Blog
CBO says federal Distracted Driving law would not add to deficit
A new report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concludes that a law that would provide states with grants for distracted driving safety programs would not contribute to the federal deficit. The bill, S. 1938, the “Distracted Driving Prevention Act,” proposed by West Virginia Senator John Rockefeller, would authorize the Secretary of Transportation (via the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) to give grants to states that “enact laws that prohibit, with certain exceptions, and establish fines for texting and/or handheld cellphone use while driving.” At least half of the grant would have to be spent on education about the danger of driving while talking on the phone and texting and enforcement of the ban. The rest of the grant would be spent on other traffic safety improvement projects.
The report states unambiguously that the “CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would have no significant impact on the federal budget.” The reason gets fairly technical but boils down to the fact that the grant money would come out of funds that have already been budgeted (“previously appropriated contract authority”). This report could be good news for the bill. It has now been reported out of committee with the recommendation that it be taken up by the Senate as a whole. It is up the the majority party (Democrats) as to when this might happen.
In other distracted driving news, Delaware has joined the ranks of states with distracted driving laws. Governor of Delaware Jack Markell signed a law on July 6 making Delaware the eighth state to ban hand-held mobile phone use while driving. The law becomes effective on January 2, 2011. “We had too many people who were driving while distracted,” Markell said. “These new laws should be a deterrent. It should make people think twice.” While 29 other states prohibit texting and driving, Delaware joins a smaller group that prohibits all phone use behind the wheel. The ban also applies to electronic games, PDAs and laptops.
Read the League’s report to learn more about Distracted Driving.
UPDATE: Secretary LaHood provides his own distracted driving update.
Darren Flusche
League Policy Analyst
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Subscribe
July 23rd, 2010 at 3:34 pm
I was on KRSN in Los Alamos this morning for the monthly, hour-long Safety and Security Issues program with Los Alamos Monitor Managing Editor Carol Clark and Los Alamos Police Lt. Briggle. The main point of the conversation was distracted driving.
Many of the laws being passed are routinely ignored unless they are accompanied by intense efforts at enforcement and public education. Part of the reason for our radio show was the educational aspects–to get people thinking about the seriousness of the problem, and also to let them know that our existing laws on Careless Driving explicitly cover distractions. Careless Driving is a traffic misdemenor.
Like DWI back a generation or two ago, most people don’t fully realize that they are dangerous when they are distracted. Like the old arguments about “I can hold my liquor and drive better than you can”, these myths will have to be dispelled.
Glad the League is putting time and money into this problem. As I said on the radio this morning, when I see a motorist distractedly veer into a bike lane, I fear for my fellow bicyclist. And for me!
July 23rd, 2010 at 3:37 pm
By the way, Darren, I passed out copies of the League’s Talking Points memo on distracted driving at the radio station this morning. Nice job on that, guys!
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:01 pm
That’s great, Khal. I’m glad fact sheet was useful.
To your first comment, it still amazes me how often it is, when i detect in my peripheral vision a car going too close, too fast, or unpredictably, that I look up and see the driver talking on a cell phone or looking down at a key pad. For every recorded crash and fatality there are many times that number of near-misses.
July 25th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
These laws are a sham. They are as about effective as Drunk Driving laws. They don’t prevent drinking or texting, etc.
It is possible to enact laws that make cell phones inoperable or limit their operation when a person is moving, e.g. over 10 miles per hour, by enacting laws that 1) require phone manufacturers to install software that implements the required restrictions, e.g. iZUP, from Illume Software Inc. in Concord, and ZoomSafer, by ZoomSafer Inc. of Reston, Va., E.g. this stuff exists and can be implemented NOW.
2) Carries DUI level fines for anyone caught subverting this software.
It has been proven that cell phone distractions are at least as bad as DUI driving. In fact, texting is equivalent to DWB (driving while Blind).
We must come to grips with the facts. PEOPLE ARE DYING BECAUSE OF CELL PHONE USE AND THIS IS TOTALLY PREVENTABLE, unlike DUI laws which are not totally enforceable.
Don’t just sit there, do something. Someone died today because of an ‘urgent cell phone text message’. It’s just not worth it.
July 25th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Jay is quite correct. The best way to have an effective safety program is to mandate engineered controls that cannot be circumvented.
July 25th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
On engineered controls:
As proposed by Jay, this would prevent passengers in autos or on mass transit from using their phones. I don’t think anyone would accept this, including me.
I agree with the sentiment, though. If people can’t have the sense to hang up and drive, perhaps it should be done for them. Let the engineers figure out how to do it without impacting non-driving “movers.”
July 25th, 2010 at 11:33 pm
As we know from high hazard industries, engineered controls are often the most expensive, least flexible, but most difficult to circumvent.
Roger is right–such a system would probably screw the innocent as well as the guilty unless a really elegant solution is found that would discriminate between the driver’s module and the passenger’s (or bus rider’s) space. But until we get better compliance from operators, we will have to make the choice between bombproof controls or dead bodies. People simply don’t have the sense to hang up and drive.
July 26th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
“The best way to have an effective safety program is to mandate engineered controls that cannot be circumvented.”
Careful what you ask for Khal. We’ve heard instances of safety engineers wanting to pair center-line and shoulder rumble strips to enable people to “drive by braille.” This is another example of where action needs to be taken across multiple ‘Es’.
July 26th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Rumble strips are not really an engineered control in the sense I was talking about, i.e., a feature that physically prevents an unwanted occurrence from happening. They don’t actually stop you from crossing them. True engineered safety systems on our highways by that definition are rare.
An engineered safety feature that acts alone to stop an occurrence would be something like a nuclear reactor design that responds to a loss of coolant by losing criticality and automatically shutting down.
A GPS device on a cell phone that could tell if the cell phone was moving at motor vehicle speed and shutting itself off would be an engineered control; it works to prevent the occurrence without you having to intervene or without you being able to override it.
Of course we need to be careful of what we wish for. I agree completely. But we do need to have the discussion.