Herald Column: Can Government Save Us From Distracted Drivers?

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at the case being made for Alberta's distracted driving law, and what the evidence tells us about whether it will work:

 

...The case for a ban was bolstered in recent weeks by research led by the University of Calgary's Alan Shiell. His study argues that banning cellphone use while driving, including hands-free, would result in thousands of fewer crashes annually, saving an average of 15 lives each year, and millions of dollars. So, on paper anyway, the case for Bill 16 is beyond reproach.
The real-world evidence tells a different story.
Two studies released this year by the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) in the U.S. look at the experience of American states which have banned the use of cellphones while driving or specifically banned texting while driving.
One study examined four jurisdictions which had introduced bans on cellphone use. The study found no change in the month-to-month fluctuation of collision claims after the ban was introduced. What's more, claims rates in neighbouring jurisdictions without such bans were no different.
In a separate study released last month, the HLDI examined four jurisdictions which had banned texting while driving, and none saw a reduction in crashes. Three of the four states actually saw an increase in the number of crashes among younger drivers.
It seems the ban might be part of the problem. The study suggests those texting are more likely to lower their devices out of sight. Driving simulator tests conducted by the HLDI found that heads-up displays were less likely to result in a crash than a head-down display.
Shiell, however, wonders whether these bans were adequately enforced.
What, though, would constitute "adequate enforcement?" What's to say such a concept can even apply to offences such as these? If we expand our ban to hands-free cellphones, how would police be expected to catch such scofflaws?
Would officers need to keep an eye out for suspicious lip movement? Would cellphone records be subpoenaed every time we're unsure about why a driver's mouth was moving?
Bill 16 seems particularly unenforceable. For example, a driver is permitted to use an MP3 player, but it must be programmed ahead of time. If a police officer spots a motorist sporting earbuds, how would this important distinction be discerned?
Even more curious is that the law states drivers "must not hold, view or manipulate an electronic device." Is that to say a driver must not touch or look at his BlackBerry? If your phone were to ring, would it be illegal to look at the call display or to press the "ignore" button?
It would seem the mere presence of an electronic device might be enough to run afoul of this law.
We criminalize drunk driving because of the potential for harm resulting from impairment. If distracted motorists pose a threat to others on the road, then taking a similar approach seems logical.
Let's be cautious in assuming government can wave its wand and make all our problems disappear. There seems to be a notion that the only reason bad things occur is a lack of government will.
We may finally get our distracted driving law. That may be all we get.