In order to understand this post, you’ll probably have to read the article referenced above.

I blogged about texting while driving before (see: Should mobile device use while driving be illegal?).

If states want to pass a law that extends distracted driving to cover mobile devices, I’d be fine with that as long as it covers the other distractions. By the way, carrying on a conversation is the biggest cause of accidents, and I don’t see a anti-conversation law being passed anytime soon.

Since I don’t want to waste anyone’s time reiterating what I said in my previous post, I’m focusing this post in response to the article about a technological fix to the problem.

“The obvious bottom line is that sending a text is not worth the cost of a life.”

-> I agree.

“As human beings, we simply can’t always be trusted to make the right choice. In the case of texting while driving, we should be glad that there’s technology available so that we don’t even have to worry about making the wrong decision.”

-> I disagree. What country is this? Do we stay off the internet because the majority is not safe for work? We deal with choices every minute of every day. How many items are stocked at the average grocery store? Thousands..

The biggest hurdle as I see it is that I can’t imagine all handset makers getting behind the implementation of a technology solution unless it was mandated by law, as they would likely see their sales tank. And even if there was a solution put in place, there would surely be a hack available online almost immediately after. It’s a cat and mouse game.

Implementing such a complex technology would be impressive, but extremely challenging. There are very few solutions that would work reliably and accurately enough to make it into the marketplace. Just because a vehicle is moving doesn’t mean that the occupants shouldn’t be using their mobile devices, as most of them will be passengers. Determining movement is the easy part. Determining who should and should not be using a mobile device while moving is the tough one and would require some kind of integration with the vehicle.

In regards to TXTBlocker or any other software solution, there will always be a hack to get around it. I think the idea is good, but I’d need to understand more about how it distinguishes between a driver and passengers.

Legislation will help be a deterrent, technology can help support with things like headsets & voice driven commands, but education, in my opinion, is really the best approach.

I agree with the approach posted by CTIA-The Wireless Association a couple days ago:

“The wireless industry remains committed to educating all drivers about the dangers of distracted driving. We support state and local legislation that would ban texting for all drivers and place wireless use restrictions on teens and novice drivers. We agree with Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s recommendation that distracted driving legislation should be developed and enforced by state and local governments. While state and local legislation is a part of the solution, education is key to trying to end distracted driving. We also agree with Secretary LaHood that personal responsibility is important and every single person needs to be aware about the serious dangers and possible consequences of texting and driving.”

Education is happening now, but a technology solution is 5+ years away at best and that’s before getting everyone else in the mobile ecosystem on board, including handset makers, software makers, telecoms and ultimately, the auto industry.

I’d rather see money spent on education vs. thrown at a technology solution.

Technorati Tags: mobile, legislation, texting, driving

The article was about the different government regulations that are being put in place for mobile phone use while driving:

Gabbing while crossing state lines can get you busted. By July, six states will ban the use of mobile handsets while driving, two will have explicit no-texting laws, and six will all but forbid drivers younger than 18 from touching their phones. Although research shows that hands-free devices do little to reduce crashes caused by distracted cell users, a Bluetooth headset can at least save you from hefty fines and free up a hand for still-legal munching and manicuring (not yet strictly prohibited).

So here is why I think this is ridiculous.

You can’t tell me that texting is any more dangerous than fooling with an iPod, changing the radio station, changing the temperature, etc. Every day on my way to work, I see plenty of people putting on makeup, searching their glove box, eating or carrying on a myriad of other random tasks.

Is texting while driving or messing around with email on your BlackBerry, iPhone or any other mobile device a bad idea? Yes, of course.

Should it be illegal? I think that’s a different question.

I think smoking in a car, especially with kids in the back, is a really bad idea, but I don’t see any laws on the docket for that.

According to one article, over a million people have been ticketed in New York since they passed a total ban on using hand-held devices in 2001.

Experts estimate that as many as 80 percent of motor vehicle crashes and 65 percent of near crashes have driver inattention as a contributing cause.

I talked to an attorney friend of mine about the subject and he mentioned that several states already have distracted driving laws in place, so I did a bit of research.

AAA put together a Microsoft Word document that outlines which states have Distracted Driving laws.

The problem with distracted driving laws, as I see them, is that they are open to interpretation. I don’t think that a distracted driving ticket would stand up in court, because I think it would be pretty tough for a police officer to prove unless it was video taped.

I did find this commentary about New Hampshire’s laws humorous, but it is a bit dated, with the article from 2005. Updates may have been made since then.

New Hampshire is the only state that doesn’t require adult motorists to wear seat belts, but it does ticket drivers for eating, drinking, talking on a cell phone or fussing with their makeup while behind the wheel.

The state whose motto is “Live Free or Die” passed the nation’s first law against distracted driving in 2001. Since then, every state has looked at ways to keep drivers’ minds on the road, but lawmakers in most states are choosing to focus more narrowly on restricting cell phone use while driving.

I agree with Jonathan Adkins of the Governors Highway Safety Association, “If you’re going to have a law, it should cover all distractions.”

So, in summary, I’m not so much against distracted driving laws, although I think that they would be difficult to uphold, but I’m not in favor of singling out texting and mobile phone use as the only activity to be prohibited.

I’d like to see an updated version of the 2003 study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety that listed the top distractions. I listed the chart from the document below. Although I’m sure that mobile use has increased and new items will be added (like watching TV), it still hits home that other distractions are equally as important.

The existing data suggest that cell phones are a factor in a tiny fraction of crashes. A 2003 report by NCSL said that crash data from seven states showed that cell phones were a factor in less than 1 percent of accidents.

What about the other 99%? Did lawmakers miss the boat?

Technorati Tags: mobile, texting, sms, legal, law, , distracted driving

Billboard Over Adult Store Raises Eyebrows
KMBC’s Chris Nagus reports on a billboard for the Department of Homeland Security that is posted above an adult entertainment store in Midtown Kansas City.

Technorati Tags: KMBC, TV, billboard, PSA, government, adult, bookstore, Kansas City

I was on my way to a friends house after work on Friday when I drove by a billboard that caused me to do a double take (above). To verify what I saw, I went back later that night and snagged a picture from across the street.

In case you were wondering and couldn’t tell by the name, Naughty but Nice is apparently an adult bookstore. The store is located at 38th & Main in Kansas City if you want to check out the billboard above.

The text of the billboard says:

You are here.
Where is your family?
Make an emergency plant at ready.gov.

I have passed by several of the ready.gov billboards around Kansas City and other major cities, but the irony of the placement was too much to pass up.

I’m not sure of the agency behind the campaign and the specific billboard placement, but based on this USA Today article, it appears to have launched about 5 years ago and has been produced and paid for by the Ad Council.

The Department of Homeland Security launched a public-education campaign Wednesday that urges Americans to put together emergency kits and communication plans so they can ride out a chemical, biological or radiological attack.

The multimillion-dollar campaign — produced and paid for by the Ad Council, which produces public service advertisements, and the philanthropic Alfred P. Sloan Foundation — has been in the works for nearly a year. Besides TV and radio ads, Americans will find brochures in their mailboxes and pamphlets in their Yellow Pages. The ads will direct people to a government Web site, www.ready.gov, that advises how to assemble a disaster kit and develop a communication plan with family members.

As the “About” page on the Ad Council website states:

A Mirror of Society
A review of the Ad Council’s campaign dockets through the years demonstrates the organization’s commitment to address the most pressing social issues of the day. To that end, the Ad Council campaign docket is adjusted to mirror changes in our society.

The Ad Council is positive in nature and as a non-profit, may not always have the resources to follow-up on every campaign. I’m assuming there wasn’t very much competition for the billboard above the adult bookstore, so the owner probably donated the space for a tax write-off. Once again, not necessarily a bad thing.

But putting a PSA above an adult bookstore doesn’t really fit with the primary activities of the Ad Council listed below.

Primary Activities
The Ad Council is a private, non-profit organization that marshals volunteer talent from the advertising and communications industries, the facilities of the media, and the resources of the business and non-profit communities to deliver critical messages to the American public. The Ad Council produces, distributes and promotes thousands of public service campaigns on behalf of non-profit organizations and government agencies in issue areas such as improving the quality of life for children, preventative health, education, community well being, environmental preservation and strengthening families.

Maybe the billboard was addressing more than meets the eye. Are you ready, America?

Technorati Tags: billboard, Ad Council, PSA, government, homeland security, Naughty but Nice, adult, bookstore, Kansas City

In clinical trials, Veramyst relieved overall nasal symptoms of seasonal and year-round allergies, which included nasal congestion, sneezing, itchy nose and runny nose. In addition, Veramyst is the first prescription nasal steroid spray to demonstrate consistent and significant improvement in relieving overall allergic eye symptoms, which included red, itchy and watery eyes, in patients with seasonal allergies 12 years of age and older in three prospectively designed studies.

No, you are not seeing things.
The way VERAMYST works is not entirely understood.

The screen capture is from their 30 second spot, which can be seen on YouTube below.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx4qe7KI_Ps]

If the way it works isn’t fully understood, how can the long term impact and side effects? It is even listed in the story referenced above: Veramyst is an intranasal corticosteroid (INS) that works throughout the allergy process to block an entire range of the chemicals in the body that are involved in inflammation that may lead to nasal allergy symptoms. However, the precise mechanism through which Veramyst affects allergy symptoms is not known.

I can tell you that’s not a gamble I’m willing to take.

Technorati Tags: Veramyst, FDA, pharmaceutical research, medicine, allergy

Here is a rundown of a few articles:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-11-dwt_N.htm
http://www.wirelessweek.com/Article-California-Bill-Teen-Drivers.aspx
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20681742/

Lowell High School junior Minna Shmidt, 16, hands her cell phone to her father before taking the wheel of their car in San Francisco. Shmidt says her father, a retired driver’s education teacher, has taught her that driving and cell phone use don’t mix.

Still, California and 15 other states are considering bills banning teens from using electronic equipment while driving, according to the American Automobile Association. Another 13 states and the District of Columbia have passed bans.

Supporters say teen-specific regulations — which generally amend existing laws that apply to everyone, or add provisions to graduated licensing laws for young motorists — reduce driver distraction and save lives. Opponents say that they’re another example of government meddling into citizens’ private behavior — and that teaching students proper driving skills is a parent’s duty, not the state’s.

Really? Ya think texting while driving can be dangerous? Say it isn’t so.

I think adults are just if not more guilty of texting or messing around with mobile devices while driving. Every person I know that has a BlackBerry, Treo, iPhone or similar device has been guilty of this at some point, although some more than others.

Although with good intentions, I think this is a joke for cops to try and enforce a ban on teens texting while driving. I think this should be dealt with by parents. If teens get into accidents from text messaging, their insurance costs are going to raise above the already astronomical amount, so isn’t there an attempt to keep distractions at a minimum already?

I’m guessing high insurance costs and removal of car privileges by parents has a limited deterrent factor, but that is probably more effective than issuing a ticket.

What is next? A teen ban on listening to the radio while driving?

Technorati Tags: SMS, text messaging, mobile, California, law

“A letter from nearly 30 attorneys general sent to federal officials to investigate the ingredients and marketing of alcoholic energy drinks this week will likely prompt greater scrutiny of those products, experts said yesterday.” [ via Promo Magazine]

AdAge also posted a story: State Attorneys General Attack Marketing of Alcoholic Energy Drinks

Aggressive campaigns
The letter noted that nonalcoholic energy drinks have grown rapidly in popularity, especially with teens, and it argued that the alcoholic energy drinks are essentially exploiting that phenomenon. “Alcoholic beverage manufacturers have taken advantage of the youth appeal by engaging in aggressive marketing campaigns,” the letter reads. “These campaigns claim that such beverages increase a person’s stamina or energy level. However, they do not mention the potentially severe, adverse consequences of mixing caffeine with alcohol.”

When will consumers and parents shoulder some of the responsibility as well?

“The group in February targeted the No. 1 brewer’s pioneering online TV network, Bud.TV, over what it called insufficient age-verification measures. The site did require users to enter personal information that could be verified by a database of state-issued identification cards, which is actually well beyond what most brewers use online. But the AGs said that, as a network operator, A-B had more responsibility to keep youth away from its marketing than it did as a mere advertiser.

Six months later, Bud.TV’s age verification remains unchanged, and is frequently cited as a reason the site has struggled to attract a large audience.”

Why did Budweiser get targeted for “insufficient age-verification” while adult sites run rampant on the internet with little verification of age? I think A-B took as many precautions as they could have in the situation, which ultimately lead to the demise of the project.

This reminds me of the Cocaine Energy Drink which came under fire a few months ago. Redux Beverages pulled the energy drink it dubbed Cocaine from stores nationwide.

The Food and Drug Administration issued a warning letter that said Redux was illegally marketing the drink as a street-drug alternative and a dietary supplement. May 4 was the deadline for the company to respond. The FDA cited the drink’s labeling and Web site, which included the statements “Speed in a Can” and “Cocaine–Instant Rush.” Redux says Cocaine contains no drugs and is marketed as an energy drink.

Redux would like to keep the name Cocaine because it fits with the company’s tongue-in-cheek approach. “We like to think we have a great sense of humor,” says partner Clegg Ivey.

Vodka & Red Bull is standard fare in most bars and clubs these days, which, from the article, generally has about 10 times the alcohol as malt beverage energy drinks.

I’m surprised they didn’t throw alcopops, which basically resemble soft drinks, into the mix to receive more oversight.

I’m wondering what it will take for caffeine to come under FDA scrutiny. I’m not sure how I’d survive without my 4 shot iced latte.

Technorati Tags: alcohol, energy drink, alcopop, caffeine

I was reading the August 6th edition of Brandweek and there were a couple articles in there that are worth a mention.

One article about Johnson & Johnson’s Ortho Evra Patch and another article about GlaxoSmithKline’s new drug, Alli.

There was also an article a few days ago on MSNBC about the significant growth in drug related advertising.

“.. direct-to-consumer advertising, which increased by 330 percent during that period, still only makes up 14 percent of the nearly $30 billion the companies spend to promote their drugs, according to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine.”

For a little background, the regulations changed about 10 years ago that allow drug companies to advertise directly to U.S. consumers.

The total amount spent promoting medicines is 2.6 times what it was in 1996.

I know several people who work in pharmaceutical research and the amount of time and resources spent developing and getting drugs approved by the FDA is mind boggling. With the liability and risk involved with launching a new drug, I understand why its so expensive.

The MSNBC article mentions that although the amount spent on advertising has grown significantly, the amount the FDA spends on policing advertising has not tracked with the increase in spending. Only about 1/3 of the TV ads are reviewed, compared to about 2/3 of the TV ads in 1996.

An article showed up on Yahoo News about how the FDA is going to study TV ads more carefully.

“The FDA says it plans to study how 2,000 people react to television drug ads to determine whether they have an overwhelmingly positive impression of products despite audio warnings about potential side effects.”

The following quote struck me as asking for too much from the drug companies. You don’t see the same risks for high speed cars, such as, if you push this 400 horsepower engine to the max, you will get a speeding ticket, or some bogus warning like that.

“If advertisers were really interested in getting information about drug risks out, they’d show pictures of those problems, but you almost never see that,” said Dr. Sidney Wolfe of the advocacy group Public Citizen, which frequently criticizes drug industry marketing.”

So I ask you, where is the line? Does there need to be more regulation around drug companies advertising to consumers? I agree that the warnings need to be monitored and clearly communicated, but there are plenty of warnings on things like cigarettes and that does seem to have an impact on sales.

Are we a lawsuit happy culture?

Who has the responsibility for researching the drugs?

Since most of these drugs require a prescription from your doctor, doesn’t the doctor and pharmacist own some of that responsibility to educate the consumer as well, since they are the ones providing and dispensing the prescription?

Technorati Tags: drug advertising, FDA, pharmaceutical research, TV, drugs