I've expressed some ambivalence about laws forbidding texting while driving. My anti-nannystatism inclines me to be against them, but my knowledge that those texters could hit me makes me put texting in the same category as driving drunk (laws against which even staunch libertarians tend to support). Here's an argument against such laws:
Researchers at the Highway Loss Data Institute compared rates of collision insurance claims in four states — California, Louisiana, Minnesota and Washington — before and after they enacted texting bans. Crash rates rose in three of the states after bans were enacted.
The Highway Loss group theorizes that drivers try to evade police by lowering their phones when texting, increasing the risk by taking their eyes even further from the road and for a longer time.
Unitended consequences, something for the General Assembly to ponder as it contemplates expanding the current ban from teens to all drivers. As the poster notes, this is similar to the effect of bicycle helmet requirements, after which serious head injuries to cyclists increased. Perhaps it's better to focus on outputs -- such as speeding or swerving or reckless driving -- rather than inputs such as texting, eating or fiddling with the car radio.
