What if Cell Phones Don't Cause More Car Accidents?

Insurance industry researchers say they're not sure that the use of cell phones leads to more car accidents. While conventional wisdom has been that holding a cellphone and talking while driving is hazardous, crash data doesn't clearly show it. What's more amazing, the conclusion comes from the Highway Loss Data Institute, an arm of the insurance industry that generally finds most every aspect of driving to be dangerous to motorists and by coincidence to insurance industry loss reserves.

The HLDI is the research and data-gathering arm of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. It looked at before-and-after data for four states that enacted bans on using handheld cell phones while driving, and bans on texting. It also compared those states with other states that hadn't required hands-free cellphone use while driving.

The HLDI reported that in New York State, which banned cellphone use while driving (unless it was hands-free), collision claims decreased but the decrease began well before the ban took effect. "Reductions in observed phone use following bans are so substantial and estimated effects of phone use on crash risk are so large," the HLDI said, "that reductions in aggregate crashes would be expected." In other words, with all the big claims about the dangers of cellphone use (or texting ) while driving, you'd expect the ban would change driver behavior and accidents would plummet and by such a big amount you'd know it.

Can Statistics Lie? Mislead?

The HLDI never fudges numbers, but sometimes there are multiple ways to look at data from accidents that prove recurring points: drinking and driving is bad (hard to argue with that), driving faster than the speed limit is bad, etcetera. A graph of automobile fatalities since statistics started being kept 100 years ago shows a steady downward slope when you adjust for the growth in population and miles driven. In recent years, the actual number of fatalities has decreased, not just fatalities per 100 million miles driven or fatalities per 100,000 population.

Note also that one accident can have many apparent causes once the data gets massaged. If a 21-year-old drunken man coming home late from a bar forgets to fasten his safety belt, rolls his SUV, and was talking on his cellphone at the time of the accident, if it's a fatality, then eight factors could get credit for the traffic fatality: 1) drunk, 2) no seat belt, 3) rollover accident, 4) nighttime accident, 5) cellphone-related or distracted-driver accident, 6) youthful driver, 7) male driver, 8) top-heavy SUV. To me, being drunk was the cause of the accident and no seat belt was probably the cause of it being a fatal accident. But if someone's writing a story, or testifying before Congress on the hazards of their pet-project danger, they've got statistics to buttress their argument. Better it should be like football, where two defenders can tackle the quarterback, but each gets credit for half a sack.

Safety zealots have long held that the 55 mph speed limit enacted in the mid-1970s in the wake of the first post-World War II oil shortage (in 1973) saved lives. In fact, a closer look at the data shows the fatality reduction began well before the reduced speed limits. As gasoline got costlier, motorists drove less. All the lower speed limit did was help states raise more revenue from speeding tickets. There's also some indication that motorists are happy driving 65-75 mph no matter what the speed limit on interstate highways, and once the speed limits in most states increased from 55 to 65 mph 15-20 years ago, speeds crept up, but not by the full 10 mph the limits went down, since motorists probably only backed off by 5 mph when it went to 55.

With the HLDI findings, the insurance industry hasn't said that there's no link between the use of cellphones and accidents, but rather that cause and effect may not be so clear, and the actual hazard might be less than claimed. In a huffy countercharge, the Transportation Department called the HLDI's findings "irresponsible" - which is different from saying they're wrong - and pointed to other studies, particularly one from the University of Utah, that shows (in the Transportation Department's words), that "using a cellphone while driving can be just as dangerous and deadly as driving drunk."

What Makes Sense?

Here's what I believe makes sense:

• Lots of activities can be dangerous while driving, including using a cellphone, texting, tuning the radio, fiddling with an iPod, turning to swat the kids in the back seat when they act up, applying makeup, or driving much faster or slower than prevailing traffic.
• Diverting some part of your attention to what's being discussed on a cellphone can be distracting, but I'd still rather be listening hands-free than have one hand tied up and holding the cellphone to my ear.
• Beware of news stories that lead off with anecdotal evidence - the careless motorist who killed a pedestrian while texting - because the death of one person is a tragedy and it happened, but it doesn't prove the broader case unless the anecdote is buttressed by solid statistics. Spome people in the auto industry believe the New York Times is gunning for a Pulitzer Prize in traffic safety reporting because of the volume of stories written in the past year, many of them leading with a horrifying death or injury that, the Times says, typifies the trend. Some of the bitterness from the auto industry stems from their belief that the New York Times is anti-car other than in its automotive section.
• Watch out for legislators and for editorials saying you shouldn't mind giving up a wee bit of your freedom in order to make highways safer. One suggestion I've seen editorialized: The car should shut off Bluetooth while moving and perhaps even generate an interfering signal making it impossible for anyone in the car to use a cellphone while driving. In other words, safety is so important that how could you object?
• Younger drivers as well as perpetual klutzes - the people who never get the hang of walking and chewing gum at the same time - are especially at risk. They don't know yet how to modify their behavior. For instance, adults may dial a cell number by punching in the first three digits, looking up at the road, punching in three more digits, looking up, then punching in the last four digits, looking up, then hitting Send. A teenager may try to dial all 10 numbers at once and rely on peripheral vision for the 10-15 second dialing period to keep him from sideswiping another car.
• Even if you're in a state without a handsfree law (yet), get a Bluetooth earpiece or a visor mount Bluetooth speaker module. Cheap ones are $25, good ones are $100-$200. Don't buy a new car without Bluetooth. Once you've got Bluetooth installed, use it.
• Parents may want to set ground rules for teenagers such as "no cell phones when you're moving, ever, and no texting, either."