Consumer groups set to ratchet-up pressure on driving while dialing
Group files lawsuit for withholding records on deaths associated with cellphone use
December 8 2008 - 5:59 am ET | Jeffrey Silva | RCR Wireless News
A leading watchdog group accused the Bush administration in a lawsuit of withholding records on traffic deaths associated with cellphone use by operators of motor vehicles, one of several developments that suggest the driver-distraction debate may be shifting toward advocacy favoring stricter laws and more ambitious educational campaigns.
The evolving campaign for tougher statutes and greater education to curb cellphone-related driver distraction could pull together a potent coalition that includes leading consumer and safety advocates, the insurance industry, academics, states and major corporations that already forbid employees from operating wireless devices while driving during work hours. Indeed, the National Safety Council — a congressionally chartered organization based in Itasca, Ill., and a major force behind seatbelt ticketing laws in 49 states — is expected to make a major announcement in January on how the nation should address widespread cellphone use by drivers.
“Distracted driving contributes to hundreds of thousands of injuries and deaths each year,” said NSC President Janet Froetscher, in advance of a driver-distraction conference held in October in Arlington, Va. “People who drive while talking on a cellphone, for instance, are four times more likely to be involved in a crash than drivers who aren’t on cellphones.”
Current bans ineffective
The wireless industry has softened its position on cellphone driver-distraction legislation in recent years, remaining neutral on state bills seeking to outlaw driver use of handheld phones and to forbid all wireless communications by teen drivers. But the industry opposes an across-the-board ban that extends to hands-free devices.
The lawsuit against the Bush administration is part of a larger movement seeking to drive home the notion that driver handheld phone bans in five states and the District of Columbia do not work and that other measures are needed.
Public Citizen said the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration refuses to surrender, among other things, a 2003 government study that estimated for the first time traffic fatalities that can be attributed to the use of wireless devices by drivers. The organization filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act in federal court on behalf of the Center for Auto Safety to get access to the study and other documents.
“Driving and talking is as deadly as drinking and driving,” said Clarence Ditlow, executive director of CAS, a high-profile consumer advocacy group created in 1970 by Consumers Union and Ralph Nader. “Release of this study will destroy the myth that hands-free cell phones are safe.”
Public Citizen claims the NHTSA study at issue — which pegged the number of cellphone-related distraction deaths in 2002 at 955 — was the basis for a letter drafted by former secretary of transportation Norman Mineta to urge governors to take actions to curb driver use of handheld phones and hands-free devices. The draft letter, which was never sent for reasons that remain unclear, said research overwhelmingly indicates that laws (and pending legislation) outlawing use of handheld cellphones — while permitting hands-free wireless communications — are ineffective. “In either operational mode, we have found that the cognitive distraction is significant enough to degrade a driver’s performance,” the draft letter stated.
Margaret Kwoka, an attorney for Public Citizen, said NHTSA is not only violating public disclosure law but also doing the public a disservice by refusing to release the documents.
“The documents contain factual information about the risks of using a cellphone while driving, including the number of people who have died as a result of crashes caused by cellphone use,” Kwoka said. “NHTSA should not be withholding these important safety facts from the public.”
New administration
In 2003, the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis estimated use of cellphones by drivers could lead to an estimated 2,600 deaths, 330,000 moderate-to-critical injuries and 1.5 million instances of property damage annually.
NHSTA, which has publicly declared that hands-free devices do not make driving safer, declined to comment on Public Citizen’s lawsuit.
In May, NHTSA rejected Public Citizen’s petition for a rulemaking to restrict the operation of in-vehicle telematic communications systems while the vehicle is in motion. Ditlow said Public Citizen plans to re-file the petition next year, noting that the inclusion of additional studies on hands-free ineffectiveness and the arrival of a new administration could improve chances for a rulemaking. Ditlow said the petition focuses on the growing trend of telematics becoming standard equipment in automobiles. As such, remarked Ditlow, “We effectively support a total ban.”
Meantime, Anne Teigen, a policy associate who tracks driver-distraction legislation at the National Conference of State Legislatures, said the driver texting bans are increasing in states around the country. Such laws have been enacted in Alaska, California, Connecticut, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey and Washington. Laws forbidding cellphone and hands-free phone use by teen drivers are in effect in 18 states and Washington, D.C.
Education questioned
Given the difficultly states have faced in trying to pass just driver handheld phone bans — which have proved highly difficult to enforce — approval of more sweeping restrictions that encompass hands-free devices could prove next to impossible.
As such, any push for tougher state laws is apt to be supplemented by more ambitious public campaigns not unlike those which have proved largely successful in shaping public opinion to regard drinking and driving as a socially unacceptable activity. Such outreach and education could be directed at the more than 50% of drivers who, according to a newly released AAA Foundation study , talk on cellphones while behind the wheel. The AAA Foundation said the study showed the public is misguided in believing that use of hands-free devices by drivers is safer than talking on handheld phones.
“Too many Americans are driving with the false sense of security that hands-free devices are somehow safer, which could be a deadly mistake,” said AAA Foundation President Peter Kissinger. “Evidence shows that using a hands-free phone while driving impairs your reaction time to critical events and increases your crash risk about the same as if you were using a hand-held phone.”
December 10, 2008 05:59 am
Chatty Driving: Phones vs. PassengersResearchers at the University of Utah found that all conversations are not created equal. There is something uniquely distracting about talking on the phone when you’re behind the wheel; conversations with people inside the car are far less distracting to drivers. Unlike cell phone callers, chatty passengers instinctively stop talking when driving conditions change, and they offer an extra set of eyes to alert drivers to nearly-missed exits or erratic drivers.
December 9, 2008 06:14 am
Virginia Tech: Klauer, SG; Dingus, TA, Neale, VL; Sudweeks, JD, and Ramsey,DJ. (2006) Virginia Tech Transportation Institute. The impact of driverinattention on near-crash/crash risk: An analysis using the 100-car naturalisticdriving study data. NHTSAhttp://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-13/810594/images/810594.pdfVirginia Tech: Dingus, TA.; Klauer, SG; Neale, V L; Petersen, A; Lee, SE;Sudweeks, JD., Perez, MA; Hankey, J; Ramsey, D; Gupta, S; Bucher, C.,Doerzaph, ZR; Jermeland, J; and Knipling, RR.Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (2006). The 100-car naturalistic drivingstudy, Phase II: Results of the 100-car field experiment. NHTSA http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-13/driver-distraction/PDF/100CarMain.pdfVirginia Tech: Neale, VL; Dingus, TA; Klauer, SG; Sudweeks, JD; and Goodman,M. Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (2005). An Overview of the 100-carnaturalistic study and findings. NHTSA. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-12/100Car_ESV05summary.pdfNHTSA: Glassbrenner, D; NHTSA (2006) Driver Cell Phone Use in 2005: OverallUse. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2005/809967.pdfInsurance Institute for Highway Safety: McEvoy, SP; Stevenson MR; McCartt AT;Woodward, M; Haworth, C; Palamara, P; and Cercarelli; R. Insurance Institute forHighway Safety (2005). Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashesresulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study. BMJ.http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr071205.htmlhttp://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/331/7514/428?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cell+phone+use&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCITRedelmeier & Tibshirani: Redelmeier, DA; and Tibshirani, RJ. (1997).Association between cellular telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. NewEngland Journal of Medicine 336; 453-458.http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/336/7/453Patten et al: Patten, CJD; Kircher, A; Ostlund, J; and Nilsson, L; (2004). Usingmobile telephones: Cognitive workload and attention resource allocation.Accident Analysis and Prevention 36; 341-350.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5S-4JRVD5W-1&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=
December 9, 2008 06:14 am
>Lee December 8, 2008 04:06 pm This is a classic example of all-to-many debates regarding freedom and individual responsibility.- Who can be against > - Surely the "consumer groups" represent consumers, and aren't acting in their own self interest.- If "industry" takes a stand, it's only because they're trying to make more money.Sadly, consumers don't have anyone who really represents their views other than "industry," and the motives of any industry group are suspect by the press and many legislators.In fact, you know that the main goal of these "consumer groups" really isn't saving lives. If it was, they would advocate for raising the minimum driving age > and for instituting annual driving tests for aged drivers.
December 9, 2008 06:14 am
congratulations to opponents of cell phones that you are now infringing on the Freedom of Speach. How can you possibly say talking on a hands free device impars your reaction time. Lets assume you are correct. Now lets ban talking alltogether amongst all people riding in a vehicle as this must impar the drivers abilities also. Carefull here as this could be a freedom of speach violation. The best way to impose this on the public would be to make all one seater vehicles. Get your head in the open people. Oh hell you might as well take away all that may distract you: turning on and off the wipers, headlights, heater and oh please do not touch the radio dial.
December 8, 2008 04:06 pm
This is a classic example of all-to-many debates regarding freedom and individual responsibility.- Who can be against "safety?"- Surely the "consumer groups" represent consumers, and aren't acting in their own self interest.- If "industry" takes a stand, it's only because they're trying to make more money.Sadly, consumers don't have anyone who really represents their views other than "industry," and the motives of any industry group are suspect by the press and many legislators.In fact, you know that the main goal of these "consumer groups" really isn't saving lives. If it was, they would advocate for raising the minimum driving age and for instituting annual driving tests for aged drivers.
December 8, 2008 06:03 am
Eating while driving. Putting on makeup while driving. Having 3 dogs in your lap while driving.
December 8, 2008 06:03 am
I agree that this needs to be looked at in an objective manner - people have been driving distracted for years. It can be argued that the degree of attention required to carry on a conversation is different from the attention needed to passively listening to the radio. But the point is well taken - I am sick and tired of over regulation due to knee jerk reactions by incompetent elected officials. The recent trend to outlaw everything without concern for the rights that are taken away concerns me greatly. Fascism appears to be making a come back, made popular by people who don't understand liberty or the lessons history have taught us. Surely there is a way to help fix this problem without a total ban.
December 8, 2008 06:03 am
I find it hard to believe that talking with a headset while driving is any more distracting than talking to someone in the passenger seat. are they going to say we cant drive with any passengers next?
December 8, 2008 06:03 am
Before we go here, let's ask if some OTHER things negatively affect operation of vehicles and cause injury or death:1. Entertainment radios playing instrumental music2. Entertainment radios playing a sports program3. Entertainment radios playing talk radio (left or right-wing)4. Entertainment radios playing news5. Entertainment radios playing above a given dB SPL level6. Cruise control (allows drivers to not pay attention to traffic)7. Unregulated speed (perhaps need a smart governor?)I'm not working in the cellular industry. If we are going to examine one aspect of this, let's examine ALL of them with the same rigor. Isn't that the way science is done, as opposed to emotion-filled politics?