HighLight Heading
June 2001
Cell phones: too little known to restrict usage, say panelists
Daron Van Helden, Nic Ward, Dee Ryberg, and Mark Peterson
Panelists for the research conference breakfast session, "Should Minnesota Restrict the Use of Cellular Phones by Drivers of Vehicles," agreed that although cellular phones can be a distraction while driving, too little is known about the extent to which they contribute to crashes to warrant restricting them.
Session moderator Max Donath, ITS Institute director, noted that this topic was especially timely because of the large numbers of cellular phones in use (80 million in 1998, according to the National Highway Safety Administration) and because their potential regulation has been recently considered by local and national lawmakers.
The session featured panelists Nic Ward of the University's Human Factors Research Laboratory, Daron Van Helden of AAA Minnesota/Iowa, Lieutenant Mark Peterson of the Minnesota State Patrol, and Dee Ryberg of AT&T Wireless Services.
"Car phones require a lot more mental demand...than other in-vehicle tasks," said Ward, offering a psychological and human factors perspective on the issue. Using a cellular phone while driving, unlike tuning the radio, is not a self-paced task, but rather is often dictated by someone outside of the vehicle. Also, cellular phone use has a cognitive component in that it requires a person to think about the task.
However, Ward cited a Harvard Center for Risk study that showed, among distractions that have been related to accidents, cellular phone use ranked much lower (1.5 percent) than other factors such as adjusting the radio (11.4 percent), eating and drinking (1.7 percent), and things outside the vehicle (29.4 percent). "There are many ways of crunching your data, but they all seem to suggest at this point that in relative terms, cellular phones are considerably less of a risk than some of the other common activities that we accept within the driving context," Ward said.
Although no data yet exist to prove that cellular phones cause specific crashes, much evidence suggests that they should increase the risk, since phones are a distraction and distractions are a major cause of crashes. The challenges will be determining how to quantify that risk and deciding how much risk is acceptable. The options for reducing risks are not without drawbacks, Ward added. For example, regulations and enforcement carry high costs and may limit benefits, new phone designs would still not be able to control conversation, and instructions and warnings are often ignored.
Following Ward, Van Helden quoted statistics that attributed 25 to 50 percent of vehicle crashes to distracted drivers. Cellular phone use while driving is not simply a physical distraction. Rather, "it's the conversation, not the actual operation of the phone itself" that distracts, he said. So it's not surprising that hands-free phones, frequently offered as a solution to the problem, have been found to distract drivers as much as traditional phones.
Although the Minnesota legislature has been considering various bills on the issue, Van Helden said now is not the time to restrict cellular phone usage because the current debate is not based on hard data and evaluation. Also, phones are only one of many distractions drivers face, and law enforcement agencies currently do have options available.
Lieutenant Peterson agreed that, while cellular phones are a significant in-vehicle distraction, Minnesota does have laws pertaining to inattentive, careless, and reckless driving to deal with some of the safety concerns. In addition, the benefits of using cellular phones should be considered before restricting them, Peterson said. Their use in emergency situations often reduces response time, and "as a result of that, I can safely say that we save lives," he said.
What might be more important, Peterson added, is the need to teach the motoring public how to better use cellular phones. "It is my firm belief that the motoring public does not take driving seriously...I hope that as a society we don't develop a tolerance for the use of cell phones...so that we have to reeducate [the public] when we realize that, like so many other distractions, it can cause death and injury."
Finally, Ryberg discussed some of the wireless industry's efforts to educate the public, which is key to increasing the responsible use of cellular phones, she said. These efforts include producing brochures, public service campaigns, and radio campaigns on safe cellular phone usage while driving. "We as an industry are committed to educating our customers to understand that driving is their number one responsibility when they're behind the wheel of a car," she said.
In addition, Ryberg said that more research is needed, noting that only 12 states are presently collecting crash data regarding the use of cellular phones or CB radios. Of those 12, only three, including Minnesota, have been collecting data long enough to have issued a report, she said.
The wireless industry is encouraging state officials who are concerned with phone use while driving to take a three-pronged approach in addressing the larger issue of inattentive driving: additional data collection, enforcement of existing laws, and education, she said.