Are Cell Phone Bans a Distraction?

In a story about bans on the use of hand-held telephones while driving, The New York Times notes that mobile phones rarely contribute to accidents. A spokesman for the wireless industry, for example, "cited statistics showing that before the New York law was enacted, fewer than one-hundredth of 1 percent of New York City accidents were related to cellphones." The Times doesn't know quite what to make of such numbers. "With cellphone-related incidents making up only a small percentage of motor vehicle accidents," it says, "even government officials wonder why this particular behavior [i.e., using a hand-held phone] was chosen for a law, since studies have shown that hands-free and hand-held cellphones are equally distracting."

The second part of the sentence is a non sequitur, since accident statistics call into question all mobile phone bans, not just ones that allow hands-free use. As a AAA spokesman tells the Times, "It's not just the cellphone….The real issue is distracted drivers." The question is whether specifically banning potentially distracting activities (presumably including talking to passengers, putting on makeup, eating, tuning the radio, and driving with small children) makes more sense than citing people for careless driving.

Comments

[crimethink]

Cell phones were targeted because a large part of the population hates people who talk on their cell phones while driving. Not only because of the supposed distraction effect, but also because it makes those who don't have cell phones feel inferior.

[dhex]

it is dangerous like the rest of the behaviors listed above - distracted driving is bad fucking news.

we almost got whacked this weekend by a gentlman who couldn't make up his mind as to whether to leave the BQE for greener pastures or remain on the great parking lot. he was, of course, on his cellphone, weaving about like a besotted slackwit.

cellphones while driving is probably just be a symptom of a larger problem - like hurting animals during adolescence. but i enjoy hating on them anyway.

[beep this Nextel!]

It's not an superiority complex as much as it is a perceived annoyance. Of all of the vehicle distractions, cellphone users are seen as just as annoying out of their cars as they are in them.

[AJS]

I have seen *many* occasions when accidents were narrowly avoided or drivers were driving erratically, only to see these dimwits jabbering away on their cellphones while driving. The roads are a shared medium, so bad driving by one affects others. I've got no problem dinging folks for using cell phones while driving. Hands free kits on the other hand are a cheap solution to the problem. In fact, mobiles I've had before have come with at least a basic kit. Use 'em people!

[mith]

Maybe the numbers of total accidents involving cell phones is really that low, although the numbers depend on whether the cop notes the person was talking on the phone, which they probably don't do in most places regularly (or can't, unless they personally witnessed the accident). From personal experience though, I feel confident in saying that almost every time I'm cut off or nearly hit be some idiot, or there's someone going 15 miles per hour too slow in the fast lane - they're on the phone.

Granted, at this point when I look around while driving 9 out of 10 people are on the phone, so who knows.

It would be great if the police would ticket people driving badly on the phone with reckless driving, but frankly most cops aren't going to bother with the hassle, what with going to court and all if the person wants to argue it. But I bet almost no one tries to refute a ticket under the cell-phone specific laws so the cops are more likely to write them.

[mith]

AJS,

The problem is that studies have shown that using the phone hands free hurts reaction times just as much as holding it to your ear.

What's wierd is that talking to a person sitting in the seat next to you doesn't present the same distraction.

[Ted Bezat]

Perhaps we can once again let the market decide, rather than simply intervent through government fiat. Let us simply alter the laws regarding the monetary responsibility for accidents which occur when one of the motorists is operating a cell phone when the accident happens. If it can be clearly shown (through cell phone records) that one of the vehicle operators was using a cell phone during the time of the accident, let them bear the full burden of responsibility for it. Want to bet whether or not insurance companies give a LARGE break to those drivers who do NOT use cell phones while driving?

As a regular motorcycle rider, I am MUCH more aware of driver (mis-)behavior than most cage-drivers. By far the most egregious violations of both law and common-sense that I have observed are by cell phone users, exceeding even those of signifincantly-impaired-by-alcohol. It has gotten to the point here in Minnesota where if a vehicle is observed weaving, slowing-then-accelerating, and reacting slowly (if at all) to incidents, the first impulse is no longer to wonder, "Is he drunk?", but to say, "Must be on a cell phone."

[linguist]

I used to do neuroimaging studies on distracted driving, and I've gotta say I find the study's results pretty surprising. It contradicts most others I've read.

The reason a person sitting next to you isn't as dangerous is that they are also somewhat aware of what is going on. If you're trying to do something requiring attention (for instance, merging onto the BQE) usually your passenger will be smart enough to shup up for a second. On the phone, however, the interlocutor has no idea.

Funny story...the first time I spoke with my landlord he was driving down Sheridan Road in Chicago and suddenly someone came to his window and started screaming at him, claiming he'd nearly hit him. Here I am, on the other end of the line while these two guys threaten to kill one another. I thought, well, I'd better hang on in case I need to be a witness!

[rich]

I think it has as much to do with the fact that cel phones are highly visible both as a distraction and as a ban target.

that said, call me overly skeptical, but I wouldn't necessarily take a statistic quoted by a cel phone industry spokeshack and no other source as gospel that they do no wrong - it would harldy be the first time an industry used distorted, fabricated, or just plain wrong data in the name of profit.

[rich]

and for the record i should likely clarify - i'm not accusing said rep of using distorted, fabricated, or just plain wrong data. just saying I'd like a second opinion when debating the point.

[PintofStout]

I think it is equally distracting to talk to a passenger or eat a burger or something. Hands-free or not the phone conversation is the distraction, not the physical device.

What's next, only people with two hands can drive?

What makes us think insurance companues will reward non-cellphone users without repressive laws a la seatbelts?

[Pedro]

I gotta say, my biggest distractions when driving are seeing a cop car, and watching for cop cars. On the highway, I have to keep an eye out for cops while I'm speeding (at the careless speed of 120 kmh (75 mph), which is a bit of a distraction. In the city, every time I see a cop car, I have to make sure my seatbelt is on, put my cell phone down, make sure I'm not over the speed limit, make sure I wait for 3 seconds at each stop sign, and generally figure out if I'm breaking any of the bajillion laws they could ticket me for.

[Ayatollah Usoe]

I bet the same arguments were made when radios first made it into cars. What a distraction, he'll be looking for music, etc.. It is another rehash of the future, and its discontents.

I find that whenever there is a slow poke ahead, or someone giving up the right of way, it is likely a cell phone user. They are just not aggressive enough when on the phone.

I wish I had a cell jammer. They are available, but of course illegal in the US. While jammers would be quite useful in churches, restaraunts, theaters, etc, a mobile jammer would let every motorist around me concentrate on his driving. It wouldn't be a government solution. I'd buy the jammer; it would be a market solution. Then people tired of getting phone calls dropped would invent the anti jammer. I love the interaction of technology and the market!

[Jimbo]

Usoe,

You'd just cause them to spends minutes figuring out why the call was dropped as they scrape the side of the NJ barrier.

[AJS]

Mith, that's surprising to me, I'd love to see the research. If there were a market based solution for this, I'd be all over it. Problem is, as Mr Ayatollah pointed out, they are probably already banned 🙂

[B.P.]

I think people need to concentrate more on shutting the hell up. There's way too much chit-chat going on in this country. I know people who think a little contemplative dead air/peace & quiet is some sort of social no-no.

And yes, folks on cell phones drive like crap. Apparently when on a cell phone, it is no longer necessary to use a turn signal, and it takes a driver about 5 city blocks to get up to 35 mph.

[ouch]

I think wearing heavy jackets when it is snowing should be illeagal. If you slip, the exra weight of the jacket will bring you down harder, increasing the chance of injury. You also loose a lot of mobility wearing an oversized jacket, which leads to the bad balancing act that leads to the fall. I also hate people who think the are sooooo cool wearing big bulky jackets. disclaimer: I work in the heated shirt industry.

[Phong Phuhn]

I gotta say, my biggest distractions when driving are seeing a cop car, and watching for cop cars.

You don't have the right to break any law, ever, for any reason. Laws are meant to protect us.

[gaius marius]

I bet the same arguments were made when radios first made it into cars.

fwiw, last time i got rearended in chicago, i watched the guy in (being in traffic and unable to move, all i had recourse to do was wait -- three, two, one...)

he never saw me -- his head was firmly fixed on tuning the radio until the moment of impact.

[Mith]

AJS,

Here's a link to the group's more recent studies.

http://www.utah.edu/unews/releases/03/jan/cellphone.html

The 2001 study was the one I was referring to previously, the best I could do was a CNN article about it.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/08/16/cell.phone.driving/index.html

There may be conflicting studies, I'm not exactly reading the journals to keep up with this...

[AJS]

Mith, thanks. Interesting indeed that the findings were that *all* cell phone use impairs driving ability. I stand corrected. So perhaps the legislation should be a ban on all mobile phone use in cars. From my anecdotal experience that probably wouldn't be a bad thing.

[pococurante]

You don't have the right to break any law, ever, for any reason. Laws are meant to protect us.

Ha ha! More of the recent brilliant deadpan satire. You and "Juanita" should be writers on The Daily Show or The Simpsons.

OTOH, if you're actually serious, might I remind you: know your audience.

[free form]

Has any study been done to show that the rate of accidents has increased since the advent of the cell phone?

Or, are there about as many accidents as there always were, but now that we have cell phones to blame, that's what we're doing. Anybody know?

[MP]

Phong,

If you are serious, I recommend you relocate to Iran. Their you'll have many fine laws for you to mindlessly obey.

[Russ D]

I bet the same arguments were made when radios first made it into cars.

I bet the same arguments were made when heaters first made it into cars.

[Mr. T]

[Mr. T (trying again)]

Trying again:

I think people need to concentrate more on shutting the hell up. There's way too much chit-chat going on in this country.

Ain't got time for no jibber-jabber!!

[linguist]

Ayatollah,

In fact there have been studies on the effects of listening to the radio. Music, not a problem. Talk radio somewhat more so, but we find that people are able to "tune it out" when they need to concentrate. (Some people will turn down the radio when they hit a difficult situation, too.) The difference with cell phones is that it's a CONVERSATION, so your mind is much more engaged.

[signifying nothing]

I don't believe that reaction time is the critical element resulting in most accidents; a lack of concentration and awareness are more responsible for the accidents. I have noticed that my own driving suffers when I'm using a hand-held phone, mostly because I don't check my surroundings as often.

[wade]

we won't need to worry if the phone is distracting us, when they get around to fitting speed limiting technology on new cars - you just punch in your destination and the computer takes you there, at the appropriate speed for the road you are on, leaving you free to talk or watch a dvd or whatever... bet you still wont be allowed to drink though..

[The Real Bill]

I agree. I'm a frequent pedestrian. Nearly every time I'm almost killed by some idiot driver, they are talking on the cell and driving a large SUV.

There is way too much agreement on this thread. Where are the anarchists?

[Brendan Perez]

All this radio talk made me remember something similar about another vehicle innovation.

I vaguely remember reading that lawmakers in the early automobile years were concerned about windsheild wipers "hypnotizing" the driver.
But, I could be wrong, and I'm too lzay to check snopes right now.

I'm batting about .850 when it comes to guessing whether the knuckledragger doing 30 in a 45 in the left lane, stopping at green lights(WTF?!!), casually easing out at snail's pace into 45mph traffic, merging from the storage lane at 5-55, deciding "Oh, I want to be over there now" while ignoring the fact that there are cars in that lane going faster is using a cell phone.

My favorite is when me and the a**hole are in the outer lanes and both want to get into the middle lane-I, foolishly, signal (I really do!) for a few seconds, and then begin moving over. Once I'm 1/2 to 2/3 in that lane, he also decides that is going to move over, but very quickly with no signal-not even a glance over his shoulder causing me to swerve back into my old lane. Now I have to hit the horn, flip him off, and dream of him being cut in half by a train in front of his kids so they can watch both halves of their moron daddy wiggle like worms on a hot plate*.

*Bonus points for whoever gets the reference first 🙂

[Evan Williams]

"I agree. I'm a frequent pedestrian. Nearly every time I'm almost killed by some idiot driver, they are talking on the cell and driving a large SUV.

"There is way too much agreement on this thread. Where are the anarchists?

Given that numerous studies have shown that cell phones are only involved in a tiny fraction of a percent of all accidents, I think this whole "every time I see a driver do something stupid, he's on a cellphone and driving an H2" nonsense is all just misperception. We want to blame cellphones. We want to lambast "arrogant" large-suv drivers (they think they own the road, right?) So, every time we see a driver do something stupid, and that driver is A) on a cellphone, and/or B) in a Land Yacht, our expectations are seemingly met, and we connect the two. BING! A lightbulb goes off in our head, and you say, "see, that dumb bastard just cut me off...and he's on a cellphone and driving a big SUV! I knew it! This just reinforces my suspicions!" And you remember that instance of bad driving. But when some innocent-looking, somewhat-attractive, thirty-something, mother-of-two brunette cuts you off, and she's driving a honda civic and not on a cellphone, well, there's no "A-HA!" moment like there is with land yacht/cellphone man. So you don't remember it. But you sure as hell remember land-yacht/cellphone man. And then you come around here and say something like, "nearly every time I'm almost killed by some idiot driver, they are talking on the cell and driving a large SUV.".

Believe me, before I became self-cognizant about this stuff, I was afflicted with the same bias. I was reluctant to get a cellphone for a long time, and I don't drive a land yacht (and I get pissed because so many of them cannot safely operate their landyacht. Hell, they can't even park them!). But one day, I saw one of these studies, so I decided to abandon my bias and really take an objective look at the bad drivers here. And ever since then, I've noticed that there are quite a few drivers who do really stupid things, but are not on cellphones.

And you wanna know something that's REALLY screwed up? Here in VA, cellphones while driving is still legal. Good. But I swear to christ, EVERY SINGLE COP I SEE has one plastered to their ear. This is not the anecdotal bias that I was describing above. I have made a concerted, unbiased effort to look at every cop I see drive past me, and I would estimate that 80% of them are on cellphones.

Couple that with recent NEJM, etc., studies that show that cellphones, innocuous as they are, are still more likely to cause an accident than a .08 BAC level.

That's right. The former action, driving while chatting, is MORE dangerous, yet almost every cop on the road does it. The latter action, driving while intoxicated (to a certain level, at least), is LESS dangerous, yet it will land you in jail and with thousands upon thousands of dollars in fines and fees.

But nah, there's no injustice. Nope. Move along. Nothing to see here.

[SixSigma]

For my two firing synapses -

I think the "cell phone" argument is solely over perception of those on the phone. Anyone on a cell phone at an "inoppurtune" time, is viewed by most others as arrogant, yuppie, scum, etc. They attach motives, thoughts, beliefs, to someone they view as vile solely because they talk on their cell phones. The implication of course being that the talker doesn't *need* to be on the phone *right* now. When we really have no way of knowing.

It could be I was on an important call at 3, that should end at 4 so I can leave to pick up my daughter. But as the case has it, the phone call continues because some issues weren't worked out. And most of my business is by phone as most of my clients aren't headquartered in my area, and it's really really really tough to get 4 high level executives at the same company on the phone at the same time. So I continue the call on my way home.

Of course it could be I'm calling friends because I'm bored and need to be put out of my misery.

The point being that most people assume the later version, while never assuming the talker has an acutal *reason* to be on the phone.

And what's struck me as really wierd about this thread is a simple axiom I thought most libertarians agreed with - Do we really need *more* laws?

[B.P.]

Bitching about bad driving isn't the same as advocating for *more* laws.

[SixSigma]

BP -

Good point, but the story did reference new laws specifically targeting drivers using cell phones.

[kevrob]

I agree. I'm a frequent pedestrian. Nearly every time I'm almost killed by some idiot driver, they are talking on the cell and driving a large SUV.

I agree with this, except I see as as many, or more, female types driving cute little cars as any other malefactors.

I also see quite a few pedestrians crossing streets while their Nokia is welded to their ears. There is also that weird phenomenon of the chatter swiveling his or her head in order to maintain proper reception, and to hell with what that may do to one's peripheral vision.

I've even seen cyclists using hand-helds in city traffic! Nuts!

Kevin