As Jay Primus–the manager of San Francisco’s new street parking program SFpark–points out, “Circling drivers are distracted drivers. They’re much more likely to hit pedestrians, bicyclists, and other cars, and as they search for parking spots, making frequent turns and making frequent stops, they can cause unpredictable delays to the transit system.” In fact, a study conducted in Los Angeles found that within one 15 block area, drivers ended up collectively logging an extra 350,000 miles over the course of the year just by circling around for an average of three extra minutes while trying to find parking.

Now, both San Francisco and Los Angeles are hoping to make street parking more efficient with the addition of new sensor networks. SFpark, San Francisco’s network of magnetic sensors, includes data from 8,200 different parking spaces as well as additional information from parking garages and meters that’s available to drivers in real time through their website and smartphone app. The goal of the program is to direct drivers to areas where parking is already available and cut down on the time spent hunting for an empty space.

On the downside–at least from a consumer standpoint–the program also allows for more efficient ticketing from police, who can be alerted when a vehicle’s parking has expired. However, SFpark also allows parking prices and time limits to be adjusted based on demand, which has actually resulted in 14% fewer citations. The program also boasted a 27% increase in meter revenue, thanks in large part to extending time limits in less congested parking areas and eliminating some time restrictions all together.

While using a smartphone app to help decrease distracted driving may seem counterintuitive, SFpark’s mobile version actually offers a warning message to alert drivers that, “using a smartphone while driving is dangerous and against the law.” The app also shows an additional reminder if it’s detected traveling at more than 10 miles per hour, and according to SFpark’s website, “The smartphone app and web map are expected to be accessed before a trip begins or to be operated by a passenger if accessed while in motion. SFMTA strongly discourages illegal use of the SFpark app including accessing the app while driving.”

Still, whether users of the app decide to heed the warning is a different question all together.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/eyermonkey/2433042946/

But a reader of the Wall Street Journal from Colorado wrote in to the Journal with an interesting suggestion: what about enlisting the help of insurance companies?

“Car-insurance companies could simply add a clause to deny coverage to customers if an accident occurs while the driver is using a cellphone. The risk of a crash, including the liability of injury to others, would expose the driver to paying all damages out of pocket. I wager that this would put a fairly swift end to this practice for most people. ”

It’s a compelling proposition, considering that right now the financial deterrent for texting and driving is relatively low compared to the fines for drinking and driving. However, the idea isn’t picking up much steam in the insurance industry.

In an email to the New York Times, State Farm’s Dick Luedke said that insurance companies usually pick up the check, even when the driver has been negligent by drinking and driving. “Generally speaking, we fulfill our promise even when the person to whom we make the promise violates the law, and we fulfill our promise to the person who texts while driving, whether or not that person is violating the law.”

While a lack of insurance coverage could be a deterrent to the driver, the flip side is that if an insurance company refuses to foot the bill for a distracted driver’s accident, that bill can include health care costs to the victim as well. If someone is texting and driving and smacks into another vehicle, seriously wounding a passenger, the texting drivers insurance wouldn’t cover those hospital bills.

What seems more practical is that insurance companies will adjust their rates to penalize distracted drivers. While this seems to be common sense, greater public awareness that distracted driving will directly cost the driver may help pressure drivers to put down the phone while behind the wheel.

Ultimately, relying on extra-legal means to set the bounds of behavior seems counterintuitive. If distracted driving is a mistake that we as a society believe should be punished by thousands of dollars of car repair and health care costs, shouldn’t the maximum fine for being caught texting behind the wheel represent that cost? Philosophically, it makes sense to spend energy treating the disease, which is texting and driving, rather than the symptoms, which are the wrecked vehicles and lives that result from distracted driving.

Photo Credit: Jason Weaver

The campaign specifically targets teens, which studies have shown are the group most likely to be affected by distracted driving. The idea is to contrast how texting outside of the car can go wrong to embarrassing results, but texting while driving will have tragic consequences.

The choice to make clear when texting is and isn’t appropriate is important. Unlike the self-evident risks of drinking and driving, texting is not an inherently dangerous activity. Though it’s clearly distracting, texting is legal and increasingly omnipresent.

But where texting doesn’t belong is in the drivers seat. It’s a point driven home by the hair-raising final moments of each ad, which show a distracted driver realizing he or she is about to crash into another car or unprotected pedestrians.

Here are two of the ads:

“The Average text takes your eyes off the road for nearly five seconds…”

“Not everyone should text and walk….No one should text and drive”

The ads are great, but I wonder whether education is really the problem.

A troubling study recently conducted by the AAA Foundation for Traffic reported that 95 percent of surveyed drivers recognize that texting behind the wheel is a serious threat. A full 88 percent feel the same way about cell phone use. Clearly, driver education and advocacy work to bring this danger to light has been wide-reaching.

But even though nearly everyone knows the life-threatening dangers associated with distracted driving, more than a third of those same respondents also reported that they had read or sent a text message while driving in the last month, and two-thirds said they’ve talked on their phone in that period.

Hopefully these new, powerful PSAs will help people connect the danger of distracted driving to their own behavior.

Learn more by visiting StopTextsStopWrecks.org

“Safety is our top priority,” Google wrote in a statement last week. “One of our goals is to prevent fender-benders like this one, which occurred while a person was manually driving the car.” Google spokesman Jay Nanacarrow added that their robot-operated cars have driven more than 160,000 miles across the country without an accident before last week. That’s an impressive feat, but the accident raises important questions about the future of technology controlling vehicles on our streets and highways. Even if the at-fault car was driven by a human, for example, I wonder whether the other Google car could have avoided the crash if a human were behind the wheel.

Over on the Boston Personal Injury Lawyer blog, Alan Crede writes that accidents like these raise serious questions about legal liability. Crede believes that robot-driven cars are nothing short of inevitable, and that our legal system should begin to review rules of liability before, rather than after, they take over. Take the theoretical example of a car accident involving a robot car that was not overridden by the human driver. Is the human really at fault here? Crede writes:

It would be difficult to hold the human “driver” at fault in such an accident under the fault-based negligence regime that currently governs car accidents. After all, the conduct of the driver who caused the accident (getting in the car, programming the car’s destination) is indistinguishable from the conduct of the driver who gets in a car, programs its destination and arrives safely at his destination. It is difficult to see how the conduct of the former driver, who got in an accident, can be considered negligent, given that our Anglo-American concept of negligence requires that a person liable for negligence have acted “unreasonably” and the driver who was involved in the accident acted in the exact same way as the driver whose voyage was entirely uneventful.

So even if last week’s Google car accident was not the fault of technology, it’s clear that this focus on technology will lead to future dilemmas when it comes to road safety and auto accident liability. Let’s just hope that we have a system of dealing with these problems before they confuse or overwhelm the courts.

Photo credit: Racum

Cherish Johnson, for one, says she constantly runs into near-accidents with distracted pedestrians. “Especially if I’m at a mall, they just step out and I slam on my brakes,” she told ABC Local. Pedestrian accidents are a serious problem here in California, and have already caused 8 pedestrian deaths this year. Safety advocates and city officials have proposed street infrastructure projects to make cities like San Francisco safer for pedestrians, but none have so far suggested that California adopt a distracted walking law.

California Senator Joe Simitian is the most prominent advocate for stricter distracted driving laws here in California. Simitian even caught some criticism earlier this year for writing a distracted driving law that increased fines for cyclists caught texting or talking on the road. “The consequences of a distracted driver are considerably more serious than the consequences of distracted cycling,” said California Bicycle Coalition Communications Director Jim Brown. “As far as I’m aware, there is no accident evidence that points to a problem…this law seems premature.”

Simitian defends the provision against distracted cycling, but uses similar logic to rule out the necessity for a distracted walking law. “At some point we just have to ask folks to be responsible for their own common sense and well being,” he said. But that does not mean, of course, that pedestrians should ignore the potential dangers of texting or talking on the phone while crossing the street. “When you’re a pedestrian, you’re at greater risk than any of us who are out ther at least buckled in and behind the wheel of a car,” he added.

Do your part to avoid additional calls for distracted walking legislation and simply put the phone away while crossing a dangerous or crowded intersection.

Photo credit: Michael Cory

But a new article by Keith Barry for Wired’s Autopia blog states that distractions might not be the worst thing since drivers are “just as likely to do a bad job driving down some lonely treeless straightaway in Kansas, as you are merging onto the New Jersey Turnpike at rush hour, lost, with a scorpion on your shoulder.” This is an exaggeration of the Yerkes-Dodson law, which predicts that drivers become complacent if they aren’t engaged behind the wheel, and also face danger if they have too many distractions.

Barry is correct that technology has created important safe guards that override the driver if he or she is close to another vehicle, or even stops the car if a pedestrian jumps into the road in front of your car. But I’m concerned that Barry mis-places the complacency concern in stating that a driver free from distractions will pay less attention the road. More realistically, drivers face the danger of becoming too reliant on technology that warns of dangerous road conditions, to a point where they might stop actively looking for that pedestrian who might run out into traffic, thinking their vehicle will take care of it.

Of course, Barry gets this and notes that the technology isn’t yet sufficient to fully protect against dangerous road situations. “Your car can’t tell if you’re tired, daydreaming or listening to a conference call on speakerphone. Therefore, it doesn’t know whether it’s appropriate to engage active safety features,” he writes. “In theory, perfectly programmed fully autonomous cars would be safer than human drivers, but that technology is still years away.”

Since distracted driving technology remains too inconsistent to rely on for auto safety, safety advocates, government officials, and even companies must pick up the slack to develop methods to reduce distractions behind the wheel. In a blog post for his Fastlane blog this week, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood applauds Volkswagen and Audi employees for signing a pledge never to text behind the wheel. In order to eliminate distracted driving for good, it is essential to get the automakers and cell phone companies on board as serious economic drivers of change.

Photo credit: mrJasonWeaver

“This is our first real-world look at an advanced crash avoidance technology, and the findings are encouraging,” said IIHS President Adrian Lund. “As people grow more aware of the risks of distracted driving, crash avoidance systems like this one can help to ensure that a momentary lapse of attention during a congested commute doesn’t result in a crash.” The IIHS study found that the Volvo XC60 with the collision warning system led to 27 percent fewer damage liability claims compared to other SUVs. The system, which is designed to work at speeds of 19 miles per hour and lower, was also reported to decrease bodily injury claims by 22 percent.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has said it is “pleased to see automobile manufacturers moving forward with new technologies designed to improve safety,” and NHTSA administrator David Strickland has vowed the agency will conduct an extensive safety investigation.

Despite the reported benefits of Volvo’s collision avoidance system, I can’t help but wonder whether we should encourage drivers to put so much faith in auto technology. Even if your computer runs properly 95 percent of the time, it will inevitably mess up and delete all your information once in a while. But what leads to a major inconvenience for your personal computer could be incredibly dangerous if it contributes to a car accident. Volvo’s new collision avoidance technology is clearly an upgrade from last year’s model, which crashed during a high profile demo (see video here). But we should wait until further experimental evidence indicates that accident avoidance technology can be trusted beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Even if this technology wins official approval, the best way to avoid distracted driving accidents is to put down the phone while you’re behind the wheel. No amount of technology can replace staying attentive while driving, and that’s unlikely to change.

Photo credit: lander2006

“Ford believes hands-free, voice-activated technology significantly reducees that risk by allowing drivers to keep their hands on the wheel and eyes on the road,” said Ford Vice President Pete Lawson in a press release. But anti-distracted driving organization Focus Driven, a branch of the Department of Transportation, has said that technology that makes it easier to talk while driving don’t help the problem. “Studies show hands-free devices provide no safety benefit,” writes Focus Driven on its webpage. “It’s the conversation, not the device, that creates the danger.”

That’s what New York Times Personal Technology Editor Sam Grobert round when he tested some popular anti-distracted driving technology options for the newspaper’s website. Grobart found that the Ford Focus My Ford Touch system’s touch screen actually required more driver attention than a regular cell phone, Acura’s solution relied on too many confusing high-tech buttons, and the Audi A8’s touch pad required too steep a learning curve. “I wouldn’t feel comfortable using any of these systems at highway speeds,” he concluded.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that distracted driving kills nearly 6,000 and injures 500,000 each year. A recent NHTSA study reported that distracted driving enforcement programs have succeeded in reducing the number of distracted drivers but that there’s no evidence that accidents have decreased. That could be because drivers continue to use hands-free technology to talk while driving. This adds to evidence that dangerous distracted driving technologies that make it easier to talk while driving don’t help the problem. Instead, safety advocates and auto companies should advocate putting down the phone while driving in order to reduce car accidents and improve driver safety.

“I tell them that, if they text and drive, their lives could change forever in a split second,” says Crandall. “It was so hard for me to get that phone call in the morning after I had just been with Lauren hours before.” Even before becoming Miss USA, Crandall worked to lobby the Utah State Legislature to pass its law against texting while driving. The bill, one of the first of its kind, became law in 2009.

On Friday, I discussed a confusing new report sponsored by the Governors Highway Safety Administration and State Farm Insurance, which said that distracted driving is a leading cause in 25 percent of all car accidents, but that cell phone bans do nothing to reduce distracted driving accidents. This report drew criticism from safety advocates like National Safety Council official David Teater, who said simply “we think there is enough research to enact total bans, handheld and hands-free.” Such cell phone bans have been enacted in 9 states nationwide, and 34 have implemented laws against texting while driving.

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood has long been a proponent of strict laws against distracted driving, which kills nearly 6,000 and injures half a million each year. In a speech last year, LaHood was clear about the dangers of underestimating distracted driving. “The simple fact is that texting and talking on cell phones behind the wheel is a deadly epidemic,” he said, “to suggest otherwise is to put your head in the sand. To spend considerable resources to suggest otherwise is a glaring waste.”

Good luck to Jamie Lynn Crandall and Secretary Ray LaHood in the effort to raise awareness about the dangers of distracted driving and boost enforcement. Hopefully, despite the rise of technology, fewer Americans will be impacted by texting while driving each year.

Photo credit: fastlane.dot.gov

First of all, the report notes that drivers are harmed by a number of distractions, including cell phones and food, but that these distractions lead drivers to pay more attention while navigating risky roads. The report falls short of suggesting that states with bans against talking and texting while driving should repeal those laws, but cautions the 41 states without handheld cell phone restrictions to think twice before proposing similar legislation.

Discussing the dangers of distracted driving has been a major priority for Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood. Under his direction, the Department of Transportation has repeatedly shown that distracted driving is one of the leading causes of car accidents in the United States. For these reasons, LaHood has been tough on groups that claim distracted driving is not dangerous. When an anti-regulation lobbying group circulated a memo against cell phone bans last year, LaHood responded that “the simple fact is that texting and talking on cell phones behind the wheel is a deadly epidemic…to suggest otherwise is to put your head in the sand. To spend considerable resources to suggest otherwise is a glaring waste.”

Last September, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety president Adrian Lund expanded his past criticism of LaHood’s campaign against texting and talking while driving. LaHood fired back with a barrage of facts proving the success of anti-distracted driving programs. He pointed to pilot distracted driving enforcement programs in Syracuse NY and Hartford CT, which both showed a drastic decrease in the number of distracted drivers. This type of enforcement spread across the United States, he wrote, would eventually lead to a serious drop in distracted driving accidents.

Since we all enjoy using our cell phones, it would be tempting to believe that texting while driving was not, in fact, dangerous. But this new report leaves out the fact that distracted driving contributes to 6,000 deaths and 500,000 injuries from car accidents each year. We should be putting resources toward cutting down on the dangerous practice, rather than blurring the facts to make it seem harmless.

Photo credit: Lord Jim