According to recent news, most drivers who took part in a survey on driving distractions, consider that using a handheld cell phone on the highway is a safety hazard.         

   Here comes the twist, though: a significant percentage of the drivers surveyed also admit to using their handheld cell phones on occasion when driving, knowing it is dangerous.            

    Furthermore, among the individuals surveyed, many pointed out other hazardous sources of distraction as well, the kind that are broadly mentioned in my previous post.            

    Granted, some distractions such as sneezing and then reaching for a box of tissue paper are part of driving. Other distractions, however, such as fiddling around with climate, radio or GPS controls are avoidable and should be avoided when driving circumstances so dictate. In fact, it would be practically impossible for regulators to ban all sources of avoidable distractions and for law enforcement officers to catch offenders. One can only hope that 1) motor vehicle manufacturers will continue to improve the layout of dashboards and what not, in order to minimize or even eliminate distractions drivers experience when operating the various accessories of a motor vehicle, and 2) drivers develop and maintain a good sense of timing for the use of these devices.     

    So, how do regulators do their balancing act when banning specific sources of distraction for people driving a motor vehicle on a highway? By relying on accident statistics, one would think. But, how comprehensive are those statistics? Even detailed studies can miss the broader perspective of an issue and, consequently, the nature of the social evil prohibitions are meant to prevent. Administrative convenience or political expediency have the potential of further blinding regulatory authorities.          

    Obviously, as in many other areas of public safety, relying on individual common sense is not enough.  On the other hand, banning numerous and detailed actions hazardous to  highway safety, is likely to impede the development of common sense and voluntary compliance, except for that part of common sense that is acquired, and continues to be acquired as a result of driver education.            

    Making driving a motor vehicle on highways a life-long learning process, right from the beginning, is more likely to enhance highway safety. It is an empowering experience for drivers. Slapping fines and license suspensions on drivers who breach the rules is not enough. It creates a negative token economy that falls short of actually ‘educating’ drivers about the social consequences of their own follies.            

Speeding ticket

   In addition to proper signage and road-marking, a number of roadside electronic devices are used by an increasingly number of countries to foster voluntary compliance with highway safety legislation, such as devices flashing present speed at individual drivers entering a limited speed zone.  In fact, according to yet more recent news dealing with technological correctness, the variety of electronic devices aimed at enhancing voluntary compliance on highways seems boundless. As a result of new highway safety technology, drivers may experience a loss of privacy in their motor vehicles, as they did with Google Street View before licence plates were blurred. Virtual highway patrolling is in the offing.  Some drivers may wish they could stop progress and stick with the road-side ticketing enforcement methods. We’ve come full circle, or have we?         

   Whichever, it is common knowledge among legislators and regulators alike that the strong arm of law enforcement, namely highway patrol vehicles, is not the only way to maintain and enhance highway safety. For drivers, however, real highway patrol vehicles remain mostly a welcome sight for several health, safety and security reasons, as well as reasons of traffic flow efficiency. Thoughtful drivers are more likely, by nature, to embrace voluntary compliance, regardless of the technological level of law enforcement methods.

My cellphone is neatly tucked away while driving my car so I will not endanger myself or others according to regulatory wisdom.

Meanwhile I am unwrapping a fresh sandwich and opening up the slurping slot on my take-out coffee cup. Coffee ensures I don’t loose my alertness as a driver. They should have put that requirement into law, I say.

Isn’t it nice to be able to prepare breakfast on the roll with total impunity? On any highway, my car is the best place to have a nice breakfast while I scan through various news channels on my surround sound radio system, in search of the latest news. What’s the risk? I’m only driving at 55 mph with good snow tires on a fresh layer of snow. Everyone else is moving along at the same pace on this highway. Where is the beef?

The law says I cannot use my cellphone or do any texting while operating (Is that the same as driving?) a motor vehicle on a public roadway. It so happens I have my car on speed control. Who is the real operator here?

Ban on cellphone use while driving

Among the news items blasted by the radio comes one that makes me want to come to a screeching halt: “Thow shall not do any text-messaging with one hand while driving with the other.”  I am shaken. How can I put my car on auto-pilot while I decipher this news item? A French adage comes back to mind: «Il est défendu de conduire d’une main et de se méconduire de l’autre.»  Sorry, the play on words here would get lost in translation.

The above situational comments serve as a background for a series of news items on the highway cellphone ban issued by TechNewsWorld in recent times.

The last of the three news items provides stats on the actual results, or lack thereof, of such a ban. Here it is for you folks out there to read when not driving, if you are the type that maintains a keen interest in the accuracy of regulatory impact studies.

Just think of the number of distracting events that may occur to the driver and/or operator of a motor vehicle engaged in the movement of highway traffic (I couldn’t have said it in simpler terms.)

You be your own judge.  But, do keep your cellphone tucked away, until the law learns from its own off-the-page damaging distractions, to target the real road hazards.

Drive safely, beyond what the law says you should do or not do.

The vast, free and increasingly accessible world of communications Internet has been providing so far might undergo a number of changes in the months or first few years to come.

Copyright issues, for one, have been around for a while and need to be addressed; however, governments, various authorities and stakeholders have a number of additional concerns regarding the Internet they wish to address through regulatory change.

In an article titled A crusade against the Internet’s “regulatory uncertainty” , ArsTechnica.com summarizes the situation in a nutshell.

It may be said that regulators do not feel comfortable with uncertainty arising from powerful unregulated entities, even informal* ones such as the Internet.

On the other hand, is this a case where powerful media, such as the Internet, will attract the attention of regulators if they fail to properly regulate themselves?

Highly recommended reading!

*PS: Actually, one might wonder whether or not the Internet is ’informal’. Simply consider the rise, over the years, of secure log-in procedures and online transactions, as well as the ability for lawyers to quote legal material lifted from the Internet, to name but a few formalized features of the Internet. Briefly stated, the Internet can only be as informal as the information and data it gives access to, or allows to pass on. Agree?

Vendée Globe 2008-2009 - Surfing with South Pacific Swell

These crazy yachtsmen in their awesome round-the-world racing 60 footers gathered recently to fine-tune the standards applicable to off-shore sailboat racing in the IMOCA class.

The last edition of the Vendée Globe race took its toll, as in the past VG races.

Remember Gerry Roufs from Montreal (Quebec) who vanished without a trace, somewhere between Cap Horn and Antarctica in the 1997-98 edition of the Vendée Gobe?  (more…)

An article in the Ottawa Citizen today by Kevin Lynch, the outgoing clerk of the Privy Council, indicates that political expediency, or to put it in more neutral terms, quick responses to the need for new public policies is an increasing trend in the last decades that does not serve the public interest all that well.

This issue has been raised previously in this blog as one of the emerging trends in the way modern governments set the framework for new regulatory initiatives. This is certainly not a novel issue. However the article by Kevin Lynch comes as a timely reminder that for governments to develop both quick and quality policies in response to pressing issues is, more than ever, a risky balancing act. (more…)

It is often thought that regulatory material is made of requirements, prohibitions and commands issued, and most often published, by governments and their regulatory agencies under Acts (statutes) passed by their respective legislators.  Such material is often referred to as ‘delegated legislation’ or ’subordinate legislation’, or more broadly speaking, ‘regulations’, be it orders, regulations, standards or specifications or even –  yes! - verbal or sign commands by police, air traffic controllers, to mention but a few.

Free market theories and regulatory environments cannot be reduced to such simplistic views of public administration fiats, or absence thereof, as the recent global financial turmoil unfortunately demonstrates. (more…)

As long as the public at large, the regulated industries, industry analysts and public authorities confine the meaning of regulatory system and regulatory framework to government-backed regulations and various regulatory documents and processes, the big picture of what goes on in both small and wide regulatory systems or frameworks, and how to approach them, won’t emerge clearly and completely.

There is still a strong tendency, mainly on the part of government, public regulators and the regulated public, to perceive regulatory systems as necessarily government-run, or at least as conduct monitoring systems, based on delegation processes and mandatory reporting requirements stemming from government or government agencies.  Mandatory legislative or adjudicative functions, supervisory role, reporting requirements and audits are usually the hallmarks of such regulatory systems.

However these systems and frameworks don’t account for all regulatory systems and frameworks worthy of interest. On the contrary!  (more…)

As abstract and remote from daily life as standards may appear to most people, they are almost living organisms, whether static or continuously evolving and undergoing mutations. They are approached, used and manipulated differently by standard makers in both the public and private sectors according to the concerned parties’ own interests and aims.

Here is how one reputable high-tech world reporting agency puts it:

“No matter how much the [computer] industry talks about compatibility, new formats and languages appear routinely. The standards makers are always trying to cast a standard in concrete, while the innovators are trying to create a new one. Even when standards are created, they are violated as soon as one vendor adds a proprietary extension.”  (ZDnet.com)

“Never doubt that a small group of concerned citizens can change the world.  Indeed it’s the only thing that ever has.”  Margaret Mead

A peek by TechNewsWorld into future mutations of the rule-making process.

Today’s daring ideas can be tomorrow’s routine way of handling the legislative/regulatory process.  More specifically, open legislation could could bolster participatory democracy.

The idea of open legislation is attractive at face value, but then one is left to wonder about the effects of open legislation on the role of interest groups and lobbyists, if any person is allowed to put directly their two-cent’s worth in regulatory proposals.  Sure, it’s empowering for individuals,  (more…)