Defenders of Bill 16 Missing the Point

UPDATE: Apparently motorists are being stopped for drinking coffee. Don't you feel safer?

 

Today is the day that Alberta's new distracted driving legislation (formerly Bill 16) takes effect. The makes it an offense to talk on a handheld cell phone while driving. Other activities are banned while driving including texting, grooming, and eating (although "snacking" is allowed, leaving people to figure out this grey area themselves).

 

I've written two columns in recent months - here, and most recently here - outlining what I see as the two main problems with the legislation:

 

1. It encompasses an array of activities that have nothing to do with making our roads safer. For example, reading a text while in line at a drive-thru or waiting at a train crossing.

 

2. Studies out of the US indicate this legislation might make little or no difference with regard to road safety, contrary to the numerous claims from the Alberta government and other defenders of the law.

 

Those are my main points. So I would expect, then, if someone is going to respond to my criticism and rush to the defence of the legislation, those points would be addressed.

 

Naomi Lakritz responds to my most recent Calgary Herald column with one of her own.

 

She offers a passionate defence of the legislation and the need to crack down on distracted driving.

 

Yet nowhere in her piece does she address point #1. She does not defend the fact that the legislation specifically deems being stopped in an alley or ditch, or being stopped in a drive-thru lineup or a train crossing as "driving". She simply ignores it. Does she approve of police ticketing someone who is stuck at a train and calls his wife to say he'll be a few minutes late? Who knows.

 

She does, however, address my second point:

 

Tuesday, my fellow columnist, Rob Breakenridge, argued on this page that the evidence isn't there to prove that cellphone bans make the roads safer. Other sources, such as the province of B.C., say there's been a noticeable drop in collisions caused by distracted driving since legislation was brought in. As with similarly contentious issues, such as fluoride, each faction in the debate can summon statistics to its side to prove its point pro or con.

 

Well, Naomi, by all means, summon some statistics. I specifically mentioned two studies by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Those studies compared the number of crashes in states with bans compared to states without such bans. I also specifically mentioned the report from the Governors Highway Safety Association which examined 350 studies. That report concludes that there really isn't any evidence to show these bans work, and the GHSA is calling on states to hold off on bringing in this kind of legislation.

 

What does Naomi offer in the way of "statistics"? Virtually nothing. She asserts that BC's distracted driving law is working, but offers nothing to back that up. I've searched to find some reference to her claim but so far I am coming up empty.

 

In fact if you read this and this, you'll certainly come away with the impression that police are not yet getting a handle on the problem. This story from just last week illustrates the point:

 

Distracted driving is now the number one factor in driving deaths in Metro Vancouver, police say.
Inattentive driving is now a factor in 47 per cent of fatal crashes, overtaking speed (36 per cent) and drinking (21 per cent) as the biggest danger behind the wheel.

Now, I suppose such a figure might justify the existence of the law. I'm sure Naomi think so, as she offers this:

 

Too bad it's come to this, but since the situation is so bad out there on Alberta's roads, then let's be thankful that the government has finally stepped in.

Another example, however, of not "summoning statistics". As I noted in my piece this week:

The government points to "tremendous technological advances over the last 20 years" as one of the reasons why distracted driving has become such an issue.
But consider this: from 2003 to 2010, Canada went from 13 million cellphone users to more than 24 million. That's after cellphone usage doubled from 1997 to 2003.
Yet while this explosion has occurred in the usage of these devices, our roads have become safer.
In 1990 there were 3,445 fatal crashes in Canada along with 178,515 injury collisions. In 2009 - with more drivers on the road and far more in the way of distractions - there were 2,011 fatal crashes and 123,192 injury collisions. 

Also, Jesse Kline makes a similar point in the National Post:

Between 2005 and 2009, the number of Alberta households with a cellphone increased by 31%, according Statistics Canada. That followed a 170% increase from 1997 to 2005. Yet, between 2005-09, the number of casualties caused by traffic collisions in the province decreased by 22%. The correlation between cell phone use and traffic accidents simply doesn’t exist. 

Another point not addressed by defenders of Bill 16.