Cabbies on Cell Phones
(cc photo by augapfel)
It seems like every time I get into a cab these days, the driver is engaged in a non-stop cell phone conversation via a headset. I understand why cab drivers want to do this, but it’s incredibly dangerous:
A cabby paced beside his wrecked car, an earpiece dangling from the side of his head. An emergency worker, Ralph Ortiz, asked him what had happened.
“I was on the phone,” the driver told Mr. Ortiz, who several months later said he was still stunned by the response. “I didn’t see the light turn red.”
New York City cabbies have been banned from using cellphones for a decade — even the hands-free type, putting the city a step ahead of state law. But the stringent rules remain almost entirely unenforced, even amid research that shows drivers who talk on cellphones are four times as likely to cause a crash.
As long as the country is on the general subject of health care and public health, it’s worth pointing out that Americans’ tendency to die or be seriously injured in motor vehicle crashes seems much more amenable to policy remediation than does the country’s issues with obesity. Traffic engineering is reasonably well-understood by experts, and the research on things like the dangers of talking and texting while driving is pretty unambiguous. It would be a simple thing for a major city to mount a few “sting” operations aimed at handing out heavy fines to phone-using cabbies. And once stepped-up enforcement had been in place for a little bit, violations would drop rapidly, norms would change, and it would become much more practical for passengers to lean on drivers not to put everyone’s lives at risk.
You could even do something as simple as post a sign in the back of the cab clearly stating that the driver’s not supposed to be on the phone.
55 Responses to “Cabbies on Cell Phones”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 4th, 2009 at 11:32 am
It would be a good source of revenue generation for awhile too, because lots of people still sniff at the rules as far as talking on the phone while driving, or texting. I say roll ‘em all up, hand them $250 fines, and make a bunch of money, while disencouraging that behavior, because it really is dangerous, and people need to stop being so damn empowered in their vehicles, too many people are maimed or dying to look the other way.
August 4th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Who the hell do they talk to anyway? I can stand spending maybe twenty minutes, max, on a phone when I’m just sitting at home.
August 4th, 2009 at 11:43 am
In Chicago there is a plaque in the back of each taxi car that states various “rights” and regulations passengers have when riding in a cab. One specifically says that the driver may not use a cell phone while driving.
Needless to say I’ve ridden in cabs where the driver spent the entire trip talking on his cell phone. I’ll be the first to say this is not statistically significant sample or study, but my point is that the sign really doesn’t help.
August 4th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Yeah, that’s totally who we should go after, the poor bastards stuck driving all day.
August 4th, 2009 at 11:49 am
NYC enforcement of various cab rider rights is incredibly lax. It is very common to have a cab driver on the phone the entire time, hands free or not. Cabbies aren’t supposed to deny a rider based on destination, but doing so is fairly routine. Hell, I have taken cab rides not once, but twice, where the cab driver started to drink a beer part way through the ride, leading me to jump out both times mid-ride.
If they did decide to try enforcing the laws with tickets, maybe they could get around to building that 2nd Ave subway line just off the cab fines alone.
August 4th, 2009 at 11:52 am
MY is taking cabs? What happened to the idea that mass transit was the super-efficient way to be awesome?
August 4th, 2009 at 11:53 am
As long as the obese are coddled their plight will do damage to our nation’s health care system and work productivity. Drunks, pedophiles, drug addicts and the like are confronted with their sicknesses and given ultimatums. Either change or society will segregate you from those choosing a rational, healthy lifestyle. We need a state where only fat people live. There they can argue amongst themselves about the size of theater and airplane seats, the availability of clothes that fit and whether that girl at the bar is dissing you because you’re fat (no, she’s not, BECAUSE EVERY GODDAMNED PERSON IN THE BAR IS FAT!).
August 4th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Just yesterday morning, someone in a Mercedes bumped me at a crosswalk. She was doing a “rolling stop” and was only looking left because it’s a one-way street, and was walking across from the right. The fender hit my left leg, like someone rolling into me during touch football, and I forcefully braced myself against the car’s hood. Not a big deal, but I saw that she was on her phone, and that really pissed me off. I’m okay with headsets, but nobody should be allowed to drive while holding a phone in their hand.
August 4th, 2009 at 11:56 am
I hate, hate, hate cabbies driving around talking on the phone. It was even worse when they weren’t using headsets. I ought to be concerned for my safety but I’m not so alarmed that I ever put on my seat belt.
And in fairness I also constantly notice public works and garbage truck drivers, police officers and bus operators, all driving around while talking on cell phones — and if they were using headsets they wouldn’t be noticeable.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
People are stubborn. Certainly in CA — which banned hand-held cell-phone use several months back — cell-phone use while driving seems to have gone back to its pre-ban levels (at least I see everyone happily chatting on cell phones). Initially people were cautious, but it’s easy to put down your phone if you see a patrol car. The chances of getting caught are slim. So f**k the law.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
People are stubborn and stupid, up that fine to $500 and Law will find a way to catch you, and they should. Too many people die on the road, it’s our shame.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Our obesity and traffic-injury rates are tied in other ways too: Americans are so fat because Americans drive everywhere. Moving from DC to Atlanta, I immediately gained a bunch of weight, which is easily attributed to one thing: instead of walking 10-15 minutes to and from the Metro each day (plus walking to the store, and to the movies, or to happy hour), I sit in my car on the freeway for an hour.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
A couple observations:
- I live in New York and I’m not sure I’ve ever been in a cab where the driver was not–at some point–talking on his cell phone
- I have seen no evidence that there is a rash of taxi crashes in New York or anywhere as a consequence of what must be nearly ubiquitous drivers on cell phones
I’d be happy to consider the evidence that is a serious safety problem. But until that evidence is produced, this looks a lot to me like a bunch of scolds going after a vulnerable target. Taxi driving is a shit job; it’s mildly better if you can talk to your wife while you meander through the city. If there isn’t some sort of crisis, I say chill the fuck out.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I hate, hate, hate cabbies driving around talking on the phone. It was even worse when they weren’t using headsets.
If the cabbie is on the phone I ask them to get off it immediately. If they refuse I insist, and if they still refuse I get out without paying. Then again, I’m a tall and physically fit man who enjoys arguments, and I can see how lots of passengers (particularly women and seniors) would be intimidated to ask — so ultimately this has to be solved through enforcement. Hit them with a blizzard of fines and they’ll eventually stop.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
I’d be happy to consider the evidence that is a serious safety problem. But until that evidence is produced, this looks a lot to me like a bunch of scolds going after a vulnerable target. Taxi driving is a shit job; it’s mildly better if you can talk to your wife while you meander through the city. If there isn’t some sort of crisis, I say chill the fuck out.
Agreed. The plural of anecdote, etc.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
This could be remedied by passengers: have the cabbie stop, get out, don’t pay for the illegal ride, briefly explain why. Hail another cab. If enough people did this, cabbies wouldn’t take the risk. This only works where cabs are dense, of course.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
This could be remedied by passengers: have the cabbie stop, get out, don’t pay for the illegal ride, briefly explain why. Hail another cab. If enough people did this, cabbies wouldn’t take the risk. This only works where cabs are dense, of course.
An alternative if cabs aren’t dense: ride to your destination, do not give a tip, and tell the driver that you’re not tipping because he was on the phone.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Is there any increasing trend in douchiness among Matt’s commenters? Or has it always been thus. First there’s this:
Right. Because trying to take steps towards greater traffic safety would, um, distract us from hunting terrorists. Or punishing Goldman Sacks. Or something. And then there’s this:
Because clearly a corollary of the assertion that more mass transit is good is that no one should ever, ever get in a car. And cabs of course have no useful role to play in augmenting a good mass transit system.
I know on the scheme of things, these are fairly minor offenses. But why is there so much of this bullshit on this blog?
August 4th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Don’t tax yourself Saul, it is what it is, there will always be people slumping on the parade, even criticizing the parade as being ostentatious, when that’s the damn point of a parade, isn’t it?
August 4th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
An alternative if cabs aren’t dense: ride to your destination, do not give a tip, and tell the driver that you’re not tipping because he was on the phone.
Which I’ve done many times. Hit people in the pocketbook and they’ll soon adjust their behavior.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
I’d be happy to consider the evidence that is a serious safety problem. But until that evidence is produced, this looks a lot to me like a bunch of scolds going after a vulnerable target.
June 29, 2006 — Three years after the preliminary results first were presented at a scientific meeting and drew wide attention, University of Utah psychologists have published a study showing that motorists who talk on handheld or hands-free cellular phones are as impaired as drunken drivers.
“We found that people are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated at the legal blood-alcohol limit” of 0.08 percent, which is the minimum level that defines illegal drunken driving in most U.S. states, says study co-author Frank Drews, an assistant professor of psychology…..
http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1
August 4th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
I’d be happy to consider the evidence that is a serious safety problem. But until that evidence is produced, this looks a lot to me like a bunch of scolds going after a vulnerable target. Taxi driving is a shit job; it’s mildly better if you can talk to your wife while you meander through the city. If there isn’t some sort of crisis, I say chill the fuck out.
Evidence. More evidence.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
I’d be happy to consider the evidence that is a serious safety problem.
July 19, 2009
Driven to Distraction: Drivers and Legislators Dismiss Cellphone Risks
By MATT RICHTEL
….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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/technology/19distracted.html
August 4th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Evidence:
Driving while using a cell phone (hand held or hands free) is equivalent to driving with .08 blood alcohol level: Strayer DL, Drews FA, Crouch DJ. A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Hum Factors. 2006 Summer;48(2):381-91.
I have access to PubMed, but I’m betting most of this kind of stuff can be found through a simple Google search, as well. It’s not like someone is hiding evidence.
Oh wait, actually, I guess the U.S. Department of Transportation is hiding evidence:
http://documents.nytimes.com/documents-from-the-u-s-department-of-transportation-s-national-highway-traffic-safety-administration#p=1
This report, hidden for seven years, shows that talking on a cell phone, again either handheld or hands free, increases the driver’s likelihood of being involved in a serious accident by a factor of four.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Living in New York, I’ve got to say the percent of cab rides I’ve taken in which the cabbie is on the phone the entire time probably approaches 100. It’s constant.
As for the downside of this – well, I’ve had numerous cabbies take me to the wrong place because they weren’t paying attention when I told them where I was going (usually only off by a few blocks, but at least they’ve turned south instead of north). I’ve also been in a cab that very nearly got in an accident because of a combination of reckless driving and talking on a cell phone. And, perhaps most importantly, I sometimes drive a Vespa, and have had about 100 cabs nearly hit me because they just weren’t paying attention (plus one time when a cab bumped me from behind when stopped at a light because he was talking to the cabbie next to him and took his foot off the brake). Cabbies are by far the worst, most aggressive drivers in the city. They really don’t need to add talking on a cell phone to the mix.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
I was surprised when I learned that using a headset is no safer than talking into a cell phone directly, but apparently the real problem isn’t having your hand occupied, it’s the distraction. Makes me wonder what the statistics on driving with chatty people in the passenger seat are.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Taxi driving is a shit job; it’s mildly better if you can talk to your wife while you meander through the city.
There are lots of shit jobs, but most of those jobs don’t allow you to spend your day gabbing to your wife and friends while you’re supposed to be concentrating on your work — especially while you’re in charge of a ton of glass and steel hurtling through the streets and are directly responsible for the lives of your passengers.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
An easy fix. Set up a public awareness campaign encouraging riders NOT TO PAY A TIP if the driver had used his cell phone during the ride. No direct confrontation. JUST NO GOD DAMN TIP. Do that a few thousand times and the practice will disappear.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Because trying to take steps towards greater traffic safety would, um, distract us from hunting terrorists.
I think my point is probably the same as southpaw’s: we’re talking here about the fairly specific circumstance of taxi drivers talking on phones. It seems, as southpaw said, like a pretty good way of ameliorating a pretty drudge-y job. Further, I can imagine that their driving statistics often differ from that of the general population. If there is evidence that cabbies talking on phones is resulting in a lot of injuries, then maybe we need to do something nonetheless. But that’s the evidence asked for: are cabbies killing people left and right?
August 4th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
And hang on a second here, how stupid do you have to be to ask for evidence when it’s in a blockquote in the original post, and bolded? If you follow the link to the NYT article, you’ll see a link in the text, to an article about that research having been ignored.
August 4th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
You’ve got to be kidding. You understand that while sometimes “drivers” stands in for “taxi drivers,” oft times it stands in for the more general “people who drive cars,” right?
August 4th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
You’ve got to be kidding. You understand that while sometimes “drivers” stands in for “taxi drivers,” oft times it stands in for the more general “people who drive cars,” right?
Sure, but what’s your point?
August 4th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Cab drivers get no special exceptions, let’s end that line of argument right now, unless you also want to argue that cabbies should be able to drink and drive too to alleviate the boredom of the job.
August 4th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Because clearly a corollary of the assertion that more mass transit is good is that no one should ever, ever get in a car. And cabs of course have no useful role to play in augmenting a good mass transit system.
I don’t think I said that. Just if Matt is going to disregard the role of cars in urban transit, he should walk the walk.
I know on the scheme of things, these are fairly minor offenses. But why is there so much of this bullshit on this blog?
Right. You’re not the stupid one in the conversation.
August 4th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Ah, I see. I posted my 12:59 comment before I saw your comment right above it. Sorry.
I’d assume the numbers in general are similar for cab drivers and for the general public. They have more experience driving, but on the other hand they would drive more casually and therefore, at least at times, more carelessly. However, I realize that “I’d assume” is very weak evidence.
As for targetting cab drivers on phones specifically, that makes sense even if they’re even safer than the general public just because they’re the low-hanging fruit for this kind of thing. There already are lots of regulatory requirements, and enforcement of a ban on cab drivers would be easier than on the general public. (Maybe this regulation would be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, but it seems unlikely.)
August 4th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Sure, but what’s your point?
As said above, that it seems plausible that cabbies’ “driving statistics [might] differ from that of the general population.” This might include a smaller correlation of accidents or injuries associated with talking on the phone. If they’re hurting people left and right, of course something should be done. Otherwise, maybe not. And so each of us asked for evidence.
Cab drivers get no special exceptions, let’s end that line of argument right now,
As that’s the entire argument that southpaw and I have been making: woo hoo! Pity you didn’t decide that right at the start. Might think about putting the announcements right up front, in that first comment, from now on.
August 4th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Cyrus, we’ve got to stop cross-posting. People will talk.
August 4th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Heh, agreed. Only Tweet-length comments in this thread from me until further notice.
August 4th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
SCMT: E-mail me at dnjco-at-yahoo dot com. I owe you money, due to our 2005 bet.
August 4th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Klug:
Seriously? Wow. That’s sincerely very decent of you. I didn’t (don’t) even remember that we had a bet, let alone the terms of it. Don’t sweat it at all. It’s nice to know I won something. Once. (And if the bet regarded whether I would ever find a kinder, gentler, more giving lover than you, well…as the man said, “Don’t let my glad expression give you the wrong impression.”)
August 4th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Of course, if public safety is the issue, we might need to ban cell phones and iPods for pedestrians, too.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100980281
August 4th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
I’d be a little cautious about the validity of the evidence being cited here. The oft-cited “4x more likely” study didn’t control for the fact that incautious drivers are both more likely to get into accidents and more likely to talk on the phone. And the Strayer research is simulation evidence, not actual observations of real driving behavior with and without cell phones. That’s not to say that their conclusions are wrong, but just want to appropriately caveat it. There’s also some work by Hahn and Praiger (2006) who didn’t find a statistical difference from cell phone use after they correct for some of the concerns of the 1997 RT study (”4x”).
Furthermore, some preliminary research I’ve seen looking at the cell phone ban in CA and the actual number of daily accidents in the state finds no evidence of a reduction in accidents post-ban. Now, there are some possible reasons for that: 1) cell phones don’t cause accidents, 2) people didn’t comply, 3) the people who didn’t comply are simply bad drivers who are more inclined to get in accidents anyway, 4) banning handheld but not hands-free devices causes drivers to switch to the equally distracting hands-free devices. I don’t know which reasons are more likely to be true, but it suggest to me that we should think carefully about policy responses to these sorts of things.
August 4th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I’m really surprised that the insurance companies haven’t put a stop to this – i.e., talking on the cell is prima facie negligent driving, and any accident in which cell phone use is involved is automatically not covered by the insurance.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Or the passenger could tell him to hang it the fuck up or lose his tip.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
“Furthermore, some preliminary research I’ve seen looking at the cell phone ban in CA and the actual number of daily accidents in the state finds no evidence of a reduction in accidents post-ban.”
Exactly. Considering how many more people have and use cell phones while driving today than did four or five years ago, it’s a bit mysterious that driving fatalities per mile have gone down, not up (and no, there haven’t been any remarkable safety improvements over that time). It’s also mysterious that states that ban the usage of cell phones while driving do not see a material impact on fatalities or accidents. That 4X-more-likely-to-have-an-accident number is among the most cited, and most dubious, public-policy statistics out there.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
“talking on the cell is prima facie negligent driving”
What are you talking about? If talking on a cell phone is allowed in a state, it can hardly be considered negligent driving.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
So: driving while playing the accordian, if not specifically outlawed, can hardly be considered negligent driving.
August 4th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Cab drivers get no special exceptions, let’s end that line of argument right now, unless you also want to argue that cabbies should be able to drink and drive too to alleviate the boredom of the job.
I think that the point was that for someone who drives an hour or two a day, talking on the cell phone might increase the risk of an accident, because you get distracted. For someone who drives eight or more hours a day, being bored out of your skull might increase the risk by even more than the distraction of talking on the phone.
And the real reason to be cautious about cell-phone bans – if we ban these, then how long before we ban radio use in the car? How long before we ban talking by the driver?
August 4th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
It’s revealing, I think, that any mention of research showing driver impairment from cell phone use almost never mentions how that impairment compares with talking with passengers.
Are you prepared to outlaw drivers talking with passengers? If not, why not?
In general, my concern with this is that this issue reeks of commonsense certainty only loosely coupled, if at all, with strong research.
Does listening to the radio while driving cause distraction? It probably does, to some degree. Was there a lot of grumbling about distracted drivers who get into accidents while listening to their radios when radios in cars first appeared? I’ll bet you there was.
The near-unanimous certainty that talking on phone while driving is a very bad thing is more the result of popular discomfort with technological/sociological change coupled with the intuitive and uncritical certainty that it must cause accidents. Any studies demonstrating this are just icing on the cake.
But what if, in reality, cell phone use only marginally causes more accidents and at a rate comparable to the distraction caused by talking to passengers and listening to music? Would those who are so eager to vilify cell phone using drivers and ban the practice be willing to do the same with conversation with passengers and music listening? Maybe they should, maybe they should not. But they won’t—because two of those things are considered normal and acceptable and now have long histories. The other is new. That’s the biggest factor in this.
Note that I don’t use a cell phone. I practically never drive, or am in the position of being struck by bad drivers. I have no vested interest in this.
August 4th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
@Keith M Ellis
Talking to passengers is not distracting in the way that talking on a phone is. Passengers are aware of the surroundings; they know when to shut up; they provide another set of eyes; they help navigate; they do not require the driver to project himself mentally into another space as a phone conversation does. Here’s info on a study.
August 4th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Jay,
That’s persuasive but not conclusive. I’ve certainly known (and been) passengers who were oblivious to everything taking place outside the car.
That some portion of passengers, perhaps the majority per miles-traveled, are aware of the driving conditions certainly provides a strong argument that cell phones are worse than talking passengers.
However, whether it’s as much worse to justify public policy that is aimed only at cell phone use and not other driver distractions is a separate matter.
Again, I’m a contrarian on this because, to my mind, this reeks of the sort of new public problem that everyone is sure is severe and to which the public policy solution is obvious. There is something like this every five to ten years, or so. It’s always suffused with conventional wisdom and then numerous studies that (mostly) validate that conventional wisdom. Five or ten years after the scare passes, much of the conventional wisdom is found to have been wrong and much of the supporting scientific research was found to have been driven by the conventional wisdom and was faulty (and opposing research results ignored or suppressed).
Maybe this is not like that. Lots of new threats to public safety, as introduced by technology, actually do occur, of course. But because this smells to me so strongly of a public witch-hunt, I’ll remain skeptical.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:32 am
I agree with the thread to the effect that there are a lot of things that are about as dangerous as driving while on the phone. I use my cell phone from time to time while I’m on the phone but I might consume 40% of my calories in my car some days and that could be dangerous. The side of my passenger side seat is practically a default napkin.
We should probably go back to the drawing board and figure out which new regulations are enforceable, and which provide the most amount of safety for the cost. I wonder if working on the worst 5% of drivers (who are more likely to be doing all of the above bad driving behaviors) might save more lives.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
For all you multi-tasking experts, or those who think that cabbies and other drivers are such, try using this simulator and then tell me texting while driving has no effect on your concentration and reactions:
Gauging Your Distraction
Feel better about yourself now?
And can we stop already with the BS about how it’s distracting to have a conversation/listen to the radio/whatever so, therefore, texting and/or talking don’t count (or whatever the moronic argument is)? Is that the best you can come up with? Other activities are dangerous and distracting, so what does it matter if I do even more of these activities? Please.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
SCMT did admirable work in my absence; thanks man. I am in fact cognizant of the evidence that “drivers” (cf. “taxi drivers”) are quantifiably at more risk of an accident when on a cell phone.
My point was that this general finding, if equally descriptive of New York City taxi drivers as all drivers, would seem to predict a crisis level of taxi accidents in New York City, given how much New York City taxi drivers talk on the phone. Since I’m unaware of any such crisis, I tend to be skeptical of the claim that the general finding for drivers is equally descriptive of New York City taxi drivers.
If there’s evidence that my reasoning or assumptions above is flawed, I’ll reconsider. References back to the linked article, not so much.
August 7th, 2009 at 6:45 am
Nice, Here is one more you would like.
techmasher