme Allied Commander in the War On Distraction Ray LaHood is quite chuffed about initial pilot program results for his latest offensive against in-car cell phone use, and he’s taking to the airwaves to declare victory. The programs, modeled on the “Click It Or Ticket” and “Over The Limit, Under Arrest” initiatives combined an advertising blitz and waves of enforcement to crack down on the behavior, but more importantly to send the message that distracted driving is as serious a problem as drunk driving or not wearing a seatbelt. Thanks to the relative success of these earlier programs, the DOT has a strong template for its pilot anti-distracted driving campaign, the enforcement components of which took place in April, July, and October 2010 and March-April 2011. But was the “Phone In One Hand, Ticket In The Other” program actually as successful as LaHood claims?

Based on data from the report’s finding [PDF], it seems fairly clear that the program made some difference… but the contrast between the results in Hartford and the results in Syracuse are a little surprising. New York has had a ban on in-car hand-held cell phone use since 2001, and accordingly Syracuse’s initial numbers were relatively low compared to Hartford’s, where a “hands free” law has only been on the books since 2005. Unsurprisingly, Hartford saw the largest declines that can be attributed to the program, with observations of drivers holding phones to their ears dropping from 6.8% to 2.9%, nearly double the drop observed in Syracuse.

Another interesting result is the seemingly organic drops in in-car handheld cell phone use in the control groups, because here the dynamic reverses itself. New York, with its long-standing ban on handheld cell phone use saw stronger decreases in the control group than Conneticut with its more recent ban. As NHTSA’s report puts it

Generally there was a steady decline in the comparison sites, as well. This is a promising finding and suggests that social norms towards phone use and texting while driving may be shifting, becoming less acceptable behaviors to the public.

This is difficult to argue with, but in the context of evaluating the program’s effectiveness, it almost proves that the program was unnecessary. Connecticut’s more recent law meant there were more lower-hanging fruit for enforcement officers in Hartford, but their efforts made less of an impact in the control cities of Bridgeport/Stamford. Meanwhile, New York’s results were less dramatic in the targeted area (Syracuse) but the organic declines in Albany were stronger than any in Connecticut. The lesson? Media and enforcement blitzes do make a difference, but so does passing a law and simply waiting. The longer a law has been in place, the more diminished the returns will be in the targeted area… and the stronger the declines will be in non-targeted areas.

Weigh these results against the not-inconsiderable costs of the program (anyone know what police make per hour on average?) and the results of the program are a little less overwhelmingly impactful than LaHood makes them out to be. Like any other change in social norms, the key ingredient seems to be not advertising dollars nor cops on the beat, but simply time. The longer a law is on the books, the more it seems to be respected… and at a certain point, more advertising and enforcement seem to deliver diminishing returns. On the other hand, the program does seem to be effective at accelerating declines in observed handheld cell phone use… and given the human cost of distracted driving, it does feel a bit churlish to get too worked up about half a million taxpayer dollars (not counting the opportunity cost of dedicated law enforcement hours). So yes, the program was a success (certainly compared to LaHood’s annual hand-wringing “summits” on distracted driving)… but let’s not pretend that anything will be more effective at changing behavior than laws and the progress of time.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

8 Comments on “Enforcement Works In The War On Distraction… But Only To A Point...”

  • avatar

    More effective would be commensurate penalties, license revocation and jail time for those who cause accidents due to being distracted while driving, i.e cell phone use and texting.

    Reconstructionists can accurately determine the forensics of any accident, and with Big Brother watching us from every angle these days, accompanying video of the incident is not hard to come by.

    LaHood’s namby-pamby approach to fighting the war on distraction is a distraction itself. Let’s punish those who cause the accidents while distracted.

    • 0 avatar

      More effective would be commensurate penalties, license revocation and jail time for those who cause accidents due to being distracted while driving, i.e cell phone use and texting.

      Why only them? Why not anyone who causes a collision? I don’t see how distracted driving is a less acceptable form of negligence than any other contributing factors, if the end result is the same.

      • 0 avatar

        I agree! Laws governing liability and penalty already exist on the books for other forms of negligence that result in an accident. Cell phone use and texting are new distractions for which there are no penalty guidelines on the books.

        Recently a man who killed four people, two of them children, in a head-on collision with another car while he was driving drunk at night, was sentenced to one year in prison. This tells us that an innocent human life is only worth 90 days in jail. Unless harsher penalties are put in place, no one is going to take distracted driving seriously.

  • avatar

    Presumably, people who are distracted are breaking driving laws regardless of phone use. Why not just ticket people who break the law? One caveat, though: there’s already excessive enforcement of speeding and speeding isn’t an indication of distracted driving. Instead, go after the hundreds of other infractions I see every day.

    • 0 avatar

      If you don’t go after speeders revenue generation will slow down. The rolling toll booths gotta collect their money.

    • 0 avatar

      Not to mention it’s a whole lot easier to ticket and prosecute for speeding when all you need is a nice gap between the guardrail and hours of sitting there idling the V8. See a big number->ticket. No careful observation, no driving in traffic to find the nutjobs and left lane grandmas required…

  • avatar

    Here in Syracuse it may have made a little difference while the program was running, but no apparent differrence any more. But I’m so glad Roy DuhHood has declared himself a success. Not many others would.

  • avatar

    To a degree, I agree that excessive cell phone usage while driving is indeed a distraction, as is excessive conversation with your passenger instead of concentrating on the traffic before and behind you.

    But that said, it’s HOW Ray Lahood is going about it that he needs to put a sock in it and STFU.

    He’s no better than the self righteous pompus left and right wingers we see everywhere these days wanting to control our lives for their pleasure if they can.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Margarets Dad: Idiocracy is here.
  • FreedMike: Definitely the Z.
  • dal20402: Dodge trying to make sure that its brand equity among roid-raging meatheads is strong enough to survive a...
  • ajla: “Are you the type who enjoyed fiddling with a grey-market Civic Type R in the ‘90s? Or are you a Z-head...
  • numike: I loved my Colt

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber