Garland is in the news again and its unclear if its in a good way or bad way. CBS 11 News aired a story (video on right) last night that claimed Garland was maybe the only city in North Texas not enforcing the state's new no-cell-phones-in-school-zones law. That same law requires that signs be erected at all school zones before it can be enforced and we haven't done that. Their claim is that we intentionally have not done so. Since the entire Council has not discussed it since the law passed, that claim is not literally true. There are two reasons we haven't discussed it. First, we spent a lot of time discussing it a couple years ago and chose to not pass a local ordinance, and, second, I believe the Public Safety Committee looked at it, chose to recommend "no action," and any possible initiative died there.
 
The story claims there are no plans to change "despite protests from parents." I'm sure most parents would do anything to make the world safer for all children. However, on this subject, I've found very few that think the ban would actually make anyone safer. The first emotional response is "sure, we need a ban" but no facts support that it makes children safer.
 
It's very unclear what story the reporter wants to tell. He claims "while traffic zooms by in a school zone" but the video shows drivers hitting the brakes to slow to 20 mph. The station shows examples of drivers on phones, from inside [!] and outside the vehicle. The inside shot looks to have conifers on a hill in the distance, which is very unGarland-like and wasn't shot is a school zone. The video shows drivers with cell phones to their ears but it all looks to have been inserted to dramatize. Obviously the cell phone signs are not in Garland. Much of the video isn't Garland. A part that apparently was in Garland, a resident does report she's seen it happen twice.
 
In contradiction to most of the worries expressed in the story, in the last moments the reporter recounts "A recent study in three states by the Highway Loss Data Institute found cell phone bans have failed to reduce the number of collisions." Ironically, CBS 11 covered that story on Jan 29 soon after it was released, saying: "The study, from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, found no reduction in the number of crashes in states with laws that ban handheld cell phone use. There is also no indication that the rise in cell phone use has led to a spike in car crashes, nor any difference in the number of crashes among handheld cell phone users and hands-free cell phone users."
 

Highway Loss Data Institute News Release, Jan 29:

Laws banning cellphone use while driving fail to reduce crashes, new insurance data indicate

ARLINGTON, VA — As state legislators across the United States enact laws that ban phoning and/or texting while driving, a new Highway Loss Data Institute study finds no reductions in crashes after hand-held phone bans take effect. Comparing insurance claims for crash damage in 4 US jurisdictions before and after such bans, the researchers find steady claim rates compared with nearby jurisdictions without such bans. The Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) is an affiliate of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
 
HLDI researchers calculated monthly collision claims per 100 insured vehicle years (a vehicle year is 1 car insured for 1 year, 2 insured for 6 months each, etc.) for vehicles up to 3 years old during the months immediately before and after hand-held phone use was banned while driving in New York (Nov. 2001), the District of Columbia (July 2004), Connecticut (Oct. 2005), and California (July 2008). Comparable data were collected for nearby jurisdictions without such bans. This method controlled for possible changes in collision claim rates unrelated to the bans — changes in the number of miles driven due to the economy, seasonal changes in driving patterns, etc.
 
Month-to-month fluctuations in rates of collision claims in jurisdictions with bans didn't change from before to after the laws were enacted. Nor did the patterns change in comparison with trends in jurisdictions that didn't have such laws.
 
"The laws aren't reducing crashes, even though we know that such laws have reduced hand-held phone use, and several studies have established that phoning while driving increases crash risk," says Adrian Lund, president of both the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and HLDI. For example, an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study that relies on driver phone records found a 4-fold increase in the risk of injury crashes. A study in Canada found a 4-fold increase in the risk of crashes involving property damage. Separate surveys of driver behavior before and after hand-held phone use bans show reductions in the use of such phones while driving.
 
The HLDI database doesn't identify drivers using cellphones when their crashes occur. However, reductions in observed phone use following bans are so substantial and estimated effects of phone use on crash risk are so large that reductions in aggregate crashes would be expected. In New York the HLDI researchers did find a decrease in collision claim frequencies, relative to comparison states, but this decreasing trend began well before the state's ban on hand-held phoning while driving and actually paused briefly when the ban took effect. Trends in the District of Columbia, Connecticut, and California didn't change.
 
"So the new findings don't match what we already know about the risk of phoning and texting while driving," Lund points out. "If crash risk increases with phone use and fewer drivers use phones where it's illegal to do so, we would expect to see a decrease in crashes. But we aren't seeing it. Nor do we see collision claim increases before the phone bans took effect. This is surprising, too, given what we know about the growing use of cellphones and the risk of phoning while driving. We're currently gathering data to figure out this mismatch."
 
HLDI researchers compared the District of Columbia's collision claim frequency trend not only with statewide trends in Virginia and Maryland but also with the trend in the nearby city of Baltimore. Again, the finding is no difference in the pattern of collision claims. Nor were any differences apparent when the researchers applied a time-based regression model to claims data for each of the study and comparison jurisdictions.
 
Lund points to factors that might be eroding the effects of hand-held phone bans on crashes. One is that drivers in jurisdictions with such bans may be switching to hands-free phones because no US state currently bans all drivers from using such phones. In this case crashes wouldn't go down because the risk is about the same, regardless of whether the phones are hand-held or hands-free. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia do prohibit beginning drivers from using any type of phone, including hands-free, but such laws are difficult to enforce. This was the finding in North Carolina, where teenage drivers didn't curtail phone use in response to a ban, in part because they didn't think the law was being enforced.
 
"Whatever the reason, the key finding is that crashes aren't going down where hand-held phone use has been banned," Lund points out. "This finding doesn't auger well for any safety payoff from all the new laws that ban phone use and texting while driving."
 

 
There is no data to support the effectiveness of bans. So far, studies show that such laws are just "feel good" laws. Consider:

• In extensive online searches, I could not find a reported pedestrian accident in a school zone involving a driver on a cell phone.
• One study said cell phones are the number one distraction while driving but that represented only 7% of the range of distractions, leaving the other 93% of distracted drivers unaffected and no benefit from a cell phone ban.
• Texting while driving has become a much higher distraction and danger than simply talking. Such bans seldom cover texting because the phone is not next to the ear.
• Most cell phone ban laws exempt hands-free use yet the distraction is the same.

"Feeling good" can make us less safe. If bans don't protect pedestrians or children, that means the danger is still there and is as great as ever. If the bans gives any false hope to a pedestrian or child that they are suddenly safer and that causes them to let their guard down to any degree, they are obviously in more danger than when they are alert and realize that all street crossings are dangerous.