07/15/08
Laws Should Be Based on Facts and Need -
Categories: Opinions, Public Safety, Transportation -
Douglas
@ 11:31:48 pm
There is an expression: Let sleeping dogs lie. That's good advice in the political world, too. Unfortunately, I'm not going to take it.
Tonight the Council held another public hearing on the use of cell phones in school zones. Two speakers were there in favor of the idea, two of the three that were there during the last public hearing. The Council chose to take no action and the item died. Let it rest.
When public statements are made that don't reflect the facts, those can't as easily be left to rest.
We were told tonight, and similar statements have been in the media, that "talking on cell phone is as bad as driving drunk, the insurance industry says so."
The support for this claim comes from a University of Utah study, "A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver." The study mentions a number of traditional distractions: talking to passengers, eating, drinking, lighting a cigarette, applying makeup, and listening to the radio. It then considers the effect of electronic devices that have migrated to the car: cell phones but also surfing the Internet, sending and receiving e-mails, and even watching videos and television. At the time of the study, text-messaging wasn't yet common. I do know that insurance carriers are very concerned with teenagers text-messaging while driving!
Here's what the study actually said:
Method: We used a high-fidelity driving simulator to compare the performance of cell phone drivers with drivers who were intoxicated from ethanol (i.e., blood alcohol concentration at 0.08% weight/volume).
Result: When drivers were conversing on either a handheld or hands-free cell phone, their braking reactions were delayed and they were involved in more traffic accidents than when they were not conversing on a cell phone. By contrast, when drivers were intoxicated from ethanol they exhibited a more aggressive driving style, following closer to the vehicle immediately in front of them and applying more force while braking.
Conclusion: When driving conditions and time on task were controlled for, the impairments associated with using a cell phone while driving can be as profound as those associated with driving while drunk.
In the study, subjects at a simulator "followed" a pace car driving at 62 mph. The cell phone users were required to keep up a conversation while trying to maintain an even distance and were measured by response times to situations that required braking. They did not do as well during their session conversing on a cell phone as their session when they were not. They also had three accidents.
The subjects then drank an orange juice and vodka mixture calculated to get their blood alcohol level to 0.08%, which was verified before and after their session. As quoted above, the "drunk" drivers were more aggressive, followed too close, had trouble keeping up, and hit the brakes harder. The drinkers had no accidents.
I think several observations are important to interpreting these results. None of which equate cell phones users as being equal to drunk drivers.
First, a cell phone user is distracted. Any of the other distractions mentioned and many more not listed could cause similar or worse results. I'm confident that a cell phone user would react much quicker than someone putting on makeup or glancing at a video.
Second, how drunk were these subjects really? If their blood alcohol level had been any less, they would not have been legally drunk anywhere in America. Up until a few years ago, at 0.08% they wouldn't have been drunk in any state. Almost all states have since lowered their level to be legally intoxicated to 0.08%, the same as the subjects.
Drunk drivers are not distracted, they are impaired. Even at a blood alcohol level of 0.03% there are measurable effects (slight euphoria and loss of shyness), at 0.05% or 0.07%, there is some impairment proportional to the amount of alcohol in the blood. The Be Responsible About Drinking website says, "0.07-0.09 BAC: Slight impairment of balance, speech, vision, reaction time, and hearing. Euphoria. Judgment and self-control are reduced, and caution, reason and memory are impaired, .08 is legally impaired and it is illegal to drive at this level. You will probably believe that you are functioning better than you really are." You still won't be a falling-down drunk or about to pass out. In fact, you aren't likely to pass out until your blood level reaches 0.4%, five times the amount necessary to be legally drunk. But even passed out, if there is enough alcohol in your stomach that reaches your blood stream, you can die.
A cell phone user is not impaired — he can regain full control and reactions in an instant by simply focusing on his driving instead of talking. A drunk driver cannot. The most distracted cell phone user is only minimally comparable to the least intoxicated drunk driver because neither will brake as quickly as someone that is paying attention to his driving.
Another observation from the study, the cell phone users had more trouble keeping up to the pace car. There was no report of drivers increasing their speed, rather they were likely to drive slower. Not true with the drunk drivers — they followed the pace car closer and, of the two groups, were more likely to be heavier on the gas, which was similar to the fact that they were also likely to be heavier on the brake.
Just as the barely drunk drinker needs to recognize that he thinks he is better off than he is (but his judgment is also impaired), the cell phone user needs to be aware of his risks.
But talking on a cell phone is not equal to being drunk. Let's be sure we recognize the possible distractions and impairments and act responsibly, but let's be factual.
Now it is time to leave this subject and leave it lie. Rest well, sleeping dog.
[District 1 June Crime Stats] [Contact Numbers—City Departments]
Comments:
My own empirical evidence and the old "hands at 10 and 2" driving school 101 rule suggest that folks should not be using a cell phone while driving, school zone or no.
07/16/08 @ 09:20
07/20/08 @ 00:03 
