Cell Phones and Drivers: A Contrary Take

What is it with Times scribe Maureen Dowd these days? When did it become acceptable for a prominent columnist to pen, as a contribution to perhaps the foremost newspaper in the free world, a basic rehash/summary of another writer's article — an article from the Times itself, published just days earlier, which means that a vast audience has already taken note of those very same facts?

Here's what I'm talking about:

• Dowd's column bemoaning the cell-phone use of motorists.

• Matt Richtel's NYT article from two days before, same topic.

Dowd cribs almost exclusively from Richtel's reporting. Some eighty percent of her column's sentences are reworked ones from Richtel's earlier article. That doesn't rise to the level of plagiarism, but it's certainly strange. And annoying.

More troublesome still is Dowd's facile insistence — also prevalent, though more latently, in Richtel's multiple pieces on the subject — that The Government Must Finally Do Something. That means, the Times team says, that we need laws that forbid drivers from using cellphones — even hands-free ones.

What might be instructive is to first take a level-headed look at the scope of the problem. Over a ten-year span, from 1997 till 2007, the number of reported traffic accidents in the U.S. went down from 6.7 million to 6 million a year, at a time when cell-phone use increased by a factor of more than 30. Interesting, isn't it?

Risky as I'm sure it is to drive and dial, and then to drive and yap, those numbers don't exactly point to an out-of-control bloodbath.

The argument advanced by David Strayer, a professor who researches distracted driving, has some merit:

"We've spent billions on air bags, antilock brakes, better steering, safer cars and roads, but the number of fatalities has remained constant. Our return on investment for those billions is zero. And that's because we're using devices in our cars."

It seems a bit short-sighted, though, to point to the use of "devices" as the only or even the leading reason for why we're not decisively winning the War on Traffic Accidents (though we're doing pretty well). There are other factors at work too. One of them is that as cars become safer, with airbags and crumple zones and digital lane-change alerts and onboard collision-avoidance computers, our sense of security increases to the point where we are likely to take more risks. These irksome unintended consequences are of course plenty ironic: technologies that are designed to make us safer in fact often tempt us (well, not you or me, natch, but others) to slip into chancier-than-before behavior.

Besides, many lives are saved by the same mobile gadgets on which Dowd and Richtel and Strayer cast a weary eye. It's now a completely common occurrence for people to report an erratic, swerving driver from their cell phones, while driving. And rather than passively rubbernecking, multitudes of motorists call 911 from behind the wheel as soon as they witness a car crash or another calamity.

By the way, I'm a bit suspicious of Strayer's indiscriminate use of the word devices, because it seems to point to his having a problem with all manner of electronics used in cars. Is he talking about GPS navigators too? I would argue that Americans now save themselves millions of miles on the road, no longer vexed by endlessly trying to find the correct address. That can't help but have a mitigating effect on the number of accidents. Or perhaps the miles not traveled and the increased collisions caused by GPS distractions cancel each other out. In any case, it's a bit bizarre that Strayer and the sympathetic reporters who quote him spare no thought for the other side of the coin.

I don't deny that there are serious safety risks involved in dialing while driving, or programming a satnav (GPS) while driving. I wish people didn't take those risks — just as I wish that 1980s drivers had all kept their eyes on the road while fumbling for their Prince and Hall & Oates audio cassettes, and motorists of all eras would simply refuse to get distracted by the wailing toddlers in the backseat.

This, I think, goes to the heart of the matter. Which behaviors should be deemed too risky to be allowed to continue, on penalty of law? Richtel makes much of the notion that a phone conversation is extraordinarily distracting to a driver because it mentally whisks the talker to a different place.
But talk radio, or a Garrison Keillor radio play, can easily be said to do the same thing (I frequently mutter things at Limbaugh and Hannity, sometimes in an almost out-of-body kind of way, during the time I can stand to have them on the dial). Do we therefore outlaw radio in cars? CD players? iPods? GPS screens? Eating or drinking behind the wheel? Lighting a cigarette (I know, quaint, isn't it)? Applying makeup? Looking at a road atlas? Having unruly kids in the back?

Where do we draw the line, and why there?

Most states already have a catch-all law on the books that lets cops dole out fines for "operating a motor vehicle without due care" (the language of these statutes differs, but that's the gist of it). Why would we need extra laws cracking down specifically on electronic devices in general and on cell phones in particular?

And more importantly: What of the states and municipalities that have already introduced specific legislation to restrict motorists' use of cell phones? Have crashes and fatalities gone down appreciably in those areas, in a statistically meaningful way? It's possible, but by no means self-evident. The Times — remarkably, for all the space it's been devoting to the topic — is largely mum on the subject. Given that people tend to overestimate their own ability to drive and simultaneously yap on the phone, and given that the paper quotes experts who say that cell phone use is quite literally an addiction, compliance with any new laws is likely to be pretty low.

To me, real as the dangers are of mobile technologies being used by distracted motorists, it seems like a problem that legislation cannot effectively address. No doubt more cell phone bans will be passed though, and they will be mostly a false panacea that serves no use other than legislative theater — "Look, your elected representatives are doing something, isn't that grand?!"

No, it isn't grand at all. It's damn near useless.

Want to really do something about the problem? Slap a one-dollar tax on each gallon of gas. Why? It's right there in Richtel's article, staring him and Dowd in the face:

The number of driving fatalities has remained around 42,000 a year for most of the last decade, though it fell to 37,261 in 2008, when gas prices rose sharply and Americans drove less.

Introducing a hefty gas tax would do more to staunch the human toll of driving than dozens upon dozens of cell phone bans ever could. But of course, such a move would never fly with politicians interested in keeping their jobs. Instead, they're reduced to (eventually) crafting new feelgood legislation that is wholly unnecessary and overwhelmingly ineffectual.

Or, as they call it on Capitol Hill and in State Houses across the nation, "Business as usual."

Comments

[Don]

First, I am against all forms of gov't and don't believe more laws are the answer to anything.

Who hasn't been annoyed when a cell phoner in front of them has caused them to miss their green turn arrow? Or was stuck behind a cellular automatron going 45 in a 55 mph zone?

Accidents may not always be the result of a cellphoner but there other issues that are caused.

How about road rage as a result of an idiot cellphoner?

There are many things to distract a driver these days but none of them do so to the *depth* of a cellphone, it can literally *take you away* mentally from where you are located physically.

About 10 years ago or so I drove from one end of town to the other while talking to a business associate on the cell and when I got to my office I stopped and thought about it and realized I did not remember actually acknowledging ANY of the 20 or more stoplights I must have gone through. I didn't remember them at all and I started to wonder if I had run any of them.

At that point I refused to talk on the cell while driving any more, and I have stuck with it.

When I am driving nothing is more important than paying attention to whats going on, especially when there are legions of people all around that haven't learned this yet.

The insurance company's should deal with this cellphone issue.

[Rogier]

Don:

Most of us have the same experience even sans cell phones -- driving somewhere (along a familiar route) and literally having no recollection of any locations or minor events along the way. I've done it dozens of times. It's not exclusive to cell phone use. In my case, I was either engrossed in music or just daydreaming. Are we going to ban car radios? Or daydreaming? ;-)

[Hittman]

You didn't motion the real reason for laws like this – revenue enhancement. They provide a huge revenue stream for Big Brother. As an added bonus they give cops yet another excuse to stop you and, if they're so inclined, snoop around your car.

In New York State the dysfunctional and bankrupt government is amping up their income through a noticeably increased state trooper presence just about everywhere. They're gleefully handing out fistfuls of tickets for every possible infraction. A month ago I received a ticket for not wearing a seat belt while driving at 20 MPH from one parking lot to another. The fine was $25. The NYS surcharge was an additional $85.

[hanmeng]

Let's make getting angry in the car illegal!

[greg]

"To me, real as the dangers are of mobile technologies being used by distracted motorists, it seems like a problem that legislation cannot effectively address. "

Silly rabbit, there aren't ANY problems that legislation can't fix!

[benpal]

Feelgood legislation is the right word.

[Don]

Rogier: From the outset I said I am against the gov't getting involved with this.
The insurance company's should be making distractions that cause harm to others monetarily difficult for the infractors.
I'm against banning anything.

[smurfy]

"and motorists of all eras would simply refuse to get distracted by the wailing toddlers in the backseat."

I've always wondered why sta wags and minivans specifically designed for life with kids don't have limousine style dividers between the driver and passenger compartments.

And yelling at Rush is what got me through long graveyard truck driving shifts.

[Rob Lawrence]

Cell phones are a particular danger (even hands-free) because, unlike most other distractions in a car, a telephone conversation is a two-way exchange. You may scream at the radio or other drivers more than you actually talk on the phone, but every test ever performed on the subject shows that when you are expecting a response from the other end, the distraction is multiplied. Oddly, this does not happen with conversations between a driver and people actually in the car. It is hypothesized that the in-car conversation is less taxing on the attention because the sub-conscious realizes the other person knows that your pauses in answering are due to you watching the road.

[Crawfish Boil]

I'm convinced that traffic accidents will happen as long as people are driving, period. If you make a law against driving while on the phone, does that mean you can't HOLD a phone while driving, but hands free is ok? You are still distracted because you are holding a conversation with another individual, whether they are on the phone or in the passengers seat. And if you aren't talking on the phone, you could program your GPS, put on makeup, etc. So-- the law should be, you aren't allowed to remove your hands or eyes from the steering wheel-- no phones, talking in the car (handsfree or a passenger), no make up, food, windows rolling down.. Yes. ridiculous and will never happen. Human error while driving in high speeds will = accidents. Period.