Talk and drive? Listen up
HOT COFFEE, SLOPPY burgers, the backseat DVD player, the navigational system’s cool maps -- the list of driver distractions keeps getting longer. But the cellphone is by far the most pervasive -- and dangerous -- distraction.
A report released by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is the latest study to find that cellphones make for inattentive drivers. It says that people using cellphones are four times more likely to crash their vehicles -- and hands-free cellphones were no safer than the basic models.
So what do we do, turn cars into elevator-like cones of silence where all conversation is frowned upon?
No need. Chatting with others in the car doesn’t seem to pose the same risks as chatting on the phone. A 2004 study by the University of Utah found that drivers on cellphones missed four times as many exits and swerved more often than those conversing with passengers. Passengers see road conditions. When a tricky maneuver comes up, they stop talking. They point out possible dangers. Our cellphone pals keep chatting, and we, shaped by ingrained habits of conversation, stay in sync with them, not the road.
A California Highway Patrol study found that cellphone use is associated with more car accidents than any other distraction, including car stereos or raucous children. According to a published Times analysis of 2001 CHP data, cellphones figured in 4,699 accidents that left 31 dead and 2,786 injured.
Cellphones have a special allure in Southern California. They soothe us in teeth-gritting traffic jams and turn a 40-mile commute into a chance to catch up with Mom or extend office hours. But a 2002 Harvard University study found that the costs of the additional accidents were about even with the economic benefits of using the car as a mobile office -- and the costs were rising faster than the benefits as cellphone use increased.
In time, Californians might decide an outright ban is the only answer. But first it’s worth trying other, more pragmatic steps. The insurance industry, for all its interest in reducing accidents, points out that it’s easier to pass a cellphone ban than to enforce it. Car-phone use is rising in New York despite a ban on hand-helds because the $100 fine isn’t enough deterrent, given the odds of getting stopped.
It makes sense for the insurance industry to create market-based incentives for keeping people on the road off the phone. Insurers could explore discounts similar to their nonsmoker incentives. Veracity could be checked by requiring access to motorists’ calling records in the event of an accident.
If that doesn’t work, and the public-safety case keeps getting stronger, an all-out ban similar to seat-belt laws may have to be the next step. “Shut Up and Drive” bumper stickers alone aren’t enough.
