Driving under cell phone influence is a crime

A note from Jeffrey Nelson, the director of communications at the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), left me more or less speechless last week.

“In perhaps the most thoughtful mass-media editorial in recent memory to date on the important issue of using a wireless phone safely while driving, USA Today’s policy editorial of Thursday, April 27, 2000 cuts through the emotionalism and to the facts,” the representative of the wireless industry trade group writes.

The article in question, which he enclosed in the e-mail, criticizes cities such as Brooklyn, Ohio, for banning cell phone use while driving. It calls the new no-talk laws “misguided” and suggests that chatty drivers are statistically just as safe as any other drivers.

It’s a clever editorial that makes a compelling case for allowing us to continue yakking on our wireless phones as we are speeding down the highway. It is also a deeply flawed argument advocating criminal activity.

I’m not as upset at the self-described “Nation’s Newspaper” for backing such a foolish position. After all, it’s an editorial writer’s job to engage readers in a discussion, perhaps even selling a few more papers. But CTIA’s de-facto endorsement of the piece, which is tantamount to the wireless industry giving the story its approval, is irresponsible.

Before continuing, a disclaimer: Six years ago, a trucker talking on his cell phone struck my Ford Escort on the New Jersey Turnpike. Although we both walked away from the crash, I’ll never forget how the driver hid his portable phone and failed to mention he was using it to the officer dispatched to the accident scene. He knew that his phone use was a factor in the crash.

The CTIA knows better, too. It knows that people have been injured or killed in car accidents because of cell phones. There are statistics, such as the oft-quoted study published by the New England Journal of Medicine, which says that talking and driving is as dangerous as drinking and driving. CTIA knows the roads would be safer if motorists stayed off their cell phones. There are hard numbers to prove it.

But how do those statistics get interpreted? They’re belittled. The editorial claims cell phones pose only a “negligible risk” because they cause only about 100 highway deaths a year. Only 100 deaths. I wonder how negligible the numbers might be if one of those 100 fatalities were a friend or family member. And I wonder how many more near-misses, fender-benders or minor injuries result from the negligence of these preoccupied drivers.

Here are a few facts they should have considered:

- An Insurance Research Council survey found that 84 percent of motorists believe phone use while driving is a distraction.

- A study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded that driver inattention – including talking on a cell phone – is a primary or contributing factor in as many as 50 percent of all automobile crashes.

- A University of South Florida study found that “most mobile phone-related crashes occur due to drivers moving from their lane or colliding with a stopped vehicle in their lane, due mainly to inattention to the driving task.”

The cellular industry’s rhetoric kind of reminds me of Big Tobacco’s double-speak. When its lobbyists call for a “common sense” approach to tobacco that “accommodates” smokers and nonsmokers, it is using the very same language that supporters of indiscriminate cell-phone chatting use.

“Common sense” really just means the government shouldn’t curb any of our rights, regardless of how abusive we are. “Accommodate” means that we continue to tolerate abhorrent behavior, such as having smoke blown in our face – or being sideswiped by a motorist who’s dialing a phone number.

And, of course, the pro-tobacco forces claim there are enough laws on the books already. That is what the free chatters are also arguing. They call for “tougher enforcement of laws against reckless and inattentive driving already on the books, more stringent licensing for young people just learning to drive, a continued crackdown on drunken drivers and better driver education generally.”

Put in different words, the problem isn’t as bad as everyone thinks it is, there are enough rules already, so can’t we all just get along?

As a matter of fact, we can’t. As travelers, we have to acknowledge what we already know: talking on a cell phone makes us a menace on the road. We have to turn our portables off while we’re traveling – not just for our sake, but also for the sake of the other drivers. There’s no middle ground. We can’t “accommodate” a single motorist whom decides that he’s the exception to this rule.

If talking and driving is as hazardous as drinking and driving, then it’s time to treat it that way. The penalties for being caught on the phone while steering a car or truck must be as strict as the penalties for driving under the influence of alcohol.

The cellular industry is on the wrong side of this argument. The halfhearted calls on its Web site to “use your phone safely when driving” are like the tobacco industry issuing a guide to safe smoking or the National Rifle Association giving us tips on how to win at Russian Roulette. Its approval of USA Today’s controversial editorial is as reckless as it is self-serving.

The wireless industry shouldn’t be advocating the unrestricted use of its products. Cars and cell phones don’t go together. How many more victims will there be before the cellular industry gets it?

What do you think? Should we ban cellular calls from cars? Do you agree – or disagree – with the CTIA’s position?

Christopher Elliott is the author of Scammed: How to Save Your Money and Find Better Service in a World of Schemes, Swindles, and Shady Deals. Critics have called it “eye-opening” and “inspiring” — it’ll “grab your attention and won’t let go.” Order your copy now on Amazon, Barnes & Noble or iTunes.

Be the first to comment