A Federal Ban on Texting While Driving?
In response to claims that texting-while-driving (TWD) causes traffic accidents, Congress is considering “a federal bill that would force states to ban texting while driving if they want to keep receiving federal highway money.”
This approach to forcing a particular policy on the states mimics the 1984 Federal Uniform Driving Age Act, which threatened to withhold federal highway funds unless states adopted a 21-year-old minimum legal drinking age. The justification for that law was reducing traffic fatalities among 18-20 year olds.
A federal ban on TWD is not compelling:
1. Federal imposition of the 21-year old minimum drinking age did not save lives.
2. A ban on texting might increase other distractions: adjusting the radio, putting on makeup, eating a sandwich, reading a map, and so on. Relatedly, the evidence that TWD causes accidents is far from convincing. Traffic fatalities per vehicle mile travelled have declined substantially over the past 15 years, despite the explosion in text messaging.
3. TWD has benefits, not just costs. Truckers, for example, claim that
Crisscrossing the country, hundreds of thousands of long-haul truckers use computers in their cabs to get directions and stay in close contact with dispatchers, saving precious minutes that might otherwise be spent at the side of the road.
4. If the benefits of banning TWD become clear, most states will ban on their own.
Thus laws that penalize TWD might make sense. But this is an issue for states, not the federal government.
C/P Libertarianism, from A to Z.
New at Cato
Here are a few highlights from Cato Today, a daily email from the Cato Institute. You can subscribe, here
- The new edition of Regulation examines the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), the legal drinking age and climate change policies.
- In The Week, Will Wilkinson argues that the Obama administration should rethink its drug policy and that prominent marijuana users should “come out of the closet.”
- Gene Healy points out in the Washington Examiner why the Serve America Act (SAA) is no friend to freedom.
- The Cato Weekly Video features Rep. Paul Ryan discussing the Obama administration’s budget.
- In Wednesday’s Cato Daily Podcast, Patri Friedman discusses seasteading and the prospects for liberty on the high seas.
Filed under: Cato Publications; General; Government and Politics; Regulatory Studies; Tax and Budget Policy
Friday Podcast: ‘Drinking Ages and Highway Fatalities’
Does the policy of setting a national drinking age reduce highway fatalities?
In Friday’s Cato Daily Podcast, Jeffrey Miron, senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University, talks about the research he and student Elina Tetelbaum (now a Yale Law student) carried out on that question:
What we find is that the only area where there is any evidence for efficacy of the law are states that adopted a higher drinking on their own without any compulsion. For the states that the feds forced … to raise [their] drinking age, there is no evidence of a beneficial reduction in traffic fatalities… We conclude quite strongly that it’s only when a state chooses a higher drinking age on its own, it’s only when it decides its going to devote enforcement resources and when there’s public sentiment to support that, that you see those sorts of beneficial effects.
Miron and Tetelbaum offer a more detailed look at their findings in the Spring issue of Cato’s magazine Regulation, which will be released March 26.
Cato on Facebook
Cato on Twitter
Cato on YouTube
Cato Tweets