The Chicago Sun Times reports that *gasp* drivers still talk on their cell phone whilst 're driving– even after laws were enacted making the practice a ticket-able offence. No surprise there. A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety showed that a 2001 cell phone ban in New York State led to a dramatic decline in in-car cellular communications. Three years later and the percentage of drivers using cell phones from behind the wheel went right back up to pre-ban levels. Why? Lax law enforcement; in Chicago cops wrote 13,400 cell phone related tickets as compared to 2.8 million traffic tickets. The study also cites an "above the law" attitude amongst offenders. In other words, there's a large number of cell phone-wielding drivers who believe they're perfectly safe drivers, much like chronic speeders. In this, they are sadly mistaken, as anyone who talks on a cell phone while driving may be as dangerous as a drunk driver.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
“We found that people are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated at the legal blood-alcohol limit” of 0.08 percent, which is the minimum level that defines illegal drunken driving in most U.S. states…”
Megan I do agree that driving and talking on a cell phone is a dumb idea, but this ’statistic’ that you are as impaired as being at the legal blood-alcohol limit doesn’t hold weight. You can still drive legally at .08, so there is proof there that you should be ‘legally’ able to talk and drive on a cell phone.
Real-world accident data tells us that legal phone usage comes nowhere close to being equivalent to drunk driving.
If phones were such a hazard, then the increased usage of phones should have naturally led to a dramatic increase in accident and fatality rates as their usage has spread. But as it turns out, no such thing has happened.
Fatality rates are declining in the same downward trajectory that they have for decades. The failure of the trend to change is an indicator that the phones are a non-issue in the broader scheme of things.
If you want further proof, look abroad. Many nations ban phone usage in cars, yet not a single one of them has exhibited a dramatic decline in fatalities after enacting a phone ban. Again, if phones were such a problem, their banning should have produced results, yet these results don’t exist.
All sorts of dumb accidents occur because people are fiddling with their car stereos – can we get those banned too please?
I see all sorts of idiot behavior:
– driver reaching back to bottlefeed baby which doing 80 on the highway
– TV in the dashboard
– driver and passenger “making out”
Isn’t there some sort of catch all law that forbids “driving without due care and attention” that covers all this so we don’t have to ban babies and ipods from cars just because of the actions of a few idiots?
Well, there has to be lax law enforcement when even law enforcement officers don’t follow the law. On multiple occasions I’ve seen law enforcement officers driving while using a cell phone without a hands-free device.
Driving under any distraction, be it cell phones or alcohol, is dangerous and should be illegal. The study showed that driving while talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as being legally drunk and driving, and yet we have severe penalties for drunk driving — and a slap on the wrist fine (or nothing) for talking on your cell phone.
Considering that insurance companies and police do not report whether a cell phone was involved in an accident, it’s hard to say that cell phones cause or don’t cause more accidents and/or fatalities. Just because the overall rate is on the decline doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be other factors at play — safer cars, stricter drunk driving laws, etc. Thousands of fender-benders probably happen every day due to distracted drivers… insurance companies need to start tracking the amount of money they pay out because someone wouldn’t hang up and drive. In fact, if you really want to enforce a cell phone ban, insurance companies should stop paying out if you’re found to be ‘under the influence’ of a cell phone and at fault. That would nix car cell phone usage faster than an unenforced legal ban.
The study showed that driving while talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as being legally drunk and driving, and yet we have severe penalties for drunk driving — and a slap on the wrist fine (or nothing) for talking on your cell phone.
It is these very same sort of studies based upon simulators and theoretical models that were used to claim that fatality rates would soar through the roof if the 55 mph limit was eliminated. Instead, the real-world rates performed in precisely the opposite manner. Not only were the studies wrong, the actual results were inverted from what had been projected.
Again, I’d like to see a study based upon real-world data that shows a change in accident rate trends as the result of a law or the lack of a law. Except there isn’t one.
About fifty countries have banned phone usage in cars. If you can’t point to a single one of them that has achieved some actual benefit in the real world because of its law, then you have to ask yourself one question: Why is the only “evidence” a matter of conjuncture, and not based on actual outcomes?
Well, I’d like to put in my 2 cents worth here. In fact, virtually every time I see a driver who’s car is making a maneuver which might lead me to think – that idiot! – I see the self same driver has a frickin’ CELL PHONE STUCK TO THEIR DAMN EAR.
So I’d have to go so far as to say I actually will believe the Canadian government on this one (along with many many other studies) which actually did prove that cell phone using morons drive as badly as drunk morons.
Drivers whose behavior has disturbed me lately include the woman writing a text message while steering with her elbows at 70 mph in rush hour traffic and the woman this morning who kept reading her magazine, carefully perched over the middle of the steering wheel.
My sister commented on all the men we see talking and driving – “Who knew men would turn out to be such chatty Cathys?”
Speaking as a motorcycle commuter, I will personally vouch for the fact that cellular phones make for more inattentive drivers. I don’t know what it is about the phone, versus talking to someone else in the car or any other distracting activity, but my observations are that it drastically affects one’s ability to pay attention to the road and the other things on it (including me, which is what usually gets my attention). I wonder if the ‘car as appliance’ movement in American motoring has led to people not taking driving seriously?
-S5
I will personally vouch for the fact that cellular phones make for more inattentive drivers.
If that was true, we should be seeing an increase in accidents and fatalities because of this. If the phones were as bad as high levels of alcohol, these rates should be increasing drastically. But fatality and accident rates are going down, not up, and states such as New York with phone bans have seen no benefit whatsoever from their laws.
I would suggest that drivers who are incompetent with phones are also incompetent without them. Take away the phone, and the CD player/ iPod/ newspaper/ passenger/ coffee/ sandwich/ newspaper/ attractive pedestrian/ billboard/ I-think-you-get-the-idea-by-now some other object will become the new target in the blame game.
Many drivers are capable enough, while the inept will always be inept until they stop driving or end up in a fatal wreck. The inept crash more than the competent, they always have and they always will.
The thing about the inattention is how it contributes to traffic congestion. I can’t count how many times I’ve been waiting at a traffic light and then, when the light changes, one of the drivers in front of me will just sit there, everyone behind him (or her) fuming. Most of the time the person blocking traffic is talking on a cell phone and not paying attention. They can usually manage to make it throught the light, but the traffic behind them ends up getting stuck and has to wait for another light.
“The study also cites an “above the law” attitude amongst offenders.”
I think it is a “Law is Stupid” attitude.
The German Gov. banned cellphone while driving and had the same results…The usually obedient Europeans even disobey the law.
PCH101:
I’m not sure that accidents are broken down and reported in such a way to note that cellular phone use (or eating or whatever) were a cause of an accident. Unlike drinking or other drug use, there’s no tell-tail sign of it after the accident has occurred to prompt an investigation or record it as a cause. I agree there are other distraction sources in (and out of) cars – but speaking from my own experience, cellular phone-using drivers are far worse threats to my safety than any other single class of drivers. This is not, of course, the fault of the phone – it is the fault of the person who has chosen to fail to pay attention to their surroundings while piloting a two-ton vehicle. I’d like to see more tickets written for ‘failure to maintain proper control of a vehicle’ than we currently do.
-S5
I’m not sure that accidents are broken down and reported in such a way to note that cellular phone use (or eating or whatever) were a cause of an accident.
Some states have studied this. No state has found that phones were “contributing factors” in any more than 1% of accidents. And of course, many of those accidents would have most likely still occurred, due to all of the other contributing factors.
The actual results don’t match the theory. If phones were the issue, then the outcomes should reflect that — we should be seeing some impact on the whole. But nothing is happening.
Here’s an example. New York passed its ban in 2001. In the year 2000 (the last full year before the ban), the fatality rate in New York was 1.13 per VMT (million vehicle miles traveled). In 2004 (the last year of data that we currently have available from NHTSA), the fatality rate was 1.08 per VMT. The overall decline between 2000-2004: 0.05 per VMT.
That may sound OK, except that New York actually underperformed the norm during that time period. During the same time period, the fatality rate declined in the US by 0.08 per VMT, or 60% more quickly than it did in New York. 37 states had declining fatality rates during that same period; among those 37, New York ranked 32nd in its level of decline.
Obviously, if the phones were such an issue, New York should have delivered a stellar performance, with fatality rates falling there much faster there than they did anywhere else. But that obviously didn’t happen.
These bans don’t work, most likely because accidents are ultimately driver-related, not device-related. A driver who is competent can use a phone and moderate its usage appropriately; a bad driver will just drive badly, no matter what.
If we want to improve our roads, then we should target the very worst drivers among us, who tend to cause most of the accidents, and not squander resources on citing drivers who aren’t causing any harm. These laws can actually make things worse, because every bit of time spent enforcing them distracts law enforcement from dealing with what really matters.
Pch101: If phones were such a hazard, then the increased usage of phones should have naturally led to a dramatic increase in accident and fatality rates as their usage has spread.
I dunno. Life is not quite so black and white in my book. Besides, it’s too early in the game (historically speaking) to make such a claim, I feel.
For one, I can spot a cell-phone-using driver from behind long before I get an opportunity to pull up beside one (say, at a light) to verify what I was thinking (i.e. the idiot is on the phone).
How so? Because following these dolts down the road tells me they’re distracted because they’re going so darned slow, that’s how.
I’m no rocket scientist but it’s an easy call to make (no pun intended) when you’re following a distracted cell phone user/driver.
– Drive with two hands and a focus on the road.
– Make a telephone call while holding the cell phone next to your head and focus on two things.
Pick one.
In Connecticut, we have a ban on using cell phones while driving unless using a hands-free device. The law is largely ignored. The police don’t (seem to) enforce the law (by handing out $100 tickets). Now the state legislature wonders what to do about the widespread use of cells without hands-free devices.
Here’s a novel idea:
Get law enforcement to enforce the law.
/rant
Besides, it’s too early in the game (historically) to make such a claim, I feel.
Mobile phones have been commonplace for a decade. In that time frame, the fatality rate fell by 15%. We can see in New York’s case that it actually underperformed compared to states that allow phones.
How much more time do you need for the bogeyman to appear? This issue seems to be to enthusiasts what increased speed limits are to the safety lobby — the threat is always around the corner, but the only place that we can see it is in a laboratory. When the facts contradict the theory, the solution seems to be to ignore the facts and restate the theory.
If enthusiasts applied the same levels of research standards and scrutiny to anti-phone legislation that they did to the 55 limit, there is no way that any enthusiast could possibly support these laws. The claims for safety are not supported by any real world data, only a lot of suppositions that no one can support beyond a theoretical model.
Pch101: Here’s an example. New York passed its ban in 2001. In the year 2000 (the last full year before the ban), the fatality rate in New York was 1.13 per VMT (million vehicle miles traveled). In 2004 (the last year of data that we currently have available from NHTSA), the fatality rate was 1.08 per VMT. The overall decline between 2000-2004: 0.05 per VMT.
That may sound OK, except that New York actually underperformed the norm during that time period. During the same time period, the fatality rate declined in the US by 0.08 per VMT, or 60% more quickly than it did in New York. 37 states had declining fatality rates during that same period; among those 37, New York ranked 32nd in its level of decline.
Obviously, if the phones were such an issue, New York should have delivered a stellar performance, with fatality rates falling there much faster there than they did anywhere else. But that obviously didn’t happen.
These bans don’t work, most likely because accidents are ultimately driver-related, not device-related.
Most likely?
Which sounds more factual?
– Most likely, I’ll go to work tomorrow.
vs.
-Tomorrow, I’m going to work.
Two points from Statistics Help For Journalists:
4. Be skeptical when dealing with comparisons.
Statisticians call this sort of thing a “spurious correlation,” which is a fancy term for “total coincidence.”
People who want something from others often use regression studies to try to support their cause. They’ll say something along the lines of “a study shows that a new police policy that we want led to a 20 percent drop in crime over a 10-year period in (some city).”
That might be true, but the drop in crime could be due to something other than that new policy. What if, say, the average age of those cities’ residents increased significantly over that 10 year period? Since crime is believed to be age-dependent (meaning the more young men you have in an area, the more crime you have), the aging of the population could potentially be the cause of the drop in crime.
The policy change and the drop in crime might have been correlated. But that does not mean that one caused the other.
5. Finally, be aware of numbers taken out of context.
– snip –
Consider the following example from Eric Meyer, a professional reporter now working at the University of Illinois:
My personal favorite was a habit we use to have years ago, when I was working in Milwaukee. Whenever it snowed heavily, we’d call the sheriff’s office, which was responsible for patrolling the freeways, and ask how many fender-benders had been reported that day. Inevitably, we’d have a lede that said something like, “A fierce winter storm dumped 8 inches of snow on Milwaukee, snarled rush-hour traffic and caused 28 fender-benders on county freeways” — until one day I dared to ask the sheriff’s department how many fender-benders were reported on clear, sunny days. The answer — 48 — made me wonder whether in the future we’d run stories saying, “A fierce winter snowstorm prevented 20 fender-benders on county freeways today.” There may or may not have been more accidents per mile traveled in the snow, but clearly there were fewer accidents when it snowed than when it did not.
But your points are taken. :-)
However, I do feel there’s not enough hard data specifically contrasting cell phone use with accident causation to support a claim on either side of the argument.
So let’s agree to disagree, shall we? :-)
People who want something from others often use regression studies to try to support their cause. They’ll say something along the lines of “a study shows that a new police policy that we want led to a 20 percent drop in crime over a 10-year period in (some city).”
That might be true, but the drop in crime could be due to something other than that new policy.
I got ya — correlation does not prove causation.
But if you look at the data that I’ve provided, it should be clear that I did not engage in such an exercise.
What I did was to demonstrate that there isn’t even any correlation to discuss, because the data doesn’t change in the presence of the law.
Since the anti-phone lobby contends that a law would produce benefit, then we should be able to see some benefit in the form of correlation. The next step would be to then prove that the correlation is associated with causation.
But the anti-phone lobby doesn’t even have this limited amount of bragging rights — there isn’t any correlation to speak of. Here, we see that the law changes, yet nothing happens to change the data. The data reads as if nothing ever happened.
If one is going to claim that phones are as hazardous as DWI, then we should be able to find consistent examples of historical data that show that (a) those areas that enact laws see a improvement in their trends and (b) those areas with laws should consistently outperform areas without laws, all things being equal. Those facts alone wouldn’t prove anything, but at least you’d then have some data correlation to argue as a starting point. But we don’t even have this.
This is the sort of evidence that we demanded from the pro-55 mph lobby and never got. They have been soundly discredited because their predictions never came true, and were never borne out by the real-world data. What ultimately torpedoed them was their failure to translate their projections into results. Their models were impressive, but when put to the test, never proved to be accurate.
I am holding the anti-phone lobby to the same standards. If one cannot show even a single example of a nation or broad geographical area that was able to substantially change its fatality rate after enacting such a law, then the position is suspect.
Pch101: But if you look at the data that I’ve provided, it should be clear that I did not engage in such an exercise.
Nor did I say you did. :-)
If one cannot show even a single example of a nation or broad geographical area that was able to substantially change its fatality rate after enacting such a law, then the position is suspect.
For me, fatality rate is just one measure. Life is not that A or B. Witness the many examples (responses) above from (I can only assume), all over North America (and possibly beyond).
While certainly unscientific, there’s a fair amount of testimony here indicating that cell phone users who are driving are distracted.
Yes, I know, there are cases where people “can handle” doing both, but we (as a nation) have made cell phones available to anyone with 40 bucks a month (or so) burning a hole in their pocket.
There’s no way, stasticially speaking, that 100% of them can drive a vehicle on busy roads and talk on the phone at the same time without some distraction. Yea, there’s no accident or fatality numbers here, just observation.
Megan has sited a study that was held under controlled conditions because it’s darned difficult to do so otherwise (i.e. in the real world, out on the roads).
From that article:
The University of Utah psychologists conducted the alcohol study because a 1997 study by other researchers evaluated the cell phone records of 699 people involved in motor vehicle accidents and found one-fourth of them had used their phone in the 10 minutes before their accident – a four-fold increase in accidents compared with undistracted motorists.
Those researchers speculated there was a comparable risk from drunken driving and cell phone use while driving. So Strayer and Drews conducted a controlled laboratory study.
They speculated because hard data from the real world is difficult to come by.
Your NY vs. nationwide fatality rate data is no doubt solid, but where’s the scientific corellation between cell phone use, or lack thereof, and fatality rates? Just speculation?
Interesting debate. But before we put everyone to sleep here, we should move on, I feel. :-)
Speaking of sleep, it’s 11 P.M. here in CT. Not trying to cut off further debate but it’s time for me to call it a day.
Enjoyed the dialog. :-)
Further to Glenn’s point, Pch101, the failure of the fatality rate to drop in NY, post-ban, could mean either that driving while on the phone was not a significant risk factor in motor vehicle fatalities (your suggestion) or, quite simply, that nobody stopped talking on the phone! Given that, as mentioned, cell phone users are often easy to spot long before you see the phone itself, I favor the latter explanation.
On the other hand, there are well-known biases at work. We may see just as many doltish maneuvers by people not on phones, but because they don’t reinforce our bias we tend not to remember them as vividly or accord them the same relative importance. The same type of bias explains all the people that swear by alternative health therapies. They remember the times it worked (possibly placebo effect, or they just got better on their own) but not when it didn’t do a damn thing.
The system of traffic is exceedingly complex, with many different drivers of different maturities, skills, etc. on roads with different conditions that it is difficult to project real-world results from even the best labratory studies. Personally, I think cell phone use does contribute to accidents, although I would expect to find higher fender-bender rates more so than fatality rates. After all, fatalities are such a small percentage of accidents and generally involve more speed. Most cell phone mishaps I see tend to be at slower speeds.
Here’s an analogy for you:
-You feel ill. For a time, you do nothing, and your condition does not change.
-So you go to the doctor. The doctor prescribes something. He promises great results.
-You take the medication. But your condition remains the same.
-The doctor is still promising. You get a refill. But still, no change.
At this point, would you presume that the drug is effective, when your condition remains static? (Keep in mind that your condition was the same, whether or not you took it.) Or would you be likely to presume that the failure of the status quo to change indicated that the drug is not working, and that you might be in need of a new doctor?
There is a joke that defines insanity as the state of repeatedly doing things that don’t work, in the hopes that things will be different next time. That applies pretty well to what is happening here.
For me, fatality rate is just one measure.
Fatality rate per mile or kilometer is a basic measure that everyone in the traffic/safety business uses to make comparisons and measure trends. Since accidents are fairly hazardous to one’s health, it’s fundamental to the whole profession. A traffic study that doesn’t specifically deal with this probably isn’t much of a study.
Further to Glenn’s point, Pch101, the failure of the fatality rate to drop in NY, post-ban, could mean either that driving while on the phone was not a significant risk factor in motor vehicle fatalities (your suggestion) or, quite simply, that nobody stopped talking on the phone!
Even if phones are a problem (and I have seen no hard data to show that they are) and if your supposition is correct, then the failure of a law to do anything about it would suggest that the law is not workable.
We have limited resources with which to enforce laws. If the phone ban is completely ineffectual even though law enforcement was issuing a ticket every 40 minutes for this violation, then you should ask yourself whether the time issuing those tickets was well spent. If the time devoting to citing those drivers had been devoted to catching a murderer, stopping a drunk driver or preventing a pedophile from haunting a schoolyard, then I’d say that the time was not only poorly spent, but foolishly so.
But in any case, the failure of the fatality rate to change completely short-circuits the drunk driving argument. If the phones are as bad as drunk driving, then banning them should achieve stupendous results — after all, DWI is a contributing factor in about four out of ten accidents. You would think that a phone ban would net a reduction in accidents of about 40% if they were as bad as all that. The actual results make it clear that there is something in the studies that just does not compute.
Pch101
You keep trying to say that because fatality rates have continued to drop, cell phones must be safe to use on the roads, without considering the advances in vehicle safety and medical technology in the intervening time. You’re trying to draw a conclusion based on one measure, and without a hard study showing the cause of the accident that led to the fatality, your premise that a drop in fatalities means cell phone usage isn’t dangerous is completely without basis. Insurance companies and police departments do not keep track of cell-phone related accidents in such a way that you can draw any conclusion from them, and if you have independent studies that show otherwise, please provide links to them. And how often does an insurance company or PD pull cell phone usage records in an attempt to determine fault? Probably only in cases where fatalities were involved. It can’t be hard for the cell phone user to simply turn the phone off and put it away, and deny having used it. Since admitting so would admit culpability, they are unlikely to do so. Plus, a large number of minor fender benders are never reported to the police or insurance companies.
Until insurance companies and police departments start tracking cell-phone related accidents in a consistent, reliable way, you cannot use accident or fatality rates to support or deny that cell phone usage is safe. Period. What we do have, is a study that shows that driving and cell phones are comparable to driving and alcohol. Danger is danger. In the meantime, there’s yet another story in the news — http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=6932163 — about a fatal accident caused by text messaging.
You keep trying to say that because fatality rates have continued to drop, cell phones must be safe to use on the roads, without considering the advances in vehicle safety and medical technology in the intervening time.
No, I’m not. What I am saying is that it is not possible for phone usage to be the equivalent of drunk driving and simultaneously for absolutely nothing to happen to fatality statistics.
Drunk driving is the leading cause of accidents, contributing to about 40% of them. If phones were as bad as drunkenness, then no quantity of airbags, antilock brakes and stability control could overcome this fact. The fatality rate should be climbing at a very fast pace to reflect the increasing market penetration and usage of phones that have occurred within a relatively short period of time.
Your claim is just statistically impossible. You want us to believe that something could contribute to literally thousands of fatalities, yet simultaneously not impact the overall statistics. Get out your calculator — that cannot be true.
Danger is danger. In the meantime, there’s yet another story in the news about a fatal accident caused by text messaging.
I hope that we don’t confuse phone conversations with texts, the latter of which is a visual medium. I don’t see anyone claiming that they could use a laptop or watch a movie while driving and do it safely, so texting and talking make for an apples-and-oranges comparison.
In any case, does anyone honestly believe that a driver who would use a device that requires usage of one’s hands and eyes to operate for prolonged periods is going to become a model citizen when the law comes into effect? Does it not seem fairly obvious that a driver who is this bad will find other excuses to have wrecks?