Is It the Phone or the Conversation That Distracts?

Critics called the technology a dangerous distraction to drivers. One writer described it as “a grave problem that ... now has all the motor-vehicle commissioners of the states in a wax.”

Lawmakers in at least two states called for it to be banned from all automobiles.

But the manufacturers protested, arguing that the electronic device created no more distraction than back seat conversations.

The year was 1930, and the new-fangled technology was the car radio.

Today, a similar debate rages over the distraction of cellular telephones, a technology that has been in the hands of American consumers for 20 years.

The debate was recently rekindled with the release of a University of Utah study that concluded motorists who use cell phones experience something called “inattention blindness,” making them unable to process some visual information.

In other words, drivers on the phone can temporarily overlook such objects as, say, a shining brake light, a red traffic signal or a toddler in a crosswalk.

The study was released as California’s Assembly Transportation Committee prepares to consider a bill next month that would ban the use of hand-held cell phones by motorists. A similar bill fell one vote shy of passing the same panel last year.

So the Utah report can only be a boost to the legislation, right? Not exactly.

The University of Utah study, which appeared in this month’s issue of Injury Insight, a publication of the nonprofit National Safety Council, also found that motorists are impaired by “inattention blindness” when they use hands-free devices to talk on the phone.

It is the phone conversation -- not the act of holding a phone -- that cause this dangerous tunnel vision, the study concluded.

“Our data further suggests that legislative initiatives to restrict hand-held devices but permit hands-free devices are not likely to eliminate problems associated with using cell phones while driving because these problems are attributed in large part to the distracting effects of the phone conversations themselves,” the study said.

Critics of cell phone legislation, including some wireless companies, quickly touted the report as proof that a ban on hand-held phones is not the answer.

So far, New York is the only state to ban the use of hand-held cell phones by drivers, but many other states have considered following New York’s lead.

“Education could be more effective at changing behavior than restrictions,” said Kimberly Kuo, a spokeswoman for the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Assn., a trade group based in Washington.

Still, supporters of cell phone restrictions remain undaunted.

Amy Seager, a board member at the nonprofit Partnership for Safe Driving, concedes that a ban on hand-held cell phones would not be the final solution to the problem, but she considers it a step in the right direction.

“There is no way of telling how many lives would be saved simply by the very existence of the law,” she said.

Perhaps, she said, such a law could have saved her 17-year-old twin daughters, who were killed last year in a car crash caused by a motorist apparently preoccupied by a cell phone call.

Here in California, Assemblyman Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), the author of the proposed cell phone law, said the Utah study doesn’t diminish the need for his legislation.

The bill won’t put an end to behind-the-wheel cell phone distractions, Simitian concedes. But by banning hand-held phones in the car, he said his legislation would at least get motorists to keep two hands on the wheel while talking on the phone.

“I don’t claim that it’s a total fix,” he said. “But it is better than no fix.”

Violators would be fined the same as drivers caught without a seat belt: $20 the first time, $50 thereafter. The bill would allow calls on hand-held phones only in emergencies.

Simitian gained an influential ally last year when California Highway Patrol commissioner D.O. “Spike” Helmick changed his position; he now supports restrictions on hand-held cell phones.

Helmick made the switch after learning that previous CHP accident statistics had underestimated the number of crashes attributed to cell phone distractions.

*

One of the problems with the cell phone debate is that critics and supporters of cell phone restrictions can point to dozens of different academic and governmental studies to bolster their position.

Kuo and the wireless companies have touted studies from the University of North Carolina and the University of Pennsylvania that conclude that eating, tuning a car radio and talking with passengers are a bigger distraction behind the wheel than cell phones.

“These bills are only picking out a tiny piece of the puzzle,” Kuo said.

Meanwhile, Simitian and supporters of cell phone restrictions point to, among others, a December study from Harvard University’s Center for Risk Analysis that concluded that the death toll from cell phone-related crashes is rising dramatically.

Now, it seems, both sides can point to the University of Utah study to bolster their positions.

David Stayer, a psychologist and researcher on the University of Utah study, said his report was not intended to strengthen either side of the debate.

“We were just trying to lay out the facts as best we could,” he said.

Despite so many studies on the topic, some experts still say there is not enough data to determine how much of a distraction -- and a danger -- cell phones are in the hands of motorists.

The National Safety Council, for example, still hasn’t taken a position on the cell phone debate. “There really is not enough data,” said council spokesman Joe Larkin.

He added: “Our best message to people is: ‘Your first responsibility is to drive your car.’ ”

*

If you have a gripe, question or story idea about driving in Southern California, write to Behind the Wheel, c/o Los Angeles Times, 202 W. 1st St., Los Angeles, CA 90012, or send an e-mail to behindthewheel@latimes.com.