Cell phone ban not necessary when a little common sense would do
Any discussion about using a cell phone or texting while driving should begin with this simple plea: Don’t do it. It distracts you as a driver and makes you a hazard to yourself and others.
Yet even as we acknowledge that, we can’t bring ourselves to support efforts by the Ann Arbor City Council to pass a ban on the use of cell phones while driving. Research has recently shown that such bans on a statewide level have had no effect on accident rates, and we suspect the same would be true for a city-only ban. Surely there are better uses of council’s time.
Council members have been considering the ban for months, and we acknowledge that there is considerable support for it in the community - but many detractors, too.
More than 3,500 people voted in an AnnArbor.com online poll on the issue, and 56 percent agreed that City Council should pass the ban. While the poll is not scientific, it does suggest broad support for the ban, and that’s understandable. Any of us can cite some recent incident where we saw someone driving erratically, and the driver was gabbing on a cell phone.
Concern over talking and texting while driving explains why seven states, and many communities, have banned the use of mobile phones while driving. But research has found no discernable reduction in traffic accidents.
Earlier this year, the Highway Loss Data Institute released the results of a major study of accident rates in California, New York, Connecticut and the District of Columbia - all of which have passed bans since 2001. It found no difference between accident rates, compared to similar states or metro areas without such bans.
Although that wasn’t what the institute expected and it seemed perplexed by the results, its director did allow that use of cell phones in vehicles may not be any worse than other forms of driver distraction, and that it might be more effective to focus on the “bigger problem’’ of distracted driving.
One thing cell phones bans have done, according to research, is reduce the number of people who use a cell phone while driving - by anywhere from 41 to 76 percent. Some would argue that is justification enough for such bans. If so, we still think a ban would have to cover a broader area than just one city in order to have such an effect. A local ban raises issues that a statewide ban wouldn’t.
For instance, how are visitors driving into the city to know that cell phones are banned here? How is compliance and respect for the law encouraged when someone driving on Liberty or Geddes or Maple roads can either be legally or illegally using their cell phone depending on whether they just crossed the city limits?
The proposed ordinance in Ann Arbor would impose a fine of $150 plus costs, or $300 plus costs if the offender is found to have been responsible for a crash. It also says people who claim they were using their cell phone hands-free (which the ordinance would allow) will have the burden of proof, which critics say is contrary to the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
There also have been some claims that the proposed ordinance is overly restrictive on the use of navigational devices. However, as we read the ordinance, we find it to be reasonable, and what it prohibits generally are things that responsible, attentive drivers shouldn’t be doing anyway.
Yes, distracted driving is a bad thing, and we all should be more aware of its dangers. But we don’t expect a City Council ban on applying makeup while driving, or changing radio stations, or turning around to scold your kids in the back seat.
Not everything that people should or shouldn’t be doing requires a local ordinance. If you want to text your City Council member and tell him or her to focus on more important things, be our guest.
Just don’t do it from your car.
(This editorial was published in today's newspaper and reflects the opinion of the Editorial Board at AnnArbor.com.)
Comments
jcj
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 6:23 p.m.
A cell phone ban would have as little effect as the texting ban will. How much effect do speed limit signs have on speeders? I am all for the texting ban, but I am not naive enough to think that even 25% of texters will stop just because there is a law against it. An even lower percentage would obey a cell phone ban.
Jim Walker
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 2:49 p.m.
The National Safety Council asked all states to pass a full ban on cell phone use while driving, including with hands-free devices. It is the distracting content of the call that is the danger, not the type of device. Note such a ban is EXTREMELY unlikely to pass at the state level due to heavy lobbying by Ford, among others. We could do it here with signs announcing the ban at all city entrances. Regards, Jim Walker
Fred Posner
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 9:02 a.m.
Matt Cooper: I've been in crashes where none of the parties were on the cellphone. And in fact, before cellphones there were also crashes. The problem of crashes exist. The problem of increased traffic crashes due to cellphone use simply cannot be shown by any statistical evidence.
Matt Cooper
Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 5:52 a.m.
Fred Posner: Oh, but the problem certainly does exist! I have been rear-ended twice in the last 10 years by people chit chatting on their cell phones and not paying attention to traffic. The first time was a minor fender-bender when a young lady hit me while I was stopped by a red light. Apparantly her phone conversation was more important to her than my safety was. In the second incident I was hit by some idiot talking on his cell phone, speeding and not paying attention. It totalled out my Lincoln Town Car. Actually, he hit me so hard the bolts that mount the front seat to the floorboards actually broke and I ended up with a trip to the ER with a concussion. I'm sure I'm not the only one that has stories like this, so to say the 'problem doesn't exist' is simply foolishness.
Fred Posner
Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 2:23 p.m.
There is simply no reason to have a ban. None. Cellphones are distractions, but so are passengers, radios, driving with kids, etc. Additionally, one only needs to pull up the state's crash reports to see that since 1999, Michigan has had almost a 25% decrease in crashes (Michigan State Police). Licensed drivers increased, miles traveled increased, but crashed dramatically decreased. Add to that the number of phones increased since 1999, and there's no foundation for this. I truly hope the commission focuses on REAL problems, such as bridges that are in disrepair rather than look for solutions to problems that don't exist.
Fat Bill
Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 1:02 p.m.
If a cell-phone ban is passed, I will be interested to see how many cars will be pulled over on the side of the road, the drivers chatting away, and then re-entering freeway traffic. This could be one of those unintended consequences; accidents with vehicles merging in unexpected locations...
Kevin McGuinness
Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 11:57 a.m.
Does the opinion of the board imply that they have the common sense to talk on their phones with common sense and this should be immune from such a law? This is a common misconception of most people who still use them. No matter what your level of intelligence or common sense using a phone or texting and the concentration it requires narrows the vision field and eliminates objects from the vision field (scientific study). Using a cell phone puts people at the same driving level as a person legally drunk, while texting makes them twice as incapable a driver. But just as some people believe they are smart enough or have enough common sense to be able to drive after drinking so too people have the same belief regarding driving while talking on a cell phone. It demonstrates a common lack of regard for our fellow man and a me-centered attitude. The state law does not fix the problem as it is only enforceable if there was another offense (close the barn door after the cows escaped). Kudos to the council trying to make Ann Arbor a safer place to live -- take care of our own neighborhood.
Ignacy Justyna
Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 10:32 a.m.
Great editorial piece! It supports what I have found during my own research of the topic. An observational study by The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) found that about 6% of drivers actully used their phones while driving. A few weeks ago, the NHTSA announced that traffic fatalities have dropped to a record low during a time that drivers, vechicles, number of miles driven, and cell phone use has dramatically increased. Well, one would think that the AA City Council has many more impactive issues to focus on.
Doodles
Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 10:20 a.m.
BAN IT! It seems when it comes to cell phone use most people don't have common sense. 10 years ago if I went to the store and missed a call it was no big deal. My friends/family would leave me a message and I would get back to them when I had the time to talk properly. I dare say 99 percent of our cell phone calls today are of a non emergency nature. I was lightly rear ended a couple of days ago by a young woman who admitted she was texting. I was a bit upset at the ho hum attitude she had, almost like because she was texting it was ok for her to rear end me. I told her that things could have been a lot worse and that if she had killed either or both of us her "important conversation about what.... some silly boy" would have become completely meaningless. I am not worried about me on the road these days folks I am worried about you and your need to talk when you don't have to. HANG UP AND DRIVE!
amberherself
Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 9:51 a.m.
I've just moved to Ann Arbor from Ontario where a ban was recently implemented. The passing of that law has changed my own driving habits. I used to drive and talk on my phone all the time, but with the new law in place I decided it wasn't worth the ticket amount (I think $350 CDN). It's silly to admit the slight chance of getting pulled over stopped my cell phone habit but it worked for me so it may work for people here. Passing a ban shouldn't be a problem for those people already using "common sense" so I don't understand the opposition. It would create revenue and hopefully save some lives.
walker101
Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 9:08 a.m.
Working for a large utility in California we banned the use of cell phones years ago, working on a safety staff we had noticed a rash of minor vehicle incidents, backing up hitting stationary objects and an increase in traffic citations from speeding and running stops at intersections. Banning the use of cell phones resulted in more than half of incidents over the next few years, cell phones could be used if employees pulled over whenever it was safe to do so. I can't believe your research noted no change in stats, just last week an 18 year old lost his life while calling his girlfriend, a father who has been petitioning for over a year to have this law pass in the State MIchigan where he lost his 12 year old son because someone ran a red light and t-boned his vehicle in an intersection running a red light while on her cell phone. It's just like it was before they made it mandatory to wear seat belts, I guess your research would claim they also don't save lives. The use of radios is completely different, you can make changes if needed when it safe to do so in a couple of seconds, hopefully not for 10 minutes. If authorities could check phone records on every suspicious vehicle accident you could really see how much the cell phones would impact your stats.
scooter dog
Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 9:06 a.m.
Common sense!.I had a guy in a red suv going down us-23 the other day passing me doing 70 plus steering the thing with his knees with a newspaper draped over the steering wheel talking on a hand held cell phone and drinking a coffee in the other hand.Common sense,Where?,and this is not the first time I have seen this kind of stupid,brainless driving.Did I call 911? you bet I did and I hope he reads this comment.
Anonymous Due to Bigotry
Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 8:51 a.m.
The impact of cell phone usage on driving could probably also be minimized by simply prioritizing your attention on driving rather than talking. In the unlikely event that I talk on a phone while driving, I at least use a bluetooth headset and if I have to turn at an intersection or do anything that requires significant attention then I just stop talking and actually pay attention to what's going on around me. I also usually tell the person that I'll need to call them back since I'm driving. I agree that the cell phone ban will probably have no effect, especially a local one. The main thing that bothers me about the ban is the ban on GPS usage which is overly fascist and just plain ridiculous. Hopefully actually trying to program the GPS while driving will be banned under the texting ban since it's pretty much equivalent, but a ban on just following directions from a GPS without even touching it is ridiculous. If you have to program a GPS then just pull off the road to do it. Some research studies have shown that the cost of banning cell phones is higher than the cost of the accidents attributed to them, but those estimates involve placing specific costs on statistical deaths which bothers people in concept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life A statistical death is the death of a random unknown person. If you want proof that preventing a statistical death is not priceless based on the "willingness to pay" model (which I think is best as it more accurately reflects peoples' moral attitudes rather than just how much wealth a person will produce), imagine a state program that costs $100 million that only saves one person. The public would just refuse to pay for that. In countries that are very poor, the value of a statistical death is pretty close to zero because people don't have the excess income to be spending on saving random unknown people. Kind of challenges the idea of money/wealth just being evil doesn't it?
stunhsif
Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 8:30 a.m.
All I will say is this decision never even should have been looked at, there are far more pressing issues for the A2 City Council to deal with. I use my phone for business constantly and will therefore avoid A2. My entertainment dollars will go elsewhere and that is a good thing for Ypsi,Saline,Milan and other local towns.
C6
Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 8:22 a.m.
Yes of course, common sense would be nice but we just can't legislate that into everyone, which is what the proposed ban would attempt to do. If it were that easy, our mayor and city council would already have gained the common sense to know the taxpayers want the Stadium Boulevard bridges replaced, and would be working instead on a way to do that.
krc
Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 8:19 a.m.
The state senate just passed a no texting law. It should whizz through the hopuse too, thus saving Ann Arbor the trouble.
mpcsoft
Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 6:44 a.m.
If sense were common, more people would have it!
Steve Hendel
Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 6:29 a.m.
I thought that the studies cited as finding no appreciable increase in accident rates as a result of a ban on cell phone use while driving compared only hands-free usage vs. hand-held usage. If I am correct in this, then perhaps you could just as easily conclude that the problem is the USE of a cell phone while driving, not HOW it is used.
pw48111
Sun, Mar 28, 2010 : 6:20 a.m.
I agree with you, but all people don't have common sense. I see on the road, just about every other people with a phone in their hand. And they are driving all over the road. Kids in the back of the car. and they make fast pulling over on the lanes on the exways to either get off on the exit or changing lanes. Yes it would be nice is people would have commom sense, but they don't.