It’s about time. This ban would save lives. Finally we can extend the benefits of bans in some states to the remaining ones. Just look at these 2010 results. A Highway Loss Data Institute study found “car collision rates didn’t change after bans went into effect—and they didn’t change for nearby states without such bans, either.”
Whoops.
But how can that be? How is it that our wonderful state government can pass laws to micromanage our lives, and yet have no tangible, measurable change in outcomes?
“Hands-free device are no less risky than using a handheld phone," said Russ Rader, spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which sponsored the study. "And this indicates that the issue is really about the distracted driver. It's much bigger than drivers using cell phones."
So what matters is whether the driver is distracted, not what causes the distraction. Hmmmm. So a driver could be just as a distracted sipping coffee, playing with the radio, talking to a passenger, putting on makeup – or talking on the phone.
But surely, if cell phones can cause drivers to be distracted, there would be an uptick in accidents? That is, if we look at accident rates before and after cell phones became broadly adopted, we should see more accidents today than before.
Again from Russ Rader: “[E]ven though cell phone usage nationally has exploded over the past several years … there has been no uptick nationally in the number of car accidents.”
According to this data, the period from 1997 to 2005 showed no increase in fatal vehicle crashes nor in the number of fatalities. In other words, cell phones showed no statistical significant impact.
So let’s see. Cell phone use has no measurable impact on fatal accidents. Statewide bans show no measurable change in the risk of accidents. Therefore, we should ban them everywhere!
That’s some awesome logic there.
Surely the big government agency, with a deep trough of funding, is aware of these statistics. Why then push the issue?
In an age of budget cuts, every department has to fight for funding. The specter of dire consequences (“People will die if we don’t ban cell phones!!”) make projects sound Very Important. It allows agencies and departments to defend their budgets, even in the face of facts to the contrary. Maybe the discussion could go something like this:
Congress Critter: “Mr. NTSB representative, we followed your suggestion and banned cell phones. We weren’t sure the ban would make a difference, but we had nothing to lose by the ban, so we went ahead and did it. Now, several years later, we see there’s no change in the fatality rate. How do you account for that?”
NTSB representative: “Why, just imagine how high the fatality rate might have gotten! It’s a good thing we stepped in when we did. Think of all the lives we’ve saved! Now please give us lots of money to continue finding ways to save lives!”
Too which, one could rightly point out that one can’t prove a negative: the absence of evidence (in this case, the absence of an uptick in deaths) is proof of nothing. The onus of proof is on the NTSB to show that cell phones increase the risk of death.
Another reason such bans are adopted: politicians have to look busy to get re-elected. If a politician did nothing, many would conclude he wasn’t doing enough to save lives. (Of course, some of us would gladly vote for “do-nothing” politicians who would butt out of our lives.)
Another reason: we feel good. Damn the consequences and the facts, it’s the intention that matters. We intend to save lives. Our hearts are in the right place. So what if it doesn’t actually accomplish anything? We’re trying to save lives!
Except it does accomplish something. There are plenty of good, productive uses of cell phones. Long commutes can be made productive through phone calls with clients, or we can stay in touch with friends and relatives, and so on. Today’s smartphones are supplanting stand-alone GPS devices for navigating.
Many conservatives use the “unintended consequences” argument to rail against such measures. They say the intensions may be good, but the unintended consequences are not considered. That’s true, but the deeper point is that government agencies like the NTSB don’t have a trade-off. They do their job by maximizing one factor (safety) without regard to other issues, such as the cost of compliance. Cell phones provide a big benefit to many of us who drive long distances; where’s the just compensation for the losses we incur under such bans? If I have to install a new stereo system, that is essentially a tax on the use of cell phones.
Conservatives also correctly point to the loss of a certain aspect of the American spirit – the idea that people should be left alone to pursue their own interests, so long as they didn’t infringe on the rights of other people. If someone wants to ride his bike without a helmet, or drive without a seat belt, or not go to the dentist for 10 years – that’s his right.
Bans such as this gnaw away at that spirit. As drivers, we should always be responsible and pay attention to the road. If we endanger ourselves, that’s one thing. We should be free to take what risks we choose, so long as we accept the consequences; we are not entitled to someone else taking care of us if we screw up.
We’re too accepting that the Nanny State will take care of us, and that it ought to. Once upon a time, we had a sense that government should not do so, that it was limited in its powers. That was outlined in the Declaration of Independence, and written in to law as the Bill of Rights. We understood that the government could only do certain things, which were in essence to defend the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. We understood that individual rights placed a limit on the scope of what a government could properly do: if some action would violate our rights (say, infringe on our right to free speech) then it could not do it.
This ban is just one little instance of a government strayed too far from its proper purpose. The ban should not be enacted because it violates our rights as individuals. The ban makes no logical or factual sense, but that is besides the point. Even if cell phones do increase the risk of death, we should be free to choose to drive in such a manner.
If we drive recklessly, in such a manner that imperils others, then that is what the focus should be. Arrest someone for driving poorly, not for using a cell phone. After all, which is worse: someone driving carefully while on the phone, or someone without a phone swerving all over the road?
In the end it doesn’t matter what the cause of the distraction is, if the distraction is creating a threat. Instead of demonizing a new technology, let’s take a moment to consider the actual facts: cell phones don’t increase the risk of death; existing bans show no decrease in death rates; the real culprit is irresponsible driving.
When the next ban panders to the hysteria of the moment, remember to look at the facts before jumping on the bandwagon. Take a few minutes to think about the issue. Ask yourself: Does the alleged cause make sense? Could other causes account for the same effect? Is there existing data I could look at? What are the results of similar actions? Have other states or countries tried this, and what resulted?
And above all, ask yourself the most important question: does this infringe on my rights?
