THERE is nothing more annoying than a driver on a cell phone. I think so, many professional comedians think so, and a majority of registered voters in New York think so. Despite the overwhelming irritation these drivers provide, the law the state of New York passed to ban cell phone use while driving is inconsistent in principle.
Earlier this summer, New York made history by becoming the first state to pass a ban. Included is a provision that allows drivers to use "hands-free" phones.
New York may be the first, but it certainly won't be the only state. Forty state legislatures have begun debating bills that would limit or ban cell phone use by drivers. These misguided laws fail to address the real problem of driver distraction, and unnecessarily limit the rights of law-abiding drivers.
Proponents of such laws are quick to point out a 1997 study by the New England Journal of Medicine, which shows that a driver using a cell phone is four times as likely to be in an accident as a normal driver. But what they don't point out is that in that same study, researchers concluded that "units that allowed the hands to be free offered no safety advantage over hand-held units."
In other words, it's the conversation, not the hands, that causes accidents. Lawmakers ignore this, allowing for "hands-free" phones in cars as an alternative to hand-held cell phones. But why allow this option if it's not safer than the one that's being banned?
In addition, a study the American Automobile Association released in May shows that cell phones are less likely to cause an accident than other everyday distractions, such as changing CDs or eating.
This law puts legislators on a slippery slope. If they're going to ban cell phones they'll also want to outlaw other distractions in the car. Why not pass a law making it illegal for drivers to eat, change radio stations or talk with other passengers in the car?
Some argue that this law is necessary because so many drivers use cell phones. Matt Sundeen, transportation policy expert for the National Conference of State Legislatures, says that "the sheer volume of cell phone use is causing representatives to be more concerned."
But evidence shows that this is a misconception people have about drivers and cell phones. In fact, several studies show that cell phone use while driving isn't a widespread problem.
According to a study released in July by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, only 3 percent of all drivers use cell phones while traveling.
Compare this to a study done by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, which shows that only 1.5 percent of accidents are caused by distraction from a cell phone. According to the NHTSA, driver inattention causes anywhere from 20 to 30 percent of automobile accidents.
This means that of all the accidents that come from driver distraction, more than 90 percent of them come from distractions other than cell phones. With cell phones economically available virtually everywhere, as they have been for quite some time, usage is not likely to skyrocket in the near future.
Why pass a law to deal with such a slim percentage of automobile accidents? Proponents claim that these laws will prevent accidents, no matter how few, from happening. But will they really?
Obviously, legislators wanted a quick political hit. A recent survey shows that an overwhelming 85 percent of voters in New York support the new law. But according to a survey by J.D. Power and Associates, most drivers think that dialing, and not talking on cell phones, is what causes distractions. Scientific research shows this to be false.
Many drivers also believe that it's more distracting to use a cell phone than it is to eat, drink, tune the radio, or get e-mail in the car. Again, studies and scientific research show this to be false.
Undoubtedly, if lawmakers started eliminating alternatives to hand-held cell phones, or for that matter banned eating in the car, the support for this law would dwindle.
But popularity alone should never dictate legislation, especially when scientific research directly counters the public's reasoning and perception.
In terms of making distracted drivers accountable, there are already reckless driving laws on the books. If an inattentive or distracted driver on a cell phone causes an accident, he's not going to go scot-free.
In terms of preventing accidents, the New York law is not the answer. Instead of advocating responsible use of cell phones, misguided activists are passing laws that limit drivers' freedoms and have little chance of preventing accidents.
(Brian Cook is a Cavalier Daily columnist. He can be reached at bcook@ cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | YesterdayInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | YesterdayInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 3 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
