Teen Drivers Could Face Ban on Use of Cellphones

Unwilling to ban the popular motorist pastime of chatting on cellphones, California lawmakers are mulling more limited measures that would forbid phone use by teen drivers while offering more lenient treatment of adults caught driving badly while talking.

The new approaches come after the Legislature refused to bar drivers from using hand-held cellphones in each of the last three years, even though a 2002 California Highway Patrol study endorsed the idea.

“I don’t know anybody who has a cellphone who doesn’t at some point use it in their car, so I don’t think the public would support that necessarily,” said Kevin Murray (D-Culver City), chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee. “There have always been ashtrays, there have always been radios. Just holding the cellphone is not the main cause of the problem.”

More than two dozen countries, as well as New York, New Jersey and the District of Columbia, have banned driving with hand-held phones, and there is no dispute that the instruments can distract drivers. But some legislators and auto safety groups -- citing recent studies -- are now arguing that the danger comes not from any particular device, but from other diversions that routinely go on in cars, including eating, drinking or talking of any kind -- into a handset or to someone in the back seat.

“The research is very sketchy on how much more dangerous are cellphones than eating a hamburger,” said Anne Drumm, legislative representative for the Automobile Club of Southern California.

The new tactics under consideration in Sacramento offer political advantages for legislators, who acknowledge that banning phones would be unpopular with constituents. Legislators are considering restrictions to groups with minimal political clout: bus drivers, who are a tiny portion of the electorate, and 16- and 17-year-olds, who cannot vote. The approaches also may turn out to be less objectionable to previously resistant segments of the telecommunications industry, which has spent more than $6 million on lobbyists in recent years, according to campaign finance records.

In the past, Sacramento has not minded singling out specific road distractions for prohibition. Last year, lawmakers banned driving if a video screen or monitor was within the driver’s view. But in acquitting cellphones of culpability, some say, California lawmakers are failing to forcefully address dangers from a far more common device.

“I worry about these piecemeal approaches that suggest to the public that we have addressed the problem, when in fact we have not,” said Assemblyman Joseph Simitian (D-Palo Alto), who is in his fourth year of sponsoring a ban on hand-held phones -- even though legislative leaders say it is again unlikely to pass. Hands-free phones might be a good alternative, he said. “If we have a readily available technology that costs next to nothing and saves lives, why wouldn’t we use that?”

That view, which auto safety advocates embraced in past years but has had no industry support except from Verizon, has recently lost support as studies have found hands-free phones to be a significant distraction, perhaps as much as hand-held ones. A 2001 report commissioned by the AAA Foundation for Auto Safety, a Washington-based nonprofit organization, found that more accidents were caused by adjusting music or looking at something outside the car than by cellphone usage.

The Governors Highway Safety Assn. says there is no evidence that the hand-held cellphone ban in New York state has reduced phone use or accidents. “We think states like California are wise to hold off until we have more evidence,” said Jonathan Adkins, the association’s spokesman.

Of Sacramento’s new efforts to address the topic, the most provocative is SB 1582, which would prohibit drivers under 18 from using cellphones of any type. Its advocates cite studies that identify novice drivers as particularly susceptible to distractions and more prone to accidents. Citing a study by Ford last year that found teenage drivers four times as likely as adults to be distracted while on the phone, Sen. Debra Bowen (D-Marina del Rey), the bill’s sponsor, says even telephone headsets do not keep teenage drivers’ eyes on the road.

“It’s just not the way their brains work,” Bowen said. “They just tend to look at the cellphone. Older people, when talking on the cellphone, for whatever reason, really don’t do that.”

Not surprisingly, the idea has little support among teenagers, at least according to a random survey of young drivers.

“I don’t think it’s so much the teenagers as the busy moms and parents who are trying to save time when they’re out doing errands,” said Lauren Guyer, 16, of Granite Bay, northeast of Sacramento. “If you’re going to tell teenagers they can’t use the phone ... I don’t see why it’s oh-so-different for adults, other than that we have a higher percentage of accidents.”

Teens said the majority of the accidents they or their friends have been involved in have occurred while they were paying attention to the road. Xandi Staines, 17, of Sacramento said, “My friends do talk on the phone while they drive, and I do think it’s dangerous, but I don’t know if it’s such a danger that we need to make a law prohibiting it.”

Nonetheless, last week, Bowen’s bill passed the Senate Transportation Committee. The panel also approved AB 2785, which would prohibit drivers of school or transit buses from using phones while driving except in emergencies -- something seven other states have done.

A different approach is being advocated by Murray in concert with the Automobile Club. They are sponsoring SB 1800, which would create additional penalties for drivers engaged in “distracted activities.” Those include not only using a cellphone but also adjusting the radio, smoking, eating or drinking, interacting with passengers or pets in the vehicle, combing one’s hair, reading and writing.

Under the bill, the actions would add a point on the driving record and carry a first penalty of $35 and subsequent fines of $150. But police could not pull over drivers unless they were also driving in an “unsafe manner.” Cingular Wireless has endorsed the plan, but skeptics include those who say the approach is too weak to alter anyone’s driving behavior and others who think it is overkill.

“You should always be cited if you’re driving in an unsafe manner,” said the chairwoman of the Assembly’s transportation panel, Jenny Oropeza (D-Long Beach). “I’m not into regulating people in their cars, particularly if they’re adult, trained drivers.”

Advocates of greater road safety say that dramatic efforts are needed to deal with driver inattentiveness caused by phones.

“People have that thing stuck up to their ears, they don’t signal, they don’t look at their blind spots,” said John Del Santo, an instructor at United Driving School in San Diego. “Any phone in the car should be in the trunk.”