Driving While Telephoning is Deadly
(cc photo by woodleywonderworks)
One of the stranger things about the United States is our habit of constantly ignoring the massive public health risks associated with automobile use. Matt Richtel has a great piece in the NYT about the specific case of people who talk on their cell phones while they drive:
Extensive research shows the dangers of distracted driving. Studies say that drivers using phones are four times as likely to cause a crash as other drivers, and the likelihood that they will crash is equal to that of someone with a .08 percent blood alcohol level, the point at which drivers are generally considered intoxicated. Research also shows that hands-free devices do not eliminate the risks, and may worsen them by suggesting that the behavior is safe.
A 2003 Harvard study estimated that cellphone distractions caused 2,600 traffic deaths every year, and 330,000 accidents that result in moderate or severe injuries.
And of course your decision to be reckless and talk on the phone while driving is a lethal threat not just to you and your passengers, but to other people on the road. Especially to people who may be trying to use public streets without encasing themselves in a vast steel exoskeleton.
Part of the problem here is that there simply aren’t enough laws prohibiting this behavior and they’re not enforced strictly enough. But as with drunk driving, there’s also a problem that widespread auto dependency makes it difficult to enforce rules in a properly stringent manner. If having your license taken away from you was more “pain in the ass” and less “crippling disability” then it would be more viable to do it when people exhibit clear patterns of reckless behavior. Meanwhile, literally thousands of lives are at stake.
67 Responses to “Driving While Telephoning is Deadly”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 19th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Those studies do a poor job of reconciling real world results with their theoretical assessments.
If mobile phone usage presented such a unique hazard, then why do the fatality and collision rates keep falling in the face of our omnipresent telephone usage? http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
If mobile phone bans were so effective, then why don’t we see massive declines in collision and fatality rates in those places where those laws are introduced? (Take a look; you won’t find any examples.)
These studies avoid dealing with the macro issues related to collisions. If you look at naturalistic studies about driving behavior and crunch the numbers, it becomes clear that a minority of drivers are involved in a majority of collisions. (The 80/20 rule really is a useful benchmark.) One could surmise that a driver who has a propensity to have wrecks while on the phone will also have them without the phone. The bad driver pool will find other reasons to wreck their cars; their reasons for colliding are not caused by their preferred distractions.
What would make a lot more sense would be to target the worst members of the driving pool for additional enforcement. The greatest hazards on the road are the aggressive drivers who take too many risks. Many of those drivers are young. The society would benefit from an increase in the driving age to 18, along with a graduated licensing system that includes a long probationary period and learner placards being displayed on the cars of inexperienced drivers.
July 19th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Seems to me the biggest problem with revoking licenses is that people will drive anyway.
July 19th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Guns don’t kill people. Cell phones do.
July 19th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
A certain amount of death and destruction is endemic to the auto-centric lifestyle. I can’t really think of a worse use of scant political resources than protecting these people from themselves.
July 19th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
If mobile phone usage presented such a unique hazard, then why do the fatality and collision rates keep falling in the face of our omnipresent telephone usage?
Gee whiz, RW. These rhetorical questions of yours make it seem almost like you didn’t read the article.
July 19th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
These rhetorical questions of yours make it seem almost like you didn’t read the article.
I’ve read plenty of the research in this area, thanks.
The funny thing is that the real world data does not respond to the inputs in the way that the studies would have us believe. That leads me to believe that there is either something terribly wrong with the real world in its stubborn refusal to obey the studies, or else that there may just be a problem with the studies.
These studies are very much like those that projected much carnage from the elimination of the 55 mph speed limit. As we can all see, those studies were horribly wrong, i.e. their projections did not materialize in actual results.
Anyone who is honest about it will recognize that the problem was that the studies were built upon faulty assumptions, which should not have been used in the first place. The conclusions of such studies are sensible enough if used in a vacuum, with no consideration paid to their flawed foundations, but then fall apart once applied to life as we live it.
Again, I’d like to see even a couple of examples of a place somewhere on the planet that got enormous benefit from such a law. I’ve looked for it, and I haven’t found it. If you have found this needle in a haystack, don’t keep it to yourself — present it here.
July 19th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Do we really want to drive anymore?
Soon, two facts will dawn on us:
1. Driving is usually boring.
2. Cars will soon be able to drive more safely and efficiently than we can.
Matt is a city feller, so he rightly thinks we should develop more public transportation. But for more rural parts of the country, we should just be developing personal appliances that get us from point a to point b. We can eat, text, watch a movie or drink that new Belgian Ale. And no, we shouldn’t be doing those things now.
People who like fast cars will go to public race tracks the way people who like golfing go to public golf courses.
July 19th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Something about regulating distraction seems fundamentally different. It’s one thing to say that your brain has to be free of certain chemicals when you drive, but it’s quite another to be regulating a person’s mental state.
Also interesting how some of the researchers complained about the distraction of navigation aids while offering no evidence that they’re dangerous whatsoever. (And it’s hard to see how directions to your destination are more distracting than getting lost.)
July 19th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
RW doesn’t seem to have read the article. The death and accident rates are not going down despite the air bags, seat belt usage, ABS brakes, and other safety inovations in vehicles because other factors keep the accident rates up, distractions such as talking on cell phones, even with hands-free devices, and texting, and video distractions in vehicles. I have seen people with DVD players sitting on the dashboard in view of the driver. I have seen people talking on a cell phone drift into other lanes because they were distracted. I have also seen people trying to read a newspaper or map while driving, usually in stop and go traffic, but it is still a distraction. I have seen people, women, putting on makeup, eyeshadow or something on the eyes, while driving.
It is true that people continue to drive despite a revoked or suspended license. Impounding the vehicle would be a more effective penalty. It would also help if this country had better public transportation systems so that people did not have to be so dependent on auto usage.
July 19th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
A point I meant to add: it is not simply a matter of ‘protecting these people from themselves,’ it’s a matter of protecting the rest of us from the people who drive while distracted, which includes pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers.
July 19th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
The death and accident rates are not going down despite the air bags, seat belt usage, ABS brakes, and other safety inovations in vehicles because other factors keep the accident rates up, distractions such as talking on cell phones, even with hands-free devices, and texting, and video distractions in vehicles.
Funny, I posted a link from the federal agency charged with compiling US crash data that bluntly disproves your statement; fatality rates are, in fact, declining. But why allow facts to get in the way of a good argument?
Again, I am well read on the research in this area, so I can see how the studies are flawed. Your logical error is to presume that in the absence of phones that those drivers with a propensity to collide will magically improve their driving in the absence of such a distraction.
It doesn’t occur to you or to those writing the studies that the phone is simply a proxy, and that those who misuse phones today will find other reasons tomorrow to collide, with or without phones. If you think that the person who weaves while using a phone is going to be transformed into a model citizen once a phone law is imposed, you have a lot to learn about real world data.
Again, present some examples of locations that achieved demonstrable benefit from anti-phone laws. There are plenty of nations that have banned handhelds, so there should be an abundance of examples if your argument is correct.
July 19th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Clearly the only reasonable thing is to raise the blood alcohol limit back to 1.0.
July 19th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Something about regulating distraction seems fundamentally different. It’s one thing to say that your brain has to be free of certain chemicals when you drive, but it’s quite another to be regulating a person’s mental state.
I don’t see why not? I don’t think anyone would have a problem with a law that said, for example, pilots had to pay attention to what they were doing while they flew commercial jetliners. Why should it be different for drivers, who cause far more fatalities?
On the other hand, I would rather take the risk then ban driving while phoning. People have to make tradeoffs, and I prefer being able to talk while driving to the slight reduction in risk.
Finally, in a few years, cars will mostly be able to drive themselves, and avoid things like pedestrians, cyclist, etc.
July 19th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
These laws are essentially unenforceable in most cases. A police officer can reliably testify that you ran a red light. They can not reliably testify that you were talking on your cell phone. They can only really “prove” the violation if they pull your call records. They are only going to go to such lengths in order “to target the worst members of the driving pool for additional enforcement.”
At least, that’s the way it will work while police are not being pressured to meet quotas for it.
July 19th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Of course, this pales in comparison to the death toll that inflicting mandatory energy use limits will bring us. But that’s ok, in the pocket universe Matt lives in.
July 19th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Let’s say for the sake of argument that talking on a cell phone while driving actually IS as dangerous as driving with a .08 BAC. Doesn’t it then follow that the laws for those activities should be the same? If you’re driving a car while talking on a cell phone, hands-free or no, and you get in a collision and someone else dies, shouldn’t you go to prison, possibly for several years? And if not, why not?
July 19th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I don’t see why not? I don’t think anyone would have a problem with a law that said, for example, pilots had to pay attention to what they were doing while they flew commercial jetliners. Why should it be different for drivers, who cause far more fatalities?
Flying is safer per passenger mile and hour, but not per operator hour, which would be the relevant statistic if we’re comparing regulations on the operators.
Still, your central point is a good one–if regulating mental states like distraction is different in kind from other kinds of regulations, then is fair to subject only special classes of critical operators to them while declaring them unacceptable for general users? Because I would totally want pilots, bus drivers, train drivers, tanker truck drivers, etc. to be closely regulated on this score.
I would only say that there’s a difference between a restriction on everyone using public roads and a restriction as a condition for holding a certain position. For example, we can prevent some government employees from proselytizing their religion in an official capacity, but it would be unacceptable to make a similar prohibition as a condition for obtaining a driving license. This would still be the case even if you statistically prove that believing in religion X makes you drive equivalent to .08 BAC. The drive to ban cell phones, even hands-free cell phones, is essentially a regulation on speech and thought.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Let’s say for the sake of argument that talking on a cell phone while driving actually IS as dangerous as driving with a .08 BAC. Doesn’t it then follow that the laws for those activities should be the same?
Not unless you assume that everything as dangerous as driving with .08 BAC should be regulated, which would be crazy if you take it to its logical conclusions. For example, if I drive worse than Alice drives at .08, does that mean I’m forbidden from driving? If Bob drives better than either of us sober when at .08, does that mean he can drive drunk? Should we regulate the number of hours of sleep we get before driving? The food we eat, the exercise we do, or even the patterns of our thoughts according to which are conducive to driving alertness? Should we regulate the number of kids you can have in the backseat? Should you be banned from driving if you currently suffer from mental illness (about a quarter of all Americans?) How about people with bad credit scores? People meeting the wrong demographic profiles?
Sorry, statistics aren’t the end of the argument.
If you’re driving a car while talking on a cell phone, hands-free or no, and you get in a collision and someone else dies, shouldn’t you go to prison, possibly for several years?
Yes. I think after-the-fact penalties are a much more reasonable way of addressing the externalities here.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
@ 18
Should we regulate the number of hours of sleep we get before driving?
It is my understanding that EU does regulate if not exactly hours of sleep then the max number of hours that truck drivers are on the road per day. IIRC, it’s limited to 9.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Of course, this pales in comparison to the death toll that inflicting mandatory energy use limits will bring us.
Since J-Rob spent the last six years wanking to Iraq war porn, he’s not really in a position to talk about death tolls. But remember, since he’s a selfish fuck, J-Rob’s all about himself.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Ahh yes, fact free name calling. The surest sign of a man who knows he has no actual argument to bring.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
“Funny, I posted a link from the federal agency charged with compiling US crash data that bluntly disproves your statement; fatality rates are, in fact, declining.”
That looks like a pretty flat line to me, aside from statistical noise. Fatalities stayed flat or climbed every year from ‘94 to ‘05, and the sharp decrease in ‘08 is due in part to more than a hundred billion fewer vehicle miles traveled, probably as a result of high gas prices. Fatalities per mile are not declining at the rate safer cars would lead us to predict.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
That looks like a pretty flat line to me
The fatality rate dropped 17% in 8 years. Plot it out, and you’ll have a line that looks anything but flat.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Who exactly is proposing manadatory energy use limits?
July 19th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
“The fatality rate dropped 17% in 8 years.”
I don’t know whether you’re being disingenuous or just don’t know much about statistics. Let’s look at your claim:
—In the 8 years between 1994 and 2001, fatalities increased by about 1500.
—In the 8 years between 1995 and 2002, fatalities increased by about 1250.
—In the 8 years between 1996 and 2003, fatalities increased by about 1000.
—In the 8 years between 1997 and 2004, fatalities increased by about 1000.
—In the 8 years between 1998 and 2005, fatalities increased by about 2000.
—In the 8 years between 1999 and 2006, fatalities increased by about 1500.
—In the 8 years between 2000 and 2007, fatalities stayed flat.
—In the 8 years between 2001 and 2008, fatalities dropped by almost 4000.
Do you know what an outlier is? It’s where one data figure is significantly different from the others. To put it another way, between 2007 and 2008 fatalities dropped by about 3500. In only one other two-year set is there a drop of even 1000. The very low number of accidents in 2008—correlating, as I said above, with a drop of more than 100 billion in the number of vehicle miles—is what makes you see a decreasing trend. You simply don’t have the data to say that deaths are not staying constant and that 2008 wasn’t just an anomaly.
July 19th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
“vast steel exoskeleton”
That was my favorite part of the post.
If we ban cellphone use while driving, what about hitting radio buttons? Or CD players? Personally, I am distracted by the radio way more than phone calls–I’m usually texting after all.
July 19th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
If mobile phone usage presented such a unique hazard, then why do the fatality and collision rates keep falling in the face of our omnipresent telephone usage?
Can you (or anyone) point to the raw data on collision rates? This chart only seems to list fatality rates. While those are important, they are also prone to confounding factors (such as safer cars, as mentioned above). I’d be curious to see whether overall collision rates in general are down at similar rates as fatal collisions.
I’m particularly curious in light of the fact that, on the chart you linked, motorcyclist fatalities have risen dramatically, unlike car fatalities. Unless the number of motorcyclists on the road has jumped over the past 5 years (possible), this might suggest the “safer car” hypothesis has merit.
(Incidentally, it may not just be the cars that are safer. Other information devices and services, such as onstar, GPS, and yes, even having cellphones so readily available, may make it easier to quickly report and respond to accidents where a few minutes may make a major difference in outcome).
More data?
July 19th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
RW is right in that the annual number of fatal crashes per billion vehicle miles has been dropping, from 15.37 in 1994 to 11.63 in 2008.
Of course, as the NYT article says, statistics are not collected in many states for whether mobile phone use contributed to the crash. In the absence of that data, we cannot say whether the number of fatal crashes might have dropped even further.
July 19th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Do you know what an outlier is?
Do you know what a “rate” is? (Don’t answer that — apparently, you don’t.)
In case you weren’t aware, a rate is a fraction or ratio, expressed over a denominator. In traffic fatality studies, the standard used to measure rates is based upon VMT or VKT (vehicle miles traveled or vehicle kilometers traveled), which both obviously use mileage as a denominator.
Comparing the number of fatalities is obviously absurd when the population is increasing and miles driven are generally on the rise. Using your standards, we were better off in Model T’s, when the absolute number of fatalities was lower than they are now, even the fatality rate was many multiples higher than now.
In the absence of that data, we cannot say whether the number of fatal crashes might have dropped even further.
The point being made here is that if phone usage was truly the equivalent of DUI (which is a ridiculous assertion on its face), then the fatality rate should be skyrocketing. It obviously isn’t.
Again, I’d like to see somebody show some examples of phone laws having a notable positive impact on the data, which has been noteworthy for fatality rates declining consistently over most time periods during the last several decades. Not a single person has done that here.
These trends should have been badly interrupted if the phones were that important; the fact that the data appears impervious to the input suggests that the input isn’t that relevant.
July 19th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
RW, I owe you an apology; I did misunderstand you, which was entirely my fault, and I didn’t have any business questioning your knowledge of statistics.
July 19th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Fender-bender while applying make-up on the way to work, 50 bucks. Attempting to decipher road signs at 75mph, 50 bucks. Involuntary manslaughter while text-ing, priceless. Nothing beats a brick wall to free the mind of delusional safety.
July 19th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
> I don’t see why not? I don’t think anyone would
> have a problem with a law that said, for example,
> pilots had to pay attention to what they were doing
> while they flew commercial jetliners. Why should it be
> different for drivers, who cause far more fatalities?
Presumably you are aware that pilots flying in zones where radio communication is required monitor at least 2, and in some cases up to four, frequencies/conversations whilst they fly. And in the case of commercial airlines potentially also radio and/or text contact with their dispatch base and maintenance organization.
Of course there are differences; airplanes usually have autopilots and even without are more stable than cars and will generally fly themselves for a few minutes if the pilot is doing something else. Still, with training it is possible to follow 1 or 2 conversations while doing a complex task. (at least for some people – one would then have to ask of the process of becoming a commercial pilots selects for those people)
Cranky
July 19th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
The surest sign of a man who knows he has no actual argument to bring.
Dealing with you, Robertson, is really simple: just start from your standard operating position of “fuck you, I’ve got mine”. Works every time.
July 19th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
1. After moving to a city where using only public transport wasn’t feasible, I drove a scooter for a year. On a scooter, you pay much more attention to the world around you and other drivers. Ninety percent of boneheaded moves – drifting into other lanes, running stop signs, etc. – were made by drivers on cell phones. And not be sexist, but soccer moms seemed to be over-represented.
2. Long ago, I had a temp job grading standardized test essays where they closely tracked your productivity. I would occasionally secretly listen to music or talk radio because the gig was so damn monotonous. And just listening without having to produce speech would slow me down 25-35%, so it’s not a surprise that even hands-free conversations would impact driving ability.
July 19th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
I have a saying:
“Society dramatically underestimates the value of self-driving cars”
It applies here. Matt has pointed out some of the values in the past too.
July 19th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Common law of torts FTW
July 19th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
James @ 15
Of course, this pales in comparison to the death toll that inflicting mandatory energy use limits will bring us.
James, what color is the sky in your universe?
July 19th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
As I understand it (second hand, mind you), the correlation between cell phone use and accidents is slightly less than that between drivers talking to passengers and accidents. This should be the relevant context, here. Should we be prohibiting drivers talking with passengers? If not, why not, given that we’re prohibiting cell phone use by drivers.
Until I thought and learned more about this issue, it seemed to me like a no-brainer public safety issue. And I think that’s the problem. Commonsense seems to tell most of us that talking on a cell phone is bad and likely to cause more accidents. Prohibiting cell phone use while driving seems like the obvious solution to the problem. But, in reality, the situation is much more complex. The trend of prohibiting cell use while driving seems to me to be quite suspiciously populist in character, a quick-fix pass-a-law to fix a problem that is actually poorly understand and quite likely overstated. I’m much more likely to support these laws (and I have, until recently) if the problem was understood and presented in the context of overall driver safety and not in isolation.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Why pick on cell phone users? It seems like a more general law would be fairer — as in “don’t drive while distracted.” Let’s see, in the last month, I was almost hit by a mom weaving into my lane while she reached back to do something with her kid. Then there was lady applying make-up while she was driving whom I watched rear-end someone in rush hour traffic (hope that eye-liner poked her eye out). Of course, I ended up almost rear-ending someone while fiddling with my radio. And having someone yak at me while I’m trying to navigate a city street is the ultimate distraction. Be silent when you’re my passenger, please!
July 19th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
next time someone causes an accident that involves you -
sue them and subpoena their phone records
you or your lawyer may be able to prove negligence
most people talking on phones do not cause accidents, the drivers that do should pay via civil judgments and higher insurance rates
July 19th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
This has been an interesting discussion. I’m curious about why cell phone use while driving is framed in such a different manner than CB radio was when it was all the rage in the 1970s. I don’t recall any public discussion about the safety of driving while on the CB.
What’s the difference? Changing conceptions of driving safety? CB’s association with professional truck drivers? Its presumed use to get driving information?
July 19th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Keith M Ellis is right on the money in #38. If we ban cell phone use, are we next going to ban conversation with passengers or listening to the radio?
July 20th, 2009 at 12:41 am
I guess I am with RW.
The cited NYT article quotes an estimate that ca. 5% of all accidents and a similar percentage of fatalities resulted from distraction of drivers who talked on their cell phone. Yet, there is another estimate their quote: “Last year, the federal agency dealing with road safety, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, published a study, based on researchers’ observations of drivers, suggesting that at any time during daylight hours in 2007, 11 percent — or 1.8 million drivers — were using a cellphone.”
So, 11% of drivers are distracted and they produce 5-6% of accidents. Distraction saves lives, boys and girls!
Perhaps, “fully alert” but aggressive drivers are more dangerous than the distracted ones.
The other thing is that there was an article in a recent Scientific American about the evolution of specialization of the hemispheres of the brain. Apparently, fish already have that trait and why? so they can do multitasking!
Say, you are munching on some plankton or whatever little stuff you can get while being alert for predators. The typical specialization is separating the routine activities from non-routine. Long story short, we can multi-task a routine activity with a non-routine one, so if we can either drive or converse on “automatic”, it should be OK.
Ah, the last thing. Why distracted driving can save lives, a theory: usually, those drivers behave in a certain predictable manner, so while they are VERY annoying, they are not that dangerous. Most valuably, they make the non-talking drivers much more alert.
July 20th, 2009 at 6:34 am
Say, I’m starting to get the idea that Matt Yglesias really hates cars and is looking for any way he can to punish drivers.
July 20th, 2009 at 8:04 am
Regulating cell phone use would be regulating an action, not a mental state.
July 20th, 2009 at 9:02 am
DSchwein brings up a good point about CB radios. In addition to the reasons stated, I believe CBs do not involve looking down and pushing dialing/texting as much or holding something next to your ear.
In other news, Virginia recently banned texting and driving; however, it is not a primary offense, meaning you can’t be pulled over simply for texting.
July 20th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Regulating cell phone use would be regulating an action, not a mental state.
Substitute “cell phone use” with “talking to your passengers” and see where that gets you.
July 20th, 2009 at 10:31 am
The point being made here is that if phone usage was truly the equivalent of DUI (which is a ridiculous assertion on its face), then the fatality rate should be skyrocketing. It obviously isn’t.
I’ve no particular dog in this argument, but this assertion doesn’t really make sense. Driving while phoning could easily be as bad as drunk driving while you are on the phone.
The thing with drinking is you don’t instantly sober up as soon as you put the shot glass down. With phoning, you more or less do when you hang up the phone. And I imagine the vast majority of calls are fairly short.
So the actual degree impairment while on the phone could be very high, it’s just that the time spent impaired is lower, and thus the overall public health impact does not look as it would if all of America started having a few pre-commute cocktails.
July 20th, 2009 at 10:46 am
I think a general law as Beowulf888 suggests is probably fairer than targeting cell phone users in particular. The latter always seems silly and reactionary to me — clearly there are plenty of equally bad distractions and impairments. (Although you do have to deal with the fact that the less specific you make the law, the easier it is for people to ignore.)
Also, I’m not sure Piotr’s two statistics go together to make that conclusion, but the other speculations seem halfway plausible. I’d add that it could be that the impact of “driving while phoning” is blunted because a relatively large portion takes place on freeways, where people tend to be able to get by on autopilot anyway.
July 20th, 2009 at 10:54 am
This article is pretty clearly hippie bullshit – the author has no understanding of statistics, citing raw fatality levels and overusing the words “can” and “may.” This seems to be the case in a lot of this paternalistic crap, though.
July 20th, 2009 at 11:12 am
I think a large part of the problem with automobile accidents is that the typical driver’s test in the US is a bad joke. There is only minimal knowledge required to operate a vehicle capable of killing people, which is utterly absurd. The tests I’ve taken have not required any basic defensive driving knowledge, no questions about safe following distance, situations likely to lead to accidents, safe passing behavior, anything like that. It’s simply nuts. Safe driving isn’t difficult, it just requires situational awareness and some simple skills for getting out of trouble or avoiding it in the first place.
July 20th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Say, I’m starting to get the idea that Matt Yglesias really hates cars and is looking for any way he can to punish drivers.
That’s basically a really silly ad hominem attack. It could be that Matt hates cars and drivers. It could also be that cars are actually just a really bad idea. (Or at least, many of the ways we currently use and abuse them.)
But you won’t know unless you actually address the arguments. And if you do, Matt’s personal feelings, whatever they are, are irrelevant.
July 20th, 2009 at 11:30 am
[...] Matthew Yglesias: Part of the problem here is that there simply aren’t enough laws prohibiting this behavior and they’re not enforced strictly enough. But as with drunk driving, there’s also a problem that widespread auto dependency makes it difficult to enforce rules in a properly stringent manner. If having your license taken away from you was more “pain in the ass” and less “crippling disability” then it would be more viable to do it when people exhibit clear patterns of reckless behavior. Meanwhile, literally thousands of lives are at stake. [...]
July 20th, 2009 at 11:36 am
A Yglesias presception that shorts civil liberties in favor of paternalism AND rails against those most dastardly of villains, the auto-driver?
I am shocked.
July 20th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Put the burden of compliance on the companies profiting from the activity. Congress could easily require carriers to make cell phones inoperable while moving faster than walking pace (911 calls excepted). Even for phones without GPS, the carriers know to the second how long you’re on each cell tower before you switch to the next one down the road. The math is pretty simple to nail the average speed.
You could allow car (or train) passengers to override the system by a simple text message to a carrier database cops could routinely check after any accident to keep drivers honest. And confiscate their car if they’re not.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Driving while phoning could easily be as bad as drunk driving while you are on the phone.
Some of those researchers prone to self-promotion like to use the DUI hyperbole, but the research doesn’t reflect that.
Take this metastudy of numerous studies on the subject. The basic conclusion is that the main impact of phone usage is delayed reaction time, which had a mean delay of about 1/8th’s of a second: http://www.humanfactors.uiuc.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/TechReport/04-02.pdf
I suspect that phone usage studies based upon hypotheticals make the same critical error that was made by the Speed Kills studies of some years ago — they fail to address that drivers in the real world cope with the effects of delays in reaction time.
Increased reaction time does not, by default, result in higher crash rates because drivers account for it. They do not behave like robots and ignore its implications.
You can find other research that suggests that in the real world, drivers using phones moderate their behavior, perhaps subconsciously, in response to the delayed reaction time, just as drivers increase their room for error when they drive at higher rates of speed.
If you read the phone studies in detail, it’s apparent that many of them impose a behavior (phone usage) without consideration for whether the subject would be using the phone in that same fashion were the researcher not instructing them to behave in that manner. In the real world, drivers will generally adjust their usage to match their circumstances and offset the constraints.
And again, it becomes a logical error to presume that the removal of an input results in perfect behavior. A driver who had an accident while using a phone may have had it, anyway. An accident prone driver will most likely be accident prone, no matter what. Blaming the phone for accidents is akin to blaming DUI accidents on a particular type of alcohol, when it ultimately goes back to the user.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
“It could also be that cars are actually just a really bad idea.”
No, cars are a great idea, one of the best ideas ever invented by humans. My ability to get in a vehicle that sits ten steps from my door, travel enjoyably at high speed while listening to the music of my choice, and arrive precisely at my chosen location fifty miles away in less than an hour is absolutely extraordinary. Our single most valuable asset, as finite beings, is time, and cars do a remarkable job of keeping us from wasting it.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
No, cars are a great idea, one of the best ideas ever invented by humans. My ability to get in a vehicle that sits ten steps from my door, travel enjoyably at high speed while listening to the music of my choice, and arrive precisely at my chosen location fifty miles away in less than an hour is absolutely extraordinary. Our single most valuable asset, as finite beings, is time, and cars do a remarkable job of keeping us from wasting it.
I think cars have their uses, but they’ve clearly been oversold and have a lot of under appreciated downsides.
That debate’s been hashed out plenty of times on this blog, so I see no reason to repeat it, but there are precious resources other than time, and it’s not even clear that cars save that much of even that, at least when you account for congestion and development effects. For example, one nasty, subtle effect your paragraph ignores is the tendency for cars to make it not only possible to easily reach destinations 50 miles away, but also that they exercise an insidious effect on development so that soon it is necessary to drive 50 miles every day just to get where you need to be. And impossible to get there any other way. Parking lots, strip malls and sprawl are not the best ideas ever invented by humans.
That’s quite aside from the massive ongoing public health costs cars have, which are not necessarily proportional to the benefits. Not when weighed against the alternatives.
Again, this isn’t a binary argument. Cars have a role. But they also have a lot of shortcomings that could and should be fixed, and pointing those out isn’t at all the same as hating cars, or drivers.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Some of those researchers prone to self-promotion like to use the DUI hyperbole, but the research doesn’t reflect that.
Or at least the University PR depts are prone to self-promotion, yeah. It certainly doesn’t surprise me that the threat’s been overblown.
But while I can certainly agree that cell phones alone don’t represent an apocalyptic crisis, I think the broader point still stands. It’s not just phones, it IS kids in the back seat, and talk radio, and being half asleep, and being 87 and half-blind and senile, but your adult children haven’t been able to figure out how to gently get you to stop driving.
I don’t think simplistic laws banning “bad” behavior are necessarily the right approach, but the fact remains that automobiles are ridiculously dangerous pieces of heavy equipment, which we allow people to operate with essentially zero serious training, and virtually no attempt to make sure that people are sane and able to operate them safely at any given time.
We just sort of silently tolerate the resulting carnage and mitigation expenses, but it’s not at all clear that that’s the optimal state of affairs.
July 20th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
RW said:
If mobile phone bans were so effective, then why don’t we see massive declines in collision and fatality rates in those places where those laws are introduced? (Take a look; you won’t find any examples.)
I’ll take a stab at that: The laws generally are not that effective in reducing fatality rates and collisions for two major reasons: 1.) they are generally not enforced. Just put the phone down below the window level when a cop is around, pop it back up after you’re out of his field of view. 2.) Most of these laws (the one in effect in CA, for example) only ban holding the phone up to your ear. You are more than welcome to continue using the phone if you have a hands-free set. As the results have shown (quoted in the blog post), the use of hands-free sets doesn’t significantly reduce the distraction.
Thus, the laws are not effective because they don’t ban the distraction (the conversation you are having with someone you can’t see), and because they are difficult to enforce, anyway.
As for this ridiculous argument about whether or not cellphone usage while driving can lead to distraction and accidents. . . OF COURSE IT CAN. Haven’t you ever been in a car where the driver was talking on the phone and nearly got in an accident due to drifting over a lane marker? I sure as hell have. Conversations on cell phones divert your attention, just like having a heated conversation with someone in the passenger seat diverts your attention, just like kids in the back screaming at you and throwing things at you diverts your attention. The difference is, cell phone usage is probably the easiest of these things to discourage through bans.
July 20th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
The linked article has basically two stats:
estimate of the proportion of accidents “caused by cell-phone use”, which is ca. 5-7% of all accidents and all fatalities
estimate that in 2007, at any given time 11% of the drivers were using cell phones
Clearly, it is not easy to figure the “cause” of an accident, so my conjecture was that it was an estimate of the number of accidents in which the perpetrator was on the phone. If so, then the time spent in conversation would be associated with fewer accidents than the rest. I think it is plausible, with the explanation that making phone calls alters the drivers’ behavior in multiple ways, some of which are actually making driving safer: suppose that they change lanes much less frequently, keep larger clearance, and perform manouvers slowly, and even driving slower and/or on cruise control.
But it also gives rise to some dramatic cases of inattention like cutting through a read light, as described at the beginning of the linked article.
I really think that the “reaction speed” is a poor predictor of safe driving, because you can have driving style that requires fast reactions, and a style that does not. The chief problem with alcohol is that for some individual it hinder both reaction time and judgment, so they combine slower reaction time with a driving style that requires very high alertness.
RW’s link shows a very dramatic decrease in fatalities in the last 5 years, including a drop in fatalities per distance driven. It could well be that cell phones contribute: suppose that the least patient drivers, very young males, rather than converting each light change and each curvy road into a chase scene from a movie, just keep talking and otherwise driving like senior citizens?
July 20th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
By the way, I read the NYT article, and virtually all of RW’s points are addressed in it. He clearly didn’t read it. Example from page 5:
“In the first six months the California law was in effect, a preliminary California Highway Patrol estimate showed that fatalities dropped 12.5 percent — saving 200 lives. Mr. Simitian said it was too soon to determine whether the law or other factors caused the drop.”
July 20th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
virtually all of RW’s points are addressed in it.
Not at all, you’re just being highly selective with your use of statistics.
As noted above, fatality rates should be discussed in the context of mileage driven. We can see that for at least part of the time period in question, traffic volumes in California were down about 6%: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/08dectvt/page6.cfm (No surprise, in light of the changing economy.) So a comparison of the number of fatalities without regard for a notable decline in mileage would be misleading, to say the least.
You’re also missing the point that as population sizes decline, the data will appear to be more erratic. For example, during 2007, four states without phone laws saw fatalities decline by more than 20% (Delaware: 21%, Wyoming: 23%, Vermont: 24%, South Dakota: 24%), while DC with its lifesaving handheld ban saw a 19% increase. I’m pretty sure that you wouldn’t be rushing to judgment and issuing free phones to drivers as safety devices as a result of that statistical fluke.
That is not to suggest that phones improve driving, I would hope to not misuse statistics in that fashion. But your attempt to use limited data without appropriate context is an example of how distorted these discussions tend to be. Try to use appropriate sample periods and account for mileage before you try to prove anything with figures such as those.
July 21st, 2009 at 9:23 am
[...] Driving While Telephoning Is Deadly — Matthew Yglesias – Today’s public service announcement: Please stay off the phone while you’re driving. [...]
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:08 am
I wish someone could explain to me why talking on a hands-free cellphone is any more dangerous than talking to the person in the passenger seat. My eyes are still on the road, both hands are on the wheel (or one on the gearshift), and sure I’m a little distracted by the conversation, but I’d be distracted by my son in the backseat, or by listening to a podcast.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
It is obvious that RW, while being well educated in terms of his writing skills, appears to have the brain capacity of a Neanderthaler. Anytime you get in a car and engage in an activity in addition to driving your damn car, you put yourself and others at risk. It is a well know fact that Americans in general are horrible drivers as compared to Europeans. The main reason is they do other things because the typical American car almost drives itself. They talk, or worse, text on the phone or blackberry, they read various publications like maps, articles etc, play with the radio, cd player, I-pod, drink, eat, apply make-up, change clothes and do a host of other things. Except they do not drive a car the way it is meant to be driven. I can go on and on but I would like to summarize that if we were to drive and drive only, we would get there faster and safer. The solution? Outrageous fines. $ 1000 for using a phone while driving. If you get in peoples pockets that will eventually cure the problem. And RW I got an e-mail linking me to this article. I normally do not vent like this or write lengthy comments. However, I had to comment this time. Also don’t bother to respond as I will not come back to this article. It’s just that morons like you should go thru the agony of getting hit by a driver on the phone at least once.
July 25th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Rober DJ just wants to come in, yell a bit about unsubstantiated baloney, then leave and never come back. Gosh, I think I love Rober DJ.