海角大神

Ohio is the latest state to propose a ban on texting while driving. The bill is awaiting the governor鈥檚 signature. Media outlets in the state report there was a heated debate on the Senate floor. Really? Who could possibly be opposed to a ban on texting while driving? Even AT&T and Verizon don鈥檛 object. It鈥檚 hard to see the downside.

Unless, of course, you鈥檙e a liberty-loving, anti-government type. Then there鈥檚 a downside to any legislation except legislation that repeals already-existing legislation.

These folks should form a political party called 鈥淭he Slippery Slope Party鈥� because that鈥檚 their argument against almost any law restricting almost any activity. If we ban texting while driving, then soon we鈥檒l be banning eating while driving. Before you know it, you won鈥檛 be able to switch stations on your radio. And you know where that will lead: to a totalitarian state.

As much as I鈥檇 like to rant against the slippery-slopers some more, I found another argument against banning texting while driving. This one, based on a few studies and a bit of counter-intuition, is far more interesting.

The argument goes like this: People are so addicted to their phones that a ban won鈥檛 stop most people from texting while driving. Instead they鈥檒l put the phones deeper in their laps to avoid detection and the result will be an increase in accidents.

As crazy as it sounds, there is some statistical support for this. The Highway Data Loss Institute, an affiliate of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, found that in 3 of 4 states that enacted texting bans, accidents actually increased after the ban went into effect.

The study analyzed insurance claims for accidents in four states 鈥� California, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Washington 鈥� during several months before the ban and several months after. In Minnesota, accidents actually increased 9 percent after the texting ban went into effect. The study also looked at states that had not enacted bans as a control.

The law apparently at play here isn鈥檛 a texting ban 鈥� it鈥檚 the law of unintended consequences. Edward Tenner, whose name usually follows or precedes the words 鈥渦nintended consequences,鈥� wrote a book on the subject a dozen years ago called 鈥淲hy Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences.鈥� He makes the case that for every action there are predictable reactions and, more often than you think, reactions that are completely unpredictable.

Take football helmets. Seems difficult to argue against the idea that better helmets would lead to fewer head injuries. But the truth is just the opposite. Better helmets have led to more reckless, aggressive play and an epidemic of concussions that鈥檚 been well documented in recent years. In fact, rugby players who wear no head gear suffer fewer concussions than football players. Perversely, the way to reduce concussions may be to ban helmets, not make them better.

An unintended consequence of technology has been the blurring of the boundaries between work and home. Smartphones and laptops were supposed to help us get our work done faster, but study after study shows that most of us work longer because we check email at the dinner table, during our kids鈥� school concerts, and at the beach.聽

But let鈥檚 get back to where we started: I鈥檇 love to take the counter-intuitive side here and make a case against Ohio鈥檚 coming ban on texting while driving, but I can鈥檛.

If we repeal the expected ban, that act will have its own set of unintended consequences: More people may believe that texting while driving is safe, which could lead to more people texting, which could lead to even more accidents.

Ah, the unintended consequence of unintended consequences.

Jim Sollisch is creative director at Marcus Thomas Advertising.