Ohio is the latest state to propose a ban on texting while driving.The bill is awaiting the governor s signature. Media outlets inthe state report there was a heated debate on the Senate floor.Really? Who could possibly be opposed to a ban on texting whiledriving? Even AT&T and Verizon don t object. It s hard to seethe downside. Unless, of course, you re a liberty-loving, anti-government type.Then there s a downside to any legislation except legislation thatrepeals already-existing legislation. These folks should form a political party called The SlipperySlope Party because that s their argument against almost any lawrestricting almost any activity. If we ban texting while driving,then soon we ll be banning eating while driving. Before you knowit, you won t be able to switch stations on your radio. And youknow where that will lead: to a totalitarian state. As much as I d like to rant against the slippery-slopers somemore, I found another argument against banning texting whiledriving. This one, based on a few studies and a bit ofcounter-intuition, is far more interesting. The argument goes like this: People are so addicted to their phonesthat a ban won t stop most people from texting while driving.Instead they ll put the phones deeper in their laps to avoiddetection and the result will be an increase in accidents. As crazy as it sounds, there is some statistical support for this.The Highway Data Loss Institute, an affiliate of the InsuranceInstitute for Highway Safety, found that in 3 of 4 states thatenacted texting bans, accidents actually increased after the banwent into effect. The study analyzed insurance claims for accidents in four states California, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Washington during severalmonths before the ban and several months after. In Minnesota,accidents actually increased 9 percent after the texting ban wentinto effect. The study also looked at states that had not enactedbans as a control. The law apparently at play here isn t a texting ban it s thelaw of unintended consequences. Edward Tenner, whose name usuallyfollows or precedes the words unintended consequences, wrote abook on the subject a dozen years ago called Why Things BiteBack: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences. Hemakes the case that for every action there are predictablereactions and, more often than you think, reactions that arecompletely unpredictable. Take football helmets. Seems difficult to argue against the ideathat better helmets would lead to fewer head injuries. But thetruth is just the opposite. Better helmets have led to morereckless, aggressive play and an epidemic of concussions that sbeen well documented in recent years. In fact, rugby players whowear no head gear suffer fewer concussions than football players.Perversely, the way to reduce concussions may be to ban helmets,not make them better. An unintended consequence of technology has been the blurring ofthe boundaries between work and home. Smartphones and laptops weresupposed to help us get our work done faster, but study after studyshows that most of us work longer because we check email at thedinner table, during our kids school concerts, and at the beach. But let s get back to where we started: I d love to take thecounter-intuitive side here and make a case against Ohio s comingban on texting while driving, but I can t. If we repeal the expected ban, that act will have its own set ofunintended consequences: More people may believe that texting whiledriving is safe, which could lead to more people texting, whichcould lead to even more accidents. Ah, the unintended consequence of unintended consequences. Jim Sollisch is creative director at Marcus Thomas Advertising. The e-commerce company in China offers quality products such as Recessed Ceiling Spotlights Manufacturer , Energy Efficiency Light Bulb, and more. For more , please visit Led Outdoor String Lights today!
Related Articles -
Recessed Ceiling Spotlights Manufacturer, Energy Efficiency Light Bulb,
|