An Education on Common Objections to Cell Phone Legislation:

"Banning the use of hand held cell phones while driving is an infringement of my personal freedom."

Some people have asserted that they believe they have the right to use their cell phones while driving. They do not have that right. The state of Pennsylvania does not guarantee its citizens driving privileges, let alone the ability to drive and talk on a cellular phone. Since when does requiring someone to make a call while the car is in park constitute an attack on the very concept of democratic freedom?

Our state and national constitutions guarantee us all the freedom to live our lives. We have the right as parents to thoughtfully and responsibly care for, nurture, and raise our children. These are the kinds of freedoms that build the foundation of a democracy. These are the kinds of freedoms worth fighting for. Cell phone users face no such compelling loss of freedom. They're faced with a minor inconvenience, a change in habit, and nothing more. Any small discomfort someone may experience as a result of this legislation is far outweighed by the overall benefit to public safety.

"Talking on a cell phone is no more dangerous than putting on makeup, eating fast food, tuning your radio or reading a map while driving. People need to use common sense, and we can't write laws that make that happen."

There is no question that there are many distractions occuring in the car. Of course responsible drivers should make every effort to minimize those distractions. But none of those behaviors rise to the same level of driver inattention as does dialing and then conducting a conversation or closing a business deal on a cellular phone. Human Factors experts tell us that there are basically three kinds of driving distractions. The first is visual. Looking away from the roadway would be an example of this. The second is mechanical. This would include manipulation a control -- such as dialing a cellular phone or adjusting a radio, and can often be associated with a visual distraction. The third is cognitive. By example, we have all had the experience of traveling from point A to point B and then realizing that we aren't sure how we got there or what happened in between. Being "lost in thought" or being in focused conversation with someone causes us to withdraw from situational awareness. Researchers are beginning to obtain evidence that shifting from hand held to hands-free phone use while driving does not result in eliminating all cell phone distractions. It addresses the visual and mechancial distractions, but does not address the cognitive issues. This raises the question, "How is conversing on a phone different from talking with a passenger in the vehicle?" There are two important differences. The first is that a passenger in a vehicle is aware of the driving situation and can even serve as an additional look-out for hazards. If there is a needed pause in conversation, the reasons are evident to all parties. The second is that phone use seems to carry a certain obligation of immediacy. When the phone rings, we feel compelled to answer it -- whether it is convenient, safe, or appropriate to do so or not. We become focused on the phone call and lose the situational awareness so necessary for safe driving. (Fran Bents) Of all the distractions mentioned, only the use of a cell phone incorporates all three of those demands. The sheer magnitude of cell phone usage also differentiates these behaviors. There are currently 88 million cell phone users in this country alone. There are 40,000 new subscribers every day. That rate of subscribership exceeds the birth rate. A Prevention Magazine survey in 1995 reported that 85% of cell phone owners use their phones while driving at least some of the time. If such statistics hold true, there are now about 75 million drivers talking on their phones while driving. In addition to this, there are currently services available that allow us to check e-mail and stocks, send faxes, and surf the web, all from our cell phones. Industry plans to broadly expand the availability of a multitude of in-vehicle communications devices for e-mail, Internet communications, and electronic navigation...are gaining momentum. We know that as a society we can provide the means to keep in touch with family and friends, conduct business deals, entertain ourselves, or order a carry out dinner while driving our cars, but the important question that has not been adequately addressed is should we?*

The Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) is a census of police reported fatal accidents which occur in the U.S. All data about cell phone use are derived from the narrrative portions of police accident reorts, dependent upon the initiative shown by the police officer who responded to the crash. Cell phone related cases in 1994 and 1995 contain some interesting similarities. The citations issued to cell phone-using drivers involved in these fatal crashes were disproportionately high for "inattention" when compared to all drivers included in FARS. In virtually all crashes, the cell phone-using drivers were in the striking vehicle. When the type of crash is examined, they fall into two categories -- drivers striking something in front of them, or leaving their lane of traffic -- this pattern is repeated every day on our highways. Data contained in the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) containing nationally representative data on all types of crashes followed a similar pattern. In eight examined crashes, 5 of the drivers struck something stopped in front of them, the remaining 3 left their lane of travel and struck a vehicle or object. In these crashes, 6 of the drivers were engaged in conversation, one was dialing his phone, and one was hanging up. Of the 6 engaged in conversation, two of the drivers were using mounted phones in hands-free mode. What is common among all these drivers is inattention. These drivers were not presented with changing situations which required emergency maneuvers, they simply failed to control their vehicles during routine driving conditions.*

Some people have a problem with the concept of legislating personal responsibility, but legislating personal responsibility is nothing new. The state of Pennsylvania has enacted laws enforcing the use of seatbelts and child safety seats. Aren't these, too, personal responsibilities? Once it was realized that people were not wearing seat belts or strapping their children into car seats, it took an act of legislation to force the public to change their habits. In 1988, the year following the enactment of the seatbelt law, we saw a 100% increase in the public's use of safety belts. This change in social acceptance came about as a direct result of the legislation. In today's society we MUST legislate becasue there are people out there who do not take personal responsibility for their own safety and that of others. We do not pass laws to punish responsible people; we pass laws to protect ourselves from irresponsible ones.

"There are already laws that punish careless and reckless drivers appropriately for reckless driving. We don't need another one specifically for cell phones."

Careless and reckless driving laws do cover a wide variety of driving infractions. Yet we don't choose to simply lump all driving behaviors under reckless or careless driving. We make special laws making it illegal to drive through a red light, to follow the speed limit, or to stop when a school bus lets off children. We also made a law specifically addressing the behavior of driving while intoxicated. Why? A person violating any of these laws could surely be accused of reckless or careless driving. When we recognize a specific behavior as being particularly hazardous we address it independently. Those laws clearly define particular behaviors as unacceptable leaving no ambiguity for drivers or law enforcement officials. A law is needed because it underscores to the public exactly how dangerous and destructive the behavior can be. A law forces people to think about that specific behavior and its consequences. Currently, in the state of Pennsylvania, one can run a stop sign while being distracted using a cellular phone, cause someone's death, and receive only two traffic tickets and a $50 fine.

"A law like this would not be enforceable."

Some lawmakers have raised the question of whether a law such as this would be enforceable. Is it because they think it will be difficult to see people driving and using their cell phones? How do police officers detect whether someone is wearing a seatbelt? How do they spot an invalid inspection sticker? All of these things would be difficult to detect and therefore enforce. Yet we’ve made them laws anyway. When we are faced with overwhelming safety concerns, we legislate. We’ve even passed laws making it illegal to carry a concealed weapon. The very nature of that offense would make it highly unlikely that an officer would be able to enforce it. Yet we’ve still passed the law anyway. Why? The hope is always that lawmakers will be able to spot and remove potential hazards from the public before harm occurs, but if that fails, it gives us the ability after the fact, to assess additional penalties on those who have chosen to act recklessly or irresponsibly.

"This law will be bad for business."

The fact is that as we speak there are business all over this country who are rewriting their employee handbooks to prohibit the use of cell phones while driving. Companies such as Johnson & Johnson, the third largest pharmaceutical company in the world, and Praxair, a bottled gas transportation company, just to name a few, have prohibited their employees from using cell phones in moving vehicles while on company time. They see how vulnerable they are, in terms of liability, if an accident were to occur. The companies can distinguish the difference between the small advantage their employees incur by conducting business on their phones while driving, and the enormous disadvantage of being held financially responsible for the injury or life of the employee and any person they strike while exhibiting this behavior.

For instance, in February of last year Smith Barney, the brokerage firm, paid THREE MILLION DOLLARS to the family of a man, whom one of their employees struck and killed because he ran a red light while on his phone. The precedent has been set. What could be worse for business?

"There isn't enough evidence to prove that using a cell phone while driving causes accidents."

A lack of statistical data about a problem is not the same thing as a lack of evidence!*

The fact is, we have evidence that a problem exists. We don't have statistics not because they don't exist, but because we don't currently collect them.

The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis published a study (funded by AT&T) in the summer of 1999 in a journal called Medical Decision Making. In the study, they assigned a crash risk factor to using cell phones. Mike Goodman took the factor, and applied it to the number of cell phones in use last summer (95 million). We're up to 107 million as of December 2000. As of summer 2000, it comes out to 450 - 1000 fatalities each year.*

NHTSA says that for every fatality, there are 666 property damage and injury producing crashes. So, we are having soewhere between 300,000 and 650,000 "other" crashes due to cell phones.*

NHTSA also says that an average crash costs society $37,000. This means we have a multi-billion dollar problem that no one is trying to fix.*

We killed 120 kids and small statured women with airbags and there was a huge government, industry and societal response. We killed 150 people with Firestone tires, and the response was the same. Both airbags and tires are essential parts of the driving environement. Cell phones are not, so why do we tolerate this problem?*

Pennsylvania police are not required to note whether a driver involved in an accident had been on the phone, so statistics linking crashes to phones are hard to come by. Only Oklahoma and Minnesota record that information, but experts say those states' data-collection methods are dated and unreliable.

"The information you need most is not available, because we are not collecting it," said Mark Burris of the University of South Florida's Center for Urban Transportation Research. In November, Japan became one of 14 countries banning handheld phone use while driving. "Accidents caused by the use of mobile phones dropped by 75 percent the next month," Burris noted.

"Cellular telephones are important devices for reporting emergencies."

This is absolutely true, and the law enforcement community supports such use. But emergency calls can and should be made from stopped vehicles. Indeed, most calls relate to witnessing a crash. Under such circumstances, traffic is often stopped, and witnesses attempt to render aid.*

The cellular telephone industry often demonstrates their commitment to promoting safety for their customers through the use of information packets included with product purchases or customer billing, and through the occasional television ad. All industries include caveats for product use in the literature that accompanies products. Most of us don't read any of it because we know it is provided to protect companies during litigation.*


*Information marked with an asterisk provided by Fran Bents, co-author of the Department of Transportation's 1997 report entitled "An Investigation of Wireless Communications in Vehicles," in her March 7, 2000 testimony before the Senate Transportation Committee in Pennsylvania.

Return to HOME