Why Cell Phone Bans Don't Work

sciencehabit writes "You can take the driver away from the cell phone, but you can't take the risky behavior away from the driver. That's the conclusion of a new study, which finds that people who talk on their phones while driving may already be unsafe drivers who are nearly as prone to crash with or without the device. The findings may explain why laws banning cell phone use in motor vehicles have had little impact on accident rates."

Comments

Mounting evidence - of hype.

[icebike]

This is the second major study calling into question the idea that talking on the phone while driving is vastly more dangerous, as dangerous as drunk driving.

In the other study, A Wayne State study by Richard Young, Ph.D, found that procedural errors in the seminal research vastly over estimated the risk.

The actual risk of talking while driving was 1/4 of what the earlier studies found, putting it right in line with just simply driving.

Indeed, according to Wayne State, "Five other recent real-world studies concur with his conclusion that the crash risk from cellular conversations is not greater than that of driving with no conversation.". "Tasks that take a driver's eyes off the road or hands off the steering wheel are what increase crash risk," said Young. "Texting, emailing, manual dialing and so forth -- not conversation -- are what increase the risk of crashes while driving."

While texting poses serious risks, simply talking on the phone appears to pose no more risk than simply driving. The present study found that:

"Cell phone bans have reduced cell phone use by drivers, but the perplexing thing is that they haven't reduced crashes,"

.

In spite of this, in a fit of political correctness, the author feels compelled in the last paragraph of the story to print a quote from someone who has done no specific research on phoning while driving, but he still fees competent to weigh in suggesting bans be followed by stiffer enforcement.

Re:Mounting evidence - of hype.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it makes sense that it is mechanical part of using hands, instead of shifting focus. That makes very little sense -- mechanical parts are very much automated, and can be shifted quickly; whereas mental focus on doing things other than paying attention to surroundings, other traffic is much more expensive to redirect.

Of course empiric studies are the golden standard, but claims that "just use hands-off device" would help are pre-mature as well.

Also: just because risk is not same as with DUI isn't much of reason for joy -- current DUI limits are so high that one feels suicidal to be walking anywhere near bars on friday nights. Drivers are much MUCH more impaired than they think, even when staying within US legal limits.
Other countries use stricter limits: Sweden's 0.2 is actually technically close to good one (that's where changes occur); but most other countries at least use 0.5 (as opposed to use 0.8 or higher).

Re:Mounting evidence - of hype.

[Stormthirst]

I don't know about the States, but cough medicine can get you into just as much trouble as alcohol. It's still a DUI.

Re:Mounting evidence - of hype.

[garett_spencley]

But your false dichotomy is irrelevant anyway: I'd rather have neither group on the road with me.

I'd rather have no one on the road with me. What's your point ?

I absolutely hate driving. No other activity has inclined me towards removing myself from society all together and going off the grid in the wilderness somewhere. I love the ability to drive, I just can't stand the driving itself.

But until someone actually causes an accident and inflicts some sort of harm or injury I respect their right to use the roads and drive a vehicle, even though I fantasize about being a tyrannical dictator that makes a law giving myself exclusive use of the roads when I feel like driving somewhere.

Blood alcohol limits, graduated licensing, road tests, license renewals, hell ... even licenses themselves ... are all preemptive; taking a pessimistic view of people and treating them as a danger and potential criminal by default. If we took the same view towards other day to day activities that we take towards driving we would have curfews and random stops and searches and all sorts of other nanny-state intrusions in the name of keeping people safe. I do understand where the sentiment comes from. 5 minutes of driving is enough to make someone really pessimistic about the driving abilities of the average person, but it's telling that with all our laws and regulations and licensing and testing those idiots are still there causing accidents and being jerks. IMO we should be throwing the book at people who get into accidents due to negligence and recklessness as we do with all other crimes, you know innocent until proven guilty, and stop trying to nanny the hell out of everyone's driving habits.

The basic question no one has asked is...

[Targon]

Is there more risk of an accident if there is a passenger in the car, or someone who is talking on a hands free calling device? The person in the passenger seat can actually be more of a distraction than someone on the phone, so what will we do, limit vehicles to not have any passenger seats?

The problem is distractions of any kind.

[PeanutButterBreath]

Focusing on cell phones because they are otherwise topical is a mistake because nay-sayers will always be able to argue that talking on a cell phone is no more dangerous than putting on makeup or leaning over to smack your kid in the back seat. Which is true. There are a million stupid and dangerous things that people do while driving.

However, in the push to make driving a consumption-heavy lifestyle and cars yet another arena for consuming various products and advertisements for even more products, the ship has pretty much sailed on acknowledging the fact that driving is inherently dangerous and that danger increases with every gadget and chatty passenger that you add to the equation.

Re:The problem is distractions of any kind.

[cbiltcliffe]

Drive at 30-50% over the speed limit, and it's not boring any more.

I don't necessarily advocate this in town, as the density of traffic makes it "interesting" enough to hold your attention by itself, but I wouldn't be surprised if the low speed limits we have on rural roads and highways in North America cause as many accidents through boredom as they prevent from the lower speed.

It's rare in Canada to find any out of town road with a speed limit above 80 km/h, with the exception of freeway/motorway kind of roads, which are 100 km/h.
Keep in mind, in keeping with the "huge masses of available land" tradition in North America, these are wide, straight, and frequently have completely uninterrupted views of the surroundings for miles in all directions.
When I drove in England a few years back, I always enjoyed seeing the "End of all restrictions" signs when leaving town on a narrow little twisty B road. It meant I could open the car up and have fun. These are, of course, sometimes only one lane roads, with plenty of twists and turns - it's England, after all - and frequently a stone wall on one side or the other, if not both. This kind of road would flat out horrify a typical North American driver, and it would give a Canadian or American traffic planner a coronary, but it keeps drivers engaged, alert, and careful, regardless of the speed they may be travelling at.

After all, if you stop paying attention to the road for even a second, you're either through the stone wall, or off the road in some field.

Re:Bull fucking shit!

[bill_mcgonigle]

The reason why cell phone bans don't work is the same reason other bans don't work, because they aren't enforced enough or at all

Enforcement is the problem. When texting is banned, people put the phones down in their lap to text so that the cops can't see the phones up on top of the steering wheel while they're texting and watching the road.

OK, I guess thinking that government laws can solve this problem is really the root cause.

How about this - rescind the laws that prevent automatic car trials from happening on your State's roads instead? Nevada seems to be doing just fine.

People have made it clear that they'd rather surf than drive, so everything that stands in the way of letting that happen safely is a problem. Or just fight human nature - whatever works.