The NYT Wheels Blog reports:
Laws banning cellphone use while driving apparently haven’t reduced crashes, according to a study released on Friday that compared the number of total crashes before the ban with the number after. The study found virtually no difference in the numbers, a finding that had the researchers scratching their heads.“We were very surprised,” said Adrian Lund, the president of the Highway Loss Data Institute that conducted the study and an affiliate of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
The thought was, of course that if law were passed that decreased cellphone use, then there should be fewer crashes. But that was not the case.
“You know that there should be fewer,” he said. “We were looking for that, and we aren’t seeing that pattern,” said Mr. Lund, who is also the insurance institute’s president.
You can see the relevant charts in this document. For a summary of state laws on cell phone use while driving, see here.
Any guesses as to the likelihood that jurisdictions will repeal their bans in light of the evidence that they don’t work?
Rexx Shelton says:
“Any guesses as to the likelihood that jurisdictions will repeal their bans in light of the evidence that they don’t work?”
Somewhere between a fat chance and a slim chance.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 1:04 pmTom says:
Perhaps, the people who were distracted by their cellphone use are now distracted by something else. Maybe, we should ban driving by people who are distracted.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 1:07 pmKieth says:
So is that because people are ignoring the law? or does obeying the law makes no difference?
Answer number one seems likely which means that more rigorous enforcement would be the next logical step.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 1:07 pmVehical Driver says:
Maybe because cell phone use while driving is just a subset of a larger problem of people doing other things while driving. Someone who thinks that talking on the phone is OK, is going to think eating while driving, staring at billboards, changing tunes on their stereo, etc., is OK.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 1:08 pmDavid McCourt says:
Perhaps my locality is very different from the four studied, but here, in Chicago, my own experience is that I see no decline, marked or otherwise, in the use of cell phones following the (unenforced) ban on their use here. When I’m out walking, in about every third car that goes by the driver is chattering away. And when I’m behind someone who is driving without regard to the timing of traffic lights, the flow of traffic, the idea of signalling, the existence of lanes, etc., they invariably are on the phone. No doubt they’re calling in to say they’ll be late, but we are all late — because they and the other talkers are driving so poorly. (Admittedly, they are not the only ones: breakfast eaters, makeup appliers, blackberry typers, and worse are all out there). But no one I’ve asked has ever been ticketed for cell phone use, or knows of anyone who has been.
Personally, I would repeal nothing based on this study.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 1:08 pmDisplaced Midwesterner says:
I skimmed the report, but it doesn’t seem to address whether the laws are ineffective because they are simply routinely ignored.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 1:10 pmChris Travers says:
None whatsoever.
Right. The logical solution is to ban open containers of any beverage (including water), food, and stereos from the driver-accessible portion of the car.
And we need a “sterile cabin” rule where no unnecessary discussion occurs in the cabin of the car when the vehicle is in motion.
Similarly “cabin voice recorders” and “vehicle data recorders” should be mandated on all vehicles and should be routinely investigated after every incident.
We should try to make driving as safe as commercial air travel....
Quote
January 31, 2010, 1:13 pmKevin Frost says:
I doubt any jurisdiction will repeal their laws (well, a state or large city — maybe it is a different story if we’re talking about a small township, etc.). The fines bring in revenue. “Safety” was probably just a convenient excuse for many politicians in the first place.
I’m not surprised by these results at all.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 1:15 pmAlast says:
Lack of enforcement, and distraction substitution. People who insist on incessant cell phone use are the same ones who work hard to fill any “idle” time with multitasking. They simply substitute another (distracting) task to accompany the “idle” time driving.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 1:17 pmLaura Victoria says:
I doubt most jurisdictions who passed these laws really care that much, they just have to appear to be doing something. Thus 40,000 new laws were passed in the US that went into effect January 1.
They won’t be repealed because they can now be used as probable cause to pull someone over so cops can see what else might shake out of that driver’s tree.
My view is that all forms of distractions that impair driving should be treated equally — including DUI, whose propensitiy to cause accidents is allegedly equal to use of cell phones and dwarfs in comparison to texting. Of course, reaching down to the floor of your car to pick up something you dropped there, turning around to scold your kids or dog, eating, and cell phone talking don’t carry the same puritanical opprobrium as intoxicating oneself, thus seriously injuring someone while scolding kids will likely carry only civil liability, and a DUI involving no accident where the driver was stopped a block from his home. After all, the former case was “just an accident.”
Quote
January 31, 2010, 1:20 pmbyomtov says:
Isn’t the call for repeal premature?
Some quotes from the article:
One reason Mr. Lund was so surprised was that the institute had previously conducted research that showed that drivers talking on cellphones seemed to be four times as likely to crash.
“We still don’t think we understand this fully,” said Mr. Lund.
Another possibility for the surprising finding is that drivers in places with these bans may be switching to hands-free phones. In this case, crashes wouldn’t decrease because the risk is about the same as with handset phones, Mr. Lund said.
In other words, at this point, “the eveidence that they don’t work” is pretty slim.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 1:30 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Imagine the probable cause that would arise if people took Chris Travers’ pristine logic to its conclusion. I can see it now: An implied consent to search and seizure for being in any way “distracted” law. Ahhhh.... I feel safer already!
Quote
January 31, 2010, 1:31 pmkdackson says:
No chance they will be repealed. Too much revenue.
Look for other sorts of bans. Like proximity switches in cell phones that will disable the phone when close to a car.
Next up: Sensory deprivation pods for passengers and shackles to keep the driver’s hands on the wheel so there are absolutely NO distractions.
Better yet, why not just ban automobiles? Then there would be no automobile crashes.
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 1:34 pmOff Kilter says:
I thought previous research in the economics literature demonstrated similar findings regarding speed limits, lap belts, and other efforts to make driving safer. People, it seems, achieve what they consider an “optimum” level of safety, and it is NOT “zero chance of accident.” There are trade offs. So laws that make driving safer are responded to by, for example, driving faster or paying less attention. One economics wag said if you want to make driving safer, just mandate sharp spears extend from the driving column...
Quote
January 31, 2010, 1:39 pmChris Travers says:
Just as a note, the sarcastic response I made wasn’t entirely without precedent. Indeed it is mostly an adaptation of commercial air traffic rules to the environment of a single-driver car with no separation between the driver compartment and the passenger compartment. At the same time, I am fairly sure that such rules as I have proposed would make our roads less safe, rather than more safe.
However, I would note that there is an obvious reason for the findings according to the researchers: if the hands-free risk is the same as a normal usage risk (which I find probable), then mandates to use only hands-free head technologies wouldn’t affect things at all. However, nobody is willing to put up with a total ban on cell phone usage so we are going to see the old ineffective compromises which provide no public benefit and reduce liberty continue.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 1:43 pmTRE says:
I have a little game I play on the road where I try to guess things about drivers based on their driving behavior. I’m pretty good at determining whether someone is on the phone. Often they drive like slow idiots. I have a few other categories I won’t go into for the purposes of this post, but let’s just say I’m pretty good at this game.
driving angry is at least as bad if not worse than driving drunk. absolutely the worst and most driving I’ve observed has been people with hot tempers. It is possible to drive first and talk on the phone second, and it is possible to talk on the phone first and drive second.
I see a lot of cops talking on the cell phone while driving. My theory is that idiots will find a way to be dangerous.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 1:47 pmyankee says:
I’m surprised the researchers are surprised. I thought it was already well-established that restricting drivers to handsfree phones doesn’t reduce accidents. The increased risk from talking on the phone while driving comes from distraction, not from having a hand taken up, but states have only banned using handheld phones.
As for Orin’s question, I would put the chance of repealing the headset laws at somewhere between minuscule and infinitesimal. The chance that states will actually ban cell phone use while driving (which would be very annoying but might actually be effective) is even smaller.
Some commenters have asked about enforcement: if you look at the NYT post, it says the researchers did observational studies at street corners and exit ramps. They found that hand-held cellphone use dropped from 41 to 76 percent after the headset laws were passed.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 1:51 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Neither was mine. But thanks. ;)
Very much agreed.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 1:52 pmSuperSkeptic says:
If only there were some way to hold people liable for their actions when they actually do cause harm, as opposed to prophylactic criminalization...
Quote
January 31, 2010, 1:56 pmR Gould-Saltman says:
Don’t know that I’d consider “Collision claims per 100 insured vehicle years for new vehicles” for, at largest, about a two-year time-slice after the ban dates, to be much of a measure of anything. Why new vehicles only?
Crim law mayvens and deterrence advocates: on average, when something is newly criminalized, or when sentencing for an offense is substantially increased, what’s the normal lag before the offense rate declines?
More interesting was the pretty-close-to-perfect match in the changes in claims rates (presumably seasonal/weather driven) between “ban” and “non-ban” compared jurisdictions (presumably otherwise comparable), without any particular information, or even speculation, as to the reason for the discrepancy in the actual claim rates: CT seems to be 10–20% lower than NY/MA, before and after the ban, except at the high spikes; CA seems to be roughly 10% higher than NV, both before and after the ban....
Quote
January 31, 2010, 1:57 pmAnon21 says:
If you’re referring to the tort law system, it doesn’t work well for this purpose, due to displaced responsibility from the third-party automobile insurance system and because of underclaiming. (Although I believe the latter isn’t as significant a phenomenon in the automobile accident context as it is in other contexts, like medical malpractice.)
Quote
January 31, 2010, 2:09 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Not necessarily, although I did use the world “liable”.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 2:11 pmmikeyes says:
These statistics show that a significant percentage of deaths on the highway are related to alcohol consumption. Are there similar statistics related to cell phone use that I could not find? If what you advocate (similar punishment for all “distractions”) is true, then the punishment for cell phone use should be the same as for DUI or is your position that one should ignore the results of drinking and driving? /snark off
Drunk driving is not a distraction, it is a dangerous state which lasts (usually) the entire time you are driving. It is not the equivalent of talking on the phone, even if you talked the entire time you were on the road. In addition, in a study that I did on our four and five time DUI patients at Vanderbilt many years ago (an internal study, never published) the average DUI occurred about one in every 250 times that a person drank to excess and drove indicating that those who drink and drive do it a lot.
The statistics mentioned show a decline in the overall percentage of highway deaths related to alcohol and a trend towards fewer highway deaths overall. I suspect that has a lot to do with enforcement of the laws and increasingly worsening penalties.
On the other hand, I suspect that the evidence relating cell phone use and deaths is not very rigorous. Texting on the other hand ...
Quote
January 31, 2010, 2:13 pmdearieme says:
My casual observation is that the people I see driving while nattering on a hand-held mobile phone give me the impression of being the sort of twerps who will find ample other opportunities to crash.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 2:14 pmorca says:
The charts do indeed show a decrease in accident claims after the cell phone bans went into effect.
Is it an April Fool’s Day post?
Quote
January 31, 2010, 2:15 pmsecond history says:
driving angry is at least as bad if not worse than driving drunk. absolutely the worst and most driving I’ve observed has been people with hot tempers.
Tiger Woods can testify to that.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 2:18 pmbyomtov says:
If only there were some way to hold people liable for their actions when they actually do cause harm, as opposed to prophylactic criminalization...
Because most people don’t mind being killed or injured in car wrecks, as long as the perpetrator faces some kind of penalty.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 2:31 pmJoe says:
I can’t believe that everyone, including the researchers, are missing the obvious: accidents caused by cell phone distraction are a tiny minority of accidents. Even eliminating them all together wouldn’t be seen in the statistical “noise”.
(The same thing has happened in the commercial trucking industry. Texting causes atrociously bad driving. But that doesn’t lead to many actual accidents. That’s why the researchers opened up their analysis to “dangerous behaviors” such as lane departures or speeding. Given the size of commercial trucks, I’m still in favor of that ban, but the statistics aren’t as clear as is being claimed.)
Quote
January 31, 2010, 2:34 pmChris Travers says:
Actually, you are spot on. Most people would be far happier to die in a car wreck then a plane crash if statistics are any guide.....
Quote
January 31, 2010, 2:41 pmRoscoe says:
If it was the “hand held” part of cell phone usage that was dangerous, why haven’t we also banned holding a cup of coffee or a bottle of water while driving? In point of fact, the “hand held” part of cell phone usage has absolutely nothing to do with why they are dangerous (who drives with two hands anyway?).
The danger of cell phones–as anyone who has driven behind someone who is yakking on their phone likely knows–is that the driver is distracted by having a conversation with someone who is outside the vehicle. So it is not surprising that the laws in question didn’t show any positive results, as they aren’t aimed at the right problem.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 2:49 pmlonetown says:
Am I wrong to think that if your on the cellphone an in an accident, you are pretty much screwed? This was an accident here involving a death and the rumor was the truck driver who t-boned the injured was on the cell phone and higher charges were being sought. (don’t know how that turned out).
The accident was in Connecticut, so you guys should know if anyone does?
Quote
January 31, 2010, 2:52 pmChris Travers says:
Out of curiosity, what is the right problem? That any state legislator knows that supporting a total ban on all cell phone use in that state is a sure-fire way to lose the next election?
Quote
January 31, 2010, 2:53 pmSuperSkeptic says:
You want a deterrent? A narrow criminal statute (with a circumstances element) would suffice and would probably be more effective than these dumb general bans, with less side-effects.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 3:26 pmGlenn Bowen says:
I think it pivotal, and ignored in the study, that I am the only person on the planet who does not use a cell phone while driving.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 3:43 pmBrett Bellmore says:
Everybody who has a manual transmission?
Quote
January 31, 2010, 3:43 pmHans Clapton says:
Can you break that down by race for us?
Quote
January 31, 2010, 3:46 pmCurt F. says:
Amen to Keith who nailed it early. If tough new DUI penalties had not decreased the traffic fatalities caused by drunken drivers two years after going into effect, should we just declare that DUI penalties don’t work, and give up?
I’m all for the idea that DUI is just one form of impairment, and distraction (e.g. by cell phone) is another, and all impaired drivers should be punished equally. But one problem with that mode is necessary conferral of incredible levels of discretion and authority to traffic cops. Another is that insurance companies or tort plaintiffs will have to argue about esoteric topics like the “degree to which a driver was impaired” by reading a text message vs. pressing buttons to send a text message vs. having a beer vs. having 8 whiskeys.
It doesn’t seem unreasonable to just propose a simple, bright-line rule that cell phone use while driving is not OK. The cops’ decisions to give out tickets for driving will be a tad less arbitrary and juries will have the easier task of deciding whether someone was talking on their phone (or not), instead of trying to assess some kind of net impairment level that cell phone use caused in particular situation.
And if accident rates don’t improve immediately after such a law goes into effect, maybe it is a sign that better enforcement is needed.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 3:55 pmRoscoe says:
When I posted, I was thinking that the “real problem” was that drivers were distracted by cell phone usage, regardless of whether they were holding the things in their hands. Thinking about it though, I guess you are right.
So I guess if not having both hands free to put on the wheel was causing the risk of increased accidents, we should ban manual transmissions.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 3:58 pmPintler says:
How about: if you cause an accident while conversing on a cell phone/texting there is a presumption of impairment, with enhanced penalties.
At least on my ridealong a couple of years ago, it’s worse than that. They are talking on the cell phone, the radio, and typing on the data terminal, frequently all at the same time. Oh, and scanning outside and seeing things I totally missed. I think cops become very, very good at paying attention to multiple things at once. It also doesn’t hurt that traffic is usually very well behaved in the vicinity of a marked car.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 4:04 pmDr. Caligari says:
Well, I can see one group that benefits from these bans of cellphone use while driving: People who would prefer not to speak to someone (say an employer, a parent or a spouse) for a while while driving. They now have a perfect excuse for not answering the phone. “Surely, you don’t want me to break the law, do you?” Turn up the stereo and enjoy your little oasis of solitude on wheels.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 4:12 pmHey Skipper says:
Perhaps the reason cell phone laws don’t work is that, counter-intuitively, the increased risk that studies show does not actually increase the number of accidents.
The accident rate has been dropping every year since 1990.
That is tough to reconcile with cell phone use that is both risky and widespread.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 4:44 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Alcohol is tracked in accidents because it is mandatory for the police to do so and there is no way to hide one’s BAC. However, its presence at any given arbitrary level in any given person doesn’t necessarily mean it was the cause of, or even the largest contributing factor to, the accident. Unless the supposition is that drivers above the legal limit are the only drivers without any other distractions going on.
As we learn more about distracted driving and the habits of neglectful drivers we may well find that the effects of alcohol (while real) may have been overstated due to the moral issues involved.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 4:48 pmjakecollins says:
Laws don’t work purely through fear of punishment. For example, no one litters or doesn’t litter based upon fear of getting a ticket. If talking while cell phoning develops the same social stigma as drunk driving, then accidents will decrease. Laws that penalize this activity play a vital role in developing this stigma.
If the laws are still ineffective after decades of enforcement (e.g., status quo drug laws), then maybe the libertarians will have something to crow about.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 5:13 pmMike McDougal says:
I think everywhere already bans that.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 5:26 pmMike McDougal says:
Are the laws being enforced in the first instance?
Quote
January 31, 2010, 5:30 pmSuperSkeptic says:
jakecollins, a narrow criminal statute like the one...
...would help focus the social opprobrium you appreciate on the appropriate activity — cell-phoning and causing an accident while driving, not just cell-phoning while driving (which doesn’t necessarily deserve a stigma and is actually helpful to society in many ways).
Quote
January 31, 2010, 5:31 pmjakecollins says:
Humans tend to over-estimate their ability to overcome impairment. Drunks drivers think they’ll never be in an accident, and ditto for cell phone drivers. If you want to decrease accidents, you need to convince people to not drive drunk because driving drunk is intrinsically wrong... otherwise, they’ll just assume that they won’t get in an accident until they kill someone. When your son or daughter is killed by a cell phone driver, I doubt you’ll be satisfied by the enhanced penalties... you would have preferred that they never cell phone drove in the first place.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 5:36 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Driving drunk may be “intrinsically wrong” but using a cell-phone while you are driving is certainly not.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 5:42 pmjakecollins says:
Thirty years ago, most people thought that driving drunk was a harmless prank.
You’re selfishly increasing the risk of killing me and my family because you want to gab about the Kardashians. The fact that you make a distinction between drunk driving and cell phone driving proves the need for laws to build a stigma.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 5:47 pmSuperSkeptic says:
You know, the most interesting thing about the Kardashians is if you look at the family from Scott’s perspective. Aside from Rob (the sisters’ natural brother), his two brother-in-laws consist of Lamar Odom and Reggie Bush.
It’s a risky world out there jake — good luck criminalizing everything.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 6:00 pmChris Travers says:
There are a lot of people out there whose livelihood depends on being accessible (on call, etc). This expectation is one thing that drives cell phone use in general and also while driving. It is also entirely why it is impossible to fully ban its use in cars.
However, there is a second major problem that generally gets unaccounted for. I am sure that switching tunes on the radio is something that causes a fair number of crashes out there, as is eating and drinking (non-impairing beverages, like coffee or water) while driving. However, if you have ever done much long-distance driving, these sort of things also prevent highway hypnosis and may actually prevent more accidents than they cause.
So even if driving while talking on the phone increases the risk of an accident during the duration of the call, it isn’t clear that it creates a net increase in accident risks.
Imagine driving 1200 miles in a day without listening to the radio, engaging in no unnecessary conversation, not drinking coffee while driving, etc. Would this be more safe or less?
Quote
January 31, 2010, 6:09 pmJohn Burgess says:
Glenn Bowen: No you’re not.
I do drive several 2K mi round trips every year. My cell phone is with me but I never deal with it while driving. I do drink my caffeinated beverages, I might even snack. Once I clear the Bible Belt, I listen to my radio, though usually the iTunes are going. I don’t fiddle with that, though, until I’m stopped for refueling.
I time my driving to avoid rush hours near major cities and also lessen the hazards by driving mostly at night, when the Interstates are largely clear of congestion. When I’m driving in-town, there’s absolutely no phone call that can’t wait until my next stop, whether it’s the President or Ed McMahon calling.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 6:46 pmjosh bornstein says:
Roscoe,
Um, anyone who drives a standard shift car. I’ve made a rare call while driving, and it’s extraordinarily difficult to hold a phone, steer, and shift. 3 things to do; only 2 hands . . . the problem seems evident to me.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 6:49 pmJed says:
Anyone who is in the habit of text messaging while driving should check this video out...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC3x7K3EOTk
It’s very pretty graphic and very emotionally harrowing. And don’t forget the effect on others too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbFJWDqc0C4 (from same production)
Quote
January 31, 2010, 7:10 pmjakecollins says:
There is no evidence that listening to the radio increases the risk of accident. There is evidence that cell phones do. If you need to kill me or my family for your livelihood, then I’d rather you just do it clean with a bullet to the head rather than through the painful maiming of a car accident.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 7:47 pmChrisIowa says:
The worst driver I have ever seen was weaving back and forth from one lane to the other, hit the snow on the right side then into the opposite lane. He did this several times while I was behind him. Of course I backed way off but I followed him several blocks, but only because he was going the same way I was. I would have called the police to report him, but he was driving a police car. I really doubt he was much aware of what was going on in the vicinity outside his car.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 7:54 pmChris Travers says:
I bet having screaming kids in the car has caused more than one accident. Ban them too?
Also I have heard plenty of anecdotes of accidents occuring when changing tapes/cd’s/radio stations. While listening may not be risky, things that happen to make listening possible may be. While the plural of anecdotes is not data, it does suggest that the distraction involved in setting up the radio the way you want it creates a potential for an accident.
Also, I wonder if foreign language courses (via tape or cd) which have a talkback component are as distracting as cell phone usage.....
Quote
January 31, 2010, 8:07 pmShelbyC says:
Hell, think of all the lives you’d save if you ban unnecessary driving.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 8:41 pmRicardo says:
Right, my understanding is that “macro-level” analysis such as looking at number of crashes by state or by time of day when people are most likely to be talking on the phone shows no effect. On the other hand, if you put people inside a driving simulator their performance noticeably worsens when talking on a cell phone (including hands-free device). Maybe one reason is that in a simulator there is no real risk to crashing. Interestingly, talking to a fellow passenger does not appreciably increase the risk of an accident — this may be because fellow passengers are likely to alert the driver if there is a danger on the road. On the other hand, insurance actuaries with access to data on individual crashes insist talking on the phone is a definite risk factor for a crash.
Correlation does not equal causation but it’s still too soon to call this one.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 8:55 pmOren says:
Way too late for that, “driving without due care” is already a crime in my State (MA, MGL89) which, as we well know, is ample justification for a seizure (but not search) of the motorist. Your faux outrage is only a few decades too late.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 10:43 pmOren says:
There’s a happy medium, answer the President, tell him you are in the car (and therefore cannot pay full attention to him) and work out a time to call him back.
There are people that call me that I simply cannot refuse to answer. I can answer and give them a time when I will call back (or, if it’s super-urgent, pull over and talk it out).
Quote
January 31, 2010, 11:00 pmKevin says:
Here in Los Angeles the most annoying aspect of cellphone use while driving is slower-than-traffic huge-buffer-in-front behavior. People realize they are impaired and “play it safe.” But it takes very little to turn heavy traffic into stopped traffic, and the stone-in-the-stream action of cellphone users isn’t helpful.
So, whether or not accidents are more likely, I’d still like to see cops hammer these folks with tickets.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 11:12 pmDavid McCourt says:
“There are people that call me that I simply cannot refuse to answer.”
You can if your cell phone is turned off until you reach your destination. Anyone, this side of Janet Napolitano, can manage this (and her cell phone appears to be permanently off, anyway). Everyone, from the CEO of Goldman Sachs to the Solicitor General, to . . . you and me, has a “boss” or bosses, clients or customers. But it’s pure vanity to think that one’s own affairs are so urgent that one must always be available to take a call, day or night. I believe that’s what my dogs think, on the other end of the leash.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 11:27 pmMark M says:
“Yankee” has it exactly right. It’s the distraction of the conversation, not the holding of the phone in the hand that causes accidents. I would like to see some research as to why conversations with persons physically present in the same vehicle do not present similar distraction issues. My personal experience is certainly that in-person conversations are far less distracting than those on a cell phone. I’ve given up driving while using a cell phone after a few “gee, I’m here already and don’t remember a thing about the drive” experiences.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 11:41 pmBrian K says:
I’ve lived in chicago for the past 3.5 years and i didn’t even know there was a ban on cellphones while driving.
anecdotally, i just spent a few months in california which i know was very vocal about their ban. despite this, cellphone usage was nearly identical to that before i moved some 4 years ago. it may even have increased because i saw a lot of people with bluetooth headsets...but i couldn’t tell if they were actively using them or just didn’t remove them from their ear from an earlier call.
so i would say, from my experience, is that lack of enforcement and knowledge of the laws is the main reason why there is no change in accidents since before the bans.
Quote
January 31, 2010, 11:58 pmBrian K says:
That depends entirely on the proportion of drivers on the road who are driving 1200 miles a day vs. those that are driving short distance to and from work and errands. i think it would be obvious that the latter far outnumber the former. therefore you would need to see a very large increase in safety for long distance drivers to offset even minor decreases in safety for everyday short distance drivers.
Quote
February 1, 2010, 12:15 amOren says:
I should have clarified — there are people that I cannot refuse to take during normal hours. And by take I mean inform them that I’m unavailable and when I will be calling them back is just simple courtesy. Most of the time, they don’t talk at all — I answer the phone and say “Sorry, busy right now, I’ll call you at 1:15″ and they know enough to hang up (or say “Make it 2:15 bye”).
If you seriously have a problem with this (as opposed to the people yammering away about groceries and band practice) then you have a serious problem assessing relative scale.
Quote
February 1, 2010, 1:01 amRandy says:
“One economics wag said if you want to make driving safer, just mandate sharp spears extend from the driving column...”
Actually, this might be true. The author of Traffic states that roads that are planned to be safe have far more accidents than roads that are deemed ‘unsafe’ by traffic engineers. It’s because when you are driving and you think that the road is safe, you are more careless in your attention, whereas unsafe roads (or driving conditions) make you more alert.
Quote
February 1, 2010, 2:52 ampot meet kettle says:
why? not the cellphone part, but why do you think driving drunk is “instrinsically wrong”?
Quote
February 1, 2010, 9:30 amSay What? says:
There are people that call me that I simply cannot refuse to answer.
What are you? An emergency neurosurgeon? On the launch crew of a nuclear missile? A double-nought spy? If so, you shouldn’t be driving around when you are on duty. Otherwise, I suspect you have an overinflated sense of your importance to society.
Quote
February 1, 2010, 9:30 amSay What? says:
One economics wag said if you want to make driving safer, just mandate sharp spears extend from the driving column...
The only problem with these economics wags is that their precious economic theories are contradicted by statistics. Accident and death rates have declined steadily since the invention of the automobile. Things like safety belts, safety glass, abs, radial tires, better suspension, handling and air bags, don’t make people more reckless–it makes them better drivers and reduces accidents and deaths on the highway.
Quote
February 1, 2010, 9:35 amsardonic_sob says:
If your cell phone malfunctions, will you be immediately fired and/or killed?
Just curious.
Quote
February 1, 2010, 10:38 amTRUTH ON THE MARKET » Intepreting Empirical Evidence says:
[...] there is some new evidence that state laws banning cell phone usage does not reduce accidents (HT: Orin Kerr). The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study has gotten some attention in the media. See, [...]
Pintler says:
You and a passenger are having a conversation. As you accelerate down the onramp to the
busy freeway, your passenger is likely to notice what’s going on and pause the conversation until you are safely merged. A caller on the other end of a phone line doesn’t get those cues.
Secondly, conversations while driving tend to be a bit desultory — you’re talking to pass the time, not conduct business (IMHE; there are of course exceptions). Some phone conversations may also be to pass the time, but to the extent people are trying to conduct actual business, I would expect the phone conversation to command more of your attention budget than a pass-the-time conversation about the Dodgers.
Quote
February 1, 2010, 10:58 amDan Weber says:
My personal theory (that I haven’t been able to prove) is that people talking on the phone in the car are caring too much about not being rude to the person on the other end of the phone. They insist on paying attention to what the other person says and not asking them to repeat themselves, and the sometimes spotty reception that cell phones have cause people to pay even more attention.
Meanwhile, if a person is in a car next to me, we still can use body language (even if I’m not looking at them) to convey information, and it is easier to listen. And if something deserving attention happens on the road in front of us, the person sitting next to me is not going to insist on talking through it. They will stop talking, or understand if I stop talking.
It might be that the social pressure against phoning while driving makes driving worse, because people who are driving are trying to pretend that they are not.
Quote
February 1, 2010, 11:06 amJMA says:
I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why anyone should think there is something magical about conversing with a person who is NOT in the car. Seems most haven’t kept up with developments in licensing laws which require that drivers in training not have passengers so they can’t be “nattering” to the fellow in the next seat.
Speaking on a cell phone is not significantly more dangerous than speaking to oneself–unless one is in the habit of actually listening to the person on the other end of the call, which I think we can all agree is pretty unusual.
No. There is no way any of this is getting repealed. I think the comments here are sufficient evidence to convince me of that.
“Odd. The beatings have not yet raised morale. Hit them harder!”
Quote
February 1, 2010, 11:21 amDan Weber says:
Teenagers already have a poor sense of risk assessment. This isn’t so bad if they are hunting a tiger on the savannah, but it is if they are controlling a 1-ton piece of machinery down the road at 50 mph.
Teenage drivers are bad, not just from inexperience but also from being teenagers. Adding teenage passengers just compounds the bad risk assessment. Adult passengers are fine; they are actually encouraged. It’s not the “nattering,” it’s having other immature people in the car.
Okay, did I miss the irony boat?
Quote
February 1, 2010, 11:55 amChris Travers says:
Or you could say, “Cell phone use permitted on open freeways and not in residential neighborhoods.”
Maybe. However, unnecessary conversation between a pilot and copilot has been judged to be the cause of more than one major airplane crash. Is there anything which makes a car better in this regard? I doubt it. In fact, I can think of all kinds of reasons why it should be less of a problem in an airplane, starting with the fact that the copilot can step in and control the plane if necessary. And indeed, there was a near crash a few years ago at Logan Airport where two ATC’s gave two planes runway clearance on intersecting runways, where the quick thinking of the copilot saved the day.
Quote
February 1, 2010, 12:10 pmChris Travers says:
I want to know if speaking on a cell phone is more dangerous than:
1) Listening to a REALLY INTERESTING and engrossing talk radio program
2) Doing a cd-based foreign language course where you repeat after the person on the CD.
3) Listening to educational lectures
4) Going through likely meeting material in one’s head
Moreover, if all of these are a problem, and everyone thinks we REALLY need to ban cell phone usage, then why not borrow the techniques used in aviation and require cabin voice travel data recorders in all cars, and require a sterile cabin except on freeways......
Quote
February 1, 2010, 12:21 pmBrian K says:
it must be nice where you live never to have to get on the freeway to go anywhere. but where i live i (and thousands of others based on the extent of traffic) have to take the freeway to get to school, work, costco, the gym and my girlfriend.
Quote
February 1, 2010, 12:46 pmChris Travers says:
Ok. Then define it as “Open Highway” and “Outside of city limits.”
inside city limits, no talking on the cell phone, listening to the radio, or unnecessarily talking to passengers...
Quote
February 1, 2010, 1:07 pmHerb Spencer says:
The law isn’t working in CA because it’s not being enforced in CA, even to the point of PDs ignoring complaints of its nonenforcement to their citizen review boards. And, like so many other laws, it’s just not that that hard to enforce. There’s neither the will to abide by the law nor to enforce the law, but I’m only talking about THIS law, right?
Quote
February 1, 2010, 4:01 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Part of the disconnect comes from the imprecision of the terms. I doubt anyone would argue you are negligent and morally culpable if you drive when you are actually functionally impaired, that’s what people think of when they hear “driving drunk”, but functional impairment is testable state, usually recognizeable by breaking one or more existing traffic laws and confirmable by failing an actual physical field test.
BAC’s, however handy they are as a “quick and dirty suggestion of impairment, are designed around averages and don’t take into account personal tolerance. There are folks who will pass any cognitive or reaction-based test you can think of at higher than .08 (or even .10). Yet they are subject to arrest and conviction based on that subjective number if stopped at a “safety checkpoint” even if they have not violated, and are statistically no more likely than an utterly alcohol-free person to violate, any actual driving-related traffic regulation.
Further, the neo-prohibitionists’ emotionally-driven modern moral crusade against the demon rum has long since run off the path of reasonable good intentions and led to such nonsensical (and ascientific) statements as “if you drink (implicit any amount of alcohol), don’t drive”.
Enforce existing driving-related traffic laws vigorously and test for impairment (not arbitrary BAC, actual field test impairment) as necessary after establishing real PC for a stop . Then if we want to punish the voluntarily chemically impaired or negligently distracted (reading, makeup, texting/phone use), more severely, go ahead.
Quote
February 1, 2010, 4:34 pmOren says:
I would have to proactively contact my customers to give them a new number at which I can be reached as soon as I know about the malfunction.
[ Background, I work on-call technical support for some ecommerce divisions. Every hour of downtime costs us tens of thousands of dollars. Most calls are not important, some are. That’s why I answer them briefly to ascertain and make arrangements to CALL BACK in the appropriate timeframe. Jeez. ]
Quote
February 1, 2010, 6:37 pmOren says:
Or, you announce at the beginning of the conversation that you are driving and thus cue the caller to understand that he cannot expect your full attention.
Quote
February 1, 2010, 7:05 pmDan Weber says:
I think a lot of people don’t have that much common sense. Not sure that banning it for all is the right answer; maybe we need to get across to people that “talking on the phone while driving” is much different than the sum of “talking on the phone” and “driving.”
Quote
February 2, 2010, 1:29 pmChris Travers says:
Among other things, I provide some of the same services. Some of the calls I answer are business-stopping issues. For example, “help, none of our cash registers work” or (from financial services businesses) “we have to pay our clients today, but the checks aren’t printing properly!”
In short if I don’t answer a call from some of my clients, I had better have a darned good reason. In some cases, major problems can occur if I miss a call, and in all cases, I do my absolute best to make sure that any major incidents are resolved as quickly as possible (usually within one hour, but hopefully within fifteen minutes if possible).
In some cases, I can’t address something from the road. In that case, I need to discuss the situation with the customer, look at all options (referrals, whether I can provide sufficient guidance to customer’s technical staff or other support personnel, what time I can get to work on it, etc).
Quote
February 2, 2010, 1:33 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Report: Laws Banning Cell Phone Use While Driving Don’t Lower Accident Rates -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Becky Chandler, Jaquelene Mccarthy, Phone Number Reverse, Roxanna, Traffic Machine and others. Traffic Machine said: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Report: Laws Banning Cell ... http://bit.ly/bKLvd5 [...]
Jeremy Nimmo says:
For that matter.. if someone is going to send text messages while driving, is it safer that they do it while holding their phone in the 9–3 position in plain sight or tucked under the steering wheel while occasionally glancing up at the road? And which behavior would a reasonable person, not a legislator, think would be encouraged by a ban on a use of handheld devices?
Quote
February 3, 2010, 9:19 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
Isn’t the most likely explanation that the original “studies” that showed that cell phone use was as dangerous as drunk driving were never credible to begin with? I don’t think one can or should ignore a study just because it doesn’t fit with one’s preconceptions, but at the same time, when it clashes with common sense, one should cast a skeptical eye. These studies were not controlled studies of actual cell phone use on actual roads — how could they be? — but in artificial settings. No doubt that cell phone use can be a distraction which can affect reaction time, but unlike drunkenness, you can choose to stop talking on a cell phone when you need to concentrate on your driving.
Quote
February 4, 2010, 11:18 amdrunk driving says:
It is very interesting that banning cell phone use doesn’t change the amount of car accidents. i would’ve thought that it would but, maybe it’s cause people are going over the speed limit.
Quote
February 4, 2010, 3:58 pmMicaiah says:
It’s distraction while driving that leads to accidents. This includes ALL use of cell phones, with or without headsets. The lack of benefit in requiring use of headsets with cell phones while driving does nothing to eliminate impaired driving ability, as it fails to eliminate the distraction caused by talking on the phone.
Quote
February 5, 2010, 3:09 pm