Sending text messages while driving is a dangerous activity for truck drivers and automobile drivers alike. That is why I joined Secretary LaHood two weeks ago in supporting a ban on the use of handheld wireless devices by commercial drivers to send or receive text messages while driving.

ATA believes that texting on a handheld wireless device while driving substantially elevates the risk of being involved in a crash. According to ATA’s book, Safety for the Long Haul, driver recognition failure, which includes inattention and distraction, played a role in 29 percent of crashes where the truck driver was at fault. Focusing on the screen of a wireless handheld device takes the driver’s attention off the road and usually at least one hand off the wheel.

ATA supports states’ efforts to ban texting by automobile drivers as well. We will continue to work with affiliated state trucking associations and diverse stakeholder groups to make that happen. And this is not a new issue for ATA. Last year our organization adopted an 18-point safety agenda that included limiting the use of handheld wireless devices.

As proof of the trucking industry’s highway safety progress, over the last 5 years the truck-involved fatality rate has declined 22 percent, the truck-involved injury rate has declined 25 percent, and both are at record lows.

ATA policy supports the safe use of technology and encourages drivers, motor carriers and technology manufacturers to adopt policies and safeguards to reduce or eliminate driver distractions during operation of all types of motor vehicles.

Lisa –

On February 9 I took time off from shoveling snow (now my daily tribute to “Global Warming”) to look at The Washington Post. On the front page I saw the story headlined:

Insurer warned U.S. on Toyotas

Acceleration issues cited in 2007

I suggest that the best people to deal with safety matters are neither the states nor the feds, but the insurers, who have compelling financial interests in safety. In maritime transport, where safety is taken very seriously, it is insurers, not local governments, which test and license vessels and crews.

How would Adrian Lund react to a proposal that insurers should craft rules relating to “drivers using phones behind the wheel”? Could they then announce that claims arising from accidents would not be met, or not met in full, if their rules were found to have been broken?

Setting aside the question as to whether the Secretary of Transportation had the authority under existing regulations to bypass the rulemaking process to prohibit the activity of texting in a commercial vehicle, most will agree that society must move away from the nasty habit of texting while driving. That said, the blog question, how to deliver us from this “evil”, is an interesting one, because this activity is hard to police without impeding upon an individual’s 4th Amendment rights. So taking into consideration that the DOT’s actions were largely symbolic, because the Guidance offers little direction on compliance or enforcement, a social movement ultimately is necessary to eradicate this activity and any federal involvement should offer states flexibility. But, at the risk of sounding cliché, it must be noted that we are standing on a very slippery slope and being schizophrenic when it comes to our positions on technology.

Our country has a very diverse terrain which is one reason why we as a nation moved away from a federally mandated speed limit. What works in the dessert won’t work in the mountains and what works in the mountains won’t work in the prairies. Localities know their terrain and their enforcement capabilities, and are better suited to enact traffic laws. Furthermore, there are areas of this country where texting simply isn’t part of the norm due to an aging population or spotty cell phone service. Undoubtedly, those areas have higher priorities than trying to put together plans to appease the federal government for an activity that isn’t plaguing their neighborhoods.

As noted, this is also a very difficult problem for law enforcement to address. You can’t look for physical signs as you would in drunk driving. Also, what constitutes probable cause for being able to search a phone for evidence of texting? Blisters on the thumbs? Sounds of Miley Cyrus on an IPOD as the officer approached? Because it is all too easy to text out of plain site, law enforcement alone can’t police this matter, which leaves only one solution: Oprah. Oprah’s commitment to fighting this problem is basically the needed catalyst for social change. A government mandate simply won’t accomplish the behavioral change. In just a few short months texters have become the new social pariahs of the roadways. Oprah, with her media campaign, has accomplished what took decades in the war against drunk driving or seat belt usage. In this instance, Oprah is pushing education and awareness about distracted driving far more effectively than any government intervention.

That said does the action of the DOT place us on a slippery slope to banning all cell phone usage and other communicative technology? There are many safety advocates who certainly would lead the industry in that direction, while in the same breath pushing technology mandates in trucks such as electronic on board recorders and speed limiters which have no proven correlation to accident reduction.

At the end of the day, technology is not the enemy here, nor is it a substitute for adequate driver training and education. But drivers, particularly long haul drivers, must have the freedom to communicate with the outside world. Manufacturers are making great strides in innovation that may improve comfort, safety, and well being, and we should encourage manufacturers to do so. Cell phones, the new CB radios of the trucking industry, actually help combat fatigue, allow drivers to report emergencies, and become informed of road hazards. Not to mention, long haul drivers spend on average over 300 days of a calendar year away from their families. It is imperative that they have the ability to communicate.

Innovations in wireless technology such as hands free devices for cell phone usage, On Star capabilities, and improved vehicle to vehicle information systems are the future of communication and can actually work to enhance safety. Allowing drivers the freedom to purchase such devices based on their needs, in addition to increasing driver training and education is what will actually improve safety, not unfunded technology mandates that are overly burdensome and only really seek to reduce competition, make fleet management easier, and improve the corporate bottom line for parent companies. When it comes to communication technology it seems we are very close to having our priorities skewed and should actually work with industry to effectuate change that enhances the safety and needs of the driver.

AAA supports a comprehensive approach to addressing motor vehicle crashes based on sound and relevant research. The issue of distracted driving is no exception. Legislative action is a critical component of any comprehensive safety approach. However, other elements such as research, data collection, public education, law enforcement, technology and roadway countermeasures are also needed in order to change behavior and reduce the severity of future crashes caused by distracted driving.

AAA is currently advocating for texting bans for all drivers, complete cell phone bans for drivers under age 18, and comprehensive distracted driving legislation in all 50 states. Legislative momentum in states to enact texting while driving bans is strong and headed in the right direction. 19 states have enacted laws and we expect at least a dozen additional states to adopt laws in 2010.

We support the use of federal incentives – as are provided in Chairman Rockefeller’s comprehensive bill, S. 1938, the “Distracted Driving Prevention Act” – to encourage additional state activity. And we are pleased to see the inclusion of a distracted driving incentive grant program in the President’s FY 2011 budget.

The recent study published by the Highway Loss Data Institute reinforces AAA’s concern that handheld cell phone bans offer little real safety benefit. When states and localities ban handheld cell phone use, many drivers simply migrate to still-risky, hands-free cell phones. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety research has shown that drivers have a false perception that hands-free devices are safer, a belief bolstered by handheld bans. If jurisdictions pass handheld bans they need to accompany them with significant public education campaigns to advise the public that “hands-free is not risk-free.” The conversation is the primary distraction - not the device itself. Addressing the challenge of cognitive distraction associated with hands-free and other in-vehicle technologies will be difficult and warrants additional focus.

It is important to note that the HLDI’s study examines only handheld cell phone bans and not bans on text messaging or other laws addressing distracted driving. A study released last year by the AAA club in Southern California showed that in-vehicle-text messaging declined by 70 percent in the seven months following the date the California law went into effect.

More research is needed to help understand the impact distracted driving has in real world driving conditions and in contributing to crashes. AAA supports the large naturalistic driving study (called SHRP II) being conducted by the Transportation Research Board to help this cause. Through effective and enforceable laws, greater research, and a more comprehensive public education and awareness approach, we can hopefully turn the tide and help curb distracted driving.

What’s the best way to curb distracted driving?

We don’t know yet, but Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) research doesn’t auger well for a big safety payoff from laws that are difficult to enforce. Distracted driving is bigger than cellphone calls and texting, and we may need a bigger solution.

Drivers using phones behind the wheel is the highway safety issue of the moment. As state legislators across the country enact laws that ban phoning and/or texting while driving, it’s important to look at whether the laws are working. Do they change patterns of driver phone use and do they reduce crashes?

Previous Institute research observing driver use of hand-held phones in jurisdictions where the practice is banned found reductions, in some cases significant reductions, in hand-held use. 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’re not seeing decreases. Nor do we see collision claim increases before the phone laws took effect.

The HLDI study calculated monthly collision claims per 100 insured vehicles up to 3 years old during the months immediately before and after hand-held phone use was banned while driving in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. 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.

The researchers found steady claim rates compared with nearby jurisdictions without such bans. Month-to-month fluctuations in rates of collision claims in jurisdiction with bans didn’t change from before to after the laws were enacted. Nor did the patterns change in comparison to trends in jurisdiction that didn’t have such laws.

More on the HLDI study can be found here.

These results are surprising. We plan to gather more data to figure out the mismatch in what we know from previous research, and what we’re seeing in crash statistics. If drivers are switching to hands-free phones it would erode the effects of hand-held bans because the risk of crashing is about the same with either type of device.

Distracted driving was a problem long before cellphones. The research is clear that phone calls and texting distract drivers, but are they worse than other kinds of things that take our full attention away from the road? Whether it’s spilling coffee, or turning around to respond to a child in the back seat at the wrong moment, many distractions can lead to crashes.

Technology is part of the problem, but it also could be part of the solution. Systems that automakers are introducing to warn drivers when they’re not paying attention to the road have the promise of preventing many kinds of distracted driving crashes, not just those that result from cellphone use.