Digital dashboards & distracted driving news

Digital dashboards:A Louisiana legislator seeks to rewrite the state’s law regarding drivers and video screens. HB 387 would allow use of split-screen in-dash monitors, found in a few vehicles such as those in the Mercedes S-Class (SplitView). These dashboard screens allow front passengers to watch movies or television while the driver sees only navigational elements.

“Connected vehicle” systems and safe-driving technologies co-existed and co-mingled at the 2011 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

Toyota and Hyundai unveiled new wireless communications and data systems for their vehicles, while GM’s popular OnStar service announced it was expanding into other carmakers’ vehicles.

Ford rolled out its first electric car, with “wireless connected vehicle services” designed by partner Airbiquity.

DOT: The new Internet-related gadgets being installed by automakers led U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to open up a new front in his department’s war on distracted driving.

During September 2010′s second Distracted Driving Summit, LaHood said, “In recent days and weeks we’ve seen news stories about carmakers adding technology in vehicles that lets drivers update Facebook, surf the Web or do any number of other things instead of driving safely.

“Features that pull drivers’ hands, eyes and attention away from the road are distractions,” the DOT chief said.

LaHood met with the major automakers to set guidelines for entertainment and communications systems such as Ford’s Synch and GM’s OnStar. General Motors Co. CEO Daniel Akerson was at the top of the DOT chief’s to-meet-with list.

Facebook hits the road: GM isn’t backing off its plans to link up drivers with Facebook and Twitter. OnStar president Chris Presuss told the Detroit News in mid-October 2010 that the new OnStar functionality passed GM’s safety tests. “Not only is it safe — all things relative in the vehicle — it’s actually a benign activity,” Preuss said of the hands-free functionality. Ford says it isn’t planning a similar Facebook feature, but does plan to have its Sync system read Tweets to drivers. Sync already voices text messages to drivers and allows for user’s voice-initiated preprogrammed responses.

Thanks to Subaru: LaHood praised Subaru of America for its “Baby Driver” ad in which a father teaches his young son not to text or make cell phone calls while behind the wheel. Subaru’s Tom Doll said, “Staying focused on the road is a key element in crash avoidance, which is why our designers deliver a simple, clear dash layout in our vehicles and why we remind people in our ads to concentrate only on their driving.”

Canadians: Ban phones, save money

The distracted driving debate rarely comes down to money, but a Canadian study finds that a ban on cell phones can have economic benefits in addition to saving lives.

The University of Calgary’s Faculty of Medicine says its home province of Alberta could produce an annual savings of $36 million a year by instituting a cell phone ban.

The breakdown is $6 million in lower health care costs and $30 million in savings on clearing away wreckage from vehicle crashes. The lead researcher called the revenue proposition “a no-brainer” for the province.

But the costs of a ban on using cell phones while driving would be $20.5 million annually. This includes awareness campaigns, manpower and other costs of enforcement, and $14 million in calls (“lost consumer surplus”) that would not be made by drivers. The $14 million would not be direct costs, but revenue losses suffered by mobile telecommunications providers.

Economics are sometimes inserted into the debates on distracted driving legislation, with supporters pointing to the monetary gains from tickets and court costs. In California, for instance, a proposed doubling of fines for texting and handheld cell phone use could have brought the state another $32 million annually, a panel found. (The plan was defeated.)

Critics often accuse lawmakers who approve distracted driving bans of seeking revenue through traffic fines.

Alberta has been widely criticized for foot-dragging on distracted driving laws while six other provinces have enacted bans on text messaging and cell phones. (British Columbia, Newfoundland, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan.)

The province government’s Bill 16, which would ban handheld cell phone use and texting, is up for debate in the Legislature. The bill seeks a $172 fine for various distracted driving activities.

Study author Dr. Alan Shiell (pictured) said he had mixed feels about Bill 16: “Personally, I would introduce a complete ban. It may inconvenience drivers a little but that is more than offset by the risk of a crash and the costs and harms associated with crashes.”

As for the study’s unusual economic angle, Shiell says: “I hope this research sheds some new light on the issue.”

The UC study assumed 4,450 fewer collisions annually in Alberta and 15 fewer deaths. It was first published in the September issue of the journal Health Economics.

Massachusetts texting ban goes live

Massachusetts’ ban on text messaging is now in full effect. Police are writing tickets, but the lucky might get a warning — for a while.

The new law prohibits all drivers from texting while behind the wheel and bans use of all cell phones by drivers who are 16 and 17 years old. The young drivers are barred from using a variety of devices (TVs, video, PCs) under the heading “mobile electronic devices.”

The fines for adults are $100 (first offense), then $250 and $500.

Fines for drivers under 18 are $100 plus 60-day license suspension and youth traffic school (first offense), then $250 with six-month suspension and then $500 with a one-year suspension.

These distracted driving offenses are not considered moving violations and do not affect insurance premiums. Enforcement is “primary,” meaning police can stop and cite texting motorists for that reason alone.

More warnings were handed out than $100 fines on day 1, local reports said.

Meanwhile, Maryland’s law prohibiting handheld cell phone use while driving hit the streets as of Oct. 1. It calls for “secondary enforcement” and fines between $40 and $100.

And Connecticut’s tougher penalties for distracted driving officially went into effect Oct. 1. Fines are now $100/$150/$200 instead of the previous $100. No more forgiveness for first-time offenders.

In Massachusetts, as the new law took effect, the Boston Globe editorialized:

“There’s no defense for the practice; if a text message is so urgent that it must be read (or written) immediately, it’s also urgent enough to merit pulling over. … For now, the new law will at least raise awareness of the dangers of texting while driving. And in time, social pressure will help more and more drivers recognize the practice as the narcissism-induced safety hazard that it is.”

Gov. Patrick signed the Massachusetts distracted driving bill into law on July 2: “Texting is one of the riskiest distractions that endangers public safety and today we are joining other states by saying it will no longer be tolerated,” he said at the ceremony. The signing’s audience included people who lost family members to distracted drivers.

The new law is the result of a compromise between the Massachusetts House and Senate. There were significant differences in their distracted driving plans. The compromise, apparently, was the House dropping its ban on handheld cell phone use for adult drivers and the Senate agreeing to (separate) watered-down restrictions on elderly drivers.

State Sen. Mark Montigny, D-New Bedford, wasn’t pleased with that deal: “I first introduced a (distracted driving) bill six years ago, and since that time, the only thing that has changed is more people have died or been seriously injured,” he told South Coast Today as the law took effect Sept. 30. “To celebrate (the new law), as many have, is unfortunate, as this is years overdue.”

Chapter 90, Section 13B of the Massachusetts General Laws reads as follows:

(a) No operator of a motor vehicle shall use a mobile telephone, or any handheld device capable of accessing the internet, to manually compose, send or read an electronic message while operating a motor vehicle. For the purposes of this section, an operator shall not be considered to be operating a motor vehicle if the vehicle is stationary and not located in a part of the public way intended for travel.

(b) A violation of this section shall be punishable by a fine of $100 for a first offense, by a fine of $250 for a second offense and by a fine of $500 for a third or subsequent offense.

(c) A penalty under this section shall not be a surchargeable offense under section 113B of chapter 175.