Mitch
DYING TO TALK: Cars and Cell Phones
with a utility pole on the side of the road.
After the fact, the driver came to the
conclusion that “nothing on [a cell]
phone can be nearly as important as
what’s going on in front of you”(Tyre
and Scelfo). In this case the results were
not fatal, but the statistics are adding up
Cell Phones have Become an Integral Part of
the Driving Experience
Cartoon from <http://www.grinningplanet.com/2003/cellphone/joke-1948.htm>
Do you find yourself using your
showing just how deadly cell phones can
be. The distraction of cell phone
conversation while driving has even
been equated to the effects of drunk
car not only for its intended purpose of
driving in recent research (Strayer and
transportation, but also as a mobile
Johnston). While the United States has
telephone booth? If the answer is yes,
begun to increase regulation on in car
you are not alone. According to the
phone use, it has been a slow process,
Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
and we are still lagging in comparison to
and the National Highway Traffic Safety
other countries.
Administration, Americans are spending
about 40% of their time on cell phones
in cars. As cell phones have become
more integrated into our everyday lives a
simultaneous increase in distraction
related car accidents has been seen.
Super model, Niki Taylor found out just
how detrimental cell phones can be
while driving, when she suffered life
threatening internal injuries due to an
accident in 2001. Her driver took his
eyes off the road for a few seconds to
answer an incoming call and collided
How BIG is the Problem?
Most people are aware of the fact
that cell phone use behind the wheel has
become commonplace in our country.
Unfortunately, the connection between
the increase in phone use and automobile
accidents has not been made apparent to
the public. It’s hard to grasp just how
big the problem is without seeing the
numbers and comparing the total impact
with other serious issues.
2
Since cell phones were introduced 10 years ago, the number of people having
phone conversations in the car has skyrocketed and continues to grow larger. A study
performed by the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association found that 75
percent of the estimated 134.5 million cell phone users admitted to using their phones
while driving (“Study”). Statistics from the NHTSA indicate that 6 percent of drivers in
2005 utilized hand-held phones while driving. Another 0.7 percent of drivers utilized
hands free headsets. This represents an increase over the previous year of 1 percent.
Along with the increase in usage there has been an increase in accidents. In 2003,
it was estimated that there were 330,000 total injuries, 12,000 serious to critical injuries,
and 2,600 fatalities attributed to cell phone distraction while driving. Of the fatalities,
over half were other vehicle fatalities, meaning that the people killed weren’t even the
ones on the phone (Cohen and Graham).
A comparison shows that 18 out of 1 million people die every year due to alcohol
related accidents, while 4 out of 1 million are killed as a result of cell phone use in
automobiles (Lissy et al). Research has shown that the distraction created by a cell phone
3
conversation can lead to driving
significant portion of our visual
impairments just as harmful as those
receptiveness goes away. It can be
seen by an individual exceeding the legal
equated to a sort of tunnel vision
blood alcohol content of 0.8. The use of
(Strayer, Drews, and Crouch).
a simulation device showed that drivers
Dealing with distractions while
under the influence of alcohol tended to
driving is not a new concept unique to
be more aggressive, while those talking
cell phones however. It’s not
on a cell phone had a slowed reaction
uncommon to see drivers fumbling with
time (Strayer, Drews, and Crouch). The
their car stereo, applying makeup, or
New England Journal of Medicine
using an electric shaver during rush
reported cell phone use increased the
hour. Even the simple act of having a
likelihood of a car accident by a factor of
conversation with another passenger can
four. It was also found that the use of
divert a driver’s attention. The question
hands-free devices provided no
is, are cell phones any worse than any of
significant change in this risk
these other unrestricted distractions?
(Redelmeier and Tibshirani). The
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) found any
form of cell phone conversation to be a
significant distraction and they
recommend complete avoidance while
driving.
Distraction
The reason for the increased
accident rate involved with cell phones
is that our minds are distracted by the
conversation we are participating in. We
A publicity image from the 'Think!'
road safety campaign in Britain.
<http://www.driveandstayalive.com/articles%20an
d%20topics/crash%20causation/cell-phone-
are impaired by what researchers refer to
as “inattention blindness”. As the mind
focuses on the phone conversation, a
dangers.htm>
4
A comprehensive study performed by David Strayer at the University of Utah showed
that cell-phone conversations were indeed more detrimental to driving capabilities than
other common distractions. Strayer’s research showed that other auditory
distractions such as radio broadcasts and book tapes did not interfere with driving
abilities the way cell phones do. The distraction of passenger-driver conversation is
minimized because of the fact that both members of the conversation are aware of the
driving situation and can adjust for necessary attention to the road. These results
disprove the argument posed by cell phone companies, stating that cell phones are no
worse than any other in car distractions.
Solutions
As the United States catches up with other countries in overall cell phone use, the
deadly combination of phones and cars is becoming more apparent. Trends around the
globe seem to show that cell phone restriction is unavoidable and can be successful. As
of yet, the policies within the United States have not adequately addressed the issue. This
is partly due to unjustified opposition based on the belief that banning cell phones is not
cost effective.
Worldwide, 45 countries have already banned handheld cell phone use while
driving. Japan, one of the countries which has banned cell phone use while driving, had
very promising results immediately after they adopted the new law. In the six months
prior to instating the ban there were 1,473 accidents, 12 deaths, and 2,174 injuries caused
by cell phone use. In contrast, there were only 580 accidents, 7 deaths, and 846 injuries
within the six months after the ban went into effect (“No Talking”).
Besides government intervention, pressure is also being placed on drivers by
insurance companies in other countries. When drivers are found to have been in an
accident while talking on the phone, their policy may be cancelled (Sundeen).
Within the U. S., only three states and the District of Columbia have active laws
which don’t allow any hand held cell phone use while driving (Glassbrenner). Several
other states have less severe regulations which only apply to certain drivers. No action to
prevent hands-free phone use has been put forth. The first statewide ban on hand helds
took place in New York in 2001. The initial response to the law was a decrease from
5
2.3% to 1.1% of drivers talking on phones. Unfortunately, a year later the numbers had
returned to 2.1%. It seems that while the laws are being put into place they are not being
taken as seriously as other prohibited offenses. Maybe the $50 fine isn’t enough. Anne
McCartt of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety states that "If you look at the
experiences with other laws in highway safety like seat-belt and drunk-driving laws, what
seems to make a difference in the long-term is publicized enforcement"( “Drivers
Backsliding”).
In a country where the economy rules, it is not surprising that money plays a large
role in deciding whether or not to ban cell phone use in cars. Several analyses have
examined the cost benefit. These economic studies looked at a comparison between the
quantized monetary benefits of allowing phone use and the savings which would be
realized by banning them. Two studies performed in 1999 predicted that a ban on cell
phone use would not be economically feasible. They found that the benefits of talking on
cell phones outweighed the drawbacks (Cohen and Graham). However, an updated study
performed in 2003 found that the economic gain of banning phones would be
approximately equal to the lost revenue of $43 billion (Cohen and Graham).
As an increased liability is seen in cell phone accident cases, incentive for drivers
to hang up their phones is growing. The victims and families of victims are increasingly
winning court suits against faulty drivers which were talking on their phones at the time
of an accident. Not only are the individuals responsible for the accident being sued, but
often times their employers are being held liable for these cases. An Arkansas lumber
company paid $16.1 million to an injured accident victim that was struck by one of the
companies workers while he was on the phone performing a business transaction in his
truck. In another case, the State of Hawaii was ordered to pay $1.5 million to a
pedestrian that was injured by a school teacher who was on the phone while
driving(“Steering Clear”). These cases and other similar ones are driving companies to
take a serious look at their policies on the issue. Big companies like Exxon Mobil and
Johnson & Johnson have already begun enforcing policies which prohibit the use of
phones while driving during work hours (Peterson).
The importance of the issue of talking on the phone while driving is becoming
much more evident in this country. If someone is caught driving drunk, they generally
6
lose their license and are fined severely, as a minimum penalty. It doesn’t seem logical
that an offense which yields similarly devastating results should be given so little
attention. In a nation where we take pride in the safety of our citizens it is imperative that
we act on this matter.
Works Cited
Cohen, J.T. and Graham, J.D. “A Revised Economic Analysis of Restrictions on the Use of Cell Phones
While Driving” Risk Analysis. 23(1) 2003
“Drivers Backsliding on Banned Phone Use” Wall Street Journal. 4 Feb. 2004
Glassbrenner, Donna. “Driver Cell Phone Use in 2005-Overall Results” D.O.T. AS 809 967 Dec. 2005
8 Feb. 2006 <http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2005/809967.pdf>
Lissy, K.S. , Cohen, J.T., Park, M.Y., and Graham, J.D. “Cellular Phone Use While Driving: Risks and
Benefits” Boston MA: Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. 2000
“ No Talking, Fewer Crashes Reported Afer Cell Phone Ban Takes Effect”. Japan Automobile
Manufacturers Association. Japan Auto Trends. 4(4) Dec. 2000.
8 Feb. 2006 <http://www.jama.org/autoTrends/detail.cfm?id=20>
Peterson, Lee"More companies pulling the plug on employee cell-phone use in cars" Daily Breeze.
Torrance, Calif.: Jul 11, 2004.
Redelmeier, D.A. and Tibshirani, R.J. “Association Between Cell Phone Calls and Motor Vehicle
Collisions” New England Journal of Medicine. Pages 453-458. 336(7) 1997
“Steering Clear of Liability When Employees Use Cell Phones While Driving” Wiley Rein and Fielding
Periodic Updates on Issues Affecting Employers July 2004.
8 Feb. 2006
<http://www.wrf.com/docs/newsletter_issues/144.pdf>
Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., and Crouch, D. J. “ Fatal distraction? A comparison of the cell-phone driver
and the drunk driver” . In D. V. McGehee, J. D. Lee, & M. Rizzo (Eds.) Driving Assessment 2003:
International Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design.
Published by the Public Policy Center, University of Iowa 2003 Pages. 25-30.
Strayer, D.L. and Johnston, W.A. “Driven to Distraction: Dual Task Studies of Simulated Driving and
Conversing On a Cellular Telephone” Psychological Science. Pages 462-466. 12(6) 2001
“Study Finds “Inattention Blindness” in Behind the Wheel Cell Phone Users” National Safety Council
News Release. 18 Oct. 2005. 2 Feb. 2006
<http://www.nsc.org/news/nr012703.htm >
Sundeen, Matt. “Cell Phones and Highway Safety: 2003 State legislative Update” National Conference of
State Legislatures. 23 Jan. 2004.
8 Feb. 2006
<http://www.ncsl.org/programs/transportation/cellphoneupdate1203.htm >
Tyre, Peg and Scelfo, Julie. “A Car, a Call, and a Terrible Crash” Newsweek New York 14 May 2001
7