Ban Gadgeting while Driving

A few days ago, I took a bus north to Tahoe from SF and was astonished to see how many people are using a mobile device of one kind or another while they drive.  Having succumbed to the temptation before of using those idle minutes in stop and go traffic to check email, I can attest to how distracting it is.  There are lots of studies, of varying merit, that conclude that texting while driving is as dangerous as driving drunk.  So it stands to reason that we should deter people, through penalties and by shaping public perception, from playing with gadgets while driving.

I know that it’s taken decades and enormous work form public agencies and law enforcement to deter drunk driving to the extent felt today.  People still often drive drunk and we still have a long way to improve.  But, as someone that enjoys occasional drinking (outside a vehicle) and has a car, I consciously avoid drinking and driving largely due to the societal pressure and the legal risks associated.  Still, it doesn’t seem feasible to affect a “gadgeting while driving” ban with the same tactics as have proven effective for curbing drunk driving.

I would propose that the police cruise the highways and look for people gadgeting while driving (potentially using inconspicuously marked cars, although the distracted texter would probably hardly notice a normal squad car).  If police saw you using any device while you were driving, they would pull you over and fine you.  Penalties would be high but not outrageous (around $100).  But, critically, they would take your device.  You could go through some onerous process to get your device back in the event there was something on there that was really important or sentimental.  Still, for most people, the violation of losing their iPod / Nexus One / Garmin… would be far more impactful then the fine. 

Perhaps most importantly, reports of device seizures, especially when something quirky was taken, would spread virally and dramatically raise public awareness. Some protocol would need to be established for what to do when the device was attached to the vehicle.  But, assuming the car manufacturer had installed the device, one could lock the gadget unless the car was stationary or someone was sitting in the passenger seat (detected through the same mechanism that causes the seat belt warning to beep). 

One of the most important enablers of enforcement seems to be the level of individual outrage for being prohibited from a particular activity.  Given that police officers are normal civilians when they aren’t in uniform, their attitudes about enforcement are strongly affected by their take as civilians.  A gadgeting while driving ban would seem to be very enforceable from this perspective.  People do not yet feel like they are entitled to play with electronics while driving given how recently it became possible to engage in such activities.  Also, people feel far less protective of their freedoms in a car than in their home.  After all, we’re familiar with being pulled over for speeding and used to prying eyes as we drive. 

The longer enforcement lags hands-free driving laws the harder it will ultimately be to reign in habits.  I think most people that use devices while driving recognize that it’s dangerous and want to stop even while they indulge.  Fines could be calibrated to pay the direct costs of enforcement and marketing to impact public opinion.  California, rich in technology and automobiles, would seem as good a place to start as any.  What do you think?
4 responses
The threat of losing my device would definitely go a LONG way to curbing my admitted temptation to use my device in the car in stop and go or at stop lights. Great idea.
I agree that the threat of having your device taken away would be a significant deterrent but I don't think that's a realistic way to address the issue. Taking away someone's device creates a significant cost, not only to the driver but also to the administrative unit who then has to manage the confiscated devices and get them back to their rightful owners, etc. An entire process would need to be put in place to deal with it. If instead you just jacked up the fine to something outrageous ($500? $1000?) you could quantify an equivalent cost to the driver that would be a source of revenue to the public office - and work through existing processes -- instead of an incremental cost. It's a much more efficient way to achieve the same thing. I also think that confiscating smart phones would raise privacy issues that may not make it politically tenable, but the efficiency argument is most compelling IMO.
Isn't texting while driving already illegal in the state of California? There are associated fines, but I don't know how much they are.
I have a hard time deciding what is fair and effective for the law to proscribe in order to change unnecessary behaviors like these that can lead to harm to the person or property of others.

In the case of things like this that seem *to me* to be largely unenforceable, I would be sure to investigate extremely aggressively whether or not factors such as intoxication, gadgeting, or other means of impairment were involved, and then enact severe consequences if they were.

Okay, maybe that's too harsh. :-) And it doesn't necessarily prevent anything. I *definitely* like your idea, because it is preventative and educational, and I sort of like my idea, because it doesn't let people off the hook as much as I feel happens now.