Human Toll Has Some Arguing For Ban On Cell Phone Use At The Wheel

The Saturday night sky was clear as Barry Mercer rode his bright yellow motorcycle down Redmond-Fall City Road more than a year ago.

At the intersection with Ames Lake Road, an oncoming Subaru that was stopped in the left-turn lane suddenly turned, crashing into Mercer and flinging his body 100 feet in the air.

The femur in his left thigh was smashed. "There were bone fragments all over the hood and the road," he said. "But I got real lucky that I didn't sever an artery."

The driver who hit Mercer received a failure-to-yield ticket, a simple traffic infraction with a $133 fine. Witnesses told Mercer the driver didn't see him because he was distracted by his cell phone, but the police report doesn't mention it.

Accidents like Mercer's raise unanswered questions: Are cell phones causing carnage on the roads? And will we ever know how often these collisions occur and their toll to society?

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine found a four fold increase in the risk of an accident for people who drive while phoning -- the same risk as driving with a 0.08 blood alcohol level, the legal limit.

In Washington state, it's not illegal to drive while using a cell phone, nor is law enforcement required to track it as a factor in collisions. And if you kill someone while you're doing it -- called "phoneslaughter" by some -- it's unlikely you'll face jail time.

Anecdotally, it seems that just about everybody has a tale, or many tales, about a cell phone user and bad driving -- drifting into other lanes, blowing through stop signs, failing to yield or use a turn signal.

"We've all seen it," said Capt. Fred Fakkema, spokesman for the Washington State Patrol. "You're behind somebody, and you're upset because they're weaving. And when you get around them, you see they're on a cell phone."

There are more than 170 million wireless subscribers in the United States. Though it's hard to pinpoint, anywhere from 40 percent to 80 percent of those subscribers -- or 68 million to 136 million of us -- use phones while driving. Those numbers are growing: Every day, about 40,000 new customers sign up for wireless service.

Drivers in tech-loving King County phone and drive 22 percent more than the rest of Washington, according to a state survey.

"So many people in the metro area are multi-tasking. The focus is shifting from, how am I going to safely negotiate my 3,000-pound car from point A to point B, to, what can I get done for the 45 minutes I'm stuck in my car?" said Trooper Kelly Spangler of the State Patrol.

And more are starting to multi-multi-task: driving and phoning while eating, smoking, taking notes or ordering something with a credit card.

Those who believe that driving while calling is generally a safe practice say society can't legislate common sense. They say cell phones are no different from any other distracted driving -- putting on makeup, shaving, smoking, attending to children.

"I don't think that it's any more dangerous than eating or drinking or driver fatigue," said Erin McGee, a spokeswoman for the Cellular Telephone & Internet Association, an industry umbrella group. "It's easy to single out wireless phones as a distraction because they're easier to see. It may be harder to see a driver changing the radio or talking to a passenger."

Once upon a time, windshield wipers and radios in cars were considered distracting and potentially dangerous, too.

Industry representatives say that just because someone was on a phone during a crash doesn't mean that's what caused it and that the perception of danger is media-driven hype.

The number of crashes known to be tied to phones is low -- less than 2 percent in the few states that have studied the issue. For example, in Texas, the Department of Public Safety found a 44 percent increase in cell phone crashes in one year -- jumping from 716 collisions in 2000 to 1,032 in 2001. But they still made up just three-tenths percent of the more than 300,000 annual crashes.

And some say the gains from cell phones and driving are worth some added risk. In 2002, the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis estimated that benefits of a ban (reduced deaths, medical costs, property damage, etc.) would be roughly $43 billion -- or, exactly the same amount as their estimate of the economic value of the calls. Others, such as the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, say a ban would be bad for business. They concluded in 1999 that a ban would result in economic losses of $20 billion.

The counterargument is that cell phones contribute to far more accidents than has been documented so far.

"The current collection of data isn't tremendously accurate," says Matt Sundeen, a program principal with the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Why? Because few drivers will admit to being on the phone during a collision. Only 17 states collect cell phone data in collisions, and even in ones that do, individual officers decide how to investigate a collision.

A telling example is California, where the state Highway Patrol began tracking the role of phones in collisions at the request of the Legislature. In the first nine months of 2001, the patrol said cell phones could be blamed in 913 accidents, resulting in three fatalities and 423 injuries.

But the Los Angeles Times analyzed the same data and found that drivers using cell phones caused 4,699 collisions, killing 31 people and injuring 2,786 others.

That made cell phones the leading cause of distracted-driving accidents there (11 percent). The CHP commissioner, who had previously lobbied against a bill banning the use of hand-held phones while driving, decided to support the bill, though it has yet to be passed.

Nor is it common for crash investigators to request drivers' calling records unless there's a death or witnesses say someone was using a cell phone. Pulling those records requires a warrant from a judge, and it takes up to a month to get them.

People opposed to driving and phoning say society should control the behavior, much the way we require people to wear seat belts or, as in 38 states, prohibit TVs viewable by drivers. They say phones (and laptops, PDAs, Blackberries, driver-viewable DVD players, etc.) used in moving vehicles are a greater menace than other distractions.

Using a cell phone is manual -- turning on, dialing or answering, and holding it if no hands-free equipment is used -- as well as visual and auditory. But more importantly, it takes one's attention away from the road and the vehicle.

"People just really don't have any idea how serious the distraction is," said Lisa Sheikh, volunteer director of The Partnership for Safe Driving, a non-profit group working toward crash prevention. "People think that because they've done it before and they haven't crashed, they're fine."

Advocates of a ban on the behavior view crashes linked to cell phones as preventable. And they say surveys point to a majority of Americans supporting efforts to make phoning while driving illegal.

The Partnership, with less than a $10,000 annual budget, sees itself as a David-like little guy against the powerful Goliath of the wireless industry, which took in $87.6 billion in revenues last year.

Other safety advocates see phones as a line in the sand before it becomes acceptable to watch recorded movies, play video games and write memos while driving -- practices that are not illegal in most states.

They see an analogy to seat belts. First introduced in the early 1900s, seat belts didn't become factory-installed by automakers until the '50s -- 20 years after physicians recommended so. It wasn't until 1996 that every state, except New Hampshire, had a mandatory seat-belt law.

Choosing not to use a seat belt is a voluntary risk -- it affects only the person who doesn't wear it. Using a cell phone while driving comes with a voluntary risk and an involuntary one -- it may put others who have no control over that risk in harm's way.

Many say the answer is simple: just hang up and drive. Or pull over, or call only rarely, in safe conditions, with hands-free equipment.

"You're getting in your car to drive. There's nothing that pressing that you need to be on the phone while you're driving, except an emergency," says state Sen. Tracey Eide, a Federal Way Democrat who's pushed unsuccessfully for a hand-held ban here for the past six years. "It's like a bad habit that you've got to break. It's too convenient."

Driving is by its very nature a matter of divided attention that doesn't always require 100 percent of our skills 100 percent of the time. The problem, of course, is that things can go very wrong, and people can die, in a split second of inattention.

But as surging obesity rates indicate, we don't always do what's best for us. Most of us believe using a cell phone while driving is dangerous, but many of us do it anyway. That's why some say government needs to protect us from ourselves.

Government hasn't sent a clear message on the issue. "Currently, all we say is that more then 25 percent of all police-reported crashes are distraction-related. That's going to be fatal, injury and property damage crashes," said Liz Neblett, a spokeswoman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Nor does the agency have a national safety or educational campaign about phones and driving, as they do with drunk driving or buckling up. "That's up to the states to do," Neblett said.

Sheikh, of The Partnership for Safe Driving, says the federal government is behind the times: "That's like the National Institutes of Health saying they can't warn people about the epidemic of diabetes in this country, because they have to focus on cancer and AIDS."

The highway safety agency is working on four studies on phoning while driving, but they won't be ready until next year.

The head of the agency, Jeffrey Runge, told The Wall Street Journal in July he is convinced even hands-free phones are dangerous for drivers. The agency drafted a letter last fall addressed to the nation's 50 governors, saying that hand-held bans "may erroneously imply that hands-free phones are safe to use while driving." But the letter, which recommended that people not drive and phone at all, was never sent, because the case wasn't "airtight" and the agency has higher priorities, Runge told the Journal.

Some say there's already enough data to act. "It's a matter of how much proof do you need? A lot of countries didn't need to count thousands of dead people before they took action," Sheikh said.

Despite the explosive growth in cell phones, there isn't a corresponding rise in blood on the highways. Over the past decade, auto fatalities have crept up, though last year, they declined slightly, with 42,643 people killed and 2.89 million injured in more than 6.3 million police-reported crashes. The government estimates crashes cost the nation $230 billion annually in medical care, property damage and lost wages and productivity.

Some wonder if the small increase in auto deaths over the past decade might have something to do with cell phones.

"Fatalities have been increasing steadily every year for the past few years, and that's happening despite the fact that air bags have become mandatory, despite the fact that seat-belt use is up, and despite the fact that manufacturers have made cars safer," Sheikh said.

Though driver inattention is increasingly under the microscope, driving and phoning isn't more of a priority, because it's an enormously popular and widespread practice.

Plenty of people just enjoy chit-chatting in their cars, whether checking in with family, talking about a favorite TV show or the date they had last night. Some say those chats may help keep drivers from becoming dangerously drowsy.

Many people in the work force, including real estate agents, sales people, contractors and delivery people, to name a few, rely heavily on cell phones. Cell phones have also been enormously helpful for drivers in reporting emergencies, dangerous driving, missing children and wanted felons. According to the Cellular Telephone & Internet Association, about 200,000 such calls are made every day by motorists.

More than a year after he was hit by a phone-using driver, Mercer has a pronounced limp in his left leg and a foot-long scar running down the thigh. He still sleeps in a hospital bed in the family room. Pain wakes him up at night. At the time of the accident, Mercer was working at Eastside Harley; he hasn't worked since.

The other driver, who was unemployed, uninsured and using a borrowed car, could not be reached, because the number he left police belongs to someone else.

On the night Mercer was hit and airlifted to Harborview Medical Center, he underwent 15 hours of surgery to place a steel rod from his hip to his knee and reattach the ball joint to his shoulder. He was there for two weeks, followed by two weeks in a recovery center, then six months in a wheelchair, then more surgery.

"I'm still in pain. I can't run," Mercer said. "It's hard for me to do some of the things I used to do." The family built a wheelchair ramp, removed the bathroom door and installed a bench so he could take a shower.

What a lawyer helped Mercer recover from the insurer of the car's owner and his own insurance hasn't covered the medical expenses and lost wages, not to mention pain and suffering.

Mercer, 45, said he once almost caused an accident while dialing and driving, so he stopped doing it before his own crash. Though he believes it's probably safe in some circumstances, he supports a ban on using hand-held cell phones while driving.

Washington does not require cell phones to be tracked as a causal factor in crashes.

"We track a lot of statistics, but that's not one of them," said Capt. Fred Fakkema, a spokesman and legislative director for the Washington State Patrol.

At the moment, the standard traffic collision report used by the State Patrol and all other jurisdictions is being rewritten and may be ready in January 2006 or 2007. It's unknown whether it will include a check box or a code to indicate whether a cell phone helped cause the crash.

In a 2000 Washington State Patrol survey of residents, the No. 1 thing people said the patrol paid too little attention to was "unsafe drivers." And the first thing listed in that regard -- mobile phones.

Yet that isn't one of the patrol's top priorities: DUI, seat belts, aggressive driving and dangerous speeding. Nor has the patrol supported a proposed ban on hand-held cell use while driving.

"If it's done appropriately enough, you can talk on a phone and drive safely," said Fakkema. "But that's with a hands-free device, and that's not a long conversation."

Four years ago, Seattle City Councilman Jim Compton considered proposing a ban to prohibit driving with hand-helds in Seattle. But, according to his staff, he found the data insufficient to pursue it.

The Washington Driver Guide urges drivers with a phone or CB radio to "avoid using it when the vehicle is in motion" and says even hands-free equipment "can prevent you from seeing a dangerous situation."

Some people say laws on inattentive driving already cover sketchy driving while phoning. But unlike many states, Washington doesn't actually have such a law. (We do, however, have a law against hugging while driving.)

People are usually cited for a specific moving violation -- i.e., illegal lane change, failure to yield, following too close, etc.

Some cities, such as Seattle, Bellevue, Kent and Sammamish, have inattentive driving laws. But such laws are often used only after an accident occurs, says Sgt. Paul Gracy of the Seattle Police Department, and even then, phone involvement isn't necessarily investigated.

"I can guarantee you that most officers don't ask," said Gracy, a supervisor in the Traffic Collision Investigation Unit. "I don't think officers are that concerned about it, because officers are doing it just as much as everyone else. Everybody has phones now."

To date, no one has been prosecuted on vehicular homicide or vehicular assault charges in our state over a death or injury linked to a cell-phoning driver, according to the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys. Drivers might get a citation for negligent driving in the second degree, a traffic infraction with a $250 fine. Or, if they were aggressively speeding or committed several violations before the collision, they might be charged with reckless driving -- a gross misdemeanor with a penalty of up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.

"Sometimes we have to protect society from itself," Gracy said. "How long did it take for people to use seat belts?"

As a nation, we're talking on the phone a lot, and while in our cars. A survey by The Yankee Group found that, at of the end of 2003, the average wireless subscriber spent 586 minutes a month on the phone, with nearly half that time in the car. A separate study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that the average time spent per call while driving is 4.5 minutes.

WHO'S DIALING AND DRIVING The government estimated in 2000 that at any given second in the United States, about 3.9 percent of those driving - or 600,000 people - are talking on the phone. In Washington, a similar observational study in 2001 found that at any given time of day, 3.53% of drivers are on the phone, with higher rates in King (4.5%) and Whatcom (5.3%) counties. National surveys show that driving and phoning is more common among drivers of SUVs, vans or pickup trucks than in passenger cars. In Washington, you're more likely to do it if you are white, male and younger than 55, have children under 18, and have higher disposable income.

Sources: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; Washington State Traffic Commission; Pemco Insurance

People who drive and talk on cell-phones at the same time are one of my personal BIGGEST Pet Peeves.

The worst -- the absolute worst of all are those fools who think they are being "safe" when theyu slow down to a "safe" 30 mph in the fast lane of a major freeway while talking on their cellphones.

There has got to be a special place in hell for those idiots.

One wonders how they managed to survive in the days before there were cell phones.

And then one wonders could possible be sooooo important as to endanger the lives of so many people.

have got problem with drivers reading the paper while driving

No Kidding! When I see someone hanging back 10 car lengths in commuter traffic, they are usually reading a book/magazine/document folder/newpaper. I know why grenade launchers are not authorized for use on the road.

I don't see why it's different than driving with coffee in one hand while talking with passengers in your car.

It's no mystery, and it's not like drinking a cup of coffee as you suggested. Looking down at your lap or away from your field of view to punch in a phone number, look at the number that's ringing your phone, etc. Cell phones have caused thousands of collisions. It's no secret.

"That aside, making it ILLEGAL to talk while driving because you MAY cause an accident is, by our original Constitutional standards, an illegal law in iteself."

Here is the constitutional basis for your claim above.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, SHALL NOT be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) RETAINED by the people.

It is a right, "retained by the people" to use a cell phone in a private automobile, on taxpayer financed roads.

And yes prohibiting an indiviudal from consuming an alcholic beverage while operating an automobile and forcing an individual to wear a seat belt while operating an automobile are also unconstitutional for the same reason.

However, if it can be proven that any of those actions are negligent and contributed to the damage of property or persons, then civil suits for damages are the appropriate way to recover damages.

Life has risks. Free people understand and live with risks.

As a most-of-the-time pedestrian who is lucky to live close enough (a mile away) to walk to work nearly every day, I can recount a number of first-hand close encounters with drivers talking on cell phones and oblivious to things like light changes, stop signs, and pedestrian crossing lanes. I've had to leap out of the way a number of times because some yutz with a cell phone glommed to its ear nearly ran me down.

I may as well confess that I don't own a cell phone myself, nor will I ever get one until regular home phone service is stopped altogether. And then there'll be some heavy thinking about it before I do. I spend most of my life trying to avoid the %#@$! telephone.

And fire! Who needs fire? Or the lever?

I do not drive while talking on the phone - if it rings, and I can't pull over, I ignore it until I can pull over.

With that said - we don't need anymore laws on the books.

Accidents due to cell phone use are already covered by existing laws: inattentive driving, driving while distracted, etc.

No Kidding! When I see someone hanging back 10 car lengths in commuter traffic

If you call commuter traffic, bumper to bumper type traffic, well I have news for you. The one's hanging back are the smart ones. Driving to work playing the giant slinky game for 30 miles while kicking your brakes every few seconds because your following to close is what is causing most of the jam! Those that slowly back off and follow from a distance are actually speeding up the flow of traffic in their lanes behind them.

When I was in Korea I was amazed that my hosts would pull off on the shoulder of the road to talk on their cell phones when they got a call. I think it is a national law there that while you can use your cell phone when in your car, you cannot be in motion. Seems like a decent and simple law. Just pull off to the side when you need to chat. You get to take your call, get a break from driving, and don't have to leave your vehicle.

One of my associates has one of those hand-free, voice-activated phone systems in the car (I think it's a Caddie). That is really sweet. Everything is by voice command. Just say, "Make Call", then, "Dial Number", then say the number, and the system does the rest. Quite a fancy techie system.

Here in MD, the roads are lousy with SUV-driving-cell-phone-talking soccer mommies who seemingly cannot operate the vehicle with out a cell phone to their ear.

LOL!! That's for sure. I'm in Bethesda and my kid and I nearly got picked off by one as we walking home from school last week.

I'm beginning to think SUV-driving soccer moms are required to be on a cell phone when operating a motor vehicle.

I do recall Rush saying a few years back that studies showed eating while driving was more distracting than cell phone. Personal experience was taught me a taco and driving don't mix

Everyday someone on a cellphone tries to kill me on my motorcycle. Everyday, and more often than once a day. I would rather share the road with drinking drivers than I would cellphone users.

Today, on the way into work, some yehaw driving 80 brakes like a sumbtch in front of me. As I weaved past him, yep, answering the friggin' cellphone, brakin' so he could answer his stupid phone.

People start bs'in' on the phone and they lose touch with whats happening around them. Arrrgggghhhh

We've got a ban on cellphone use while driving over here now.

The only downside is that those pratish hands free devices that people clip on their ears (looks like something off the Borg on Startrek) have become a fashion accessory.

Ridiculous when you think that 15 years ago no one had one that now no one can do without one.

Most dangerous of all cell talking drivers are the ones that have to talk with their hands as well. The other day I saw a woman beside me driving a monster SUV with cell in one hand and cigarette waving around in the other as she spoke. I figured she was driving with her legs so I gunned it to get away.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.