Subscription Center
Jul 21, 2009 05:33 PM | 11
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) put politics above public safety in 2003 when it suppressed research estimating that cell phone use—both phone calls and text messaging—while driving had caused hundreds of thousands of car accidents and hundreds of crash-related deaths the previous year, the New York Times reports. This information came to light today when two Washington, D.C., consumer advocacy groups—Public Safety and the Ralph Nader-founded Center for Auto Safety—won their Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to make public the some 250 pages of research compiled in 2003.
Based on their research, a team of NHTSA workers estimated that cell phone use by drivers caused 955 fatalities and about 240,000 accidents in 2002. [The documents can be found on the Times Web site.] Other research reinforces the NHTSA's findings: motorists talking on a phone are four times as likely to crash as other drivers, and they are as likely to cause an accident as someone with a .08 blood alcohol content.
Congress discouraged the NHTSA from releasing the information (even threatening to withhold funding), warning the agency to "stick to its mission of gathering safety data," NHTSA officials told the Times. The legislators were reportedly concerned that the agency would take its research directly to the states in an attempt to encourage them to pass laws against cell phone use while driving.
The dangers of cell phone use (particularly texting) aren't limited to cars. In May, a 24-year-old Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) trolley operator injured 49 people after crashing into another trolley while sending a text message to his girlfriend. Last September, 25 people were killed and 125 injured after a commuter train in California crashed after the engineer was sending and receiving text messages.
This isn't the first time the NHTSA and Center for Auto Safety have locked horns on this issue. The NHTSA last year successfully shot down a Center for Auto Safety petition asking the agency to require that any vehicle with integrated personal communication systems—including cell phones and text messaging systems—be rendered inoperative when the vehicle is in motion. General Motors (which offers OnStar as an integrated system that features hands-free calling) and Ford (which does the same with Sync) had submitted comments opposing the Center for Auto Safety's petition. The agency explained its decision by saying that if these systems were shut down during travel, drivers would simply pull out their cell phone handsets and resume their dialogue.
Because a ban against cell phone use while driving is impractical, Consumer Reports deputy technical director David Champion suggested in a blog the use of public service announcements to warn drivers of the risk and stiff penalties for those multitasking with their mobile phones behind the wheel.
Image ©iStockphoto.com/ Stefan Klein
Tags:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
cell phone,
texting,
Ford,
General Motors
More News Blog:
Next: Meteorologists say "yes" to geoengineering
Previous: As the First H1N1 human vaccine trials get underway, the U.S. earmarks $1.8 billion for the flu's anticipated resurgence
See what we're tweeting about
docfreeride This season of Mad Men, I'm actively rooting for someone to kill Don Draper. Too much collateral damage if we wait for his redemption.
mdichristina @MRAKdesign Looks like rain for today--presume you sent it here?!
huler Trying, failing to spend money on Delta Airlines. Unnavigable website. 2+ hours hold time. But -- they promise to call me when it's my turn.
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
11 Comments
Add CommentZero tolerance of Drunk Driving is no more "practical" than a ban on cell phone use while driving. People still drive drunk, but each DWI arrest saves lives. People will still use phones while driving if it was illegal, but every one of them that is arrested helps save lives, including their own.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn a more "practical" level, I would think that cash strapped municipalities would be able to more than make up for declining revenue during this recession by harvesting fines from cell phone using drivers.
Disabling devices while the car is moving is inane.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHad a rental GPS that did that, even when I just wanted my passenger to figure out directions. Instead, I became a hazard trying to find a place to pull over to allow the device to work.
Insanity.
California now bans cell phone use while driving and the law appears to be working quite well. It certainly can't prevent jerks from being jerks, but most folks seem to understand the issues and try to obey the law.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it would be silly though to shut down devices like GPS systems and hands-free cell phones - the whole point of those is to keep drivers safe and avoid use of hand-held cell phones. However, I draw the limits at texting - there is no way to text safely while driving!
It is difficult to ban cell use entirely, and as mentioned, GPS devices are very important and useful, especially for the Trucking and Delivery industries. However, it is very easy to increase the fines by 500% if a cell phone was in use at the time (which can be verified by phone records) or add prison time if someone else is injured/killed in an accident caused/not avoided by a CID (Cellularly Impaired Driver). Certainly a DWT (Driving While Texting) should be at least as expensive as a DUI if it leads to an accident.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the Center for Auto Safety wanted to disable built-in cell phones while the vehicle was moving, I don't want to hear any of their other ideas. That's just plain stupidity. People will talk on cell phones while driving because it's efficient and often necessary to do so. If it's banned, they'll just use a bluetooth either on ear or built into their after market GPS. It's got to be safer to use the built-in cell phone, with the voice dialing and the steering column controls. Thanks to GM for fighting this proposal. If only GM had shown the good sense to not disable my built-in GPS while the truck is moving. It is really annoying and renders the $2000 device pretty useless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy father was a safety engineer, who took me along from age 8 as his slide show, 8 mm film, and filmstrip operator. Believe me, I saw some X-rated reality programs of people who'd been in fatal accidents! Dad taught me how to drive SAFELY about 50 years ago. He had seat belts in his car at least 10 years before they were legally required. As a result, I buckle up, drive right at the speed limit whenever possible, my eyes are vigilant, hands are on the wheel. I don't drive too slowly (dad believed that caused accidents) and I've never had an accident, or caused one, or been a passenger in a car that had one. When I want to use my cell phone I look for a place to pull over, preferably a parking lot, make the call and drive away. I don't use it at all except in urban or suburban areas where I can do that. Why would anyone need to? And if I get a call it goes into storage till I can pull over and retrieve it. This is no big deal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can scarcely believe the selfishness of some of the above self-important comments, as if a technology not even available a few years ago somehow had to be used whever someone feels like it--no matter how many other people a cell phone driver might endanger!
Get a life, people. (And maybe save several lives you might otherwise wipe out--including your own.)
As a driver in California I have to take issue with the idea that the law is working. On a personal level I have at least one close call with a driver on a cellphone everytime I leave the house. Many times, especially in parking lots, its more. People in general have not paid much attention to this law past the first month it was in effect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Feds are obviously out to gain glory in the Darwin Awards, if not for themselves then for their fellow euthanasiasts. The Awards are given "to commemorate those who improve our gene pool by removing themselves from it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2008.html
Trouble is that a damaged euthanasiast can cost the rest of us an awful lot of money.
Deserved sneering aside, these are murderers who take us, our friends and our family with them.
The car lobby is a bit like Microsoft/Windows- it's big, it's dirty, it's got a monopoly, so it kicks arse - let's fall down on our knees before it!
Hands free is no safer---it is the act of conversing with someone not in the car with you that is the problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you need government to tell you this, either you don't drive or you are already distracted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to agree with drklassan; the point is that having a telephone conversation while driving is inherently dangerous. Whether or not you're holding the phone makes no difference. When talking with a passenger, they have the sense to pause if the driving situation warrants. Someone you're talking to on a cell call just keeps on blabbing- and we remain engaged with them, rather than the road. Laws banning calls while driving except hands-free are a joke- if their purpose is to protect lives. If that's really the purpose, then ban all calls. Research has demonstrated again and again that it's the call, not the hands that are causing accidents.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this